If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
This denies the key aspect of every human soul ... the need for spiritual sustenance. Even in places like China and Russia, you see underground spiritual related activities, probably going on far more than reported.
In Libertarianism, individuals/groups would be free to practice spirituality or a religion of their choice, of course... in keeping with individual liberty...
On the other hand, when Bob A implies that Trump is bad because he is atheist or because he hides that he is atheist, it is as deplorable as someone saying that an LGBTQ person is bad because he/she is so or because he/she is hiding that he/she is so...
In Libertarianism, individuals/groups would be free to practice spirituality or a religion of their choice, of course... in keeping with individual liberty...
On the other hand, when Bob A implies that Trump is bad because he is atheist or because he hides that he is atheist, it is as deplorable as someone saying that an LGBTQ person is bad because he/she is so or because he/she is hiding that he/she is so...
Anyone expressing his or her opinion is NOT deplorable. That you would say it is deplorable hints at your true nature, i.e. no opinions should be allowed in the police state of Libertarianism.
This is perfectly in keeping with your track record, calling anyone who isn't "hard-working" elite is good for nothing.
Anyone expressing his or her opinion is NOT deplorable. That you would say it is deplorable hints at your true nature, i.e. no opinions should be allowed in the police state of Libertarianism.
This is perfectly in keeping with your track record, calling anyone who isn't "hard-working" elite is good for nothing.
Calling it deplorable is not the same as preventing Bob A from expressing his deplorable opinion, as he does in post # 108. Libertarianism never forcibly prevents anyone from expressing their opinion. In our society, just like LGBTQ persons have had to hide their true nature, not for evil purposes, but to avoid illegitimate harm to themselves by people out to wipe out what they consider, without any justification, as harmful to society, so have atheist politicians had to do the same.
None of them have ever indicated to me public prejudice by being quite open about their atheism, when someone has inquired. And my friends have been open like this. Neither has it affected any of their careers.
There is more tolerance in society generally, across the world, concerning whether someone is Theist, Christian, Islam, Hindu, Jewish, agnostic or atheist (Though unfortunately, such prejudice does exist, and more strongly in some localities than others.)
If this is true, then I find it hard to believe that "politicians" (Such as Donald Trump) are an "exception" to the general rule that there is tolerance.
I do not believe that in this day, a politician must "hide" their atheism behind a false facade of "Christianity" (As you agree that Trump is in fact doing) in order to be a successful politician. Please provide me with your source for such an unusual, in my mind, position.
Bob A (Theist Community - I personally have not suffered in any way by being open about the fact that I moved from Christianity to Theism)
The Natural Law enforcement would ensure that if any damage is done to the Nature which is owned by all humanity, the ones doing the damage have to appropriately compensate to the others for it.
Do you Dilip have a $ figure for the damages owed to humanity by all the burning of fossil fuels since industrialization? And who exactly owes these damages?
It really seems that Libertarianism, if it ever came to power in Canada or USA, must necessarily (by its Natural Law edicts) hunt down and prosecute all fossil fuel producers as well as all companies who have benefitted by burning of fossil fuels. The logistics of that process stagger the imagination.
But of course none of this will ever happen. Libertarianism coming to power? LOL LOL LOL
None of them have ever indicated to me public prejudice by being quite open about their atheism, when someone has inquired. And my friends have been open like this. Neither has it affected any of their careers.
There is more tolerance in society generally, across the world, concerning whether someone is Theist, Christian, Islam, Hindu, Jewish, agnostic or atheist (Though unfortunately, such prejudice does exist, and more strongly in some localities than others.)
If this is true, then I find it hard to believe that "politicians" (Such as Donald Trump) are an "exception" to the general rule that there is tolerance.
I do not believe that in this day, a politician must "hide" their atheism behind a false facade of "Christianity" (As you agree that Trump is in fact doing) in order to be a successful politician. Please provide me with your source for such an unusual, in my mind, position.
Bob A (Theist Community - I personally have not suffered in any way by being open about the fact that I moved from Christianity to Theism)
Hi Bob,
In the USA, there is separation of State from Religion, and a general understanding that a person's religion should have no bearing on his functioning as a Statesman; and yet, you know very well that Trump will get totally, unfairly dumped if he ever declares that he is an atheist. So despite you trying to defend it, your conclusion is just not true, and you should know it...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Monday, 8th April, 2024, 07:31 AM.
My Post # 110: "Please provide me with your source for such an unusual, in my mind, position" (Dilip's # 106, # 109 & # 112); not answered; position just repeated by Dilip.
Pargat has weighed in on this debate about Trump; any other CT'ers have a position?
My Post # 110: "Please provide me with your source for such an unusual, in my mind, position" (Dilip's # 106, # 109 & # 112); not answered; position just repeated by Dilip.
Pargat has weighed in on this debate about Trump; any other CT'ers have a position?
Bob A (Theist Community)
There is nothing unusual about the notion that the 'religious right' in the US, which forms a large chunk of Trump's support, would dump him if he openly declares that he is an atheist. It is possible that they do know that he is an atheist, but can tolerate that so long he pretends not to be so!!:-)
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Monday, 8th April, 2024, 06:53 PM.
The Natural Law enforcement would ensure that if any damage is done to the Nature which is owned by all humanity, the ones doing the damage have to appropriately compensate to the others for it.
And here we go ... "the climate crisis is a human rights crisis" ....
Switzerland just got legally convicted of denying human rights by failing to curb fossil fuel emissions.
This is now legal precedent! Dilip, you can finally admit that you want to stop all fossil fuel burning on Earth because it's against "Natural Law".
EDIT: maybe you can get a photo of yourself with the Swedish girl that is the voice of the environmental movement ... Greta something ... Thunberg? You can be there beside her with thumbs up as she was in the court when the verdict was announced.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Wednesday, 10th April, 2024, 02:11 AM.
"STRASBOURG, France (AP) — Europe’s highest human rights court ruled Tuesday (24/4/9) that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change, siding with a group of older Swiss women against their government in a landmark ruling that could have implications across the continent.
....the Swiss case.....sets a legal precedent in the Council of Europe’s 46 member states against which future lawsuits will be judged.
“This is a turning point,” said Corina Heri, an expert in climate change litigation at the University of Zurich.
Although activists have had success with lawsuits in domestic proceedings, this was the first time an international court ruled on climate change — and the first decision confirming that countries have an obligation to protect people from its effects, according to Heri.
She said it would open the door to more legal challenges in the countries that are members of the Council of Europe, which includes the 27 EU nations as well as many others from Britain to Turkey."
"STRASBOURG, France (AP) — Europe’s highest human rights court ruled Tuesday (24/4/9) that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change, siding with a group of older Swiss women against their government in a landmark ruling that could have implications across the continent.
....the Swiss case.....sets a legal precedent in the Council of Europe’s 46 member states against which future lawsuits will be judged.
“This is a turning point,” said Corina Heri, an expert in climate change litigation at the University of Zurich.
Although activists have had success with lawsuits in domestic proceedings, this was the first time an international court ruled on climate change — and the first decision confirming that countries have an obligation to protect people from its effects, according to Heri.
She said it would open the door to more legal challenges in the countries that are members of the Council of Europe, which includes the 27 EU nations as well as many others from Britain to Turkey."
Too bad Sid was not called upon to enlighten those 'judges'... he would have explained to them quite elaborately that the harm caused by the Swiss authorities enforcing the climate change agenda would be a myriad times higher than what the plaintiffs claimed to have suffered, and the 'compensation' for the plaintiffs would be only a tiny miniscule of the 'compensation' to everyone if the climate change activists had their way...
When one discusses how we should view life, we need to get an accurate handle on how general society is functioning.
A big aspect of "society/Our life" is how we govern ourselves. It is through our "Politicians".
Our politicians present themselves to the elector in an "election campaign", usually after having to go through an arduous nomination process within the political party they are wishing to represent, and whose policies the espouse.
Now, GENERALLY, one is taught to tell the truth; it seems the "Natural Law" of Libertarianism holds the same. But the reality is that ethics/morality are situational, and there have to be exceptions to the more absolute rule (See the book, Situation Ethics).
How does this apply to a politician in an election campaign? Can we expect from our politicians the TRUTH?
If NOT, why not?
And is this rationale justifiable in the sense that society somehow "benefits" on a cost/benefit analysis from politicians lying to the elector?
Bob A (Believer in Democracy; questioning whether their are flaws in our system)
A big aspect of "society/Our life" is how we govern ourselves. It is through our "Politicians".
Bob A (Believer in Democracy; questioning whether their are flaws in our system)
Giving politicians the power to govern us is the biggest blunder we have made. They do not run in elections to serve us, and do it to become rich by hook or by crook. Libertarianism can give us back our freedom from the corruption of politicians...
Hi Dilip, sorry to disappoint, but the romantic notion of instantaneous correlation of paired particles over galactic scale distances is proven to be a physical impossibility. Dr.Bell and others demonstrated amazing correlations, but none was proof of instantaneous correlation over vast distances. What they observed were simple wave interactions with harmonic waves.
This is now proven. Einstein was right. A simple D/C makes the standard model complete :-).
Breaking News!
Groundbreaking Research Sheds New Light on Quantum Entanglement April 15, 2024, New evidence supports the Nested Wave Hypothesis, offering a resolution to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. A team of researchers led by Sidney Belzberg has made a significant breakthrough in understanding the nature of quantum entanglement, one of the most puzzling phenomena in quantum mechanics. The team's findings, recently updated on the popular research platform ResearchGate, introduce the Nested Wave Hypothesis, a novel approach that could potentially resol ve the long-standing Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox.
The EPR paradox, posed by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen in 1935, highlights the apparent contradiction between the principles of quantum mechanics and the concept of local realism. The paradox arises from the observation that entangled particles seem to influence each other instantaneously, regardless of the distance between them, which appears to violate the principles of special relativity.
The Nested Wave Hypothesis, proposed by Alicia Belzberg and colleagues, offers a new perspective on this paradox by introducing the concept of a mediating wave (Wave 1) that interacts with entangled particles, modeled as quantum harmonic oscillators. This framework suggests that the apparent nonlocal (Faster Than the Speed Of Light) effects of entanglement arise from the complex interactions between the entangled particles, the mediating wave, and the environment rather than from instantaneous communication between the particles themselves.
The recent addition of groundbreaking evidence from Osamu Ishihara's research, "Entanglement in a Complex Plasma," published on March 27, 2024, has significantly strengthened the foundations of the Nested Wave Hypothesis. Ishihara's work demonstrates the emergence of entanglement between particles in a complex plasma, mediated by the exchange of virtual plasma waves. This finding closely aligns with the predictions of the Nested Wave Hypothesis and provides crucial experimental support for the theory.
"The Nested Wave Hypothesis, bolstered by Ishihara's groundbreaking research, represents a significant step forward in our understanding of quantum entanglement," said Sid Belzberg, the study's lead researcher. By offering a resolution to the EPR paradox, this framework paves the way for a deeper understanding of the nature of reality and the foundations of quantum mechanics." The implications of this research extend beyond the realm of theoretical physics. A better understanding of quantum entanglement could lead to significant advancements in quantum computing, quantum cryptography, and other emerging technologies that rely on the principles of quantum mechanics. The researchers plan to continue their work, focusing on further experimental validation of the theory and exploring its implications for various applications in quantum technology.
Tweet
Comment