webDiplomacy is proud to announce that we now support gameplay with artificial intelligence! For information regarding this one-of-a-kind game mode, click here. To hear more in an interview from jmo and pw, click here. To sign up for the Terminator Tournament, click here. Read the underlying AI/ML research here.

Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 267 of 412
FirstPreviousNextLast
Hamilton Brian (792 D (B))
19 Aug 15 UTC
Sources of Tension
An exploration of those positionings that test an alliance. Feel free to add your thoughts, views, observations, etc. If you shit though, clean up after yourself.
5 replies
Open
Ogion (4375 D)
14 Aug 15 UTC
Welcome back party!
Friends,

I've been away for the last six months, and I thought I'd throw myself a little welcome back bash.
30 replies
Open
ckroberts (3548 D)
05 Aug 15 UTC
The Mountain Game 4 rules discussion/sign up thread
The Mountain Game 4 will commence soon.
56 replies
Open
Rodgersd09 (100 D)
17 Aug 15 UTC
"A good games" was cancelled - Do any players know why?
Damn - I was enjoying it as well!
3 replies
Open
Constitutional Rights for Embryonic Americans?
In the GOP debate last Thursday, unsurprisingly, abortion was a point of discussion amongst candidates. Obviously they were all pro-life to some extent or another, but Mike Huckabee went so far as to say that abortion was already illegal, because unborn children have the rights to equal protection under the law and due process. Right from conception, they have constitutional rights, he argues.

Regardless of your position on abortion, is this a valid argument?
91 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
12 Aug 15 UTC
(+3)
Mafia
I'm getting sick of muting Mafia threads. Can someone launch a separate site for them or something?
44 replies
Open
ssorenn (3242 D (G))
14 Aug 15 UTC
(+1)
Changes to site policy--
With this gunboat tourney going on, I think there should be a change to a site policy. ----see inside---
106 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D (B))
15 Aug 15 UTC
sex slavery in IS
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/sex-slavery-adopted-and-codified-by-islamic-state-1.2317309
11 replies
Open
2ndWhiteLine (3375 D (B))
12 Aug 15 UTC
(+4)
2015 Gunboat Tournament
See inside.
250 replies
Open
DeathLlama8 (524 D)
15 Aug 15 UTC
What do people use to adjudicate F2F games without a board?
Fairly self-explanatory, really. Backstabbr doesn't really work for me.
15 replies
Open
Eadan (454 D)
15 Aug 15 UTC
We need someone to step in as Egypt
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=164461#votebar
1 reply
Open
King Mischief (108 D)
15 Aug 15 UTC
world take over-4
come join world take over-4. I'm some what new to the game so, it could be easy $$$.
3 replies
Open
Stubie (1817 D)
14 Aug 15 UTC
Cutting Convoys
Is it possible to stop a supported convoy (where the fleet convoying is supported) with a supported attack of equal support, thus not dislodging the convoying fleet?
10 replies
Open
Lebosfc17 (20 D X)
14 Aug 15 UTC
To The Mods
Does anybody remember DC35?
17 replies
Open
Fluminator (496 D)
14 Aug 15 UTC
I need help with a research paper!
It's due tomorrow night and I have to do a 12-15 page paper on how the internet of things and the third industrial revolution will affect society and more importantly the work force and employment.

I'm up to around 10 pages and I have no idea what to write for the last 2.
And no, increasing the font size of each period isn't allowed.
41 replies
Open
4-8-15-16-23-42 (339 D)
14 Aug 15 UTC
Question- Help
See below.
16 replies
Open
general (100 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
Quick live game
Join my quick live game: http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=165983.

Haven't played in years and want to get back into it :)
1 reply
Open
orathaic (1009 D (B))
13 Aug 15 UTC
Messed up, two 13 year olds tired as adults
m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7979942?cps=gravity_5540_1138476008340655834

So teenagers brains are different from adult brains; that is a reason why we don't let them drink or drive... The frontal lobe which controls will-power and executive function ( ie decision making ) continues developing until about 25.
32 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D (B))
11 Aug 15 UTC
Risk taking
http://youtu.be/vBX-KulgJ1o
Great video, but the first thing i think of is relationships, (and given that i was recently dumped, this is no surprise) Naturally you could also apply this to diplomacy; but the probabilities get a little messed up, and in Dip not taking a bet means taking a different course, which may also be risky.
14 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D (B))
10 Aug 15 UTC
Snowden Interview
Recent interview with German tv, apparently not shown in the US and not available on youtube?? m.liveleak.com/view?i=f93_1390833151

He makes some interesting points...
49 replies
Open
fulhamish (4134 D)
12 Aug 15 UTC
Climate change - another feedback loop
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150805140254.htm

Time to recalibrate those models..........................again
steephie22 (182 D (S))
12 Aug 15 UTC
We should create more of those rivers, problem solved :-)
fulhamish (4134 D)
12 Aug 15 UTC
And then there was the methane chapter:

https://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/most-significant-global-warming-tipping-point-theory-bites-the-dust/

'' “We were glad to have the opportunity to lend our expertise to study this oil spill. But also we tried to make a little good come from this disaster and use it to learn something about how the planet functions naturally. The seafloor stores large quantities of methane, a potent ‘greenhouse gas,’ which has been suspected to be released naturally, modulating global climate. What the Deepwater Horizon incident has taught us is that releases of methane with similar characteristics will not have the capacity to influence climate.”
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
12 Aug 15 UTC
" the researchers emphasize that this natural process is 10 to 20 times too slow to keep pace with CO2 emissions from human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels"

What is yoyr point exactly, fulhamizzle?
fulhamish (4134 D)
12 Aug 15 UTC
On methane this:
''So what are the implications for this most dangerous of tipping points? The researchers say that their empirical findings (note empirical – as opposed to models on a computer) prove that similar methane releases are not a cause for concern so far as global warming is concerned''

On river transport of carbon, I agree, but as I said it is time to recalibrate the models:
"River transfer is not going to solve the problem--it's not going to make the CO2 we inject into the atmosphere go away," Galy says. But the findings do reveal a more complex picture of the relationships between warming temperatures, thawing permafrost and carbon emission--a picture that Galy and his international colleagues hope to further investigate with future studies.

Get the point?

fulhamish (4134 D)
12 Aug 15 UTC
While you are at re. the abortion thread, best check the paper dates.
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
12 Aug 15 UTC
(+3)
"Get the point?"

No. Please make one.
Thucydides (869 D (B))
12 Aug 15 UTC
(+1)
Hm that is good news. I guess we should drill for more oil and never tax carbon so that we can keep consuming and fritter away our lives on possessions and conveniences. Problem solved!
fulhamish (4134 D)
12 Aug 15 UTC
@Thucy, you either address a problem in terms of science or you don't. To be emotionally invested in the outcome does not bode well for an unbiased assessment, let alone choice of research topic. It is often a tough call to go where the data takes you, but maybe that is what we should strive towards (?) Thumbs up for these observational scientists who did just that, it is refreshing.
phil_a_s (0 D X)
12 Aug 15 UTC
(+1)
You didn't even bother making an assessment of any kind. Would you please make a point?
Thucydides (869 D (B))
12 Aug 15 UTC
Indeed, thumbs up to them, but what is your point, as others have said? Nothing has changed in terms of the impending threats of climate change on other environmental destruction and the imperative to act on them. And even more important - nothing culturally has changed to move us away from an extractive, exploitative, profit-based society which has impacts on both our world and our people. Thanks for posting the study, but what are you saying here?
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
Bump for fulhamish's response.
fulhamish (4134 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
Jamiet et al. the point(s) is (are) obvious and I feel more than a touch of disingenuity here.

1) The hypothesis on locked up permafrost methane being released and resulting in run-away global warming is highly likely to be wrong.
2) The issue of carbon release from soils, in particular peats, and resulting in increased global warming most likely needs substantial modification.......downwards.
3) As, has been shown time and time again, the future modelling of climate change is fraught with difficulty. Real data yet again requires that the ever-growing panoply of models be significantly revised.

Those are the substantive points, which I feel that I have raised.

Moving on personally I think that:
1) Far too many resources go into computational modelling in comparison to those deployed for observational science.
2) I am not sure about ACC. Ten years ago I was convinced. Now, however, I think that we are only just beginning to realise how complicated the system is. I was very disappointed with the Climate Gate emails; with Michael Mann's apparently false standardisation PCA of the last century’s temperature figures and with the disappearance of the MWP (and RWP) from Briffa's work. The tree ring discontinuity problem remains. The global temperature record of the last ten or so years has also defied all of the preceding dire predictions
3) Some people will not allow any doubt to enter their minds on the topic - it has almost become an article of faith. I trust that those who truly embrace the scientific method will at least seriously question some of the points I make above.

Unfortunately, I am sure, however, that this post will be highly selectively quoted from, not the least by Jamiet.
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
(+1)
@ fulhamish: Now we're getting somewhere, thank you.

"1) Far too many resources go into computational modelling in comparison to those deployed for observational science."

This is an interesting claim. On what is it based? Certainly I agree that observation is very important - and predictions of future climate conditions will be more accurate if they are derived from more accurate and complete data.

So, what information do you have, regarding the resources (financial, manpower, and others) being expended on both activities? I presume you have some, since you have drawn a conclusion which could only be valid if based on such information.

"2) I am not sure about ACC. Ten years ago I was convinced. Now, however, I think that we are only just beginning to realise how complicated the system is."

The scientific consensus is still overwhelming. Even in spite of your wavering, are you familiar with the precautionary principle?

"The global temperature record of the last ten or so years has also defied all of the preceding dire predictions."

What?

Global temperatures continue to rise. The period July 2014–June 2015 was globally the warmest 12-month period in the entire 136-year period of record.
(Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506)

"3) Some people will not allow any doubt to enter their minds on the topic - it has almost become an article of faith. I trust that those who truly embrace the scientific method will at least seriously question some of the points I make above."

What if it's not an issue of faith, but an issue of risk analysis? For me, the risk of saying "oh, well, the science is only 80% accurate, so we can just take the risk and just keep polluting" is the greatest potential risk. I'd much rather support efforts to make human activity less environmentally harmful, even if it turns out that humanity wouldn't have been completely annihilated if I hadn't bothered.

Doesn't that make sense?
fulhamish (4134 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
Jamiet the master of the selective quote.
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
How is anything I have quoted there "selective"?
fulhamish (4134 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
reread my post and work it out for yourself
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
I have read your post again. I do not view my response as selective; I was attempting to advance the debate. Instead of responding, you call me names. Ok.
fulhamish (4134 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
1) The hypothesis on locked up permafrost methane being released and resulting in run-away global warming is highly likely to be wrong.
2) The issue of carbon release from soils, in particular peats, and resulting in increased global warming most likely needs substantial modification.......downwards.
3) As, has been shown time and time again, the future modelling of climate change is fraught with difficulty. Real data yet again requires that the ever-growing panoply of models be significantly revised.

Now, however, I think that we are only just beginning to realise how complicated the system is. I was very disappointed with the Climate Gate emails; with Michael Mann's apparently false standardisation PCA of the last century’s temperature figures and with the disappearance of the MWP (and RWP) from Briffa's work. The tree ring discontinuity problem remains. The global temperature record of the last ten or so years has also defied all of the preceding dire predictions (NOTE THE WORD DIRE)

Do you honestly think that you can have a debate if you ignore/twist what the other person has said??????

Jamiet99uk (35 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
So, I'm not allowed to respond to anything you say, unless I quote every single word you previously posted? Give me a break.

I picked up on all three of your "moving on" comments, on the assumption that you wanted to move on to discuss those things.
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
(Which apparently you don't)
fulhamish (4134 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
You repeatedly asked me what the point was of my original posts. I tried to answer..........you then bumped me. I answered you afain in as plain a language as I could find and then you ignore it.

You even ignore 4 out of 5 of my moving on points!

Give me a break cherry picker and go and troll somebody else with your never ending 'why 'questions.
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
(+2)
"You even ignore 4 out of 5 of my moving on points!"

I addressed three of them!!

You are not as good a communicator as you clearly think you are.
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
(+1)
(First time I've seen someone post a numbered list of points, 1), 2), 3), and then claim he made five).
fulhamish (4134 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
1) I was very disappointed with the Climate Gate emails; 2) with Michael Mann's apparently false standardisation PCA of the last century’s temperature figures and 3) with the disappearance of the MWP (and RWP) from Briffa's work. 4) The tree ring discontinuity problem remains. 5) The global temperature record of the last ten or so years has also defied all of the preceding dire predictions (NOTE THE WORD DIRE)

Jamiet99uk (35 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
So you actually made 7 D?
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
ugh.

you know what I mean.
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
Give me a moment and I will respond to all 7 of your "moving on" points so you can no longer accuse me of cherry-picking...
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
Ok, here we go:


"1) Far too many resources go into computational modelling in comparison to those deployed for observational science."

This is an interesting claim. On what is it based? Certainly I agree that observation is very important - and predictions of future climate conditions will be more accurate if they are derived from more accurate and complete data.

So, what information do you have, regarding the resources (financial, manpower, and others) being expended on both activities? I presume you have some, since you have drawn a conclusion which could only be valid if based on such information.

"2) I am not sure about ACC. Ten years ago I was convinced. Now, however, I think that we are only just beginning to realise how complicated the system is."

The scientific consensus is still overwhelming. Even in spite of your wavering, are you familiar with the precautionary principle?

"3) I was very disappointed with the Climate Gate emails"

I agree, however this doesn't change much in reality. The scientific consensus on the key points* remains strong.

*These being: (a) climate change is a problem which threatens our environment and our society; (b) humanity has been, and still is, one of the major causes of climate change; (c) we can and must, do something to tackle it; (d) time to do this is limited.

"4) with Michael Mann's apparently false standardisation PCA of the last century’s temperature figures"

I am not a scierntist. Howerver it is my understanding that Dr. Mann faced several investigations over these issues and was cleared of any wrongdoing.

"5.1) with the disappearance of the MWP (and RWP) from Briffa's work."

I am not a scientist and do not recognise the acronyms / initials you are using.

"5.2) The tree ring discontinuity problem remains."

I believe that is so. Hopefully further research will help in that area.

"6) The global temperature record of the last ten or so years has also defied all of the preceding dire predictions (NOTE THE WORD DIRE)

It was predicted that temperatures would rise. They are rising. The period July 2014–June 2015 was globally the warmest 12-month period in the entire 136-year period of record. In 136 years, the hottest 12-month period is the one we just had. The graph is trending in the predicted direction. I think this is a matter of concern.

You seem to have the view that if I say "I bet Chelsea will thrash Arsenal", and then the score is 3-1 to Chelsea, my prediction was 100% wrong.

"7) Some people will not allow any doubt to enter their minds on the topic - it has almost become an article of faith. I trust that those who truly embrace the scientific method will at least seriously question some of the points I make above."

What if it's not an issue of faith, but an issue of risk analysis? For me, the risk of saying "oh, well, the science is only 80% accurate, so we can just take the risk and just keep polluting" is the greatest potential risk. I'd much rather support efforts to make human activity less environmentally harmful, even if it turns out that humanity wouldn't have been completely annihilated if I hadn't bothered.

Doesn't that make sense?
Thucydides (869 D (B))
14 Aug 15 UTC
(+1)
Even if climate change were neither human caused nor even REAL, we would still have serious threats to our species as a result of our irresponsible approach to our environment, namely food and water. Consumption of water continues to rise, and the available portion continues to dwindle as we pollute or exhaust the natural sources. We use more water than the water cycle gives us - and we are going to pay dearly for it.

Similarly, food. World population keeps climbing at rates unseen in the history of earth, and though we can probably come up with some way to get enough food produced to keep 10 billion people from starving, it's not at all clear that we will. Chiefly because a huge amount of ag land and productivity goes to, well, not feeding humans. Huge amounts are used on luxury commodities like tobacco and chocolate, other land is used for fibers, a lot of which is probably not necessary to produce, like cotton, wool, silk, etc, and then of course you have biofuels, and most catastrophic of them all - animal feed. All of this is basically a waste of food, and it is a big part of the reason why we have enough food on earth to feed the human race, but something like 800 million people go hungry. As that number climbs (recent progress on it is likely to be reversed I'm afraid - see:water), society will have a harder and harder time coping.

You know the migrant crises in Australia and Europe? That's a prelude. We are simply not addressing the most important problems facing us, and the naked fact is because oligarchic capitalism cannot or will not do so.
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
14 Aug 15 UTC
@ Thucydides - you didn't address every single one of fulhamish's words in exacting detail, so I don't expect he'll respond.


30 replies
Jamiet99uk (35 D)
13 Aug 15 UTC
(+4)
The death of the republic
http://diprepublic.net/?reqp=1&reqr=

Oh no. How sad.
9 replies
Open
Tru Ninja (1016 D (S))
05 Aug 15 UTC
ESPN Fantasy Football Signups
For those that will play only ESPN league, post interest here. List your preferred draft day (I prefer late preseason Saturday or Sunday around 1 p.m. Central Time

1. Tru Ninja (Sat Aug 29th or Sun Aug 30th)
81 replies
Open
Thucydides (869 D (B))
04 Aug 15 UTC
GRE scores
What's a good score? Share your score too, if you feel comfortable. I just took the test this morning
65 replies
Open
alulahello (0 D X)
12 Aug 15 UTC
(+2)
halloween costumes 2015
I know, 3 months early blahblah. But I'm bored and I want to talk about Halloween.
Some people are into crazy Costumes and go all out to make them. Brainstrom ideas for costumes and how to make/obtain them. What are you thinking of going as?
1 reply
Open
goldfinger0303 (3050 D)
11 Aug 15 UTC
Opposite Gender Friends leads to Lower Academic Performance
Interesting paper I'm reading right now. Not completely done with it, but its methodology seems sound.

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/app.20140030
37 replies
Open
ssorenn (3242 D (G))
12 Aug 15 UTC
(+2)
this is interesting--watch the video
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/08/10/everyone-fails-to-ride-this-bike-you-would-too-this-is-what-it-tells-us-about-the-brain/
6 replies
Open
P13ANATOR (100 D)
12 Aug 15 UTC
Hi I am new, quick question
I am starting a game with some friends, can you play with less than 7 people? If so, is anything different compared to a full game? Thanks :-)
8 replies
Open
ND (879 D)
20 Jul 15 UTC
(+12)
MX: All Star Game
See inside for details
5191 replies
Open
Valis2501 (2057 D (G))
10 Aug 15 UTC
MAFIA XI: Confirmations
I know some people may not realize sign up thread is also confirmation thread so let's make that ultra clear:
Starts 8/11/15, 6 PM EDT
140 replies
Open
Page 267 of 412
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top