 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Actually I gave enough info and people that ask "Why should I?" is I
>> don't care about selfless things but if you talk/write to me enough I
>> MIGHT do it, if they do, they do for a little time then "suddenly" they
>> get "bothered" by it, so they MUST uninstall the damn thing. Is for
>> Humanity benefit, the more we are helping the better, you don't know if
>> you're gonna develop cancer or another disease in the future, so I don't
>> know HOW some pèople find this to be WRONG, I just don't get it, IMO
>> distributed computing for helping Humanity is best thing ever build
>> after computers them selves
>
> If you were behind this initiative, I'd already have decided not to
> join. Your attitude is one I've seen in plenty of voluntary work. If
> those people don't leave, other volunteers do.
You're right, you can't do good by doing wrong, I was very ungry, I
apologize.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> The results are "open source" for the scientific/research community
> freely as the website states somewhere, this maybe means the public.
The page you posted says "public domain". That's not very helpful if the
people who initially get the results don't actually publish them.
> people take unfair advantage is no reason to stop doing non-profit and
> other altruistic efforts, all the contrary, "kill" them with love. :-D
No, but it means I can dedicate my limited charitable resources to something
that makes more of a difference, just like I donate money to those who spend
$0.90/dollar on the people being helped instead of $0.90/dollar being spent
on administration.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Explanatory YouTube videos:
What is World Community Grid?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOFOh4iXQ7Q&feature=related
Submit your "I Dedicate" video & be part of World Community Grid's mashup
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U1TAXSHwes&feature=related
World Community Grid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boS8UUHh0EM&feature=related
Nutritious Rice for the World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nh8hyE6LkE&feature=related
Check the 'Related' Window, lots of more videos if you like.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscape net> wrote:
>> Most of those PCs resources get wasted anyway since most of them don't
>> use them to 100% capacity
>
> That would be true if PCs consumed the exact same amount of energy
> regardless of what you are doing with them. Of course that's not the case.
Computers use more electricity while they are in use. But when they are not
in use (but turned on), they still use electricity, and almost of it could
be considered "wasted".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/8/2009 10:13 PM, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> True - a PC is usually not the first place to reduce energy consumption.
But that doesn't mean you should ignore it, either.
I already turn my heater down when not needed. I turn off lights when I
leave the room. I make efforts like this, because I honestly care about
being responsible.
That being said, I'm not going to go out of my way to inconvenience
myself, either. I don't avoid doing laundry; I *do* leave my computer
running 24/7 to stream media to my TV[1][2]; and I take hot showers.
I'm not a fanatic.
[1] Yes, I know I already leave it running, and often it's running a
computer-bound task (I'm almost done encoding our entire DVD collection;
just a few more movies, and then a few TV shows and I'm done). That
doesn't mean that I should just leave it running full-tilt for some
freeloading organization, though.
[2] As far as streaming goes, I'm not worried about it because it
doesn't utilize either my GPU or my monitor, which are two of the most
power-hungry parts of any computer (and the monitor isn't even included
in most power measurements, since it doesn't go through the PSU).
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/9/2009 1:38 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 9-3-2009 10:37, Invisible wrote:
>> but I imagine running the
>> washing machine several times per day
>
> Why would you do that? We do on average one wash a week, I think.
Two (large) dogs, and 7 cats. We do roughly 12-15 loads of laundry a
week (at least half of those are blankets).
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:38:36 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:04:25 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>
>>>> With that attitude you really aren't inviting people to join...
>>> Man, if he could *at least* visit the website... Jesus...
>>
>> Put the shovel down, man.....
>>
>> Jim
> I don't understand that expression, you mean I should calm down? well it
> has a degree of irritation that SOMEBODY writes/speaks something he
> doesn't know and starts assuming too much and finally based on those
> false assumptions saying, "is wrong/bad", don't you think?
Darren explained it very well.
You want people to do something to help you, humanity, whatever, the way
to guarantee they're not going to is to insult them, demean them, or call
them names.
But I see from later posts that you understand that now. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-3-2009 3:25, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/9/2009 1:38 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 9-3-2009 10:37, Invisible wrote:
>>> but I imagine running the
>>> washing machine several times per day
>>
>> Why would you do that? We do on average one wash a week, I think.
>
> Two (large) dogs, and 7 cats. We do roughly 12-15 loads of laundry a
> week (at least half of those are blankets).
>
I never realized pets did use so much electricity.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:35:26 -0400, Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>> Man, if he could *at least* visit the website... Jesus...
>>
>> Don't you mean would?
>My mistake, non-native English "speacker" here, you would find I make
>errors on my post because of this, I eventually find them myself and I
>try to self-correct me, but eventually will happen. Thanks for the
>correction tho.
LOL
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Darren explained it very well.
>
> You want people to do something to help you, humanity, whatever, the way
> to guarantee they're not going to is to insult them, demean them, or call
> them names.
>
> But I see from later posts that you understand that now. :-)
>
> Jim
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
