 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The main problem with "white" leds is that they are not white. They emit
> a set of very narrow frequency spectra, which might fool the eye to
> believe
> it's white, but since it's not, it kills colors.
Yes, that's described by the CRI as I mentioned in another post, it's not
quite as bad as you make out, usually the same as the CFL lights. This
chart shows the spectra of a typical white LED compared to a normal light
bulb:
http://www.professorled.com/e/par16/sad.jpg
The CRI is typically around 70 for a white LED like that, compared to 0 for
monochromatic sources, and 100 for an incandescent light bulb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index#Typical_values
If you want higher CRI with LEDs it's relatively easy to add green and red
LEDs and then you can achieve near 100% CRI, actually this is what we do in
our LCD backlights for certain customers who demand very high quality
colours.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>
Well is your call, and whatever helps harmless to the proxy I think is
OK. But I'd advise you that not because some companies who act unfairly
and get benefit from WCG, it doesn't mean the project itself is wrong
and is not worth running it. You can't spec all companies that take
advantage from WCG (if Monsanto is) have an eternal flawless behavior to
consider WCG to be worth the effort, what those companies do is not on
control of WCG at all, besides we're Humans and as I've proved here,
even with the best of intentions your deeds sometimes bluntly betray you.
I see your point, they didn't had any compassion what so ever with the
poor farmers, maybe they were legally correct but is just wrong take the
few resources poor people have. I think instead they should have given
this poor farmers seeds for a VERY low price or for free, and if greed
is their drive, call the newspapers and tell them how good they are with
the poor farmers getting free advertising/marketing.
A wise man said something like this: "The benefit of the group is what
is good for the group and the individual". Being this an ideal case, we
have to approximate at it as much as possible. We are inherently
imperfect, we need ECC (Error checking and correcting) through compassion.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> I already turn my heater down when not needed.
>
> That doesn't mean that I should just leave it [the computer] running
> full-tilt for some freeloading organization, though.
Leave the computer running full-tilt and you won't need to use a heater.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscape net> wrote in message
news:49b61e20$1@news.povray.org...
> Darren New wrote:
> I see your point, they didn't had any compassion what so ever with the
> poor farmers, maybe they were legally correct but is just wrong take the
> few resources poor people have. I think instead they should have given
> this poor farmers seeds for a VERY low price or for free, and if greed
> is their drive, call the newspapers and tell them how good they are with
> the poor farmers getting free advertising/marketing.
>
> A wise man said something like this: "The benefit of the group is what
> is good for the group and the individual". Being this an ideal case, we
> have to approximate at it as much as possible. We are inherently
> imperfect, we need ECC (Error checking and correcting) through compassion.
The question is if the inconvenience is worth for some uncertain gains to
third parties that may or may not benefit you? A lot of people will not
bother. My resolution is simple: Give some immediate benefit, however
little, and you'll get a lot more people contributing (*). If the project is
promising enough, it's not hard to justify spending a little to get it
going. If not (as in SETI, for instance), well, it would be waste for people
to volunteer anyway.
Basic research is already funded through universities, government and even
the industry. Sure, we can all use additional funding for a lot of things,
but one question that always lurks in my mind for research asking for
volunteers or donations is that if it was deemed unpromising by the
aforementioned channels for the researchers to resort to public. What do *I*
know about proteome folding to judge whether the research is valid and
promising, or if it's simply a way for a few researchers without good ideas
or plans to publish a paper about nothing? Don't get me wrong, I'm just
being the devil's advocate here, but you see that it's not enough to have
good intentions. I see a lot of volunteer effort with good intentions wasted
on bad projects already. This is also where compensation comes in handy,
because you know that researchers willing and able to compensate are on to
something and not just attempting to use the "grid" just because they can.
(*) Yes, I know that people invest in ventures as well, without any
immediate benefits provided. But in that case, there's a contract on
potential benefits/dividends.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> It used to be, when they first came out. Nowadays they've gotten better,
> and it's only a couple of minutes, or even close to instant.
Minutes?
I'm not talking about fluorescent tubes...
--
OK, so what's the speed of dark?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:44:33 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> It used to be, when they first came out. Nowadays they've gotten
>> better, and it's only a couple of minutes, or even close to instant.
>
> Minutes?
>
> I'm not talking about fluorescent tubes...
I would agree with Darren; we've got CFLs in several lights around the
house, and they come on significantly dimmer and eventually get to full
power, but it does take minutes for them to do get there.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Your comments seem to be guiding others away from participating in such
projects. And yet, to me, seem like they are probably similar to many people
out there. So, I wanted to show you the "devil's advocate" from the other side
of the issue. You will see that my distrust is in the wisdom of the government
(which changes every 4-6 years, or otherwise has incentives to provide only
short-term results), not with the university scientists that have devoted
lifetimes to research. For those that believe the government should pay for all
the research required, I'll just remind you that for every dollar that goes in
to the government, much of it is consumed in paying interest on debts for past
grand mistakes and misuse of the money we entrusted them with. It would be MUCH
more efficient if your dollar went directly to the research of your choice.
"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
> news:49b61e20$1@news.povray.org...
> The question is if the inconvenience is worth for some uncertain gains to
> third parties that may or may not benefit you? A lot of people will not
> bother. My resolution is simple: Give some immediate benefit, however
> little, and you'll get a lot more people contributing (*).
Ironic that you feel a small but immediate benefit directly to you would have
great value, but you apparently fail to see that your contribution, being small
and immediate has great value as well.
> ...If the project is
> promising enough, it's not hard to justify spending a little to get it
> going. If not (as in SETI, for instance), well, it would be waste for people
> to volunteer anyway.
The projects are working to feed, and cure all of mankind. To study the climate
that you made small and immediate impacts upon. And invent enzymes that will
help consume carbon dioxide to try and put the climate right again. For me, the
projects are more then promising enough.
>
> Basic research is already funded through universities, government and even
> the industry.
Of those, industry would be the only one that could afford to provide a
compensation system like you describe. As you see in the rest of this thread,
the public does not trust industry.
>Sure, we can all use additional funding for a lot of things,
> but one question that always lurks in my mind for research asking for
> volunteers or donations is that if it was deemed unpromising by the
> aforementioned channels for the researchers to resort to public.
Going to the public shouldn't be a "last resort". After all, the "channels"
*are* the public. It doesn't mean they know where to best drop YOUR research
dollars. You spend more in medicare taxes, paying for people that are suffering
from these diseases today, then you are being asked to contribute. It's a
trivial sum. On the order of $10 a month of electricity to keep your computer
running rather then sitting idle. And of that, during the winter, you'll be
saving about $8 in heating costs.
It would cost more to try and compensate people for this grand expenditure, then
you would be providing to the project of your choice.
>What do *I*
> know about proteome folding to judge whether the research is valid and
> promising, or if it's simply a way for a few researchers without good ideas
> or plans to publish a paper about nothing?
You aren't being asked to pay a researcher's salary, nor for their facilities.
You are being asked to provide computing power that your government and
university system has been unable to provide to the extent required.
If you feel curing cancer, and feeding the world are not "good ideas"... then
you're right. Humanity isn't worth working to improve. So, stop trying to do
your part by dismissing the efforts of those that are.
>Don't get me wrong, I'm just
> being the devil's advocate here, but you see that it's not enough to have
> good intentions. I see a lot of volunteer effort with good intentions wasted
> on bad projects already. This is also where compensation comes in handy,
> because you know that researchers willing and able to compensate are on to
> something and not just attempting to use the "grid" just because they can.
>
So, you would feel better about it if Pfizer or Merck were behind the project?
And they were willing to pay you $10 a month for your help? ...I don't see how
you are doing to get them to agree to both pay you, and release the results to
the public. If you see that happen, you *KNOW* the drugs are going to be priced
accordingly. The money they spend comes from somewhere.
You also find that where there is money, there is corruption. And people will
devise ways to falsify the results they send back to the researchers. Trying to
fake having spent a month of computing time to get the $10, and contribute
nothing but garbage. Keeping the system free of these incentives helps reduce
the incentives to do such distructive things.
> (*) Yes, I know that people invest in ventures as well, without any
> immediate benefits provided. But in that case, there's a contract on
> potential benefits/dividends.
The "contract", on the website, says the results are made public. That's a tough
contract to write. Here, you don't understand proteome folding, but the people
that do will do all the work for you, and then give away their results, good or
bad, for everyone to use. That doesn't sound at all to me like the last drug
commercial I saw on TV.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"feet1st" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.49b69f4de57dbb08a45f86ff0@news.povray.org...
> Your comments seem to be guiding others away from participating in such
> projects. And yet, to me, seem like they are probably similar to many
people
> out there. So, I wanted to show you the "devil's advocate" from the other
side
> of the issue.
I'll take the challenge then.
> If you feel curing cancer, and feeding the world are not "good ideas"...
then
> you're right. Humanity isn't worth working to improve. So, stop trying to
do
> your part by dismissing the efforts of those that are.
They are good "goals", but I am in no way qualified to ascertain whether
these researches have any merit in achieving those goals. I'd rather trust
universities, government, and yes, the industry, to chose which leads are
promising. Say what you want about the industry, but there's big money in
curing high profile diseases like cancer, or in agricultural research. Maybe
research about extremely rare diseases can benefit from community support,
but then again, government is in a better position there too, to make sure
not everything is done according to the wishes of the majority or by the
number game alone.
> >Don't get me wrong, I'm just
> > being the devil's advocate here, but you see that it's not enough to
have
> > good intentions. I see a lot of volunteer effort with good intentions
wasted
> > on bad projects already. This is also where compensation comes in handy,
> > because you know that researchers willing and able to compensate are on
to
> > something and not just attempting to use the "grid" just because they
can.
> So, you would feel better about it if Pfizer or Merck were behind the
project?
> And they were willing to pay you $10 a month for your help? ...I don't see
how
> you are doing to get them to agree to both pay you, and release the
results to
> the public. If you see that happen, you *KNOW* the drugs are going to be
priced
> accordingly. The money they spend comes from somewhere.
Drugs will be priced "accordingly" (i.e. outrageously) no matter what. Doing
a few simulations on a distributed grid won't mean that only Pfizer and
Merck will be able to run with it and pass FDA tests... etc. I'm most
certain that the cost of the end product will be hugely insensitive to
whether a community grid or a supercomputer was used in one small phase of
the R&D.
> You also find that where there is money, there is corruption. And people
will
> devise ways to falsify the results they send back to the researchers.
Trying to
> fake having spent a month of computing time to get the $10, and contribute
> nothing but garbage. Keeping the system free of these incentives helps
reduce
> the incentives to do such distructive things.
If there already are not failsafes built in to prevent accidental or
intentional "garbage out", they are doing this grid computing thing terribly
wrong. Often, it's the case that the cost function is asymmetrical, i.e. it
may take 20 CPU years to find a solution, a millisecond to verify it. And
those are the type of problems most suitable for distributed computing
anyway.
> > (*) Yes, I know that people invest in ventures as well, without any
> > immediate benefits provided. But in that case, there's a contract on
> > potential benefits/dividends.
> The "contract", on the website, says the results are made public. That's a
tough
> contract to write. Here, you don't understand proteome folding, but the
people
> that do will do all the work for you, and then give away their results,
good or
> bad, for everyone to use. That doesn't sound at all to me like the last
drug
> commercial I saw on TV.
Research results are already "given out" for free (or the cost of a journal
subscription at most). It's the end results that matter. You or I won't be
able to produce our own drugs based on a research paper. No matter if that
paper is written at zero cost to researchers or at thousands of dollars, the
cost of that information will be same (like I said, cost of a magazine
subscription at most). So don't expect cheaper drugs just because a tiny
part of the initial research phase was cheap.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> It used to be, when they first came out. Nowadays they've gotten better,
>> and it's only a couple of minutes, or even close to instant.
>
> Minutes?
>
> I'm not talking about fluorescent tubes...
I'm talking about things like
http://www.ipaa.org/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/cfl_bulb_mercury3.jpg
I think it's actually the ballast that has to warm up, not the tube itself?
Or maybe the mercury has to vaporize? (The old "Mercury Vapor" lights take
about 10 or 15 minutes to get fully bright.)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> My resolution is simple: Give some immediate benefit, however
> little, and you'll get a lot more people contributing (*).
Yes. But the benefit can be as simple as "Cool, I helped do that." I think
that's where the SETI bit came in - if someone actually found signals,
everyone who contributed could say "Gee, I helped with that."
Had the raw answers actually been published, I could have looked at it and
said "Cool, maybe in some years somebody will look at this and cure
something." It would be a tangible result. As it is, the tangible result is
"the guys who freeloaded off you published a paper you don't get to read."
> I see a lot of volunteer effort with good intentions wasted
> on bad projects already.
I see a lot of good volunteer effort wasted on greedy people taking
advantage of it also. That's what I object to - when some charity calls me
on the phone, and I donate $25 to help homeless people, and the guys who
called on the phone take $23 of that to pay for making the phone calls. I'd
much rather just give the $25 to a homeless person.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
