 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[url=http://www.bitc.org.uk/media_centre/press_releases/international_award.html]IBM
and environmental problems[/url]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK here it is the so anticipated Anti-Paranoid package:
The following paragraph came from here:
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/bg/rfp.pdf
which is the 'Request For Proposals'.
"World Community Grid is designed as a resource for research done with a
philanthropic or humanitarian purpose and will only be available to
projects conducted for public and not-for-profit purposes. It will serve
as a useful tool for the completion of a certain stage of research,
hastening the progress of projects into further phases of development.
Results must be made available to the global research community by the
sponsoring research organization and remain in the public domain.
Because projects must serve to promote human welfare directly or
indirectly, it is anticipated that projects in the following disciplines
will be run on World Community Grid:
The webpage is here:
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/research/viewSubmitAProposal.do , here
you can read:
"Research We Support
World Community Grid supports research that is:
* Focused on solving problems to benefit humanity;
* Conducted by public or nonprofit organizations;
* Contributed to the public domain; and
* Accelerated by grid computing technology."
As you can see I was wrong about selling the drug/treatment but I was
right about the free and public result database. See? it was there all
the time, you just had to look for it. The website got redesigned so
some info was moved or removed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:04:27 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> See? it was there all the
> time, you just had to look for it.
That really wasn't necessary. Here's how you're coming across to me:
Saul: Hey, there's this really cool thing I know about!
World: What's the benefit?
Saul: Why don't you go and do your own research on it? Do I have to
tell you everything? Geez.
IOW, you're trying to tell people there's this thing you think is really
cool, and then punching people in the face when they ask questions about
it and telling them to search for themselves - and not even in a nice way.
And you wonder why people are reacting negatively?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:04:27 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>
>> See? it was there all the
>> time, you just had to look for it.
>
> That really wasn't necessary. Here's how you're coming across to me:
>
>
> Saul: Hey, there's this really cool thing I know about!
> World: What's the benefit?
> Saul: Why don't you go and do your own research on it? Do I have to
> tell you everything? Geez.
>
> IOW, you're trying to tell people there's this thing you think is really
> cool, and then punching people in the face when they ask questions about
> it and telling them to search for themselves - and not even in a nice way.
>
> And you wonder why people are reacting negatively?
>
> Jim
LOL, it wasn't like that, I posted links to very informative articles
showing realistic breakthroughs. On those links was abundant information
to spider about. As a last resort you can Google WCG website to find it,
or to know what others are writing/saying about it.
If you had visited the site you'll give me some credit, at the main
page they have links and pulldown menus with informative pages and with
explanations better than I could ever give to you all. He unnecessarily
alarmed all the people who visit this newsgroup questioning things,
making a bottle neck, waiting for my not-so-well-informed-explanations
to decide if it's worth it going to actual site and inform yourselves,
doesn't this sounds a little bit illogical? It does to me.
When people post things here I go to the links and dig everything I want
to know I don't question the poster with questions I can answer myself
making a few clicks with the mouse. And most people do this, why I
deserve less?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:15:54 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> When people post things here I go to the links and dig everything I want
> to know I don't question the poster with questions I can answer myself
> making a few clicks with the mouse. And most people do this, why I
> deserve less?
There's a difference between someone saying "I wonder where I can find
'x'" and saying "this is really cool" and having people answer asking
questions.
But I note that each time you've brought this topic up, you've gotten
angry in your replies (maybe that's a perceptual thing and you didn't
mean it) - but since you're the one who brought the topic up and seemed
to have some knowledge about it, asking is a logical flow of conversation.
So getting pissed off that people are asking you questions when you've
clearly invested some time in it would seem unproductive. If you feel
you don't have the knowledge, just say "I don't know, the website might
answer that question better than I could" and provide a pointer instead
of saying "dammit, what am I, the friggin' oracle? Go do your own damned
research !@!@#!!%!$!@#!@#" (which is how you're coming across).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> There's a difference between someone saying "I wonder where I can find
> 'x'" and saying "this is really cool" and having people answer asking
> questions.
I've also seen people saying this is cool and giving links.
> But I note that each time you've brought this topic up, you've gotten
> angry in your replies (maybe that's a perceptual thing and you didn't
> mean it) - but since you're the one who brought the topic up and seemed
> to have some knowledge about it, asking is a logical flow of conversation.
I wasn't angry just a little upset, maybe I was too emphatic about it
and looked like I was pissed off. I'm OK with questions about it, but is
also logical and more reasonable to clear your doubts on the website
since that is the main purpose of it, asking things not being obvious on
the site or forums well that is understandable, at least is more logical
for me to behave this way.
I apologize if anyone felt punched in the face, that was never my
intention, anyway I was showing the way to the best source of info about it.
> So getting pissed off that people are asking you questions when you've
> clearly invested some time in it would seem unproductive.
In deed.
> If you feel
> you don't have the knowledge, just say "I don't know, the website might
> answer that question better than I could" and provide a pointer instead
> of saying "dammit, what am I, the friggin' oracle?
Lol :-D
> Go do your own damned
> research !@!@#!!%!$!@#!@#" (which is how you're coming across).
Well, I never thought it was that strong, I apologize again. Although it
wasn't because I was semi-informed and I could give some detail, was
because of the pessimistic question/attitude like I didn't make sure
this was legit before posting it here, but I think , as Warp and others
posted here you need diplomacy and I was a bit emo about it, which
clouded my rationality, is just that I feel emotionally attached to the
WCG, you know what I mean?
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:10:29 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Well, I never thought it was that strong, I apologize again. Although it
> wasn't because I was semi-informed and I could give some detail, was
> because of the pessimistic question/attitude like I didn't make sure
> this was legit before posting it here, but I think , as Warp and others
> posted here you need diplomacy and I was a bit emo about it, which
> clouded my rationality, is just that I feel emotionally attached to the
> WCG, you know what I mean?
Yep, and perfectly understandable. It's important, as you noted, to use
some diplomacy, and in a case like this, separate the personal feelings
from the underlying question.
But I'm glad I could make you laugh - it might be funny to send some of
those questions to the Internet Oracle and see what creative answers come
back. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga schrieb:
> "World Community Grid is designed as a resource for research done with a
> philanthropic or humanitarian purpose and will only be available to
> projects conducted for public and not-for-profit purposes. It will serve
> as a useful tool for the completion of a certain stage of research,
> hastening the progress of projects into further phases of development.
> Results must be made available to the global research community by the
> sponsoring research organization and remain in the public domain.
Now *that* is what I call a clear and plain statement. Thanks, I did not
manage to spot that when I skimmed over the pages recently, and back
then didn't feel like it would be worth spending the time.
As I have recently developed a habit of keeping my computer on and
connected to the internet virtually all the time, and not running
renders on my QuadCore /all/ of the time, it might well be worth giving
the cores something to do while I'm just hacking up code, reading
newsgroups, or the like. But it's not like I've been in desperate search
for a way to keep my computer busy or contribute more to humanity: It
was just a spontaneous research inspired by your earlier posting,
somewhere between hacking in a shell script and waiting for it to spew
out results.
With that information you now provided, obviously my initial assessment
is proven wrong, so I'll definitely have a more in-depth look at it.
You know, I'm rather sceptic when people are all the rage about
something they're convinced of. I've had my fair share of that myself to
know how one can be grossly mistaken with it.
If you insist on calling that paranoia, then fine, have your way. But
note that answering questions better promotes the project than calling
someone paranoid just because they doubtfully raise those questions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga schrieb:
> When people post things here I go to the links and dig everything I want
> to know I don't question the poster with questions I can answer myself
> making a few clicks with the mouse. And most people do this, why I
> deserve less?
Maybe because the thing is less important to others than to you?
Going back to my original posting, I realize that it was not at all
clear (rather to the contrary as I must confess), but the questions I
asked in that post were meant to be purely rhethorical. My interest in
the project wasn't anywhere close to actually expect an answer.
Had you not reacted, I wouldn't have bothered any further about the project.
Maybe this explains a bit. (Realizing this, it also helps understanding
your reaction.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/11/09 17:10, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I apologize if anyone felt punched in the face, that was never my
> intention, anyway I was showing the way to the best source of info about
> it.
Well, see, here's the point. It's not so much that people will get
upset and be mad about it. They'll just see your response and lose all
interest.
One thing I learned about the Internet and forums/newsgroups: People
love to argue - not to be nasty. It's just an intellectual exercise. And
your earlier replies were really good fodder for having some
intellectual discussion, and the actual interest in what you posted is
quickly gone.
--
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
