 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I don't know about CFLs, but our house has several "energy saving"
> lighting units. The problem is, there's a 20 minute delay between
> turning them on and being able to see where you're going...
Not an issue with CFL's.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Global Statistics
> Statistics Last Updated: 3/9/09 12:05:59 (UTC) [8 hour(s) ago]
> Totals:
> Members 431,866
> Devices 1,200,203
> Total Run Time 223,417 years (As 1 PC running 24/7)
> Points Generated 100,949,508,634
> Results Returned 249,504,379
> Averages:
> Run Time Per Calendar Day (y:d:h:m:s) 136:327:16:15:32
> Run Time Per Result (y:d:h:m:s) 0:000:07:50:39
> Points Per Hour of Run Time 51.58
> Points Per Calendar Day 61,856,316.56
> Points Per Result 404.60
> Results Per Calendar Day 152,882.59
> Yesterday:
> Total Run Time (y:d:h:m:s) 238:250:03:58:30
> Points Generated 182,127,010
> Results Returned 362,215
>
> 248.879 TeraFLOPS (http://boincstats.com/stats/project_graph.php?pr=wcg)
>
> This stats say you are wrong and don't have clue what you are talking
I can tell you didn't understand what the person you're responding to said.
> about , as you don't care putting a decent nick or your name, just
> "somebody", you don't care about altruistic deeds. But your conscience
It's a very bad idea to take something you don't understand and assume
the worst.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> 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.
>
True, I think I should had specified that was only resource wise.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:04:25 -0400, Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>
>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>>> This stats say you are wrong and don't have clue what you are talking
>>>> about , as you don't care putting a decent nick or your name, just
>>>> "somebody", you don't care about altruistic deeds. But your conscience
>>>> don't leave you alone so you have to post something to make it shut up
>>>> and convince yourself that everything you do is always best. Nice...
>>>> ironically people like you are first to cry out for help when something
>>>> bad happens.
>>> With that attitude you really aren't inviting people to join...
>> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I don't know about CFLs, but our house has several "energy saving"
>> lighting units. The problem is, there's a 20 minute delay between
>> turning them on and being able to see where you're going...
>
> Not an issue with CFL's.
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.
I remember my wife calling me (when working from home) asking me to turn on
the kitchen lights when she left work, so we could see to cook when she got
home. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Point taken Mr. Warp.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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,
It means you've dug a hole that you're stuck inside, and you're continuing
to dig, hence making the situation worse for yourself.
The implication is that you're trying to solve the problem in a way that's
making the problem worse for yourself. (I.e., if you insult someone while
asking for charity, then insult them again when they point it out, you're
making it less likely you'll get the charity.)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> distributed computing for helping Humanity is best thing ever build
> after computers them selves
While that might be the case, distributed computing for helping companies
patent drugs that will be milked for maximum profit doesn't seem to helpful.
Contributing cycles to help Monsanto create seeds that they then charge poor
farmers for having blown into their field doesn't make much sense to me.
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/projects_showcase/archives/fgc/viewFgcResults.do
and the other result pages from the other completed projects lets me know
that the raw data isn't released to the public in any sort of timely way,
which tells me it's going to be used primarily for the benefit of humanity,
but primarily for the benefit of the researchers.
The Human Proteome Folding bit was about the only piece where they're
actually showing any results to the general public.
> thought since most is in the website and the res on the forums, well...
Nobody wants to spend an hour going thru the web site in order to give
charity. You're asking for people to give something without getting anything
personal in return, then making it difficult for people to find answers to
their questions about the process.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The results are "open source" for the scientific/research community
freely as the website states somewhere, this maybe means the public.
Injustice unfortunately will always be present on everything so, if some
people take unfair advantage is no reason to stop doing non-profit and
other altruistic efforts, all the contrary, "kill" them with love. :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] netscapenet> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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] netscapenet> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Drugs will be priced "accordingly" (i.e. outrageously) no matter what.
That's kind of my problem with it. :-)
> 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.
For searches (like SETI, say), it's easiest that when you get a hit, you
farm the same raw data out to a dozen other people and see if you get the
same answer back. If not, you stop serving jobs to the guy giving you crap
answers. If you really need all the answers from all the parts, you do the
Byzantine General bit. It's a solved problem that just takes more overhead.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 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".
But that "base" power consumption, ie. the minimum amount of electricity
a PC consumes when idle, cannot be utilized eg. for calculations.
Immediately when you start doing calculations, the CPU will start
consuming more energy, and thus basically you are now consuming additional
energy to perform calculations.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
@"somebody", it wasn't intended to be a challenge. Simply a discussion of some
alternatives to your point of view.
You are absolutely correct that distributed computing projects need failsafes
and checks on results. And, with a volunteer system, these checks don't cost
much to create, enforce, and run. But, if you're out there paying for each and
every result, and then trying to enforce such protections against those
attempting to cheat you out of your 10 bucks, you have a LOT of effort expended
in things that do not contribute to science.
It is inteteresting to note that you trust universities... but not the public
projects initiated by the universities. Rosetta@home and the rice project of
WCG are run by the University of Washington, WCG's clean energy project is run
by Harvard, WCG's conquer cancer project is run by researchers at Ontario
Cancer Institute and Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute, the WCG
dengue fever project is run by The University of Texas, WCG's Human Proteome
Folding Project is run by New York University, WCG's FightAIDS@Home is run by
The Scripps Research Institute, WCG's AfricanClimate@Home is run by University
of Cape Town, and the WCG Muscular Dystrophy project is a collaboration
launched by AFM (French Muscular Dystrophy Association), CNRS (French National
Center for Scientific Research) and IBM, Einstein@home is run by the University
of Wisconsin and universities in Germany, Climateprediction.net is run by
Oxford, the researchers at CERN have the LHC project, Docking@home is run by
the University of Deleware, SIMAP is run by the University of Munich...
the question should be WHICH project you will help, not whether or not you
should run a background program on your computer when it's doing nothing else.
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/projects.php
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Your doubts are perfectly reasonable, logicals, even I had them
when I firs saw FightAIDS@Home website, but, those doubts have no bases
when you refer to the WCG: you project gets evaluated before adding it
to the grid and I'm sure The WCG has some requirements for a project to
be valid.
Besides you can check this yourself, the very first link I posted
in this thread leads you to the active projects with brief explanation,
with another click to the detailed explanation and with another one to
the website of the project, all project have their own website AFAIK.
There you can see that serious and with a career of trajectory the
professionals that form a project, sometimes large organizations like
the Scribbs Institute for FightAIDS@Home project, that excels in
biomolecular 3D modeling (and other genetic studies, they even have a
periodic newsletter for free that even I can understand (yeah, I'm
subscribed)) with patented software DONATED to The Grid to work on the
WCG client. You don't put 248.879 TeraFLOPS on a dumbass or mediocre
project, I imagine many complain with WCG that reject their projects.
That is why I was angry before, because if people would visit the
links I provided, with a few clicks and 20 mins. tops you could
self-answer any and all question you can have about WCG projects and
grid computing.
Plus, the WCG has DETAILED stats by any criterion (by devices (WCG
clients), by project, by team, by perior of time, etc.) individual and
global; profile, device and team managers (configurators). Also
concluded projects and future additions, each with detailed info about
the projects.
At this point you realize that The WCG it's a beautiful place to
be if you always wanted to be participate in a serious and Humanitarian
disease-solving projects. I only have 1 PC (P4 HT 3.0 Ghz) but I wish I
could have another 5 more all doing nothing but running WCG Clients each
with 4 cores on the CPU at a gozillion Ghz. :-)
You are right, most people would say no, I tried to get my
University to participate on it, but they cared little or nothing, no
WCG was ever installed. At my work some ran it for a few days, but it
was "too heavy" for P4s, I get to ran it on the File/App Server for
several months, I haven't received any work unit from it since last
month, even the server wasn't lagging at all (I installed FreeRAM XP
Pro, 512 MB DDR2-667), even everyone (11 people) accessed it (DELL
Server, PC style, no RAID) all day, everyday. Well, at least it was a
fast Server with Dual Core I got a nice number of results (2-4 per day).
I ran it also at my work PC and at my home too.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
feet1st wrote:
> @"somebody",
In case you are unaware of how newsgroups work: please click the Reply link
on the message you actually want to reply to, not on the last link visible.
This post of yours appears as a reply to Darren New's question about how
compact fluorescent lights warm up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> But that "base" power consumption, ie. the minimum amount of electricity
> a PC consumes when idle, cannot be utilized eg. for calculations.
> Immediately when you start doing calculations, the CPU will start
> consuming more energy, and thus basically you are now consuming additional
> energy to perform calculations.
Are you trying to prove using POV-Ray isn't really free? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Are you trying to prove using POV-Ray isn't really free? ;-)
Nothing is really free in this world. Not even choice or will.
We are all victims of causality.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> 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.)
Yeah - those are the ones. Mine seem to come on within a second.
Perhaps they _do_ get brighter over 10 minutes, but I don't notice it -
they're sufficiently bright when I turn them on.
Are yours old (as in like a decade)? I only started using them about 6
or so years ago (and frankly, am not sure they're cheaper overall - they
die quicker than expected).
--
May your screen live long and phosphor.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
feet1st wrote:
> 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.
Did you bother reading all of "somebody"'s posts before replying? In
another message (not the one you're replying to), he said:
"In short, just turn off your PC at night and donate part of the savings
to your favourite research. It would probably be more beneficial for all."
So he's certainly not against donating money. And I snipped some of the
context - but his point was that if all the people running these
software instead donate money to support running a _dedicated_ cluster,
then the calculations may be more efficient.
I don't necessarily (dis)agree, and the two aren't mutually exclusive.
--
May your screen live long and phosphor.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:24:18 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>I'd much rather just give the $25 to a homeless person.
That's what I do. At least I know that the homeless person can get a bite to eat
or a drink to help get to sleep.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Yeah - those are the ones. Mine seem to come on within a second.
As I think I mentioned, it seems to be a mostly-solved problem. It used to
take tens of minutes, and when that batch burned out the new ones took maybe
2 or 3 minutes, and this most recent batch come on within maybe 5 seconds,
but I don't think they're as bright as the old ones were. Or my eyes are
aging faster than I want to believe. :-)
Perhaps they traded off something to make them warm up faster? I wouldn't be
surprised if the bulbs last much shorter than they could in order to be
bright quickly.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:24:18 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
> >I'd much rather just give the $25 to a homeless person.
>
> That's what I do. At least I know that the homeless person can get a bite to eat
> or a drink to help get to sleep.
> --
>
> Regards
> Stephen
Then you have the problem of how do you know the person is homeless? There are
those that pack the dog and the cardboard sign in the car and drive over to
where lots of people go by, and sit there until they've got much more then is
required. Haven't you read the stories about the beggers outside of Wal-mart
making more, and tax free, then the employees on the inside of the Wal-mart?
Why don't you trust your government to KNOW which people are truely needy and
allocate appropriate money to provide enough food for them?
So you see, even the simplicity of giving to the needy can this alternative view
possible. "I'm not qualified to decide which homeless person really needs my
help, so I pay my taxes and count on the experts, which all work for the
government I guess, to do it." So, I suggest you save your $25 and instead give
them a case of soup, and two gallons of water. These things can't really be used
for any purpose other then your intended purpose.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
feet1st wrote:
> Then you have the problem of how do you know the person is homeless?
There's one "disabled vet" who hangs out around a shopping mall near us. He
alternates limps. One day he'll have a bum left leg, the next day a bum
right leg. :-)
On the other hand, when the young couple with the baby point to their car
full to the brim with stuff, I'm pretty sure they're not hanging around the
shopping center because it's profitable.
> Why don't you trust your government to KNOW which people are truely needy and
> allocate appropriate money to provide enough food for them?
You, uh, haven't been reading the news about the US economy lately, have you?
> "I'm not qualified to decide which homeless person really needs my help,
You may not be. I think I am.
> so I pay my taxes and count on the experts, which all work for the
> government I guess, to do it."
No. I usually give to charities that I have found use a majority of the
money to help people.
> So, I suggest you save your $25 and instead give
> them a case of soup, and two gallons of water.
No, I give $25 to Father Joe and let him feed 10 or 15 people a complete dinner.
> These things can't really be used for any purpose other then your intended purpose.
"I didn't give that homeless guy any money, because he'd just spend it on
drugs and alcohol. Then I thought, wait a minute, that's what *I* was going
to spend it on."
How am I supposed to judge what the best use of a homeless person's money
is, if I supposedly can't even figure out if they're homeless?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"feet1st" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.49b991b5e57dbb08a45f86ff0@news.povray.org...
> Then you have the problem of how do you know the person is homeless? There
are
> those that pack the dog and the cardboard sign in the car and drive over
to
> where lots of people go by, and sit there until they've got much more then
is
> required. Haven't you read the stories about the beggers outside of
Wal-mart
> making more, and tax free, then the employees on the inside of the
Wal-mart?
Easy. Only give money to those not asking for it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:50:29 EDT, "feet1st" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
>Then you have the problem of how do you know the person is homeless?
Not a problem.
>There are
>those that pack the dog and the cardboard sign in the car and drive over to
>where lots of people go by, and sit there until they've got much more then is
>required.
Drive home in their Mercs, do they?
>Haven't you read the stories about the beggers outside of Wal-mart
>making more, and tax free, then the employees on the inside of the Wal-mart?
>
Why would I be reading about beggars outside of Wal-mart? There are enough in my
own country
.
>Why don't you trust your government to KNOW which people are truely needy and
>allocate appropriate money to provide enough food for them?
>
Ha! You are joking, aren't you? Do you mean the very same government that tells
the public lies to get their approval to go to war? The same government that
destroys the unions or tries to kick people off invalidly benefit and keeps
pensioners poor?
>So you see, even the simplicity of giving to the needy can this alternative view
>possible. "I'm not qualified to decide which homeless person really needs my
>help, so I pay my taxes and count on the experts, which all work for the
>government I guess, to do it."
Sorry I don't understand what you mean.
> So, I suggest you save your $25 and instead give
>them a case of soup, and two gallons of water. These things can't really be used
>for any purpose other then your intended purpose.
>
What a kind and caring person you sound. Feet first indeed!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:02:13 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>"I didn't give that homeless guy any money, because he'd just spend it on
>drugs and alcohol. Then I thought, wait a minute, that's what *I* was going
>to spend it on."
>
>How am I supposed to judge what the best use of a homeless person's money
>is, if I supposedly can't even figure out if they're homeless?
10 out of 10 :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:50:29 +0100, feet1st <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> Why don't you trust your government to KNOW which people are
> truely needy and allocate appropriate money to provide enough
> food for them?
Why don't you trust your government to KNOW which research projects are
truly worthwhile and allocate appropriate money to provide enough
resources for them?
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
