http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/about_us/viewAboutUs.do

http://www.one.org/

If you have any spare core(s)/CPU(s) please help to help, is for 
Humanity sake, thank you.

Post a reply to this message

Forgot this link http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/index.jsp

Cheers.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/8/2009 11:18 AM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/about_us/viewAboutUs.do
>
> http://www.one.org/
>
> If you have any spare core(s)/CPU(s) please help to help, is for
> Humanity sake, thank you.

When I have spare cores/CPUs, I power them down.  Once I get my roof 
coated in solar cells, with a windfarm behind my house, and I'm selling 
power back to the grid despite running everything 24/7, THEN I'll 
consider giving away my CPU time.

As it is, my power bill is too expensive :(

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> As it is, my power bill is too expensive :(

My mum is always complaining at me about my PC using too much power.

...on the other hand, my PC uses a *maximum* of 650W. It cannot use any 
more power than that. Most of the time, it uses more like 100W. So, 
about as much as a single light bulb. You wanna guess how many light 
bulbs there are in this house??

And let us not forget, running the kettle uses THREE THOUSAND FIVE 
HUNDRED WATTS. So, at much as 35 light bulbs. I am unable to measure the 
electric shower (since it's hard-wired), but I anticipate a similar 
value. The kettle, the toaster, the washing machine, the tumble drier... 
all use at least ten times the piffling amount my PC uses.

(I played CSS for 2 hours straight, and that used 0.17 kWh. But running 
the washing machine for a normal cycle used twice that. And the 
dishwasher used three and a half times more again.)

Seriously. A PC is not a real high-power device. If you want to lower 
your bills, look for anything that makes stuff hot. (Lighting, heating, 
washing, etc.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/about_us/viewAboutUs.do
> 
> http://www.one.org/
> 
> If you have any spare core(s)/CPU(s) please help to help, is for
> Humanity sake, thank you.

I run a dozen other BOINC-based projects, and contribute to its code :)

Post a reply to this message

On 8-3-2009 22:45, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> 
>> As it is, my power bill is too expensive :(
> 
> My mum is always complaining at me about my PC using too much power.
> 
> ...on the other hand, my PC uses a *maximum* of 650W. It cannot use any 
> more power than that. Most of the time, it uses more like 100W. So, 
> about as much as a single light bulb. You wanna guess how many light 
> bulbs there are in this house??
> 
> And let us not forget, running the kettle uses THREE THOUSAND FIVE 
> HUNDRED WATTS. So, at much as 35 light bulbs. I am unable to measure the 
> electric shower (since it's hard-wired), but I anticipate a similar 
> value. The kettle, the toaster, the washing machine, the tumble drier... 
> all use at least ten times the piffling amount my PC uses.
> 
> (I played CSS for 2 hours straight, and that used 0.17 kWh. But running 
> the washing machine for a normal cycle used twice that. And the 
> dishwasher used three and a half times more again.)
> 
> Seriously. A PC is not a real high-power device. If you want to lower 
> your bills, look for anything that makes stuff hot. (Lighting, heating, 
> washing, etc.)

Are you cooking electric? How do you heat your house?

Anyway, there is this problem that your PC may be on for periods much 
longer that the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/about_us/viewAboutUs.do
>
> http://www.one.org/
>
> If you have any spare core(s)/CPU(s) please help to help, is for
> Humanity sake, thank you.

I was encouraged to install this app on my workplace box-- a laptop-- by my
employer. I have to put my laptop into standby mode about a half times a day.
I found that the WCG system never woke up from the coma after these standby's.
 I eventually un-installed it.

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49b439a8$1@news.povray.org...
> On 3/8/2009 11:18 AM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> > http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/about_us/viewAboutUs.do

> > http://www.one.org/
> >
> > If you have any spare core(s)/CPU(s) please help to help, is for
> > Humanity sake, thank you.
>
> When I have spare cores/CPUs, I power them down.  Once I get my roof
> coated in solar cells, with a windfarm behind my house, and I'm selling
> power back to the grid despite running everything 24/7, THEN I'll
> consider giving away my CPU time.
>
> As it is, my power bill is too expensive :(

I wonder about the efficiency of distributed computing anyway. Sure, the
cost is transfered from the researcher onto the public, so it's good for
them, but considering the big picture, wouldn't it be more efficient to use
one supercomputer in a controlled hardware and software environment than
hundereds of thousands of motley PCs and the bandwidth, crosschecking,
software, hosting... etc? You can put a dozen CPUs and memory chips on a
rack mount motherboard with optimized high speed buses and you have the
computing power of more than a three dozen random PCs, at a fraction of the
energy expenditure, with the silly one motherboard per PC architecture,
unnecessary HDs, video cards, other cards and peripherals.

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.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> 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.

I saw one scientist who said he stopped renting time on Cray computers and 
bought 8 videogame computers (PS3s? The one with the "cell" cores) to do his 
computing, and he got better performance than the thousands-per-month he was 
spending on mainframe supercomputing.

-- 
   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

Darren New wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I saw one scientist who said he stopped renting time on Cray computers and
> bought 8 videogame computers (PS3s? The one with the "cell" cores) to do
> his computing, and he got better performance than the thousands-per-month
> he was spending on mainframe supercomputing.

I was once able render POV-Ray animations on a thousand computers using the
same software World Community Grid uses. Without paying anything more than
electricity and Internet for my own PC. If the cost of electricity for
those computers was stupidly high, *I don't care*, I wasn't paying it :D

And either way, 99% of the people who joined my POV-Ray'ing project were
already doing distributed computing, so if I hadn't done that, they would
have used the same amount of electricity; computing something else.

PS: yes, it's PS3s that have Cell processors.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/8/2009 4:25 PM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> I was once able render POV-Ray animations on a thousand computers using the
> same software World Community Grid uses.

I remember you talking about that before; how did it go?

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> On 3/8/2009 4:25 PM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> I was once able render POV-Ray animations on a thousand computers using
>> the same software World Community Grid uses.
> 
> I remember you talking about that before; how did it go?

Went great; then I lost the time, motivation, and free hosting.

Some day, when I don't have so many things going at once, I may resurrect
it, starting from POV3.7 code and/or MCpov.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> ...on the other hand, my PC uses a *maximum* of 650W. It cannot use any
> more power than that. Most of the time, it uses more like 100W. So,
> about as much as a single light bulb. You wanna guess how many light
> bulbs there are in this house??

	Switch to compact fluorescents. A 26W one should provide as much light
as a 100W one.

> And let us not forget, running the kettle uses THREE THOUSAND FIVE
> HUNDRED WATTS. So, at much as 35 light bulbs. I am unable to measure the

	Yes, but the kettle is on for a few minutes.

> Seriously. A PC is not a real high-power device. If you want to lower
> your bills, look for anything that makes stuff hot. (Lighting, heating,
> washing, etc.)

	True - a PC is usually not the first place to reduce energy consumption.

-- 
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

> Switch to compact fluorescents. A 26W one should provide as much light
> as a 100W one.

LEDs are the way forward, they are more efficient (and getting more 
efficient the whole time) and more environmentally friendly (they don't 
contain mercury) and fix almost all of the disadvantages CFLs have.  Just 
wait...

Post a reply to this message

>> Switch to compact fluorescents. A 26W one should provide as much light
>> as a 100W one.
> 
> LEDs are the way forward, they are more efficient (and getting more 
> efficient the whole time) and more environmentally friendly (they don't 
> contain mercury) and fix almost all of the disadvantages CFLs have.  
> Just wait...

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...

LEDs are indeed efficient, but the main problems currently seem to be 
making "white" light with them, and illuminating large areas.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> Are you cooking electric? How do you heat your house?

Both of those are gas.

The microwave oven, however, is electronic. I haven't measured it, but 
it's rated at 900W. (I have no idea whether that means it uses 900W of 
juice, or just that it produces 900W of microwave energy.)

> Anyway, there is this problem that your PC may be on for periods much 
> longer that the washing machine.

Like I said, playing CSS (which you're presume is a reasonably intensive 
task) for 2 hours solid used a fraction of one kWh. I don't know what it 
uses if I run the computer for an entire day (presumably it varies by 
the task I set it to do), but I imagine running the washing machine 
several times per day - or accidentally leaving the lights on - uses far 
more power.

Post a reply to this message

> 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...

Yup, and not having studied them carefully, I hear they make a slight 
buzzing noise which can be annoying in a quiet room (eg while trying to 
read).

> LEDs are indeed efficient, but the main problems currently seem to be 
> making "white" light with them,

There's no problem with making white light, the most efficient way is just 
to put a mixture of different coloured LEDs in one "lamp" to give whatever 
white temperature you want.  The other way is to put a yellow phosphor 
infront of a blue LED, but that's not as efficient electrically (it means 
you can get white from a single LED though).

> and illuminating large areas.

The biggest problem is keeping the LED temperature low enough during use, 
the designs I've seen have been mainly heat sink, but they seem to have 
overcome that for 60W and 100W equivalent bulbs:

http://www.metaefficient.com/leds/led-light-bulbs.html

Post a reply to this message

scott 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...
> 
> Yup, and not having studied them carefully, I hear they make a slight 
> buzzing noise which can be annoying in a quiet room (eg while trying to 
> read).

I haven't found that to be a problem yet.

The main problem for me is that they're just not bright enough. I 
actually can't tell what colour my clothes are in the morning because I 
don't have 20 minutes to stand there waiting for the thing to get bright.

>> LEDs are indeed efficient, but the main problems currently seem to be 
>> making "white" light with them,
> 
> There's no problem with making white light, the most efficient way is 
> just to put a mixture of different coloured LEDs in one "lamp" to give 
> whatever white temperature you want.  The other way is to put a yellow 
> phosphor infront of a blue LED, but that's not as efficient electrically 
> (it means you can get white from a single LED though).

OK, I rephrase: I personally have yet to see a "white" LED that wasn't 
actually pale blue.

>> and illuminating large areas.
> 
> The biggest problem is keeping the LED temperature low enough during 
> use, the designs I've seen have been mainly heat sink, but they seem to 
> have overcome that for 60W and 100W equivalent bulbs:
> 
> http://www.metaefficient.com/leds/led-light-bulbs.html

Well, I'm sure the technology won't stand still. IIRC, my dad has some 
small LED ligth fittings illuminating the stairs. But they're not very 
bright. (Despite containing about a dozen LEDs each.)

Post a reply to this message

> OK, I rephrase: I personally have yet to see a "white" LED that wasn't 
> actually pale blue.

That's because you're used to "normal" light bulbs that are very very yellow 
(just try taking a photo indoors with the camera on "outdoor" setting and 
you'll see what I mean).  It's not that LED manufacturers can't make this 
colour, it's just there is no demand for it (backlights for LCDs need a much 
bluer white than normal light bulbs).  If you want to make a yellower colour 
yourself then you can make your own yellow phosphor to put on a blue LED, or 
just place some yellow LEDs around the white ones :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> OK, I rephrase: I personally have yet to see a "white" LED that wasn't 
>> actually pale blue.
> 
> That's because you're used to "normal" light bulbs that are very very 
> yellow.

How about sunlight? Is that yellow too? (I mean, by the time it reaches 
the ground.)

> It's not that LED manufacturers 
> can't make this colour, it's just there is no demand for it (backlights 
> for LCDs need a much bluer white than normal light bulbs).  If you want 
> to make a yellower colour yourself then you can make your own yellow 
> phosphor to put on a blue LED, or just place some yellow LEDs around the 
> white ones :-)

Heh. The trouble is the light in my room ("energy saving bulb") gives 
off such a pinky yellowy colour that I can't actually tell whether an 
item of clothing is blue or black. :-P

Post a reply to this message

> How about sunlight? Is that yellow too? (I mean, by the time it reaches 
> the ground.)

It's really difficult to say, as everything to do with "white" is relative 
and your brain does a really good job of filtering out changes in white 
balance of your environment.

Here's a chart I found detailing the sunlight spectrum:

http://org.ntnu.no/solarcells/pics/chap2/Solar_Spectrum.png

You tell me if that's "yellow" or not :-)

> Heh. The trouble is the light in my room ("energy saving bulb") gives off 
> such a pinky yellowy colour that I can't actually tell whether an item of 
> clothing is blue or black. :-P

That's not so much to do with the absolute colour of the white light, but 
with the spectrum.  If you have two monochromatic light sources from a 
yellowy-red laser and a blue laser you can make white light.  THe problem is 
when you try to illuminate something with that white light, the only thing 
you will see is how well the object reflects those particular two laser 
wavelengths.  On the other hand, white light from a black body gives you a 
much better impression of the "colour" of an object because it consists of 
visible light from all wavelengths.  There's a thing called "colour 
rendering index" (CRI) that describes this quality of white light.

Post a reply to this message

"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:49b40bc4$1@news.povray.org...
> http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/about_us/viewAboutUs.do
>
> http://www.one.org/
>
> If you have any spare core(s)/CPU(s) please help to help, is for
> Humanity sake, thank you.

"Humanity's sake" is all nice and good, but if these grid projects are to
achive better success, they should consider some minimal payment, to
compensate for energy usage at least. Nothing is free, and in the end, that
anti cancer drug you help discover (albeit in an extremely minor way) will
be sold to you at hundereds or thousands of dollars a pop if and when you
need it. An alternative is to make such research and end products public
domain and patent free.

Post a reply to this message

If the concern is really over electricity usage, consider that a supercomputer
center is always climate controlled, year-round. Whereas leaving my home
computer powered on (with monitor off) 24hrs a day is helping reduce my usage
of propane to heat my home during the winter months. All while helping
scientists learn how they will cure me of cancer when I reach that stage in
life.

To build a supercomputer center requires many years, and committees, and who
decides what runs on it? And who will fund the construction? Who funds the
ongoing operations? What does the machine do when it would otherwise be idle?
Sometimes all the bureaucracy that surrounds such projects gets in the way of
good fundamental science.

Learn more about Rosetta@home. Helping do the research with my home computer is
something that can be done today. No need for a government approval or
committee meeting. I've got it running right now, in the idle time between
keystrokes. The cost of the power used by a computer is minimal compared to the
cost of trying to treat someone with cancer using today's methods. Think of it
as an insurance policy. Or a savings plan with compound interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzATbET3g54
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta

Post a reply to this message

> "Humanity's sake" is all nice and good, but if these grid projects are to
> achive better success, they should consider some minimal payment, to
> compensate for energy usage at least. Nothing is free, and in the end, that
> anti cancer drug you help discover (albeit in an extremely minor way) will
> be sold to you at hundereds or thousands of dollars a pop if and when you
> need it. An alternative is to make such research and end products public
> domain and patent free.


Many of the projects are not-for-profit reserach organizations. And would you
rather have a cure available?? Or not? Keep in mind, the current approach of
cutting someone open and removing the offending parts is very expensive,
painful and risky to the patient. Overall, when a better method is discovered,
it will probably cost LESS to treat the patient then the current approaches.
And this will make the insurance costs for everyone begin to decrease over
time.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > OK, I rephrase: I personally have yet to see a "white" LED that wasn't 
> > actually pale blue.

> That's because you're used to "normal" light bulbs that are very very yellow 
> (just try taking a photo indoors with the camera on "outdoor" setting and 
> you'll see what I mean).  It's not that LED manufacturers can't make this 
> colour, it's just there is no demand for it (backlights for LCDs need a much 
> bluer white than normal light bulbs).  If you want to make a yellower colour 
> yourself then you can make your own yellow phosphor to put on a blue LED, or 
> just place some yellow LEDs around the white ones :-)

  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. Everything lighted by them
will look pale and colorless because the led is simply not emitting light
at almost any frequency (only very narrow peaks in the frequency spectrum
here and there).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> The microwave oven, however, is electronic. I haven't measured it, but 
> it's rated at 900W. (I have no idea whether that means it uses 900W of 
> juice, or just that it produces 900W of microwave energy.)

Conservation of energy would dictate that it would take at least 900W of 
electricity to make 900W of microwave power.

At 240 volts, that's only ~4amps Obviously there are losses so it takes 
more power to create the radio waves. Try hooking 2 microwaves to the 
same breaker, and see how long before it pops. (Assuming your breakers 
are 5A or 7.5A (rather than 15A like they are here, if they're 15A like 
here, it'll take a couple more microwave ovens.) But, still, much less 
than an electric stove.

>> Anyway, there is this problem that your PC may be on for periods much 
>> longer that the washing machine.
> 
> Like I said, playing CSS (which you're presume is a reasonably intensive 
> task) for 2 hours solid used a fraction of one kWh. I don't know what it 
> uses if I run the computer for an entire day (presumably it varies by 
> the task I set it to do), but I imagine running the washing machine 
> several times per day - or accidentally leaving the lights on - uses far 
> more power.

I need to get one of those current meters and see how much power things 
draw.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> LEDs are indeed efficient, but the main problems currently seem to be 
> making "white" light with them, and illuminating large areas.

I think the main problem is they last *way* too long, and until 
manufacturers can figure out how to make them burn out frequently so you 
have to replace them, they'll have all kinds of problems keeping them from 
coming to mass market.

-- 
   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 wrote:
> Many of the projects are not-for-profit reserach organizations. 

And the researchers there work without salary?

> And would you rather have a cure available?? Or not? 

And the cure, when found, will be distributed free of charge?

-- 
   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

gregjohn wrote:
> I was encouraged to install this app on my workplace box-- a laptop-- by my
> employer. I have to put my laptop into standby mode about a half times a day.
> I found that the WCG system never woke up from the coma after these standby's.
>  I eventually un-installed it.

The client has been improved in several ways, please try again, you 
would be DIRECTLY helping research cures/treatment for diseases.

Thank you.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> I think the main problem is they last *way* too long, and until 
> manufacturers can figure out how to make them burn out frequently so you 
> have to replace them, they'll have all kinds of problems keeping them 
> from coming to mass market.

Mmm, cynical, *much*? :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Humanity's sake" is all nice and good, but if these grid projects are to
> achive better success, they should consider some minimal payment, to
> compensate for energy usage at least. Nothing is free, and in the end, that
> anti cancer drug you help discover (albeit in an extremely minor way) will
> be sold to you at hundereds or thousands of dollars a pop if and when you
> need it. An alternative is to make such research and end products public
> domain and patent free.

If you had ever visited the WCG web, you wouldn't be posting this. You 
post out of ignorance.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:56:59 +0100, scott wrote:

> LEDs are the way forward, they are more efficient (and getting more
> efficient the whole time) and more environmentally friendly (they don't
> contain mercury) and fix almost all of the disadvantages CFLs have. 
> Just wait...

Waiting....so far the LED bulbs that I've seen have underwhelmed in terms 
of output.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:08:34 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> I think the main problem is they last *way* too long, and until
>> manufacturers can figure out how to make them burn out frequently so
>> you have to replace them, they'll have all kinds of problems keeping
>> them from coming to mass market.
> 
> Mmm, cynical, *much*? :-D

It's a real problem in product marketing - if a product works too well 
(whatever it is, a light bulb, a car, an operating system), people aren't 
pushed to replace it or upgrade it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's a real problem in product marketing - if a product works too well 
> (whatever it is, a light bulb, a car, an operating system), people aren't 
> pushed to replace it or upgrade it.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing, when you're talking a $70K automobile, 
for example. But when your competition costs $1, charging $15 for a 
lightbulb that lasts 50x as long just doesn't work.

It's the same problem with boots as Terry Pratchette describes.

-- 
   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

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> LEDs are indeed efficient, but the main problems currently seem to be 
>> making "white" light with them, and illuminating large areas.
> 
> I think the main problem is they last *way* too long, and until 
> manufacturers can figure out how to make them burn out frequently so you 
> have to replace them, they'll have all kinds of problems keeping them 
> from coming to mass market.
> 

That's simple. Overdrive them ever so slightly. They'll eventually die 
off. When enough of the LEDs in the fixture die, people will buy more.

Although, I'm more for a light that lasts for a very long time. Less 
crap in the landfill is always a good thing. Too bad we can't adjust 
society to one where money is not the central element.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:34:02 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's a real problem in product marketing - if a product works too well
>> (whatever it is, a light bulb, a car, an operating system), people
>> aren't pushed to replace it or upgrade it.
> 
> That isn't necessarily a bad thing, when you're talking a $70K
> automobile, for example. But when your competition costs $1, charging
> $15 for a lightbulb that lasts 50x as long just doesn't work.
> 
> It's the same problem with boots as Terry Pratchette describes.

Yep, agreed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> feet1st wrote:
>> Many of the projects are not-for-profit reserach organizations. 
> 
> And the researchers there work without salary?
> 
>> And would you rather have a cure available?? Or not? 
> 
> And the cure, when found, will be distributed free of charge?
> 
You can find all the answers for these questions and more in the link I 
have provided, please visit them.

Thank you.

Post a reply to this message

On 9-3-2009 10:37, Invisible wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> Are you cooking electric? How do you heat your house?
> 
> Both of those are gas.

just asking. I think I heard that in the UK many cook electric.
> 
> The microwave oven, however, is electronic. I haven't measured it, but 
> it's rated at 900W. (I have no idea whether that means it uses 900W of 
> juice, or just that it produces 900W of microwave energy.)
> 
>> Anyway, there is this problem that your PC may be on for periods much 
>> longer that the washing machine.
> 
> Like I said, playing CSS (which you're presume is a reasonably intensive 
> task) for 2 hours solid used a fraction of one kWh. I don't know what it 
> uses if I run the computer for an entire day (presumably it varies by 
> the task I set it to do), 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.

> - or accidentally leaving the lights on -

Depends on the lights.

> uses far  more power.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> You can find all the answers for these questions and more in the link I 
> have provided, please visit them.

Fail.

As best as I can tell, the answer is "No" and "No." Had the "completed 
research" links actually pointed to the completed research, I might have 
thought it was worthwhile.

-- 
   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

>>> Are you cooking electric? How do you heat your house?
>>
>> Both of those are gas.
> 
> just asking. I think I heard that in the UK many cook electric.

Sure. I know people who do have electric heating and cooking. It's just 
that our particular house doesn't.

>> imagine running the washing machine several times per day 
> 
> Why would you do that? We do on average one wash a week, I think.

Because by the time the weekend arrives, there's quite a lot of clothing 
to wash.

>> - or accidentally leaving the lights on -
> 
> Depends on the lights.

Well, our front room has a light fitting that contains five 100W bulbs. 
This, I presume, uses 500W of power.

(It's also seriously difficult to change the bulbs, BTW. I hate that 
light fitting so much!)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 9-3-2009 19:09, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> "Humanity's sake" is all nice and good, but if these grid projects are to
>> achive better success, they should consider some minimal payment, to
>> compensate for energy usage at least. Nothing is free, and in the end, 
>> that
>> anti cancer drug you help discover (albeit in an extremely minor way) 
>> will
>> be sold to you at hundereds or thousands of dollars a pop if and when you
>> need it. An alternative is to make such research and end products public
>> domain and patent free.
> 
> If you had ever visited the WCG web, you wouldn't be posting this. You 
> post out of ignorance.
I am not a world class expert in inter-human communication, but I think 
that last remark may not be totally compatible with a civilized exchange 
of ideas.  As such it may not be effective in convincing people that you 
are promoting humanity.

Is there something going on in the climate or something, I have seen 
more apparently irritated comments by people that are normally as 
friendly as anything recently. Trying to remember my most recent 
communications, did I also cross that line?...

Post a reply to this message

"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:49b55b2a$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > be sold to you at hundereds or thousands of dollars a pop if and when
you
> > need it. An alternative is to make such research and end products public
> > domain and patent free.

> If you had ever visited the WCG web, you wouldn't be posting this. You
> post out of ignorance.

Fair enough, my mistake. I did miss the "all results will be in the public
domain" part.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> You can find all the answers for these questions and more in the link 
>> I have provided, please visit them.
> 
> Fail.
> 
> As best as I can tell, the answer is "No" and "No." Had the "completed 
> research" links actually pointed to the completed research, I might have 
> thought it was worthwhile.

Oh, I see. It does promise to make results public domain. Actually saying 
that might have helped, since they don't actually have a search feature on 
their site, for example. :-)  I didn't think it was worth the time roaming 
thru an entire web site looking for a question that might not have been 
answered, just so I can give *them* some money.

Just a hint, tho?  When you're asking someone to do something nice and 
selfless for you, it's usually a good idea not to be obnoxious about 
answering the question "Why should I?"  :-)

-- 
   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:
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> news:49b439a8$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 3/8/2009 11:18 AM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/about_us/viewAboutUs.do
> 
>>> http://www.one.org/
>>>
>>> If you have any spare core(s)/CPU(s) please help to help, is for
>>> Humanity sake, thank you.
>> When I have spare cores/CPUs, I power them down.  Once I get my roof
>> coated in solar cells, with a windfarm behind my house, and I'm selling
>> power back to the grid despite running everything 24/7, THEN I'll
>> consider giving away my CPU time.
>>
>> As it is, my power bill is too expensive :(
> 
> I wonder about the efficiency of distributed computing anyway. Sure, the
> cost is transfered from the researcher onto the public, so it's good for
> them, but considering the big picture, wouldn't it be more efficient to use
> one supercomputer in a controlled hardware and software environment than
> hundereds of thousands of motley PCs and the bandwidth, crosschecking,
> software, hosting... etc? You can put a dozen CPUs and memory chips on a
> rack mount motherboard with optimized high speed buses and you have the
> computing power of more than a three dozen random PCs, at a fraction of the
> energy expenditure, with the silly one motherboard per PC architecture,
> unnecessary HDs, video cards, other cards and peripherals.
> 
> 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.

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 
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.

Post a reply to this message

Most of those PCs resources get wasted anyway since most of them don't 
use them to 100% capacity, while you do a spreadsheet, word processor, 
web browsing, listening music (.mp3, .mp4, etc.), watching a movie (a 
DVD and Xvid/DivX movies are GPU accelerated), etc. The project client 
runs in third plane, no getting in the way at all, and does actual 
scientific Lab. testing using spare resources.

  I always wanted to help in disease research, help those guys in the 
Lab making test after test after test, but I wouldn't wanna actually be 
a Lab guy since I don't like Biology/Biochimestry much, but is so 
necessary for Humanity, many people would also wonder "How can I help to 
research and speed up cures/treatment for this millions of people sick?. 
Nothing... so I'll do just that". Now that answer has changed, you can 
do A LOT.

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)

My PC:
09/03/2009 06:11:22 p.m.||Running CPU benchmarks
09/03/2009 06:11:53 p.m.||Benchmark results:
09/03/2009 06:11:53 p.m.||   Number of CPUs: 2
09/03/2009 06:11:53 p.m.||   1256 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
09/03/2009 06:11:53 p.m.||   2251 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU


Active Research:
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/newsletter/08Q2/viewProjects.do


Featured on ibm.com describing how World Community Grid works:
http://www.ibm.com/podcasts/howitworks/021307/index.html

PDF Overview and Podcast Transcript: 
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/bg/HIW_02132007.pdf


World Community Grid is 4 years old: 'I Dedicate' – World Community Grid 
Members Video Montage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rfFFnZ-RmI&eurl=http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/newsletter/video/viewIDedicate.do?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaigniurl=http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/6rfFFnZ-RmI/hqdefault.jpg
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/newsletter/video/viewIDedicate.do?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=montage


How Grid Computing Works:
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/about_us/viewGridComputingBasics.do


Sign up for the 3-part education newsletter today:  If you would like to 
know more about World Community Grid before you join
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/wb/viewInfoSignup.do?utm_source=sidebar&utm_medium=top&utm_campaign=winback


Welcome to the World Community Grid News & Media Repository:
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/newsletter/viewNewsletterMain.do

Post a reply to this message

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...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> You can find all the answers for these questions and more in the link 
>>> I have provided, please visit them.
>>
>> Fail.
>>
>> As best as I can tell, the answer is "No" and "No." Had the "completed 
>> research" links actually pointed to the completed research, I might 
>> have thought it was worthwhile.
> 
> Oh, I see. It does promise to make results public domain. Actually 
> saying that might have helped, since they don't actually have a search 
> feature on their site, for example. :-)  I didn't think it was worth the 
> time roaming thru an entire web site looking for a question that might 
> not have been answered, just so I can give *them* some money.
> 
> Just a hint, tho?  When you're asking someone to do something nice and 
> selfless for you, it's usually a good idea not to be obnoxious about 
> answering the question "Why should I?"  :-)
> 
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

Any way... if you check my last self-post DETAILS any info you might 
require.

I'm not trying to be obnoxious, the first post and the first self-post 
shows clearly what WCG is and how to download the client. I'm not saying 
your questions are not valid or anyone asking about it, is just that I 
thought since most is in the website and the res on the forums, well...

If I was I'm sorry, wasn't my intention at all, point taken though, thx.

:-)

Post a reply to this message

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...

Post a reply to this message

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...

  He is referring to your attitude.

  You want people to help. You are not going to get that help if you begin
insulting people when they ask questions.

  So what if the questions seem selfish to you. Do you want people to help
or not? If yes, then answer those questions appropriately rather than
starting to insult people and accuse them of whatever you think they are
doing wrong.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message