Author Topic: Folding@Home (Read 8457 times)

Artimus · « **on:** March 30, 2007, 04:53:08 AM »

I am appalled at the systematic wasting of energy that his program has triggered. It's almost offensive it's so blatantly wasteful.

Caliban · « **Reply #1 on:** March 30, 2007, 05:09:14 AM »

SETI@Home is much cooler.

Artimus · « **Reply #2 on:** March 30, 2007, 05:17:45 AM »

What I don't get is that people seem to be confused by how these programs are supposed to go. They're supposed to be used when your system would normally be on but idle. Running your system just to do these programs is basically negating any good they do.

MaryJane · « **Reply #3 on:** March 30, 2007, 05:56:00 AM »

Can those who don't know what you guys are talking about get an explanation? I haven't really been keeping up with PS3 news.

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #4 on:** March 30, 2007, 05:56:18 AM »

won't someone think of the proteins???

vudu · « **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2007, 05:59:44 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: MaryJane
Can those who don't know what you guys are talking about get an explanation? I haven't really been keeping up with PS3 news.

Link.

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #6 on:** March 30, 2007, 06:17:01 AM »

I like how the comments on that site accumulate in a backwards order

Quote
I am appalled at the systematic wasting of energy that his program has triggered. It's almost offensive it's so blatantly wasteful.

Have you crunched the numbers that quantify energy used to research data? Can you post them?

Caliban · « **Reply #7 on:** March 30, 2007, 02:57:07 PM »

I think Folding@Home shouldn't even exist to the public, the pharmaceutical industry generates BILLIONS upon BILLIONS so why don't they buy their own Super Computers to do all their number crunching. I don't get paid to do their job so why should I use my resources for them, if they would give me a cut from their profits that would be a completely different story.

The same with SETI@home, I prefer it, but who the f~ck cares about the aliens, if they exist let them come to us, we need to sort out our planet first, and then we can go kill some aliens.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #8 on:** March 30, 2007, 03:11:57 PM »

WELCOME TO EARF!

King of Twitch · « **Reply #9 on:** March 30, 2007, 03:12:50 PM »

It might be too late by then...

Artimus · « **Reply #10 on:** March 30, 2007, 04:52:21 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-R
I like how the comments on that site accumulate in a backwards order

Quote
I am appalled at the systematic wasting of energy that his program has triggered. It's almost offensive it's so blatantly wasteful.
Have you crunched the numbers that quantify energy used to research data? Can you post them?

Curing cancer is pointless if we're ALL DEAD.

Shift Key · « **Reply #11 on:** April 02, 2007, 10:45:38 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Caliban
I think Folding@Home shouldn't even exist to the public, the pharmaceutical industry generates BILLIONS upon BILLIONS so why don't they buy their own Super Computers to do all their number crunching. I don't get paid to do their job so why should I use my resources for them, if they would give me a cut from their profits that would be a completely different story.

1. Folding@Home is not run by the pharmaceutical industry. Its a project run by Stanford University. If they find anything, they benefit. Not the industry.

2. This isn't a profit driven concept. Its a utilization concept. If your computer is idling, then why not set it to work doing something beneficial? Its not something that is expected to run 24-7 on your computer.

3. It is a research subject, not a "find a cure" search. Research is the fuel that runs universities these days. The project itself has been pretty successful, check out the results and see for yourself.

Got any more complaints about Folding@Home?

Caliban · « **Reply #12 on:** April 03, 2007, 05:05:34 AM »

I know it isn't run by the Pharamceutical industry, but you do know that most of the research done in universities is always bought out by the private sector, and that's why I was saying that why should we help them, besides I don't go to stanford University so why should I help them, they're the ones that reap the benefits, and don't come at me with the bs that we do it all for the benefit of the scientific community and humanity in general because that is just pure utopia considering that they are just as capitalist as any other industry.

UltimatePartyBear · « **Reply #13 on:** April 03, 2007, 05:44:59 AM »

From the official Folding@Home FAQ:

Quote
Who "owns" the results? What will happen to them? Unlike other distributed computing projects, Folding@home is run by an academic institution (specifically the Pande Group, at Stanford University's Chemistry Department), which is a nonprofit institution dedicated to science research and education. We will not sell the data or make any money off of it.

Moreover, we will make the data available for others to use. In particular, the results from Folding@home will be made available on several levels. Most importantly, analysis of the simulations will be submitted to scientific journals for publication, and these journal articles will be posted on the web page after publication. Next, after publication of these scientific articles which analyze the data, the raw data of the folding runs will be available for everyone, including other researchers, here on this web site.

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #14 on:** April 03, 2007, 06:39:41 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: ArtimusCuring cancer is pointless if we're ALL DEAD.

I'm pretty sure you could run every PS3 in the world for a million years and it would probably not kill us.

Have you crunched the numbers that quantify energy used to research data? Can you post them?

Shift Key · « **Reply #15 on:** April 03, 2007, 10:33:16 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Caliban
and don't come at me with the bs that we do it all for the benefit of the scientific community and humanity in general because that is just pure utopia considering that they are just as capitalist as any other industry.

MUST CRUSH CAPITALISM THROUGH ANGST AND IGNORANCE

You're a clown. Ever thought that perhaps there's some semblance of reward from sharing information and resources with other people? Or are you lacking a single selfless bone in your body?

Sure, capitalism isn't going away any time soon (wait until Zombie Che Guevara rises from the dead and sees his face on those shirts that trendy arts students wear when they protest the war, then I believe the story goes that he turns into the Hulk and climbs the Empire State building), but there's a lot of projects out there that are run on the back of volunteers and communities.

Artimus · « **Reply #16 on:** April 03, 2007, 10:44:35 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-R
Quote
Originally posted by: ArtimusCuring cancer is pointless if we're ALL DEAD.

I'm pretty sure you could run every PS3 in the world for a million years and it would probably not kill us.

Have you crunched the numbers that quantify energy used to research data? Can you post them?

Maybe it wouldn't kill us but it would totally deplete all our fuel resources before the advancement of alternative, renewable, fuels and we'd end up back in the pre-industrial age. Which would make modern medicine impossible, thereby negating any possible benefit of curing cancer.

How does one quantify energy used to research data? Can you explain that? Or should I also post a random question that really has no answer and only serves as a convenient way of avoiding discussion...?

And I say this as someone who lost a parent to cancer when he was seven. I just know that people are always going to die of something. I'd rather see humanity as a whole live on before I'd see the people alive right now live longer. Ideally both would be nice, but one thing at a time.

Though it's always nice to ease our middle-class technology driven guilt with something, isn't it? Self deception for the win.

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #17 on:** April 04, 2007, 04:24:55 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
How does one quantify energy used to research data? Can you explain that? Or should I also post a random question that really has no answer and only serves as a convenient way of avoiding discussion...?

You can't, but it sure seemed like what you were trying to do. You have no argument.

PS3 PROCESSES ARE GOING TO DEPLETE ALL OF OUR ENERGY IN THE WORLD!!! WATCH OUT

lain sup · « **Reply #18 on:** April 04, 2007, 04:33:53 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-R
Quote
Originally posted by: ArtimusCuring cancer is pointless if we're ALL DEAD.

I'm pretty sure you could run every PS3 in the world for a million years and it would probably not kill us.

Have you crunched the numbers that quantify energy used to research data? Can you post them?

Maybe it wouldn't kill us but it would totally deplete all our fuel resources before the advancement of alternative, renewable, fuels and we'd end up back in the pre-industrial age. Which would make modern medicine impossible, thereby negating any possible benefit of curing cancer.

How does one quantify energy used to research data? Can you explain that? Or should I also post a random question that really has no answer and only serves as a convenient way of avoiding discussion...?

And I say this as someone who lost a parent to cancer when he was seven. I just know that people are always going to die of something. I'd rather see humanity as a whole live on before I'd see the people alive right now live longer. Ideally both would be nice, but one thing at a time.

Though it's always nice to ease our middle-class technology driven guilt with something, isn't it? Self deception for the win.

I just want you to know the ignorance and stupidity laced throughout this post urged me to register just to call you a moron.

Artimus · « **Reply #19 on:** April 04, 2007, 09:55:08 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-R
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
How does one quantify energy used to research data? Can you explain that? Or should I also post a random question that really has no answer and only serves as a convenient way of avoiding discussion...?

You can't, but it sure seemed like what you were trying to do. You have no argument.

PS3 PROCESSES ARE GOING TO DEPLETE ALL OF OUR ENERGY IN THE WORLD!!! WATCH OUT

My argument is that leaving a PS3 on 24 hours a day to run folding@home is counter-beneficial. Running the program when the system is normally idle makes perfect sense. But wasting energy by leaving it on 24 hours a day isn't doing anyone any good either. That's an argument, whether you're able to discuss it or not.

People who do leave it on 24 hours a day simply feel the opposite of how I do. They believe it is worth it. I disagree. If I have no argument then they don't either. Therefore, by your logic, it is impossible to determine if Folding@Home does any good at all. Though we do know that it uses energy. A lot. That is for certain. We don't know, however, whether it will or will not cure cancer. If anything, not running your system 24 hours is known to do less damage than running it is known to do good.

vudu · « **Reply #20 on:** April 04, 2007, 10:35:48 AM »

I think Ty's argument is that you can't quite put a price on the results that this research could lead to. However, you seem to have when you said that by leaving your system on you're offsetting any good you do. According to you, these results are worth less than 8.49 cents/kWh. Go figure.

Artimus · « **Reply #21 on:** April 04, 2007, 12:20:03 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
I think Ty's argument is that you can't quite put a price on the results that this research could lead to. However, you seem to have when you said that by leaving your system on you're offsetting any good you do. According to you, these results are worth less than 8.49 cents/kWh. Go figure.

It's not a cost issue. If it was only a matter of paying 9 cents an hour to cure cancer, that would be fine. But that's not really the point?

It seems to me that if people were serious about doing good they'd do Folding, sure, but offset it by decreasing energy usage elsewhere or something.

Caliban · « **Reply #22 on:** April 04, 2007, 05:08:52 PM »

MUST CRUSH CAPITALISM THROUGH ANGST AND IGNORANCE

I'm not against capitalism. Nor in favour of it.

You're a clown.

Pfft.

Ever thought that perhaps there's some semblance of reward from sharing information and resources with other people? Or are you lacking a single selfless bone in your body?

More than you can imagine.

Sure, capitalism isn't going away any time soon (wait until Zombie Che Guevara rises from the dead and sees his face on those shirts that trendy arts students wear when they protest the war, then I believe the story goes that he turns into the Hulk and climbs the Empire State building), but there's a lot of projects out there that are run on the back of volunteers and communities.

B-u-t-t-e-r-.

Kairon · « **Reply #23 on:** April 04, 2007, 05:21:59 PM »

Come come, those proteins are going to be folded one way or another, and this way, low-funded charitable human-benefit programs don't foot the bill, socially-minded, big-picture consumer volunteers do.. and they feel good about it!

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Shift Key · « **Reply #24 on:** April 04, 2007, 06:30:02 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Caliban
Pfft.

I quiver at the quality of this response. Especially after you start off with:

Quote
SETI@Home is much cooler.

which in itself is a great example of wasted research.

News:

Author Topic: Folding@Home (Read 8457 times)