OK I was an old seti user and it was cool then i stopped i was letting s@h run on all my servers but i set up diffrent accounts on each of them (very messy if your a credit watcher) but after spending over a 250 K on all new servers i just never seemed to get it back on, but i just went and grabbed IT again for a dedicated seti server, WOW was i suprised when i got this boinc thing, yeah it took a few minutes to figure it out but its not bad(I LOVE THE NEW SETUP FOR NETWORK SERVES), Heres my point I DIDNT START FOR THE GLORY OF CREDITS OR IF DID MORE THAN SOMEONE ELSE, ITS ABOUT US ALL OF US AS PEOPLE TRYING TO BETTER OURSELVES AND OUR WORLD BY WORKING TOGETHER, THE SELFLESS ACT THAT S@H ASKED IN THE BEGINING IS WHAT THEIR ASKING NOW, I HOPE ALL THE SELFISH CRYBABY'S DO QUIT THEN MORE MATURE PEOPLE CAN HELP THIS NEW PROGRAM GROW RATHER THAN WASTING PEOPLES TIME WITH THEIR BS. GO BOINC THE WORLD NEEDS MORE GEEKS AND LESS NO IT ALL WHINERS!!!!!

---

Hear Hear

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

First a little advice, try to stop shouting. People will be more impressed by the strength of you argument if you try to stay calm and avoid insults.

Second, it doesn't matter why people run s@h as long as they do. If people want glory - so what? If people want to better themselves - fine! The point is both points of view result in units being processed and that's got to be good.

My view is that if more units get processed by indulging peoples competetive spirit then that's OK.

I think the people at SETI have missed out on opportunity here by reducing the competive element and if that means fewer units processed then that's got to be bad.

Obviously some people feel proud to have been involved for such a long time and processed many thousands of units - nothing wrong with that - and naturally feel agrieved if their efforts are no longer being counted in the overall scheme of things. The point I am making is that people come to SETI with different agendas but all agendas should be encouraged for the overall success of s@h. :-)

---

First a little advice, try to stop shouting. People will be more impressed by the strength of you argument if you try to stay calm and avoid insults.

Second, it doesn't matter why people run s@h as long as they do. If people want glory - so what? If people want to better themselves - fine! The point is both points of view result in units being processed and that's got to be good.

My view is that if more units get processed by indulging peoples competetive spirit then that's OK.

I think the people at SETI have missed out on opportunity here by reducing the competive element and if that means fewer units processed then that's got to be bad.

Obviously some people feel proud to have been involved for such a long time and processed many thousands of units - nothing wrong with that - and naturally feel agrieved if their efforts are no longer being counted in the overall scheme of things. The point I am making is that people come to SETI with different agendas but all agendas should be encouraged for the overall success of s@h. :-)

This is your opinion and I respect that you have one but I dont aggree, after pouring threw messages for over 8 hours I was discusted with what I was reading so I vented a little I guess its OK for others to totaly rip on this project but i cant have my opinion getting a lecture rather than the simple reply of

My view is that if more units get processed by indulging peoples competetive spirit then that's OK.

I think the people at SETI have missed out on opportunity here by reducing the competive element and if that means fewer units processed then that's got to be bad.

Obviously some people feel proud to have been involved for such a long time and processed many thousands of units - nothing wrong with that - and naturally feel agrieved if their efforts are no longer being counted in the overall scheme of things. The point I am making is that people come to SETI with different agendas but all agendas should be encouraged for the overall success

wicth is how it would of been had you followed your own advice. Yes compitition has its place but it also has a down side and that is that it is corruptable people sometimes cheat to get ahead, however with cooperation ther is less chance of this happening there is little to no encintive to cheat, science is supposed to be cooperative not competetive for that reason to get accurate answers and not just answers I'm sorry you disagree with me but I think s@h users should try to be like this, as far as shouting me and caps lock and spelling just dont get along so I usually just clean it up a little so it doesnt look so bad

---

Hear Hear

Thanx bro, cool pics, KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK

---

First a little advice, try to stop shouting. People will be more impressed by the strength of you argument if you try to stay calm and avoid insults.

Second, it doesn't matter why people run s@h as long as they do. If people want glory - so what? If people want to better themselves - fine! The point is both points of view result in units being processed and that's got to be good.

My view is that if more units get processed by indulging peoples competetive spirit then that's OK.

I think the people at SETI have missed out on opportunity here by reducing the competive element and if that means fewer units processed then that's got to be bad.

Obviously some people feel proud to have been involved for such a long time and processed many thousands of units - nothing wrong with that - and naturally feel agrieved if their efforts are no longer being counted in the overall scheme of things. The point I am making is that people come to SETI with different agendas but all agendas should be encouraged for the overall success of s@h. :-)

This is your opinion and I respect that you have one but I dont aggree, after pouring threw messages for over 8 hours I was discusted with what I was reading so I vented a little I guess its OK for others to totaly rip on this project but i cant have my opinion getting a lecture rather than the simple reply of

My view is that if more units get processed by indulging peoples competetive spirit then that's OK.

I think the people at SETI have missed out on opportunity here by reducing the competive element and if that means fewer units processed then that's got to be bad.

Obviously some people feel proud to have been involved for such a long time and processed many thousands of units - nothing wrong with that - and naturally feel agrieved if their efforts are no longer being counted in the overall scheme of things. The point I am making is that people come to SETI with different agendas but all agendas should be encouraged for the overall success

wicth is how it would of been had you followed your own advice. Yes compitition has its place but it also has a down side and that is that it is corruptable people sometimes cheat to get ahead, however with cooperation ther is less chance of this happening there is little to no encintive to cheat, science is supposed to be cooperative not competetive for that reason to get accurate answers and not just answers I'm sorry you disagree with me but I think s@h users should try to be like this, as far as shouting me and caps lock and spelling just dont get along so I usually just clean it up a little so it doesnt look so bad

There was a problem with some people trying to fix the results but that was all sorted out a long time ago. The point is that there are computers sending and receiving work units to millions of people around the planet. Those computers care not a jot whether the units they receive come from people with a competetive or cooperative spirit. The important thing is that the work units get done.

Some people crunch for the competition, some for the cooperation and looking at a received unit it's impossible to tell what kind of person crunched it - so it matters not a jot to the science of SETI.

Science isn't supposed to be anything (coopoerative or competetive) - it's just science. It's a sad fact that at it's most competetive science tends to perform at it's best. It's not a coincidence that there were greater strides in space during the cold war than since America and Russia started cooperating.

It's also a fact that people feel more valued if their contributions can be easily measured and this is both contributions past and present. It's also a fact that some people perform better if their contributions can be compared with those of others. I'm not one of those, but it doesn't mean I don't recognise it and hey - everyone's different. Let's not get judgemental about what drives others.

The real point I am making is that there is a likelyhood that a lot of people are being driven away from SETI by some of the glib answers being served up on these boards to what are seemingly, to them, important questions - "You can see your old SETI Classic results etc." That may be fine for some but clearly not all. The reality is that some people clearly have a beef with this and it is not being addressed.

The result? Loss of some support for the project. I don't want that and I'm sure you don't.

I have heard that SETI has a preponderance of crunchers, maybe they don't mind losing some.

---

First a little advice, try to stop shouting. People will be more impressed by the strength of you argument if you try to stay calm and avoid insults.

Second, it doesn't matter why people run s@h as long as they do. If people want glory - so what? If people want to better themselves - fine! The point is both points of view result in units being processed and that's got to be good.

My view is that if more units get processed by indulging peoples competetive spirit then that's OK.

I think the people at SETI have missed out on opportunity here by reducing the competive element and if that means fewer units processed then that's got to be bad.

Obviously some people feel proud to have been involved for such a long time and processed many thousands of units - nothing wrong with that - and naturally feel agrieved if their efforts are no longer being counted in the overall scheme of things. The point I am making is that people come to SETI with different agendas but all agendas should be encouraged for the overall success of s@h. :-)

This is your opinion and I respect that you have one but I dont aggree, after pouring threw messages for over 8 hours I was discusted with what I was reading so I vented a little I guess its OK for others to totaly rip on this project but i cant have my opinion getting a lecture rather than the simple reply of

My view is that if more units get processed by indulging peoples competetive spirit then that's OK.

I think the people at SETI have missed out on opportunity here by reducing the competive element and if that means fewer units processed then that's got to be bad.

Obviously some people feel proud to have been involved for such a long time and processed many thousands of units - nothing wrong with that - and naturally feel agrieved if their efforts are no longer being counted in the overall scheme of things. The point I am making is that people come to SETI with different agendas but all agendas should be encouraged for the overall success

wicth is how it would of been had you followed your own advice. Yes compitition has its place but it also has a down side and that is that it is corruptable people sometimes cheat to get ahead, however with cooperation ther is less chance of this happening there is little to no encintive to cheat, science is supposed to be cooperative not competetive for that reason to get accurate answers and not just answers I'm sorry you disagree with me but I think s@h users should try to be like this, as far as shouting me and caps lock and spelling just dont get along so I usually just clean it up a little so it doesnt look so bad

There was a problem with some people trying to fix the results but that was all sorted out a long time ago. The point is that there are computers sending and receiving work units to millions of people around the planet. Those computers care not a jot whether the units they receive come from people with a competetive or cooperative spirit. The important thing is that the work units get done.

Some people crunch for the competition, some for the cooperation and looking at a received unit it's impossible to tell what kind of person crunched it - so it matters not a jot to the science of SETI.

Science isn't supposed to be anything (coopoerative or competetive) - it's just science. It's a sad fact that at it's most competetive science tends to perform at it's best. It's not a coincidence that there were greater strides in space during the cold war than since America and Russia started cooperating.

It's also a fact that people feel more valued if their contributions can be easily measured and this is both contributions past and present. It's also a fact that some people perform better if their contributions can be compared with those of others. I'm not one of those, but it doesn't mean I don't recognise it and hey - everyone's different. Let's not get judgemental about what drives others.

The real point I am making is that there is a likelyhood that a lot of people are being driven away from SETI by some of the glib answers being served up on these boards to what are seemingly, to them, important questions - "You can see your old SETI Classic results etc." That may be fine for some but clearly not all. The reality is that some people clearly have a beef with this and it is not being addressed.

The result? Loss of some support for the project. I don't want that and I'm sure you don't.

I have heard that SETI has a preponderance of crunchers, maybe they don't mind losing some.

IN THE END IM AM WITH YOU IN THE DESIRE TO SEE SETI AND OTHERS SUCCED BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THE US RUSSA SPACE WHILE A GOOD POINT IF YOU REALLY DO YOUR HOMEWORK YOU WILL FIND THAT AMERICAN ARROGANCE THAT WE WERE SMARTER THAN RUSSIA COST US OUR FINEST FIRST ASTRONAUTS AS THEY DIED BECAUSE NASA WOULDNT LISTEN WHEN THEY WERE TOLD PURE O2 IS A BAD BAD THING IN FACT THE COLD WAR SLOWED PROGRESS ( MOST PROGRESS POINTS WERE DONE TWICE RATHER THAN ONE SHARING THE RESULT WITH THE OTHER)EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT SEEM THE OPOSITE, IVE WORKED ON MANY GOVERNMENT PROJECTS DURING MY CARRER AND THIS IS TRUE I COULD GO ON AND ON YOUR A GOOD DEBATER, YES SETI IS GOING TO LOSE SOME PEOPLE TO THAT I THERE IS NO DEBATE OTHER THAN MORE PEOPLE COULD JOIN IN THE FUTURE OR MAYBE PEOPLE WITH BIG NETWORKS MIGHT START JOINING BUT HEY MAYBE IT WILL BE SHUT DOWN TOO ANYWHO I WISH YOU THE BEST THANX FOR THE CHAT LONG LIVE SETI

---