I'm torn between keeping my computers working full-time at Seti, and splitting the processing time with another project. The problems are:

1. I'm greedy, and don't want my Seti stats to go down.
2. None of the other projects "grab me" as Seti does. Their goals are either too vague (Predictor, for example, simulating how protiens look in 3D. oooooo....exciting....what's the point?). Or they just aren't in a field I'm interested in (LHC comes to mind).
3. Climateprediction.net is the only one that even remotely sounds interesting, but it's so huge that only my fastest machine (Pentium 4) is capable of running it.


Any thoughts (besides the obvious "You're a dork")?

---

You will be assimilated...bunghole!

You could use a signature like I use, and point to your total credit for stats purposes.

---

-----

I run several projects and find it enjoyable. I am even testing CPDN on a machine a bit slower than the requirement benchmark. A major point with SETI is that when the Classic version shuts down, there is a real possibility that the increased number of users will produce periods of limited work. So doing multiple projects decreases your risks of having idle CPUs.

> You could use a signature like I use, and point to your total credit for stats
> purposes.
>

I am seriously considering that. I like the idea of a central site where you can get all your stats at once. But I would much rather prefer a central site where you can view / modify your preferences for all projects as well. Rather than having to sign on to Seti, CPDN, Predictor, etc...you can mess with all your accounts at once. Ok, I guess that makes the 4th reason why I'm torn....too much of a hassle. :)

---

You will be assimilated...bunghole!

>
> I run several projects and find it enjoyable. I am even testing CPDN on a
> machine a bit slower than the requirement benchmark. A major point with SETI
> is that when the Classic version shuts down, there is a real possibility that
> the increased number of users will produce periods of limited work. So doing
> multiple projects decreases your risks of having idle CPUs.
>
>
>

Agreed, but I don't want to sign up for a project just to keep me busy...I need to be interested in it. Seti is a pretty cool thing to be working on, protien folding....meh.

---

You will be assimilated...bunghole!

> > You could use a signature like I use, and point to your total credit for
> stats
> > purposes.
> >
>
> I am seriously considering that. I like the idea of a central site where you
> can get all your stats at once. But I would much rather prefer a central site
> where you can view / modify your preferences for all projects as well. Rather
> than having to sign on to Seti, CPDN, Predictor, etc...you can mess with all
> your accounts at once. Ok, I guess that makes the 4th reason why I'm
> torn....too much of a hassle. :)
>

It really isn't too much of a hassle. All of the important preferences are Boinc preferences, not individual project preferences. Even if you do want to change the specific project preferences you only have to do so right when you start the project up. After that Boinc takes care of everything.

The lack of work units is another good point. Maybe attatch to other small work unit projects like Predictor and LHC, but set the Seti:Predictor:LHC ratio to 99:1:1. Then, theoretically, Boinc will run Seti almost all of the time and turn to the others if Seti units run out.

---

-----

I must confess that I have no intention of crunching for any other project (even if the Mac SW were available) because I know that SETI benefits more people than any other project and is time-tested.

I don't fold proteins because of the associated $ issue, I wasn't invited to E@H, climate prediction and predictor (I feel) have flawed code (I said I feel, not that there is one), and as for Pirate@H... what does it do??

IMO, SETI is one of the few projects that needs more real-time analysing than any other. If ET sends a signal, and nobody's there to recognize it, then Humanity has lost a potentially big contact. Einstein@H is along those lines, but the stars will shine while radio messages decay. Every other project's WU/data can be constructed or made - Only SETI's and E@H's WUs are based on real-world, time-sensitive phenomena.

So that's why I crunch for SETI. 2¢

---

LHC has the best chance of being usefull. Since it will directly influence the design and use of the collider. It should be back up within a month. Of course these tiny particals are a big unexciting.

Protein predictor has a good chance of actually finding something usefull. Once you know how the proteins work it may be possible to cure cancer, AIDS and other tough to fight diseases. The big problem with it as mentioned earlier is that it may line someone's pockets instead of actually helping people.

Seti and Einstein have the real attention grabbing grandure of the projects (E@H should be live within a month). However they have very low probabilities of actually finding anything.

CPDN also has good chances of finding something however they also have good chances of being ignored if it is not what people want to hear. The computer requirments are also a bit of a problem.

Pirates is just a test project for E@H so doesn't really count as a project.

I currently run all the projects, right now I'm so interested in BOINC I don't really care what it is doing.

---

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

> LHC has the best chance of being usefull. Since it will directly influence the
> design and use of the collider. It should be back up within a month. Of course
> these tiny particals are a big unexciting.

I agree. And it's "only" a particle accelerator. If it was something a bit more impressive (and useful), such as a prototype fusion reactor, THEN I'd be interested.

>
> Protein predictor has a good chance of actually finding something usefull.
> Once you know how the proteins work it may be possible to cure cancer, AIDS
> and other tough to fight diseases. The big problem with it as mentioned
> earlier is that it may line someone's pockets instead of actually helping
> people.

Aside from the money, the key phrase is "may be possible". Predictor is not targeting any specific disease...or specific ANYTHING, for that matter. If it was a direct "Cure for Cancer, or Cure for HIV, or Cure for Muscular Dystrophy", then it'd be worth looking into. :)

>
> Seti and Einstein have the real attention grabbing grandure of the projects
> (E@H should be live within a month). However they have very low probabilities
> of actually finding anything.

It's not a question of finding anything, it's a question of interest. I seem to recall a statistic that said "The chance of finding ET increases 1% every year". It's still a pretety low chance, but I'm very interested in Seti...therefore I crunch. If a project is boring, then I don't care how likely it is that I'll find something...I just won't run it.

>
> CPDN also has good chances of finding something however they also have good
> chances of being ignored if it is not what people want to hear. The computer
> requirments are also a bit of a problem.

The requirements are the main problem for me. Lower the requirements to a 400mhz machine running Windows 98, and I'm sold.

---

You will be assimilated...bunghole!

well, I find lhc is pretty cool. the new collider will be a huge project, giving answers in fields no one even thought of. and they have the most stylish screensaver as well.
cpdn's idea is great, but what I am missing (even though I keep crunching their wus) is some feedback on how the whole project evolves.

---

For the moment, just stick with SETI@Home then. These other projects are also sort of in their infancy. Granted there may not be direct application right now because we are still learning. A lot of univeresities are probably looking at this whole thing and have some additional projects waithing in the wings.

History has shown however, the most profitable science is done with no expectation of a specific result. Most directed science does not do much more than make a thingie, that we waste money on. LHC@Home is looking (or will be looking) for stuff that will help us work on the "Theory of Everything" that we have been chasing for quite some time now (so is Einstein@Home) ...

It is VERY likely that results from those projects may assist us in making fusion a reality ...

---

Yes. LHC may help solve fusion and the elusive gravity-partile, but that too is not as solid (for want of a better word) as SETI. As far as screensavers go, I'm not in it for a pretty picture - I'm in it because I like to see a good CPU put to use.

(Note: If anyone out there has an Atari 8-bit assembler editor cartridge and an Atari 1030 modem that they want to donate to a good cause, lemme know! Also available hardware includes a Newton MessagePad 130, an iPod, and a Mac Plus. no joke.)

---

> For the moment, just stick with SETI@Home then. These other projects are also
> sort of in their infancy. Granted there may not be direct application
> right now because we are still learning. A lot of univeresities are probably
> looking at this whole thing and have some additional projects waithing in the
> wings.

This whole Distributed Computing idea is in it's infancy. Perhaps BOINC will make it easy enough for other industries to get onto the DC bandwagon that there will be TOO MANY projects to pick from. :)

>
> History has shown however, the most profitable science is done with no
> expectation of a specific result. Most directed science does not do much more
> than make a thingie, that we waste money on. LHC@Home is looking (or will be
> looking) for stuff that will help us work on the "Theory of Everything" that
> we have been chasing for quite some time now (so is Einstein@Home) ...

This is true. Perhaps I'll investigate Einstien@home further when it is released. I'm reminded of United Devices which basically keeps you crunching for years without a single iota of feedback on how well you're doing. That's exactly what I don't want.

>
> It is VERY likely that results from those projects may assist us in making
> fusion a reality ...
>

I picked fusion just off the top of my head. :) The point is I (personally) feel that helping work on fusion is more interesting than a particle accelerator. But on the other hand, an accelerator is more interesting than a robotic sheep. Or is it...

---

You will be assimilated...bunghole!

No... I have to agree - Fusion is more appealing than constructing a virtual accelerator. But I highly doubt that distributed computing is "in it's infancy". The notion has been around for quite some time, and SETI is the best example of it. But there are so many possible projects that one ends up very much overwhelmed about it.

My take on it is that all BOINC-based projects should be centralized, and WUs would be sent out on a needs basis. Let's say that SETI has 100 new WUs/day and E@H has 50. As the WUs arrive, they are queued on a FIFO basis until a host comes along and says "What can I crunch?". That way the user helps all of the projects - not just one in particular.

---

> This is true. Perhaps I'll investigate Einstien@home further when it is
> released. I'm reminded of United Devices which basically keeps you crunching
> for years without a single iota of feedback on how well you're doing. That's
> exactly what I don't want.
another defector eh... I don't blame you (I ran it for a year and a half myself), I had the same issue with them too.

>
> >
> > It is VERY likely that results from those projects may assist us in
> making
> > fusion a reality ...
> >
>
> I picked fusion just off the top of my head. :) The point is I (personally)
> feel that helping work on fusion is more interesting than a particle
> accelerator. But on the other hand, an accelerator is more interesting than a
> robotic sheep. Or is it...
>

Robotic sheep??? uhhh... actually it would be kind of a cool AI project. And it could be something people relate to (take that however you want).

If there was a fusion reactor program, I would be running it. Unless the way the results were used, were not agreeable to me (kinda like UD). I won't line other people's pockets, UD did not have a hard price control, and their lack of feedback made me very suspicious of them. Their usage became very unacceptable in my mind, so I stopped running it. Hopefully a fusion reactor project (It wouldn't surprise me to see one) will learn from their mistakes

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

> > This is true. Perhaps I'll investigate Einstien@home further when it is
> > released. I'm reminded of United Devices which basically keeps you
> crunching
> > for years without a single iota of feedback on how well you're doing.
> That's
> > exactly what I don't want.
> another defector eh... I don't blame you (I ran it for a year and a half
> myself), I had the same issue with them too.

It was fun in the beginning, when it was actually a bit better than Classic Seti (web config, auto-update, etc...). But now, BOINC is superior to UD.

>

>
> Robotic sheep??? uhhh... actually it would be kind of a cool AI project. And
> it could be something people relate to (take that however you want).

It will be based in Scotland. ;-)

>
> If there was a fusion reactor program, I would be running it. Unless the way
> the results were used, were not agreeable to me (kinda like UD). I won't line
> other people's pockets, UD did not have a hard price control, and their lack
> of feedback made me very suspicious of them.

I wasn't suspicious...but I did believe they cared more about profit than the actual science, while Seti@home cares more about the science.

>Their usage became very
> unacceptable in my mind, so I stopped running it. Hopefully a fusion reactor
> project (It wouldn't surprise me to see one) will learn from their mistakes
>

Time will tell. :)

---

You will be assimilated...bunghole!

I think it is really cool that we can decide on which project should we work. There is a variety of good choice. However there are million subective points of view which is the best, which contributes most to science, etc.
I am seti user/chruncher for quite recently. I was fascinated by the whole idea and I like to help on that main and global project. However to me is more important to know the exact 3D structures of various proteins, because I work with them all my day (directly or indirectly). For the humanity, knowledge of protein folding in exact frames is as important as the invencion of first vaccine or invention of steam engine. The goal is not so obvious to many people staring at 3D models of proteins, but it's again science, again it's something that we do not know exactly, something that has it's own principles that we should know.
>> > This is true. Perhaps I'll investigate Einstien@home further when it is
>> > released. I'm reminded of United Devices which basically keeps you
>> crunching
>> > for years without a single iota of feedback on how well you're doing.
>> That's
>> > exactly what I don't want.
>> another defector eh... I don't blame you (I ran it for a year and a half
>> myself), I had the same issue with them too.

>It was fun in the beginning, when it was actually a bit better than Classic
>Seti (web config, auto-update, etc...). But now, BOINC is superior to UD.

There is no way to chruch for Predictor@home now, so I choose Human Proteome Folding at UD. Yes, I have no feedback, but the superior is dead for me. On the proteome just the science is more important to me than everything else so I bet it worth.
I think that in science there is no more important knowledge, everithing is equal in contribution to our selfunderstanding. No matter if you look at the stars or at your body.It is your choice.

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=365&amp;prj=1&amp;trans=off"><img src="http://seti.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=535&amp;trans=off"><img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=365&amp;prj=2&amp;trans=off">

> My take on it is that all BOINC-based projects should be centralized, and WUs
> would be sent out on a needs basis. Let's say that SETI has 100 new WUs/day
> and E@H has 50. As the WUs arrive, they are queued on a FIFO basis until a
> host comes along and says "What can I crunch?". That way the user helps
> all of the projects - not just one in particular.

Some of us prefer to choose who gets our resources.

I personally refuse to give any of my computing time to any project that will be using the results to make a profit.
If they want to use my CPU time, they can pay me. They won't be giving their product away so i don't see why i should just give away my resources for nothing.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

As far as I know, which does not mean that I do know, all of the current BOINC projects are pure science and done with no expectation of "for-profit" results. That does not mean that later projects will all be "not for profit". A for profit company can also use the BOINC Software for processing work that will generate profit for them. I believe that there is a "for profit" DC project already but it does not use BOINC (at this time).

That being said, there is no significant reason to not support all of the current projects as a participant. In my case I have accounts on all of the projects except Einstein@Home (which means that I can only document the public portions of their web site at this time) and when they are distributing work I allocate the same amount of time to each (at least at the current time). This of course means that for the most part I am doing work for SETI@Home and cp.net with two computers also doing Predictor@Home (though I have schedular connection issues).

I have never heard of this UD. But, most of the BOINC projects have feedback with some being better than others. If nothing else, there is a fairly active user community and the word does get out. Again, I have no standing in and of the projects that is better than any other participant; but this is the systems work I used to do and I am reasonably good at tea leaves and from that can give reasonably competent speculation because of that ...

---

> will generate profit for them. I believe that there is a "for profit" DC
> project already but it does not use BOINC (at this time).
>
> I have never heard of this UD. But, most of the BOINC projects have feedback
> with some being better than others. If nothing else, there is a fairly active
> user community and the word does get out. Again, I have no standing in and of
> the projects that is better than any other participant; but this is the
> systems work I used to do and I am reasonably good at tea leaves and from that
> can give reasonably competent speculation because of that ...
>

UD (short for United Devices), is a for profit DC project. It's run by Oxford, and it's big project has always been researching cancer drugs. Like I said before, I'd probably still be running it if there were price controls for using the results. That is if/when a compound is found, the drug is delivered at costs that are reasonable based on production costs. They don't assure that.

It was the way they didn't offer any feedback that was more the last straw for me. Seti offers loads of feedback, issues and questions are answered. I understand that there were limits to what they could answer, but with a finite work load, they refused to even answer %complete for the project. That just didn't sit well with me.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.