I do this for humanity amd scientific progress ^_^
I like gettin the WU points, but i rather like to think i can contribute to a much bigger picture. I am no way smart enough to do things like the scientists and engineers and that do, but i can still contribute in a big way with my PC.
Since at the end, a final result from one WU is found, the community will get the praise. We all searched together and we found what we had to...
> I don't expect to receive any scientific credit. But just posting a list on
> this site somewhere of those that have found pulsars in their WU's would work
> wonders for getting more people involved.
> It would not take much, just something like
> John Doe possible pulsar in WU xxxxx at RA xxx Dec xxx frequency xxx
>
This may not exactly work wonders. I noticed that when I ran the Find-A-Drug program they would list users who's hits went on to be used in labs. Rather than encouraging me I found myself feeling slighted. Logically I knew it was a childish reaction, but I couldn't keep my mind from thinking that my effort was wasted. It was actually discouraging.
I've seen these types of arguments on just about every distributed computing project discussion board there is. DC is just an interesting solution to a common modern problem. The users are basically just philanthropists. If you were one of the thousands who donated money to the American Heart Association and they made a breakthrough discovery that year you wouldn't get your name mentioned anywhere.
The only satisfaction you will get from running DC is a personal one. The chance to donate in a bit more hands on way than just writing a check is actually the main point. I don't care about credit or seeing my name in lights. In fact I've beta tested 4 projects, including this one, and 3 of those completely threw out the months of data & credits we had accumulated when they went live. No tears, because the point was getting a new project on the streets not seeing an imaginary number next to my user name.
a negative is just as important as a positive in this search, so already all of us have been part of a success. that's the way i look at it anyways, it may seem childish but that's how i feel about it.
IMHO, this project is already a success. It has helped to further understanding about the Year of Physics. It has given good press to the LIGO (and other) projects which may help them to find more funding. It has helped the physics community to refine their efforts to detect gravity waves and may lead to new thinking along those lines. It has popularized, even if in only a small way, the efforts to expand of Einstein's theorems and the goal of TOE. Somewhere, children in school are becoming newly aware of science and some of these chlldren may go on to make physics their life's work. Perhaps, I'm too pollyannish but I think, no matter what we find or who finds it, we're all part of that success.
It would be wonderful if E@H found conclusive evidence but if it doesn't, we all still win.
There are two secrets to life: 1) Don't tell everything you know...
> a negative is just as important as a positive in this search, so already all
> of us have been part of a success. that's the way i look at it anyways, it
> may seem childish but that's how i feel about it.
I've been lurking in this thread, not saying anything, but I just wanted to echo this point. One of the distinguishing characteristics of 'real' research work is failure. The truth is that most (almost all!) 'real' research fails. In fact, if something doesn't fail most of the time, it's not really 'pushing the envelope' and I'd claim that it's not really research. And 'failed' research is really not failure, since it establishes that something doesn't work as one might have hoped. Good researchers make an effort to understand this failure so that they and others can learn from it, and steer a better course in the future.
So the point being made here is a very good one: those people who are NOT finding signal candidates are getting rid of large parts of parameter space and so doing something that is just as important to the collective effort as the positive results of those people whose computers find follow-up candidates.
I've written something about this in the FAQ (front page). I'll add a bit to that in the future.
I read it and yes he does make a very good point about the money. However, with money it all goes into one big pot and gets drawn off of by many facets of the project. There is no way to trace exactly what dollar you put into the pot and to trace where it goes. Plus, the money itself is not used in the research. The money is used to buy supplies and equipment, to pay the scientist, engineers, and lab techs working the projects. Many of these things are used, re-used, and used again.
In contrast, This WU that I turn in can be tracked. It is a very specific part of the research. I would venture a guess that once the data is used and manipulated, the results cannnot be reused in a different project without reanalyzing the data using a different procedure. (In other words, what I'm trying to say is that the raw data is still viable, but the results are usually too specific to be reused)
Now, as a matter of tenfiveoh feeling slighted... all I can say is, "I'm sorry." No matter what we chose to do, someone is going to get his feelings hurt. The majority of us will be able to say "oh well, they chose to (or chose not to) recognize my individual contributions." Please don't interpret this as an insult towards tenohfive. I understand that each of us as individuals handle different situations differently. What he finds as petty might be a big deal to me.
As you said earlier, it basically boils down to an opinion. It seems to me that you and I are on differnt sides of this particular issue, however we have chosen to join forces, despite those difference. We are all working for a common goal for the greater good.
Jim
PS. Bruce, Thank you for your comments.
> Jim Baize, read what tenfiveoh said.
> Then reread...
> 8 rotated 90 degrees
>
> I've been lurking in this thread, not saying anything, but I just wanted to
> echo this point. One of the distinguishing characteristics of 'real' research
> work is failure. The truth is that most (almost all!) 'real' research fails.
> In fact, if something doesn't fail most of the time, it's not really 'pushing
> the envelope' and I'd claim that it's not really research. And 'failed'
> research is really not failure, since it establishes that something doesn't
> work as one might have hoped. Good researchers make an effort to understand
> this failure so that they and others can learn from it, and steer a better
> course in the future.
>
> So the point being made here is a very good one: those people who are NOT
> finding signal candidates are getting rid of large parts of parameter space
> and so doing something that is just as important to the collective effort as
> the positive results of those people whose computers find follow-up
> candidates.
>
> I've written something about this in the FAQ (front page). I'll add a bit to
> that in the future.
>
> Cheers,
> Bruce
>
>
Hello Bruce ,
I am not a scientists ,only high school science , but I think all science could be compared SETI@hone --- in that ----I think that while SETI@home may never succeed, the effort is still worthwhile. The knowledge gained from any failure only contributes to successes in science in the future. The human condition motivates us humans to learn about everything and continue despite the overwhelming odds until we humans finally succeed. Many of the things we take for granted today , are the direct result of this human behavior.Things like light bulbs, telephones and airplanes are among them. The only requirement is that we try. The probability of success is difficult to estimate; but if we never try, the chance of success is , zero.---- (Cocconi-Morrison, Searching for Interstellar Communications, Nature, September 19, 1959)
> > a negative is just as important as a positive in this search, so already
> all
> > of us have been part of a success. that's the way i look at it anyways,
> it
> > may seem childish but that's how i feel about it.
>
> I've been lurking in this thread, not saying anything, but I just wanted to
> echo this point. One of the distinguishing characteristics of 'real' research
> work is failure. The truth is that most (almost all!) 'real' research fails.
> In fact, if something doesn't fail most of the time, it's not really 'pushing
> the envelope' and I'd claim that it's not really research. And 'failed'
> research is really not failure, since it establishes that something doesn't
> work as one might have hoped. Good researchers make an effort to understand
> this failure so that they and others can learn from it, and steer a better
> course in the future.
>
> So the point being made here is a very good one: those people who are NOT
> finding signal candidates are getting rid of large parts of parameter space
> and so doing something that is just as important to the collective effort as
> the positive results of those people whose computers find follow-up
> candidates.
>
> I've written something about this in the FAQ (front page). I'll add a bit to
> that in the future.
>
> Cheers,
> Bruce
>
>
[Edit] to my post 6257 sorry I forgot I to say thank you to Bruce and Cochise for their excellent Post 6183 and 5949 i learned from those posts and i agree 100 % please excuse my grammar and spelling :)
> I do this for humanity amd scientific progress ^_^
> Since at the end, a final result from one WU is found, the community will get
> the praise. We all searched together and we found what we had to...
>
> ^_^ my view anyway. We are a community.
That's why I just joined up, Kye. I love the fact that our computers (and thereby we) can all join together for such a worthwhile cause.
(I never did win that sofa from SETI@home for discovering the aliens. I guess I'm nicely over that now.;)
Look here, brother, who you jiving with that cosmic debris?--Frank Zappa.
> > I do this for humanity amd scientific progress ^_^
>
> > Since at the end, a final result from one WU is found, the community will
> get
> > the praise. We all searched together and we found what we had to...
> >
> > ^_^ my view anyway. We are a community.
>
> That's why I just joined up, Kye. I love the fact that our computers (and
> thereby we) can all join together for such a worthwhile cause.
>
> (I never did win that sofa from SETI@home for discovering the aliens. I guess
> I'm nicely over that now.;)
>
>
>
Hi Mo ,
thank you very much for your post .... and welcome _ aboard _ [ Mo __ Joined: Mar 5 ]
Hi Kye ............. [ Kye Cochrane wrote ___ I do this for humanity amd scientific progress ]
Hi Cochise ........ [Cochise wrote __ a negative is just as important as a positive in this search ]
I agree , with all three of you ____ 100 % ___ _ for science and humanity[/url]
I am fascinated by the Cosmos __ and so excited about participating in ____ Einstein@home ___
I think Albert Einstein said it best ...[/url]
The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe.
We are like a little child entering a huge library.
The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone
must have written these books. It does not know who or how.
It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the
arrangement of the books a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects
A human being is a part of a whole, called by us humans as the _universe_ a part limited in time and space.
we humans experiences our selfs , our thoughts and feelings
as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of our consciousness.
This delusion is a kind of prison for us humans , restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.
Our task , as therefor , must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion
to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.
I do this for humanity amd
)
I do this for humanity amd scientific progress ^_^
I like gettin the WU points, but i rather like to think i can contribute to a much bigger picture. I am no way smart enough to do things like the scientists and engineers and that do, but i can still contribute in a big way with my PC.
Since at the end, a final result from one WU is found, the community will get the praise. We all searched together and we found what we had to...
^_^ my view anyway. We are a community.
> I don't expect to receive
)
> I don't expect to receive any scientific credit. But just posting a list on
> this site somewhere of those that have found pulsars in their WU's would work
> wonders for getting more people involved.
> It would not take much, just something like
> John Doe possible pulsar in WU xxxxx at RA xxx Dec xxx frequency xxx
>
This may not exactly work wonders. I noticed that when I ran the Find-A-Drug program they would list users who's hits went on to be used in labs. Rather than encouraging me I found myself feeling slighted. Logically I knew it was a childish reaction, but I couldn't keep my mind from thinking that my effort was wasted. It was actually discouraging.
I've seen these types of arguments on just about every distributed computing project discussion board there is. DC is just an interesting solution to a common modern problem. The users are basically just philanthropists. If you were one of the thousands who donated money to the American Heart Association and they made a breakthrough discovery that year you wouldn't get your name mentioned anywhere.
The only satisfaction you will get from running DC is a personal one. The chance to donate in a bit more hands on way than just writing a check is actually the main point. I don't care about credit or seeing my name in lights. In fact I've beta tested 4 projects, including this one, and 3 of those completely threw out the months of data & credits we had accumulated when they went live. No tears, because the point was getting a new project on the streets not seeing an imaginary number next to my user name.
a negative is just as
)
a negative is just as important as a positive in this search, so already all of us have been part of a success. that's the way i look at it anyways, it may seem childish but that's how i feel about it.
IMHO, this project is already
)
IMHO, this project is already a success. It has helped to further understanding about the Year of Physics. It has given good press to the LIGO (and other) projects which may help them to find more funding. It has helped the physics community to refine their efforts to detect gravity waves and may lead to new thinking along those lines. It has popularized, even if in only a small way, the efforts to expand of Einstein's theorems and the goal of TOE. Somewhere, children in school are becoming newly aware of science and some of these chlldren may go on to make physics their life's work. Perhaps, I'm too pollyannish but I think, no matter what we find or who finds it, we're all part of that success.
It would be wonderful if E@H found conclusive evidence but if it doesn't, we all still win.
There are two secrets to life: 1) Don't tell everything you know...
> a negative is just as
)
> a negative is just as important as a positive in this search, so already all
> of us have been part of a success. that's the way i look at it anyways, it
> may seem childish but that's how i feel about it.
I've been lurking in this thread, not saying anything, but I just wanted to echo this point. One of the distinguishing characteristics of 'real' research work is failure. The truth is that most (almost all!) 'real' research fails. In fact, if something doesn't fail most of the time, it's not really 'pushing the envelope' and I'd claim that it's not really research. And 'failed' research is really not failure, since it establishes that something doesn't work as one might have hoped. Good researchers make an effort to understand this failure so that they and others can learn from it, and steer a better course in the future.
So the point being made here is a very good one: those people who are NOT finding signal candidates are getting rid of large parts of parameter space and so doing something that is just as important to the collective effort as the positive results of those people whose computers find follow-up candidates.
I've written something about this in the FAQ (front page). I'll add a bit to that in the future.
Cheers,
Bruce
Director, Einstein@Home
Yes, I read it and yes he
)
Yes,
I read it and yes he does make a very good point about the money. However, with money it all goes into one big pot and gets drawn off of by many facets of the project. There is no way to trace exactly what dollar you put into the pot and to trace where it goes. Plus, the money itself is not used in the research. The money is used to buy supplies and equipment, to pay the scientist, engineers, and lab techs working the projects. Many of these things are used, re-used, and used again.
In contrast, This WU that I turn in can be tracked. It is a very specific part of the research. I would venture a guess that once the data is used and manipulated, the results cannnot be reused in a different project without reanalyzing the data using a different procedure. (In other words, what I'm trying to say is that the raw data is still viable, but the results are usually too specific to be reused)
Now, as a matter of tenfiveoh feeling slighted... all I can say is, "I'm sorry." No matter what we chose to do, someone is going to get his feelings hurt. The majority of us will be able to say "oh well, they chose to (or chose not to) recognize my individual contributions." Please don't interpret this as an insult towards tenohfive. I understand that each of us as individuals handle different situations differently. What he finds as petty might be a big deal to me.
As you said earlier, it basically boils down to an opinion. It seems to me that you and I are on differnt sides of this particular issue, however we have chosen to join forces, despite those difference. We are all working for a common goal for the greater good.
Jim
PS. Bruce, Thank you for your comments.
> Jim Baize, read what tenfiveoh said.
> Then reread...
> 8 rotated 90 degrees
>
Jim
> I've been lurking in this
)
> I've been lurking in this thread, not saying anything, but I just wanted to
> echo this point. One of the distinguishing characteristics of 'real' research
> work is failure. The truth is that most (almost all!) 'real' research fails.
> In fact, if something doesn't fail most of the time, it's not really 'pushing
> the envelope' and I'd claim that it's not really research. And 'failed'
> research is really not failure, since it establishes that something doesn't
> work as one might have hoped. Good researchers make an effort to understand
> this failure so that they and others can learn from it, and steer a better
> course in the future.
>
> So the point being made here is a very good one: those people who are NOT
> finding signal candidates are getting rid of large parts of parameter space
> and so doing something that is just as important to the collective effort as
> the positive results of those people whose computers find follow-up
> candidates.
>
> I've written something about this in the FAQ (front page). I'll add a bit to
> that in the future.
>
> Cheers,
> Bruce
>
>
Hello Bruce ,
I am not a scientists ,only high school science , but I think all science could be compared SETI@hone --- in that ----I think that while SETI@home may never succeed, the effort is still worthwhile. The knowledge gained from any failure only contributes to successes in science in the future. The human condition motivates us humans to learn about everything and continue despite the overwhelming odds until we humans finally succeed. Many of the things we take for granted today , are the direct result of this human behavior.Things like light bulbs, telephones and airplanes are among them. The only requirement is that we try. The probability of success is difficult to estimate; but if we never try, the chance of success is , zero.---- (Cocconi-Morrison, Searching for Interstellar Communications, Nature, September 19, 1959)
cheers,
byron
> > a negative is just as
)
> > a negative is just as important as a positive in this search, so already
> all
> > of us have been part of a success. that's the way i look at it anyways,
> it
> > may seem childish but that's how i feel about it.
>
> I've been lurking in this thread, not saying anything, but I just wanted to
> echo this point. One of the distinguishing characteristics of 'real' research
> work is failure. The truth is that most (almost all!) 'real' research fails.
> In fact, if something doesn't fail most of the time, it's not really 'pushing
> the envelope' and I'd claim that it's not really research. And 'failed'
> research is really not failure, since it establishes that something doesn't
> work as one might have hoped. Good researchers make an effort to understand
> this failure so that they and others can learn from it, and steer a better
> course in the future.
>
> So the point being made here is a very good one: those people who are NOT
> finding signal candidates are getting rid of large parts of parameter space
> and so doing something that is just as important to the collective effort as
> the positive results of those people whose computers find follow-up
> candidates.
>
> I've written something about this in the FAQ (front page). I'll add a bit to
> that in the future.
>
> Cheers,
> Bruce
>
>
[Edit] to my post 6257 sorry I forgot I to say thank you to Bruce and Cochise for their excellent Post 6183 and 5949 i learned from those posts and i agree 100 % please excuse my grammar and spelling :)
Cheers,
byron
> I do this for humanity amd
)
> I do this for humanity amd scientific progress ^_^
> Since at the end, a final result from one WU is found, the community will get
> the praise. We all searched together and we found what we had to...
>
> ^_^ my view anyway. We are a community.
That's why I just joined up, Kye. I love the fact that our computers (and thereby we) can all join together for such a worthwhile cause.
(I never did win that sofa from SETI@home for discovering the aliens. I guess I'm nicely over that now.;)
Look here, brother, who you jiving with that cosmic debris?--Frank Zappa.
> > I do this for humanity
)
> > I do this for humanity amd scientific progress ^_^
>
> > Since at the end, a final result from one WU is found, the community will
> get
> > the praise. We all searched together and we found what we had to...
> >
> > ^_^ my view anyway. We are a community.
>
> That's why I just joined up, Kye. I love the fact that our computers (and
> thereby we) can all join together for such a worthwhile cause.
>
> (I never did win that sofa from SETI@home for discovering the aliens. I guess
> I'm nicely over that now.;)
>
>
>
Hi Mo ,
thank you very much for your post .... and welcome _ aboard _ [ Mo __ Joined: Mar 5 ]
Hi Kye ............. [ Kye Cochrane wrote ___ I do this for humanity amd scientific progress ]
Hi Cochise ........ [Cochise wrote __ a negative is just as important as a positive in this search ]
I agree , with all three of you ____ 100 % ___ _ for science and humanity[/url]
I am fascinated by the Cosmos __ and so excited about participating in ____ Einstein@home ___
I think Albert Einstein said it best ...[/url]
The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe.
We are like a little child entering a huge library.
The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone
must have written these books. It does not know who or how.
It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the
arrangement of the books a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects
A human being is a part of a whole, called by us humans as the _universe_ a part limited in time and space.
we humans experiences our selfs , our thoughts and feelings
as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of our consciousness.
This delusion is a kind of prison for us humans , restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.
Our task , as therefor , must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion
to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.
My Very Best wishes to everyone
from:
friendly and respectful
byron ... _Earth_Flag