QUOTE(ConteZero76 @ Mar 25 2007, 07:42 PM)
I could respond that you spend 500 on a system and only have one game, and no F@H either.
As for F@H it haven't produced nothing right now, but it's knowledge, having a "map" about how each protein folds is something that is useful anyway, and something that the scientific community can address anywhere, anytime... no matter if it seems useless now, it's something that can be useful in the future.
Well, that is exactly the main argument AGAINST the F@H project.
The group behind the project is the Pande Group.
That is a bunch of people surrounding a Professor named
Pande. This group keeps the whole frames that are calculated
by the participants as closed as the source code of the
binaries that the participants are executing. So nobody
knows what his CPU power is actually used for and
nobody can use the code to start a similar project.
But that is not all that is to critisize in the F@H project:
Prof. Pande keeps the right to decide by himself which data he
is going to disclose. He goes even further by keeping the
right to disclose the whole calculations only in his scientific
publications so that no other scientist might be faster on
discovering something interesiting out of these caclulations.
In fact Prof. Pande begs CPU power for free but
he does not give anything more back to the community
comparing the situation in which he would be if he would
rent a render farm for his calculations.
My advice for Prof. Pande whould be the following:
Whats about remembering the roman legal principle:
"do ut des" -> "I give so that you do give"
Unless Prof. Pande opens full access to the whole
calculated frames as well as releasing the complete
source code of the executed binaries NOBODY should
participate in the F@H project.