Too much water under the bridge to just toss it without trying, IMHO. Try to fix it first, then go from there.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Should the [H]orde transition projects?
- Thread starter FLECOM
- Start date
- Status
Too much water under the bridge to just toss it without trying, IMHO. Try to fix it first, then go from there.
Xilikon
[H]ard|DCer of the Year 2008
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2004
- Messages
- 15,011
Let me inform everyone that about the folding guidelines, I send a email to Vijay with the final draft and I'm awaiting some actions of their part. That would address the cherry picking issue in a formal way but let's say to leave them dealing with the punishment part since they know best what is the right move.
As for a open letter, teams has already made some with varying results. However, if we make one right here on [H] (because it's our team and our concerns might not be the same as others), I can bring it to Vijay directly to get answers. However, about the project informations missing, a good slap in the back of the head of their PG members would do wonders.
As for a open letter, teams has already made some with varying results. However, if we make one right here on [H] (because it's our team and our concerns might not be the same as others), I can bring it to Vijay directly to get answers. However, about the project informations missing, a good slap in the back of the head of their PG members would do wonders.
"a good slap in the back of the head of their PG members would do wonders:
A good PUBLIC slap in the back of the head of their PG members would do wonders.
"I send a email to Vijay with the final draft and I'm awaiting some actions of their part."
This is part of the problem. This has been a fairly serious and long standing issue involving all the F@H teams and it has not been dealt with swiftly, at least it seems that way.
You are doing what you can Xilikon, thank you for the efforts.
A good PUBLIC slap in the back of the head of their PG members would do wonders.
"I send a email to Vijay with the final draft and I'm awaiting some actions of their part."
This is part of the problem. This has been a fairly serious and long standing issue involving all the F@H teams and it has not been dealt with swiftly, at least it seems that way.
You are doing what you can Xilikon, thank you for the efforts.
I would be much more willing to participate in F@H if it were offered under a unified, consistent system like BOINC.
Haha. No F@H hate here.here come the commandos to let us know how awesome BOINC is
therein lies one of the issues to me.
The folding community (well, at least EVGA) is apparently hostile to the idea that we might take leadership on an effort such as this (as seen on: the guidelines).
However, to have the full effect, we want as many teams and users involved in our little "protest" as we can get.
So, do we keep it on this forum? Or do we take it to FF?
Do we open it up to other teams before FF?
Another part of our complaints:
3. More open communication regarding upcoming changes in clients. (Beta units, new or better hardware support i.e. a new ATI/OpenCL client).
Subheading: We spend a lot of our own money on hardware. It would help us plan our investments better if we knew where the FAH Client roadmap was heading. If the future holds an ATI client that will blow the doors off anything we've seen, for example, it would be helpful to know that before investing in Fermi cards. If bigadv WUs are going to become increasingly rare, it would be helpful to know that before investing in an SR2 setup. If GPU3 PPD is going to be dramatically changed by the advent of new WU, it is a necessity to know that before investing in a farm of GTS450s. right FLECOM?
3. More open communication regarding upcoming changes in clients. (Beta units, new or better hardware support i.e. a new ATI/OpenCL client).
Subheading: We spend a lot of our own money on hardware. It would help us plan our investments better if we knew where the FAH Client roadmap was heading. If the future holds an ATI client that will blow the doors off anything we've seen, for example, it would be helpful to know that before investing in Fermi cards. If bigadv WUs are going to become increasingly rare, it would be helpful to know that before investing in an SR2 setup. If GPU3 PPD is going to be dramatically changed by the advent of new WU, it is a necessity to know that before investing in a farm of GTS450s. right FLECOM?
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 15,814
Another part of our complaints:
3. More open communication regarding upcoming changes in clients. (Beta units, new or better hardware support i.e. a new ATI/OpenCL client).
Subheading: We spend a lot of our own money on hardware. It would help us plan our investments better if we knew where the FAH Client roadmap was heading. If the future holds an ATI client that will blow the doors off anything we've seen, for example, it would be helpful to know that before investing in Fermi cards. If bigadv WUs are going to become increasingly rare, it would be helpful to know that before investing in an SR2 setup. If GPU3 PPD is going to be dramatically changed by the advent of new WU, it is a necessity to know that before investing in a farm of GTS450s. right FLECOM?
honestly this isn't about points... my GTS450's are getting about 9kppd which is fine by me... a "folding weather outlook" would be nice, but this is bigger than that...
the problem I personally have is this attitude that "the donors dont matter" its really disheartening...
(and for the record I probably would have gone with 460's but meh)
Whenever I have gotten really upset with F@H / PG (and it has happened a couple of times), I have gone to WCG. There are plenty of medically related causes there that I have no issue donating my time / money to. I'm still ranked on our WCG team and the client is still in fact installed on a few of my boxen.
Normally when I bail, I only take my CPU cycles over to WCG and leave my GPU cycles to F@H.
Am I upset with F@H / PG, currently I am a little upset with the way things are working. Enough for me to change over, not yet. I fold for the science and yes I am more than willing to admit, I am a points whore (ask my wife and she will confirm this: airlines / hotels / rental cars. even my debit card is tied to an airline).
F@H is evolutionary. It has its up and it certainly has its downs. There are good days and bad days. On bad days, I try to remember the good days. Does that work, not really, but I try.
Normally when I bail, I only take my CPU cycles over to WCG and leave my GPU cycles to F@H.
Am I upset with F@H / PG, currently I am a little upset with the way things are working. Enough for me to change over, not yet. I fold for the science and yes I am more than willing to admit, I am a points whore (ask my wife and she will confirm this: airlines / hotels / rental cars. even my debit card is tied to an airline).
F@H is evolutionary. It has its up and it certainly has its downs. There are good days and bad days. On bad days, I try to remember the good days. Does that work, not really, but I try.
zero2dash
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 6,100
I'll second this sentiment.
I'm agitated, but I'm not at the end of my rope by any means.
If nothing changes (or things get worse), I will start shutting down clients. I may shut a few down anyway and scale back (to save on the electric bill), but my SR-2 will not get shut off until I'm at the end of my rope. If my stats do a 180, you'll know I'm done with F@h (at least for the time being).
Axdrenalin
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - Nov. 2009
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2004
- Messages
- 6,271
I agree with a lot of the suggestions made so far, but let me throw a couple more ideas out there for possible inclusion. A few of these may overlap, so please excuse me if it has already been noted by another member.
1) Projects that work and are deemed successful usually benefit for a well organized, collaborative effort from all members of the project. Certainly, there are leaders and people in positions of authority who have the final say so, but it would do wonders for this whole situation if people like them (i.e. FF mods and Stanford Academics) actually listened to and learned from the suggestions and contributions issued from some of our more elite members out here in the wild. If the people who volunteer their time and energy know that their voices were heard and make a difference in how this project was run, then you would likely get a lot more satisfied people participating.
2) Implement reasonable response times to problems. Not just actualy WU issues like bad packets and broken servers, but controversial issues like the "Cherry Picking" situation that was recently identified. While were at it, lets be a little more consistant in the enforcement of rules, regulations or guidelines. No more of this half-assed "we think thats okay but not this" type of enforcement. If a new situation arises that has never been faced before, resolve it quickly and quit letting the community flouder about arguing about it amongst themselves. It divides the valuable members who are dedicated to this project.
3) Provide a well written project description page that doesn't sit idle for months or years without content. If I'm folding and want to know more about what this data will mean to the scientific community, then I should have a place to find it. Not only does this help me individually, but if I want to bring more people into the project and they want to know what it is we do, then I have a valuable resource to point them to that will hopefully make them want to contrbute as well. Crunching data is only part of this being successful. If you *really* want it to go somewhere, do a little PR work and make people want to help you.
4) Get rid of this "Ultra Secret" NDA bullcrap, and quit punishing people for doing a little PR work. As others have mentioned before, Tobit never divulged any information that was critical to the security or secrecy of the project. If anything, he was developing more interest in what was coming down the pipe and how it would benefit science. He was generating more interest and going out of his way to promote the entire F@H project, as opposed to other people out there who sit on their freaking throne and pretend to be better than the rest of us because they're higher up the chain in the project. In case nobody has ever mentioned it to them in the past, maybe they need to keep in mind that they wouldn't be getting *any* results if it weren't for teams / individuals like us down here crunching the data.
5) Finally....Take members from each of the top 10 teams out there and create some kind of "F@H Project Board" as an interface between the Academics who run this project and the average person out there who spends their hard earned money supporting this project, and everything it stands for. Too many of us are out here yearning for more information, clearer guidelines and quicker resolutions to the issues that this project is facing and it just isn't happening. This Project Board could act as a focal point, or a conduit where probelms could get passed up and answers could come down, and things would actually get done. I know these guys at the top have thier hands full and don't have time to address the average person's problems, but the whole Folding Forum and the leadership within are a farce at best and doesn't solve much without beating their chests and proclaiming their superior intellect over everyone else. I want to see some regular people like us in a position where the common person gets represented, thus maximizing the whole collaborative concept. Teamwork is a real simple concept, and *everyone* needs to remember that teamwork involves *all* of us, not just the ones at the top...
Sorry for the length of this post. Feel free to carry on now...
Ax
1) Projects that work and are deemed successful usually benefit for a well organized, collaborative effort from all members of the project. Certainly, there are leaders and people in positions of authority who have the final say so, but it would do wonders for this whole situation if people like them (i.e. FF mods and Stanford Academics) actually listened to and learned from the suggestions and contributions issued from some of our more elite members out here in the wild. If the people who volunteer their time and energy know that their voices were heard and make a difference in how this project was run, then you would likely get a lot more satisfied people participating.
2) Implement reasonable response times to problems. Not just actualy WU issues like bad packets and broken servers, but controversial issues like the "Cherry Picking" situation that was recently identified. While were at it, lets be a little more consistant in the enforcement of rules, regulations or guidelines. No more of this half-assed "we think thats okay but not this" type of enforcement. If a new situation arises that has never been faced before, resolve it quickly and quit letting the community flouder about arguing about it amongst themselves. It divides the valuable members who are dedicated to this project.
3) Provide a well written project description page that doesn't sit idle for months or years without content. If I'm folding and want to know more about what this data will mean to the scientific community, then I should have a place to find it. Not only does this help me individually, but if I want to bring more people into the project and they want to know what it is we do, then I have a valuable resource to point them to that will hopefully make them want to contrbute as well. Crunching data is only part of this being successful. If you *really* want it to go somewhere, do a little PR work and make people want to help you.
4) Get rid of this "Ultra Secret" NDA bullcrap, and quit punishing people for doing a little PR work. As others have mentioned before, Tobit never divulged any information that was critical to the security or secrecy of the project. If anything, he was developing more interest in what was coming down the pipe and how it would benefit science. He was generating more interest and going out of his way to promote the entire F@H project, as opposed to other people out there who sit on their freaking throne and pretend to be better than the rest of us because they're higher up the chain in the project. In case nobody has ever mentioned it to them in the past, maybe they need to keep in mind that they wouldn't be getting *any* results if it weren't for teams / individuals like us down here crunching the data.
5) Finally....Take members from each of the top 10 teams out there and create some kind of "F@H Project Board" as an interface between the Academics who run this project and the average person out there who spends their hard earned money supporting this project, and everything it stands for. Too many of us are out here yearning for more information, clearer guidelines and quicker resolutions to the issues that this project is facing and it just isn't happening. This Project Board could act as a focal point, or a conduit where probelms could get passed up and answers could come down, and things would actually get done. I know these guys at the top have thier hands full and don't have time to address the average person's problems, but the whole Folding Forum and the leadership within are a farce at best and doesn't solve much without beating their chests and proclaiming their superior intellect over everyone else. I want to see some regular people like us in a position where the common person gets represented, thus maximizing the whole collaborative concept. Teamwork is a real simple concept, and *everyone* needs to remember that teamwork involves *all* of us, not just the ones at the top...
Sorry for the length of this post. Feel free to carry on now...
Ax
The truth:
I'm here to get enough points to pass Kendrak!!
Plus, I'm a collector of the famous.....
Good luck to you sir..... your gunna need it
I'm a half a pimp hat behind you!
Yeh, but I have a bit more "D" coming on line in a week.
Xilikon
[H]ard|DCer of the Year 2008
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2004
- Messages
- 15,011
I agree with a lot of the suggestions made so far, but let me throw a couple more ideas out there for possible inclusion. A few of these may overlap, so please excuse me if it has already been noted by another member.
1) Projects that work and are deemed successful usually benefit for a well organized, collaborative effort from all members of the project. Certainly, there are leaders and people in positions of authority who have the final say so, but it would do wonders for this whole situation if people like them (i.e. FF mods and Stanford Academics) actually listened to and learned from the suggestions and contributions issued from some of our more elite members out here in the wild. If the people who volunteer their time and energy know that their voices were heard and make a difference in how this project was run, then you would likely get a lot more satisfied people participating.
2) Implement reasonable response times to problems. Not just actualy WU issues like bad packets and broken servers, but controversial issues like the "Cherry Picking" situation that was recently identified. While were at it, lets be a little more consistant in the enforcement of rules, regulations or guidelines. No more of this half-assed "we think thats okay but not this" type of enforcement. If a new situation arises that has never been faced before, resolve it quickly and quit letting the community flouder about arguing about it amongst themselves. It divides the valuable members who are dedicated to this project.
3) Provide a well written project description page that doesn't sit idle for months or years without content. If I'm folding and want to know more about what this data will mean to the scientific community, then I should have a place to find it. Not only does this help me individually, but if I want to bring more people into the project and they want to know what it is we do, then I have a valuable resource to point them to that will hopefully make them want to contrbute as well. Crunching data is only part of this being successful. If you *really* want it to go somewhere, do a little PR work and make people want to help you.
4) Get rid of this "Ultra Secret" NDA bullcrap, and quit punishing people for doing a little PR work. As others have mentioned before, Tobit never divulged any information that was critical to the security or secrecy of the project. If anything, he was developing more interest in what was coming down the pipe and how it would benefit science. He was generating more interest and going out of his way to promote the entire F@H project, as opposed to other people out there who sit on their freaking throne and pretend to be better than the rest of us because they're higher up the chain in the project. In case nobody has ever mentioned it to them in the past, maybe they need to keep in mind that they wouldn't be getting *any* results if it weren't for teams / individuals like us down here crunching the data.
5) Finally....Take members from each of the top 10 teams out there and create some kind of "F@H Project Board" as an interface between the Academics who run this project and the average person out there who spends their hard earned money supporting this project, and everything it stands for. Too many of us are out here yearning for more information, clearer guidelines and quicker resolutions to the issues that this project is facing and it just isn't happening. This Project Board could act as a focal point, or a conduit where probelms could get passed up and answers could come down, and things would actually get done. I know these guys at the top have thier hands full and don't have time to address the average person's problems, but the whole Folding Forum and the leadership within are a farce at best and doesn't solve much without beating their chests and proclaiming their superior intellect over everyone else. I want to see some regular people like us in a position where the common person gets represented, thus maximizing the whole collaborative concept. Teamwork is a real simple concept, and *everyone* needs to remember that teamwork involves *all* of us, not just the ones at the top...
Sorry for the length of this post. Feel free to carry on now...
Ax
That's the kind of feedback we want to hear, not just some complaining without a lot of substance. Let me address each point with what I know :
1- I totally agree that the people who are in charge of the F@H project should be listening to what we say about various aspects of the project. However, let me say that Vijay Pande is actually asking for my input on various things and very often, they take my suggestions to heart and make it a reality. The latest example is the folding guideline in which Vijay liked the idea and asked me to do this. Right now, it's in their hands and I expect them to do something shortly.
2- I agree as well, I always stressed a lot on the "Public Relationship" aspect to help mitigate issues and cheer people with good news. Scientists doesn't always make for good relationnists and the FF staff are not always very good as well with some condescending attitude.
3- I believe this would be on the hand of the projects instigators (like kasson, yslin, densign, etc...) to provide a good description and it seems that they are slacking since a good amount of time. I will remind Vijay to dust off the whip and remind the team to put descriptions without waiting for a few monts/years.
4- I also think Tobit did a very good work bringing informations about upcoming stuff without divulguing too much informations. I did the same in the past but the main problem here is that the FF staff was enforcing the confidentiality thing too hard. Even the PG think they are pushing it a bit too hard for their taste. I think a debate should be in order to determine if it is a better idea to open up the beta informations to the public and how much should be revealed. It's a bit of a hypocrisis to allow anyone who want to join the beta team but shun them from divulguing any information you would have known if you just asked to join them anyway...
5- I would be the first in line to join a council of team leaders to discuss about the F@H project in general, the current issues and propose the best solutions to the PG. This should be done without the interference of the FF staff as we want to be able to discuss anything without them tossing their 2 rusted cents.
In short, what would make people happy is to have a better communication between the PG and the folders via the various channels. We wanted real actions, not hesitations.
Who gives a fuck about the points? Who gives a fuck about what they do over at the Folding forums? If you don't like it, don't go there! I do what I do for the science, not for anything else. When I get a 2684 or a 6701 or a 6811, I fold it happily because someone's got to do it. If you're so sensitive that you get your panties in a bunch about the points not being right or some other bullshit, then you need to step back and take a look at why you're really folding in the first place. If you're doing it for the science, none of that other crap should make any difference to you.
twelveparsex
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2000
- Messages
- 12,955
some members here invest thousands of dollars to machines that do nothing bot [email protected] think they deserve some better treatment in return
Xilikon
[H]ard|DCer of the Year 2008
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2004
- Messages
- 15,011
I do agree with that but at a certain extend only. The best move with F@H is not to put all the eggs in the same basket so vary the farm with a good mix of standard, smp, bigadv, gpu2 and gpu3 clients. Like that, you get a well balanced production and you won't cringe a lot with points swinging.
yeah, the points are our best indicator of the amount of science we're doing. and it is the basis of our competition inside and outside the team. of course we're going to care a bit about the points.
Certainly, the science as a whole is of utmost important, but the points are the benchmark we have to measure our progress.
Certainly, the science as a whole is of utmost important, but the points are the benchmark we have to measure our progress.
Yeah, some members like me. People may think they deserve better treatment, but the fact is that the project is more important than you or I. PG has better things to do than pander to every complaint that people have about how things are handled. I don't disagree that there are things that can be improved, but threatening to leave the project is overly melodramatic, and anyone truly invested in the science should be able to look past a few stumbling blocks. Right now I don't see any major issues with the way PG itself is handling the project, and certainly nothing that would make me want to drop the project and forget about all my years of hard work trying to accomplish something by contributing.
I haven't had a chance to read through much of this, I've been in bed sick all day. However, regarding my situ, I received a very nice, apologetic, email from Vijay today. I'm going to sleep on it before I reply but very much appreciated waking up to find this olive branch.
Axdrenalin
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - Nov. 2009
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2004
- Messages
- 6,271
Thank you, but in all honesty I just want to see a system that works for all of us, not just benefit the people on the top of the stack. We're supposed to be all in this together.
If secrecy is important to them, then they shouldn't be letting just anybody in the Beta testing program. They need to evaluate that person's folding history and determine just how long they've been at it, what kind of equipment they bring to the table and see what kind of schedule that person has to contribute appropriate feedback to the testing group.
What is it about the secrecy, anyways? Is it so important that the community be kept in the dark about upcoming projects? Is it because they don't want any other research agencies knowing what they're doing next? Does Stanford compete with Black Mesa, and are we in danger of opening up a rip in the fabric of time?
Furthermore, would it not be possible to set up some kind of exclusive web site for folders to obtain info about future projects? We'll say that the prerquisites would be that you're an established folder who not only contributes daily, but has been an active contributor for a year or more. This could be an intermediate fix, for those of us who might not be doing Beta testing but want to know more about what's coming up.
Bottom line is we're not lemmings, and I think people are a little tired of just following the status quo. Let's have a bit more info, a more level playing field amongst the upper and lower echlons, and do more to open up our eyes about the things we're contributing to.
Ax
Axdrenalin
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - Nov. 2009
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2004
- Messages
- 6,271
Nice to hear Tobit...at least it's nice to know that someone up there cares and is willing to make ammends.
twelveparsex
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2000
- Messages
- 12,955
there are plenty of biology and medical based boinc projects...at the end of the day every boinc project is in the name of science. when it comes down to it f@h stuff is pretty abstract and a lot of the work units are just everyday proteins your body makes...not necessarily diseases. There are plenty of great boinc causes out there and if they treat their members better...why not go over there?
I have yet to see anything compelling enough about BOINC that would make me interested in it. Right now, F@H is the project with by far the largest scope and largest user base, and that makes it the most likely to produce significant results.
Mr. Pedantic
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,707
If you really want to test who is more "important", there is one thing that has already been mentioned here: no contributions = no Folding@home. It's as simple as that. True, "the science" that we contribute towards is important, and in many regards it can be said that it's more "important" than we are, but if push comes to shove, without our cooperation Folding@home goes down the drain. And I don't think that the complaints that have been raised about the project and the Folding forums are that unreasonable.
And if you feel leaving is overly melodramatic, I'm not so sure. There are several other projects that I'm interested in as well; if they offer better support, more information and friendlier communities, why should I stick with this one? I have no vested interest in Folding@home; none of my immediate family or close friends have senescence or cancer syndromes (and currently I'm doubting whether F@H could help them, even if they did). The closest association I have to Folding, apart from the fact that I used to run the software, is that I'm a medical student. Hardly a compelling reason to stay, I'm sure you'll agree.
Folding@home is primarily a research project. Obviously the donors are very important, but the main focus is on the science, not on making the donors happy. If PG went out of their way to deal with every little problem the donors have, they wouldn't have the time or resources to actually get any work done. A lot of people seem to feel that they are being personally disrespected when PG doesn't look into something for them, but the reality is that it's simply not always about you.
Well, everyone has their own reasons for folding. If you don't feel that you have any real attachment to the project, then who am I to tell you what you should or shouldn't be doing? However, for people who are folding for the science and because they truly believe in the cause, I don't think issues with the points system or the Folding forums mods who are not directly involved in the project itself are significant enough to justify quitting.
I agree with the last bit zero, but I could see how some body could be upset with
1 the lack of information on the work being done
2 the overzealous protection of "secrets" I.e. beta units, for which the reasons for secrecy are questionable.
I don't think the point system is worth quitting over. As you said, the value of the points is minimal. However I do think the points system has more than one glaring flaw that should be addressed in order to help users feel their investment into this project is worthwhile.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
1 the lack of information on the work being done
2 the overzealous protection of "secrets" I.e. beta units, for which the reasons for secrecy are questionable.
I don't think the point system is worth quitting over. As you said, the value of the points is minimal. However I do think the points system has more than one glaring flaw that should be addressed in order to help users feel their investment into this project is worthwhile.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
If you like the way things are, more power to ya. People fold for points or the science or any reason, it's their own and good enough. YOU shouldn't be the judge of who folds for what reason. Just because YOU like "taking one for the team" doesn't mean we all do.
YOU seem to get YOUR panties in a slick wad whenever something is posted YOU do not like. Seems YOU are just out for ......wait for it..........YOU. So, take YOUR own advice and stop being so sensitive.
YOUR attitude is a total turn off for many people but none seem to want to say so, but I have NO problems saying it. It looks like YOU are suckling the tit of PG in a very personal way for YOU to act the way YOU do on these issues. I hate to break it to YOU but YOU are just another little turd in the giant porcelain bowl of life. Get over YOURSELF.
Mr. Pedantic
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,707
I never said it wasn't a research project; however, this still does not negate the fact that we are the ones contributing. Doubtless, CPU power can be found elsewhere, but 5 PFLOPS' worth of processing power is expensive. And as I said before, I don't think that the complaints voiced so far are at all "little". They are, after all, partly the reason why BOINC was created in the first place.
It is no less than insulting to spend thousands of dollars on hardware, plus hundreds, maybe thousands more on power bills, to contribute to a project that keeps these people employed, and then have them dismiss all complaints as "little", or "petty". Perhaps you like to be treated this way; maybe even a fetish, yes? But I don't. And there are lots of other places on the internet that don't strive to treat their donors that way.
It would hardly be appropriate for a blood bank to tell someone to get over themselves if they went into septic shock because of a contaminated needle. I don't see how it is any more appropriate to snub people's (constructive) criticism or requests for assistance when all they are trying to do is help.
ok... so I'm not going to vote since I have very little invested into the program as of this point, but should the [H]orde decide to move, I will as well. The only thing that I'm running into is that I can't find an individual BOINC project relating to medicine that currently supports both AMD/ATI and Nvidia GPUs unless WCG does.
For now, I think I'll fold on and see what happens
For now, I think I'll fold on and see what happens
KWH, it seems to me that you have many opinions on the subjects of what [H] and F@H should do. You shared your thoughts on the matter amply in another thread as well.
The part that confuses me is that you do not F@H since the ATI -fermi flag thing, and you don't DC of any kind for the Horde.
Around the area I am from, a person who is overly vocal about matters that do not concern themselves is known as a shit stirrer. Kindly leave your personal attacks at the ATI GPU User team's forum rather than over here.
- Status