Rosetta@home

[Lance]

Cyndi and I run it too, azazul, since 17 May 1999.

[azazul]

Cyndi and I run it too, azazul, since 17 May 1999.

Then why the hell aren't you on my team? You are dead to me.

[Lance]

Cyndi and I run it too, azazul, since 17 May 1999.

Then why the hell aren't you on my team? You are dead to me.

You have a team?

Edit to add:

Okay, I think I just quit US Distributed and joined BAUT.

Happy now?

Edited again to add:

Yeah, I'm there now, and in 4th place. Cool.

[azazul]

Cyndi and I run it too, azazul, since 17 May 1999.

Then why the hell aren't you on my team? You are dead to me.

Yeah, I'm there now, and in 4th place. Cool.

Sweet, by the way, I am sure you know this but I was just kidding. Feel free to join any team you wish, I will not complain, the program as a whole is more important than any team.

[Lance]

Sweet, by the way, I am sure you know this but I was just kidding.

WHAT?!?

Now you tell me, after I go through all the trouble of submitting my letter of resignation to the US Distributed team, in triplicate.

Feel free to join any team you wish, I will not complain, the program as a whole is more important than any team.

Maybe not, but I'd be "dead to you". It's a lose-lose for me.


Nah, it's okay. I spent a long time not part of any team, then I guy I met on my gaming forum told me about the team he was on. He and I got into a bit of a crunch competition so I joined his team for a while. That was a couple of years ago.

I've been thinking about moving to the BAUT team for a while now. I'm on the BAUT team for Einstein and Orbit already so it really made sense for me to move Seti as well. I just never bothered before, and you now gave me a reson to.

It's all good.

What ever happened to Orbit, anyway? The last update on their site was in November.

[azazul]

What ever happened to Orbit, anyway? The last update on their site was in November.

They have been attempting to get funding, without much luck. They still intend to create the project though, it will just take longer since they cannot make it into their job. They released an application for Linux for a brief amount of time just to test it out, but that was months ago.

[Bill_Thompson]

Are you suggesting that logic is done with calculus?

It seems common sense is not done with calculus.

Notice how what should be a level-headed scientific discussion has moved into the trash bin.

[Lonewulf]

It seems common sense is not done with calculus.

Notice how what should be a level-headed scientific discussion has moved into the trash bin.

So stop being a SETI@Home, head-in-the-sand, ignorant ass hole and download the Rosetta@home software.

Afterall, Enrico Fermi was a hell of a lot smarter than you, dumbass. So stop dreaming of finding a vulcan to mate with and do something useful with your time and life on Earth.

Very level-headed and scientific. I am most impressed.

I mean, there is absolutely no reason why this wasn't destined for the Flames area at all. Nope, none whatsoever.

[Bill_Thompson]

It seems common sense is not done with calculus.

Notice how what should be a level-headed scientific discussion has moved into the trash bin.

So stop being a SETI@Home, head-in-the-sand, ignorant ass hole and download the Rosetta@home software.

Afterall, Enrico Fermi was a hell of a lot smarter than you, dumbass. So stop dreaming of finding a vulcan to mate with and do something useful with your time and life on Earth.

Very level-headed and scientific. I am most impressed.

I mean, there is absolutely no reason why this wasn't destined for the Flames area at all. Nope, none whatsoever.

What does this have to do with what I am talking about? The issue was how calculus was used to prove that Santa Clause just might exist.

[Bill_Thompson]

I wonder if Billy Boy knows that Isaac Asimov was a scientist.
They do have standards, you know.

And regarding BOINC.
There are plenty of idle CPU-cycles to go around.
I bet all these projects will meet their goals.

That is true, Isaac Asimov was a scientist. But what was he primarily and how will he be most remembered?

[Lance]

The issue was how calculus was used to prove that Santa Clause just might exist.

Okay, so you're saying that calculus can be used to prove stupid points. Cool, dismis calculus. What does that have to do with anything?

[Мастер]

The issue was how calculus was used to prove that Santa Clause just might exist.

Okay, so you're saying that calculus can be used to prove stupid points. Cool, dismis calculus. What does that have to do with anything?

Why would anyone need to use calculus to prove the possible existence of Santa Clause? All you need to do is prove that the non-existence of Santa Clause is not included in or implied by your set of axioms.

[Bill_Thompson]

The issue was how calculus was used to prove that Santa Clause just might exist.

Okay, so you're saying that calculus can be used to prove stupid points. Cool, dismis calculus. What does that have to do with anything?

Why would anyone need to use calculus to prove the possible existence of Santa Clause? All you need to do is prove that the non-existence of Santa Clause is not included in or implied by your set of axioms.

Lance got off on finding and posting a link where someone used logical inclusion rules to show that Fermi's paradox does not prove that there is no ETI. But the same sort of logical inclusion rules can be used to prove that santa claus just might exist. It is a misuse of calculus. Sure, santa clause just might exist. But this does not prove anything.

[Lance]

It really doesn't matter, does it?

I mean, in the Big Picture, the Fermi [strike]Paradox[/strike] Logical Fallacy is irreverent.

Like Fermi himself said; "we need more information".

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Asimov published 515 books. Bibliography
Most were not fiction.

But my point is, if iASFM publishes a science article, it is a science article.

And you have yet to respond to it, other than pointing out that it uses 'calculus'.

[Lonewulf]

It seems common sense is not done with calculus.

Notice how what should be a level-headed scientific discussion has moved into the trash bin.

So stop being a SETI@Home, head-in-the-sand, ignorant ass hole and download the Rosetta@home software.

Afterall, Enrico Fermi was a hell of a lot smarter than you, dumbass. So stop dreaming of finding a vulcan to mate with and do something useful with your time and life on Earth.

Very level-headed and scientific. I am most impressed.

I mean, there is absolutely no reason why this wasn't destined for the Flames area at all. Nope, none whatsoever.

What does this have to do with what I am talking about? The issue was how calculus was used to prove that Santa Clause just might exist.

Ah, you don't seem to understand me. Again. Or I don't understand you. Please correct me where I'm wrong. This is my interpretation of eventss:

You talked about something that "should" have been a level-headed scientific discussion. I will make the assumption you mean this current discussion and thread. You made it seem like someone else was at fault for making it not so level-headed other than yourself.

Yet, in your original post, you had opened up by calling those who happen to not see SETI as some evil organization ignorant, stupid, with their "heads in the dirt" (hence, cowards), and assholes.

Oh, and apparently, they're all pathetic fanboys of Star Trek, too.

Which part of this was "meant" to be level-headed or scientific? It opened up from the get-go with childish insults.

[Lonewulf]

Lance got off on finding and posting a link where someone used logical inclusion rules to show that Fermi's paradox does not prove that there is no ETI. But the same sort of logical inclusion rules can be used to prove that santa claus just might exist. It is a misuse of calculus. Sure, santa clause just might exist. But this does not prove anything.

And "absence of evidence is not proof of absence". You have not "proved" anything, either.

[Lonewulf]

I wonder if Billy Boy knows that Isaac Asimov was a scientist.
They do have standards, you know.

And regarding BOINC.
There are plenty of idle CPU-cycles to go around.
I bet all these projects will meet their goals.

That is true, Isaac Asimov was a scientist. But what was he primarily and how will he be most remembered?

How someone is remembered has nothing to do with what they were capable of, what skills they had, or what kind of education they had.

[MM_Dandy]

Hey, I learned something today.

Predicate calculus is not equal to fundamental calculus.

Bill_Thompson, can you give a description as to how you define your term of fundamental calculus?

[MM_Dandy]

How someone is remembered has nothing to do with what they were capable of, what skills they had, or what kind of education they had.

I disagree in that that is not always the case. Leonardo da Vinci, for instance, is well-remembered for his artistic skill.

Bill_Thompson's argument, however, would discredit DaVinci's ability as a scientist because he may be better remembered as an artist.


Bill_Thompson, as Lonewulf noted, this thread was destined for the flame pile because of the insulting comments in your original post. I'd also like to note that if you'd like to talk about SETI@Home as opposed to Rosetta@Home, you can clearly say so in the title and opening post of future threads. If you'd like to have a discussion comparing the relative merits of Rosetta@Home and SETI@Home, then this would have been a good thread to have done that and leave it at that. However, it was clear from the first post, and from your subsequent posts, that you had little intention of carrying on such a discussion. It's too bad that you decided to sabotage your own thread with the very first post.

[Мастер]

Lance got off on finding and posting a link where someone used logical inclusion rules to show that Fermi's paradox does not prove that there is no ETI.

I followed the link. I don't know too much about Fermi's paradox, but if the characterization of the paradox at Lance's link is correct, then the argument at that link looks perfectly sound to me.

But the same sort of logical inclusion rules can be used to prove that santa claus just might exist.

Quite right.

It is a misuse of calculus.

I wouldn't call it calculus, but logic, and in any event, it sound likes correct use to me.

Sure, santa clause just might exist.

Perhaps. Personally, I'm not a believer.

But this does not prove anything.

It proves that Fermi's paradox is not a definitive proof of the non-existence of ETI, assuming again that the characterization of the paradox at that website is correct. Is it?

[Lonewulf]

I disagree in that that is not always the case. Leonardo da Vinci, for instance, is well-remembered for his artistic skill.

I never said that what someone is remembered by isn't their actual skill. Leonardo Da Vinci was an artist and a scientist; he is more well-remembered for his artistry.

He was an artist, and had the skills; whether he was remembered for them or not doesn't matter.

A man can be an artist, and never be known at all for his skill; but that doesn't make him any less of an artist, and it doesn't even make him a bad one; just one that didn't "catch on" with the public.

Bill_Thompson's argument, however, would discredit DaVinci's ability as a scientist because he may be better remembered as an artist.

Er, yes. That was my point.