The apology should be to the members who happened to read your invective.
That's disgusting.

You people who have english as a first language, how many other languages do you speak? My guess is most of you only know how to speak english, and perhaps a few dirty words in spanish. So instead of complaining about mine and KLiK's ability to write in your language, perhaps you should try to express your opinion regarding the topic of the thread instead. Or do what Soong does, go and get drunk.

The only way you'll be able to silence us, is with facts and/or good arguments. I'm still waiting for somebody to answer the question: what is wrong with transparency and why are some of you opposing it -- especially when the researchers are asking us to donate our money?

I've asked this question many times in the thread, and I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer. In fact, most of the people who have tried to bite off my head, have avoided this question every time I've asked it. If somebody can convince me that transparency is bad, I'll change my mind and accept WCG's lack of it.

Saying, it's best this way because it has always been this way, simply wont do. Hitting me in the head with a baseball bat while saying my only choice is to either accept the lack of transparency or leave WCG, is an answer I'll accept only if it comes from WCG. Certainly not if it comes from another cruncher like me.

I'll drop this subject for now. But I can already tell you I don't expect any positive answer from WCG, if any at all.

twilyth, I take that back. Darwin was correct.Then you will understand that we will don't see the need.......

As for English, last time I read (well, checked) the Oxford English Dictionary, there are no such words as "d" or "u" or "r". Since THE writer is communicating in English, all we ARE asking is to use English. If these ARE words in another language, feel free to write in that language instead. Nobody has said you HAVE to write in English here, unless you ARE writing in English.

Wow, still missing the point. You are volunteering here. Nobody says you have to participate. The request is for you to donate SPARE, UNUSED CPU cycles that are otherwise wasted. No one has asked you to donate money. WCG does not ask you to generate additional cycles for its use at more cost. In this spirit, a member has no financial investment. Someone building a massive machine solely to crunch does not compel WCG to compensate the member either morally or financially.

As for demanding changes to WCG policyYou refuse to accept the reality that you have no standing to expect such compliance. The concrete wall has got to be hurting by now.

btw, I have not OPPOSED transparency. What I disagree with is the conspiracy theory presented where you have said that a) WCG is not ensuring the implementation of the WCG guideline regarding use of results, b) certain researchers you have named are directly profiting form WCG results, c) WCG is directly and intentionally deceiving members and d) you want WCG to prove that your unproven theory is in practice.

You disagree with this statement. Let's test it. If all 6 scientific groups stop today, WCG dies. If 60 members stop participating, WCG continues on. Now, you are going to come back with 'if all members stop'. While affecting 6 scientific groups is quite possible, it is mathematically insignificant to get ALL members to stop, therefore a fallacious rebuttal.

Nor does this counter the conspiracy theory (sic)Saying you have a fact, then presenting a false conclusion, ignoring the obvious and backing that up with a fallacy means you have nothing. Membership in a committee does not equate profiting from the results. Guilt by association is one of the oldest conspiracy theories in history.Possibly the only thing that twilyth has ever written which I agree with, and it pretty much sums up the situation you find yourself in

While I'd love to continue this discussion, unfortunately it's going much too fast for the amount of time I have to contribute, so I guess I'll just have to summarize my view and clarify a point. In summary, I don't think any additional "transparency" is warranted, because the information is obviously available for those who really want to know about the researchers' links to corporations. It's good that you brought it up for those of us who don't have time to make such inquiries. Also, the researchers are typically more responsive than WCG themselves, who must have a skeleton crew based on how often we hear from official staff members and the lack of progress on basic issues that have persisted for years. If there were any particular project or subproject that showed signs of a questionable relationship, I would stop contributing and make sure that others were aware of the connection(s). Obviously, news travels fast amongst the users.


My point here is that BOINC is open-source software; the projects already had their research applications set up before they were sent to WCG. Although WCG is one of the top 5 projects in users/hosts and obviously needs a more robust infrastructure than most, the majority of BOINC projects run on nothing more than a single server. Since a number of other research projects have managed to create BOINC projects of varying sizes, it's certain that they could have managed it on their own--but they would not have enjoyed the publicity and user base that WCG was able to provide.

Also, if a project needed direct control of hardware (something that BOINC doesn't provide) then most of the cloud-based services (Amazon AWS, etc.) can generally provide those services on a more cost-effective basis.

@noderaser


thank u 4 a support!
it's obvious that most of us care about our donations of CPU power & time...& look @ our donations as a FREE software (freeware) 2 all human kind!