Printable View
I was wondering if anyone else in this forum donates their unused computer (CPU) time to support projects that benefit the humanity? Several years ago I participated in SETI@HOME but then just dropped that as I thought the idea was useless. Recently, however I was amazed at the amount of the global research projects that's out there. They search for cure for cancer and other important causes. What do you guys think of that?
I setup my computer at work for:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/projects.php
My pc has two processors so I do Seti and Superlink@Technion.
You can not be sure that your computer's power is really used to «help the humanity».
May be these projects are really intended to develop biological weapons againt Russia.
I also have BOINC but I joined the World Community Grid, team Russia.
Realistically, I think a part of just about everything would go for either creating new weapons or supporting existing ones. Think about it this way: Russia is selling out oil. How would it know the oil won't be used for tanks, aircraft carriers, and fight jets against Russia? You're paying the Government taxes. How would you know the taxes won't be used to pay salary for a police officer that would stop you and put you into the jail?Quote:
Originally Posted by SAn
So, I think a part of the research would benefit the entire humanity and probably some other part would benefit only a selected part of the humanity. What is the ratio between them I really don't know. But I think the military guys already have supercomputers, so they can't wait until 2013 until allegedly we'll get the current stage of cancer research completed.
Crocodile,Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Please, help a poor mechanically inferior female out :fool" ... in v-e-r-y simply terms, how is what you are speaking about work? I have never heard of it before.
thanks.
I'll try my best. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
1. You download a computer software created by Berkley University and set it up on your computer.
2. The software would work only when you don't. So you don't feel it's there.
3. The software takes a portion of the work (e.g. searching for the candidate medicine against cancer) from the University computers, does the work and sends back the result to the university.
4. The university would identify a few promising solutions and send it to complete the real clinical research.
5. There are currently over 288,235 volunteers doing just that. So the amount of the work they can do together is enormous almost like a very very powerful computer can do.
6. We hope they find the cure.
Crocodile, this looks really interesting. I just finished reading The Google Story, which is about how 2 graduate students at Stanford (one is a Russian immigrant, one from the US Midwest) founded Google. The book talked about how much memory is needed for huge projects.
Crocodile, очень интерессно. Я кончала читать The Google Story, который рассказывала историю о двух аспирантах в Станфорде, кто основывали Гугл. Один - русский иммигрант в США, другой - в Среднии западе в США.
Книга упоминал, что большие проекты нуждаются в большем памяте компьютера.
So, I thought your BOINC information was intriguing. Thanks!
Я думаю, что сообщение о BOINC было увлекательно. Спасибо!
If you don't mind:
Мой (почти) построчный перевод с английского (надеюсь, Вы не против):Quote:
Originally Posted by Winifred
I'm not sure that you meant "в бОльшем" - "more" ("в бОльший" is the comparative of "большОй"). It seems to me that you meant "в большОм". However, the phrase "большие проекты нуждаются в большем объеме (компьютерной) памяти" (IMHO) sounds good.Quote:
Crocodile, похоже, это действительно интересно. Я как раз закончила читать "Google. Прорыв в духе времени" ( "The Google Story"). Это о том, как два стэнфордских аспиранта (один - русский иммигрант, другой - со Среднего Запада США) основали Гугл. В книге говорилось, сколько памяти нужно для крупных проектов.
Так что нахожу сообщение о BOINC увлекательным. Спасибо!
"память" is feminine
"Stanford" also could be translated as "Стэнфорд"
Cпосибо, Lae!
One question(so far...): why is "В книге упоминалось" correct? Why not "упоминалaсь?"
Also, here is a another site to help people, the rainforest, animals, etc. easily: http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGiv ... me_sitenav
You click once a day and money is donated to charities by the advertisers.
Because it's not the book what was mentioned; so it should not be feminine. It's something what was mentioned. "Something" is neutral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winifred
Книга упоминалась - The book was mentioned
В книге упоминалось - In the book, it was mentioned...
Оля слазaла:
Спасибо, Оля. I cannot say "Книга упоминалa" (I see I had even this wrong. SIGH)? Books don't talk in Russian :wink: ?Quote:
Because it's not the book what was mentioned; so it should not be feminine. It's something what was mentioned. "Something" is neutral.
Книга упоминалась - The book was mentioned
В книге упоминалось - In the book, it was mentioned...
But, I can see that "В книге упоминалось" is much cleaner. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winifred
Помогите миру одним щелчком.Quote:
Помогите [s:se4zjw7e]мир за один щелчок[/s:se4zjw7e]!
Darn! I knew that about "Помогите миру," but had forgotten.... :wall:
I actually had "одним щелчком," but it's only mentioned once as a translation, whereas "за одним щелчок" had more uses, so I changed it. I claim typo for сказала !! Thanks. :)
"За одним щелчок" is grammatically incorrect because the cases do not agree. Maybe it was a typo, and you meant "за один щелчок", but it's not the case where you should pay attention to "more uses".Quote:
Originally Posted by Winifred
За один щелчок simply has another meaning: someone "pays" you one click, and you help the world for that.
Одним щелчком: you do it by means of one click.
Postscript, and thanks again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
I think, I should comment why I replaced "книга упоминала" with "в книге упоминалось" and why I wrote "в книге говорилось" instead of "книга говорила".Quote:
Originally Posted by Winifred
Думаю, раз я так перевела, то мне и отвечать. :sorry:
I think, however it may be wrong, that the "упоминает" (about inanimate object) is too bookish and rarely used in the Past:
Мне кажется, впрочем я могу ошибаться, что "упоминает" (в отношении неодушевлённого предмета) звучит слишком книжно и в прошедшем времени употребляется редко:
Яндекс: "книга упоминала" (0)
Яндекс: "статья упоминала" (57)
These variants seem more neutral and more alive (natural?) to me:
"в книге упоминалось", "в книге рассказывалось", "в книге говорилось"
— вроде бы более нейтральные варианты, более живые, что ли.
If I wrote, / Если бы я написала:
or, / или:Quote:
На днях я дочитала "Google. Прорыв в духе времени" ("The Google Story"). Эта книга рассказывала о двух аспирантах из Стэнфорда, которые основали компанию Гугл. Кроме того, книга упоминала о том, как много компьютерной памяти требуется для крупных проектов.
then the stress would be moved to the book.Quote:
На днях я дочитала "Google. Прорыв в духе времени" ("The Google Story"). Эта книга рассказывает о двух аспирантах Стэнфорда, которые основали компанию Гугл. Кроме того, книга упоминает о том, как много компьютерной памяти требуется для крупных проектов.
то акцент бы сместился на книгу.
And if somebody wrote,
А если бы кто-то написал:
then I would have the impression that the memory requirements are the main issue of the book.Quote:
книга говорит/расказывает (-ла) о том, как много памяти требуется для крупных проектов.
то у меня бы сложилось впечатление, что потребность в памяти — это центральный вопрос книги.
------------
Thank you for the information about the book. Now I'm reading it. :)
It just bothers me that 2,326,600 computers out of the overall 2,650,000 available computers (according to boincstats.com) that is 87% (!!) donate to the SETI@HOME project which I think is either useless or dangerous. What a waste! Maybe it just shows the major demographics of BOINC users. :o
I believe that time devoted to SETI is time wasted! You'll never find anything and if you do,so what?
If you do then it's dangerous as you don't know what the implications would be. Would you really click on any link that says "Hi there, we like you ever so much?"Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLarry