First, I'm not American nor do I live there.
Second, I'm not political and don't want any reference to that here.

I'm posting because I see an opportunity for Rosetta and Distributed Computing in general.

An American friend told me not to be put off by the MLK-like delivery of Obama but to readlisten to the detail of what he says and judge it on that.

He seems intelligent, earnest and well-intentioned to me and at this moment there's an opportunity to make use of the momentum he's set in train.

In his inaugural speech I read today I picked out the following passages:

The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.

We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.

We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise healthcare's quality and lower its cost.

We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.

And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.

All this we can do. All this we will do.

[...]

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

[...]

The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

If these words are as serious as they seem then the opportunity in the title is for the Project Managers here to approach the government for additional research funding, for coding supportsecondment, maybe for tax-relief to those who donate their resources to crunch or any number of other things that they've thought of and I haven't. I leave that to the guys here to draw up.

It seems to me that the goals of the project here in particular fall very neatly in line with those declared by the new President and if they strike while the iron's hot there's a massive opportunity to make a step-change in the contributions to BOINC-related projects.

What say you?

---

First, I'm not American nor do I live there.
Second, I'm not political and don't want any reference to that here.

I'm posting because I see an opportunity for Rosetta and Distributed Computing in general.

An American friend told me not to be put off by the MLK-like delivery of Obama but to readlisten to the detail of what he says and judge it on that.

He seems intelligent, earnest and well-intentioned to me and at this moment there's an opportunity to make use of the momentum he's set in train.

In his inaugural speech I read today I picked out the following passages:

The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.

We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.

We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise healthcare's quality and lower its cost.

We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.

And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.

All this we can do. All this we will do.

[...]

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

[...]

The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

If these words are as serious as they seem then the opportunity in the title is for the Project Managers here to approach the government for additional research funding, for coding supportsecondment, maybe for tax-relief to those who donate their resources to crunch or any number of other things that they've thought of and I haven't. I leave that to the guys here to draw up.

It seems to me that the goals of the project here in particular fall very neatly in line with those declared by the new President and if they strike while the iron's hot there's a massive opportunity to make a step-change in the contributions to BOINC-related projects.
What say you?

I agree with you, I am an American and I do live here, but think it may be the job of the new Health guy, Tom Daschle, that is the one to talk to. The problem with Daschle is that he is a LONG TIME politician and could be difficult to deal with. Obama has some great ideas but has some old, politically entrenched people implementing those ideas. For instance Daschle's wife is/was an airline industry lobbyist, and he, as a sitting Congressman, dealt many times with airline issues. All the while denying any conflicts of interest!!!
I think Obama's "problem" is going to be the "politics as usual" mentality that the US Congress has, and may always have. That and the people that have dealt with those same congress people.
I do hope more research money can be given to projects that show hope and promise, curing Malaria is one example of how we taxpayers can help a group of people that are just plain dying because of a lack of money and resources!! I read the other day that in one minute 4 KIDS die of Malaria! There is a Boinc project, down at the moment, that addresses that very concern. This project addresses concerns too, some projects address concerns of a more other worldly nature, Seti for example. I think you have the right idea, I just do not know how to bump them up the food chain. Hopefully the Scientists here do, and can!!

---

I agree with you, I am an American and I do live here, but think it may be the job of the new Health guy, Tom Daschle, that is the one to talk to. The problem with Daschle is that he is a LONG TIME politician and could be difficult to deal with. Obama has some great ideas but has some old, politically entrenched people implementing those ideas. For instance Daschle's wife is/was an airline industry lobbyist, and he, as a sitting Congressman, dealt many times with airline issues. All the while denying any conflicts of interest!!!
I think Obama's "problem" is going to be the "politics as usual" mentality that the US Congress has, and may always have. That and the people that have dealt with those same congress people.

While I'm sure that's the case (as everywhere else too) another passage of his speech talked about how the time for protecting old shibboleths was long past. It depends on whether his own party takes him seriously. Hopefully they won't last long, given the momentum he currently has in the honeymoon period.

I do hope more research money can be given to projects that show hope and promise, curing Malaria is one example of how we taxpayers can help a group of people that are just plain dying because of a lack of money and resources!! I read the other day that in one minute 4 KIDS die of Malaria! There is a Boinc project, down at the moment, that addresses that very concern. This project addresses concerns too, some projects address concerns of a more other worldly nature, Seti for example. I think you have the right idea, I just do not know how to bump them up the food chain. Hopefully the Scientists here do, and can!!

Science is one thing, but this is a matter for those with a bigger idea. I just hope the opportunity won't be lost.

Not a great sign that no-one else saw fit to comment, if only to say my idea was dumb.

---

What i wish (as a ex pat in belgium)he would do is try to get more money for projects back home. the lame duck president of the past spent more money overseas than at home.

On malaria,the gates foundation is working on a big malaria project.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/topics/Pages/malaria.aspx#

They also list other groups that are working on the malaria issue.
See the partner websites and this press release seems to show how his foundation and other groups have worked on this issue.

Private enterprise can work faster than any bureaucratic self serving government agency ever will.

On the politics of back home, well as you can see it will not be a rubber stamp in the senate on things. But perhaps the republicans will shed some light on things that the democrats didn't think of. Let us all hope that it won't the old chorus of 'me,me,me' does not get sung again.

On another note, we have a 47 year old president and now there is a 42 year old senator taking Clinton's place. It is starting to look like the younger generation is booting out the old one slowly but surely. Change is what we need and it looks like a slow change is what we are getting.

Private enterprise can work faster than any bureaucratic self serving government agency ever will.

Sure, but if the state can enthuse, endorse and help mobilise 300m citizens, think how much more. That's what I'm trying to get at.

---

Private enterprise can work faster than any bureaucratic self serving government agency ever will.

Sure, but if the state can enthuse, endorse and help mobilise 300m citizens, think how much more. That's what I'm trying to get at.

a goverment enthusing people or making something work quickly and properly? hah!
again, the private sector can do this more efficiently and quickly.

Private enterprise can work faster than any bureaucratic self serving government agency ever will.

Sure, but if the state can enthuse, endorse and help mobilise 300m citizens, think how much more. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Personally I would like to see the Gov't give us a tax break for all "certified" workunits. That would mean a bigger burden on each project to keep good stats on me, but an easy way for lots more people to get involved in helping. Maybe even vary the tax break depending on how much each project contributes to the problems of the day. For instance...Malaria is killing people in Africa, people crunching for it would get a bigger tax break than people trying to find little green men. There is a Science czar, he/she could be responsible for determining that number.

---

Private enterprise can work faster than any bureaucratic self serving government agency ever will.

Sure, but if the state can enthuse, endorse and help mobilise 300m citizens, think how much more. That's what I'm trying to get at.

A government enthusing people or making something work quickly and properly? Hah! Again, the private sector can do this more efficiently and quickly.

I think that comes into the category of the following from the same speech - I'd left it out earlier, simply for brevity:

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics...

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply...

"Hah" doesn't cut it any more.

Or to put it another way, take a look at the figures for Rosetta as a project here. How well has private enterprise done over a few years, with 80% of those who'd even bothered to sign up not currently active and both figures being paltry anyway, considering they're world totals? Is the project not deserving enough, perhaps?

Taking Mikey's example, how about if there's a $100 tax break for anyone certified to have crunched 5000 units or more in a year? 2/3 of users have never accumulated that in all their time, so what if they did? And what if it were easily 10 times those numbers in the US alone?

People are motivated by their hearts, but more so by their wallets. Let it be for something with some potential lasting benefit.

Or alternatively let "Hah" rule the day and no-one even try. There's a momentum that some will take up. I'm just suggesting a concerted attempt to grab them, rather than not bother because some people will inevitably refuse.

---

Private enterprise can work faster than any bureaucratic self serving government agency ever will.

Sure, but if the state can enthuse, endorse and help mobilise 300m citizens, think how much more. That's what I'm trying to get at.

A government enthusing people or making something work quickly and properly? Hah! Again, the private sector can do this more efficiently and quickly.

I think that comes into the category of the following from the same speech - I'd left it out earlier, simply for brevity:

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics...

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply...

"Hah" doesn't cut it any more.

Or to put it another way, take a look at the figures for Rosetta as a project here. How well has private enterprise done over a few years, with 80% of those who'd even bothered to sign up not currently active and both figures being paltry anyway, considering they're world totals? Is the project not deserving enough, perhaps?

Taking Mikey's example, how about if there's a $100 tax break for anyone certified to have crunched 5000 units or more in a year? 2/3 of users have never accumulated that in all their time, so what if they did? And what if it were easily 10 times those numbers in the US alone?

People are motivated by their hearts, but more so by their wallets. Let it be for something with some potential lasting benefit.

Or alternatively let "Hah" rule the day and no-one even try. There's a momentum that some will take up. I'm just suggesting a concerted attempt to grab them, rather than not bother because some people will inevitably refuse.

and where do you think the goverment is going to come up with a $100 for every user? the cost to verify this and send out the refunds will cost more than the $100 refund. if you have read the boards in the past few months you will have seen people that have left the project for various reasons, from program troubles to lack of interest in this project anymore. what do you consider "units"? tasks? how do you verify this in the current setup of boinc and RAH?
who would verify it?

i am all for getting more people involved, but then again, its a select group that comes to crunch on rosie. perhaps in the future word will get out to a wider group of people that can dedicate their resources to RAH. if there was a final outcome story that could be published regarding something RAH found that the medical community is using now and that was used as a recruiting tool, you might get more interest. If you could come up with a story for the people that are hardcore tech number crunchers that would get them interested in bringing the machines to RAH, that could be useful as well. but from what I see, the vast majority of people are more interested in aliens from Seti than proteins from RAH for number crunching.

Private enterprise can work faster than any bureaucratic self serving government agency ever will.

Sure, but if the state can enthuse, endorse and help mobilise 300m citizens, think how much more. That's what I'm trying to get at.

A government enthusing people or making something work quickly and properly? Hah! Again, the private sector can do this more efficiently and quickly.

I think that comes into the category of the following from the same speech - I'd left it out earlier, simply for brevity:

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics...

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply...

"Hah" doesn't cut it any more.

Or to put it another way, take a look at the figures for Rosetta as a project here. How well has private enterprise done over a few years, with 80% of those who'd even bothered to sign up not currently active and both figures being paltry anyway, considering they're world totals? Is the project not deserving enough, perhaps?

Taking Mikey's example, how about if there's a $100 tax break for anyone certified to have crunched 5000 units or more in a year? 2/3 of users have never accumulated that in all their time, so what if they did? And what if it were easily 10 times those numbers in the US alone?

People are motivated by their hearts, but more so by their wallets. Let it be for something with some potential lasting benefit.

Or alternatively let "Hah" rule the day and no-one even try. There's a momentum that some will take up. I'm just suggesting a concerted attempt to grab them, rather than not bother because some people will inevitably refuse.

and where do you think the goverment is going to come up with a $100 for every user? the cost to verify this and send out the refunds will cost more than the $100 refund. if you have read the boards in the past few months you will have seen people that have left the project for various reasons, from program troubles to lack of interest in this project anymore. what do you consider "units"? tasks? how do you verify this in the current setup of boinc and RAH?
who would verify it?

Actually I was thinking of a tax credit, so you get it when you filed your tax return. Not a check but a credit towards what you do owe. A check would only be sent to those that have paid too much in taxes, as many do now.

i am all for getting more people involved, but then again, its a select group that comes to crunch on rosie. perhaps in the future word will get out to a wider group of people that can dedicate their resources to RAH. if there was a final outcome story that could be published regarding something RAH found that the medical community is using now and that was used as a recruiting tool, you might get more interest. If you could come up with a story for the people that are hardcore tech number crunchers that would get them interested in bringing the machines to RAH, that could be useful as well. but from what I see, the vast majority of people are more interested in aliens from Seti than proteins from RAH for number crunching.

I did Seti for a very long time, but stopped because they are not analyzing the data anymore!!! We crunched and the results went into a database and there they STILL sit!!! The idea of finding aliens is the answer to the question of "are we alone". This goes to the heart of mankinds quest to discover new things and find out "why" we are here. If nothing is out there, why did god put all those twinkly lights in the sky? To make us ask why? Pretty stupid, IMO. If you don't believe in god, then there is no question we are not alone, it is about the Science!! Carl Sagan once said "there are more stars in the sky then grains of sand on all the beaches in the World, COMBINED"!! Now as for why people don't crunch for Rosetta, and other worthwhile projects, IMO they don't advertise what they do enough! As you said, if Rosetta started telling people what they do and what they have done and what they will continue to do, I think people would come help. But Seti has had some SERIOUS growing pains accommodating the influx of users over the years. They have even re-issued the same workunits over and over and over again, just to keep the work flowing. Now they say they do not, but who truly knows for sure. They don't actually do anything with them anyway, so who would care? They have had many, many server problems and have actually lost their funding from several sources, including the NSF. Rosetta would have to gear up for that kind of response if it actually wanted more users.

---

Taking Mikey's example, how about if there's a $100 tax break for anyone certified to have crunched 5000 units or more in a year? 2/3 of users have never accumulated that in all their time, so what if they did? And what if it were easily 10 times those numbers in the US alone?

People are motivated by their hearts, but more so by their wallets. Let it be for something with some potential lasting benefit.

Or alternatively let "Hah" rule the day and no-one even try. There's a momentum that some will take up. I'm just suggesting a concerted attempt to grab them, rather than not bother because some people will inevitably refuse.

And where do you think the Government is going to come up with a $100 for every user? The cost to verify this and send out the refunds will cost more than the $100 refund. if you have read the boards in the past few months you will have seen people that have left the project for various reasons, from program troubles to lack of interest in this project anymore. What do you consider "units"? tasks? How do you verify this in the current setup of boinc and RAH? Who would verify it?

First, I note you've avoided the point about the relative failure of private enterprise on this issue. Second, in the light of the processing power available to this one project, the task of working out the increase in credits for (US participants only) from one point in time to another a year later and cutting off those under 5000 credits is absolutely trivial. Willy at boincstats could probably come up with that list in about half an hour.

To your bigger question there are two answers. First that the speech indicated that failing programmes would end, while succeeding projects would be encouraged, so that's a direct switch of funding. Second, that the point is to invest in both science and in healthcare to create jobs and improve quality of life and provide a dignified retirement - and that's an end in itself.

I often consider that people work harder at allowing failure to continue than they'd have to work to promote success. It appears you're not wanting to listen to the point that the time for cynicism has passed when the true test is whether something would be likely to succeed or fail and whether we'd increase the sum of knowledge in the meantime even if there was no direct tangible benefit. If you're function is merely to naysay then I'm not interested in continuing the conversation, because your approach would not be part of any solution I want to see.

I am all for getting more people involved, but then again, its a select group that comes to crunch on Rosie. Perhaps in the future word will get out to a wider group of people that can dedicate their resources to RAH. If there was a final outcome story that could be published regarding something RAH found that the medical community is using now and that was used as a recruiting tool, you might get more interest. If you could come up with a story for the people that are hardcore tech number crunchers that would get them interested in bringing the machines to RAH, that could be useful as well. But from what I see, the vast majority of people are more interested in aliens from Seti than proteins from RAH for number crunching.

I'd rather not expand on what I think of projects like Seti, except to say I share your view about it, but each to their own. I'd expect Seti not to be included in any Gov't support for a whole number of reasons.

On your other point, it may be that the current approach has garnered as many geeks, nerds and techies that it can and that's not a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. Which is why I started by talking about attracting those who might be interested for medical, ethical, human-interest reasons and grabbing them by their wallets as well as their heart-strings. You may not think it worthwhile, but my idea is to grab the interest of the kind of people who aren't already here.

---

Taking Mikey's example, how about if there's a $100 tax break for anyone certified to have crunched 5000 units or more in a year? 2/3 of users have never accumulated that in all their time, so what if they did? And what if it were easily 10 times those numbers in the US alone?

People are motivated by their hearts, but more so by their wallets. Let it be for something with some potential lasting benefit.

Or alternatively let "Hah" rule the day and no-one even try. There's a momentum that some will take up. I'm just suggesting a concerted attempt to grab them, rather than not bother because some people will inevitably refuse.

And where do you think the Government is going to come up with a $100 for every user? The cost to verify this and send out the refunds will cost more than the $100 refund. if you have read the boards in the past few months you will have seen people that have left the project for various reasons, from program troubles to lack of interest in this project anymore. What do you consider "units"? tasks? How do you verify this in the current setup of boinc and RAH? Who would verify it?

First, I note you've avoided the point about the relative failure of private enterprise on this issue. Second, in the light of the processing power available to this one project, the task of working out the increase in credits for (US participants only) from one point in time to another a year later and cutting off those under 5000 credits is absolutely trivial. Willy at boincstats could probably come up with that list in about half an hour.

To your bigger question there are two answers. First that the speech indicated that failing programmes would end, while succeeding projects would be encouraged, so that's a direct switch of funding. Second, that the point is to invest in both science and in healthcare to create jobs and improve quality of life and provide a dignified retirement - and that's an end in itself.

I often consider that people work harder at allowing failure to continue than they'd have to work to promote success. It appears you're not wanting to listen to the point that the time for cynicism has passed when the true test is whether something would be likely to succeed or fail and whether we'd increase the sum of knowledge in the meantime even if there was no direct tangible benefit. If you're function is merely to naysay then I'm not interested in continuing the conversation, because your approach would not be part of any solution I want to see.

I am all for getting more people involved, but then again, its a select group that comes to crunch on Rosie. Perhaps in the future word will get out to a wider group of people that can dedicate their resources to RAH. If there was a final outcome story that could be published regarding something RAH found that the medical community is using now and that was used as a recruiting tool, you might get more interest. If you could come up with a story for the people that are hardcore tech number crunchers that would get them interested in bringing the machines to RAH, that could be useful as well. But from what I see, the vast majority of people are more interested in aliens from Seti than proteins from RAH for number crunching.

I'd rather not expand on what I think of projects like Seti, except to say I share your view about it, but each to their own. I'd expect Seti not to be included in any Gov't support for a whole number of reasons.

On your other point, it may be that the current approach has garnered as many geeks, nerds and techies that it can and that's not a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. Which is why I started by talking about attracting those who might be interested for medical, ethical, human-interest reasons and grabbing them by their wallets as well as their heart-strings. You may not think it worthwhile, but my idea is to grab the interest of the kind of people who aren't already here.

a great untapped resource is corporate networks. if rosetta could be used on standalone systems connected to networks or on a usb stick via a citrix thin client, providing that such companies would allow such a program to be run on their systems, we could tap a huge amount of resources. but then again until this program becomes more stable, which it starting to show signs of doing now via the ralph tests, people are not likely to want to ask their CT (corporate technology) people if they could run this program. would also be cool if we could get computer stores to run this on their demo pc's.

A great untapped resource is corporate networks. If rosetta could be used on standalone systems connected to networks or on a usb stick via a citrix thin client, providing that such companies would allow such a program to be run on their systems, we could tap a huge amount of resources. But then again until this program becomes more stable, which it starting to show signs of doing now via the ralph tests, people are not likely to want to ask their CT (corporate technology) people if they could run this program. Would also be cool if we could get computer stores to run this on their demo pc's.

I thought you'd gone off on a complete tangent for a minute, but this is actually a good point. Put aside all that tax stuff, if there can be encouragement for secondment of coding support (mentioned in the original post) then it may be that Citrix (whoever) can help to ensure stability and security of Boinc and provide support for any shortcomings - built right into their code. If that could be encouraged the inately conservative corporations might be more willing (less scared) to have their networks utilised for Distributed Computing. I know Microsoft have been mentioned as having some involvementdiscussions on how they could contribute. Maybe the whole Xbox thing could be revitalised too.

You may be onto something.

Ah only if this dream could be reached. But alas it can not. No matter which side of the political spectrum they are from they are politicians. President Obama is no differnt than any of his predicesors.
It is laughable to believe Obama will drop programs at all. Just take this 1 example the national helium reserve. Yes I said helium, this bill/project was started not sur eof the exact year. So was either just before WW2 or just after WW2 in 1946.
My point is with the advent of aircraft that coudl fly above 20000 feet the barage ballon became out dated in the early 50s. Even tho the date was much earlier they still manufactured them past the Korean conflict. So again the point is for 45+ years after the military requirement for helium ended they continued resupplying the National helium reserve.
This cost a at the last year somewher ein the area of 600 million US dollars.
Why did it continue as a US government program? Easy it was the pork that is paid off to some legislature constituants.
Remember most US programs gives somebody free Dollars and they wwill scream to high heavans if you try to cut it off.

---

Ah only if this dream could be reached. But alas it can not. No matter which side of the political spectrum they are from they are politicians. President Obama is no differnt than any of his predicesors.
It is laughable to believe Obama will drop programs at all. Just take this 1 example the national helium reserve. Yes I said helium, this bill/project was started not sur eof the exact year. So was either just before WW2 or just after WW2 in 1946.
My point is with the advent of aircraft that coudl fly above 20000 feet the barage ballon became out dated in the early 50s. Even tho the date was much earlier they still manufactured them past the Korean conflict. So again the point is for 45+ years after the military requirement for helium ended they continued resupplying the National helium reserve.
This cost a at the last year somewher ein the area of 600 million US dollars.
Why did it continue as a US government program? Easy it was the pork that is paid off to some legislature constituants.
Remember most US programs gives somebody free Dollars and they will scream to high heavans if you try to cut it off.

In that same vein the US STILL pays for Scottish farmers to raise special sheep just in case the US Navy ever decides to go back to wool in its clothes! Pork is pork and will NEVER be cut from Politics! There is a story going around that Nancy Pelosi had Guam exempted from the minimum wage increase a year or so ago. The reason...her husband, Larry, owns a TON of Del Monte stock and Guam is where Del Monte processes alot of their food. Raising the minimum wage would have put Del Monte unable to compete with foreign companies. So how did Pelosi compensate the workers, in the TARP bill each person on Guam got $1,000.00 because their living standards were so low! Politics is Politics and they are all out to get re-elected!!!!! Personally I think term limits on each and every Congressman, just like the President, is the answer. I think 12 years is enough time for any Congressman to be able to serve their Country! We are a Country of career politicians and that has led to nothing but a mess! Each is out to give something to their home base which then leads those same people, you and I, to vote the same people back into office over and over and over again!!!

---