I use IE, when I click on EspiTeam (Spain - Espa񡩼/a>, I get a blank page.
tony

As I don't know if administrators want to use my version or Hoelder1in version,
I've put my draft here
I'll continue to work on it next week, but feel free to improve/correct it

Well, in the Seti .po file, they've done that, so I've done the same thing with the Rosetta draft.
Perhaps your method is better, I don't know...Let the administrators decide what's easier for them

Ok, I've looked a little at the Seti home page .po file.

If you want a underlined link you have to put a % sign : %your underlined link%
To do a black dot it's <ul><li>first</li><li>second</li></ul> like html

So for Rosetta it should be (I just give an exemple)

msgid "YOUR_ACCOUNT"
msgstr "<ul><li>%Your account% - view stats, modify preferences</li></ul>"

msgid "TEAMS"
msgstr "<ul><li>%Teams% - create or join a team</li></ul>"

There is a lot of <ul><li> </li></ul> tags IMHO: is there a more simple way to do black dots.
Can someone confirm before I modify the draft ?

• Rosetta at the time was (and still is) the much smaller project in terms of participants - so I felt my contribution would make more of a difference there and it also seemed to be sort of fair that both projects should have access to similar amounts of computing power. So in fact lots more Folding@home participants would have to switch over to Rosetta. ;-)
  
• over the years I never really understood how the science done at Folding@home would eventually lead to treatments or cures. With Rosetta the connection to identifying drug targets and to drug design seemed much more obvious.
  
• somewhat related to the last point, I never really understood the science behind Folding@home. I mean what is it that we really learn by following the folding path of a protein - I understand the intellectual challenge and fun of being able to do that, but what is the point ? With Rosetta it seemed much easier to understand what the project was after.
  
• after participating in Rosetta for a while I also began to enjoy the direct contact to David Baker and the other team members. David Baker is very good at making everyone feel a part of the team and whenever I had a question about the project it was immediately answered. The project is also very willing to take up suggestions by team members.
  

I thought this might fit in with your discussion...

...why is it negative at times? How can you have a negative energy?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_Research_at_Home.html

I did contact Akos a while ago, but he for the moment wants to focus on further improvements to the Einstein code.

I EMailed myself, and Yahoo! Mail dropped it right in the bulk mail (i.e. SPAM) bin. Is that due to making the reply to EMail not match the sender?

p.s Yes, Jupiter is a gas giant, we have been planning on re-shooting David's analogy to say "a planet the size of jupiter" or "a large planet." Sorry, should have clarified that in the original post. Any suggestions on shorthand for "a large planet" that brings to mind an immediate mental picture besides "jupiter"?

Why not just use good old Earth as an example in the planet analogy?

Everest, Dead Sea. see Extremes on Earth

-David Baker- elevation analogy

http://norfolk.cs.washington.edu/htbin-post/unrestricted/colloq/details.cgi?id=449

Absolutely worth watching.

I agree, and believe that you are your own worst critic (all of us are), and my focus on your presentation was on what you had to say. I found it fascinating, and a means to get to know you better. So David, I would suggest featuring the link on the project main page. Very worthwhile!

I would guess that the size of a small protein in its native state must be something like 50 atoms across, so the size of a protein would be a few Nanometers or more (I am not a bio science guy either, I am sure the experts will be able to give you more accurate numbers).

a little bigger, you have to take into account the size/length of the bonds

I am not a bio science guy but, If I read this description of 1tul correctly, the reference to "Resolution" gives some idea of the size. I can't tell if this is the field size required for the thing to fit into to be resolved or the actual size of the protein itself.