I don't think the first question that unreasonable (maybe could have been clearer), or I may be misunderstading something, so I'll elaborate...

The amount of data that will be generated by projects run on the grid is likely to be quite large (big understatement). Too large for natural dissemination over the internet (I would image the datasets we're talking about run into the gigabytes, and are unlikely to be provided directly over the internet in a form that could easily be mirrored in a non-US country (at least not without full cooperation of the provider))

Whilst articles/adverts in the scientific literature detailling conclusions are useful, they don't provide the raw datasets that other scientists can use to draw their own conclusions, run their own analysis on, draw their own conclusions/interpretations, verify the original conclusions, etc.

I would hope, when the rules of the grid regarding provision of access to the results state that they should be made available for all, that they mean the large quantities of raw data produced by the computations, not just the final conclusions drawn by the scientists running a particular project. (Therefore enabling independant scientists to both verify the original analysis, and also do their own analysis without having to redo the original massive computations for themselves)

This raw data could be provided over the web (although refer to my first point), or by courrier on payment of a reasonable fee to cover the administrative costs involved. But, as is apparent from some software download sites, access can be restricted depending on where the requesting computer is located, or with regards courrier delivery, by the destination country.

The sort of administrative costs involved, and the amount of data, mean that we're not talking a scale at which some teenage kid trying to save the world could simply redistribute the data via his personal homepage. Third party scientists who have paid good money (provision of the data isn't cheap even from a purely administrative costs point of view) and don't wish to upset their data providers because they may want access to future data, aren't going to use up their scarse budgetary resources to pass the data on to others. (It's almost certain that if there is an initial restriction on the countries who can access the data, then this restriction will be passed on via licence agreement terms to whoever wishes to access the data)

Iran (and others on the US black list) are not as isloated as some people occasionally perceive (at least not from the standpoint of the country in question). Sure, their leaders do restrict access to some types of web sites (mainly political), but they do allow access to others, including scientific research (even North Korea does allow a select few of it's citizens access to western literature, etc).

So my first question is now actually two questions...

When the rules state that the results must be published, was I wrong to assume they refer to publishing the data obtained as a result of the computations, when in actual fact it's only the final conclusions/interpretations that need be made public?

Assuming I wasn't wrong (if I was, then ignore this question), will there be any restrictions as far as the publishers of the results are concerned with regards to who they'll provide the raw data to? (Will web sites be blocked from the US side, depending on the country of origin of the request? Will requests for courrier delivery of data be declined because of the final destination of that data?)


Now moving on to my original second question...

Again, coming back to the fact that some of the countries on the US blacklist aren't as isloted from the stand point of their own governments as is sometimes perceived by westerners. As your statement...

"...and request permission to establish regular electronic communications with the United States of America."

highlights. With the exception of possibly North Korea (in which case you may have a point), the rest of the countries on the US blacklist, are to most intents and purposes as fully connected to the rest of the world with respect to communications as any other country, eg Great Britain, France, Australia, etc. You could pick up a phone youself, and call someone direct with very little hassle at all, assuming you had their number, which they can freely give you. Equally, many of these countries have reasonable internet access. Admittedly, some political web sites may be censored along with others e.g. pornographic material, religious material, etc, but otherwise, access to scientific materials in general is not a problem.

These countries do have their own universities, which do, as long as they avoid certain religious and political areas, carry out fairly independant research, quite often on a par with or better than western research.

It is quite possible, that these governments would allow, with prior approval, a limited range of projects to be submitted for consideration of inclusion on the grid. Projects that, had they originated in the US, would easily gain approval. So I believe my question is reasonable, and hasn't properly been answered, and that is...

Assuming the scientists have the approval of their respective government, and assuming the project otherwise fits the rules of submission for inclusion on the grid, would the country of origin being on the US blacklist, prevent it's full and equal consideration for inclusion?

- Anon.

Once the Genie is out of the bottle there isn't sufficent power in the multiverse to put it back in.

Cuba was nothing but a whorehouse for the americans and mafia Castro saw a way to gain power and possibly help his people the US had cuba by the balls all their raw products had to come here at our price this subject is a thorn in my side as was veitnam our GD politicians are a gutless bunch of jackasses---but this is no reason to give up on this good work that will eventually help cuba damnit you all grow up!!!!!

Thats it, blame the entire country (and ALL the people) for what a few politicians have done.


Stupid is as stupid does. Stupid is correct. If anyone is paying attention they would see that Bush would make a good Democrat