I certainly hope not before we are done with the current project.



I'd hardly call FAAH wasting time. HIV is a disease that got way out of control largely in part due to a lot of wasted time by governments, and John Q. Public. Had action been taken earlier, the situation wouldn't be as bad as it has gotten. While there are things that can cause cancer and other diseases, HIV gets passed from person-to-person in an all too easy manner.

The FAAH project was launched on November 21, 2005. That’s less than 5 months ago. The Human Proteome Folding Project was launched November 11, 2004… almost 17 months ago. Are you saying you’d be willing to stop the Human Proteome Folding Project? It has been running longer.

There are a lot of researchers in many areas that could benefit from the power of a grid, but switching from one project to the next before the data is complete seems like a time consuming waste to me. There is a formal selection and review process for new projects. Have you looked at all the information on the Research pages? The "Submit a Proposal" page has some .PDF and .DOC files with the selection criteria, etc. There's also a schedule (which does need to be updated) of when proposals will be evaluated.



I'd kinda agree with that. In my job, I work with projects that require ongoing updates on "where we are". When I see how much crunching has been done, it makes me wonder when do we know "complete" is.



I don't think grid computing is done on a whim. I'm sure the work that goes into the planning and execution of starting a grid project requires some level of accountability to make sure the data will get used. Everyday I see people who have faith in far less credible and tangible ideas. I've read the project summaries, and the FAQs about the current projects. I have no doubt in my mind that our data is valuable and will NOT be lost.

-j

your idea that the proteome is more basic may be right. but also consider that sometimes discoveries come from unusual places. who knows what these HIV inquiries could lead to, even if they are not 100% on target?

here's a wild true story :)

"I fell into a reverie, and lo, the atoms were gamboling before my eyes! Whenever, hitherto, these diminutive beings had appeared to me, they had always been in motion; but up to that time, I had never been able to discern the nature of their motion. Now, however, I saw how, frequently, two smaller atoms united to form a pair; how a larger one embraced the two smaller ones; how still larger ones kept hold of three or even four of the smaller; whilst the whole kept whirling in a giddy dance. I saw how the larger ones formed a chain, dragging the smaller ones after them, but only at the ends of the chain. . . The cry of the conductor: “Clapham Road,” awakened me from my dreaming; but I spent part of the night in putting on paper at least sketches of these dream forms. This was the origin of the Structural Theory."

(Kekule', on his discovery of the structure of carbon)

What about a project to identify suitable molecules for a molecular computer? The project could be split into two complementary teams, one trying to make organic-based molecular computers and the other using inorganic materials like CMOS. After the projects have identified the best molecule(s) suitable for a molecular computer, using an evolutionary algorithm they can zero in on the best 3-dimensional processor.

Then these computers can go on sale and perpetuate the grid research... except thousands of times faster.