| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
| World Community Grid Forums
|
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 4
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I was curious how computer simulation, compares to work done in a lab. If you give a lab $1000 to do research, how long would it take the base-line work computer to do the same amount of work ? Does my computer crunching numbers all day, compare to someone spending a day in a lab ? How much work are our computers really doing ? Which goes further, $300 donation to an AIDS charity, or $300 for a new CPU ?
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi Blink,
This reminds me of my old thread 'We Are Real Cheap' at http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=2066#11584 that I posted back when we were running HPF. Two things to remember: first, good lab data is definitive whereas computationally derived hypotheses are probabilistic; second, both are getting faster and cheaper, though at different rates. Lawrence |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Kinda apples compared to oranges stuff eh?
What I really like about scientific analysis is that there are no failures. Theories and possibilities are eliminated by negative results and one can move on to the next most likely event. Always moving forward. Cheers. ozylynx ![]() |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
This is interesting.....
----------------------------------------Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society said that Dr Bray's work "demonstrates why computational biology will be essential for making progress in the field of biology more generally. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6113522.stm
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
|