| Subject: Re: Please move distributed computing discussions to comp.distributed |
| From: kpearson@nyx10.nyx.net (Kirk Pearson) |
| Date: 06/08/2004, 00:36 |
| Newsgroups: alt.sci.seti,sci.astro.seti |
In article <gzeQc.9103$N77.444886@news.xtra.co.nz>,
~misfit~ <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
Wrong Kirk. alt.sci.seti was created on 1st June 1999. Guess what happened
17 days before that? That's right, S@H went 'live'. The original charter,
which I had the URL to in a post to Raj, that I'm not hunting for again,
said that the group was for the dicussion of all things SETI, including S@H.
It did mention that, if it was warranted, a new group, alt.sci.seti.at-home
would be created for S@H in particular. <Looks about> I don't see that group
so I'm still using this group as per it's original charter.
Fair enough, although I don't see how discussions of PC power consumption and
human bikkie consumption relate to the group's original charter.
If you have been here since this newsgroup was created then I'm not telling
you anything new in the above. The charter was also the very first post to
this newsgroup. (ass). And thanks for the condescending attitiude, I'm fully
aware that there is more to SETI than the Berkeley initiative. I first heard
the term SETI in the early '70's and have been interested ever since. I must
have read three sci-fi books a week for a decade, in the "golden days" of
sci-fi. I'm not interested in using my PC to study medications for some
global phamacuetical company (working though sponsership of a university
project for 'legitimacy').
To "evolve or die," as you
suggest, we should leave the SETI newsgroups for discussion of the
science of SETI overall, and for the scientific aspects of SETI@home,
Optical SETI, and any other projects which arise to further the study
of SETI, and move the discussion of the technical and user aspects of
SETI@home and BOINC, and all other distributed computing projects, to
comp.distributed, where they are more appropriate.
No, the group alt.sci.seti.at-home should be created as originlly planned.
You remember that post of course, in June of '99, since you were here from
the beggining. (Although Google has no record of you posting here before
2000) I don't want to go to a group where over 50% of the discussion is
off-topic for me. I'm not interested in DC in and of itself, I'm interested
in SETI.
Who is condescending now? I have been a Usenet reader and poster since 1988
(and yes, you will find postings from me in other newsgroups from back then).
"I don't want to go to a group where over 50% of the discussion is off-topic
for me" is pretty much what many early posters in s.a.s and a.s.s said when
they were forced to wade through endless, voluminous SETI@home classic
discussions which didn't interest them. I find it interesting that you claim
to be interested in science (after all of that science fiction you've read),
yet you have no interest in distributed computing applications which will do
so much to advance science in the coming decades.
To answer John's reply: most SETI purists probably appreciate BOINC,
since it is doing so much to further the study of SETI, but they DO
object to the discussion of technical and user aspects of BOINC in
the SETI newsgroups, as you will see in many past posts.
Aww, diddums. The 'alt' series of NG's are a lot more lax in what is, and
what isn't OT in them. I suggest you and your puritans stick to the NG sas.
But then you say you're not a purist. Hmmm, why would you presume to be
speaking on their behalf then?
Because they have gotten tired of speaking on their own behalf, only to
be ignored by people like you.
Who created the comp.distributed newsgroup anyway?
Not that you care, but it was created by David DiNucci, a distributed computing
theorist who also has an interest in applications of distributed computing
like SETI@home.
Have a nice day.
You too, diddums. Enjoy your bikkies and your flamefests. And your
corrections of others' unintentional misspellings. I'm sorry you don't have
anything more useful to do with your time.