Uh-oh. "Intel cancer research project sells out."

[cloasters]

Seems that a distributed computing cancer research project of Intel's, et al switched its participants over to doing anthrax research without telling them. Dunno if this has anything whatsoever to do with the Folding @ Home distributed computing project. I hope not!

The story is found at www.theinquirer.net/12020201.htm in today's(Feb 12th) edition of Mike the Inquirer.



Edit. Sorry about the wrong URL. Should be OK, now.

[Phil]

links not working

[T-Shirt]

correct link is
http://www.theinquirer.net/12020201.htm
(it's Inquirer not Enquirer)

[loop]

my brother runs UD, he says that you have a choice, on the member pages you can select cancer or anthrax.
Anthrax is still a worthy cause.

[Phil]

Switching over like that with no form of warning is out of order.
While anthrax is still a worthy cause, it's hardly as big an issue globally as cancer.

[Daniel ~]

I consider this to be theft and evil of the highest or lowest order!

Whatever an individuals reasons for deciding to assist one project or another they have a right to make that decision for themselves and NOT have it countermanded for use as a political ploy on corporate whim!!!

As the Canadian said in his/her letter to MS/Intel How many people have died of Anthrax and how many have died of cancer in the time it took he or she to compose his or her letter of resignation?

WHO DO THESE ASS***** THINK THEY ARE!!!!

[Phil]

I could understand them introducing the option for the anthrax research but to just plain change it over without telling people.
I wonder how many people would choose to research for anthrax over cancer, probabally why they've done it this way.
I say let the people responsable for developing weapons grade anthrax devise treatments and let the rest of us help against a natural plague.

[loop]

I think everyone is being a bit harsh
okay, they should have asked first before they changed but they are still doing good, I think everyone forgets how much this is costing the various parties running it and what a service this is.

They aren't even charging you anything.

[Phil]

Charging? what would they possibally charge for?
Yes researching anthrax is still a good cause, but it hardly compares with cancer does it

[dimmreaper]

Originally posted by Daniel ~
WHO DO THESE ASS***** THINK THEY ARE!!!!

God . . . .

[loop]

Originally posted by Phil
Charging? what would they possibally charge for?
Yes researching anthrax is still a good cause, but it hardly compares with cancer does it

someone has to pay for the servers, research, administration, programming etc...

[Phil]

Originally posted by loop


someone has to pay for the servers, research, administration, programming etc...

Well the people who donate cpu time could hardly be expected to pay for this, there are research depts and education depts and charitys for this, it's hardly a service you would pay to use is it, we are just donating our cpu time to it.

[loop]

Originally posted by Phil


Well the people who donate cpu time could hardly be expected to pay for this, there are research depts and education depts and charitys for this, it's hardly a service you would pay to use is it, we are just donating our cpu time to it.

I know, I was just pointing out that if it wasnt for sponsers and people like that then projects like this wouldnt even be there for people to help.

[Daniel ~]

Hi Loop.
1. it cost them nothing or almost nothing any more than it costs Seti or folding@home. In fact they made a very BIG publicity campaign out of it.

2. Anthrax is a good cause. so is tooth decay. But cancer is a huge % of the untimely human death rate.

3. People who sighed up for this were expecting that their computers would be used in the way they consented to. How would you feel if I switch over our folding team to SETI without informing anyone I had done so, in effect destroying our folding team on a whim.

4.1 1/2 MILLION people were in effect told that what they though didn't matter BIG BUSINESS would decide for them what was best.

5.Now only those who realize this has been done have a choice as to weather they can switch back to Cancer research. Many won't Many will simply quit in disgust. No one like to be used for someone else's agenda.

6. This wasn't done for any higher cause. It was done to gain PC advertising for the Corporations behind this swindle of the public trust. Indeed a disease with a immensely smaller kill rate (5 people in the USA ?)was substitute for one which kills millions and millions every year.

7. Trust me, this was an EVIL thing to do from every view point and all the flag waving in the world won't cover this up!

[Phil]

Originally posted by loop


I know, I was just pointing out that if it wasnt for sponsers and people like that then projects like this wouldnt even be there for people to help.

Still it doesn't give them the right to decide what we help when we've already decided to help one thing. It would be like holding a collection box for the blind and then giving it to a shelter for dogs or something.

[loop]

EVIL????
you make it sound like they are killing kittens
they simply changed the project so that it could run easier with some money.
and people can easily change back to doing cancer research if they are serious about it.

You make it sound serious, all it takes is a 1min job to click back on to cancer research. You dont even have to do it from the pc doing the work as far as I know.

[mookydooky]

It's never a good thing to comandeer a project that people have donated something to do something else. We look at it as spare computer cycles and we say it's something we don't use anyhow, but what if it was something a little different, say money. Remember a couple of months ago when it was revealed that the Red Cross was planning to use a good portion of the money that was contributed to the Sept. 11th fund for other uses than helping the victims? Perhaps the money would have been better used had the Red Cross been allowed to use it in the way they say fit, but the problem with that is that the people who donated the money BELIEVED that they were donating the money for a particular use. When the Red Cross revealed that that was not their plan, people were very indignant. Is this justified? I think it is. When it all comes down to it, the people spent the money thinking they were purchasing something, aid for the victims, instead Red Cross said they were getting something else, a better blood bank. Basically, it was a bait and switch, a used car salesman tactic (hope there are no used car salesmen out there). I don't know if this analogy makes any sense, but my point is, that if you donate something, be it money or even used CPU cycles, you do so believing that it will be used for a particular good. If you don't believe in that particular project, you obviously won't donate. The UD hijacking is just that, a hijacking of donations for another use that was not originally disclosed.

Mook.

[mookydooky]

"Evil" however, maybe a little melodramatic for this situation. I would reserve "evil" for exclusive use in State of the Union speeches concerning 3rd world nations where millions are starving. But that's just my opinion.

Mook.

[Daniel ~]

Originally posted by loop
EVIL????
you make it sound like they are killing kittens
they simply changed the project so that it could run easier with some money.
and people can easily change back to doing cancer research if they are serious about it.

You make it sound serious, all it takes is a 1min job to click back on to cancer research. You dont even have to do it from the pc doing the work as far as I know.

To remove choice and not even tell those you have removed it from is in point of fact EVIL. It's a form of slavery. No not Kittens, they are killing people, indirectly. "Make it sound serious"? It is serious, you simply haven't put any serious thought into it. You haven't lost anyone to cancer and thought, "if only there was something I could do to help".

As far as I can tell you and Intel are alone in thinking this is trivial.
You need to think this through, there's a lot here you simply aren't seeing.

[Daniel ~]

Originally posted by mookydooky
"Evil" however, maybe a little melodramatic for this situation. I would reserve "evil" for exclusive use in State of the Union speeches concerning 3rd world nations where millions are starving. But that's just my opinion.

Mook.

I define "EVIL" as a negation of the "Good" To remove the choice of a million and a half people who entrusted an entity with their CPU cycles, when there were other also worth while things to do with them, and divert it to a cause selected to bring greater profits the the enity directing those cycles without reguard as to what was being lost is an evil act.

It has the same ring as hi-jacking a plane in mid-flight to take it somewhere else. given that the research involved 1 1/2 million computors the ultimate losses may exceed the evil of 9/11. in human lives. I have no way of knowing.

I submit that this "type" of high handed action is responsible for those millions