DC - how would we like it?

[Crazee]

Wow a lot of really good stuff in this thread

May I say petrusbroder you are my hero It nice to see someone find a constructive way to get people to talk about potentially sensative subjects without things getting to a boiling point.

To answer your questions:

1. Should DC projects go commercial? If so, how should the contributors be renumerated?

I don't have a problem if someone wants to take a project commercial as long as they inform the users clearly that is what it is doing. I personally would choose not to participate because I prefer to work with non profits when it comes to my DC.

2. What do we - the crunchers - expect from the projects? Papers? Aknowledgments? Good information? Honor? Money? "Real-world"-results?

I expect plenty of work on a consistent basis. I want them to be able to handle what they create efficient and without problems. So mainly for me I want a reliable unobtrusive client that receives work on a regular basis.

When I first started the stats were extremely important to me. As I have gone on, the project and it's purpose have become much more important. I would love "real world" results, but I do realize they come in many shapes and sizes. I know there was a lot of data from the Seti project that has been helpful to scientists that does not involve ET. They have used the data to help with research and theories on Quasars, pulsars and black holes.


3. What makes a project meaningful to crunch?

I think anything that interests you makes a project meaningful to crunch.

 

[Wolfsraider]

Originally posted by: Crazee
Wow a lot of really good stuff in this thread

May I say petrusbroder you are my hero It nice to see someone find a constructive way to get people to talk about potentially sensative subjects without things getting to a boiling point.


I know there was a lot of data from the Seti project that has been helpful to scientists that does not involve ET. They have used the data to help with research and theories on Quasars, pulsars and black holes.

OOH like the 10th planet lol

 

[petrusbroder]

The question is still, do we really know what we are doing? For most projects it seems so - but for others? Since there is no quality control (which by the way exists for charities in sweden) we could design our own.

I have the following proposition:
We agree on what to look for on the home-pages - i.e. which items are important - a checklist. Then everybody grabs one project (their favorite) and checks the list and posts the results. That way we will soon find out what projects are really well organized and well maintained and which projects offer a more or less complete disclosure.

What do you think and what items should be on the check list?

Just to start you off (each item should be referenced with a web page or something similar):

1. Home page adress (such as http://lhcathome.cern.ch/home.php):
2. Which organization is responsible for the project?
3. Who funds the project?
4. How long has the project been on line?
5. Which other associaltions/societies support the project?
6. Which commercial organizations support the project?

7. Who is/are the project coordinator(s)?
8. Who is/are the chief scientist(s)?
9. Are controllable data (such CVs or similar) about the people above published?
10. Who is/are responsible for the datacollection?
11. Who is responsible fopr the client(s)?
12. Which system or client is used (such as BOINC)
13. Where are the data stored?
...
...

14. Have any results been published? When? Where?
15. Have any results been challenged? When? By whom?
16. Are the results available in a (for college graduates) understandible form?

...
...

17. Are there stats available on the homepage?
18. Real time stats?
19. Are the stats accurate?

20. Is there a FAQ?
21. Is there a forum?
22. Is there a current info page (about outages, problems, bugs, etc)?
23. Is there a well functioning communication with crunchers - throug a forum monitored by credible mods/programmers/ or such)?
...
...

etc.

Please add what questions should be asked. When such a checklist is finished (in a day or two) lets collect the data for a week (I will volunteer for Euler). I'll collect the data and will publish them here (in this forum) and then also on the Team AnandTech-net (TAS home forum)

So What do you think? Is this do-able?

 

[flyted]

I think that it is very clear that we have no idea of what DC really is and how its being used. Its just too new a field. I was in LM, they finally said thanks everyone, we don't need you anymore, we got what we needed, goodbye. How would you feel if your project did that? Your list of potential things to think about or ask of a potential DC project is information that for the most part is not put out there by the projects and I've found very difficult to get from the projects. The "money trail" is well hidden in DC projects. Why? Anyone doubt this, look into FAD or WCG. Is ther any financial reports on any DC project? Any accountability? Any checks and balances to ensure the integrity of the program? Petrusbroder is correctin that ther is no quality control. We are doing this on blind faith, with rare exceptions. For those who only use spare cycles on a Celeron thats on for only 2 hours a day, they may not care. But for those of us more involved, or who have built computers to run only DC projects, the concern is greater. While the checklist is a great idea, I think most will pick a project like they buy at the store, that which has the best advertising and glitter usually sells the most regardless of quality. Which makes one wonder who does fund these projects? How would a project, who like an open-source code, wants all the results to be free to benefit the most people, survive? An alternative to individuals running the program, may be to give money to the program of choice to pay their bills, stay independent, and keep the results free to the world.

 

[Assimilator1]

A lot of research needs to go into investigating the DC projects themselves to see which ones have ethics and results will really benefit those who need it

Good idea flyted (& you made many valid points) ,though who would do this research? ,each individual could do a little research of their own but they would only be skimming the surface ,afterall we all have our lives to live
To fully investigate each DC project I would imagine would be a long winded & lengthy process ,who would be qualified to do this?.It would have to be a dedicated group of people.


Insidious
About the issue of paying DC projects ,their would have to be a blanket rule saying something like 'not to be installed on company PCs unless the company agrees to it and they get the cash!' .......that just might encourage more companies to do it

 

[petrusbroder]

"Who would do this research?" Assimilator1 asks. The answer is obvious: the crunchers have to do it themselves.

There are no other people intrested in this, because ...
1. it is the crunchers who donate their resources, time, etc.
2. only the crunchers know what they need to know,
3. and those who need to be investigated will probably not have the time to do it nor be objective enough to do it (since they (I assume) use their time to do science)
4. Since there is not enough money involved in this yet, no consumer organization will take such investigation under theit wings.

So, as far as I can see, one of the ways to start is to take a questionnaire/checklist, to look at each site and see what is there. That does not need a lot of time (2 hours I guess) but then we know what info is present and - more importantly - what info is not. And then we can start asking questions by e-mail or mail or phone or what not.

But: the starting point must be to look what info there is just to find out what we lack.

Then the "dedicated people" would need to do their job.

You see it is us, the crunchers, who have the power.
If - lets say - the 500 most productive crunchers of TA would stop crunching, and then persuade other crunchers (with hard data) that there is something fishy going on , the project would fail very soon, ant the investment the project coordinators have done will be losyt - with very few results to show.
They can not afford that, and thus, the project coordinators have alll the incentive to cooperate.
Those coordinators who cooperate will get more people to crunch for them, those who do not will get less ands less.

So: it is in all project coordinator's interest to give the info we need.
We need to evaluate the given info critically and have an ongoing discussion about the ins and outs of the project and thus we willpromote a higher quality of the research performed.

This reads lika a manifesto, and may be it is.

But we have to realize, that without our computing power and without our dedication the projects will not continue, if they are not good enough.

I really want to help those scientists. But I also want to know, that my help gets where I think the help is needed, and not to enrich some guy I do not even know.

The preliminary review does not take so much:
Lets take the top 25 projects TA is involved in.
If we can get 10 people to peruse their sites according to a checklist we compose - which should not take that long - the we have reached the starting point.
I could then put those first reviews on e.g. TAS site (which has sufficient space) and then we could see what info is needed and then ask the Qs.
If the info is complete then all is well ((that I know is not the case - I have checked a few places...)
If the info is incomplete we start asking Qs, collect those answers, append them to the checklist. In the end we may have enough info to see which projects need to be investigated even more carefully. Then we can ask ann intrested investigative journalist to look at that project - because then it will be interesting for many crunchers...

I'll take on Euler (which is a small project and thus a good pilot-investigation) as soon as we agree on the checklist/questionnaire. The I can take and look at LHC@home or Predictor@home.

What is your opinion? Please post!

 

[Wolfsraider]

ygpm

 

[Insidious]

I think Assimilator1 has a great point about cash awards for crunching. It might help to unlock enormous resources to forward all this work.

Of course, from the project administrator's perspective... presently, cheaters are an annoyance... the stakes raise if $$ is involved. Which creates another (large) area of effort for the project teams (validation of results) that they may not have the desire or resources to address.

So all in all I guess I am convincing myself that the greater gains vs. resource, for a project might well be made with efforts to enhance the attractivness of their work to maintain large volunteer participation.

Now for the bad news. While I love the idea of serious research into the validity of each of these DCs, I must admit it is outside my limits of interest and involvement to do the leg work beyond what little I already do. (browsing forums, etc.) I don't want to discourage anyone from this Endeavor and I would happily read the results, but I've got to be honest with y'all

-Sid

-Sid

 

[petrusbroder]

@ Wolfsraider: ygpm

 

[petrusbroder]

I have been gently asked if my posts (se above) propose to discriminate against certain projects.
I want hereby say, that I have no intention to discriminate against any project nor to start any action which would harm any project.
My intention is to get information so that everybody can make a informed decision about what to crunch.

After rereading (with a different set of spectacles) I can understand, that my posts may be seen as severe or aggressive. I have no aggressive intention.
What I want to do, as I said above, is to get people to think about what they really know and what they do not.

If anybody wants to argue against me he or she is very welcome. It is a good and in facts grounded argument which illuminates and increases our knowledge.
In this thread I know that feelings may run high. I will not be offended even if somebody calls me an a..hole or a f...g ID10T, simply because that tells more about the person who writes such words than about me.

 

[Wolfsraider]

I am sorry Peter but I too really don't have the time or resources to help on this one so I am going to leave this in your capable hands.You are and always have been my friend

I have my hands full as my daughters are finally back from california and I have to find employment soon , as well as trying to get my little side business off the ground :Q and update my sites .

Take care

Mike

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: Freewolf
Here's another question


What's more important to you
#1 The success of the Project overall
#2 The sucess of the team overall
#3 your personal success

Team success
Individual success

As for the project.......sure if would be great if it resulted in something tangible right away, but with the nature of some of the projects, it takes a lot of time.
F@H for example is one that will take years and years to potentially see any results. I have no problems in the long lag time. My computers are on all the time, so I might as well put them to use.

many of us "old timers" likely feel the same way, SETI@Home v1 was the first really successfully distributed computing project, the odds of actually finding extra terrestrial intellegence in the methods we use today are astronomical, however without the trying, we won't drive human need to explore and expand our knowledge of things currently unseen or unknown. For these projects many of us are all about helping the "TeAm" and being a part (even if a small part) of something much larger than ourselves. Statistics give us good rivalry (like sports) and incentive to "crunch more, more, more"

my 2 centavos.

as to the first 3 questions, JoshL....er,Provia Fan, hit the nail on the head with my feelings/views.

 

[GLeeM]

Originally posted by: petrusbroder
I want hereby say, that I have no intention to discriminate against any project nor to start any action which would harm any project.
My intention is to get information so that everybody can make a informed decision about what to crunch.

Without doubt, this would be very valuable information.

It will take quite a bit of effort and many will have to help.

Have you considered that many may not want to know?

What if their favorite project has faults they didn't know about.

Ignorance is bliss!

 

[flyted]

Petrusbroder-

Your post was not agressive at all. It was simply the "kill the messenger" response typical when you tell someone that there might be a crack in the armor of what they "believe" is true. Some simply don't want to know the truth, but would rather just keep the status quo, no matter what the facts are. A closer inspection would be welcomed by the good projects, not so much so by ones that may not be transparant in their operations.

You are the only other DC'er, besides myself, that I've seen voice the reality that WE are the commodity in the DC project. We place no value on our importance in contributing by not verifying what is done with our results. Without us there are no projects. To date, people have mostly been happy to contribute no matter what and didn't see the power they have to reward good projects and leave the poor ones. Like the saying, "vote with your money", we could vote with our cycles. If the DC community demanded accountability, we would get it. Unfortunately, human behavior being what it is, that might not happen until somewhere down the road a disaster occurs when we find out about a misused project. Disillusioned, people will leave and question if they even want to trust one again.
I'd be happy to look into any project as I do extensive research into companies now as a living. I've already dug deep into FAD and WCG, but I'll volunteer to look at any project.

The future of DC is us. How much time is that worth?

 

[BlackMountainCow]

It took me a long time to read this post and don't know the precursor thread that initiated this one as I wasn't able to be around much lately. But I think it's one of the best TA-DC threads I've read in my time with TA, outstanding work Peter!! I never really thought about many things mentioned here and I already apologize for my rather long answer that is about to come:


1. Should DC projects go commercial? If so, how should the contributors be remunerated?

I would not like to see this happen. Maybe I'm an idealist, but is there really the need to go commercial? Has there ever been any DC project that had to shut down because nobody wanted to crunch it? If, so please tell me, because I wouldn't know of any. In addition to that, as others already stated, $ means corruption. To me, the DC community as a whole has something of a "frontier spirit" that would get spoiled by the involvement of $. I'm aware that this is an idealistic and probably also naive attitude.



2. What do we - the crunchers - expect from the projects? Papers? Aknowledgments? Good information? Honor? Money? "Real-world"-results?

Honesty. Nothing more, nothing less. If they find something: great! Imagine that SETI had come up with a factual evidence that ET actually IS out there. W00t! But also, if they can't find what they're looking for, tell the crunchers as well. I liked the fact that Lifemapper and Distributed Folding clearly said that after a certain point of time, they wouldn't need the DC community anymore and thus freed up resources for other projects. Other DC projects do not do that, they keep going on for what seems to be forever and thus bind forces. (No, this is not a pun on SETI but a general observation).

When doing a project like Einstein, DPAD or LHC, it's pretty easy to get a real world result. Either they find those gravitational waves or not, either they build that collider in the best way possible or not. With FaD, F@H, Predictor and other such projects it's much harder. Yes, they find some proteins that have some possibilities to enact with a virus/cancer/cell/other protein but to take that to the next level and give me as a cruncher a result in my hand I can use is a long way. CPDN for example will never have a real life result any time prior to 50 years in the future, when the calculations can be verified with reality outside our doors and a simple thermometer. But still people crunch CPDN so real life examples can't be all that important.

Feedback from the project leaders is also a thing I really appreciate. I donate my time & money; then they should also donate some time and visit the forums and post regular news. That was one of the reasons I left D2OL after a while, just no news. I'm not talking about any particular news, just a sign that the people behind a project are actually still alive and still need and appreciate the work that is being done for them. And of course, a nice certificate once in a while isn't bad either.



3. What makes a project meaningful to crunch?

That's a though one. For me it always has something to do with my own ethics. Until I had my little fight with Stephen Brooks (the guy who runs DPAD) I did the project with so much effort and energy like I've never done before and after. To me it was meaningful because it was of essential spiritual value if there exists something like a muon or not. If they exist, the matter of space ultimatey might be sufficient to contract again and we have another big bang. If not, space would expand for ever and eventually become a cold (and I mean COLD) and dark place without life. From a religious point of view, the second case would deeply contradict my own view of creation. A cold and dark universe seems pretty pointless after all the effort to create it. But one that lives for a while and then explodes again into a new one is a good idea and gives room for new creation. Thus, DPAD was essential to me. (This is a really simplified version of DPAD and what drove me to crunch it)

Right now I do FaD because it seemed really worthwhile and to mye knowledge, it is exceptional because it actually validates findings with 3rd party laboratories. And really, I want to have one of those certificates telling me that I crunched one of those proteins that have anti-cancer activity.



4. Do we really know what we are crunching?

Nope. But I guess that they actually really do what they claim to do. The question is rather how good to they do what they do. I know that there are so many gifted and talented DCers out there that take a look into almost every detail of what they do. Just think of all the 3rd party tools available. I think that if there was some scam going on, somebody of them would discover it sooner or later. That's a benefit of those projects that give feedback. For example, it would be very hard for CPDN to calculate something else, because with some 3rd party tools, you can take a look into what you actually crunched on and get such a load of detailled info, that CPDN would have to have a special "let's fake some results and make 'em look good" departmend in order to cheat us, the users.



5. Also, do we know how the results are used?

Not really. But hope dies last, at least for me. Besides that, I can't see how some DC project could actually make money with what they do. I mean, who would pay a load of money to gain the knowledge, that gravitational waves exist (E@H) or that the largest prime number has a thousand or more digits? Others of course, like those with medical purpose potentially can abuse the results. But as Mike said, "not guitly until proven." Again, yes, that's naive of me but I still believe in the good in people first before I condemn them and the same goes for my DCs.



6. Also a question about the people behind the projects arises: who are these people? What info about the projects should we require?

That doesn' really matter to me. I mean, do you know all the people behind the manufacturer of your car or your washing machine? But I guess you still trust them to do a good job. I for my part enter my car every day with the feeling of "hello car" and not "OMG, don't kill me car, don't abuse me!" I hope you see me point. What I'd like to have would be some official representatives that are in contact with all other people of the DC project and to those official representatives I could address my questions. I mean, you never call Bill Gates and tell him that his OS crashed again, you call somebody lower in the ranks, but eventually the info will get through and reach the top. Well, maybe not in the case of M$ but in a small DC it will because if it doesn't, crunchers will just stop and do other DCs.



Pheww.... long answer. Sorry if I bored somebody.


Peter, again, great work with opening this thread. It really made me think about my attitute towards DC in general. Probably I (we) are too trusting about some DC projects. I don't want to condemn all of them as I guess neither of us here wants to. But maybe there are some "black sheeps" out there. We'll see. Indeed, I guess there first has to come the big crash until we start to realize what has been going on with our time, effort and money. I myself was thinking about building a new Athlon X2 system but for now have suspended that idea until I'm more clear about the DCs I do. And yes, I will read into them way more thoroughly that I did before.






EDIT: typos and grammar

 

[petrusbroder]

Thanks, all authors, for your input. It is really thought provoking to read the posts.

As we can see there are some holes in the web of knowledge about DC. I think - and I hope I am wrong - that we know more about the installation, running, and error-searching of the clients, about stats, about teams and WUs than about the science which is done by the projects or about how the projects are run.

That may coincide with the interests of crunchers, who - if I understand quite a few of the posts in the DC-forum correctly - are very often more intrested in the stats, races and teams. That is all very well. A hobby very worthwhile because it not only does something for the cruncher, but also helps a science project. It is a win-win situation.

I therefore understand if quite a few people say: we get everything we want out of this and are happy with the situation as it is. Don't fix what ain't broken. Don't rock the boat.

I am a very curious person. I want to find out. That has been the case since middleschool and that attitude has landed me in quite a few spots of trouble (E.g.: never, never, never, never ask your chemistry teacher: Why is that so? more than three times in a row: it will get him to the limits of his knowledge and then he gets mad at you. That has happend several times to before I learned that lesson Nor do observe the melting of lead too closely, a drop may jump into your eye and give you bad eye-sight for the rest of you life - thats why I have glasses - on the other hand: do you know the beautiful shine that lead has just before the surface melts . BTW, this was before camcorders were common). That attitude has also resulted in a lot of happiness, gained knowledge and to meeting a lot of intresting people - such as you guys here!

So: Why is there more interest in the crunching side of the projects than the science side? Or the "running the project" side? I do not know, but it is the crunching side which keeps many people in DC.

For me, it was the science side of Seti@home which made me start on the project, the same with Einstein@home. Just a few months before I joined TAS the crunching side became important, then the stats and the races. Now I am starting to think about the science again.

Back to the question above the italicized paragraph: May it be so, that the science is quite hard to understand, and that it is easier to take the word of the project coordinators and the scientists that "all will be used well"?

Why is the science so hard to understand? Can it be explained in such a way that the crunchers will learn a lot and thus get more educated? If they are more educated will they contribute more just because they understand more?

Here we get to the point of trust: can we trust the guys who run the projects? I assume that in most projects the answers is "Yes". But can we trust ourselves to find "the bad apples"? To that question my answer is "I do not know". On the other hand: if the crunching community is to find the "bad apples" the community has to ask the right questions. And when is the right time to do that?

A similar question is: can we trust the science behind the projects? Who reviews the science? OK, the projects are funded from somewhere. And those who give money very often have a rigorous review process before the money is given. So: that can be a "check and balance" in this matter. But is that so? If I know - as I think I do for Seti@Home - than I am happy. If I can not find out I do not crunch that project.

My problem is that is is very hard to find out if project is peer reviewed or reviewed before funding. It is also sometimes hard to find out who or which organisation is responsible for the project. In most projects it is quite easy ...

It all boils down: we are volunteers, very often dedicated ones, and we have to make choices. Those choices should be - in the ideal world - informed as well as "gut-level" ones (that is the ideal situation: I have enough info and can choose a project I also like!). As it is now, it takes a lot of effort to get the info - which at least I would like to have. It is therefore more comfortable just to rely on the "gut- level". That is very often good. But is it good enough?

 

[petrusbroder]

OT: have you seen that this thread is among the ten most viewed threads in the forum? I went only 3 pages back though... and we are far from the number of views of the locked NEF-thread

 

[BlackMountainCow]

My guess is that a lot of people just like the good feeling of contributing to something useful while having a good portion of fun and competition in the forums and stats. It's the sme with many kinds of sports. Riding a mountain-bike is a fun thing, especially in groups. But what about nature and the destruction of her while people drive their mountain-bikes? Shooting some guns at practice targets is fun, too. But what about the lead that gets into the soil and ground water? I think there's usually always a downside to everything that makes fun. It's also a good excuse to wives/girlfriends that one needs a raise in the PC budget 'cause "it's for a good cause."

I'm not saying that people are lazy, ignorant or just ignore the facts. But as it has been posted before in this thread, "ignorance is bliss." But it doesn't protect one from exploitation.

 

[Insidious]

I really am not ready to accept it is ignorance that allows so many of us to continue with DC. Consider this:

I ride my Harley knowing I might get squished by a truck

I give my son my opinions and guidance knowing I might be incorrect and lead him astray

I give my love to a woman knowing she might turn from me and leave me in pain

I give money to the church knowing the pastor might spend it foolishly

I design electronic circuits for tanks that might be sold to a country and used against me some day

I go to bed every night and close my eyes, ignoring the world even though I know it might produce tragedy while I rest



It isn't ignorance of these risks that lets me live my life taking these risks... it is my knowledge that these things might change the world, or at least my little part of it for the better!

Please stop calling me ignorant for living my life, daring to take small risks for a greater good... it is foolish enough to take a risk, but how much more foolish to hide from them in a corner calling everyone else names?

-Sid






edit: I don't really believe anyone here has attacked me or anyone else, the above is simply to make a point... not directed at any individual... this thread has been friendly, thoughtful and I have been happy to be a part of it :beer:

 

[BlackMountainCow]

Good point Insidious, really good point. But let me ask you one thing:

Do you wear a helmet while you ride your Harley? Do you drive with eyes open?

I guess so.

And that's all this thread is about. We should take at least some precautions while doing DC, just like wearing a helmet.

 

[GLeeM]

My post with the "Ignorance is bliss" quote was showing MY feelings. It was pointed at me. I am not sure I want to know what Peter suggests we dig up.

It's fun just the way it is :roll:

 

[petrusbroder]

I agree, Sid, with your point. In real life there is no way we can know enough. We take a lot of risks we don't know about. In your post you point out some of the risks you take knowingly. I think that there is a big difference between knowing about a risk and taking it or not even knowing that there is a risk.


...


This thread - I am quite sure - has already illuminated some risks. I am also very sure, that the readers are capable of judging for themselves what they want to do. Some are more cautious, some are more daring, some are happy with the situation as it is, others want to know more. That is the point of this thread - to illuminate, to stimulate thinking and to increase knowledge.

As one can see from the posts - that is certainly going on in a very orderly and, as far as I can see, polite way. For that I am grateful.

 

[petrusbroder]

Originally posted by: GLeeM
My post with the "Ignorance is bliss" quote was showing MY feelings. It was pointed at me. I am not sure I want to know what Peter suggests we dig up.

It's fun just the way it is :roll:

AFAIK, I have proposed that we collect availible info from the different project's home pages and put them in some forum for all to read. The info should be so organised that the projects are described in a as uniform way as possible; so that information is easily legible and comparable (as fas as that can be...)

I have no idea what such a comparison of the openly available facts would show, the only thing I know is that it would be very interesting (for me and a few others at least).
I ask my self also: if such info is available, would there be people who would refrain from reading it?

GLeeM, I understood your sentence " ... Ignorance is bliss ... " as being thought provoking, your point, and nothing else ...

Edit: Please note that I have only propsed that collection. That proposition has not been accepted by the crunchers of this team and as far as I know no one has started that work yet.

 

[petrusbroder]

Originally posted by: BlackMountainCow
Good point Insidious, really good point. But let me ask you one thing:

Do you wear a helmet while you ride your Harley? Do you drive with eyes open?

I guess so.

And that's all this thread is about. We should take at least some precautions while doing DC, just like wearing a helmet.

Christian,

I have to give you a "off-topic"-comment:
In january the Swedish parliament passed a law, that all kids younger than 15 years have to have a helmet when riding a bicycle. Thist may be OK. But:
Investigations show, that more than 75% of all Swedish kids used helmets before this law came into effect, and that only a few kids had head injuries. More than 90% of all head injuries while bicycling occured in adults aged 18 or older ... to a cost of quite a few millions Swedish kronor each year.

Of course that law is rediculed by almost everybody and the police do very little about enforcing it. At my hospital then we take care of all the adults (often family providers) with brain damage ...

Using the helmet is each and everyone's own choice and responsibilty. No laws should be needed.

 

[flyted]

Seems like some just don't care about the integrity of a project, just doesn't interest them. That's OK, I think they are in the vast minority. Others would be interested to find out about the details of what the project is really made of and the ethics of the program, but don't have an interest or time in doing the research. This group I would bet would be in the majority, and probably read these threads more than participate. Almost all newcomers would look at our findings since they are less invested and more willing to keep an open mind rather than someone who's done a project for years only to find out its not what they thought. Still, a lot of current DC'ers would look and see how their project stacks up against the rest and either voice their concern to management or leave for a better run one. And some will stay with the current project no matter what the results, thats fine also. I don't think anyone is out to make people change what they want to run, only present them with the facts and let them decide for themsleves.