Uncyclopedia talk:Folding@home/Archive1

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

How long does an unit usually take to complete?

I know my computer has too much running, but it says it will take 10 days... --POJoe!IrelandTALKCONTRIBSF@H 20:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It says a long time in the beginning, but give it a couple of hours and it'll come to it's senses. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

An Award/Sig Recognition?

Maybe I should put this on the awards page, but I figured, instead of giving everyone who contributes a ninjastar or a cookie or something like that, maybe we could have a thing you put in your signature that shows your a F@H team member instead. There should be an Uncyclopedia:Babel box for F@H members too, I'll work on that last one. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

Good thinking. I think I might doctor my sig now, in fact.  :) I like the Babel/Template (like the Admins have) idea a lot, too. I'm not sure that I'm necessarily in favour of creating a totally new and distinct F@H award, though a specialized Ninjastar certainly wouldn't hurt (we could throw it at new joiners). I've been using the cookie to reward the pioneer team, and those at/near 1000 points. -- T. (talk) 20:56, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Right, an award might be too far. By award I was thinking more of a post-nomial (I finally know the word) rather than an actual award to go on the user page. I used award because I was stupid and didn't know the term post-nomial. I just made the F@H Babel template too. Template:F@HUser. I'm adding it to Uncyclopedia:Babel right now. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

More CPUs?

Any ideas on how we can increase the team size or otherwise hasten our pursuit of the Top 2000? I'm running 3 CPUS—they all suck, but it's the best I can do. If any of you have access to additional computers at work or school that you could get permission to run the software on, it would help tremendously. For that matter, if you know of anyone into proteins, charity, or just getting their name on a page, send them our way. :) Even with this small group, we're making tremendous strides. Thanks all. -- T. (talk) 04:11, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should recruit from other wikicities that wouldn't mind supporting our cause. Is it possible to make a custom distrobution of the software with the team ID built in and maybe take advantage of the logo options? Then we could re-host it (it is a small file, right?) and make it that much easier to install. Paulgb 01:59, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)


I used a different user name for F@H... but it's still recognizable. Does anyone care? ----Clorox Icons-flag-us MUN ONS (diskussion) 23:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Not a soul. You may add your name to the current roster (put {{User:Clorox/sig}} ) and it may be best to add the name you're using to fold between brackets and in small text (using the code <small>(name)</small>), just so you can collect your cookie when you reach 1000 pts. In any case, good on you for joining!! :D --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|NS|+S 00:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Update team roster

We have at least 4 new guys on the team page. One of whom is I (me) --Nytrospawn 17:14, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Todd only listed the first ten joiners ("Starting Ten"). Don't know if he wants to do a full roster. --—rc (t) 17:21, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
That was originally a sign-up sheet intended to (hopefully) foster some interest in the project before the WUs started showing up on the Stanford page. Later, I changed it to a recognition/thank you list for those that had pledged their support (in which case, I probably shouldn't be listed :).
Now that our Stanford page is rolling, what should we do? We could continue adding names, but perhaps change the format so it consumes less space at it lengthens. We could also just dispense with the list completely, as much as (personally) I wish to recognize those that got the whole thing airborne. Thoughts? -- T. (talk) 17:51, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I've done as I'd proposed, but am still interested in feedback / changes if there are any. -- T. (talk) 00:53, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've changed my sig, and apparently the old one (mixed with the updated pics) doesn't get cleared from what I believe is the server chache. I tried resaving that section without changing anything, but apparently it's protected. So, my suggestion would be to not use signatures in the team roster, as sigs are bound to change. Or perhaps not using <div></div> will prevent another such an occurence. But I can't be sure of that... --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|NS|+S 14:02, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
If nothing is changed, nothing is saved, even if you press save. As far as the inserted talk page portion on the main page goes, if you click the "purge" link that's just above it, that purges the server cache and your new signature will appear (along with any messages that hadn't shown up, etc). Your sig on other parts of the page (and on other pages sitewide) will update when the page is re-saved with actual changes made.  :) -- T. (talk) 15:29, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Ah... Righto... Well, didn't have to do anything, as it now apparently showed me the new sig... Hmz... Must have huffed a bad kitten or something... Thanks for the help anyways. --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|NS|+S 15:33, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Name Taken

Spooner seems to be a relatively popular name on the internets anymore. I had to go with "Spencer Thompson" which is in fact my real name. My SSN is 185-92-0174. --Spooner 07:51, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Open Letter to Dot.Com Spam Donors

For those (like me) that are annoyed with the dot.com users on the team listing, I'm sympathetic, but there's nothing I can do (nor can Stanford, they'll take WU's from anyone).

That being said, as a personal policy I never visit any website or purchase any product that has spammed me. Period. And in this context, where its about human service and charitable contribution, the spam is exponentially more reprehensible. -- T. (talk) 19:19, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, they are at least helping us rather than hurting us. Sadly, the most active contibuter is one. Over time they will probably sink to the bottom if they stop contributing, but we still get to keep the points, so its really a win-win situation. Plus it isn't like it is a banner ad or a pop up. I think it is a bit more legitimate than spam. If a company wants to donate computer time to charity, I think they have the right to put their name on it. I may not completly understand the situation though. --Paulgb 16:02, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
A lot of real companies do have folding teams which (I assume) are comprised of employees running the software on company equipment. I don't see a problem with that. However, I requested that people on our team use their UN or IRC nick, and still we have some members trying to grab attention under the Uncyclopedia banner. While I agree that we are still benefitting, I'd prefer that people respect my request or start their own team if they are really that bent on commercial promotion. Actually, the largest single contributing entity during the life of the F@H project has been "Anonymous" contributors, who enter no name at all. How nice is that?  :) -- T. (talk) 16:25, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
When I decided to add my work computer to the team I thought that it was only fair to promote my company (Columbia Boiler) in the process. Since dixie-chicks.com was already a team member, and no one had complained at that time, I didn’t think there was anything wrong with adding another.com. I will remove it and start a separate team if you want me to, but I honestly never thought of it as spam. I saw it as being in line with our other charitable acts like supporting the Untied Way, sponsoring local Little League Baseball and Soccer teams, etc.--Naughtyned 11:10, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I'm listening. I'd like some others to chime in too, if they would. The grumblings actually began on the IRC channel. I have a number of websites myself, but reasoned that I'm here to promote Uncyclopedia (which is free to use, and survives [or tries to] on its Google ad income). -- T. (talk) 12:02, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
OK, I went to the configuration panel for Folding@Home on this computer and blanked the team #, to dissociate columbiaboiler.com from the Uncyclopedia team. Columbiaboiler.com is still showing up on the Uncyclopedia team page now but it may drop off with the next update. If not, I’ll see what else I need to do to remove it. I’m still not sure why being associated with companies run by honest people selling legitimate products compromises the integrity of Uncyclopedia but, since this is your project Todd, I’ll respect your wishes. I hope that everyone realizes that while I may have made an error in judgment, I was in no way being malicious, and I sincerely hope that no one harbors any ill will toward me or my company because of it.--Naughtyned 14:38, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
According to [1] you can change username easily enough, but work units already completed remain credited to the original username. Dunno if there's much you can do if it lists your office computer as having headed into this project with a full head of steam. :) --Carlb 07:13, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Columbiaboiler.com is now it's own team, and work units completed since I made the change are now on that team's page. It does appear that the one work unit I completed under that name on the Uncyclopedia page is there to stay. Again, I apologize for the error in judgement and hope that there are no hard feelings because of it.--Naughtyned 10:06, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
None here. Thanks Ned.  :) -- T. (talk) 10:59, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Just visiting, but can you explain again how contributing my WU's to the Uncyclopedia team is a bad thing? I can't remember how long I've been folding, though I know I've been running since version 3.0... and it's always been as "dixie-chicks.com", because that's my personal web site. I never found a team that was worth contributing to until I came across Uncyclopedia. Spam? You can't even get to my web site through the links on the Folding@Home site! I think you guys need to lighten up. What do you think this is, Wikipedia? -- 23:34, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I agree with ya, dixie. I don't see the problem with it, as long as you're actually contributing, which you are, in a big way! And, being the biggest contributor myself, that's gotta be worth something. I think it's a fair trade for helping out. Strong Rad 15:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


...to our new digs. Thank you for supporting the launch of this project.  :) -- T. (talk) 05:35, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Personal tools