Folding Forum

Development is internal to Stanford university and points mean nothing. The WU is benchmarked before it is distributed to early beta testers. If the early beta testing demonstrates WU stabilty, it is distributed to late beta testing (public) and eventually to full public release.

33% and the answer is no.

alpha754293 wrote:33% and the answer is no.

No, the answer is 42, but I digress.

bruce wrote:

alpha754293 wrote:33% and the answer is no.

No, the answer is 42, but I digress.

That's the percentage of relevant points you actually responded to out of those that were brought up;

and that is the answer to the original question of "are the development WUs counted into their points?"

OF COURSE....you'd digress. I'm not the slightest bit surprised.

They benchmark EVERY project. And every benchmark is done before any work units are released to non-Stanford people, at whatever development stage that may be. Pande Group does some type of internal testing before we ever see a work unit.

BTW, Pande Group doesn't really care about earning points. Points are only used as a tool to compare work unit peformance. Sure, they may do some personal folding, and get the same points as we do. Wouldn't you expect them to fold? Development WUs don't count, or don't count much. As Bruce said, development WUs get "place holder" points. Or their points are zeroed after the test run is done. Since they can give themselves whatever points they want, their points totals become pointless. 100% ?

Um...not necessarily.

All too often, scientists (along with mathematicians, and engineers) are quite busy and involved with their work, esp. work of this nature that they may not spend much time doing anything else. Computational resources become reserved for development purposes.

So if they DIDN'T fold, I wouldn't necessarily be surprised.

And that's the reason why I asked.

Wouldn't they have to pull the development WUs from a different server than the public ones though? So...if that's the case, they can assign whatever non-dimensional point/rating system to it, bench it, and then reassign. I don't think that they'd be pulling the development WUs from the same public servers as all the other WUs; so there'd be no need for them to zero out the points upon return, with the presumption that they return the full unit (and not just calculate the SMA).

No, they wouldn't have to pul the dev WUs from a different server. I was stating facts, not suggesting possible methods. They DO put the development WUs on the same servers, or different, or both. They have ways to make sure that only they and their clients get the initial dev WUs, so it doesn't really matter which servers the WUs come from. And I have seen them zero out points from dev WUs, so I have first hand knowledge of that as well.

Again, I am curious why you suppose that everything we post is not fact, or that it works in some way other than the way it is explained? Are you just a natural contrarian, or is there some other explanation?

7im wrote:No, they wouldn't have to pul the dev WUs from a different server. I was stating facts, not suggesting possible methods. They DO put the development WUs on the same servers, or different, or both. They have ways to make sure that only they and their clients get the initial dev WUs, so it doesn't really matter which servers the WUs come from. And I have seen them zero out points from dev WUs, so I have first hand knowledge of that as well.

Again, I am curious why you suppose that everything we post is not fact, or that it works in some way other than the way it is explained? Are you just a natural contrarian, or is there some other explanation?

Cuz no where does it state that you're actually part of the development team or that you're part of Pande Group, therefore; there's no way to verify and or validate your credentials.

It'd be different if you included your credentials along or somewhere where we would be able to look it up. Resume or CV or something along those lines.

(And if you want to know mine, PM me and I'd be glad to provide it.) Way I figure, three types of people:

people who post their credentials to show off.

People who post it to demonstrate (supposedly) that they apparently know something about what they're talking about.

And people who don't bother posting it because people who are in the field, would be able to tell by their responses (as being consistent with the (technical) expectations.)

I try to ask questions (albeit this was just a random thought that popped into my head initially) because I'm (technically) curious about them. And that if something merits further expansion, that I should be able to ask, and that they should be able to readily supply supporting references in accordance to national and international journal publication standards (in the form of APA, MLA, or Chicago citation formats).

That's of course, if you want your responses to carry some weight. If a test or experiment was conducted, or witnessed as being conducted, then I would expect that person to be able to recall at least the date that the experiment was done, and the procedure that was undertaken along with relevant details. If you forget, just state it. It ain't hard or difficult. Pretty standard stuff in a technical defense.

And if you've covered all your grounds, even if it doesn't pertain to the scope of your discussion or argument/point of argument, you can still state "initial tests were conducted and here are the preliminary (unofficial) results, meriting further future studies." (Oh the joys of preparing for a military related technical presentation.)

- * - * - * -

So...they run the development WUs all the way to the end as well? And that's for benchmarking purposes? So...the benchmarking is done on development WUs? Interrresting.

alpha754293 wrote: So...they run the development WUs all the way to the end as well? And that's for benchmarking purposes? So...the benchmarking is done on development WUs? Interrresting.

If after noting my forum join date, or my user number in this forum, or my post count isn't enough, then I'd bet nothing else I claim to be in a user created profile will satisfy you either. Take it on face value or don't.

To answer your question about benchmarking WUs, dev or otherwise, go back and read what Bruce, one of the Forum Administrators, posted on the previous page. He has it right, and has a title to back it.

bruce wrote:No, the answer is 42, but I digress.

Anyone that doesn't get it (Bruce's joke), catch up!

alpha754293 wrote:(Oh the joys of preparing for a military related technical presentation.)

What are you saying?

alpha754293 wrote:So...they run the development WUs all the way to the end as well? And that's for benchmarking purposes? So...the benchmarking is done on development WUs? Interrresting.

The answers are in this thread, for all those that can read them and make a stab at understanding them.

7im wrote:

alpha754293 wrote: So...they run the development WUs all the way to the end as well? And that's for benchmarking purposes? So...the benchmarking is done on development WUs? Interrresting.

If after noting my forum join date, or my user number in this forum, or my post count isn't enough, then I'd bet nothing else I claim to be in a user created profile will satisfy you either. Take it on face value or don't.

To answer your question about benchmarking WUs, dev or otherwise, go back and read what Bruce, one of the Forum Administrators, posted on the previous page. He has it right, and has a title to back it.

Posts number is like IBM patents. Most of it (the post number, and not necessarily the posts themselves) are meaningless. Sure you can have the most posts, but that may not necessarily mean much.

As far as userID goes, you can really set it to whatever you want. Heck, if I were my own admin for my own F@H forum, I'd be #1. whopty do. Doesn't mean that I'm any more involved with the development than my number is.

Conversely, if your name is on publications either due to, part of, or as a result of, your contributions to the F@H development and underlying science, then YEA....there we go. NOW we're getting somewhere.

Course, I don't know your real name, so I can't look it up and cross-reference it. But oh well. C'est la vie.

alpha754293 wrote:...
Conversely, if your name is on publications either due to, part of, or as a result of, your contributions to the F@H development and underlying science, then YEA....there we go. NOW we're getting somewhere.

Course, I don't know your real name, so I can't look it up and cross-reference it. But oh well. C'est la vie.

You didn't even try searching... http://folding.stanford.edu/English/About#ntoc13

7im wrote:

alpha754293 wrote:...
Conversely, if your name is on publications either due to, part of, or as a result of, your contributions to the F@H development and underlying science, then YEA....there we go. NOW we're getting somewhere.

Course, I don't know your real name, so I can't look it up and cross-reference it. But oh well. C'est la vie.

You didn't even try searching... http://folding.stanford.edu/English/About#ntoc13

I only tried looking for your alias in the Results/Papers page.

DIdn't really see or look for contributing authors for the FAQs though, so you are right about that. (albeit it doesn't take much...time? yes. science? prolly not.)

Prolly not. I guess they'll let any ol' 'tard walk in off the street and start updating the F@h website, and then thank them for it.

Come on guys . . . let's keep it civil.

This forum is a self-help forum. Anybody with a "random question" is welcome to ask it, and anybody that knows the answer is welcome to answer it.

alpha754293:
If you're going to challenge the credentials of someone who offers an answer, perhaps you should preface your question with "A question for the Pande Group only" and then the rest of us won't try to help you. Of course that doesn't guarantee that the Pande Group will answer your questions, but at least we won't be offending you or risk having you hurl hostile comments at us when we're genuinely trying to help.

Obviously it's safer if we just ignore you so tell us that at the outset.

alpha754293 wrote:

7im wrote:No, they wouldn't have to pul the dev WUs from a different server. I was stating facts, not suggesting possible methods. They DO put the development WUs on the same servers, or different, or both. They have ways to make sure that only they and their clients get the initial dev WUs, so it doesn't really matter which servers the WUs come from. And I have seen them zero out points from dev WUs, so I have first hand knowledge of that as well.

Again, I am curious why you suppose that everything we post is not fact, or that it works in some way other than the way it is explained? Are you just a natural contrarian, or is there some other explanation?

Cuz no where does it state that you're actually part of the development team or that you're part of Pande Group, therefore; there's no way to verify and or validate your credentials.