Project Descriptions

[Rocherd]

Okay, so I am new to your forums. HI HI. I made this account just for this reason noted in the subject. It has come to my attention that F@H is working on projects without descriptions, the couple of times i had ran F@H I had figured it was a fluke. I would like to state, that i understand that you (F@H folks) take reasonable security measures because of the nature of the software and provide projects of medical nature. However, I view projects without descriptions to be a security risk, as they maybe anything which isn't unreasonable as they (project) has no description. It is not that I do not trust F@H, I don't trust what a program like f@H can do as lesser programs are known as botnet. I do not believe that is unreasonable to have a requirement to have the description of project (not that i understand it, however does provide me with a sense of whats going on). I also have an additional Idea, I would like the ability to reject a project and move to the next one without waiting days and harming a project with a description.

Cheers

[bruce]

None of the project descriptions are intentionally omitted -- it's just an oversight. Give me a list of the projects you've noticed and I'll get somebody to add those descriptions.

The FAH scientists assign project a priority that's consistent with the needs of science. Giving Donors the ability to reject a project would not be in the best interests of science.

[davidcoton]

You can indicate a preference for areas of research -- but the system (last time I heard) is not fully implemented yet. A missing description is not a security risk -- in any case a malevolent (rogue) project could carry a fake description. It is not likely -- I don't think a project could carry a payload, that would have to be in the control, client, or core code. As long as you only download the system direct from Stanford, and as long as their servers remain secure, FAH is safe. (Of course, the unexpected can happen. Ignoring security is bad, paranoia is unnecessary. Somewhere in between is healthy vigilance.)

[Rocherd]

I agree, someone could just as well fake a description, however, its just one more thing to do. Next, missing descriptions is a security risk, in the sense of best judgement being best defense (as you suggested, healthy vigilance). Even if I dont understand the description fully or even adequately intended. I do from time to time get a wild hair up arse to research and find out alittle more for two reasons natural curiosity and fact checking for plasablity (remote plasbility in this case since i dont understand it very well).
I am not saying anything is wrong per-say, its hard to use best judgement when you have only someones word (in regard to internet and computing software). As I am willing to trust F@H folks, however that does not omit me from watching out for security risk on my end in any way I can within my know how. The keyword risk, doesnt mean something will happen or even likely it is, just a possibility; just means something could happen given suspicious activity, no details, means an active unknown for better or for worse (fake or not). Therein lies the problem "for better or for worse" normally I choose to have faith in others as long as I have enough information to do so. Hopefully that doesnt qualify me as paranoid or distrusting, however it does suggest "guarded" maybe if you wanna look at it from a pessimist view point.

Welcome to the age of the internet bwhahahahaha!!

I will keep an update in this forum as I see them come across from now on. I am sorry I didnt keep a good record, and thats my fault.
Project 11703 (currently paused, I figured out how to pause it, so its sitting doing nothing)

Thank you very much for your time.

[Rocherd]

None of the project descriptions are intentionally omitted -- it's just an oversight. Give me a list of the projects you've noticed and I'll get somebody to add those descriptions.

The FAH scientists assign project a priority that's consistent with the needs of science. Giving Donors the ability to reject a project would not be in the best interests of science.

I dont mean to sound rude or taking it out context or even cause resentment and/or lengthy debate on the matter.... But could you rephrase that.

What you said wasnt offensive, however does have ethical and moral question to the matter. While I am very much in support of the endeavors of science bettering humanity (which is all the projects at F@H), I would not place research above free will and ethical duty of both the individual and the mass to call foul (there should always be checks and balances). I am sorry if I misunderstood and thats very likely. As your comment seems to have quite a slippery-slope (there have many times in history of science practicing without checks and balance, like any other subject, matter, practice, ect.), given what context I can see and understand. I dont mean to get political, or corrective, but really?

Even in the view of sciences there seems to be a occurring checks and balances in how our universe operates, so who are you to tell someone what they have to support? As I am to assume like most people you are atleast moderately educated in history so there is no need to go down that road. (as rude as that sound I do not intend it that way, just making a point. I have re-read it several times, but i can not seem to come up with a more tactful way of making the point. I am sorry.)

Respectfully submitted, Rocherd
Cheers!

[bruce]

Folding@home is a serious scientific research program originating at Stanford University. (and Stanford is a prestigious University whose reputation would be seriously damaged if they exposed you to that kind of risks.) I trust Stanford to enforce suitable policies to prevent the sorts of things that you're afraid of.

Please refrain from further fear-mongering unless you have actual facts to back up your accusations.

Faking a description would violate academic policy and you would be expelled at the very least.

Please read the Fah FAQs, particularly the one about how safe the folding project is.

We certainly encourage you to try FAH, but if your fears make you unwilling to participate, that's certainly your choice. This discussion wandering way of-topic and is no longer serving it's purpose of fixing missing project descriptions.

Topic closed.