As far as team names go, I like the RR tribute idea.
I love the pic of RR - that's a keeper.
Here's some more name ideas::
Freeper Tribute to Ronnie
FR Tribute to Ronnie
Tribute to Ronnie
Free Radical Right (kind of a play on words - 'free radicals' being oxidants leading to cancer)
Free Radical Right Wing
Free Radical Right Wing Conspiracy
FRRR (Free Right - Ronald Reagan) (this one might get under Peta's skin, heheh.)
My apologies to all - I may have accidentally stirred up this hornets nest by drawing the attention of the mods. I pinged a large list of FReepers that I thought might be interested in helping, and a few mods may have been on that list. I also posted a summary on the Texas state board. Instead of drawing support for the project, I may have caused the problem - Mea Culpa.
I hope the team continues in some form. Please let me know.
The team IS FOLDING ON. In fact, we've accumulated 43,000 points since the "incident" and we're on track to be in the Top 700 in 2 days. There's no stopping (or slowing) this team!
I wouldn't worry about the "hornets nest" too much. hehe It's unfortunate there seems to be such reluctance, but like I said previously, at least we're allowed to remain with the threads, continuing to advertise such a worthy cause. I think it's a more than fair comprimise. After all we didn't really loose anything, in terms of standing or the work done. We just have to change the name that's all.
I think I read this issue on the last thread, and it's really the only "just" criticism of the project. But it's easily answered too:
Why not just use a supercomputer?
Modern supercomputers are essentially clusters of hundreds of processors linked by fast networking. The speed of these processors is comparable to (and often slower than) those found in PCs! Thus, if an algorithm (like ours) does not need the fast networking, it will run just as fast on a supercluster as a supercomputer. However, our application needs not the hundreds of processors found in modern supercomputers, but hundreds of thousands of processors. Hence, the calculations performed on Folding@Home would not be possible by any other means! Moreover, even if we were given exclusive access to all of the supercomputers in the world, we would still have fewer cycles than we do with the Folding@Home cluster! This is possible since PC processors are now very fast and there are hundreds of millions of PCs sitting idle in the world.
http://folding.stanford.edu/faq.html#project.supercomputer
So to ask, "Why doesn't Stanford just buy a supercomputer, or buy their own computers?" is to underestimate exactly how many computers are involved in this project, and also, to overestimate the computing power of supercomputers. It also vastly underestimates exactly what is required in terms of computing power. As "protein folding" is an extremely complex calculation, and, as we know from the human genome project, there are probably close to 50,000 proteins in the body, many yet unidentified much less their unique "fold" (or conformation in 3 D space) described, it's rather clear that even all the supercomputers in the world couldn't do a better job than the vast super "cluster" of CPU's a project like this creates.
" Instead of drawing support for the project, I may have caused the problem - Mea Culpa."
Your enthusiasm is to be commended.
It's usually good to try and stay below the radar - the story of the cold night, the bird, the fresh cow paddie and the cat comes to mind. ":^)
This here Texan ain't quittin'!