On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Noel O'Boyle <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Look forward to hearing Noel's views > > This was not initiated by me, but I've signed up to support it: > > http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/19727/computational-natural-sciences > > They keep changing the scope (feature creep), so that now it includes > comp biol, phys too. I think that's a mistake. Comp chem will be > swamped out. Not enough people have signed up to support it yet, so I > don't know if it's going to make it out of beta. > > The barrier to adoption is quite high (ca 15 Q's per day, etc - see the physics one http://physics.stackexchange.com/ ). I don't think we ca afford to wait for stackexchange to generate a compchem resource (it's 11% of the way there). And I think - like you - that natural science is far too broad. For interest, has there been any interaction of this with CCL? P. - Noel > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2
_______________________________________________ Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
