I have made a new logo on work;) i will upload it today in the afternoon

Regards
Markus Beck

---

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

---

Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

<<If it ain't broke, don't fix it.>>

From Imadufus.com: This folksy and deliberately ungrammatical expression dates from the last millenium, and implies that the chances of worsening something in an attempt to improve it exceed the advantages that might be gained by improving it. As an excellent example of recursive presumption, this implication is supported by the folksy attributes and simple lack of grammar in the statement itself.

However, history has demonstrated otherwise: due to huge advances in otherwise unbroken automated electronic information exchange systems, Adrain can express this folksy and ungrammatical nonsense to millions of people that would never have been reached with the quill pen and papyrus information systems from the last millenium.

BOinc is the way of olfactory future, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop people from improving on it!

---

... and there's nothing anyone can do to stop people from improving on it!

Changing it, yes.
Improving it is a different matter, and one that is based on personal feelings about it.
The persent symbol is simple, compact, non project specific, (using part of the Earth, could link it to climateprediction), and non offensive.

Very good point, Les. I agree, I agree.

And I'd certainly agree that any alternative that wasn't as simple, compact, non-offensive, nor non-project-specific wouldn't be any kind of improvement. MOreover, the longer the original logo lasts, the more, um, "validity of persistence" it has, so a "better" one that was offered, say, the week after the original was first used, wouldn't need to be nearly as good as one today in order to be a viable contender as a replacement.

Still, the original logo looks like something has impacted or bounced, leaving behind a "boink," and that doesn't really have anything to do with the strength in numbers that distributed computing has in store for humanity.

My previous post was really more to say that the idea that "It's not broken, so don't mess with it," isn't a reason to avoid improving something. An' yeah, even the BOinc logo.

In fact, my thinking's much more like: "If it IS broke, force it and if it gets even worse, it needed replacing anyway." But, alas, it's not nearly as folks-y nor ungrammatical-y neither.

---

I'm off-topic here, but Jorden and Kathryn have my full permission to delete this post if they wish.

As a linguist, I'm afraid I have to object to the assertion that the statement 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' is ungrammatical.

The statement has a main clause, a subordinate clause and the verbs in both are in the correct person and expected tense. The word order follows the standard conventions of N American, British, S African and Australian varieties of English. 'Ain't' and 'broke' are non-standard dialectal forms; they are, however, so widely employed in the vernacular that they present no barrier to comprehension.

The use of dialect does not make text or spoken language ungrammatical. Dialects always possess a grammar, typically as complete and complex as the standard forms of the language.

---

Hehehehe. And I suppose you're gunna say that "But, alas, it's not nearly as folks-y nor ungrammatical-y neither." is okay, too!

I think more than following anybody's proper grammar, what's important is the relentless pursuit of higher standards of Boinc-ing. While there's a certain, almost extreme efficiency in the choice of a colourful expression such as "'Taint broke," the imagery and subtly of the statement superseeds the need for intervention of words about it. We can quote the sentence, and remark that indeed, it is adequately communicatory via modern standard dialet somewheres on the planet, and the words are, as I've said, extremely efficient; but the impulse that selects them is in harmony with a philosophy that says nothing should be improved just to make it better! Sure, we recognize that it may be understood anywhere such colloquialisms are used, and there's not much of a point in going more fully into the point in a digression like this (and it's my experience that, as the moderator, Jorden deletes all of my posts when they're much less digressed than this [as mods are well to do]) it has not been quite without purpose: any one who agrees with us in this will see in it an additional reason for zealously striving to improve the BOINC logo. The present logo and the obsensively better one that will someday replace it are both very good things; but they are better temporally apart than together.

If he had known about it, Bob Dylan would have had a song that said something like, "Everybody must get Boinc-ed"

---

The word BOINC is itself decidedly uncool - some might say a linguistic aberration of almost the highest order - so a new cool logo can only improve its image.......

---

The word BOINC is itself decidedly uncool - some might say a linguistic aberration of almost the highest order - so a new cool logo can only improve its image.......

Ah, but "BOINC" sticks in the memory. Cool or uncool is unimportant.

A new image might make it more flashy, but a flashy image could actually make the logo worse if people pay attention to the graphics and don't come away thinking, "BOINC, BOINC, BOINC-ety BOINC BOINC BOINC..."

[I really like Markus Beck's first image, BTW. Too bad about copyrights.]

---

So do I - the one with the dark blue background. I wonder whether Markus kept a record of where the image came from. A lot of similar images come, for example, from NASA or NOAA or ESA, organisations that might be pleased to give permission.

---

So do I - the one with the dark blue background. I wonder whether Markus kept a record of where the image came from. A lot of similar images come, for example, from NASA or NOAA or ESA, organisations that might be pleased to give permission.

<- don't know if the picture has copyright.. i have simply taken one from the google picture search. I have changed the color and take only a part of the earth picture. and i have the dissolution changed. So i thought it would be ok, because it has no similarity with the orginal picture;) if someone say "its not ok", david and his team should delete it;)

sorry for my bad english iam from germany^^

Regards
Markus

---

Englisch nicht perfekt sprechen soll niemals ein Problem sein; Schade, das wir nicht alle Deutsch ebenso gut sprechen.

There are thousands of similar photos of the Earth in the public domain. Who would ever recognise this part-photo as theirs? I'd guess nobody.

---