By splitting the resources of that one older machine over many projects your not really helping any of them.

That's plain BS.
I help the projects, full stop.
This "either 100% or your worthless scum" attitude is absolutely ridiculous.
With the same reason I could say: Those, that refuse to look beyond their nose, don't really help mankind in a meanful way, as they just do theoir small fraction.
That's BS as well. There are reasons to crunch only Rosetta, or only Folding, or only Einstein, or only Climate.... and there are reasons to crunch all of them and some more. All those reasons are valid and strictly personal.

Everybody who delivers results back within the deadline is helping the projects.

Using any of this type of behaviour as an "argument", is only evading real answers.

Everybody who delivers results back within the deadline is helping the projects.

Very true. But then what drives your passion about the credit system? I'm seriously curious here. Clearly, your goal is not to climb up the R@H credit ladder as fast as possible. Apparently, you would rather spread out your resources over many projects. Well and good, and you should be thanked for contributing *anything*. We all should (something R@H have forgotten). But I'm having a hard time understanding why then you were/are so passionate about the credit system.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Everybody who delivers results back within the deadline is helping the projects.

Very true. But then what drives your passion about the credit system? I'm seriously curious here. Clearly, your goal is not to climb up the R@H credit ladder as fast as possible. Apparently, you would rather spread out your resources over many projects. Well and good, and you should be thanked for contributing *anything*. We all should (something R@H have forgotten). But I'm having a hard time understanding why then you were/are so passionate about the credit system.

It's not about me, I will never climb up the ladder of any project (besides the few alpha ones with a small numer of participants;), I'm just in this for the sake of fairness.
I would as well argue against the use of steroids in sport, even if I know it would not help me in the charts, because still most athletes will be better then me.
It's more a matter of principle, and I'm of course a member of a big BOINC team, that "competes" in the whole of BOINC, so the meddling in only one will make this competition worthless, but in fact it has it's worth imho.

The former system was anything but fair. It was in a huge portion plain random granting, without connection to either work done or donated capacities.

Edit:
BTW: I use the credit system of the projects as a kind of litmus test for the validity of the project, at least after some initial settling of the core issues. So Rosetta made a very bad managed impression on me in this regard.

[quote][quote]Everybody who delivers results back within the deadline is helping the projects.

In the most extreme definition of the word "helping" yes they are.
But is it a meaningful "helping" and not just giving such a small amount that you can convince yourself that you are actually contributing when in reality if everyone did what you do no project that is worthwhile( a subjective decision I admit, but we should all be able to agree that there are worthless projects out there)would ever make any headway.
The last time I looked you did either 3-4 WU in a 3 month timeframe.
I was doing 66 WU a day from 5 machines at my house.
Based on those numbers it would take over 1900 people working at your pace to equal one working at mine.
Can a project expect to make any headway if everyone worked at your level?
I'm not a big player by any means. There are hundreds that contributed much more than I did but at the level your at to call it a real contribution is stretching the meaning of the word.
Put that machine on one project and give that project something that is measurable in real numbers.

---

[quote][quote]Everybody who delivers results back within the deadline is helping the projects.

In the most extreme definition of the word "helping" yes they are.
But is it a meaningful "helping" and not just giving such a small amount that you can convince yourself that you are actually contributing when in reality if everyone did what you do no project that is worthwhile( a subjective decision I admit, but we should all be able to agree that there are worthless projects out there)would ever make any headway.
The last time I looked you did either 3-4 WU in a 3 month timeframe.
I was doing 66 WU a day from 5 machines at my house.
Based on those numbers it would take over 1900 people working at your pace to equal one working at mine.
Can a project expect to make any headway if everyone worked at your level?
I'm not a big player by any means. There are hundreds that contributed much more than I did but at the level your at to call it a real contribution is stretching the meaning of the word.
Put that machine on one project and give that project something that is measurable in real numbers.

But isn't this the essential of distributed computing as such: Everybody gives the spare circles of his/her CPU that would otherwise go wasted?
Even the 24/7 running of machines like mine, that would otherwise be simply switched off, is an increase of output and energy consumption, that imho has perhaps to be researched of the real value and efficiency. If it's necessary to have extra dedicated machines, just donate mobney to buy a Blue Gene.
It's of course fine, if people do more then originally intended, but that's just an extra (and a wellcomed one of course!). And, as I said, the efficiency of the energy use has to be put in this equation as well before you start accusing others of being worthless.

Edit:
It could as well be stated, that running farms of (medium) old puters as dedicated crunchers is a worthless scheme, as it gives far less output per kWh then then a new high-end mainframe or cluster.

[quote][quote]Everybody who delivers results back within the deadline is helping the projects.

In the most extreme definition of the word "helping" yes they are.
But is it a meaningful "helping" and not just giving such a small amount that you can convince yourself that you are actually contributing when in reality if everyone did what you do no project that is worthwhile( a subjective decision I admit, but we should all be able to agree that there are worthless projects out there)would ever make any headway.
The last time I looked you did either 3-4 WU in a 3 month timeframe.
I was doing 66 WU a day from 5 machines at my house.
Based on those numbers it would take over 1900 people working at your pace to equal one working at mine.
Can a project expect to make any headway if everyone worked at your level?
I'm not a big player by any means. There are hundreds that contributed much more than I did but at the level your at to call it a real contribution is stretching the meaning of the word.
Put that machine on one project and give that project something that is measurable in real numbers.

But isn't this the essential of distributed computing as such: Everybody gives the spare circles of his/her CPU that would otherwise go wasted?
Even the 24/7 running of machines like mine, that would otherwise be simply switched off, is an increase of output and energy consumption, that imho has perhaps to be researched of the real value and efficiency. If it's necessary to have extra dedicated machines, just donate mobney to buy a Blue Gene.
It's of course fine, if people do more then originally intended, but that's just an extra (and a wellcomed one of course!). And, as I said, the efficiency of the energy use has to be put in this equation as well before you start accusing others of being worthless.

Not worthless, just misguided in my opinion but you do raise some valid points.
My personal feeling on the best use of a machine is to have it do nothing but crunch. Build that machine so that it is energy efficient from the start, well ventilated and it will perform well.
This is also a good spot to include the topic that the new Intel core 2 Duo cpu's perform at a much better rate re electrical usage than the older cpu's so even though the initial cost is there, the long term elec savings is a win-win from both a "green" view and in your own electrical bill.

---

[quote][quote]Everybody who delivers results back within the deadline is helping the projects.

In the most extreme definition of the word "helping" yes they are.
But is it a meaningful "helping" and not just giving such a small amount that you can convince yourself that you are actually contributing when in reality if everyone did what you do no project that is worthwhile( a subjective decision I admit, but we should all be able to agree that there are worthless projects out there)would ever make any headway.
The last time I looked you did either 3-4 WU in a 3 month timeframe.
I was doing 66 WU a day from 5 machines at my house.
Based on those numbers it would take over 1900 people working at your pace to equal one working at mine.
Can a project expect to make any headway if everyone worked at your level?
I'm not a big player by any means. There are hundreds that contributed much more than I did but at the level your at to call it a real contribution is stretching the meaning of the word.
Put that machine on one project and give that project something that is measurable in real numbers.

But isn't this the essential of distributed computing as such: Everybody gives the spare circles of his/her CPU that would otherwise go wasted?
Even the 24/7 running of machines like mine, that would otherwise be simply switched off, is an increase of output and energy consumption, that imho has perhaps to be researched of the real value and efficiency. If it's necessary to have extra dedicated machines, just donate mobney to buy a Blue Gene.
It's of course fine, if people do more then originally intended, but that's just an extra (and a wellcomed one of course!). And, as I said, the efficiency of the energy use has to be put in this equation as well before you start accusing others of being worthless.

Not worthless, just misguided in my opinion but you do raise some valid points.
My personal feeling on the best use of a machine is to have it do nothing but crunch. Build that machine so that it is energy efficient from the start, well ventilated and it will perform well.
This is also a good spot to include the topic that the new Intel core 2 Duo cpu's perform at a much better rate re electrical usage than the older cpu's so even though the initial cost is there, the long term elec savings is a win-win from both a "green" view and in your own electrical bill.

My opinion is you [XS-VS] are misguided as well, though I crunch typically 24/7 I have/had some computer not crunch dedicated, they have all returned results in for various projects, these result will have been useful to them. Without all the thousands of part-time computers here, no where near as much work would get done. Look here at Rosetta just by looking at the Housing and food services and Catalyst you'll see how much work a group of part-timers can do. They are just a few of the large numbers that make Distributed computing really happen. The large teams with high output (like yours :-) are seen to do a lot of work because they are positioned in the team stats where 'us that talk about it' look. Just don't forget about the silent majority that just think, that's a nice idea.

Similar thing with TV Charity Marathon events. There a the big hitters that give a large donation, there are the teams that give a collective large donation and there are the majority of people that just give what they can. Take one part away and you have a lot less money donated. It all adds up.
For you it is the fun of making that nicely tuned computer (like the excellent one Jose received :-) for others it maybe just to give their little bit to help something they believe in*.
Don't forget that.


*of course it not just about the computer for you. also they may not believe, maybe just roped in to doing it :-D But I hope the point is put across.

---

Team mauisun.org

... To me I saw a political type of maneuver by a few to subugate the goals of the project to what they wanted as standards.
When I saw that these individuals were not contributing very much, I couldn't understand why they yelled so loud for change to meet what they thought was the ideal system.

From my point of view, it was a call for a fair credit system, where a machine gets the credit it deserves based soley on its Rosetta throughput regardless of its OS, hardware, BOINC app used etc. Under the old system Conroe's would be short-changed as the benchmark doens't take into account cache size. The new system does. Things like RAM speed and latency have no effect on the BOINC benchmark as it's so small, but do make a difference to the new system. That's why we needed it. I think cross-project parity is an issue (although maybe impossible to do very accurately), but I don't think it was particularly relevant to the new credit system.

I'm far from a perfect person, but one thing I can tell you is that what I did for Rosetta was based on beleif of the projects goals.

Don't doubt it ;)

The only other thing I'd like to say is that #6:

6)Deploying a flawed new credit system that is not fair across all major platforms and OS's..If you disagree with this, just ask a mac user.

The credit system works exactly as it should here. IMO there is still a small issue with the credit system (e.g. see this result ) for those first to report, which can be solved using a rolling average until all the results are in, but for any given OS or hardware config the system works very well. Mac users get a lower score simply because the current code doesn't run quickly on PPC in comparison to comparable x86 systems. It's therefore a code/compiler issue, but the credits reflect real-world throughput.
I'm sure everyone would appreciate it if someone could suggest optimisations to the code for PPC, but AFAIK no-one has yet, and the project team (mostly mac users from what i've seen) don't want to dedicate time to it due to Apple's switch to Intel chips.

cheers
Danny

---

XS_VS: I wanted to just point out that moderators are not hired.

And also that, while your post of 17 Sep 2006 5:24:31 UTC seems well thought through, non-flaming, etc. there are still two words in it which warrent deletion. One with a double "s" and one with a double "l". It's taken me this long to awake from my night's sleep, and to delete your original post now would be more disruptive then it is worth for two words. However, had I been here when that post was on top of the thread, I would likely have deleted it simply based on two words.

I'm just trying to be clear here so we all understand each other. And so when we delete such posts, please don't accuse us of censoring your views, or stifling the message boards.

It's with long well-thought-out posts like that where we sometimes repost it with the two words removed. However, if I did that, it would drop my new post in this thread in time order, by the time of my revision, not the time of your post. This would be disruptive to the flow of the conversation. I hope you can see that posting those two words puts moderators in an awkward position. And I hope that puts in to perspective why so many posts and threads have been deleted this past week.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

XS_VS: I wanted to just point out that moderators are not hired.

And also that, while your post of 17 Sep 2006 5:24:31 UTC seems well thought through, non-flaming, etc. there are still two words in it which warrent deletion. One with a double "s" and one with a double "l". It's taken me this long to awake from my night's sleep, and to delete your original post now would be more disruptive then it is worth for two words. However, had I been here when that post was on top of the thread, I would likely have deleted it simply based on two words.

I'm just trying to be clear here so we all understand each other. And so when we delete such posts, please don't accuse us of censoring your views, or stifling the message boards.

It's with long well-thought-out posts like that where we sometimes repost it with the two words removed. However, if I did that, it would drop my new post in this thread in time order, by the time of my revision, not the time of your post. This would be disruptive to the flow of the conversation. I hope you can see that posting those two words puts moderators in an awkward position. And I hope that puts in to perspective why so many posts and threads have been deleted this past week.

I don't see a post of mine here with the timeframe you mention, so I am confused as to which your talking about.
Without knowing which 2 words your talking about it is difficult to follow your thinking.
You may not think you are censoring or stifling but that is the exact effect of your deleting posts.When you are attacked from people from all sides of an issue don't you think it's time to examine your viewpoint on what is moderation and what is censorship?
We're all adults here(hopefully) and have grown up in the real world where life isn't perfect.In the real world people do argue and 99% of the time it's done without bloodshed. The effect of what you have done is to stifle any discussion except in the very narrowest of terms and you are controlling what can and can not be discussed. To quote you, you would have deleted a "thoughtful" post based on 2 words. What that says to me is that I don't use just the vocabulary that you consider acceptable my posts will be deleted.
Where can I find the dictionary that you consider acceptable?
Do you see my point? I now have to read your mind as to what particular words are accetable and what are not.
On any forum I have seen as long as you do not use 4 letter words the rest of the English language is acceptable.
When you change that rule, you are effectively censoring even if you don't see it as such.
I know you are not hired, you are a volunteer, that doesn't change the fact that you should be trained in the rules of moderation.

---

From XS_Vietnam_Soldiers on Sept 17:

[quote][quote]Everybody who delivers results back within the deadline is helping the projects.

In the most extreme definition of the word "helping" yes they are.
But is it a meaningful "helping" and not just giving such a small amount that you can convince yourself that you are actually contributing when in reality if everyone did what you do no project that is worthwhile( a subjective decision I admit, but we should all be able to agree that there are worthless projects out there)would ever make any headway.
The last time I looked you did either 3-4 WU in a 3 month timeframe.
I was doing 66 WU a day from 5 machines at my house.
Based on those numbers it would take over 1900 people working at your pace to equal one working at mine.
Can a project expect to make any headway if everyone worked at your level?
I'm not a big player by any means. There are hundreds that contributed much more than I did but at the level your at to call it a real contribution is stretching the meaning of the word.
Put that machine on one project and give that project something that is measurable in real numbers.

But isn't this the essential of distributed computing as such: Everybody gives the spare circles of his/her CPU that would otherwise go wasted?
Even the 24/7 running of machines like mine, that would otherwise be simply switched off, is an increase of output and energy consumption, that imho has perhaps to be researched of the real value and efficiency. If it's necessary to have extra dedicated machines, just donate mobney to buy a Blue Gene.
It's of course fine, if people do more then originally intended, but that's just an extra (and a wellcomed one of course!). And, as I said, the efficiency of the energy use has to be put in this equation as well before you start accusing others of being worthless.

Not worthless, just misguided in my opinion but you do raise some valid points.
My personal feeling on the best use of a machine is to have it do nothing but crunch. Build that machine so that it is energy efficient from the start, well ventilated and it will perform well.
This is also a good spot to include the topic that the new Intel core 2 Duo cpu's perform at a much better rate re electrical usage than the older cpu's so even though the initial cost is there, the long term elec savings is a win-win from both a "green" view and in your own electrical bill.

My opinion is you [XS-VS] are misguided as well, though I crunch typically 24/7 I have/had some computer not crunch dedicated, they have all returned results in for various projects, these result will have been useful to them. Without all the thousands of part-time computers here, no where near as much work would get done. Look here at Rosetta just by looking at the Housing and food services and Catalyst you'll see how much work a group of part-timers can do. They are just a few of the large numbers that make Distributed computing really happen. The large teams with high output (like yours :-) are seen to do a lot of work because they are positioned in the team stats where 'us that talk about it' look. Just don't forget about the silent majority that just think, that's a nice idea.

Similar thing with TV Charity Marathon events. There a the big hitters that give a large donation, there are the teams that give a collective large donation and there are the majority of people that just give what they can. Take one part away and you have a lot less money donated. It all adds up.
For you it is the fun of making that nicely tuned computer (like the excellent one Jose received :-) for others it maybe just to give their little bit to help something they believe in*.
Don't forget that.


*of course it not just about the computer for you. also they may not believe, maybe just roped in to doing it :-D But I hope the point is put across.

I have no issue with the small cruncher. I had an issue with someone that effective offers so little as to almost unmeasurable.
You point out Housing and food services as an example.
I agree, they have contributed much to rosetta. A huge amount but here we are talking apples and oranges. Those are business machines that are paid for by the U of W I beleive or are located there. If you look at the individual output from those machines they do give a measurable contribution during the school year when they are running. If I remember correctly they shut them down during the summer months when school is out.
This brings up and interesting point: Where were these machines during CASP7 when the extra computational power was needed? They are located at the college.
Why weren't they used? They could as a group been of great help to the project.
This brings me back to the management issue. I see huge possibilities for DC projects if they would only think outside the box.
I can't be the only one that thinks this. I may be a fairly smart guy but surely others have thought of options that can greatly improve what is brought to the projects.
Baker Labs recently received a large grant from the Gates Foundation. I would suggest that they hire a manager to investigate the possibilities that exist.
They may find that with very little effort it is possible to expand by many times the computational power that they currently receive.
I tried to say this and offer a means to do this months ago but was ignored.
I guess it was an issue of what does some [person of Irish heritage - edit by T.M.] from NH know that the PHD's haven't already thought of. This isn't ego on my part. I tried to do this quietly and without fanfare with the only desire being to add to what was being given to Rosetta.

Removal of one word that broke these rules:

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Tymbrimi
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact

I edited quite a few messages in this thread to remove terms like "cheat" and "zero RACer" and a number of other terms that were also being used to belittle others - or could be seen by the other side as being used to belittle them.

They were not neccessary for the topic of the New Credit System.
http://ralph.bakerlab.org/moderation.php

I assumed that after being informed what was removed and why; seeing your edited message with certain objectionable terms removed, and repeating the process a few times that it would be easy to remember what terms were not allowed. I thank those that finally stopped using the offending terms and have tried to discuss the New Credit System.

If we're done discussing the New Credit System, then please open a new thread and discuss things other than the New Credit System in the new thread.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Tymbrimi
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact

Trying to get back to topic..
Nov 10th
Can you find the earliest Rosetta thread on a fair credit system?

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Tymbrimi
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact

Mod.T

In that link a David Baker broke current mod law by using the "C" word can you delete it ?



-2...Oh come on have some humour you guys !LOL

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Mod.T

In that link a David Baker broke current mod law by using the "C" word can you delete it ?

I don't recall seeing that the new rules were retroactive. LOL

Removal of one word that broke these rules:

If you want those rules to apply to Rosetta, not RALPH, then post them on the Rosetta (not RALPH) forum. Many of us do not ever go near RALPH.

The proper place is in the "More Info" link below the main posting rules. Go to the SETI forum to see how it's supposed to work.

I don't intend to acknowledge those rules until they are applied properly IN THIS FORUM.

---

Nemesis n. A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent.

Mod.T

In that link a David Baker broke current mod law by using the "C" word can you delete it ?

I don't recall seeing that the new rules were retroactive. LOL

Nobody said they weren't, either. Posts that don't meet current forum standards and are still visible to the public should be hidden, ragardless of when they were posted.

If that causes an issue, then perhaps the standards need to be re-evaluated.

---

Proudly Banned from Predictator@Home and now Cosmology@home as well. Added SETI to the list today. Temporary ban only - so need to work harder :)



"You can't fix stupid" (Ron White)

Mod.T

In that link a David Baker broke current mod law by using the "C" word can you delete it ?

I don't recall seeing that the new rules were retroactive. LOL

Nobody said they weren't, either. Posts that don't meet current forum standards and are still visible to the public should be hidden, ragardless of when they were posted.

If that causes an issue, then perhaps the standards need to be re-evaluated.

<giggle, chuckle, hehe>
I thought Backdating had been ruled "out of the question".
Oops... I said the "B" word.
LOL

LOL

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Mod.T

In that link a David Baker broke current mod law by using the "C" word can you delete it ?

I don't recall seeing that the new rules were retroactive. LOL

Nobody said they weren't, either. Posts that don't meet current forum standards and are still visible to the public should be hidden, ragardless of when they were posted.

If that causes an issue, then perhaps the standards need to be re-evaluated.

<giggle, chuckle, hehe>
I thought Backdating had been ruled "out of the question".
Oops... I said the "B" word.
LOL

TSK TSK TSK