On Sep 28, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Lynn W. Taylor wrote: > The benchmark affects the estimated run time, and the amount of work > downloaded. It affects credit, and credit is "fun" but it's not > science.
Then you are also guilty of not reading the proposal. I have always said that while running calibration tasks that the same compensation would be paid for a calibration task as for any other task. In fact, I said that it could qualify for a bonus to encourage participation in the system. In that we have resistance as you and John express because you don't seem interested in any attempt to improve the operation of the system as a whole. > As you correctly said, it will measure something about the quality > of the network. > > What John said (and you apparently didn't read) is that the science > application produces a result, and that result is either valid (the > calculations were performed correctly) or they're wrong (the result > of the calculations is incorrect and useless). Validation is not a magic wand and only usually means that two (or more) computers returned the same answer not that the answer is in fact correct. With more and more projects move to single system answers this means that this leg of redundancy is disappearing. I grant that there are some cases where there can be an absolute validation, but I am suspicious of some of the claims of infallibility because history says that thinking that computer generated results are correct results. Another case in point is the F-Div bug where two Intel processors would return identical wrong results ... how many other bugs like that exist, we don't know ... but assume that they don't exist because we have not seen them ... of course we are also not looking ... and working very hard to never look ... > It's a two way street, Paul. Yes, it should be. Sadly what usually happens is that people don't read what I write but skim it and then reject it in favor of not doing anything or on grounds that are spurious. > If you have a technical argument, present it (and only the technical > argument). When you accuse people of not reading, or not adopting > your ideas because they're your ideas, that becomes a self- > fulfilling prophesy. If you have suggestions to improve one of my ideas you will find that I am always happy to include those into the proposal. And I only accuse people of not reading when it is clearly obvious that they are not reading. If they are objecting on the grounds that I do x when I clearly have stated that we will not do x ... or that I don't have feature y when I clearly defined that I have feature y ... So, if I am restricted to only presenting technical ideas and arguments to those technical ideas, why can you do otherwise? As to the other point, well, it is not that they are just my ideas ... UCB pretty much rejects all ideas that do not originate at UCB ... or, it is proposed as a UCB idea a year or two after it was proposed ... _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
