Paul D. Buck wrote: > On Sep 28, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Lynn W. Taylor wrote:
> Which is part of the problem. You pick out a small item of the > proposal and object to that... which is ok in and of itself, but that > should not be cause for ignoring the rest of the proposal. When you > say credit is fun but it is not science you can also take that to mean > that it is not science because we don't measure it accurately. You can take it to mean anything you want -- it appears that whatever I say, you're going to restate it anyway. For better or worse, any proposal you might make on benchmarks has to equate to cobblestones, and cobblestones, for better or worse, are defined by whetstones and dhrystones. If you don't, you're changing credits. That's one tar-baby that I don't think anyone wants to touch. Either way, the project scientist doesn't care. For the project, the science is the result, not metrics from BOINC. _______________________________________________ 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.
