> I suppose that you would vote to just start using Hubble to snap > photos without calibrating the instrument ... your way we get lots > more pretty pictures ... my way we get far more usable pictures ... > more accuracy, more science
Well, will try to extend this example. Let's say we calibrate Hubble once. Then meteor hits and calibration broken. And we even don't know in what part it broken. If we have only single device we have no choice to put it down and try to repair. But if we have ability to replicate it, we launch many "Hubbles" and will compare results they return. Those that mostly agree with each other will go. Sometimes having such redundancy is cheaper than repair itself. Sometimes repair just impossible. That's why space devices very often carry redundant systems. Just because you can't put it back and recalibrate after some random event. Very similar situation with BOINC itself. Your CAN'T ensure that user PC will work OK even right after completion of your artifical calibration task. So you should implement redundancy. But when redundancy implemented, why you need calibration on participants PCs ??? _______________________________________________ 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.
