On Oct 4, 2009, at 6:56 AM, Martin wrote: > Paul D. Buck wrote: >> Martin, >> >> Read it again ... no conspiracy, no blindness ... I said the script >> was >> deflationary based on Eric's posts ... Richard said that this was a >> different script. Ok, fine ... >> >> Then he goes on to note that this actually used script is >> deflationary >> too ... as stated here: >> >>>>> That script is *NOT* deflationary, except to the >>>>> limited extent that Joe and I were talking about. >> >> >> perhaps it is only mildly so, but, if it is deflationary to a >> "limited >> extent" ... strip off the adjectives and it reads "deflationary". > > [Non-science comment, scientists please skip] > > There's no need for a contest of "who-said-what, who-did-what". > There's > far too much of that in the rest of the world as the source of > historical strife spanning the entire history of the major religions. > Can we keep with the science please and focus on the *present* and the > *ideas* and progress *forwards* ? Sorry, but I'm interested in the > science alone, and not school-yard banter. > > [/Non-science comment, scientists please skip]
Unless the specific question is what is your source, as was the case here. Eric asked, I answered. I am sorry that you resent me answering direct questions, but that is my nature. If it will make you feel any better, now that Richard has corrected me on the "legislative history", now he will be my source. As far as i can see I am only wrong in citation, not in conclusion. > Any deflationary aspects of Eric's current script are due to different > circumstances as compared to previous credits adjustments attempts. > Yes, > my suspicions are that for the present adjustments there is still > inaccuracy there, but much less so than for previous attempts. Also, > the > credits adjustment is now updated regularly by an automated script. > > So, that is a nice improvement on the previous ad-hoc arrangements. A > good (if imperfect) "quick fix". > > I also consider them to be a complete 'fiction' in that there is a > variable association with "cobblestones"! > > (Continued in further comment on another branch of this thread.) Which is also part of my objection to the use of Eric's script. It breaks the connection between the definition of a Cobblestone and the way it is measured. Equally bad it is not in more universal use meaning that most projects do not think that this solves the issues we have. >> I will also agree that we probably don't know for sure. ... >> [irrelevance snipped] ... we don't measure. Or we don't have the >> history ... > > Yes, I agree. > > >> At any rate, perception is reality. And we are doing nothing to solve >> the issues that give rise to the "bad feelings" in the participant >> community... > > Sorry if this bit has been thrashed over a few times already... > > Perceptions are indeed important for the few that take great > interest in > the credits. Also note that although those people can be considered to > be "just a few", they are significant in that they are the few that > *do* > take a significant interest in Boinc in time, effort and > contributions. > > I feel that it would also show the Boinc project in a much better > light > if the credits can be seen to be real science rather than just "an > inaccurate bit of fun". Inaccurate credits discredit the project? Again I agree, there is one more point and that there is the fact that actions by the project admins in this area have historically been done in ways, perhaps inadvertently, or perhaps because there was no way to avoid the consequences, but, have built up a legacy of dissatisfaction. What does that mean, it means that we need to be serious about a comprehensive solution that most projects will support or all we will be doing is throwing fuel on the fire. >> [... Irrelevant "He said... She said" deleted ...] >> probable that we do not know how big a problem it is ... > > Whether or not the credits are a "problem", they are getting some > attention now which can only be for the good. We've got some good > ideas > to play with if there's enough interest or perceived need to > implement them. Are they? Are they really? To this point the naysayers have only raised objections to all of the proposals, mine, yours, Dr. Anderson's, Lynn's ... though I have to admit that I am no longer sure what your plan is because you have been eliminating features to try to counter the fierce urgency to do nothing ... Dr. Anderson did not respond to my thoughts on his plan so I don't know if there might be any changes there ... so, are we really making progress ... or just engaged in talk that will peter out and we will have the glory of doing nothing ... >> And please don't assert that you know how I am feeling and what I am >> thinking ... if you want to know me let me know and we can >> coordinate a >> skype call and you can get to know me ... > > I didn't know that I did. I only described what I thought your writing > style indicated. We all have our own ideas. Further comment if you > feel > the need direct offlist please. > > (Being completely non-serious) I would imagine something between > Marvin > (the paranoid android) and the Total Perspective Vortex? And sorry, > I'm > no Gag Halfrunt... (Douglas Adams, Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.) And this is really interesting. You impugn my motivation, ascribe to me statements I did not make, and then grandly give to me the opportunity to rebut those issues in secret. I can see how you might desire such a methodology. _______________________________________________ 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.
