Lynn W. Taylor wrote: > P.S. the short version of everything I just wrote: credit is not > science, it's economics (money). > > Martin wrote: > >> For myself, I much prefer the idea of scientific rigorous direct >> measurement certainty over that of a complex statistical guess...
I like the 'short' version! Much more readable even if not fully understandable... An important point is that the current credits are many different things to different people, and they /appear/ to keep /changing/ ... And I have no respect for what the current credits might represent. I don't believe they truly represent Cobblestones. Do we really want to keep them as a /variable/ that is some vague abstraction that gets twisted as projects and computer hardware and algorithm optimisations progress (and change)? Hence, let's *make* the credits a _defined measurable_ that can then /also/ be used as a 'currency' for 'bragging rights'. That means we can then also say meaningful things such as project X required Y amount of compute resources to get it's final results. This is more/less efficient by ZZZZZZ dollars over using a dedicated supercomputer. Or we can say algorithm A is in whatever way 'better' wrt compute resources used as compared to algorithm B. For the sake of taking a little care over a general purpose reference computer, that appears to give a very good scientific 'plus'. We also hopefully get rid of a LOT of futile arguments and bad feelings. Regards, Martin -- -------------------- Martin Lomas m_boincdev ml1 co uk.ddSPAM.dd -------------------- _______________________________________________ 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.
