I know I said "last post." > And that is the "religious" what 'is', is. Amen. > > Or we can be scientific and say that was a good first approximation that > served it's purpose well enough. We can now move on and do better.
But this is not "science" it is economics -- and when you start adjusting people's paychecks, it becomes very religious. That's the real problem with credits, and with all respect to the developers and those of us whose enthusiasm has drawn us here, we tend to look at this as a science and engineering problem because that is our training and expertise. It's sociology. For those who remember the Uncle Remus stories, credit is a Tar Baby. <http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug97/remus/tar-baby.html> You touch the definition, you're going to trigger endless arguments over old credit vs. new credit, and constant complaints for those who are "cheated" by the new system. I ain't touchin' no tar babies. Dr. Anderson had a list of possible research topics for masters and graduate students, and I think he missed the ones under sociology and psychology. -- Lynn _______________________________________________ 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.
