> Let me explain my reasoning: GIMPS should have a _policy_ of what
> are appropriate CPU-cycles, and what are *inappropriate* CPU-cycles.
> Then GIMPS should enforce that policy by NOT ACCEPTING the results
> of *inappropriate* CPU-cycles.
The problem with having a policy on correct and incorrect CPU cycles
is that GIMPS can no longer claim impartiality. As soon as we
abandon the position that results are results no matter where they
come from GIMPS is forced into the position of acting as a computer
cop.
Certainly GIMPS doesn't have the resources to investigate where all
the results are coming from. I am willing to bet that a significant
number of results come from machines with little or no permisions.
For instance all the useres who run NTprime on their office NT
machine...must we discard those results because technically these
people don't own the computer so don't have decision powers.
Does someone in GIMPS have the time to go investigate to decide on
the correct policy in all these cases. What if GIMPS has a _policy_
but in some instance GIMPS decides it can use the cycles while the
government claims its illegal (i.e. we disagree with the results of a
trial or just investigation). GIMPS will take much more heat if it
has a policy which is portrayed as a "pro-hacking" policy than if
GIMPS represents itself (like journalists themselves when they use
stolen data which they themselves didn't steal) as an impartial
collector of work.
That was the more practical reason. In addition one of the key
principles behind science and mathematics is its universability. It
does not matter who does the reaserch. If we throw out the results
it seems we are somehow violating the spirit of that principle (we
shouldn't have thrown out the NAZI results either. Yes they were
incredibly evil but how would you like explaining to someone that
they can't recieve a mdeicine because the NAZI's killed that persons
grandparents).
I vote keep them
Peter
