From: Mikus Grinbergs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"Vincent J. Mooney Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Well, we could argue this for a long time. I vote for discarding the
>> results and asking GIMPS to warn its participants to never do this again.
>> GIMPS should not credit Aaron for the work.
>
>I second this proposal.
>
>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.
I disagree. I think Aaron should keep all credit for the work done. Aaron
asked for permission and got permission. Unfortunately he didn't have
everyone's permission that mattered.
>My concern is with "how does GIMPS look to the witch hunters?" If
>GIMPS does not have a _policy_ of not accepting *inappropriate*
>CPU-cycles, then we risk being tarred with "THOSE people don't care
>whose CPU-cycles are taken, or what the consequences are!"
Maybe GIMPS does need a policy. We shouldn't accept results from a hacker
who broke in to a system and installed prime95 without permission. But the
policy shouldn't apply to Aaron's situation. He worked for the company. He
had permission from someone. He used an admin password that was given to
him.
I think that if the Prime Server hadn't run out of exponents back in May(?),
US West would have never known about it. Aaron would still be getting
results today.
Wayne Sheppard
