At 11:26 PM 6/13/99 -0600, Aaron Blosser wrote:
>> This is supposed to be fun, and your behaviour makes it the oposite. I
>> don't want to stand guard over my exponents, sending in false progress
>> reports to make you stay away from them.
>
>Hey, whoa. I'm not asking anyone to send in false status reports. I *real*
>status report every now and then would do. In fact, a status report at
>least every 6 months seems quite prudent, don't you think?
>
>And personally, I think that if a test will take over a year to complete,
>you're probably better off doing factoring tests or double-checks, or maybe
>some other (integer based) distributed computing project altogether. I like
>GIMPS personally, but I'm not about to run Prime95 on my 486-75 laptop
>except maybe for factoring assignments.
>
>I know that factoring means you won't find the next record breaking prime,
>but so what? I try to run factoring assignments on my computers on the
>"recommended" 10:1 ratio... 1 factoring assignment for every 10 LL tests.
>
>Factoring is every bit as important to GIMPS as anything else. We're now
>doing first time LL tests in the 7M range...I can recall not too long ago
>when I would get factoring assignments in that same range, and I like
>knowing that I could use some of my slower machines to "pave the way" as it
>were.
>
>I'm not out to do all this just to get in the top-100 list...you could take
>away all my accumulated CPU time (though the others in my team madpoo might
>not like that) and that'd be fine because I'd still know that I'm
>contributing.
>
>Some people post to this list being upset that the work they turned in
>hasn't shown up in the primenet status lists yet. I know that this is a
>valid motivation for some people, but I do think they're missing a bigger
>picture. We have thousands of people all tied together into one huge, very
>well organized system. Scott and George have done wonders with putting this
>altogether. I merely suggest that we try to clean up some of the bits that
>ultimately will fall through the cracks. As I said before...exponents like
>the ones that were pointed out earlier are a very rare exception to the
>rule...but those exceptions must be dealt with to keep the coherency of
>GIMPS intact.
>
>But hey, this is just my opinion. After I test this little teeny tiny group
>of numbers, I won't poach anymore and you can all do whatever, but I still
>think it's a good idea to "clean house" every now and then.
>
>Aaron
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:25:53 -0400
To: "Aaron Blosser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Jud McCranie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575
Cc: "Mersenne@Base. Com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 11:26 PM 6/13/99 -0600, Aaron Blosser wrote:
+----------------------------------------------+
| Jud "program first and think later" McCranie |
+----------------------------------------------+
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
