On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:01:26PM +0000, Gordon Spence wrote: > 1. Personally, I don't see any harm in "poaching" per se, I have had it > happen to me. That's life and the way it goes. As I stated earlier, when > information is discovered humanity as a whole gains. Period. Look at the > big picture.
I don't quite see what 'humanity as a whole gains' when I return a negative result, or even a new factor, to the server. The biggest picture in which what we do has any significance at all, is the GIMPS project as a whole. And poaching harms the project by a. Making it less fun, and b. Possibly by putting off participants. [...] > 4. Get it into perspective. The number of times this actually happens is > miniscule. Out of the millions we have checked what are the "poached" > items? Dozens, a few hundred?? It's a thorn in the flesh. Objectively, the effect of poaching is insignificant, but its irritation value is out of proportion - witness the way the issues comes up time and time again in this list. > 5. It has correctly been pointed out that life doesn't end if a milestone > slips. Well guess what? That is a double-edged sword - life doesn't end if > an exponent gets poached either. But a participants contribution might. > 6. Now go back and read the license.txt file again, and this time actually > take the time to read and understand it. It specifically excludes liability > in the event of poaching. It does *NOT* say the you mustn't do it. The only > rules that you agree to be bound by are those in deciding how the > cash-prize is split up. Isn't that what we're discussing? Changes to the rules and proceedures. > Gordon Daran _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
