- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Robin Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Work being wasted
Nah, the candle is being burned from both ends. The point is that
the small ones _are_ being poached
- Original Message -
From: Maciej Hrynczyszyn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mersenne List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Work being wasted
...what should I do in
order not to waste my (my A1200) time working on numbers which may be
taken over
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Leenstra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Work being wasted
So I would urge George and Scott to at least change it so that -- if an
exponent has been assigned to more than one person
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Blosser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 5:18 PM
Subject: RE: Mersenne: Work being wasted
it just bothers me when someone decides to do Google
searches in some sort of attempt to find information on someone
- Original Message -
From: Steve Elias [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Work being wasted
no way! i understand that statement is nonsense. morality ethics
are not defined by people's own ideas, they are defined
...what should I do in
order not to waste my (my A1200) time working on numbers which may
be
taken over by someone else in some uncertain future? Currently I'm
finishing my first exponent (that's M7505207 double-check)...
Don't disclose your exponants to a list read by Aaron Blosser.
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Daran wrote:
Better would be to store every name until a valid doublecheck proves the
exponant composite. The extra storage would be negligable.
I'd suggest that names not be stored for exponents that have been
unreserved, or where the name was last assigned that exponent
On 7 Feb 2002, at 14:11, Daran wrote:
Nah, the candle is being burned from both ends. The point is that
the small ones _are_ being poached. If you work in the same order as
the poacher, work on lots of exponents will be replicated. If you
work in the opposite order, only one exponent
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 08:06:27PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for Mary's current predicament, with that block of small
exponents you have, my best suggestion is to reverse the order of
the lines in worktodo.ini so that the _largest_ ones are done first.
Intermediate checkins to
That's my only point. Rude, yes. Morally/ethically/legally
there's really no problem with doing it.
legally, who knows - maybe there will be a court case some day
if some awful person poaches the 10M exponent ...
but morally/ethically there is obviously a huge problem with
Aaron,
i really know nothing about your past except what i've read here.
it's your current comments re poaching which i have found
objectionable. as you can see, i do feel free to comment regardless
of your possible lack of appreciation for my comments. if you repented
apologized for your
That's my only point. Rude, yes. Morally/ethically/legally
there's really no problem with doing it.
legally, who knows - maybe there will be a court case some day
if some awful person poaches the 10M exponent ...
but morally/ethically there is obviously a huge problem with
Aaron,
i really know nothing about your past except what i've read here.
it's your current comments re poaching which i have found
objectionable. as you can see, i do feel free to comment regardless
of your possible lack of appreciation for my comments. if you repented
apologized for your
(apologies for any duplicate postings i generated here; most
mailservers reject mail from my semi-improperly-configured linux PC.)
_
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ
PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Steve Elias
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 5:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Work being wasted
Aaron,
i really know nothing about your past except what i've read here.
it's your current comments re poaching which i have found
objectionable. as you
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Robin Stevens wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 08:06:27PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for Mary's current predicament, with that block of small
exponents you have, my best suggestion is to reverse the order of
the lines in worktodo.ini so that the _largest_ ones
Steve Elias wrote:
legally, who knows - maybe there will be a court case some day if some
awful person poaches the 10M exponent ...
On the legal issue, if a poacher did happen to pick the lucky number . . .
The good news is that GIMPS starts out with the money, and the only evidence
the poacher
hi Aaron,
thanks for clarifying your position! i'm a simpleton who lives often
below curb-height, and think poaching=stealing=wrong. this exponent
poaching seems like a sort of stealing to me and it would surely tick
me off vastly if i found my 33M exponent was checked in a day before
my PC
On 4 Feb 2002, at 11:52, Robin Stevens wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 08:06:27PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for Mary's current predicament, with that block of small
exponents you have, my best suggestion is to reverse the order of
the lines in worktodo.ini so that the _largest_
On Sat, Feb 2, 2002 10:15 PM, Mary Conner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is that fun? Does that sound like fun? Some hobby!
George said no poaching. He said if there was a problem with exponents
not being completed in a timely fashion, he would take care of it.
Anybody who continues to poach
There are two points of view here. They seem to be more or less
irreconcilable. This argument repeats on a regular basis.
I have to say that:
(a) I agree completely that having an assignment poached is
annoying to extremely offputting, especially for a relatively new
user;
(b) I don't see
Well, I think that most people on the list know of my past... it's when
someone does a Google search on me that I think borders on stalking.
One can only wonder what you might find if you did Google searches on
everyone on this list. :)
Anyway... the gardening analogy doesn't pass muster.
I agree that having your exponents poached is extremely annoying and can
and probably does drive away new participants. When it happens repeatedly
and when the person who does it, does so repeatedly and with a clear
disregard to whether the exponents are being checked in regularly or not -
Mary
Mary Conner wrote:
Hobbies are supposed to be fun. Poachers make it not fun. It's like a
bully trashing your sand castle because you're building right where he
wants to. Imagine yourself a first time GIMPS participant.
[cut history of the hypothetical newbie]
Hi. I'm new to GIMPS. I
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Maciej Hrynczyszyn wrote:
Hi. I'm new to GIMPS. I recently switched from SETI@Home looking for
something more solid, which probably makes me a good example for this
discussion :-) This entire thread scared me a lot, I must admit. Could
anybody told me - a complete newbie
First, may I point out that neither GIMPS nor PrimeNet *owns* the
Mersenne exponents being tested. I would posit that *anyone* is free to
test *any* exponent they choose.
Clearly, the purpose of GIMPS/PrimeNet is to optimize this search by
assigning exponents in an orderly fashion.
Both those
Legally perhaps not (however, they are using PrimeNet in a way that
violates the stated terms of usage), morally and ethically I do think
(and
I suspect most people would think) it is wrong. Not terribly
surprising
that you don't think it is, I suppose.
See, it's the snide comments like
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Aaron Blosser wrote:
Legally perhaps not (however, they are using PrimeNet in a way that
violates the stated terms of usage), morally and ethically I do think
(and
I suspect most people would think) it is wrong. Not terribly
surprising
that you don't think it is,
Mary Conner wrote:
It's very unlikely that particular exponent will get poached. But in
general, the best way to avoid poachers is to avoid looking like a
newbie. If you are running Prime95, set your Options--Preferences--Days
between sending new end dates value lower, down to 1 if that
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Maciej Hrynczyszyn wrote:
But if I use 'Vacation or Holiday' option at least my completion date will
be postponed?
If you uncheck the computer will be on during your absence box, it
should adjust your completion date. The bigger problem is that not having
checked the
Aw heck, let's just agree to disagree and shake hands. :) I'm not
terribly upset, and as I mentioned before, I have far greater things in
life to be concerned about than GIMPS, so I didn't mean to make a big
deal of it. :)
First, I would like to point out that you brought yourself into this
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Aaron Blosser wrote:
Aw heck, let's just agree to disagree and shake hands. :) I'm not
terribly upset, and as I mentioned before, I have far greater things in
life to be concerned about than GIMPS, so I didn't mean to make a big
deal of it. :)
No problem with that here.
]
[mailto:mersenne-invalid-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Russel Brooks
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:35 PM
To: Mary Conner; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Work being wasted
Mary Conner wrote:
I managed to grab a bunch of those 4.5M doublechecks that George
released
on Jan 10th
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Aaron Blosser wrote:
Sounds like stalking to me.
Not to me. The radio ham thing is a tenuous connection, except that the
name is right.
Just live with it I guess and if the occasional exponent gets
triple-checked, I don't anticipate losing too much sleep. Yeah, it
Nah, I just don't think it's worth tracking down this guy's name,
address and who knows what else just because he's poaching exponents in
what is, after all, just a hobby.
Not sure what the crack about with your history means, but whatever.
I can't take this all too seriously because, really,
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Aaron Blosser wrote:
Not sure what the crack about with your history means, but whatever.
I can't take this all too seriously because, really, it's just a hobby.
:)
Well, let me refresh your memory. PrimeNet used to set expiration dates
solely on the basis of expected
I hate it when people dredge up the past.
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 8:41 PM
To: Aaron Blosser
Subject: RE: Mersenne: Work being wasted
At 06:12 PM 2/2/2002 -0800, you wrote:
Not sure what the crack about
37 matches
Mail list logo
