Additionally, "off-topic" is very different from "disagreed with" or "not liked". If someone brings up a point, but decides that they don't want their point discussed and/or disagreed with in a reasoned manner, it is my opinion that they should probably not bring up the point in the public discussion, reserving it for a private message, or not at all.

But the topic is "interest falling away", and early on it was decided that this is for all of BOINC. Focusing on SETI alone just because those vocal here have a grudge against SETI is indeed slightly off-topic. I haven't hidden any of it myself because I'm not going to hold a strict sense to it - just stated my opinion. If I felt it was enough to enforce strictly, I would have hidden all off topic posts.

...and you know that I don't think it was you, although I can't talk about specific actions, supposedly...

This is what I meant about being lumped in with other people who "have a grudge". If I truly have a grudge at all, it would be with David and his leadership style / some of his ideas.

Some posters, in my opinion, do want there to be differences in credit values because they are competitive sorts who don't want restrictor plates.

My opinion is that if you're going to put a restrictor plate in, then you need to not allow one project to run without a restrictor plate.

Higher RAC should be driven by faster systems, more systems, or a combination of both. It should not be driven by Project A granting 20 cr/hr to a Q6600 CPU running Windows XP, but Project B granting 50 cr/hr to a Q6600 CPU running Windows XP.

The current credit system is flawed. IMO, no additional work should be spent towards "fixing" it while still leaving its' basic foundation the same. An entirely new approach needs to be implemented.

Example:

If you want standardized credit, then you have to first come up with a standard credit claiming mechanism. As it stands, you have flops, bm * time, fixed server-side, and others that I may not know about (???). To reach a standard, one of those has to be picked as a standard and all projects need to follow it.

There are just too many problems with the existing system. Stop the bellyaching and complaining that Project B is a "bad citizen" and instead start standardizing the mechanism.

Well, you have FINALLY stopped to explain yourself, and it turns out that, at least for this discussion at this moment in time, your opinion and my opinion mostly match.

I've only stated that at least three of four other times in this very thread. I just don't know how many different ways I can explain the same thing to you. It's hilarious that you say that I've "finally" stopped to explain myself when anyone can plainly see that I've made the same statements over and over and the only difference is that you seem to actually understand it now. Must mean you had a good night's sleep and have finally decided to listen to what I'm saying.

We would've reached this point yesterday had you decided to pause, take a deep breath, and seriously look at what I was saying. Thank you for doing so, rather than just continuing down a tired path of talking in circles.

Me!?! LOL You're the one admitting to being in defensive mode. When you're defensive, you are not really listening to what others are saying. Any psychologist will tell you that.

I have not changed my views, nor have I "paused" on anything. My stance has remained the same. It is only you that seems to have finally understood that which I've said a quarter-dozen times in this thread already.

I have no idea why you're suddenly claiming that our views match or that I'm the one who has suddenly "taken a breath" and listened. Nothing has changed given:

The only "bone of contention" remaining is that the anonymous platform as it is in use by SETI allows SETI to have a "competitive advantage" if the optimization levels are different between different projects, but the credit normalization pretends that the apps are equivalent.

*sigh* There is no competitive advantage for SETI. The anonymous platform is available for all projects to use if they wish. If other projects do not wish to use it, then that is their choice, but this does not mean a "competitive advantage" for SETI simply because of other project's decision not to use what's available.

The credit normalization (cross-project parity) is not there to "pretend" the apps are equivalent, CPP is there to enforce that granted credit/hr is the same regardless of optimization level of the stock application.

The area where I notice may be a problem is that you seem to think that CPP means every host, no matter the speed, earns the same credit per hour as every other machine. So my Athlon 1.4GHz will have the same RAC as my Xeon 5130 because of "credit normalization". If this is what you think, then you misunderstand the concept of CPP (probably because of statements made by David suggesting that very thing). CPP is supposed to mean that machines of the same speed will earn the same RAC, so therefore a faster machine can get more work done per hour, thus achieve a higher RAC - which is exactly the way things are right now.

My hope is that over time you will warm to that idea. As it stands now, I don't feel like having another lengthy circular debate about it...including you telling me that I don't listen to you, which you supposedly don't like it when people say that to you...

Both people must listen for there to be understanding.

As it stands now, and as you've explained your side, there's nothing for me to "warm" to. Only people in defensive mode don't listen. I heard you loud and clear and nothing has changed on my side at all.

In looking back at my responses to you, I've been in defensive mode most of the time. The times when I have gone into "offensive mode" is when I've hit a brick wall with you, and thus I'm trying to figure out how to get through the wall. Even so, you should've noticed that I attempted to throw humor in to soften things...

Thank you for admitting to the rest of the thread that you have been defensive in most of your posts. This explains most of your behavior. Being "offensive" to get different results is really not a good debate tactic, and there has never been any wall, at least not on my side.

Yes, I have a predetermined thought that the definition of "fair" should mean that things are indeed fair. Not sure why this is objectionable, but so be it, I suppose...

No, not what I was saying at all. But thank for playing.

---

...what we couldn't figure out is why you were denying it.

Funny that. Haven't denied anything. But thanks for acknowledging that people will use credit as a form of weight in an attempt to get their way. That's an incredible abuse of power, a power that should not exist in the cruncher's hands.

---

There are just too many problems with the existing system. Stop the bellyaching and complaining that Project B is a "bad citizen" and instead start standardizing the mechanism.

That is what they're trying to do, and that is what David is trying to accomplish by enforcing CPP.

---

...what we couldn't figure out is why you were denying it.

Funny that. Haven't denied anything. But thanks for acknowledging that people will use credit as a form of weight in an attempt to get their way. That's an incredible abuse of power, a power that should not exist in the cruncher's hands.

I don't believe it's an incredible abuse of power...It is simply a reality...And it has been for quite some time...It's a reality that might be resented by some who can't seem to tolerate any discouraging words...The power crunchers should have some influence here...the more one has invested in hardware that crunches more data...the more likely they are to have relevant suggestions or criticisms...Because they likely have thought more about how things work here than someone who has not elected to become a full blown power cruncher...
Abuse of power...no i don't think so...

The people i really want to hear from are starting to speak up...Eric Korpela weighed in with some comments last night...I would also like to hear from the likes of Matt Lebofsky and Dr. Anderson...and see what they have to say too...

I myself have no big problems with BOINC...But i understand that there are others who know much more than i do who have problems with it...I think if a regular and civil dialogue is established...then both sides of this issue could profit from this sharing...Overdramatic dismissals of what these people (the crunchers and the projects admins) have to say will solve nothing...and will just lead to continuing intensification of the ill feelings that have been festering under and above the surface for far too long.

---

PROUD TO BE TFFE!

I don't believe it's an incredible abuse of power...It is simply a reality...And it has been for quite some time...It's a reality that might be resented by some who can't seem to tolerate any discouraging words...The power crunchers should have some influence here...the more one has invested in hardware that crunches more data...the more likely they are to have relevant suggestions or criticisms...Because they likely have thought more about how things work here than someone who has not elected to become a full blown power cruncher...
Abuse of power...no i don't think so...

Ahh, but it is. Any attempt to exert sway over another person or organization for personal gain is an abuse of power.

So essentially, you're saying that if the Mafia has its hands in enough government programs, that somehow they should be allowed to have influence over the decisions of the government? Sorry, I've seen this happen in small scales (a family tried bringing in all of the members to the same company, then tried running the company based upon their own needs). I can't agree with this at all, on any level. Just because a cruncher has a large investment, doesn't mean their motivations are pure for the project at all. That thinking is incredibly naive.

Most certainly the crunchers should have a right to speak, and to be heard, but no project should have to give in to what a group of people want under the ultimatum that if they don't, they'll leave. I don't care who you are, that's just plain wrong.

I don't believe it's an incredible abuse of power...It is simply a reality...And it has been for quite some time...It's a reality that might be resented by some who can't seem to tolerate any discouraging words...The power crunchers should have some influence here...the more one has invested in hardware that crunches more data...the more likely they are to have relevant suggestions or criticisms...Because they likely have thought more about how things work here than someone who has not elected to become a full blown power cruncher...
Abuse of power...no i don't think so...

Ahh, but it is. Any attempt to exert sway over another person or organization for personal gain is an abuse of power.

So essentially, you're saying that if the Mafia has its hands in enough government programs, that somehow they should be allowed to have influence over the decisions of the government? Sorry, I've seen this happen in small scales (a family tried bringing in all of the members to the same company, then tried running the company based upon their own needs). I can't agree with this at all, on any level. Just because a cruncher has a large investment, doesn't mean their motivations are pure for the project at all. That thinking is incredibly naive.

No it is not...Your overdramatic dismissals of what the others have to say has often come across a childish...and sometimes offensive...You post as if your tag depends upon your reckless and rude defense of the project...You have let your own self interest drive your keyboard...To keep your own power...you are trying to squelch the opinions of others who may differ from your point of view...I assure you that your powers are not at stake here...and i'm aware that all motivations are not pure...your postings and the postings of others on both sides of this argument have reminded me of that fact.

Any attempt to exert sway over another person or organization for personal gain is an abuse of power.

It's not an abuse of power...It's just an attempt to exert sway over another person or organization...Maybe for personal gain...or for the greater good of all...It is all in play in this thing we call politics...and yes...the destiny of science is also bound up in political considerations...

Welcome to the free enterprise system...

---

PROUD TO BE TFFE!

No it is not...Your overdramatic dismissals of what the others have to say has often come across a childish...and sometimes offensive

LOL Overdramatic dismissals? I didn't know I was being "overdramatic"! Childish? This is getting comical. Offensive? Deal with it. Perhaps you guys have been offensive to me. This entire post of yours is offensive to me.

...You post as if your tag depends upon your reckless and rude defense of the project...

I've never used my "tag" once, and you're the first to bring it up here. It seems that you want to make this an issue when there isn't one.

And "reckless and rude defense of the project"? Are you kidding? Just because I offer a different view, I'm reckless and rude? Wow.

You have let your own self interest drive your keyboard...To keep your own power...

What the h*** are you talking about here? You think this is all to "keep myself in power"? I didn't realize I had any, and even if I did, I didn't realize that I am fighting to keep it. Sorry, but this is a personal attack and way off topic, not to mention an incredibly inaccurate assessment of the situation.

you are trying to squelch the opinions of others who may differ from your point of view

No I'm not. I'm trying to express my views just like everyone else is. Please do not attempt to tell me what my motivation is when you haven't a clue. Why is it that a disagreement is suddenly an attempt to "squelch" the opinions of others?

Does that mean because you guys disagree with me that you are attempting to squelch my opinions? No. And at least I realize that. My disagreement is an attempt to communicate to others that I believe their opinions are wrong - but I have stated all along that I respect everyone's views here. Its funny how the small details like that are ignored.

It's not an abuse of power...It's just an attempt to exert sway over another person or organization...Maybe for personal gain...or for the greater good of all...It is all in play in this thing we call politics...and yes...the destiny of science is also bound up in political considerations...

And politics has no place in science, and crunchers should not be encouraging the addition of politics into the system. Based upon that inference alone, I would fight even harder against crunchers having sway if that's how they're going to view things.

Welcome to the free enterprise system...

Ummm... I'm glad you're not a scientist.

No it is not...Your overdramatic dismissals of what the others have to say has often come across a childish...and sometimes offensive

I'm not allowed to have opinions? I am not allowed to speak those opinions even if they aren't in line with your own? I'll have to keep that in mind.

...You post as if your tag depends upon your reckless and rude defense of the project...

I've never used my "tag" once, and you're the first to bring it up here. It seems that you want to make this an issue when there isn't one.

And "reckless and rude defense of the project"? Are you kidding? Just because I offer a different view, I'm reckless and rude? Wow.

You have let your own self interest drive your keyboard...To keep your own power...

What the hell are you talking about here? You think this is all to "keep myself in power"? I didn't realize I had any, and even if I did, I didn't realize that I am fighting to keep it. Sorry, but this is a personal attack and way off topic, not to mention an incredibly inaccurate assessment of the situation.

you are trying to squelch the opinions of others who may differ from your point of view

No I'm not. I'm trying to express my views just like everyone else is. Please do not attempt to tell me what my motivation is when you haven't a clue. Why is it that a disagreement is suddenly an attempt to "squelch" the opinions of others?

Does that mean because you guys disagree with me that you are attempting to squelch my opinions? No. And at least I realize that. My disagreement is an attempt to communicate to others that I believe their opinions are wrong - but I have stated all along that I respect everyone's views here. Its funny how the small details like that are ignored.

It's not an abuse of power...It's just an attempt to exert sway over another person or organization...Maybe for personal gain...or for the greater good of all...It is all in play in this thing we call politics...and yes...the destiny of science is also bound up in political considerations...

And politics has no place in science, and crunchers should not be encouraging the addition of politics into the system. Based upon that inference alone, I would fight even harder against crunchers having sway if that's how their going to view things.

Welcome to the free enterprise system...

Ummm... I'm glad you're not a scientist.

Politics pays for the science...and i'm at least more of a scientist than you'll ever be because i understand that fact...At this point your ramblings are doing more harm than good...You should try and cool down before you alienate even more people than you already have...Let the real scientists who work for this project speak for themselves...Your words are not doing their thoughts or opinions justice.

---

PROUD TO BE TFFE!

Well, you have FINALLY stopped to explain yourself, and it turns out that, at least for this discussion at this moment in time, your opinion and my opinion mostly match.

I've only stated that at least three of four other times in this very thread. I just don't know how many different ways I can explain the same thing to you.

No, you never explicitly stated that you had no opposition to multiple apps combined in a single package until today. You only stated "stock" = "stock". I was trying to point to a distinct difference between one "stock" and another "stock" which made that equality comparison invalid. Continued going on about "stock" = "stock" gives the appearance that you are disagreeing, even if you actually do agree.

IOW, I don't particularly care for all the "cloak and dagger" / "read between the lines" stuff. Just say what is on your mind. Most of the time I don't play "drop hints and demand that the other person figure it out"... I state my view and try not to be ambiguous about it...unless I'm trying to be excessively polite (more on that in a moment...)

Must mean you had a good night's sleep

I wish I did sleep well, but I typically don't... As for today, roughly 3 hours...

You're the one admitting to being in defensive mode. When you're defensive, you are not really listening to what others are saying. Any psychologist will tell you that.

I worded what I said as to not say that I felt you were going on the offense. I tried to be polite. There were two ways you could take what I said, and you took it as "defensive mode" meaning "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA NOT LISTENING TO YOU!!!!" with my tongue out at you... :sigh:

Whatever...

Politics pays for the science...

Umm... no, they don't. Tax payer's money pays for science. The government collects tax money, but the "governement" != "politics".

and i'm at least more of a scientist than you'll ever be because i understand that fact...

Right. You just proved that you understand it better than I. :roll eyes:

At this point your ramblings are doing more harm than good...You should try and cool down before you alienate even more people than you already have...

So, you are telling me that I'm not allowed to speak up. So, then this really isn't an open discussion, but really only a b**** session for all those who are upset.

Stop trying to squelch my opinion.

Let the <i>real</i> scientists who work for this project speak for themselves...Your words are not doing their thoughts or opinions justice.

They can speak for themselves. I am speaking for me. My opinions are my own. Just because I have a Mod tag, doesn't mean that all my opinions are "official". I have a right to speak my opinion just as you do.

I would say that your ramblings are doing more harm than good, considering you A) told me I am not allowed to speak and B) encourage politics in science.

The area where I notice may be a problem is that you seem to think that CPP means every host, no matter the speed, earns the same credit per hour as every other machine. So my Athlon 1.4GHz will have the same RAC as my Xeon 5130 because of "credit normalization". If this is what you think, then you misunderstand the concept of CPP (probably because of statements made by David suggesting that very thing). CPP is supposed to mean that machines of the same speed will earn the same RAC, so therefore a faster machine can get more work done per hour, thus achieve a higher RAC - which is exactly the way things are right now.

Oh, and I forgot about this part...

As you keep beating on me, I'm going to say I don't understand how I can rephrase things to where you actually "get it" that I really do "get it".

Your Athlon 1.4GHz would not get the same cr/hr under what I outlined, it would only get the same nominal credit value for one completed task. If you do a task on your Athlon and it completed in 60 minutes, you would get 1 normalized credit unit. If your Xeon 5130 completed 4 tasks in 60 minutes, it would get 4 normalized credit units. This means that your Athlon would have a cr/hr of 1, while your Xeon would have cr/hr of 4.

Once that is implemented in all the projects, it would mean that Project A would give Athlon 1.4GHz machines 1 cr/hr, but Xeon 5130 machines 4 cr/hr, since the Xeon 5130 did four times the actual work, and so would Project B, Project C, Project Z, Project A42Z99, etc, etc, etc...

:sigh:

Yes, you would have to establish what the baseline really should be, but after that, all the projects would need to do is add in something similar to LOAD_STORE_ADJUSTMENT, which I happen to like to keep as a simple name of CROSS_PROJECT_PARITY_MULTIPLIER to come up with reaching the baseline target amount of ONE NORMALIZED CREDIT for ONE COMPLETED TASK.

:sigh again:

Honestly, it is you who is continually grossly mistaken in your interpretation of my ideas, not the other way around.

---

Politics pays for the science...

Umm... no, they don't. Tax payer's money pays for science. The government collects tax money, but the "governement" != "politics".

and i'm at least more of a scientist than you'll ever be because i understand that fact...

Right. You just proved that you understand it better than I. :roll eyes:

At this point your ramblings are doing more harm than good...You should try and cool down before you alienate even more people than you already have...

So, you are telling me that I'm not allowed to speak up. So, then this really isn't an open discussion, but really only a b**** session for all those who are upset.

Stop trying to squelch my opinion.

Let the <i>real</i> scientists who work for this project speak for themselves...Your words are not doing their thoughts or opinions justice.

They can speak for themselves. I am speaking for me. My opinions are my own. Just because I have a Mod tag, doesn't mean that all my opinions are "official". I have a right to speak my opinion just as you do.

I would say that your ramblings are doing more harm than good, considering you A) told me I am not allowed to speak and B) encourage politics in science.

Politicians spend what the taxpayers pay in taxes...Politics has everything to do with what science is done...and what science is not done...Sometimes politicians even control what scientific research is allowed to be undertaken by people who could pay for the experiments without help from the government.

The relationship between science and politics has been going on for centuries...There are many brilliant scientist with many brilliant ideas who are counting on the official benediction of the politicians with the clout to pay for the research they want to do...It's real Ozz...and it's been going on for a long time...

But i think if i keep going round and round with you about politics we will take this thread off it's course...So i will just have to agree to disagree with you on these points and say goodnight OzzFan.

---

PROUD TO BE TFFE!

No, you never explicitly stated that you had no opposition to multiple apps combined in a single package until today. You only stated "stock" = "stock". I was trying to point to a distinct difference between one "stock" and another "stock" which made that equality comparison invalid. Continued going on about "stock" = "stock" gives the appearance that you are disagreeing, even if you actually do agree.

Your bad. I thought it was quite obvious when I stated a stock app was anything within a project's direct control, it would include multiple apps (though they're not really in a single package from what I understand, but in separate, distinct packages that the central detection program points to). Not a real big leap there to come to that conclusion. You could have just asked in a much clearer way if you were unsure instead of attempting to explain the "difference" to me like I was a dolt.

As you keep beating on me, I'm going to say I don't understand how I can rephrase things to where you actually "get it" that I really do "get it".

<snip>

Honestly, it is you who is continually grossly mistaken in your interpretation of my ideas, not the other way around.

Nope. I'm pretty sure the misinterpretation was on the side who insisted on being "heard".

You could have just asked in a much clearer way if you were unsure instead of attempting to explain the "difference" to me like I was a dolt.

As I said, I'm not a big fan of "cloak and dagger", or, given what you said above:

"Why don't you go scratch around and I'll tell you if you are 'cold', 'warm', or 'hot'...?"

That is pure childishness. An adult doesn't engage in conversation that way, except in politics. Stop wasting people's time...then coming back on them and telling them that they are the ones with a problem because they didn't have ESP and psychically come up with what you really meant...

Geeze, this is like having an argument with my ex-girlfriend, who thought my name was "Claire Voyant"

Politicians spend what the taxpayers pay in taxes...

Politicians != politics. There's a difference. And they pay what the voters want paid. If they don't then the politician is removed from office in the next election. Ergo, politicians don't spend the tax payer's money, the tax payers spend it.

The relationship between science and politics has been going on for centuries...There are many brilliant scientist with many brilliant ideas who are counting on the official benediction of the politicians with the clout to pay for the research they want to do...It's real Ozz...and it's been going on for a long time...

Just because politicians have been influencing science for ages, does not mean we should expect it to remain constant, nor should we insist on embedding it into BOINC. Most rational people cannot stand politics (not politicians), and I can't see why any cruncher would think adding politics into BOINC is a good thing.

As you keep beating on me, I'm going to say I don't understand how I can rephrase things to where you actually "get it" that I really do "get it".

<snip>

Honestly, it is you who is continually grossly mistaken in your interpretation of my ideas, not the other way around.

Nope. I'm pretty sure the misinterpretation was on the side who insisted on being "heard".

[reinserting what was snipped, aka "ignored"]

Your Athlon 1.4GHz would not get the same cr/hr under what I outlined, it would only get the same nominal credit value for one completed task. If you do a task on your Athlon and it completed in 60 minutes, you would get 1 normalized credit unit. If your Xeon 5130 completed 4 tasks in 60 minutes, it would get 4 normalized credit units. This means that your Athlon would have a cr/hr of 1, while your Xeon would have cr/hr of 4.

Once that is implemented in all the projects, it would mean that Project A would give Athlon 1.4GHz machines 1 cr/hr, but Xeon 5130 machines 4 cr/hr, since the Xeon 5130 did four times the actual work, and so would Project B, Project C, Project Z, Project A42Z99, etc, etc, etc...

:sigh:

Yes, you would have to establish what the baseline really should be, but after that, all the projects would need to do is add in something similar to LOAD_STORE_ADJUSTMENT, which I happen to like to keep as a simple name of CROSS_PROJECT_PARITY_MULTIPLIER to come up with reaching the baseline target amount of ONE NORMALIZED CREDIT for ONE COMPLETED TASK.

:sigh again:

[/reinserting what was snipped, aka "ignored"]

And this is the reason why I, and others as well, have decided to support this project.

I find it odd that when people get paid to work on a never ending project such as their job, they just collect their paychecks and never say a hoot... Yet, when it comes to donating (paying) to a project (job) that by no means has any definite end in sight, people demand results pronto... Volunteers are not employees they are voluntary employers, if you don't like it, then start your own business...

My main point being: Crunch if you wanna crunch, donate if you wanna donate, if you think you can do better than the SETI crew then by all means start your own project, otherwise, the negative people need to keep their traps shut... Just my two pennies worth... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Well Jefferey since you refrain from keeping your trap shut,
How can you you make things better?

My trap is always shut unless I'm critiquing or teaching, both of which people seem to dislike... But the difference between what I do and what I see here is that I never place demands on others, especially when they are doing something that I would like to do but can't do...

If you're asking what I would do to make SETI better, I dunno... I volunteer what I can to help others (the SETI team) accomplish what they can... I've been a happy VOLUNTEER cruncher for almost a decade now, and my only real complaint about the project would have to be the 'volunteer complainers'... I'm quite sure that's not very good for business...

Now we're up to four pennies worth... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .