As was described here http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74125&postid=1478778 limits are needed.
Where to draw the line (threshold value) is not obvious, project -wide (as was stated here: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74125&postid=1479078.

Rescheduling has same relation with credit maximizing as optimized applications usage. Why optimized application usage can't be called "cheating" by some ?

Servers give slower app to everyone. But some (!) install optimized application instead! (why? surely to increase their credits. It's surely the only reason to install opt apps). Are they thinking they better than the others? Why they refuse to use stock app that supplied to everyone? If such slow stock app distributed, then "powers" of this project want that participants use exactly that slow app, instead they would distribut another one. And so on.

Nonsense? Sure. But this just exactly same nonsense that some try to make with rescheduling.

I can see your point. So Maybe Seti@Home should only do either stock apps or Opp apps. Not both. Like other Projects do.

---

[/quote]

Old James

As was described here http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74125&postid=1478778 limits are needed.
Where to draw the line (threshold value) is not obvious, project -wide (as was stated here: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74125&postid=1479078.

Rescheduling has same relation with credit maximizing as optimized applications usage. Why optimized application usage can't be called "cheating" by some ?

Servers give slower app to everyone. But some (!) install optimized application instead! (why? surely to increase their credits. It's surely the only reason to install opt apps). Are they thinking they better than the others? Why they refuse to use stock app that supplied to everyone? If such slow stock app distributed, then "powers" of this project want that participants use exactly that slow app, instead they would distribut another one. And so on.

Nonsense? Sure. But this just exactly same nonsense that some try to make with rescheduling.

I can see your point. So Maybe Seti@Home should only do either stock apps or Opp apps. Not both. Like other Projects do.

Sorry, you missed my point, actually :)

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

>But some (!) install optimized application instead! (why? surely to increase >their credits. It's surely the only reason to install opt apps).


sure, "credits" not only reason to use optimized apps. optimized apps do the same job more efficiency - it consumes less power, less time for the same results. i do not bother about my credits in large, but if i can install optimized app, who do the job significantly faster - why not?
i be recommend to project abandon all that "credits" at all. in boinc classic, if i remember correctly - there not be credits - there is hours dedicated to project. it is better in that aspect, than current credit system, because it is no matter, you do AP, or MB, or whatever - on all you get constant, the same hours on your account, as so, in that direction no any reason to cheating, imho.

---

As was described here http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74125&postid=1478778 limits are needed.
Where to draw the line (threshold value) is not obvious, project -wide (as was stated here: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74125&postid=1479078.

Rescheduling has same relation with credit maximizing as optimized applications usage. Why optimized application usage can't be called "cheating" by some ?

Servers give slower app to everyone. But some (!) install optimized application instead! (why? surely to increase their credits. It's surely the only reason to install opt apps). Are they thinking they better than the others? Why they refuse to use stock app that supplied to everyone? If such slow stock app distributed, then "powers" of this project want that participants use exactly that slow app, instead they would distribut another one. And so on.

Nonsense? Sure. But this just exactly same nonsense that some try to make with rescheduling.

I can see your point. So Maybe Seti@Home should only do either stock apps or Opp apps. Not both. Like other Projects do.

Sorry, you missed my point, actually :)

Then explain how I missed it. Seems to me that if Seti just did only one app then all this crying about rescheduling would not be happening.

I dont have a dog in this fight. I run what I get. I allways have. I liked running AP when the cherry pickers were aborting it. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

So Im thinking that maybe the Admins might finally have to choose a side.
Stock or Opp Aps.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Perhaps I should refer to definitions for next words: "sarcasm" "irony" and "absurd".

Those who studied math in some degree should be familiar with the rule of contraries method. Link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

Your arguments might be fine Raistmer, but what gives you and a few others the right to have more tasks than the set limits that the rest of us work with?

>but what gives you and a few others the right to have more tasks than the set >limits that the rest of us work with?

where is a law, or even user agreement, who limit that? :D
and on other hand - who do rights to anyone and anything?
peoples always give rights himself -from ancient times. a man get murderers around it, got in a village and say : "i am a king! give me money,food and so on, in contrary you be killed!"...

"what give you rights", huh...:D
who not prohibited, that is authorized ( in lower level)...

---

Your arguments might be fine Raistmer, but what gives you and a few others the right to have more tasks than the set limits that the rest of us work with?

I answered on this question here: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74125&postid=1478778

And statement of quotation shows fine example of demagogy method: to attribute some own statement to another person and then fight against that statement.

I don't like this trick in whole but lets answer on it this particular time:

I never said it's right for few. All have same rigth. So the contrasting few with others is inappropriate here. If someone chose to do something or not to do something for own reason doesn't mean all should do or doesn't do the same. The right of choice is basic right and choice itself available to everyone, not just to some closed group of few. So moral aspect is fine here.

Wiggo, you have the same right. Wanna excersise it - go on. Not? It's your choice, I can live with that. But why your can't live with my choice ?

Disclamer: Particular nickname used just because my nickname was used in discussion by this person.

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

P.S. to prev message.

I should emphasize that choice about that I post in my prev message (namely, choice to do rescheduling in boundaries that allow to finish work in time and not to overload server with too big tasks list) does no harm to project goals and resources, as described here: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74125&postid=1478778 (that is, being applied properly).

And this fact makes moral aspect right along with right of choice available to everyone.

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

1. The demand for Astropulse work exceeds the supply. Special configurations which allow getting more than a fair share are selfish.
Joe

So, accordinly to this logic mark "selfish" should be on anyone who buy secondary computer to cruch SETI.
This secondary computer will take 200 tasks on it, but task demands exceed task supply, so it's selfish to do this, it's selfish to buy another computer to cruch SETI AP on it.

Hope you see the point, it's again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

Wiggo, you have the same right. Wanna excersise it - go on. Not? It's your choice, I can live with that. But why your can't live with my choice ?

I won't do that as I respect the limits that are set (even if a bit low, but they are there for all to abide by), just like a majority do. Yes I do have a strong sense of morals, ethics and respect for those who do the the right thing and follow the rules/limits (I was a warranted officer before retirement). As for your choice, sorry, but I can find no good morals, ethics or respect for others in it.

I really dont know how this schism will turn out. But If we get into a internal bitter conflict,Then this project is doomed.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Wiggo, you have the same right. Wanna excersise it - go on. Not? It's your choice, I can live with that. But why your can't live with my choice ?

I won't do that as I respect the limits that are set (even if a bit low, but they are there for all to abide by), just like a majority do. Yes I do have a strong sense of morals, ethics and respect for those who do the the right thing and follow the rules/limits (I was a warranted officer before retirement). As for your choice, sorry, but I can find no good morals, ethics or respect for others in it.

Well, I should note that I have very strong sense of ethic, sense of morals and fairness.
And having these senses I always try to think how some situation can be estimated. And exactly these senses make me strong will to spend my time and efforts on this discussion. Cause I see how term "fairness" improperly applied in this particular situation. And I can't pass by such misuse.

I will try to explain once more why your "respect the limits" doesn't make you right here, why such respecting doesn't make you better in moreal aspect.
These limits are TECHNICAL limitation. The reasons of such TECHNICAL limitation are known. The drawbacks of such technical limitation and its NON-ABSOLUTE character is known too. This technical limitation has nothing to do with fairness at all.
Peoples who treat this limit as "fairness enforcement" create own meaning for this limits. And then they try to bind others with this self-created meaning. It's not right. And I will argue against this.

P.S. speaking more vividly, you trying to create some ancient taboo.

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

I doesn't make me wrong to respect them either and I respect your right to argue against the limits, but I will not respect anyone who feels that it's right to break limits.

That should be enough from my end, carry on.

I really dont know how this schism will turn out. But If we get into a internal bitter conflict,Then this project is doomed.

Good choice of term, indeed!

"schism" ! Very good choice of term! That is, there is some faith. And some against that faith (hence schism). When knowledge replaced by faith we come into dark ages with all their attributes like witchhunting.
Thanks for good example against what I argue here.

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

I doesn't make me wrong to respect them either and I respect your right to argue against the limits, but I will not respect anyone who feels that it's right to break limits.

That should be enough from my end, carry on.

Once again, you used demagogy. I DID NOT argue against limits. Moreover I said that limits ARE NEEDED. And explained WHY they are needed on project scale.
(link: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74125&postid=1478778)

I even not sure should they be lifted or not project-wide! (link: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74125&postid=1479078)
But I'm sure that for hosts under operator control these limits CAN and MAY be exceeded and that this action has nothing to do with morale at all!

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

P.S. But cause there is strong inclination to give moral estimate to rescheduling I gave positive ("good practice") moral estimate to rescheduling that doesn't waste server resources (i.e. being applied properly). Why such moral estimate? Cause being applied in such way it increases host througput. And, in turn, helps project to fulfill its goal. Just as another computer bought will do, just as opt app installation will do. That's why it's good. Not because it exceeds or not exceed tachnical limit, but because it helps to achieve project goals!

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

There is a vast difference between using optimised apps, thereby doing more science and getting the credit due for it and abusing the system in order to grab more credit and not caring that it is to everybody elses disadvantage.


from George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' : "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".



@ Draco, would you please be so kind to use the 'quote' button and trim the contents? your way to quote makes it hard to read.


BTW I didn't say talking about credit wasn't allowed, I just asked you all to keep the emotions out of the debate. And thanks for the drink :) Good job so far in staying civil, thanks all, please try to keep it that way.

---

A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain)

There is a vast difference between using optimised apps, thereby doing more science and getting the credit due for it and abusing the system in order to grab more credit and not caring that it is to everybody elses disadvantage.

Fully agree with this statement.

Just disagree that this statemet has something to do with rescheduling, being applied properly. There is no credit grabbing and there is no everybody else disadvantage. But there is host throughput increase that puts it in one line with optimizing app usage.

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

Well, if you can't beat them, join them !

Why don't we all re-schedule and see how long it takes to break things ?
I hope to have 20 hosts running by the end of the weekend, that's an awful lot of tasks I could waste if I choose to re-schedule. 1000 each host maybe ?

The competition amongst us is a big motivator for a lot of people here, as well as the science. It feels good to see your name climb the RAC tables.
If Lance Armstrong and Ben Johnson are your idols, then cheat.


Reg