SETI found the solution; at this point in time no one gets ANY work.

---

...The simple answer is that if you don't like the way that Seti is run, then leave, we can manage perfectly well without you. I can't see the point of all this angst.

Which reminds me of the fact that the people who run Seti haven't been involved in any of this angst, have not bothered to banish Fred's App, or even take any action against those accused 'cheaters'. All the angst is coming from a small group who have decided amongst themselves what is to be considered 'cheating' and have insulted other members based on their opinions. Not a good thing to insult others over self imposed opinions...

SETI found the solution; at this point in time no one gets ANY work.

21/02/2014 13:04:48 | SETI@home | Scheduler request completed: got 6 new tasks

But I know what you mean - at the moment, work is in very, very short supply, for reasons I've posted (and are better discussed) in the 'Panic' thread.

Staff, as in Berkeley payroll. Mods certainly can't.

That's what I thought. I just wonder why so many people want to ague here.

I don't think they want to argue, just to get the most efficient workload out of their machines.

Boinc is flawed we know but allowing users dump WU's so they can stock up on higher paying AP's is just wrong. However as there are no checks or rules to stop this happening people are annoyed.

The only thing hiding your machines actually hides is how many you have, everything else is pretty standard and tells you little except when help is needed.

It can and does provide a way to "hide" when you are cheating so, I would vote for no anonymous machines, those who didn't like it could leave.

---

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 distribute another one. And so on.

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

+1 R.

To others:

Ask Yourself:
a) Do You want to crunch more for the project?
b) Do You consider a person doing the same as a likely friend?
c) If You would get (for free) some time to spend to optimize Your computer set up, would you do it?
d) Would You be pleased if someone else offered to do that for You when You are having a trouble finding time to do it Yourself?
e) If Your friend's computer is doing better than usual, would You congratulate the person?
f) If You were falling behind in stats, Who would You ask help from?
g) This is just a name for a point. (intentionally left blank)

---

To overcome Heisenbergs:
"You can't always get what you want / but if you try sometimes you just might find / you get what you need." -- Rolling Stones

Ask Yourself:
a) Do You want to crunch more for the project?
b) Do You consider a person doing the same as a likely friend?
c) If You would get (for free) some time to spend to optimize Your computer set up, would you do it?
d) Would You be pleased if someone else offered to do that for You when You are having a trouble finding time to do it Yourself?
e) If Your friend's computer is doing better than usual, would You congratulate the person?
f) If You were falling behind in stats, Who would You ask help from?

a) Yes so long as it doesn't starve my other project support
b) yes as far as "crunching" goes
c) Yes and I actively do this
d) Yes but as a very old U.S. TV commercial said, "Mother, please! I'd rather do it myself!" (Many people can use a computer, but relatively few understand how it works.)
e) Yes, and then I would ask to see how it was done so I could improve mine
f) I would use the Question and Answer support board as I did recently for another issue I had

Since I am paying for the electricity, internet access, and hardware used by ALL the projects I support, I want to get the maximum return on it (the most science). Having an idle computer still costs money so I am keenly interested in efficient use. That is why I use the Lunatic optimized applications. If other do the same, great for them. Being able to reschedule WUs sounds to me to be a means to ensure the GPU is kept busy.

---

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

Yes, it's selfish. Whether that's necessarily bad is a personal value system judgement, I don't claim to know any absolute truths about how humans should judge such things. In any case, I see nothing wrong with a user choosing to do only AP on the basis of a personal judgement that it is more likely to produce valuable results. That's just like choosing which BOINC projects to join.

All humans are totally selfish at birth, only later do they develop the ability to think abstractly and perhaps consider some group goals more important than their own immediate comfort.

My own point of view is that the project leadership has set limits which are intended to keep the total number of tasks in the database low enough to avoid difficulties. Because AP tasks are only about 2.5% of the total tasks split, the turnaround time for those has little effect. From the haveland charts the fraction of AP database records did rise to about 5.75% at the end of the last extended period of AP availability around week 17.2 but that fraction is still small. Concentrating on getting S@H v7 tasks done promptly would be much more helpful, and in a purely logical sense that may be true even if it means running out of work during the weekly outage.

As I hope point 2 in my previous post made clear, I don't think the present limits are fair. The general idea that splitting a user's productivity across multiple systems allows more tasks is unfortunate, those multiple systems are less energy efficient and probably cost more in total than one super cruncher. But there are many unfair things in human society which we all have to adapt to, for instance in the U.S. speed limits are applied equally to a Ferrari and some top heavy SUV which is prone to flip over in an avoidance maneuver.

                                                                  Joe

Well, maybe I miss what sense you put in "selfish" word. Perhaps then, with such word definition ANY man's action is selfish, no matter what he is doing.

For example:
let say he bought secondary PC for SETI crunching to increase his credits/RAC, going up on ladder. Well, many would call such deed "selfish".

But if he bought same computer to crunch SETI in desperate hope to make contact before he dies? If he never look on those credits at all since they can't measure performance anymore? What then? In some sense he is selfish too, cause it was his will to make contact, right?

And even if he bought PC just because he has money and his close friend has a dream to make contact, i.e. to help his friend to fulfill his dream. Then he again selfish, cause it's his will to help friend, he fulfills own will to help, hence he is selfish.

So, in such word definition absolutely all human actions are selfish ones. But are we need word that gives nothing, why use word at all if it can'd define anything new or select some property and so on?

IMHO such widened sense in no sense at all.

---

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

But if he bought same computer to crunch SETI in desperate hope to make contact before he dies?

And what makes him think, that the contact can be done only by crunching the best paying WUs, i.e. AP?

---

But if he bought same computer to crunch SETI in desperate hope to make contact before he dies?

And what makes him think, that the contact can be done only by crunching the best paying WUs, i.e. AP?

Maybe because AP just best suited for his hardware so he can make more such tasks.
Maybe because of algorithm used inside AP that allows to hope for broadband connection intercepting. And we now know that in our own civilization broadband connections more and more dominate over narrowband. There really can be reasons besides credits :)

---

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

But if he bought same computer to crunch SETI in desperate hope to make contact before he dies?

And what makes him think, that the contact can be done only by crunching the best paying WUs, i.e. AP?

Maybe someone told him the entire available sky had already been searched using MB, so, he decided to try the one that still hadn't been completely searched.
Doesn't matter, if he bought a high end card verses low end he's still a selfish SOB by that logic. Which would tend to make you think there is something seriously wrong with that type of selfish logic.

This is serious fun!

---

To overcome Heisenbergs:
"You can't always get what you want / but if you try sometimes you just might find / you get what you need." -- Rolling Stones

But if he bought same computer to crunch SETI in desperate hope to make contact before he dies?

And what makes him think, that the contact can be done only by crunching the best paying WUs, i.e. AP?

Maybe because AP just best suited for his hardware so he can make more such tasks.

I see... someone buys computer specially for to crunch for SETI and than he chooses hardware, which is best suitable for that part of the project, where most of the time no WUs are available... yeah, that makes sense.

Maybe because of algorithm used inside AP that allows to hope for broadband connection intercepting. And we now know that in our own civilization broadband connections more and more dominate over narrowband. There really can be reasons besides credits :)

SETI is one project, which analyses the data in two different ways. MB tasks still have to be processed before new tapes are added to the queue.

---

TBar wrote:

Doesn't matter, if he bought a high end card verses low end he's still a selfish SOB by that logic.

No. If you think that, you didn't understand the logic.


petri33 wrote:

This is serious fun!

Yes, the fantasy of some people seems nearly endless when they are trying to explain why they cheat and why they think that other users should not have the same chances to get AP WUs as themselves.

---

I see... someone buys computer specially for to crunch for SETI and than he chooses hardware, which is best suitable for that part of the project, where most of the time no WUs are available... yeah, that makes sense.

APs works best on each nearly modern hardware.
FYI

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

TBar wrote:

Doesn't matter, if he bought a high end card verses low end he's still a selfish SOB by that logic.

Link wrote:

No. If you think that, you didn't understand the logic.

Right, however You are sure you do understand it, correct?

petri33 wrote:

This is serious fun!

Link wrote:

Yes, the fantasy of some people seems nearly endless when they are trying to explain why they cheat and why they think that other users should not have the same chances to get AP WUs as themselves.

Only people Selfish over credits would consider someone trying to complete as much work as possible as cheating. To them, it's all about credits, hence it's all they think about. Sad really...

A good solution

One of the first things I learned from my dad was life is not fair. The world is not fair. What your work hard for and earn is. With that said, SETI@home equipment needs serious upgrades. Since they rely on donations from us the users, a solution to how much one gets can be accomplished. I suggest that there be a yearly contribution requirement for those that want more than 25 WU's at a time. $50 gets you 50 WU's, $75 WU's and $100 for 100 WU's at a time. Image what kind of upgrades the SETI team could do with these contributions. Since most would not want to contribute, the number of AP WU's would be available most if not all the time. It would cut down on the caching of WU's. If the equipment in the future was really good and they could move away from an old database to a better database $$, then maybe the 100 WU's limit could possibly go bye bye.

Just my one cent worth of input.

Is it a $100 donation for 100 tasks at a time per machine or just per account. If it were per account I think may people would band together under a single account. Actually there are some that do this now for different reasons.
I think there may be legal reason why that wouldn't work. As it may actually be seen as paying for something rather than a donation.
There are some that some that feel a donation based on RAC would be better & then there are those that donate large sums w/o doing much crunching at all.


Really I'd say we are all greedy, but there are two groups. Those that wish they had more & do nothing. Then those that do something.
It is my opinion that choosing to abort one type of work in order to get another is cherry picking. Such as aborting MB to get AP or aborting VLAR/VHAR because they "don't pay as well".

I would say that rescheduling tasks for the sole purpose of downloading more is taking advantage of a hole in a system that is designed as "first come first serve. limit xx per machine". Perhaps that hole will be plugged, perhaps it will not.
A user could also run one instance of BOINC per CPU or GPU on their machine. So a 8 CPU machine with 8 GPU's running 8 instances of BOINC would be able to cache 1600 tasks vs 200, but this would look normal from the server end and from other users point of view.

EDIT: I also recall that before there were limits. We had people complain that those with a 10 day cache were hording to much work & making their tasks take to long to validate. So there will always be those who are unhappy and want to whine.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

no rescheduler, just re program boinc to be gpu/cpu neutral and fix the credit system so that a cpu don't get ripped off when matched to a gpu.

while your at it, remove the percent for "on muliprocessor systems, use at most xx% of the processors" and let me specify the number of cores i want free. some systems have 64 processors and some have 2, if i put in my preferences 50 percent to have one core free on the two cpu rig, that don't work to well on the 64 core rig.

i like the days of seti classic and that setispy (or what ever it was called) that would setup a server and cache your work units and distribute to all your clients.

---

I can guarantee you if you started trying to charge people even more than they already have to pay to preform SETI work, you Will have a large number of tasks available. A very large number.
Pay to do work? Seriously? You can't be serious.

i have a new offer: SETI can start sell a scorepoints for those, who's interesting in scores: say, 1000 USD for 1 000 000 credits.
in that way, again, all be winners - idiots no do harm to project, but raising money for project, and the same time gets what they want - upper positions in "top ten"...?

---