Guys,
You all got to admit that, at the very least, its kinda exciting having some lunatic like me hanging around here ...

claiming i'm talking to God and he's giving me the Universal book of science. You got to admit, that doesn't happen every day, now does it guys!

At the very least, even if i'm wrong and making the whole thing up, its entertaining everyone and it makes the good old SETI message boards exciting again :)

John.

Wish I had a SB myself to help out with that.

I had to read the claims over and over to realise they were mostly talking about changing 128 bit SSE instructions to 128 bit AVX instructions. The more I look, the more I'm convinced Alex's pulsefinding will need considerable rewriting (by hand) to take advantage of the 256 bit AVX ones.

According to Eric this is a new 5th test type according to his post on SETI Beta http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/forum_thread.php?id=1829&nowrap=true#40183 This is a new Autocorrelation test. This test has never been run here on SETI before. This is a big change for MB WUs.

Some SETI researchers have theorized that ET would send a signal waveform, and then send a copy of the same waveform, but slightly delayed (but before the first waveform had ended).

Self replicating spaceships based on nanotechnology machinery, in theory a Galactica size spaceship could be built. Any thoughs on that ?

In my case, I think it's just too dynamic.
8 high production rigs reporting.

I loaded my user page with it's totals.
Showed 267,025.23 RAC.

Went to my computers....
Just long enough to jot down all the individual rig's RACs.

Went back to my user page and reloaded.

Here's what I got.

First total RAC was 267,025.23

The individual totals added up to 266,248.73..

And when I went back to my main page and reloaded, the total RAC had already changed to 267,006.53
In a matter of less than a minute or two.

And it will probably change in my sig every time you reload the page.....

But that's not How user RAC is defined... anyway, strange to post here again after (a year++ ?? ) .. Lot's of good people seem to have left and there hasn't been any real progress at all as it seems, just mediocrity. So S@H seems to be like froozen to AKV8, no progress after all those years...

The only real work done seems to be Raistmers ATI port, which is sad to see, it's a waste of what a ATI/AMD card can do, when used properly on the right project. (No offense towards Raistmers affords! At least he's doing something and y'all should be very thankful towards him!!!).

Anyway, i've been going back into your past post to 'catch up' a bit since last time i posted here, you were only involved in the usefull threads, moving S@H forward.

However, it was sad to see that and i will not comment any further.(Think about that!)

Hey Cruncher some things are going to change they just started testing the new MB v7 apps over on the beta site. They are introducing an new test to the WU in addition to spikes, pulse, triplets, Gaussian etc. So give us a few months and we will be running a whole new science app.

In my case, I think it's just too dynamic.
8 high production rigs reporting.

I loaded my user page with it's totals.
Showed 267,025.23 RAC.

Went to my computers....
Just long enough to jot down all the individual rig's RACs.

Went back to my user page and reloaded.

Here's what I got.

First total RAC was 267,025.23

The individual totals added up to 266,248.73..

And when I went back to my main page and reloaded, the total RAC had already changed to 267,006.53
In a matter of less than a minute or two.

And it will probably change in my sig every time you reload the page.....

Ahh...
Could there not be a difference (given the 4-5 week weighting formula) that there could be a difference between the RAC calculated for a given rig's production and the total RAC calculated on total credits awarded?

I am not a mathematician...I am just trying to reason why the two totals might be slightly different.

I am sure that Mr. Ribbeck is welcome to post any time he wishes.

He seems to have a less optimistic take on events surrounding the project than some. But that is allowable...I have gone through 'less than optimistic' periods myself.

The determining factor (and I am slowly learning this....LOL) is HOW one wishes to express their 'less than optimistic' opinions.

One can state their case in a graceful manner, or be bombastic about it.

The latter means has been a favorite of mine, but is sometimes less well received by others.

So, I have been trying to drift towards the other approach.

And the RAC thing is gonna always be off a bit, I suspect.

Might have to do with where a particular cruncher is on the RAC curve VS just the grand total. I don't think the two would ever be just toooooooo far apart.

I don't think the project RAC is calculated by adding up the total RACs of the individual rigs...each must be kept track of by themselves.

User RAC... according to the last time i had enough RAC to post here it was the sum of all machines attached under my account.

Obviously that changed and somehow it's not the case any more... my account page shows that i got a RAC of 44.52...

Now let's look at my host that are attached:

#1 RAC == 0.09 +
#2 RAC == 46.03
USER RAC == 46.12

Must be me since my math doesn't add up...

LOL...
Hiya Crunch!!

Nice to see your face in da place!

Must be a rounding error.

Don't be so seldom seen in these parts, my friend.

What a waste of server space.

- Automatically converts SSE intrinsics to AVX-128
- Automatically converts SSE inline assembly to AVX-128
- Most apps written with intrinsics need only recompile.
- There is a straight forward porting of existing Intel SSE to Intel AVX 256 with Intel libraries, Intel® Integrated Performance Primitives (Intel® IPP), etc.