Posts by Hypnotoad
|
1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
SETI Fundraising & Contributions (2)
(Message 265664)
Posted 20 Mar 2006 by  Hypnotoad
Post: Internet and Bandwidth charges, do they take SETI enhanced into account? Bandwidth should drop to probably one quarter of the current figure. SETI Enhanced will communicate 1/4th as often, but the work units will be 4 times the size, correct? So it seems like the bandwidth shouldn't very much change after Enhanced is released. |
|
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
SETI Fundraising & Contributions (2)
(Message 265639)
Posted 20 Mar 2006 by Hypnotoad
Post: MikeSW17: It doesn't really get anywhere near the 60 page funding request documents Matt indicates exist. These presumably contain some element of a plan with timescales. ML1: For this type of project, those costs are remarkably low. MikeSW17: My customers would die laughing if I went to them to fund a project with such a pathetic attempt at convincing them it was a good idea. I agree with all these statements... will probably donate in due time (because these costs do seem low), but only when I see it presented in a bit more detail. For my $, I need to see a little bit more than seemingly random numbers, ideally some sort of description for each section. The letter from Arthur C. Clarke et al I got in my email this morning was an excellent start, but I'd still like to see more detail. Not six months of detail, but perhaps half a day's worth of descriptive comments for "what needs to be done" with each item on the list. For instance, this description "Internet connection and bandwidth charges - $59,700" doesn't make sense to me. I've never known a university-related project that had to reimburse the greater university (in this case, UC-Berkeley) for using bandwidth. Perhaps S@h has to negotiate differently with Berkeley because it uses so much. I'd particularly like to have an explanation for S@h being the only university research I've yet seen that has to provide its own bandwidth funding. Overall, the costs do seem low, so they do seem to be fairly efficient even if they are not transparent. But they say that corporate funding has dried up... what corporations in the past supported SETI@home that no longer do? Can anyone even answer that very simple question? |
|
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
SETI Funding Drive & Contributions
(Message 264790)
Posted 19 Mar 2006 by Hypnotoad
Post: BTW are you Nanook from Eskimo North? No sir, and I hadn't heard of that person until you asked. But to find who you're talking about, I looked him up just now. A good little read, he's probably around here somewhere. |
|
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
SETI Funding Drive & Contributions
(Message 264773)
Posted 19 Mar 2006 by Hypnotoad
Post: The tapes being crunched are old tape... Some that had too many errors to be used in classic (too noisey). So because it's a couple years old it is "old tape" even if it was never used in Classic? What's to stop them from going out and getting "new tape"? They plan to use the Puerto Rico telescope well into the future, and are even expanding the science greatly with the Astropulse initiative. Maybe you should read the website you are lurking on. |
|
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
SETI Funding Drive & Contributions
(Message 264767)
Posted 19 Mar 2006 by Hypnotoad
Post: As someone asked him, "Then why do you crunch for SETI?" [not verbatim], he has been asked this many times before. He has absolutely nothing constructive to say about SETI. Maybe if he can get everyone else to go try other projects, he can vault to the top of the S@h credit counts! |
|
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
SETI Funding Drive & Contributions
(Message 264756)
Posted 19 Mar 2006 by Hypnotoad
Post: Seti/Boinc is STILL just re-crunching the same data that was crunched by Classic.. with no additional science (and I use that term loosely). My first reaction to that post was "that guy's an idiot!" But let's see if he can back it up... one thing will always be true though, SETI@home is a lot more interesting than any of the other BOINC projects (most of which are just various uninteresting iterations of Folding@home). |
|
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
SETI Funding Drive & Contributions
(Message 264743)
Posted 19 Mar 2006 by Hypnotoad
Post: I don't have a little green star. But those without little green stars who are offended by the little green stars, should put their inferiority complexes to bed. Many of them have RACs in the upper echelons, which to many, including me, is the most admirable thing possible. If anyone could really be THIS jealous of those little green stars, they only cost $10! That's two cups of coffee at Starbucks. Some have cost themselves more than that with responses to this thread alone (assuming they value their time at more than minimum wage)! I don't think any of the star-holders hold anything against the rest of us. Just like I don't think anyone with high RAC holds anything against the rest of us. But to demand a green star without donating $10 is like demanding a higher RAC and more credits for giving money instead of resources. |
|
8)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
CPUs: Intel vs AMD (Intel update, IDF 2006)
(Message 264608)
Posted 19 Mar 2006 by Hypnotoad
Post: In any case, $40-50 will get you a card roughly equivalent to what you have on your mb (ATI X300). Do you know if the "TurboCache" PCI Express cards would hurt S@h performance like the on-board video does? From reading about them just a little bit, I understand that they also share memory with the main system, though hopefully only when necessary (but that's what I would have thought of the on-board too). I can get one of these 64 MB (256 MB w/ Turbo Cache from system memory) cards for about $25. As for my gaming needs, I don't play games hardly ever. If I did, I would probably buy Civilization IV (likely) and possibly World of Warcraft (maybe not because I don't want to lose the time that many seem to devote to it). First-person shooters are highly unlikely. |
|
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Intel or AMD ??
(Message 263434)
Posted 17 Mar 2006 by Hypnotoad
Post: Because there isn't one. There is no AMD compiler? Then why is SETI@home the only program in the world that is more optimized for Intel than AMD? Virtually everything else runs faster on AMD, so they must be better optimized for AMD somehow. |
|
10)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Intel or AMD ??
(Message 263430)
Posted 17 Mar 2006 by Hypnotoad
Post: AMD chips cannot compete with optimized SETI applications... Reuben, would a $280 3.0Ghz Xeon 2MB chip out-crunch a $250 2.8GHz Pentium D 2MBx2 chip? Two Intel cores instead of one, each with the same cache and running at about the same speed, for a lower price? How well would a 2.8GHz Celeron do, with a single core and only 256MB of cache? Anybody have a S@h Celeron or two they can link to that are crunching pretty fast? Also... why can't anyone use an AMD compiler to create more optimized apps for Athlon 64 and Opteron? |
©2020 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.