But you`re generalising that whole complete teams did as you said without a shred of evidence. Condemning a whole team without evidence.

I try extremely hard not to relate everything you say to that of your team, same as I do others unless they express their representation fully.

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Even as a mod Lala you cannot prove or disprove who on what team ran opti can you ? Or from when !!

The point is mute.

No I can't, but I can state which statements I'm going to believe and which not.

So you have admitted you are a moderator. So no hiding behind anonymity. We know now that Tralala admits to being a moderator. Given the fact of his known bias and animosity towards teams and people here, it is now mandatory to know which moderator he is .

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

S

---

Nemesis n. A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent.

Even as a mod Lala you cannot prove or disprove who on what team ran opti can you ? Or from when !!

The point is mute.

Hey Carl, tralala admitted to being a moderator when he answered you.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

S

That does not make Sense. ;-)

S

That does not make Sense. ;-)

What about you makes sense? :)

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

Biggles: I think you need a crash course on the meaning and the usage of the word ex post facto. As it is used in common law and regular law it has a very specific meaning and it is not even close to the one you are giving.

Whilst my Latin is a touch rusty these days, I know exactly what it means. It has been claimed by numerous people that it would be unfair to backdate the credits because they were awarded according to the use of optimised clients which were not (and still aren't for that matter) banned. Of course, optimised clients now are irrelevant due to the new credit system.

However, the concept of ex post facto applies equally to the fact that the new system has retroactively affected the way teams can overtake other teams.

If the old credit system were still in place, then the DPC would be getting more than 300,000 per day in all likelihood. But the goalposts have been shifted with a new credit system that makes competition much harder. I have issues with that.

Ah From the description of the projects you belong, I can see why the animus against XtremeSystems. Now, I know : it has nothing to do about credits but a lot about personalities.

They are just our biggest teams. We run pretty much everything, including nearly all BOINC projects, all the prime number projects, and several others besides. In fact, off the top of my head, the only projects we don't run are Cuboids, Boitho and one of the key counting projects.

---

The only way to solve the dilemma between backdating and not would have been to implement the new credit system in such a way that it would grant approximately what the 5.5.0 client claimed. That would have left old credits untouched but would have not curtailed the possibilities for teams to overtake each other. As a nice sideeffect we would produce about 120 Tflops - at least on paper.

Biggles: I think you need a crash course on the meaning and the usage of the word ex post facto. As it is used in common law and regular law it has a very specific meaning and it is not even close to the one you are giving.

Whilst my Latin is a touch rusty these days, I know exactly what it means. It has been claimed by numerous people that it would be unfair to backdate the credits because they were awarded according to the use of optimised clients which were not (and still aren't for that matter) banned. Of course, optimised clients now are irrelevant due to the new credit system.

However, the concept of ex post facto applies equally to the fact that the new system has retroactively affected the way teams can overtake other teams.

If the old credit system were still in place, then the DPC would be getting more than 300,000 per day in all likelihood. But the goalposts have been shifted with a new credit system that makes competition much harder. I have issues with that.

Ah From the description of the projects you belong, I can see why the animus against XtremeSystems. Now, I know : it has nothing to do about credits but a lot about personalities.

They are just our biggest teams. We run pretty much everything, including nearly all BOINC projects, all the prime number projects, and several others besides. In fact, off the top of my head, the only projects we don't run are Cuboids, Boitho and one of the key counting projects.

You should join in Cuboids though, since the Top 3 teams and individuals will will get a mention in the papers they will write ;-)
...In acknowledgement of the help that we've received from our distributed computing contributors, as well as thanking all contributors broadly, at the moment we plan to acknowledge, in print, the top three teams and the top three individual contributors.

You have a good chance of getting a mention.

---

Team mauisun.org

My point in saying "get on this much earlier" meant why didn't you get on Rosetta much earlier?Had you been on the project in force last January you'd have had the same chance and opportunity that any other team to be #1.
You evidently didn't and now you want a second chance and that second chance to come at the price of what the top teams did being rolled into the back room out of sight.

We have been around on Rosetta for a while. We weren't interested in diverting power from our large GIMPS, SETI or F@H teams to take number one. We still aren't. I'm bothered by things as a matter of principle. Nobody is penalising XS as they make an assault on WCG, but the new credit system penalises any team that makes an assault on Rosetta.

As to making it a personal attack, that was based on what I saw on the stats pages. The person calling for the zeroing of points and starting over is also the head of the currently #2 largest producing team with the most to gain from such an action. What other conclusion could I possibly draw?

That you can't read perhaps?

The currently 2nd largest producing team is Anandtech.

As to XS only getting 1/3 of what we did get, again you are wrong.
Jan 1 to Aug 25, almost 8 full months..Optimised files used from Mid April to end of August. 3.5/8ths of the total working with the stock client..
Care to revise your comments as to what percentage of what we have now would still be there? Now matter what math you use it's way beyond the 1/3 you suggest.

What about the math based on XS having advocated the use of optimised clients since the 31st of December 2005? This thread has talked about optimised clients and encouraged the use of them since the day after it was posted. I don't believe that it took three and a half months for XS to notice that part of the setup guide. Optimised clients and the subsequent overclaiming of credit was widespread before April.

As to if the scoring system changed at WCG and we got 1/3 of the amount we got now, would we still be able to catch EasyNews..The answer is yes, we'd tripple the machines or quadruple them, whatever it took.
You just don't understand goal oriented people.You do what it takes to get to what your striving for..

I guess EasyNews were a bad example, simply because you're only at 25% of their production. A better example would be that of IBM. You outproduce them by around 170,000 a day, going by yesterday's production. But you're also 191 million points behind them, meaning that it's going to take over 1,000 days to catch them. If the scoring changed and everybody had their production drop to 1/3rd of current levels but the same scores were kept, it would then take over 3,000 days - seven years.

I do understand goal oriented people perfectly well. Whilst saying you would triple or quadruple your production to catch them is nice fighting talk, it's also meaningless unless it's backed up, which it isn't at the moment.

It's funny that people rail against the idea of backdating credit on the basis of ex post facto, when keeping the current scores is also ex post facto - because the old scores reflect the fact that the old credit system made for far more credit being awarded than should have been.

Biggles: I do hereby bow down and apologise for having slandered you.
I orginally made that post in the middle of the night and the only excuse for my error is that my 54 year old eyes reversed 2 teams names.
Mea culpa..
Please accept my apology.

---

...
There is one remaining problem however. It's now 3x - 4x more difficult to catch other teams and users. I reckon it's going to take 2.5, perhaps 3 years before the effects of the optimised clients have become irrelevant. ...

In terms of number of credits it could be 3x shortfall to catch up.

You will get there in around 18months at a rough guess, as you will be chasing with faster cpus and/or more cores from whatever date you next upgrade.

---

but I don't remember 5.5.0 being around before about March or April. It had the biggest effect.

5.2.13, 5.2.14, 5.3.6, are were all around at the beginning their effects were nearly the same as 5.5.0. 5.5.0 is just the newest which includes the official boinc updates. It's not much different from us regular users moving from 5.2.6 to 5.2.13 (official) to 5.4.9 to 5.4.11. They were all designed to try to increase the credit one got when they ran the optimized seti application. If the application cut your time in half, then they tried to double your credit (older opt app versions), if they cut your time to 1/3, then they claimed 3 times. It's just that some users are using them with something other than a matching app, and claiming 3x anyway. (note: actually they tried to claim 32.29 credits/wu which was the idealized value of the reference wu (one picked from a hat), unfortunately the ref WU turned out to be a long one. The average seti wu was worth 24-25, credits and the opt claims of 32 were wrong even with the opt app, but that's a whole different story).

Tony :

Can I ask you a small favor?


Please do not mention SETI work units credits or as a matter of fact no other project? I will ask the same to everyone.

If you (any of us here) brings other projects in here, you will be introducing the extraneous issue of Project Comparability in credits and I can promise you you will be asking for a not so nice discussion on Project value: questions like Why are you comparing a project like Rosetta where science is done to a Project Like SETI where the science fiction is being pursued?

Bring SETI in and I can promise you a nasty flame war: one you , nor I ,nor anyone that has seriously participate here wants or deserves.

Lol SETI maybe scifi but with their client being open source it is probably the main reason they get so much love. I know I am running that project on my OpenBSD box because it is the only one I can and because of the principal that they have went open source. I know the story on why Rosetta cant, but if they could I bet this is the single biggest way they could increase the amount of work done.

---

....

Lol SETI maybe scifi but with their client being open source it is probably the main reason they get so much love. I know I am running that project on my OpenBSD box because it is the only one I can and because of the principal that they have went open source. I know the story on why Rosetta cant, but if they could I bet this is the single biggest way they could increase the amount of work done.

But you can have a look and try to improve on the code if you want (and qualify). this has been mentioned before. There are already some on the board looking through it. It is impractical for it to be as open source as seti since it's not just rosetta@home that use the code.
So by all means if you think you can improve it, or port it to another platform and keep porting it as newer versions come out, join in.

http://www.bakerlab.org/
and send a request to

Digital Ventures
UW TechTransfer
4311 11th Avenue NE, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98105-4608
Phone: (206) 616-3451
Fax: (206) 616-3322
Email: license@u.washington.edu

(previously posted by Ethan)

---

Team mauisun.org