change the amount of memory when the computer is idle to 99%

I did it and there was no immediate effect, but let's let it breathe for awhile and see what happens. Thanks for the tip.

You need to change the "When computer is in use, use at most" value as well, otherwise as long as you are making use of the computer for anything other than BOINC, that value will be the limiting factor.
If you are using the wbe based preferences, they need to be saved, then BOINC needs to contact the Scheduler to get the changes, then on the next request for work, the new value will be taken in to account.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Agreed, but imagine if guns were banned. Most of the nutters currently using them would have a lot more difficulty getting them, and have a high chance of getting caught with one before they go and use it. You'd also remove the deaths caused by kids getting hold of dad's gun he didn't lock up properly.

Then we would have the same problem England and Scotland does...people running around with machetes and whacking people to death. The US already has that with some Hispanic gangs and it's not pretty.

It's harder to kill with a knife.

Slowly (very, very, very slowly) things are recovering as the mis-configured Tasks make their way through the system.

WOO HOO!!!

See that little dip on the 28.5th of April? That's when I changed over to Private GFN server. 62nd place isn't good enough, I'm gonna catch you.

An insignificant change.

Overstating it by 30% is insignificant?

Yes, if someone says something is 5 times bigger but it turns out to be 4 times bigger, their point that it's significantly more still stands. If I say my Ferrari is 5 times faster than your Fiat, but it turns out I miscalculated and it's 4 times faster, my Ferrari is still way better than your Fiat.

More to the point, it indicates that you formed an opinion, then made up some numbers to support it, then looked for a source to support it.

Invalid conclusion. The fact is (which I've already stated) I looked up the number of annual cancer deaths somewhere a few months ago and compared it to the number of coronavirus deaths so far (which was over approximately a year). It was about 4x (could have been 3.8 to 4.2). Now I mention it a few months later, I took the same numbers, one of which has increased due to bit being just over a year, and not just under a year. But since I don't have OCD like you, I'm not concerned about a small change. I was just pointing out cancer is a lot more, making the virus utterly insignificant.

I got my information from the American Cancer Society, which is why, BTW, that I quoted USA COVID deaths. Not because I'm arrogantly American (I don't even live in the USA, you clown!), but because it was the most accurate comparison.

The most accurate comparison would be mine, over the whole world.

Cancer will stay the same until we make cures.

An ignorant statement. Cancer rates have been gradually dropping as sources of cancer are discovered in things like consumer products and eliminated. Living is easy with eyes closed, amirite?

Less people smoke. So all we've done is make people's lives miserable, not cure cancer.

There's also no way of telling if the vaccine you're given, which can give you the same symptoms, will stay in your forever and kill you later on.

Do you have any idea how immunity is formed in the human body? No, of course you don't. When you are infected with a virus for the first time, there is some hysteresis between being infected and your immune system becoming aware that the virus is a threat. During that time, the virus gets a head start, and you fall ill. The symptoms that you express are your body fighting off the infection. If you are able to do so successfully, and not die, your T cells develop a protein on their surfaces that will recognize a virally-infected cell, of the same type, if they encounter it again. The infection can still occur, but the virus loses the ability to get a head start over your immune system.

The vaccines for COVID are mRNA based. That means that they have the genetic code for the coronavirus, but not the ability to infect cells and rewire them to churn out copies of themselves. They are UNABLE to cause COVID. They are UNABLE to replicate. They do, however, trigger an immune system response, which is why there can be symptoms. Eventually, they disintegrate.

If I feel like I have the flu, I'm ill, end of story. I'm not going to do that to myself on purpose. It's obviously harming me. Putting unnatural things inside you is always a bad idea. Why do you think people prefer to eat natural ingredients?

There's also no way of telling if you're more or less likely to die of CV19 until after you've had it. Most people haven't had it.

Well done, most people haven't had it, so why are you worried you will?

Personally I'm not worried at all. It hasn't made any difference to me that's bothered me.
I'm not the one obsessing over how hard done by I am. That'll be you, which is why you're posting multiple messages every time you log on in order to to tell us how you are so delighted by the number of extra weak people dying all over the world.

You're not worried by half the world closing down unnecessarily and businesses going bankrupt left right and centre?

And I'm not sad enough to be on here all the time, which is why I post once a day.

There's also no way of telling if the vaccine you're given, which can give you the same symptoms, will stay in your forever and kill you later on.

The number of people who die after being vaccinated isn't just fewer by several orders of magnitude than the number of people who have CV19, it's also less than the rate that people die ordinarily, which is actually quite remarkable seeing as it's being given to the very oldest and most frail first.

It might kill you after 2 years.

At some point you're going to ask yourself why you're contributing to a site that's currently working toward increasing knowledge and production of several types of cures and palliatives for CV19 while simultaneously being delighted by every death as it reduces the population of the weakest and most vulnerable. I'll leave that one with you.

They find useful things too. A new painkiller was developed while people wasted their time on what's effectively a bad flu virus.

Irrespective of the number of people who've had CV19, if the number of people who are recorded to have died is dependent on having been tested for it too, which the majority of people haven't, then it makes no difference. So 4.4m positive tested, 152k positive tested <and> died from it, then the proportion is 1 in 29.

You're not including those that were never tested and never realised they had it. But you are including all those that got symptoms, because they saw a doctor. So your figures are biased towards pessimism.

It always amuses me how people are so desperate to hold onto their indefensible biases while conveniently forgetting parts of the argument already established. I never mentioned symptoms in that part - not part of anyone's argument.

You said "So 4.4m positive tested, 152k positive tested <and> died from it, then the proportion is 1 in 29." You're giving the ratio of the number of dead people to the number of people who survived it AND were in hospital. You need to include the ones that didn't get symptoms, or got small symptoms and didn't bother telling anyone. That shrinks your ratio significantly.

It's an argument non Science based discussions often devolve into, kind of like the comment 'why can't we just send out nuclear waste and garbage to the Sun and let it burn up' it's based on someone having no clue how the Solar System and Universe work but trying to explain that to people takes more time than just saying 'NO it doesn't work like that'.

Actually there's no reason you couldn't (apart from expense, and risk of the rocket failing and it landing back on earth in pieces). Do you really think the radiation would get back here? Do you really think the sun (which is an extreme nuclear power station) would notice?

Actually there's no reason you couldn't (apart from expense, and risk of the rocket failing and it landing back on earth in pieces).

Well, Huffer, I see that you've decided to don the red nose and the big floppy shoes again. There IS a reason, and it's called "orbital mechanics." The amount of thrust required to shoot it into the sun would be prohibitive. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you. Google it -- something that you could have done prior to making yourself look foolish (again), if you weren't so arrogantly certain about your understanding and knowledge.

Do you really think the sun (which is an extreme nuclear power station) would notice?

So, you also don't understand that the source of the sun's power is fusion, not fission? Add that to the list.

Agreed, but imagine if guns were banned. Most of the nutters currently using them would have a lot more difficulty getting them, and have a high chance of getting caught with one before they go and use it. You'd also remove the deaths caused by kids getting hold of dad's gun he didn't lock up properly.

Then we would have the same problem England and Scotland does...people running around with machetes and whacking people to death. The US already has that with some Hispanic gangs and it's not pretty.

It's harder to kill with a knife.

Not exactly the point if they stab you 50 times, but it does mean it also takes longer to die and more suffering in the process

The most accurate comparison would be mine, over the whole world.

The most accurate comparison would be 2020 COVID stats compared to 2012 cancer stats from tinfoilhat.com, rather than 2020 cancer stats from the American CANCER society. Why? BECAUSE HUFFER HAS SPOKEN

Less people smoke. So all we've done is make people's lives miserable, not cure cancer.

My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed, and I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because this statement of yours gave me cancer anyway.

If I feel like I have the flu, I'm ill, end of story.

You would be having an immune system response. Feel free to continue making up your own definitions for things and changing the subject when you get called out for saying something wrong. I realize that your ego won't have it any other way.

I'm not going to do that to myself on purpose.

My, you ARE a delicate little flower, aren't you? "Horrid side effects" -- and you mock others as weak?

It's an argument non Science based discussions often devolve into, kind of like the comment 'why can't we just send out nuclear waste and garbage to the Sun and let it burn up' it's based on someone having no clue how the Solar System and Universe work but trying to explain that to people takes more time than just saying 'NO it doesn't work like that'.

Actually there's no reason you couldn't (apart from expense, and risk of the rocket failing and it landing back on earth in pieces). Do you really think the radiation would get back here? Do you really think the sun (which is an extreme nuclear power station) would notice?

Peter please try using Google for more than virus related stuff....one it's too far away and the chance of it getting hit and coming back is too great and two if there's a problem and it has to be destroyed then there's going to be radiation spilled from where it was launched all the way across the Earth, think Chernobyl on a MASSIVE scale!! Today they just bury it and hopefully our million ancestor will figure out a way to deal with it.

You need to change the "When computer is in use, use at most" value as well

Yeah, did that at the same time. It is working now on one host, but apparently not the other, which I will check on Monday.

You need to change the "When computer is in use, use at most" value as well

Yeah, did that at the same time. It is working now on one host, but apparently not the other, which I will check on Monday.

Check for local settings, as they override Web based ones.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I thought that got fixed (though those were file xfer errors the previous time iirc)

And still the same file transfer errors; for a while there the percentage that errored out wasn't as bad, but now it's a bad as it was when they were first released.

Tasks that died within seconds of starting (pre_helical_bundles_round1_attempt1_) are also still about, but they're probably 1% or less of what is released. 99% or so complete with no issue, so i don't consider them to be a problem (NB- although there are those that only run for a few seconds, with the same error as the ones that Error out, but are marked as Valid. Probably a similar percentage as those that Error out). But 40% or more of Tasks failing- that's a problem (and even more so when they have actually finished 8 hours of processing without issue, then die when trying to return the result).

I'm quite prepared to to report it just on your say-so, but I'll try to see exactly what mine are saying so I can describe it properly.
As I think I've mentioned to you, these norn tasks are produced by the guy I'm talking to, so he'll confirm itfix it pretty rapidly once I get my act together.

---

I'm quite prepared to to report it just on your say-so, but I'll try to see exactly what mine are saying so I can describe it properly.
As I think I've mentioned to you, these norn tasks are produced by the guy I'm talking to, so he'll confirm itfix it pretty rapidly once I get my act together.

As of today, it's about 2 out of 12 (approx 16%) errored out after completing. So the percentage that error out with that file transfer error does vary considerably, depending on the Tasks around at the time.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Irrespective of the number of people who've had CV19, if the number of people who are recorded to have died is dependent on having been tested for it too, which the majority of people haven't, then it makes no difference. So 4.4m positive tested, 152k positive tested <and> died from it, then the proportion is 1 in 29.

You're not including those that were never tested and never realised they had it. But you are including all those that got symptoms, because they saw a doctor. So your figures are biased towards pessimism.

It always amuses me how people are so desperate to hold onto their indefensible biases while conveniently forgetting parts of the argument already established. I never mentioned symptoms in that part - not part of anyone's argument.

You said "So 4.4m positive tested, 152k positive tested <and> died from it, then the proportion is 1 in 29." You're giving the ratio of the number of dead people to the number of people who survived it AND were in hospital. You need to include the ones that didn't get symptoms, or got small symptoms and didn't bother telling anyone. That shrinks your ratio significantly.

I know what I wrote, and you confirm I made no mention of symptoms.
And earlier I wrote that 463k (updated figure) have been hospitalised, so you can work out those who weren't, whether they had symptoms or not (I don't care if they did or not as it's irrelevant) as 1 in 9.5 are hospitalised. And 1 in 3 of that number are dead.
Wondering now if you ever came across a point you didn't miss...

---

change the amount of memory when the computer is idle to 99%

I did it and there was no immediate effect, but let's let it breathe for awhile and see what happens. Thanks for the tip.

I'm told that tasks have started coming down asking for 3337.86Mb rather than 3814.7Mb. If you've increased your RAM available to Boinc, hopefully you may start to get a few by now?

---

There's also no way of telling if the vaccine you're given, which can give you the same symptoms, will stay in your forever and kill you later on.

Do you have any idea how immunity is formed in the human body? No, of course you don't. When you are infected with a virus for the first time, there is some hysteresis between being infected and your immune system becoming aware that the virus is a threat. During that time, the virus gets a head start, and you fall ill. The symptoms that you express are your body fighting off the infection. If you are able to do so successfully, and not die, your T cells develop a protein on their surfaces that will recognize a virally-infected cell, of the same type, if they encounter it again. The infection can still occur, but the virus loses the ability to get a head start over your immune system.

The vaccines for COVID are mRNA based. That means that they have the genetic code for the coronavirus, but not the ability to infect cells and rewire them to churn out copies of themselves. They are UNABLE to cause COVID. They are UNABLE to replicate. They do, however, trigger an immune system response, which is why there can be symptoms. Eventually, they disintegrate.

If I feel like I have the flu, I'm ill, end of story. I'm not going to do that to myself on purpose. It's obviously harming me. Putting unnatural things inside you is always a bad idea. Why do you think people prefer to eat natural ingredients?

This is amazingly wrong.
Feeling like you have symptoms is nothing at all like having a disease if you don't have the actual disease.
Feeling a bit fluey for 36hrs is neither here nor there if you can, like, still breath because your lungs and vascular system are completely and totally unaffected.
Feeling like you have the symptoms of a mild illness, is even less like having a disease that's multiple times more deadly.

But thanks for the laugh anyway. Good one.

---

There's also no way of telling if you're more or less likely to die of CV19 until after you've had it. Most people haven't had it.

Well done, most people haven't had it, so why are you worried you will?

Personally I'm not worried at all. It hasn't made any difference to me that's bothered me.
I'm not the one obsessing over how hard done by I am. That'll be you, which is why you're posting multiple messages every time you log on in order to to tell us how you are so delighted by the number of extra weak people dying all over the world.

You're not worried by half the world closing down unnecessarily and businesses going bankrupt left right and centre?

Sorry, I missed this first time round.
None of that's true. It's actually amazingly little according to Gov't figures - I'd thought it was much more too until I saw them.
And to the extent it's true in some very limited sectors, Gov't support has it largely covered.
And the cost of that Gov't support, which is certainly substantial, is at such low rates that interest payments now are lower (in total) than was paid before because of how it's structured.
And now I'm back at work and have regained access to some of the commercial info of the supposedly troubled sectors, I'm finding trade massively increased in surprising places that more than offsets the ones we hear about.
Which is all well and good when written about somewhere else, but you know how it always seems it's someone else and rarely about yourself...
...except we did 70% normal trade in the 1st week, 85% the 2nd and now are up to 120% in the 3rd, so there's that.

So, half the world closing down and businesses going bankrupt? Load of bolleaux. Loads have never had it so good.
And for those who haven't, so what? The weak go to the wall. That's the entire point of business - it's a risk. No-one died. It's always good to shake out the worst of them. Every day is about responding to market conditions and they couldn't.
If there's unmet demand in the market, new businesses will arrive in their place - hopefully better run. Massive opportunities, at no time more than right now.

The more it's hurting, the more it's working. An age-old maxim, never truer than it is today.

---

Actually there's no reason you couldn't (apart from expense, and risk of the rocket failing and it landing back on earth in pieces).

Well, Huffer, I see that you've decided to don the red nose and the big floppy shoes again. There IS a reason, and it's called "orbital mechanics." The amount of thrust required to shoot it into the sun would be prohibitive. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you. Google it -- something that you could have done prior to making yourself look foolish (again), if you weren't so arrogantly certain about your understanding and knowledge.

What part of "apart from expense" didn't you understand? It would certainly be possible, and provided the rocket didn't fail, would guarantee no radiation leaks ever.

Do you really think the sun (which is an extreme nuclear power station) would notice?

So, you also don't understand that the source of the sun's power is fusion, not fission? Add that to the list.[/quote]I know how it works. Now answer the question. How would the sun suddenly go wrong with us inserting anything that small into it?

It's harder to kill with a knife.

Not exactly the point if they stab you 50 times, but it does mean it also takes longer to die and more suffering in the process

If you attacked me with a knife, I could defend myself. If you shot me from some distance away, I couldn't do a thing about it.