Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Posts by Kalessin

21) Message boards : Number crunching : @MW staff: credit limit and credit level (Message 6212)
Posted 16 Nov 2008 by ProfileKalessin
Hej, didn't you leave out strategy #4 for people wanting to force their opinion upon others without having any argument?

#1 Spamming the media with unreasonable headlines. Done!

#2 Ignoring all arguments, since you have no chance in a discussion! Done!

#3 Creating an allmighty enemy outside! Done! DA!

#4 Finding senseless parallels about money, employers and bank accounts which have to contain at least 3 logical errors! Still missing.

#5 Disparaging all those who think different by ridiculing or insulting comparisms? Oh yes we did also have this!
(by the way, doesn't some of you "We deserve all credits we can think of"s feel ashamed when your colleagues call others "gestapo" or member of the kkk? I were! And i would express that. But truly, having heard such words I would have stopped sticking around with them long ago.)

#6 Trying to personally disparage "opponents" Nice try now. But so predictable, boring and meaningless. No good conduction, I've seen better ones in the kindergarden.

Oh no, I just remember, cruncher supporter already did #4 for all of you! So the sequence is still as it should be!
Not a really good performance at all, perhaps to much sticking to the basics in the end.

Oh yes, and I would be prepared and willing, that all those credits from the disputed timeline were quartered or zeroed. Are you, too?
22) Message boards : Number crunching : Optimized app? (Message 6209)
Posted 16 Nov 2008 by ProfileKalessin
Post with links to the opt. appl

and according to milksop and project admin: yes and yes.
23) Message boards : Number crunching : No further Support for Milkyway at this time! (Message 6197)
Posted 15 Nov 2008 by ProfileKalessin
In my eyes all this babble is a bit against him also.

And this is obviously completely misunderstood by you. Noone has said anything against milksop or his application.
Its a wonderful progress. Especially compared to the former one.

That last one is being criticized.
The credit limit is being critized.
The amount of crediting which catapults MW out of the scope of all other boinc projects is criticized.
I would additionally critize all those who with bitter tears of nonsense try to defend their so beloved credit inflation.
And people calling opinions "babble" or trying to implicit that someone else might or might not have a RL. This is just very "unfein".
24) Message boards : Number crunching : @MW staff: credit limit and credit level (Message 6195)
Posted 15 Nov 2008 by ProfileKalessin
Milksop is right in about everything.

The creditlimit is pure nonsense. But not funny at all.

Regarding the amount of given credit:

The credits per second are way too high.

Take Primegrid as a measure, than you have a very good but not exorbitant "paying" project to compare.

Do it at best yesterday! Not somewhen in some unknown future.

If you want to be part of the boinc community you have to compare with the other projects. This needs not be SETI but you should be anywhere in the scope of the other boinc projects.

This is so simple a fact that I really cannot understand why this hasn't already been done.

And regarding the question what to compare with what. This is simple too. Milksop application is not an optimized one. His would be the standard level. The former application is an uncomparable heap of unnecessary calculations not to be compared to anything.
Optimized would mean to further integrate various instruction sets and so on. But according to what milksop wrote what he did, his appl. is a great achievement compared to the former ..., but in no way "optimized", compared to what degree of optimization there is in for example the seti appl..
25) Message boards : Number crunching : New App status (Message 6084)
Posted 12 Nov 2008 by ProfileKalessin
I like the sound of the GPU computing support. Which proprietary graphics cards will work with it?

Probably milkyway will work best on hardware released in 2005 as it does with CPUs. So it should be a geforce 1 or a kyro card with 64 or 128 MB
26) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit limits apparently exist ... (Message 5857)
Posted 3 Nov 2008 by ProfileKalessin
My position is:

If the implied equality among projects is removed from BOINC's sphere of responsibility / influence, projects could grant whatever they wish and not have to deal with administrative overhead in keeping themselves "in line" per a poor definition of a "standard unit" (the "Cobblestone"). Place the calculation of the "Exchange Rate" with an independent arbitrator, someone who cannot be accused of bias. Until then, the only comparisions that are valid are comparisons within a project, not between projects. If I have 50,000,000 "credit" here, it does not necessarily mean that it is "more than" someone with 1,000 credit at SETI.

If there were people who did that, it would be a huge improvement. Although I think a minimum of comparability is already existent. Its not good or even perfect but its good enough for teams to celebrate boinc-wide milestones or placements. But your idea is definetely better only those who are accepted an willing have to be found.

But till then I think MW should come down from there 5 times higher crediting than any other project. Although I enjoy every credit the really great opt. application floats into my lair, I think MW should reduce the credits immediately and drastically.
27) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit limits apparently exist ... (Message 5852)
Posted 3 Nov 2008 by ProfileKalessin
I don't really understand what you people who are critizising DA are up to.

Those who are crunching only for science really shouldn't care about credits at all.

Those who only want to compare themselves with others in the same project shouldn't complain about the comparism to other projects. So it should be totally the same if a computer cycle is worth 1000 credits or only 1 - inside one project.

The actual amount of credits can only be of importance to those who compare boinc-wide or team-wide. And for them it should be the aim to have comparable credits in all projects.
And here some difficulties do actually start.
A project like MW, in the moment giving about 4 to 10 times the credits of the other high crediting projects (4 times for modern quads and 10 times for P4 or P3 compared to PG, which gives really high credits) certainly utterly destroys any boinc-wide comparism. And this even after the credit reduction of today. (Not sure if there was one at all, since all my machines still work over the credit limit).
I do not think that seti, with its high difference between optimized and unoptimized applications, should be the measure. Or its not so easy to take it therefore. The only advantage of seti being the measure is, that it is the project with the most crunchers.
But to keep the fun of racing, comparing stats between teams and members, there has to be a limit and a range to crediting.

So this, I assume, is the motivation for DA. But what is the motivation of those arguing against it?
To destroy the keeping of stats? I don't think so.
To horde high numbers? I don't think so either. For the majority of people numbers only have meaning in comparism to other numbers.
To have high credits whereever they are crunching and therewith having an advantage over those who like other projects better? Quite probable.
To further their teams forthcoming and position in the Boinc-wide stats in comparism to very strong teams bound to special projects (like the einstein-grid)? also quite probable.
To have opened a battlefield with DA, which has originated somewhere else? possible, but I don't know enough of the crediting-battles of the past, to judge here. But than you would be abusing MW for personal reasons that really do not belong here.

So my conclusion is that those crying for the independence of project crediting are up to the contrary of what they are claiming. They want the high credits to advance compared to others boinc-wide.
I would be glad to have someone logically explain to me another reason and so restore the credibility of those argumenting this way. I really don't find one.

Instead of logically arguments I've more and more often seen attempts to ridicule persons who do care for interproject comparability or even the use of strongly insulting expressions.

I am really sorry for this development and would gladly see everyone relax a little but to keep a little interest in fair crunching conditions for everyone.
28) Message boards : Number crunching : Faster application (links inside) (Message 5804)
Posted 2 Nov 2008 by ProfileKalessin
You are adding your own meaning to this - it was intended to be a reference to the hapless comedic Keystone Kops of old movie fame.

Angus, this is not a game and not fun. This was a very serious insult by you and you cannot sneak out of your responsibility by inventing some pretty side references.

Such an alliteration always implies all interpretations according to their publicity. It would be your job to qualify which was meant, if it wasn't the number one meaning but number #437 or whatever.

If you don't do that, then you do intend it to be understood as the normal meaning of kkk.
29) Message boards : Number crunching : Faster application (links inside) (Message 5800)
Posted 2 Nov 2008 by ProfileKalessin
Cross -project stats parity is a pipedream of David A and his komedic Kredit Kops. I shall assume you are a member of the group.

emphasis of the incriminated expression added by me

Since I do assume that your are not dumb as a nutshell I believe that you are totally aware of your highly insulting expression.
The comparism to the Ku-Klux-Klan is overstepping every limit. I didn't do anything to you.
You just had no argument left, so you start insulting. This is very poor and not tolerable.

I hope you rethink your writing and consider to seriously apologize.

regards Kalessin

30) Message boards : Number crunching : Faster application (links inside) (Message 5769)
Posted 1 Nov 2008 by ProfileKalessin
I agree with gas giant.
Also I would add the simple thought, that if a project were only for itself, than they could reduce the credits even better.
All those who cry for high credits are exactly those who do compare a lot between projects and are involved in racing the stats.
Else it would be totally absurd to demand any special level of crediting.

Previous 20

©2023 Astroinformatics Group