if somebody has an app_info.xml telling boinc to download only one specific app I cannot find anything 'bad' in it.
The policy is that one is 'required' to do GW tasks when participating at E@H, the ABP's are an optional add-on. (c) Mike Hewson The argument could be made that the GC and similar tasks are the main purpose for Einstein@home. If you don't crunch them, one could say you're no longer 'working' for Einstein@home. (c) transient
Quote:
Fairness is to write a app_info, inhibiting needless network traffic.
App-info on this computer has another main pathetic goal - to block the tasks of main research an grab only add-on tasks, which are giving more credits. The name of such behavior is not "Fairness", but it is "Swindle" or similar.
Quote:
But Einstein-Stuff could do something.
Just lower credits for ABP tasks, for example... It is very simple. :-) Or lower daily quotas for hosts, which are using "Anonymous platform".
The policy is that one is 'required' to do GW tasks when participating at E@H, the ABP's are an optional add-on. (c) Mike Hewson
Sorry, I did not know that, it changes my view. Please apologise my posting.
Alexander
Relax, no need to apologise ! :-)
( My understanding of ) the rationale for the policy is pretty straightforward :
- E@H is a wing ( specifically of the Continuous Wave Group ) of the LIGO effort, a structured scientific consortium.
- LIGO is funded variously, in the main by the US National Science Foundation. Taxpayers pay for it and the deal is to spend according to the given funding agreements.
- as the funding is provided on the stated basis of gravitational wave research, then that's the thing to do.
thus ABP is an optional add-on for those that have already enrolled to do GW work. It arose from Prof Allen's ( I think ) idea to tap into an Aricebo data stream :
- adding to and maintaining the interest of E@H contributors in the likely interregnum ( a couple of years ) b/w commissioning efforts at the interferometers heading towards Advanced LIGO. People seem to need milestones, and the credit thingy and the pulsar detection program shows that. It's fair to say then, that ABP has succeeded in arousing such interest ! :-)
- looking orthogonally at the same general category of objects ( pulsars ) likely to, one day, yield a GW detection. Plus adding to pulsar research in it's own right ( re-affirming detections and refining measured parameters ).
So participation here is subject to the above. No one is being nasty, or snubbing the act of donation of volunteer resources - which is truly much appreciated - it's simply the fact of the context of the project. No doubt other DC projects have their own tale of policy reasoning(s), personally I would bet upon a similiar thread/theme ( they can't re-define their role ).
Aside : in my observation the credit setting procedure can wind up to be like the sideshow game of "whack a mole" ( I think that's the right analogy, we don't have it DownUnda , I only saw it on Scrubs with Dr Cox hitting Dr Dorian ). So if, as suggested, one reduces ABP credit return to minimise the incentive for "off-policy crunching" ( call it OPC, to avoid more emotive phrases ) then I'd expect a response from those who ( reasonably ) wouldn't want said reduction merely for the purpose of restraining the few. Alternatively, I suspect a server side mechanism ( ie. a change in BOINC ) may arise to track OPC's and deal appropriately by enforcing policy behaviour ( you have to eat your greens/veggies before being served with dessert/sweets ). We had to do much the same with credit allocation a few years ago, in the instance of 'optimising' BOINC clients, by moving that function server side.
Sigh .... if there's a sign that says 'wet paint', then guess what happens ..... :-) :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: if somebody has an
)
The policy is that one is 'required' to do GW tasks when participating at E@H, the ABP's are an optional add-on. (c) Mike Hewson
The argument could be made that the GC and similar tasks are the main purpose for Einstein@home. If you don't crunch them, one could say you're no longer 'working' for Einstein@home. (c) transient
App-info on this computer has another main pathetic goal - to block the tasks of main research an grab only add-on tasks, which are giving more credits. The name of such behavior is not "Fairness", but it is "Swindle" or similar.
Just lower credits for ABP tasks, for example... It is very simple. :-) Or lower daily quotas for hosts, which are using "Anonymous platform".
RE: The policy is that one
)
Sorry, I did not know that, it changes my view. Please apologise my posting.
Alexander
Alex, You don't need to
)
Alex, You don't need to apologize. At least 99% of us are not professors here. :-)
Einstein neither. He was a
)
Einstein neither. He was a clerk in a Patent office in Berne.
RE: RE: The policy is
)
Relax, no need to apologise ! :-)
( My understanding of ) the rationale for the policy is pretty straightforward :
- E@H is a wing ( specifically of the Continuous Wave Group ) of the LIGO effort, a structured scientific consortium.
- LIGO is funded variously, in the main by the US National Science Foundation. Taxpayers pay for it and the deal is to spend according to the given funding agreements.
- as the funding is provided on the stated basis of gravitational wave research, then that's the thing to do.
thus ABP is an optional add-on for those that have already enrolled to do GW work. It arose from Prof Allen's ( I think ) idea to tap into an Aricebo data stream :
- adding to and maintaining the interest of E@H contributors in the likely interregnum ( a couple of years ) b/w commissioning efforts at the interferometers heading towards Advanced LIGO. People seem to need milestones, and the credit thingy and the pulsar detection program shows that. It's fair to say then, that ABP has succeeded in arousing such interest ! :-)
- looking orthogonally at the same general category of objects ( pulsars ) likely to, one day, yield a GW detection. Plus adding to pulsar research in it's own right ( re-affirming detections and refining measured parameters ).
So participation here is subject to the above. No one is being nasty, or snubbing the act of donation of volunteer resources - which is truly much appreciated - it's simply the fact of the context of the project. No doubt other DC projects have their own tale of policy reasoning(s), personally I would bet upon a similiar thread/theme ( they can't re-define their role ).
Aside : in my observation the credit setting procedure can wind up to be like the sideshow game of "whack a mole" ( I think that's the right analogy, we don't have it DownUnda , I only saw it on Scrubs with Dr Cox hitting Dr Dorian ). So if, as suggested, one reduces ABP credit return to minimise the incentive for "off-policy crunching" ( call it OPC, to avoid more emotive phrases ) then I'd expect a response from those who ( reasonably ) wouldn't want said reduction merely for the purpose of restraining the few. Alternatively, I suspect a server side mechanism ( ie. a change in BOINC ) may arise to track OPC's and deal appropriately by enforcing policy behaviour ( you have to eat your greens/veggies before being served with dessert/sweets ). We had to do much the same with credit allocation a few years ago, in the instance of 'optimising' BOINC clients, by moving that function server side.
Sigh .... if there's a sign that says 'wet paint', then guess what happens ..... :-) :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal