[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][QUOTE=chalsall;339570]Try working in the scientific and/or engineering fields...[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Emotion doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) enter into it. Nor should BS. Although, admittedly, they often do...[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]But argument is what it's all about! One should be comfortable with "debate" (and admitting when one is wrong, or doesn't know).... [/QUOTE][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Why do I have to know anything about F@H's science to decide to apply my computing power to it. This is just like R. Silverman saying one should be fully versed on ECM material before asking questions about it. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Expecting a minimum knowledge requirement for a "click and be happy" project is moronic. NOT the other way around.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]It is impossible for me to be [U]wrong[/U] about wanting to participate in [EMAIL="F@H"][COLOR=#0066cc]F@H[/COLOR][/EMAIL] since I stated nothing about the attributes of [EMAIL="F@H"][COLOR=#0066cc]F@H[/COLOR][/EMAIL] whatsoever. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]What is there to be wrong about. Debating my worthiness to participate based on my knowledge is [U]not[/U] debate at all. It is called bullying or one of its many synonyms.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]In addition, there is "debate" in the casual sense: To help others see a different point of view or modify a conclusion, and then there is "debate" designed to make the [U]opponent[/U] look stupid or inept. I rarely participate in the opponent level "debates" because there is nothing to be gained out of it. Look at the endless Daviddy debates. Did that near endless debate help the forum? No it did not because [U]YOU [/U]lost BCP19 out of it.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]</end_last_post>[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;339588]It may be a little beside the point of the argument, but the argument doesn't interest me half as much as the implication that the Stanford University research division running the folding@home project is either a complete sham or full of wankers spouting BS. I find this implication unusually surprising, and am curious why it exists?[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Since I never made disparaging remarks against F@H who is your question to?[/FONT][/COLOR]

Batalov. You said that [EMAIL="folding@home"]folding@home[/EMAIL] was not full of wankers spouting BS, and I'm surprised he'd challenge a statement like that.

[QUOTE=swl551;339614]Why do I have to know anything about F@H's science to decide to apply my computing power to it. This is just like R. Silverman saying one should be fully versed on ECM material before asking questions about it.[/QUOTE]

I think you are mis-attributing comments. I never said you shouldn't join F@H. In fact, I've always said that people should be free to do whatever work they like with their own time, equipment and money.

[QUOTE=swl551;339614]Look at the endless Daviddy debates. Did that near endless debate help the forum? No it did not because [U]YOU [/U]lost BCP19 out of it.[/QUOTE]

Something I deeply regret. Although, that wasn't really a debate -- or even an argument. It was pointless trolling which I allowed to get out of control....

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;339617]Batalov. You said that [EMAIL="folding@home"]folding@home[/EMAIL] was not full of wankers spouting BS, and I'm surprised he'd challenge a statement like that.[/QUOTE]
No, Serge was referring to swl551's motivations.

Anyone who doesn't like the level of BS here can try lighting a candle instead of cursing the darkness...

:unsure:

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;339617]Batalov. You said that [EMAIL="folding@home"]folding@home[/EMAIL] was not full of wankers spouting BS, and I'm surprised he'd challenge a statement like that.[/QUOTE]
You are building a wrong comparison. If you compare FAH to GPU72 or GIMPS - neither of the three projects have "wankers spouting BS".
They all have methodological and technical problems. Keeping yourself blind to these problems is entirely your choice. Educating yourself about them is another choice. Nobody's twisting your arm.

Now, if you are building the contrast, apparently you are comparing GPU72 [u]forum[/u] with FAH [u]forum[/u].
Can you guarantee that on FAH forum there are no "wankers spreading b.s."? This is a very weak challenge. I assure you that there most probably are. (Unless there is no forum? I could be wrong, easily. See NFS @ Home forum. Clean as a whistle!)
If there are "wankers spreading b.s." on FAH forum, would that be a good reason to immediately leave FAH? ...and go where? Human nature is the same anywhere.
If there are "wankers spreading b.s." on mersenneforum, would that be a good reason to immediately leave GIMPS?
If yes, why now? There were such beautiful entertainers around here before; take the colorful Don Blazys for example. (There were many more before him, too.)

One choice would have been to ban D.B. after ten posts (like he was banned from twenty other forums). But the fun, the beautiful rainbows? The dude was an artist!

Now, let's get back to simple matter of "wankers spreading b.s." here. That is the phrase I highlighted initially.
They usually get banned. Ok, the system is not perfect and they are probably given more latitude than they deserve.
But it is hypocritical to criticize "wankers spreading b.s.", while having a dirty mouth yourself:
[QUOTE=swl551;339382]wankers spreading b.s. All the time.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=swl551;339567]Does he really give two poops about anything I have ever done.... The answer would be obvious.[/QUOTE]
"A stunning example" of '[I]"debate" in the casual sense: To help others see a different point of view or modify a conclusion[/I]'.

Finally, "Debating my worthiness to participate based on my knowledge is [U]not[/U] debate at all."
"Now listen to this." <- this is "telling what to do"
"Have you thought about what the goals of the project are? What are its limitations?" <- these are questions, ahem, "[I]to help others see a different point of view[/I]".
Have you assumed that your worthiness was challenged? You assumed wrongly.

Mersenne @ home never had "[I]wankers spreading b.s.[/I]" Or maybe it did. Maybe this is how someone like you would see my questions there:
"Why would you run these (given 10 examples) LL tests, when they have known factors?" If inconvenient posts were deleted, then it was probably a perfect forum. So by extension, that must have been a perfect project to join. Sure. Many people did.

NFS @ home has an almost empty forum. Must be a perfect project to join. (and why not, actually)

Not writing anything ever or killing all arguments in the bud by censorship is a sure way to keep any forum crispy clean. It would also be a very boring forum. Mike doesn't like it boring. ;-)

heh, heh. Look, I haven't left, and I don't think leaving is a good idea. I see you're defending GIMPS forum there, and it makes me glad. I was just really surprised that when swl551 said that he was taking his toys and going folding@home where there were no wankers spouting BS, you didn't defend GIMPS, you said he wasn't qualified to make such a statement. Like maybe he was right, but so what because he had no justification to think that Stanford was putting out reasonable research projects or that their forums weren't full of crap. I was just like "?! Ha!" until you said you had done some coding work in the biology field, and then I thought "well shit, maybe he has some insider knowledge there and the folding@home project IS a sham, or maybe he failed out of stanford and has a grudge or doesn't like the competition or something." It was an interesting conversational twist.

I don't agree with swl here, though I'm not attacking him for his decisions any more than chasall is. I just thought the counter argument was more interesting than the argument itself, and was curious if there was something more there.

I noticed this morning that my 480 was doing its TF work (to 74) on a 64.4M exponent. Surprised that we had gotten so far, I went and looked up the numbers but there were still lots in the 63.1M range only to 73. So I went on the get work page for lltf, set it to a low end of 63M, and the work projection said: Factor 64,439,xxx from 70 to 74. That was on "What makes sense". When I set it to "Lowest Exponent" though, it gives: Factor 63,142,xxx from 73 to 74. So that's about 1.3M numbers lower.

My question regards what makes the most sense, because I had been under the impression that doing the lowest exponent made the most sense.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;339670]My question regards what makes the most sense, because I had been under the impression that doing the lowest exponent made the most sense.[/QUOTE]

I wondered about that too. I have been getting quite a variety of work via the "Let GPU 72 decide" option.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;339670]My question regards what makes the most sense, because I had been under the impression that doing the lowest exponent made the most sense.[/QUOTE]

That is generally true, in that Primenet hands out LL work sorted by P1 desc, Exponent (grouped within each 1M range).

However, with George's permission, GPU72 holds all assignments between 63M and 65M which are not already TFed to at least 74; everything below 63M is already at 73 (almost, there are still seven to do). Combined with the fact that we're now over two months ahead of the "wave", it doesn't matter if we complete the work slightly out of order.

Thus, "What Makes Sense" has been set to be "Lowest TF Level", at least for a while, in order to give those who choose that option the opportunity to find more factors than they would if they were simply going from 73 to 74.

But, as always, anyone who wants to do something different (like Lowest Exponent, Highest TF, etc) can simply choose those options explicitly.