Newer milestone thread

[NBtarheel_33]

You know, Cheesehead, I gotta say that it is really something how it is evil for anyone here to even mention that a tester's holding up (whether intentional or unintentional) of a milestone (or two) is in the slightest way annoying or discouraging; and moreover, that it is a cardinal sin to even say "Hi, did you know you have X exponent that is special for Y reason, would you be willing to consider expediting the test", YET we are all supposed to 100%, without question, agree with your points-of-view on the issue, to the point of being inundated with page after page of essayical rants on why you're right and everyone else is dead wrong.

Heavens to Betsy. We. Know. How. You. Feel. About. Poaching. We get it. OK? We know that someone for whatever reason made you feel like your tests were being stalked and poached - but I seriously doubt it was a personal hate campaign against you. But it is not in the least fair or just to keep on forcing your opinions on people, to the point of (I believe) discouraging any discussion on how we might better approach the issue of handling milestones. Honestly, it is a pain in the ass to even mention the word "milestone" on this forum, lest I know I'm going to get an essayical rant about why I'm evil for espousing a point of view that I am sure many GIMPS participants share, and why you're 100% right that I shouldn't be allowed to even request the expediting of a milestone test, BUT another user should be able to (without question) hold GIMPS up from reaching a milestone by taking well beyond a reasonable period of time to complete a test.

Yes, it's not ethical to purposefully poach an assignment, and yes, it could potentially create problems if the assignment happens to be that of an LL test leading to a Mersenne prime. But I also believe it unethical (and potentially detrimental) to bog down the project by taking on work that is well beyond one's means. If I know that I am going to be running my systems only an hour a day, I am certainly not going to try to run large LL tests. Nor will I take out a block of 1000 LL tests, or a million TF assignments, if I have only three machines running GIMPS. It is keeping smaller, favorable assignments from others, delaying the progression of the project, and may well in fact make other people irritated enough to leave GIMPS.

Hmm...if poaching makes a user potentially leave GIMPS, but delaying a milestone (or hoarding work beyond one's means) could also make a user (more likely a bunch of users) leave GIMPS, what makes one worse than the other, other than the fact that the former seems to have affected you personally?

With the intensity of your anti-poaching rants, I would expect that some folks (who might not even otherwise care) may well just poach the remaining assignment just because they begin to get a bang out of "taking the piss" (as our English members might say) with you.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33

You know, Cheesehead, I gotta say that it is really something how it is evil for anyone here to even mention that a tester's holding up (whether intentional or unintentional) of a milestone (or two) is in the slightest way annoying or discouraging; and moreover, that it is a cardinal sin to even say "Hi, did you know you have X exponent that is special for Y reason, would you be willing to consider expediting the test", YET we are all supposed to 100%, without question, agree with your points-of-view on the issue, to the point of being inundated with page after page of essayical rants on why you're right and everyone else is dead wrong.

I almost had him agree with this:
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthr...711#post221711

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33

You know, Cheesehead, I gotta say that it is really something how it is evil for anyone here to even mention that a tester's holding up (whether intentional or unintentional) of a milestone (or two) is in the slightest way annoying or discouraging;

Any "evil"(your straw man word, not mine)-ness resides in the pretense that such an opinion is somehow based on that "it's good for GIMPS". If those expressing it would admit that what's happening is that they've inappropriately latched onto a milestone as some sort of personal emotional possession, we could have a more honest discussion.

and moreover, that it is a cardinal sin

Once again, you use a straw-man exaggeration. I've never mentioned "sin" or cardinals.

Why don't you try responding to my arguments with honest, straightforward, non-exaggerated words, which don't distort what I wrote?

to even say "Hi, did you know you have X exponent that is special for Y reason, would you be willing to consider expediting the test",

So, you're saying that I can't disagree with that proposal without having my opinion falsely portrayed as an exaggerated accusation of "cardinal sin"?

YET we are all supposed to 100%, without question, agree with your points-of-view on the issue,

What an absurd exaggeration!

Please argue this matter on a fair, undistorted basis instead of employing exaggerations.

to the point of being inundated with page after page of essayical rants on why you're right and everyone else is dead wrong.

If you were to constrain yourself to fairly characterizing my words instead of employing such exaggeration, you might convince someone that you're right. Try it.

But it is not in the least fair or just to keep on forcing your opinions on people

Folks,

Look at that!

It's not fair or just to force one's opinions on people.

That same would be true of forcing ones selfish personal goals upon someone who is legitimately processing their own assignment, wouldn't it?

Besides, of course, I'm not "forcing" my opinion on anyone!! Anyone out there is free to read, or not to read, my posts.

Just as you're all free to go work on your own assignments without bothering someone who's properly processing his/her own assignment.

to the point of (I believe) discouraging any discussion on how we might better approach the issue of handling milestones.

Please stop making false statements about me. I have repeatedly encouraged the search for a better approach than the right-to-interfere approach. Propose one that doesn't involve treating a GIMPS milestone as ones personal emotional possession.

Honestly, it is a pain in the ass to even mention the word "milestone" on this forum, lest I know I'm going to get an essayical rant about why I'm evil

Another exaggeration.

Try making a counter-argument that sticks to truth.

for espousing a point of view that I am sure many GIMPS participants share,

That doesn't make it ethical.

and why you're 100% right that I shouldn't be allowed to even request the expediting of a milestone test,

Can't you just refer to my trying to persuade others to share my opinion, without using exaggeration to make it seem that I'm unreasonable?

If I'm not 100% right, then present a reasoned counter-argument without employing any rhetorical device to distort my position.

BUT another user should be able to (without question) hold GIMPS up from reaching a milestone by taking well beyond a reasonable period of time to complete a test.

What evidence have you that the user is "taking well beyond a reasonable period of time to complete a test"? Is "reasonable" whatever you define it to be?

Yes, it's not ethical to purposefully poach an assignment,

Thank you.

and yes, it could potentially create problems if the assignment happens to be that of an LL test leading to a Mersenne prime.

... as well as in other cases.

But I also believe it unethical (and potentially detrimental) to bog down the project by taking on work that is well beyond one's means.

GIMPS isn't being bogged down!

When it is, then that statement would be relevant.

No one has given any evidence of this project's "bogging down". Indeed, in other threads, folks are writing about how fast GIMPS progress is! TeraHz and such.

Some folks have provided evidence that they have trouble distinguishing what belongs to them from what doesn't (GIMPS milestones), but that's not the same as evidence of "bogging down".

If I know that I am going to be running my systems only an hour a day, I am certainly not going to try to run large LL tests. Nor will I take out a block of 1000 LL tests, or a million TF assignments, if I have only three machines running GIMPS. It is keeping smaller, favorable assignments from others, delaying the progression of the project, and may well in fact make other people irritated enough to leave GIMPS.

Fine.

But none of that is relevant to the case we've been discussing! The assigneee isn't running a system only an hour a day, hasn't taken out a block of 1000 LL tests, and hasn't taken out a block of a million TF assignments.

Why do you introduce yet another exaggeration? Can't you win the argument by sticking to unexaggerated facts?

Hmm...if poaching makes a user potentially leave GIMPS, but delaying a milestone (or hoarding work beyond one's means) could also make a user (more likely a bunch of users) leave GIMPS, what makes one worse than the other

Can't you tell the difference between what's yours and what belongs to other people? I can.

Both

a) poaching,

and

b) considering regular legitimate progress by an assignee to be "holding up" a milestone,

are examples of inappropriately thinking that something that doesn't belong to one is, somehow, a personal emotional possession anyway.

The GIMPS milestones don't belong to any of you, so your impatience about them needs to be turned elsewhere.

With the intensity of your anti-poaching rants, I would expect that some folks (who might not even otherwise care) may well just poach the remaining assignment just because they begin to get a bang out of "taking the piss" (as our English members might say) with you.

In other words, because they lack the logic and arguments to post an effective counter to my words, and they can't control their emotional impulses, they'll do what vandals do -- mess with what belongs to someone else, just to express their anger?

Citing vandalism as justification is not a convincing argument.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

In other words, because they lack the logic and arguments to post an effective counter to my words, and they can't control their emotional impulses, they'll do what vandals do -- mess with what belongs to someone else, just to express their anger

No; because they can.

[Mr. P-1]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

You're trying to dodge the ethical intent by separating out details.

I'm not dodging anything. I entered into this thread for one and only one purpose: to dispute the contention that there is an anti-poaching rule. I have not discussed or taken a position on any of the other issues you raise. I have not pretended to discuss or take a position on them. I am not under any obligation to do so, nor is there any reasonable expectation that I do. Consequently, I have not dodged these issues.

Straw man. The claim is that GIMPS makes an effort (within its powers, obviously) to assure that assignments are exclusive, not that "nobody will test that exponent in the future". I've never claimed otherwise, so this pretended protest at a misinterpretation is just a straw man.

Nobody is disputing that GIMPS makes an effort to ensure that assignments are esclusive. The claim at issue is that there is an anti-poaching rule. Clearly you cannot point to any explicit anti-poaching rule. Rather you argue that such a rule is implied by a particular statement in the legalese to the effect that assignments are exclusive. Specifically: "Every effort has been made to ensure that you will be assigned an exponent that no one else has tested or is testing."

My counterargument: That passage only refers to assigments and is explicitly in the past tense, i.e, the "effort" that "has been made" up to the point that the assignment is handed out. It makes no claim and implies no rule that people do not test exponents assigned to another person.

You argue that without such a rule the exclusive assignment system is meaningless. Not so. Exclusive assignments enable us to work on different exponents without requiring us to do so. That's sufficient to make the system meaningful without any implied anti-poaching rule.

Why are you introducing distortions like that?

You're the one introducing distortions, such as claiming that I'm dodging "ethical" conserns which have no bearing upon the question whether your rule exists, and by claiming that this is not "all" I'm arguing.

For the record: I have never knowingly poached an exponent and have no intention of so doing. I have no interest whatsoever in these milestone or in the particular exponent at issue. I do not care whether it's completed this year, next year, in ten years time, or for that matter, if it's never completed.

[Mr. P-1]

I do have one suggestion for an anti-poaching measure: Remove all the "progress to the next GIMPS milestones" links from the milestone report. In particular the two lines that say "All exponents below xx,xxx,xxx have been tested..." are almost an invitation to poach.

[Prime95]

I've sent an email to the user letting him know that his exponent reservation is likely to be poached. I'll let you know if I hear back from him.

[ellipse]

Originally Posted by Mr. P-1

I do have one suggestion for an anti-poaching measure: Remove all the "progress to the next GIMPS milestones" links from the milestone report. In particular the two lines that say "All exponents below xx,xxx,xxx have been tested..." are almost an invitation to poach.

I disagree with that suggestion. A distributed computing project should never hide information regarding the contributions of its members.

I've never poached or attempted to poach an exponent, but if the countdown info for the milestones or the "All exponents below xx,xxx,xxx have been tested..." info is removed, I will leave GIMPS immediately without even attempting to finish the exponent(s) that I am currently working on.

An alternative suggestion would be temporarily banning poachers (maybe for a month?) after their first offense. The second offense results in a lifetime ban.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by ellipse

An alternative suggestion would be temporarily banning poachers (maybe for a month?) after their first offense. The second offense results in a lifetime ban.

But what do you mean by "banning"?

Not giving them any assignments? Might that not simply encourage them to continue working on jobs which they haven't been assigned and not to worry anymore about such a "ban".

Or do you mean not accepting any results from them? Then it would have been simpler and more effective not to accept the poached result in the first place. And it goes against a fundamental principle that no results are refused - which is why poaching is sometimes a problem.

By the way, I support Mr. P-1's suggestion of not publishing the type of progress which encourages poaching. But I do understand that it's a radical step which might well be unpopular with contributors.

[ellipse]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

But what do you mean by "banning"?

Not giving them any assignments? Might that not simply encourage them to continue working on jobs which they haven't been assigned and not to worry anymore about such a "ban".

Or do you mean not accepting any results from them? Then it would have been simpler and more effective not to accept the poached result in the first place. And it goes against a fundamental principle that no results are refused - which is why poaching is sometimes a problem.

By "banning", I meant that their accounts are frozen. They won't get any credit for assignments turned in, they won't be given new assignments, and any results they turn in are rejected.

I agree that refusing results goes against the spirit of GIMPS and other DC projects. But it's the lesser of the current and proposed evils (allowing users to poach exponents or removing progress reports and countdowns from the milestones page).

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Mr. P-1

I'm not dodging anything. I entered into this thread for one and only one purpose: to dispute the contention that there is an anti-poaching rule.

And, as I have tried to explain, though not concisely in one phrase before this: The anti-poaching "rule" is an ethical derivation from the pledge GIMPS makes plus logical consequences of that pledge.

I have repeatedly stressed the ethics, which takes multiple factors into account. When you replied to the pledge

"Every effort has been made to ensure that you will be assigned an exponent that no one else has tested..."

by making the objection "This is no longer true. Current practice is ..."

you were trying to use an exception to the literal phrase "you will be assigned an exponent that no one else has tested" to show that the supposed "rule" did not exist (which is what you've been contending). But that exception had no bearing on the ethical derivations I had been explaining. Therefore, your introduction of the "exception" was just a distraction from the ethical argument.

I apologize for using "dodge". I should have used "distract from".

Nobody is disputing that GIMPS makes an effort to ensure that assignments are esclusive. The claim at issue is that there is an anti-poaching rule.

... and, as I've been showing, a logical ethical extension of that exclusive-assignment effort is to oppose poaching. Such opposition can be considered a "rule", so there is, in effect, an anti-poaching "rule" which is the derivative of the written pledge.

Clearly you cannot point to any explicit anti-poaching rule.

I have pointed to a chain of logic from the pledge. That some folks are blind to it is a shame.

It's always been clear to me that the pledge necessarily implies opposition to poaching. I'm disappointed that you can't see that if it's not been written down for you.

Rather you argue that such a rule is implied by a particular statement in the legalese to the effect that assignments are exclusive. Specifically: "Every effort has been made to ensure that you will be assigned an exponent that no one else has tested or is testing."

My counterargument: That passage only refers to assigments and is explicitly in the past tense, i.e, the "effort" that "has been made" up to the point that the assignment is handed out. It makes no claim and implies no rule that people do not test exponents assigned to another person.

So, you want to argue that just after the moment the assignment is made, GIMPS abandons all responsibility for making that statement (re: exclusivity) remain true? That makes it very empty, then.

My contention is that if GIMPS's operations are ethical, then as long as the assignment exists, GIMPS has a continuing ethical obligation to keep it exclusive.

Your position of abandoning exclusivity after the assignment is made makes a mockery of the pledge: "Here, we'll give you an exclusive assignment, but we won't lift a finger or say a word to keep it that way for even a moment more. We disavow any responsibility for that exclusivity the moment after you've received the assignment. If we did not make available the details (other than the ID string) of your assignment for all to see, no one could covet your assignment. But because we do make such details available to the public, we are providing would-be poachers with the information they need to swoop down and test the same exponent on a faster system. Although the latter action destroys the meaning of your assignment's exclusivity, we will make no peep of protest, nor will we dissuade any such action."

There are consequences to actions such as GIMPS's publication of assignment details, but you think GIMPS has no ethical responsibility for those consequences -- is that correct?

You argue that without such a rule the exclusive assignment system is meaningless.

See above.

Not so. Exclusive assignments enable us to work on different exponents without requiring us to do so. That's sufficient to make the system meaningful without any implied anti-poaching rule.

That would all be nice in a utopian world where no one wants to interfere with someone else's work.

But our real world is not so pretty, so we need to recognize ethical responsibilities to protect some from others.