Hi all,
Before I start, I was poached more than my share and I poached 1 number.
Ok, here we go, in chronological order...
Gordon Bower writes:
> A quick look in the cleared exponents file reveals many recent results
> reported by a user "rick" who apparently has several fast Pentium IIs
> doing double-checks. A look in the the assignments file reveals not a
> single small exponent reserved by this user.
It's a sad state of things. But since it was brought to light, no action
were taken to prevent it, only to reduce it's occurence by putting the 60
days hard cap.
>
> Not a big deal in the greater scheme of things, but frustrating to people
> like diamonddave and myself who make an effort to seek out the smaller
> exponents and reserve them.
>
I feel sad for people who have been poached. It does not have anything to do
with me being poached.
> I don't know exactly what our policy is on this matter, or what we can do
> about it the the facts are as they seem to be. But it seemed worth
> bringing the matter up.
>
Sadly we don't have any. Well if you are not on the list that is... (People
like to point finger and stuff)
Jeff Woods write:
> I hate to open a can of worms here, but feel I must.... However, I am not
> a poacher myself, nor do I advocate it. I only write this to tell you
why
> I don't feel sorry for folks who queue up WAY too much work and then gripe
> about it when someone else calls them on the carpet about it by poaching
> them. I write this in the hopes that you'll see the error of your ways,
> and work not just for yourself, but for the good of the group.
>
I didn't know there was any place that changed the official number of days
to queue. Back before PrimeNet, George Woltman was asking people to take
about 2-3 month of work! I might have missed the newsletter changing the
rules.
>
> Dave has at least 80 exponents reserved between 2.4M and
> 3.99M. Eighty. Almost all are less than suspected M37. It is a
> certainty that without poaching, we will have to wait until late 2000 or
> later to prove M37, because Dave is trying to do all the double-checking
> singlehandedly.
>
taken from my status report (work done since Dec 7):
Factored composite : 0
Lucas-Lehmer composite: 0
Double-checked LL : 98
---------------------- -------
TOTAL : 98
I guess those 80 number should be done before April Fools days! I wont
comment on the rest.
[snip] *comment on how I am a Pig, selfish and some other false assumption*
Then, after some post explaining my ways by Alexander Kruppa and Sander
Hoogendoorn.
Jeff Woods writes:
> In other words, David is "pre-emptively poaching" these numbers, to
prevent
> them from getting taken by quitters, in thinking he can clear them before
> others.... So, he's a poacher himself, it stands to reason on this side
> of the aisle...
Poaching was attributed to people who grabbed an exponent without it being
assigned to them. There is no poaching what so ever in what I do. What can I
say, it's not the 100,000$ that interest me, what I want to see is more
Milestone achieved with the least time possible between them.
[snip] *idea with some merits.*
Aaron Blosser writes:
> One thing I *do* enjoy about GIMPS are those milestones. Being able to
look
> back and say that we've proven that M37 actually is M37 (and we didn't
miss
> any prime numbers in between). That means we need to finish
double-checking
> all those smaller exponents. But we can't do that efficiently when a
select
> few are hogging all those exponents for themselves, purely for the
> satisfaction of watching their stats go up on a day by day basis.
>
Did you know that for about 6-8 hours _each_ days, it's only expired
exponent that are distributed. So about 20 exponent re-released by PrimeNet
will in there own time expire again (and the cycle begin anew).
> I don't buy the argument that they reserve those smaller exponents simply
to
> keep them out of the hands of others who might not have computers
diligently
> working on them. That's why exponents expire after 60 days and are
> reassigned. We don't need these folks subverting that.
Maybe that's why I don't keep more than 60 days per computer.
[snip]
> So, my opinion comes down to this: People who reserve ONLY small
exponents
> are doing the project a disservice by not allowing the distributed nature
of
> the project to work. They use a fallacious argument about "keeping them
out
> of the hands of the infidels" as justification for it. Fallacious because
> that's the job of Primenet's expiration policy.
What is the difference between keeping only small exponent and keeping only
big exponent (going for 100,000$), we will reach that plateau eventually?
Why did this tread went from exposing a poacher to accusing a sensible
PrimeNet user of poaching? Everyone seemed to have forgotten are mutual
friend "Rick", why?
David Campeau a.k.a. DiamondDave
_________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
