[snip]
From: "Mary K. Conner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1036
[snip]
Actually the project *does* deliberately do a fair number of triple checks. You just see them as double checks that's all. Why? where the residue bits returned from the first and second, do not match.There are plenty of triple checks that happen accidentally. There is no GIMPS need to do some on purpose, especially to the detriment of a participant that is following the rules. If someone feels a personal need to do triple checks, they should do them on exponents that are already double checked.
Gordon
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:31:33 -0500 From: Nathan Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038
[snip]
I would have been very annoyed. but you know what, my life would have gone on and I would have gotten over it. Life happens despite your best efforts.What if your prime had been lost to poaching? I think that's every participant's worst fear.
Gordon
From: "Mary K. Conner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nobody here is particularly defending it, we just don't see it as a crime against humanity like a few people on here seem to. In fact it seems to me that all those who are carrying on about it are mostly latecomers to the party.The fact that life doesn't end is not an excuse to poach. Poaching hurts the project because it drives away participants. It is not harmless. I don't know why people keep defending it.
Gordon
Correct, and returning a factor adds to the sum of human knowledge, we know something we didn't know previously. Even your negative result if it confirms a previous negative, adds to human knowledge in that we know for define that the particular exponent is composite.Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:09:55 +0000 From: Daran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038 On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:01:26PM +0000, Gordon Spence wrote: > 1. Personally, I don't see any harm in "poaching" per se, I have had it > happen to me. That's life and the way it goes. As I stated earlier, when > information is discovered humanity as a whole gains. Period. Look at the > big picture. I don't quite see what 'humanity as a whole gains' when I return a negative result, or even a new factor, to the server. The biggest picture in which what we do has any significance at all, is the GIMPS project as a whole.
Gordon
Don't bother we have heard it all before, several times and no doubt it will crop up again in about a year or so. Until the license file specifically _exludes_ it and the check-in/check-out process _prevents_ it, then despite the fact that it outside the *spirit* of the project, it is within the *rules*.Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:28:04 -0500 From: "Richard Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Poaching -- Definition (was: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038) Paul Missman wrote: > I know that this might be earth shattering news for you, > but there is no such thing as "poaching". I think that folks who've been following the poaching discussion from the beginning know that there is indeed such a thing, and what it is. But let me post a refresher for the sake of newcomers.
Gordon
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:01:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Kel Utendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poaching -- Definition (was: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038)
[snip]
I've already been searching and I've identified quite a few candidates! Hmmm..... ;-)))You know, the "anti-poachers" seem so strident and self-absorbed and hell-bent on their mission to make "poaching" into the next offense that the U.N. investigates that I'm inclined to begin doing some poaching just to tweak them a bit. I wonder what numbers this Woods fellow has reserved...;-)
Kel A GIMPS participant since George had only 300 of us running his fine program(s)
I think I joined at around the 700 or so mark. Gordon
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:57:37 -0800
From: "Aaron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Poaching -- Definition (was: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038)
[snip]
However, it should be noted that I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to "poach" a double-check from a MUCH slower machine if that's what was holding up finishing off a range of checks... By slow, I mean an exponent that was still showing over 6 months or so to complete, especially when a good, new machine could finish the same exponent in a couple of days. :)
Well said that man. Absolutely agree. Gordon _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
