>BUT...
>
>Aaron is not a Nazi. There is no proof that Aaron diminshed anyone's
>ability to use their computer, nor caused the slow response time reported
>in the article.
Thank you for that affirmation that I'm *not* a Nazi :-)
>I believe that no such proof shall come to light. If Aaron did
A word of caution...
An uninformed public starts with a dimwitted press, and the press follows
mailing lists like this...
On another list, someone had posted a message about a possible bug in a
beta of the next service pack for NT. Note, this is a bug in a beta of
an unreleased product.
I ment
A bit off-topic, but in a recreational-math kind of way. Plus,
I think we all need to step back a few paces from this USWest
thing, take a deep breath, regain our senses of humor (assuming
we had such to start with :) ...
My sister forwarded the following to me. The example problem
of the 1970s r
Yves Gallot wrote:
> The PII is able to shift two numbers by n positions in one step. The PII is
> a Post-RISC processor, ie it is able to execute 2 or 3 instructions per
> cycle and each basic instruction takes 1 cycle. The CISC and RISC
> architectures are both obsolete.
Re. Yves' comment, I
From: Jukka Tapani Santala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: JAPH David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: The current situation
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Return-Receipt-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-
Johan--
You should know that the experiments done by the Nazis were dropped from
human knowledge. No information gained from those experiments may be used
in any paper or as a seed for further research.
BUT...
Aaron is not a Nazi. There is no proof that Aaron diminshed anyone's
ability to use
> > >The Post article said that Mr. Blosser, while he was busy doing the NT Prime
> > >stuff, also "posted encrypted info on the Net" or something thereof. I find
> > >this hard to believe. Is that accurate?
> >
> Contacting Primenet to post results constitutes "posting encrypted
> info on the
The computers were so slow in mid-May that customer calls had
to be rerouted to other states, and at one point the delays
threatened to close down the Phoenix Service Delivery Center.
>>>Sounds like a lot of network traffic to me.
>> Ah, sounds to me like their system was all FUB
> -Original Message-
> From: Shaun Griffith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 11:27 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #426
>
>
> Luke Welsh Wrote
>
> > The story was written by the Denver Post and then picked up by AP
>
> >Computer running prime95 ver 16.4 intel 486 today found a
> >factor of the number it was processing, contacted primenet,
> >sent the result, obtained a new number to factor, and then
> >continued to factor the same number it had just found a factor
> >for. I do not have the files immediately to
OK, I've seen several people state this, and I feel that it needs to be
corrected.
>woensdag 16 september 1998 15:54 "Dean-Christian Strik"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>said:
>|Aaron got his results illegally,
>
>This is under contention currently. It's a charge or an allegation, not
>an established leg
Ken Kriesel wrote:
>woensdag 16 september 1998 15:54 "Dean-Christian Strik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>said:
>|Aaron got his results illegally,
>
>This is under contention currently. It's a charge or an allegation, not
>an established legal fact or conclusion. Aaron is supposed to be presumed
>innoce
On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, Dean-Christian Strik wrote:
> I disagree with you here. Aaron got his results illegally, but that doesn't
> make them less correct. I find it not morally justified to distinguish between
> legally and illegally obtained numbers. Hasn't science had many cases of
Actually, the
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Simon Burge wrote:
> INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
It's little more hairy than that. Especially if they choose to go with a
civil case, which would be likely here, as they say "The presupposition
of innocence doesn't hold". I still agree much of the posts here are
tak
> >The Post article said that Mr. Blosser, while he was busy doing the NT Prime
> >stuff, also "posted encrypted info on the Net" or something thereof. I find
> >this hard to believe. Is that accurate?
>
Contacting Primenet to post results constitutes "posting encrypted
info on the Net". (The me
OK. I have been criticized for my suggestions. Could I please point
out, with respect, that I was making suggestions for comment - not
trying to steer the outcome!
> > 1. A new rule that no more than a fixed maximum number of machines be
> > allowed for each user identity in Primenet. I sugges
Earle Goodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem occurs when:
> 1) There is have enough stuff running to fill up the physical memory
> 2) The applications running take up a good portion of the CPU (30-60%?)
>
> This allows enough CPU time that some is given to the "idle" process, but
> th
hey, we're getting real data out of this discussion :-)
At 21:54 16.09.98 -0500, Ken Kriesel wrote:
>I can confirm from my own experiences that the working set and thrashing
>that may result is an issue both for WindowsNT and for Windows95.
Me tooat least there is *some* effect that is large
>The Post article said that Mr. Blosser, while he was busy doing the NT Prime
>stuff, also "posted encrypted info on the Net" or something thereof. I find
>this hard to believe. Is that accurate?
a) How the heck should WE know??!?
b) Mr. Blosser has himself posted here that this was completel
For the record I also have found that NTPrime will slow down machines. I do
believe that it does have to do with swapping (these are machines with 64M).
The two cases when it is mainly noticeable is while debugging and compiling.
I do not have exact numbers, but I would say if I compile with NTPr
>
> Here I disagree - let me suggest that the ethics of the question are
> more significant than the scientific discoveries involved.
>
> For instance, there is I believe consensus within the scientific
> community that experiments upon human beings that result in
> foreseeable and permanent h
The Post article said that Mr. Blosser, while he was busy doing the NT Prime
stuff, also "posted encrypted info on the Net" or something thereof. I find
this hard to believe. Is that accurate?
STL
From: "Vincent J. Mooney Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Should the GIMPS effort discard Alan Blosser's results
> on the grounds that they were improperly obtained?
In my opinion, that would be silly.
Firstly, the results themselves are good. There's no technical or
mathematical reason to toss them.
I can confirm from my own experiences that the working set and thrashing
that may result is an issue both for WindowsNT and for Windows95.
NT Services get woken up for about a 1% cpu duty cycle even when set to
lowest priority, on a system that is thoroughly saturated with other things
to do. Th
>From: John Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 05:39:33 -0700
>Subject: Re: Mersenne: Should we or not?
>
>At 02:59 AM 9/16/98 -0400, Vincent J. Mooney Jr. wrote:
>>Should the GIMPS effort discard Alan Blosser's results on the grounds that
>>they were improperly obtained? Surely
The factoring test will continue on the chance that a smaller factor may be
found. I believe this is in the interest of doing some kind of analysis on
the smallest factors of composite Mersenne numbers.
At 22:33 9/16/98 +0200, you wrote:
>Computer running prime95 ver 16.4 intel 486 today found a
Let's wait and see whether any charges are filed, whether they are
summarily dismissed, or tried, and if tried what the verdict is.
The question of what to do with real GIMPS results obtained illegally
may be academic.
woensdag 16 september 1998 15:54 "Dean-Christian Strik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sa
27 matches
Mail list logo
