How to disable Global Correlations tasks?
22 May 2010 7:40:46 UTC
Topic 194938
(moderation:
I wanted to create a new set of preferences and picked "school", and I wanted to uncheck both the Global Correlations tasks, but I cannot uncheck any of the bottom three choices in there...
how do I stop my computer from getting GC tasks?
How to disable Global Correlations tasks?
)
The argument could be made that the GC and similar tasks are the main purpose for Einstein@home. If you don't crunch them, one could say you're no longer 'working' for Einstein@home.
This is just my opinion. There's nothing 'official' about it.
I believe those tasks are the
)
I believe those tasks are the ones they get funding for, whereas the ABP tasks are an optional bonus. Can't blame them for making them mandatory.
RE: I wanted to create a
)
These are mandatory for participation in E@H, and you can't opt out of them. There's another thread someplace on this board that explains that.
RE: I wanted to create a
)
These tasks lie at the core of the project. Can we ask why you wish to exclude them?
Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt. - Hans-Ulrich Rudel
The policy is that one is
)
The policy is that one is 'required' to do GW tasks when participating at E@H, the ABP's are an optional add-on. Gravity waves is what we do, the EM pulsar stuff is an extra curio - albeit motivated by an astronomical overlap ( some pulsar systems might prove to emit GW's too ). Despite their credit attraction.
Assuming one could get a credit per time equivalence visa-vi GW/ABP working across all available participating platforms ( and that's a huge IF ), that policy would still be the case. Science first .... credit second alas. So I don't foresee a policy change to align with credit expectations.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) On the personal side, I may have a different 'baseline of expectation' for the whole distributed computing thingy. At the risk of sounding like an old ... err ... chap, for me E@H is like NASA asking my help to calculate lunar orbital insertion scenarios for an upcoming manned landing. I'm just happy to be of any help at all, and to heck with 'credits'! :-) :-)
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: I'm just happy to be
)
I guess, you like to do this for free, do you?
RE: RE: I'm just happy
)
Not especially per se. It's the topic of interest that attracts me, not the cost issue. I'm paying to do it of course, as I'm donating the costs of running my rigs. Since for my line of work the machinery purchase and some running costs are business tax deductible, then that is blunted. I'm just not fussed if there is/not some other metric on that. Like credits, which I deem as a technical measure of progress only. But it ought be discretionary money donated, meaning I'd be disturbed if people were contributing and in doing so missing out on more important personal needs. For instance I'm aware that electricity costs are quite acute elsewhere ( other than southeast DownUnda ), ditto for bandwidth.
[ One hopes the Australian Tax Office won't audit me on the basis of claims upon such donation 'in kind'. I don't think E@H is a registered charity in the usual sense of enabling full deduction for amounts over $2 AUD .... :-) ]
When I first looked at the DC area ( late 2005 ) some projects were quite unclear about the domain of any knowledge acquired. And still are. So I could have been donating in the last five years to establish someone's future patent rights. E@H is public domain and not propriety. For instance the detector logs are publicly viewable, and are the equivalent of laboratory notebooks. I like that transparent paradigm.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: RE: RE: I'm just
)
Agree. The public basis of the project attracted me too five years ago. But, can you tell, do you receive any refund for the job made for e.g. for NASA?
I dunno. The idea of a
)
I dunno. The idea of a monetary return surfaces from time to time, but let's see what this would mean for a project like E@H:
* The project would have to make payments, including micro-payments, to a workforce of several tens of thousands of users in 100+ countries. That alone is a gigantic administration task.
* The project would have to maintain sensitive personal data required for payments.
* Take the current BOINC-credits discussions related to (e.g.) "credit-fraud", "credit-inflation", cross-project-fairness, cross-platform-fairness, loss of credit because of comutation errors, users "cherry-picking" WUs with a better return, use of office equipment for BOINC without the knowledge of the employer .... and add a few orders of magnitudes. If there is already so much fuss about symbolic credit points, how much conflict would be there if there was real money at stake???
In other words: This would be nothing short of the death-blow to BOINC.
CU
HB
The main thought is not about
)
The main thought is not about the billing, but of the credit system of cause.
The billing system itself is a commercial thing and it is not common to free science project.
The cause of this and some other threads about "how to get rid of S5GCE tasks" is in disbalanced credit system as a measure of perfomance and a scientific contribution. This means that this problem should not be thrown away, but to be solved. The best way to solve the question (as I see) is:
1) to open a separate sticky thread for this, so this theme will not arise from time to time in different threads as it does;
2) to create the mathematical basis for the credit system and strong rules for its use, so anybody can check or calculate the credit for any type of workunit for the project (I don't mean any other projects and cross-platform comparability yet).
If all of this will be consolidated in one single place, I guess it will solved after a small discussion and will not pollute other threads anymore.