From: Spike Jones (spike66@attglobal.net)
Date: Fri Nov 30 2001 - 01:29:56 MST
Emlyn O'regan wrote:
> If I were setting up the kind of high-latency distributed virtual machine
> that SETI@HOME has implemented (mmm, makes it sound a lot more polished than
> it probably is...), one factor I would consider important is the
> authenticity of the results coming back from clients. Now there may be all
> kinds of encryption and checking schemes out there, but how do you really
> check if the results are good, unless you can compare them to something?
So send them out twice. The real problem is that SETI@home was
underprepared for the overwhelming participation from the general
proletariat, so they sent the same work just to keep the masses
interested. When these same proles started noticing and asking
they admitted they didn't know what else to do.
> ...But that assumes that you are a negligibly
> small part of the total processing pool... in the case of Spike, I'm not
> sure that's a safe assumption :-)
No, I only had two machines working the problem, and began
getting repeat work within two months of the start. Returned to
GIMPS.
...btw: Why do you consider SETI processing to be more important that protein
folding?
The cosequences of solving protein folding would be to add yet
another piece to the complicated puzzle of life. Helpful, but not
revolutionary. The consequences of discovering a ETI are inestimable,
mind boggling, awe inspiring. I would do SETI again if I knew
they were not going to waste my contribution. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:17 MST