Posts by Aaron Finney

1) Message boards : Current tests : WinXP 64bit/AMD64bit-Support? (Message 2897)
Posted 21 Mar 2007 by Aaron Finney
Post:
I have my 64-bit Vista computer now, and no 64-bit boinc or 64-bit rosetta.

It\'s not like I am advocating that there would be a major decrease in completion times, I just like seeing one less task on my 32-bit Emulator.

I know it\'s a stupid reason.. but hey?
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Suggestion: Offload FLOPs to GPU (Message 2535)
Posted 13 Nov 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:
Also, here is some contact info for the guy over at ATI to talk to about it.

ATI Technologies Inc.
Will Willis
Senior Public Relations Manager
(905) 882-2600, ext. 8293
Email: wwillis@ati.com
For investor relations support, please contact:
ATI Technologies Inc.
Zev Korman, Investor Relations
(905) 882-2600, Ext. 3670
Email: zev@ati.com
High Road Communications
Sarah Vella
(416) 644-2270
Email: svella@highroad.com
Website: www.ati.com
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Suggestion: Offload FLOPs to GPU (Message 2534)
Posted 13 Nov 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:
ATI\'s x1800 line (and later) of GPU\'s (with Catalyst 6.10) support distributed science and computing projects.

The question isn\'t if, but *When* will we see a client that supports offloading the FLOPs to the GPU?

a 50-100 times increase in performance is not something to take lightly. We should be on this like white on sour cream.

I have a dual x1950 Crossfire setup just WAITING to attach to the first BOINC project to utilize this technology.
4) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2264)
Posted 7 Sep 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:
I\'ll reinstate your R@h account tomorrow.


Error : No such user.


Error: No account found with email address #############@###.com
5) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2263)
Posted 4 Sep 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:
I\'ll reinstate your R@h account tomorrow.


Error : No such user.
6) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2255)
Posted 28 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:
Aaron,

I agree. It wasn\'t much warning. It was late and the post was so out of line that my only choice was to delete your account to prevent you from posting again. You are free to share your opinions on the forum but do not post personal information like home phone numbers without permission. We have been deleting a lot of posts due to the recent degradation of threads due to flaming and hostility towards others, etc. I\'m sorry you feel like you could not express your opinions.


Error: No account found with email address #############@###.com
7) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2250)
Posted 27 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:
When you over step the boundaries, you will have your account removed. I don\'t care if you have 1 million credits or 1 credit. Quite frankly I don\'t even know how many credits Aaron had and I don\'t care. I warned him and he reposted. There was no glitch in the system. If anyone posts personal information like a home phone number whether it is public information or not without permission and in bad intent we will delete your account. This type of stuff is way way way out of line particularly in the middle of the night when people are sleeping.

We have your account information backed up and may reinstate you if you show us that you will not be a burden to the project.

edit: If you have any issues with this, please feel free to email me.


The \'Warning\' I received (an HOUR or so LATER) was in EMAIL. and if there was a double post (as I am assuming) then I hardly see how the few seconds (if that, probably have the same time stamp) between the two (surely identical) posts would be enough time to step away from the conversation, load up outlook express or whatever email client I use, log in, check my email, and then notice - \'HEY ! I got an email from project staff I better be a good little boy now. \' If I was just spamming the whole damn forum, I could understand, but so far, you claim only one repetition. In any case, I hardly call the use of E-Mail as a \'warning method\' appropriate for forum moderation.

That\'s akin to the National Weather Service sending out Tornado warnings via the US Post Office. And if you can\'t see the illogic in that argument, god help us all.

If I had received -ANY- response (rather than pure deletion of messages, threads, accounts) believe me, I would not have been posting.

We have your account information backed up and may reinstate you if you show us that you will not be a burden to the project.


Oddly.. I don\'t see how I can promise you that. Your moderators seem to think that -ANY- kind of negative post on the rosetta boards is \'burden\' enough to merit deletion. How am I supposed to contribute if I cannot share my opinions, both positive and negative?

I\'d like to tell you that I have no ill intentions towards this project, but I can\'t see how that would be very honest, as I don\'t think I\'m capable of blindly kissing someones butt day after day, no matter if I disagree or not. Apparrently those are the only threads/posts that don\'t get deleted around there.

If disagreeing and sharing my opinion about it on a forum is a \'burden\' to you, then apparrently I\'m incapable of promising you that, because that\'s not what a forum is supposed to be.

However, if you\'re asking me not to post DAB\'s number and email address (even though the University of Washington has it merely 4 or 5 clicks away from the page you are looking at right now) then fine.. I will restrain myself.
8) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2247)
Posted 27 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:
Aaron may honestly believe that posting public information and calling on thousands of others to act on that information is within his every right... so let\'s encourage him to post his own phone number here. After all, it\'s public information that many who read these board would like to have!


If I was running a project that included LINKS TO MY PHONE NUMBER, that project is not only entitled to that information, but is given express permission to use it.

Take your delusion somewhere else.
9) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2242)
Posted 26 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:
This post was also removed and after he repeated it, his account was deleted.



BULL*&%.

I did NOT repeat the post. NO warning, No NOTHING. If it posted the exact same message twice then it\'s -ONLY- because your server had a hiccup and double posted the damn thing. It is absolutely unconscionable that you would use DELETION for posting publicly available information you can grab from U Of W. Also - Maybe if your german moderator wasn\'t deleting EVERY SINGLE NEGATIVE MESSAGE about the credit system, It wouldn\'t have led to this.

Your moderator over there overstepped his bounds in the first place. We should be able to comment as we feel appropriate regarding systemwide credit changes. IT SEEMS FITTING THAT THE MOD WAS FROM GERMANY, DOESN\'T IT? The general idea of information control over there is appalling. It\'s a shame you\'ve let this fool ruin your \'public\' forum.

Forum is supposed to mean \'an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the open discussion of questions of public interest.\'

NOT - We\'re going to silence anything that sounds negative so that a little less &$%% hits the wall after going through the fan.



Repeatedly posting is bad especially when you\'ve been told not to, it is rosetta board after all not ours. Though still I don\'t get the point of the ban, you can just sign back up.
I had also assumed they had implemented the ban feature (since they updated the boards (or was that only here).


Also.. Wasn\'t a ban. DELETION. Check my boincstats. You will see no Rosetta there. 90,000 for Rosetta, POOF, because I copied and pasted from www.washington.edu

F-ING BAD FORM FOR ROSETTA.
10) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2236)
Posted 26 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:

No, it\'s not.

I have my last Ralph WU in my cache, and when that\'s returned, I\'ll move my Ralph share to uFluids. So this is goodbye from me.

I don\'t expect a personal thank you for my contribution from David Baker, let alone a thank you from him on my teamboard.

Goodbye.




I left rosetta too. 28k credits a month I was giving to Rosetta.. now 0.

I tried vocally to argue against the credit system on the rosetta boards - BOY WAS THAT A MISTAKE.

The german mod deleted my account because I posted David\'s email and the # to wash U (both of which are on his webpage.) SORRY - DIDN\'T KNOW POSTING PUBLIC INFO YOU ARE GIVING FREELY AWAY ANYWAY WAS AGAINST YOUR RULES.

Don\'t expect me to reattach.

I have also removed my endorsement for this project from the International AIDS Conference. It\'s clear that your moderators have lost control of the project for you.
11) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2199)
Posted 21 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:

A user can fake the [edit: claimed credits, not the internal benchmark] by just editing a file just as a user can fake the numbers of decoys generated. The difference is that we can validate the decoys and catch cheaters. Unless we start encrypting data or use redundancy, the system is not going to be fake proof.


No, it\'s not.

I have my last Ralph WU in my cache, and when that\'s returned, I\'ll move my Ralph share to uFluids. So this is goodbye from me.

I don\'t expect a personal thank you for my contribution from David Baker, let alone a thank you from him on my teamboard.

Goodbye.




Forgive me.. I know you\'re having a moment - but I\'m confused, and I need your help to understand things - You\'re leaving because we\'re trying to figure out how to prevent falsification of credit data?
12) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2196)
Posted 20 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:
Unless we start encrypting data ... the system is not going to be fake proof.


You sir, hold all the cards in regards to that.
13) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2176)
Posted 19 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:
But to simply make an effort to encrypt the BOINC figures still apparently penalizes Linux, and allows for other means of modifying the BOINC benchmarks...


K.. I\'ll bite. How? and be specific, because what you are saying is that simply because the code is encrypted it punishes the linux crowd. forgive me if your statement lost me there. As for the second half of your statement, you\'re obviously not getting what I\'m saying, I\'m not talking about BOINC benchmarks.


Since Rosetta is but an application within BOINC... they aren\'t really in control of some of the code you are suggesting be changed. But encryption for the part they do control, the key portions of the .out file, is certainly possible.


C\'mon, use your imagination here. What difference does that make? Is rosetta forbidden to make it\'s own files to send back to the validator / scheduler / some other server? I think not. People, if you want to take the benchmarking out of BOINC\'s hands, we have to start thinking outside the box. The box being - Currently we let the allmighty BOINC handle everything except wiping our butts. YOU DON\'T HAVE TO LET BOINC DO ANYTHING! Period. How many times, and in how many different languages do I have to say it - BOINC only handles these functions as a courtesy for projects. Yes, it makes things easier, but we\'re not talking about something that can be done -within- BOINC are we?



And, as I\'ve expressed before, I believe it would be helpful. Although I\'ll point out that if you encrypt the whole file, then it adds to the mystic and the cynics which come along from time to time and assert that the whole project is a fraud, or that it is a virus that\'s stealing your data or whatever. So, just encrypt a tiny portion of the file, so folks can SEE what\'s being sent and gain further interest and knowledge about the science being done here.


That\'s great if it can be done, but if it makes things too difficult, I wouldn\'t make it that high of a priority. Reasoning:

Those people are either...

1. Delusional.
2. Not downloading the project in EITHER case.
3. Not educated enough to know how to open up the program and know what it\'s doing ANYWAY.
4. Running the project, but like to be forum trolls.

In case of #1 - Non-Issue
In case of #2 - Complete Non-Issue
In case of #3 - Non-Issue
and in case of #4 - I\'m sorry, I don\'t respond to trolls.

Assuming they aren\'t in one of the 4 listed scenarios above, What are you going to lose - 1, maybe 2 conspiracy freaks? Yeah.. Those people seem like real contributors to a DC project.


One thing I would like to add, is that one thing I remember David saying is that he lays awake at night thinking about how to get more members. I can\'t remember where I heard that or where he said it. However - If you change the credit system, you are GOING to upset people, no matter how much more logical useful, or fair the system that you\'re moving to seems. This is why I think it would be best to only fine-tune the existing system, rather than switch to one of a different type. Otherwise, are you prepared to disgruntle your participants? If the switch to BOINC\'s crediting system (remember trying to explain the cobblestone?) was any indication, I can guarantee you - It will disgruntle some of them. I know David definately doesn\'t want to be laying awake at night thinking about why the project lost ~5000 users.
14) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2173)
Posted 19 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:


Would that produce the same benchmark regardless of OS?


I would assume so, yes. However, to get that result it may be only slightly more complicated.

For instance, the linux crowd may get one version of the benchmark, while the windows crowd would obviously get another.

Depending on how complicated the benchmark is, it could be only as difficult as tagging the compiler for your specific OS, or rewriting it as you see fit.

Either way - I only really see 3 maybe 4 OS versions being used currently, it surely couldn\'t be that difficult.
15) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2164)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:
Let\'s try to stay focused in this discussion.
We have already incorporated a simple benchmark in rosetta. But since we don\'t use redundancy people can still be malicious, so we decided not to go that route.


How can you be malicious (easily) if the core application has it\'s own encrypted method of \'benchmarking\', the workunits have their own encrypted tags, and the results are also containing encrypted tags? I\'m assuming that there are parts of the Rosetta Core application that are not available to the GP as source..

If you were to use a code (such as 512bit RSA? 1024-bit RSA enough?) that is (realistically) unhackable, then why do you think people could still alter their benchmarks if you control every step of the process?
16) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2161)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:
Solution : The Rosetta core application should do it\'s own benchmarking, and assign encrypted scoring values inside each workunit. BOINC level scoring systems could be bypassed on a per project basis, or per workunit basis even if you wanted to. The validator could be changed to decrypt these values on the fly, and everyone is happy. Although now that I think about it, you don\'t -have- to give this responsibility to the validator, you could require some background communication from Rosetta core whenever it needs to send in these values. It could send them in to the scheduler if you prefer.


Wow. Good stuff. Where were you for the last 3 months... ?


I\'m very sorry.. I have been busy at work. Unfortunately, I\'m supposed to be working right now, but my passion for this issue is distracting me. :(
17) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2159)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:

I know that it must be easier to simply change a few settings with the scoring algorythms, but believe me the current system works, it\'s merely got a backdoor that needs locking.


That\'s the problem, how do you lock it? Boinc and Rosetta are seperate things. Rosetta has nothing to due with credit calculation other than returning the time it took to complete the WU. Boinc then takes that, does some math based on your benchmarks (or edited benchmarks), and returns the results to the server. Rosetta has to trust the credit claims since the benchmarking part of Boinc is out of its control.

The only way to close the backdoor is to have a new version of Boinc developed and require everyone upgrade to have their credits counted. . . Or get into the business of determining if each seemingly large score is real or inflated.


Didn\'t you read my post? I could have swore you did by your previous reply, but now I think you must have missed it.. In it, I said quite clearly to put this in the hands of the Rosetta core application. Go back and read the last 5-10 posts, it\'ll explain it in it\'s entirety.

You don\'t need BOINC to assign scores. It only does this as a courtesy to facilitate projects. Someone needs to get with David and/or Rom, and ask how you can incorporate benchmarking into the projects core app.
18) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2156)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:
This is a great proposal. If such a system gets developed, my vote would be to use it. That doesn\'t mean we should abandon our current efforts, though.



Well, it\'s disheartening that you feel that you have no other option but to change what I (and many of the creators of BOINC) felt was a much better system back to the old system which we felt wasn\'t as fair, just to make things more fair. Do you see why this would be hard to swallow?

The goal certainly should be to make things more fair, but I just don\'t feel that you should cut off everyone\'s feet simply because some unscrupulous people invented rollerskates. There wasn\'t anything wrong with feet until rollerskates came along - Just make it so there aren\'t any rollerskates.

The Rosetta core application is all in -your- hands, so I guess I just don\'t understand why you couldn\'t program it to perform as you see fit?

I know that it must be easier to simply change a few settings with the scoring algorythms, but believe me the current system works, it\'s merely got a backdoor that needs locking.
19) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2153)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:

Fair is completely the right word as I stated it as a goal as in \"the goal is to be fair.\"


Then, bear with me for a moment. I will type a long explanation of what I think would be far superior.


Problem : The credit system is easy to manipulate because benchmarks can be altered, and tags can be altered as simply as opening a text editor and entering in your own scores.

Question : Assuming you could remove the ability to alter scores from the public\'s hand, would this make the scoring system stronger?

Answer : Assuming that this is possible, the current scoring system would be much more fair than assigning an arbitrary average scoring system. However - since scores can be manipulated, you thought that only giving credit on a per/model basis was the only way to keep scores \'fair\', as it is the only way to assign proof to work. You can\'t cheat if you don\'t have results for your work, and you shouldn\'t have results if you cheat. (but we all know you can, if anyone remembers SETI Classic)

Solution : The Rosetta core application should do it\'s own benchmarking, and assign encrypted scoring values inside each workunit. BOINC level scoring systems could be bypassed on a per project basis, or per workunit basis even if you wanted to. The validator could be changed to decrypt these values on the fly, and everyone is happy. Although now that I think about it, you don\'t -have- to give this responsibility to the validator, you could require some background communication from Rosetta core whenever it needs to send in these values. It could send them in to the scheduler if you prefer.

Why do you feel you need an entirely new system to fix one problem? What are the other problems with the current scoring system? So far I have heard only one, and that is that it can be manipulated by EU/GP
20) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2152)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Aaron Finney
Post:

Fair is completely the right word as I stated it as a goal as in \"the goal is to be fair.\"


Then, bear with me for a moment. I will type a long explanation of what I think would be far superior.


Next 20



©2019 University of Washington
http://www.bakerlab.org