1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14197)
Posted 27 Jun 2006 by David Lahr Post:
No, it isn't. {quote] No one has presented any evidence that the PROJECT would advance any faster. {/quote] Yes, they have.
Yes, they will.
The above statement is an unproven assertion.
please, say it again, I didn't hear it the first 300 times. |
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14191)
Posted 26 Jun 2006 by David Lahr Post:
See, here's the funny thing. You guys miss the entire point of the criticism. Yes, you're not violating any rules. Yes, we know if the admins wanted faster turna round, they'd change the settings. In fact, you can repeat it some more if it makes you feel better. But it won't change the fact that you're deliberately doing something which *slows* down the project, all so you can be greedy, and get a better score. You're putting your score ahead of the welfare of the project. But please, remind me again about how the admins can change the settings if they needed the results faster. It's what makes *you* feel better, right? |
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14055)
Posted 19 Jun 2006 by David Lahr Post: Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs. Greed is listed as one of the Catholic seven deadly sins, usually by the synonym of avarice. or in this case, a deluded view that exaggerates the positive aspects of a 'score'. |
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 14010)
Posted 16 Jun 2006 by David Lahr Post: wouldent it make sense to you that it would take that same 20 units the same time it took you to do 1 unit if they were done by 20 people instead? No, I think you've got it wrong. Everyone needs to keep their cache as large as possible. Then the hogs will start to cry when they're sitting with no work, and there is none available, but other people are still happily crunching away. Then, once they see the light (e.g. how selfish their behavior is), we can all agree to act intelligently and reasonably again. |
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 13954)
Posted 12 Jun 2006 by David Lahr Post: The way I see it, there's a way to "exploit" the system to make sure you get a lions share of the work. However, this wasn't kept a secret, so if anyone wants to they can - hence there's no secret advantage being used against people. As someone said, if LHC want's results returned faster, they can modify the BOINC server settings, so no worries there. I think the motive for doing it is stupid (e.g. "it's more important for me to score points than for the work to be shared and completed faster") but now that the secret is out, the best way to get back at the originators is to do the same yourself. Then they won't be getting a tactical advantage. And if the problem gets severe enough, LHC will do something about it, and we'll all be back on the level playing field. |
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I think we should restrict work units
(Message 13898)
Posted 8 Jun 2006 by David Lahr Post: Well, I'm sold, consider my cache increased to maximum size! |
7)
Message boards :
LHC@home Science :
ADMIN : What about a negatively charged strangelet?
(Message 12681)
Posted 8 Feb 2006 by David Lahr Post: I've this before myself. I love junk science arguments that are full of non-sequitars. Let me break that paragraph up into numbered sentences: 1. Strange quark matter in this range is still large enough to be treated as a Fermi gas, but small enough that effects relating to its finite size must be considered. 2. The radius of such a strangelet is approximately 200 fm, which is less than the Compton wavelength of an electron. 3. Unlike bulk strange matter, electrons will not be found within strangelets, but will be found `orbiting' the strangelet as in an atom. 4. As a result, coulomb forces within the strangelet may no longer be neglected. In addition, surface effects must also be considered. Sentence 1, first half: It's large enough to be treated as a fermi gas? A fermi gas is a statistical mechanics concept. I've encountered it studying solid state physics. If you assume a collection of electrons are "free" (like gas molecules) but still obey fermi-dirac statistics, you have a fermi gas. It's useful for understanding what happens in conduction in solids, especially good conductors like metals, where in fact to a good approximation the electrons are pretty free to move around. Soooooo...I don't see how particle "size" has anything to do with qualifying for being treated as a fermi gas. The 2 requirements are a) the partilcles are fermions and b) they are free to move about like a gas. Sentence 1, second half: Small enough that it must be treated as a particle? That's exactly the opposite conclusion that is drawn from every quantum mechanical and statisitical mechanical lecture, book, paper I've ever read. If you're studying a system at a certain distance/energy scale, and something is "small" on that scale, then you usually make the approximation that instead of being particles, you have a continuum. So saying that b/c its very small we need to treat it as a particle defies logic! Sentence 2: the compton wavelength of the electron is 2.43 pm, or 2,430 fm. (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/quantum/compton.html) It's not the wavelength of an electron! That is given by the de-broglie equation h/p (h is planck's constant, p is momentum). But I digress...this has nothing whatsoever to do with sentence 1. I could make a wild guess that this is being used to justify sentence 3...but that's all it would be, as the author offers no justification or proof. Sentence 3: According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranglet), bulk strange matter is hypothesized to exist in ultra dense neutron stars. The idea is basically that the nuclei of the neutron star have fused so that the individual quarks of each nuclei are now bonded to each other, forming one extremely massive nuclei. This is probably what the author meant by "bulk" strange matter, and in this case, the author is "correct" in stating that the electrons do permeate to the interior of this giant nuclei (this is the hypothesis - wheter any of it is correct remains to be determined). So in effect, a strangelet is a small chunk of this type of matter. But because it is small doesn't necessarily mean that the electron won't penetrate into it. And they certainly won't "orbit" it - they don't do orbits, that's the old Bohr model. Sentence 4: Well, generally coulomb forces are neglected when talking about nuclei, b/c the strong nuclear force is so much, well, stronger, that they can be neglected. And in that case there certainly isn't any negative charge *from electrons* to be dealt with. So, if we beleive sentence 3 from the author, how is the situation any different than a regular atom? And then why are we worrying about coulomb repulsion? |
©2024 CERN