Dpc Responds

welcome to XtremeSystems Bio1ogics :)

you indirectly say we shouldnt accuse ica of cheating if we have no proof, and a few sentences later you point out yourself that its impossible to have proof that somebody cheats, only sengent can tell :P

so is it possible to reload buffers and upload buffered results again?

victor never claimed that the docking time was a prof, just like you pointed out theres no way to have a proof, only sengent can tell, he and others just pointed out that its suspicious, together with other things that are suspicious.
im not really intot his and dont know the details, but thats what ive read and understood of this issue so far :D

why did you ignore the point about ica not replying to victor or offering cooperation with charles b?

Quote:

---

the resultsfile contains the number of candidates crunched and the time the machine took to crunch them

---

how do you know this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

Interesting confession you make here, btw. You could almost call it cheating.



Please do your math. I'll offer you two ways of explanation. First the cumbersome one:
You already had candidates and a average dock time of the "first one". You took a resultfile from a diff machine, which is ofcourse completely unequal to REsubmitting. You just upload a resultfile of a - let's say - offline machine. Of course your dock time will change! if your "first one" had average DT of 15 minutes, and your other one a different average, your new average will change. Write the numbers down and see for yourself.

Easier explanation. In the result file there must be some info for D2OL to produce stats. Besides the science beside it, the resultsfile contains the number of candidates crunched and the time the machine took to crunch them. So the average dock time WITHIN that results file is fixed. So if you would REsubmit that same result file, the ave dock time is not affected.

The thing which confuses you is that multiple result files from different machines uploaded through one node does affect ave dock time. Different machines have different dock times.

I hope I've made myself clear this time. English is not my native language so I'm sometimes struggling for words.

---

It is evident that your line of reasoning did not take into account the facts stated in my post #96 above.

By the way, UC will be sending the resultQueue.dat file used in his experiment to Charles B. for adjustments to the scientific results and statistics, as well as to help decipher ICA_COWS' results.

DDTUNG:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

Thank you for pointing out an error which, when corrected, goes in my favor.

700,000 - 1,000 = 699,000 x 15 = 10,485,000

(365x24x60) - (1,000x15) = 510,600

That gives 10,485,000 - 510,600 = 9,974,400 / 700,000 = 14.249.

I believe that follows your method exactly and is now correct. So your statement that 'The outcome of the math holds for any number.' is fallacious.Q.E.D. :)

DDTUNG:cool:

---

Sigh. Let me put it mildly then for you. Is 14.249 less than 15 minutes?
So you have just shown that a 1,000 candidates is not enough to bring the oh so magical 10 minutes or whatever average docking time.
The general idea is that a single set-back systemclock can influence the average docking time to a shorter time.

So, the outcome of the math, which is that the average docking time decreases, holds for any number. Do it for 2 candidates, or do it for a million, when a percentage of the candidates are run on a set-back systemclock, THE AVERAGE DOCKING TIME WILL DECREASE.
The amount of which varies on the set-back time, the number of candidates and the number of PCs with a wrong systemclock.

So by your own reckoning, the average DT decreases if some candidates are run on a set-back systemclock machine.

Is abstract thinking THAT hard? You call my reasoning fallacious and that I have met my match, and still you keep proving to yourself that average docking time decreases with the principle mentioned.

Shoot, I need another coffee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

It is evident that your line of reasoning did not take into account the facts stated in my post #96 above.

By the way, UC will be sending the resultQueue.dat file used in his experiment to Charles B. for adjustments to the scientific results and statistics, as well as to help decipher ICA_COWS' results.

DDTUNG:cool:

---

Exactly! Thank you for posting this.

Now this is getting fun to read! :clap:

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

It is evident that your line of reasoning did not take into account the facts stated in my post #96 above.

By the way, UC will be sending the resultQueue.dat file used in his experiment to Charles B. for adjustments to the scientific results and statistics, as well as to help decipher ICA_COWS' results.

DDTUNG:cool:

---

True, i did not see #96 before posting. You present them now as being facts, while in #96 you ask a question, so please keep your semantics straight.
Dunno the answer, I'm not ICA.
Rather pointless I figure, because you keep pressing the same point, while I and your own team-mates on this thread show you that ave DT is not telling anything.

So UC will be sending the result file? Oh.
Adjustments to the scientific results shouldn't be necessary, in fact it is a nice double check on the candidates.

It would be good if Charles could provide some clarity.

We keep getting responses from people within the DPC organisation but speaking as if they are individuals. Every time a question is posed that might let some light in on the issue we get a "Dunno the answer, I'm not ICA" or something to that effect. Might it not be better if someone in authority from the DPC or even better, the person/persons within the ICA to comment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

welcome to XtremeSystems Bio1ogics :)

---

Thanx Saaya!

Quote:

---

you indirectly say we shouldnt accuse ica of cheating if we have no proof, and a few sentences later you point out yourself that its impossible to have proof that somebody cheats, only sengent can tell :P

---

err, yes? Your point is?
Why accuse anyone without proof. If you have suspicions, go to the project organization and let them handle it. We have diverse contact persons (project wise and DPC wise) D2OL can contact. Makes perfect sense, right :confused:
If D2OL says cheat, ICA goes. Simple as that.

Quote:

---

so is it possible to reload buffers and upload buffered results again?

---

jup.

Quote:

---

victor never claimed that the docking time was a prof, just like you pointed out theres no way to have a proof, only sengent can tell, he and others just pointed out that its suspicious, together with other things that are suspicious.
im not really intot his and dont know the details, but thats what ive read and understood of this issue so far :D

---

I take it victor = DDTUNG? He was the one "crying foul and attracted the attention of the DC community". He could have decided to make sengent make the call.
I also do not know the details, but was bugged by severe lack of reasoning on this thread.

Quote:

---

why did you ignore the point about ica not replying to victor or offering cooperation with charles b?

---

Didn't have the time yet, had to finish my coffee first ;)
Asked and answered. At least if you mean sending the result files again? There the same ones Charles allready has, so what's the point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

the resultsfile contains the number of candidates crunched and the time the machine took to crunch them

---

Quote:

---

how do you know this?

---

How else would sangent know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

We keep getting responses from people within the DPC organisation but speaking as if they are individuals. Every time a question is posed that might let some light in on the issue we get a "Dunno the answer, I'm not ICA" or something to that effect. Might it not be better if someone in authority from the DPC or even better, the person/persons within the ICA to comment?

---

All people are individuals. :rolleyes:

You also got responses from your own team-mates that aspects of this are plausible. I do have to say that I find your way of speaking very untruthful.

Not every time a question is posed, the answer was "dunno". Scroll through this thread again and see what's left of the "facts".
You have got comments from ICA. I can not help that the answers do not please you.
Spokesperson for DPC iischots has agreed with Entity_Razer to keep out of each others hair (is that an english saying?) and let sengent make the calls. He also stated that evidence can at all time be presented to him at crew@dutchpowercows.org

So i guess I'm somewhat out of line here :shh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

All people are individuals. :rolleyes:

You also got responses from your own team-mates that aspects of this are plausible. I do have to say that I find your way of speaking very untruthful.

Not every time a question is posed, the answer was "dunno". Scroll through this thread again and see what's left of the "facts".
You have got comments from ICA. I can not help that the answers do not please you.
Spokesperson for DPC iischots has agreed with Entity_Razer to keep out of each others hair (is that an english saying?) and let sengent make the calls. He also stated that evidence can at all time be presented to him at crew@dutchpowercows.org

So i guess I'm somewhat out of line here :shh:

---

I agree, I should have worded it better. I was not implying that everything asked was avoided. It appeared to me and still does that the pertinant info was avoided in the first round of posts on this issue and that was my mindset when I wrote that. I apologise to you sir, I was not implying that you specifically were avoiding the issues. It was your comment of"Dunno the answer, I'm not ICA " that prompted my response.

Hello from another DPC member.

As the chosen project representative for D2OL and crew member from the DPC, I want to make a few comments.

I really hope that Charles B. can do something with the resultqueues send by DDTUNG, so we all can close this discussion. Keep in mind that cheating is not tolerated within the DPC. If someone is found cheating :slapass:, they will be removed from the DPC.

As for dockingtime, I have had several nodes with dockingtimes between 12 min. 20 sec. an 13 min. 15 sec. , so I can't see what's so special about the dockingtime from ICA.

Furthermore I want to congratulate you all for reaching the first place, but don't forget to look in your rearviewmirror once in a while, there can allways be a stampede building up behind you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

Sigh. Let me put it mildly then for you. Is 14.249 less than 15 minutes?
So you have just shown that a 1,000 candidates is not enough to bring the oh so magical 10 minutes or whatever average docking time.
The general idea is that a single set-back systemclock can influence the average docking time to a shorter time.

So, the outcome of the math, which is that the average docking time decreases, holds for any number. Do it for 2 candidates, or do it for a million, when a percentage of the candidates are run on a set-back systemclock, THE AVERAGE DOCKING TIME WILL DECREASE.
The amount of which varies on the set-back time, the number of candidates and the number of PCs with a wrong systemclock.

So by your own reckoning, the average DT decreases if some candidates are run on a set-back systemclock machine.

Is abstract thinking THAT hard? You call my reasoning fallacious and that I have met my match, and still you keep proving to yourself that average docking time decreases with the principle mentioned.

Shoot, I need another coffee

---

If you go back and read another previous post of mine, and this time you will have to look for it yourself, I stated that 1 PC with the clock set back one year, for whatever mysterious reason, could not have set back an average DT of 15-20 minutes to 12, or something to that effect. It is interesting, and perhaps it is DPC tradition, for you to start with numbers which would show a HUGE decrease due to one PC. For the benefit of all I will put down the formula as follows:

Total cands docked = 700,000 which is constant
No. of PCs with time set back one year = N
No. of cands crunched on each PC with time set back one year = M

Total DT = [700,000 - (N x M)] x 15 + N x [-(365 x 24 x 60) + (M x 15)]
= (700,000 x 15) - N x (365 x 24 x 60)
Average DT = 15 - N x (365 x 24 x 60) / 700,000
= 15 - (N x 0.750857) which is independent of M

The general formula for multiple PCs with variable time setbacks and cands crunched are derived similarly and will give the same conclusion.

And I must point out that the scenario of PCs with time setbacks affecting the average DT only arises when the time setback occurs in the middle of crunching a candidate, not before, or after.

I am quite capable of abstract thinking, thank you.

DDTUNG:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quatar

Hello from another DPC member.

As the chosen project representative for D2OL and crew member from the DPC, I want to make a few comments.

I really hope that Charles B. can do something with the resultqueues send by DDTUNG, so we all can close this discussion. Keep in mind that cheating is not tolerated within the DPC. If someone is found cheating :slapass:, they will be removed from the DPC.

As for dockingtime, I have had several nodes with dockingtimes between 12 min. 20 sec. an 13 min. 15 sec. , so I can't see what's so special about the dockingtime from ICA.

Furthermore I want to congratulate you all for reaching the first place, but don't forget to look in your rearviewmirror once in a while, there can allways be a stampede building up behind you.

---

The ICA numbers are special because of the fact that they were using 3.0 P4 machines which generally give a much higher average DT.

I appreciate such an unequivolcal statement from a chosen representative of DPC. As I stated before, I also believe that most of your members are honorable. I just have doubts about a few.

Hopefully you can convince them to volunteer more information, if not to us, then to Charles B. directly, so that this dispute can be settle soon.

And we will welcome any serious competition from you. We may be a small forum, but our teams are as dedicated as any.:)

DDTUNG:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

I agree, I should have worded it better. I was not implying that everything asked was avoided. It appeared to me and still does that the pertinant info was avoided in the first round of posts on this issue and that was my mindset when I wrote that. I apologise to you sir, I was not implying that you specifically were avoiding the issues. It was your comment of"Dunno the answer, I'm not ICA " that prompted my response.

---

Thanks for clearing that up, :thumbsup:

Have a beer on me :toast: (don´t you have coffee emoticons?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

err, yes? Your point is?
Why accuse anyone without proof. If you have suspicions, go to the project organization and let them handle it. We have diverse contact persons (project wise and DPC wise) D2OL can contact. Makes perfect sense, right :confused:
If D2OL says cheat, ICA goes. Simple as that.

---

my point is your saying to only accuse people of cheating or ask them for details if you have proof.
1. thats impossible as you pointed out yourself, so in the end your saying dont accuse anybody of cheating... ever... wich sounds like your asking everybody to ignore possible cheaters.
2. if anybody would have proof somebody else was cheating why would he ask that person to post details?

this doesnt make perfect sense :P
you have to admit that the situation looks suspicious, for you not very suspicious i suppose, for people who spend a lot of time on this it looks more suspicious.
and the more time passes with ica and the dpc team captain ignoring this its looking more and more suspicious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

jup.

---

well thats cheating, isnt it?
so its possible to cheat that easily? by just buffering and then using the same file again and again to upload the buffered results?
i thougt you werent even running d2ol, how do you know all those details about how to buffer d2ol etc?

as i said in a pm i sent you, if you are one of the guys from dpc ica please identify yourself, i fully understand if you wanted to stay anonymous so nobody bashes you, because some people are taking this very personal.
but if your somebody from dpc ica or the dpc d2ol team please identify yourself now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

I take it victor = DDTUNG? He was the one "crying foul and attracted the attention of the DC community". He could have decided to make sengent make the call.
I also do not know the details, but was bugged by severe lack of reasoning on this thread.

---

yes, and he did contacted ica and dpc as well, didnt he?
afaik sengent is incredibly understaffed so it makes sense to ask ica and dpc to help clearify the situation to save time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

Didn't have the time yet, had to finish my coffee first ;)
Asked and answered. At least if you mean sending the result files again? There the same ones Charles allready has, so what's the point?

---

why do you know all this if you dont even run d2ol?
and ica didnt make any statements how they buffered cands and why they buffered them like they did.
a simple "it seemed the easiest way for us to do back then/we were used to do it like that" would be ok, but no reply ,no statement sounds suspicious, like they dont want to give any details as it might point towards them cheating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

How else would sangent know?

---

i have no idea... maybe its saved in some other file?
or maybe the file only has a start and end date when d2ol was started and shut down, or when the last update was done to when the next update was done, and then calculates the average docking time of thse sessions and doesnt record the time it took to calculate each candidate?
no idea...
why are you so sure about how sengent knows what the average docking time is, and that its saved in that one file and hopw its saved in the file?
you dont sound like your speculating but as if you knew exactly how it works.

wich surprised me as i have no idea of how it works... and for somebody who doesnt even run d2ol it is even more surprising to know all this ;) :D

hey Quatar, welcome to XtremeSystems :toast:
thx for speaking up here and trying to help :toast:
sorry for some bad words that appearently have been thrown at dpc members from some xs members. you probably know how dedicated some people are about this and how emotional people can get over this, so i dont have to explain it :D
nevertheless its unacceptable that theres an ill will building up between xs and dpc, if anybody on xs or dpc posts something unnacceptable please let me know asap so this doesnt escalate.

there was a dispute between xs and ocau some time ago in another project, and it got really ugly and took me and some other people on both sides a lot of effort to set things sraight again.
im glad the situation between xs and dpc isnt as bad, and i hope xs and dpc can compete in friendship :)
xs and ocau left the fight that happened back then with friendly words and jokes between people from both sides, wich was a good thing to see, i hope the same can be done between xs and dpc :)

maybe we could make a competition between dpc and xs wich team can increase their percentual output in a certain time :D
this would give both our teams a boost and might bring our teams more close in a more friendly competition :)
or we could make a competition in rosetta :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

Thanks for clearing that up, :thumbsup:

Have a beer on me :toast: (don´t you have coffee emoticons?)

---

we do, but it doesnt look very invitational hehehehe :coffee:

good to see you and dave get along and that there are no hard feelings :)
(dave = movieman :D)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

If you go back and read another previous post of mine, and this time you will have to look for it yourself, I stated that 1 PC with the clock set back one year, for whatever mysterious reason, could not have set back an average DT of 15-20 minutes to 12, or something to that effect.

---

you mean this one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

Let's just say for a minute that your theory is possible. Then with 149 other PCS with an average of 15 to 20, and 1 with -16 like yours, the new average becomes 14.89 to 19.89. Nowhere near 12. Are you happy now?

---

#87

Correct. But based upon guessed parameters, like an equal number of cands for all PCs and a clock set-back of 1 year and a single PC with a set/back clock.

Quote:

---

It is interesting, and perhaps it is DPC tradition, for you to start with numbers which would show a HUGE decrease due to one PC. For the benefit of all I will put down the formula as follows:

Total cands docked = 700,000 which is constant
No. of PCs with time set back one year = N
No. of cands crunched on each PC with time set back one year = M

Total DT = [700,000 - (N x M)] x 15 + N x [-(365 x 24 x 60) + (M x 15)]
= (700,000 x 15) - N x (365 x 24 x 60)
Average DT = 15 - N x (365 x 24 x 60) / 700,000
= 15 - (N x 0.750857) which is independent of M

The general formula for multiple PCs with variable time setbacks and cands crunched are derived similarly and will give the same conclusion.

And I must point out that the scenario of PCs with time setbacks affecting the average DT only arises when the time setback occurs in the middle of crunching a candidate, not before, or after.

I am quite capable of abstract thinking, thank you.

DDTUNG:cool:

---

Well, you start to convince me of your abstract thinking. One things still:
- you need another variable for the set-back time. it does not have to be a fixed number

I can still see some other extra´s in your formula, but nevermind, it comes down to:
15 minus something. For the benefit of all, indeed.

A summary of our Math-lesson: A possible way to decrease docking time is setting back the system clock.

The amount of decrease is depending upon several parameters, making even a negative ave DT possible.

[/end lesson]

I see you have a hard time agreeing with this simple math, so maybe it's best i'll let you have the final word on this.

hmm lets see I didnt make a habit of saving resultqeue.dat files ...... so I dont have that file? Why do I need it in the first place we can somehow figure out ICA COWS? You upload them once and then they go away this is how it works. I did buffer one on the axp of them saved it ..... I formatted my drive erasing the node.prp file. When I went to my Athlon 64 I set up a different node the resultqeue.dat from my AXP sat on its desktop for a few months until october when I submitted it on my Athlon 64. There it is in plain english !

When you upload the results it rewrites the file .... right?

Are you referring to the test account? I was talking about someone else who did this .... not me personally. So im not involved in the slightest ...with its results. I didnt mean for it to sound like me personally ..... we all know you can resubmit results thats what i was getting at. So I never cheated even as a test .... I just knew how (which lets face it the cats outta the bag) and that someone has tested it.

I can tell you for sure he isn't from ICA and here (#47 overall) you can see that he is/was doing TSC, which is working exatly the same as d2ol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

my point is your saying to only accuse people of cheating or ask them for details if you have proof.
1. thats impossible as you pointed out yourself, so in the end your saying dont accuse anybody of cheating... ever... wich sounds like your asking everybody to ignore possible cheaters.
2. if anybody would have proof somebody else was cheating why would he ask that person to post details?

---

Err, I'm at a loss here. What I'm trying to get across here is that if you have suspicious about anybody, take it to the project organization.
As much as it is "not done" to cheat, it is equally "not done" to fly off the handle and start accusations left and right, even on forums of other teams (FreeDC)!
Exactly the reason why i even shouldn't be posting here.

Quote:

---

this doesnt make perfect sense :P
you have to admit that the situation looks suspicious, for you not very suspicious i suppose, for people who spend a lot of time on this it looks more suspicious.
and the more time passes with ica and the dpc team captain ignoring this its looking more and more suspicious.

---

I saw Quatar response just op here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

jup

---

Quote:

---

well thats cheating, isnt it?
so its possible to cheat that easily? by just buffering and then using the same file again and again to upload the buffered results?
i thougt you werent even running d2ol, how do you know all those details about how to buffer d2ol etc?

---

Well, I crunched for TSC for a while, same story there with the buffers. (link search for BioLogics).

Quote:

---

as i said in a pm i sent you, if you are one of the guys from dpc ica please identify yourself, i fully understand if you wanted to stay anonymous so nobody bashes you, because some people are taking this very personal.
but if your somebody from dpc ica or the dpc d2ol team please identify yourself now.

---

Oh wait, whatsa PM? Ah i see, hold on.
No, truly not ICA. Been crunching for FaD with the ErasmusMCows. Looking at Rosetta now. (link)

Quote:

---

yes, and he did contacted ica and dpc as well, didnt he?
afaik sengent is incredibly understaffed so it makes sense to ask ica and dpc to help clearify the situation to save time.


why do you know all this if you dont even run d2ol?
and ica didnt make any statements how they buffered cands and why they buffered them like they did.
a simple "it seemed the easiest way for us to do back then/we were used to do it like that" would be ok, but no reply ,no statement sounds suspicious, like they dont want to give any details as it might point towards them cheating.


i have no idea... maybe its saved in some other file?
or maybe the file only has a start and end date when d2ol was started and shut down, or when the last update was done to when the next update was done, and then calculates the average docking time of thse sessions and doesnt record the time it took to calculate each candidate?
no idea...
why are you so sure about how sengent knows what the average docking time is, and that its saved in that one file and hopw its saved in the file?
you dont sound like your speculating but as if you knew exactly how it works.

wich surprised me as i have no idea of how it works... and for somebody who doesnt even run d2ol it is even more surprising to know all this ;) :D

---

Client, options, stats, candidates: All are more or less the same for D2OL and TSC. I crunched about a year for TSC, see first link above.
ICA´s response on the second page, together with additional comments in this thread more or less discussed these points. I also translated a post from DPC forum regarding historical use of this method (#92)

About what is in the results file. Sengent sends work-units out, they get crunched and returned. Sengent doesn´t know if PC are on 24/7, or the %CPU allocated, so it can not know from the difference between the date the candidate was sent and the date they got it back, what the actual crunch time for that candidate was. Logically the only thing they can pull this information from is the uploaded resultfile.

Quote:

---

hey Quatar, welcome to XtremeSystems :toast:
thx for speaking up here and trying to help :toast:
sorry for some bad words that appearently have been thrown at dpc members from some xs members. you probably know how dedicated some people are about this and how emotional people can get over this, so i dont have to explain it :D
nevertheless its unacceptable that theres an ill will building up between xs and dpc, if anybody on xs or dpc posts something unnacceptable please let me know asap so this doesnt escalate.

there was a dispute between xs and ocau some time ago in another project, and it got really ugly and took me and some other people on both sides a lot of effort to set things sraight again.
im glad the situation between xs and dpc isnt as bad, and i hope xs and dpc can compete in friendship :)
xs and ocau left the fight that happened back then with friendly words and jokes between people from both sides, wich was a good thing to see, i hope the same can be done between xs and dpc :)

maybe we could make a competition between dpc and xs wich team can increase their percentual output in a certain time :D
this would give both our teams a boost and might bring our teams more close in a more friendly competition :)
or we could make a competition in rosetta :)


we do, but it doesnt look very invitational hehehehe :coffee:

good to see you and dave get along and that there are no hard feelings :)
(dave = movieman :D)

---

Bio1ogics signing off for a while, laterrrrrrr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff

Now this is getting fun to read! :clap:

;)

---

Depressing... cuz we all know that Sengent won't do crap about it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

you mean this one?

#87

Correct. But based upon guessed parameters, like an equal number of cands for all PCs and a clock set-back of 1 year and a single PC with a set/back clock.




Well, you start to convince me of your abstract thinking. One things still:
- you need another variable for the set-back time. it does not have to be a fixed number

I can still see some other extra´s in your formula, but nevermind, it comes down to:
15 minus something. For the benefit of all, indeed.

A summary of our Math-lesson: A possible way to decrease docking time is setting back the system clock.

The amount of decrease is depending upon several parameters, making even a negative ave DT possible.

[/end lesson]

I see you have a hard time agreeing with this simple math, so maybe it's best i'll let you have the final word on this.

---

I quote myself from the above quote:

The general formula for multiple PCs with variable time setbacks and cands crunched are derived similarly and will give the same conclusion.

Unquote.

It seems to me you have a habit of not reading carefully what other people say or have said in other parts of the thread, then rambling on with your arguments. However I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not ridicule you about it, since English is not your native language. Before you post again on the subject of this thread, kindly reread it carefully.

DDTUNG:cool:

'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

Err, I'm at a loss here. What I'm trying to get across here is that if you have suspicious about anybody, take it to the project organization.
As much as it is "not done" to cheat, it is equally "not done" to fly off the handle and start accusations left and right, even on forums of other teams (FreeDC)!
Exactly the reason why i even shouldn't be posting here.

---

why? you know, or should know, that d2ol is heavily understaffed and that they cant even keep the servers working, so i doubt rthey have the time and efforts to catch some cheaters as long as most of the work still gets done.

and whats wrong with asking somebody about details because the results look suspiscious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodzilla

Depressing... cuz we all know that Sengent won't do crap about it!

---

makes me wanna leave d2ol for good this time...
i was already pretty upset when they didnt reply at all to anybody for weeks...

tsc? hmmm and it can be cheated on that easily as well?
pfff... makes me wonder about those projects all together...
they get a huge amount of free processing power, all they need is to keep the project running and keep the project clients updated and save, and for d2ol they dont seem to be able to accomplish any of this...
where does all the processing power go anyways?
i never heard of any news of what d2ol research has accomplished... in theory they could get paid from big companies to calculate stuff for them through the d2ol client :/

i hope charles or anybody else from d2ol finally shows some effort for the community and will release some more details about d2ol and update the client. but that sounds really unlikely, so im preparing to go for another project :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodzilla

Depressing... cuz we all know that Sengent won't do crap about it!

---

If that turns out to be the case, then I will withdraw my support for D2OL.

DDTUNG:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

True, i did not see #96 before posting. You present them now as being facts, while in #96 you ask a question, so please keep your semantics straight.
Dunno the answer, I'm not ICA.
Rather pointless I figure, because you keep pressing the same point, while I and your own team-mates on this thread show you that ave DT is not telling anything.

So UC will be sending the result file? Oh.
Adjustments to the scientific results shouldn't be necessary, in fact it is a nice double check on the candidates.

It would be good if Charles could provide some clarity.

---

UC doesnt have a file to send I was quoted before I could edit my post and also I didnt get what you guys were saying ... my bad. I thought people were questiong my dock time story. It was 7:00 am eastern no sleep school @ 9:00 am. In reality no one has any answer for the best candidate file ..... I was the first to post about this and I still have not received an plausible explanation?

I still think copying one resultqeue to another node like my case is a lot like resubmitting works but you are returning actual work instead of the same. Id love to see a double check on our candidates 300+ days doing an average over 2000 is how we got to 600,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

I quote myself from the above quote:

The general formula for multiple PCs with variable time setbacks and cands crunched are derived similarly and will give the same conclusion.

Unquote.

It seems to me you have a habit of not reading carefully what other people say or have said in other parts of the thread, then rambling on with your arguments. However I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not ridicule you about it, since English is not your native language. Before you post again on the subject of this thread, kindly reread it carefully.

DDTUNG:cool:

'

---

In contrast of what i earlier stated, THIS will be my final say. I will do so because you keep stating things about me, which are not true and actually apply to yourself.
Furthermore, you don't seem to understand i agreed with you on your outcome.
But for one point:

Quote:

---

Average DT = 15 - N x (365 x 24 x 60) / 700,000
= 15 - (N x 0.750857) which is independent of M

---

the quotient 0.750857 is derived from the number of minutes in one year divided by the number of candidates.
So the Ave DT IS dependant on the set-back time, e.g. set 1 PC back a century and your formula becomes:


Average DT = 15 - N x (100 x 365 x 24 x 60) / 700,000
= 15 - (N x 75.085714) .

N=1 -> ave DT = 15 - 75.085714 = -60.085714


It seems that you rarely get criticized, as can be gathered by your use of words like, "met your match", "infallicious", and "rambling on with your arguments". It's called a discussion DDTUNG. If your arguments or math are criticized, it is common decency to attack the arguments, and not resort to the person questioning your responses.

Quote:

---

Before you post again on the subject of this thread, kindly reread it carefully.

---

Couldn't agree more.

Bio1ogics signing off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

If that turns out to be the case, then I will withdraw my support for D2OL.

DDTUNG:cool:

---

That's pretty much what's happening with our slow and orderly move to Rotetta... it was time for a change anyway! We need new people to roadkill! :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bio1ogics

In contrast of what i earlier stated, THIS will be my final say. I will do so because you keep stating things about me, which are not true and actually apply to yourself.
Furthermore, you don't seem to understand i agreed with you on your outcome.
But for one point:


the quotient 0.750857 is derived from the number of minutes in one year divided by the number of candidates.
So the Ave DT IS dependant on the set-back time, e.g. set 1 PC back a century and your formula becomes:


Average DT = 15 - N x (100 x 365 x 24 x 60) / 700,000
= 15 - (N x 75.085714) .

N=1 -> ave DT = 15 - 75.085714 = -60.085714


It seems that you rarely get criticized, as can be gathered by your use of words like, "met your match", "infallicious", and "rambling on with your arguments". It's called a discussion DDTUNG. If your arguments or math are criticized, it is common decency to attack the arguments, and not resort to the person questioning your responses.



Couldn't agree more.

Bio1ogics signing off

---

victor usually doesnt talk like that, hes just taking this all very serious, and i think he sees your posts as avoiding a clear statement and beating around the bush. i think victor and other people here are getting frustrated of the lack of clear statements and all the beatng around the bush, so please dont take it personal. victors posts are a little harsh, but i think thats understandable considering the work he put into this, and considering you appearently didnt read this thread but posted like you knew it all better.

you miss the point that its highly unlikely that somebody sets a pc back that much in time, or sets a load of pcs back in time... afaik they even have to be set back in time while they are working on a candidate!
this is making it so unlikely that i think we can conclude that its pretty much impossible to happen by accident or coincidental.

we arent debating a formula here, but how likely or unlikely it is that the low average docking time, the low best candidate result, the high output comming out of nowhere etc happened out of a coincidence or as a sideproduct of something else, wich isnt related to manipulating the client.

from what ive seen so far and what i understood victor pointed out that its pretty much impossible that this happened by accident or because somebody was too lazy to change the system time on a couple of machines.

this+using the same node+pulling loads of points out of nowhere+the low best candidate result+replies from ica avoiding a clear statement are all multiplying our suspicions.

i cant come up with any coincidence or situation wich isnt related to manipulating the client and manipulate the output that would explain all those findings. then again, im by no means a d2ol expert and didnt even know what was written in those result files and how you can buffer candidates in files etc...
lets wait a week or two, if we dont get a reply by then im going to leave d2ol and recommend everybody else to do the same.
even if ica didnt cheat, its appearently so easy to cheat even i could do it if i wanted to, and i dont know sht about this.
this is just the cream on top of the cake, barely any support from d2ol, no clear answers about project related questions or no answers at all, steady server troubles... and there is appearently no cheat protection whatsoever and sengent doesnt even seem to care about it.