I did not write the below message and post it here because it is interesting.
---------------------------------------------
A message was posted to alt.sci.seti pointing to an article in "Wired"
magazine http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,41838,00.html .
The poster included these quotes from the article:
"Cheating to be top ET searcher on Seti@home may be more widespread than
previously believed."
and
David Anderson (the director of SETI@home) as saying "Fifty percent of the
project's
resources have been spent dealing with security problems"
Well, I read the article, then checked some facts, and posted this reply:
Sounds like a quote from someone trying to protect his turf, a projected
commercial distributed computing enterprise. Here's another line from the
article:
"As well as heading up Seti@home, Anderson is the CTO of United Devices, a
startup planning to turn a profit from distributed computing."
If you go to the United Devices page
http://www.uniteddevices.com/about/management.htm there's Anderson.
I think I am going to beef up MY security to make sure United Devices does
not slip in a few for-profit work units. In fact, the whole idea is so
damaging to SETI@home, Anderson should either be severed or SETI@home will
lose all credibility, not from the outside, but from within.
There has definitely been a lack of full disclosure, and in my opinion,
Anderson shows the ethics of a round worm. His lack of honesty places him
several rungs lower than "Ollie" and the recent fakers. It is also
disappointing that the members of the SETI@home team who have put in so much
work on the project and posted so often to this newsgroup have participated
in the cover-up. UCB's reputation is tarred with the same brush.
"It's the economy, stupid, not the science." So it was competition first,
all along. We were just naive to believe that it was the little guys who
were putting science second. I wonder how the sponsors feel about their
contributions to a start-up company? Let's see; there's
The Planetary Society at http://www.planetary.org/
The University of California Digital Media Innovation Program at
http://www.dimi.ucsb.edu/
Sun Microsystems at http://www.sun.com/
Friends of SETI@home at http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/donor.html
Paramount Pictures at http://www.paramount.com/
FujiFilm Computer Products at http://www.fujifilmmediasource.com/
IBM Developer Works at http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/
Quantum Corporation at http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/
Critical Path at http://www.cp.net/
The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. at http://www.cp.net/
Informix at http://www.informix.com/
space.com at http://www.space.com/
Intel at http://www.intel.com/
Crystal Group, Inc. at http://www.intel.com/
Engineering Design Team at http://www.edt.com/
O'Reilly & Associates at http://www.oreilly.com/
The Seti Institute at http://www.seti-inst.edu/
MemEcom, now Totality at http://www.totality.com/1024Flash/home.html
Polycom at http://www.polycom.com/
DLH Industries, Inc. at http://www.dlh-inc.com/
Space Sounds at http://216.156.129.123/ .
Phil Weldon, pweldon@mindspring.com
---------------------------------------------
A message was posted to alt.sci.seti pointing to an article in "Wired"
magazine http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,41838,00.html .
The poster included these quotes from the article:
"Cheating to be top ET searcher on Seti@home may be more widespread than
previously believed."
and
David Anderson (the director of SETI@home) as saying "Fifty percent of the
project's
resources have been spent dealing with security problems"
Well, I read the article, then checked some facts, and posted this reply:
Sounds like a quote from someone trying to protect his turf, a projected
commercial distributed computing enterprise. Here's another line from the
article:
"As well as heading up Seti@home, Anderson is the CTO of United Devices, a
startup planning to turn a profit from distributed computing."
If you go to the United Devices page
http://www.uniteddevices.com/about/management.htm there's Anderson.
I think I am going to beef up MY security to make sure United Devices does
not slip in a few for-profit work units. In fact, the whole idea is so
damaging to SETI@home, Anderson should either be severed or SETI@home will
lose all credibility, not from the outside, but from within.
There has definitely been a lack of full disclosure, and in my opinion,
Anderson shows the ethics of a round worm. His lack of honesty places him
several rungs lower than "Ollie" and the recent fakers. It is also
disappointing that the members of the SETI@home team who have put in so much
work on the project and posted so often to this newsgroup have participated
in the cover-up. UCB's reputation is tarred with the same brush.
"It's the economy, stupid, not the science." So it was competition first,
all along. We were just naive to believe that it was the little guys who
were putting science second. I wonder how the sponsors feel about their
contributions to a start-up company? Let's see; there's
The Planetary Society at http://www.planetary.org/
The University of California Digital Media Innovation Program at
http://www.dimi.ucsb.edu/
Sun Microsystems at http://www.sun.com/
Friends of SETI@home at http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/donor.html
Paramount Pictures at http://www.paramount.com/
FujiFilm Computer Products at http://www.fujifilmmediasource.com/
IBM Developer Works at http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/
Quantum Corporation at http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/
Critical Path at http://www.cp.net/
The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. at http://www.cp.net/
Informix at http://www.informix.com/
space.com at http://www.space.com/
Intel at http://www.intel.com/
Crystal Group, Inc. at http://www.intel.com/
Engineering Design Team at http://www.edt.com/
O'Reilly & Associates at http://www.oreilly.com/
The Seti Institute at http://www.seti-inst.edu/
MemEcom, now Totality at http://www.totality.com/1024Flash/home.html
Polycom at http://www.polycom.com/
DLH Industries, Inc. at http://www.dlh-inc.com/
Space Sounds at http://216.156.129.123/ .
Phil Weldon, pweldon@mindspring.com
Comment