[FMO] Re: Stardust@home experiences
- From: standcmr@xxxxxxx
- To: fmo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:50:41 -0400
Only about 25 images reviewed here, so far, with one trail found in the "real"
images. :)
On the "definitions" page
(http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/definitions.php), the definition of
"Number of Agreements" strongly implies that each image will be reviewed by
multiple folks.
For most of the day, I've either been unable to connect to the server or the
page "Due to the unexpected large volume of traffic, our website might be slow
or non-responsive. If you are receiving this message, please try again at a
later time." is displayed. Dunno if they are saying that the server is shut or
if it is being throttled down by limiting number of logins.
Two Questions about focus:
1, At times the focus control seems slow to respond ... is this common? Or
should I be looking to update my Java?
2. One image appeared to have focus on surface at almost the bottom of the
focus bar, allowing none of the "below surface" detail to be viewed. I marked
it with the "bad focus" button. Anybody have better idea on that?
Stan
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT.D.MATSON@xxxxxxxx
To: fmo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 8:33 PM
Subject: [FMO] Re: Stardust@home experiences
Hi Dave,
> I just passed my 100th actual movie when I got bumped, but on my 99th movie,
> I found a trail in the live data.
Wow, that's encouraging! Perhaps the odds of finding a trail aren't quite as
bad as they theorized! (Either that, or you were extraordinarily lucky!)
> Now I don't know if I'm the first to have seen it or not (it is noted in my
> list of
> submissions and was reviewed by 2 people), but I was excited nonetheless.
Guess that answers the question of whether images are uniquely reviewed by
people, or whether there is some redundancy built in. Redundancy is wise;
after all, they'll have far more volunteers looking than are required by the
throughput of the data collection.
> I also got one of the inserted images - it looks like an old cruise ship
> (similar
> to Titanic), but is severely pixelated, like it was enlarged from a very
> small
> image.
Good -- at least I'm not alone. Subliminal advertising? ;-) --R
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM.
All on demand. Always Free.
Other related posts:
