"As an educational institution we do not support the search for E.T."

EpyonXero · 12-02-2009, 05:36 PM

http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/02/c...ng-seti-as-an/

Quote:

We've dealt with a number of confused and outright foolish school administrators in our time, but it seems like Arizona's Higley Unified School District might be run by the most bonkers of the bunch: they've fired IT director Brad Niesluchowski for running SETI@Home on some 5,000 of the district's machines. Why? According to confidently-underinformed superintendent Denise Birdwell, Higley Unified "certainly would have supported cancer research," but does "not support the search for E.T." Well, that's just peachy -- except that her flippant dismissal of SETI belies a complete ignorance of one of the oldest and most respected distributed-computing projects in the world, and what it's actually looking for. Oh, but it gets worse: Birdwell thinks SETI@home -- which primarily runs as a screensaver -- was somehow slowing down "educational programs in every classroom," and magically estimates that it's cost her district "$1 million in added utility fees and replacement parts," with a further huge cost required to remove the software. Completing her transformation into the worst-possible stereotype of a school district superintendent, Birdwell's even got the local cops on the case. Yeah, it's idiotic, but it could be worse -- we can only imagine the hell that would have broken loose had Higley's machines been a part of the renegade Engadget Folding@home team.
Fox 5 Vegas
71Leave A CommentShareRead Here* required

DIGGTWITTERREDDITFACEBOOKYAHOOSTUMBLE UPON

Particle Man · 12-04-2009, 11:09 AM

Okay, this:

Quote:

somehow slowing down "educational programs in every classroom," and magically estimates that it's cost her district "$1 million in added utility fees and replacement parts," with a further huge cost required to remove the software

is dumb... however, if he violated the school's IT policy by running unapproved software and got terminated as a result, then fine... but just freakin' say that if that's what happened.

Typical sensationalist bullshit.

azoomm · 12-04-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Particle Man

Okay, this: is dumb... however, if he violated the school's IT policy by running unapproved software and got terminated as a result, then fine... but just freakin' say that if that's what happened.

Typical sensationalist bullshit.

Did y'all read the part where he had permission from the previous administration 10 YEARS ago?

Dave · 12-04-2009, 01:21 PM

jesus christ what a moron. Coincidentaly i was running folding@home last night

Papa_Complex · 12-04-2009, 01:30 PM

While Ms. Birdwell sounds rather technologically uneducated, bandwidth does cost money.

pdog · 12-04-2009, 01:42 PM

Bandwidth is not the main cost, it's running the CPUs at 100% for most of the day. A modern CPU at idle might consume 60 watts but at 100% take 160 watts. That 100w difference times 5000 machines makes for a big jump in the electricity bill. At 10c per kW/hr, that's $50/hr. If they were running 20 hrs a day, he was costing the district $1000/day.

goof2 · 12-04-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdog

Bandwidth is not the main cost, it's running the CPUs at 100% for most of the day. A modern CPU at idle might consume 60 watts but at 100% take 160 watts. That 100w difference times 5000 machines makes for a big jump in the electricity bill. At 10c per kW/hr, that's $50/hr. If they were running 20 hrs a day, he was costing the district $1000/day.

I don't know how they work it so this is just speculation, but it makes an even larger difference if the computers were running all night vs. being shut down or hibernating when students aren't there.

Papa_Complex · 12-04-2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdog

Bandwidth is not the main cost, it's running the CPUs at 100% for most of the day. A modern CPU at idle might consume 60 watts but at 100% take 160 watts. That 100w difference times 5000 machines makes for a big jump in the electricity bill. At 10c per kW/hr, that's $50/hr. If they were running 20 hrs a day, he was costing the district $1000/day.

I didn't even want to mention that possibility, as we then get into things like suspend and hibernation, which some places don't know enough to use.

12-04-2009, 01:30 PM	#5
Papa_Complex Nomadic Tribesman Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Brampton, Canada Moto: '09 ER-6n Posts: 11,150	While Ms. Birdwell sounds rather technologically uneducated, bandwidth does cost money. __________________ "Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge, "Dorkness Rising" http://www.morallyambiguous.net/

12-04-2009, 01:21 PM	#4
Dave Chaotic Neutral Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Cherry Hill NJ Moto: GV1200 Madura, Hawk gt Posts: 13,992	jesus christ what a moron. Coincidentaly i was running folding@home last night

12-04-2009, 01:42 PM	#6
pdog Refugee Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: San Francisco, CA Moto: Pimped 2005 SV650 Posts: 332	Bandwidth is not the main cost, it's running the CPUs at 100% for most of the day. A modern CPU at idle might consume 60 watts but at 100% take 160 watts. That 100w difference times 5000 machines makes for a big jump in the electricity bill. At 10c per kW/hr, that's $50/hr. If they were running 20 hrs a day, he was costing the district $1000/day.