modred team mailing list archive

[Frederic Koehler <fkfire@xxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Frederic Koehler <fkfire@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Modred] Concept stuff
To: Scott Lawrence <bytbox@xxxxxxxxx>


Network capacity can be protected by batching responses. Normal clients can
save several computations and send one big response (like when exiting) -
this will have similar bandwidth to big computations but avoid the potential
for a really long computation wasting time on a bunch of computers without
being solved.


On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Scott Lawrence <bytbox@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> * Maybe. But that still makes it too easy to gain false credits.
> * Yeah, I'm agreeing with this.  The hub delegates to the servers, and
> the servers delegate to clients.
> * This will overload network capacity, and I don't like it.  We should
> be able to trust clients to make long computations (long=over 30
> seconds).  Maybe clients could give servers hints on how long they'll
> be on?
>
> On 12/28/09, Frederic Koehler <fkfire@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hah, my email died, wow...Wonder what happened to it....
> > Anyway, this is something like what I wrote before:
> >
> > * CPU time credits can be very roughly estimated by averaging response
> time.
> > It's not all _that_ important anyway if nothing is a behemoth task.
> >
> > * The hub can immediately, upon establishing connection, redirect client
> to
> > a server. The server will still have to communicate with hub somewhat,
> but
> > it can only send stuff necessarily pertaining to the hub.
> >
> > * Jobs should probably be many small tasks to avoid the risk of losing a
> > giant computation (since saving computation state is not
> > easy/generalizable). Beyond that, sending keep-alive packets is enough to
> > know when a client dies.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Scott Lawrence <bytbox@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >> What?
> >>
> >> On 12/28/09, Frederic Koehler <fkfire@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Scott Lawrence <bytbox@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "What happens when a client disconnects with unfinished work? Is the
> >> >> work immeditately reassigned, or does the server wait for a specified
> >> >> period, etc. This could come up quite a lot because some clients will
> >> >> just disconnect as soon as work they submitted is completed."
> >> >>
> >> >> Ouch.  Good question.  Here's one solution: small tasks (expected
> time
> >> >> <2 seconds) are always assigned to two or more clients/servers.  If
> >> >> both disconnect, reassign, if one disconnects, use the other guy's
> >> >> answer. Large tasks, if a computer stops regularly checking in every
> 5
> >> >> or so seconds, give that computer's results to date to another
> >> >> computer.  So yeah, I think a client should have to make regular
> >> >> reports to a server.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here's another problem: how do we tell how many CPU time credits to
> >> >> grant a client?  We can't always tell how long a problem should take
> >> >> beforehand.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here's another problem: which computer should handle the clients?  As
> >> >> I've been thinking about this, there are three types of computers,
> the
> >> >> single hub, the various dedicated servers (capable of storing
> >> >> permanent data), and the clients.  (The hub is necessary - without
> it,
> >> >> the performance of the cluster drastically decreases.) So clients
> >> >> connect to the hub, and then the hub directs all computers.  But the
> >> >> hub will get overloaded if 100 computers are checking in every 10
> >> >> seconds to give it more data (and then the hub has to pass this on to
> >> >> other servers for storage, etc...).  So at some point, the hub needs
> >> >> to tell the client to talk to the server.  When?
> >> >>
> >> >> Who wants to create that prototype?
> >> >>
> >> >> On 12/28/09, Scott Lawrence <bytbox@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> > This is where we start building prototypes. However, just to keep
> the
> >> >> > theoretical side going: I disagree about the privacy issue.  Most
> >> >> > operations that would benefit from the CPU time of a cluster
> (notice
> >> >> > I'm not talking about the data storage and reliability benefits,
> >> >> > which
> >> >> > aren't affected by the presence of clients) are not very private.
> >> >> > Rendering nice screensavers ("Electric Sheep", I think that one's
> >> >> > called), and hefty data sifting aren't private - who cares about
> the
> >> >> > screensavers, and the data is generally public anyway (of course if
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > wasn't, it would be marked so).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ray tracing and simulation could be more of an issue.  Hypothetical
> >> >> > situation: Alice is simulating how wind will affect her proprietary
> >> >> > airplane design.  Naturally, she can't hand off the whole design,
> or
> >> >> > even parts of the design, to random client computers.  This is
> where
> >> >> > the windows programmer says, "so the client computers can't help
> >> >> > Alice."  But that's not true - as a bad example, what if the Modred
> >> >> > hub gave to a client computer 80 types of landing gear, and told
> the
> >> >> > computer, not to simulate something, but to solve a general formula
> >> >> > that could later be used in the computation in a trivial and quick
> >> >> > way?  If that client is evil, it will learn that Alice's airplane
> has
> >> >> > some sort of landing gear.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Somebody needs to create a prototype of a server that can create
> >> >> > arbitrary problems in some format, so we can all try to trick it.
>  I
> >> >> > suggest lisp as the language, but it's up to the implementer.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 12/28/09, Scott Lawrence <bytbox@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> >> >> From: Frederic Koehler <fkfire@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:21:28 -0500
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Modred] Concept stuff
> >> >> >> To: Scott Lawrence <bytbox@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  * This is sort-of a solution (while obviously less-than-optimal
> >> >> >> security,
> >> >> >> some grid-computing stuff does this, like BOINC), however, it
> turns
> >> out
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> this may require custom validation methods - for example, it's
> >> >> >> normal
> >> >> for
> >> >> >> floating point values to be different on different computers, and
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> same
> >> >> >> could apply for other computations.
> >> >> >>  * A malicious client would only need to misbehave on certain
> >> problems
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> a malicious user could designate (or recognize obvious fake
> >> programs),
> >> >> >> allowing the fake program test to work.
> >> >> >>     - A better idea would be to randomly reduplicate some
> >> computations
> >> >> >> many
> >> >> >> times - the malicious client wouldn't notice anything, but could
> >> easily
> >> >> >> be
> >> >> >> singled out
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>   * Thirdly is mostly the same thing I wrote before - only
> >> computations
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> are said to be totally unimportant privacy wise could benefit from
> >> >> >> client-side computing.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So I really think that client-side computation is only a good idea
> >> for
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> small subset of problems (like the type that there already exist
> >> >> >> massive
> >> >> >> grid computing solutions for, like SETI@HOME)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Scott Lawrence <
> bytbox@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> I want clients to be used for computation, and I want maximum
> >> >> >>> privacy+security given that restriction.  Some ideas:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> With a large network, two computers can perform the same
> >> computation.
> >> >> >>> Furthermore, a smart modred hub can give fake problems to
> clients,
> >> >> >>> just to make sure that they're operating correctly.  A client
> that
> >> >> >>> isn't operating correctly gets cut. (No second chances! A program
> >> >> >>> could exploit that!)
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> If a user specifies a certain bit of data (SSN, for instance) as
> >> >> >>> highly sensitive, modred should know not to hand off that
> >> computation
> >> >> >>> to a client. (If it does by accident, it certainly should never
> >> >> >>> hand
> >> >> >>> off the data.) privacy++
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> In all cases, computations should be anonymous. privacy++
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Other ideas?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On 12/27/09, Frederic Koehler <fkfire@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > The idea for client-side computation implies that we have
> >> >> >>> > highly-trusted
> >> >> >>> > clients... (we know they won't provide invalid answers)
> >> >> >>> > Otherwise,
> >> >> >>> > client-side computation requires verifying answers and so is
> only
> >> >> >>> > useful
> >> >> >>> for
> >> >> >>> > a few NP-ish problems. In addition (assuming trusted clients).
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Also, it means that, since computations can contain sensitive
> >> data,
> >> >> >>> > the
> >> >> >>> > abillity to spread the computation is limited - unless we know
> >> >> >>> > the
> >> >> >>> > computation is not user-sensitive, it can only try to use the
> >> user's
> >> >> >>> > client(s). This way we also know that the client has no
> interest
> >> in
> >> >> >>> > sabatoging answers to mess with other users (except to exploit
> >> >> >>> server-side
> >> >> >>> > weaknesses, which is inevitable).
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Scott Lawrence <
> >> bytbox@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >> Here is what, as I envision it, will make modred unique (and
> >> hard):
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>  * Support for clients who can come and leave, lending CPU
> time
> >> and
> >> >> >>> >> using CPU time as they choose.  There are some clusters that
> >> >> >>> >> support
> >> >> >>> >> this, but not very many.
> >> >> >>> >>  * Support for computers participating across the internet.
> >> >> >>> >> This
> >> >> >>> >> goes
> >> >> >>> >> along with the previous part, but remember we need security to
> >> make
> >> >> >>> >> this worth anything. This also means that user data could
> >> >> potentially
> >> >> >>> >> be passed to untrusted computers - we need a way to prevent
> >> >> >>> >> this.
> >> >> >>> >>  * The ability for clients to run on any OS, using perl,
> python,
> >> >> >>> >> java,
> >> >> >>> >> or (on unix systems) C and C++ (servers and the hub will need
> to
> >> >> >>> >> run
> >> >> >>> >> on linux or at least another unix, or a dedicated OS which we
> >> >> >>> >> may
> >> >> >>> >> decide to write)
> >> >> >>> >>  * Modred has great ease of use because it acts as a single
> >> unified
> >> >> >>> >> computer - a special client program exists that allows one to
> >> >> >>> >> log
> >> >> in,
> >> >> >>> >> access and edit files, etc...  This is very close to unique -
> >> >> >>> >> google
> >> >> >>> >> has it, though
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> Because of that last point, many OS design issues should come
> up
> >> >> when
> >> >> >>> >> we code modred. (I think Freddy pointed this out?) Thus, we
> have
> >> a
> >> >> >>> >> chance to fix flaws in standard unix, incorporating plan
> 9-type
> >> >> stuff
> >> >> >>> >> (google it and read about it - Plan 9 from Bell Labs, the way
> >> >> >>> >> the
> >> >> >>> >> future of unix was) while also creating an actually usable
> user
> >> >> >>> >> interface. (No offense, but to a newbie non-super-technical
> >> >> >>> >> user,
> >> >> >>> >> linux is a bit harsh...)
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> Some implementation questions and ideas:
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>  - how will updates be handled?  Remember we've got 200
> >> >> >>> >> computers
> >> >> >>> >> potentially, some of which might be clients that want to
> >> >> >>> >> participate
> >> >> >>> >> in multiple clusters.
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>  - maybe we should have programs not include front ends.
> >>  Instead,
> >> >> >>> >> the
> >> >> >>> >> modred software creates a front-end from the program's self
> >> >> >>> >> description.  This would enforce a consistent user interface
> if
> >> we
> >> >> >>> >> could implement it well
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>  - how can we keep users from being able to snoop on each
> >> >> >>> >> others'
> >> >> >>> >> data?
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> That's just a sample to get people thinking.
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> On 12/26/09, David Tolnay <dtolnay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> > Before diving in to specifics about the implementation I
> think
> >> we
> >> >> >>> >> > need
> >> >> >>> >> > to decide how we want modred to be different from (read:
> >> >> >>> >> > better
> >> >> >>> >> > than)
> >> >> >>> >> > existing bootable cluster environments. Here is a short list
> >> >> >>> >> > to
> >> >> >>> >> > check
> >> >> >>> >> > out:
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > Bootable Cluster CD (http://bccd.net/) - folks presented
> this
> >> at
> >> >> >>> >> > SC09
> >> >> >>> >> > in portland, it was pretty neat stuff. Packed with education
> /
> >> >> >>> >> > debugging / visualization features
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > Oscar (http://svn.oscar.openclustergroup.org/trac/oscar) -
> >> very
> >> >> >>> >> > trivially simple way to transform an existing unix lab into
> a
> >> >> >>> >> > cluster
> >> >> >>> >> > resource
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > Lnx-bbc (http://www.lnx-bbc.com/) - includes cowsay!
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > Perceus/warewulf (http://www.perceus.org/portal/) - a lot
> of
> >> >> other
> >> >> >>> >> > sites made reference to this, haven't read too much about it
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > What specifically do you want to improve over any of these?
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > On 12/25/09, Frederic Koehler <fkfire@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> So, as far as I understand this project, the idea is to
> build
> >> >> >>> >> >> both a client library and a program using the library to do
> >> >> >>> clustering
> >> >> >>> >> >> stuff, along with matching server/hub foo (the library
> might
> >> be
> >> >> >>> >> >> the
> >> >> >>> >> >> same
> >> >> >>> >> >> or
> >> >> >>> >> >> whatever, not important).
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> So from this understanding, it seems that the system should
> >> >> >>> >> >> provide
> >> >> >>> >> >> some
> >> >> >>> >> >> basic pseudo-operating system stuff and programs can build
> on
> >> >> >>> >> >> that,
> >> >> >>> >> >> just
> >> >> >>> >> >> like they would normally build on their local libc/kernel
> and
> >> >> >>> >> >> stuff.
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> So (I sure like the word "so" today...) if we want the type
> >> >> >>> >> >> of
> >> >> >>> general
> >> >> >>> >> >> os-like stuff it seems their needs to be support for:
> >> >> >>> >> >>    * A simpe message passing model - abstract away all the
> >> >> >>> >> >> TCP-foo,
> >> >> >>> >>  maybe
> >> >> >>> >> >> use existing foo here (obviously needs fleshing out)
> >> >> >>> >> >>    * Permanent storage IO (clone the unix write(), read(),
> >> >> >>> >> >> open()
> >> >> >>> >> >> and
> >> >> >>> >> >> sync()
> >> >> >>> >> >> model,  or maybe just use one of the existing database-ish
> >> nosql
> >> >> >>> things
> >> >> >>> >> >> out
> >> >> >>> >> >> there)
> >> >> >>> >> >>            - Unix-ish model - you create your data hunk,
> say
> >> you
> >> >> >>> >> >> want
> >> >> >>> >> all
> >> >> >>> >> >> this stuff in it, then after sync() we know it's actually
> >> >> >>> >> >> somewhere
> >> >> >>> >> >> written
> >> >> >>> >> >> on a hard-drive, and other things can read it too
> >> >> >>> >> >>            - Unless this isn't in fact needed (but I assume
> >> >> >>> >> >> it
> >> >> is)
> >> >> >>> >> >>            - Also need to figure out if it's filesystem-ish
> >> foo
> >> >> >>> >> >> (hierarchial) we want or more relational database-ish stuff
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>    * A task delegation model - some type of map/reduce-ish
> >> stuff
> >> >> >>> >> >>           - Servers have a few built-in computations, and
> >> client
> >> >> >>> >> utilizes
> >> >> >>> >> >> them?
> >> >> >>> >> >>           - Or more complex, servers run sandboxed
> >> computational
> >> >> >>> code?
> >> >> >>> >> >>    * A security system?
> >> >> >>> >> >>         - Needs fleshing out
> >> >> >>> >> >>         - Presumably what the "hub" manages - it's the
> >> >> >>> >> >> trusted
> >> >> >>> >> >> thing
> >> >> >>> >> >>         - Obviously, not everybody is allowed to use the
> >> cluster
> >> >> >>> >> >> for
> >> >> >>> >> >> computation, not everybody can find out what everybody else
> >> >> >>> >> >> is
> >> >> >>> >> >> doing,
> >> >> >>> >> etc.
> >> >> >>> >> >>       - But also, is their a limit on storage, are some
> >> >> >>> >> >> things
> >> >> >>> >> prioritized
> >> >> >>> >> >> over others, ?
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> Theroretically, server's are written to provide the io
> >> >> >>> >> >> backend
> >> >> and
> >> >> >>> >> >> to
> >> >> >>> >> >> allow
> >> >> >>> >> >> for task delegation, clients use the api, although hub has
> >> it's
> >> >> >>> >> >> work
> >> >> >>> >> >> cut
> >> >> >>> >> >> out
> >> >> >>> >> >> delegating all the file io and figuring out what the state
> of
> >> >> that
> >> >> >>> is.
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> On top of some mixture of this, one could build a simple
> >> >> >>> >> >> unix-ish
> >> >> >>> >> >> pseudo-cli, theroretically, as well as real software.
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> Anyway, before actually doing anything, people should read
> >> about
> >> >> >>> >> >> PVM
> >> >> >>> >> >> (Parallel Virtual Machine) and the like (maybe also Hadoop
> >> >> >>> >> >> and
> >> >> >>> >> >> other
> >> >> >>> >> >> foo-ish
> >> >> >>> >> >> stuff) so Modred isn't just a bad clone of it
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> Anyway, (yes, twice in a row!), I figured _someone_ had to
> >> >> respond
> >> >> >>> >> >> to
> >> >> >>> >> >> Scott,
> >> >> >>> >> >> otherwise he'd feel all lonely and sad :P Now he can have a
> >> warm
> >> >> >>> fuzzy
> >> >> >>> >> >> feeling of deep confusion and uncertainty instead :P
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Scott Lawrence
> >> >> >>> >> >> <bytbox@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> >> >>> >> >> > From: Scott Lawrence <bytbox@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:20:13 -0500
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Subject: Design Overview
> >> >> >>> >> >> > To: modred <modred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> > I'm going to assume that everyone understands the basic
> >> >> concepts
> >> >> >>> for
> >> >> >>> >> >> > modred: a set of networked computers (by 'networked' I
> >> >> >>> >> >> > mean,
> >> >> >>> they're
> >> >> >>> >> >> > all on the internet), divided for the sake of discussion
> >> into
> >> >> >>> >> >> > three
> >> >> >>> >> >> > classes: the 'hub' (the dude in charge, who compupters
> who
> >> >> >>> >> >> > want
> >> >> >>> >> >> > to
> >> >> >>> >> >> > join connect to), the 'servers' (dedicated computers that
> >> can
> >> >> be
> >> >> >>> >> >> > pretty much relied on not to go down, although redundancy
> >> >> >>> >> >> > is
> >> >> >>> >> >> > always
> >> >> >>> >> >> > nice), and the 'clients' (computers that send in requests
> >> and
> >> >> >>> >> >> > can
> >> >> >>> be
> >> >> >>> >> >> > used for spare CPU cycles.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Ok, so much for assumptions... :-)
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Things *I* think any design should emphasize:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >  * security.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >  * relative ease of use, while retaining significant
> power.
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Challenging.  In particular, it should be possible to set
> >> >> >>> >> >> > up
> >> a
> >> >> >>> modred
> >> >> >>> >> >> > network in under an hour, provided the computers are
> >> >> >>> >> >> > already
> >> >> set
> >> >> >>> up.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >  * along with the previous bullet point, having an
> >> >> >>> >> >> > interface
> >> >> >>> >> >> > that
> >> >> >>> >> >> > lets
> >> >> >>> >> >> > one use the entire network like a single computer.  This
> is
> >> >> sort
> >> >> >>> >> >> > of
> >> >> >>> >> >> > like the way google docs works, except the cloud is
> private
> >> >> >>> >> >> >  * therefore, it should be a multi-user system with
> >> >> >>> >> >> > well-designed
> >> >> >>> >> >> > privileges etc...
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> > I'm not going to discuss my implementation ideas, let's
> >> >> >>> >> >> > hear
> >> >> >>> >> >> > others
> >> >> >>> >> >> > first.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> > --
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Scott Lawrence
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Webmaster
> >> >> >>> >> >> > The Blair Robot Project
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Montgomery Blair High School
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> > --
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Scott Lawrence
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Webmaster
> >> >> >>> >> >> > The Blair Robot Project
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Montgomery Blair High School
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >>> >> >>  Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~modred
> >> >> >>> >> >>  Post to     : modred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >>> >> >>  Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~modred
> >> >> >>> >> >>  More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> >>> >> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~modred
> >> >> >>> >> > Post to     : modred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >>> >> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~modred
> >> >> >>> >> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> --
> >> >> >>> >> Scott Lawrence
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> Webmaster
> >> >> >>> >> The Blair Robot Project
> >> >> >>> >> Montgomery Blair High School
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >>> >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~modred
> >> >> >>> >> Post to     : modred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >>> >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~modred
> >> >> >>> >> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> --
> >> >> >>> Scott Lawrence
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Webmaster
> >> >> >>> The Blair Robot Project
> >> >> >>> Montgomery Blair High School
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Scott Lawrence
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Webmaster
> >> >> >> The Blair Robot Project
> >> >> >> Montgomery Blair High School
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Scott Lawrence
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Webmaster
> >> >> > The Blair Robot Project
> >> >> > Montgomery Blair High School
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Scott Lawrence
> >> >>
> >> >> Webmaster
> >> >> The Blair Robot Project
> >> >> Montgomery Blair High School
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~modred
> >> >> Post to     : modred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~modred
> >> >> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Scott Lawrence
> >>
> >> Webmaster
> >> The Blair Robot Project
> >> Montgomery Blair High School
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Scott Lawrence
>
> Webmaster
> The Blair Robot Project
> Montgomery Blair High School
>