Slashdot Mirror


SETI@Home Publishes Skymap

An anonymous reader writes "The skymap of where in the night sky to find the most promising SETI@Home signals is reported today, along with the research plan for the March Stellar Countdown project. The dedicated use of the Arecibo Telescope to revisit these spikes, pulses, and steady signals, focused on 166 star candidates. Those 166 were pruned from the five billion signals that have been found since 1999, depending on the signal's persistence, closeness to a known star, and frequency. The next step is particularly fascinating, if a signal appears to have increased since the first observation put that star on the checklist."

317 comments

  1. Should we be concerned... by bc90021 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...that even alien signals so nicely fit a bell curve? Does this mean the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence will be largely disappointing? ;)

    1. Re:Should we be concerned... by gfody · · Score: 1

      the signals are not sent that way, its a side effect of the scanning beam.

      --

      bite my glorious golden ass.
    2. Re:Should we be concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as they would, when they find us...

    3. Re:Should we be concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd like to point out that it's the green/orange squares that are candidate systems. The blue bell curve is the Milky Way distorted because it's an inverse sphere laid onto a square.

    4. Re:Should we be concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      actually the "bell curve" effect is the effect of the "plane" of the milky way intersecting with a cylinder (distorted on either end in this projection). The cylinder is "unwrapped" , thus the plane appears as a sinusoid due to the intersection angle of the galactic plane.

      It is also interesting that the radio telscope can only tract objects in a band across the sky, due to physical limitations of a ground based radio telescope. This "can" mean that there are as many as ~4 times as many potential signals out there (since they don't line up with the galactic plane we can assume they are nearby star systems which are scattered about the plane).

    5. Re:Should we be concerned... by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ha ha ha. Nobody but me gets the joke, so here's the answer: Only if they're black.

      I'm gonna get modded a troll for this, but it was so worth it. Good reference, bc90021.

    6. Re:Should we be concerned... by ipsuid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      uhh... no.

      The Arecibo radio telescope is a fixed dish, which rotates along with the Earth. As the beam of the dish passes a constant power signal source in the sky, the power of the received signal will increase, peak, and decrease following a gaussian profile.

      You are correct in the limitations of the dish, however. By pointing the detectors at different places on the dish, the beam can be moved in relation to the plane of the Earth's rotation. The Seti@Home equipment at Arecibo is capable of tracking +1 to +35 degrees declination, and has a beam width of 0.1 degrees. Thus it is only able to see 28% of the sky.

      Seti@Home Whitepaper

      --
      It appears Ockham lost his razor and grew a beard.
    7. Re:Should we be concerned... by bc90021 · · Score: 1

      I'd like to point out that I was joking. Hence the ";)" at the end.

    8. Re:Should we be concerned... by bc90021 · · Score: 1

      It's called a "joke". Geez, I've never seen so many people not get a joke before. The shape of the Milky Way was just too good an opportunity to pass up, and only one person seems to have gotten the joke, and it turns out he was a troll...

    9. Re:Should we be concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is "4 Interesting" exactly HOW?
      Moderators, listen up dammit. It's no wonder scientists are looking elsewhere for intelligent life. The only other intelligent life they can find, have been found. And you, Mr/Miss Moderator, is not one of them.

    10. Re:Should we be concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a joke falls in the middle of slashdot, and noone is there to understand it, was it really funny?

    11. Re:Should we be concerned... by icewitch · · Score: 1

      Where's Dr Who when we need him?

      --
      bored and underpaid
  2. "Star candidates"? by AntiOrganic · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds more like it's involved with a new crap reality show than SETI@Home.

    1. Re:"Star candidates"? by mbadolato · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or combine them! Each week we get to vote a new race out of the universe, and at the end, the final two races get married.

      And here's the surprise: the newlywed alien couple will have Disaster Area play at their wedding, and be given their own Heart of Gold Spaceship as a wedding present!!

    2. Re:"Star candidates"? by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1

      Disaster Area? Hell no! They get Al Gore's Tony-nominated karaoke rendition of "Born to Run."

    3. Re:"Star candidates"? by pizen · · Score: 1

      the newlywed alien couple will have Disaster Area play at their wedding

      It would probably be best if Disaster Area played on a neighboring planet to the wedding. Sure the grandmother of the bride can take out her hearing aids and not care but everyone else is probably going to find it hard to dance to.

    4. Re:"Star candidates"? by Azethoth666 · · Score: 1

      Now if the wedding is broadcast at the same time that Disaster Area is "broadcasting" (using the term loosely) from a neighbouring planet, how far away can SETI be and still detect the signal?

    5. Re:"Star candidates"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and Slartibarfast would be the obligatory Best Man

    6. Re:"Star candidates"? by coolgeek · · Score: 1

      We'd probably get voted out the first week.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
  3. out of money by X00M · · Score: 0, Funny

    I thought that seti@home went bankrupt awhile back...? Maybe not x00m

    1. Re:out of money by SKPhoton · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think they were doing pretty bad for a while but later secured more funding and now they're alright.

  4. Proximity to a star? by anthonyrcalgary · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How can they be sure aliens will live close to a star?

    --
    When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
    1. Re:Proximity to a star? by anakin357 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The likelyhood of aliens living near a star is probably based on the idea that most lifeforms are somewhat similar to ourselves, and need light/heat from a star to survive.

      --
      If we find aliens I hope they like beer.

      --
      http://www.fsckin.com/
    2. Re:Proximity to a star? by AntiOrganic · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would have to be some form of heat source, capable of producing an immense form of heat. And since Richard Simmons in spandex would take years to get that far, stars will have to do.

    3. Re:Proximity to a star? by Ptahian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because it's more likely than aliens living in the nothingness between stars (a vacuum near absolute zero where atoms per square mile are counted on one hand). Just my guess.

      It's not impossible for something we're only guessing about in the first place, but unlikely given what we believe to be true.

      -ptah

    4. Re:Proximity to a star? by anthonyrcalgary · · Score: 1

      That doesn't work if the aliens are traveling to other stars.

      --
      When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
    5. Re:Proximity to a star? by MuParadigm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They're assuming that any species capable of producing a radio signal has evolved on in an environment capable of providing the tools to do so. That pretty much leaves: planets.

      Planets, as far our theories go, are generally formed during the creation of stars and seem to generally be captured in orbit around stars. (Of course, I doubt anyone has made a wide search for planets not close to stars.)

      Thus, to look for life, look near stars.

    6. Re:Proximity to a star? by Exitthree · · Score: 1

      Did you just say Richard Simmons is hot? Anything else you'd like to share with us? ;)

    7. Re:Proximity to a star? by AceCaseOR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well... we're far more likely to find an extra-terrestrial settlement on a planet where it'll still be there (in theory) each time we check, then trying to look for the Battlestar Galactica or the Katana Fleet or whatever.

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    8. Re:Proximity to a star? by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

      My apologies, I ment to reply to anthonyrcalgary. Mia Culpa.

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    9. Re:Proximity to a star? by pizen · · Score: 1

      or the Katana Fleet or whatever

      Whoa! Too obscure of a Star Wars reference for this hour of the morning. Wait, I'm just confirming my dorkiness...crap.

    10. Re:Proximity to a star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who randomly bring up "Richard Simmons in spandex" in unrelated conversations need therapy.

    11. Re:Proximity to a star? by CSharpMinor · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to nit-pick, but I think atoms per square mile on Earth can be counted on one hand.

      Unless you're counting their electron shells. That might change things.

      OK, so I do mean to nit-pick.

      --

      Whatever it is I'm complaining about, I'm sure the Republicans did it. This is /., after all.
    12. Re:Proximity to a star? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Informative
      As long as we're nit-picking, interstellar space does typically contain about 1 atom per cubic cm. I guess if you took a sheet of space about 1 square mile in size and about 1 angstrom unit thick, you'd get a single-digit number of atoms.

      However, to be more consistent with popular media science measurement systems, we would more correctly say that a sheet of interstellar space the size of a football field and the thickness of a human hair would contain about 3000 atoms.

    13. Re:Proximity to a star? by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      How can they be sure aliens will live close to a star?

      The assumption is that you'd have a much better chance of finding aliens around a star. This seems reasonable since one might expect aliens to be made out of matter and live in areas where there were copius quantities of matter. The other inescapable truth is that you need some place to look and stars represent a barely finite set of possible locations whereas "not stars" doesn't.

    14. Re:Proximity to a star? by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, it could be argued that Zahn's books are far better than the last two movies that Lucas has made...

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    15. Re:Proximity to a star? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      That may well be true (I don't know, since I haven't read them), but that doesn't make them any less obscure.

    16. Re:Proximity to a star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? No one's arguing. Zahn's Star Wars books are *hands down* far better than the last two Star Wars movies. There is no comparison.

      His books are IMHO the best Star Wars books ever written.

    17. Re:Proximity to a star? by Grail · · Score: 1

      I would have thought that the emergency beacons of ships lost in the ether between planets when their skip-drives failed would have counted as more interesting listening than the planet-bound commercial radio.

      But that's just me.

    18. Re:Proximity to a star? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative
      The Drake equation computes the number of theoretical civilizations we can possibly contact. The first two factors are heavily dependent on proximity to stars.

      R* is the rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life. These stars are neither too hot (too close) nor too cold (too far) for life to form. This happy middle ground is also known as the Goldilocks zone.

      Fp is the fraction of those stars with planets. Planets normally form only around stars. Some solar system have no planets and hence very little chance of having life as we know it.

      All life is dependent on energy is some form or another. For most life on this planet, that energy is the sun in the forms of light and heat. While other forms of energy have been found to sustain life like chemosynthesis in the deep ocean trenches, this phenomenom will be nearly impossible to detect from earth. It is far easier to detect stars, but that doesn't mean locating a signal will be a breeze.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    19. Re:Proximity to a star? by jpkunst · · Score: 1

      While other forms of energy have been found to sustain life like chemosynthesis in the deep ocean trenches

      Do you know of any places (book titles, URLs) where I can read more about these 'non-solar energy' based lifeforms? I suppose we are talking about bacteria?

      Thanks, JP

    20. Re:Proximity to a star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh?

    21. Re:Proximity to a star? by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

      People who randomly bring up "Richard Simmons in spandex" in unrelated conversations need therapy

      s/therapy/a stab in the face/

    22. Re:Proximity to a star? by RickHunter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, the problem with the Drake Equation is that its nigh-useless. All seven of its factors are (for the most part) completely arbitrary. You can use it to prove whatever you want, and people frequently do.

    23. Re:Proximity to a star? by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      Not only bacteria. There are some species of crabs, fish and worms that are also completely cut off from solar energy. The bacteria is simply at the bottom of the food chain.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    24. Re:Proximity to a star? by mysticgoat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      [roughly, where can I learn more about chemosynthesis - based ecosystems?]

      Try googling on "black smokers". Here's a quick overview: an introductory lecture about black smokers

    25. Re:Proximity to a star? by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1

      </sarcasm></trying-to-be-funny-by-making-homosexua l-references>

    26. Re:Proximity to a star? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

      A search on google under "chemosynthesis" will find some articles on this phenomenom. Bacteria the base form of life that is directly dependent on chemicals that spew out of the trenches. All other forms near the trenches are in some way dependent on them like most of the food chain on the surface is indirectly dependent on plants.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    27. Re:Proximity to a star? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah, the problem with the Drake Equation is that its nigh-useless. All seven of its factors are (for the most part) completely arbitrary. You can use it to prove whatever you want, and people frequently do.

      While the computations from the Drake equation are useless, I think that it does provide some insight and analysis into which factors are important in limiting our ability to contact other species. As science evolves, certain aspects of the equation change. For example until the discovery of life near the ocean trenches, Ne, was thought to be limited to worlds which are like our own. After that discovery, it opened another class of planetoids that may have life, like Europa and Mars.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    28. Re:Proximity to a star? by kubalaa · · Score: 1

      Isn't it sort of interesting that a radio signal is coming from an area of space with no known stars or planets in it? Considering that most of these signals are coming from interstellar objects and not aliens, if you remove signals which could come from interstellar objects you're more likely left which those which came from aliens, right?

      --

      "If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show

    29. Re:Proximity to a star? by RickHunter · · Score: 1

      Well, yes. What it does do well is categorize the factors that could lead to the formation of life. Unfortunately, it usually gets used to argue things like "we must be alone, because according to the Drake Equation, we'd have seen other intelligent life by now!".

    30. Re:Proximity to a star? by james_gnz · · Score: 1
      However, to be more consistent with popular media science measurement systems, we would more correctly say that a sheet of interstellar space the size of a football field and the thickness of a human hair would contain about 3000 atoms.

      That's a bit verbose "a sheet the size of a football field and the thickness of a human hair". I think we need a more compact way of referring to that unit. I suggest it be called a foot-hair.

      Anyway, as to why we should expect to find alien radio signals from close to stars, energy conservation is a good reason. If they have no resources, they won't be able to send a signal (no where to get the energy from).

    31. Re:Proximity to a star? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Using elimination might work for small known samples, but there are many, many signals out there and some of them are very faint. Even though SETI has finished its initial survey, a lot of space is unknown. Super massive black holes emit all sorts of gamma rays and radio signals but are not visible. We simply don't know where all of them are. Studying a particular location to determine if a black hole exists takes time that SETI doesn't have. Like all astronomers, SETI is limited in telescope time and budget.

      I gues why searching near stars is the preferred approach. Although civilizations might exist away from a star, more likely they exist near a star.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    32. Re:Proximity to a star? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yeah, people will misinterpret science. But those who know should remind others that Drake's equation is not a scientific law but a hypothesis and a rule of thumb.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    33. Re:Proximity to a star? by srn_test · · Score: 1

      It could be argued that toilet paper is bette rthan the last two movies that Lucas has made, too. Pretty accurately, as well.

    34. Re:Proximity to a star? by Wirr · · Score: 1
      I suggest looking here Blue Planet

      The episode is called "The Deep".

      Most probably you can find this episode on Kazaa or EDonkey, too - though somewhat less legaly.

  5. Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redundant by js7a · · Score: 5, Interesting
    the SETI@home screensaver analyzes the data many times over trying a great variety of possible doppler accelerations. Actually, the screensaver first takes the raw data and mathematically "undoes" a specific doppler acceleration or "chirp". It then feeds the resulting "de-accelerated" data to the FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) routines. This is called "De-chirping" the data. SETI@home tries to do this at many points between -50 Hz/sec to +50 Hz/sec. At the finest frequency resolution of 0.075 Hz we check for 5409 different chirp rates between -10 Hz/sec and +10 Hz/sec!

    -- "About the SETI@Home screensaver

    That seems horribly inefficient!

    Have the SETI people ever heard of cepstral techniques?

    There should be no need to iterate thousands of times over the pattern recognition algorithms when you can just take anouther FFT of the log magnitude spectrum to eliminate doppler shift (the same as what audio engineers would call 'pitch.') Cepstral analysis has been eliminating pitch in audio signal processing for decades. Too bad nobody told the astronomers.

    What a waste of all those CPU cycles!

  6. I have contributed.. by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Funny

    .. about 14000 hours for the past.. 6-7 years.

    And to think my computer use to just fly toasters when it was idle.

    1. Re:I have contributed.. by jvollmer · · Score: 0

      about 14000 hours for the past.. 6-7 years
      HA! I have done 24,281 hours in the last 2.7 years.
      Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Professor Johanson!

    2. Re:I have contributed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does anyone actually still use the flying toasters screensavers? i used to run After Dark for Mac, and the Flying Toasters was the best (although a later update included flying Toilets... quite funny)

    3. Re:I have contributed.. by mardukvmbc · · Score: 1

      I'm at 60000... been going since it went live.
      Probably the most useful thing I've done at home.

      --
      "You disturb me to the point of insanity. There. I am insane now." - The Sprockets
    4. Re:I have contributed.. by seinman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh yeah? Well i've done 32,885 hours. Who's on top now?

    5. Re:I have contributed.. by Openadvocate · · Score: 1

      Well, not the toaster, but I did try to get that Simpsons screensaver to work again, but it seems that it can't work with w2k. damn

      --
      my sig
    6. Re:I have contributed.. by unixbugs · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      no shit man. i like slashdot and i dont want a -1 on here, but i have one question... ARE THEY FUCKING BLIND? we are not alone...

      --
      You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
  7. Will governments allow news to come out? by civilengineer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Supposing SETI finds something, will the government let out the news to the general public? What about all the historical cases of UFO sightings? Apart from constantly gazing at skies, should we also not try to demand opening up of all classified government documents about any possible UFO sighting?

    --

    New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
    1. Re:Will governments allow news to come out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm the government would likely find out at the same time as the rest of us, right?

    2. Re:Will governments allow news to come out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, aliens have traveled 150 light-years in craft the size of a prison cell and they can't avoid being caught on video by a species barely evolved from apes. That seems perfectly logical, doesn't it?

    3. Re:Will governments allow news to come out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We (people) wont find out at the same time as far as I know. First the scientists will report any possible success to government officials and ask for permission to realease the information. I guess there will be a thousand laws prohibiting the scientists from going out with the news on their own by now.

    4. Re: Will governments allow news to come out? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting


      > Supposing SETI finds something, will the government let out the news to the general public?

      Why would governments keep it secret when they could instead use it as a long-distance boogieman to justify increasing defense spending and cracking down on civil liberties?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:Will governments allow news to come out? by ceejayoz · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      What about all the historical cases of UFO sightings?

      What about all the cases of people seeing images of Jesus in condensation on windows, or stuff like that? People will see what they want to believe.

    6. Re:Will governments allow news to come out? by KoalaBear33 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It depends who is in power. Religious people will NEVER disclose first contact. Since nearly every country on the planet is run by a theist, I don't think governments will disclose anything.

      KoalaBear33

      --
      ......The worst thing in my life happened when the stock market started mattering more than the economy
    7. Re:Will governments allow news to come out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought that this was an unintented benefit of SETI being privately funded. The government would have a hard time supressing results if there wasn't any government involvement from the begining. Now that NASA has begun to support SETI just as things are getting interesting, my paranoia is increasing

    8. Re: Will governments allow news to come out? by Grail · · Score: 1

      Just be aware that the name "Oceania" is already used to describe the island group including Australia and New Zealand.

      Certainly, the classic Unseen Enemy will no doubt be raised. But will the Government of the USA be so pig-headed as to suggest that as, "one nation under God", they're obviously more powerful than the Go'auld attack fleet?

      I don't want to know how long it will take the Govt of the USA to stoop to staging flying-bomb attacks in order to convince the proletariat that the enemy really is at the gates, thus civil liberties should be restricted further...

    9. Re:Will governments allow news to come out? by LocalHero · · Score: 1

      No way.
      The government will try to convince you that they have massdestruction weapons and send their aircraft carrier to destroy them in the name of piece!

      What do you mean they cant fly????

    10. Re:Will governments allow news to come out? by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      So, a Tony Blair or a JFK wouldn't disclose that information, but a Hitler or a Stalin would??? You seem to be confusing all religious people with Pat Buchanan.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    11. Re: Will governments allow news to come out? by vuud · · Score: 1

      Okay I have two big big concerns with these aliens!

      #1: They are all clearly terrorists and we need to be protected from them.

      #2: I don't want whats left of the programming work to be shipped off planet to mars, where some green looking dude will be writing web apps, while I end up flipping burgers or doing tech support (at least with the burgers I could scarf free fries)

    12. Re:Will governments allow news to come out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler was a self professed Christian.

  8. They won't find anything... by sllim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But there really isn't anything wrong with trying.
    Besides, Seti@home really helped to bring about this idea of 'distributed computing' to the world. And for the science in that end of the project I would be hard pressed to say this project isn't already a success.

    But the more I think about it the more I think that radio signals are not the way we are going to find intelligent beings.
    For one I question if we are capable of picking up the radio signals we are sending out.
    If there was an earth, a duplicate of us, technologicaly, socialy and so forth, say 10 light years away, do we have the ability to pick up it's radio signals?

    And for that matter we have had radio for a very short time, just over 100 years. And our use of it is on the way out already. In another 100 years we will probably be producing a fraction of the radio waves we produce now.

    Any way you look at it the odds are stacked against Seti@home.

    But I still congratulate them on giving us geeks something to talk about.

    1. Re:They won't find anything... by RestiffBard · · Score: 1

      in another 100 years our production of radio waves will have increased by several orders. Your logic is flawed I think.

      how many countries produce a radio signal? All of them. How many countries produce as many radio signals as the US? not many. how many will in ten years? Many more.

      How do you think your cell phone works? Hyper beams? Wi-Fi? That must be some sort of new physics the kids are using.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    2. Re:They won't find anything... by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      we have had radio for a very short time, just over 100 years. And our use of it is on the way out already. In another 100 years we will probably be producing a fraction of the radio waves we produce now.

      Yes, and in 500 years, maybe we have the resources to put up a huge radio beacon right outside Pluto's orbit to see if anybody would pick up our signal. We would do that, just as we do SETI today, if it's cheap enough. Similarly, a sufficiently prosperous alien civilization might be putting up all sorts of beacons to see if anybody shows up.

    3. Re:They won't find anything... by sllim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True about the production of them (if you can really say that radio waves are produced.. but that is another thread entirely).
      But we are talking about radio waves that are powerful enough to be seen light years away.
      That I think we are going to be getting away from.

      I expect that in 10 years there probably will be more devices using them, but they will be using them in a smarter way, say spread spectrum and such.
      I think we are moving towards 'doing more with less' as an attitude.

      But I still ask you, in 100 years, what then?

    4. Re:They won't find anything... by Dylan+Zimmerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have an entirely different reason that we probably won't find anything. Imagine a fully fueled space shuttle moving at .3c. If it were to hit a planet, it would release some 15 million megatons of energy. That's roughly 10,000 times the world's nuclear arsenal (at least according to the numbers that I've seen) released in the same spot all in the space of a sneeze.

      I've seen a design for a ship called the Valkyrie with a cruising speed of .92c. It accelerates for 6 months to get there and when it is approaching the target system, the fuel tanks can be ground up and fired ahead of the ship to clear the way of any relativistic dust particles. Imagine if you aimed that dust at the star of a solar system. It would tear through it in no time producing enough turbulence to cause the star to expand until it can no longer sustain the critical mass necessary for a fusion reaction. You can then have the ship hit the planet. Moving at .92c, it should quite handily crack any planet in half.

      These relativistic missiles are almost impossible to shoot down because by the time you can detect them, they aren't where you detected them. You might be able to shoot one down if you were really lucky, but then it would only be a matter of time before whoever was attacking you sent a whole fleet of them.

      Now, it is quite possible that there are other civilizations that already have these. Just imagine a warmongering race hurling these ships about the galaxy to eliminate any possible competitors. The only transmissions that we detect could well be the dying cry of a race as they realize that they are the target of such a missile.

    5. Re:They won't find anything... by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      in another 100 years our production of radio waves will have increased by several orders. Your logic is flawed I think.

      I have serious doubts about that, particularly the magnitude prediction.

      Spectrum scarcity is driving more and more communications off the air and into cable or fiber even as I write this. In 100 years, tv as we know it will all be either satellite for the rural areas, or fiber for the municipalities. The FCC is in the middle of riding roughshod over broadcasters now in an effort to convert channels 2-6 at least, into something that handheld point to point stuff can use, where the point is wherever you are. That stuff is far less powerfull than the 100kw erp tv transmitters being relegated to the scrap heaps of time.

      The mantra for doing so is public safety, but the real reason is that those 5 channels worth of spectrum, sold to the highest bidder, will (they think) bring in enough revenue to balance the federal budget. But strangely, no one is taking into account the rate of defaults for those that have won previous auctions when the business model that made them submit the winning bid cannot be converted into either a service to sell in the time frame the VC people will tolerate, or simply falls on its face in the marketplace. The last figures on the default rate I saw were above 90%, so there will be a rather large 'shakeout' that will take decades to settle.

      The bottom line is that much of the single signal, higher powered broadcasts will be replaced by short range walkie talkie type stuff whose agregate power may well exceed whats there now, but which viewed from a distance, will more and more resemble raw white noise than any coherent signal. From that viewpoint, even a source of white noise that cannot be explained would be a candidate for further study.

      Its been said that to detect any civilization from its radio emissions requires a very narrow time frame because that civilization will go from the tesla/marconi stage of megawatt broadcasts to the above scenario in less than 100 of our years, given enough technology to have invented it in the first place. Our black and white "I love Lucy"'s are now only 50 some light years out, and will be lost in the noise forever in another 25 given our present rate of stuffing broadcasters into a pipe of some kind where the spectrum becomes infinitly re-usable.

      All that said, I've been doing seti almost from the gitgo, and am standing at 99.27% in the world in units processed, or someplace around 35,000 from the top in the rankings, but I've not hit the 5000 units processed marker yet, still about 150 short.

      --
      Cheers, Gene

    6. Re:They won't find anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the heck did this babble get marked up to +5 insightful?

      Let's start with the obvious. Assuming that the "launching" civilization was a paranoid genocidal race with nothing better to do than launch relativistic rockets at planets, chances are the targets would be at a minimum 500 ly out. So first, detect the civilization... Not necessarily an easy task. Next buld the rocket itself. This rocket, going at .95c (so I can do the math in m head) is going to take in excess of 525 years to reach it's target, and that assumes the doomed civilizaton was improbably close by, far more likely 1000s of years. Next this rocket needs to be able to survive micro meteoroid hits at relativistic speeds. Even a 1 gram object moving at .95c relative carries a significant amount of energy on impact. Not too much of a problem in deep space, but coming into a solar system...

      Now given all these events come to pass. That rocket has to actually hit the planet based on targeting information at least 1025 years old (500 years to get to the planet killers, 525 for the rocket to reach it). Adjustments to the targeting are going to be difficult given the mount of energy necessary to change course. As far as the sun being borked using the dust, I have no idea if that theory holds any water, but given the rest of tha tripe I doubt it. But let's say it does, now let's suppose that maybe in the 1025 years since this doomed civilization has been detected they somehow managed to get off the planet, or (oops) the planet killer misses. Solar changes are not sudden, don't you think that this doomed civilization could create some form of habitat that could survive without the sun? We could do it now if it was the only option for the survival of our race.

      So in short, get a grip and stop studying Klingon.

    7. Re:They won't find anything... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      how the hell did you get an insightful?

      First off you need to stop trolling, your "dust cloud" would do nothing to a gravity well like a sun. even if you could get it to 99% of the speed of light, the particles wouldn't even touch the outer atmosphere of the sun you targetted unless you are making them out of un-obtanium..(which is 99% of the components of fantasy like yours.)

      Second, Why do you think that your ship, that would have to be light to do what you are asking it to do.. I.E. be all engines and fuel, and you just spent all your fuel getting there... would dto anything but make a massive kenitic crater? No explosion would happen, and more than likely the impact at that speed on an atmosphere would shatter the ship to tiny fragments instantly..

      Ever see a human body impact the surface of water at terminal velocity? it might as well be solid steel instead of water.... the same happens to your ship when it hits the atmosphere..

      Yes BAD things would happen. but nowhere near what your feeble and comic-book fantasy based predictions claim to be.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:They won't find anything... by madpierre · · Score: 1

      "Its been said that to detect any civilization from its radio emissions requires a very narrow time frame"

      The 'window' for a technological civilisation probably looks something
      like this .... :

      * Living in caves picking bugs off each other.
      * Discover fire.
      * Wheel invented.
      * Printing.
      * The enlightenment.
      * The industrial revolution.
      * Electronics Radio Computing Mega-Corporations.
      * Lawyers in Mega-Corps begin copyright/IP litigation.
      * Living in caves picking bugs off each other.

      So yup, they're probably gonna find diddly-squat. :)

      --
      siggy played guitar
    9. Re:They won't find anything... by backdoorstudent · · Score: 1

      They're not looking for "radio" as in RIAA top 40. They're looking for modulated electromagnetic radiation - of which radio is only a particular subset. And our use of it is far from being "on the way out." All communications are based on it including optical. In fact, the amount of radiation we put out is increasing. Unless you're using sonar you're spilling EM radiation out into space.

    10. Re:They won't find anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was by no means a comic book prediction. The ship was designed by one Charles Pellegrino along with James Powell. I, too, read that book.

      In theory, all of that that the grandparent said is sound. It would make a kinetic crater, but it would still have have a huge amount of energy that has to go somewhere. Most of it would go to heat. What happens when you dump that much heat into anything? It explosively evaporates.

      A human body hitting something and a relativistic rocket hitting something are two very different situations. The body isn't moving fast enough truly explode on contact, it just scatters. The rocket would scatter, but most of the dammage would be done by the heat that it imparts to the surrounding matter. It would create a firestorm that would completely destroy all life on one hemisphere of a planet and kick up a dust cloud that would keep the other side from getting any light at all, thereby starving them.

    11. Re:They won't find anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy who designed the rocket had a rather ingeneous way to avoid hitting tiny bits of dust. He first dumps the engine heat (have to get rid of it somehow) into a fluid made up of mostly organic chemicals along with some metalic additives and then he sprays it ahead of the ship. As it goes ahead of the ship, it both dissipates heat and ionizes any small particles. Eventually it hits particles and such and slows down relative to the ship so that it is reclaimed and reused. The engine uses a reaction to produce muons and then it bounces them off of a magnetic field to get thrust. That same magnetic field is used as a sort of shunt to push the now ionized space dust out of the way. The only real problem is if the ship hits a large dust cloud (Pellegrino Pancakes), a stray asteroid, or some other such thing.

      Interesting side note, Pellegrino Pancakes are named for Charles Pellegrino, who first theorized that they might exist. He is also one of the two inventors of the ship that I describe. As if that's not cool enough, he also wrote the paper that inspired Jurassic Park. I've checked all of these and his credentials are rather impressive.

      Planetary orbits are hard to calculate, but it can be done. Star positions, on the other hand, are much easier to predict over large amounts of time. Therefore, lets assume that the rocket itself misses, but that the relativistic dust cloud hits the star. The cloud would create quite a bit of turbulence in the star and would probably spread it out over a very large distance along the trajectory of the cloud. Chances are quite good that it would at the least reduce the output of the star by several orders of magnitude. At worst (for the victims), it would completely destroy the star. I would love to hear how you think we could survive without our Primary, Sol. The entire surface of the planet would freeze in record time and since there wouldn't be a star to warm it back up, it would only get colder. There would be no more light, which means that all of our food plants would starve, and therefore, we would starve. We might be able to survive for a few years, but certainly not a generation, let alone any longer than that.

      As for why any race would do this, think about what our own military would do if they had these rockets and they found a potentially hostile alien civilization. It might not be that the civilization launching these things is warmongering so much as they are afraid of other societies.

      How that comment was modded to +5, I have NO IDEA. It seems that all of my most innane comments are modded up while the ones that I find insightful are left entirely alone.

      Lastly, I have no idea how to speak Klingon, nor do I ever intend to. All of that that I said was from a book written by one of the two inventors of the ship. Really, I find it to be a plausible explaination of the possibility that there are alien races that don't want to talk.

  9. OK, so kind of a troll by 1984 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    But, from the article:

    "Following up on what is an equivalent of a million years of computation..."

    When the RIAA talks about the "equivalent number of CD burners", it's a meaningless inflation. Here's another example. It would have served better to mention the number of SETI@Home clients. A true and meaningful figure which would still have conveyed the scale and a sense of awe.

    God, how pedantic and picky of me.

    1. Re:OK, so kind of a troll by Aadain2001 · · Score: 0

      But they have done the equivalent of a million years of computation. They just did it in parallel :)

      --
      Space for rent, inquire within
    2. Re:OK, so kind of a troll by MuParadigm · · Score: 1

      Not really. I thought the same thing: Millions of years of computing at what number of intructions per second? 10? 10^10? 10^100? Actually, even that wouldn't be a good measurement unless you can define the relative efficiency between instruction sets and come up with a baseline for all of them. Without defining what a "year of computation is", it's a nonsensical statistic.

    3. Re:OK, so kind of a troll by MikeJ9919 · · Score: 1

      Actually, in case you hadn't noticed, they mentioned both.

  10. Is it just me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or is SETI@home an example of how automation can result in inefficient and frivolous behavior? I mean, just because it's mindless and runs while you're away it's suddenly amazing and important. I'd say the the only thing amazing about it is the potential to turn millions of computers into a worldwide zombie DDoS attack.

    Not that I don't think we should be exploring, but there are more inspiring frontiers to conquer than distant radio static.

    1. Re:Is it just me.. by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Can we make it attack the RIAA... in the Real World!!! ie. Click here to slap H. Rosen ;)

      --
      I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  11. Skymap?? by Lobsang · · Score: 1

    Cool! Now I'll finally be able to find my way home...

  12. And they're saying... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
    "...if a signal appears to have increased since the first observation put that star on the checklist."
    "stfu! Stfu! STFU!" (Of course, they're probably just getting 1970's TV by now, so I don't blame them.)
    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    1. Re:And they're saying... by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      What a prospect, Aliens desperately trying to ignore us as a civilisation and scramble their transmissions to sound like noise after receiving a few sitcoms from the seventies totally puts them off the idea of contacting us.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
  13. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That seems horribly inefficient!

    Well, hopefully, IPv6 will alleviate some of these problems!

  14. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They refuse to make any optimization to the original program. Note the lack of even SSE support after all these years.

  15. Straight Lines? by Tablizer · · Score: 0

    At least 3 places on the map appear to have a bunch of signals that fall in a strait line. Is this some purpousful scanning pattern on Earth's part, or are there lines of UFO's up there?

    1. Re:Straight Lines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No more mashed potatoes for you! I don't care how much "this means something" and "this is important", stop playing with your food.

    2. Re:Straight Lines? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There seems to be some misunderstanding here based on replies and moderators. I will try to clarify this.

      Okay, looking at the map, the orange dots near the following locations are in lines:

      7.2hr, +20 deg., near Gemini, 6 dots.

      17hr, +20 deg., near Herculese, 6 dots.

      14hr, +25 deg., near Booties, 5 dots.

      The UFO statement was just a joke. But, I am curious as to why those orange dots do fall into a line on the map. I am just asking a question.

    3. Re:Straight Lines? by MuParadigm · · Score: 1

      Because the resolution of the map is too low to differetiate the discepancies between the route of the configurations you noticed and a straight line?

      In other words, the coast of Norway may be as ragged as the hem of a hippie's cutoffs but look straight on a low-res map.

    4. Re:Straight Lines? by iq+in+binary · · Score: 1

      Because that's the "line" of the sky they're aiming their sensors at, nimrod.

      --
      Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last ;)
    5. Re:Straight Lines? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Because that's the "line" of the sky they're aiming their sensors at, nimrod.

      If so, why *just* those areas? I am still puzzled. I would use a criss-cross pattern if I was trying to study a general area, not one line.

    6. Re:Straight Lines? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that the map is truncating or rounding to a kind of grid pattern? Possible, but the spacing looks too uneven for that in some places, at least in the horizontal dimension. Plus, one "line" is slightly diagonal.

    7. Re:Straight Lines? by leonscape · · Score: 1

      Because the telescope is a fixed earth telescope, you can't move it around so it only covers a portion of the sky. It sits in a natural dip on the earth so the dish is completley immovable, but huge. The telescopes home site is http://www.naic.edu/open.htm

      --


      If a first you don't succeed, your a programmer...
    8. Re:Straight Lines? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Because the telescope is a fixed earth telescope, you can't move it around so it only covers a portion of the sky.

      Yes, but it "scans" different areas as the Earth points to different places, because the Earth is tilted. Also, they can move the small receiver near the top for fine-tuning position. Plus, one of the "lines" is diagonal.

    9. Re:Straight Lines? by leonscape · · Score: 1

      The earth does move, but with relation to the rest of the universe not by a lot. Your looking at the same band of sky all the time if you stand on one point of the earths surface. There are apparent seasonal changes but thats got to do with the position of the sun and which part of the band of sky above your head is visible at night. Thats why you never get to see the southern cross in the northern hemisphere, or the north star in the south.

      --


      If a first you don't succeed, your a programmer...
  16. 3,000+ Galaxies! Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the side panel on the right:
    "Extrasolar Life Briefing
    # 3,000+ visible galaxies (Hubble Telescope)"


    not according to this. Dumbass reporters.

  17. A little OT but by geeveees · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why do we always assume that the aliens will be more advanced than us? How do we know we won't be visiting alien planets and abduct its inhabitants? Just a little something to think about...

    --
    I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
    1. Re:A little OT but by geeveees · · Score: 1

      This wasn't meant as "funny" heh... I would really like to have /.'s opinion on this.

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
    2. Re:A little OT but by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

      We won't kidnap the primative aliens, we will search their planet for IRAQ's WMD's (they do exist, honest)

      --
      I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
    3. Re:A little OT but by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Any aliens that we detect from their signals probably would be more advanced than us. Since we're not in a position to conduct butt-probes on less advanced life (even if we wanted to), the question is rather moot.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:A little OT but by geeveees · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should send out more signals?

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
    5. Re:A little OT but by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Like any newsgroup/forum, it's probably best to lurk for a while before posting. I'm not sure I'd like to find out what an interstellar flamewar is like.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    6. Re:A little OT but by Gorobei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We assume aliens will do the same exponential technology advance that we are doing.

      If life is common, the vast bulk will be single-cell goop, lichen, etc. The ones that go multi-cellular have a shot at intelligent species. Get intelligent, and you have fire, the wheel, and radio in short order.

      The human race has had radio for 100 years or so: if we detect a signal from aliens, chances are that they have had radio for thousands or millions of years. We are almost certain to be the primitives in this case.

      Interestingly, the radio age is probably extremely short-lived: signal compression, etc, should make any advanced race's radio look like noise to observers.

    7. Re:A little OT but by pizen · · Score: 1

      Why do we always assume that the aliens will be more advanced than us? How do we know we won't be visiting alien planets and abduct its inhabitants? Just a little something to think about...

      This is actually an interesting thought. Maybe we go hunting in the jungles of an alien world using our personal cloaking devices. Maybe we mass an armada to go from planet to planet sucking up their resources (hell, we did it on this planet why not when we go interstellar?). Maybe I take my giant robot to their capital and warn them to cease their violent ways or face destruction.

      Just imagine your favorite alien movie but switch the species of the major characters. Just think about Chewbacca giving the speech from Independence Day while two Wookie's fly a spaceship up and launch a nuke into Donald Rumsfeld's office.

    8. Re:A little OT but by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      But, to quote a line from my favorite show (SG-1). "If it wasn't for the Dark Ages, we'd be colonizing planets by now." The Dark ages was not only a period of stagnation, but actually set us BACK in terms of technology. And this lasted for HUNDREDS OF YEARS. So really, imagine that if this technological stage actually started hundreds of years ago. With this "exponential technology advance" you speak of, us actually flying through space isn't so far-fetched. However, if this is the case, and other races didn't have this backwards period, they probably aren't using radio. Instead, they're probably listening for us (if they haven't found us already).

    9. Re:A little OT but by geeveees · · Score: 1

      I thought about it some more. If we get a radio signal, say it travelled 100 years, than the species who sent it had 100 years to advance, the further away they are the more advanced they are than us. Something like that.

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
    10. Re:A little OT but by Dag+Maggot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I for one welcome our new human overlords..
      oh wait...

      --

      I have no pants and I must scream

    11. Re:A little OT but by cgenman · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I doubt we would abduct the inhabitants. History would show that's unlikely. How many Native Americans do you see wandering around the UK, or Aztecs in Barcelona? And now that we have become more advanced than our savage, killing predescessors, likely we will just put them up in tin shacks, make them ashamed of their nakedness, and force them to "work" for "money" to buy food while not actually providing jobs.

      Yes, our enlightened species would bring great things to these indiginous aliens. Wonders such as US approved democracy, shortsighted environmental regulation, and the commoditization of all things living and dead. The few "dollars" eked out by the free labor of the alien races could be brought right back to their liberators by making our race fashionable to their youngsters. Our race would be fashionable to their youngsters because we would be the haves which they fantisize they could become. We would bring them Brittany Spears, Coca-Cola, and C#. They would bring us chests full of gold. This synergistic relationship would be cemented into the rules of their law, and we would enjoy the bounty of their royalty-free culture.

      Amen

    12. Re:A little OT but by pizen · · Score: 1

      Maybe we come across a species less advanced on our way to a more advanced civilization...Christopher Columbus-style

    13. Re:A little OT but by DeltaSigma · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who doesn't want to go out and do a little probing? Don't go telling me that the first thing you did when you got a new puppy or kitty wasn't probing their anus. We're all adults here, let's be serious...

    14. Re:A little OT but by G-funk · · Score: 1

      And kill them all with the flu?

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    15. Re:A little OT but by IvyMike · · Score: 1

      There was once an episode of the Twilight Zone that had the same idea.

      No, wait... that was EVERY episode of the Twilight Zone.

      On a more serious note: We assume that any aliens we can find in the near term would be more advanced than us because we won't be able to find them otherwise. Radio is a relatively recent invention, after all...we're not likely to find aliens who have had radio for less time than we have.

    16. Re:A little OT but by ehiris · · Score: 1

      We only consider advanced ones as aliens because the non-advanced ones are uninteresting. From the advanced aliens we could steal technology so our progress would be easier and faster.
      I mean how helpful would it be to find a planet full of cows, sheep, or worms that are slow moving, have the density of metal, the size of 6 dinosaurs, and live an average lifespan of 50000 years? I guarantee many people wouldn't consider that to be an ROI worth striving for.

    17. Re:A little OT but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or give them blankets infected with smallpox so we can steal their land.

    18. Re:A little OT but by babbage · · Score: 1
      Interestingly, the radio age is probably extremely short-lived: signal compression, etc, should make any advanced race's radio look like noise to observers.

      Here's an ironic twist then: if all highly compressed, possibly encrypted signals are essentially indistinguishable from static, then how do we know that we aren't already soaking in intelligent signals?

      Put another way, what if the snow static on your TV is the HDTV of Alpha Centauri?

      There has to be a way to differentiate things like this from true background radiation noise. At a guess, a compressed/encrypted signal would still have to appear directional to us: we get background noise from all directions, but a particularly loud burst of it from any particular direction should still be a giveaway, even if we can't hope to decipher it. The trick is probably to allow that such signals may well be spread-spectrum, erratic, and possibly very short in duration.

      It may be a needle in a haystack, but if we're lucky it might be a hot pink needle that makes lots of noise if you know what to listen for...

    19. Re:A little OT but by madpierre · · Score: 1

      I work for an unlisted government (can't say which) department tasked
      with developing the procedures for just such an occurrence.

      I am currently tasked with debugging the software (alpha release0.01b)
      for our latest device.

      Probe Anally Inserted Nano Forensic UtiLity (PAINFUL).

      It was intended for release as an OSS project, but for security
      reasons we would've had to hunt down and terminate (with extreme
      prejudice) anyone outside the department who worked on or knew of
      the existence of any such project or device.

      Also, for the record, we don't allways wear black.
      I for one (as my /. voting showed) am quite partial to Plaid. :)

      --
      siggy played guitar
  18. SETI was not the first distributed project by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Interesting
    But there really isn't anything wrong with trying.

    Except that it'd be pointless, even if they did get a signal. It'd be a signal hundreds or thousands of years old.

    Besides, Seti@home really helped to bring about this idea of 'distributed computing' to the world.

    Pardon the pun, but what planet are you from? SETI was NOT the first, Distributed.net's RC5 challenge significantly predates the SETI@home client and was enormously popular. At least Distributed.net's ruler thing will be USEFUL.

    Oh, and interesting to note that when SETI@home first started up, they ran out of data to process. So you know what they did? They just fed the same data back to clients, over and over and over again, without telling people- acting like they still had new data to process. A lot of people were furious, when someone realized it. The SETI@home project people wasted a lot of resources(power) for the sake of avoiding embarassment. Sorry, I don't have much respect for people who pull that kind of crap.

    1. Re:SETI was not the first distributed project by JudgeFurious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, whether or not the signal was hundreds of thousands of years old or from 15 minutes ago I can hardly imagine it being described as pointless. Evidence of life somewhere other than here, get that through your head. It would be nice to know that something else is going on out there or at the very least has gone on out there.

      SETI might not be the first but it's without a doubt the most widely known. That's got to count for something doesn't it? It's advanced awareness of distributed computing far more than any other application so far (unless there's a distributed porn program running around I'm not aware of).

      The list of shit people have pulled "back when they first started up" is miles long. I wouldn't have done it (re-fed the clients the same data over and over again) but it pales in comparison to some of the things that people have pulled in order to keep interest alive in their projects while they get things running smoothly.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    2. Re:SETI was not the first distributed project by sllim · · Score: 0

      Hmmm good reply.
      All I was gonna say was that I knew as soon as I gave Seti@home a little bit of respect and credit some doofushead would quote some little known distributed computing project (probably an encryption breaking project) from way back when and spit on Seti.

      I think your reply JudgeFurious was much better then what I was gonna right.

    3. Re:SETI was not the first distributed project by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Oh, and interesting to note that when SETI@home first started up, they ran out of data to process. So you know what they did? They just fed the same data back to clients, over and over and over again, without telling people- acting like they still had new data to process."

      Hello? SETI@home is a scientific endeavour. Accuracy of results matters, and as long as hacking the client to produce false results is possible(always will be), rechecking work units for authenticity by sending them out to more than one client is necessary, duh.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    4. Re:SETI was not the first distributed project by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2, Informative

      While Rc5 was very popular, it was only really amongst us geeks. Seti@home has attracted a LOT of attention over the years, and now A LOT of non-technical PC users know what it is and what distributed computing is.

    5. Re:SETI was not the first distributed project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i've always preferred the DNET client to the command-line S@H client. the data is broken into smaller blocks, and had built-in support for storing queues of data.
      I certainly wouldn't call distributed.net "some little known distributed computing project"... it is quite well known throughout the computing community. while not as popular with the general non-geek public, a quick look at the stats pages at distributed.net will show many groups not normally associated with geekiness that are participating (albeit not as many as SETI...).
      I don' think anyone is "spitting on SETI." People who have been running DNET since the beginning probably feel a sense of pride in their project, and feel some obvious animosity towards people who pulled their Idle CPU time from DNET and moved it to SETI.

    6. Re:SETI was not the first distributed project by mikedaisey · · Score: 1

      "Except that it'd be pointless, even if they did get a signal. It'd be a signal hundreds or thousands of years old."

      That's right--a signal from an ALIEN INTELLIGENCE is only useful if it is up to date.

      Also, SETI isn't under any sort of compulsion to prove to the people who use its client whether the data is "fresh" or not. That's silly.

    7. Re:SETI was not the first distributed project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's right--a signal from an ALIEN INTELLIGENCE is only useful if it is up to date."

      Never mind alien, there was a background piece on Iraq on not long ago going all the way back to the beginning of the 20th century, like circa WWI. That's hardly current. And that shit had earlier precursors, and so did those, etc, back even into prehistory! So much old baggage of our own to ignore without compounding the problem with old news from alien civilizations.

    8. Re:SETI was not the first distributed project by tabby · · Score: 1

      I think the point is that is we find proof of intelligent life 100 light-years away what will we do? Send a radio-single back and wait 200 hundred years (there and back) hoping that they are still listening.

      I think seti is an admirable project just because proof of other intelligence could change the way we live our lives.

      But I think when it comes to the big dollars we should be working much harder on getting out there ourselves especially more intelligent reusable probes rather than trying to deal with the issues of looking after people in space.

      --
      I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
    9. Re:SETI was not the first distributed project by coolgeek · · Score: 1

      dude, only geeks like you and myself new about distributed.net. SETI brought the concept to the great unwashed masses. and for that matter, there were other (private) projects that pre-date distributed.net, in an attempt to soak up unused institutional computing cycles.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
    10. Re:SETI was not the first distributed project by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      And I love how someone found this comment to be a troll. Priceless. Obviously nothing on Slashdot ever changes. And YEAH YOU MODERATING JERKOFFS THIS IS A TROLL TOO.

      At least is to you.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  19. Some of us by Exiler · · Score: 0, Redundant

    haven't given up on finding intelligent life on earth.

    As rare as it is there must be some concentrations of it.

    --
    Banaaaana!
    1. Re:Some of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, there's no sign of THAT in whoever modded you. :-)

  20. If the signal has INCREASED? by JessLeah · · Score: 2, Funny

    OK... the article notes:

    "The next step is particularly fascinating, if a signal appears to have increased since the first observation put that star on the checklist."

    How could it have increased?

    These signals are coming from light-years away.

    Even if the aliens learned, somehow (say, a year ago) that we were listening for them, finding this out instantly via some sort of "subspace radio" or the like, the signals we have received since then were ALREADY IN TRANSIT when the SETI@home program began.

    Besides, there'd be no way for them to know we're listening, let alone to find that out within the last year.

    Or maybe I just grossly misread the poster's meaning?

    1. Re:If the signal has INCREASED? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Imagine the signal strength of Earth TV signals from 1945 through to when cable/dish TV started to cut into it.

      Also, they could have noticed us a while ago from radio signals, and we're only now getting the signal after they swung the antenna around to point at us.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:If the signal has INCREASED? by BWJones · · Score: 2, Informative

      How could it have increased?

      Perhaps the signal is from an object like a pulsar that is increasing in mass near its center and increasing its rate of spin a'la conservation of angular momentum? After all the first time a pulsar was discovered, it was thought to be "little green men".

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    3. Re:If the signal has INCREASED? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think the idea is that an alien civilization would have measurably increased their radio output during the two observation points, not that they would have done it as a reaction to us.

    4. Re:If the signal has INCREASED? by BlacKat · · Score: 1

      Could you imagine if we managed to discover, decode and re-transmist some alien television or radio signal?

      Want to be the "new station" would become one of the most watched/listened to station in the history of this planet? :)

    5. Re:If the signal has INCREASED? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      How could it have increased?

      Perhaps it's the Vogon spaceship on its way to Earth, broadcasting the "you are about to be paved for an interstellar highway" message. It increased because the ship's getting closer...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    6. Re:If the signal has INCREASED? by MuParadigm · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? Americans won't even watch foriegn films from this planet.

    7. Re:If the signal has INCREASED? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we could watch Iron Chef in the original Klingon!

    8. Re:If the signal has INCREASED? by pizen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Could you imagine if we managed to discover, decode and re-transmist some alien television or radio signal?

      We could all watch Omicron Persei 8's version of Single Female Lawyer.

    9. Re:If the signal has INCREASED? by BlacKat · · Score: 1

      Hahaha, indeed... 'tho if we did I'd really hope some idiot doesn't spill a coke... erm, beer, into the console during the season finale. ;)

    10. Re:If the signal has INCREASED? by RestiffBard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      er, if the signal has increased in a year that would tend to show growth. Say when we were listening to them a year ago the only people with cell phones on their planet were rich doctors. A year later the price of alien cell phones has gone down. now more aliens have cell phones. Hence an increase in traffic across the airwaves.

      And an opportunity for T-Mobile to make a killing.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    11. Re:If the signal has INCREASED? by Aliencow · · Score: 1

      Someone would get sued by their MPAA equivalent !

    12. Re:If the signal has INCREASED? by madpierre · · Score: 1

      The following is an excerpt from a signal received and decoded
      by the seti@home team based at the Arecebo radio telescope.

      a.l.yo.. b.se...re b.l.ng.t..us
      a...y.ur.b.ses...e...lo...to.u.
      al. ...ur b...........long to us
      a.l...ur bas....re.....ng....us
      all......bases......el..g .....
      all y.....ase...re belong... u.
      a...your..as...ar.....on......s
      a.....ur..... ....e be........us
      a...........es a.......ng to us
      all yo.........are belong to us
      all yo.....ses are be....... us
      a...........es are belo.......s

      When questioned by reporters from the Daily Planet a seti@home
      researcher was quoted:

      "The signal carrier appears to exhibit a marked blue shift as
      though the source were moving directly towards the Earth at a
      velocity of about 0.98c. We have no idea what it means."

      It's only a matter of time dudes :-)

      --
      siggy played guitar
  21. Re:SETI is a crock- here's why by gmby · · Score: 1

    I bet you wear black.?

    --
    I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
  22. Re:SETI is a crock- here's why by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Informative
    Alright, so who cares if you decode it, you FOUND INTELLIGENT LIFE that existed at least several hundred of years ago
    Isn't that a rather important step all by itself? Just the fact of other intelligent life out there would have quite an effect regardless of what they're saying. ("LGM sks LGW 4 zads vork.")

    As for the century long delay, just start talking. Wicked lag time, but eventually you'll get something said.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  23. Re:SETI is a crock- here's why by Gherald · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You make good points, but I have thought of all that before and am still interested in SETI. I guess its either natural human curiosity, or just too much Star Trek...

  24. Re:SETI is a crock- here's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cost of the SETI program is well worth it if we can discover solid evidence that intelligent life exists outside the solar system.

    We won't need to send signals, because we've been sending signals with the advent of the TV.

    Once we have our own interplanetary travel infrastructure, then we can start thinking about actually visiting. By then humans may actually be able to make such a trip.

  25. in the end... by Malor · · Score: 1, Funny

    After vast effort and the expenditure of moderate sums of cash (SETI is really done on the cheap), scientists will be elated to finally discover an alien signal, and chagrined to find that it translates to the rough equivalent of a rude hand gesture and a raspberry. :-)

    (or possibly "If all you can detect is this signal, you're too stupid to bother with. Stay home and evolve for a few million years.")

    1. Re:in the end... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Make Quatloos Fast! Increase your oomflogg! Causality septic tanks! Contact Ail Ralzqi of Mizar.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  26. SETI is pointless(repost) by SuperBanana · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm reposting this because apparently, there are a lot of moderators modding down as "troll" anyone who posts anything that even smells like "SETI is stupid". Despite getting one "interesting" mod, my post is now buried. So, here I go again. THIS IS NOT A TROLL. I've made a statement(SETI is pointless) and I'm backing it up with a lot of reasons why. Seems like good discussion material to me.

    The whole thing is pointless. Here's why.

    * Chance of physically intercepting the signal is next to nothing. They don't get much radio time, and they can't cover much of the sky.
    * Now chances of actually recognizing the signal as intelligent life are unknown. They've got some great theories. Who knows if they're right?
    * Ok, maybe you see it and you recognize it. Can you decode it?
    * Alright, so who cares if you decode it, you FOUND INTELLIGENT LIFE that existed at least several hundred of years ago
    * Ok, so you send a reply. You figure out where that source planet will be when the signal finally reaches it.
    * "The aliens get it" requires the same hurdles. Mainly, they have a SETI program, they've got their ears pointed in the right direction, they identify the reply as intelligent life, etc. Hell, it assumes they haven't nuked themselves into extinction like we're on the steady path towards.
    * Now, lets say they decide to reply(ie, they're not xenophobic, they don't think it's pointless, etc). It takes another couple hundred years to get back to earth, assuming they aim right etc.
    * Now you're assuming someone here on earth actually is still listening. In a couple hundred years, is anyone going to remember SETI? We have trouble keeping languages around!
    * Great, someone's actually listening and gets the signal. You've just had the century-long equivalent of the 20 second bar conversation. "Hi". "Hi". "So, uh, send radio signals often?"

    SETI people conveniently ignore almost all of these obvious problems that make the entire search pointless.

    1. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * Ok, so you send a reply. You figure out where that source planet will be when the signal finally reaches it.


      You had me up to here. The point of SETI doesn't really seem to me to be "establishing contact." Rather, the point would be to learn from these communications; if you don't see the value in that I cannot help you. Some might say there are better uses for distributed CPU cycles, and I might agree; to call SETI pointless however is missing the point.
    2. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by lord_dragonsfyre · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off, even if we never find life out there, the mere existance of SETI@home helped get the idea of massively distributed computing out there as a viable option.

      Second, I don't think anyone is claiming that radio waves are a viable method of intersteller communication (frankly, all the options there suck, barring the discovery of handwavium or similar magic-tech).

      The point isn't to find a race out there to chat with. The point is to find evidence that, at some point in the past, *someone* out there emitted radio signals. Are they still around? Can we call them up and discuss deep, philosophical questions? Maybe, and probably not. But proving that intelligent life exists or existed off Earth, even if it went extinct long ago by our reckoning, is a worthy enough project, in my less-than-humble opinion.

      James.

      --
      "I have spread my dreams under your feet, Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams." - W. B. Yeats.
    3. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by geekster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You think nobody would care if we found evidence of intelligent life on another planet?

    4. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by seeken · · Score: 1

      If seti finds an alien signal, it will probably be alien pay sat-tv signals. We won't be able to decode them because of the DMCA.

      --

      Surfing the net and other cliches...
      (Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
    5. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "SETI@home helped get the idea of massively distributed computing out there as a viable option."

      Bullshit. Distributed.net's RC5 distributed client predates SETI. The distributed.net client was released in February 1997. SETI@Home didn't start until 1999.

    6. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by Zuph · · Score: 1

      SETI managed to get the public in on it though. Finding Aliens is a whole lot cooler than crunching meaningless numbers. ... Right?

    7. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, the moderators have wisened up and modded your post as 'over-rated' instead of 'troll'. This will allow them to escape the wrath of the meta-moderators.

    8. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by Monkelectric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're mostly right, but you're completley wrong. The fact of the matter is, SETI probably won't find anything like you say, and it will take too long to talk to anyone we do find, but SETI isn't hurting anybody, and it might help. End of story man. I don't see you doing anything to answer the mysteries of the universe.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    9. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by Pvt_Waldo · · Score: 1

      OK all you people who wouldn't get excited if they found a signal, raise your hand... Thank you sir. Sir. You may sit down now sir.

      OK now all you other people...

    10. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, here I go again. THIS IS NOT A TROLL. I've made a statement(SETI is pointless) and I'm backing it up with a lot of reasons why.

      So, if I posted a message titled "SuperBanana is pointless," would that be a troll? Also, your reasoning is rather weak and one sided. Have you done any research behind SETI@Home? If you had, you might notice that most of your questions have already been addressed. Nah, that would be too easy.

      Oops, is this a troll?

    11. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You presume that any civilisation we find is on the same technological level as we are.

      There is the possibility (probability perhaps) that a found civilisation is far in advance such that it might take 100 years for our message to rech them but when it does they engage thier ftl communication system and promptly tell us how to build our own if we don't have one by then already.

      I'd agree with you that the chance of SETI being successful is probably slim, but it's not pointless, because there is *a* chance, and that's worth exploring.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    12. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and as compared to SETI the number of average people who've given 2 shits about an obscure cryptographic analysis has got to be what, like 7 total? yeah.

    13. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who will care if we find intelligent life on our *own* planet?

    14. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by CSharpMinor · · Score: 1

      Oh great. So by intercepting them, we become felons and get sued by the RIAOP8 (Recording Industry Association of Omicron Persei-8)?

      --

      Whatever it is I'm complaining about, I'm sure the Republicans did it. This is /., after all.
    15. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by geekster · · Score: 1

      Not me, I'm leaving as soon as I find my home planet.

    16. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by KoalaBear33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      * Chance of physically intercepting the signal is next to nothing. They don't get much radio time, and they can't cover much of the sky.

      Agreed... but it doesn't hurt to try. Also, don't forget that to develop advanced techniques or better alternatives, one needs to start with the basics. You don't start riding a bicycle without learning how to balance or how to walk. Same thing here. What they are doing may be "primitive" and next to useless but I'm sure some good will come out of it--if not now, in 50 or 100 years ago.

      * Now chances of actually recognizing the signal as intelligent life are unknown. They've got some great theories. Who knows if they're right?

      Intelligence is an overrated word that is used to oppress lower classes. There is no such thing as intelligene--at least when you look at things from a macroscopic scale. The point wouldn't be to find intelligent lifeform--rather it is to find ANY lifeform. Whatever you find may or may not be "intelligent" (for example, if you find aliens that have mastered electromagnetic waves but haven't even figured out how to build a 10 story building, are they "intelligent"?).

      * Ok, maybe you see it and you recognize it. Can you decode it?

      This will be the tough part IMO. Even if you find something, it could take hundreads of years to decode the message. Stanislaw Lem, a Polish sci-fi author who has written many sci-fi novesl (including Solaris), postulates that it will take 100+ years to communicate with an alien (even if the alien made physical contact). Humans can understand each other's language because we made it all up; and we can understand animals because we are animals. The same cannot be said of foreign aliens.

      * Alright, so who cares if you decode it, you FOUND INTELLIGENT LIFE that existed at least several hundred of years ago

      I can't believe you are dismissing this. If contact is made (or evidence is found), it will be the MOST IMPORTANT human event in the last 500 years. It will be bigger than theory of gravity, theory of relativity, development of transistors,computers,electricity, World War II, rise of Communism, Nazism, etc. Discovery of aliens will likely result in elimination of religions (or religious wars), massive scientific "push", etc. It will alter our understanding of the universe. We will know that we are not "alone". In addition, this can provide more answers to the meaning to life and further philosophy...

      * Ok, so you send a reply. You figure out where that source planet will be when the signal finally reaches it. * "The aliens get it" requires the same hurdles. Mainly, they have a SETI program, they've got their ears pointed in the right direction, they identify the reply as intelligent life, etc. Hell, it assumes they haven't nuked themselves into extinction like we're on the steady path towards.

      They may or may not have technology dealing with electromagnetic/radio waves. But the hope is that they will. For all we know, they may be far more advanced in that area... As far as aliens nuking themselves, it is a possibility. However, I don't think it will be the case. Humans are very violent (we kill each other, destroy nature, etc). I think the probability of finding more peaceful beings are higher than finding ones that are more violent than us.

      * Now, lets say they decide to reply(ie, they're not xenophobic, they don't think it's pointless, etc). It takes another couple hundred years to get back to earth, assuming they aim right etc.

      This argument is moot. There will be a massive lag so people can't communicate. However, we (and them) can sort of figure out that something is out there. Also one should keep in mind that this will be a long term action, done to benefit humanity as opposed to the individual. For instance, if you send a signal now, someone 200 years from now may get back the response from the alien. It does not benefit you

      --
      ......The worst thing in my life happened when the stock market started mattering more than the economy
    17. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by mikedaisey · · Score: 1


      You presume the point of SETI is to communicate with aliens. It is not. It is the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. So they only need to answer your first two conditions, and those are some of your weakest ones. In fact, you seem to advocate them getting more money, as then they will be able to cover more of the sky and have a better chance with increased funding for their projects.

    18. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by nixdix · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else know that little green men was not the entire point of the project? A lot of science is seredipitous and SETI looks for patterns (yes with FFTs) which *could* indicate some sort of intelligent life, but which much more likely will indicate interesting space phenomenon. Looking for little green men was a marketing ploy to get the public enthused about the boring task of grinding through a bunch of data in a very methodical fashion for no express purpose. And future scientists will likely do masters work grinding through the "candidates" to explain which ones are pulsars and which ones are possible black holes (or the rhythmic burst of gamma radiation as small bits of proto-matter is sucked through an event horizon which leads us to believe we have found black holes), which ones are the death throws of a giant blue star heating and cooling and throwing off seas of it's radiant atmosphere as the changes within the doomed star begin to lock the heat of the solar furnace within it's core and prepare for the surreal explosion of a super-nova (someone could get published if they found one of those in the data). And something which is not readily explained? That is the chance of a lifetime.

      Forget a cosmic "message in a bottle". We could not possibly determine any content from that far away unless the little green men figured out a way to put a huge shutter nearby their sun and used it as a giant semaphore. If your are doing science for science sake you are taking measurements and expecting to find only mundane results. The really exciting thing about SETI is that it is has never been possible to throw this much data through such an effective sieve.

      If you have reason to expect the unexpected, little green men are certainly an unexpected thing; little green men are also an unfortunate legacy of marketing decision made early on in SETI which cost it funding and nearly killed the project entirely. Clever renaming to the High Resolution Microwave Survey (a better description of how the project was expected to serve the science community) got funding for another year and was able to pass the technology on to the public where it partly lives on with SETI@home. This renaming also left politicians feeling betrayed (the joke was that HRMS stood for "He Really Means SETI") and there was so be no more funding to "look for little green men".

      SETI is a *really* good thing.

    19. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by CGP314 · · Score: 1

      They don't get much radio time, and they can't cover much of the sky.

      Having one bad eye is better than being blind.

    20. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) by ElderKorean · · Score: 1

      Maybe the alien civilisation has got to a sufficiently advanced stage where they can send a signal out to the star systems that might support life in the local area.

      When someone replies (or is themself detected) then they might consider that we will soon be worth contacting. The 100+ years that it takes for our signals to return to them would allow them time to prepare for the ensuing war that would no doubt follow soon after.

      I for one will welcome our new alien overlords.

  27. Re:SETI is a crock- here's why by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know what? These people are a disgrace....Here's why....Now chances of actually recognizing the signal as intelligent life are unknown.

    I think you answered your own criticism here. Nobody fricken knows. It is a Columbus-like exploration: sail and see what you bump into.

    Ok, so you send a reply.

    Who says we would send a reply? Maybe we will just listen more in and watch their version of I Love Lucy.

  28. To be able to name the aliens! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's more sexy: Aldebaranis, Altairans, or "Vacuumers"?

  29. Signals from space by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 0, Troll

    All the signals from space are messages:

    Penis enlargements
    Breast enhancements
    Displaced aliens with large amounts of money that need YOUR bank numbers.

    Do we REALLY want to reply?

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
    1. Re:Signals from space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF, you don't post for 6 months, then all of a sudden six posts in one day? Did you find your pasword written on a scrap of paper?

  30. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by js7a · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Intel's SSE is a four float SIMD operation, and isn't avalable on all processors.

    If they were using the cepstrum to correct for doppler shift, they could get several thousand times speedup; much more than just four.

  31. Re:SETI is a crock- here's why by gaijin99 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You know what? These people are a disgrace. They're little more than cultists, and to quote Contact, "Yep, looking for little green men".

    Er, um, you are aware that "Contact" is a work of fiction, right?

    More seriously your post seems ill thought out. Yes, the odds of finding anyting are rather slim, especially considering that our only sensors are inside the sun's area of interference. However you seem to be underestimating the importance of finding evidence of non-human sentience. Carrying on a conversation is nice, don't misunderstand me, but I'd be happy just knowing for sure that we aren't the only ones out here. Sure, the odds are that there's other people in the universe, but I'd like to know for sure.

    The cost is quite low, really, and its spin off effects are already prooving to be of benefit in the short run. The truth is that "pointless" research has paid off time and again. Maybe SETI won't pay off, but the fact is that it might.

    Oddly enough, you didn't mention the single biggest problem facing the SETI program: the likelyhood that use of omnidirectional radio is not long lived. Here on Earth we're already tending to move away from powerful omnidirectional signals. Increasing use of laser, microwave, fiberoptic, etc is slowly killing off true broadcast radio. Some people suspect that within another thrity years or so the only omnidirecitonal broadcasts will be quite weak and short ranged (equivalant to cordless phones).

    Still, even given that, I'd say that the potential benefit of SETI vastly outweighs its miniscule cost. You've got to take chances sometimes...

    --
    "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
  32. Re:I'm NOT trolling by gaijin99 · · Score: 1
    I really get tired of moderators who "troll" opinions they don't like.

    Agree with you here. I disagree completely with your viewpoint, so I wrote a reply. Moderating you down was uncalled for.

    I will note, however, that your rather pointlessly aggressive language is doubtless what caused the people to mod you as a troll. Tossing about terms like cult and suchlike isn't really the best way to make points.

    --
    "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
  33. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    They refuse to make ANY updates to the original client (written for 386) because they feel it will somehow invalidate all of the previous data.

  34. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by BWJones · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That seems horribly inefficient!

    I was under the impression that this had more to do with redundancy of complex data for purposes of security to ensure someone does not spoof data? If the analysis were to proceed by simply taking a derivative of the FFT and using that, the data would concievably be easier to forge? Perhaps this also is one of the reasons that the Seti@home crew is unwilling to make platform specific optimizations?

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  35. Pathetic modders. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha! Pathetic modders.

    You can't label ALL these posts as trolls!

    Bwa ha ha ha.

  36. I asked them.... by meekg · · Score: 1

    They couldn't detect ourselves from .25 light-yesrs away even...
    They're looking for a beacon that's sent out on purpose.

    I'm not sure a race that keeps shouting "I am here" is worthy of being labeled "intelligent"...

    what - they don't listen to the news?

  37. If I had any mod points you'd get a funny one, man.

  38. The WOW signal by 198348726583297634 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the WOW signal. read the link..it'll send chills down yer spine!

    1. Re:The WOW signal by sdo1 · · Score: 1
      it'll send chills down yer spine!

      Bad science, that's all. There are MANY things that could have caused it that are not of alien nature. The articles even mention that. No chills here. Move along.

      -S

      --
      --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    2. Re:The WOW signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad science, that's all. There are MANY things that could have caused it that are not of alien nature. The articles even mention that. No chills here. Move along.

      Bad science? Hardly. In the 20th Anniversary article by the original observer, the author enumerates the possible terrestrial and intra-solar sources of the signal and explains why each has been discounted. His conclusion in a nutshell: not enough information. The fact that the signal was never again received keeps the event just below tantalizing and nothing more. But, it's hardly "bad science."

  39. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by js7a · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The way to handle spoofs is to redo the raw data on someone else's (or a lab) machine if it ever looks promising.

    I'm pretty damn sure they could be getting a many thousand times speedup.

    The process is to take a FFT of the log magnitude spectrum, and look for peaks in the cepstral domain instead of periodicities and triplets in the spectral domain. Maybe there is some reason you can't look for gausians that way. Maybe I ought to take this to email and see what the SETI@Home people say.

  40. Re:SETI is pointless(repost) - of course it is!! by meekg · · Score: 1

    They couldn't detect earth if it were .25 light years away... I asked them.

    They are looking for a beacon that someone is sending out on purpose.

    I think a race that sits around shouting "I am here" is either very stupid or very confident and mean.
    Or is counting on some other race being very stupid, and hoping the other race is not very confident and mean as well.

    ah, the complexities of intergalactic politics.

  41. Trick? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Is this a big Pig-Latin joke? All the letters are sort of reversed in the writeup:

    CEPStral: SPECtral

    QUEFrency: FREQuency

    CEPStrogram: SPECtrogram

    What is up?

    1. Re:Trick? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Informative

      oh, and also "Liftering" as opposed to "filtering".

  42. Other ways by nhavar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The point is first to get the proof. If we have proof that there's anyone out there and we know where they are (or did) transmit from then we can start looking for more information and in different formats.

    There are a lot of "pointless" projects out there, cold fusion, AI, room temperature superconduction, teleportation, time travel, an end to world hunger, "peace keeping", Battlestar Galactica as visioned by Richard Hatch. Luckily there are still dreamers out there wasting their time and money trying the impossible. Who know's maybe they'll succeed.

    --
    "Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
    1. Re:Other ways by CGP314 · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of "pointless" projects out there, cold fusion, AI, room temperature superconduction, teleportation, time travel, an end to world hunger

      The best justification for theoretical research or far-flung projects is not the project itself, but the tools invented along the way to try and get the job done. SETI may never come to anything, but they introduced the average person to the idea of distributed computing.

      Set your sights on the impossible, and you will start making some fantastic tools that may never get the job done, but that can be used for many other things.

  43. Well in a couple of years by Timesprout · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    As spamming techniques get ever more sophisticated I confidently expect my currently under construction clinic to be innundated with aliens looking for penis and tentacle (I dont want to discriminate) enlargement.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  44. Re:Testes testes, 1..2.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Screw #slashdot. What a ghey channel. All people do is talk about anal sex and blow jobs from goats. Usually these types of comments originate from drdink himself. The conclusion is that drdink is a flaming-buttfucking-cumburping-ass-puppet-all-hogt ied-up-with-no-place-to-go who's happily been on the receiving end of many a good bukkake session from time to time. He sits at home masturbating his cock all over his area51.slashnet.org server in anticipation of hoping to get another pizza boy to come over and lick sauce off of his swolen-and-blistered-from-too-much-jacking-off cock while dressed as a little school girl whore with a buttplug in his hairy ass late at night.

  45. Fascinating! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The signal is intercepted in a location that runs in a wobbling path nort and south of the galactic plane. Clearly this must be due to the telemetry signals from a passing flying saucer. Anybody believe that? I didn't think so. Continue grinding air, anyway. I'll stick to compiling the latest kernel.

  46. point vs counterpoint by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you make excellent points, but the other side also has some good points to make too. Me? I'm just glad someone is doing something. Its hardly resource intensive (theyre not tying up aricebo for months and people leave their PCs on anyway) and in many ways it can be seen as baby steps towards *some* understanding of potential alien contact.

    >They don't get much radio time, and they can't cover much of the sky.

    Granted, but that could change tomorrow with funding.

    >Now chances of actually recognizing the signal as intelligent life are unknown

    I wouldn't say that. Primes in binary would be pretty obvious. Even a something trivial that isn't a pulsar but repeats could be seen as meaningful communication i.e. someone is saying "I exist!"

    >Ok, maybe you see it and you recognize it. Can you decode it?

    Even if they cant or if its just numbers, the proof that life exists off our sphere is revolutionary and will change humanity forever. That's something to take seriously even if we don't know what we're being told.

    > Great, someone's actually listening and gets the signal. You've just had the century-long equivalent of the 20 second bar conversation

    I don't think the consensus at SETI or SETI-like projects is to build a conversation. Its about discovery. The proof that intelligent life is abound in the universe, like I mentioned above, is more than justification for the projects.

    I think people with your kinds of criticisms have a very high expectation of a very limited project. That doesn't mean that the project isn't worthwhile or can't deliver goods. It just wont deliver the goods you seem to want - a "telephone" like conversation with aliens. A verified signal is more than enough to bowl the world over. Who knows how it will affect us. Will space exploration get a second boom? Will people take global disarmament more seriously? Will the religious scream bloody murder?

    Who knows. Like I wrote above, its not an expensive project and I hope to see more SETI stuff in the future, especially powerful wholesale transmissions to likely candidates.

  47. Re:FP by handybundler · · Score: 0

    i think you like to touch aliens inappropriately.

    --


    a/s/l here. Sorry, adding domain tags to your s
  48. I can just picture it by Omestes · · Score: 2, Funny

    A universe full of life, all with seti programs, just listening to each other listening to each other.

    A universe full of introverts, wouldn't it be ironic.

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  49. Interesting story about this today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently, many people within the scientific community are beginning to question why distributed computing is being used for SETI@home instead of a project with more scientific merit.

  50. cepstral terms by js7a · · Score: 4, Informative
    John W. Tukey ... is of course best known for his (re)invention, with IBM's Jim Cooley, of the fast Fourier transform, (FFT) which changed the topography of digital signal processing (never mind that Gauss had the FFT 150 years earlier). Tukey was also a great wordsmith: he coined the terms bit, byte, software and cepstrum, (the Fourier transform of the logarithm of the Fourier transform). But some of his cookier coinages, like quefrency (for cepstral frequency) and saphe (for cepstral phase) didn't catch on.

    I first heard about the cepstrum from John, which he had invented to distinguish underground nuclear explosions from earth quakes in connection with the US-Soviet test ban negotiations. It became immediately clear to me that the cepstrum was ideally suited for extracting the fundamental frequency (the pitch) from speech signals -- a difficult task for distorted telephone signals. The cepstrum was an ingenious idea and today, 40 years later, it remains the best method for separating long delays (travel times of seismic waves in the earth's mantle or times intervals between the puffs of the human vocal cords) from short-delay and resonance effects (of the human vocal tract).

    -- Memories of John Tukey

    The seminal work coining the terms is:

    B.P. Bogert, M.J. R. Healy and J.W. Tukey, "The Quefrency Alanysis of Time Series for Echoes: Cepstrum, Psuedo-Autocovariance, Cross-cepstrum and Saphe Cracking", in Proceedings of the Symposium on Time Series Analysis, edited by M. Rosenblat, 1963 (New York: Wiley), pp. 209-243.

  51. Re:What a waste by dnahelix · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Folding@Home kept CRASHING my COMPUTER

    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.
  52. Re:SETI is a crock- here's why by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Oddly enough, you didn't mention the single biggest problem facing the SETI program: the likelyhood that use of omnidirectional radio is not long lived.

    Actually, I don't think that the receivers used by SETI are sensitive enough to pick up anybody's omnidirectional signals. If we pick up anything at all, it would be because they are beaming massively powerful signals in a narrow beam directed specifically at our solar system. We certainly aren't going to stumble onto any random local alien TV broadcasts.

  53. No intelligent life in our own radio frequencies by jessemckinney · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    After spending years searching the radio frequencies on earth for intelligent life, the closest I have found are Dr. Laura, Howard Stern, and Rush Limbaugh ;-) Maybe there is intelligent life on other planets?

  54. Re:What a waste by TummyX · · Score: 1

    Programs doing number crunching shouldn't crash your computer.

    Sounds like you have a poorly cooled (and probably overclocked) CPU.

  55. Matters of Matter by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

    Chances are aliens will be made of it-- matter, that is. There's more matter near stars, especially more tightly packed matter as is likely to make up or provide nutrition or building materials for them.

    *honk*

    --
    This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  56. Good way to spend free time :) by saikou · · Score: 1

    So all the civilizations, capable of building radio beakons and moving them away from the star for clearer transmittion will be excluded, as every megawatt transmittion with goal of reaching other civilizations should originate by the planet!

    Hm. Strange ideas.

    "The next message will be sent by us in 0.00063 of galactic second".

    1. Re:Good way to spend free time :) by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 1

      Which assumes that a civilisation would be mind-numbingly dumb enough to explicitly advertise their location. You can be fairly certain that if you do pick up a signal from such a civilisation, there probably won't be much left of said civilisation now except desolate planets covered in ruins. If the planets still exist at all.

      Put it this way - if someone dropped you in a darkened room with no idea who or what was in there would your first reaction be to shout at the top of your voice "Anyone in here?!" If so, you are either very trusting, very naive or just plain suicidal. Probably the latter.

      Any truly advanced civilisation will work out that the most sensible thing you can do is kill broadcast technologies, switch to tight-band directional communication and hope like hell that nobody notices your noisy past. Fake your disappearance and pretend you never existed - sure, there may be nobody out there likely to wipe you out. but there as equally may be. Perhaps more than likely.

  57. Lotto picker@home by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    If I have a sure-fire algorithm to pick the next power ball number, but it takes a lot of CPU cylcels to find it... will y'all help me out?

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  58. they should lose their metamoderating license by zymano · · Score: 0

    damn those metamorphosizing metamoderating moderators. damn them.

    1. Re:they should lose their metamoderating license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and no sig now? Did you or did you not previously have a signature with the word "nigger" in it referring to the rapper Ice T?

  59. Re:No intelligent life in our own radio frequencie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about George Bush?

    =)

  60. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a waste of all those CPU cycles!

    Ahh the very nature of Seti@home.

    After I quit using it my power bill went down over 20$ a month and I'm not kidding in the slightest.

    Before that it struck me - what's the actual probability of finding intelligent life? I work in tech support 90% of all the people I talk to each day are complete morons.

  61. RF Blackout Implies SETI Failure by gregor-e · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As we are quickly discovering, RF isn't the ideal way to shuffle information around. As a result, Earth will soon (within decades) abandon RF in favor of pure optical communications. Assuming most intelligence follows a similar path, we can expect they will emit detectable RF for perhaps a century. On a geologic timescale, this is much less than the blink of an eye. Therefore the odds of us catching another intelligence when it is at the RF stage of tech evolution is vanishingly small. So fugeddaboudit.

    1. Re:RF Blackout Implies SETI Failure by Strandman · · Score: 1

      I'm so tired of people saying that the odds are unbeliavably small, how can we even start betting on how alien civilization evolve? We have not the slightest idea.

      And besides, people win the lottery even though the odds are small.

    2. Re:RF Blackout Implies SETI Failure by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      And besides, people win the lottery even though the odds are small.

      Actually, the odds of someone winning the lottery are quite high...

      Assuming that technological development of an alien race followed roughly the same line as ours, and that they think in vaguely the same way as us (highly unlikely), then I predict that they would do the following:

      1. Stop using RF for non-mobile communication in favour of optical fibre etc.
      2. Move mobile communication to quantum communications, reducing RF radiation to background caused by all of their computers (not detectable much beyond their planet's atmosphere).
      3. Decide that making contact with other races would be fun.
      4. Listen, and guess that everyone else is listening as well.
      5. Set up a really large EMP on the edge of their solar system, repeatedly broadcasting prime numbers (or similar).
      6. Make contact with any race that notices their big flashing EMP.
      7. Sell them high tech (say, not more than 100 years behind their current tech level), but ultimately valueless toys.
      8. ???
      9. Profit!!!
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  62. Re:SETI is a crock- here's why by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hmm...

    Maybe we should work this from the opposite end... Use the highest power transmitters available to broadcast something for years and years!

    How about Pr0n, for example? I'd love to see what aliens would think about "That blue Pr0nWorld orbiting the yellow star".

    Perhaps they'd have anal-probe tours... Perhaps they ALREADY DO!

    N.

    --
    "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
  63. Re:SETI is a crock- here's why by Cobralisk · · Score: 1, Informative

    Seriously, I have problems picking up TV stations at all without cable, and the broadcast is only ~20 miles away (over hilly terrain). Granted I don't have the best antenna, but we're talking about lightyears here. The only signal I pick up reliably is the Sun (just tune your TV to some random station, it comes in quite clear, channel 8 works pretty well for me). Alas, I find little evidence of intelligent life on cable either. Its all random noise.

    --
    Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
  64. Re:I'm NOT trolling by mikedaisey · · Score: 0, Troll


    They marking you "troll" because of the idiocy of your opinions, and the asinine way you construct your arguments.

  65. spoofers never return promising data by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    Have you ever been asked by your parents to go look for something and then you just peer under your bed for a second and say: "Nup. It's not in my room!"?

    That's what spoofing looks like. It would be a greater waste of CPU cycles to redundantly check every result many times over on "trusted machines" if it was easy to spoof a negative result.

    1. Re:spoofers never return promising data by js7a · · Score: 1
      It would be a greater waste of CPU cycles to redundantly check every result many times

      On the contrary, 5000 > 3.

  66. Greater Importance by cliffy2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It brought distributed computing to the forefront of media attention and to many user's desktops. For that, I give it credit.

  67. Up in the air by nimblebrain · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to think we were simply looking into outer space with the SETI project and hearing complete silence. Well, that doesn't seem to be the case. Even in the 'relatively quiet' radio bands, there's still a whole lot of signal going on, and by and large we can't tell it from noise.

    The article mentioned is a bit humble when saying 'oh yes, there were more than 166 candidates'. Yes, there were a 'few' more, and it was pretty tough to pare the list down to something the Arecibo could be solidly used for, according to the Planetary Society

    Nor is the search in the radio band the be-all end-all to all the observation techniques; to that effect, there are a number of other observations and techniques underway.

    I suppose the "saddest" thing at the moment is that we honestly cannot currently tell the difference between "nobody's out there" and "ten billion civilizations are out there", due to our narrow and infrequent observation bands, our simplifying assumptions, and our limited processing power (think of the difference another 50... or even 10 years will make to that).

    I suppose an additional question we might have to face if we hear an ET signal: how many people will play it backwards and hear Elvis or the Devil?

    --
    Binary geeks can count to 1,023 on their fingers :)
  68. or worse... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

    could be even worse... but that raises the question - would we even be able to comprehend the alien version of goatse.cx?

    --
    This space available.
  69. Extraterrestrial message decoded! by tambo · · Score: 1

    And the message is........ "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine."

    [NASA engineer] Son of a bitch!

    --
    Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    1. Re:Extraterrestrial message decoded! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do they call it "Ovaltine"? The jar is round. The glass is round... they should call it roundtine.

  70. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by john_smith_45678 · · Score: 1

    Did you provide tech support for seti@home users? ;P

  71. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by Demosthenes_Aus · · Score: 1

    That is a very arrogant assumption - it's that mentaility 'build it and they will come' - there is a good reason why people who regard themselves as having a 'superior intellect' do not hold office. Can you imagine a politician with an attitude like that? I think you are all dumb - but please vote for me.. And why on Earth did your electricity bill go down? I leave my machines running 24x7 - so I don't see how extra CPU cycles will make a huge difference to my power bill

  72. SCO@Home by croddy · · Score: 0, Redundant
    SETI@home is sponsored by individual donors around the world.
    If you'd like to contribute to the project,
    please visit the SETI@home web site at
    http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu.
    The project is also sponsored by the Planetary Society,
    the University of California, Sun Microsystems, Paramount Pictures,
    Fujifilm Computer Products, Informix, Engineering Design Team Inc,
    The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO), Intel, Quantum Corporation,
    and the SETI Institute.

    SETI@home was developed by David Gedye (Founder),
    David Anderson (Director), Dan Werthimer (Chief Scientist),
    Leonard Chung, Hiram Clawson, Jeff Cobb, Charles Congdon, Charlie Fenton,
    Kyle Granger, Eric Heien, Mike Hill, Michael Kang, Eric Korpela,
    Matt Lebofsky, Peter Leiser, Brad Silen, Woody Sullivan, and Adam Wight.

  73. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hell, they even refuse to -funroll-all-loops

  74. Why is it that... by Romanpoet · · Score: 2, Funny

    the first thing I read said, "SETI@Home publishes SkyNet."

    Holy shit, distributed processing program on all of our computers. The machines plotting against us is already happening!

  75. WOAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i hope everyone is a source of a alien-civilsation!
    more brains to think creativilly.

    maybe they also have TV and computer games?!

    10 years from now, 10'000 TV channels! yeah!

  76. SETI@Home=SkyMap=Skynet by JumperCable · · Score: 0

    The dawn of machines.

  77. Re:They find anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    light is pretty slow ...

    while the photon is traveling thru "empty" space it's arguing with space thru the whole trip. terrible!

    there MUST be something instantainiesly! but it's probably un-messurable. all the hard physics using acctual matter will never discover it!
    it's going to be a good guess from someone! just like the german guy who sat infront of his fireplace and just thought of the form of the benzol ring (6 c-atoms in a circle). he had no instruments (elec.microscope) he just sat there and had a really good idea to explain it.

    i wish Einstein would have never existed!
    terrible to have to think how much the univers (and everything in it) is lagging!

    funny: i can think/imagine the lag while i'm lagging; i'm probably not 100% accurate with my lag estimate ;)

  78. Uh huh... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Before we get all sci-fi here, remember that the US can barely shoot down a missile with their "rocket defense". While the Earth is a much bigger target, you're trying to hit an object from 44,5 trillion km away (closest star), and at 0.92c you'll not be able to make any course correction at all. And the Earth is orbiting the sun, and the sun the galactic disc, making a rather complex movement compared to space. How much does 5 years+ of inaccuracy add up to? I imagine quite a lot...

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  79. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by tabby · · Score: 1

    If that just because only moron's use your companies product? ;-)

    >>I work in tech support 90% of all the people I talk to each day are complete morons.

    --
    I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
  80. hmm by Bombula · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now I'm no physicist, and I don't know how potential energy is measured relative to a pair of celestial objects, but assuming the velocity of the spaceship relative to the target planet started at something FAR less than .3c, wouldn't that mean that the spaceship somehow had to acquire most of that 15 million megatons of energy itself? Where would that come from? From it's fuel, or fuel it gathered along the way (magentic fusion ramjet equivalent or something)?

    --
    A-Bomb
    1. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It gets all of its energy from its fuel. That particular design uses matter/antimatter reactions to produce muons that it then catches in a magnetic sail and forces backwards kind of like a rocket engine. Every theory that we have now says that such a ship could exist and that the only problem with making it is producing enough antimatter to fuel it. If we were to plate mercury in solar panels, it would be able to make over 1 kg of antimatter every month. If we were to put sattelites around the sun to catch light not in the orbital plane, then that could produce an untold quantity of energy every second.

  81. Link text: my pet peeve by p3d0 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Please don't get too creative with what text you put in your hyperlinks. It makes it hard to tell where the links go. Hint: look at the Related Links box, and if it's totally nonsensical, your links need work.

    Let's look at the links in this article:

    • "skymap" points to the astrobio article
    • "most promising" points to the skymap
    • "project" points to a past slashdot article about SETI@home
    • "these" points to a description of the signals SETI@home looks for
    Here's my suggestion:
    "An Astrobiology Magazine article today presents the skymap of where in the night sky to find the most promising SETI@Home signals, along with the research plan for the March Stellar Countdown project that produced it. The dedicated use of the Arecibo Telescope to revisit the most promising spikes, pulses, and steady signals, focused on 166 star candidates. Those 166 were pruned from the five billion signals that have been found since 1999, depending on the signal's persistence, closeness to a known star, and frequency. The next step is particularly fascinating, if a signal appears to have increased since the first observation put that star on the checklist."
    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    1. Re:Link text: my pet peeve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah. A pedantic: my pet peeve. Please consider enabling the "Show Link Location" box in your preferences. I love that feature because it tells me where peoples signature files go when people do things that are too cutesy.

    2. Re:Link text: my pet peeve by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      A pedantic: my pet peeve.
      Actually, it's "pedant". :-)
      Please consider enabling the "Show Link Location" box in your preferences.
      All that tells you is the domain name, not what the link is. That's why we have the link text; why not use it?
      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  82. Aliens by TrollBridge · · Score: 5, Funny
    Would interstellar aliens be treated the same as illegal aliens? Unless of course they had passports or green cards, the interstellar aliens I mean. And would illegal aliens be jealous of interstellar aliens? And if they (the interstellar aliens) became citizens, they'd no longer still be interstellar OR aliens, right? Would they (illegal aliens) still receive free healthcare and education? Would the interstellar aliens (who became citizens and are no longer interstellar or aliens) have to pay taxes? Wouldn't the until-recently-interstellar-aliens then be upset that illegal aliens don't?

    These are some serious questions that need to be addressed before we invite more aliens into the country, I think.

    --
    There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
    1. Re:Aliens by cmeans · · Score: 1
      Aliens would have gray cards, not green cards :)

  83. ET vs Cancer by CGP314 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    what's the actual probability of finding intelligent life?

    I look at in this way: What's the probability of finding intelligent life vs. the probability of me getting cancer.

    I switched from seti@home to folding@home.

    1. Re:ET vs Cancer by m0rbidini · · Score: 1
      This may be redundant, but I agree.

      quote from folding@home FAQ:


      Unlike other distributed computing projects, Folding@home is run by an academic institution (specifically the Pande Group, at Stanford University's Chemistry Department), which is a nonprofit institution dedicated to science research and education. We will not sell the data or make any money off of it.

      Moreover, we will make the data available for others to use. In particular, the results from Folding@home will be made available on several levels. Most importantly, analysis of the simulations will be submitted to scientific journals for publication, and these journal articles will be posted on the web page after publication. Next, after publication of these scientific articles which analyze the data, the raw data of the folding runs will be available for everyone, including other researchers, here on this web site.


      Folding@Home isn't run by a corporation (unlike United Devices), doesn't use patented algorithms (unlike distributedfolding) and has already published results (unlike everyone else). And it has a set of realistic goals without Aliens, AIDS and SARS hype.
  84. Searching for cures for pathogens instead!! by Demosthenes_Aus · · Score: 1

    http://www.d2ol.com/SARS.html - I use this as a USEFUL use of CPU time... I've already clocked up over a hundred drug candidates 'tested'.

  85. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 1

    Seti uses a lot of CPU time, CPUs draw more power when under load. I'll leave you to work out the rest.

  86. can SETI break DRM? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was just thinking about this based upon a comment posted arguing that if life evolved on another planet similar to Earth and they developed fire, the wheel, etc. millions of years before us then they'd most likely have the radio as well. But if that's the case, then they would have had a Bill Gates figure exploiting their own ancient tech boom. So they too would have progressed to digital radio transmission, and their own music distribution industry would have insisted on protecting the content and then their Mr. Gates would've pioneered the march to encrypting their radio transmissions. So in all likelihood, what are the chances that a lot of those radio signals we are picking up that do not make any sense are encrypted signals being distorted to protect content? Or, what if their computer systems evolved off their own native versions of the Atari ST and Commodore Amigas versus Windows? (we'd be screwed!) And, if there are multiple spacefaring species out there, they too probably have defense strategies and they would definitely encrypt their broadcast transmissions. Just some points to ponder duing the wee hours here in Pacific Standard Time today...

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  87. Re:SETI is a crock- here's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Luc&s^df./l;lkna+7pqoAk$#R%s]f, you've got some splainin' to do!

  88. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by RobinH · · Score: 3, Informative

    I leave my machines running 24x7 - so I don't see how extra CPU cycles will make a huge difference to my power bill

    Let's just look at the CPU. CPUs have millions of transistors (a Pentium 4 has ~42 million), and each transistor is an electronic switch. The transistor technology they use is Field Effect or "FET". The most common would be "MOSFET". To maintain the state of the switch as ON or OFF, the device holds a small charge (positive or negative depending on the device) and the charge acts to "pinch off" the channel for current to flow, or to open the channel, as the case may be.

    While a transistor is just sitting there in a particular ON or OFF state, it uses very little electricity. However, to change the state, you have to either charge or discharge the gate. When you charge or discharge it, this results in a small but finite amount of current flow, and there being resistance in metal and silicon, this results in power being consumed (at a rate of the current squared, times the resistance). So a transistor that is constantly switching will consume power, but a transistor not switching will consume very, very little.

    So, if you home computer is just sitting there doing nothing, then it isn't using most of the chip, and the transistors just sit there waiting for the next instruction to execute. However, when you're running SETI @ Home, the CPU is constantly crunching numbers, and the transistors are constantly switching.

    If you want to see this yourself, run a temperature monitor on the CPU while it's not doing anything, and then when you run SETI@Home or DOOM. You'll notice that the temperature spikes when it's doing something, and this is just used up energy. If you have electric heat in your house, and live in a cold climate all year long, you may not see the difference on your power bill, but I don't think that applies to most of us.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  89. echelon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seti... echelon... what's the difference?

  90. Why does "closeness to a known star" matter? by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1

    I thought that lots of stars can't even be seen or detected? Many stars look like they're close when really they're just bright, while a dimmer star may be many times nearer compared to that brigher star...?

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
  91. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by Ella+the+Cat · · Score: 1

    If I use ~15 extra watts running at 100% CPU for a month 24/7, that's 10 kW hours at 10 cents a kW hour (source http://www.howstuffworks.com/question91.htm) which makes a dollar. Explain the remaining $19 a month.

  92. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by Demosthenes_Aus · · Score: 2, Funny

    leaving the monitor running to display pretty graphics maybe..

  93. Power consumption of computers by Demosthenes_Aus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think that is just putting too much attention to detail.. Using my espresso machine, toaster and kettle for one morning probably chews up more power than a computer running at 50-90 watts.. It just seems a little pedantic to worry about an extra dollar or two on an electricity bill - and I live in Australia where climate control requirements are fairly minimal compared to the USA which is the most energy hungry nation on Earth. If you guys are that worried about energy - hang your washing on the line instead of using a dryer - it works for me (more so than spending a night running calculations on a few extra watts - the extra monitor time of which probably just used more energy than a month of distributed processing).

    1. Re:Power consumption of computers by RobinH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you guys are that worried about energy - hang your washing on the line instead of using a dryer - it works for me

      Actually I live in Canada. In the winter we pretty much have to keep every heat producing appliance running just to keep the pipes from freezing. I need SETI just to keep the CPU pegged at 100% to keep the windows on that side of the house from frosting over.

      Just kidding, obviously.

      However, I was just responding to a question from another poster asking a legitimate question: Does a computer actually use more power while it's working than when it's just sitting there? The answer is yes, and I tried to explain why.

      Also, let's say we're not just talking about your computer, but let's say you run it on your office computer. If every computer in an office uses $20 or even $10 more per month for electricity because everyone is running SETI@Home, then the owner of the business has a legitimate financial reason to not allow it on his or her network. On a 100 computer network, that could be $12,000 to $24,000 more per year in electricity costs.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    2. Re:Power consumption of computers by Demosthenes_Aus · · Score: 1

      Or if employees leave the fridge door open while looking for milk or that well hidden chocalate doughnut could be a legitimate financial conern also. People leaving corporate propoganda screensavers running during their lunch break to show their patrotism to their company has contributed more the to climate change we are experiencing in Austrlia than Seti@home. Ban those corporate propoganda screensavers!

  94. Re: Let me get this straight... by iiioxx · · Score: 1

    So we shouldn't bother listening for extrasolar transmissions because... they are probably just the last transmissions of a race being bombarded by alien warmongers?

    Here's a question: what fucking morons modded this post up as "Insightful"? Moderators, here's a suggestion: read the fucking post instead of skimming and modding on length. And tune up your bullshit detectors, because they are clearly out of calibration.

    Man, I hope I get one of you knuckleheads in my metamod list today.

  95. For all of you questioning the utility of SETI by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    For all of you questioning the utility of SETI@Home (i.e. "It will do no good, we will never find a signal", etc.), I have a question:

    Do you MetaModerate?

    If so, then how do you justify the one but not the other?

  96. Re:They find anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow, your post made no sense.

  97. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    brrrrr. that was cold

  98. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by Scott+Ransom · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sorry, but cepstral techniques don't do what the SETI people need them to do. The de-chirping needs to happen coherently (i.e. without any loss of the phase information from the original data and signals that it might contain). The reason for this is that the signal-to-noise of a detected periodic signal is much less if you use an incoherent technique like the cepstrum rather than a coherent one. And since they are looking for very weak signals, they need every bit of S/N that they can get.

    OTOH, I have developed a cepstral-like technique to detect binary pulsars in data almost identical to the SETI@home data. You can read about it here or here if you are interested.

  99. Aww man... by nukeade · · Score: 1

    They sunk my battleship!

  100. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

    Explain the remaining $19 a month.

    Well, you spent $1 on the CPU, so you spent $2 on cooling. The other $17 is probably traceable to your A/C - that's 3kW.

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  101. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by ruiner13 · · Score: 1
    "There should be no need to iterate thousands of times over the pattern recognition algorithms when you can just take anouther FFT of the log magnitude spectrum to eliminate doppler shift (the same as what audio engineers would call 'pitch.')"

    Whatcha talkin' about willis? No flex capacitor? What were you thinking.

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

  102. Re:What a waste by toddestan · · Score: 1

    One of those cheap OEM systems that is not designed to dissipate the heat generated by the CPU they stuck in there running at 100%?

    I've been impressed by the quiteness of many of those OEM systems, until I figured out they assume the CPU won't be maxed for very long and go from there.

  103. In Soviet Russia by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

    Extra-terrestrial life looks for YOU!

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  104. Re: Let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if there are aliens transmitting, then either they have confirmed that there are no other intelligent races in the galaxy (which would mean that the transmissions came from us), or they are really stupid and anyone could kill them. He wasn't saying that we shouldn't listen for transmissions, just that we aren't likely to find them. If an alien race was about to be destroyed, they might as well put all of their planet's power into one last transmission of their knowledge.

  105. SETI by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

    Consider the size of our galaxy, the number of stars and planets where there may be intelligent civilizations. Think about how many of those would know of our existence, and then actually contact us. Are we looking in the right direction? At the right frequencies? Do we have sensitive instruments enough? Even if we do, can we know what is a signal and what is not? I'm not optimistic. :(

  106. You really don't think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You really don't think all these aliens have come half way across the universe to FEAST on us, do you Gordon?

  107. It's all nice... by sxpert · · Score: 1

    however, these stars are thousands of light years away, and we didn't find a stargate in gizeh...

  108. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by jeremyp · · Score: 1

    I work in tech support 90% of all the people I talk to each day are complete morons.

    I often have to call tech support. 90% of the time I get put through to a complete moron.

    --
    All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  109. To Skeptics Like Me by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    One thing that we must remind ourselves when dealing with ET is the raw fact of distance and time. A light year is a hell of distance if your not light. But skeptics must remind ourselves one thing, space-time is a complex beast and the whole light speed defense can be explained away in a variety of given circumstances.

    For instance "The Lightyear Ridgid Rod Telegraph" scenario (LRRT) The LRRT scenario asks this: If you had two rods 1 light year in length joined in the middle on a pivot and move the rods together or apart wouldn't the other ends move at the same time (remember that this assumes they are perfectly ridgid) thus your message would exceed the speed of light as the cause and effect over distance happen at the same time. It is simple but serious arguments like the LRRT that reminds us that the speed of light may not be the fastest thing in the universe. Add in entangled atoms that are miles apart and the whole things gets ugly.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  110. I Hope they won't hold out for the Italian Bistro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or Dr. Farnsworth's drive which moves the universe about the space drive

  111. Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda by js7a · · Score: 1
    The de-chirping needs to happen coherently (i.e. without any loss of the phase information from the original data and signals that it might contain). The reason for this is that the signal-to-noise of a detected periodic signal is much less if you use an incoherent technique like the cepstrum rather than a coherent one.

    I'm not convinced.

    Please tell me why you think that the complex spectrum can contain signal information that the magnitude spectrum doesn't.

    It seems to me that the spectral phase is independent of the existance of a periodic signal. You might benefit from more bins in the FFT, but keeping the phase component can not make up for that, can it?

    Thank you for the pointers to your very informative papers.

  112. Re:What a waste by dnahelix · · Score: 1

    Trying to draw 3D molecules on my desktop is more than 'number crunching'

    Sounds like you have a poorly cooled (and probably overclocked) CPU.---WRONG!

    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.