Slashdot Mirror


New and Improved SETI

nomrniceguy writes "The new year is sure to be memorable for SETI, as glossy new instruments come on-line. At Harvard University, a survey telescope designed to sweep massive swaths of the sky in a hunt for extraterrestrial laser flashes is becoming a reality. In Puerto Rico, the famed Arecibo telescope is getting a new feed that will speed up searches by seven times. And in California, the SETI Institute and Berkeley's Radio Astronomy Lab will soon be scanning the star-clotted realms of the inner Milky Way with the first-stage implementation of the Allen Telescope Array (ATA) and will eventually boast 350 antennas, each 20 feet in diameter. This impressive antenna farm will be spread over about a half square-mile of terrain."

60 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. How'd they get the funding? by JaxWeb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As interesting as the SETI project is, I just wonder how they manage to find the funding to build massive Laser detection devices.

    Really, what are the chances of this finding anything?

    --
    - Jax
    1. Re:How'd they get the funding? by dlleigh · · Score: 4, Informative
      As interesting as the SETI project is, I just wonder how they manage to find the funding to build massive Laser detection devices.

      The all-sky optical SETI system at Harvard receives its funding from The Planetary Society and the Bosack-Kruger Charitable Foundation.

    2. Re:How'd they get the funding? by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is the traditional reason to take on graduate students. They (usually) have two eyes, you know.

    3. Re:How'd they get the funding? by Vulture101 · · Score: 2, Interesting


      very very small, but its worth doing it. Just think of the impact in humanity if just one discovery was made...

      its kinda like the big lottery, your chances are very small but you still play it, the prize is too much tempting.

    4. Re:How'd they get the funding? by mbrother · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are Americans, or most people in the world, "hungry and unsheltered" because of a lack of money? I don't think so. Politics, and other issues, are the major obstacles. SETI, and astronomy in general, is pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things. It's ridiculous to prioritize the problems of the nation, or the world, and then apply all resources to solving the first one, then the second one, ad infinitum. That's not a wise thing to do.

      One of the things that makes human civilization great, in my opinion, is that we care about this sort of knowledge. We value it for it's own sake. There are ways to determine the nature of the universe and our place in it. A culture that fails to look past its immediate physical needs of food and shelter is a short-sighted one that isn't any greater than a troop of babboons.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    5. Re:How'd they get the funding? by colmore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It seems like the likelihood of finding an alien EM radiation broadcast is
      Chance that they're close enough * chance that they're using that technology * chance that we're capable of identifying the signal as such

      with laser light there's the added wrinkle that there could be a signal origin close enough to us, but it could simply be aimed in the wrong direction. the chances of a laser originating from a point any significant distance away from the solar system coming in our general direction is microscopically low, so it seems like we're banking on them knowingly signalling earth.

      so we're banking now on aliens knowing we're here and actively trying to get in touch with us. my guess is that if they're advanced enough to do interstellar travel, and they felt like talking, they would come up with a method that's a little harder to miss.

      of course i suppose they might have just done a survey of solar systems, worked out which ones are potentially habitable and left lasers counting off prime numbers pointed at each of them.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    6. Re:How'd they get the funding? by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 2, Funny
      This is the traditional reason to take on graduate students [as LASER detection devices]. They (usually) have two eyes, you know.
      ... until one of them detects a LASER.
      "Do not look at LASER with remaining eye."
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    7. Re:How'd they get the funding? by jridley · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, I think telemarketers should go to Mars. Here's a buck.

  2. And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    And yet the giant orange somethings in the sky won't register as a single bleep on these new shiny instruments...

    1. Re:And yet... by Almost-Retired · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And yet the giant orange somethings in the sky won't register as a single bleep on these new shiny instruments...

      Ahh, but they do. Each of those stars has a noise in the water hole frequency coming out of it, including our own sun, which has sufficient radio frequency power output that any satellite dish's rx signal meter is pegged while the dishes so called beam, crosses the sun. Every comm satellite we have out there suffers from this effect twice a year, for a few minutes each day for 5 to 10 days each spring and fall as the sun crosses the equatorial plane headed the other way. When the sun has many kilowatts of noise output, its a bit hard to pick out a 10 watt satellite signal trying to compete with that.

      However, thats above the "water hole" by about 2.5GHZ. Because that frequency, near 1420MHZ is quite transparent, its a good place to listen, and most stars within 10000 light years will cause the noise level out of the receivers at Arecebo to rise, often with enough charactar to the noise that the star can be identified just from its noise signature.

      There used to be a visualizer (ksetispy) for linux that could display that as the dish scanned across nearby stars, but it quit working with the 2.6 kernel advent.

      I'm hoping we'll get a chance to handle some of the data coming from the Allen Array, and it sounds as if its going to be ready for "first light" before too much longer.

      The lazer search is a bit more far-fetched, but then so was radio, in 1891. Each of these observation instruments we build will teach us how to do a better job with the next generation.

      Cheers, Gene

  3. 350 Antennas by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > "... 350 antennas, each 20 feet in diameter. This impressive antenna farm will be spread over about a half square-mile of terrain."

    ~fitzprrklpop~ople of Earth, can you hear us now?~fwopzzwwep~

    1. Re:350 Antennas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it should be more like ~fitzprrklpop~~fwopzzwwep~ Why would they speak English in the first place.

  4. Direct Link by RobertTaylor · · Score: 4, Informative

    Direct link to seti.org press release without all the crapola popups etc.

  5. 'Extraterrestrial laser flashes'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So do they expect to be able to see space battles between Klingons and Romulans or something?

    1. Re:'Extraterrestrial laser flashes'? by SeaDour · · Score: 4, Informative

      From the Harvard Optical SETI web site:

      "A high-intensity pulsed laser, teamed with a moderate sized telescope, forms an efficient interstellar beacon. Using only "Earth 2000" technology, we could build such a laser transmitter. To a distant observer in the direction of its slender beam, it would appear (during its brief pulse) a thousand times brighter than our sun."

      Simply put, a targeted laser pulse would be exponentially more efficient than using a power-hungry radio antenna.

    2. Re:'Extraterrestrial laser flashes'? by Linker3000 · · Score: 3, Funny
      Vader (increasing death grip on pilots neck from a distance of several metres): SO! master pilot, tell me why the new Death Star - the pride of the Empire - was damaged by a collision with a small moon while establishing a parking orbit at Omega-4?

      Pilot: Sir (cough, splutter), it's not my fault - we were completing our orbital parking procedure as per instructions when this a**hole from Sol-3 shone this frickin' blinding laser beam into the cockpit and we missed the last orbital beacon.
      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
  6. And let's not forget who is funding a lot of this by mOoZik · · Score: 5, Interesting

    None other than Paul Allen. Yep, of Microsoft fame. Boo, hiss, where are the groups of objectors now?

    Not that I'm being a jerk about it, but it is only fair to note that without him, most of this would probably not be possible. Not only did he contribute millions to SETI, but also funded the Alien Telescope Array which the Slashdot blurb mentions.

  7. not now by eille-la · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why not wait quantum computers to make this job? For the moment the distribued project should be only used to calculate things urgent to people, as the whole processing power we have now is a joke if we compare to nextgen ways to design CPUs. Research for health is IMHO a priority for what we can do at the moment on earth.

    1. Re:not now by SeaDour · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every SETI-related thread never fails to bring a comment or two about the "waste of cycles" SETI@Home is, and how we should all be looking for cancer-fighting protein folds instead. Most people fail to see any importance in efforts to answer one of the greatest questions of all time -- that is, "Are we alone?" -- and would rather keep their eyes firmly planted on the ground, devoting our resources to our own internal affairs. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with a desire for the betterment of the human race, but that doesn't mean we *all* have to be focused entirely on this pale blue dot.

      Listen, we all gotta pick our own battles, and if I want to help out what is arguably one of the most exciting prospects in all of human history, then just let me be.

  8. What else is learned from SETI by failedlogic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let's assume that there are no other life forms in existence and/or there are none that we may reach by radio signal. Is there anything else which can be gained from the SETI program? Is there other knowledge gained, perhaps a deeper understanding of radio communications...?

    1. Re:What else is learned from SETI by SeaDour · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about an answer to the question, "Are we alone in the universe?" and starting revelations about the uniqueness of life on Earth, for starters.

  9. Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th by metlin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, Paul Allen funds a lot of good research.

    I was part of Project Halo/Digital Aristotle, an AI project which aims to learn (and solve) conceptual problems in physics which was funded by Vulcan ventures.

    In fact, Vulcan Capital funds a lot of really cool stuff.

    In my opinion, Bill Gates and Paul Allen are doing the world a favour - they are businessmen who make money off one industry, but help in the progress of several others. When was the last time any of the CEOs of Walmart or Oil Magnates helped fund such things as research and the like?

    And not to mention the fact that places like MSR do a lot of awesome research in and of themselves.

  10. Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Actually, Paul Allen largely bailed out of the operational side of Microsoft years ago; he was more involved with Asymetrix by the launch of Windows 3.x. In the last few years the only times I seem to hear Paul Allen's name is in connection with *extremely* generous philanthropic gestures toward the science & tech sectors. You might remember his massive backing of Scaled Composites' effort in claiming the Ansari X-Prize for example?

    As far as I am concerned Paul Allen is the very best thing *ever* to come out of Microsoft.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  11. Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    None other than Paul Allen. Yep, of Microsoft fame. Boo, hiss, where are the groups of objectors now?

    Guess what... One may dislike what Microsoft does and whatever that guy is responsible for doing there, but still like what he's doing here. Why is that so hard to imagine?

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  12. Classical "there is more pressing problems" by ArcticCelt · · Score: 2, Funny
    Research for health is IMHO a priority for what we can do at the moment on earth.

    Long time ago in some cave...

    Ogtor! I told you to stop wasting your time with that wheel invention thingy and don't even think to start working on that metal melting process waste of time. There is much more important stuff to do like hunting animals with rocks and sleeping to regenerate.

    --

    Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
  13. Don't Bash Paul Allen by Space_Soldier · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I do not want to sound friendly to Microsoft, but Paul Allen is the best thing that happened to the exploration of space lately. Not only that we have a new SETI, but we also have SpaceShipOne, and soon we will have SpaceShipTwo. This is the second best use of Microsoft revenue. The first one is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which helps people in Africa.

  14. Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th by mOoZik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're being unfair. You DON'T have to give your money to ANYONE or for ANY CAUSE, but when you decide to give millions for such causes, or a billion+ to fight diseases in certain other countries, well, I applaud that. You are the kind of person who can't be pleased, as your genes have modified themselves over the years on Slashdot to have a gag response to anything remotely related to Microsoft, even if what Gates, Allen, and others are doing should be celebrated, congratulated, and enjoyed.

  15. Alien lasers by Batte · · Score: 2, Funny

    "At Harvard University, a survey telescope designed to sweep massive swaths of the sky in a hunt for extraterrestrial laser flashes is becoming a reality."

    a.k.a. the "Alan Parson's Project".

  16. A book recommendation and a name drop by mbrother · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm currently reading a pretty good book on the Fermi paradox that includes a big chunk of material on SETI: If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens... Where Is Everybody? Fifty Solutions to Fermi's Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life by Stephen Webb.

    A few years ago, when I was observing quasars at Lick Observatory, I got to have dinner with Frank Drake (of Project Ozma and Drake equation "fame"). He was there working on the start of an optical SETI program. It was cool!

    --
    Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    1. Re:A book recommendation and a name drop by starburst · · Score: 3, Informative

      Drakes formula allows some kind of estimate as to the number of intelligent societies there might be "out there".

      The following is from a great book by A.K. Dewdney: Yes, We Have no Neutrons.

      The formula is N = R* x Fp x Ne x Fl x Fi x Fc x L

      For which:
      R* = number of new stars that form in our galaxy each year
      Fp = fraction of stars having planetary systems
      Ne = average number of life-supporting planets per star
      Fl = fraction of those planets on which life develops
      Fi = fraction of life forms that become intelligent
      Fc = fraction of intelligent beings that develop radio
      L = average lifetime of a communicating society

      The formula has appeared in several popular science magazines with the values set to:

      N = 10 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 0.01 x 0.1 x L

      So, N = 0.01 x L

      The only numbers in the formula which anything other than a guess can be made are R* and L. Based on current observations most set R* at 10. Everything else in the formula would be a wild guess, except for L. More is known about L than any other part of the formula, since we are a communication society. Since we receive more and more of our communication from satellites, cable, and the internet, we are broadcasting less and less away from the earth. In the near future we will likely go dark as a significant source of radio/broadcast signals capable of being detected from space. If we say that our source of signals is about 100 years, drop the 100 back into the formula and you get 1. That must be us.

  17. Quacks! by fuzzy12345 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    So a laser covers what percentage of the sky at even one light year's distance? Trying to see a randomly pointed laser located a great distance away is the silliest thing I've heard yet. But it's from the folks at Harvard, so obviously they're seeing something that I'm not.

    Th article is poorly written: "Just about everyone has peered through cheap binoculars having only a narrow field of view. They don't peer long." -- If I wanted a wide field of view, I wouldn't need binoculars, would I?

    --

    Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
    1. Re:Quacks! by mbrother · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lasers do have an intrinsic beam spread -- it comes out of their physics. That is, the beams are not perfect parallel rays. The exact numbers depend on the wavelength, the beam size, etc., but the odds are probably somewhat better than you're thinking. The strength of the approach is that a laser would be clear evidence for an extraterrestrial civilization and easy to pick out from natural sources.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    2. Re:Quacks! by Jimmy_B · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The point is not to see a randomly pointed laser - that would be silly. Think about it; if an intelligent alien civilization wanted to find other intelligent life, how would they do it? They would look for potentially life-bearing star systems, and try to send a message to them - by, for example, shining a laser that's tight and powerful enough to be detected from the target, and encoding data in the frequency or amplitude of that laser.

      It's extremely unlikely that we'll find anyone who isn't trying to contact us, so the goal is to look for something that's trying to make itself stick out. We aren't looking for things that are randomly pointed.

    3. Re:Quacks! by droleary · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They would look for potentially life-bearing star systems, and try to send a message to them - by, for example, shining a laser that's tight and powerful enough to be detected from the target, and encoding data in the frequency or amplitude of that laser.

      I've made this point in past SETI threads, but nobody who favors your style of approach has given me a good answer: How do you actually accomplish that thing you just hand-waved? Put yourself in the place of the alien. Heck, if you assume there are aliens, then you are an alien to them! Plan what you just described and just imagine all the complexities you/they face actually trying to pull it off.

      I mean, what does "potentially life-bearing" mean for an alien? How many light years out will they be willing to look? When they shine their very tight beam, will it really be in our direction? That is, their observations detect where Sol (or whatever star) was x years ago and their message has to be sent to where it will be in x more years. How accurate would they have to be in all those things, and yet still have beam spread and strength to detectably cover an entire solar system?

      And even then, how long are they going to just spew out that energy, both in terms of pulse length and project duration? What are the odds that they'd be sending longer than the inhabited planet is behind the target star, what are the odds they're sending when the detectors are facing the right way as the planet rotates, what are the odds that the civilization is even looking for a signal at the point in time it arrives? How long are they willing to do it all and wait without a response?

  18. Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th by Will_Malverson · · Score: 2, Informative

    Also, don't forget that SpaceShipOne was also "A Paul G. Allen Project".

  19. folding@home seti@home by leprkan · · Score: 3, Informative

    OR instead of wasting our computer time searching for aliens that most likely aren't out there or won't be able to return our signals, we could make use out of our computer time by folding cells to possibly find a cure for cancer and other diseases. http://folding.stanford.edu/ I urge ALL of you to switch from seti@home to folding@home

    --
    leprkan...
  20. New and improved by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now we can detect new and improved aliens, not those scrappy ones who crash saucers in New Mexico, poke people in the ass for kicks, and gobble up Beagle Mars probes.

  21. Could we be the first? by borgheron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, could we be the first advanced civilization? I have no doubt that there are other civilizations, but perhaps we are currently the most advanced.

    GJC

    --
    Gregory Casamento
    ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    1. Re:Could we be the first? by tryone · · Score: 2, Funny
      Seriously, could we be the first advanced civilization?

      Sure, in a few thousand years...

  22. Friends in Space by lildogie · · Score: 2, Funny

    Our planetary network ports are open. Send us your packets!

  23. Some are always Myopic by DumbSwede · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Things that fire the imagination often provide the groundwork for other things of more practical benefit. You berate donating cycles to SETI@Home versus say Folding.stanford.edu, BUT what are the chances the distributed online Folding project wouldn't even exist if SETI@Home hadn't blazed the trail?

    Progress relies on a Free Market of ideas. Priorities must be made, but focusing everything on the few things deemed immediate and important will no doubt ironically cause a slowing of technology in general and impede progress in the long run on the very things you decide were more important to the exclusion of all else.

    Of course there is always the morality card to be played by some as in "look how much better I am than you, I donate to such and such, and if you don't, you are morally bankrupt"

  24. Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th by selderrr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    true charity is anonymous

    lol... do you realize how stupid that comment is ? Maybe Paul Allen & Bill Gates give three gazillionsquillionfabrillion dollars anonymously. But you'd never know, wouldya ?

    You've just proven how single-sided your thinking is.

  25. They aren't going to be sending signals... by bradbury · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I said this at a lecture I gave at the Extro III conference. We don't talk to worms (refering to C. elegans) and they don't talk to us (refering to aliens). Anyone who believes aliens are sending us signals suffers from a significant misunderstanding as to how intelligent they might be (so far beyond us that we are *dust*) or a delusional fantasy (similar to that our president is subjected to) that they would be sending us messages.

    Wake up and smell the roses -- the reality is out there in the physics. Just read the evidence.

    This is not to say that there are *not* aliens out there and that we cannot detect them. They are probably out there and we can probably detect them. But the approaches the SETI Institute and the groups as Harvard and Berkeley tend to be misfounded on the basis that they are going to try and communicate with us. Any ass would see that the probability of detecting those civilizations out there who ARE NOT trying to communicate with us is higher than than any few who are trying to communicate with us.

    *If* one properly understood the evolution of advanced civilizations this would be understood. But most people engaged in SETI lack that knowledge.

    (Sigh)

    And as a postscript... Reality is about hard, repeatable evidence. And so whether it is about the president and his "faith" based perspectives or about SETI and "yes I heard them once" or "I hope to hear them once". Neither perspective cuts the mustard.

    1. Re:They aren't going to be sending signals... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      We don't talk to worms (refering to C. elegans) and they don't talk to us (refering to aliens).

      True, but we sure as hell talk to dogs, monkeys, and dolphins - all of which we assume to be less intelligent than us - because they're obviously able to respond appropriately.

      Objectively speaking, we're not stupid. We certainly don't have first-hand knowledge about the universe outside our little pocket, but we've learned the language of sub-atomic particle and relativity. Even if that doesn't qualify us for "Rookie Of The Galactic Year", it definitely puts us somewhat higher on the IQ spectrum than dust.

      [...] or a delusional fantasy (similar to that our president is subjected to) that they would be sending us messages.

      You resorted to an ad hominem in the opening salvo. Poor form from a purported "expert".

      But the approaches the SETI Institute and the groups as Harvard and Berkeley tend to be misfounded on the basis that they are going to try and communicate with us. Any ass would see that the probability of detecting those civilizations out there who ARE NOT trying to communicate with us is higher than than any few who are trying to communicate with us.

      Out of the thousands of ET civilizations we've found so far, how many of them were through intentional versus inadvertent means? What? You don't have a single data point to guide you? Guess that means that Harvard and the SETI Institute aren't the only asses.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  26. Re:Folding at Home by Almost-Retired · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In my opinion the http://folding.stanford.edu/ project is more important and perhaps more interesting than SETI. If you can help, I ask you to contribute with it.

    First, they have not to my knowledge issued an update to the original program for linux. I installed that one about 3 years ago when it first came out, but it was such a cpu hog the machine simply wasn't usable when it was running. Seti is a nice kid, running at a nice of 19, meaning it only runs when nothing else needs the cpu. Sure, the cpu stays at 100%, and gets a bit warmer, but it isn't feelable in terms of how this machine runs. FoldingAThome needs to take a few lessons from Seti, not take over that machine, after all it is MY machine. Its entirely possible it might be able to do great work, and I think it will, but when it has to have 100% of the machine instead of 98%, screw em & the camel that rode in on them. Until they learn that lesson, its not going to be running here.

    Cheers, Gene

  27. Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th by D-Cypell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Boo, hiss, where are the groups of objectors now?

    Well me for one...

    True, SETI is a 'sexy' project for geeks and sci-fi fanboys but how practical is it?

    Even if this thing detects 'something' there will still be a large number of sceptics. The broadcasting 'E.T.s' had better be damn specific in their message so that it is clear to everyone on the planet that it was not naturally occuring. Otherwise it just an expensive way to piss off the religous fundementalists (and we have seen first hand what happens then!).

    Also given the potential distances involved, a two-way conversion would be problematic at best.

    Essentially, the best-case seems to be "We found a blip that could be something, but even if it was, it was broacast a few million years ago". Worst-case is that Mr Allen may as well wipe his backside with the banknotes.

    In summary, we can all put our storm trooper costumes away. Darth Vader isnt coming to recruit anytime soon.

    Personally, I feel that making sure everyone in the world has at least the basic... "Food, Water and Shelter" requirements of life would be a good first step for investment. We can explore the intriquing and unimaginable vast expanse of pratically nothing, later.

  28. Re:folding@home seti@home by SB5 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I already use a program that uses all of my extra computer cycles/time. Its called WindowsXP you might have heard of it. Its a resource hog.

    --
    If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
    it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
  29. What if they're already here and observing. by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And what if they're just waiting for us to be able to deal with it.

    Thus, I think the better question is not "Are we alone?" but rather "Do you REALLY think we'd be able to deal with it, right this minute, if we (on a mass scale) realized we weren't?" and the related but important "If 'they' were 'further along' than us, and not just microbes in wet sand, could we deal with that too?"

    A while back I emailed some of the SETI founders about this and got back a "We have procedures in place for proper dissemination of the information if it is discovered", which says NOTHING about how we are prepared to handle the emotional/psychic impact, which cannot of course be ignored. Thus, I no longer support SETI, choosing to spend my CPU cycles on something more practical like Folding@home. Discovery that we are not alone is not "usual" news, and due to its uniqueness has a high unpredictability of mass emotional/psychic impact, and I don't believe it will be something that will be treated by publishing the results in Physical Review Letters, so to speak.

    Two other quick things-
    For a distantly plausible workaround to the speed-of-light problem/argument against intelligent life already being here, google Miguel Alcubierre.
    One last tidbit. I read somewhere (take with a huge grain of salt of course) that "they" like our music and actually owe us a lot in royalties, and are holding onto this for now (and some other things) as a good-faith gift in the event of public contact. Wouldn't it be ironic, the RIAA being a major supporter of a public First Contact?

  30. I like SETI by dj42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't care what the chances are of them actually finding anything. I think the fact they are doing it exmplemifies something more important and fundamentally reassuring about human society. That we can peacefully explore the Universe, whether it be by travelling in it, monitoring it's output, etc.

    --
    We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
  31. Re:folding@home seti@home by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll use my spare cpu cycles as I damn well see fit thank you. If YOU want to do folding for cancer, go for it. I for one will continue to run seti@home because I for one see it as valueable. You clearly do not. So be it.

    But don't try pushing your idea of right and wrong on me or many of the others that choose to look for ETI rather than folding for cancer.

    Aliens may not be there? Well "folding" may not find a cure for cancer ("cancer" of course, being a popular turn of phrase for literally dozens of diseases - curing breast cancer may not help anyone with leukemia, but I digress). I'll "waste" my time any way I feel like.

    Now, if I were to say something like "why doesn't the US spend 1 months worth of the cost of the Iraq war on cancer research and find a cure " but I would instantly be labeled a troll, so I won't.

    I'll just say I urge ALL of you out there to run SOMETHING, anything, of your choice and share your spare CPU cycles for the betterment of society, be it seti@home or folding@home or something else.

    Just check the holier-than-thou judgements at the door.

    --
    Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
  32. Re:folding@home seti@home - is it that good by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, I like folding at home too, but I wonder whether there aren't easier ways to produce a molecule that matches another molecule that you want to stop.

    For example, subject a molecule generator such as: a (modifed) bacteria, to radiation to cause mutation, then selectively breed the bacteria that match best. I must admit, lots of loose ends in my idea, but you might be able to work in parallel if done right.

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  33. Frickin' laser by cno3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hopefully they can uncover why the aliens are shooting lasers at our pilots.

    I suspect it's something along the lines of "Clear the air space! We've got to get us some red staters to anally probe."

  34. Re:huh?? by Sophrosyne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They were looking for Radio waves- not radio transmissions.
    Every electric device you own releases some EM pollution- and they were using some assumptions in hopes that they might stumble across a planet with lots of EM pollution.

  35. Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th by alw53 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And Al Capone opened Chicago's first soup line during the Depression. Most monopolists end up giving money away after they run out of things to buy for themselves. It's good PR and it makes them feel better about themselves, so what?

  36. Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th by Long-EZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gates especially deserves kudos for his philanthropic work, which is far more extensive, relative to his net worth, than is strictly necessary to win him respect

    First, it has less to do with how much philanthropy is required to win respect than it has to do with how much philanthropy is required to offset his enormous income to avoid paying taxes.

    Secondly, as others have already mentioned, he could make anonymous donations rather than the ego boosting, public, "see what a great guy I am" donations.

    Finally, I think a better measure of charity is the degree to which a sacrifice is made. I have a lot more respect for the single mom, working two jobs, who still manages to give $20 to a local orphanage every December 20th so some kid can have a present. When you have $50,000,000,000 in the bank, a billion dollar tax deductible donation is not going to adversely impact the lifestyle.

    So, yeah, he's still evil.

    --
    >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
  37. Doubters appear when ET is mentioned by minator · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Funny when ET or space research in general is mentioned there's always people who appear that want the resources put elsewhere.

    What is is about this subject which brings out such people?

    The day ETs are detected will be the most important day in human history.

    Why should we move the already scant resources which go into SETI to other much better funded research?

    Protien folders got their own government funded $300 million purpose built computer, SETI didn't.

    NASA may get good resources but a lot of their research goes back to industry and often brings tangible benifits to the public at large.

  38. Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th by metlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > as good as all their charitable things are, they can easily afford it,
    > and more.

    If it's my hard earned money, what I do with it is upto me. Nobody has an obligation to give away their money just because they can afford to, no matter what the voices in your head tell you.

    > and it doesn't remove the fact they are fucking up
    > the IT industry and now keeping society back
    >years, maybe even decades.

    Excuse me? That is *such* a blanket statement to make. But guess what? You said it yourself - IT industry. When you are in any industry, you're in the business of making money. Do not like their methods? Fight them on their turf but do not blame them for chasing profit.

    You're an idiot if you think Microsoft hasn't contributed to technological progress in the IT industry. Perhaps you disagree with their methods, technology and ideas -- that does not mean they are wrong or that they are detrimental to progress.

    In fact, I laud Microsoft because they have been one of the few people responsible for bringing computers to the masses. They have proven that software as an industry can sustain independently and have contributed a real lot to IT and computer science, but then you're probably too blind to see it.

    Yes, they're a company that have had buggy softwares. Do you think building complex software is easy? It's a fine line between usability, security and stability and it's one that Microsoft has learnt to walk quite well. Funny, people still make fun of Microsoft products crashing but their products have become increasingly stable, reliable and secure over the years. Perfect? No. Better? Yes. Give credit where it is due.

    Yes, they're guilty of a few questionable acts - but they are a business with an obligation to their share holders. You've apparently not stepped to the inside of a boardroom, so I'll not even bother telling you what or how hard business is.

    And if you were a really genuine techie concerned about technology, you'd realize that progress is independent of who makes it -- it will ultimately happen no matter what. Not to mention that places like Microsoft Research quite possibly contribute much more to IT than you can ever possibly imagine.

    > plus, true charity is anonymous.

    Einstein, you would not know if it were anonymous.

    > it's hardly altruistic (or anything remotely resembling it) when you give a
    > small fraction of your wealth in exchage for having your name or
    > company's name all over stuff. that's called "advertising" or "ego".

    Funny, people have been doing this for ages - and yet when Bill Gates or Paul Allen does it, it's somehow wrong.

    Heard of the Nobel Prize? Pulitzer Prize? Fields Medal? Guess who these are named after.

    Bill Gates and Paul Allen are running a business in one industry and are using the profit they make from that to help make this world a better place. I somehow think fighting AIDS and famine is infinitely more important than writing software, but that's just me.

    And I care two hoots on whether doing so boosts their ego or if they use their name -- they're helping science and society, and that is what matters.

  39. uhmmm.... by scheuri · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...well, then lets hope we wont get DDoSed (or slashdotted) by any interplanetary scriptkiddies or get hacked and used for a DDOS against, uhhmm..Alpha Centauri...

    scnr
    scheuri

  40. Re:Impact on Religion by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    My understanding from a friend who pretty much had the bible memorized, is that according to it, there is no life on any other planet.

    I don't recall that verse.

    If SETI or by any other means, intelligent (or even not) life is discovered, that pretty much erases the Bible and Jesus.

    By what stretch of imagination? The owner's manual to my car says nothing about my Playstation 2, but that doesn't mean that the latter doesn't exist. The Bible is a collection of books chronicling our interaction with God, not necessarily that of other civilizations.

    but would a Christian Holy War break out against the scientists,

    No holy war. Such thing as evolution are infinitely debatable, since although huge mountains of evidence exist to support one train of though, there are no absolutely hard, fast facts saying "this is exactly what happened". An ET message saying "Hello, people of Earth! This is how you build a warp drive!" would be pretty impossible to deny.

    or would facts in evidence cause a suppression of some religions?

    Yes, but only those religions founded on the belief in a lack of ET intelligence. Although some Christians (and Muslims and Hindus and people from pretty much any religion other than Scientologists - they're into this stuff hook, line, and sinker) will freak out, the mainstreams will move onward as normal.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  41. Hat Creek Radio Observatory in NE California by ikluft · · Score: 2, Informative
    The new radio observatory that the article mentions in California is located at UC Berkeley's Hat Creek Radio Observatory. That's in far-northeastern California southeast of the town of Burney and north of Lassen Volcanic National Park.

    Some links about the site...

    Trivia: the Hat Creek Valley where the observatory is located was already known to many Northern Californians for being inundated by muflows from the May 20, 1915 eruption of nearby Mount Lassen. Anyone who has climbed Lassen has looked down from the peak on the path of the Hat Creek and Lost Creek mudflows.