Slashdot Mirror


SETI Disrupted By Cell Phones in Airplanes?

Iphtashu Fitz writes "If, as recently mentioned, the FCC does allow wireless access on airplanes, could it effectively mean the end of the search for ET? NewScientist has a new article that explains how radio interference from airborne cellphones could drown out faint radio signals from space. Among other concerns astronomers have is that the second harmonic of many cell phones falls in a frequency band that reveals the molecular signature of newborn and dying stars, which is among the 2% of frequencies in this part of the electromagnetic spectrum reserved for use by radio astronomers. Michael Davis, director of projects at California's SETI Institute, stated that a single cellphone on an airplane 100 miles from a radiotelescope could exceed recommended radio noise levels by 10 times. A potential solution that astronomers have suggested is to install a miniture cell transceiver on each airplane, called a picocell, that would act as a relay using a frequency that wouldn't interfere with their work."

383 comments

  1. No cell phones on aircraft! by BWJones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Shoot, this is one more reason not to have cell phones on airplanes during flight. I worry about the public's lack of concern for science especially given the extreme right wing movements going on right now in the USA, but people do not want to be remotely inconvenienced even if it means screwing science. Perhaps if the appeal can be made to them from a personal sanity perspective. I got a brief taste of how bad cell phones on planes can be last month on a flight that I wrote about it here.

    Perhaps if this has to happen the picocell solution might be the way to go, but please let there be phone free zones on aircraft.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by jdray · · Score: 1

      Right wing ... airplane. That's funny!

      Okay, maybe not. So, if they put a picocell on an airplane, how does that stop the signal that's coming from the cell phone? Maybe I should RTFA and find out, but maybe they don't say...

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    2. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by goldspider · · Score: 2
      "I worry about the public's lack of concern for science especially given the extreme right wing movements going on right now in the USA..."

      Umm... what exactly does this story have to do with the "extreem right wing"?

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    3. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by kinzillah · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cell phones only use enough power to make contact with their cell. If the cell is 20 feet away its going to put out a lot less signal than if the cell is 20 miles away.

      --
      Douglas P. Price
    4. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Enigma_Man · · Score: 2, Informative

      A picocell can use a different frequency than the ones the phones use, a frequency that is less likely to mess with astronomers / etc. The cellphones will see a "tower" very close by, and use minimal broadcast strength.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    5. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If the cell tower (as the phone sees it) is on the plane, the telephone will use a much lower power setting to generate its signal.

    6. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by hopethisnickisnottak · · Score: 0

      Don't generalise.
      There can be situations when people MUST use their cell on the airplane. Banning them completely isn't a solution.
      That pico cell thing sounds like it could work well.
      Especially since cellphones use only enough power to connect properly to the nearest tower (less wattage = less radiation interfering with SETI sites 100s of miles away).

      --
      -Shaunak
    7. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, there's the fact that you can't spell "extreme" even with an example right in front of you? Or wait, maybe that was intelligently designed?

    8. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by timle · · Score: 1, Troll

      Nope sorry SETI doesn't get default ownership of the sky. They must be equally weighed. Oh yeah, get and wear headphones if people talking bothers you. They have a right to talk though yelling should be frowned upon.

    9. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Way to answer the question, champ!

      Or does, in your world, 1 + 2 = green?

    10. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Nutria · · Score: 2, Interesting

      even if it means screwing science.

      Oh, puleeze.

      SETI is the most inane waste of scientific talent and resources since alchemy.

      Why? Earth is such an insignificant little speck in a galaxy so huge that we can't truly grasp it's magnitude.

      Combine that with the fact that "energy desity" decreases in a cube function, and the likelyhood of us detecting ET is zero.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    11. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There can be situations when people MUST use their cell on the airplane. Banning them completely isn't a solution.

      WTF? Airplanes were around for 80 years before cell phones were invented, people survived. I have never used a cell phone on an airplane (I don't even own one, for that matter), I'm still here. All airplanes now have their overpriced airphones for emergencies, if you MUST use the phone.

      Pray tell, what are these situations where people MUST use their cell phone on an airplane?

    12. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by erlenic · · Score: 1
      Umm... what exactly does this story have to do with the "extreem right wing"?

      Absolutely nothing. He just wanted an excuse to attack conservatives. Happens all the time here.

    13. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      I'm a big fan of science. On the other hand, I can see the value of a cell phone call, but can't see the value of searching (seemingly in vain) for beings that we can't* communicate with.

      I can see all kinds of great reasons for radio astronomy. SETI isn't one of them.

      I find rude cell phone users just as annoying as you do. Next time one bothers you why not try piercing your little universe and politely ask them to knock it off?

      -Peter

      * Setting aside psychological issues, the 25 stars nearest to us fit into about an 11.5 light year radius. That's a 23 year round trip for a single message. I imaging we have more or less exhausted our methods to detect "artificial" radio emanations from those 25 stars. The outlook gets rather bleak from there.

    14. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by stratjakt · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why don't the scientists just do their research properly?

      SETI should launch a sat if they're serious about finding moon men.

      There's already plenty of airborne radio equipment already. This is just pseudo-scientific crap.

      Let's explore space from space, and worry about advancing humanity on earth.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    15. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Jerf · · Score: 1

      Oh, you know: Everything is always the fault of those dastardly people-who-don't-agree-with-me.

      You know they're dastardly, because they disagree with me. QED.

    16. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by RoadChris · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I write this from my doctor's waiting room, and of the 3 people using their phone, I'm the only one doing so silently.

      One old fart is planning a fish fry while complaining about his high blood pressure, while a very large woman text messages with the key beep volume set one click below WMD.

      The problem isn't technology, but rudeness.

    17. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by msaulters · · Score: 1

      I thought they were going to have to use a picocell, anyway. Isn't a 747 just one big flying Faraday cage???

      --
      These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
    18. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

      Yup, and there's no reason why you couldn't use the same frequencies on ALL aircraft, reducing the number of frequencies you'd need to block to a very small number. A smaller receiver set apart from the main dish could also be used to detect when cell transmitters were in the path of the main dish and could temporarily suspend data recording while an airplane was in the path.

    19. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by pete6677 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Judging by the mod points he received, bashing right-wingers, regardless of relevance to the topic, appears to be a guaranteed way to get modded +5 Insightful.

    20. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by alphakappa · · Score: 1

      It's the automatic power control used in mobile phones. The power used by your cellphone is controlled by the cellphone tower, so that if you are far away, you transmit at a higher power, and if you are near, you transmit at a lower power.

      That's also the reason why your cellphone manufacturer tells you that your battery life is dependent on the service provider too.

      --
      "When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
    21. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "... but people do not want to be remotely inconvenienced even if it means screwing science."

      Given that this possibility just came out, is this comment really fair? Can you really assume the general populace involved has any idea that 'science might be inconvenienced'?

      There's a difference between lack of concern and lack of knowledge. Don't start off the bat assuming people are intentionally being assholes.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    22. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Combine that with the fact that "energy desity" decreases in a cube function"

      That is why they have started looking for laser bursts.

    23. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Renegade+Lisp · · Score: 1
      Isn't a 747 just one big flying Faraday cage???

      Even if it were, it wouldn't matter for cell phones. Typical Faraday cages, such as a car, are not effective in this frequency range. As is shown every day by the cellphone-talking driver in front of you. And by the phone calls that made it through just perfectly during 9/11.

    24. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Informative
      Isn't a 747 just one big flying Faraday cage???
      I doubt it, otherwise people wouldn't bother to call someone to announce that they've landed before they've even taxied to the arrival gate.

      More's the pity.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    25. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, I sure hope that laser is pointed here.

      I agree with the grandfather post. SETI is a complete waste of time. If you need a screen saver and something to beat your chest about how many "units" you "did," fold molecules or crack codes or something worthwhile.

    26. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by modecx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Who needs an excuse? It's fun to do regardless!

      So, an Italian walks into a bar with a bad knee and notices a guy sitting at the end of the bar. He asks the bartender who it was. The bartender told him it was Jesus. The Italian ordered a drink for himself and Jesus.

      Next, a carpenter walks in. He asked if that was Jesus. He then ordered a drink for himself and for Jesus.

      Finally, a redneck walks in and orders a drink for himself and Jesus.

      A few minutes later, Jesus gets up and goes to the Italian. He thanked him for his generosity and healed him. Jesus walked over to the carpenter, thanked him, and healed him. Then, he walked over to the redneck. The redneck jumped up and shouted, "Don't heal me, I'm on disability!"

      Of coure that's just a joke, in reality we know the redneck would be healed--he'd just act disabled.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    27. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by JPelorat · · Score: 1

      I dunno, but this will probably make his head explode.

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
    28. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Eric_Utah · · Score: 4, Funny

      this is one more reason not to have cell phones on airplanes during flight. I worry about the public's lack of concern for science especially given the extreme right wing movements going on

      That's complete and total BS. Cell phone use on aircraft has never been proven to cause uncommanded wing or rudder movements -- on either side of the aircraft.

    29. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would probably change if they'd stop trying to kill all science not based in the bible.

      Seems far-fetched to say, "The conservative head of the FCC is trying to kill SETI and Radio Astronomy by allowing airline cellphone use" but no less so than "The conservative heads of the Executive and Legislative branches of government are trying to kill modern biology by having creationism taught in schools" and these days that doesn't seem implausible.

      Politicians need to get over the idea that the scientific realities of the universe are whimsical matters of opinion.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    30. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Le+Marteau · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, get and wear headphones if people talking bothers you

      That's what _I_ do. I got sick and tired of being constantly reminded whot totallly shallow jackasses so many of my fellow human beans are.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    31. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while a very large woman text messages with the key beep volume set one click below WMD

      Weapons of Mass Destruction? What?

    32. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by AdamWeeden · · Score: 2, Funny

      That sounds like some right-wing consipiracy theory.

      *waits for mod points*

      --
      I was quoted out of context in my autobiography...
    33. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by chphilli · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That would probably change if they'd stop trying to kill all science not based in the bible.

      I'm not sure where this is coming from, but it's not "right wing conservatives".

      1. Most "right-wing (I think the word you're looking for, without being willing to say it, is Christian, or some other religious term) scientists" aren't trying to base science on the Bible. They do, however, try to figure out how plausible scientific theories can work in light of something they already believe to be true.

      ...are trying to kill modern biology by having creationism taught in schools...

      2. I graduated from a private Christian college, and this wasn't the attempt made by the biology professors there. I hardly think most "conservatives" are taking this approach to public schools when it's not done in private, already "conservative" schools.

      Just because you don't like the idea that there might be something beyond your experience does not give you the right to attack a large group who would not endorse the position you are presenting... oh wait, what was that about your sig?

      Now, prepare for me to be modded out of existence so you don't have to deal with the fact that someone disagrees with you on something.

      --
      Please ignore any obvious problems in this post.
    34. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by EvanED · · Score: 3, Funny

      I worry about the public's lack of concern for science especially given the extreme right wing movements...

      We had better secure that then. It's difficult to stay in the air without wings.

    35. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 0
      I can see the value of a cell phone call, but can't see the value of searching (seemingly in vain) for beings that we can't* communicate with.
      Oh come on. Europeans aren't that bad.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    36. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by erlenic · · Score: 0, Troll

      Must have been one of those southern Democrats.

      Seriously though, I've never seen that joke before. Pretty good one too. I'll have to pass it on.

      Reminds me of someone that worked with a friend of mine. This person told my friend that she wanted to leave the job, but was trying to get fired so she could draw unemployment. My friend tells the boss about it, and the boss cuts the person's wages and demotes her, but refuses to fire her. She finally quit a few weeks later.

    37. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing, the correct spelling is "extreme", not "extreem".

    38. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't care if people disagree with me. I like people disagreeing.

      But I assure you that the conservative Christians here in Georgia don't agree, and that rational discussions regarding such topics as evolution are impossible to have.

      The thing that bothers me is that they have no problem putting forward a completely unscientific hypothesis with zero support, and telling you it is fundamentally the same as a theory that has stood up to 100+ years of rigorous scientific thought.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    39. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by negative3 · · Score: 1

      Good point. The article could mention some signal levels that it receives from space and compare it to the levels that are possible from cell phones. They were also talking about the 2nd harmonic of the cell phone signals, which is not going to be as strong as the original signal and attenuated a lot more over distance anyway. I can't see this as being that big of a problem - unless planes are flying within (maybe) 20 miles of a telescope. GLONASS, the Soviet version of GPS, throws out a large amount of power directly in the band reserved for radio telescopes but there are algorithms that can detect and remove it since the power spectral density of the signal is known. It's not a perfect solution, but it works pretty darn good.

      --
      "Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation." - Richard Feynman
    40. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by tilk · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's because good radiotelescopes have to be friggin large? The Arecibo radio telescope has 305 meters in diameter. Have you any idea how much it weighs? Launching this kind of mass to orbit is not an option.

    41. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by chphilli · · Score: 1

      Having now read your latest journal entry, I have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

      And then there are the religious whackos. I think they're my all time least favorite. I'd say the hippies, but the hippies have at least SOME compassion for their fellow men. I am incapable of understanding how groups that supposedly follow a compassionate and forgiving god are capable of neither forgiveness nor empathy.

      I am heartily sorry that these are the type of Christians you seem to be in contact with in Georgia. I assure you that we are not all incapable of a real discussion, debate, or conversation. I may disagree with you on several issues, but I will always at least consider what you have to say. As for me, I find my beliefs quite well supported, which added to a measure of faith creates quite a strong, capable belief set.

      Again, I'm sorry about the experiences you seem to have had with Christianity in Georgia, but I ask you to believe me when I say that it's not all that way, and it's not meant to be lived that way. On behalf of my fellow Christians whom you have met, I apologize.

      If you ever would like to have a more reasonable discussion, please feel free to ask me, and I can at least point you in a direction that should yield some answers.

      --
      Please ignore any obvious problems in this post.
    42. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      'Radiation flux' is the phrase you're looking for and it goes like 1/r^2 (It's power spread over an expanding surface). The liklihood that we can detect ET's depends on how sensitive our equipment is and how may ET's there are. I was under the impression that the telescope time was mostly in between actual experiments rather than dedicated project time itself.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    43. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like it or not, MOST "right wing conservatives" are indeed "christian conservatives" so you can use the terms almost interchangably.

      Sorry if you don't like that fact, but it is indeed a fact.

    44. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      I think he means 'really fucking loud'

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    45. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Hobbled+Grubs · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't see why they don't go back to the old string and cup method. It would save a lot on towers and you could even develop some sort of two string system for flight control.

    46. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by chphilli · · Score: 1

      Even if it is a fact that most "right wing conservatives" are "christian conservatives" (which is not as likely to be true as you're claiming - you're just noticing the louder voices in the mob), that hardly allows interchangability of the terms.

      Example: "Most computers are Windows boxes." But I think a substantial amount of people here would get upset with you if you tried to use those terms interchangably.

      Basically, you've fallen prey to either stereotyping or the fallacy of accident. Neither helps your argument.

      --
      Please ignore any obvious problems in this post.
    47. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by hobbesmaster · · Score: 1

      No, but interfering with FCC recognized (IE LEGAL OWNERS) of a slice of spectrum is a violation of federal and international law.

    48. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by denissmith · · Score: 1

      I was going to post, redundantly, on the same topic. I ride the bus to work and back everyday and I am constantly trapped for 45 minutes with people carrying on their very loud conversations. The best was the time the woman sitting next to me was trying to get her girlfriend to join her and her boyfriend for a threesome. Which was hilarious. But still annoying as hell. Or the time the guy was whining to his daughter that she liked mommy more than she liked him. From four rows back and it was like he was shouting in my ear. And we want to do this on airlines? Why?

      --
      I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
    49. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Lord+Pillage · · Score: 1
      So, if they put a picocell on an airplane, how does that stop the signal that's coming from the cell phone?

      Simple! Install a giant tinfoil hat.

      --
      try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
    50. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by modecx · · Score: 1

      Yeah, southern democrat :D

      But yeah, that person trying to get fired is an idiot. Shouldn't have told anyone! :P

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    51. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Nutria · · Score: 1

      'Radiation flux' is the phrase you're looking for

      Thanks.

      it goes like 1/r^2 (It's power spread over an expanding surface).

      OK. But since the Universe is 3D, and EM travels omni-directionally, why "surface" instead of "volume"?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    52. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by ScoLgo · · Score: 1

      "Again, I'm sorry about the experiences you seem to have had with Christianity in Georgia, but I ask you to believe me when I say that it's not all that way, and it's not meant to be lived that way. On behalf of my fellow Christians whom you have met, I apologize.

      If you ever would like to have a more reasonable discussion, please feel free to ask me, and I can at least point you in a direction that should yield some answers."

      Translation: "Sorry to hear that the conversion methods exhibited by my brethren in your neighborhood have turned you away. When you're ready for a more reasonable approach, please allow me a shot at converting you to 'our' way of thinking."

      Blech...

      Healthy discourse and debate is good and all. But please don't try to sugar-coat where you're really coming from.

      --
      "Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
    53. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by murdocj · · Score: 2, Informative
      Maybe I should RTFA and find out, but maybe they don't say...

      I don't know whether they say in TFA, but if you had even bothered to read the summary you'd have seen the following:

      "A potential solution that astronomers have suggested is to install a miniture cell transceiver on each airplane, called a picocell, that would act as a relay using a frequency that wouldn't interfere with their work."
    54. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Oh purleeze.

      He was just trying to put a more moderate point of view and you come up with some kind of strawman argument to put him down?

      Or are you just only happy when someone believes exactly the same things you do? Who's not being reasonable now?

    55. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Detritus · · Score: 1

      The wavefront, at any given time, is approximated by the surface of a sphere. Think of it as a series of bubbles, each expanding at the speed of light.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    56. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by chphilli · · Score: 1

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but your translation is completely off-base. First, I don't think it's my job to convert anyone in the first place. Second, I think that the Evangelical method (which you seem to imply I am attempting to use, albeit foolishly) is broken.

      I like to talk to people, and have them talk to me. Is that so bad?

      I may be way off here, but I feel like my particular approach to communication is much appealing than the one you used to attack me.

      --
      Please ignore any obvious problems in this post.
    57. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by idsofmarch · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Uh, no you don't have a right to talk on the phone, just as I don't have the right to natter endlessly in your ear the whole trip. Jesus people, you can be disconnected from the world for a few hours, it won't kill you.

      If SETI doesn't get ownership of the sky, neither do you, they must be weighed equally.

      --
      Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
    58. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by ScoLgo · · Score: 1
      I like to talk to people, and have them talk to me. Is that so bad?

      Not at all. I did say, "Healthy discourse and debate is good..."

      I may be way off here, but I feel like my particular approach to communication is much appealing than the one you used to attack me.

      Sorry you took it as an attack. I guess I misunderstood your intent when you said, "please feel free to ask me, and I can at least point you in a direction that should yield some answers". I read that as meaning that you know where the answers are and would be willing to share that knowledge with the OP - which struck me as just a tad bit condescending. Feel free to clarify.

      Oh, and my bubble is just fine, thanks! :-)

      --
      "Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
    59. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Nutria · · Score: 1

      The wavefront, at any given time, is approximated by the surface of a sphere. Think of it as a series of bubbles, each expanding at the speed of light.

      I was imagining a baloon or children's kickball, but same thing.

      (pause to Google for math formula)

      Surface Area of a Sphere = 4*pi*r^2

      My mistake was thinking that both the surface and volume of a sphere are cube functions. Been out of school way too long, and DBAs don't need much geometry.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    60. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by jdray · · Score: 1

      I did read that. I was unaware of the power management capabilities of cell towers. That's actually kind of interesting, and I'd like to know more about how that works. Maybe it sends and adjustment signal based on the power of the inbound signal, but that seems like it would be difficult with moving phones. Furthermore, the initial signal sent by the phone, before being adjusted by the picocell, would still be strong enough to interfere with SETI, if I read all these responses correctly.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    61. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by kryogen1x · · Score: 1

      How else will ET phone home then?

    62. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people do not want to be remotely inconvenienced even if it means screwing science.

      Indeed. Where there's convenience, there is someone providing a service and a business is created. Think "cash flow" and it all becomes self-evident.

    63. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by swimin · · Score: 1

      I have seen cell phones do weird things to the electronics though. Like for example, a ring on someone's cell phone came through on our headsets in the cockpit (small plane).

    64. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfold it or assemble it in orbit. 305 meters isn't all that big.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    65. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Barbarian · · Score: 1

      Just put a cell phone near a computer headset cord and watch what happens when a call comes in.

    66. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by WhiteDeath · · Score: 1

      except the signal is varying strength, position and frequency..... making it much harder to remove.

      As for attenuation over distance of the harmonic: the actual frequency is strong enough to be received by an omni-directional antenna just a few feet in length. Most radio telescopes are MUCH larger than this, and designed to receive signals from MUCH longer distances - as a result, if someone actually tried to do it, a large/good radio telescope could probably* detect the EMF from the phone's internal circuitry at several miles, much less the loud "thump" (or any harmonics of it) emitted by the transmitter.

      * I'm no electrical engineer, but my very limited knowledge of signal drop with distance says the received signal from an omnidirectional antenna (ie source in space, or your mobile phone) is something like the square of the distance.

    67. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Zangief · · Score: 1

      Bah, just lets say that the terrorist used cell phones in the airplanes, and you are set.

    68. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, people were here before airplanes for milleni and survived. If you mind cellphones so much, why would you want to fly with them around?

      For improved results you can move to an area without cellular coverage - but then you'll still have those pesky chattering Thuraya users...

    69. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Actually, It's ok if it's not a sphere, the surface area increases with "r"^2 regardless of shape. outward in a manor regardless of the shape. Thinking of a balloon poodle expanding at the speed of light would be just as valid. (r is some characteristic length of the surface.. could be measured from the center to a point, but always to the same point)

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    70. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by storm916 · · Score: 0

      There is another reason for not having cell phones on Airliners. I personally find the extreamly irritating. The guy sitting next to you is yammering away on his cell phone, and you are trying to watch Revenge of the Sith.

    71. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 2, Informative
      Cell phones only use enough power to make contact with their cell. If the cell is 20 feet away its going to put out a lot less signal than if the cell is 20 miles away.

      That's incidentally the "real" reason to put pico bases on air planes. Allowing mobiles to connect to the network directly wreaks havoc with the network as that's not dimensioned to allow a single mobile to see dozens of cells at the same time, taking up "space" (i.e. bandwidth and added interference) in all of them.

      The mobile cell based networks work on the principle that a single mobile will only see a handfull of cells at the same time. A 747 flying over a metropolitan area would potentially swamp the network of that area given the max range of e.g. GSM at ca 20km and typical flying altitudes of around 10km.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    72. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by negative3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am an electrical engineer, and *do* know tha the signal strenght in free space is proportional to the inverse of the distance squared - meaning that it drops off a lot pretty fast (this is what makes cell phones and radio stations able to reuse frequencies). It is also dependent on wavelength - shorter wavelength, shorter propagation (the environment acts as a natural lowpass filter). Explicitly, the received power of a signal is given by: P_r = P_t*G_t*G_r*L^2/(4*pi*d)^2 where P_t = transmitted power, G_t = transmitter antenna gain, G_r = receive antenna gain, L = wavelength, d = distance. Antenna gains are based on the antenna pattern - for a isotropic radiator (omnidirectional antenna, like on yr cell phone) it is a pretty wide pattern. A radio telescope should be pointed UP, which would make the gain at any angle at some acceptable deviation from UP much smaller than straight UP. Also, are radio telescopes omnidirectional? Any telescope that doesn't gather the vast majority of its received energy from pointing a the sky would seem to me to be a pretty poor design - which is exactly why the soviet GPS causes problems with radio telescopes! If satellites point down and shoot most of their energy at the planet, telescopes looking straight at them are going to be significantly interfered with by those satellites. Furthermore, if a radio telescope can pick up EMF from a cell phone's internal circuitry the EMF produced by the computers used to run the telescope would cause even bigger problems. Did you know that the clock speed of processors is in the RF range and has been for over a decade and that many aspects of processor design are similar to RF circuitry design with crosstalk, coupling, and shielding concerns? A 3GHz processor operates at a clock frequency much higher than a lot of cell phones. Even stronomers with cell phones in their pockets would screw with the data because they're standing right near the things!

      --
      "Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation." - Richard Feynman
    73. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of being a defensive jerk and typing 'UMMMMM' why don't you try Google for an example? Try this nugget about Bush's lack of real concern for science and enviro issues...

      http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0215/p03s01-uspo.htm l

      I find it hard to believe that you would really be so naive about his statement, instead of just taking the hit and privately admitting Bush has big business as one of his major concerns, whether you like it or not. He's saying that concerns over the enviroment are sometimes being overlooked if it interferes with the convenience of an American or a corporation... Love or hate Bush, at least admit to the whole picture - but I guess you're only paying attention during election years?

      And nice "Dan Quayle"-style spelling by the way.

    74. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      that's port or starboard - landlubbers

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
    75. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      It's not a fact, but it seems like the debate is being driven by the views of the lunatic fringe.

      Used to be, when I was younger, I hated Dole, and Spectre, and Chafee, and Snow, but these days they're some of my favorite Senators. Not so much because I like their politics, but because they're being rational, and voting their beliefs and not trying to mow down all opposition.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    76. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by moogleii · · Score: 1

      Uh...I don't know, 9/11?

  2. ET phone home by maharg · · Score: 1, Funny

    that's you buggered then !!

    --

    $ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
    @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
  3. Yes, yes, its all just a by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Government Consipacy. Where's Mulder and Scully?

    --
    Quality Hosting e3 Servers
  4. No problem... by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

    Although they are "extra-terrestrial" (in that they're not on the earth, exactly), people who use cellphones in crowded public places (like airplanes) are decidedly NOT intelligent, thus won't be detected.

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
    1. Re:No problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not intelligent? No, they don't lack intelligence, but empathy. And personally I'd rather be a nice but stupid person than an intelligent psychopath.

      I'd also rather interact with nice retards than intelligent psychopaths.

  5. Unavoidable... by MS-06FZ · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The earth is a hotbed of RF noise as it is. I like SETI and all, but if they can't deal then it may just have to wait until they can move their stuff offworld..

    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
    1. Re:Unavoidable... by Verteiron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's just it. It's RF noise. Cell phones create modulated RF signals with harmonics on frequencies that radiotelescopes need to be listening on. Imagine trying to hear someone playing a flute from 30 miles away. Now imagine you're trying to hear that flute, standing 50 yards from a raging waterfall. That's like what radio telescopes do right now; it's tricky, but picking signals out of full-spectrum RF noise is what they are designed to do.

      NOW imagine trying to hear that distant flute while standing 50 yards from a raging waterfall, and a band starts playing Sousa marches right in your ear. Even if the sound of the distant flute is still reaching you, you'll never ever be able to pick out its waveform from the sound of the band AND the white noise of the waterfall. Especially during the picolo solo.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    2. Re:Unavoidable... by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 0
      Imagine trying to hear someone playing a flute from 30 miles away. Now imagine you're trying to hear that flute, standing 50 yards from a raging waterfall.
      It could be worse, you could be standing next to some waste of oxygen bellowing "I'M ON THE TRAIN".
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    3. Re:Unavoidable... by KC7GR · · Score: 1

      "NOW imagine trying to hear that distant flute while standing 50 yards from a raging waterfall, and a band starts playing Sousa marches right in your ear..."

      But I don't even LIKE Sousa marches!

      Criminys... Try to listen to one lousy waterfall, and look what happens...!

      --

      Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

      Blue Feather Technologies

    4. Re:Unavoidable... by uberdave · · Score: 1

      There's the problem. You're SUPPOSED to be listening to the distant flute.

    5. Re:Unavoidable... by KC7GR · · Score: 1

      But the flute was playing a different Sousa march... ;-)

      --

      Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

      Blue Feather Technologies

  6. It's a plot to find the leak. by doc6502 · · Score: 1

    Yep. Them aliens will be listening in on our calls. They'll finally find out how Dan Ackroyd knows they exist.

  7. Nothing against SETI by superpulpsicle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nothing against the organization, but did they really think they can reserve the entire sky for their software?

    1. Re:Nothing against SETI by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nothing against ignorant slashdotters, but you really don't think SETI is just some software, do you?

      SETI@HOME != SETI

      Not mutually exclusivly anyways.

    2. Re:Nothing against SETI by Detritus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Radio astronomers also use those frequencies, so there is more involved than SETI, or some group's software.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Nothing against SETI by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 4, Informative

      SETI is a lot more than just the SETI@home software you're thinking about. And this has implications for all radio astronomy, not just SETI. The solution is clear - don't let consumer-level technology get in the way of truly ground-breaking discoveries.

    4. Re:Nothing against SETI by liryon · · Score: 3, Informative

      They don't want to resrve the whole sky, they just want their 2% to continue to be a valuable tool for their research. It's not just SETI either, radio telescopes are used for other less outlandish research.

    5. Re:Nothing against SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You repliers are all idiots. Don't worry, superpulpsicle, I chuckled a little.

    6. Re:Nothing against SETI by mordors9 · · Score: 1

      There really is no surprise here anyway. The closer we get to the alien invasion date, the more their willing accomplices here on Earth will have to do to cover up their approach.

    7. Re:Nothing against SETI by NetSettler · · Score: 1

      It really does seem like a tenuous accident that there's no interference coming from the skies.

      Why isn't this a reason for putting a listening station on the far side of the moon? At least until we're populated there (which at this rate is going to be a while), it would presumably mask out signals from the earth and not have to contend with atmospheric effects. Such a listening station could probably be arranged to be dropped on the Moon even without a manned expedition...

      --

      Kent M Pitman
      Philosopher, Technologist, Writer

    8. Re:Nothing against SETI by Moofie · · Score: 1, Troll

      In other words, you think your priorities are somehow better than mine?

      There are more of me.

      The solution is not clear just because you say so.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:Nothing against SETI by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      In other words, you think your priorities are somehow better than mine?

      Exactly!

      But this is a non-issue. There is already a technology to help accomodate us both. Your attempt at confrontation is useless and assinine.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    10. Re:Nothing against SETI by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Whose attempt at confrontation? I'm not the one who attempted a proof by assertion. (Which you might note has a different first syllable than "asinine".)

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    11. Re:Nothing against SETI by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      I was referring to both of your failed rhetorical attempts toward confrontation. Picocells can accomodate both cell phone users and radiotelescope operators. Ignoring them and arguing about who's priorities are more important is either due to ignorance or motivated by a hidden agenda.

      You seem to think that rhetoric is a tool for changing the subject of a conversation. This thread is about radiotelescopes, cellular phones on airplanes and the interference they can cause, and the technology used to alleviate problems induced by such interference -- not about priorities, how many of "you" there are, or my typos.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    12. Re:Nothing against SETI by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 0
      At least until we're populated there (which at this rate is going to be a while), it would presumably mask out signals from the earth
      In that case, how would it communicate with the base lab on Earth?

      Anyway it would only work at night. Unless they built another base in Australia. Or something.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    13. Re:Nothing against SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ET don't talk in a cell phone & don't travel in an airplane...

    14. Re:Nothing against SETI by NetSettler · · Score: 1

      In that case, how would it communicate with the base lab on Earth?

      Well, if you did it close enough to the poles, a very short extension cord might be sufficient to get the signal around the moon to where it could transmit. Otherwise a long one... or a series of solar-powered microwave towers (with batteries). They might require some robotics to move around and adjust themselves, but we've got fair mobility on Mars, so I'm assuming it could be done.

      Presumably the web of communication satellites around the earth is up to the task of relaying a message coming back from the moon to anywhere on earth.

      All of this would be good practice for getting supplies and equipment up there for a manned expedition. Or so it seems to me...

      --

      Kent M Pitman
      Philosopher, Technologist, Writer

  8. Oh man.. by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 1

    Imagine the fun we can have with the tinfoil hat crowd!

    *makes note to self to bring cell phone, and recording of War of the Worlds onto next plane trip.*

    1. Re:Oh man.. by game+kid · · Score: 1
      *makes note to self to bring cell phone, and recording of War of the Worlds onto next plane trip.*

      Hopefully you're among that tinfoil crowd. I trust that you've read Slashdot lately. (Not that I support/refute their beliefs.)

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:Oh man.. by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      makes note to self to bring cell phone, and recording of War of the Worlds onto next plane trip

      That would do it. I know _I_ would be mentally devistated if _I_ were to be exposed involuntarily to Orson Welles' disembodied, melodramatic voice.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
  9. Here's an idea. by ilyanep · · Score: 3, Funny

    A mini cell on each plane that could play back a message saying something like "We told you not to use your cell phone, so turn it off!"

    --
    ~Ilyanep
    To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
    1. Re:Here's an idea. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Just have the crazy frog playing continuously.

      Theres not a person alive whos ears don't burn upon hearing such an assault.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  10. picocell? by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1

    even if they do put a picocell on each airplane, would each cell phone still not emit the offensive frequency? I assume the miniature cell would allow the phones to transmit at a lower power- how much lower, and would this actually eliminate the problem?

    1. Re:picocell? by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 2, Informative

      As TFA clearly states, cellphones adjust their power output as necessary - the closer the cell tower the weaker the signal a phone puts out. With a picocell on board the airplane all the phones would put out a minimal signal. If the picocell wasn't there then the phones would have to significantly increase their power output to reach the terrestrial towers 40,000 feet below.

    2. Re:picocell? by non-poster · · Score: 1

      I found it interesting that my CDMA-based cell phone puts out, on average, 1mW or less. reference

  11. And yet... by decipher_saint · · Score: 3, Funny

    Still no intelligent life eh?

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
    1. Re:And yet... by sharkey · · Score: 1

      On the airlines, or in general?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    2. Re:And yet... by Kuros_overkill · · Score: 1

      Key word being intelligent of course. I always had a problem with it in SETI, Haddn't We find it on our own planet FIRST???

  12. Soooooo by katana · · Score: 0, Troll

    We should prevent cell phone use on airplanes because it might interfere with a project that has consumed massive amounts of computational and technical resources and has never been successful, ever.

    At least now SETI will have an excuse.

    1. Re:Soooooo by orb_fan · · Score: 1

      Actually, while this interference may affect SETI - the article (as well as the slashdot blurb, so you have no excuse) states that the second harmonic is in the range used by radio astronomers to search for stellar ignition and supernovii.

      Planes already have on-board phones, so there is no reason to use a cell-phone.

    2. Re:Soooooo by katana · · Score: 1
      In case you haven't worked it out yet, SETI uses radio astronomy equipment to listen for radio signals from outer space.

      Planes already have on-board phones, so there is no reason to use a cell-phone.

      Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one. Probably the opposite, in fact.

    3. Re:Soooooo by finkployd · · Score: 3, Informative

      In case you haven't worked it out yet, SETI uses radio astronomy equipment to listen for radio signals from outer space.

      Reading comprehension is fun :)

      The grandparent poster is claiming that this affects more than just the SETI people, this affects all radio astronomy. In case you cannot be bothered to read the article or the /. blurb, I have pasted it here:

      Among other concerns astronomers have is that the second harmonic of many cell phones falls in a frequency band that reveals the molecular signature of newborn and dying stars, which is among the 2% of frequencies in this part of the electromagnetic spectrum reserved for use by radio astronomers.

      There you go, actual science being disrupted, not searching for little green men.

      Finkployd

    4. Re:Soooooo by dnixon112 · · Score: 1

      The point is radio astronomy is an important part of astronomy and science and it would be very shortsighted to implement cell phones on planes with no regard to the effects it will have on astronomers.

      There are also good reasons why cell phones should NOT be used on planes, namely the annoyance factor. Imagine a 14 hour flight next to a pre-teen talking to her friends about britney's latest outfit non stop.

    5. Re:Soooooo by orb_fan · · Score: 1

      Gee. Thanks. I didn't know that, with me being an astro-physicist and all.

      The point is that while searching for little green men is all very well, I imagine that the FCC probably doesn't give a s**t about the project. What some may consider to be more serious science is more likely to have an affect on the any rules about cell phone use on planes.

      You are right, there may be circumstances where cell-phone use on a plane might be a good thing - the sept. 11 hi-jackings spring to mind - using a cell phone in an emergency is completely different from a normal flight.

    6. Re:Soooooo by katana · · Score: 1

      I think what you ought to do in this situation is continue to point out other uses for radio astronomy equipment when all I've been talking about is SETI. Reading comprehension, indeed.

    7. Re:Soooooo by katana · · Score: 1
      Gee. Thanks. I didn't know that, with me being an astro-physicist and all.

      That explains your familiarity with density and hot air.

      The point is that while searching for little green men is all very well, I imagine that the FCC probably doesn't give a s**t about the project.

      That may be your point. My point concerned using SETI as support for anything.

      You are right, there may be circumstances where cell-phone use on a plane might be a good thing

      Really? Wow.

    8. Re:Soooooo by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Well you seemed to imply in your first post that SETI was the reason for not allowing cell phones. It has been brought to your attention that SETI is NOT the issue, there are other, more legit issues at stake and you continue to prattle on about SETI.

      Unfortunatly /. has yet another misleading headline that seems to be confusing people who do not want to read the articles.

      Finkployd

    9. Re:Soooooo by katana · · Score: 1
      The point is radio astronomy is an important part of astronomy and science and it would be very shortsighted to implement cell phones on planes with no regard to the effects it will have on astronomers.

      Good point. Astronomy has saved innumerable lives. The next time you're in a serious accident, rest assured that you can immediately dial 911 on your telescope.

      There are also good reasons why cell phones should NOT be used on planes, namely the annoyance factor. Imagine a 14 hour flight next to a pre-teen talking to her friends about britney's latest outfit non stop.

      Good point. People are never incredibly annoying on airplanes now, but that will change completely with cell phones.

    10. Re:Soooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are supernovii at all like virii?

    11. Re:Soooooo by katana · · Score: 1

      Is it possible, just possible, that the comment was not a 100% literal comment on the content of the article? It could, for example, have been a sarcastic comment that eliminates SETI as a legitimate concern. But I don't want to make your head hurt.

    12. Re:Soooooo by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Planes already have on-board phones, so there is no reason to use a cell-phone.

      Except perhaps the ridiculous amount of money that's charged for the use of one of those little toys. 500 free minutes with their own cell plan vs. a $10 service charge + $3.00/minute, which is more likely to appeal to the average passenger? Plus, not all aircraft have phones, and it sure would be nice to call whoever is supposed to pick me up at the airport and tell them that I'm going to be late because I've been sitting on the taxiway going nowhere for the last hour because of some ATC issue.

      Practically though, if a picocell system is used, the airlines are still going to charge outrageous fees for its use, and won't have the expense of buying and maintaining a couple hundred phonesets per aircraft.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    13. Re:Soooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or... perhaps you are an idiot? /Just sayin'

    14. Re:Soooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, snap! /goes back to fark boobies

    15. Re:Soooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I value my karma, so this will be posted anonymously .

      Finkployd, your comments are completely justified.

      Katana, you were offered helpful information, and instead of accepting it graciously, you floundered around trying to avoid being proven wrong, and instead did nothing more than throw away your dignity. Good job.

    16. Re:Soooooo by master0ne · · Score: 1

      reguarding your first point about 911, im sure if the plane got into trouble 911 would love to know, not that they can ACCUALY DO ANYTHING about it! and in the slim chance you did survive the accualy accident, im sure 911 will send a squad car and ambulance right out into the middle of the (atlantic or pacific or any other large body of water) to save you, not that this wouldnt be on national news 2 mins after it happend!

      and yes while people are rude on planes atm, its not a obnoixsouly loud mind numbinly stupid rude, its jstin curtious. not like some little girl yelling into her phne, refusing to shut up because her mommy gave her the phone and the constitution (which she just learned about in school) says she has the right to free speech, that is an entirely different kind of rude.

      --
      Noone writes jokes in base 13!
    17. Re:Soooooo by katana · · Score: 1
      I think karma is just a number in a database on a website, so I'll post using an account.

      Do you seriously not understand how people who take sarcasm literally often continue pressing an irrelevant point that has already been indicated by the sarcastic comment? If not, reread the thread.

      But hey, don't think that I don't appreciate some anonymous nobody on the internet adjudicating comments. Thanks for your input!

    18. Re:Soooooo by katana · · Score: 1
      reguarding your first point about 911, im sure if the plane got into trouble 911 would love to know

      The first point had nothing to do with airplanes, mathlete.

      its not a obnoixsouly loud mind numbinly stupid rude, its jstin curtious

      OMFG, I totally bow before ur superior argument. LOL.

    19. Re:Soooooo by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Good point. Astronomy has saved innumerable lives. The next time you're in a serious accident, rest assured that you can immediately dial 911 on your telescope.

      And dialing 911 at 35,000 feet will save someone's life how?

      Besides, it's not as if most planes are probably gonna do anything special to support cell phones, just the restrictions will be lifted. Planes that DO do something will be relaying the signal anyway, so it seems to me (with admittedly little knowledge of the electronics) that it wouldn't be that much more difficult to relay them on a changed frequency.

      Good point. People are never incredibly annoying on airplanes now, but that will change completely with cell phones.

      Good point. Because things are bad now we shouldn't think about preventing it from getting worse.

      Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

      It's been 17 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment


      Stupid slashcode... anyone else having this problem? (I asked this before and got pointed to a bug report, but is it a widespread thing or isolated?)

    20. Re:Soooooo by master0ne · · Score: 1

      then reguarding your first point, its off topic and shouldnt have been posted or modded as such. and the second point, while it may not be a real great reason (plus my wireless keyboard decided to fsck up typing "just in-curtious", its not annoying in the way you use "OMFG" and "LOL" its more like "IM YELLING IN YOUR EAR WHILE YOUR TRYING TO RELAX BECAUSE YOU FEEL LIKE YOUR GOING TO BE SICK FROM FLYING!!" (not to mention air line food sucks anyway)

      --
      Noone writes jokes in base 13!
    21. Re:Soooooo by katana · · Score: 1
      decided to fsck up typing "just in-curtious", its not annoying in the way

      You fail it, and you still have no point. ROFL.

    22. Re:Soooooo by katana · · Score: 1
      And dialing 911 at 35,000 feet will save someone's life how?

      The first point had nothing to do with airplanes.

      Because things are bad now we shouldn't think about preventing it from getting worse.

      I think you could make a less relevant and more general statement, but I'm not quite sure how. Something like "good is better than less good," perhaps.

      Stupid slashcode...

      Yes, clearly it's the slashcode.

    23. Re:Soooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a seriously messed up keyboard, Dude. Not only does it mess up your spelling in random ways, it also completely fucked around with your grammar, too!

      You should ask your Mom to buy you a new one.

    24. Re:Soooooo by master0ne · · Score: 1

      judging from your comment history you seem to be pretty much trolling, and trying to make up for it with rye humor on occasion. You fail to try to see things from any one elses point of view, and your just a regular fuck head. by siply posting "you have no point" or "you fail it" you do not provide any added value to this site or the internet in general. please disconnect.

      --
      Noone writes jokes in base 13!
    25. Re:Soooooo by katana · · Score: 1

      OMFG!! You're grasping at "wry," I think, though this may be a case of me failing to see spelling from someone else's bread's point of view. LOL!!

  13. If the idea is to search for advanced civilization by Radres · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wouldn't an advanced civilization have developed a means of communication that can penetrate whatever disturbance would come from members of their civilization communicating while on aircraft?

  14. Cell phones should remain banned on aircraft... by HaloZero · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I don't want some fat bastard screaming into my ear because his caller can't hear him over the sound of flight, and/or the air pressure pushing on his inner eardrum. It's bad enough that we're crammed into these flights like cattle as it is. I try to be considerate of those around me when flying. No huge laptops (12" PowerBook is ok), no noisy electronics, earbuds turned down to a below-reasonable volume.

    The guy sitting next to me is not more important than my headache, when it comes to matters of personal entertainment (or business, even). Cellular phone use in a crowded, quasi-calm/quiet area is simply inconsiderate. Worse in a cramped, often-tense aircraft.

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
    1. Re:Cell phones should remain banned on aircraft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like being treated like cattle, then drive or buy your own plane!

      I'll talk on my cell when I feel like it! :)

    2. Re:Cell phones should remain banned on aircraft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I try to be considerate of those around me when flying.

      Ah, there's your problem. Like all the other people on the plane, YOU are the center of the universe. Until you realize this, all this "be considerate" crap is going to get you nowhere.

    3. Re:Cell phones should remain banned on aircraft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy sitting next to me is not more important than my headache,

      Funny, when I asked the guy beside you he said that your headache was not more important than he was. I wonder which one of you two self important assholes was right?

  15. i understand now.. by zxnos · · Score: 2, Funny

    this is why the aliens gave us cell phone technology.

    --
    always mosh clockwise
  16. Install in Aircraft by Mac+Nazgul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You want to install what in an aircraft?

    As a government licensed aircraft mechanic I could tell you that is completely infeasible because there are simply too many airplanes in the sky to see that it is installed and the govenmental approvals to install such a device (unless the airplane is experimental everything installed in an airplane has to be FAA approved) along with the costs would see that this never happens.

    My question is that isn't this already happening when people forget to turn off their cell phones and it sits in standy searching for a network?

    1. Re:Install in Aircraft by BrK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why can't it happen? Isn't this essentially what happened with the in-flight phones they installed in the 90's?

      --
      -This sig intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Install in Aircraft by protolith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With the number of aircraft in commercial aviation, there will be at least a couple of manufacturers of pico-cell hardware that will want the market bad enough to bear part of the burden of getting FAA approval for the equipment. These companies will likely work to develop the process to tie into existing airframes, or work with builders (Airbus and Boeing) to get the equipment designed into the aircraft systems. Several major airlines will also front part of the cost, just to be able to provide a service that at first will be exclusive to a few airlines, or airframes.

      Another aspect is the revenue potential. Nothing says that having cell communications coming from or going to an aircraft in the air can't be identified as such and billed some steep fee per minute to recoup the cost of install and hardware. It could appear on a bill as an aviation roaming charge or in-flight connection fee. Balance the charge right and it will pay for itself in months. Make it a steep fee and it might discourage much of the in-flight cell use. Make it a reasonable fee and some cell providers might eat the fee to the airline to provide the service.

      There are so many ways to cover the cost of In-flight cell communications that to say the cost of FAA approval will kill this, would be the same as saying that cell phones will never happen because all of those towers will need FCC approval, and someone will have to certify all of those millions of portable cell phones people will be running around with.

    3. Re:Install in Aircraft by so+sue+mee · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lufthansa are putting picocells on their aircraft so you will be able to connect to it and pay them a hefty fee to use your own GSM/GPRS enabled cellphone As for you being a mechanic, well, if you tried to establish a position of authority you failed miserably. Phones in the air Mobile phones could soon be following Wi-Fi into the stratosphere. WirelessCabin, an EC-funded consortium led by the German Aerospace Centre with members including Airbus, Siemens and Ericsson, will this summer trial a system that puts a short-range mobile phone "picocell" on board aircraft. Phones transmit to the picocell at very low power, eliminating interference with on-board avionics and terrestrial base stations. WirelessCabin's system is compatible with any infrastructure, so it could be added on to Tenzing or Connexion's offerings; the consortium is planning trials with Lufthansa. http://www.techworld.com/features/index.cfm?featur eID=512&printerfriendly=1 The mobile phone option could prove popular by allowing business travellers to remain available to receive calls, just as they do when roaming on international networks. "That sort of thing could be more usable (on planes) than the Internet, and would be likely to bring in more revenue," says Mark Darby, managing director of Aviation Strategy. "People might want the option to take their calls."

  17. But this won't affect SETI for a long time, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Isn't most of SETI based on handling a lot of old archived telescope data? This will affect the program in the long run, but how long will it be before this becomes a problem? Of course, it would be much better to fix the problem before it starts, rather than try to retrofit every plane out there...

  18. What am I missing here by jayhawk88 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't it time to investigate satellites for this sort of thing? Pointing out instead of in? I know maybe this isn't ideal since the satellite is moving both relative to the earth and the sky, it would probably make it difficult to lock onto any signal that was found? I got a B's in Physics, someone help me out here.

    Seems like this would solve a lot of interference problems though, and perhaps even give you much better results. Is it just the cost factor that keeps this from happening?

    1. Re:What am I missing here by non-poster · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. I think a satellite would be very useful, since a lot of the atmosphere (ionosphere, etc) have some (negative) effect on radio waves. Having the receiver outside of the atmosphere would alleviate a lot of these "problems" and give the SETI folks a better environment.

      Now we just have to figure out how to get such a huge dish up there...

    2. Re:What am I missing here by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

      I hadn't thought of that, good point. Presumably you would still need a pretty big dish to catch the signals you're interested in.

    3. Re:What am I missing here by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

      The atmosphere is almost completely transparent to the signals they're looking at. Receiving ability depends on two things: directionality of the antenna and area of the antenna. You can simulate the first one with interferometry, but that won't help you pick up weak signals. To paraphrase muscle car owners: There's no replacement for area. (dang there's gotta be a way to make that rhyme.)

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:What am I missing here by carn1fex · · Score: 1

      The problem of orbital radio science is dish size. To point your antenna beam at a very small slice of sky you need a very large antenna. Further, the lower the frequency of the radio signals you want to explore, the larger your dish will have to be. Size and weight will kill most large antenna designs as the largest rocket to launch these things can contain like a moving truck sized thing. Now look at aricebo. Now you could build a distributed array in space, and thats the focus of alot of NASA research right now. Constellation-X is covering some of the issues of knkowing where one element of your array is relative to another. Yea its x-rays, but same orientation issues.

      --

      ---------

      No matter how thin you slice it, its still baloney.

    5. Re:What am I missing here by appleprophet · · Score: 1

      Many satellites are completely stationary relative to a point on earth. GPS and communication satellites have to be. So, a satellite would be no worse than a dish.

    6. Re:What am I missing here by Zackbass · · Score: 1

      It goes: There's no replacement for displacement.

      --
      You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
    7. Re:What am I missing here by anshil · · Score: 1

      However there is only one possible orbit which is stationary relative to earth. And this orbit is already very full (full in the sense of safety spaces between the satellites).

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
  19. Ban Cell Phones by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
    This is just another reason for banning cell phones altogether. It's bad enough the idiots who use them run over pedestrians (and trees, fire hydrants and small children and pets) while ignoring their surroundings, talking on their cells. To mention nothing of the pedestrian use of these, wherein it's proven that some people CANNOT walk and talk at the same time, the abuse of "ring tones", inappropriate talking, ... arrrgh!

    AND NOW we find out that these are actually being used by the extraterrestrial intellegences to pin point our small small blue planet in the expanse of space.

    Well, I for one welcome our future ET rulers, and their supression of the evil mobile telephones.

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    1. Re:Ban Cell Phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your just upset that the man who beast-fucked your mother had a cool handset - and your IQ of 20 doesn't allow you to figure out how to get one of your very own.

  20. Re:FIST SPORT! by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 0, Troll

    Fuckwits who keep their mobile phones switched on 24-7 even in airplanes/hospitals/cinemas as an act of overinflated self-importance are equally, if not more 'cunty'.

    --
    Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
  21. Well, that's just silly. by jabber01 · · Score: 1

    If you were an alien, and you wanted to communicate with Earthlings, you wouldn't choose their cell-phone frequency to do it in the first place. Duh! Those SETI guys are such drama-queens.

    --

    The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
    What you do today will cost you a day of your life

    1. Re:Well, that's just silly. by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because aliens will just know our frequency.

      I think it'd be more likely they'd choose a very low frequency anyways. Nothing as high as what Cell phones use.

    2. Re:Well, that's just silly. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      ...you wouldn't choose their cell-phone frequency to do it in the first place. Duh!

      Of course you would, if you wanted to be able to talk to them. How else you gonna call them?

      They're probably just waiting for the equivalent of the weekend on their planet so they get free long distance minutes. Heck, I won't call across country until my free weekends kick in, why would I call off-planet without them?

      Only their weeks are as long as our centuries, so we didn't have cell phones the last time they tried calling. And just their luck, their word for "hello" probably sounds just like "would you like to buy some viagra" in english.

  22. Other side of the coin by slapout · · Score: 1

    Isn't the opposite also true? Doesn't this add to the radio waves that an alien planet might be listening for?

    Wouldn't we also want the aliens to be generating a lot of radio waves (by using their cell phones) so that we'd have a better chance of hearing something?

    How can you ask the aliens to do one thing, and ask us to do the opposite?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:Other side of the coin by saider · · Score: 1

      Simplex communication. We tell everyone to hush up for a generation or two while we listen. After a while someone farts and the whole crowd generally loses interest in listening. This is the alien race's chance to listen, and they will likely go through the same excercise. Eventually someone on our planet will say "Shhhh! I heard it!" and our crowd will hush up.

      The cell phone on the airplane is just the fart. We just need to hope that we are in the correct phase to listen to other chattering aliens.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
  23. you cant prove its NOT aliens on the phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can neither confirm nor deny it.

  24. SETI on far side of the moon? by mowler2 · · Score: 1

    Why does not the SETI project simply build/launch a robotic radioobservatory to the side of the moon that is always turned away from us? This way they will have the entire moon as a sheld from human created radiowaves.

    Also it should not cost THAT much, I mean, if nasa can send two rovers to Mars, SETI should be able to send a observatory the much shorter distance to the Moon on public donations?

    1. Re:SETI on far side of the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mowler,
      Are you offering to anti up? I can get you in touch with our Institutional Advancement office.

    2. Re:SETI on far side of the moon? by HyperBlazer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Also it should not cost THAT much, I mean, if nasa can send two rovers to Mars, SETI should be able to send a observatory the much shorter distance to the Moon on public donations?

      Have you SEEN Arecibo? Or the VLA? Compare that in size to our beloved rovers. Then let's talk about cost of transport to the moon.

    3. Re:SETI on far side of the moon? by mowler2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but arecibo is ancient? I bet they could design a better radio telescope using LOTS of really small radio recievers in a grid?

    4. Re:SETI on far side of the moon? by HyperBlazer · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but arecibo is ancient? I bet they could design a better radio telescope using LOTS of really small radio recievers in a grid?

      IANARadio Astronomer, but my thoughts are as follows:

      1. I would think that you still want the individual receivers as large as you can get away with, to collect as much radiation as possible. The VLA is an array of pretty big dishes, not a whole bunch of little radio receivers scattered around the desert.

      2. I don't know that we have the technology to automatically assemble such a grid on the moon. Adding human assembly adds massive costs. That's to say nothing of maintenance: I'm not sure that you can design a useful radiotelescope without lots and lots of moving parts.

      Don't get me wrong: I think that space-based radioastronomy would be a great thing, both for terrestial communications and for radioastronomy. I just don't think that it'll be cheap, meaning, sadly, that it'll take a lot of effort to convince the government of its usefulness.

    5. Re:SETI on far side of the moon? by YeEntrancemperium · · Score: 1

      That's kind of ironic considering there are supposedly alien created glass/crystal structures on the far side of the moon.

    6. Re:SETI on far side of the moon? by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1

      I like what I presume is Buzz Aldrin's plan (from his book, Encounter with Tiber). You land one radio receiver in a crater. A crater isn't a perfect dish, but it's not too bad. Stick the reciever up on a pole.

      Then, whenever you get more money, send up a robot with a piece of radio-reflective material. Have it land itself in the same crater (this is the trickiest part), find a spot, and shape its material to focus on the antenna. Eventually you get a fairly good, though omnidirectional, radio telescope.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
  25. well, duh by mr+number+two · · Score: 1

    Installing a picocell is in fact the only way to support airplane cellular.

  26. Change for a single organization? by Coopjust · · Score: 1

    I think that the whole picocell idea is dumb. Even if it both works and is economically viable, what makes you think that an airline is just going to install one? I am a non-believer in other sentient life near the earth, but even if they were, why wouldn't they be detected by satallite or other means? Why would sentient life who could visit another planet use radio waves?

    1. Re:Change for a single organization? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      There's other forms of radio astronomy that could be affected by cell phones in the air. I don't think it's a good idea to allow cell phones to be used on airplanes at all tbh. After watching one interfere with a CRT computer monitor when it received a call and knock out wireless communication equipment while sitting and doing nothing, I'd be a bit antsy about getting on an airplane with 100 people using them at maximum power to make contact with the ground.

  27. To hell with that noise... by csharp_wannabe · · Score: 1

    Cell phones annoying when you are at a store or in the movie theatres. If the FCC allows this, not only will it disrupt one of our greatest goals, but annoy the crap out of people on the plane. If they allow this travesty to happen, I'll make sure to boycott airlines for good!

    Angry Airline Customer

    --
    "C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung"
  28. Cell Phone Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it just be easier to just kill anyone with a cellphone?

    Seems like a reasonable solution to all of these cellphone drivers, cellphone in movies, and so on problems the world is having.

    1. Re:Cell Phone Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wouldn't it just be easier to just kill anyone with a cellphone?

      Well, maybe just the ones than endanger you like the dumb b@st@rd yapping on a cellphone than almost killed me on the highway this morning.

  29. I'll care about ET .. by Tx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    .. when the motherships get here. And then we'll send Will Smith in to say "Welcome to Earth!".

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  30. Who cares, ET don't vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well at least he is not a registered voter.

  31. Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Informative
    There's two strikes against seti. First in the breif time since marconi and hertz radiated narrow band radiation we have gone increasingly closer to nearly random signals spanning most ogthe sprectum like white noise. As this has happended powers of indivdual transmitters are dropping, broadcasting is going to either digital spread spectrum or cable. It wont be possible to detect this eventually. The best chance at the present time would probbaly be the 24 hour modulation of the earth's rotation but would any listener interpret that correctly?

    Then of course there's the Sagan hypothesis that itellegant life has such a narrow time fram of existence before anihilating itself that either you dont overlap in time with you interplanetary peers or if you do they'll be dead by the time you manage to travel there.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  32. Re:And I should care because? by _Hiro_ · · Score: 1

    Actually you argue against yourself there...

    If they were smarter than us, that explains exactly why they haven't made contact.

    --
    -Pope Peter Porker, S.O.W., K.M.K.R., U.G.O.A., F.S.G.S.D.
  33. All the more reason to set a base on the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and get away from all the electromagnetic spectral polution here on earth!

  34. well, duh by mr+number+two · · Score: 1

    Installing a picocell is in fact the only way to support airplane cellular. However, you will still have problems because of buggy phone software.

  35. Good.... by rwven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think SETI is one of the most serious wastes of resources ever dreamed up. All that ridiculous funding could go to something much more important than trying to find something that probably wouldnt contact us even if it could...if it even exists... nail this as flamebait if you want, but if "ET" wanted to let us know he was there, he'd find a way to get around our cell phone signals. ;) This is just a bunch of wacko's griping because they're bored waiting for....nothing.....to happen.

    1. Re:Good.... by Keeper · · Score: 1

      Let's hope "ET" doesn't share your views on extraterrestial contact/discovery.

    2. Re:Good.... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think SETI is one of the most serious wastes of resources ever dreamed up.

      And I think your use of Slashdot is one of the most serious wastes of resources ever dreamed up -- but I'm not paying for it, so I don't really give a shit.

      All that ridiculous funding...

      What ridiculous funding? From the SETI website:

      "All SETI research conducted by the Institute since 1994 has been funded by private, philanthropic support for Project Phoenix and advance design work on the Allen Telescope Array and next generation SETI systems."

      If you want to talk about ridiculous funding, I could name about 50 government bureaucracies for you, though. ... could go to something much more important... ...to you... ...than trying to find something that probably wouldnt contact us even if it could...

      The point of SETI is to discover extra-terrestrial intelligence. It would be a major success just to prove there is ET, even if we could never contact them or have a conversation.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    3. Re:Good.... by rwven · · Score: 1

      so why don't these private funders give the money to something worth giving it to, not some worthless waste of time and resources? There are plenty of impoverished people in the world that would likely enjoy a chunk of the millions...

    4. Re:Good.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so why don't these private funders give the money to something worth giving it to, not some worthless waste of time and resources? There are plenty of impoverished people in the world that would likely enjoy a chunk of the millions...

      Maybe for the same reason why you don't go out and do voluntary work for the poor instead of spewing out your moronic drivel here?

      Like, for example, that they have different interests?

    5. Re:Good.... by rwven · · Score: 1

      hmmmm, some of us have more important things to do than sit around and watch the stars for something that will never come.

      If you would like to take over my job and do all my duties so i can go help via volutary work, i'd be glad to drop everything right now...

      Volunteering time is very different from "volunteering money" anyway. Every single penny spent on SETI is a total and complete waste and when people get sick of waiting for nothing to happen, they will drop their private funding and realize they just spent millions of dollars on something that had NO return for them at all, or ANYONE for that matter. At that point they'll probably wish they'd given their money away to someone who really needed it instead of wasting it on a cause that benefitted no one. All they're doing is dumping money into the pockets of the people who work at SETI in the form of a paycheck...

    6. Re:Good.... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      hmmmm, some of us have more important things to do than sit around and watch the stars for something that will never come.

      Like post on slashdot?

      If you would like to take over my job and do all my duties so i can go help via volutary work, i'd be glad to drop everything right now...

      Gee, that would be some sacrifice. So you'd get paid by your employer to go do "volunteer" work. While this other guy would actually be making the sacrifice by doing your job for no compensation. Yeah.

      Volunteering time is very different from "volunteering money" anyway.

      No, it sounds like they are both similar in one way: You do neither.

      Every single penny spent on SETI is a total and complete waste

      In your opinion.

      when people get sick of waiting for nothing to happen, they will drop their private funding and realize they just spent millions of dollars on something that had NO return for them at all, or ANYONE for that matter

      Really? Did that money disappear into the atmosphere? You might want to think through how our economy works before you start spouting off your stupidity in the future.

      Unless the SETI scientists are taking the private donations and shoving them up their ass, I am pretty sure even this "total waste of time" is resulting in the employment of people, and more importantly, advancing scientific research in the field of radar astronomy.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  36. The solution is obvious by Progman3K · · Score: 1

    Build a radio-telescope on the dark side of the moon, effectively using the moon itself as a shield from the earth's "noise" and transmit the data back to earth for analysis.

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    1. Re:The solution is obvious by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Here's your ticket for the "B" Ark. Don't be late.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:The solution is obvious by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      So you think radio-astronomers are as useful as telephone sanitizers?

      Reality called; they've got YOUR upgrade ticket for first-class on the "B" ark, Detritus.

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    3. Re:The solution is obvious by Detritus · · Score: 1
      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:The solution is obvious by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      D'oh!

      So if I had said "build a radio-telescope on the far side of the moon" you wouldn't have nit-picked?

      Well, consider me pickled tink! ;-Q

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  37. Central rebroadcast. by Twillerror · · Score: 1

    I'd rather see a kind of plugin interface on the plane. A wire ( or not ) that connects my phone to the seat i'm at. This then goes into the planes system, and then the signal is amped and sent out.

    Perhaps if we did something like this instead we'd be able to tell SETI what this looks like and filter it out. Unless just the signal itself would disrupt it ( I didn't RTFA...sorry ).

  38. Emissions Standards by Detritus · · Score: 1

    The FCC could also tighten up emissions standards for cellular phones. The problem is that the phones are so damn small. Are there any space-efficient filters that provide the out-of-band attenuation of a good cavity filter?

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  39. I would have said it differently, but... by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 1
    I agree with you. I want every excuse for banning cell phones on an airplane to be considered - valid or not!!!

    I still can't beleive that cell phones can interfere with navigation equipment of a jumbo jet with the lastest avionics, unless you're in a small plane - and you're in the cockpit, as I have experienced. Yes, I'm a pilot, not an ATP, but I'm a private pilot - C172s and such...

    1. Re:I would have said it differently, but... by HaloZero · · Score: 1

      I was in the Civil Air Patrol, myself, for a few years. I know all about what you're saying.

      And I do agree with you; cell phones disrupting navigational equipment is all bunk. I mean, think about it. If terrorists really wanted to down aircraft, they wouldn't need bombs or knives, or even guns, which is what the TSA is searching for. Just turn that cell phone on, kick back, and watch the fun! I bet a B1RD is a bigger concern than a cell phone.

      --
      Informatus Technologicus
  40. Whats the problem? by liryon · · Score: 1

    From my understadning the best method to ensure cell coverage inside the cilyndrical faraday cage that airplanes are is the pico cell soultion.

    All calls get picked up by the cell and retransmitted over satalite or other means. The cell singals from inside the plane should be trapped there by the metal exterior and it should be easy to retransmit from the pico cell on a non-interfering frequency.

    1. Re:Whats the problem? by Floody · · Score: 1

      From my understadning the best method to ensure cell coverage inside the cilyndrical faraday cage that airplanes are is the pico cell soultion.

      People keep saying this (an airplane is a "faraday cage"), and while the fuselage certainly would severely attenuate longer wavelengths, I suspect that, in reality, an airframe makes a piss-poor faraday cage for digital cell phones.

      Consider that (a) the fuselage is a composite of many dissimilar materials (both ferrites, non-ferrites and non-metallics), (b) modern cell phones are severely spread-spectrum and (c) US [non-PCS] cell phones operate at around .3 meters and GSM/PCS are in the .15 meter neighborhood (ie, windows would greatly reduce the faraday-related attenuation at these wavelengths).

  41. Space based radio-telescope solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or you could build a robust network of space-based radio telescopes and avoid all the hassles of equipping each airplane.

  42. far side of the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Set up a listening dish on the far side of the moon, there it won't be interfered with cell phones.

  43. Re:And I should care because? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it's not just SETI that's affected by this. As the TFA says, the cell phone frequencies are very close to the frequencies that radio astronomers listen for to detect stars being born & dying. For all we know it may interfere with other things radio astronomers listen for, and not just (little|medium|big) (red|green|aquamarine) (men|women|whatevers).

  44. the article's title is a little misleading by Doctor+Device · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It should be pointed out that the problem is bigger than just SETI not being able to hear the aliens. most of the deep-sky viewing done form earth is done using radio telescopes. the problem with cell-phones on planes is that it potentially throws a ton of interfering signal data into the telescope's FOV. nevermind that nobody needs to be talking on their cell-phone while flying, I'd rather the telescopes keep working (there's way too much space up there for us to be the only intelligent thing in it).

    --
    -It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    1. Re:the article's title is a little misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nevermind that nobody needs to be talking on their cell-phone while flying

      If people are going to talk on a cellphone, I'd rather sit next to them on a bus or a plane than have them driving on the roads.

    2. Re:the article's title is a little misleading by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Id rather them talking on their cell phone, than disturbing my travel by trying to talk to me and disrupting either my sleep or my reading.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  45. Nonsensical by sunderland56 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A typical aircraft already has a high-powered weather radar dish, several VHF transmitters for voice communications (with air traffic control, etc), a transmitter to talk with the airlines' own ground control, and usually an AirPhone transmitter (for all those $5/min phones in every seat back). With all that RF noise going on, what's a few more very-low-power UHF cell phones??

    1. Re:Nonsensical by Detritus · · Score: 1

      The RF noise from all of the on-board equipment is going to depend greatly on their transmitter design. It isn't difficult or expensive to greatly reduce out-of-band noise with some simple passive filters.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Nonsensical by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      All that stuff you mentioned doesn't interfere with the 2% radio band that is reserved for astronomers, the cell phones do.

      --

      Question everything

  46. Another reason to fund space based radioastronomy by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not the first time that this argument has been made. ...but the first time was 20-30 years before cell phones were invented.

    Humanity has unleashed a veritable plethora of rf emitting devices. Television broadcast towers, satellites, anything electrical... they all leak rf that's thousands (if not millions) of times more powerful then the signals coming in from distant stars.

    Banning cell phones on planes BECAUSE of this is like using a Sharpie marker to turn a sucking chest wound into a smiley face. You (the pen wielder) might feel better, but it's not going to solve the real problem one iota.

    The real solution is to invest in building radio telescopy infrastructure on the far side of the moon. Either there, or in a heliocentric orbit on the opposite side of the sun at 1 AU. Those are the only two places in the universe that have are always shadowed from Earth based broadcasts.

    Additionally, there are frequencies that are absorbed by the O2 in our atmosphere, so radiotelescopes in space would have better 'bandwidth' to observe.

    Finally, it's unlikely that the cell phone industry will finally be convinced to go to pico-repeaters because of the inconvenience that radio telescopy scientists encounter. It'll be because pico-repeaters will make cell phones work in places they don't currently. Deep garages, underground installations, steel buildings, small valleys... these are economically driven reasons to adopt the technology. Scientists (the normal kind, not the mad kind) are usually poor, so the money just isn't there.

    Pick your battles, and pick a winning strategy to get the tech you want. Radio telescopes... they ain't it.

  47. Regarding the SETI program and the like by SamMichaels · · Score: 4, Insightful

    3 scenarios guys:

    1) Other civilizations are below our technological level....which means we won't see them at all.
    2) They're equal to ours...and since we're unable to do much of anything beyond our little neighborhood, we won't see them at all.
    3) They're far more advanced than us...which means they have the smarts to avoid detection so we won't see them at all.

    Keeping this in mind, explain to me again why we need to change the entire commercial aircraft industry (FCC approval + FAA approval + thousands of aircrafts + world-compatible technology) when there are easier ways to try and avoid our RF interference (satellites, moon, probes, etc). TFA didn't impress me.

    1. Re:Regarding the SETI program and the like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4) They're far more advanced than us, but don't care about us in the least so they don't bother trying to avoid detection

      5) They're far more advanced than us, but consider it worthwhile to study lesser lifeforms, as we study everything from bacteria to monkeys.

      I'm sure you can think of a few more. Try not to be so simplistic in the future.

    2. Re:Regarding the SETI program and the like by taj · · Score: 1



      I wonder how true that is. Its reasonable to think that we will only be blasting radio frequencies into space at our current rate for ~200 years total in a 6 billion year history. Digital signals are at near background rates even here. That makes the odds much harder to find with projects like SETI.

      But maybe there are other nonintentional radio frequencies that will persist beyond that.

      Catching communication sounds very far fetched though.

    3. Re:Regarding the SETI program and the like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe other civilizations are already aware of us and some of them are already living amongst us, but, to them, we, humans (ahem, I might be lying), are so stupid that they don't want us to know we share the universe with them.. :-)

      Just my $.2 mart^H^H^H^Hcents.

    4. Re:Regarding the SETI program and the like by slashjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The FCC said that SETI could use this frequency. They did this before cell phones were invented. This RF pollution scenario is EXACTLY like the problems with BPL. BPL kills amatuer radio, cell phones in planes kill radio astronomy.

      If the FCC was doing it's job, it wouldn't be a problem. However, I'm betting the FCC will look the other way since the cell phone industry has more money than radio astronomers...

    5. Re:Regarding the SETI program and the like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      If the FCC was doing it's job, it wouldn't be a problem.

      Unfortunately, the FCC is probably too tied up working with the MPAA on how to revive the broadcast flag. Things like unwanted RF interference (unless it impacts the big industry players) is probably low on their list of priorities.

    6. Re:Regarding the SETI program and the like by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      The thing that always amuses me is how many STARS are hard to percieve, and how likely it is, therefore, that we can spot comperably non-existent emf from a civilization similar to ours.

      Beyond that, we also have to think about the window of time in which such frequencies would be propagating. Some alien civilization could pick up our signals in a thousand years, send a message back, then watch us nuke ourselves out of existence 400 years later, still 600 years from having gotten their message.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    7. Re:Regarding the SETI program and the like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4) They're far more advanced than us...and want to make contact. They have set up the infrastructure to allow themselves to be detected with both old and new technology, and are actively attempting communication with old and new technology.
      5) Other. There is always an Other.

      If a civilization is so far advanced than us, why do you automatically assume they don't want to be found?

      I would think that, for any civilization, making contact with another civilization would be the ultimate goal. It would be bigger than Jesus.

    8. Re:Regarding the SETI program and the like by Squalish · · Score: 1

      For the love of Bob, mod parent up - this was originally the FCC's ONLY priority.

      Now it seems to be making sure that your children can't hear fart jokes or see the human body, and further raping the few people that aren't sucking the teat of cable or satellite services.

      --
      People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
    9. Re:Regarding the SETI program and the like by Mushy · · Score: 1

      3) They're far more advanced than us...which means they have the smarts to avoid detection so we won't see them at all.

      How do you conclude that far more advanced than us would want to avoid detection?

      Also, you miss the whole range between "us" and "far more advanced" beings.

    10. Re:Regarding the SETI program and the like by SamMichaels · · Score: 1

      How do you conclude that far more advanced than us would want to avoid detection?

      If they didn't, then we would see them.

      People are soooo caught up in wild theories and crazy notions and trying to reach further and further into space that they forget the basics:

      - We don't have the technology for what we're trying to do. Putting a radioshack r/c car on mars is a huge feat for us, but in the grand scheme of things involving interplanetary travel/speed faster than light/etc it's like Lewis and Clark compared to maps.google.com's satellite.

      - If we do come across something, it's not going to be a little blip. It's going to be a continuous stream of fortified, non-arguable evidence. Did we broadcast "hello world\n" and then stop? Hell no. Anyone listening to us is going to hear everything from the first transmission up until now...a continous stream of RF.

      We've been listening and transmitting for a long time...it's more than clear that nothing is out there, unless they're avoiding detection or they're incapable of communicating long distance (ie, equal to or lesser advanced than us).

      Other posters made it clear: if you want to find ET and study space, you need to stop doing it on earth. Relays on mars, the moon, etc. We need to use our spectrum for other purposes now.

    11. Re:Regarding the SETI program and the like by Mushy · · Score: 1

      >> How do you conclude that far more advanced than us would want to avoid detection?

      > If they didn't, then we would see them.

      That's assuming a lot! Try thinking about a human conversation that starts this

      Q. If you had the best technology, why did you never try to contact me?

      The answers could be anywhere on the spectrum

      1) I don't give a damn about you.
      2) I've got better things to do.
      3) You've only been these for 10,000 years.
      4) You assume life detection in the universe this big is easy.
      5) You assume that you are the only fish in the sea. ... and so on without even having to include active hiding. Actively hiding is an extremely simplistic assumption right there with religious types believing in a "caring God"! (assinging human like qualities to a supreme being)

    12. Re:Regarding the SETI program and the like by braindigitalis · · Score: 1

      Actually, for point (3) its more likely that theyre using some other technology which isn't even radio based which we won't be able to detect at all -- we'll only be able to detect civilizations that are relatively equal to our own. If you're an advanced (spacefaring?) civilization why would you be using a technology which can only broadcast at the speed of light? Yes, in their past they will be transmitting RF, but the amount of time that a civilization will spend sending out RF (compared to the total time they exist) will probably turn out to be relatively short (a long period of time before they develop radio transmitters then an even longer time possibly when they develop past using it)

      --
      http://www.inspircd.org - Modular C++ IRC Daemon
  48. Surpising by Bog+Standard · · Score: 1

    Without knowing all of the details behind how cell phones are expected to work on planes, I would have gone down the following route:

    picocell on a plane, radio transmission via mux/compression over rf link (or plane to sat).

    Before implementing, announce your plans (without giving away the intellectual property) and check that you are not going to cross someones wires

    We have had in-plane calls for quite a while. Combine this with air to ground (or even sat) multiplexing and there you go.

    I think the real "moral of the story" is don't forget to inform the neighbours before having a party

    Be alert, the world needs more lerts

  49. Screwing science? by jfengel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm all in favor of the phone-free zones on aircraft (hell, if we put the phone-users together, maybe they'll bug each other enough until they realize how much they're bugging other people), but a long-shot science program hardly seems reason to ban them altogether.

    People want to use their phones for work, or to contact their families, and if they already had the ability to use their cell phones in the air they'd consider it a major inconvenience. Calling it "remotely inconvenienced" is an understatement.

    And "screwing science" is an overstatement. SETI is a fun idea but the odds of succeeding on any given telescope or any given day are so low that it hardly seems worth shutting down the planet so you can go look for aliens. It's a tiny, tiny project tucked into the corners (free telescope time, free computer time) of the scientific world.

  50. SETI?? by Pedrito · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's not like they're going to find anything anyway... I do care about the interference with other astronomical work, though. And as if there aren't cell phones in enough places, damn, the last thing I want is to be on a plane with 50 people talking on their cell phones.

    Too bad those little personal cell phone jammers are illegal in the States. Otherwise I'd carry one around with me. I'm sick of people too busy talking on the phone to drive, or walking down the aisle of the supermarket asking some poor nitwit on the other end of the phone, "Should I buy the ice cream? It's only got 9 million calories. Oooh, trash bags are on sale."

    Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to hear people talking on their cell phone anywhere, but especially not in a crowded airplane.

    1. Re:SETI?? by nsanders · · Score: 1

      Hear is question I've started wondering about. How is cell phone chatter any different than a woman sitting next to you on the plane discussing trash bags and milk to her husband in the other seat?

      Does the fact you can't hear the other end of the conversation bother you? What real difference is there between a regular conversation, and one that takes place over a cell phone?

      P.S. I wish cell phone jammers were legal as well.

    2. Re:SETI?? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      How is cell phone chatter any different

      Because people typically don't speak 3 volume levels louder to have a conversation with someone right next to them.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    3. Re:SETI?? by codemachine · · Score: 1

      Bingo! Frickin cell phone talkers are always shouting into the damned things. Given the poor reception they might receive in an airplane, it'd only be worse.

  51. High Voltage Data Transfer by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    This is akin to the problem that pops up when data transfer is allowed over high voltage power lines and it's interference with Ham radio.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  52. The Obvious Solution by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

    Should we then, in our search for ET switch to CB radios?
    I seem to remember a documentary where a very prominent scientist suggested something of the sort.

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  53. hmm by pHatidic · · Score: 1

    is there a way that I can get a picocell for my house? Requirements are that it has to cheap, small, and legal (or at least not a felony.

  54. Wait...science?? by brouski · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought this article was about SETI?

    --
    Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
  55. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your underlying assumption is the signals we may dectect are accidentally or incidentally broadcast into space.

    Deliberate broadcasts suffer from none of the drawbacks you describe.

    You also assume that our use of the EM spectrum is the same as some other civilization's use of the EM spectrum.

    Also an assumption everyone agrees with.

    So your conclusion SETI won't work does not follow from your argument.

    True, it probably won't work, but not in the manner you describe.

  56. No cell phones in the sky, please! by PingXao · · Score: 1

    God what a nightmare that would be. Give me a freakin' break, please. Business people want to "maximize their productive time", fine, let them do it in business class. No business class on the discaount airlines? Sorry, no cell phones either.

    On the other hand I don't think interference with SETI should be a reason to ban them. If that's the best argument against using cell phones on planes then the battle is already lost.

    SETI is a privately funded operation, right? Well so are cell phone companies and the airlines are at least quasi-private companies (can you say govt. $3 billion bailout?)

    If they ever allow cell phones on planes - and the reasons for banning them in the first place were never scientifically sound - it would be interesting to see how an airline would do if they maintained a no-cellphone policy.

    I think it's remarkable that they work on airplanes at all. Faraday cage and all that while you're sitting inside an aluminum tube.

    1. Re:No cell phones in the sky, please! by EEBaum · · Score: 1

      it would be interesting to see how an airline would do if they maintained a no-cellphone policy.

      I'd pay extra to fly with them.

      --
      -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
  57. What are the odds? by rdurell · · Score: 5, Funny

    ET: "Can you hear me now?"

    SETI Scientist: "Damn cell phone interference."

    1. Re:What are the odds? by SsShane · · Score: 1

      +3 Insightful? Only on Slashd...oh wait...

    2. Re:What are the odds? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Actually, cell phones won't be a problem. SETI filters out everything but intelligent life.

  58. 802.11b? by SillySnake · · Score: 1
    This is fairly unrelated, but..


    Shouldn't it be possible to equip cell phones with 802.11b equipment to create a giant mesh network.. Should make it a lot easier to get wireless out to cars and things like that, since in most places of the country, there's always a line of cars between base stations and highways.. Though that's not always the case here in Oklahoma. Still, it outa add a lot more wireless conectivity, not that SETI will appreciate it or anything, but the rest of the world might :)

  59. Don't be such a snob. by wankledot · · Score: 1
    I'm sorry, but if your complaint about cell phones on planes is based on the fact that people might have "banal conversations" I can't imagine how you go out in public, what with all the idiots ruining your day by saying something that doesn't measure up to your standards.

    Yes, by all means, lets prevent people from communicating because they might say something stupid!

    --
    My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    1. Re:Don't be such a snob. by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0
      Yes, by all means, lets prevent people from communicating because they might say something stupid!
      Fucking good idea. The best way to start would be to mod wanksnot down, so we only have to read his shite twice a day.
      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
    2. Re:Don't be such a snob. by Petersson · · Score: 1
      Yes, by all means, lets prevent people from communicating because they might say something stupid!

      Just think about saving face of mankind - I really wouldn't like to meet aliens who would consider idiotic phone calls as "historical documents" (as in Galaxy Quest)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_Quest

      --
      I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
  60. Re:But this won't affect SETI for a long time, rig by finkployd · · Score: 1

    Ignore SETI, pretend the article is not so poorly titled and makes no mention of SETI

    Among other concerns astronomers have is that the second harmonic of many cell phones falls in a frequency band that reveals the molecular signature of newborn and dying stars, which is among the 2% of frequencies in this part of the electromagnetic spectrum reserved for use by radio astronomers.

    THAT is a problem.

  61. Is this really an issue by coolsva · · Score: 1
    which is among the 2% of frequencies in this part of the electromagnetic spectrum reserved for use by radio astronomers

    So, if the plane is on line of radio sight, it could affect 2% of data captured. So, in a day, I have maybe 5 minutes of 2% bad data searching for ET vs a very practical use of cell phone.

    Not to troll, but whats next, using microwave oven disrupts SETI, so we need to stop using microwave?

    1. Re:Is this really an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, the 2% of the spectrum is reserved for radio astronomy. Now they get none because that small 2% remaining is getting shit upon.

    2. Re:Is this really an issue by coolsva · · Score: 1

      True, but any radio signal has harmonics which spread across a much wider band. Incidentally, microwaves use the 800MHZ band too with a very wide band of harmonics. Cell phones use 850, 1900 or 1800MHZ, their harmonics cause not much more interference (at a few mW that the cell phones transmit) than something like wireless (2.4GHz) of equivalent wattage

  62. look at me, I'm so IN TEH LOOP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There certainly in no reason for someone in the same cabin as me to use a cell-phone! I don't want to spend several hours confined with someone so goddamned backwards that they still think a cell phone is a status symbol.

  63. Not just a SETI issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't just an issue for SETI but all radio astronomy. What parts of science do you deem unworthy of study for the sake of a convinience that people have managed without quite well for most of history?

  64. Cellphone Interference - another pilot perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still can't beleive that cell phones can interfere with navigation equipment of a jumbo jet with the lastest avionics, unless you're in a small plane - and you're in the cockpit, as I have experienced. Yes, I'm a pilot, not an ATP, but I'm a private pilot - C172s and such...

    I'm a pilot too... own my own Piper Cherokee. The biggest interference problem I've encountered is when the *idle* phone keeps switching between towers (quite often, every few seconds when flying over a city) it makes a loud CLICK-CLICK-CLICK sound that gets induced into and picked up thru my audio panel/intercom system that is quite annoying. Everyone who's kept their cellphone near their computer speakers knows this sound too, especially when you dial out, or just right before the phone rings for in incoming call or an incoming text message arrives.

    I guess the phone's transmitter fires up momentarily for each tower change, and also right before each incoming call or text message.

    I've also noticed that the CLICK-CLICK-CLICK interference makes the mag compass in my plane twitch around a bit but who uses a mag compass anyway outside of primary training these days?

    Also, if I have my glideslope receiver on and tuned into an ILS, the cellphone briefly interferes with the glideslope indicator too, deflecting both the needles. That could be what the ATPs are probably bitching about the most. The glideslope interference doesn't bother me any, since I'm a VFR only pilot, and only use my glideslope receiver as an entertainment gadget... besides, I try not to make a habit of using my cellphone while on short final, my mind is usually on something a little more important ;-)

  65. Airlines reply: by arkham6 · · Score: 1

    "What? Spend a couple of thousand dollars per airplane on some feature we don't really need so a buncha egghead scientists can look for ET? Ha! Get real. We have better things to worry about, like not going out of business!"

  66. Time for a radio telescope in space by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Imagine a very, very, very large array.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  67. Not just SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The radio signals would disrupt any Radio Astronomy that's going on, not just those that are looking for little green men with tinfoil hats.

  68. STI Project by kwatz · · Score: 1

    I'm reminded of the STI Project.

  69. Halting Progress for the Sake of Progress? by thelizman · · Score: 1

    I love how eggheads and academics get thier panties in a wad when societies advancing use of technology gets in their way.

    The answer here is self evident. If you want to study deep space, you need a presense in...deep space. At least consider the ramifications of having an observatory unhindered by terrestrial atmosphere, radiation, noise pollution, and so on.

    1. Re:Halting Progress for the Sake of Progress? by EEBaum · · Score: 1

      Halting Progress for the Sake of Progress?

      Cell phones in an airplane is progress? This must be some definition of "progress" I'm not familiar with.

      --
      -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
  70. Re:If the idea is to search for advanced civilizat by dnixon112 · · Score: 1
    Wouldn't an advanced civilization have developed a means of communication that can penetrate whatever disturbance would come from members of their civilization communicating while on aircraft?

    I'm sure they would, if they were meaning to contact us. The mission behind SETI is, among other things, to search for radio waves that will be transmitted from any sufficiently advanced civilization as we know it. Just like on earth these radio waves will be broadcast from the planet whether the people on the planet like it or not. In the same vein our civilization could be detected by others thanks to the radio waves that we've been transmitting into space over the years. Yes your favorite 80's song from your college radio station is flying through space right now at the speed of light, perhaps it will be detected one day. So it's not a question of alien civilizations having an advanced means of communication, it's a question of being able to listen for radio waves that are quite likely being broadcast by alien planets.
  71. Seti Sucks by buttfuckinpimpnugget · · Score: 0

    Fuck Seti. Bogus crackpot "science" suck my balls.

  72. Too much inane chatter! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Cellphones make me wish the little interdimensional dude from James Blish's(?) story "Babel II" would come by for a visit. I particularly approve of the protagonist's comprimise at the end.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:Too much inane chatter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      errr.... Damon Knight. Damn, tracked that down right after the post submitted.

  73. moon base by PenguinX · · Score: 1

    Well darn... I guess we need a moon base for that new deep space radio telescope

  74. Cell Phones? by kff322 · · Score: 0

    What about regular Air phone?
    Walki talkies?
    EMI from the sun!!??
    Theres trillions of device causeing radio interference! What difference will cell phones make. I really dont think any alien signal will make it through our solar system and reach earth. The only way to make SETI possible is by launching radio telescopes in space, or giant repeaters, send it to like pluto or something

  75. This problem has been solved. by MadMagician · · Score: 1

    Just put a transmitter on the moon, linked to another one on a moon of Jupiter.

  76. Don't worry. by game+kid · · Score: 1

    Scully is a sky marshal somewhere in the airline system. Mulder will work with her too...in the final episode.

    Furthermore, can anyone tell me what a consipacy is?

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  77. only a problem in the US? by Suppafly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If cellphones on planes were a legitimate problem, wouldn't it be a problem everywhere else in the world where cellphones are already allowed on planes?

  78. Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think is time to move all those radio telescopes to the dark side of the moon, seriously.

  79. Question .... by DrPlutoMadre · · Score: 1

    If cell phones are a really that powerful, couldn't ET just get in a plane and phone home? Or, more to the point, if there are aliens, wouldn't they hear our cell phones? (And maybe Direc TV too?)

  80. Think of all those wasted cycles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still, I hope this will have a positive impact on FAH.

  81. Re:And I should care because? by brontus3927 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Why would intellifenge life in the Mily Way have to be smarter than us. And if they are, what makes it neccessary that they would care about us and try to make contact, if they are able?

    Sol (our sun) is a 3rd generation star, in what is considered one of the original galaxies in the 13.7 billion year old universe ( http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_age_04 0817.html ) Sol about 5 billion years old and located 2/3 of the way out on the Orion arm which extends some 42,000 light years from the stellar nursury at the center. ( http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/MilkyWay_ SizeandShapeoftheMilkyWay.asp ) IIRC, centripital acceleration slowly pushes stars out from the center towards the edge. The Milky Way is approximately 10,000 lightyears thick at the edge and 30,000 light years think in the centre.

    If we assume that intelligence and time since your sun was born have a positive correlation, this means the smarter aliens would be further from the galactic core, and this space covers approximately 11 billion cubic lightyears of a total 169 billion cubic lightyears, about 6.5% of the space. If we assume that the galaxy's 200 billion stars are evenly distributed over this volume (they aren't, the galaxy is denser towards the center), that gives us 13 billion stars with the possibility of intelligent life smarter than us. If we assume that 1% of them actually do harbor intelligent life (and that figure is probably way too high), that leaves us with 130 million stars, spread out over 11 billion cubic lightyears. Since we have an even distribution of stars, that means intelligent life will happen once every 85 million light years.

    So the nearest intelligent life with an advanced society is 85 million light years away. Unless the alien race has discovered a means to FTL travel, if they left 85 million years ago, they would be arriving right now. Serious SETI research isn't aimed at meeting ET, or having a conversation, but confirming that extraterrestrial intelligence exists.

  82. Considering your standard cell phone call... by MikTheUser · · Score: 1

    ...SETI won't even find "intelligence" if they do tap into folk's calls!

  83. moon by w98 · · Score: 1

    Wasn't some agency looking at building telescopes on the moon? Why not just put a dish array there too ...

  84. Stars? Who needs 'em. by James_Aguilar · · Score: 1

    I would say that it's probably not that important whether we can hear stars very well. It's even less important whether we can hear (potentially non-existent) aliens.

  85. Picocells: A good idea for a different reason by Darth_brooks · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not that the search for extra terrestrial life isn't a worthy cause, but there's a better reason for picocells on airplanes.

    Please, correct me if I'm wrong. When you make a connection to a cell phone tower, you'll connect to the closest towers. Usually this is only two or three. While you're on an airplane though, you tend to pick up many more (several dozen?) towers, and connect to all of them. You're also moving through a coverage area faster, taking up a whole swath of towers.

    I know, boo hoo, they're using up the poor phone companies resources. But I'd rather not have to wait for a passing 747 to get out of range before I can make a call.

    It makes more sense to have the plane be its own cell phone tower, and route the calls out through it and not taking up channels on normal cell phone towers. Oh yeah, and it'd be nice to cut out some of the interference.

    Then again, I could be completely talking out of my ass. Hopefully someone in the know will come along and smite me or expend on this though/

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    1. Re:Picocells: A good idea for a different reason by ANeufeld · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, you can pick up many more cell towers. But it is unlikely you'll connect to all of them.

      The cell towers are generally optimized to broadcast and receive signals horizontally. Sure you can get reflections bouncing up that your phone might see at 10,000ft ... but the cell isn't likely to see your reverse link, since it doesn't "look" upwards.

      Then there is doppler. The plane is moving (say) 400mph, towards some cell towers and away from other cell towers. If the phone locks onto the forward link frequency from one cell tower, the other forward link signals will be at a doppler shift, and will appear to be noise to the phone.

      If the phone does see many forward link signals, and manages to get a reverse link down to one cell tower, it reports what it can see. The network will decide which cell towers to put in the traffic channel's active set ... certainly not all cell towers the phone can see.

      Then, network planners need to reuse frequencies and code when they cover an area. In a dense, urban area, the cells are small and reuse is rapid. If a phone looking down sees reused frequencies/codes, it will have issues decoding the forward link. In a rural area, cells can be larger, so reuse of a frequency/code is less often and the cell tower transmission conflicts will be less.

      The phone's transmit power will need to higher to reach the cell towers from 10,000 ft, through the plane's skin. Since cell phones are designed for use on the ground, their transmit power is limited, and it might not be capable of transmitting at the necessary level. If it does, it will certainly certainly drain the battery quickly. The phone will cross many registration boundaries as the plane flies, necessitating the phone to frequently re-register in each new region, again draining the battery ... and possibly invoking the carrier's service anti-theft procedures as the same phone seems to register in many, many areas within minutes of each other.

      The carriers investigate areas with many dropped calls, in order to improve customer service. (Can you hear me now?) If you make a call from a plane, and it moves away from the tower before a handoff can be performed, the call drops. So the carriers don't want you to make calls from a phone directly to the terrestrial network; the calls drop, and customers complain *and* they spend resources trying to determine why many calls drop in certain areas.

      As you said, it makes more sense to have the plane be its own cell tower, and transmit the signal to the terrestrial network over specialized, dedicated hardware. The doppler problem goes away (for the phone); no pilot polution; the phone doesn't have to transmit at max power draining the battery; the phone doesn't cross registration boundaries continuously, causing it to repeated register (draining the battery, and raising anti-piracy flags); the call drops are reduced (customer + carrier happy).

      Then, the only unhappy people are the people who don't want the passengers around them talking on the phone. A picocell can help here, too. The phone finds the nice, close picocell, and listens to it for incoming calls. Except, the picocell doesn't relay any. Voila! No incoming calls. And what the heck, "service unavailable" for outgoing calls.

      So, picocells in planes is good, no matter which camp you are in. They can improve the reliability of the phone calls, or block them entirely.

    2. Re:Picocells: A good idea for a different reason by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I was hoping for someone to drop a little knowledge

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  86. I doubt this hurts SETI's chances much by Bootard · · Score: 1

    I didn't RTA, but my initial impression is that since cell phone frequencies(and the whole set of human frequency emissions at any given time) don't cover anywhere near 100% of the frequencies that SETI does/could expect a signal might be found in, so no one should expect them to have close to a meaningful impact on SETI's chances of finding something. Human generated EM signals don't take up close to 100% of the available EM room at any given time. Both physical restrictions along with strong government regulation of cell phone/radio/television signals currently stop that from happening. Since SETI is only searches about 1% of the available sky available, even if airpanes take out a whopping 50% of the frequencies available to search in (a highly dubious proposion), they will, at a worse case scenario, be searching all of 2% of the sky. They aren't going to run out of places to look for a signal. A million bucks to start a new Seti@Home will help them 100x more than this will really hurt them.

    --
    exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis
  87. Bandwidth could goto better use... by VolcomPimp · · Score: 0

    Who cares... They could be using all that bandwidth to come up with a way to microwave a burrito so hot, Jesus himself couldn't eat it.

  88. Cell phone or Non Cell Phone? by protolith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a good Idea that would also work in restaurants.

    Have seating like it used to be with smoking or nonsmoking. The no-smoking symbol in the overhead could be replaced with a cell phone icon, and cell use could be allowed only in some rows.

    You don't want to sit with people gabbing on a phone through most of the flight, there could be seating accommodations. It used to be a regular part of air travel to be offered seating preference.

  89. SETI is a joke by suitepotato · · Score: 0, Troll

    Sagan and his predecessors postulate that this one narrow band would be used by aliens since it doesn't get absorbed the way everything else would by nebulae and whatnot and we go spending millions on listening to it.

    Meanwhile, even NASA admits that the speed of light may not be a constant, warp may be possible, so no one dares think that anyone advanced enough to make it work might choose some other method of communication that worked faster than some arbitrary wavelength of radio waves?

    Hello, the people on Trek have been using "subspace" for decades on television. Did it occur to no one in science to ditch the old ideas and try checking out other methods of transmitting information, such as the workings of other kinds of electromagnetic waves? Did anyone pay attention to electrodynamics discoveries?

    Anyone advanced enough to be worth speaking with is not going to be talking on the same port SETI is listening on to use an Internet comparison. It's like running Telnet and the other side is trying to use SSH.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  90. Re:Or.... by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    4)They're far more advanced than us and they are on their way now to put an end to all this nonsense. After all... The noisy humans might be causing interference with the "Aliens" FCC regulations. That or demand we convert to their religion or sell us beads for Earth and give us nasty diseases like most other advanced civilizations do when they meet less civilized societies.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  91. Re:Another reason to fund space based radioastrono by jcorno · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That's not cost effective. It would be cheaper to give the airlines the pico-repeaters than to even plan a trip to the moon.

    Then you have the cost of hauling the stuff up there. Those radio telescopes are huge. That's a lot steel to even put in orbit, much less land on the lunar surface.

    I still agree that it's a good idea, but not for the cost reasons.

  92. Re:Stars? Who needs 'em. by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

    I would say that it's probably not that important whether we can hear stars very well. It's even less important whether we can hear (potentially non-existent) aliens.

    Have you ever sat near someone who was talking on a cell phone? You think what they were saying was important???

  93. What if... by EEBaum · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that cell phones will be capable of it soon, if they aren't already...

    What if people, on their cell phones, on the airplane, were to be running SETI@Home?

    --
    -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
  94. How about masers? by mnmn · · Score: 1

    How about laser radio? The antennae could just aim in the direction of the receiver in an external orbital pod on the airplane (or even internal), and just send a thin concentrated wave in that direction. Ever since I heard about masers, ordiniary radio just sounds like so much waste. Scream in all directions, and hope the listener will hear somewhere. GPS makes pointing to the received easier.

    Two such directional antennaes could point to the group cell the airplane is moving away from, and the ground cell the airplane is moving towards for uninterrupted communication. Since it will not interfere with many other frequencies this way, the airplane will have much more bandwidth available for say in-flight T3 connections and PPV HDTV.

    I even wonder if such a technology could be put into cellphones. instead of mechanically moving antennae, a globe of emitters could oscillate EM waves slightly timeshifted so the wave goes in one direction only... to the nearest tower. The same antennas could be used to detect where the nearest tower is. We can then have Zaruses with funky bandwidths everywhere.

    Only radios and aliens trying to contact humans should be allowed to blast EM waves in all directions.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
  95. Flying faraday cages by uberdave · · Score: 2, Informative

    As long as the windows are smaller than one wavelength.

  96. Re:Cell phone or Non Cell Phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be cool. A "no screaming kids" zone would be a bloody good idea too.

  97. Okay, answer me one simple question by njfuzzy · · Score: 1

    How is a cell phone 100 miles away, in an airplane, going to cause more interference than a cellphone in someone's pocket at the lab itself?

    --
    My Photography - http://ian-x.com
    The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    1. Re:Okay, answer me one simple question by Talie · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing because the big antenna doesn't pick up the signals down on earth. But maybe, they forbid them in their lab...

      --
      http://www.talie.ca/
    2. Re:Okay, answer me one simple question by Detritus · · Score: 1
      Antenna radiation patterns.

      Think of it this way. The radio astronomer's antenna is pointed at the sky. It doesn't see radiation sources on the ground. It does see the cell phone in the airplane that is flying through its field of view.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  98. Repeat after me... by MAdMaxOr · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is more to radio astronomy than the search for other life in the universe. There is more to..

  99. Parallax View by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aircraft move very rapidly across a radio telescope's field of view, while stars are nearly stationary. This kind of noise is yet another argument for phased arrays of radio telescopes, networked together. Their parallax should be more than sufficient to distinguish Earth noise from stellar signals. Once in phased arrays, all the other benefits, from resolution to increased coverage, will arrive. Overcoming the inevitable aerial radio noise might just be the excuse we need to get to a more useable radio telescopy.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Parallax View by Detritus · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that the preamps and receivers in the radio telescopes have infinite dynamic range.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Parallax View by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      That's not necessary for a phased array to separate signal from noise in the same frequency domain by distinguishing spatial (phase) info in the data from different sources.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Parallax View by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Each telescope is going to have a pre-amp, down-converter and digitizer, all of which have a finite dynamic range. Let's say that it is 40 dB. You are trying to examine a weak signal source, say -130 dBm. At the same time, you are receiving an interfering signal with a strength of -80 dBm. This wipes out the weak signal before it has the chance to reach the combiner. Even worse, if the system is overloaded by a strong signal, it can go nonlinear and all of the data is useless.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:Parallax View by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Do you know how phased arrays work? They distinguish between different spatial sources of signals in the same frequency. Different nodes receive the aircraft "noise" at slightly different times, because it's closer to one than another, but the star signal at the same time because it's effectively the same distance from both. So the moving noise can be digitally filtered, revealing the signal. The weak signals are not "wiped out", they're masked by the noise, because they're the same frequency. But their phase info is distinguishable, so the noise can be removed.

      The issue of "dazzling" sensitive sensors with too-powerful noise is a separate matter. But I have not read that these telescopes are suffering from that kind of overload, just the masking effect. The article's talk of sensitive sensors being "damaged" by cellphone signals is metaphoric: the data might suffer, but the sensor itself isn't being damaged.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Parallax View by Detritus · · Score: 1

      I know how at least some of them work. My point was that every stage of the system needs to have sufficient dynamic range to handle weak and strong signals at the same time. With a conventional dish antenna, if there is a strong source of interference, 10 degrees off-axis, I don't care. It never makes it to the feed horn of the antenna. With a phased array system, I have to look at the antenna pattern of each element to determine what signals will get into the system, even if they are later eliminated when the elements' signals are combined.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  100. People talking on cell phones are LOUD by Talie · · Score: 1

    On a long flight... considering almost everyone has a cell phone, this will get annoying real fast! I don't what it is, but people tend to talk louder on their cell phones even when the person on the other end can hear perfectly. I agree on the wireless part only for laptops, pdas, etc. I don't mind people typing ;).

    --
    http://www.talie.ca/
  101. On the other hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on now - SETI is supposed to catch precisely that kind of radiation, and now you deny the other side the chance of finding us?

  102. Maybe the reason we can't find ETI... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    ...is that every alien species, in a bid to further their own SETI projects, outlawed EM pollution, the only means by which anyone else could see them.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  103. Re:And I should care because? by Le+Marteau · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    the cell phone frequencies are very close to the frequencies that radio astronomers listen for to detect stars being born & dying.

    Now THERE's a reason to fall back to last millenia's standards of comfort and communication. We might miss detecting a star being born a thousand years ago a thousand light years ago. Wouldn't want to miss THAT bit of highly useful information.

    --
    Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
  104. Picocells -- not an option, a necessity by Xeger · · Score: 1

    Cell phones work by handing off your phone call between cells as you, the humble cellular customer, travel across the surface of the Earth.

    Occasionally, when the network of cells is congested, or when some technical difficulty prevents your call from being handed off fast enough, your call will get dropped.

    As you might expect, the faster you move, the more often your call is handed off. And the more often your call is handed off, the greater the chances of your call getting dropped. Cell phone companies try and compensate for this phenomenon by providing plenty of capacity along the routes of major freeways. Nonetheless, I've noticed that my calls get dropped more often when I'm moving than when I'm stationary.

    Now then ... if my calls get dropped when I'm doing 80mph in a car, imagine how often my calls will get dropped when I'm doing 500mph in a 747! Especially given that the cells I'm talking to could be 4 or 5 miles straight below me! Even if my phone can maintain 2-way communication with cells, it will need to transmit at full power simply to cover that distance (and punch through the tons of metal that surround me in the aircraft.) At that signal strength, the cell phone very well could interfere with the aircraft's RF instruments.

    Cell phone communication simply won't be reliable or safe enough without the use of cells onboard the airplane. Of course, this means that the airline has full control over your communications link to the world. Your cell phone will become just another way to access the fantastically expensive onboard phone service that most airline carriers have provided since the mid 1980s.

    I'm relieved that this is the case. The only thing preventing the cabin of a jumbo jet from turning into social hour at the mall food court, is the exhorbitant $1-per-minute surcharge the airline levies on you for the privilege of making calls while in the air!

  105. Your not going to win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This seems like a losing battle for those wanting to perform science here. The masses like their cellphones and they want them everywhere all the time. Why not put something like the Paul Allen Radio Telescopes on the most remote island in the world. There shouldn't be any airplanes, cellphones and towers with-in hundreds if not thousands of miles. Better yet lets put it on the backside of the moon.

  106. With Vongae's move to as wi-fi VOIP phone, plus airlines move to wi-fi on board, the cell phone debate may be overcome by events.

    Personally, I like the VIOP solution because:

    The airline can control availabilty with th ethrow of a switch; and
    Most people won't use it so we'll have fewer idiots on the phone for an entire flight.

    As someone who flies alot, cellphones in flight are a bad idea - it's bad enougfh when the idiot next to you insists on making conversation even when you are buried in a book and have noise reduction headphones on; add cellphones to that mix and you'll see air rage come back in vogue. (or cell phone jammers will become a hot item).

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  107. At least we now know what ET is saying . . . by Glaz · · Score: 1

    "Looks like I'll be about an hour late getting to Atlanta . . . "

    "I hate flying."

    "Man, this person sitting next to me is talking on a cell phone! The nerve . . . "

    Maybe it's just me, but this is still a tad bit more interesting than listening to static.

  108. What I don't get about SETI by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Whose idea was it that extraterrestrials, assuming they exist, would decide to communicate with us in this fashion? I mean, is there precedent for alien communication via radio? Why wouldn't the aliens stick to tried and true methods of communicating with inferior species; i.e. good old fashioned crop circles and cattle mutilations?

  109. I'd rather have use of my cell phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SETI is cool and all, but I'd rather be able to use a cell phone in an airplane than worry about their SNR. Now, if they were in active communications with some aliens then I'd be more worried about blocking their signals.

  110. PFFFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now why would any telecommunications provider or airline want to spend money installing extra equipment just because those astrologers can't use their wacky contraption thingamabobs? Who cares if they can't do their science if it gets in the way of making $$$?

    Or something like that.

  111. SETI and FOX by nilbog · · Score: 1
    I can see some major potential here for a partnership with FOX. You see, SETI could listen in on people's calls and then sell the best ones to FOX for a hit new reality TV show "skycalls!"

    Okay, so that's a pretty stupid idea, I admit ... but its the sheer stupidity that almost guarantees it WILL be on fox next season.

    --
    or else!
  112. flaws in your points by geekoid · · Score: 1

    It seems you have failed to take time into account.
    If they are more advenced then now, that means sometime in there past they weren't. so the radio waves reaching us now would be from a technologically older period.

    They could also have less technology becasue of the collpase of there civilization, but the radio wave from previous years would still be travelling through space.

    I see no reqason why more advanced = hidden. POint in fact, I would think just the opposite. If they are more advanced, they would want other civilizations to know they exist...so they can take steps to insure there survival of the species. This doens't need to be violent. That would depend on there culture.

    Now, the real issue here is the fact that radio astronamer have the rights(as granted by the FCC) to that space. This is why the cell phone side should be changed.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  113. more intelligent solutions by heatdeath · · Score: 1

    Why can't they just hook their software up to the airline traffic and filter out things coming from airplanes. It's not like they're going to miss that much of the sky because of that.

    --
    I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
  114. You should try and educate yourself before by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    rendering an opinion and looking like a fool.

    SETI is privatly paid for, no tax dollars are used.

    About detecting:
    The point is to find a signal that is evidence that another intelligent race has existed at sometime.
    In that vain, they are looking for evidence, not direct transmissions. Like residual radio signals.
    Talking would be great, not likly.

    "if you want, but if "ET" wanted to let us know he was there, he'd find a way to get around our cell phone signals."

    considering the power requirements to reach long distances, maybe not.

    Just for clarification Just becaues you find evidence of another race, doesn't mean they have the capabilities to get to you.

    there have been one or two unexplainable signals over the years. However if it's not repeatable, it's chalk up to noise.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  115. Re:And I should care because? by AdamWeeden · · Score: 1

    Call me a pragmatist, but why would it matter if ET exists if nothing can come from that knowledge?

    --
    I was quoted out of context in my autobiography...
  116. What makes you think... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    ...that people aren't using cell phones in planes now? Just because you aren't allowed to used them on commercial flights doesn't prevent any private pilot from doing so in his Cessna. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that it happens all the time.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  117. And the right answer is... by fzammett · · Score: 1

    I will gladly give up the convenience of connectivity on airplanes (something I look forward to) if it means causing problems finding life in space.

    And if you give any answer other than that, you have NO RIGHT to be reading Slashdot!

    --
    If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
  118. The problem with picocells... by eyegone · · Score: 2, Insightful


    ...is what happens if one goes down. Suddenly, all of the phones on the plane start scanning for another connection -- at full power.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    1. Re:The problem with picocells... by supmylO · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to nit-pick but obviously a problem with something is if it fails. That's like saying the problem with the landing gear is if it doesn't go down.

    2. Re:The problem with picocells... by codemachine · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but a failure of a device put there for convenience could cause other more deadly failures (due to sudden and massive interference from cell phones).

  119. Re:Or.... (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Re: your sig - I'm confused. Did Mr. Churchill somehow meet Dubya at some point? He seems to have been describing him fairly accurately in that quote...

    Flame away you neo-con bitches!!

  120. Aliens on mobile phones? by mistermax · · Score: 1

    It is a ruse- the Alpha Centaurians are using Nokias to cover up the signals from space. I'm not scared though- I've made a hat from tin foil!!

  121. Interference maybe... by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 1
    That's just it. It's RF noise.
    Not to be pedantic, but usually we refer to that as unwanted interference. The term noise it usually reserved for random natural phenomena with a white or 1/f frequency spectra.
    1. Re:Interference maybe... by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      I'll bear that in mind. As you probably guessed, I know very little about the actual operation of radio equipment beyond the most basic principles. I've got no problem learning a new term. Thanks for the correction.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
  122. Re:What am I missing here... MONEY ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your project cost a little bit more...

  123. A real concern by mbrother · · Score: 1

    I do radio astronomy sometimes (VLA), and I always have to throw away data due to interference. Cell phone signals are a major part of this interference.

    --
    Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
  124. Who cares about SETI, what about the YETI...??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No effort has been made to extend cell phone service to the Sasquatch of the Pacific Northwest. This will result in a digital divide between Homo Sapiens and the Yeti population.

    Likewise, there are no airlines that will serve them, either...

  125. Airwaves are owned by the people by ad0gg · · Score: 1

    Not a group of amateur radio guys. Decisions should be based on what servers the community better in a whole. Cell phones and broadband affect millions and millions of people, amatuer radio is reserved for a few thousand hobbyist. As for radio astronomers, i'd be more concerned about finding funding. The best array(Big ear) SETI had going was shutdown 1998. And i would really like to see a stat about how many people accidently leave their cell phones on while flying, i bet there's a few hundred in the sky at a given time.

    --

    Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

  126. Re:And I should care because? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gaining knowledge should always trump some obnoxious lady in a grocery lineup asking her husband if they need more diapers. Frankly I think a good deal more constraints should be put on cellphones. No one should be allowed to drive and use one. No one should be allowed to get calls in movie theaters from one, and nobody should block legitimate scientific research. The thought that a generation of self-indulgent, self-important communication junkies would start screwing with astronomy is enough to make me sick.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  127. The YETI@home project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is hilarious...

    http://www.phobe.com/yeti/

    From the website:

    YETI@Home is a scientific experiment that harnesses the power of hundreds of thousands of Internet-connected computers in the search for giant ape-like creatures (YETI). We, the YETI team members who founded this experiment, are experts in the field of cryptozoology (the study of animals that do not exist). You can participate in this historic study by running a free program that downloads and analyzes video & sound captured from your very own backyard.There's a small but captivating possibility that your computer will detect the faint footsteps of a hairy monster.

  128. SETI does what for society? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mobile telecom and airline industries are both economically vital and beneficial to our society. These technologies allow us to connect with people across the globe and are directly responsible for many of the great things we enjoy today (and take for granted).

    SETI, on the otherhand, produces nothing of value for society. Since its inception, has SETI even produced any evidence of alien life? Just what is SETI's impact on society and the economy? SETI does not spread wealth. SETI does not connect global economies.

    In short, should society retard progress and trade it with some silly search for aliens? We might as well go back to horse and buggy.

  129. Re:And I should care because? by aaronl · · Score: 1

    Confirmation of the existance of an ET would spur investment into either paranoid defense or into programs like SETI. We might see another scientific renaissance that produces things like a way to reach FTL travel. Like anything else, if you know something is possible then you know you aren't wasting your time.

  130. Right Wing Movement? by PWRUSR · · Score: 1

    "especially given the extreme right wing movements going on right now in the USA"? Yea, that's why you can't use your cell phone on an airplane! The future of our great country with this kind of wisdom!

  131. Re:And I should care because? by IdahoEv · · Score: 1

    that leaves us with 130 million stars, spread out over 11 billion cubic lightyears. Since we have an even distribution of stars, that means intelligent life will happen once every 85 million light years.

    Can't be. The diameter of the Milky Way is only about 100,000 ly, so the average star-to-star spacing of any set of stars within it simply can't be 85 million ly. Check your math.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  132. Wrong! by hummassa · · Score: 1

    Cell phones work OK inside airplanes. I, personally, never turn mine off when in flight. It just sits there in my pocket, turned on. I don't talk, if someone calls me I send an SMS back. It works allright.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  133. No Cell Phones, No Problem by MozillaMike · · Score: 0

    Well by eliminating cell phones -Ring-Ring-Ring
    Hold on let me take this call, it's more important than you...

    ya hey... what do you mean it's canceled....oh sorry I lost you in the bad reception.... hold on I'm losing you.. wait ok now I got you... your going to be where.... oh ok later!!! ....

    oh yeah, that was my friend. He's a corporate executive, yeah more important than you... I have to go meet him, later you loser ....

    --
    GCS/MU d- s: a--- C++ W+++ w+ M-- PS--- PE++ t+ R+ tv b+ DI++ G e- h! !y
  134. Re:And I should care because? by ElderKorean · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If we assume that 1% of them actually do harbor intelligent life (and that figure is probably way too high), that leaves us with 130 million stars, spread out over 11 billion cubic lightyears. Since we have an even distribution of stars, that means intelligent life will happen once every 85 million light years.

    Plugging your figures in google calc I get 1 civ every 85 cubic light years. You lost some digits in your calcs, and didn't convert down as was cubic light years not a direction.

    This is the query that I sent.
    what is (11 billion cubic lightyears) divided by 130 million) in cubic lightyears.

    Also the actual arms contain nearly all of the stars there are large portions of really empty space even within your small guestimate of volume.

  135. Re:Another reason to fund space based radioastrono by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Banning cell phones on planes BECAUSE of this is like using a Sharpie marker to turn a sucking chest wound into a smiley face. - I like the way your metaphor came out, makes me smile about a few things...

  136. Re:And I should care because? by TummyX · · Score: 1


    So the nearest intelligent life with an advanced society is 85 million light years away


    The milky way is only 100 thousand lightyears wide.


    Unless the alien race has discovered a means to FTL travel, if they left 85 million years ago, they would be arriving right now


    Well, if they discovered FTL (as in *FASTER* than light) travel then they could have left as early as this morning and be here by dinner time.

  137. Those Poor Space Aliens by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

    They're trying to get in touch with us with radio waves, because they don't have the technology to find us and fly to our planet and meet us.

    Wait a minute, did we forget to send our own radio signals into outer space, with our message so the aliens could find us?
    I'm sorry but the whole idea is too preposterous to me.

    Step back and have a little perspective. If the timeline of the planet earth was 1 mile long, human life on the planet would span less than a sixteenth of an inch, and the time that humans have had radio would be less than the width of a human hair.

    Now expecting some other planets timeline to coincide with ours, assuming [ass u me] they use radio, in their atmopheres, assuming they are more evolved than bacteria, or animals, assuming they care to contact us, asuming they even exist etc, the odds are so infinitesimally small, as to be very nearly proposterous.

    It's about the weakest excuse against using cellphones in flight I've ever heard.

  138. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SETI doesn't work?! What about the signal that came from Vega?

  139. Ah, to be in a microwave w/ 10s of xmitter/phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be inside a metal box/microwave oven/airliner with not one, but dozens, maybe hundreds of microwave transmitters all flooding the cabin with microwave energy??!?!?

    Its going to happen because it makes money.

    No one with a vested interest (1B$ and up) has any published proof of any near term or long term biological damage.

    So that makes it OK, right?

    How about some Open Source style research on the immediate effects of cell phone use on humans?

    I would paypal to any group that looked serious. We can't wait for gov or industry funded research.

    t.

  140. Microcell, not Picocell by kjs3 · · Score: 1

    There is no such thing as a "picocell". There is, however, a microcell. They are used all the time to fill in the gaps in cell coverage. There is one in every cellular retail shop.

    1. Re:Microcell, not Picocell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there is......

  141. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by Otto · · Score: 1

    Deliberate broadcasts suffer from none of the drawbacks you describe.

    Are we delibrately broadcasting coherent radio signals that are explicitly designed to be picked up by another civilization?

    Why not?

    QED.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  142. Re:And I should care because? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't there a really massive gravity well at the center of the galaxy pulling the stars slowly inward? At first, they thought it was a bunch of black holes in the center, but now, they're not so sure.

    I thought the older stars were closer to the center, but that might just be science fiction talking.

  143. You need to think about what you say. by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    The ability of other people to chat with their friends (adjacent or miles away) is what they get for not being in school and under the auspices of an annoying teacher.

    They don't have to be quiet for you.

    If you want quiet, the solution is ear plugs for you, not the forced silencing of the rest of creation. Airlines should probably hand them out, if they don't already.

    I also think it's hilarious how everyone I know that is opposed to cell phones in airplanes is fine with them on buses, which is the same damn thing.

    The selfish people are the ones that are unwilling to wear two small pieces of rubber, and would instead have EVERYONE ELSE obey their will.

    And the fact that it will disturb SETI actually does make me sad. But not sad enough that I think it's worth taking away a *great* ability (the ability to communicate with your friends and family, no matter where you and they are).

    SETI is at best a shot in the dark. Cellphones are telepathy made practical, real, and affordable. Even with their flaws, they are one of the best chunks of technology to ever hit humanity.

  144. Re:And I should care because? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IIRC, centripital acceleration slowly pushes stars out from the center towards the edge.

    'Fraid you don't recall correctly. Gravity provides the centripetal (towards the center) acceleration needed to keep the sun in a roughly circular orbit about the center of the galaxy. The sun was born near its present orbital radius (about 8 kpc = 30,000 light years from galactic center). There are some old stars way out there in the galactic halo, but there are others much closer to the galactic center than us.

    The upshot is that you want to look towards regions with lots of stars -- in the plane of the Milky Way, and towards the galactic center.

  145. Not just you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want to hear people talking anywhere period, on cellphones or not.

    So lame, when people talk. Much better for them to shut up and not bother us with their inferior speaking.

    Seriously, why does everyone do this? Is it in vogue to just hate everything?

    "What would happen if anyone could talk to anyone else, anywhere, anytime?"

    "Oh, I know, a bunch of smarmy folks would get all uptight about it, and it would be in vogue to rail against change!"

  146. Science? by Agarax · · Score: 1

    Yeah I hate it when I have some fucking businessman screaming at some guy in Japan next me for 6 hours while I'm are trying to sleep...

    Oh, wait, I don't want the cellphones gone for greedy reasons like that. Its the science. I swear. The annoying businessman is in the way of SCIENCE! Not only that, he's a Terrorist. Lock him up.

    --
    Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
  147. I don't see how... by KC7GR · · Score: 1

    The byline for the story has me puzzled.

    Here's the deal. The SETI project is listening right around the hydrogen line (right around 1420MHz, or 1.420GHz if you like).

    Now, let's look at a typical US-based cellphone. They're dual-band capable, operating at approximately 850MHz or 1.9GHz.

    The second harmonic of 850MHz is 1.700GHz, nearly 300MHz above where SETI is listening. As for 1.9GHz, its second harmonic is way the heck up at 3.80GHz. When you get up past the third harmonic of any signal, the amplitude is usually so low as to be insignificant.

    Now, I don't claim to have all the answers, but it seems to this long-time ham radio op that the possibility of cellphones interfering with SETI hardware is pretty darn slim.

    Unless I'm missing something? Perhaps there's an RF engineer, or someone who's seeing something that I'm missing, that would care to comment?

    Keep the peace(es).

    --

    Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

    Blue Feather Technologies

  148. Re:Another reason to fund space based radioastrono by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real solution is to invest in building radio telescopy infrastructure on the far side of the moon. Either there, or in a heliocentric orbit on the opposite side of the sun at 1 AU. Those are the only two places in the universe that have are always shadowed from Earth based broadcasts.

    Thank you for finally coming up with a reason why we should return to the moon. Bush needs someone like you helping him out with ideas, but then, maybe he doesn't depend on ideas for persuasion.

  149. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's an X-File. If it was true, Sagan would have been silenced.

  150. Re:And I should care because? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    Well, if they discovered FTL (as in *FASTER* than light) travel then they could have left as early as this morning and be here by dinner time.

    If they discovered FTL, they could have left tomorrow afternoon and arrived here in time for breakfast last Wednesday.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  151. Re:And I should care because? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...unless the alien race has discovered a means to FTL travel, if they left 85 million years ago, they would be arriving right now. Serious SETI research isn't aimed at meeting ET, or having a conversation, but confirming that extraterrestrial intelligence exists...

    that would be existed 85 million years ago

  152. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by reidbold · · Score: 1

    Voyager I & II send a coherent signal that's free of noise from earch, for example.

    --
    -Reid
  153. Slashback by brontus3927 · · Score: 1
    Too everyone who pointed out that I am a moron, I am afraid you are correct. 11 billion/130 million !=85 million It =85 After I posted last night and went home I started thinking about it and realized I must have made a mistake somewhere. I spent so much time determining the volume of the galaxy, I failed to check the math for the rest of it.

    The revise number makes ET visiting in the realm of possibility, but still not likely.

    On the topic of FTL travel, whether a ship leaving this morning gets here in time for dinner tonight or tea yesterday is dependent on whether the ship is actually traveling at a superluminal velocity or is "cheating" According to physics, particles that move faster than 3E8 m/s move backwards in time. Such particles theoritically exist and are called tachyons. However, most FTL space travel in science-fiction is based on the concept of taking a shortcut through warp space. Inside of warp space, it is assumed that you are traveling at a finite sub-luminal velocity and, as such, moving forward in time.

    On the topic of whether stars in the galaxy move outward or inward, if anyone has some more information on this that they could link to, it would be greatly appreciated. I'm willing to admit to the possibility of being wrong.

  154. The SETI argument is specious by bradbury · · Score: 1
    Why? Because the entire radio (and optical) SETI searches are based upon assumptions that are more than 40 years old which do not take into account advances in information science, microelectronics, biotechnology, nanotechnology, etc. that have taken place since the early assumptions were made. Almost all SETI efforts need to be reinvented in light of recent and anticipated future progress. Those searches would involve IR surveys (presumably space based), gravitational microlensing surveys and variable star surveys -- *not* radio or optical surveys looking for intentional communications. If you don't understand this you should go read the papers on Matrioshka Brains (mentioned on /. here).

    A preprint discussing some of these problems is available in the preprint archive Galactic Gradients, Postbiological Evolution and the Apparent Failure of SETI.

    Worth noting to the person who suggested that planets with advanced civilization migrate outward within the galaxy... The idea is on the right track but as the paper above points out -- advanced civilizations can migrate their solar systems anywhere they want. People who really want to understand galactic gradients and the probable location (and ages) of planets similar to Earth should research the papers by Charlie Lineweaver's group. Their work suggests that there are many many "Earths" in our galaxy. Many would be quite a bit older than ours if the intelligent civilizations they might have spawned chose for some illogical (nostalgic?) reason not to disassemble them.

    All of this is not to say that the PicoCell or Bluetooth or other alternatives are not good ideas for airplanes for the simple reason of preventing radiotelescope interference (i.e. *real* radioastronomy rather than radioastronomy involving the questionable pursuit of ET. Of course having no-cell-phone zones (or even no-fly zones) in locations above radiotelescopes seems to be a much simpler solution. And then of course anyone who wishes to use a cell phone on a plane should be required to use a "cone of silence" (for those of you who remember "Get Smart"). :-;

  155. screw SETI by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
    SETI is a lot more than just the SETI@home software you're thinking about. And this has implications for all radio astronomy, not just SETI. The solution is clear - don't let consumer-level technology get in the way of truly ground-breaking discoveries.

    What ground-breaking discoveries? It's a losing battle trying to explain to the entire world why they should deal with a pretty major inconvenience (for a lot of people) for some arcane science like radio astronomy which by definition isn't going to benefit them.

    Personally I don't want cell phones on planes because it's inevitable that I'll end up beating the shit out of someone using one. It's bad enough when you touch down and half the plane has to commemorate that event by calling everyone they know.

  156. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Are we delibrately broadcasting coherent radio signals that are explicitly designed to be picked up by another civilization?

    Why not?


    We've only had the technology for a century and we're immature and scared.

    SETI is therefore only looking for signals from civilizations who aren't.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  157. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by Otto · · Score: 1

    Voyager I & II send a coherent signal that's free of noise from earch, for example.

    Voyager 1 and 2 send that signal back to here, or were designed to originally. And the signal strength on that is extremely small. Your average rock radio station puts out way more power.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  158. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by Otto · · Score: 1

    We've only had the technology for a century and we're immature and scared.
    Interesting theory. Not actually true, but interesting nonetheless.

    We're not sending radio signals designed to be picked up by other civilizations because it would be pointless to do so.

    a) It'd take 4 years to get to another star, and that's one that we're pretty sure lacks life anyway. To get to the best candidates, you're looking at 50-100 years or so. Given the rate of technological advance, it seems almost more plausible that we'd figure out a way to *go there* faster than the message would get there. Okay, those nasty laws of physics are indeed a problem, I admit.

    b) There's two ways to send a signal: Directional or not. An omni-directional signal makes the most sense, given that you want to contact anybody, but in that case the power drops by the cube of the distance, meaning that the power you need to pump into it to be heard that far away is somewhat staggering. We don't have that kind of power. We could do it directionally, because then it falls off much less, but in which direction do you point your signal? Pick a star.

    c) What signal do you send? You can postulate a lot of ways to send a signal that would be universal enough to be picked up, but they all suffer from the same flaw, that being that you're just guessing. You really don't know if some other species will really be able to recognize it for what it is.

    So, it takes a long time, and a hell of a lot of power, with an uncertain, but probably very very small, chance of success. Now, is it really so hard to figure out why we don't send coherent signals but just listen instead?

    What SETI is listening for is both coherent, obvious, signals that might be sent by somebody out there, but they're not stupid. They're also listening for anything that's non-random noise. A lot of what we do send out incidentally is noise-like, but only at first glance. It has a non-random component that analysis can identify. What do you think the whole point of SETI@Home is? It's to identify sources of noise that are not random, to see where to pay more attention to.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  159. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by reidbold · · Score: 1

    Your average rock radio station doesn't have the advantage of being in space, where there is mostly just thermal background radiation to contend with.

    The real reason that seti probably won't work is because even an isolated signal from the edge of the solar system isn't too likely to be detected by someone many lightyears away.

    --
    -Reid
  160. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by Otto · · Score: 1

    So, which would you think is better then? A megawatt radio broadcast from the ground, which then has to travel through a couple hundred miles of atmosphere (which is largely transparent on those frequencies, BTW) and out into space in an omnidirectional manner, or a floating space probe with about as much broadcasting power as a lightbulb, but with nearly no interference to get in its way? Which will be more detectable at, say, 10 light years away?

    If you answered the rock station, then you win a cookie. However, if the question was based on, say, 100 light years or so, then it would have been a trick question, as neither one would have been detectable by somebody with our current level of technology.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  161. Re:No cell phones on aircraft!-buy a filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i work for a company where all we do is make microwave filters that filter interference- perhaps there is a way to get around cell phone interference this way

  162. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by reidbold · · Score: 1

    I don't really see the signal being detected even 10 light years away. When intensity goes as power over distance squared.
    At 10 light years, 10^6/(10^16)^2 spells mighty slim odds for our radio station ever being noticed.

    Thanks for the cookie.

    --
    -Reid
  163. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by Otto · · Score: 1

    Detectability is actually probably much better than you think, because artifically made radio signals have a tendancy to be polarized, whereas natural ones generally don't.

    But yes, you're basically right. An omnidirectional source at 10 light years would need to be a billion watts to be received by something like Arecibo. However, if it was highly directional and sent by something like Arecibo, then it would only need to be a kilowatt.

    If you assume that your receiver has done something like scatter some receivers out in space and made an interferometer about 1 AU wide (stick some radio receivers in the same orbit on the other side of the sun, for example), you can get to where you can detect that 1 megawatt on an omni from 10 LY. We don't have that sort of thing, although it's not beyond our capability to build it if we wanted.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  164. Must be boring by generationxyu · · Score: 1

    It must be boring to watch that movie over and over again to see if it's smart or not. I don't know about everyone else, but I thought it was pretty good.

    --
    I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
  165. Reasons for ET Radio Silence by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    Och... I hate quoting magazine articles which I lack cites for, but there was an article in Discover magazine that demonstrated that, with our current understanding of the mineral makeup of planets, Earth may be unusually rich in the proper types of elements for construction of radio equipment. ^_^ With the current debates on Intelligent Design, I'm surprised that hasn't come up...
    "And note that Earth, the one planet that we know of that supports life, also has unusually high amounts of mineral deposits that allowed for man to develop higher technology. Clearly, there was intelligent design at work here."
    Personally, I prefer the (probably mis-attributed) quote by Ben Franklin, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  166. Cell Phone Annoyances by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    Supposedly the major annoyances in cell phone conversations isn't how loudly the other person is talking, but the fact that you only hear one side of the conversation. The human brain just doesn't like that. I'd quote the study (which was mentioned on Slashdot IIRC), but I've forgotten where to find it.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  167. Re:And I should care because? by ElAurian · · Score: 1

    "Why would intellifenge life in the Mily Way have to be smarter than us."

    "IIRC, centripital acceleration slowly pushes stars out from the center towards the edge. The Milky Way is approximately 10,000 lightyears thick at the edge and 30,000 light years think in the centre."

    "Since we have an even distribution of stars, that means intelligent life will happen once every 85 million light years."

    I think this post itself embodies the answer to its first sentence.

  168. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    a) It'd take 4 years to get to another star, and that's one that we're pretty sure lacks life anyway... Okay, those nasty laws of physics are indeed a problem, I admit.

    We're pretty sure at this point there's never going to be another way to do it. With our knowledge of physics at this point, if we're ever going to do it, this is how we're going to do it, Sci-Fi channel notwithstanding. It's not "romantic" to think the answer won't come back in your lifetime, but science isn't romance.

    the power you need to pump into it to be heard that far away is somewhat staggering. We don't have that kind of power

    Exactly right, so we can't do an omnidirectional radiator.

    We could do it directionally, because then it falls off much less, but in which direction do you point your signal? Pick a star.

    That's easy. The closest one. Then the next closest one, then the next closest one. Or if it's a fixed antenna plot a course through the sky that maximizes the close ones.

    What signal do you send? You can postulate a lot of ways to send a signal that would be universal enough to be picked up, but they all suffer from the same flaw, that being that you're just guessing. You really don't know if some other species will really be able to recognize it for what it is.

    The guys who work on this stuff have good ideas based on number systems we think are required to build a radio receiver. It should be recognizable as a non-noise signal if anyone is listening. It may take untold round-trips to establish communication.

    So, it takes a long time, and a hell of a lot of power, with an uncertain, but probably very very small, chance of success. Now, is it really so hard to figure out why we don't send coherent signals but just listen instead?

    I believe this is the crux or your argument - the chances of success are low. That's unarguable - it's a matter of payoff, risk/benefit loss/reward. SETI people are pretty accustomed to low-return projects.

    They're also listening for anything that's non-random noise. A lot of what we do send out incidentally is noise-like, but only at first glance. It has a non-random component that analysis can identify. What do you think the whole point of SETI@Home is? It's to identify sources of noise that are not random, to see where to pay more attention to.

    Nothing that we send out that has noise-like characteristics is going to make it out of our solar system, at least with any detection technology that we know about. If an alien is sending out noise-like signals that happen to make it here they're using way too much power. The only thing that should make it here is an intentional signal.

    See, in some neighborhoods, you move in and everybody brings you a pie. In other neighborhoods, you have to bring the pie.

    My suspicion is that if they're out there they're going to wait for us to say 'hello' first. That would be a sign of our maturity.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  169. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by Otto · · Score: 1

    We're pretty sure at this point there's never going to be another way to do it. With our knowledge of physics at this point, if we're ever going to do it, this is how we're going to do it, Sci-Fi channel notwithstanding.

    Yes, well, the smart money isn't on your "pretty sure" bet. We really don't know as much about the ultimate nature of reality as you think we do.

    The guys who work on this stuff have good ideas based on number systems we think are required to build a radio receiver. It should be recognizable as a non-noise signal if anyone is listening. It may take untold round-trips to establish communication.

    The problem here is that you're still just guessing. You can come up with ideas based on numbers all you like, in the end, you still really don't know. You cannot possibly know. Perhaps its a very good guess, but it's still a guess.

    Nothing that we send out that has noise-like characteristics is going to make it out of our solar system, at least with any detection technology that we know about. If an alien is sending out noise-like signals that happen to make it here they're using way too much power. The only thing that should make it here is an intentional signal.

    Again, you're guessing. You know absolutely nothing about this other hypothethical species, and yet you're saying that they won't be detectable? That's just a guess. Might not be right. You can't even quantify the odds on that guess.

    My point, overall, is that you think you know more than you actually do. In point of fact, you really know nothing at all about what this alien race might be or do. It's all a web of guesswork. You may think it's got good odds of being the truth, but in reality you cannot possibly know the truth so anything you say about it is just your opinion. Others disagree.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  170. Re:Who cares? Seti wont work anyhow by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    My point, overall, is that you think you know more than you actually do. In point of fact, you really know nothing at all about what this alien race might be or do. It's all a web of guesswork. You may think it's got good odds of being the truth, but in reality you cannot possibly know the truth so anything you say about it is just your opinion. Others disagree.

    You're right - we're both guessing. I'm just basing my guesses on current scientific knowledge and what we know about how radio communications work on Earth, with the way we've evolved our technology.

    Admittedly, it's a sample size of 1 - but that's more data to go on than a sample size of 0. There are an infinite number of alternate hypotheses that have no grounding in reality, but you don't want to base a research project on them.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  171. SETI is very stupid by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    If you look at the SETI front page, somewhere they link to their happy go cluky stat of 2358927549821743981273498172349721397432197 computer hours so far!!!111thirteen!

    Computers using 30-60 watts, with seti, they run at FULL blast, and 24 hours a day. (and during work they run with high CPU in background.

    If you calculate how much polution SETI has generated, and other tasks that lock the CPU to full blast (and fans) then you will be amazed. I did some napkin equations and sent them to Mr Electricity online.

    So, as far as I am concerned, SETI can piss off, people only use it to get points, and try and win a game. If the points weren't there, noone would do a thing.

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com