Slashdot Mirror


SETI To Release Data To the Public

log1385 writes "SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is releasing its collected data to the public. Jill Tarter, director of SETI, says, 'We hope that a global army of open source code developers, students, and other experts in digital signal processing, as well as citizen scientists willing to lend their intelligence to our exploration, will have access to the same technology and join our quest.'"

150 comments

  1. Why NOW? by PatPending · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why NOW? They should have done this from the beginning!

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    1. Re:Why NOW? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why now? Because now they found the alien mind control signal they have been looking for, the pink laser shining from the stars into the black iron prison. And now, now they unleash it onto the public. The plot thickens...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    2. Re:Why NOW? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess they had their hopes up really high and didn't want the public to know if ET was out there before the government had time to prepare some form of press conference.

      But honestly, I think its all a clever ruse. We'll get some bogus data on some random #'ed star, and the open source signal analyzers will derive that there is something there. After an intense round of "Whats going on?" and people wasting their lives away to decode the message, we'll learn that it was all a viral marketting campaign for a new Michael Bay Transformers movie.

      Just remember, you heard it here first.

    3. Re:Why NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've pulled a complete 180.

      Now it's "Intelligent Terrestrials, Extra Searching"

    4. Re:Why NOW? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Because they've already built the Carl Sagon transporter, so they don't have to worry about it triggering again.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    5. Re:Why NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why now? Because now they found the alien mind control signal they have been looking for, the pink laser shining from the stars into the black iron prison. And now, now they unleash it onto the public. The plot thickens...

      Come on you really expect me to believe a bunch of hippy alien nut balls got their hands on pink lasers?

      If this is the case we better put economic sanctions on them before they start shopping for sharks

    6. Re:Why NOW? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I would guess no real means to use that data (heck, even no realistic way of transmitting and storing those amounts) were available to "amators" for most of SETI existence...only lately have bandwiths, storaga and processing capacities of small teams or individuals become meaningful (that said, they waited few years too long)

      For a long time you would just get noise from quacks and conspiracy theorists.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:Why NOW? by natehoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think their original hope was that those most interested in the SETI project would contribute their knowledge and expertise to a single project.

      SETI@HOME proved that leveraging tons of processors to crunch algorithms developed by a relatively small number of good brains allowed them to expand their science. They've analyzed the everlovin' crap out of that signal for about 50 years now (or millions of years if you count SETI@HOME computer time) and nothing has surfaced yet, so maybe it's time to let others have a crack at it.

      But there's good reason not to do that too soon.

      The problem is that expanding the number of brains can be a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that more people will take novel approaches to analyzing the data, bad because there's going to be a lot of duplication, a lot of working at cross-purposes, and a lot of people so desperately wanting to be the one to discover the Greys that SETI will have to work up some method of validating claims.

      And, of course, just debunking false claims from every 9-year-old who forgot to set the right floating point settings on his compiler and ended up with a filtration pattern, every nutjob who thinks that a pattern match of 2 bits against the latest copy of the "Music of the Spheres" constitutes a valid find, and every attention-seeker who just makes shit up in the hopes of getting their name in lights for a few seconds will now be a full-time job for a population of scientists much larger than the current SETI project supports today.

      Right now, there are fewer brains working on the project, but they seem to have really good integrity. In radio terminology, there isn't much signal but the signal-to-noise ratio is quite good.

      Make the data public, and you'll have a lot more theories on how to find a match, and some of them will even be good. A few will almost certainly be better than the original scientists had going on to start with. But the signal-to-noise ratio is going to be awful.

      SETI already has credibility problems from those who do not believe that life could exist anywhere but God's Chosen Sphere, and those who believe that if life existed it would be a colossal coincidence indeed if it could emit patterns we'd recognize, and those who believe that such signals would never have had time to reach us yet. Add in a months' worth of multiple daily stories about some lunatic claiming to have found aliens based on pattern matching the raw SETI data against the screech marks on his underwear from the same day the data was collected, and they'll find it even harder to get funding.

      But I suspect the SETI project, as it stands, is probably going to wither away at some point anyway. So releasing the data is a good way of making sure someone, somewhere, will preserve it in addition to expanding the uses of it.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    8. Re:Why NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just the homing beacon for the Elder Things.

      Here's your waiting music.

    9. Re:Why NOW? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Hehe, that's placed prominently in my playlist already.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    10. Re:Why NOW? by ascari · · Score: 1

      Because if they had found something they would have been heroes. Turns out they foudn diddly squat, so now they want your help to avoid looking like tards.

      Redundant answer? Hell yeah. After all the reason for their behavior is so fundamentally human that the very fact you're asking makes me wonder whether YOU are... So let's hear it: Which galaxy are you really from, Pat?

    11. Re:Why NOW? by PatPending · · Score: 1

      True; still they could have "opened" the algorithms for comments, etc.

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    12. Re:Why NOW? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Are you sure they didn't? I would expect there to be quite a lot of papers from them, being part of the general research categories of signal processing, pattern recognition, etc.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    13. Re:Why NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why NOW?

      Because all the researchers have scored, and the whole "I'm with SETI" line just doesn't work with the babes in the bar like it used to.

    14. Re:Why NOW? by Smooth+and+Shiny · · Score: 1

      Will my tinfoil hat protect me?

      Shit! I only have aluminum foil! :(

    15. Re:Why NOW? by NCG_Mike · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's either the brain slug or the hypnotoad that compromised them, IMO.

    16. Re:Why NOW? by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      bad because there's going to be a lot of duplication, a lot of working at cross-purposes

      I don't see duplication as a negative. Duplication validates that the implementation is correct.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    17. Re:Why NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see duplication as a negative. Duplication -validates- corroborates that the implementation is correct.

    18. Re:Why NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google might be able to do something with it if it might get them some personally identifying information about potential aliens.

    19. Re:Why NOW? by shadowbearer · · Score: 3, Interesting

        In answer to the bad or intentionally fraudulent processing problem, they could validate any spurious signal quite easily - by putting it in to their own software and seeing if there's anything there.

        If they find nothing there, but contact the person analyzing the data and determine that said person probably has the smarts and honesty to have found something legit, then they can work with that person, request a copy of their code, etc.

        I don't think that mistakes or fraudulent results are going to be quite the problem you think they are - and I'm sure that the scientists who do the SETI programming/analysis have likely already thought this through. If I can think of a few ways to do validation of outside results in a couple minutes they have likely thought of many more ways.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    20. Re:Why NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A pink laser would be alien technology indeed... Pink is basically white light with enhancement in the red band. A pink laser would mean a lasing medium capable of stimulated emission across the entire visible band, which is something humanity is nowhere close to achieving.

    21. Re:Why NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SETI is never going to go away. Ever. It's the human condition, dude.

    22. Re:Why NOW? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Don't be stupid! The first we'd here about it would be when we learn of a sound file hacking the government firewalls with a 2000 bit encryption on all IPs in 20 seconds.

      Expect your lookups to be backdoored!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    23. Re:Why NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, just what I wanted, 460 petabytes of static.

    24. Re:Why NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've forgotten a key step in how this usually pans out. What I would expect is something along the lines of:

      - Some nutjob "finds the aliens" using the data
      - Local media picks up the story
      - Hack reporter calls SETI for "their take" on the find (which may be the first SETI hears of it)

      It's not like there's going to be some kind of centralized bin where people who use the data are going to submit their new finds for validation. This is all going to happen in an ad hoc and organic way.

  2. signal by Jodka · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow!

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:signal by quercus.aeternam · · Score: 1

      we get it?

    2. Re:signal by Snarfangel · · Score: 1

      Or worse, POW!

      --
      This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
    3. Re:signal by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Or better, BBBbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap!

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    4. Re:signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean POV, don't you?

    5. Re:signal by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      You mean, the aliens are playing World of Warcraft?
      Maybe then the best detection method would be to analyse the WoW communication and search for the patterns found there in the SETI data. However, don't forget to account for the long interstellar ping times.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  3. Meh by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    This is like the young earth creationists releasing their data to the public.

    They found nothing in what...50 years? And 11 years of SETI@Home crunching data. I mean, its a cool screen saver though.

    1. Re:Meh by PatPending · · Score: 1

      They found nothing in what...50 years?

      According to TFA it's been 25 years: Throughout the institute's 25-year history (we are a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to scientific research, education and public outreach), we have analyzed these raw data with custom algorithms operating on semi-custom hardware. Now we are transitioning to readily available hardware and servers because technology has caught up to us -- hooray!

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    2. Re:Meh by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because YEC drivel is in any way equivalent to scientifically measured radio telescope data. Yep, right, sure. Hey, we haven't found working fusion, gravity waves, proton decay, a cure for cancer, a cure for AIDS, and lots, lots and more lots of stuff. So, obviously all of this is bunk, yes? Hell, why don't we just stop doing science at all, it won't be complete ever, so it is a waste of time, correct? This used to be a site for nerds...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    3. Re:Meh by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      They found nothing in what...50 years?

      Maybe them smarty-pants extraterrestrials don't want to be found?

      Well, at least by us anyway.

      They've probably been watching our TV shows, and have decided that "Gilligan's Island" and "Oprah Winfrey" aren't worth the trip here.

      And they are intentionally keeping quiet, because they don't want us coming looking for them.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Meh by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, because on cosmic scales, 50 years is an eternity! I know if I were a highly advanced alien species, I'd spend all my time pointing transmitters at random planets in the night sky, especially ones which I haven't seen any activity from and which failed to respond to my last transmissions a mere 200 years ago.

      You've got to realize that SETI depends on aliens actively trying to make contact. Even a highly advanced civilization would be unlikely to devote the resources necessary to flood the cosmos with signals that are detectable all the time and everywhere. It's more likely that they A) send signals in bursts, in which case 50 years really isn't that long to be searching or B) wait till they detect signals coming in (which would presumably be easier for them than it is for us), which means that the only civilizations we're likely to contact at this point are ones with 30 light years.

      SETI should be, in my opinion, more interested in searching the asteroid belts for Von Neumann probes than listening for radio signals. Besides being more likely (again, just in my opinion) it would have the added benefit of providing actual communication with an alien intelligence (assuming a strong AI powered probe) verses shouting at each other and waiting 50 or more years for a response.

    5. Re:Meh by Threni · · Score: 1

      Analyzing noise looking for messages from Aliens so we can say...yes, out there there are some aliens...out there in the billions and billions of stars there are other species. What a surprise. It's so obvious that we're not the only populated planet it's just numbing that anyone would seriously believe otherwise. But...we find a message and....what? What do we do then? Compare that with some of the other things you just put; things which have a tangible payoff, perhaps in our lifetimes.

    6. Re:Meh by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      SETI started in 1960, this institute started 25 years ago.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI#Early_work

    7. Re:Meh by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I've been cured of cancer twice.

      And you are right, why waste the manpower and computing power on this?

    8. Re:Meh by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Like all these other question of rather fundamental nature that we pursue in science, which have no immediately visible tangible payoff? Should we stop them too? Who let the economist take over science? Who decided science should be about payoff, not about finding out things about the universe just because it is there? Who knows what the payoff might be?

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    9. Re:Meh by natehoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having proof positive that aliens exist would not have a profound impact on our daily lives, true, but it would have a deeply profound impact on our outlook and perception of the universe around us. And, of course, who knows what information they may be broadcasting, if they do exist and we eventually find a signal?

      Having said that, SETI has never been a very expensive project, so it's not like we're spending big money on SETI. Back when NASA funded SETI, it was less than one tenth of one percent of NASA's budget. Now that it's privately funded, it isn't really cutting too deeply into any other projects. Maybe you have a handful of scientists working on SETI instead of one of the other projects you mentioned, but then again most of our efforts in the world are wasted on things that are not only not in our best interests, but could arguably said to be acting against our best interests. SETI may not be optimal, but it's very small in the big picture and certainly doesn't appear detrimental.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    10. Re:Meh by pezpunk · · Score: 2

      your lack of curiosity baffles me.

      --
      i could live a little longer in this prison
    11. Re:Meh by sznupi · · Score: 1

      The original, classic client screensaver was better though :(

      And c'mon, are you seriously comparing activity which follows strict, scientific code of conduct to YEC? (the latter have their sources in public domain for few thousand years btw, doesn't help them much) Yes, yes, "but they base their project on dubious promise"...well duh, who is going to get those data for Drake equation?

      Yes, the probability of SETI succeeding is very small...and so is, all things taken into consideration, their energy usage. But the overall impact of SETI (in stark contrast to creationists) is very positive - they not only gave us BOINC and generally popularised distributed computing (hence contributed to many "serious" projects), but also...they share the infrastructure with "normal" astronomy and astrophysics! They directly contributed, made astronomical discoveries.

      Plus if they were to succeed...that would be something. But for that, the little bit they do must be done by somebody.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    12. Re:Meh by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      They've already completed their scanning and analysis several times over.

      I suspect the problem isn't that SETI hasn't been going at this long enough, but rather that the entire assumption is that alien life would communicate in the same ways we would.

      http://www.xkcd.com/638/

      While contact with a spare-faring alien species might be very beneficial, I'd rather donate my spare cycles to protein folding personally.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    13. Re:Meh by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      Are you dissing Gilligan?

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    14. Re:Meh by Stook · · Score: 1

      But...we find a message and....what? What do we do then? Compare that with some of the other things you just put; things which have a tangible payoff, perhaps in our lifetimes.

      Don't just think about monetary or tangible payoffs. Think about the effect that confirmation of ET life would have on world culture. Think about the effect it would have on religion. If "man" was created in "God's" image, what where they created in? How long have they been around? More than 6,000 years? This could cause some serious issues for a lot of people out there.

      That aside, maybe this could be the impetus for us to stop looking at things from a country to country perspective and actually cooperate and accomplish some goals as a species rather than individual societies. I think you've trivialized the impact this could have.

    15. Re:Meh by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I suspect that if the goals of any hypothetical Von Neumann probes wouldn't include avoidance of detection (in which case they would be likely Berserks...), we would have noticed by now.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    16. Re:Meh by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they've covered less than a thousandth of a percent of the galaxy, that's certainly an adequate sample size.

    17. Re:Meh by thesandtiger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Personally, I think SETI should be looking for patterns in everything that's out there - patterns that might indicate intelligent life - and I don't just mean via radio/light/whatever transmissions.

      It is not unreasonable to think that in 1000 years humanity would be capable - assuming we survive and continue to advance at even a fraction of the speed we are advancing today - of projects that would essentially engineer our solar system to make it over into a place that is more conducive and efficient for human (or trans-human, if you go that way) life. Certainly in 10,000 years it isn't unreasonable to think - again assuming survival and any kind of advancement - that we wouldn't be capable of essentially gardening our sun to make it much, much more stable than it already is, extend the lifecycle of it, etc.

      Let's look for that kind of change - stars that simply should not, by our theories, actually look like they do. On a bigger scale, areas of the universe that seem to have been tended or tuned to better serve life's (whatever that life is) purpose. We may not be able to recognize it as anything but a random pattern, but I'd say that it seems pretty reasonable to think, given our single example of an intelligent and technologically capable species, that intelligent and technologically capable life elsewhere in the universe might decide to modify its environment to better suit it as we have ours. Given how early we are in our own technological development it makes sense to look for the evidence left behind from species far in advance of ours (as it's astronomically unlikely they'll be at or near our level of advancement).

      Radio signals are great and all, but that's not the only way to prove there's something out there. Let's look for sources that are in disequilibrium and figure out how that's happening. At the worse we find nothing, middle of the road we find things that are perfectly natural but that our theories don't account for, and best case we find some truly amazing stuff.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    18. Re:Meh by Bragador · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree. The universe is a very harsh and unwelcoming place for life. Life, intelligent and complex life, might almost be impossible to create. We might be that 1 in a very large number statistical exception.

      Saying it's obvious aliens exist is a very dangerous thing since we have no proof of them. Might as well replace that word with angels, gods, etc.

      Believing and knowing are two very different things.

    19. Re:Meh by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      The existence of Extra Terrestrial life would not invalidate my belief, which happens to be Christianity. The fact that man was made in God's image is not a reference to our physical appearance, as we obviously all look different, and until Jesus came, there was no physical incarnation of God. Jesus also spoke of having sheep in other pastures. Aliens? Maybe. Or perhaps he was speaking of the many other countries on Earth.
      C.S. Lewis, a Christian author, had a whole series where there was intelligent life on other planets, even in our solar system, and I don't recall the elders of the Church burning him at the stake.
      If we ever do find life on other planets, I think it will be only after we have tossed aside our preconceived notions of what we are looking for. For example, the notion that water is going to be the clue to finding life. Yes, OUR life, and the majority of life on Earth is dependent on water, but the notion that life will only develop on a planet that is Earthlike in that it has liquid water and is approximately the same temperature is extremely limiting. There is evidence that life was all but wiped out on Earth several times, and still came back. Why should we think that that is not possible on a non-Earthlike planet? If we take such a narrow view, then I think that it is indeed highly likely that we are the only life AS WE KNOW IT in the universe.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    20. Re:Meh by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        This is like the young earth creationists releasing their data to the public.

        Since most of their "data" seems to be in the bible, wouldn't that be redundant? In any case they hardly make a secret of what "data" they have.

        The SETI@Home project, from my understanding, has literally terabytes of data they don't have computer power to analyze, even with the hundreds of thousands or millions of seti@home installations working out there.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    21. Re:Meh by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        If there are VN or alien probes of any sort in the solar system, they will likely be so stealthed we can't detect them* (consider the level of technology you're implying) - otherwise they would have deliberately revealed their presence already.

        * Of course given the likely size of such probes they wouldn't have to do much stealthing for us to miss them

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    22. Re:Meh by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      And they are intentionally keeping quiet, because they don't want us coming looking for them.
      Nah, it's probably just because radio waves are diluted and scattered in a miniscule distance as far as astronomical distances are concerned.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    23. Re:Meh by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      it would have the added benefit of providing actual communication with an alien intelligence (assuming a strong AI powered probe) verses shouting at each other and waiting 50 or more years for a response.

      Shouting and waiting 50+ years for a response is "actual communication" also. It's just SLOW actual communication. If we can't handle the idea of taking centuries or millenia to accomplish something worthwhile, we're never going to be ready to be an interstellar civilization...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    24. Re:Meh by lennier · · Score: 1

      SETI should be, in my opinion, more interested in searching the asteroid belts for Von Neumann probes than listening for radio signals.

      Those would be happy cheerful self replicating planet devouring robots, would they?

      For my part I'm quite happy for SETI to be actively avoiding finding anything like this in our backyard.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    25. Re:Meh by Memroid · · Score: 1

      or B) wait till they detect signals coming in (which would presumably be easier for them than it is for us)

      Ah, but if we waited until they received a signal, it could take x light years for them to reach us, or for us to receive a response. If, however, we receive their signal, which describes how to teleport to their location, it would be MUCH faster. Alternatively, we could just be sure to include our relative location while trying to contact them, but if we are just starting now, it could take a LONG time to reach them.

    26. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, I'll be happy if in 10,000 years there's gay marriage in America.

    27. Re:Meh by mjwx · · Score: 1

      This is like the young earth creationists releasing their data to the public.

      I thought the bible was already public information.

      Or do you mean to tell me they have some credible data to go on?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    28. Re:Meh by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      There is life out there.

      Remember that the most distant object we can see (GRB 090423) is 13.1 *billion* years old. So 13.1 billion years of stuff has happened before we even noticed it existed, and it'll be another 13.1 billion years before we know if that event spawned anything resembling life by today's date.

      I have no doubt that there is life in space. We will just never, ever know of it until those who would find it relevant are long dead.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    29. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, if an alien wants to find somebody smart enough to communicate with - they may as well make relatively quiet Von Neumann probes. This is because if you can find a relatively small sized technological object amongst all the stuff in the asteroid belt, you're also likely to have the technology needed to figure it out. And at that point your significance is likely high enough that you're worth communicating with. It's likely such probe will also contain a "small" encyclopedia of sorts for when that time arrives. Until then the probe just does its thing gathering data and sending it home in a way that is unobtrusive.

      Another thing I'd take a look at when doing SETI is to review pulsars or pulsar-like anomalous sources and see if any of them show signs of containing relatively simple binary counters over a band of adjacent frequencies. I find it doubtful that any natural repeating signal would also produce a binary counter. (It just seems too contrived that something naturally occuring would act like flip-flops that trigger emissions at different frequencies at the right time.) Pulses can be quite strong with a reasonable average power draw when compared to constant signal acting as a carrier. Making a very simple spread-spectrum repeating binary counter would be the cheapest way to produce a strong and obvious signal if you intentionally want to be found.

    30. Re:Meh by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Having proof positive that aliens exist would not have a profound
      > impact on our daily lives, true, but it would have a deeply profound
      > impact on our outlook and perception of the universe around us

      I don't see how. Most of the people who care very much whether aliens exist already believe wholeheartedly that they do.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    31. Re:Meh by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The existence of Extra Terrestrial life would not invalidate my belief, which happens to be Christianity.

      He didn't talk about people like you. He did talk about fundamentalists who believe everything in the bible is literally true.

      There is evidence that life was all but wiped out on Earth several times, and still came back.

      For someone who believes the earth was created 6000 years ago during 6*24 days, there was only one such event, the Flood.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    32. Re:Meh by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      And you are right, why waste the manpower and computing power on this?

      Why waste the manpower and network bandwidth discussing about this on Slashdot? Why did you waste your time writing that post?
      The answers to those questions are very related to the answer to your question.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    33. Re:Meh by natehoy · · Score: 1

      There is a gigantic yawning chasm full of nasty pointy teeth between "believe wholeheartedly" and "have proof of".

      On one side of that chasm is religion, and on the other side of that chasm is science. Confusing one for the other is intellectually dangerous, and leads to piss-poor science or violent extremism in religion.

      I care very much whether aliens exist, and I also believe wholeheartedly that they do exist in some form or other - I think it's statistically impossible given the size of the Universe that we are alone in it. But that's a belief, not a proven fact, and I accept it as such. I'm not going to argue with someone over it, because it's not something that CAN be argued over in any meaningful way. I can explain the underpinnings of the belief, and maybe some of those are based on bullshit information I've received and I need to revisit that belief, but that's pretty much it. It's a belief, not a fact. If you look at your own data and come to a different conclusion, OK then. We can each look at the other's belief and disagree, because in the end it's not going to change anything.

      If credible proof were to be discovered either way, it would still change my view of the Universe quite profoundly. If someone had proof positive that alien life did not exist, I'd have to go get drunk and contemplate my navel for a while to accept my new lonely view of the Universe, and if alien life was proven then I would throw away the belief and start looking at the nature of the alien life we found. In either case, it would stop being a "belief" and would fundamentally change my view on the subject.

      Right now, I'm convinced we're not alone in roughly the same way that someone who is religious is convinced that there is a God or Gods (deist). It's difficult for me to accept that there is NOT some other form of life out there. The data I see suggests I am correct, but there's precious little data that I'm basing my belief on. I don't know what form that life (or that God or those Gods) would take, so it's fun to speculate but any speculation is meaningless because there's no hard data to prove anything.

      That's profoundly different from knowing, for certain, based on actual data, that other life forms (or God(s)) exist.

      It's also profoundly different from convincing yourself that you know, for certain, based purely on strong enough belief, that other life forms (or God(s)) exist.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    34. Re:Meh by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > There is a gigantic yawning chasm full of nasty pointy teeth
      > between "believe wholeheartedly" and "have proof of".

      Only if the question is one that actually matters, and even then the distinction has little impact on the behavior of most people.

      > I care very much whether aliens exist, and I also believe wholeheartedly that they do exist

      I guess I'm on the other side of both of those. I think it's rather unlikely that aliens exist, but I also don't much care. Even if there were aliens, we don't have any way to meaningfully interact with them, so getting worked up about it is kind of like having strong opinions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  4. Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Troll

    We have a limited supply of coal and oil, and you're wasting our precious watts on this silliness.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by Jeng · · Score: 1

      but, but the future runs on dreams.

      Continue on the Silliness!

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Unplug your tv we'll turn off our SETI.

    3. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by pezpunk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      at which point of the process does it become silly to you?

      1. believing that alien life exists?
      2. believing that some of it is intelligent?
      3. believing they would intentionally broadcast their existence to the rest of the universe?
      4. actively seeking out that sign?
      5. looking for it in narrow band radio signals?

      --
      i could live a little longer in this prison
    4. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said. GP needs to shut up and stop wasting OUR energy purely for his comfort...

    5. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by DJ+Jones · · Score: 1, Troll

      Why don't you stop wasting our precious watts by posting on slashdot.

    6. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a limited supply of coal and oil, and you're wasting our precious watts on this silliness.

      It's only silly until they find something.

    7. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You prove your own point with the very first part of your sentence. "we have a limited supply of coal and oil"... since this is the case,we need to get off this rock we call earth. If we can find other lifeforms that can help us do this, then I would say that this is pretty darn important.

    8. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I would say Number 5.

      Just as our TV shows being broadcasts into space by the time they leave the solar system there is so much interference of background noise there is no statical way to differentiate it. The Narrow one may be better however... It will need to be pointed directly at us. Which would be silly just because we are sun is so boring and so many others that look like it that there is a near 0 chance that they will send a signal.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seriously bud, stop being an idiot, coal and oil are used to run electricity, people are in their houses running all sorts of item unneseccarily, such as tvs plugged in over night, light left turned on for no reason, etc etc, a contact with different species could and its a big could potentially give us insight into technologies and or resources that could change the way me you and everyone live, hopefully it could bring and end to problems like finite resources so people can leave their tvs plugged and it wont matter....how do like that idea??

    10. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your energy? Mwuahahahahaha I'm fapping with your energy right now!

      Is this a waste of Your energy?

    11. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 2, Funny

      0. I have trouble believing in intelligent life on Earth.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    12. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll put it this way: there's a significantly higher chance of all of those things working out for us than there is of there being some sort of omnipotent omniscient entity directly involved in our daily lives.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    13. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      It's silly because we already found the alien signals during the great harmonic convergence.

    14. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      5? Well, ok 3... but it gets REALLY silly at 5.

    15. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by Tarsir · · Score: 1

      Given that humans are doing all 5 of those things, I don't see why it has to be silly at all.

    16. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        A small city of 20k or so people wastes more wattage every day just in wasted electricity and radiative leakage than the SETI project has used during it's entire history.

        You're an idiot.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    17. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Some of those are silly and some aren't, depending how you answer the others. #1 is possible, but the odds of it existing close enough to where it matters make it silly to dwell on it.
      #2 follows from #1 except that the chances that some of the life is intelligent cuts down the odds by several orders of magnitude from an already dismally small number.
      #3 you have to assume that #1 and #2 are true. But if they are, I would say it is likely that they would try to promote their existence and that they probably also believe there is other intelligent life out there. The folly is that they are very unlikely to promote their existence in the manner that we do.
      #4 seems like foolishness to me because of the extremely long odds against intelligent life being close enough to use to be seen via radio wave and also the odds of them actually using radio waves versus some other method of trying to attract attention, or at the very least a fundamental difference in what the believe to be a useful band of frequency.
      #5 illustrates my point in #4.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    18. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. If you understand how life originated on earth, then the idea that it originated elsewhere as well is not so silly. You just need the right conditions, and there are a lot of planets out there.
      2. What's so special about intelligence that limits it to life on earth? At the very least it should be obvious from studying other animals that it's not just limited to humans. Maybe in amount but not in kind.
      3. We are, and we're pretty stupid.
      4. Beats going to Iraq.
      5. Okay, you win.

    19. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are sun? WE ARE SUN!? \/\/ |= /\ |2 |= 5 L| |V ????
      You sir are the Saint Grail Grammar Nazis were looking for!

    20. Re:Stop wasting my energy, dreamers! by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      at which point of the process does it become silly to you?

      1. believing that alien life exists?
      2. believing that some of it is intelligent?
      3. believing they would intentionally broadcast their existence to the rest of the universe?

      Such broadcasting seems dangerous to me, so it gets my vote.

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  5. Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SETI, I'll save you the time... Just call Select Staffing, they'll send the aliens your way....

  6. Modern data is "random" by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Interesting
    From TFA:

    Access the raw data we have published at setiQuest and show us how to process it in new ways, find signals that our current signal detection algorithms are missing.

    I suggest looking for data that fits too closely with white noise. Modern human digital data is highly compressed, and as such is nearly indistinguishable from random bits. Images, Music, Movies... the bulk of the traffic on the internet looks like random bits.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re:Modern data is "random" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with this is that there's almost no way to know for sure that something is "random"

    2. Re:Modern data is "random" by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Looking for data that fits too closely with white noise is like looking for items just as white as the background they are against...

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    3. Re:Modern data is "random" by pezpunk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      no, he's suggesting looking for items that are whiter than the background. an intense burst could be a solar flare (or whatever) or a highly compressed bitstream of alien porn.

      --
      i could live a little longer in this prison
    4. Re:Modern data is "random" by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Wow. You've just totally rocked my world with that deep insight. Turns out I wasn't a DSP expert after all.

  7. Re:Republican analysis will find WMDs. by mikael_j · · Score: 1

    This isn't a bad idea, we'll have FTL travel and cities on Mars by next year if we can just convince the military industrial complex that there's a bunch turr'ist aliens out there.

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  8. Access to the same technology? by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

    Where exactly is a 'citizen scientist' going to get the world's largest supercomputer (the Seti@home cluster)??? Unless by 'citizen scientist' you meant 'black market botnet operator'... because they are probably the only ones with the resources to pull it off with the scale that Seti@home has attained.

    How about democratizing the seti@home algorithm design? Maybe some fresh ideas, along with what is arguably the largest most successful distributed computing system ever created, is the best way to go; instead of just starting over from scratch.

    1. Re:Access to the same technology? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I thought that was what they were saying.

      As you state they have access to some heavy computation, they are just asking for fresh ideas on how to use it.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  9. oh boy oh boy by anonymousNR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    cant wait for the false positives

    --
    -- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
    1. Re:oh boy oh boy by Deadric · · Score: 1

      Please don't mention false positives. Not today.

      *weeps*

  10. doesn't change anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there is extraterrestrial life, unless it happens to be in one of the closest star systems (probability approximately 10^-22) we will never be able to reach it. SETI is thus pointless.

    1. Re:doesn't change anything by pezpunk · · Score: 1

      that doesn't preclude communication, which in my opinion is not at all pointless.

      --
      i could live a little longer in this prison
    2. Re:doesn't change anything by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Expect my reply to this in 12,000 years.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  11. Better Compression Algorithms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will never detect advanced signals. Any communication will use encryption/compression algorithms better than anything we can dream of at the moment. It will always be noise to our ears.

  12. Is It As Easy As Pie? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    With apologies to Carl Sagon.

    1. Re:Is It As Easy As Pie? by pezpunk · · Score: 1

      are you suggesting SETI@HOME invent the universe?

      --
      i could live a little longer in this prison
    2. Re:Is It As Easy As Pie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the only way to make the aliens from scratch!

    3. Re:Is It As Easy As Pie? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      With apologies to Carl Sagon.

      With apologies to Carl Sagan.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  13. Phone [their] home by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Funny

    E.T.'s signal-processing technology should be much better than ours. Just ask them for help.

    1. Re:Phone [their] home by EdIII · · Score: 1

      E.T.'s signal-processing technology should be much better than ours.

      Dude, they picked that signal from a fucking Speak-n-Spell, a coffee can, and an umbrella from outer space. Possibly pretty damn far away too. I would say their signal processing technology could give Uhura and the Enterprise a run for their money.....

      Of course its also possible that E.T was just one of the 'slow' ones and their return had nothing to do with the device he built at all. They just finally noticed he was missing.

  14. Narrow time windows by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One serious problem with SETI is that even if there are other civilizations out there the timespan where they are sending out lots of radiowaves may be small. For example, humans have only had radio for about a hundred years. We sent out a lot for around 80 years but are now sending out less as we get more efficient and have other methods of communication (such as fiber optics). Moreover, many devices today use a spread spectrum approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_spectrum which looks like close to white noise. Unfortunately, we don't have many options for searching for other types of signals since almost any other signal type that we can conceive of we simply won't be able to find.

    1. Re:Narrow time windows by SETIGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The assumption of most SETI searches is that we are looking for a deliberate transmission and that a deliberate transmission will be sent in a form that is easy to detect. We've never had the capability of detecting earth's leakage signals even out to the nearest stars, even at our noisiest.

      Suppose you're on a tiny deserted island. On your island, you have a cell phone, a laptop computer, a flash light, a book of matches, and ample driftwood. In the distance you can see a large island or part of a land mass. How are you going to attract the attention of any of its inhabitants? There's only one real option: Use the lowest technology available.

    2. Re:Narrow time windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, even if somebody sees your signal, it will probably be millions years after your death, due to the distance and the many million years the signal would take to reach anybody.

      So if we get a signal it's like
      "Finally!
      Finally we found that there was something alive a long long long time ago (probably dead by now) and far far far away (too far to be ever be reached by us) - WHAT A BREAKTHROUGH! ... ... so what should we waste our time and ressources on next?"

  15. How long till we realize they already left? by Orga · · Score: 1

    I have a feeling we'll be folding dimensions, poking holes in them and making new ones by time we understand how to break the laws of the one we're in. And then only to realize now that we've figured it all out why the hell would we want to figure out what else is in ours. Take out our trash and poof we're gone.

  16. A Message to Critics by cosm · · Score: 1, Troll

    Before somebody pedantically states "wah wah universe is too big look at the scale of things we will never find life... enormous cosmic distances...blah...blah", let me just state to everybody making this argument until they are red in the face, one must consider the fact that an advanced Type II or Type III civilization may have the ability to utilize nifty physical principles like relativistic space contraction.

    Just because something seems astronomically and impractically far away from the standpoint of classical physics, stating bluntly "we will never find intelligent life due to cosmic distances" is a bit bold, considering the possibilities that unfold once relativistic speeds are taken into account. I know this doesn't apply for electromagnetic signals, but what if an extraterrestrial body travels from the outer another galaxy via 'hyper-space', or crossing dimensional planes, with the possibility that they 'contract' the distance they must travel to our solar system by travelling at relativistic speeds, and then once they are here they broadcast their signals within a reasonable space-time range for our detection equipment to gather data. Of course this sounds far fetched, but these concepts are not new. Space contraction is a real phenomena, and is the reason Muons make it to our detectors, even though classical physics states that the time it takes them to travel to the ground is longer than their theoretical lifetime.

    Yes this is making the assumption that these civilizations haven't reduced themselves to smoldering rubble once they discovered the power of nuclear reactions, and also making the assumption that they have the technology to generate the energies needed to achieve those speeds comparable to C in order to really take advantage of space contraction, but look at our society. In 100 years, look how far technology has progressed. Imagine a civilization that is 2000 years advanced from our current state. It is vain and ignorant to use arguments of what we have now to what is possible as technology grows by a function of time. 100 years ago, who would have imagined particle accelerators, space-ships, MRI machines, invisibility-cloaking technology, night-vision goggles, electromagnetic projectile accelerators, etc...All developments of the past two centuries.

    But then again, as mind-numbing brain-wasting entertainment permeates our culture, perhaps our technological advancement may stagnate. Why would anybody want to study quantum-physics when they have Farmville ;)...

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:A Message to Critics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why was this modded as Troll?

    2. Re:A Message to Critics by cosm · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing. -1 Disagree perhaps?

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  17. Re:Republican analysis will find WMDs. by Traze · · Score: 1

    And don't forget, transporters and replicators!

  18. EVP wetdream by pavon · · Score: 1

    No kidding. A thousand EVP enthusiasts just shat themselves in excitement.

  19. the reason I stopped computing for SETI@home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After reading up on it I wasn't satisfied that the collected data was well analyzed. SETI@home admits this too. It is also radio frequency which we don't expect advanced civilizations to be using "currently"

    So I hope this will change things.

  20. Noise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoosh!

  21. best bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, from the data i see that they (U.S.a) should release
    the british hacker.

  22. You mean the 'wow signal'? by mrflash818 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You mean the 'wow signal'?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow_signal

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  23. The SETI Institute is not "SETI" by SETIGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Repeat after me... Jill Tarter is director of the SETI Institute. Despite their desire to be called SETI, they are not SETI. SETI is a scientific discipline. The SETI institute is an organization.

    Jill Tarter doesn't direct me, and, unlike most of the people at the SETI Institute, I actually do SETI.

    1. Re:The SETI Institute is not "SETI" by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      unlike most of the people at the SETI Institute, I actually do SETI.

      So what are the people at the SETI Institute doing?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:The SETI Institute is not "SETI" by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      The SETI Institute employs biologists, sociologists, astronomers, geologists, educators, and other researchers. Many are funded by their own research grants. Anyone working on something related to finding planets, understanding planet formation, interstellar chemistry, habitability, evolution, signal processing, searching for any type of life (mostly non-intelligent) and SETI is welcome.

      SETI itself is a minority component. But once the institute was formed, the scientists worked on what paid the bills (i.e. anything but SETI). And they hired more scientists to do the same. So the actual SETI work became a small fraction of the total.

      I was just talking to one of the scientists whose data was released to SETIQuest. Her data was observations of a pulsar to measure scattering of radiation by interstellar matter. It's unlikely that there are any civilizations in that data. But if the people processing it can't detect a pulsar in it, that probably means you can ignore their algorithm, at least for broad band transmissions.

  24. Counter example by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    It is my opinion that the proof of existance of other sentient communications would be profound, akin to proof of religious dieties existances.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  25. nope by formfeed · · Score: 1

    You've got to realize that SETI depends on aliens actively trying to make contact

    Nope, they don't.

    A lot of civilized activities make non-random electro-magnetic noise:

    • radar
    • uplink stations for interplanetary communications
    • energy beams for space stations, space elevators, or remotely powered probes.
    • the beams used in asteroid mining activities and meteorite protection

    You're right however, that any civilization that can be discovered has to be further advanced than we are.

    1. Re:nope by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Well, it is a question of signal intensity. The non-random noise emitted by a technical civilization will be mostly undirected and relatively low-power, so the detection range will only be a couple, maybe tens of lightyears. Aliens actively trying to make contact would in all likelihood use frequency ranges that are relatively low-noise and would utilize directed transmissions, so in that case the detection range is much higher. So, the general expectation is to find someone actively transmitting, if we find anything at all.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  26. WTF if... by slick7 · · Score: 1

    What if... contact was made decades ago and "The Powers That Be" decided to keep this a secret.
    The contactors waited patiently for disclosure and now are impatient and will make disclosure themselves.

    What if ... the fears of "TPTB" are realized, that the world population will truly be pissed at "TPTB"?

    Should I feel sorry for the "TPTB" or should I call for the censure/ expulsion/ trial/ investigation of "TPTB" for all the grief perpetrated against all sentient life.

    How would YOU respond?

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  27. Translation by SetupWeasel · · Score: 0, Troll

    We've been looking for 50 years, and... we got nothin'.

    So let's see if an army of tinfoil hat types and Star Trek nerds can find enough false patterns in the static to ensure our job security, because we're worried Obama wants to derail our gravy train. Something about "results." Don't people know that SETI is about giving hope to the world that we can find aliens that we can't communicate with in any way. Imagine what we could learn from the broadcast of an interstellar Jay Leno. The mind boggles!

    1. Re:Translation by stwrtpj · · Score: 1

      because we're worried Obama wants to derail our gravy train.

      What the hell does Obama have to do with it? SETI is privately funded. Get your facts straight before you use the topic for a political jab that makes no sense.

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
  28. Re:Republican analysis will find WMDs. by slick7 · · Score: 1

    And don't forget, transporters and replicators!

    Or di-lithium crystals!

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  29. /i/ for invasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SETI release data to /b/, 3 months later, aliens are being trolled, DDOSed, and picketed by doughy white guys in Guy Fawkes masks.

  30. There's an army? by dangitman · · Score: 1

    We hope that a global army of open source code developers, students, and other experts in digital signal processing,

    I had no idea there was this army. Who is the General in charge of it? What are its military objectives?

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  31. Meanwhile by rossdee · · Score: 1

    At some time in the future, aliens will be trying to decode OUR signals...

    (The information they broadcast must be very important. It is repeated many times - they had rotary wing VTOL craft, wore Khaki and lived in tents)

  32. 2.5 Inverse-Square Law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The sheer enormity of any confirmation of the existence of life - especially intelligent life - beyond the Earth probably justifies the search, but people need to be made aware of just how immensely unlikely it is that there are signals capable of even being detected.

    Much is made of our own signals (radio, TV, Radar, etc) which have been leaking out into space for the past 100 years or so, but few of the engineering facts are ever explained to the public, such as that by the time any of those signals have reached even the nearest stars they are so weak as to be essentially undetectable from background noise, and certainly indecipherable.

    Even one detected and confirmed "alien" signal will be worth everything SETI, for sure, but few have any idea of just how long the odds are.

    1. Re:2.5 Inverse-Square Law. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Plus, they'll be decades old. Some very, very lucky scientist may get a "Hi" back within his lifetime, but he'll no way be alive for the response to "ASL?"

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:2.5 Inverse-Square Law. by alexo · · Score: 1

      Plus, they'll be decades old.

      Decades? I am not sure you are aware of the enormous distances involved.

  33. and Linux too... by gearloos · · Score: 1

    Ohh well, I must be cursed. I used PPC Ubuntu on my PS3 to access Usenet on Cox Cable.... lol but seriously, when are the people going to get a fair shake with all this corporate bullying?

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  34. Alien copyright by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 1

    So if there is a signal and they've made it available to everyone on Earth, how much does that work out to in damages?

    --
    Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
    1. Re:Alien copyright by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      So if there is a signal and they've made it available to everyone on Earth, how much does that work out to in damages?

      5000 UFO abductions minimum.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  35. Complex embedded signals by jwhitener · · Score: 1

    Of course, I didn't read the article:), but several pop-sci books on AI/ET that I've read lately have quoted scientists who are beginning to speculate that perhaps we've already picked up alien signals. However, the pattern may be so complex (so alien!), that seti missed it.

    So one guess is that seti wants imagination and innovation that comes from crowd sourcing to help analyze the data for patterns that the 'old schoolers' (long time seti researchers) have missed.

    A more pessimistic guess would be that seti wants a bunch of amateurs to make media/blog noise by finding and reporting a metric ton of false positives. That gets the words "alien/seti" back in the public's minds, and helps come budget time.

  36. It took them that long to edit out the real data! by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    It took them that long to edit out the real data!

  37. have the other civilizations did there analog trun by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    have the other civilizations did there analog trun off and they are to far out to be picked up?

  38. Just signed up by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    Now THIS is the open source project I was waiting to work upon: exciting, new, unusual, you name it. Can't wait to see the first data !

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  39. S.E.T.I by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    The search for terrestrial intelligence proves to be as elusive.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  40. Our undoing... by rgviza · · Score: 1

    It's likely that if we come into contact with a space-faring alien race, it's because they needed to get off their planet and find a new habitable one, for one reason or another. I'll wager that contact with ETs will prove to be our undoing if we succeed.

    However if they are a space-faring race capable of interstellar travel, we couldn't avoid getting detected by them if they were less than 70 or so light years away. We couldn't hide if we wanted to. If they have the technology to fly faster than light, it's likely they have much more sensitive and sophisticated communication capability than we do.

    While SETI is important scientifically, it serves no real purpose to broadcast our presence. They'll see us long before we see them with or without the "We're here!" broadcasts.

    That being said, I believe intelligent life somewhere else is a statistical certainty. I don't know if I believe they've visited us or even know we're here.

    --
    Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
  41. think again..hawking makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmmmm. i think stephen hawking is right.....not wise to contact.....best to try and find earth like planets...if contact is made this could be our undoing.....risky business! definitely changed my mind on seti.