Seth's answered this in other interviews. Here's an excerpt from one I did with him. The question was "Our own civilization has only been using radio to transmit messages for less than a hundred years. Now these messages are increasingly being delivered in a digital, often encrypted form that is practically indistinguishable from white noise. What sense does it make to search the radio spectrum for such old-fashioned messages that we ourselves have only bothered using during this brief window?"
His answer:
I mean, if you look at the kind of signals that we're currently using, sort of spread-spectrum signals and things like that, they're very complicated, and they're completely unlike the kind of things we look for in SETI. The kind of things we look for in SETI are signals that are just what are called narrow-band signals, that are on one spot on the radio dial. So they take all the energy of the transmitter and pump it all into one small frequency range. Okay? You with me?
Siduri: Yeah.
Seth: All right. The advantage of that is that it makes it really easy to find the signal because all the energy is in a small band so it really stands out as a big spike of energy. Whereas if you spread it out over five megahertz, like a TV signal, then the energy's spread all over the band and it's very hard to find. But on the other hand, the actual signals that we use are spread out, more and more. And ET will be at least as advanced as we are, so you might say, "Well, why would they make those narrow-band signals?"
And the answer is, probably: most of the time, they don't. For their own internal communications they probably wouldn't do that. But if you have a beacon, which you want to hear at great distance--if for some reason they want to get in touch, or they're sending the galactic weather report, whatever, GPSs--there's lots of things that would have narrow-band components in the signal. So that's what we look for. But Zach has a point.
Siduri: So the assumption is that they would have to be kind of trying to get in touch.
Seth: They might have to be trying. Or, I'm not sure I would even go that far. If you asked Marconi a hundred years ago, what would he think the radio signals would be like in the year 2001, or whaddya think people will be using this technology for in the year 2001, he wouldn't have had a very good idea. He probably wouldn't have gotten it right--not much of it, anyway. So for us to say what kind of signals ET uses, a hundred thousand years ahead of us, what kind of signals he's producing--you could guess if you want. Probably not a very good guess.
I mean, one thing you always need is high-powered radar to look for incoming comets. Long period comets. Cause they can come in, and as you know, ruin your whole day. Land in Yucatan. But I mean, he has a point. It's just that we're looking for the signals that are easy to find.
This article was written three years ago by the Rijndael authors, describing their algorithm in detail. Back then they were calling it the "block cipher square algorithm," but I guess they found a catchier name! (DDJ is also running a shorter notice about Rinjdael with a few links.)
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't want to wait till summer, there's the Unofficial Mass Effect Epilogue Slides to tide you over.
His answer:
This article was written three years ago by the Rijndael authors, describing their algorithm in detail. Back then they were calling it the "block cipher square algorithm," but I guess they found a catchier name! (DDJ is also running a shorter notice about Rinjdael with a few links.)