I don't think the language is very important, as long as it has some similarities to standard languages(C,Java), and is kind of basic(like...BASIC). VB would be a good starting point.
What I do think is important is that they can get immediate results from their effort. Mature programmers can spend months, even years, studying something without seeing the fruits of their labor, but a kid would get bored in a week. They need some form of gratification to keep their interest. I would recommend setting up a simple project already coded for them, and let them change various things and see the effect.
how they get the information is irrevelant, if something is found, they don't just trust it. They run through exhaustive tests from various parts of the world verifying it with their own methods(didn't you see Contact?), which would be a lot more the an FFT from some anonymous coward. The worst case is someone posts an erroneous find, and they realize it when they verify it.
There is a setting which lets you choose whether SETI runs all the time or in 'screensaver' mode(during idle time). I've never noticed it slowing my machine down at all.
I'm not saying SETI should be open or not, but all of the arguments against open source are assuming that there will be 100 different versions of the software, or lots of different patches that will be installed in various combinations on the users machines.
Why couldn't the project be open but follow the same versioning as it currently does. i.e. open the source, let everybody put in their 2 cents, and release a single(or at least single for a particular OS) version of the software based on the best optimizations provided. I would like to have someone argue why open source would be bad in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the language is very important, as long as it has some similarities to standard languages(C,Java), and is kind of basic(like...BASIC). VB would be a good starting point.
What I do think is important is that they can get immediate results from their effort. Mature programmers can spend months, even years, studying something without seeing the fruits of their labor, but a kid would get bored in a week. They need some form of gratification to keep their interest. I would recommend setting up a simple project already coded for them, and let them change various things and see the effect.
how they get the information is irrevelant, if something is found, they don't just trust it. They run through exhaustive tests from various parts of the world verifying it with their own methods(didn't you see Contact?), which would be a lot more the an FFT from some anonymous coward. The worst case is someone posts an erroneous find, and they realize it when they verify it.
the same way that dozens of public key encryption algorithm's source is made open, and still be secure.
There is a setting which lets you choose whether SETI runs all the time or in 'screensaver' mode(during idle time). I've never noticed it slowing my machine down at all.
I'm not saying SETI should be open or not, but all of the arguments against open source are assuming that there will be 100 different versions of the software, or lots of different patches that will be installed in various combinations on the users machines.
Why couldn't the project be open but follow the same versioning as it currently does. i.e. open the source, let everybody put in their 2 cents, and release a single(or at least single for a particular OS) version of the software based on the best optimizations provided. I would like to have someone argue why open source would be bad in this case.