I've gotta say, even if we find them, the idea of any immediately accruing benefit is pretty slim.
I think we would benefit just from knowing they were there. If nothing else, it'd be fun to see some of the religions scramble to account for the new state of affairs.
You seem pretty convinced that there is something else out there
I am.
...even though there is no evidence at all to support the idea.
Well, let's see. For SETI to hear something, we need:
Planets to sustain life - check, they can, 100% certain
Life to be intelligent enough to say something - check, here we are, 100% certain
Radio to be an achievable technology - check, 100% certain
So there's nothing too magical anywhere in that list. The trick, actually, would seem to be where we are in technological and political development as compared to where others are. There's little reasonable doubt of any of the rest of it, it seems to me.
Another fact you didn't consider is that what if there is life out there and it is not a bunch of liberal pacifists? What if we contact them and they see us as a resource to be consumed rather than a new neighbor? Talk about a "world of hurt"! In that case, we are much better off not letting them know we are here.
As far as we can tell, distance makes us not a "resource" with a reasonable cost, no matter what kind of "resource" you might have in mind. Even so, listening, which is all SETI does, doesn't bring these issues to the table. So I didn't have to consider them.
There is so much to discover about our own world and I think our resources should be focussed on that rather than searching the heavens for something that is most likely not there.
I don't know how you got your "unlikely" conclusion; the way I see it is that we already know it has happened once in our sample of one; we know the count of other planets (solar systems) is insanely, mind-bogglingly, incomprehensibly large; we know planets are common in nearby systems as well as our own; and we know that even for relatively rare events here on earth, things seem to happen more than once if they're simply possible, in our tiny, very finite by comparison environment. For example, there are a ton of different lifeforms here. They vary in intelligence, they vary in tool use and communications methods, and they vary in their ability to compete with us but all have lost thus far. There are lots of minor varieties of humans, too. Including a few dead branches. So my outlook is that ET life is extremely likely. Intelligent? I suspect that one intelligent lifeform per planet with life is pretty normal because early stages of life are very competitive in our experience, and losers don't get to evolve, but wouldn't want to bet on there never being more than one.
We also have every reason to think that unavoidable physics makes communications very hard over these distances. Everything we know at this point says that no matter how smart or developed you are, you're stuck in your own back yard, and communications takes years at maximum speed. This is another reason I'm not too worried about being someone else's "resource" at this point in time. I'll be perfectly content to learn someone is there, if indeed SETI succeeds in its goal.
The only even remotely viable counter argument has to be based on the idea that the earth is unique in all the cosmos not just in its own biosphere but in the sense of even having any biosphere; and I think that argument is laughably unlikely, on the order of Santa or astrology. Wishful thinking, at best.
Now on another planet, he could just as easily create life again, maybe even humanoid, in its own Eden. Maybe on this other planet the creation abides by the instructions, never entering a "fallen" state and never needing a Messiah. So if we someday find and interact with this alien species/race, there's no need to "bring them to Jesus", although I'm sure many people in this world will immediately feel the need to.
This is pretty much the theme of "A Case of Conscience", by James Blish, he won the Hugo for the work. 1959, I think.
The fundamental difference is that we have in the wild confirmation that fusion releases energy (e.g. the Sun), and that initiation of fusion reactions is within our technical capabilities (e.g. hydrogen bomb, tokamak, etc.); the only question there is one of efficiency.
Efficiency, containment, practical viability - there are many questions, actually, and all of them very, very hard ones. We do have confirmation that fusion exists under certain circumstances; we also have confirmation that intelligent life sends radio transmissions under certain circumstances.
On the other hand, SETI is searching for something that we do not have the foggiest idea about, that is whether it even exists
No. In the very sense of your example, we do know that what SETI is searching for exists. We just want to know if it exists elsewhere, too. It's just a matter of stuff we already know is 100% possible and have 100% proof of - life, intelligence, radio technology - as compared to a viable fusion plant, which we do not have an example of, and have not proved is possible, though it certainly hasn't been for lack of trying. We know uncontrolled fusion can be done, and we've done it. We know that below-unity fusion can be done, and we've done that, too. But we certainly have not produced a viable fusion reactor.
In that sense, SETI is much more of a shot in the dark, and relies upon so many more assumptions unsupported by evidence than fusion power generation does.
SETI is just a yes/no type of undertaking. There are lots of them. That doesn't make them unscientific, unreasonable, unproductive of incidentals (regardless of impact), impractical, or useless. The only assumption that I know of they're making is that there may be something there to find (and that's an open question because such technology has both developmental and political constraints - for example, we ourselves have decided not to transmit at this time); everything else about SETI is based on known facts: Life, intelligence, radio. These are mundane elements. What SETI is trying to do is find a second case, that's all. It may or may not find that case. I would argue that no matter the result, the attempt is worth the cost, and worth far more than many other pursuits we are currently involved with, several of which I have already named.
He's stating that receiving signals from extra-terrestrial beings is an all or nothing event and until you've received a signal the only progress you can report is: "We've searched X% of the sky, trying again."
And I'm stating that achieving a viable fusion reactor is also an all or nothing event. Which is exactly what it is.
With science research like you propose, fusion and AI, incremental steps can be made to show progress
No. You're moving the definition, I presume either because you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough or because you didn't understand what I was trying to say. There's no such thing as incremental progress on any technology that so far has proven intractable until you actually can produce at least one viable example. Which definitely includes fusion. Remember: I said viable fusion plant. Not "We pumped in 100 GW and got back 1 GW, hurrah", and not "We pumped in 50 GW and got 50 GW but the reactor walls eroded and we had to junk the whole assembly" and not "we lit it, but the fuel costs more than the amount we can recover from selling power" but "We lit it, it paid back its nominal building costs with over-unity power production and it's still lit and we have every reason to think it'll still be lit 20 years from now and there have been no surprises, nor do we expect any."
On the other hand, in the pursuit of viable solutions to these problems, there are spinoffs and all manner of things learned, and in that way, SETI produces results just as the other three examples do. "Showing progress" isn't a scientific requirement. Sometimes showing a whole darned lot of 100% failure is just what you need to do. It might not be what you want to do, but in that case, science may not be the best field for you.
For AI, you can demonstrate simple problem solving, things like finding the optimal choice amongst many possible solutions, simulated emotional responses, pain avoidance, and then novel situation problem solving through the integration of past experiences. Many of these have also been accomplished. In either case, there are incremental milestones that can be accomplished and documented throughout the process.
Viable AI has not been achieved. Cancer has not been cured (trust me on this one... my parents are both dead from it and my sweetheart is on the 10-year/15% mortality list.) There exist exactly zero viable fusion reactors on this planet. SETI has not found any ET transmissions. All four pursuits have produced intermediate results of benefit in various directions. All four pursuits can be characterized as variously using scientific method (hypothesize, test, attempt to falsify, re-hypothesize, etc.) and incremental technological leverage in the quest to get closer to the specific goals for each pursuit. All have had abject failures of technology and vision as well. To claim that SETI is worthless because the result is 100% no until it is 100% yes is disingenuous; that doesn't make the result less valid, it doesn't invalidate the methodology, it doesn't stem the flow of intermediate technologies, incidental (to the actual goal) discoveries, etc. Learning goes on in every case.
Sure they can, as long as they follow the scientific process and break it down into smaller testable parts
No. Either it can be figured out, or it can't. It's the same yes/no solution set that SETI faces. Signal, or no signal? Viable fusion reactor, or not? SETI may not detect a signal, even if there are other civilizations out there. Fusion research may not ever come up with a viable fusion reactor design, even if such a design is possible. But in both cases, it tends to be forward-moving to try, and in both cases, spinoffs from the trying are all but inevitable, and of course, we have already seen them from both. And cancer research, and AI research. And of course, any of these could grab the brass ring.
And this just proves you don't know what you are talking about. We get better treatments for cancer and more advanced AI applications each year.
That isn't what I said. I said cure. If you want to go for less than 100% win, then in regard to SETI, we got better search algorithms, the first really broadly distributed computing platform, research into quieter RF amps, in fact just about anything that makes it easier to detect an incoming signal makes some part of radio astronomy easier, too. You're really making my point for me: SETI is worth doing because in the serious quest for answers, even the technology used in the hunt tends to be improved.
Absolutely. Though it's actually a late-80's UI design. Came from the Amiga. The interface is still generally more efficient than Photoshop's is in many areas. And the application is a *whole* lot faster overall, which of course also enhances viability as compared to slower designs. Any other questions I can help you with?
Not only are the things you listed more scientifically understood than alien lifeforms (We don't know if they exist at all. Period)
We don't know if workable fusion reactors can exist, either. Nor cures for cancer. Nor AI's. That was the point. Maybe you need another cup of coffee.
I would much prefer to see money poured into the subject matters you listed, than in finding that cute little ET. At least I know what I am paying for.
Yes, so? What's your problem? SETI is funded by donations. Just don't donate to them, donate to someone else, and you can see your money go anywhere you like. In the meantime, what business is it of yours where I put my money? I don't recall delegating any authority to you.
Oh yes, it certainly is "offtopic" to talk about an already existing configurable interface on a commercial image editing program in an article about a commercial image editing program's luminary writing about contemplating and preparing for a change to a configurable interface. Um-hmm. The humor is beyond the moderators, I'm sure.:-)
But what is even funnier is that this post, which describes exactly how Winimages works, is modded +3 insightful. Yet when I posted that we had already done this along with an invitation to try it for free... zap. You gotta love the mouth-breathers.
This, people, is precisely why you need to read slashdot at -1. It certainly is why I read at -1.
SETI can never come to a conclusion until we find the aliens.
Um-hmmm. And Fusion reactor research can never come to a conclusion until or unless we get a fusion reactor. Unless they try for a really, really long time, can't do it, and simply give up. And cancer research can never come to a conclusion until or unless we get a cure for cancer. Unless they try for a really, really long time, can't do it, and simply give up. And AI research can never come to a conclusion until or unless we get an artificially intelligent computer or other construct. Unless they try for a really, really long time, can't do it, and simply give up. This is definitely science. What you postulate is simply cowardice.
You're all invited to try out, and share, if you like, WinImages. It's free to download and there are no restrictions on your tryout other than technical support - unpaid copies don't get any. WinImages is an extremely powerful image editing and manipulation suite with a strong emphasis on layered image handling and efficient tool interaction.
With regard to the subject at hand, we've offered user configurable tool caddies for years now. You can select any tool that suits you for any particular type of job, drag it into a new or already populated tool caddy, name the resulting tool set, and save it for (re)use at any time. Adding a tool is as simple as drag and drop.
WinImages operates under Windows 98 and up, under Parallels or Bootcamp under OS X, and I suspect it probably works fine under Wine though I don't actually know that.
If you would like a copy, use the contact form here (except between 2:00 am and 2:30 am MST) and provide us with your name and your email. We'll use the email to send you your download information, and nothing else unless you contact us and tell us otherwise. Your name goes in the registration info for the program - and to anyone you give the program and registration info to (which is perfectly OK to do - just give 'em the whole thing so they're aren't w/o the docs or a properly working install, etc.) Or you can give 'em the program/installation and tell them to get their own free code from us, if that suits you better.
Don't worry. Nothing we've ever sent by accident is likely to get to another star system in receivable form. If we want someone to hear us, we're going to have to send a lot more powerful and directional signal than anything we've done so far, and that includes OTH HF radar, probably the biggest signal RF we've ever made. It'll take an antenna built in space with a gain like we've never even come close to, in order to make a radio signal arrive ten light years from here in a form that is still intelligible to something pointed right at us with the intent of hearing it. Never mind a few hundred light years, which is a more realistic distance.
For that matter, SETI really needs an antenna array built in space with tens of thousands of miles between antennas to do a decent job. Make a great space telescope (in the RF portion of the spectrum) too.
I will grant you that both political and religious entities may act out in extremely negative ways if such a discovery were made. However, I don't think that's sufficient reason to turn away from asking the question. If we're to grow, we have to face reality at some point, and I am of the opinion that sooner is better than later. Religion's is definitely losing its grip; I'm a completely "out" atheist, and they suffer me to live.:-)
All science is lottery. Put forth an idea; test the idea. That's all SETI is. More science. And, like most science, it bears fruit. Distributed computing. Hope. Perhaps the knowledge we are not alone. Try to focus on where we're actually wasting money - for instance, it doesn't help us to continue to shoot Iraqis.
So. SETI ran w/o SETI@home for many years, then came up with it - a great idea. In other words, under pressure with a limited budget, they found a way to improve the work they were doing. Now: You're certain there are no more benefits to be gleaned? No more improvements can come from SETI? Ignoring for the moment the possibility of them actually finding what they are looking for?
Actually, no. Because in the lottery, you know someone will win.
But the payoff for SETI, if there is a winner, is better...:-)
Re:3 million dollars per year is a pittance
on
Is SETI Worth It?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Completely wrong. When we try to talk to apes, do we use laser encoded packets? No, we use the simplest symbols we can in a way that we think is most likely they will have a chance to understand.
If advanced life isn't using radio for themselves, that does not in any way imply that they would not see the value in using to talk to beings at our approximate level of development.
The only "narrow" window is for accidental recovery of radio signals, and that is most unlikely anyway due to the distances involved and what happens to radio signals over distance. If we hear someone, I'd lay good money that it'll be someone who was intentionally making it relatively easy to do so. And that they are, in fact, more advanced than we are.
Re:Oh, come on, you're missing the big one.
on
Is SETI Worth It?
·
· Score: 1
Similar information could be obtained by airplanes or buoys with scientific instruments.
No. It can't. There's a significant difference between an out of atmosphere viewpoint and an in atmosphere one. You can measure it in miles; you can measure it in the number of sensors it takes to get an overview; you can measure it in the depth of atmosphere that has to be penetrated by any one sensor; you can measure it in the difficulty of placing an observer on any platform in the atmosphere over a hurricane; you can measure it in the rocklike stability of a space platform for developing location information, something impossible to come by in the atmosphere... GPS... solar and magnetic field issues... etc.
This is true, but it's only because it's a binary solution set. Until or unless SETI finds a transmission, it will have made no progress in finding one, only in not finding one.
However, once it finds one, numerous benefits accrue; some certain, some with varying degrees of probability.
First of all, we learn that we're not alone, that we're not unique. Numerous modes of thinking posit that we are alone, or not, and those modes will receive solid underpinnings instead of speculation. This has general value for future inferences, even for current inferences where confirmation agrees. Like most of science, where this may lead may not be immediately obvious, but again like most of science, the odds are high that it will lead somewhere productive. And this consequence is certain. For instance, it would mean a great deal to me to have something I consider to be extremely likely but impossible for me to personally confirm, confirmed by objective facts.
Second, it will have identified one of two things for us: Either we have revealed a civilization that is just going through radio and is feeling pretty confident about itself and others, or it will have revealed a civilization that is much further along, and is interested in contact. The former would be a pretty huge co-incidence, because broadcast radio is inefficient (witness our going to cable to preserve bandwidth, optical to increase it, satellite to ground to bolster reliability and coverage, various beam methods like lasers and tight focus radio to save energy and achieve reliability), so the odds strongly favor the latter - the 100 year or so window we used broadcast radio is closing as we consider this today. So most likely, we'll have found life that is much further along than we are technologically, and looking for other life. It isn't a huge stretch to assume that such a find would come hand in hand with new technology for us. After all, if they want us to hear them, either they want to talk, or they want to get rid of us. It seems like a lot of work to try to get rid of things you don't even know are there, doesn't it? Inefficient. And it doesn't fit the mold... if they're worried about us, then letting us know they are there in such a way that they can't tell if we know or not is imprudent. So again, the odds fall on the side of life that can and is willing to benefit us.
Third (and we're getting lower on the probability scale here, but still) the transmission itself may contain immediately useful information for us. It could be anything. Make widgets like this. Don't go to the 3rd planet of Beta Centauri. Cut it out with the nukes, assholes. Efficient space drive drive works like so. Your Aishwara Rai, can we buy her? 42.
Lastly, and least likely, we could be handed a paradigm shift. Antigravity. FTL travel of any flavor. Additional physics. How to clean up our atmosphere. Things we cannot even vaguely imagine.
All of these things only require reception. If we add transmission back to a known source of an intelligent signal, now we're talking interaction. That could be wild as well.
There may be gold mines for linguistics; for biology; for physics and all the sciences that are really corners of physics (chem, electronics, nuclear, etc.)
And in the meantime, SETI does something else for us. It serves as a focal point for a certain type of hope, a bright optimism, that I would really rather not see go away.
So if you really want to cut funds, I suggest that the place to do it is in funding, oh, I don't know, how about a certain war in the middle east? Maybe quit funding the "drug war" against our own citizens? Either of those would benefit most people (not arms manufacturers or those in the jobs that have sprung up for our most recent go at prohibition, of course, but I guess I don't really give a darn about those particular people for some reason.)
Sure would be nice that if we did find other life, that we weren't quite so involved in trying to kill and/or re
Whereas my cellular telephone can be used with my telephone service provider, the iPhone can't. Only with AT and T, who have no presence here at all. So the iPhone uniquely gives me - a phone with no phone service at all!
Slashdot Mirror
You trying to start an interstellar war? Man, if spacefolk dropped Britney off on my doorstep, even free, I think I'd start shooting.
You seem to be confused. Care to try again?
I think we would benefit just from knowing they were there. If nothing else, it'd be fun to see some of the religions scramble to account for the new state of affairs.
I am.
Well, let's see. For SETI to hear something, we need:
So there's nothing too magical anywhere in that list. The trick, actually, would seem to be where we are in technological and political development as compared to where others are. There's little reasonable doubt of any of the rest of it, it seems to me.
As far as we can tell, distance makes us not a "resource" with a reasonable cost, no matter what kind of "resource" you might have in mind. Even so, listening, which is all SETI does, doesn't bring these issues to the table. So I didn't have to consider them.
I don't know how you got your "unlikely" conclusion; the way I see it is that we already know it has happened once in our sample of one; we know the count of other planets (solar systems) is insanely, mind-bogglingly, incomprehensibly large; we know planets are common in nearby systems as well as our own; and we know that even for relatively rare events here on earth, things seem to happen more than once if they're simply possible, in our tiny, very finite by comparison environment. For example, there are a ton of different lifeforms here. They vary in intelligence, they vary in tool use and communications methods, and they vary in their ability to compete with us but all have lost thus far. There are lots of minor varieties of humans, too. Including a few dead branches. So my outlook is that ET life is extremely likely. Intelligent? I suspect that one intelligent lifeform per planet with life is pretty normal because early stages of life are very competitive in our experience, and losers don't get to evolve, but wouldn't want to bet on there never being more than one.
We also have every reason to think that unavoidable physics makes communications very hard over these distances. Everything we know at this point says that no matter how smart or developed you are, you're stuck in your own back yard, and communications takes years at maximum speed. This is another reason I'm not too worried about being someone else's "resource" at this point in time. I'll be perfectly content to learn someone is there, if indeed SETI succeeds in its goal.
The only even remotely viable counter argument has to be based on the idea that the earth is unique in all the cosmos not just in its own biosphere but in the sense of even having any biosphere; and I think that argument is laughably unlikely, on the order of Santa or astrology. Wishful thinking, at best.
This is pretty much the theme of "A Case of Conscience", by James Blish, he won the Hugo for the work. 1959, I think.
You're... a Google spider? Cool, I've never met one. You're more articulate than I would have anticipated. :-)
Efficiency, containment, practical viability - there are many questions, actually, and all of them very, very hard ones. We do have confirmation that fusion exists under certain circumstances; we also have confirmation that intelligent life sends radio transmissions under certain circumstances.
No. In the very sense of your example, we do know that what SETI is searching for exists. We just want to know if it exists elsewhere, too. It's just a matter of stuff we already know is 100% possible and have 100% proof of - life, intelligence, radio technology - as compared to a viable fusion plant, which we do not have an example of, and have not proved is possible, though it certainly hasn't been for lack of trying. We know uncontrolled fusion can be done, and we've done it. We know that below-unity fusion can be done, and we've done that, too. But we certainly have not produced a viable fusion reactor.
SETI is just a yes/no type of undertaking. There are lots of them. That doesn't make them unscientific, unreasonable, unproductive of incidentals (regardless of impact), impractical, or useless. The only assumption that I know of they're making is that there may be something there to find (and that's an open question because such technology has both developmental and political constraints - for example, we ourselves have decided not to transmit at this time); everything else about SETI is based on known facts: Life, intelligence, radio. These are mundane elements. What SETI is trying to do is find a second case, that's all. It may or may not find that case. I would argue that no matter the result, the attempt is worth the cost, and worth far more than many other pursuits we are currently involved with, several of which I have already named.
Well, let's see.
And I'm stating that achieving a viable fusion reactor is also an all or nothing event. Which is exactly what it is.
No. You're moving the definition, I presume either because you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough or because you didn't understand what I was trying to say. There's no such thing as incremental progress on any technology that so far has proven intractable until you actually can produce at least one viable example. Which definitely includes fusion. Remember: I said viable fusion plant. Not "We pumped in 100 GW and got back 1 GW, hurrah", and not "We pumped in 50 GW and got 50 GW but the reactor walls eroded and we had to junk the whole assembly" and not "we lit it, but the fuel costs more than the amount we can recover from selling power" but "We lit it, it paid back its nominal building costs with over-unity power production and it's still lit and we have every reason to think it'll still be lit 20 years from now and there have been no surprises, nor do we expect any."
On the other hand, in the pursuit of viable solutions to these problems, there are spinoffs and all manner of things learned, and in that way, SETI produces results just as the other three examples do. "Showing progress" isn't a scientific requirement. Sometimes showing a whole darned lot of 100% failure is just what you need to do. It might not be what you want to do, but in that case, science may not be the best field for you.
Viable AI has not been achieved. Cancer has not been cured (trust me on this one... my parents are both dead from it and my sweetheart is on the 10-year/15% mortality list.) There exist exactly zero viable fusion reactors on this planet. SETI has not found any ET transmissions. All four pursuits have produced intermediate results of benefit in various directions. All four pursuits can be characterized as variously using scientific method (hypothesize, test, attempt to falsify, re-hypothesize, etc.) and incremental technological leverage in the quest to get closer to the specific goals for each pursuit. All have had abject failures of technology and vision as well. To claim that SETI is worthless because the result is 100% no until it is 100% yes is disingenuous; that doesn't make the result less valid, it doesn't invalidate the methodology, it doesn't stem the flow of intermediate technologies, incidental (to the actual goal) discoveries, etc. Learning goes on in every case.
No. Either it can be figured out, or it can't. It's the same yes/no solution set that SETI faces. Signal, or no signal? Viable fusion reactor, or not? SETI may not detect a signal, even if there are other civilizations out there. Fusion research may not ever come up with a viable fusion reactor design, even if such a design is possible. But in both cases, it tends to be forward-moving to try, and in both cases, spinoffs from the trying are all but inevitable, and of course, we have already seen them from both. And cancer research, and AI research. And of course, any of these could grab the brass ring.
That isn't what I said. I said cure. If you want to go for less than 100% win, then in regard to SETI, we got better search algorithms, the first really broadly distributed computing platform, research into quieter RF amps, in fact just about anything that makes it easier to detect an incoming signal makes some part of radio astronomy easier, too. You're really making my point for me: SETI is worth doing because in the serious quest for answers, even the technology used in the hunt tends to be improved.
Absolutely. Though it's actually a late-80's UI design. Came from the Amiga. The interface is still generally more efficient than Photoshop's is in many areas. And the application is a *whole* lot faster overall, which of course also enhances viability as compared to slower designs. Any other questions I can help you with?
Mostly just slashdot moderators. :-)
Here, have some more more espresso. You can never have too much coffee.
We don't know if workable fusion reactors can exist, either. Nor cures for cancer. Nor AI's. That was the point. Maybe you need another cup of coffee.
Yes, so? What's your problem? SETI is funded by donations. Just don't donate to them, donate to someone else, and you can see your money go anywhere you like. In the meantime, what business is it of yours where I put my money? I don't recall delegating any authority to you.
Oh yes, it certainly is "offtopic" to talk about an already existing configurable interface on a commercial image editing program in an article about a commercial image editing program's luminary writing about contemplating and preparing for a change to a configurable interface. Um-hmm. The humor is beyond the moderators, I'm sure. :-)
But what is even funnier is that this post, which describes exactly how Winimages works, is modded +3 insightful. Yet when I posted that we had already done this along with an invitation to try it for free... zap. You gotta love the mouth-breathers.
This, people, is precisely why you need to read slashdot at -1. It certainly is why I read at -1.
Um-hmmm. And Fusion reactor research can never come to a conclusion until or unless we get a fusion reactor. Unless they try for a really, really long time, can't do it, and simply give up. And cancer research can never come to a conclusion until or unless we get a cure for cancer. Unless they try for a really, really long time, can't do it, and simply give up. And AI research can never come to a conclusion until or unless we get an artificially intelligent computer or other construct. Unless they try for a really, really long time, can't do it, and simply give up. This is definitely science. What you postulate is simply cowardice.
You're all invited to try out, and share, if you like, WinImages. It's free to download and there are no restrictions on your tryout other than technical support - unpaid copies don't get any. WinImages is an extremely powerful image editing and manipulation suite with a strong emphasis on layered image handling and efficient tool interaction.
With regard to the subject at hand, we've offered user configurable tool caddies for years now. You can select any tool that suits you for any particular type of job, drag it into a new or already populated tool caddy, name the resulting tool set, and save it for (re)use at any time. Adding a tool is as simple as drag and drop.
WinImages operates under Windows 98 and up, under Parallels or Bootcamp under OS X, and I suspect it probably works fine under Wine though I don't actually know that.
If you would like a copy, use the contact form here (except between 2:00 am and 2:30 am MST) and provide us with your name and your email. We'll use the email to send you your download information, and nothing else unless you contact us and tell us otherwise. Your name goes in the registration info for the program - and to anyone you give the program and registration info to (which is perfectly OK to do - just give 'em the whole thing so they're aren't w/o the docs or a properly working install, etc.) Or you can give 'em the program/installation and tell them to get their own free code from us, if that suits you better.
Don't worry. Nothing we've ever sent by accident is likely to get to another star system in receivable form. If we want someone to hear us, we're going to have to send a lot more powerful and directional signal than anything we've done so far, and that includes OTH HF radar, probably the biggest signal RF we've ever made. It'll take an antenna built in space with a gain like we've never even come close to, in order to make a radio signal arrive ten light years from here in a form that is still intelligible to something pointed right at us with the intent of hearing it. Never mind a few hundred light years, which is a more realistic distance.
For that matter, SETI really needs an antenna array built in space with tens of thousands of miles between antennas to do a decent job. Make a great space telescope (in the RF portion of the spectrum) too.
I will grant you that both political and religious entities may act out in extremely negative ways if such a discovery were made. However, I don't think that's sufficient reason to turn away from asking the question. If we're to grow, we have to face reality at some point, and I am of the opinion that sooner is better than later. Religion's is definitely losing its grip; I'm a completely "out" atheist, and they suffer me to live. :-)
All science is lottery. Put forth an idea; test the idea. That's all SETI is. More science. And, like most science, it bears fruit. Distributed computing. Hope. Perhaps the knowledge we are not alone. Try to focus on where we're actually wasting money - for instance, it doesn't help us to continue to shoot Iraqis.
So. SETI ran w/o SETI@home for many years, then came up with it - a great idea. In other words, under pressure with a limited budget, they found a way to improve the work they were doing. Now: You're certain there are no more benefits to be gleaned? No more improvements can come from SETI? Ignoring for the moment the possibility of them actually finding what they are looking for?
Actually, no. Because in the lottery, you know someone will win.
But the payoff for SETI, if there is a winner, is better... :-)
Completely wrong. When we try to talk to apes, do we use laser encoded packets? No, we use the simplest symbols we can in a way that we think is most likely they will have a chance to understand.
If advanced life isn't using radio for themselves, that does not in any way imply that they would not see the value in using to talk to beings at our approximate level of development.
The only "narrow" window is for accidental recovery of radio signals, and that is most unlikely anyway due to the distances involved and what happens to radio signals over distance. If we hear someone, I'd lay good money that it'll be someone who was intentionally making it relatively easy to do so. And that they are, in fact, more advanced than we are.
No. It can't. There's a significant difference between an out of atmosphere viewpoint and an in atmosphere one. You can measure it in miles; you can measure it in the number of sensors it takes to get an overview; you can measure it in the depth of atmosphere that has to be penetrated by any one sensor; you can measure it in the difficulty of placing an observer on any platform in the atmosphere over a hurricane; you can measure it in the rocklike stability of a space platform for developing location information, something impossible to come by in the atmosphere... GPS... solar and magnetic field issues... etc.
This is true, but it's only because it's a binary solution set. Until or unless SETI finds a transmission, it will have made no progress in finding one, only in not finding one.
However, once it finds one, numerous benefits accrue; some certain, some with varying degrees of probability.
First of all, we learn that we're not alone, that we're not unique. Numerous modes of thinking posit that we are alone, or not, and those modes will receive solid underpinnings instead of speculation. This has general value for future inferences, even for current inferences where confirmation agrees. Like most of science, where this may lead may not be immediately obvious, but again like most of science, the odds are high that it will lead somewhere productive. And this consequence is certain. For instance, it would mean a great deal to me to have something I consider to be extremely likely but impossible for me to personally confirm, confirmed by objective facts.
Second, it will have identified one of two things for us: Either we have revealed a civilization that is just going through radio and is feeling pretty confident about itself and others, or it will have revealed a civilization that is much further along, and is interested in contact. The former would be a pretty huge co-incidence, because broadcast radio is inefficient (witness our going to cable to preserve bandwidth, optical to increase it, satellite to ground to bolster reliability and coverage, various beam methods like lasers and tight focus radio to save energy and achieve reliability), so the odds strongly favor the latter - the 100 year or so window we used broadcast radio is closing as we consider this today. So most likely, we'll have found life that is much further along than we are technologically, and looking for other life. It isn't a huge stretch to assume that such a find would come hand in hand with new technology for us. After all, if they want us to hear them, either they want to talk, or they want to get rid of us. It seems like a lot of work to try to get rid of things you don't even know are there, doesn't it? Inefficient. And it doesn't fit the mold... if they're worried about us, then letting us know they are there in such a way that they can't tell if we know or not is imprudent. So again, the odds fall on the side of life that can and is willing to benefit us.
Third (and we're getting lower on the probability scale here, but still) the transmission itself may contain immediately useful information for us. It could be anything. Make widgets like this. Don't go to the 3rd planet of Beta Centauri. Cut it out with the nukes, assholes. Efficient space drive drive works like so. Your Aishwara Rai, can we buy her? 42.
Lastly, and least likely, we could be handed a paradigm shift. Antigravity. FTL travel of any flavor. Additional physics. How to clean up our atmosphere. Things we cannot even vaguely imagine.
All of these things only require reception. If we add transmission back to a known source of an intelligent signal, now we're talking interaction. That could be wild as well.
There may be gold mines for linguistics; for biology; for physics and all the sciences that are really corners of physics (chem, electronics, nuclear, etc.)
And in the meantime, SETI does something else for us. It serves as a focal point for a certain type of hope, a bright optimism, that I would really rather not see go away.
So if you really want to cut funds, I suggest that the place to do it is in funding, oh, I don't know, how about a certain war in the middle east? Maybe quit funding the "drug war" against our own citizens? Either of those would benefit most people (not arms manufacturers or those in the jobs that have sprung up for our most recent go at prohibition, of course, but I guess I don't really give a darn about those particular people for some reason.)
Sure would be nice that if we did find other life, that we weren't quite so involved in trying to kill and/or re
I know! I know! I know this one - pick me!
[stands up, takes off hat]
Whereas my cellular telephone can be used with my telephone service provider, the iPhone can't. Only with AT and T, who have no presence here at all. So the iPhone uniquely gives me - a phone with no phone service at all!