New and Improved SETI 278
nomrniceguy writes "The new year is sure to be memorable for SETI, as glossy new instruments come on-line.
At Harvard University, a survey telescope designed to sweep massive swaths of the sky in a hunt for extraterrestrial laser flashes is becoming a reality. In Puerto Rico, the famed Arecibo telescope is getting a new feed that will speed up searches by seven times. And in California, the SETI Institute and Berkeley's Radio Astronomy Lab will soon be scanning the star-clotted realms of the inner Milky Way with the first-stage implementation of the Allen Telescope Array (ATA)
and will eventually boast 350 antennas, each 20 feet in diameter. This impressive antenna farm will be spread over about a half square-mile of terrain."
How'd they get the funding? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, what are the chances of this finding anything?
Re:How'd they get the funding? (Score:5, Informative)
The all-sky optical SETI system at Harvard [harvard.edu] receives its funding from The Planetary Society [planetary.org] and the Bosack-Kruger Charitable Foundation.
Re:How'd they get the funding? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How'd they get the funding? (Score:2, Interesting)
very very small, but its worth doing it. Just think of the impact in humanity if just one discovery was made...
its kinda like the big lottery, your chances are very small but you still play it, the prize is too much tempting.
Re:How'd they get the funding? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the things that makes human civilization great, in my opinion, is that we care about this sort of knowledge. We value it for it's own sake. There are ways to determine the nature of the universe and our place in it. A culture that fails to look past its immediate physical needs of food and shelter is a short-sighted one that isn't any greater than a troop of babboons.
Re:How'd they get the funding? (Score:3, Interesting)
Chance that they're close enough * chance that they're using that technology * chance that we're capable of identifying the signal as such
with laser light there's the added wrinkle that there could be a signal origin close enough to us, but it could simply be aimed in the wrong direction. the chances of a laser originating from a point any significant distance away from the solar system coming in our general direction is microscopic
Re:How'd they get the funding? (Score:3, Funny)
And yet... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:And yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ahh, but they do. Each of those stars has a noise in the water hole frequency coming out of it, including our own sun, which has sufficient radio frequency power output that any satellite dish's rx signal meter is pegged while the dishes so called beam, crosses the sun. Every comm satellite we have out there suffers from this effect twice a year, for a few minutes each day for 5 to 10 days each spring and fall as the sun crosses the equatorial plane headed the other way. When the sun has many kilowatts of noise output, its a bit hard to pick out a 10 watt satellite signal trying to compete with that.
However, thats above the "water hole" by about 2.5GHZ. Because that frequency, near 1420MHZ is quite transparent, its a good place to listen, and most stars within 10000 light years will cause the noise level out of the receivers at Arecebo to rise, often with enough charactar to the noise that the star can be identified just from its noise signature.
There used to be a visualizer (ksetispy) for linux that could display that as the dish scanned across nearby stars, but it quit working with the 2.6 kernel advent.
I'm hoping we'll get a chance to handle some of the data coming from the Allen Array, and it sounds as if its going to be ready for "first light" before too much longer.
The lazer search is a bit more far-fetched, but then so was radio, in 1891. Each of these observation instruments we build will teach us how to do a better job with the next generation.
Cheers, Gene
350 Antennas (Score:5, Funny)
~fitzprrklpop~ople of Earth, can you hear us now?~fwopzzwwep~
Re:350 Antennas (Score:2, Insightful)
Direct Link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Direct Link (Score:2, Offtopic)
'Extraterrestrial laser flashes'? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:'Extraterrestrial laser flashes'? (Score:5, Informative)
From the Harvard Optical SETI [harvard.edu] web site:
"A high-intensity pulsed laser, teamed with a moderate sized telescope, forms an efficient interstellar beacon. Using only "Earth 2000" technology, we could build such a laser transmitter. To a distant observer in the direction of its slender beam, it would appear (during its brief pulse) a thousand times brighter than our sun."
Simply put, a targeted laser pulse would be exponentially more efficient than using a power-hungry radio antenna.
Re:'Extraterrestrial laser flashes'? (Score:4, Funny)
And let's not forget who is funding a lot of this (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I'm being a jerk about it, but it is only fair to note that without him, most of this would probably not be possible. Not only did he contribute millions to SETI, but also funded the Alien Telescope Array which the Slashdot blurb mentions.
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:2)
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:2)
No problem. We already resolved this internal conflict when Linus went to work for Transmeta.
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:5, Informative)
I was part of Project Halo/Digital Aristotle, an AI project which aims to learn (and solve) conceptual problems in physics which was funded by Vulcan ventures [vulcan.com].
In fact, Vulcan Capital [vulcan.com] funds a lot of really cool stuff.
In my opinion, Bill Gates and Paul Allen are doing the world a favour - they are businessmen who make money off one industry, but help in the progress of several others. When was the last time any of the CEOs of Walmart or Oil Magnates helped fund such things as research and the like?
And not to mention the fact that places like MSR do a lot of awesome research in and of themselves.
Walmart...==look it up (Score:2)
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:2)
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:3, Insightful)
lol... do you realize how stupid that comment is ? Maybe Paul Allen & Bill Gates give three gazillionsquillionfabrillion dollars anonymously. But you'd never know, wouldya ?
You've just proven how single-sided your thinking is.
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:2)
- shazow
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:5, Insightful)
> and more.
If it's my hard earned money, what I do with it is upto me. Nobody has an obligation to give away their money just because they can afford to, no matter what the voices in your head tell you.
> and it doesn't remove the fact they are fucking up
> the IT industry and now keeping society back
>years, maybe even decades.
Excuse me? That is *such* a blanket statement to make. But guess what? You said it yourself - IT industry. When you are in any industry, you're in the business of making money. Do not like their methods? Fight them on their turf but do not blame them for chasing profit.
You're an idiot if you think Microsoft hasn't contributed to technological progress in the IT industry. Perhaps you disagree with their methods, technology and ideas -- that does not mean they are wrong or that they are detrimental to progress.
In fact, I laud Microsoft because they have been one of the few people responsible for bringing computers to the masses. They have proven that software as an industry can sustain independently and have contributed a real lot to IT and computer science, but then you're probably too blind to see it.
Yes, they're a company that have had buggy softwares. Do you think building complex software is easy? It's a fine line between usability, security and stability and it's one that Microsoft has learnt to walk quite well. Funny, people still make fun of Microsoft products crashing but their products have become increasingly stable, reliable and secure over the years. Perfect? No. Better? Yes. Give credit where it is due.
Yes, they're guilty of a few questionable acts - but they are a business with an obligation to their share holders. You've apparently not stepped to the inside of a boardroom, so I'll not even bother telling you what or how hard business is.
And if you were a really genuine techie concerned about technology, you'd realize that progress is independent of who makes it -- it will ultimately happen no matter what. Not to mention that places like Microsoft Research quite possibly contribute much more to IT than you can ever possibly imagine.
> plus, true charity is anonymous.
Einstein, you would not know if it were anonymous.
> it's hardly altruistic (or anything remotely resembling it) when you give a
> small fraction of your wealth in exchage for having your name or
> company's name all over stuff. that's called "advertising" or "ego".
Funny, people have been doing this for ages - and yet when Bill Gates or Paul Allen does it, it's somehow wrong.
Heard of the Nobel Prize? Pulitzer Prize? Fields Medal? Guess who these are named after.
Bill Gates and Paul Allen are running a business in one industry and are using the profit they make from that to help make this world a better place. I somehow think fighting AIDS and famine is infinitely more important than writing software, but that's just me.
And I care two hoots on whether doing so boosts their ego or if they use their name -- they're helping science and society, and that is what matters.
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I am concerned Paul Allen is the very best thing *ever* to come out of Microsoft.
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for Bill Gates to build a suit of Iron Man style armor so he can go fight crime and rival companies, but Marvel would probably just sue him.
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what... One may dislike what Microsoft does and whatever that guy is responsible for doing there, but still like what he's doing here. Why is that so hard to imagine?
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, its his money and he can spend it on whatever he wants. I have no right to tell him what he can or cannot do with it. But I do have a right to tell him what I think he should and shouldn'
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:2)
You're right: you have a right to say what you believe he should do with the money. Fortunately, he has every right to ignore you.
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:2)
Well, considering that he made his money through illegial exploitation of a monopoly (which set the computer industry back approximately 10 years), I feel perfectly comfortable booing and hissing him.
Consider this anaologous situation: Saul Ballen spends 20 years robbing middle class households by breaking in windows and stealing money out of wallets. He invests the money he steals, and at the end of
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:2)
Personally, I think you should criticize specific actions rather than the people themselves. Instead of saying "Paul Allen is bad, categorically" why not say "Paul Allen profited from Microsoft's unfair business practices" when the topic is relevent, and "Paul Allen is now doing some good and interesting things with his money."
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:2)
I agree that critizing actions is more productive than critizing people. But the grandparent poster was suggesting that it was wrong to critize (Boo and Hiss) Microsoft because Pa
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:3, Insightful)
Well me for one...
True, SETI is a 'sexy' project for geeks and sci-fi fanboys but how practical is it?
Even if this thing detects 'something' there will still be a large number of sceptics. The broadcasting 'E.T.s' had better be damn specific in their message so that it is clear to everyone on the planet that it was not naturally occuring. Otherwise it just an expensive way to piss off the religous fundementalists (and we have seen first hand what happ
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:2)
That assumes that the exploring of the vast expanse of practically nothing couldn't lead to anything that could help the masses.
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:2)
Re:And let's not forget who is funding a lot of th (Score:3, Insightful)
First, it has less to do with how much philanthropy is required to win respect than it has to do with how much philanthropy is required to offset his enormous income to avoid paying taxes.
Secondly, as others have already mentioned, he could make anonymous donations rather than the ego boosting, public, "see what a great guy I am" donations.
F
not now (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:not now (Score:2)
Re:not now (Score:4, Insightful)
Every SETI-related thread never fails to bring a comment or two about the "waste of cycles" SETI@Home is, and how we should all be looking for cancer-fighting protein folds instead. Most people fail to see any importance in efforts to answer one of the greatest questions of all time -- that is, "Are we alone?" -- and would rather keep their eyes firmly planted on the ground, devoting our resources to our own internal affairs. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with a desire for the betterment of the human race, but that doesn't mean we *all* have to be focused entirely on this pale blue dot.
Listen, we all gotta pick our own battles, and if I want to help out what is arguably one of the most exciting prospects in all of human history, then just let me be.
Classical "there is more pressing problems" (Score:3, Funny)
Long time ago in some cave...
Ogtor! I told you to stop wasting your time with that wheel invention thingy and don't even think to start working on that metal melting process waste of time. There is much more important stuff to do like hunting animals with rocks and sleeping to regenerate.
Re:Classical "there is more pressing problems" (Score:2)
I agree that cancer and AIDS are very important topics that need more funding. However, when we find cures for those two, Mother Nature will throw something new at us. It has always been this way. There will always be some major health battle that we as a world must fight. However, I think it is silly to stop all progress in other technologies to just fight health issues. Health sc
Re:A high quality of life is required (Score:2)
Some are always Myopic (Score:4, Insightful)
Progress relies on a Free Market of ideas. Priorities must be made, but focusing everything on the few things deemed immediate and important will no doubt ironically cause a slowing of technology in general and impede progress in the long run on the very things you decide were more important to the exclusion of all else.
Of course there is always the morality card to be played by some as in "look how much better I am than you, I donate to such and such, and if you don't, you are morally bankrupt"
Re:not now (Score:2)
Re:not now (Score:2)
Re:not now (Score:2)
of course it will. the entertainment value of religious fundamentalists' heads exploding will be worth all the effort. and the religious apologists will be amusing too, just like the Iraqi Information Minister was.
Re:not now (Score:2)
In 50 years time, they predict that China, India and other '2nd world' countries quality of life will have improved to roughly what ours is. This means people stop 'breeding', as they have better education etc.
The world's population is going to top off at around 9billion and start falling after that. The earth can easily support 9billion, 15billion would be where we start to struggle with current farming te
What else is learned from SETI (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What else is learned from SETI (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What would knowledge of ETs really change? (Score:2)
Did the discovery that Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa cause mass panic and a religious crisis?
I wonder how Galileo, who endured the later years of his life under house arrest by the Catholic church, would answer that question.
I don't really know how most people of Earth would react to knew knowledge of life elsewhere in the Universe, but you need to remember that the Copernican model of the solar system was something that was easily denied for centuries by simply pointing out that th
Re:What else is learned from SETI (Score:2)
Re:What else is learned from SETI (Score:2)
Applied science involves research dedicated to solving a particular problem.
Pure science seeks knowledge of the universe for its own sake, from the subatamic to the universe and beyond. It doesn't always have a direct impact in our day-to-day lives but it helps mankind's understanding of the universe. The times humanity is directly helped in a "practical" problem, it takes longer than applied science to get there.
Re:What else is learned from SETI (Score:2)
Re:What else is learned from SETI (Score:2)
That alone makes it worth it....
Misattribution (Score:2)
Don't Bash Paul Allen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't Bash Paul Allen (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a conspiracy theory that their foundation is helping microsoft in africa more than it is helping the people of africa. The theory goes that the foundation will only pay for name brand AIDS drugs and that they actively work to discourage locally produced and orders of magnitude cheaper "clone" drugs.
The reasoning, or so the conspiracy theory posits, is that by su
Something More Productive (Score:2)
Possibly along the lines of clicking thousands of click thru to get money for battles against the *AA? Again, I didnt' have any substantial, other than the nagging feeling...
Anyone else come up with anything? I suppose t
Alien lasers (Score:2, Funny)
a.k.a. the "Alan Parson's Project".
A book recommendation and a name drop (Score:4, Interesting)
A few years ago, when I was observing quasars at Lick Observatory, I got to have dinner with Frank Drake (of Project Ozma and Drake equation "fame"). He was there working on the start of an optical SETI program. It was cool!
Re:A book recommendation and a name drop (Score:3, Informative)
The following is from a great book by A.K. Dewdney: Yes, We Have no Neutrons.
The formula is N = R* x Fp x Ne x Fl x Fi x Fc x L
For which:
R* = number of new stars that form in our galaxy each year
Fp = fraction of stars having planetary systems
Ne = average number of life-supporting planets per star
Fl = fraction of those planets on which life develops
Fi = fraction of life forms that become intell
Quacks! (Score:3, Interesting)
Th article is poorly written: "Just about everyone has peered through cheap binoculars having only a narrow field of view. They don't peer long." -- If I wanted a wide field of view, I wouldn't need binoculars, would I?
Re:Quacks! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Quacks! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's extremely unlikely that we'll find anyone who isn't trying to contact us, so the goal is to look for something that's trying to make itself stick out. We aren't looking for things that are randomly pointed.
Re:Quacks! (Score:4, Insightful)
They would look for potentially life-bearing star systems, and try to send a message to them - by, for example, shining a laser that's tight and powerful enough to be detected from the target, and encoding data in the frequency or amplitude of that laser.
I've made this point in past SETI threads, but nobody who favors your style of approach has given me a good answer: How do you actually accomplish that thing you just hand-waved? Put yourself in the place of the alien. Heck, if you assume there are aliens, then you are an alien to them! Plan what you just described and just imagine all the complexities you/they face actually trying to pull it off.
I mean, what does "potentially life-bearing" mean for an alien? How many light years out will they be willing to look? When they shine their very tight beam, will it really be in our direction? That is, their observations detect where Sol (or whatever star) was x years ago and their message has to be sent to where it will be in x more years. How accurate would they have to be in all those things, and yet still have beam spread and strength to detectably cover an entire solar system?
And even then, how long are they going to just spew out that energy, both in terms of pulse length and project duration? What are the odds that they'd be sending longer than the inhabited planet is behind the target star, what are the odds they're sending when the detectors are facing the right way as the planet rotates, what are the odds that the civilization is even looking for a signal at the point in time it arrives? How long are they willing to do it all and wait without a response?
Black void (Score:2, Troll)
A bigger question: why are all of the other solar systems so darned far away?
Re:Black void (Score:2)
GJC
Re:Black void (Score:2)
They're doing the exact same thing we're doing: financing crazy programs to listen for evidence of aliens who are likewise waiting to hear from us.
I say instead of building all this listening equipment, we build some broadcasting equipment! Announce our presence to the universe!
Re:Black void (Score:2)
Most SET
Re:Black void (Score:2)
Uh... because everything is. Space is mostly, uh, empty space. The nearest other solar system is around four light-years away, and the nearest one after that is six light years-away.
Space is just really, really big, and there's not much in it. Most of the night sky is black, which means that from here to the end of the universe fifteen billion light-years away there isn't anything along your line of sight in 99.999% of the s
Re:Black void (Score:2)
Wouldn't it
Re:Black void (Score:2)
Not at all. We could detect TV signals from a culture like ours a significant fraction of the distance across the galaxy - these signals are broadcast in all directions.
The problem is that signals deliberately transmitted over interstellar distances are likely to be highly compressed, and a suffiently compress signal is indistinguishable from noise.
So, basically, we are only
folding@home seti@home (Score:3, Informative)
Re:folding@home seti@home (Score:3, Funny)
Re:folding@home seti@home (Score:3, Insightful)
But don't try pushing your idea of right and wrong on me or many of the others that choose to look for ETI rather than folding for cancer.
Aliens may not be there? Well "folding" may not find a cure for cancer ("cancer" of course, being a popular turn of phrase for literally dozens of dise
Re:folding@home seti@home (Score:2)
Re:folding@home seti@home - is it that good (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, subject a molecule generator such as: a (modifed) bacteria, to radiation to cause mutation, then selectively breed the bacteria that match best. I must admit, lots of loose ends in my idea, but you might be able to work in parallel if done right.
New and improved (Score:4, Funny)
Could we be the first? (Score:3, Insightful)
GJC
Re:Could we be the first? (Score:2)
kidding and half-serious remarks aside. This wouldn't surprise me. But humanity has to come a long way from where we are now before we can start interacting with other civilizations and another planet's many other races/governments etc.
Hell... let's draft the first version of a "Prime Directive" now. Leave them alone unless they're as advanced as us, type of a thing.
Re:Could we be the first? (Score:2)
The chances, personally, are (astronomically) slim, but ofcourse we could.
But picture it this way. Even if 2 civilizations(us and the Other Guys) started at roughly the same time. Even if intelligent life(humans, as opposed to dinosaurs) start at about the same time... Our path, on Earth, was not very 'efficient' in getting to where we are. Wars, for a start, slowed us down significantly. Then things like the Dark Ages, where we actually LOST intellectual ground for a couple hundr
Friends in Space (Score:3, Funny)
They aren't going to be sending signals... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake up and smell the roses -- the reality is out there in the physics. Just read the evidence.
This is not to say that there are *not* aliens out there and that we cannot detect them. They are probably out there and we can probably detect them. But the approaches the SETI Institute and the groups as Harvard and Berkeley tend to be misfounded on the basis that they are going to try and communicate with us. Any ass would see that the probability of detecting those civilizations out there who ARE NOT trying to communicate with us is higher than than any few who are trying to communicate with us.
*If* one properly understood the evolution of advanced civilizations this would be understood. But most people engaged in SETI lack that knowledge.
(Sigh)
And as a postscript... Reality is about hard, repeatable evidence. And so whether it is about the president and his "faith" based perspectives or about SETI and "yes I heard them once" or "I hope to hear them once". Neither perspective cuts the mustard.
Re:They aren't going to be sending signals... (Score:2)
Not that I am sticking up for SETI, but I don't think they have ever assumed that aliens would be trying to communicate with us- they are merely trying to find evidence that there are other inhabited planets, with creatures that are using electricity like we do.
It is part of our culture to believe that aliens *must* be smarter than us- and that humans are inherently stupid... but pe
Re:They aren't going to be sending signals... (Score:4, Interesting)
True, but we sure as hell talk to dogs, monkeys, and dolphins - all of which we assume to be less intelligent than us - because they're obviously able to respond appropriately.
Objectively speaking, we're not stupid. We certainly don't have first-hand knowledge about the universe outside our little pocket, but we've learned the language of sub-atomic particle and relativity. Even if that doesn't qualify us for "Rookie Of The Galactic Year", it definitely puts us somewhat higher on the IQ spectrum than dust.
[...] or a delusional fantasy (similar to that our president is subjected to) that they would be sending us messages.
You resorted to an ad hominem in the opening salvo. Poor form from a purported "expert".
But the approaches the SETI Institute and the groups as Harvard and Berkeley tend to be misfounded on the basis that they are going to try and communicate with us. Any ass would see that the probability of detecting those civilizations out there who ARE NOT trying to communicate with us is higher than than any few who are trying to communicate with us.
Out of the thousands of ET civilizations we've found so far, how many of them were through intentional versus inadvertent means? What? You don't have a single data point to guide you? Guess that means that Harvard and the SETI Institute aren't the only asses.
What if they're already here and observing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus, I think the better question is not "Are we alone?" but rather "Do you REALLY think we'd be able to deal with it, right this minute, if we (on a mass scale) realized we weren't?" and the related but important "If 'they' were 'further along' than us, and not just microbes in wet sand, could we deal with that too?"
A while back I emailed some of the SETI founders about this and got back a "We have procedures in place for proper dissemination of the information if it is discovered", which says NOTHING about how we are prepared to handle the emotional/psychic impact, which cannot of course be ignored. Thus, I no longer support SETI, choosing to spend my CPU cycles on something more practical like Folding@home. Discovery that we are not alone is not "usual" news, and due to its uniqueness has a high unpredictability of mass emotional/psychic impact, and I don't believe it will be something that will be treated by publishing the results in Physical Review Letters, so to speak.
Two other quick things-
For a distantly plausible workaround to the speed-of-light problem/argument against intelligent life already being here, google Miguel Alcubierre.
One last tidbit. I read somewhere (take with a huge grain of salt of course) that "they" like our music and actually owe us a lot in royalties, and are holding onto this for now (and some other things) as a good-faith gift in the event of public contact. Wouldn't it be ironic, the RIAA being a major supporter of a public First Contact?
I like SETI (Score:2, Insightful)
Frickin' laser (Score:2, Funny)
I suspect it's something along the lines of "Clear the air space! We've got to get us some red staters to anally probe."
Doubters appear when ET is mentioned (Score:3, Interesting)
What is is about this subject which brings out such people?
The day ETs are detected will be the most important day in human history.
Why should we move the already scant resources which go into SETI to other much better funded research?
Protien folders got their own government funded $300 million purpose built computer, SETI didn't.
NASA may get good resources but a lot of their research goes back to industry and often brings tangible benifits to the public at large.
Hat Creek Radio Observatory in NE California (Score:3, Informative)
Some links about the site...
- Topographic Mapping at the SETI Radio Telescope Observatory [berkeley.edu] (UC Berkeley)
- Topographic map of site [topozone.com] (Topozone.com)
- "The big idea in SETI: Think small" [msnbc.com] (MSNBC, Feb 8, 2004)
Trivia: the Hat Creek Valley where the observatory is located was already known to many Northern Californians for being inundated by muflows from the May 20, 1915 eruption [usgs.gov] of nearby Mount Lassen. Anyone who has climbed Lassen has looked down from the peak on the path of the Hat Creek and Lost Creek mudflows.Re:huh?? (Score:2)
Re:huh?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Every electric device you own releases some EM pollution- and they were using some assumptions in hopes that they might stumble across a planet with lots of EM pollution.
Re:Folding at Home (Score:3, Insightful)
First, they have not to my knowledge issued an update to the original program for linux. I installed that one about 3 years ago when it first came out, but it was such a cpu hog the machine simply wasn't usable when it was running. Seti is a nice kid, running at a nice of 19, meaning it only runs when nothing else needs the cpu. Sure, the cpu
Re:Folding at Home (Score:2)
The article is about SETI [seti.org], not SETI@home [berkeley.edu].
The latter is simply part of the larger SETI project that involves several telescopes, and independent computers looking for signals full time. SETI@home is used for processing lower priority areas of the SETI data.
Re:Pff... this is just another plot (Score:2)
Re:Impact on Religion (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't recall that verse.
If SETI or by any other means, intelligent (or even not) life is discovered, that pretty much erases the Bible and Jesus.
By what stretch of imagination? The owner's manual to my car says nothing about my Playstation 2, but that doesn't mean that the latter doesn't exist. The Bible is a collection of books chronicling our interaction with God