Seti@Home -- Not the best use of DC?

[bunker]

"Distributed computing could help researchers studying climate change or Alzheimer's, but SETI@home's search for extra-terrestrial intelligence continues to dominate. Wall Street Journal columnist Lee Gomes says that's a big waste, especially because SETI doesn't seem likely to yield results: 'This continued fascination with living-room SETI comes as professional setiologists concede that early assumptions about the search for intelligent life -- notably those popularized by astronomer Carl Sagan -- have proven naively optimistic. For instance, it's now conceded there is little chance of detecting the "leaking" transmissions of another planet -- its version of "I Love Lucy" broadcasts. Those signals are too weak to stand out from the universe's background noise.' Gomes also traces the origins of SETI@home to Berkeley computer scientist David P. Anderson, and explains that users stuck with the ET search rather than medical investigations in part because of nationalistic competition. Yet Anderson no longer runs SETI@home. 'Instead, he donates his spare computer power to a global warming project. But he doesn't presume to tell others what they ought to be doing with their CPU cycles.'"

I kind of agree. I ran seti for years but now do folding.

Link to Wall Street Journal full article

EDIT: I want to add that I am in no way trying to take a dig at anyone who runs seti. It's done a ton to advance DC in general.

 

[RaySun2Be]

But he doesn't presume to tell others what they ought to be doing with their CPU cycles</q>

That's pretty much my take on the whole thing as well.

 

[Assimilator1]

it's now conceded there is little chance of detecting the "leaking" transmissions of another planet -- its version of "I Love Lucy" broadcasts. Those signals are too weak to stand out from the universe's background noise.

That's the 1st I've heard that been said ,does this journal having anything to back up that claim?.I'd link to see links to confirm that

Wall Street Journal columnist Lee Gomes says that's a big waste, especially because SETI doesn't seem likely to yield results:

Assuming the appropriate signals are detectable ,the search could easily take a very long time.The fact that nothing has been found yet means nothing.

I ran & still run SETI primarily for 'The search' aspect ,if the 'too weak to detect' arguement turns out to be true then that'll be the nail in the coffin for me & SETI

I've now read the article & there's no back up linked.
Until someone backs up his claims ,the article is meaningless.

 

[The Borg]

Oh I hate articles like that. :disgust: :| Typical of someone just looking at the surface of something and presuming to know it to its depths. And the mistakes!!!

If it was not for the gimiky aspect of SETI classic and the huge infrastructure that it demanded, BOINC whould not have been born and what an improvement that has been even if it has it's bugs. SETI classic closed it's doors mid december 2005. At that stage there where just a handful of projects. Now look at it. 50 plus if I am not mistaken. And in only 6 months!!!

It just happens that one of the first popular DC project was SETI. No need bashing it for that. There is now something for everyone. And it is that interest that gets the PC's running. If gimiky gets it going then great. Science wins. Any science.

I remember reading (can't remember who it was, maybe Carl Sagan) that SETI is important. Whether we find anything or not, BOTH results are just as important - think about it. Scary!!!

I have also spent thousands on PC's and have had up to 40 pc's runnning (ask Johan aka amd.borg how many he has). I do it becasue I am hooked on DC. SETI started that. Now other projects benefit becasue of my passion.

Anyway, my 2 cents. Best I stop before I get really upset. :beer:

 

[RobertE]

Originally posted by: Assimilator1
it's now conceded there is little chance of detecting the "leaking" transmissions of another planet -- its version of "I Love Lucy" broadcasts. Those signals are too weak to stand out from the universe's background noise.

That's the 1st I've heard that been said ,does this journal having anything to back up that claim?.I'd link to see links to confirm that

Wall Street Journal columnist Lee Gomes says that's a big waste, especially because SETI doesn't seem likely to yield results:

Assuming the appropriate signals are detectable ,the search could easily take a very long time.The fact that nothing has been found yet means nothing.

I ran & still run SETI primarily for 'The search' aspect ,if the 'too weak to detect' arguement turns out to be true then that'll be the nail in the coffin for me & SETI

I've now read the article & there's no back up linked.
Until someone backs up his claims ,the article is meaningless.

How do we know nothing is there if we don't check?

Thats like waking up to a noise in the middle of the night, rolling back over and going back to sleep by telling yourself "If I don't check for burglers there are none."

What a tool. :|

And my 100th post

 

[bunker]

Originally posted by: Assimilator1
it's now conceded there is little chance of detecting the "leaking" transmissions of another planet -- its version of "I Love Lucy" broadcasts. Those signals are too weak to stand out from the universe's background noise.

That's the 1st I've heard that been said ,does this journal having anything to back up that claim?.I'd link to see links to confirm that

Wall Street Journal columnist Lee Gomes says that's a big waste, especially because SETI doesn't seem likely to yield results:

Assuming the appropriate signals are detectable ,the search could easily take a very long time.The fact that nothing has been found yet means nothing.

I ran & still run SETI primarily for 'The search' aspect ,if the 'too weak to detect' arguement turns out to be true then that'll be the nail in the coffin for me & SETI

I've now read the article & there's no back up linked.
Until someone backs up his claims ,the article is meaningless.

I emailed the author asking him where he came up with that statement. I'll post back if I get a reply.

 

[BobDaMenkey]

Seti is what got me into doing DC. I think it's a good cause, but I'm devoting my CPU cycles to Folding these days after climbing to I think the #8 spot on TA as far as RAC scores go before the change to Seti_Enchanced. I quit partly because of the lower RAC and partly because of the community getting into a twist over Crunch3r leaving, and more because I like the idea of the Folding project more.

But anyway about it, I think it's good to be looking.

 

[Spacehead]

Well, let's see... i guess i should stop folding because it hasn't discovered the cure for cancer yet.

:roll:

I didn't think SETI was looking at "leaking" transmissions. I thought they were looking at the frequency they think most likely to be transmitted a detectable signal.

 

[Ken g6]

it's now conceded there is little chance of detecting the "leaking" transmissions of another planet -- its version of "I Love Lucy" broadcasts. Those signals are too weak to stand out from the universe's background noise.

Come to think of it, I seem to recall that there's a grain of truth in this. Current SETI setups are not designed to detect "leaking" transmissions - meaning unintentional signals meant just for a planet's residents. They are meant to detect beacons, intentionally sent out by aliens. Current telescopes and detectors just aren't sensitive enough to detect most "leaking" transmissions.

Note I say *most*. Some radars may be powerful enough to be detected. In fact, if there's an alien SETI program in the path of any of the radar mapping Arecibo has done (of at least Venus and Titan, I believe), I'm quite sure they'll get a big "wow" signal from it.

 

[Assimilator1]

Originally posted by: bunker

Originally posted by: Assimilator1
it's now conceded there is little chance of detecting the "leaking" transmissions of another planet -- its version of "I Love Lucy" broadcasts. Those signals are too weak to stand out from the universe's background noise.

That's the 1st I've heard that been said ,does this journal having anything to back up that claim?.I'd link to see links to confirm that

Wall Street Journal columnist Lee Gomes says that's a big waste, especially because SETI doesn't seem likely to yield results:

Assuming the appropriate signals are detectable ,the search could easily take a very long time.The fact that nothing has been found yet means nothing.

I ran & still run SETI primarily for 'The search' aspect ,if the 'too weak to detect' arguement turns out to be true then that'll be the nail in the coffin for me & SETI

I've now read the article & there's no back up linked.
Until someone backs up his claims ,the article is meaningless.

I emailed the author asking him where he came up with that statement. I'll post back if I get a reply.

Yea I'd be interested to know ,thanks

Spacehead
Good point

Ken
Thier you go then