Hooray, we have a humanoid! I see this is a project that interested them too. You ask who is he? Yes, that's it http://clip2net.com/s/3z78uot they are already here! Why do they look for in space? )







This is a joke! )))

I would have posted earlier except for an unwarranted intervention.

I'd like to know why there's a "migration" from SETI@Home towards other SETI projects, specifically if those other SETI projects are considered more promissing or if it's just for the funding via "breakthrough listen".

I'd like to know why you are so negative about Seti@Home?

Signed,

Chris S
(remember me??)

Without having some sort of NITPCKR running 24/7, analysing data REALTIME (o r as close as we can get), it’s a waste of out time anyways.

Would’nt you agree ?

We've been very bad at telling you what's up with the NTPCkR. Although it's not politically expedient to say so, Breakthrough has actually left SETI@home even more resource starved than it was before. People that were working primarily on SETI@home have transitioned to Breakthrough, and thus far, no funding from Breakthrough has been directed at SETI@home and we don't currently have the funding to replace them. We're hoping that will change, but have few options how to bring it about. In essence we're in the same place we've always been, barely getting by, but with even fewer people on the job.

That doesn't mean we've made no progress, though. It became apparent that our available hardware was insufficient for running the nitpicker. What has happened is that Bruce Allen (of Einstein@home) has allowed us to use some time on a supercomputer at the Albert Einstein Institute for Gravitational Physics in Hannover to run the nitpicker, which we've renamed Nebula because it's no longer "near real time". We've done some tests on 1% of the database, and estimate that a full run of the database will take about 5 days, and we plan to do such a run at least 4 times a year. If we overstay our welcome at AEI we'll probably have to search out cloud resources for the runs.

I'll try to get some more info out about that in the near future. The port is mostly complete, apart from tuning up the RFI rejection. Fingers crossed we'll have some candidate news by the end of the summer.

Recently the NSF announced its intent to start the process which could lead to the partial shutdown, mothballing, or complete disassebly of the Arecibo Observatory. As most of you know, this is not a new discussion in the scientific community. Several years ago we had asked you write letters to Congress in hopes of averting this fate.

A petition has been started on whitehouse.gov to ask the President to ensure it is funded. I'm pessimistic about the chances that it will change anything, as the President cannot change Congressional budget priorities, and only has limited ability to move money between NSF programs. However, bringing attention to the issues of science funding in this country cannot hurt.

Yes, i think it was sort of a miscommunication, resulting in a bad response.
I'd suggest for future releases to include a link to a public SVN/GIT repository to avoid such misinterpretations in the first place.

That'll get rid of misinformation like that in the first place....

Alright, glad that's resolved & that's much better constructive suggestions.

For now, what I'll do is change the policy from 'available on request' to an export in modified sources downloads every new release, like x41g source is there now.

As it happens, the X-branch is meant to be going into Seti's Public repository anyway as next stock, so it will indeed have public SVN through Berkeley.

It isn't possible/practical to host a public SVN at Lunatics at this time, since the hosting arrangements are provided for gratis, and there have been problems with spamming etc. There's still a lot to work out for the changes to open up for Linux development, as described in the first post, and isn't an instant move, but hopefully things will get to the stage registrations can be opened back up wider public testing done there.

Jason

Not strange if you think about it, like I said a personality clash. If you didn't mean to threaten that's great! thanks!. In future when you want to know something, simply ask, and don't mention the GPL. Believe me it'll work a lot better.

It's got nothing to do with the technical suggestions about Linux builds, which I know you know what you are talking about. No question at all.

Bringing up the GPL after your very public history with it was not a good idea, and certainly pushes my buttons. Let's leave it at 'personality clash' status & move on, so that I can interpret you drifting back here as a sign of positive interest generated by the work, rather than someone trying to threaten people with the GPL.

Jason

Oh well, best of luck with your collaborations then. I certainly hope you have less communication difficulties at the projects you believe in helping more. It's funny, I never had a problem with you before, but you made one now. Let's call it a personality clash & move on then.

Jason

However, having a look at your recent replies and you feeling the need to taking personal some posts that weren't even directed at you in the first place... it's kind of curious why you feel the need to band people from hidden 'public' SVNs...

The SVN is private, not public. Sources for release builds available on request as always.
[quote]

So where is the public address to request access to it ? Please point me to one that hasn't been 'public' since 'this' started...

I'm not surprised you can't remember how it works, or where the website is, since you never bother to visit until there's something you want.

Big surprise you post here about something being unavailable without even asking on the right forum.

Yes, bandying about misinterpretations of legal documents ARE personal attacks, so wise up & adjust the attitude. You have a problem with asking politely & prefer to point the finger. Go look in the mirror.

Jason

Read the GPL. You obviously have not. It is, as always has been, available on request. If you think it has to be posted on a website, then you are mistaken,

Perhaps being courteous when you want something would be a better approach, for now you burn your bridges with me & are now on ignore.
Jason

I'm glad for you. Collaboration and respect is the name of the game, as is clear from the opening post in this thread.

It would probably have gone down better if you hadn't been so cavalier over the (L)GPL in the past: available to the team only. Really?

And if you hadn't been so negative about SETI in more recent postings on other project web sites. A shame your expertise wasn't applied here after our collaboration over the 2.4 V(ista) apps.

unfortunately i was unable to find a link to the source code to compile it myself on an old SuSE 11.2 (and it's not listed there -> http://lunatics.kwsn.net/index.php?module=Downloads;catd=2 either which is a bit odd since it's GPLed software)

Why would you point the bone like that?

When you were given full svn access from the start.

Then you know full well the requirements are to make the source for release builds available on request.

If you require updated sources & forgot how to use the SVN, or would prefer a different method, just ask... and don't ever try beat me over the head with GPL again, I actually read it.

Now, I had to do some faffing around when I installed the C1060 to get the driver activated without putting it in the xorg.conf file (still using the onboard Matrox VGA as the C1060 doesn't have video output), and I haven't removed that kludge at all even though the 460 is now in the X setup. Looks like I got the clues from http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=52629. The script goes in /etc/init.d/cuda -- I can't remember if I had to do anything else.

B*gger! When I worked up enough courage to try the GTX 460 in the Supermicro, it turned out Scientific Linux CERN 5 is too out-of-date to run the programme:

[eesridr:setiathome.berkeley.edu] > ldd setiathome_x41g_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu_cuda32 
./setiathome_x41g_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu_cuda32: /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.11' not found (required by ./setiathome_x41g_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu_cuda32)
./setiathome_x41g_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu_cuda32: /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found (required by ./setiathome_x41g_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu_cuda32)
./setiathome_x41g_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu_cuda32: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.11' not found (required by ./setiathome_x41g_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu_cuda32)

./setiathome_x41g_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu_cuda32: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.11' not found (required by ./setiathome_x41g_x86_64-pc-linux-gnu_cuda32)

Unfortunately that's not how time dilation works. To the people on the ship it would be 8.6 years and back on earth hundreds of years would go by.

No. That's quite wrong...it'll be 8.6 years on earth and far less on the ship that goes at half light speed .... here's a link to 'simulate' how time dilation works -> http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/timedilation.htm (you'll see where you went wrong.)

Unfortunately that's not how time dilation works. To the people on the ship it would be 8.6 years and back on earth hundreds of years would go by.