Oh, yes!

Oops! Meant to say that even though someone probably was asking some questions about the incident, the answer in the end became that these lights visible in the sky came from someone else.

Yes, something definitely became frozen in the wintry weather...

Was Charlie Chaplin ever supposed to be a clown?

Flat graphics only mean that you did not get anything when it comes to the numbers.

Only the processing time may give some indication of where it went.

So, in the end, back to the start. No numbers of interest. Keep trying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxGXFWXvKrQ&list=RDWE89BjSg8S8

Better one here if you happen to listen and well suited for those in the 5 million+ Seti@home credit club...

Black isn't supposed to be white and white isn't supposed to be black.

There you got my approach (or opinion).

Like Dr. David A. (pictured on YouTube).

Getting old like me as well as some others around here.

Sincere and honest he definitely is, but does it help or matter in the end?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng0unR0c57I&list=RDWE89BjSg8S8

I just watched the mentioned video by SciManStev.

Apparently there is not too much new here, at least when it comes to politics, but really, even evolution is only one part of science, not all of it.

Ask a nuclear physicist about a question related to evolution as a whole and oppositely ask a scientist dealing with the subject of evolution a question about protons and electrons.

Who are able to give the most comprehensive answer and would any of these two people be able to give a finite answer to the possible existence of God without bringing religion and faith into the discussion?

Feeling better now?

For those of us who are doing Seti@home, we should not forget that the world is not a perfect place and never will become so.

Politics and science are not supposed to be the same thing, at least not always.

At times it is supposed to be all about principles, not necessarily about details when it comes to certain "things". The difference here could make out a big difference in the end.

At least when it comes to the chilly weather right now. I was just going to ask celttooth whether he was freezing right now, but I have not done so yet.

Check out the headlines at http://news.yahoo.com and you will probably understand what I mean.

When Harry met Sally...

So easy it is next.

Same goes with another story. The one about the little boy who happened to meet E.T.

How do they possibly interact - how do they say hello to each other, making themselves acquaintanted?

The answer is by using the finger the correct way. Greeting each other by putting a finger to each other.

I guess you did not remember that little greeting scene from this movie.

In order for science to be able to obtain a result of significance, it must be objective in nature and not biased in favor of either one thing or another.

Here, I am thinking more about results as a whole, not just by means of specific subject fields and what is possible to be able to achieve.

When my brother was studying music at the local University here in town, he finished with a degree at one level below the doctorate level.

Which again is one level above the basic level, call it "magistrate", or the similar.

You have to study a specific field of study and deliver a report about this study which needs to be accepted. It does not necessarily have to be an "editorial board".

But the results may not always become generally available for the public to read because of several reasons, of which one may be related to "personal matters".

This apparently happened in this instance.

For users of the Web, the Wikipedia should be regarded as a trustworthy reference of information.

But if you happen to read carefully, all that is needed is the creation of a user account and then it is up to the editors of this reference to determine whether the contents are meeting or adhering to the neccessary criteria when it comes to contents.

If you want to know something about one or more specific thing or things, the easiest way to do this if you are becoming old is to consult a book. A dictionary is supposed to be trusted, even though it could have been standing for 40 years in your bookshelf.

Better now use the Wikipedia instead now. At least the contents are more new and is subject to continuous editing, which at the same time means more or less continuous scrutiny of the same material.

Many years ago there was a Nobel Prize delivery in the city of Stockholm, Sweden, which was related to science. I do not recall the details, but after the ceremony, there was a televised discussion where the main prize winners were participating.

Including a poor little Indian with the name of Chandra. For some reason he was kicked on by one of the other Price winners.

To be more precise, in this instance, if you happen to be either a physicist, mathematician, or an astronomer, you may perhaps be familiar with the "Chandrasekhar limit".

Guess where I found it? Try the following link for more information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit

At times breakthrough science sometimes is carried out by only one, or maybe a couple of people. There may be disagreement when there are two or more people supposed to be doing the same thing, but for the most time the necessary results may be able to accomplish when it comes to the subject field itself.

There are a few times however where even scientific results supposedly leads nowhere and therefore in the end may be put on hold, or even the shelf. Something which of course may bring the corresponding disappointment by the participants of the research project.

Anyway, the point here really was about contents and its trustworthiness. In the end you are supposed to be trusting the Wikipedia, because its contents is subject to necessary scrutiny in order to become "accepted" and therefore believed.

Armchair science, eh?

The higher you are supposed to be able to climb, the harder it becomes when you fall and hit the ground.

I notice that error tasks is down from 2 to 1 on computer 7138309 attached to this user account.

That is when I choose "Tasks" (meaning All tasks) and not those from a specific computer which is being attached and possibly used.

Not having tried out that yet, my best guess is that I will get the same answer.

Edit: Checking the specific computer I get the same result back in return. I do not find the other task at all.

Where did the other error task go? It is not there anymore and it apparently had no numbers of interest either. Possibly a triplet count of 2 which I did not get in my log, but probably also was present in the other task that errored out.

Thanks for explaining this to me!

I notice that error tasks is down from 2 to 1 on computer 7138309 attached to this user account.

That is when I choose "Tasks" (meaning All tasks) and not those from a specific computer which is being attached and possibly used.

Not having tried out that yet, my best guess is that I will get the same answer.

Edit: Checking the specific computer I get the same result back in return. I do not find the other task at all.

Where did the other error task go? It is not there anymore and it apparently had no numbers of interest either. Possibly a triplet count of 2 which I did not get in my log, but probably also was present in the other task that errored out.

Thanks for explaining this to me!

I don't know why my reply wasn't moved here but once a conical result is obtained the workunit is deleted in 24hrs (your other 1 will soon disappear as well).

Cheers.

Thanks Wiggo!

Presumably you are right here.

Give me a smile, will you.

(intelligent? You decide...)

Anyway, it's all about "Testing and Verification".

Check out http://seticlassic.ssl.berkeley.edu/rfi/

The paragraph or section is at the bottom of that web-page.

Click on the pictures for more information.

because anyone can edit Wiki take it with a grain of salt. By all means use it as a refferance but use others also. And for legal advice, Do visit a real lawyer in your state or counrty.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Definitely, James.

In our real world it is always up to the lawmakers to the make the distinction between right and wrong.

And without me being able to read your thoughts and vice versa, many people are being born having a special ability or capability associated with them.

For those of us who are not construction workers or house builders, it rather more becomes a question of abilities and capabilities which are going on inside our heads, in fact the brain.

Intellect, or IQ, is measured by means of a scale. A given or specific IQ test may show that you are having such an IQ of let's say 110.

If such a test is made difficult enough, it is quite likely that you may not be able to answer all the questions correctly even if you are quite good at it.

If you happen to be familiar with some of the videos available about possible signal candidates, you may notice that there is a corresponding lack of numbers which may be associated with the signal which is supposed to be present. One good example here is the Wow signal shown in a .avi file using Seti@home version 3.05 under the Classic web-pages.

Even 10 years ago, I started up using version 3.08 for the same, so this really goes quite a while back in time.

Now, with autocorrelation available to us, should we perhaps be better able at doing things? It really depends on E.T. Is he/she/it willing to send us a signal which possibly may be decoded and interpreted by us? Regardless of whether a signal is a narrowband or a broadband one, the angle range used for the recording of a specific work unit should not be the limiting factor.

However, a broadband signal may not necessarily be detected by the Seti@home client by means of any numbers which may be present in such a work unit.

Also, if I am running those two Yafu factorization tasks using the CPU, how much should these tasks interfere with the two GPU's that I have? I occasionally receive a message that they are using much of the processor resources.

At the same time I am running several CPU based PrimeGrid tasks. Almost all of them are long tasks.

Both CUDA tasks running right now are using cuda50. 0.155 CPU's plus 1NVIDIA GPU (device 0/1) is being interpreted as each task using 15.5 % of a total of two CPU cores (one core for each task).

Is that the correct way of thinking?

At least I let it report when running the last one or two tasks. One task still in my task list apparently ran for 1 hour, 32 minutes and 41 seconds. Two other tasks were slightly shorter.

Guess what just happened.

Accidentally I closed one of the two DOS-windows for the Yafu tasks.

That is 2 days or more of computing time out of the window.

Which is rather disappointing to me, of course.

But is supposedly meant to be happening from time to time.

Better doing the same for the other task as well and return back to it another time.

Perhaps my Seti@home CUDA tasks now will be running a little bit faster.

Running a task using WinPFGW instead. Windows based interface, it should have minimal effect on the Seti@home tasks.

And once again, one of the Seti@home CUDA tasks using cuda50 takes more than 7 minutes before even showing any progress at all.

I am still suspicious here.

I just stumbled across something interesting after reading here.

Typing in "Arecibo message" using Google, I received a couple of suggestions.

Here is the search string:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=cr&ei=AY7TUqyzPMm7yAOGtYFQ#q=arecibo+message

A picture popped up, probably one of the three pictures besides each other, clogging my web-browser and needing a restart of the same.

One of the links there is the following:

http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/arecibo.html

Really, that is what you may be able to receive by looking at what could theoretically by a message from space, most likely a narrowband signal of sorts. If I rather should try multiplying one of the periods or scores for a pulse making it a whole number, the chance of it being a prime number would be relatively small.

We are able to recognize most of the contents in our own message because we are able to associate it with things that are familiar to us. In theory, such a message could be in 3D, or even holographic - we really do not know for sure.

Unless a possible signal is of considerable strength, only by means of being continuous and lasting for some time it would probably be detected. Except for that, it would probably vanish in the flow of signals which is being detected and becomes mostly rejected because it is being regarded as just being RFI.

Came across a radio interview of Michio Kaku by means of telephone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwoBoS8vG-U

Michio Kaku Aliens Exist!! Contact with ETs Imminent!!

Part of it that is when it comes to the title.

But also other interesting stuff there when you listen in to what he has to say.


Another video you may like to watch next is this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf2m35N3DJU

Master Of The Universe Stephen Hawking Episode 1... MUST WATCH .