ursangnome: (Default)
[personal profile] ursangnome
In today's "Just too cool to be true" department -

SETI@home has detected a signal worthy of a second look.

Sure, just a little while ago I saw a "UFO" that was probably the Hood milk blimp. And now this comes along. Just as the World Science Fiction Convention opens....

Coincidence?

Date: 2004-09-02 12:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] goldsquare.livejournal.com
Debunked. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3621608.stm

Date: 2004-09-02 12:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] umbran.livejournal.com
Hm. "Debunked" is a bit strong. It implies that the original was "bunk", and possibly deliberate bunk.

There's a bit of "telephone game" going on, it seems. If you look at The original report in New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/news/nographic.jsp?id=ns99996341) has lots of qualifiers on it that the CNN report does not.

So, not so much a case of debunking as it is merely correcting CNN's overstatement.

Date: 2004-09-02 12:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] goldsquare.livejournal.com
If you say so, but look at the URL tag you used....

Date: 2004-09-02 12:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] umbran.livejournal.com
Sorry. I fail to see what mysterious information you seem to find in the url tags.

This

Date: 2004-09-02 01:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] goldsquare.livejournal.com
Where you wrote SETI@home has detected a signal worthy of a second look.

No, in fact, they haven't.

Re: This

Date: 2004-09-02 01:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] umbran.livejournal.com
Well, technically, SETI@home has come up with about 150 instances that merited a second look...

Be that as it may, though - it turned out to be a false alarm, yes. But if every such thing were called "bunk", then the entire human population is made up of bunko artists.

Really. "Inaccurate" does not equal "bunk".

Move along, nothing to see

Date: 2004-09-02 01:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] learnedax.livejournal.com
The rebuttal story has a very odd tenor to it - they come across as extremely adamant that the signal isn't anything, but don't give any explanation for why it was previously reported as the vague possibility of sentience.

I don't generally buy into conspiracy theory, but the latter article makes some part of my brain twitch.

Date: 2004-09-02 02:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] antoniseb.livejournal.com
Based on the response to the reporters, I'm guessing it was a light-hearted hoax by an insider, or an incredibly dumb mistake.

Profile

ursangnome: (Default)
ursangnome

October 2018

S M T W T F S
 123456
78 910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 18th, 2025 07:43 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios