"Martin" <ml_news@ddnospamddml1dd.co.uk.dd> wrote in message
news:cuQPb.8913$YV1.5929@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...

sweet wrote:
[...]

... So if they see fit for some wu's to be re-crunched then you can
bet your bottom dollar that they have a very good reason for it to be
done.

That is very sweet and trusting and may well be true. Note also that
there can be other reasons involved.

I'm no authority on this either and will continue to support SETI.
However, at the moment my spare CPU cycles are working elsewhere where
there is better feedback to say that they are being usefully utilised.

- - - cut - - -

Yes it is a matter of some trust. But after meeting people like Feynman and
Weinberg et. al. of similar repute in the physics community I think I have a
better understanding of who is doing what and with what amount of talent
than just using my trust. (And yes, I have met some real weak links but
those people are in the minority.)

I do realize that I am basing my judgement on my experience, but that has
been accumulated over 15 yrs. Scientists don't get to be directors of large
programs unless they have their head screwed on right. The often portrayed
"brainless director" is only a Hollywood director's axe grinding.

Of course there are things like NASA screwing up (the Space Shuttle
Challenger explosion and the metric mistake), but those are of the days when
NASA was run by political bureaucrats. Once they found out that NASA
projects are popular they took over and made ridiculous demands of the
project. I know a tech who was told they had to make the shuttle engines
work at 110% efficiency, he bitterly griped to me.

So we can thank God that so far SETI is unpopular.          :)

-sweet
____________________________________________
http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/