In semi-infinite wisdom Bjorn Damm answered:

"Rich" <someone@somewhere.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:40A27B7F.3070806@somewhere.com...

[...]

The statement contains an unspoken question. How can we expect to
receive a signal if we are not transmitting any?

What does one have to do with the other?

The CW of the Analogue TV transmitters is one of the stronger narrowband
signals we are currently transmitting.
OTOH, according to SETI-FAQ the CW is not detectable at interstellar
distansces (with the equippment we have) so it really doesn't matter.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with your claim above that we receive
nothing because we don't transmit. And as you just pointed out, we are
transmitting (although not intentionally).

How can we expect to receive a signal if we're not transmitting? We
won't be receiving *our* transmissions. We'll receive ET's transmissions
only *if* ET is transmitting, regardless of whether we are or not.

Our computer speeds double every one and a half years or so.

You've misstated Moore's law, which is that the number of components per
square inch will double every year (but today it's slowed to every 18
months.

So in 15 years they will be 1000 times faster and will able to analyze

> a 1000 times more frequencys.

This is simply not true. Since 1970 or so, processor speeds have
gone from 4 MHZ to 4,000 MHZ, that's a thousand times faster in
over 30 years. But computers are not 1,000 times faster as memory
has only gotten ten times faster, and everything else is dig slow.
Computers are faster than they were, but they are nowhere near
a thousand times faster.

And as geometry's get smaller, a host of problems are developing.
The leakage current in Intel's newest P4 is half the operating current,
and it's questionable whether simply shrinking the geometry can be
done productively for much longer. We'll need either a new technology,
or some process breakthrough with existing technologies. It was a good
run, but the end is in sight.

(or 1000 times more time of the same amount of frequencys). At some point
this development of faster and faster computers will stop. I don't know when. The 100 years was just a asumption.

The new rage is parallel processing. SETI@home does not benefit directly
from parallel processing, but an instance of SETI@home can be run on
each processor (up to a limit, due to contention for resources).
Multiple domains can help with this.

I also assume that ET already has the fastest possible computers.

What if ET has no computers?

As a
conclusion of these assumptions It is, at this moment, a 1000 or mabee a
million times easier for ET to find our signals than it is for us to find
theirs.

Computer's don't receive signals. You need receivers for that. And there
may be better ways.

Rich