I hope he doesn't win, if he does, I'm going to feel really silly for the hundreds of hours I've put in on work over the years, when I could have done this.
Wait a moment... You mean you are at the university to get a diploma, and not to learn things? Things have changed a lot since I was a student...
This is a very silly argument, but if the student can find some evidence that the administration had knowledge of the plagarism scheme, led him to believe he would graduate, he paid all his fees, and *then* they pulled the plug, that would probably be just as immoral as the plagarism itself.
I even doubt that. You do not pay the university to get a diploma. You pay the university to be allowed to sit into lectures, use the facilities, and attempt to pass exams.
One argument he could submit is that he passed exams which he should have failed, because he used illegal means to do them. It would come down to saying: "Either I am good enough for a university degree, or I am a moron. If I am good enough for a degree, I should get it. If I am a moron, I am not worthy of a university degree. However, in that case the university should have informed me that I am a moron. They didn't, so the university is wrong in withholding my degree. So I deserve a degree whether I am a moron or not."
But many universities consider using a single essay of yours for two different assignments to be plagiarizing
It's not plagiarising, and besides that, universities who condemn this are stupid.
I get an assignment. I write an essay. I submit it and pass the course. I get an assignment for another course. Exactly the same essay fulfills that assignment. So I submit my essay again. And that would be wrong?
If my own work is good enough to meet the requirements of two courses, why would I not pass both courses? Because I have to do the work twice? Silly.
A.K. Dewdney describes in "The Tinkertoy Computer and Other Machinations" not only the famous Tinkertoy computer, but also how a computer can be constructed entitely from ropes and pulleys. Furthermore, in "The Planiverse" he describes how a computer can be built in a two-dimensional world (quite a feat, I can tell you).
Ah, well, it is on-topic as long as you consider that we are talking about companies who have websites that require IE. It is Fortis Bank in The Netherlands.
Why not show that company competition? Call them up, tell them you can't do business with them because their website is horribly broken.
It actually is my bank. The website needs to interface with smartcard software that is probably written in ActiveX or something. Complaining about it won't work: I worked for that bank and wrote loads of Electronic Banking software for it, so I know a bit how things fare there. If I was a big company, they would jump through hoops for me. As a lonely customer, they couldn't care a tinker's bit about me. Of course, I could move my business to another bank, but since I was responsible for the design and development of the whole electronic banking protocol (not the ActiveX plugin, though), I know it is a pretty damn secure system and a whole lot better than other banks use. So I put up with IE for a while.
Because IE is a big security hole, a lousy browser, and easily infected with all kinds of spyware.
A fairly computer-savvy acquaintance of mine recently called me to his computer because his homepage was constantly reset to easybiz.net. Ad-aware couldn't do anything. He started rummaging in his registry and managed to make his IE completely unusable.
So, how to solve this problem? Standard-Microsoft solution: uninstall IE? Ah, but there is the catch: you can not uninstall IE, it comes with the package. So, there is a choice: wiping the machine and start all over again, or, what I did: install Mozilla.
I was a bit relieved to see that while the IE penetration is > 90%, alternate browsers have about half the market. Now I finally know that I, too, am considered to be an IE user. There is one website I need to visit which requires IE, so I use IE solely for that purpose. I think that for all those people that use an alternate browser, that alternate browser is actually their primary browser. So IE's influence is dimishing. No wonder if you realise what a piece of %$#@ it is.
I remember reading about Richard Garriott when he had just finished Ultima III. With a kind of shock he realised that people of all ages spent 100-200 hours each on the game. During that time the game designer has a definite influence on the gamer. He didn't mind most designers filling that time with mindless violence, but he wanted to do something more constructive with it. So he designed the set of ethics that became the foundation of Ultima IV. This made Ultima IV one of the most beloved games of all times. Actually, I am not in agreement with most of the ethics Garriott defined, but I do feel that the influence Ultima IV had on people was a lot more healthy than most other games offered.
Different gameplay experiences are not caused by games looking different. They come from different game designs.
Re:Confident, arrogant, maybe just annoying
on
More From Tanenbaum
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You seem to suggest Tanenbaum didn't really mean what he said. So you think Tanenbaum actually thinks MINIX is the most important thing he has ever done.
Think of it, what is more important: a toy-OS that nobody has used in decades, or a row of computer textbooks which are considered the top of their field since decades.
Shouldn't be too tough...
Re:The Netherlands Connection is the key
on
More From Tanenbaum
·
· Score: 4, Funny
This get me so irritated. People who immediately start yelling "drugs" when the Netherlands comes up. We have so many interesting other things! There is... uhm... (should not mention hookers here)... uhm...... I'll get back to you.
Unfortunately the editorial is slashdotted, but from all the comments I can guess what it is about.
The problem is that all humans basically have the same capabilities. It isn't as if Indians are good enough for programming but not good enough for innovation. With the right education, everyone can do any job (provided their genetics play along).
Now the point. First low-level jobs were moved abroad. Why should we do what those poor third-world citizens can do just as well, but for a lower salary? And it's good for their economy, so we are helping them too! In the meantime, we will focus on the jobs that require eduction.
The third-world nations boosted their economy, so they were able to educate their citizens. Now there were many people able to do the low-to-medium-level tech jobs, and since the salaries over there were still lower (simply because things are cheaper and there are not that many requirements on the work-environment) the low-to-medium-level tech jobs were moved abroad. We can concentrate on the high level tech jobs!
Economy of third-world countries will be boosted even more. They'll become more expensive (so the move abroad has diminishing returns), and can afford even better education. And they are still cheaper than the high level tech jobs. My guess is, these will move abroad in the very near future.
So what are we going to do? Concentrate on management jobs? What is a manager worth who has the people he has to manage living and working overseas? Management will follow rapidly abroad.
Of course, by that time we'll have a huge population of unemployed people will to take on any job, even work that does not require any education. The Indians will be happy to outsource those tasks to us, if we are willing to take a hand-out.
How can this be stopped? Probably by three measures: (1) Government should force companies that outsource work to supply the same work environment overseas that is required at home; (2) Government should penalise companies that outsource work by higher taxes, since these companies cause unemployment, which costs the state money; (3) To avoid screwing the third-world countries, the government should stop subsidising national companies to allow them to compete on pricing with third-world countries, as long as those companies overseas provide the same work-environment that the government expects from national companies.
People with PHDs are over qualified for most commercial programming jobs, and will demand a far higher pay.
I went to my current job to be able to get a Ph.D. I work about 50% longer (60 hours per week instead of 40 as in my previous job) for a salary that is 30% lower than my previous salary. If you love a profession you don't care that much about the salary. Ph.D.'s tend to love their job.
However, the problem PHB's have with Ph.D.'s in jobs that are not that exciting, is that the Ph.D.'s will leave when they get an offer for a more interesting job. They can do a lot of things, so they don't need to stick to a boring programmer's job. Most PHB's like to have lots of control over their employees, and Ph.D.'s are too elusive.
However, no all systems are equal, and, unfortunately for atheists, atheism is among the weakest system, for it is more dogmatic than most.
This is probably meant as flamebait, but I'll bite.
Since there is no objective reason to believe in any deity, and there are many objective reasons to disbelieve any supposed deity, the only objective stance that can be taken is that there is no god.
Now, there are two kinds of atheists.
First, there are gnostic atheists. They claim they KNOW there is no god. In that respect, they are dogmatic.
Then, there are agnostic atheists. They claim they see no reason to believe in a god, but are open to change their position if evidence for the existence of a god comes in. Of course, since that evidence hasn't come forward during their lifetimes, they hold it very unlikely that a god exists. Hence, they are atheists.
Most modern-day atheists are agnostic atheists. Agnostic atheism is undogmatic.
There is another undogmatic stance, and that is agnostic theism. Agnostic theists believe a god exists, but claim they are not sure about it. In my view this is a very weird position, but many influential people in history have professed to be agnostic theists.
Most modern-day theists are gnostic theists: they believe in a god and claim to know for sure that god exists. That is pretty dogmatic.
In terms of "strength", I think agnostic atheism is the strongest system there is. It is the only system that is not in conflict with scientific evidence, and it is open for change, just like science is.
You will find that most scientists are gnostic atheists.
You know, if you change the first principle to read:"1. There is a [higher being/a collective of higher beings/a higher force/false god] which must be [revered/worshipped/honored/mocked]."then you get to include atheists too. It's really nicely simple.
If I change the first principle to read:"1. There is a [higher being/a collective of higher beings/a higher force/car] which must be [revered/worshipped/honored/repaired]." I include mechanics too. That's just wordplay.
Anyway, you're not quite right about number 3. Many religions that formed in isolate areas just don't give a sh1zat about other religions, and there are occasional religions, like certain sects of Budhism, that find other religions to be delightful alternated attempts to find the same truths that they seek.
That is true, but as I said, there is a big difference between the core of a religion and the people that are members of the religion. The bible says you should turn the other cheek, but Christians bash their spiritual enemies in the mouth.
Furthermore, there is a lively discussion going on whether Buddhism is a religion. In my opinion, true Buddhists are so close to atheists that I wouldn't call them religious. Belief in "something higher" that does not influence us and that does not need to be followed, allows someone to act as if being an atheist.
Personally, I am too practical to be a Buddhist, but I find them inspirational all the same.
This is very apt. Thank you. I agree that if someone follows certain morals because he believes in the morals, and does not follow the morals because he believes he is commanded, the link between behaviour and belief is lost. If someone does not let his God determine his actions, his belief becomes incidental. "God is there but he means nothing factual to me". Someone like that is close to being an atheist.
Of course, the discussion started with aliens trying to convert us to their religion, or the other way around. There seems to be a commanding God there.
How convenient. You give us these blanket statements which you say apply to all religions, and when a counterexample is given you claim that it's not really a religion. That's one way to always be right, I suppose.
Buddhism is described as a religion and a moral philosophy, without a supernatural being that is ascribed powers for creation, salvation or judgement.
Religion is described as a system of beliefs based on humanity's attempt to explain the universe and natural phenomena, often involving one or more deities or other supernatural forces, also requiring or binding adherents to follow religious obligations.
I grant you that since according to this definition religion does not really require a supernatural being that controls our destiny, removing the deity transforms a religion to a moral philosophy.
Buddhism is a moral philosophy. If a buddhist also believes in supernatural beings that lay down laws, I have no problems qualifying him as a religious person. The principles than hold for him. And from personal experience during my travels through Asia, I can confirm that.
On the contrary, I know a great deal about religion.
Perhaps you should make clear why you think the third principle I mention does not hold.
Hint 1: Buddhism is not a religion.
Hint 2: While certain people who form the center of a religion (Jezus, Mohamed) certainly did not hold this principle, the religions that were created around their teachings were not so enlightened.
Isn't it interesting how people are so quick to believe in benevolent and all-knowing alien species (which is always superior in every way to humans), yet cannot bring themselves to believe in God?
I believe aliens exist.Believing aliens do not exist basically means believing that the chance humans could come in existence is so small, that the universe is empty except for us. However, I hold the chance that we will meet them during my lifetime, if at all, is remote. And I don't profess to know anything about how superior or inferior they are to us (although, if they can travel lightyears to meet us, I think they are at least technologically superior).
Statistics, combined with our current knowledge of biology and physics, tell me that it is very likely aliens exist. I see absolutely no reason to believe in God, and only reasons to believe he does not exist. So "believing in aliens" is not comparable with "believing in God". Can you give me a good reason why I should "bring myself to believe in God"?
There's a wide-held misconception that science and religion are so conflicting with one another that you cannot believe in both areas of life.
Most scientists feel that religion and science are two different worlds. They can't be in conflict. Science is about using facts and the force of reasoning to build an objective world-view. Religion is about using belief to build a subjective world-view, and "believing" is equal to "accepting without a shred of objective proof". These two approaches to building a window onto reality are very difficult to reconcile. So there is no actual conflict, but not many people can hold both views.
That does not mean that science has nothing to say about religion, but science can only investigate religion when a religion makes testable claims. "God exists" isn't testable. "God makes this statue of the Holy Mary shed tears of blood" is not completely testable, but at least it is testable whether the statue actually sheds tears of blood, regardless where these tears are coming from.
And, of course, we know that religion has to say a lot about science, especially where scientific fact clashes with dogmatic belief.
It is claimed that many astronomers and scientists actually do believe in God because all their research leads them to believe that there must be a superior being,
I have no idea who claims that, but I remember reading in the Skeptical Inquirer special issue on Science and Religion that it is very rare to find a scientist who believes in God. Those that do have to make a strict division between their work and their private life. Not many people can do that.
God wouldn't certainly put out identical religions everywhere! As there are lots of religions here, accomodating every culture but still giving out the same spiritual truths to everyone, there must be different religions everywhere in the universe...if God exists as we know Him, the spiritual truths taught must be essentially the same.
The spiritual truths in all Earth's religions are basically the same:
1. There is a [higher being/a collective of higher beings/a higher force] which must be [revered/worshipped/honored].
2. You should be nice to people who profess to hold the same spiritual belief as you.
3. People who do not fall in the previous category are [doomed/below your standing/misguided] and should be [ignored/converted/killed].
Personally, I don't see how any religion could exist that does not hold these principles. Principle 1 must hold, otherwise it's no religion. Principle 2 must hold, because religions must bind people into groups or they will perish. Principle 3 must hold, because if someone believes his religion does not make him superior to others, he will convert to something that makes him feel better.
So, if anything, finding an alien religion that holds the same principles only shows that the aliens have the same sociological and psychological make-up as humans. It says nothing about the existence of God.
Actually, I think that if space-faring aliens believe in God, they will probably have a better concept of God than we do, and it is likely to be closer to the truth.
This may differ from country to country. I live in Europe. I wrote a textbook once, which netted my department about 20,000 dollars. That money was paid by the publisher (contract-basis, 20,000 even if the book would not sell one single copy), who had some extra funding to release a book on this particular subject matter. The 20,000 did not completely cover my salary, but for several reasons we still decided to do it. We got nothing from the book sales, but that would not have been much anyway.
Some universities have better funding than others. Those that have good funding may allow their professors to write textbooks. Those that do not, either will have to skip writing textbooks, or have to find extra funding.
The profits an author gets from writing a textbook are (a) fame, (b) good course material, (c) a chance to be recognised as the top specialist in the field, (d) if very lucky, a bit of money on the side. Unfortunately, where I live an author is never allowed to keep the money for himself; it all has to go to the university. But, for me, if the university does allright, I do allright.
Here's something to ponder. Why does somebody write a textbook? Is it because they enjoy the subject matter, enjoy writing, and want to write an engaging, accurate book? Or is it because one can charge large sums for such a textbook? Unfortunately it's often the latter.
But remember that investing a year of your life to write a book for free, even if you enjoy writing it, won't put food on the table. Unfortunately scientists can't live from fame alone. I would love to be able to spend my time any way I like, and then write a great book on my specialty, but if I don't get paid to do it, I simply can't do it. It is even worse: I need the money up front, so I need a publisher to give me an advance. And it's the publisher that sets such an outrageous price for books.
I would be very wary of patenting something that might tick off a big party. Either they will ignore the patent, or, even worse, they'll drag you to court to get the patent invalidated. And if they get nasty, they will unleash their patent machine onto you. As a computer scientist, I can only hope the big ones will never see me as a danger, or they can bloody well kill off my profession.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait a moment... You mean you are at the university to get a diploma, and not to learn things? Things have changed a lot since I was a student...
I even doubt that. You do not pay the university to get a diploma. You pay the university to be allowed to sit into lectures, use the facilities, and attempt to pass exams.
One argument he could submit is that he passed exams which he should have failed, because he used illegal means to do them. It would come down to saying: "Either I am good enough for a university degree, or I am a moron. If I am good enough for a degree, I should get it. If I am a moron, I am not worthy of a university degree. However, in that case the university should have informed me that I am a moron. They didn't, so the university is wrong in withholding my degree. So I deserve a degree whether I am a moron or not."
I know there is a priceless joke here...
It's not plagiarising, and besides that, universities who condemn this are stupid.
I get an assignment. I write an essay. I submit it and pass the course. I get an assignment for another course. Exactly the same essay fulfills that assignment. So I submit my essay again. And that would be wrong?
If my own work is good enough to meet the requirements of two courses, why would I not pass both courses? Because I have to do the work twice? Silly.
A.K. Dewdney describes in "The Tinkertoy Computer and Other Machinations" not only the famous Tinkertoy computer, but also how a computer can be constructed entitely from ropes and pulleys. Furthermore, in "The Planiverse" he describes how a computer can be built in a two-dimensional world (quite a feat, I can tell you).
Ah, well, it is on-topic as long as you consider that we are talking about companies who have websites that require IE. It is Fortis Bank in The Netherlands.
It actually is my bank. The website needs to interface with smartcard software that is probably written in ActiveX or something. Complaining about it won't work: I worked for that bank and wrote loads of Electronic Banking software for it, so I know a bit how things fare there. If I was a big company, they would jump through hoops for me. As a lonely customer, they couldn't care a tinker's bit about me. Of course, I could move my business to another bank, but since I was responsible for the design and development of the whole electronic banking protocol (not the ActiveX plugin, though), I know it is a pretty damn secure system and a whole lot better than other banks use. So I put up with IE for a while.
A fairly computer-savvy acquaintance of mine recently called me to his computer because his homepage was constantly reset to easybiz.net. Ad-aware couldn't do anything. He started rummaging in his registry and managed to make his IE completely unusable.
So, how to solve this problem? Standard-Microsoft solution: uninstall IE? Ah, but there is the catch: you can not uninstall IE, it comes with the package. So, there is a choice: wiping the machine and start all over again, or, what I did: install Mozilla.
I was a bit relieved to see that while the IE penetration is > 90%, alternate browsers have about half the market. Now I finally know that I, too, am considered to be an IE user. There is one website I need to visit which requires IE, so I use IE solely for that purpose. I think that for all those people that use an alternate browser, that alternate browser is actually their primary browser. So IE's influence is dimishing. No wonder if you realise what a piece of %$#@ it is.
I remember reading about Richard Garriott when he had just finished Ultima III. With a kind of shock he realised that people of all ages spent 100-200 hours each on the game. During that time the game designer has a definite influence on the gamer. He didn't mind most designers filling that time with mindless violence, but he wanted to do something more constructive with it. So he designed the set of ethics that became the foundation of Ultima IV. This made Ultima IV one of the most beloved games of all times. Actually, I am not in agreement with most of the ethics Garriott defined, but I do feel that the influence Ultima IV had on people was a lot more healthy than most other games offered.
Different gameplay experiences are not caused by games looking different. They come from different game designs.
Think of it, what is more important: a toy-OS that nobody has used in decades, or a row of computer textbooks which are considered the top of their field since decades.
Shouldn't be too tough...
This get me so irritated. People who immediately start yelling "drugs" when the Netherlands comes up. We have so many interesting other things! There is... uhm... (should not mention hookers here)... uhm... ... I'll get back to you.
The problem is that all humans basically have the same capabilities. It isn't as if Indians are good enough for programming but not good enough for innovation. With the right education, everyone can do any job (provided their genetics play along).
Now the point. First low-level jobs were moved abroad. Why should we do what those poor third-world citizens can do just as well, but for a lower salary? And it's good for their economy, so we are helping them too! In the meantime, we will focus on the jobs that require eduction.
The third-world nations boosted their economy, so they were able to educate their citizens. Now there were many people able to do the low-to-medium-level tech jobs, and since the salaries over there were still lower (simply because things are cheaper and there are not that many requirements on the work-environment) the low-to-medium-level tech jobs were moved abroad. We can concentrate on the high level tech jobs!
Economy of third-world countries will be boosted even more. They'll become more expensive (so the move abroad has diminishing returns), and can afford even better education. And they are still cheaper than the high level tech jobs. My guess is, these will move abroad in the very near future.
So what are we going to do? Concentrate on management jobs? What is a manager worth who has the people he has to manage living and working overseas? Management will follow rapidly abroad.
Of course, by that time we'll have a huge population of unemployed people will to take on any job, even work that does not require any education. The Indians will be happy to outsource those tasks to us, if we are willing to take a hand-out.
How can this be stopped? Probably by three measures: (1) Government should force companies that outsource work to supply the same work environment overseas that is required at home; (2) Government should penalise companies that outsource work by higher taxes, since these companies cause unemployment, which costs the state money; (3) To avoid screwing the third-world countries, the government should stop subsidising national companies to allow them to compete on pricing with third-world countries, as long as those companies overseas provide the same work-environment that the government expects from national companies.
I went to my current job to be able to get a Ph.D. I work about 50% longer (60 hours per week instead of 40 as in my previous job) for a salary that is 30% lower than my previous salary. If you love a profession you don't care that much about the salary. Ph.D.'s tend to love their job.
However, the problem PHB's have with Ph.D.'s in jobs that are not that exciting, is that the Ph.D.'s will leave when they get an offer for a more interesting job. They can do a lot of things, so they don't need to stick to a boring programmer's job. Most PHB's like to have lots of control over their employees, and Ph.D.'s are too elusive.
Philosophy of science (especially "The Justification of Scientific Statements")
Scientific Method (especially "Scientific Method and the practice of science" and "Philosophical Issues")
Dogma
Dogmatic
Agnosticism vs. atheism
That's all I'm going to say, because our philosophies are so far apart that this would be an endless and fruitless discussion. At least through /.
This is probably meant as flamebait, but I'll bite.
Since there is no objective reason to believe in any deity, and there are many objective reasons to disbelieve any supposed deity, the only objective stance that can be taken is that there is no god.
Now, there are two kinds of atheists.
First, there are gnostic atheists. They claim they KNOW there is no god. In that respect, they are dogmatic.
Then, there are agnostic atheists. They claim they see no reason to believe in a god, but are open to change their position if evidence for the existence of a god comes in. Of course, since that evidence hasn't come forward during their lifetimes, they hold it very unlikely that a god exists. Hence, they are atheists.
Most modern-day atheists are agnostic atheists. Agnostic atheism is undogmatic.
There is another undogmatic stance, and that is agnostic theism. Agnostic theists believe a god exists, but claim they are not sure about it. In my view this is a very weird position, but many influential people in history have professed to be agnostic theists.
Most modern-day theists are gnostic theists: they believe in a god and claim to know for sure that god exists. That is pretty dogmatic.
In terms of "strength", I think agnostic atheism is the strongest system there is. It is the only system that is not in conflict with scientific evidence, and it is open for change, just like science is.
You will find that most scientists are gnostic atheists.
If I change the first principle to read:"1. There is a [higher being/a collective of higher beings/a higher force/car] which must be [revered/worshipped/honored/repaired]." I include mechanics too. That's just wordplay.
Anyway, you're not quite right about number 3. Many religions that formed in isolate areas just don't give a sh1zat about other religions, and there are occasional religions, like certain sects of Budhism, that find other religions to be delightful alternated attempts to find the same truths that they seek.
That is true, but as I said, there is a big difference between the core of a religion and the people that are members of the religion. The bible says you should turn the other cheek, but Christians bash their spiritual enemies in the mouth.
Furthermore, there is a lively discussion going on whether Buddhism is a religion. In my opinion, true Buddhists are so close to atheists that I wouldn't call them religious. Belief in "something higher" that does not influence us and that does not need to be followed, allows someone to act as if being an atheist.
Personally, I am too practical to be a Buddhist, but I find them inspirational all the same.
This is very apt. Thank you. I agree that if someone follows certain morals because he believes in the morals, and does not follow the morals because he believes he is commanded, the link between behaviour and belief is lost. If someone does not let his God determine his actions, his belief becomes incidental. "God is there but he means nothing factual to me". Someone like that is close to being an atheist.
Of course, the discussion started with aliens trying to convert us to their religion, or the other way around. There seems to be a commanding God there.
How convenient. You give us these blanket statements which you say apply to all religions, and when a counterexample is given you claim that it's not really a religion. That's one way to always be right, I suppose.
Buddhism is described as a religion and a moral philosophy, without a supernatural being that is ascribed powers for creation, salvation or judgement.
Religion is described as a system of beliefs based on humanity's attempt to explain the universe and natural phenomena, often involving one or more deities or other supernatural forces, also requiring or binding adherents to follow religious obligations.
I grant you that since according to this definition religion does not really require a supernatural being that controls our destiny, removing the deity transforms a religion to a moral philosophy.
Buddhism is a moral philosophy. If a buddhist also believes in supernatural beings that lay down laws, I have no problems qualifying him as a religious person. The principles than hold for him. And from personal experience during my travels through Asia, I can confirm that.
On the contrary, I know a great deal about religion.
Perhaps you should make clear why you think the third principle I mention does not hold.
Hint 1: Buddhism is not a religion.
Hint 2: While certain people who form the center of a religion (Jezus, Mohamed) certainly did not hold this principle, the religions that were created around their teachings were not so enlightened.
Isn't it interesting how people are so quick to believe in benevolent and all-knowing alien species (which is always superior in every way to humans), yet cannot bring themselves to believe in God?
I believe aliens exist.Believing aliens do not exist basically means believing that the chance humans could come in existence is so small, that the universe is empty except for us. However, I hold the chance that we will meet them during my lifetime, if at all, is remote. And I don't profess to know anything about how superior or inferior they are to us (although, if they can travel lightyears to meet us, I think they are at least technologically superior).
Statistics, combined with our current knowledge of biology and physics, tell me that it is very likely aliens exist. I see absolutely no reason to believe in God, and only reasons to believe he does not exist. So "believing in aliens" is not comparable with "believing in God". Can you give me a good reason why I should "bring myself to believe in God"?
Most scientists feel that religion and science are two different worlds. They can't be in conflict. Science is about using facts and the force of reasoning to build an objective world-view. Religion is about using belief to build a subjective world-view, and "believing" is equal to "accepting without a shred of objective proof". These two approaches to building a window onto reality are very difficult to reconcile. So there is no actual conflict, but not many people can hold both views.
That does not mean that science has nothing to say about religion, but science can only investigate religion when a religion makes testable claims. "God exists" isn't testable. "God makes this statue of the Holy Mary shed tears of blood" is not completely testable, but at least it is testable whether the statue actually sheds tears of blood, regardless where these tears are coming from.
And, of course, we know that religion has to say a lot about science, especially where scientific fact clashes with dogmatic belief.
It is claimed that many astronomers and scientists actually do believe in God because all their research leads them to believe that there must be a superior being,
I have no idea who claims that, but I remember reading in the Skeptical Inquirer special issue on Science and Religion that it is very rare to find a scientist who believes in God. Those that do have to make a strict division between their work and their private life. Not many people can do that.
The spiritual truths in all Earth's religions are basically the same:
1. There is a [higher being/a collective of higher beings/a higher force] which must be [revered/worshipped/honored].
2. You should be nice to people who profess to hold the same spiritual belief as you.
3. People who do not fall in the previous category are [doomed/below your standing/misguided] and should be [ignored/converted/killed].
Personally, I don't see how any religion could exist that does not hold these principles. Principle 1 must hold, otherwise it's no religion. Principle 2 must hold, because religions must bind people into groups or they will perish. Principle 3 must hold, because if someone believes his religion does not make him superior to others, he will convert to something that makes him feel better.
So, if anything, finding an alien religion that holds the same principles only shows that the aliens have the same sociological and psychological make-up as humans. It says nothing about the existence of God.
Actually, I think that if space-faring aliens believe in God, they will probably have a better concept of God than we do, and it is likely to be closer to the truth.
AFAIK a centigrade is 1/100 of a grade, used in geographic calculations. It has nothing to do with temperature.
Some universities have better funding than others. Those that have good funding may allow their professors to write textbooks. Those that do not, either will have to skip writing textbooks, or have to find extra funding.
The profits an author gets from writing a textbook are (a) fame, (b) good course material, (c) a chance to be recognised as the top specialist in the field, (d) if very lucky, a bit of money on the side. Unfortunately, where I live an author is never allowed to keep the money for himself; it all has to go to the university. But, for me, if the university does allright, I do allright.
But remember that investing a year of your life to write a book for free, even if you enjoy writing it, won't put food on the table. Unfortunately scientists can't live from fame alone. I would love to be able to spend my time any way I like, and then write a great book on my specialty, but if I don't get paid to do it, I simply can't do it. It is even worse: I need the money up front, so I need a publisher to give me an advance. And it's the publisher that sets such an outrageous price for books.
I would be very wary of patenting something that might tick off a big party. Either they will ignore the patent, or, even worse, they'll drag you to court to get the patent invalidated. And if they get nasty, they will unleash their patent machine onto you. As a computer scientist, I can only hope the big ones will never see me as a danger, or they can bloody well kill off my profession.