Can you elaborate? A Catholic English version of the Bible predates the King James Version (1611), which is pretty much the earliest Protestant bible in use today. It was called the Douay-Rheims bible (1582 New Testament, 1609 Old Testament). A cardinal helped translate it, which should dispel notions that it was done in secret outside the good graces of the Church. Later (1750) a related version, the Challoner (now typically known as the Douay-Rheims or Douay-Rheims-Challoner version) was published by a bishop (Richard Challoner) and is still popular today.
It was certainly true that for a long time Latin was preferred, if not exclusively used before the Douay-Rheims, but keep in mind that for much of the history of the West, anyone who was literate read and wrote Latin, so that even scientific works were composed in Latin. So having only Latin bibles wasn't that big a problem as anyone who could read, could read them. It was the English of the world.
You say, "If religious indoctrination and propaganda starts to move online, that is a huge win for skeptics." I think you're off by at least 20 years. Religious "indoctrination and propaganda" has been around the Internet since long before the web existed. I know, I was one who "indoctrinated" and "propagandized". We have nothing to fear from the light of truth, since the Author of Truth is the One we proclaim. Swords cut both ways.
I have a BS CompE graduate from CMU, now with around nine years of experience as an embedded software development engineer.
While the smug CS grads may be correct that in CS you learn more theory, and that CS grads (well, CS grads from pre-eminent schools) are better equipped to write more theoretically efficient algorithms than CompEs are, to be honest, most of the code in my industry is really not all that complicated. Clever algorithms are great for solving the problems that they fit, but a great number of programming problems just don't benefit from any mathematical analysis at all. I've barely applied anything beyond the simplest mathematics in my coding, and even where mathematics is truly relevant (e.g. queueing theory), it takes such complex mathematics to model the simplest, most ideal system that the math may benefit you in abstract comprehension and intuitive understanding, but not in coding.
The other thing to consider is that code that is "efficient" at a theoretical level may be quite inefficient at a practical level, because of insufficient understanding of the low-level details (such as the ridiculous amount of overhead that C++ drags into an application).
The appropriate skills to have depends on the problem. You need the theory of CS to make good compilers, encryption engines, graphics rendering engines, etc. You don't necessarily need a lot of it to forward packets, or design a GUI, or to program a piece of hardware.
I have a CE degree from CMU, which has both a strong CS program and a strong CE program. I knew a lot of people in both programs (and many who switched between them) and got a good idea I think of the distinction, and I would agree that the key distinction is between theory and practice.
Don't listen to those who malign or exalt one or the other; which one is right depends strictly on you. Do you like to build, create, and solve real-world problems? Do you like getting "down and dirty" in the hardware? CE is better for you. Do you prefer more abstract work, such as designing algorithms or solving theoretical problems? Do you prefer to remain aloof from the grungy details? CS is probably better. So think about what you like best about computers, and use that as a guide. If you're less interested in solving concrete problems or practical applications, that would be CS; if you get frustrated by having to study stuff that has no apparent real-world application, that would be CE.
While it is true that CE is often more hardware oriented, I work as a software engineer (albeit on low-level embedded software), and if you want to do hardware, EE is really most appropriate.
I would also point out that the difference depends a lot on the university; as others have pointed out, the semantics are frequently distorted. At CMU, the CE degree was mostly the EE degree with the analog stuff replaced with CS courses. The CS degree was actually much more math-oriented, though it is not so at all schools (sometimes, it's just programming). I saw many people attempt one major unsuccessfully and switch to the other. I think this was due more to personal temperment than whether one was "harder" or "easier" than the other.
Another aspect, though, to be honest, was cultural. Engineers and CS people, despite the similarity in training, are very different (IMHO!) in culture. At CMU at least, the engineers were the conservative, quiet types, and the CS people tended to be the more liberal or radical ones, and often stood out more from a cultural or social standpoint. So maybe you fit into one cultural group much more clearly than the other (or maybe you disdain one of the two cultures). That's another guideline.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you elaborate? A Catholic English version of the Bible predates the King James Version (1611), which is pretty much the earliest Protestant bible in use today. It was called the Douay-Rheims bible (1582 New Testament, 1609 Old Testament). A cardinal helped translate it, which should dispel notions that it was done in secret outside the good graces of the Church. Later (1750) a related version, the Challoner (now typically known as the Douay-Rheims or Douay-Rheims-Challoner version) was published by a bishop (Richard Challoner) and is still popular today.
It was certainly true that for a long time Latin was preferred, if not exclusively used before the Douay-Rheims, but keep in mind that for much of the history of the West, anyone who was literate read and wrote Latin, so that even scientific works were composed in Latin. So having only Latin bibles wasn't that big a problem as anyone who could read, could read them. It was the English of the world.
You say, "If religious indoctrination and propaganda starts to move online, that is a huge win for skeptics." I think you're off by at least 20 years. Religious "indoctrination and propaganda" has been around the Internet since long before the web existed. I know, I was one who "indoctrinated" and "propagandized". We have nothing to fear from the light of truth, since the Author of Truth is the One we proclaim. Swords cut both ways.
While the smug CS grads may be correct that in CS you learn more theory, and that CS grads (well, CS grads from pre-eminent schools) are better equipped to write more theoretically efficient algorithms than CompEs are, to be honest, most of the code in my industry is really not all that complicated. Clever algorithms are great for solving the problems that they fit, but a great number of programming problems just don't benefit from any mathematical analysis at all. I've barely applied anything beyond the simplest mathematics in my coding, and even where mathematics is truly relevant (e.g. queueing theory), it takes such complex mathematics to model the simplest, most ideal system that the math may benefit you in abstract comprehension and intuitive understanding, but not in coding.
The other thing to consider is that code that is "efficient" at a theoretical level may be quite inefficient at a practical level, because of insufficient understanding of the low-level details (such as the ridiculous amount of overhead that C++ drags into an application).
The appropriate skills to have depends on the problem. You need the theory of CS to make good compilers, encryption engines, graphics rendering engines, etc. You don't necessarily need a lot of it to forward packets, or design a GUI, or to program a piece of hardware.
Don't listen to those who malign or exalt one or the other; which one is right depends strictly on you. Do you like to build, create, and solve real-world problems? Do you like getting "down and dirty" in the hardware? CE is better for you. Do you prefer more abstract work, such as designing algorithms or solving theoretical problems? Do you prefer to remain aloof from the grungy details? CS is probably better. So think about what you like best about computers, and use that as a guide. If you're less interested in solving concrete problems or practical applications, that would be CS; if you get frustrated by having to study stuff that has no apparent real-world application, that would be CE.
While it is true that CE is often more hardware oriented, I work as a software engineer (albeit on low-level embedded software), and if you want to do hardware, EE is really most appropriate.
I would also point out that the difference depends a lot on the university; as others have pointed out, the semantics are frequently distorted. At CMU, the CE degree was mostly the EE degree with the analog stuff replaced with CS courses. The CS degree was actually much more math-oriented, though it is not so at all schools (sometimes, it's just programming). I saw many people attempt one major unsuccessfully and switch to the other. I think this was due more to personal temperment than whether one was "harder" or "easier" than the other.
Another aspect, though, to be honest, was cultural. Engineers and CS people, despite the similarity in training, are very different (IMHO!) in culture. At CMU at least, the engineers were the conservative, quiet types, and the CS people tended to be the more liberal or radical ones, and often stood out more from a cultural or social standpoint. So maybe you fit into one cultural group much more clearly than the other (or maybe you disdain one of the two cultures). That's another guideline.
Eric