Proving NP-completeness is a Mathematical process which involves performing a turing reduction on an NP-complete problem to the unknown problem (or the other way around, can't remember).
Its not like some guy went "Oh yeah! Its NP complete, because my lucky 8-ball said so"
Unfortunately, the author of this paper has claimed that his algorithm is P simply using the 8-ball proof. There's no turing reduction of 3-SAT to his method, no soundness or completeness proof on his algorithm, and no algorithmic analysis other than "I ran it many times". The likelihood of this claim being false is astronomically higher than the likelihood that 3-SAT was proven to be NP-Complete (esp since they make us rework and understand the proof to get a higher level degree in CS)
I believe the burden of proving this correct rests with the author of the paper. I have read his paper, and he has not proven that his algorithm is polynomial, nor has he proven that his algorithm is a sound and complete reduction from 3-SAT. There's no need to say he's wrong, only that he certainly hasn't proven himself to be right.
Absolutely untrue. All experts in the field that I've spoken to think that P is probably not equal to NP, but that a proof either way is going to be very hard.
Absolutely correct. The difference between say, computer science and sociology, is that computer scientists require absolute proofs. In other words, if you claim that P==NP, as this paper does, then I require you to show that it is so for all possible inputs.
The paper, in fact, does not show such a thing. To the contrary, it fails to show a sound and complete reduction of 3-SAT to hyperstructures, or CTF or CTS or whatever other acronyms were made up by the author. I'm not saying that he's wrong, simply that this is not a proof - it is only a claim. The author claims to have "proven" his algorithm is polynomial time by giving it a smattering of inputs and noting that the time the algorithm took to complete increased by a polynomial factor of the input size.
Clearly the author has not studied his algorithmic complexity texts well enough to understand the definition of Big-O. Big-O only claims that algorithmic growth is asymptotic to a given curve as the input size goes to infinity from some value n0. In other words, many algorithms may display linear growth to a point, and then become exponential after input size greater than n0. A statistical analysis will not prove anything. The author needs to do a full algorithmic analysis instead.
I predict this paper will be rapidly debunked and we will still not know if P==NP.
In true/. style, I watched the video without reading anything else. As I was staring at the colors changing, everything started rotating so I focused on the center dot, wondering what was going to happen next. As I did this, I lost all perception of color changes and only saw the motion. Sooooooo, either I'm not a world class gamer like Trouvist, or the affect was pretty much as reported by the researchers. I'm gonna go with option b on this one.
Let's start with stating very clearly that I do not condone what we did to the Indians, nor do I say that it was good, moral, or just. I'm making distinctions between two different levels of immoral behavior and both of these events are dark chapters in history for mankind.
That said, there is a very real distinction between westward expansion and the Jewish Holocaust, and to say the two are morally equivalent is to show a complete lack of moral reasoning. Let's look at some of the history leading up to what was done to the Indians:
French and Indian War - armed Indians fighting a war against British troops and subjects. Included scalpings, killing of innocents as well as militia and military.
The Indian Wars ranging from the late 1700's through to almost 1900
American Imperialism (i.e. Manifest Destiny) which was an acceptable method of country building during that era
Pent up hatred on both sides due to atrocities committed by both sides (I've twice seen references to testicle bags, but no one seems to mention that the Indians collected scalps from their victims and one was retaliation for the other)
You'll note that from the first settlements of New England, through to the final removal of Indians to reservations, a great deal of violence took place on both sides. True, the Indians were defending their land and livelihood; the settlers were the invaders. My point is that there was a war between the two over a desired resource. Both sides committed atrocities against the other, and most of the things you point out occurred as part of a natural escalation of violence between the two sides.
Let's contrast this with the Nazis and Jews. There was no war between them. Jewish resistance was token at best. The Jews had nothing the Nazis desired.
Once more, neither of these is praiseworthy or justifiable. The point is that the Nazis committed unprovoked atrocities against the Jews with little to no resistance while the Americans committed atrocities during a war of invasion that lasted over 100 years. If you say that those two sets of atrocities are morally equivalent, then that is truly a sad indictment on your moral thinking.
How we did worse things to the indian population than Hitler did.
Citation sorely needed for the "worse" part. Looks like ordinary conquest and the methods used were the only effective way to win by conquest. None of that was "wrong" at the time, and it bears reminding that conquest was normal and acceptable worldwide.
Actually, he's quite right. Hitler didn't do a thing to the Indians. Compared to nothing, we're just a bunch of bastards. Of course, if you meant rounding up non-resisting citizens, stripping them naked, and gassing them to death, I guess my education comes from the "wrong side of history" because none of those actions - or anything remotely as vile - were mentioned.
Note: for all those who intend to pile on and tell me all the atrocities committed against Indians, don't bother, I'm not defending America's westward expansion techniques any more than I'm defending Hitler. I'm simply pointing out that there are degrees of evil, and Hitler was quite a bit further up the scale than those darned expansionists.
It's also been so frequently misused that Halfhill was forced to define Moron's Law, which states that "the number of ignorant references to Moore's Law doubles every 12 months."
There are only 13 posts so far, and yet/. is still on track to meet this law. Great job everyone.
Or you can rent a 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath 2000 s.f. single family home on half an acre for the same amount you are quoting for that apartment in queens. Some of us like our space.
No one is going after the NYT or any other news outlet that has released the documents because there is not enough political will to do so, not because no law was broken. What you see now is nothing but political theater, plain and simple. Politicians are whining about prosecuting Assange for breaking laws he's not bound to, while at the same time avoiding going after those in the US who broke the same laws. Those politicians are doing this because they either don't understand the laws they write, or they are afraid of being accused of reconstituting McCarthyism. Either way, that doesn't mean the law wasn't broken.
some buzzed driver who refused a breathalyzer but not otherwise detain-able causes an accident that kills your spouse/kid/sibling/parent/someone you don't or otherwise wouldn't have ever know
In your example, there is probable cause - the smell of alcohol on his breath. In TFA, what is proposed is a stop for any driver, followed by a breathalyser test for that driver. If you refuse, despite not having any alcohol on your breath, a judge can rule that your refusal to submit to a test constitutes guilt and therefore is probable cause to order a blood test. Since TFA doesn't mention it, I don't know if there are any legal protections such as outside observers that can corroborate that a driver's breath smells like alcohol. Without some kind of check on the police at the checkpoint, there is no way to guarantee that the cop isn't just making it up to get the warrant from the judge.
The law still requires probable cause to make a stop or an arrest. These checkpoints already border on the edge of that idea - they've been upheld in court, but can still be challenged as illegal http://www.newjerseydwilawyer.com/Legal_Challenges_to_Sobriety_Checkpoints.html. This new development blows right through probable cause line, laughing at it as they lurch into unconstitutional "guilty until you admit your guilt" territory.
all on top of a common foundation of populist authoritarianism.
Perhaps it's something entirely different. Perhaps 80% of people understand that the release of most of these documents had nothing to do with holding the government accountable, but rather was intended as a detrimental action against the government. Couple that with the fact that even journalists are criminally liable for releasing documents that are known to be illegally obtained. Wikileaks broke a federal law. So did the New York Times. It has nothing to do with freedom of the press - these organisations violated federal law. That's why 80% of the people think what they did was wrong. The fact that you support it only means that maybe your viewpoint is in the vast minority and is also possibly wrong. It's quite narcissistic of you to think that since you think it's good and 80% of America thinks it's bad, that 80% must just be stupid or misinformed. It's far more likely that you are the one who needs to think things through a little more.
Indeed, Beck's tirades about net neutrality rely heavily (and mistakenly) on OMB official Cass Sunstein's 2002 book, which discussed the idea of using government regulation to require websites to link to opposing viewpoints. But Sunstein renounced this proposal years ago, calling it a "bad idea" and "unconstitutional."
Here, a nice juicy bone for you instead (it says Glenn Beck is misinformed, so once you've stopped salivating over that, read the rest where it says that Cass Sunstein called for a fairness doctrine in his 2002 book). In fact, the reportage is correct, it simply leaves out Sunstein's renouncement of his own idea. In other words, it's spin, much like MSNBC is spin in a different direction. This doesn't negate the fact that the idea is out there. If you look at what Rush is complaining about (I'm not a Rush listener BTW), he's concerned that someone might want to do what Mr. Sunstein has proposed using the FCC as the tool to get it done.
Not one week ago,/. was nearly apoplectic over the fact that the FCC rule-making didn't provide net neutrality "like we wanted". Now we're gasping about those nutty right wingers who've said that net neutrality is simply a political tool to gain regulatory power and that it might not be what advocates really want. Is it so hard to see that we're not getting what we want from the FCC rulemaking, and that this is one of those things better left alone? At a bare minimum, it should fall on Congress to pass a law to regulate this rather than the FCC just deciding they want to. As almost every article linked in this discussion says, neutrality and fairness are not the same thing. The reason they are not the same is that public airwaves/= internet connectivity, ergo, not the FCC's bailiwick.
What the FCC is showing here, however, is not what I and other like-minded folks are advocating.
Welcome to the dark side brother. I've been against government-mandated net neutrality since this conversation started only because I work for the government and I know that anything we attempt to do becomes tainted by politics, money, and bureaucracy. If you want to see changes, don't mess with getting laws written, that will almost always result in something hated by most. Instead, work to change the minds of society. It's longer, harder work, but if you have the majority of people demanding neutrality from the ISPs, then the ISPs will cater to that.
As soon as you find yourself saying "There should be a law against this", you've probably gone the wrong direction.
because users otherwise would start marking themselves as higher priority than other users
Reminds me of the old Sun days when Sun workstations used a back-off algorithm that ensured less back-off than the non-Sun workstations. Whenever there was a collision on the line, the Sun would get first dibs because it backed off less. They bragged about how it was faster than other computers on the network. Then people put a bunch of Suns on the network together and they DoS'd each other all day long. We've seen it done once, why wouldn't people do it again with QoS?
I guess most/.ers are too young to remember those days....Now get off my lawn!
I'm well aware of ABET requirements having taught in an ABET accredited department and being part of our 10 year recertification.
ABET offers a great set of requirements for the curriculum to follow, and ensures consistency between universities, however it fails to manage expectations. To wit, an earlier poster lamented that CS majors are poor IT professionals. There is nothing in ABET requiring classes in the specific skill sets used by computer technicians. ABET doesn't cover network engineering explicitly. Sure, it covers the foundational knowledge for these topics, but it is not intended to educate students to the standards expected by the IT industry. I would argue this is a problem with the IT industry's expectations and not the ABET accreditation. As I said above, CS is too large, too fractured, and too poorly defined, so everyone has their own idea about what it should be, even with professional accreditation sources.
Yeah, I can't say that I know how to work with AD. I know I can figure it out in a weekend, but that's an application of knowledge. The point of CS should be to learn the underpinnings of how computers and algorithms work. That way, when faced with something like setting up a Windows network, you can learn the local dialect (MS in this case) and apply it to what you know (communications protocols, network routing, security practices, etc.).
CS isn't and shouldn't be the training route for an IT job. Most IT jobs involve specialised and focused skills that are learned through training on that particular piece of equipment. CS is a degree, not a training program. It should focus on the how and why of computers and algorithms. It should definitely be much more theoretical than practical in that regard (think science, not engineering).
Your post is actually a great example of the confusion surrounding the definition of Computer Science. No one would confuse the pilot of an airplane with an aerodynamic engineer. The skill set of one is not necessary or sufficient for the other. Yet there are countless posts on slashdot lamenting that CS majors don't know how to use a Cisco switch, configure a firewall, manage a server, etc. I would liken IT experts to pilots, and computer scientists to aero engineers. One is a highly skilled, well trained expert who knows his assigned systems inside and out. The other is a highly educated professional who is responsible for discovering new uses of computer systems, their limits, and the science of how they work. Neither is a menial job, and neither is more important than the other, but they are also not the same thing at all.
The key point of this discussion is that many people go for a CS degree expecting to receive IT training, while many others expect to get an engineering-style degree. In either case, the school you choose will dictate which of those degrees you get even though both of them tout it as Computer Science. It is this ambiguity, fed by poor definitions and bad expectations, that is causing grief throughout the computer world.
In my experience, most programming these days is done by EE folks anyway. The CS folks spend all their time on web development and don't go anywhere near the software/hardware interface. Programming is a skill that anyone with an interest can learn and become quite good at. I'd suggest continuing your EE degree, and learning more about programming on the side. You'll likely be happy with how it turns out in the end.
The problem is that computers can do an awful lot. In studying CS, you can specialise in computer security, networking, operating systems, embedded computing, artificial intelligence, robotics, search, optimization, high performance computing, distributed computing, cloud computing...the list is long and distinguished.
As for reading hex dumps, that's mostly relegated to the EE folks now. They tend to do a lot of CSy stuff at the hardware/software interface while the CS folks tend to stay at the higher layers.
Agreed, unfortunately, Java lends itself to that. You end up teaching a lot of java-specific stuff just to have enough foundation to work on the fundamentals. It's a tough problem.
The tools of the trade are pencil and paper mostly.
Bingo! For PhD study, I've done about 1000:1 writing up my ideas versus programming. If your first inclination in CS is to go to the IDE and start banging away, you're probably wrong. Design and theory are the two greatest tools to the computer scientist. The programming aspects, while important, are a tiny fraction of what you really do. I suspect the same is true of those developers out there who work at the higher CMM level companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Proving NP-completeness is a Mathematical process which involves performing a turing reduction on an NP-complete problem to the unknown problem (or the other way around, can't remember).
Its not like some guy went "Oh yeah! Its NP complete, because my lucky 8-ball said so"
Unfortunately, the author of this paper has claimed that his algorithm is P simply using the 8-ball proof. There's no turing reduction of 3-SAT to his method, no soundness or completeness proof on his algorithm, and no algorithmic analysis other than "I ran it many times". The likelihood of this claim being false is astronomically higher than the likelihood that 3-SAT was proven to be NP-Complete (esp since they make us rework and understand the proof to get a higher level degree in CS)
I believe the burden of proving this correct rests with the author of the paper. I have read his paper, and he has not proven that his algorithm is polynomial, nor has he proven that his algorithm is a sound and complete reduction from 3-SAT. There's no need to say he's wrong, only that he certainly hasn't proven himself to be right.
Absolutely untrue. All experts in the field that I've spoken to think that P is probably not equal to NP, but that a proof either way is going to be very hard.
Absolutely correct. The difference between say, computer science and sociology, is that computer scientists require absolute proofs. In other words, if you claim that P==NP, as this paper does, then I require you to show that it is so for all possible inputs.
The paper, in fact, does not show such a thing. To the contrary, it fails to show a sound and complete reduction of 3-SAT to hyperstructures, or CTF or CTS or whatever other acronyms were made up by the author. I'm not saying that he's wrong, simply that this is not a proof - it is only a claim. The author claims to have "proven" his algorithm is polynomial time by giving it a smattering of inputs and noting that the time the algorithm took to complete increased by a polynomial factor of the input size.
Clearly the author has not studied his algorithmic complexity texts well enough to understand the definition of Big-O. Big-O only claims that algorithmic growth is asymptotic to a given curve as the input size goes to infinity from some value n0. In other words, many algorithms may display linear growth to a point, and then become exponential after input size greater than n0. A statistical analysis will not prove anything. The author needs to do a full algorithmic analysis instead.
I predict this paper will be rapidly debunked and we will still not know if P==NP.
In true /. style, I watched the video without reading anything else. As I was staring at the colors changing, everything started rotating so I focused on the center dot, wondering what was going to happen next. As I did this, I lost all perception of color changes and only saw the motion. Sooooooo, either I'm not a world class gamer like Trouvist, or the affect was pretty much as reported by the researchers. I'm gonna go with option b on this one.
Let's start with stating very clearly that I do not condone what we did to the Indians, nor do I say that it was good, moral, or just. I'm making distinctions between two different levels of immoral behavior and both of these events are dark chapters in history for mankind.
That said, there is a very real distinction between westward expansion and the Jewish Holocaust, and to say the two are morally equivalent is to show a complete lack of moral reasoning. Let's look at some of the history leading up to what was done to the Indians:
You'll note that from the first settlements of New England, through to the final removal of Indians to reservations, a great deal of violence took place on both sides. True, the Indians were defending their land and livelihood; the settlers were the invaders. My point is that there was a war between the two over a desired resource. Both sides committed atrocities against the other, and most of the things you point out occurred as part of a natural escalation of violence between the two sides.
Let's contrast this with the Nazis and Jews. There was no war between them. Jewish resistance was token at best. The Jews had nothing the Nazis desired.
Once more, neither of these is praiseworthy or justifiable. The point is that the Nazis committed unprovoked atrocities against the Jews with little to no resistance while the Americans committed atrocities during a war of invasion that lasted over 100 years. If you say that those two sets of atrocities are morally equivalent, then that is truly a sad indictment on your moral thinking.
How we did worse things to the indian population than Hitler did.
Citation sorely needed for the "worse" part. Looks like ordinary conquest and the methods used were the only effective way to win by conquest. None of that was "wrong" at the time, and it bears reminding that conquest was normal and acceptable worldwide.
Actually, he's quite right. Hitler didn't do a thing to the Indians. Compared to nothing, we're just a bunch of bastards. Of course, if you meant rounding up non-resisting citizens, stripping them naked, and gassing them to death, I guess my education comes from the "wrong side of history" because none of those actions - or anything remotely as vile - were mentioned.
Note: for all those who intend to pile on and tell me all the atrocities committed against Indians, don't bother, I'm not defending America's westward expansion techniques any more than I'm defending Hitler. I'm simply pointing out that there are degrees of evil, and Hitler was quite a bit further up the scale than those darned expansionists.
It's also been so frequently misused that Halfhill was forced to define Moron's Law, which states that "the number of ignorant references to Moore's Law doubles every 12 months."
There are only 13 posts so far, and yet /. is still on track to meet this law. Great job everyone.
Or you can simply buy an iPhone which will randomly allow you to sleep till noon....
As Richard Hamming has said: "We discovered the easy stuff back in the 50s. Now it's up to you [students] to figure out the hard stuff."
Or you can rent a 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath 2000 s.f. single family home on half an acre for the same amount you are quoting for that apartment in queens. Some of us like our space.
No one is going after the NYT or any other news outlet that has released the documents because there is not enough political will to do so, not because no law was broken. What you see now is nothing but political theater, plain and simple. Politicians are whining about prosecuting Assange for breaking laws he's not bound to, while at the same time avoiding going after those in the US who broke the same laws. Those politicians are doing this because they either don't understand the laws they write, or they are afraid of being accused of reconstituting McCarthyism. Either way, that doesn't mean the law wasn't broken.
some buzzed driver who refused a breathalyzer but not otherwise detain-able causes an accident that kills your spouse/kid/sibling/parent/someone you don't or otherwise wouldn't have ever know
In your example, there is probable cause - the smell of alcohol on his breath. In TFA, what is proposed is a stop for any driver, followed by a breathalyser test for that driver. If you refuse, despite not having any alcohol on your breath, a judge can rule that your refusal to submit to a test constitutes guilt and therefore is probable cause to order a blood test. Since TFA doesn't mention it, I don't know if there are any legal protections such as outside observers that can corroborate that a driver's breath smells like alcohol. Without some kind of check on the police at the checkpoint, there is no way to guarantee that the cop isn't just making it up to get the warrant from the judge.
The law still requires probable cause to make a stop or an arrest. These checkpoints already border on the edge of that idea - they've been upheld in court, but can still be challenged as illegal http://www.newjerseydwilawyer.com/Legal_Challenges_to_Sobriety_Checkpoints.html. This new development blows right through probable cause line, laughing at it as they lurch into unconstitutional "guilty until you admit your guilt" territory.
all on top of a common foundation of populist authoritarianism.
Perhaps it's something entirely different. Perhaps 80% of people understand that the release of most of these documents had nothing to do with holding the government accountable, but rather was intended as a detrimental action against the government. Couple that with the fact that even journalists are criminally liable for releasing documents that are known to be illegally obtained. Wikileaks broke a federal law. So did the New York Times. It has nothing to do with freedom of the press - these organisations violated federal law. That's why 80% of the people think what they did was wrong. The fact that you support it only means that maybe your viewpoint is in the vast minority and is also possibly wrong. It's quite narcissistic of you to think that since you think it's good and 80% of America thinks it's bad, that 80% must just be stupid or misinformed. It's far more likely that you are the one who needs to think things through a little more.
Indeed, Beck's tirades about net neutrality rely heavily (and mistakenly) on OMB official Cass Sunstein's 2002 book, which discussed the idea of using government regulation to require websites to link to opposing viewpoints. But Sunstein renounced this proposal years ago, calling it a "bad idea" and "unconstitutional."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012080028
Here, a nice juicy bone for you instead (it says Glenn Beck is misinformed, so once you've stopped salivating over that, read the rest where it says that Cass Sunstein called for a fairness doctrine in his 2002 book). In fact, the reportage is correct, it simply leaves out Sunstein's renouncement of his own idea. In other words, it's spin, much like MSNBC is spin in a different direction. This doesn't negate the fact that the idea is out there. If you look at what Rush is complaining about (I'm not a Rush listener BTW), he's concerned that someone might want to do what Mr. Sunstein has proposed using the FCC as the tool to get it done.
Not one week ago, /. was nearly apoplectic over the fact that the FCC rule-making didn't provide net neutrality "like we wanted". Now we're gasping about those nutty right wingers who've said that net neutrality is simply a political tool to gain regulatory power and that it might not be what advocates really want. Is it so hard to see that we're not getting what we want from the FCC rulemaking, and that this is one of those things better left alone? At a bare minimum, it should fall on Congress to pass a law to regulate this rather than the FCC just deciding they want to. As almost every article linked in this discussion says, neutrality and fairness are not the same thing. The reason they are not the same is that public airwaves /= internet connectivity, ergo, not the FCC's bailiwick.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fairness+doctrine+white+house+czar Fixed that for you.
Here you go:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Cass+Sunstein+internet+fairness+doctrine
Now was that so hard?
What the FCC is showing here, however, is not what I and other like-minded folks are advocating.
Welcome to the dark side brother. I've been against government-mandated net neutrality since this conversation started only because I work for the government and I know that anything we attempt to do becomes tainted by politics, money, and bureaucracy. If you want to see changes, don't mess with getting laws written, that will almost always result in something hated by most. Instead, work to change the minds of society. It's longer, harder work, but if you have the majority of people demanding neutrality from the ISPs, then the ISPs will cater to that.
As soon as you find yourself saying "There should be a law against this", you've probably gone the wrong direction.
because users otherwise would start marking themselves as higher priority than other users
Reminds me of the old Sun days when Sun workstations used a back-off algorithm that ensured less back-off than the non-Sun workstations. Whenever there was a collision on the line, the Sun would get first dibs because it backed off less. They bragged about how it was faster than other computers on the network. Then people put a bunch of Suns on the network together and they DoS'd each other all day long. We've seen it done once, why wouldn't people do it again with QoS?
I guess most /.ers are too young to remember those days....Now get off my lawn!
I'm well aware of ABET requirements having taught in an ABET accredited department and being part of our 10 year recertification.
ABET offers a great set of requirements for the curriculum to follow, and ensures consistency between universities, however it fails to manage expectations. To wit, an earlier poster lamented that CS majors are poor IT professionals. There is nothing in ABET requiring classes in the specific skill sets used by computer technicians. ABET doesn't cover network engineering explicitly. Sure, it covers the foundational knowledge for these topics, but it is not intended to educate students to the standards expected by the IT industry. I would argue this is a problem with the IT industry's expectations and not the ABET accreditation. As I said above, CS is too large, too fractured, and too poorly defined, so everyone has their own idea about what it should be, even with professional accreditation sources.
Yeah, I can't say that I know how to work with AD. I know I can figure it out in a weekend, but that's an application of knowledge. The point of CS should be to learn the underpinnings of how computers and algorithms work. That way, when faced with something like setting up a Windows network, you can learn the local dialect (MS in this case) and apply it to what you know (communications protocols, network routing, security practices, etc.).
CS isn't and shouldn't be the training route for an IT job. Most IT jobs involve specialised and focused skills that are learned through training on that particular piece of equipment. CS is a degree, not a training program. It should focus on the how and why of computers and algorithms. It should definitely be much more theoretical than practical in that regard (think science, not engineering).
Your post is actually a great example of the confusion surrounding the definition of Computer Science. No one would confuse the pilot of an airplane with an aerodynamic engineer. The skill set of one is not necessary or sufficient for the other. Yet there are countless posts on slashdot lamenting that CS majors don't know how to use a Cisco switch, configure a firewall, manage a server, etc. I would liken IT experts to pilots, and computer scientists to aero engineers. One is a highly skilled, well trained expert who knows his assigned systems inside and out. The other is a highly educated professional who is responsible for discovering new uses of computer systems, their limits, and the science of how they work. Neither is a menial job, and neither is more important than the other, but they are also not the same thing at all.
The key point of this discussion is that many people go for a CS degree expecting to receive IT training, while many others expect to get an engineering-style degree. In either case, the school you choose will dictate which of those degrees you get even though both of them tout it as Computer Science. It is this ambiguity, fed by poor definitions and bad expectations, that is causing grief throughout the computer world.
In my experience, most programming these days is done by EE folks anyway. The CS folks spend all their time on web development and don't go anywhere near the software/hardware interface. Programming is a skill that anyone with an interest can learn and become quite good at. I'd suggest continuing your EE degree, and learning more about programming on the side. You'll likely be happy with how it turns out in the end.
The problem is that computers can do an awful lot. In studying CS, you can specialise in computer security, networking, operating systems, embedded computing, artificial intelligence, robotics, search, optimization, high performance computing, distributed computing, cloud computing...the list is long and distinguished.
As for reading hex dumps, that's mostly relegated to the EE folks now. They tend to do a lot of CSy stuff at the hardware/software interface while the CS folks tend to stay at the higher layers.
Agreed, unfortunately, Java lends itself to that. You end up teaching a lot of java-specific stuff just to have enough foundation to work on the fundamentals. It's a tough problem.
The tools of the trade are pencil and paper mostly.
Bingo! For PhD study, I've done about 1000:1 writing up my ideas versus programming. If your first inclination in CS is to go to the IDE and start banging away, you're probably wrong. Design and theory are the two greatest tools to the computer scientist. The programming aspects, while important, are a tiny fraction of what you really do. I suspect the same is true of those developers out there who work at the higher CMM level companies.
I bet they call it "using the Internet" as opposed to the "World Wide Web" too.