yeah i know it's a message for Canadians, but my comment was about the *significance* of the bulletin and *who is responsible*...because that's part of how you **fix the problem**
it exhibits "wave/particle duality"...it's not like a super-ball that's bouncing around a room...it's not matter...so how could these researchers possibly say that something that has no resting mass can be 'frozen in place'...
it's a wave...you can't "freeze" a wave...you freeze **the ocean**
Law Enforcement requires **constant** oversight or this will happen with certainty, in **any** situation on a long enough timeline...power corrupts and oversight is the only check on power
In America today, there is ***one group*** who constantly deprives government of its oversight abilities through budgetary deprivation: Republicans
I don't need Canada to tell me that the GOP is hates government oversight...but the fact that the issue is so bad they make an announcement about...that's noteworthy
sure let's give credit where credit is due: Gorbechov and his scalp birthmark opened Russia, then the world stood by as oligarchs filled the power vaccum
President Reagan is a fraud & his legacy is a pox upon my fair country
that being said, i feel that the example of the 'West' and especially America using "soft power" like economics and pop culture, proved that freedom/democracy is the only way to govern people
this is interesting stuff...i like the take on history
American involvement...now, I agree that totalitarian regimes eventually fall...but it is precisely **because of America** that the major totalitarian powers fell in the 20th Century
Yes...Russia, Japan, Germany...all defeated by America
Now...Chile, Argentina, Iraq (x2)...etc...Yes that was the same America!
Here's the key to undestanding the contradiction: America, just like the world itself, is in constant struggle between our democracy and our oligarchy...when Oligarchy wins you get Chile and Argentina...when Democracy wins in America, it wins in the world too
it's not "because America"...it's because Oligarchy vs Democracy...and America, due to here fine and beautiful natural resources, just happens to be at the front of the fight...but we all are too, every day of our lives!
IMHO the Turing test is a solipsism...i use a conceptual definition of code: for me personally any system of alpha/numberic that programs machine behavior is "code" and the act of using that code to return specific behavior is "programing"
i just think the whole Turing thing is irrelevant, and the computability function kind of goes along with it...it's all an unnecessary abrstraction describing machines and their function
i mentioned the 'HTML5 is not a language' controversy because i've seen alot of trolls on/. saying it is not (and they are therefore somehow superior) and TFA clearly is written by a programmer and he included them as languages
from a purely technical perspective, the Zune interested me because you could really use it as a hybrid external drive and output any media file to any device...see, technically ****all devices can do that**** but because of copyright, artificial scarcity, bad design, and bloat most of the time we get devices from the manufacturer that are locked down (ex: iphone)
of course, Zune's problem was M$...they had to slap their proprietary stuff onto the Zune to make sure you paid a monthly fee somehow
i had a friend who bought a Zune even though we all told him not too...he's a non-techie, outdoors type and wanted to do his research and make his big purchase...we all felt bad b/c he sort of just believed M$ wouldn't lock him out of his own device to play his own music...seriously...it was funny in that many of his friends tried to be like, "look, i know Apple is obnoxious, but if you're going to do this..."
I dove into TFA because the description lists *Scala* with languages like COBOL as both being "unpopular"...not sure if Scala is "unpopular" in the way COBOL is that...
in it, he lists HTML5/CSS3/PHP as *2* of the 5! haha! i hope this doesn't cause another round of "HTML5 isnt a language" arguments...Erlang gets a shout out
good articles...i'd stay away from anything M$ proprietary so that #F language or w/e I don't agree with...but i like his analysis in both articles and learned alot...
Amazon is a victim of their own hubris, not Apple.
Only an idiot or egomaniac would think that Amazon could compete with that product...that phone...it had too many dumb bells and whistles (3D screen! ooh shiny!) but all the important details were wrong.
Amazon lost out to a better designed, better marketed, more established, funner to use product...just like M$ did with Zune
i'm not "too deep" it's that my audience is touchy and easily offended
how and why film/television influence behavior is a complex question...your Fast & Furious example is a classic instance of assuming correlation means causation
i'm not saying there isn't a link between film/tv and what people think is popular...however you're comitting a logical fallacy to say that i'm overcomplicating
maybe i could edit my comment down, but there is too much pride/ego tied to the words 'geek, dork, and nerd' to just jump into a discussion without defining a bit of context for the words
IMHO, i think Stallman gets tripped up with execution...which is guided by those uber-specific obtuse definitions he uses for concepts like what 'free and open source' mean
if anything, he's an uncomprimising idealist...
your point #2 rings especially true with my experience here on/. I've been reading since 2001 (didn't make an account until 2006 because **i didnt think i had earned it**) and back in the day i learned alot about how the industry really works from reading these boards, which were posts written by people who were inspired by Stallman
maybe it's a case of being too close to your philosophical hero...we see all his warts & flaws not the ideas which made him famous
dorks don't want anyone else to play with their expensive toys...that's one way to look at this...
NASA is awesome...because they are the institution that goes to space...their **task** is awesome
**execution** has always been an area for improvement...NASA can be awesome and still have major problems!!!
it comes down to bean counters vs explorers...aka ***risk analysis***
the prototypical example of this is the Mercury astronauts and their crusade to include the human in the mission
the old saying goes "paralysis by analysis"
however you contextualize the problem, the root cause is faulty risk assessment...the entire notion of risk assessment in project management has become a clusterfuck of cause/effect errors & voodoo quantification of non-quant factors
NASA isn't alone in this, of course...**every beauracracy** tends to have these problems...
i'm not anti-NASA...I'm pro human spaceflight and human space exploration...i love these rovers too...let's put them to work and not be afraid to break them!
using words is "labelling"...if what you say is true then speech itself is pointless
the problem isn't "labelling"...it's people who consciously affect the meanings of words for strategic ends over decades...like the word "feminism"...
with "communism" it's common knowledge that the word isn't helpful for discussion...
"labelling" a thing is necessary...every idea we can think of can be "labelled" by representing it with words
what is pointless?
**arguing over definitions instead of ideas**
many people say "i disagree with Stallman".....which is *fine*...what is trolling is the insistence on making the point of controversy something that will always cause endless arguments
arguing over bullshit is pointless..."labelling" things is necessary
i agree that Stallman's hyper-specific definitions are obtuse and ruin his theories...but they key here is to understand where he goes wrong and why it doesn't matter to discussions about FOSS
in Stallman, you can see the problem many anarchist/libertarian types have across disciplines...the problems they raise are good, their arguments are solid, but their conclusions about how to **move forward and fix the problem** are stilted and unworkable
it usually comes down to **language distinctions** which have deep consequences, and the mistake is to make distinctions linguistically where none exist functionally...you see a sort of logic game where every end is gamed out when forming language ontology...it's a fool's game...
Stallman is not a "communist"...it's 2014, and we've progressed as a society beyond pointless politically charged words like 'communism' because it means 'totalitarian state' in some contexts and 'socialist utopia' in others...one has freedom one does not...it has cause **litterally** millions of unecessary arguments for decades in the 20th century
slapping a dumb label like "communist" on theories like Stallman's only serves to cause confusion and pointless arguments
so the whole "nerd" culture thing...wow...it's easy for these discussion to go off the rails but you guys are making sense at least...
let's start with the words: nerd, dork, geek - these words mean *the same thing* to some people, and others they are idenfiably different...but there is absolutely *no agreed definition*...and the definition of these words determines ***everything*** in this discussion
depending on context, nerd, dork, & geek could be an insult, a compliment, or a neutral descriptor
BBT to some people is a "good show" because it "makes nerds look cool"
so much linguistic complexity to unpack!
1. "good show" for some people means a show they identify with...no baseline comparison...no attempt at consistentcy...just "i like it, therefore it is a good TV show"
2. depiction as approval - some people feel like virtually **any** mainstream attention to their cause/behavior is akin to **approval**...it's a corrolary to the "any press is good press" maxim...I'm not saying it's true, just that people do it!
3. multiple creative origins...who makes BBT? who is responsible for the choices? many, many people...the actors are all on their own planet...the writers of the show come and go by episode and year...depending on the "showrunner" the plots of the stories it could be all directed from the producers and the writers just insert dialogue *or* the writers may get more freedom...these are factors that only people who've worked in TV (i did briefly!) would really see...
this is relevant because any *one* thing depicted on BBT may be attributable to the actions of **several** people...writers, producers, actors, set designers...it could be any or all of them, all with different interpretations and goals...so we're never going to *really* know were any one BBT depiction comes from...though we can narrow it down
so...does BBT make "nerds look cool"???
no
it depicts the show's "nerds" as so much smarter than average people that their behavior is simply unfathomable and it depicts them as successful and competent at their specialty (if incompetent socially)
to **you** that is "cool"....to others, having a certain haircut will *always* look "uncool"
that's the problem...when you start talking about "cool" you are talking about the opposite of quantitative...it's the most subjective thing we could talk about practically
so I think alot of BBT's popularity is not that it is a "good" show...it's popular because it depicts things that make "nerds" feel good about themselves in some way...whether accidental or not...it's just analysis
to me, knowing how to do things that people need done is a sure way to being considered valuable...which brings to mind an old saying that i don't agree with but I think is relevant...
IMHO the show "Big Bang Theory" is not a quality TV show...at best it's C+ material.
Now, scientific accuracy and a "quality TV show" are in no way related...but there is a way to understand the difference.
Breaking Bad...praised for its realism by virtually everyone who has watched it, has certain key chemistry facts which are purposefully incorrect...so it's not ****technically**** scientifically accurate...
Big Bang Theory...you could argue it is more scientifically accurate than Breaking Bad...but in all other depictions ***less realistic***
humor is of course subjective, and if you find Big Bang Theory funny I am happy for you...but we're comparing and ranking here...
the list of gripes about Big Bang Theory is long...you can see the actor's skill peek through the layers of bad writing sometimes...but some of the actors are just bad...the laugh track...the archetypes behind the humor...the misrepresentation of mental illness...it's just not funny...etc...
Big Bang Theory advances science...barely...only in comparison to having a non-science show in the timeslot...litterally the only reason the show advances science is because it's part of the theme and featured in the show's graphics and dialogue...it doesn't help the viewer understand how academia works or explain theory...it doesn't depict science work
My favorite is when the main character is arguing with his girlfriend over which is more fundamental, neuroscience or physics...
She says that physics is higher in the "ordo scientificum" or some Latin sillyness and the main character just accepts it...it's a depiction of the **worst** tendencies of learned people...and not depicted in a funny way...
exactly...so many of "teh singularity" type "futurists" who get to have their thoughts on this stuff published have absolutely no idea what they are talking about
anyone with a pacemaker or hearing aid is a "cyborg"
hell, it's "cybernetic" when you know your phone is ringing b/c you set it to vibrate...
this question reeks of absent-minded techie "disruptive innovation"
so zero privacy rights...everyone can look at everything? have you thought this through?
so the password to the safe where I keep my guns...that's open for everyone?
does this "full transparency" apply to only digital information? if so, people would just do things they want by paper like before there was ever digital technology of any kind...so it seems that your "full transparency" must include non-digital...which means at any time, my personal affects can be looked at by any person?
what about my business plans? do those get to be secret or does "full transparency" apply to those too?
"full transparency" is a totalitarian dream...so the answer is, if you loose your right to privacy, all the others follow...
can we end this line of questioning forever? privacy rights are a fundamental thing...no need for any techie "disruptive" "innovation"
just because someone offers a counterpoint doesn't mean it's "trolling"...also, if you type idiotic bullshit that gets modded up, you might receive a harsh response...an on-topic, non-trolling harsh response
the point is, AC, you can't label anything you don't like "trolling"
..if you think confusing computer science and software development is interesting
i think solving the problems in our industry is interesting, and it's clear that many attribute some of those problems to their education experience
the notion that 'computer science' and 'software development' are two different 'things' is reductive and confuses the question
it is a false dichotomy, as another pointed out, on many levels
i used to teach in academia...in an **academic setting** within a greater 'school' I can certainly see the need to differential between 'computer science' and 'software development' as distinctions **within computing generally**
they could be two different major options within a greater "math and computing" program, just as an example...
in *that* case, the distction is relevant and logical...
in general discussion, the two activities frequently describe the **same behavior**
they're overlapping terms in common parlance...so yes, this all matters...because how we train the people who work in our industry matters...when we talk about the problems of "computer science" we really confuse the discussion and make things more confusing by drawing hard-line linguistic distinctions as you do
Slashdot Mirror
yeah i know it's a message for Canadians, but my comment was about the *significance* of the bulletin and *who is responsible*...because that's part of how you **fix the problem**
we can check policy votes and budget votes....Republicans are lockstep against government agencies that do oversight
we barely can define a photon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
it exhibits "wave/particle duality"...it's not like a super-ball that's bouncing around a room...it's not matter...so how could these researchers possibly say that something that has no resting mass can be 'frozen in place'...
it's a wave...you can't "freeze" a wave...you freeze **the ocean**
Law Enforcement requires **constant** oversight or this will happen with certainty, in **any** situation on a long enough timeline...power corrupts and oversight is the only check on power
In America today, there is ***one group*** who constantly deprives government of its oversight abilities through budgetary deprivation: Republicans
I don't need Canada to tell me that the GOP is hates government oversight...but the fact that the issue is so bad they make an announcement about...that's noteworthy
sure let's give credit where credit is due: Gorbechov and his scalp birthmark opened Russia, then the world stood by as oligarchs filled the power vaccum
President Reagan is a fraud & his legacy is a pox upon my fair country
that being said, i feel that the example of the 'West' and especially America using "soft power" like economics and pop culture, proved that freedom/democracy is the only way to govern people
this is interesting stuff...i like the take on history
American involvement...now, I agree that totalitarian regimes eventually fall...but it is precisely **because of America** that the major totalitarian powers fell in the 20th Century
Yes...Russia, Japan, Germany...all defeated by America
Now...Chile, Argentina, Iraq (x2)...etc...Yes that was the same America!
Here's the key to undestanding the contradiction: America, just like the world itself, is in constant struggle between our democracy and our oligarchy...when Oligarchy wins you get Chile and Argentina...when Democracy wins in America, it wins in the world too
it's not "because America"...it's because Oligarchy vs Democracy...and America, due to here fine and beautiful natural resources, just happens to be at the front of the fight...but we all are too, every day of our lives!
"life extension"....heh....look at what these people do now with their lives....and they want to extend that....
i agree!
IMHO the Turing test is a solipsism...i use a conceptual definition of code: for me personally any system of alpha/numberic that programs machine behavior is "code" and the act of using that code to return specific behavior is "programing"
i just think the whole Turing thing is irrelevant, and the computability function kind of goes along with it...it's all an unnecessary abrstraction describing machines and their function
i mentioned the 'HTML5 is not a language' controversy because i've seen alot of trolls on /. saying it is not (and they are therefore somehow superior) and TFA clearly is written by a programmer and he included them as languages
from a purely technical perspective, the Zune interested me because you could really use it as a hybrid external drive and output any media file to any device...see, technically ****all devices can do that**** but because of copyright, artificial scarcity, bad design, and bloat most of the time we get devices from the manufacturer that are locked down (ex: iphone)
of course, Zune's problem was M$...they had to slap their proprietary stuff onto the Zune to make sure you paid a monthly fee somehow
i had a friend who bought a Zune even though we all told him not too...he's a non-techie, outdoors type and wanted to do his research and make his big purchase...we all felt bad b/c he sort of just believed M$ wouldn't lock him out of his own device to play his own music...seriously...it was funny in that many of his friends tried to be like, "look, i know Apple is obnoxious, but if you're going to do this..."
The TFA author has an interesting perspective.
I dove into TFA because the description lists *Scala* with languages like COBOL as both being "unpopular"...not sure if Scala is "unpopular" in the way COBOL is that...
While reading TFA, I discovered his link to his other article of *5 Programming Languages to Learn*
in it, he lists HTML5/CSS3/PHP as *2* of the 5! haha! i hope this doesn't cause another round of "HTML5 isnt a language" arguments...Erlang gets a shout out
good articles...i'd stay away from anything M$ proprietary so that #F language or w/e I don't agree with...but i like his analysis in both articles and learned alot...
Amazon is a victim of their own hubris, not Apple.
Only an idiot or egomaniac would think that Amazon could compete with that product...that phone...it had too many dumb bells and whistles (3D screen! ooh shiny!) but all the important details were wrong.
Amazon lost out to a better designed, better marketed, more established, funner to use product...just like M$ did with Zune
i'm not "too deep" it's that my audience is touchy and easily offended
how and why film/television influence behavior is a complex question...your Fast & Furious example is a classic instance of assuming correlation means causation
i'm not saying there isn't a link between film/tv and what people think is popular...however you're comitting a logical fallacy to say that i'm overcomplicating
maybe i could edit my comment down, but there is too much pride/ego tied to the words 'geek, dork, and nerd' to just jump into a discussion without defining a bit of context for the words
for sure...i agree with your 1 & 2
IMHO, i think Stallman gets tripped up with execution...which is guided by those uber-specific obtuse definitions he uses for concepts like what 'free and open source' mean
if anything, he's an uncomprimising idealist...
your point #2 rings especially true with my experience here on /. I've been reading since 2001 (didn't make an account until 2006 because **i didnt think i had earned it**) and back in the day i learned alot about how the industry really works from reading these boards, which were posts written by people who were inspired by Stallman
maybe it's a case of being too close to your philosophical hero...we see all his warts & flaws not the ideas which made him famous
dorks don't want anyone else to play with their expensive toys...that's one way to look at this...
NASA is awesome...because they are the institution that goes to space...their **task** is awesome
**execution** has always been an area for improvement...NASA can be awesome and still have major problems!!!
it comes down to bean counters vs explorers...aka ***risk analysis***
the prototypical example of this is the Mercury astronauts and their crusade to include the human in the mission
the old saying goes "paralysis by analysis"
however you contextualize the problem, the root cause is faulty risk assessment...the entire notion of risk assessment in project management has become a clusterfuck of cause/effect errors & voodoo quantification of non-quant factors
NASA isn't alone in this, of course...**every beauracracy** tends to have these problems...
i'm not anti-NASA...I'm pro human spaceflight and human space exploration...i love these rovers too...let's put them to work and not be afraid to break them!
"labelling is pointless"
ugh
using words is "labelling"...if what you say is true then speech itself is pointless
the problem isn't "labelling"...it's people who consciously affect the meanings of words for strategic ends over decades...like the word "feminism"...
with "communism" it's common knowledge that the word isn't helpful for discussion...
"labelling" a thing is necessary...every idea we can think of can be "labelled" by representing it with words
what is pointless?
**arguing over definitions instead of ideas**
many people say "i disagree with Stallman".....which is *fine*...what is trolling is the insistence on making the point of controversy something that will always cause endless arguments
arguing over bullshit is pointless..."labelling" things is necessary
drawing a line is the point...
i agree that Stallman's hyper-specific definitions are obtuse and ruin his theories...but they key here is to understand where he goes wrong and why it doesn't matter to discussions about FOSS
in Stallman, you can see the problem many anarchist/libertarian types have across disciplines...the problems they raise are good, their arguments are solid, but their conclusions about how to **move forward and fix the problem** are stilted and unworkable
it usually comes down to **language distinctions** which have deep consequences, and the mistake is to make distinctions linguistically where none exist functionally...you see a sort of logic game where every end is gamed out when forming language ontology...it's a fool's game...
Stallman is not a "communist"...it's 2014, and we've progressed as a society beyond pointless politically charged words like 'communism' because it means 'totalitarian state' in some contexts and 'socialist utopia' in others...one has freedom one does not...it has cause **litterally** millions of unecessary arguments for decades in the 20th century
slapping a dumb label like "communist" on theories like Stallman's only serves to cause confusion and pointless arguments
this is your problem...the fallacy of the belief that believing we can have privacy is a fallacy
we have privacy when we have laws protecting it...your suggestion means getting rid of those laws
maybe ***YOUR*** privacy rights do not exist or have become 'obsolete', but you cannot speak for me or any other person in that regard
**the rest of us still want our privacy rights, and just because you think that 'privacy doesn't exit' doesn't affect our rights**
i can still sue you or have you arrested if you break the law
so the whole "nerd" culture thing...wow...it's easy for these discussion to go off the rails but you guys are making sense at least...
let's start with the words: nerd, dork, geek - these words mean *the same thing* to some people, and others they are idenfiably different...but there is absolutely *no agreed definition*...and the definition of these words determines ***everything*** in this discussion
depending on context, nerd, dork, & geek could be an insult, a compliment, or a neutral descriptor
BBT to some people is a "good show" because it "makes nerds look cool"
so much linguistic complexity to unpack!
1. "good show" for some people means a show they identify with...no baseline comparison...no attempt at consistentcy...just "i like it, therefore it is a good TV show"
2. depiction as approval - some people feel like virtually **any** mainstream attention to their cause/behavior is akin to **approval**...it's a corrolary to the "any press is good press" maxim...I'm not saying it's true, just that people do it!
3. multiple creative origins...who makes BBT? who is responsible for the choices? many, many people...the actors are all on their own planet...the writers of the show come and go by episode and year...depending on the "showrunner" the plots of the stories it could be all directed from the producers and the writers just insert dialogue *or* the writers may get more freedom...these are factors that only people who've worked in TV (i did briefly!) would really see...
this is relevant because any *one* thing depicted on BBT may be attributable to the actions of **several** people...writers, producers, actors, set designers...it could be any or all of them, all with different interpretations and goals...so we're never going to *really* know were any one BBT depiction comes from...though we can narrow it down
so...does BBT make "nerds look cool"???
no
it depicts the show's "nerds" as so much smarter than average people that their behavior is simply unfathomable and it depicts them as successful and competent at their specialty (if incompetent socially)
to **you** that is "cool"....to others, having a certain haircut will *always* look "uncool"
that's the problem...when you start talking about "cool" you are talking about the opposite of quantitative...it's the most subjective thing we could talk about practically
so I think alot of BBT's popularity is not that it is a "good" show...it's popular because it depicts things that make "nerds" feel good about themselves in some way...whether accidental or not...it's just analysis
to me, knowing how to do things that people need done is a sure way to being considered valuable...which brings to mind an old saying that i don't agree with but I think is relevant...
"geeks get things done"
IMHO the show "Big Bang Theory" is not a quality TV show...at best it's C+ material.
Now, scientific accuracy and a "quality TV show" are in no way related...but there is a way to understand the difference.
Breaking Bad...praised for its realism by virtually everyone who has watched it, has certain key chemistry facts which are purposefully incorrect...so it's not ****technically**** scientifically accurate...
Big Bang Theory...you could argue it is more scientifically accurate than Breaking Bad...but in all other depictions ***less realistic***
humor is of course subjective, and if you find Big Bang Theory funny I am happy for you...but we're comparing and ranking here...
the list of gripes about Big Bang Theory is long...you can see the actor's skill peek through the layers of bad writing sometimes...but some of the actors are just bad...the laugh track...the archetypes behind the humor...the misrepresentation of mental illness...it's just not funny...etc...
Big Bang Theory advances science...barely...only in comparison to having a non-science show in the timeslot...litterally the only reason the show advances science is because it's part of the theme and featured in the show's graphics and dialogue...it doesn't help the viewer understand how academia works or explain theory...it doesn't depict science work
My favorite is when the main character is arguing with his girlfriend over which is more fundamental, neuroscience or physics...
She says that physics is higher in the "ordo scientificum" or some Latin sillyness and the main character just accepts it...it's a depiction of the **worst** tendencies of learned people...and not depicted in a funny way...
exactly...so many of "teh singularity" type "futurists" who get to have their thoughts on this stuff published have absolutely no idea what they are talking about
anyone with a pacemaker or hearing aid is a "cyborg"
hell, it's "cybernetic" when you know your phone is ringing b/c you set it to vibrate...
this question reeks of absent-minded techie "disruptive innovation"
so zero privacy rights...everyone can look at everything? have you thought this through?
so the password to the safe where I keep my guns...that's open for everyone?
does this "full transparency" apply to only digital information? if so, people would just do things they want by paper like before there was ever digital technology of any kind...so it seems that your "full transparency" must include non-digital...which means at any time, my personal affects can be looked at by any person?
what about my business plans? do those get to be secret or does "full transparency" apply to those too?
"full transparency" is a totalitarian dream...so the answer is, if you loose your right to privacy, all the others follow...
can we end this line of questioning forever? privacy rights are a fundamental thing...no need for any techie "disruptive" "innovation"
i put my point in the headline so you wouldn't miss it...and copied above the text from my previous comment (which you responded to)
my question...this whole time...has been if others think GitHub is becoming a defacto social network
i'll let my comment history on /. stand for itself
you, AC, are confusing disagreement with trolling
just because someone offers a counterpoint doesn't mean it's "trolling"...also, if you type idiotic bullshit that gets modded up, you might receive a harsh response...an on-topic, non-trolling harsh response
the point is, AC, you can't label anything you don't like "trolling"
i think solving the problems in our industry is interesting, and it's clear that many attribute some of those problems to their education experience
the notion that 'computer science' and 'software development' are two different 'things' is reductive and confuses the question
it is a false dichotomy, as another pointed out, on many levels
i used to teach in academia...in an **academic setting** within a greater 'school' I can certainly see the need to differential between 'computer science' and 'software development' as distinctions **within computing generally**
they could be two different major options within a greater "math and computing" program, just as an example...
in *that* case, the distction is relevant and logical...
in general discussion, the two activities frequently describe the **same behavior**
they're overlapping terms in common parlance...so yes, this all matters...because how we train the people who work in our industry matters...when we talk about the problems of "computer science" we really confuse the discussion and make things more confusing by drawing hard-line linguistic distinctions as you do