From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 29 16:24:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA17698 for chat-outgoing; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from news.IAEhv.nl (root@news.IAEhv.nl [194.151.64.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA17655 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from LOCAL (uucp@localhost) by news.IAEhv.nl (8.6.13/1.63) with IAEhv.nl; pid 9568 on Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:23:50 GMT; id XAA09568 efrom: peter@grendel.IAEhv.nl; eto: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Received: (from peter@localhost) by grendel.IAEhv.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA00530; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:40:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <19970930004017.44751@grendel.IAEhv.nl> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:40:17 +0200 From: Peter Korsten To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft brainrot (was: r-cmds and DNS and /etc/host.conf) References: <199709291321.JAA22447@gatekeeper.itribe.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.67e In-Reply-To: <199709291321.JAA22447@gatekeeper.itribe.net>; from Jamie Bowden on Mon, Sep 29, 1997 at 09:24:04AM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Can't these FreeBSD-lists reply to themselves? It's quite a PITA that everyone including the pope is in the 'Cc:' field, just to get 'chat@freebsd.org' there. Noone seems to bother to edit their headers. It's stupid that I receive many mails twice. Jamie Bowden shared with us (and he didn't edit his headers): > > When I worked for a CS dept., I ran into this attitude > there among students. How the hell does a CS student plan on getting a > degree in a computer field without actually learning about a computer? > What's worse is that some of them manage. The grad students were worse > than the undergrads. Anyway, enough ranting for now. Don't put off on computer science this way. Actually, the more appropiate term would be computing science. On the Eindhoven University of Technology, there's a very theo- retical approach toward towards CS. In essence, a mathematical problem can be rewritten - using boolean algebra and other logical mathematics - into an algorithm. Also, you have to be able to actually mathematically prove the correctness of that algorithm. Of course, in everyday life we won't be giving proof of our programs. But it marks the approach that CS takes. You're more of a designer than an actual programmer. There are other people that are better in that, like, well, us. You don't need a computer in the designing phase. And if you study Mathematics of Programming - a friend of mine can call himself a doctor now on that subject - you don't need a computer at all. In fact, it's a very interesting area that he got his degree in, but it's hard to explain what it is about. Mostly because I don't really understand it. Remember: many people can write code. Few people really know how to program. Too bad I didn't finish my education there. Now I'm a hacker, just like the rest of you. :) - Peter