I agree with you that CS is more about theory than practice, but it's easy to construct a false dichotomy here. A lot of university-level CS courses are less beneficial than they could be even in teaching theory precisely because they get so stuck on theory that they forget to give either motivating examples or sufficient practical skills for students to explore on their own.

University-level mathematics often seems to suffer from the same affliction, presenting undergraduates with the kind of obscure, magical results that might be interesting to someone with a heavily theoretical mindset working on a PhD, but ignoring the reality that even among undergraduate mathematics students, those who have that mindset are probably a small minority. Maybe more of them would develop that kind of thinking during their studies and go on to enjoy or develop deep theoretical work, but if you confuse and/or bore them out of academia first you'll never know.

How do you spot an extrovert programmer? He's looking at your shoes while you talk.

Seriously, self-promoting incompetents are a hazard in any technical field, but in proper engineering disciplines objective assessment can make up for a lot of bull. Because software development isn't yet mature enough as an industry for that to work, it's relatively easy for a snake oil salesman to do well (almost invariably at the expense of the colleagues who are constantly clearing up his mess and ultimately the organisation they all work for).

The remarkable thing is that the executive management team are often so disconnected from the reality of their business (read: ignorant and incompetent) that they haven't even noticed their company's job ads are literally asking for things like five years of experience with Leading Programming Toolkit 2014. I'm guessing the global pool of qualified candidates by that standard is... sparsely populated.

Yes. IMHO this is what most often gets overlooked when people debate university CS/SE as a mostly-theoretical discipline as distinct from practical experience in industry.

You can study practical skills in using a certain language or library or tool, and you can become somewhat productive. But without sufficient theoretical understanding, you're just doing cookie cutter coding, and you will always have a relatively low glass ceiling on how much you can achieve.

Put more bluntly, practical skills are what you pick up to get from incompetent newbie to vaguely useful programmer in the first year or two on the job, but improving your theoretical understanding is what gets you from there to seriously useful senior developer a few years after that when you're no longer just writing simple GUI logic in C# or trivial ORM code for a Ruby on Rails web site back end.

Indeed, but someone with good theoretical understanding will pick up any given tool based on that theory fairly quickly.

Now, at no point in this post did I imply that getting a degree is either necessary or sufficient to achieve a good understanding of the theory. As far as I'm concerned, you absolutely can get there with time, effort and an open mind.

However, I think even autodidacts will find the process significantly easier if they've developed rigorous mathematical thinking and the ability to read and digest technical writing first one way or another. Also, for better or worse, the reality is that having that degree certificate will probably get you better jobs early in your career, which in turn will give you better experience and better colleagues to learn from at work.

In any case, just reading lots of casually written tutorial blog posts by people who've been playing with a tool for six months longer than you have certainly won't get you to that level of understanding alone. It's very easy to spend a lot of time doing that in a field like software development, feel like you've learned a lot and can be super-productive, and never even know how much you're missing if you've never found the right course of study or mentor or on-line learning resource to open your eyes. That, IMHO, is the biggest risk for people who haven't studied formal CS/SE one way or another, and sadly you can always find plenty of examples in the on-line forums for whatever the latest shiny technology is (currently I'd say it's front-end web development).

I'm not the one bitching and moaning about the bugs. I'm just pointing out the reality that very few people are going to go through the onerous bug reporting process that (some) Firefox developers/fans want them to, and that if they run into too many bugs in Firefox then they might choose to use another browser instead of choosing to help make Firefox better.

Unfortunately, I think your post is too close to the truth the be funny...

When all the developers move to the same platform with its non-standard implementations of everything, you get IE6.

It's not the first time they've done this "we know best" thing, unfortunately. There are cases involving HTTPS/HSTS where Firefox literally will not let you view a page it has decided is insecure, even if you explicitly want to ignore whatever the security problem is (for example, because it's a site you work on, and it's in active development and currently not fully configured).

Security warnings when encountering a likely threat = good. Overriding the user's explicit wishes = bad, always.

But there is another option for the users: they can use other software.

I sympathise with the frustrations of software developers, but the idea that any normal user (most of whom aren't going to be programmers or sysadmins themselves) is going to set up a virtual machine, reduce a bug they see down to a minimal test case, and then file a detailed bug report is crazy. It just isn't going to happen.

If a project has to keep relying on this, instead of being able to do good quality control and testing itself, the inevitable result is perpetually beta quality software, and getting left behind by other projects that are capable of doing proper quality control and testing.

They don't. If they did, they'd have already threatened Russia with them to make them stop. That's the point of having nuclear weapons, after all.

Ukraine foolishly believed that the US and Europe would protect them when they agreed to give up their nuclear weapons after the end of the Cold War. They're paying for that mistake now. If Ukraine survives but doesn't get to become a member of NATO, expect a full force nuclear weapons program on their part (which shouldn't be too hard, they have lots of nuclear power plants, lots of spent waste full of plutonium, and are the world's #9 uranium producer).

Hey, don't call him a dictator. He was legitimately elected! People in the country love him to death. For example, he got 99.89% of the vote with a 99.59% turnout in Chechnya, which is obviously totally legit! In some parts of Grozny, as many as 107% of voters turned out to vote for the "Butcher of Grozny".

Totally legit!

My favorite was when he "found ancient pottery" right by the shore of a heavily trafficked beach. That even beats when he "singlehandedly saved a TV crew from a tiger attack" ;)

The Jim Jong Un/Il stuff is a serious comparison. He doesn't take it as extreme, and Russia is only "way, way down" on the list of global press freedom rather than "at the very bottom". But it's along the same "Great Leader" lines.

I think some people way overestimate him and others way underestimate him. I think he's a human which in some ways has been very strategic and very short sighted. He's a hardcore nationalist and idealist, and is willing to take huge risks toward those goals. But he's also playing a very high stakes game that he could well lose. And I see little evidence that his actions in Ukraine have been anything more than winging it; Russia seems to have been repeatedly caught off guard by many of the events on the ground, including the low local collaboration rate, the willingness of the Ukrainian military to engage in military ops in populated areas, the inabilitity of the small Russian forces and local collaborators to hold ground, the amount of resources needed to successfully resist Ukraine, and whether the EU and US would dare risk Russian anger in terms of punishing Russia or helping Ukraine. In each case, Russia has had to hastily assemble counteraction.

When Yanukovitch fled, Ukraine's military was by all standards broken, the public had no stomach for fighting in their own territory, Russia was still more thought of as a partner than an enemy, joining NATO was a minority position in Ukraine, the EU and US were afraid of doing anything that could antagonize Russia, and so forth. Now Ukraine has been shifting their economy into a war economy, their forces are now veterans (still underarmed, but that could change rapidly), the public by and large fully supports the military action, Russia is by and large hated, joining NATO is a strong majority position, the EU and US have taken direct action against Russia and look ready to accelerate it, and so forth.

So let's say that - as it looks increasingly likely to happen - the US and EU arm Ukraine. Not just a little but, but fully commit to it - tanks, warplanes, antiaircraft, ships, subs, tactical missiles, the works, plus full realtime intelligence data sharing. What's Russia's next play? Ukraine, given enough modern US and EU equipment, could most likely defeat anything but total war with Russia. It's extremely doubtful the Russian public would have the stomach to do what would be necessary to take on and defeat a western-armed Ukraine using conventional weapons. So... nuclear weapons? They could, of course. But they'd instantly become a global paraiah, there'd be so much pressure against them that I don't think even China would leave their doors open to Russian trade anymore. Most Europeans would rather burn trash to heat their homes than pay for a wisp of gas from a nation that's actively using nuclear weapons on an aligned state (and realistically the loss of Russian gas wouldn't actually be that devastating, but it'd take too long to go into why). Not to mention what would happen in terms of internal terrorism/guerilla warfare within Russia, which is already a huge problem among Russia's many ticked off populations, and you can add tens of millions of recently-nuked Ukranians to that list, with pretty much unlimited funding for their actions provided by the US and EU. And Russia is a petroeconomy. Its manufacturing sector is grossly undersized compared to its population, even worse than during Soviet times. There's every reason to think that a fully embargoed Russia would collapse even worse than the USSR.

Putin doesn't want to use nukes, of course. He wants to threaten to use nukes. He wants Ukraine to think that he's actually crazy enough to do it so that they'll drop all future claims on Crimea and turn the eastern portion of their country to be a "federated" (Russian puppet) zone. And you know.... it is a possibility. Raise the fear level enough and people might just give in to the unthinkable.

It's an incredibly high stakes game he's playing, however, with a far from certain outcome.

And did you hear, rvz.ru/~vladimir/bullshit.html is reporting that Ukraine is now working with ALIENS and THE ILLUMINATI to force Russian mothers in the Donbass to eat their own babies! It's TRUE!

Freedom House on press freedom in Russia. Reporters Without Borders's take.

It's one thing if you're dumb enough to take state propaganda outlets of a country that takes #148th place on the press freedom ranking, where even blogs are forced to register with government censors if they get too many readers and where it's standard practice to hire actors to play parts in the news. But it's even more ridiculous when you do so in regards to an event where said propaganda outlets have put forth literally more than a dozen different, completely contradictory reasons why it's not Russia's fault, including but not limited to "we have proof Ukraine shot it down with a surface-to-air missle", "we have proof Ukraine shot it down with an air-to-air missile", "we have proof that Ukraine gunned it down with a fighter cannon", "we have proof that Ukraine rammed it", "we have proof that Ukraine loaded a plane full of dead bodies, disguised it as a civilian airliner and tricked the rebels into shooting it down", "we have proof that Ukraine deliberately tricked the rebels into shooting down an actual civilian airliner", and my favorite - the original reported in the Russian press, before it became clear that it was a civilian aircraft - "we've confirmed that the heroic rebels of the Donbas just successfully shot down a Ukranian military jet!"

Ugh... puns. :( Are you just trying to ruffle peoples' feathers here?

Passenger pigeons were not primarily a grain species, although they would eat grain when other preferred foods were in short supply. Part of the reasons the flocks increasingly turned to grain with time is due to the cutting and burning of many of their native forests to make room for farmland (and with an average lifespan in captivity of 15 years, probably half that in the wild, populations don't readjust right away). They were a migratory species, of course, but the habitat destruction was going on all over their range. If you get rid of the oaks and chestnuts in an area and the only other food option is grain, of course they're going to eat that. They also ate insects, mainly when breeding.

When you're talking about reintroducing a species from scratch, obviously the issues of what to do if a billion birds come into the area is totally inapplicable. The forests capable of supporting those numbers are gone. Birds that primarily consume seeds and grains are a much bigger threat to farmers than birds with a primary focus on nuts like the passenger pigeon.

it would take years for the ground plants to recover

Citation needed. Bird manure is one of the best natural fertilizers in existence. Have you seen what people charge for chicken manure? It's outrageous. Now, it's a concentrated enough fertilizer that you have to use it more like a chemical fertilizer than a soil suppliment - so it's possible that the pigeons would "nutrient burn" a location. But that's short term, in the long term that means leaving the area incredibly lush. And not to mention full of seeds in their droppings.

Trees and many smaller plants primarily cater to birds as their seed distributors.