No, you missed my point, which may be my fault, so I'll fairly explain again! :-)

Computer Science, just like Medicine has valid aspects which involve hard science, such as developing a new medication or developing a new data storage mechanism like a Tree / Link List. However where it stops being science is when you're just implementing those solutions, after they've been proven to work and have been flushed out.

If I take a Red / Black tree Library and either write it myself and use it or use an existing one, I'm not doing any kind of science, I'm just applying the existing science to my task. Just as if you take an aspirin for a headache you're not participating in science, your just applying the science to the application.

Science is defined as:

, Which for the most part is not what programming or development is. I'm very rarely observing new behavior or studying the systematic response of a new system. I'm simply taking what already exists and reapplying it into a new solution.

It's because of this that I feel we should stop using the term science loosely and on a side note the term engineering. If you're not progressing a field of study then you shouldn't apply the term science, feel free to disagree. Just as if you're not designing something new you're engineering. The terms get thrown around in places they don't belong and I think that should stop.

Well I'm a qualified Embedded Software Engineer, Web Developer, and DBA, so I'm not talk out of my ass, I'm talking from experience. Most of what I do isn't science and isn't even engineering, it's typing code into an editor.

Most of Computer Science also isn't science. The only real science in CS is when a new data structure is designed or when someone makes a radical new way to accomplish a task. Entering syntax into an editor does not constitute science, that's just leg work. For instance, applying an established principal to achieve an outcome doesn't mean your doing science, science has already been done, at that point it's application, which well it needs to fall back on scientific principals, doesn't mean it's science.

Okay, 39/100 is an absolute, total and complete failure in all possible regards. Legitimate scientific fields don't get recognized for being able to backup 39% of there research. This goes to show why Psychology will never be considered a real science, it produces unverifiable results and it produces flaky / questionable answers. I'm glad someone took the time to finally put this issue to bed once and for all, 39/100 verified studies is the same as saying: "You're not science, stop acting like it!"

Just don't insult, abuse and ignore the right of everyone who's not white and maybe, just maybe, the riot wouldn't of happened in the first place. If you poke the nicest man in the world repeatedly, don't be surprised when after 20 years of being poked, he snaps and punches you out.

Computer can do what human's can't. To put it simply, most humans lack the proper understanding of both the context and the meaning of there written language. For instance how many times have you ever been told that someone assumed X based off what you said when in fact you never gave off that assumption? How many times have you written a comment only to have it taken out of context?

Yesterday I said on Facebook:

I had women telling that I was suppressing there right to vote, I had others telling me that I was trying to control there freedom to vote, when in fact both are clearly wrong. So I fully support computer based grading of essays.

Nothing is holding back women form entering science / engineering. I would say leave everything the way it is and let those who want to come, come.

Change the password! If you're not going to be proactive about security, why should anyone help you?

Just simplify it, most of psychology is immature people who don't want to take responsibility, complaining that they might have to take responsibility for there actions. For the real cases of people who have chemical imbalance, it's about understanding how the brain forms attachment and reason.

What ever happened to a text book, a chalk board and a teacher who knew the material?

We don't need to bombard kids with technology, we need to bring them up with essential skill such as literacy, printing / handwriting, math, science, history and in general all the basic skills that allow them to learn and develop WITHOUT getting technology involved. I would go as far to say that students shouldn't even hand in word processed assignments, unless it's absolutely necessary.

I'm not saying we should have no technology involvement, I'm saying we should limit it. If you want to offer a computer basic course, awesome! If you want to accept typed / word processed assignments, awesome! Just don't mandate it. Kids need less technology and more quality, this entire plan from the get go was to offload the responsibility of teachers and subvert known, good, working practices for teaching.

The school board got bit by trying to fool around, well lesson learned, next time don't try to reinvent the wheel, that wasn't broken and didn't need updating.

Well I happen to have several friends studying psychology right now and I can tell you that compared to real science, what they is mostly hogwash. Your initial analogy was correct, that I'll give you credit for, both that's about all I can give you credit for.

My cousin is studying hoarding disorder and how to overcome it. She's been given money, A LOT of money to study this. None of the people in her study have any kind of chemical imbalance, which as I already stated would completely change the landscape. So far her research at a PhD level has determined that people with hoarding disorder attach false emotional states to objects, which means in other words, they can't rationalize emotion. That's not science, that's a lack of emotional control, they need to mature and stop playing cry baby.

My Sister studied depression, again in people with NO chemical imbalance. People felt sad because they didn't want to grow up and face the world for what it is! Again, not science. More proof people are cry babies.

I could keep going but it all the same story.

Just because you put the word science behind your name, doesn't mean you're doing scientific work. Psychology is great example of where the term "science" has been grossly misused and misdirected. Psychology is really about the pursuit to understand why we're all fucked up and explain away behaviour that no one wants to take ownership of. If this publication is going to block anything, block anyone using the term science, because psychology is not science, it's people trying to make excuses about the way they feel and act, which is all boils down to scape goating responsibility for your actions.

With the exception of chemical imbalance, every single person is directly responsible for there actions, case closed, now lets stop using the term science to describe excuse generation.

If the church needs money, why isn't God flipping the bill? I think we should pull all religious funding and rely on the deity of that religion to provide it, if the deity doesn't, then clearly it doesn't care or can't.

Well if you live in Ontario, right now we have a premier who is basically calling all men scum and denying that sexual assault is a wide spread multi-gender problem. She then goes on to fund millions of dollars into programs that can only be accessed and used by females and spreads the word that if you're a man, you WILL sexually assault a female. It's really sad. This is why I take the stance that we must focus evenly on both sides, other wise what's happening in Ontario will permeate into other places.

This is why we can't ignore male sexual violence, it's a real issue and we need to look at just as hard as female assaults.