While there are many people who give arrogant rebuffs in bars,
computer scientists who use server status messages should be
unbeatable: "You are not on my access list. Goodbye!" or,
"You have no permission to talk.".

On 23/03/24 23:15, Stefan Ram wrote:

> While there are many people who give arrogant rebuffs in bars,
> computer scientists who use server status messages should be
> unbeatable: "You are not on my access list. Goodbye!" or, "You have
> no permission to talk.".

My mail server has a collection of responses like "<...> is on blacklist
at zen.spamhaus.org". In the particular case of mail that supposedly
comes from postmaster@pmoylan.org, though, the response is simply
"Spammers not welcome here". I am especially intolerant of people who
pretend to be me, who claim to be about to delete my e-mail account, and
who end with "Copyright pmoylan.org". They even violate my copyright!

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Stefan Ram wrote:

> While there are many people who give arrogant rebuffs in bars,
> computer scientists who use server status messages should be
> unbeatable: "You are not on my access list. Goodbye!" or,
> "You have no permission to talk.".

When I saw the thread title, I thought the computer scientists were
going to be the rebuffed, not the rebutters. However, "Computer
scientists' rebuffs" would be unambiguous, as would "Rebuffs by
computer scientists".

--
Jerry Friedman

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024, at 14:13:01, jerryfriedman posted:
>Stefan Ram wrote:
>
>> While there are many people who give arrogant rebuffs in bars,
>> computer scientists who use server status messages should be
>> unbeatable: "You are not on my access list. Goodbye!" or,
>> "You have no permission to talk.".
>
>When I saw the thread title, I thought the computer scientists were
>going to be the rebuffed, not the rebutters. However, "Computer
>scientists' rebuffs" would be unambiguous, as would "Rebuffs by
>computer scientists".
>
I would probably be able to interpret the phrase "computer scientist"
more accurately if I knew for sure what the phrase "computer science"
meant. Is that really a science in the classical sense? I have the
feeling that computer science must be a second-order science, the study
of what does work and what doesn't work in the artificial environment of
data-processing machinery, without touching on fundamental principles of
the natural world. Which seems to mean that to me, true science is
natural science, and applied science is something else that I haven't
got a good collective word for. "Engineering" sometimes works, but not
always.

This is a personal English usage observation. It's connected with the
idea that the jargon of computer scientists might not be true English
even when it uses recognisable English words. And that's a very oblique
apology to Stefan for having been rather short in response to a recent
uninterpretable post of his, possibly written in computing jargon.
--
Paul W

Remember Saturday, when Paul Wolff asked plaintively:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024, at 14:13:01, jerryfriedman posted:
>>Stefan Ram wrote:
>>
>>> While there are many people who give arrogant rebuffs in bars,
>>> computer scientists who use server status messages should be
>>> unbeatable: "You are not on my access list. Goodbye!" or,
>>> "You have no permission to talk.".
>>
>>When I saw the thread title, I thought the computer scientists were
>>going to be the rebuffed, not the rebutters. However, "Computer
>>scientists' rebuffs" would be unambiguous, as would "Rebuffs by
>>computer scientists".
>>
> I would probably be able to interpret the phrase "computer scientist" more
> accurately if I knew for sure what the phrase "computer science" meant. Is
> that really a science in the classical sense? I have the feeling that
> computer science must be a second-order science, the study of what does work
> and what doesn't work in the artificial environment of data-processing
> machinery, without touching on fundamental principles of the natural world.
> Which seems to mean that to me, true science is natural science, and applied
> science is something else that I haven't got a good collective word for.
> "Engineering" sometimes works, but not always.
>
> This is a personal English usage observation. It's connected with the idea
> that the jargon of computer scientists might not be true English even when it
> uses recognisable English words. And that's a very oblique apology to Stefan
> for having been rather short in response to a recent uninterpretable post of
> his, possibly written in computing jargon.

Computer /scientists/ are generally involved in research projects,
which these days might include quantum computer hardware and
algorithms.

Most people who study computer science are in it for the techniques and
herd memory. They tend to become engineers or even technicians. I
claim to be a software engineer, but sometimes my bosses wondered.

/dps

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.

On 24/03/2024 03:49, Snidely wrote:
> Remember  Saturday, when  Paul Wolff asked plaintively:
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024, at 14:13:01, jerryfriedman posted:

<snip>

>> I would probably be able to interpret the phrase "computer scientist"
>> more accurately if I knew for sure what the phrase "computer science"
>> meant. Is that really a science in the classical sense? I have the
>> feeling that computer science must be a second-order science, the
>> study of what does work and what doesn't work in the artificial
>> environment of data-processing machinery, without touching on
>> fundamental principles of the natural world. Which seems to mean that
>> to me, true science is natural science, and applied science is
>> something else that I haven't got a good collective word for.
>> "Engineering" sometimes works, but not always.
>>
>> This is a personal English usage observation. It's connected with the
>> idea that the jargon of computer scientists might not be true English
>> even when it uses recognisable English words. And that's a very
>> oblique apology to Stefan for having been rather short in response to
>> a recent uninterpretable post of his, possibly written in computing
>> jargon.
>
> Computer /scientists/ are generally involved in research projects, which
> these days might include quantum computer hardware and algorithms.

I agree with Paul's sentiments. Computer science is not a science.
Ditto 'Social science', 'Economic science' or 'Domestic science'. (They
also do research, in their own way.) The usual adage holds: "If it has
'science' in its title, it probably isn't."

>
> Most people who study computer science are in it for the techniques and
> herd memory.  They tend to become engineers or even technicians.  I
> claim to be a software engineer, but sometimes my bosses wondered.
>

I also have a background in computer software (and research). I have
never thought of myself as a scientist. Algorithms are a craft, not a
science.

jerry.friedman99@gmail.com (jerryfriedman) writes:
> Stefan Ram wrote:
>> While there are many people who give arrogant rebuffs in bars,
>> computer scientists who use server status messages should be
>> unbeatable: "You are not on my access list. Goodbye!" or,
>> "You have no permission to talk.".
>
> When I saw the thread title, I thought the computer scientists were
> going to be the rebuffed, not the rebutters. However, "Computer
> scientists' rebuffs" would be unambiguous, as would "Rebuffs by
> computer scientists".

Until there are too many of them, and then you get a rebuffer overflow.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/