Well it's certainly not a science as the scientific method is nowhere to be found. The closest thing to it at most universities is the math department, which seems to end up in the arts faculty as often as not. I'd argue there's widespread acceptance that neither math nor computer science are sciences (in the sense that, say, physics or biology are), and if something isn't a science, it's either an art or its own thing.
Where do you live? I've never heard of a college math department being part of the art department. In the USA, computer science departments are usually either closely attached to the math department, or are part of the engineering school if the college has one.
Obviously, your whole argument depends on the definition of "science" more than anything. Using the naive middle school definition of science, as in "the scientific method," perhaps math and CS don't qualify (although there is in fact a lot of experimental/observational work in CS, particularly in "real-world" applications like general-purpose encryption/compression, cache invalidation, process scheduling, etc.). However, using a broader definition of science, like the one Wikipedia gives, it's clear that math and CS easily qualify.
At Princeton University, undergraduate math degree is A.B. (Bachelor of Arts), but undergraduate CS degree can be either A.B. or B.S.E (Bachelors of Science in Engineering) depending on course of study.
The "arts" in "Bachelor of Arts" refers to liberal arts, not to arts in the modern sense, as you are implying. The liberal arts are subjects that people who were free to pursue earthly endeavors (i.e., not slaves) were expected to study in order to fully distinguish themselves from the slave class. One example of this is reading and writing, which was a skill that free people were pretty much universally expected to have, and which slaves were often blatantly forbidden to acquire.
During the middle ages, the liberal arts grew to include geometry and arithmetic, and we now think of most math, even complicated math, to fall under the heading of the liberal arts.
In contrast, a BSE would cover other things, like architecture or chemical engineering.
baddox is therefore correct in questioning whether college math would fall into faculty of arts, which they should not, since faculty of arts these days means almost without exception faculty of studies of art, not faculty of the study of liberal arts. nolanw is either going to a very peculiar college, or is wrong.
I think there's been a big misunderstanding somewhere - I interpreted nolanw's "arts faculty" to mean liberal arts, not arts in the contemporary sense. So when I read baddox's reply I assumed he disagreed with how I interpreted it - i.e. I thought baddox was claiming math does not belong in the liberal arts. Heh...very confusing. What I'm trying to say is that there's a 99.9% chance that we're all in agreement and it really hinges on what nolanw really meant by "arts faculty".
My problem with Jobs quote is that it seems to imply that learning math is somehow not learning. Thus I assume he means liberal arts not as in mathematics or anything practical, but as in a pursuit that is mostly not immediately practical as one might argue about modern philosophy.
Jobs'own technologies are often based on solid computer science principles. I'm somewhat surprised that he could recognize the utility of these technologies yet not recognize the source of them.
This is so laughably wrong as to be absurd. Your explanation for Canadian telecom entrenchment and protectionism is that it's anti-American? Canada and its provinces have imported America's love of faux-competition in media, telecom, electricity, non-health insurance, and other areas nearly whole hog.
Anti-Americanism also runs contrary to Canada's: plans to imprison more of its population; paying extra for ill-performing military hardware; treating its First Nations like shit; increasing gap between rich and poor; busting of unions; beating the hell out of protestors; resisting all meaningful measures against climate change; and fighting pointless wars.
Canada could use some of this "we're different from the Americans" attitude that you claim pervades the nation. Sadly, I don't see much evidence of it in any of several areas of society, especially the telecom industry.
I'll agree that the current federal government is a bit of an aberration compared to past Liberal and Conservative governments, but playing up differences from the Americans to justify political policies (good or bad - I suppose that depends on your personal politics) has been a big part of Canadian political life since Trudeau's first term in the late '60s.
Whether Canada is actually all that different from America or whether 'different from America' is just used as a cynical political tool is another question.
If I recall, the issue with a public 0mq socket was that anyone driving by sending something 0mq didn't like would cause an assertion to fail, so your process would crash. It wasn't so much a "supposed to be exposed" as "expose it and crash".
Yes you are right. I guess what I wanted to say, is that 0MQ relies on trusted code and network. It's okay for code to assert, as soon as there is someone to fix it, and it's probably expected. (Crash early, fix early).