No where will you find a post where I make that claim. Quite the opposite, in fact, as you'll find many of my posts where I criticize various aspects of JS as well as acknowledge specific issues with PHP. I've spoken in defense of both, sure, but only when the criticisms being offered were objectively incorrect. See, your problem is that you mistake your uninformed and subjective opinions for objective fact.

You'll note that this is NOT a discussion about computing, but about philosophy. You'll also note that bsdasym's comment is painfully incompetent. There is nothing even remotely defensible in, at least, the portion of his comment I quoted.

If you have something to ACTUALLY contribute, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Go ahead, defend bsdasym's comment. It will be interesting to watch you, with no background in philosophy, make a fool of yourself.

Yes, because getting boys interested in computer programming has been a major problem...

Oh, and encouraging girls must necessarily also mean discouraging boys.

Do you hear yourself?

Ouch, that was painful. I'm actually dumber, now, having read that. Please, for the love of all that is good in this world, stop discussing this topic.

Seriously?

It's like seeing someone proudly proclaim that they're a flat-earther. You may want to reconsider your position.

Same AC as above, I take it. It's "All your *base* are belong to us"

By your reasoning, it's been a "moving target" since 1950 as Turing himself offered variations on his test in the original paper!

See, there isn't a single monolithic thing call "The Turing Test". There isn't even widespread agreement on the nature of the tests Turing proposed. When you say "The Turing test makes sense" you're saying that you have some exclusive insight in to Turing that no one else has, and that you think that that variation "makes sense". So, please, share your divinely revealed interpretation and how it overcomes the objects raised to Turing tests over the last 64 years.

With that out of the way, consider that this new variation ALSO suffers from the same problems as all other Turing test variations: They attempt to objectively infer intelligence from a subjectively interpreted, and groundless, proxy.

It makes just as little sense as all the others.

Please, enlighten me. There's at least two variations in Turing's 1950 paper, and countless others have appeared since then. (You'll also find tons of research showing that these variations are not equivalent to one another.) Which is the "real" Turing test?

Weisenbaum, and countless others, would strongly disagree with you.

Turing's first failure was assuming that the questions "can machines think" and "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" are equivalent. His second was assuming that the results of such a game are something that can be measured objectively. The first is obviously wrong, the second was very clearly demonstrated to be wrong by Weisenbaum's Eliza via the differences between the reactions of technical and non-technical staff to the program.

Did you miss the last 64 years of research and philosophy? The last hold-outs, save the most delusional, we're knocked out by Searle in 1980.

Eliza, for example, highlights the massive failure in Turing's reasoning -- The question "can machines think" is not equivalent to the question "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?"

Weisenbaum found the response to his program from non-technical staff disturbing.

( From Eliza to A.L.I.C.E. )

Further, the so-called "Turing test" hasn't held still. Not even in his 1950 paper! (Turing proposed multiple variations on the test, if you'll recall.) Since then, a number of different versions of the "Turing test" have appeared, none of which are (like Turing's variations) are equivalent to one another!

If you need a *really* simple argument: The results of any variation of the "Turing test" are completely subjective. Consider a program that fools 100% of one set of interrogators may completely fail to fool even 10% of another set.

What? It's been controversial since the beginning, and a complete joke after Weizenbaum wrote Eliza.

Right on! People who think that others deserve equality are so pathetic!

The difficult part isn't finding competent developers, it's finding competent developers with the relevant domain knowledge.

Be careful! Slashdot is home to many misanthropes. You may find your 'funny' comment modded 'insightful' instead!

We're talking about "Rock Stars" not "Great software engineers".

There's not much, if any, overlap there.

Those guys work in architecture, not the development trenches.

How long have you been at this? >99% of development doesn't involve solving difficult problems. (For LOB apps, you'd be hard-pressed to find a difficult problem!) As I said before, programming is easy and, as a consequence, it's often very boring. The last thing you want is a bored prima donna introducing unnecessary complexity (usually in the guise of half-baked 'solutions' or 'frameworks' to 'automate' or 'simplify' the boring slog that is the bulk of development) to keep themselves entertained.

That's "prototypal", and it's better in just about every way. (Google classical vs prototypal for an easy intro)

Just for you, since you're not interested in an actual education:

Why I roll my eyes when I read your replies

Now go and sin no more!