Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment I want this now (Score 0) 150

Maybe a month ago I was talking with my developers about this very thing and I did hear some uneasinnese in their voices, some fear of the future job prospects. However I explained that this is exciting if at all possible. This would not replace the developer, it would make a developer quite a bit more productive though, allowing for the business requirements to be implemented much faster.

Say you are working on a large use case, you put together the data model, maybe most of the DDL, some front end work, maybe the HTML components (if web based). Now you want to connect the data to the presentation. So bring up the AI, tell it the data validation requirements while pointing at the fields on the screen and pointing at the database fields. It should fill in the validation routines and the code that connects it all while following the project standards for security checks, transaction handling, basically generating the missing code.

The developer would provide the end points and describe the behaviour with human language/pointing at things while describing this, the AI would provide a number of solutions to choose from.

The AI should keep track of test cases based on the description, provide a test suit. It should keep an eye on the code base at all times to notice what it can do for the developer and propose it whenever it sees the opportunity, etc.

Would this put developers out of jobs? I think it would make developers much more productive, allowing for many more projects to be created and tested. The AI should help integrating components, keep track of configurations, do more testing on all levels (functional, security, load, etc). The projects should be churned out faster and with a higher quality, while more ideas would have a chance to be tried out as projects.

Comment Re: Yup (Score 1) 443

Your obsession with what colour (slavery is wrong whatever colour), and baseless insults on education and "worldview" appear irrelevant, and disappointing IMHO.

My original post was a response to this AC.

Why worship a document so clearly penned by hypocrisy - several owned slaves.

...Talking about the Founding Fathers.

"Irrelevant" and "baseless"?

I think not.

Of course you are free to disagree. That's one of the freedoms we enjoy because of those so-called "hypocrites" the AC referred to. And it was not actually an insult, unless you personally consider pointing out factual errors leading to an erroneous and/or skewed worldview an insult. I thought I was actually being informative, and from my original post's score it seems the moderators agree.


Comment Re: Yup (Score 1) 443

Lifetime indenture = slavery.

But that's not quite the same as recognizing someone as actually a slave, and not an extended contract of indenture. If I remember correctly, John Punch ran away before his limited term of indenture was finished and broke his contract, and that was the punishment meted out by the court. John Casor was not made a slave as punishment, he did not break his contract. Anthony Johnson simply did not want to recognize the end of his contract for commercial/monetary reasons.


Comment Re: Yup (Score 1, Insightful) 443

I must admit mis-remembering concerning John Casor being white. I confused the Irish indentured servants with John Casor for some reason. I will always admit it when I'm mistaken.

However, Anthony Johnson *was* a black man and *was* the first government-sanctioned US slave owner, and the rest of my original post I still stand by.

I know many people here intensely dislike Glenn Beck, heck I don't agree with him on many topics, but he did a very good historical piece on US slavery. I believe it's worth seeing.



Comment Re: Yup (Score 3, Informative) 443

Why worship a document so clearly penned by hypocrisy - several owned slaves.

Let me educate you on a little US history.

1. Slavery was instituted in the US many decades before any of the 'Founding Fathers' were born.

2. The first slave owner, and the person who argued it through the courts to make it legal, was a black man named Anthony Johnson.

3. Anthony Johnson's first slave, John Casor, and most of the others he ended up owning, were white.

4. Thomas Jefferson, the most-oft cited slave-owning Founder, never bought nor sold a single slave. He inherited them from his in-laws and kept them together so as not to break up their families and treated them as well as he could under the existing laws passed long before he was born.

5. Jefferson could not free his slaves as under the laws of the time, he would have been hanged.

6. Nearly all the Founders despised slavery. The only reason it was allowed to continue was the southern Democrat States would not join the US revolution on the American side if it was outlawed. They enacted the 3/5ths Compromise so as to lessen Southern slaveholders' voting power, so that slavery *could* be banned down the road while still achieving the immediate goal of forming all 13 colonies into a single unified nation to defeat the British and achieve independence.

Sorry about your broken worldview. Fortunately, an education in history can get you a new and better worldview if one is willing and able to change their thinking based on facts.


Comment Re:wars destroy wealth (Score 1) 443

Yes, start with insults, that's always a good way to prove that you have the intellectual high-ground

- I don't see the difference, how I start is irrelevant. The relevant factor here is your government provided education and it has done the job.

What happens to these goods after they have been produced and exchanged, if there is nobody to consume them.?

- the only way to consume something is to produce something of your own and to exchange for what you are interested in consuming. Thus the people who can actually consume something are those very people that produce. This should be obvious even to you with a simple example: a farmer produces and then consumes what he produced. Got it? A farmer can exchange with a tool maker if the tool maker provides farmer with the tools the farmer needs and the tool maker clearly needs to eat. Etc.

It's consumption of non-domestic products that cause a trade deficit, not consumption by itself.

- consumption by itself is irrelevant, you are correct however, it is consumption of goods that were *not paid for* that causes the trade deficit.

only a very small portion of what you pay for a Chinese-made product actually goes to the Chinese company

- really? Are you an accountant for one of the Chinese companies? I actually deal with Chinese manufacturers for GPS trackers and other electronics, you are incorrect.

I'm curious which school YOU went to, where you were taught that taxation is theft

- I deduced it from the first principles. If you are wondering though, I went to the most communist school of all, I was born in the USSR and attended the public education system there. I was happy to see the country collapse of-course since it only confirmed my understanding of economics.

Comment Re:wars destroy wealth (Score 2) 442

Which stimulates an economy more, yachts or groceries?

- neither. The fact that you are using this logic is enough for me to know that I am dealing with somebody who has no understanding of economics, which is the point of modern 'education', to produce population that is incapable of understanding most basic things.

Consumption does not stimulate the economy, production stimulates the economy. Consumption is a trivial consequence of production. A person with a million dollars stimulates the economy by investing that money into new/existing businesses to make profit, this in turn allows the business to start/expand and the productive output of that business is what stimulates the economy while providing the people working for the business with income (and unfortunately providing various levels of government with money as well through the theft of taxation).

Spending money on consumable goods is not stimulating the economy at all, it is irrelevant to the economy. Economy is all production and exchange of produced goods/services. USA cannot stimulate the economy by any extra level of spending because it lives on borrowed money and (500 Billion / year for the last 25 years or so). This borrowing goes towards consumption of foreign produced goods, which is why it is a trade deficit.

1 man with 1 million dollars is more stimulative to the economy because that is wealth that's concentrated and actually can be used to start/run/expand a business. A million people with 1 dollar each is wealth dissipation, it will do nothing to improve the economy, it will only worsen it if the dollar came from the theft of taxation *because* it deprived the 1 man of his million.

Comment Re:Theory too (Score 1) 442

He is saying what he believes but you are right, what he believes is trolling. The most powerful tro11ing is the trolling against the common sense and against individual freedom and it has been done over and over again under the flag of justice for all, brotherhood, motherland and other similar concepts that define a group that the masses can feel they belong to. Defining this group requires internalization of ideas, internalization is the key word, it means thoughtless acceptance and the base point to fall back to when rationality and reasoning drive you to the point of internal conflict, to an internal contradiction.

Once any contradictions caused by inconsistencies in reasoning against your own position are dismissed and the base point is established the work of the 'educator' is done. The person is ready to become a fully integrated member of the group.

The group can then be directed and used to increase the power of the governing elite within the system, with the messaging being so out of touch with the actual reality that no rationally thinking individual could mistake the message for any form of truth, but the group simply falls back to the base point and carries the message anyway, providing the power to the government that is needed to crush any form of dissent.

In its cohesive entirety I consider this to be the ultimate form of tro11ing, the trolling by the group against any form of reason and rationality, the trolling that requires fundamental denial of any form of individualism and of independent thought.

Comment wars destroy wealth (Score -1, Troll) 443

Right, so what we have shown here is that wars and collectivism is the way to destroy wealth. Destroying wealth should not be the goal though if you want a wealthy society. Inequality is not the issue, it never was and never will be the real issue. The real issue is destruction of individual freedoms.

Comment Re:Great. Why not six years ago? (Score 1) 184

This problem ain't just on Trump and Republicans.

Now it is. They control all three branches of government and could stop warrantless searches tomorrow if they so decided.

But that's simply a deflection and avoiding the subject. Why didn't the Democrats take action when *they* had all 3 branches of government with Harry Reid's 'nuclear option' in play that made the minority (R)'s unable to block/obstruct as with the ACA/Obamacare?

Could it be that the problem is one of a too-powerful government altogether, and not simply a problem with one political party?

Take off the partisan blinders. *Both* sides are corrupt and agree on 90%-plus, especially on abridging civil rights.


Comment Re:Kids these days... (Score 1) 403

Yes, and it's a shame so many local papers sold out. It's a disservice to their readership. There are a lot of problems with local papers. Honesty is a big issue. My local paper had a very lively online community, but they didn't like the fact that the comments pointed out the bias or inaccuracies of many of their reports. Up went a paywall and out went pseudo-anonymous accounts. It absolutely killed them. Worse, the local papers' websites are the hosts for the nastiest, most annoying advertising. Some of them are unmanageable even with adblocking. I would pay a subscription for unbiased content and unfettered commentary and I'm sure a number of people would, forgoing the need for heavy advertising.. but that's a tall ask for the old media and sadly we can't always have what we want. So we go to Facebook or other social media venues to fill the whole that local news used to. They need to adapt with the times or disappear like payphones.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Now this is a totally brain damaged algorithm. Gag me with a smurfette." -- P. Buhr, Computer Science 354