|
Simon O'Riordan from UK wrote: I'm looking forward to living forever. Me too, particularly if it's in a small box and only uses electricity.
That would solve over population and food problems (assuming we're using that power station in the sky for juice, we could at least run for about 4 billion years from that).
Psychosis at 10
Film at 11
Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
|
|
|
|
|
Sleep in the box until they build me new body. Then youth without the mistakes. Nice. 
|
|
|
|
|
If one would to upload a human mind into a super-puter, would that really be AI?
Jokes about 'blondes colouring their hair' etc. surely to follow. 
|
|
|
|
|
To Quote my AI professor (Circa 1991):
When you can clearly define Intelligence... Then and only then will we have a definition for Artificial Intelligence. In the absence of that, lets just agree to call it "Magical Human-Like Problem Solving!"
And the "Magical" part goes away once you understand how it works.
We write programs with a purpose. Usually, a very specific purpose. We do not write a program and say "There... You can learn. Now go and find your purpose."
The need to eat and sleep, and process what happened during the day. The need to rely on others, and the feelings we have.
Frankly, our goals should be to make dogs/cats first (Kujo V2.0 anyone? He's back, and he's been reading your emails!)
|
|
|
|
|
Downloading a Human mind into a computer would destroy the computer since the involved AI sentient-being would not be able to handle the massive stupidity it was getting.
People overrate the ability of Humans to reason...
Steve Naidamast
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
Some already believe that the process is underway (e.g. Ray Kurzweil).
The process will not involve uploading anything, but our current mind will be augmented with our technology to improve our intelligence incrementally.
If you consider the tools that we have this day which extend our capability: our memory (the collective knowledge of the Internet), our calculative skills (a calculator), our ability to communicate, our planning and organisational skills, we have already started along this path. The tools that we use are not physically connected to us, but they are an integral part of our consciousness.
I think this a much more likely outcome in the short term.
The big departure from this will come from more invasive interaction with our technology. This boundary will only be broken when we have overcome societal issues. We're seeing this with Google Glass at the moment. We are interested in the technology but we distrust those that use it (in some cases probably rightly so).
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory.Gadow wrote: It looks like a very interesting movie, but I suspect it will have one of those awful "love conquers all and saves existence yet again" kind of endings. Maybe it will end like Lawnmower Man or Colossus: The Forbin Project.
Psychosis at 10
Film at 11
Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
|
|
|
|
|
What? didn't they put a power switch on it... ... anyway, they have it right, if an artificial mind had an internet connection, it will copy itself as many times as it could, so for anyone out there, if they create such advanced AI, please don't connect it to the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
I think what we're after is an organic mind in an artificial brain.
|
|
|
|
|
It should hopefully make a good movie. But the base principle (uploading a person in to a computer) will never work because the human mind and sentience is hyper-dimensional, i.e. beyond the 3 dimensions of our physical world. For that you'll need an ASC - Artificial Sentience Container...
And we can all look back many years and have a very good laugh because in the 1980's (or so) in a magazine called Omni I remember an article about AI where leading experts were quoted as saying that they believed in their professional opinion that uploading a complete human mind and/or personality to a computer was just right around the corner (i.e. just a few years away)! More than a few years have passed since then and while this idea comes up again every once in a while I don't believe that we're even close to uploading just a personality copy...
And where the heck are the flying cars and Disney on the moon! 
|
|
|
|
|
I have the plugin FlashBlock installed on Firefox to block annoying self playing audio/video on sites. It works fairly well. As it happens, it would appear the latest update of Flash removes it.
Increasingly I am thinking of Flash as more of malware.
|
|
|
|
|
Flash is used mostly to embed spammy advertising into commercial web pages. If users can block Flash from delivering those ads, the websites do not get any revenue. So, the people who buy Flash development tools have been demanding that Adobe consider the play-blockers to be malware that must be disabled.
The only real solution is not to install Flash. Unfortunately, that breaks far too many websites.
|
|
|
|
|
I reinstalled FlashBlock so I'm good again. The thing I like about flash block is I can enable the plugin for specific pages if I am interested in the flash content.
I have not found it breaking the web sites I visit. I guess it would depend if the site won't load until all the adware loads? I don't think people code that anymore?
Anyway, whoever uses flash on auto-play when site loads with audio must be thrashed severely.
|
|
|
|
|
That's far too kind of a punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
You can pretty easily disable the browser plugin and just enable it when you need it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Adobe has had that reputation for some time; starting their PDF reader when Windows starts, as if viewing PDF is the primary purpose of any PC and it "needs" be preloaded. Slowing down other apps, just to "appear faster".
Flash even warns about "new updates" when there hasn't been an internet-connection on that machine - it IS malware.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Flash even warns about "new updates" when there hasn't been an internet-connection on that machine - it IS malware.
Well said!
I love go-o-o-o-ld!
|
|
|
|
|
{dc7c68de-3931-43b9-9102-6dbe3972c5c3} wrote: Increasingly I am thinking of Flash as more of malware.
Most of the time I disable it.
|
|
|
|
|
Eh, I usually set chrome to block all plugins unless I specifically tell it to show them. Judging by this behavior though, it wouldn't surprise me if Flash changed that when you update too...
|
|
|
|
|
Coding standards with my employer are strange based on everything I've ever known, everything I've ever read, everything I've ever been told. They are set in their ways and I don't think anything could change their mind on these internal standards. Here are a few:
1. Excessive commenting -- practically every operation in code has a preceding comment. No matter how descriptive the code is, and no matter how simple the operation may be, there is a comment such as the following:
private int Add(int a, int b)
{
return a + b;
}
private void Process(MyFileObj myFile)
{
if (myFile != null)
{
myFile.StripBadData();
_myFileCollection.Add(myFile);
}
}
2. Variable declaration -- this may not be so bad, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But I've never seen it done this way. According to their standards, all variables in a method must be initially declared at the top of the method, before anything else is done:
private MyClass MyMethod()
{
int count = 0;
MyClass someObj = null;
foreach (MyFileObj file in _myFileCollection)
{
if(file.Name.Length <= 20)
{
file.CopyTo(@"C:\SomePath\" + file.Name);
count++;
}
}
someObj = new MyClass();
someObj.FileCount = count;
return someObj;
}
The "MyClass someObj" isn't referenced until the very end of the method. Why should it be declared at the very top of the method? Maybe I'm missing something? I've never declared objects until the time I need them.
These are just a few examples. There are some other things I don't really agree with, but I can't change any of them.
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
Coding Standards are the first step in an organization to removing code quality. My personal experience suggests that code reviews become about fiefdoms and pet "issues" of enforcing the standards instead of about the code, errors in the logic, mismatched to requirements, etc.
Also, when you don't have standards it is a lot easier to read other peoples code. (You can intuitively know who wrote it; most people make the sames types of errors over and over as well) And, oddly enough, without standards but with code-review and team work the code base naturally coverages. I personally keep standards to something regarding actual quality.
That said, I usually declare all variables at the top of a method. And always only have one return in a method, preferring if-statements over multiple returns. Bottom-line is as you experience things you will learn what works best for you.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm quickly beginning to understand your thinking on the subject. I kind of felt that way about it already. And the more I think about it, the more it annoys me. However, I will say that our manager and the lead developer both offer assistance to clear up code, to write more efficient code, etc. So I suppose it could be much worse.
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, so much to hate here.
First, code standards make it easier to read the code (if they make sense). You don't need a lack of standard to tell who wrote it. Besides your source control can tell you who wrote the code.
Second, keeping variable declarations at the top and avoiding multiple exits of a method make code harder to read. And the whole if thing? Code quality is (generally) inverse to the number of if statements a coder uses.
But I would find a new place to work as quickly as possible. The code standards show that this organization has not embraced the C# way of doing things.
|
|
|
|
|
Declaring all variables at the begining of the method is an old c++(i am not sure if it comes from c) standard closely connected with the variable block of sight. In c# i dont believe there is such thing.
Today i was sooo close of declaring such variable
bool bResultBecauseMyBossDoesntLikeMoreThanOneReturnInTheMethods = false;
next time ask your boss if you need to put a comment to the line
i++;
Sometimes i wonder... why does they want us to comment everything like the next "programmer", who will manage this will be a monkey.
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
That makes sense. I'm pretty sure my manager is the guy who set the coding standards. And if I'm not mistaken, he has a background in C++ as well. He has quite an extensive list of areas in which he's knowledgeable, so that is probably where it comes from.
And that's my point. You're supposed to write code with readability and maintainability in mind, right? Well, if that's the case, you shouldn't have to comment every single operation. The more complex operations, yes, I completely understand. Sometimes, even if you think a complex piece of code is readable, it may be better for the next person if you comment and summarize what's going on. But to comment on a "return" statement? Or an increment statement? That seems a bit ridiculous.
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|