|
The earliest ones I had were 'hard sectored' 256k. Later, when working with IBM hardware, they used soft sectored 8" floppies which could hold 1 MB.
|
|
|
|
|
You are probably right: 360K should hold a quite a few spammers! 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
I got an ad when I first went to watch the trailer for Transcendence on YouTube. The ad? The trailer for Transcendence. *boom* mind blown.
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory.Gadow wrote: Would it be the next stage in human evolution? Or would it be the end of human kind?
One might as well wonder about magic since current advances would suggest the same likelihood as the scenario you presented.
Beyond that though...
In your scenario is there only one human mind or many?
If many then of course, since more computers is, presumably, more power, then there would be resource wars. If only one or just a few then it would be humans versus computers again in a battle for resources.
One might also presume that the upload brain is faster. Thus even supposing that it was able to find more interesting things to think about, what happens if it becomes bored?
|
|
|
|
|
|
So that's just an improvement of 2400x faster...
Mind you, that's just mapping a brain, not actually mapping its own things.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to living forever. I'm more bothered about who will be the gatekeepers. Will people will mental health issues be 'filtered'?(Eugenics). And so on. 
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
