Author Topic: Help to understand the Big Bang  (Read 8143 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #150 on: February 18, 2019, 03:30:46 am »
Today AI isn't on the same level as humans. But certain people keep arrogantly making things up that humans supposedly are the only ones that can do. Yet they keep being proven wrong.

They used to say that (other) animals don't have a sense of ethics, or that we are the only species that can plan ahead, turns out that was not true at all. They used to say machines can never translate language, or that machines can never play chess better than humans, now they can.

There is no reason to think we (the human mind) are more than a complex machine that can be understood and copied. At the moment it looks like AI is making huge progress, we are also learning more and more about how the brain works using advanced imaging techniques, and we are beginning to understand how the cells works on a molecular level. Keep in mind that the first computer was built less than 100 years ago and a lot of people didn't believe matter consisted of atoms before 1905.

Of course, it doesn't mean we should treat humans as machines, but maybe in the future there are machines that should be treated as humans, and maybe there are some animals that should be treated better, etc.
 
The following users thanked this post: xrunner

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 798
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #151 on: February 20, 2019, 01:41:33 am »
Just released


 

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1194
  • Country: fo
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #152 on: February 20, 2019, 04:34:44 am »
Today AI isn't on the same level as humans. But certain people keep arrogantly making things up that humans supposedly are the only ones that can do. Yet they keep being proven wrong. They used to say machines can never translate language, or that machines can never play chess better than humans, now they can
Artificial intelligence refers to "a broad set of methods, algorithms and technologies that make software 'smart' in a way that may seem human-like to an outside observer, thats not real full AI.
Quote
By now, computer programs repeatedly beat the best humans at chess (or at any game really). Many people arrogantly believed this wouldn't be possible because humans were somehow special magical beings that were above all other things and creatures. That clearly isn't the case; we are just a bunch of hairless monkeys that got a bit too clever for our own good.
Just because a computer (made by a human feat in it self) can beat an human in chess is then by default smarter and AI yet it was the human who invented the chess game and computer and not the computer itself, a HUGE difference. What counts in evolution is the progress of evolution and if AI can crack that on its own then Homo sapiens is in trouble.
Quote
There is no reason to think we (the human mind) are more than a complex machine that can be understood and copied.
We already do, its called sexual intercourse.
Quote
At the moment it looks like AI is making huge progress,
Nope it dosent, it havent even passed the first requirements , cognitive reasoning and self awareness.
Cognitive computing (whatever that is defined as such) refers to computing thats focused on reasoning and understanding at a higher level, often in a manner that is inspired by human cognition. it deals with symbolic and conceptual information rather than just pure data or sensor streams, with the aim of making high-level decisions in complex situations, then add human feelings into that model and your in deep AI trouble and a off switch is needed
and not human rights laws as some progressive leftists says. No we need a firm Hitler like hand to these Ai figures
trying to kill us all!

Cognitive systems often make use of variety of machine-learning techniques, but cognitive computing is not a machine-learning method per se. Instead, it is often a complete architecture of multiple A.I. subsystems work all together. Cognetive system is subset of A.I. that deals with cognitive behaviors associated with thinking as opposed to perception and motor control.

Cognitive systems/computing is marketing buzz implying computing machines of today has AI therefore think. Utterly bull crap off course. Wicked/self trolled assumptions leads to similar conclusions.

The point is, humans cant create AI in its full meaning unless human understand how self awareness comes to existence in the human brain to begin with, and we dont. Self awareness shows up around 2.5years old detected by the mirror experiment so how do you translate that into a non biological(i assume) machine that does that on its own?

Ai today is just a buzz word based on many techniques such as neural networks, support vector machines, decision trees, Bayesian belief networks, k-nearest neighbors, self-organizing maps, case-based reasoning, instance-based learning, hidden Markov models and truck load of regression analysis, non is AI. AI is born when it evolve it self but then do spiders have self awareness? We dont know , how do you measure it? Could we create a spider like creature? Likely but we dont need Ai to make it look as if it was AI.
Quote
we are also learning more and more about how the brain works using advanced imaging techniques, and we are beginning to understand how the cells works on a molecular level. Keep in mind that the first computer was built less than 100 years ago and a lot of people didn't believe matter consisted of atoms before 1905.
yet the ancient greeks was fully aware that planet was round circling the sun, yet 4000years later loads of flat earthers walking the planet! 
The machinlearning folks entertain themselfs by adding noise into the image to completely fool the image algo.
Quote
Of course, it doesn't mean we should treat humans as machines, but maybe in the future there are machines that should be treated as humans, and maybe there are some animals that should be treated better, etc.
One problem you have with your reasoning is that you constantly refers humans to the idea of machines and that is a an outdated philosophical idea from René Descartes (1596-1650). but then what really defines a machine and what is free will, does it exist at all? It can be guaranteed that Philosophers and neuroendocrinologists want to have a say or two in that.
Currently AI is in a stalemate state of: what is it? and Why didnt you say!

« Last Edit: February 20, 2019, 04:38:13 am by MT »
 

Online SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3777
  • Country: fr
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #153 on: February 20, 2019, 02:51:03 pm »
They used to say that (other) animals don't have a sense of ethics, or that we are the only species that can plan ahead, turns out that was not true at all.

Conversely, by observing nature on a large scale, we could even go as far as stating that we are one of the worst species when it comes to ethics and planning ahead. This is debatable, but the only real fact is that we just keep talking about it. We consistently tend to confuse talking with doing, concepts with reality, and this characterizes us as a species much better than a supposed sense of ethics, planning or even consciousness. That and clearly the urge to control and change everything that surrounds us, which I think has links to our tendency to emphasize concepts over reality. Not sure what is ethical about that either. (Of course this is just my opinion.) All in all, we seem to have an extra ability to conceptualize things. That doesn't make us morally superior, nor even necessarily more efficient, but that makes us modify our environment much faster than other species.

There is no reason to think we (the human mind) are more than a complex machine that can be understood and copied. At the moment it looks like AI is making huge progress, we are also learning more and more about how the brain works using advanced imaging techniques, and we are beginning to understand how the cells works on a molecular level. Keep in mind that the first computer was built less than 100 years ago and a lot of people didn't believe matter consisted of atoms before 1905.

Just a side note, but I personally don't think AI per se has progressed that much. The main principles we still use date back to decades ago. What has progressed dramatically is the processing power and amount of usable storage. As far as I get it, most of what we call AI these days is mainly "big data": enormous pools of data that are analyzed with (relatively simple) statistics. Current AI systems (outside of research labs) mostly consist of that. They don't have algorithms that try and make sense of things; they just have basic algorithms that can decide what is the most likely response to some inputs based on huge pools of relevant data. Remove the data and the ability to get anything useful out of an AI system reaches zero. One typical and familiar example is the automated translation tools (for instance Google translate). As earlier tools actually tried to figure out the structure and meaning of sentences (with modest success), current tools basically triy to match groups of words and sentences against large sets of known text. Although it's not particulary efficient come to think about it, we can afford to do that with current technology, and it kind of works decently. Is that how our own "intelligence" works? Maybe. I have no real proof or that, but I'm willing to think at this point that there is just a little more than that. Maybe we'll be able to approach it in the future, but we are nowhere near at this point IMO.

That said, there is no reason to think we are better or worse than just anything else in the universe. But, although the distinction between living and non-living could prove hard to make as our knowledge progresses, I still think making this distinction is essential to our mental sanity. The moment we accept there is no difference between living and not living, our reason and drive for living disappears, with all the consequences we can figure out (and probably many others we can't).

 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8169
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #154 on: February 21, 2019, 04:49:08 pm »
Chances are that our intelligence is a pile of relatively simple systems piled cleverly on top of each other, optimised to the hilt by millions of years of evolution.
 

Offline Buriedcode

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1194
  • Country: gb
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #155 on: February 21, 2019, 06:29:30 pm »
The reason the "hard problem" is considered hard is that, unlike engineered systems, natural selection co-opts systems making things incredibly complicated.  Our technology is based on very simple systems/devices, connected and stacked very simply, to make more complicated devices - computers can be reverse engineered in a reductionist approach so easily, because they were designed from the ground up, and as such, can be understood very well.  Although evolution does indeed "evolve" to create more and more complex systems in organisms based on simpler systems, it isn't as simple as just breaking things down into smaller and smaller constituents to understand them.  We were not designed, so things are the way they are not because of intention, but by environment, time and chance.

Not that I'm completely disagreeing with you, just that "systems cleverly piled on top of each other" is too simple, and is why the reductionist approach tends to fail when it comes to understanding the mind.  And its why there is still a huge gap between psychology and neuroscience.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #156 on: March 01, 2019, 04:17:04 pm »
There is no reason to think we (the human mind) are more than a complex machine that can be understood and copied. At the moment it looks like AI is making huge progress, we are also learning more and more about how the brain works using advanced imaging techniques, and we are beginning to understand how the cells works on a molecular level. Keep in mind that the first computer was built less than 100 years ago and a lot of people didn't believe matter consisted of atoms before 1905.
Just a side note, but I personally don't think AI per se has progressed that much. The main principles we still use date back to decades ago. What has progressed dramatically is the processing power and amount of usable storage. As far as I get it, most of what we call AI these days is mainly "big data": enormous pools of data that are analyzed with (relatively simple) statistics. Current AI systems (outside of research labs) mostly consist of that. They don't have algorithms that try and make sense of things; they just have basic algorithms that can decide what is the most likely response to some inputs based on huge pools of relevant data. Remove the data and the ability to get anything useful out of an AI system reaches zero.
It is also my understanding that a lot of the algorithms used were developed decades ago. But they weren't practically usable back then because there wasn't enough processing power nor training data. That has changed which means it's now possible to put these techniques into praxis and experiment and develop them further. So for a long time there was no progress but now things are moving again. It's not like there isn't room for improvement, for example, it's not clear how to layer neural networks for best result or how to connect networks into larger structures.

It's true that it can help to have a lot of training data, but it's not always necessary. AlphaGo trained using a lot of previously recorded games played by professionals. AlphaZero, however, taught itself by only playing against itself and managed to beat AlphaGo after a relative short time (and it also beat the best humans of course). AlphaZero used only the rules of the game as input. It's not Go specific either, they can use the same architecture to master any perfect knowledge game (e.g. it's also the best Chess player now). Recently they beat the best human players at real time strategy games like StarCraft II, which has a lot of hidden state. Pretty spectacular progress. Human players also say their impression is that Alpha* plays like a human.

Neural tissue also consists of simple elements (neurons), which are connected in large networks and given enough training data they can learn to respond to a certain input with a certain output. For fun we could make a simple estimation of how much data a hairless monkey need before it begins outputting anything intelligible? Babies begin saying words about 2 year after birth (it is also listening in the womb but I'm not sure you can tell when that starts so I'm not including that period) (source: interesting list). Two years of CD quality stereo audio is: 44 khz, 16 bit is 2*365*24*60*60*44000*4*8/1e12 = about 90 TB of training data. If you add stereo video and other senses you need several orders of magnitude more. (e.g. adding stereo 1080p@30hz you get an additional 190 PB)  That is what we need to learn to pronounce simple words. A two year old is not very capable so you really need many more years of interactive training before we can be considered capable to do anything autonomous.

One typical and familiar example is the automated translation tools (for instance Google translate). As earlier tools actually tried to figure out the structure and meaning of sentences (with modest success), current tools basically triy to match groups of words and sentences against large sets of known text. Although it's not particulary efficient come to think about it, we can afford to do that with current technology, and it kind of works decently.
As far as I know the automated translation is fairly simplistic yes (I don't think it uses neural networks, but the details aren't public knowledge so who knows). I'm not so sure that is a good measure of ai-progress, but it's an example of things that people used to arrogantly claim was something only humans would ever be able to do. To ultimately be able to correctly translate a text you need to be able to disambiguate and reformulate the text which requires deep knowledge and understanding of the text which isn't feasible at the moment, but probably will be eventually. (A lot of translators probably doesn't fully understand the texts they are translating that well either.) Personally I find it amazing that Google can translate as successfully as they currently do by using only "simple" statistical methods.

Is that how our own "intelligence" works? Maybe. I have no real proof or that, but I'm willing to think at this point that there is just a little more than that. Maybe we'll be able to approach it in the future, but we are nowhere near at this point IMO.
There is reason to believe that neural networks works in a way that is similar to how the brain works on some level. I.e. one step up from the neurons. But we are still a long way from figuring out how to connect different types of networks to get something that is self aware, or to understand what self awareness actually means.

That said, there is no reason to think we are better or worse than just anything else in the universe. But, although the distinction between living and non-living could prove hard to make as our knowledge progresses, I still think making this distinction is essential to our mental sanity. The moment we accept there is no difference between living and not living, our reason and drive for living disappears, with all the consequences we can figure out (and probably many others we can't).
Isn't it buddism that teaches that life is an illusion, and that the goal is to free oneself from that illusion, or some such. Why would you accept there is no difference between living and not living? I wouldn't say that. There is a difference, but it is something that likely can be understood and reproduced artificially. There is no magic smoke inside us, but there is still something that makes us different from a stone or a bench grinder, something we don't fully understand yet. I don't see why our reason and drive for living would disappear once we do?
 

Online BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3364
  • Country: ca
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #157 on: March 14, 2019, 07:01:58 pm »
Episodes 4 through 8 get really good.  The interviews are thorough.
The first are a little slow, but the OP did say:
Help to understand the Big Bang
This cannot be done in a paragraph of text, and we don't know everything, so these 8 docus put together some of the leading ideas.

(Ok, I admit this may confuse the shit out of him.....)  ;)
This year's episode #9 has just been released:



This link has the first 8 episodes: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/helpto-understand-the-big-bang/msg2196393/#msg2196393
« Last Edit: March 14, 2019, 07:04:51 pm by BrianHG »
__________
BrianHG.
 

Offline 6PTsocket

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 212
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #158 on: March 16, 2019, 01:55:27 pm »
I always thought of the Big Bang as being the beginning of everything. There was nothing. No space, no black emptiness, no energy, no nothing. Just a big nothing that we cant even picture in our minds.
But then I started checking out lectures and written material (that I could understand, given that Im not in the area) and got a bit into the Higg's Boson/field and matter itself.
Now I wonder if I got my interpretation of the Big Bang all wrong. Is the big bang just the creation of matter? I started to imagine just empty space. Thinking of the universe before the big bang as if it was a section of the deadest, emptiest and darkest part of the universe after the big bang. Then, BANG and matter shows up.
Im having a really hard time to interpret the nothingness before the big bang, imagining there was no canvas for matter to exist.
Do we know if before the big bang there was a place for matter to exist? Or that is the very concept of the big bang? As it being the creation of matter and a place for it to exist?
Do scientist refer to the word "universe" as being the place where matter can exist? Or the place where matter travelled through or has the potential of traveling through? Because if it is the first "definition", what prevents the edge of particle that is the furthest on the edge of the universe to be the thing creating the universe? I mean, if the big bang created the space for matter to exist doesnt it mean that it either created the space for matter to exist instantly and infinitely in all directions or the very first particles (or waves, or whatever) that left the big bang and are now the ones defining the boarder of the universe are the ones creating the space for matter to exist as they travel?
Some things are just un knowable. How does something come from nothing? Some explain it as the work of a diety. That is as good an explanation any.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #159 on: March 16, 2019, 02:13:49 pm »
"We don't know" is the only correct explanation. Saying the flying spaghetti monster did it (or some other deity) is practically guaranteed to be wrong and thus misleading.

"We don't know who robbed the bank, so we might as well say God did it? or Kermit the frog?"  :-\

Just stick with "we don't know everything".
 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8169
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #160 on: March 16, 2019, 05:00:19 pm »
Some things are just un knowable. How does something come from nothing? Some explain it as the work of a diety. That is as good an explanation any.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
It's not an explanation though.
 

Offline 6PTsocket

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 212
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #161 on: March 17, 2019, 12:02:27 am »
"We don't know" is the only correct explanation. Saying the flying spaghetti monster did it (or some other deity) is practically guaranteed to be wrong and thus misleading.

"We don't know who robbed the bank, so we might as well say God did it? or Kermit the frog?"  :-\

Just stick with "we don't know everything".
A diety is wrong? You can't prove or disprove that either. When I look at the complex systems that have evolved it is hard to believe it is just evolution or chance. If something fails in you the body makes repairs or has backup systems. I can't concieve how natural selection produced that. I just never cease to be amazed at the complexities of the World. The odds this planet has what is needed to sustain life in such a hostile Universe is amazing, too.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 798
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #162 on: March 17, 2019, 12:19:22 am »
a diety sounds like something you need to eat.

Look the fact that you can't conceive things that other people understand really well, only shows your ignorance. That's it!

Yes the fact that we exist is absolutely amazing. And I find it disappointing to simplify to something so crude as magical invisible beings did it, because it's far more beautiful than that.
 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8169
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #163 on: March 17, 2019, 12:34:29 am »
A diety is wrong? You can't prove or disprove that either. When I look at the complex systems that have evolved it is hard to believe it is just evolution or chance. If something fails in you the body makes repairs or has backup systems. I can't concieve how natural selection produced that. I just never cease to be amazed at the complexities of the World. The odds this planet has what is needed to sustain life in such a hostile Universe is amazing, too.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
When you don't know whether something is true or not and you don't have anything to point either way the correct answer is "we don't know". See Russel's Teapot for why we can't just assume a random explanation. Finding something hard to believe doesn't make it untrue. Many people have trouble understanding the time or scales involved or lack the imagination to see the potential of such a multiform process. None of those things mean it's untrue. Things like backup systems are as much part of evolution as everything else. Almost anything and everything which improves the chances of survival until reproduction add to the success of a species and will be selected for. The odds of life arising on a planet which will not sustain life is effectively nil. It will always end up successfully developing on a planet which can sustain it, which is another example of natural selection.

If natural complexity is deemed unlikely and hard to understand, the spontaneous existence or creation of an intelligent omnipotent deity should be considered exponentially less likely. Instead of having a gradually escalating process, you now have instant ultimate complexity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
 
The following users thanked this post: Dubbie

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #164 on: March 17, 2019, 01:10:16 am »
"We don't know" is the only correct explanation. Saying the flying spaghetti monster did it (or some other deity) is practically guaranteed to be wrong and thus misleading.

"We don't know who robbed the bank, so we might as well say God did it? or Kermit the frog?"  :-\

Just stick with "we don't know everything".
A diety is wrong? You can't prove or disprove that either. When I look at the complex systems that have evolved it is hard to believe it is just evolution or chance. If something fails in you the body makes repairs or has backup systems. I can't concieve how natural selection produced that. I just never cease to be amazed at the complexities of the World. The odds this planet has what is needed to sustain life in such a hostile Universe is amazing, too.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
The fact I can't prove Kermit the frog didn't rob the bank doesn't mean he did it. If there are many possible suspects, then the probability that it was Kermit is very low. So it's misleading to say Kermit did it, in fact it is more likely it was someone else. It only makes sense to say we don't know who robbed the bank.

Wouldn't you protest if the police said "we don't know who robed the bank so we might as well assume you did it"?

We don't know how the universe started, and there are millions (if not an infinite) number of possible explanations, so picking one at random and saying it is the correct one is most likely wrong and very misleading.
 

Offline 6PTsocket

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 212
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #165 on: March 17, 2019, 03:31:44 am »
It still comes back to what existed before there was anything. It is not ignorance to concede it is unknowable but it is arrogant ego to think more research is going to supply the answer. To put a name to a prme mover is a philosophical choice not one debated in the physics dept.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8169
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #166 on: March 17, 2019, 03:43:33 am »
It still comes back to what existed before there was anything. It is not ignorance to concede it is unknowable but it is arrogant ego to think more research is going to supply the answer. To put a name to a prme mover is a philosophical choice not one debated in the physics dept.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
The only thing that's "arrogant ego" is to think you shouldn't endeavour to discover what was before. We may not know now and we may not ever know, but we're definitely are going to try our hardest to find out. The only way to literally and figuratively know our place is finding out more about it.
 

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 798
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #167 on: March 17, 2019, 06:15:05 am »
it is arrogant ego to think more research is going to supply the answer

Holy shit. That's the dumbest thing I've heard all week. Talk about arrogance!
 

Offline Dubbie

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #168 on: March 17, 2019, 07:41:54 am »
My favourite definition of the word faith (in the religious sense of the word) is; “Believing something you know ain’t so”
Thanks to Mark Twain for that insightful gem.

What distinguishes knowing something like what colour your front door is, and knowing that God is listening when you think thoughts directed to him?

One is called knowledge, the other is called faith. Why the distinction?

I have enjoyed this thread a lot. Especially Mr Scram’s posts. He has patiently and lucidly posted my thoughts for me without me having to lift a finger [emoji3]
« Last Edit: March 17, 2019, 07:44:16 am by Dubbie »
 

Online BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3364
  • Country: ca
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #169 on: October 05, 2019, 08:11:59 am »
Episodes 4 through 8 get really good.  The interviews are thorough.
The first are a little slow, but the OP did say:
Help to understand the Big Bang
This cannot be done in a paragraph of text, and we don't know everything, so these 8 docus put together some of the leading ideas.

(Ok, I admit this may confuse the shit out of him.....)  ;)
This year's episode #9 has just been released:



This link has the first 8 episodes: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/helpto-understand-the-big-bang/msg2196393/#msg2196393

This year's episode #10 has just been released:


__________
BrianHG.
 

Online SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3777
  • Country: fr
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #170 on: October 05, 2019, 07:22:19 pm »
I need help understanding The Big Bang Theory too, it's one of the most annoying sitcoms out there.  :-+
hahahaha I have to confess that I like it!

I used to when I was younger, but now it just seems so stilted.

The authors seem to hold some grudge against the quantum physics crowd, which by itself is rather funny.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf