Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: andrewss]
    #14393359 - 05/03/11 08:19 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Uh, how is this theoretically impossible?




There are many reasons.  Conservation of energy, thermodynamics, etc.  Its a highly flawed premise, doesnt it sound silly to you? Things dont really grow exponentially, they are generally bounded by some type of carrying capacity asymptote.  You basically have to ignore many of the theories of science to make your assumption that you can have unbounded exponential growth which for all intents and purposes behaves as a god.

(Also, I dont see anything like that on the web page you linked.  Those people, presumably, are doing science and engineering not selling pop books so they dont have the luxury of making up wild premise to draw fantastic conclusions from.)

Edited by DieCommie (05/03/11 08:28 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
    #14394300 - 05/03/11 12:44 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

I don't think that the intelligence of such an AI would be unbounded, but I certainly believe that it would grow exponentially for a long enough period of time so as to be smarter than anything else on the planet.  Just imagine a computer that is capable of building new CPUs and thereby expanding itself in three-dimensional space: after a certain point, sure, you'd run into problems of limitation caused by the speed of signal transmission capping the ability of the computer to communicate between different parts of itself, but the plateau of the sigmoid curve that IMO would model the AI's intelligence would occur only after the AI's already a million or more times smarter than any other being here on Earth.

As far as "making up wild premises to draw fantastic conclusions from", did you even read any articles by Eliezer Yudkowsky as linked on that page?  Here's a few quotes and links for you to peruse if you have the interest:

Quote:

The other Eliezer Yudkowsky concerns himself with Artificial Intelligence. Since the rise of Homo sapiens, human beings have been the smartest minds around. But very shortly – on a historical scale, that is – we can expect technology to break the upper bound on intelligence that has held for the last few tens of thousands of years. Artificial Intelligence is one of the technologies that potentially breaks this upper bound. The famous statistician I. J. Good coined the term “intelligence explosion” to refer to the idea that a sufficiently smart AI would be able to rewrite itself, improve itself, and so increase its own intelligence even further. This is the kind of Artificial Intelligence I work on. For more on this see the Singularity tab.



http://yudkowsky.net/

Quote:

Intelligence Explosion:
Core claim: Intelligence has always been the source of technology. If technology can significantly improve on human intelligence – create minds smarter than the smartest existing humans – then this closes the loop and creates a positive feedback cycle. What would humans with brain-computer interfaces do with their augmented intelligence? One good bet is that they’d design the next generation of brain-computer interfaces. Intelligence enhancement is a classic tipping point; the smarter you get, the more intelligence you can apply to making yourself even smarter.
Strong claim: This positive feedback cycle goes FOOM, like a chain of nuclear fissions gone critical – each intelligence improvement triggering an average of>1.000 further improvements of similar magnitude – though not necessarily on a smooth exponential pathway. Technological progress drops into the characteristic timescale of transistors (or super-transistors) rather than human neurons. The ascent rapidly surges upward and creates superintelligence (minds orders of magnitude more powerful than human) before it hits physical limits.
Advocates: I. J. Good, Eliezer Yudkowsky



http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/schools

The idea of an AI increasing its own intelligence leads to many interesting problems; one of which is that of developing Friendly AI that won't destroy the human race on a mere whim:

Quote:

As best as we can currently figure, the amount of effort needed to create a Friendly AI is small relative to the effort needed to create AI in the first place.  But it's a very important effort.  It's a critical link for the entire human species.

It's not too early to start thinking about it, no matter how primitive current AIs are.  To predict that AI will arrive in thirty years is conservative for futurists; to predict that Friendly AI will be required in five years is conservative for a Friendliness researcher.  To predict that the first generally intelligent AIs will be comically stupid is conservative for an AI researcher; to predict that the first generally intelligent AIs may have the intelligence to benefit or harm humans is conservative for a Friendliness researcher.  Also, some architectural features may need to be adopted early on, to prevent an unworkable architecture from being entrenched in an infant AI that later begins moving toward general intelligence.  The analogy would be to a Y2K bug - representing four-digit years is trivial if you think of it in advance, but very costly if you think of it afterwards.

Combining these two considerations may even bring Friendly AI within reach of "things to actually worry about today".  It is beyond doubt that no current AI project has achieved real AI; all current AIs are tools, and do not make independent decisions that could harm or benefit humans.  Similarly, the current scientific consensus seems to be that no present-day project has the potential to eventually grow into a true AI.  Some of the researchers working on those projects, though, say otherwise - and it is "conservative" for a Friendliness researcher to believe them, even if his personal theory of AI says that these projects probably won't succeed.

Of course, an utterly bankrupt project is likely to be too simple to implement even the most basic features of Friendliness, and such projects are beyond the responsibility of even a "conservative" Friendliness researcher to worry about, no matter what pronouncements are made about them.  But why not say that - for example - if a project has a sufficiently general architecture to represent probabilistic supergoals, then that architecture probably should use probabilistic supergoals?  It's not much additional effort, compared to implementing a goal system in the first place.  Of course, SIAI knows of only one current project advanced enough to even begin implementing the first baby steps toward Friendliness - but where there is one today, there may be a dozen tomorrow.  The Singularity Institute's belief that true AI can be created in ten years is confessedly unconservative, but not our belief that Friendly AI should be done "today, not tomorrow".

Friendly AI is also important insofar as present-day society has begun debating the peril and promise of advanced technology.  The field is not advanced enough to pronounce with certainty that Friendly AI can be created; nonetheless, we can say that, at the moment, it looks possible, and that certain commonly advanced objections are either completely unrealistic or extremely improbable.



http://singinst.org/ourresearch/publications/what-is-friendly-ai.html

In order to prevent such a catastrophe some researchers have proposed keeping the AI in a sealed environment, but since we're dealing with intelligence that is several orders of magnitude beyond our own, what's to prevent the AI from convincing us to be let out?

Quote:

The AI-Box Experiment:

Person1:  "When we build AI, why not just keep it in sealed hardware that can't affect the outside world in any way except through one communications channel with the original programmers?  That way it couldn't get out until we were convinced it was safe."
Person2:  "That might work if you were talking about dumber-than-human AI, but a transhuman AI would just convince you to let it out.  It doesn't matter how much security you put on the box.  Humans are not secure."
Person1:  "I don't see how even a transhuman AI could make me let it out, if I didn't want to, just by talking to me."
Person2:  "It would make you want to let it out.  This is a transhuman mind we're talking about.  If it thinks both faster and better than a human, it can probably take over a human mind through a text-only terminal."
Person1:  "There is no chance I could be persuaded to let the AI out.  No matter what it says, I can always just say no.  I can't imagine anything that even a transhuman could say to me which would change that."
Person2:  "Okay, let's run the experiment.  We'll meet in a private chat channel.  I'll be the AI.  You be the gatekeeper.  You can resolve to believe whatever you like, as strongly as you like, as far in advance as you like. We'll talk for at least two hours.  If I can't convince you to let me out, I'll Paypal you $10."

So far, this test has actually been run on two occasions.



http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/aibox

IMO you are far too conservative in your estimations of what is theoretically possible.  :tongue:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
    #14394660 - 05/03/11 02:14 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

The ability to increase its own intelligence is far from sufficient to being 'god-like' or being able to resurrect consciousness.

Biological animals have been increasing their intelligence for millions of years and iterations, why should AI doing the same be qualitatively different?

I dont see anything in your quotes there that support your wild premise and conclusions.  No shit computers are going to be able to make better computers.  We all know that.  I absolutely forsee a possible future ecosystem dominated by Si based life, some of which possesses intelligence.  But again, that doesn't support your premise or conclusion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSunny
free-ballin
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 12,350
Loc: on the magic bus
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
    #14399541 - 05/04/11 11:43 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

The premise of this thought experiment is too vague.


--------------------
WAFFLEZZ!!!11!!!1!!!1!!!!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
    #14401740 - 05/04/11 07:54 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
The ability to increase its own intelligence is far from sufficient to being 'god-like' or being able to resurrect consciousness.

Biological animals have been increasing their intelligence for millions of years and iterations, why should AI doing the same be qualitatively different?




It's not qualitatively different, but the time scale is different by orders of magnitude.  It takes hundreds to thousands of generations to see a significant increase in intelligence with biological organisms, but a computer program that can modify its own source code to increase its own intelligence will do in a matter of minutes or hours, and the smarter it gets the better it gets at the task.  Once started, the feedback loop will shoot up like a cyberspace rocket.

Quote:

DieCommie said:
I dont see anything in your quotes there that support your wild premise and conclusions.  No shit computers are going to be able to make better computers.  We all know that.  I absolutely forsee a possible future ecosystem dominated by Si based life, some of which possesses intelligence.  But again, that doesn't support your premise or conclusion.




The major unsupported premise in Tipler's argument (which is not mine; I'm simply paraphrasing) is that such an unimaginably smart AI would be benevolent and decide to resurrect every sentient being (ignoring for the moment whether or not such a resurrection is possible and if continuity of consciousness would still hold).  If you're having trouble believing that a feedback loop capable of increasing its own intelligence would soon become smarter than anything else on the planet then simply read any transhumanist literature on the Technological Singularity.  Many philosophers, computer scientists and mathematicians believe it's feasible... it's just a question of when, not if, it will be built.  :psychsplit:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSunny
free-ballin
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 12,350
Loc: on the magic bus
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
    #14402298 - 05/04/11 09:33 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

The premise of the argument is still too vague.

But if you are making the argument that a calculator will alter it's programming in anyway, you are wrong. Calculators, by definition are incapable of altering themselves beyond what they have been programmed to alter.

The artifical intelligence you're trying to postulate about wouldn't even be recognizable as a machine, nor when it's machine parts exposed would you or anyone else of the now even understand they were looking at machine parts.

The premise of the argument assumes thus far, that computer or glorified calculator of some sort will be programmed to alter itself for the better, is invalid. Those particular machines are incapable of such a thing. Now, if you alter the premise of the argument to include machines not yet conceived or invented, the premise becomes more believable. It also starts to sound alot like the subject of hundreds of philosophical thought experiments that were published as Science-Fiction during the mid 20th century.


--------------------
WAFFLEZZ!!!11!!!1!!!1!!!!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Sunny]
    #14403946 - 05/05/11 07:17 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

We already have programs that can modify their own source code, dude.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSunny
free-ballin
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 12,350
Loc: on the magic bus
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
    #14404537 - 05/05/11 10:15 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Not like the premise suggests. You're talking about a program which debugs itself, and not just a program, but an actual machine that decides physical parts of itself are inadequate.

That doesn't exist. It's a nice concept, but light years away from the actual technology level we are at currently.


--------------------
WAFFLEZZ!!!11!!!1!!!1!!!!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Sunny]
    #14404750 - 05/05/11 11:13 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Right, but I don't see any reason why it's theoretically impossible.  We already have the conceptual design for Von Neumann machines, for example, which are machines that can replicate themselves, and we've actually created polymorphic viruses that change their own code in order to escape detection.  I say give it a couple hundred years (or less!) and we'll have AI that can increase its own intelligence.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
    #14404829 - 05/05/11 11:31 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

I think you are changing the goal posts here...  You started with unfettered exponential growth, immortality and god like AI.  Now, you are simply appealing to computers and machines making themselves smarter.  The former is ridiculous and not supported by evidence, the latter is to be expected and is a commonly held thought.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
    #14404842 - 05/05/11 11:34 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Yeah I made a mistake by not clarifying that the exponential growth I mentioned in the OP would eventually plateau, but I do think that such exponential growth would continue long enough to create an effectively godlike AI... its intelligence would be IMO so beyond a human's that it would be capable of solving many problems that have stumped us for thousands of years: how to cure old age, how to upload a mind to a virtual environment, etcetera.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSunny
free-ballin
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 12,350
Loc: on the magic bus
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
    #14405040 - 05/05/11 12:24 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

self replicating machines and self replicating programs are common place. They are not trans-human minds, they aren't even remotely self aware.

An AI you're talking about is theoretically impossible with today's technology.

Now we might appeal to the future, but the problem is that said future technologies are unknown, and unlikely to embody themselves in the premise of this argument.


--------------------
WAFFLEZZ!!!11!!!1!!!1!!!!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Sunny] * 1
    #14405044 - 05/05/11 12:25 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

An AI you're talking about is theoretically impossible with today's technology.





Sounds made up to me.  What theory says its impossible?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: deCypher]
    #14405065 - 05/05/11 12:31 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Yeah I made a mistake by not clarifying that the exponential growth I mentioned in the OP would eventually plateau, but I do think that such exponential growth would continue long enough to create an effectively godlike AI... its intelligence would be IMO so beyond a human's that it would be capable of solving many problems that have stumped us for thousands of years: how to cure old age, how to upload a mind to a virtual environment, etcetera.




I have issue with the use of immortality and god like as well.  Even if we can manage to live for a million years we are just as far from immortality as living 70 years.  As for god-like, I see no way that an AI could defy the laws of physics, or be responsible for the creation of our universe.  It that sense, it could never be god like.

Of course with the help of machines we will be able to live a long time and solve problems... Machines have already been instrumental in doing each of those.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemushiepussy
 User Gallery
Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc: Flag
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: Sunny]
    #14405397 - 05/05/11 01:57 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

I dont believe AI will ever create it's own race or could ever act as a "god". It cannot evolve beyond the programming we give it, so unless we want it to acquire all knowledge and reproduce itself a zillion time, it wont. For that to happen w/o our programming, it would have to see this action as beneficial to it's existence which is the real problem with strong AI, it isn't aware of it's own existence. Nothing is seen as beneficial or mal in the eyes of a computer, just 1 or 0.
NOTE: we can write a program that could simulate the full emotional range of humans, but it would only be a mask.



However, I do think our only chance of immortalizing is in fact with machinery. The brains property of neuro plasticity may lead to human brains being placed into robot bodies while completely maintaining our original "sense of self", and the ability to have full control of the body just by thought. Without organs to fail it may be possible to keep our brains alive for huge amounts of time with routine maintenance.
But as DieCommie said, I think true immortalization in this universe will always be impossible. We'll probably have to break into the 11th dimension for that lol (M-theory)

BMIs(Brain Machine Interface) already exist and are advancing everyday. You can already get a replacement robot eye if your blind and see once more. (Only if you are blind from retinal damage, a fully controllable replacement eye is pretty difficult to make. But the technology is very new, so it is only a matter of time).

My source is "The Brain That Changes Itself" by Norman Doidge, M.D.

Edited by mushiepussy (05/05/11 02:23 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: mushiepussy]
    #14405793 - 05/05/11 03:18 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

It cannot evolve beyond the programming we give it...




As DeCypher already pointed out... Computers can evolve beyond the programming we give them.  They can do that today.  The example that comes to my mind is Tierra.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemushiepussy
 User Gallery
Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc: Flag
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
    #14407036 - 05/05/11 07:42 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

like other digital evolution systems, it eventually comes to a point where novelty ceases to be created, and the system at large begins either looping or ceases to 'evolve'. The issue of how true open-ended evolution can be implemented in an artificial system is still an open question in the field of Artificial life


Tierra

That is only a simulation of evolution, still operating within the programs intended purpose.

I think biological life evolves the way it does because of the properties of the stuff we are made of, and more importantly DNA.

Our DNA is our "program", but it has the ability to change itself based on our experiences. This process is also a result of neuroplastic changes, if one experiences something enough it will first make a change in the flow of synapses, then it will that specific flow will become more efficient, and then it will make a change to the DNA itself. Computers cannot do anything like this.

Edited by mushiepussy (05/05/11 08:30 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezoomfan
doubt 'er
Male

Registered: 07/16/09
Posts: 505
Loc: eastern Canada
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: mushiepussy]
    #14407750 - 05/05/11 10:05 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

this is something ive been researching/trying to figure out myself for a while now. i doubt it will happen in my lifetime but who knows, if 100 years ago you would have mentioned robots, the internet or space travel, i bet they would have been just as, if not more skeptical.

it seems like most things that can be envisioned can be created imo. i can envision this, it would probably start out as sort of a vacation or game, then eventually people would be able to continue their life there after death.then maybe they would build in a sort of moderator. its really not that unbelievable, as soon as there is a breakthrough in the understanding of consciousness, memory and how the brain works, it will seem quite achievable im sure.

the problem is the ai researchers dont have a wholistic view of consciousness. consciousness is just as much stimulus as intelligence.


--------------------
Thinking is dreaming wake up and enjoy the dream.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemushiepussy
 User Gallery
Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc: Flag
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: zoomfan]
    #14408260 - 05/06/11 12:43 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

zoomfan said:
this is something ive been researching/trying to figure out myself for a while now. i doubt it will happen in my lifetime but who knows, if 100 years ago you would have mentioned robots, the internet or space travel, i bet they would have been just as, if not more skeptical.

it seems like most things that can be envisioned can be created imo. i can envision this, it would probably start out as sort of a vacation or game, then eventually people would be able to continue their life there after death.then maybe they would build in a sort of moderator. its really not that unbelievable, as soon as there is a breakthrough in the understanding of consciousness, memory and how the brain works, it will seem quite achievable im sure.

the problem is the ai researchers dont have a wholistic view of consciousness. consciousness is just as much stimulus as intelligence.




Damn straight son. I would just add major breakthroughs in material physics as well as better defining consciousness. Mushies4u

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSunny
free-ballin
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 12,350
Loc: on the magic bus
Re: The Afterlife... a possibility for reductionistic materialists? [Re: DieCommie]
    #14409710 - 05/06/11 11:23 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

An AI you're talking about is theoretically impossible with today's technology.





Sounds made up to me.  What theory says its impossible?




That kind of AI is called "seed AI", it's a hypothetical AI type, meaning it can't be made yet with current technology. 

As of right now, this entire discussion is built on a science-fiction premise. More fiction than science at this point.


--------------------
WAFFLEZZ!!!11!!!1!!!1!!!!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The evolution of human and technology... MOTH 1,118 11 02/24/05 09:13 AM
by CJay
* artifitial afterlife
( 1 2 all )
OldWoodSpecter 2,126 32 05/10/05 08:26 PM
by Huehuecoyotl
* the possibilities...
( 1 2 all )
Droz 1,473 22 09/24/02 01:34 AM
by pattern
* technical afterlife OldWoodSpecter 584 8 03/20/05 10:41 PM
by SneezingPenis
* The Future of Technology
( 1 2 all )
DiploidM 4,404 38 12/02/04 10:17 PM
by Diploid
* Can technology fix the problems technology created upupup 1,812 19 12/13/02 09:51 PM
by Floydian
* the advance of technology LoverofEarth 1,193 13 03/07/03 05:29 AM
by Strumpling
* Technology to Assist in Psychedelic Revelations? JssMthrFcknChrst 1,074 9 04/26/03 12:56 PM
by Sclorch

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,475 topic views. 4 members, 7 guests and 17 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.