Firefox's Slickest Features
-
Colin Urquhart wrote:
Brilliant. I pull some code from CVS that Bob wrote and my PAL 3000 has no idea how to compile it.
Not quite. A PAL first attempts to understand according to the cultural norms of the environment it reside in, as a human does. Failing that, it adjusts its scope and tries again, as a mature or experienced human does. Failing again, it considers unlikely and unusual interpretations, again, as a (persistent) human does. A fully cosmoPALitan machine will even consider different languages (but starting with the original utterance). The good news is that, unlike some, a typical PAL will refrain from comment on an architecture and a plan that it hasn't studied and therefore can't possibly understand.
As you said before:
The Grand Negus wrote:
The machine understands what it's been taught to understand
But my PAL 3000 has no clue what Bob has been teaching his. His code is therefore useless to me until I've retrained mine. The side effect is that I want my code to punch the lights when I say "Hit the lights". Bob's code has taught my compiler to simply switch it on. Now my code doesn't work the way I want it.
-
As you said before:
The Grand Negus wrote:
The machine understands what it's been taught to understand
But my PAL 3000 has no clue what Bob has been teaching his. His code is therefore useless to me until I've retrained mine. The side effect is that I want my code to punch the lights when I say "Hit the lights". Bob's code has taught my compiler to simply switch it on. Now my code doesn't work the way I want it.
Colin Urquhart wrote:
But my PAL 3000 has no clue what Bob has been teaching his.
It does if you let your PAL out on the "alternet"(tm) to play with his friends.
Colin Urquhart wrote:
His code is therefore useless to me until I've retrained mine.
No, your PAL does things the way you like when you're talking to it. When Bob is addressing it, it does things Bob's way. When it doesn't recognize the speaker, it either does nothing (because it doesn't accept that person's authority to boss it around), or it responds in the most generally applicable way - like a human.
Colin Urquhart wrote:
The side effect is that I want my code to punch the lights when I say "Hit the lights". Bob's code has taught my compiler to simply switch it on. Now my code doesn't work the way I want it.
See above. Your PAL will punch the lights in response to you saying "Hit the lights". It will switch them on when Bob says the same thing, or when you say "Hit the lights like you do for Bob." Isn't this what you'd expect a human to do? And an "apparently intelligent"(tm) machine? But once again - this time more bluntly - you're shooting in the dark. Since you haven't even asked about our architecture and our plan, you can't possibly know what you're aiming at.
-
Colin Urquhart wrote:
But my PAL 3000 has no clue what Bob has been teaching his.
It does if you let your PAL out on the "alternet"(tm) to play with his friends.
Colin Urquhart wrote:
His code is therefore useless to me until I've retrained mine.
No, your PAL does things the way you like when you're talking to it. When Bob is addressing it, it does things Bob's way. When it doesn't recognize the speaker, it either does nothing (because it doesn't accept that person's authority to boss it around), or it responds in the most generally applicable way - like a human.
Colin Urquhart wrote:
The side effect is that I want my code to punch the lights when I say "Hit the lights". Bob's code has taught my compiler to simply switch it on. Now my code doesn't work the way I want it.
See above. Your PAL will punch the lights in response to you saying "Hit the lights". It will switch them on when Bob says the same thing, or when you say "Hit the lights like you do for Bob." Isn't this what you'd expect a human to do? And an "apparently intelligent"(tm) machine? But once again - this time more bluntly - you're shooting in the dark. Since you haven't even asked about our architecture and our plan, you can't possibly know what you're aiming at.
The Grand Negus wrote:
But once again - this time more bluntly - you're shooting in the dark. Since you haven't even asked about our architecture and our plan, you can't possibly know what you're aiming at.
I was aiming sqarely at your post[^].
The Grand Negus wrote:
"Hit the lights like you do for Bob."
So I'd need to change Bob's code get it to compile for me? My compiler has never met Bob.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Isn't this what you'd expect a human to do?
That's the problem - human's don't understand each other even when they speak the same language. We seem to be having the same problem in this conversation.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
But once again - this time more bluntly - you're shooting in the dark. Since you haven't even asked about our architecture and our plan, you can't possibly know what you're aiming at.
I was aiming sqarely at your post[^].
The Grand Negus wrote:
"Hit the lights like you do for Bob."
So I'd need to change Bob's code get it to compile for me? My compiler has never met Bob.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Isn't this what you'd expect a human to do?
That's the problem - human's don't understand each other even when they speak the same language. We seem to be having the same problem in this conversation.
Colin Urquhart wrote:
So I'd need to change Bob's code get it to compile for me?
No. Your compiled code and Bob's compiled code can reside at the same time in the same machine. The question is which compiled code is executed given a particular command; the decision is made as I outlined in my previous post.
Colin Urquhart wrote:
My compiler has never met Bob.
If your PAL has been playing with another PAL that knows (or knows of) Bob, then your PAL does know (or at least, knows of) Bob.
Colin Urquhart wrote:
That's the problem - human's don't understand each other even when they speak the same language.
I think you mean, "humans don't always understand each other even when they speak the same language" to which I'd add, "but they do understand each other, often enough, to get at least some things accomplished - even when, on occasion, they speak different languages." You're starting to sound like Jeffry. We're not trying to build a machine that never makes mistakes - that is impossible. On the contrary, we're trying to build a machine that understands language like a human (and that will, therefore, make the same kinds of mistakes that humans do, under the same conditions).
Colin Urquhart wrote:
We seem to be having the same problem in this conversation.
Perhaps - one more time - because you've jumped into the middle of something without the necessary prerequisites?
-
Colin Urquhart wrote:
So I'd need to change Bob's code get it to compile for me?
No. Your compiled code and Bob's compiled code can reside at the same time in the same machine. The question is which compiled code is executed given a particular command; the decision is made as I outlined in my previous post.
Colin Urquhart wrote:
My compiler has never met Bob.
If your PAL has been playing with another PAL that knows (or knows of) Bob, then your PAL does know (or at least, knows of) Bob.
Colin Urquhart wrote:
That's the problem - human's don't understand each other even when they speak the same language.
I think you mean, "humans don't always understand each other even when they speak the same language" to which I'd add, "but they do understand each other, often enough, to get at least some things accomplished - even when, on occasion, they speak different languages." You're starting to sound like Jeffry. We're not trying to build a machine that never makes mistakes - that is impossible. On the contrary, we're trying to build a machine that understands language like a human (and that will, therefore, make the same kinds of mistakes that humans do, under the same conditions).
Colin Urquhart wrote:
We seem to be having the same problem in this conversation.
Perhaps - one more time - because you've jumped into the middle of something without the necessary prerequisites?
The Grand Negus wrote:
I think you mean
QED.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
I think you mean
QED.
Colin Urquhart wrote:
QED.
But exactly what have you proven? That English can be, but isn't always, ambiguous? A lot of work for the obvious, mate. Besides, every time a PAL responds to a command - correctly or incorrectly - it is saying, in effect, "I think you mean..." followed by an action that indicates how the command was understood. Just like any other "apparently intelligent"(tm) being. So exactly what is your point? Or, if you prefer it as one particular PAL might say it, "I don't understand. Please rephrase."
-
Colin Urquhart wrote:
QED.
But exactly what have you proven? That English can be, but isn't always, ambiguous? A lot of work for the obvious, mate. Besides, every time a PAL responds to a command - correctly or incorrectly - it is saying, in effect, "I think you mean..." followed by an action that indicates how the command was understood. Just like any other "apparently intelligent"(tm) being. So exactly what is your point? Or, if you prefer it as one particular PAL might say it, "I don't understand. Please rephrase."
The Grand Negus wrote:
"I don't understand. Please rephrase."
See here for the correct interpretation: http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?msg=1897276#xx1897276xx[^]
-
Apart from the extension model as such... The Downloads and Add-ons Managers Automatic Updates implementation The Find window Display of page title (if present) in the address bar Anything else?
Kevin
Hit
/to start an incremental text search. Hit'to start an incremental text search searching only links--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ Ford, what's this fish doing in my ear?
-
Hit
/to start an incremental text search. Hit'to start an incremental text search searching only links--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ Ford, what's this fish doing in my ear?
Thanks Michael. I didn't know about those! That's one of the reasons I occasionally post these kinds of topic. I find out what I don't know.:)
Kevin
-
I think the downloads and add-ons are particularly slick for Firefox, aside from that it has little to offer that is much different than Opera or IE.
John Cardinal wrote:
it has little to offer that is much different than Opera or IE.
I think overall usability is much better than IE (6 at any rate, not tried 7). Opera was my alternative browser before FF came along. Opera has better usability in certain respects than FF. But overall FF is better. And the real "killer feature" over IE is the extension availability.
Kevin