On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that you are trying to use a technical term in a non-technical
> way to "fight" a non-technical argument. Do you really think that I'm
> asserting that virtual environment can be *exactly* as capable as
> physical environment?
No, I think that you're asserting that the virtual environment is close
enough to as capable as the physical environment without spending
significant resources that the difference doesn't matter. And I'm
having
problems with the "without spending significant resources" part, not the
"that the difference doesn't matter" part.
I use "significant" in about the same sense as "something that
matters", so it's merely a terminological mismatch.
It's not a terminological mismatch. You're saying the resources don't
matter. I'm saying that they matter enough to invalidate your argument.
How do we get from here to there? Without a provable path, it's all
just
magical hand-waving to me. (I like it but it's ultimately an
unsatifying
illusion)
It's an independent statement.
No, it isn't an independent statement. If you can't get there (because it
is totally unfeasible to do so) then it totally invalidates your argument.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
