2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>

> On May 31, 2:22 pm, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To know what an interface is... how 2 programs communicate. The way you
> > talk is like "hey dude it's in the OS !"... like the operating system was
> > not a software...
>
> No, I'm saying it's all software, except for the hardware. That has
> been my point from the start. You can make as many virtual worlds
> nested within each other as you like and it doesn't matter. No
> interface is required because they are all being physically hosted by
> the semiconducting microelectronics.
>
>  It is not a problem to have an avatar have virtual dinner in virtual
> Paris by using his virtual computer. He can dive into the monitor and
> end up on the Champs-Élysées if the programmer writes the virtual
> worlds that way. No interface can allow or restrict anything within a
> virtual context


You simply don't know what the terms means or you're stupid... one or the
other or both.


> - it's all an election by the programmer, not an
> ontological barrier.
>
> > like if you want to access the network you're not calling
> > a software... like in the end it was not writing something into some
> place
> > in memory... pfff only thing I can say is "AhAhAh !!!"... as your "sense"
> > BS.
>
> When I use my keyboard to type these words, I am using hardware.


Which calls software, basically calling an interrupt and setting something
into memory to be read by other programs (os or driver or whatever)


> When
> an avatar uses a virtual keyboard, or when that avatar's avatar's
> avatar uses a virtual virtual virtual keyboard, there is no keyboard
> there.


If you don't do a simulation no.. so what.


> The keyboard can be a turnip or a cloud, it doesn't matter. For
> me, in hardware world, it matters.
>
> >
> > The way you don't understand "level"... when a emulator is in a
> emulator...
> > the second level emulator run on the first level emulated hardware...
>
> No, I understand exactly how you understand level but I am telling you
> that you are wrong. You are mistaking marketing hype for reality.
>

I write emulator, I know exactly how this works contrary to you.


> Emulation is a figure of speech.


No


> There is no virtual hardware.


There is.


> It's
> just one piece of software that acts like several. The organization of
> it is meaningless ontologically. The entire program is an
> epiphenomenon of the same piece of hardware.
>
> > which
> > run itself run on physical hardware, no program in the nth level could
> > access n-1 level hardware without the n-1 level emulator giving interface
> > to it.
>
> That is just not true and you aren't listening to what I'm saying. You
> are confusing user permissions with hardware to software interface.
> Every week I see nth level programs break n-1 OS and take down the
> entire node. It's not what you think. They use the same OS. There is
> only one copy of Windows Server 2008 that every container shares. If
> they had separate copies, there would still be a meta-OS that they
> share.
>
> Craig
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to