On May 31, 5:15 pm, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

No, it's just that you aren't seeing my point that there is a
difference between a device that is ontologically necessary and one
that that is entirely optional. I don't think that means you're
stupid, just that you cannot tolerate being wrong. It doesn't matter
if you call it an interface, what matters is that I need a way to turn
my free will into electronic changes in a computer, but electronic
changes don't need a way to turn themselves into other electronic
changes.

>
> > - 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)

No, it calls hardware, and the behavior of part of that hardware seems
to us like software when it is displayed back to us through screen
hardware. Programs are nothing but logical scripts to control
hardware. Hardware doesn't need a program, but programs need hardware.
Programs can run in other programs, but only if they all ultimately
run on hardware. They have no existence on their own. There is no
virtual universe being created, it is just a well maintained facade.

>
> > 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.

So you are not limited to the logic of physics in a virtual world
because it's not physically real.

>
> > 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.

But you don't know how it fails to work, which is the more relevant
issue. Emulation is a theory that fails in reality.

>
> > Emulation is a figure of speech.
>
> No

Yes

>
> > There is no virtual hardware.
>
> There is.

Prove it.

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.

Reply via email to