2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > On May 31, 1:58 pm, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 31, 12:26 pm, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > On May 31, 1:54 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > On May 30, 6:09 pm, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > You are defining a 'real computer' in terms in terms that > you > > > are > > > > > > > > > smuggling in from our real world of physics. In a > Church-Turing > > > > > > > > > Matrix, why would there be any kind of arbitrary level > > > separation? > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > whole point is that there is no fundamental difference > between > > > one > > > > > > > > > Turing emulation and another. Paris is a program. > > > > > > > > > > A program is running on a machine... a program interact > through > > > > > interface > > > > > > > > and that's the **only** way to interact. > > > > > > > > > Huh? A program interacts with another program directly. > > > > > > > > Yes ? Give me an example, the most basic interface is shared > memory > > > (and > > > > > > eventually, any shared thing is done via memory access)... So > give > > > me a > > > > > > program that can talk/share thing with another program without > any > > > > > > interface between them... > > > > > > > You brought in the term interface specifically to talk about the > > > > > necessity to intentionally bridge two separate layers of reality. > To > > > > > use a computer, I need a KVM or touchscreen or whatever, an > interface > > > > > that samples the behavior of physical matter and maps it to > > > > > microelectronic settings. I pointed out that in a truly digitial > > > > > universe, no such thing would be necessary and nothing would be > > > > > prevented by the lack of such a thing. > > > > > > > Once something is native digital, it can be integrated with > anything > > > > > else that is digital native - that is sort of the point. It's all > > > > > virtual. Any formalized virtual interfaces, a KVM in Second Life or > > > > > The Matrix or whatever, are purely decorative. They are cartoon > > > > > facades. The actual code doesn't need any kind of graphic > > > > > representation or digital-to-something-to-digital transduction to > pass > > > > > from one area of memory to another. > > > > > > > > > There is no > > > > > > > interface. It makes no difference to the OS of the HW node > whether > > > the > > > > > > > program is running virtual Paris on the root level of the > physical > > > > > > > machine or virtual virtual Paris on one of the virtual > machines. > > > > > > > > Yes there is a difference, the paris running on a virtual machine > > > has no > > > > > > direct access (and can't know of it unless an interface exist) > on the > > > > > > physical hardware. > > > > > > > The virtual machine has the same access to the physical hardware as > > > > > the root level. > > > > > > That's complete bullshit... If my emulator does not give you access > to > > > the > > > > host hardware it does not... > > > > > I'm not talking about the user having access to the host hardware, I'm > > > talking about the virtual machine: the software. It is using the host > > > machines's memory and CPUs, is it not? > > > > > > The point is that the program running on the > > > > emulator *****HAS NO WAY***** to know it does not run on physical > > > hardware > > > > if no interface is present to give it access to it. > > > > > No program has any way of knowing whether it is running on physical > > > hardware or not, even if it has an interface. Whether the program is > > > running on an emulator or not makes no difference. > > > > > > Shared memory ****IS**** an interface. But anyway, I leave this > > > discussion > > > > here, can't cure your stupidity. > > > > > Despite your ad hominem retort, there is no basis for it if you > > > understand the points I am making. It is your understanding that is a > > > little fuzzy. I am an MCSE and CCEA btw, and I have been configuring > > > and managing hundreds of RDP, Citrix, and virtual servers every day > > > for over 13 years. > > > > Yes but you still have to learn what a program is... then come back > talking. > > > > What 'come back'? Did I leave? What understanding about what a program > is do you have that could possibly make an difference in this > conversation? >
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... 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. 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... 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. Quentin > > 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.
