Re: [vwrap] [wvrap] Simulation consistency

[Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>]

One more thing, in regards to "It's a killing..."...  why do you think 
automation and virtual worlds exist in the first place?

If your answer is anything near virtualization in ways that become 
turtles upon turtles (or VWs in VWs)... well... readjust your 
perspective back to "save the environment" and reboot from there.

Being able to model and manufacturer without paperwork and without 
environmental damage has and remains the #1 reason (despite LL's call 
for "Fast, Fun, S...").

 From that perspective, "asset" has wide-range of meanings that often 
get narrowed carelessly for the "fun of it". Many often go backwards 
before they know all meaning of assets. Any system that demonstrates 
single-entry derived bank automation is obviously backwards; it is quick 
to implement, costs too much in the end to upgrade, and always fails.

Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> As stated, "it didn't happen." The concepts and ideas are still iconic 
> natured and useful as such. It's iconic usefulness as like that of 
> infinite tense that all English teachers want their students to write 
> in & with figure-of-speech, its the wrong way. That is the nature of 
> English infinite tense. All other tenses are correct, and teachers 
> expect you to "correct" infinite tense, yet they don't teach that. 
> That's the basis of sentience. Infinite tense is logically always in 
> error.
>
> Now with that in mind, "we" did not misunderstand the issues. Don't 
> blame others until you look in the mirror more. What makes sense to 
> you doesn't guarantee it makes sense to everybody else. The "graphic 
> form" does not denote sense to visual people! Don't assume this! Like 
> I said, visual people need complete ideas. Visual people don't 
> remember dictionary definitions as much as auditory people don't 
> remember graphic notations. It's because 60% of the people are 
> auditory (they remember active speech) they are at constant battle 
> with themselves in attempts to help the other 40% everywhere they 
> don't need help -- is why there is ANY miscomprehension.
>
> Visual people find it completely dumb idea to have dictionaries full 
> words that have any prefixes or suffixes, as that is wasted resources. 
> Only the root words with possible prefixes and suffixes are of need. 
> The reason why they don't exist this way is because of 
> "figure-of-speech" and proof of that 60%. Unless you are somehow 
> smarter than the best and the brightest, I doubt you can solely point 
> out bad ideas such as dictionaries that list every combination of root 
> words with every possible suffix and prefix individually such that 
> basically kills us off slowly with lack of symbiotic flow due to trees 
> used for the numerous pages published as scholarly works. It's a killing.
>
>
> Morgaine wrote:
>> I'm afraid you misunderstand the issue, Dzonatas.  I'll add a bit of 
>> background.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with visual versus graphical presentation.  
>> I'm a big fan of both, and like yourself I think spatially most of 
>> the time about architectures, which is a graphic form.  Likewise, it 
>> has nothing to do with accessibility whatsoever, of which I've been a 
>> very enthusiastic proponent in Second Life for many years.
>>
>> The only thing with which the "domain" argument is concerned is 
>> whether the concept reflects something useful in VWRAP that we can 
>> observe, query, interact with, or design a protocol around.  The 
>> answer is "No" on all these counts for "Agent Domain" in VWRAP, 
>> because it refers to a concept in OGP that denied interop, and it 
>> does not apply to us.
>>
>> As a result, far from helping anyone to understand the VWRAP 
>> architecture, all it does is increase the amount of confusion 
>> surrounding VWRAP, because it does not reflect anything useful about 
>> what we are trying to implement.
>>
>> The nearest we get in VWRAP to something that might have been 
>> conceived originally as the "Agent Domain" in OGP is roughly "The set 
>> of places and items and resources that this world will permit an 
>> agent to visit or interact with ", which is approximately the same 
>> thing as saying "the closed walled garden".  It is a singularly 
>> counter-productive concept for a group that has the important goal of 
>> achieving interop between worlds.
>>
>> So no, it's not helpful, either visually or otherwise.  The term is 
>> just another obstacle on the road to VW interop.  That OGP whiteboard 
>> never had other fluffy clouds on it labeled "Virtual world B", 
>> "Virtual world C", and so on.  The concept of interop between worlds 
>> was denied, because Agent Domain controlled access to Region Domains, 
>> and so nothing outside AD+RD existed in OGP.
>>
>> But we are not designing OGP, we are designing VWRAP, a set of 
>> protocols that embraces interoperation between worlds as well.  That 
>> is why the Agent Domain does not exist as a useful concept in this 
>> work.  It elevates world closure, negates interoperation, and does 
>> not even admit other worlds into the picture, because Agent Domain is 
>> defined to exclude them.
>>
>> It's a very bad idea, both in text and as fluffy clouds.
>>
>>
>> Morgaine.
>


-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant