jbml thln 60 in other cases, initiative & response
ARE
HANDLED SEPARATELY,
SO THAT THE USER'S EMAILPROGRAM
MUST SEND AND RECEIVE EMAIL VIA DISTINCT SOFTWARE ENTITIES
THAT OFTEN OPERATE BY COMMECTING TO DIFFERENT REMOTE MACHINES?
The computer's software-based abilities are usually divided into Client Programs
that request and accept services from other programs {often at the behest of a user},
& Server Programs that accept these requests & provide an appropriate service!
At the human level, when Martin at computer A sends email to Jonathan at computer B containing the line 'I am happy to speak to you' & Jonathan replies, 'And I am happy to speak to you,' we easily sort out the meaning of the words "I" & "You" in this polar relationship from context!? But, even in the siMplest case in which both computers handle their own email delivery (without relying on external ser-vice providers, as most private internet users must do), the relay of the messages & reply involves six steps among four connected but independently functioning software entities. [Here again I, Mor, have to skip some stuff because it seems to boring to me with all these computers speaking to each other through delivery of email message & delivery of email reply via A><B vice versa {123456}!] These features of the internet ~ the division of client & server functions into separate software entities & the consistent use of third person identification ~ are not necessary requirements of the machine communication, but are intended to make the Internet a robust "open system" in which machines can communicate without any prior formal acquaintance. Many common systems function by invoking first & second person formulations, so that for example, if Martin's computer & Jonathan's computer have been properly introduced to one an-other, they can exchange email messages by respectively announcing, "I have an email message for you," & "I have a reply message for you,"!? In that case, in any message arriving on a network cable, the word 'I' refers to the sender & 'You' refers to the software that accepts the message, while the opposite associations hold for messages leaving leaving on the network cable. Nevertheless, it would be an unreasonable stretch to argue that the computer invoking the word "I" has unified its fragmented experience into a consistent subjective ego. [I, Mor, hate it when 'advertisementprograms' 'talk' to me all the time by pretending I need their commercial offers ...]!
HANDLED SEPARATELY,
SO THAT THE USER'S EMAILPROGRAM
MUST SEND AND RECEIVE EMAIL VIA DISTINCT SOFTWARE ENTITIES
THAT OFTEN OPERATE BY COMMECTING TO DIFFERENT REMOTE MACHINES?
The computer's software-based abilities are usually divided into Client Programs
that request and accept services from other programs {often at the behest of a user},
& Server Programs that accept these requests & provide an appropriate service!
At the human level, when Martin at computer A sends email to Jonathan at computer B containing the line 'I am happy to speak to you' & Jonathan replies, 'And I am happy to speak to you,' we easily sort out the meaning of the words "I" & "You" in this polar relationship from context!? But, even in the siMplest case in which both computers handle their own email delivery (without relying on external ser-vice providers, as most private internet users must do), the relay of the messages & reply involves six steps among four connected but independently functioning software entities. [Here again I, Mor, have to skip some stuff because it seems to boring to me with all these computers speaking to each other through delivery of email message & delivery of email reply via A><B vice versa {123456}!] These features of the internet ~ the division of client & server functions into separate software entities & the consistent use of third person identification ~ are not necessary requirements of the machine communication, but are intended to make the Internet a robust "open system" in which machines can communicate without any prior formal acquaintance. Many common systems function by invoking first & second person formulations, so that for example, if Martin's computer & Jonathan's computer have been properly introduced to one an-other, they can exchange email messages by respectively announcing, "I have an email message for you," & "I have a reply message for you,"!? In that case, in any message arriving on a network cable, the word 'I' refers to the sender & 'You' refers to the software that accepts the message, while the opposite associations hold for messages leaving leaving on the network cable. Nevertheless, it would be an unreasonable stretch to argue that the computer invoking the word "I" has unified its fragmented experience into a consistent subjective ego. [I, Mor, hate it when 'advertisementprograms' 'talk' to me all the time by pretending I need their commercial offers ...]!
09 mrt 2013 - bewerkt op 11 mrt 2013
- meld ongepast verhaal
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.
- O 27 jan 2016 Één v/d meest archetypische symbolen v/h middel-
- O 26 jan 2016 Je kunt alleen over jezelf lezen & over niets ~~~~
- O 26 jan 2016 Niet wie weinig heeft, maar wie veel wil is arm!!!
- O 26 jan 2016 jr116b hier moet dus wèl steeds bíjgezegd worden ~
- O 26 jan 2016 jr115cd bovendien, & dàt ìs nòg véél belangrijker,
- O 25 jan 2016 jr115b 'r zijn nòg mensen die hieraan argumenten
- O 25 jan 2016 jr114b 't gaat er om de vooronderstelling, dat het
- O 25 jan 2016 jr114 't beste voorbeeld v/d oude denktrant was al
- O 25 jan 2016 jr113 we kunnen bijna, vrijwel ongewijzigd, hier ~
- O 25 jan 2016 jr112VI het nieuwe ethos: (r)evoluties i/d ethiek
- O 24 jan 2016 jr111c er ÌS, ìn íeder gevàl, nog maar heel weinig
- O 24 jan 2016 jr111b èn tòch, al zou iemand maar ÈRGENS, ook
- O 24 jan 2016 jr111 overgrootouders in Victor- & Wilhelminiaanse
- O 24 jan 2016 jr110b voordat men dit afwijst als 'n al te slappe
- O 24 jan 2016 jr110 als & wanneer 't gebèd niet meer vanzèlf op-