Well, hell, that's what I said. But you make it sound so much more _clear_. I don't remember who was saying that geodesic definition is based solely on local information, but that appears to be the major roadblock for our logic. If I could find out where this stipulation is coming from and figure out the necessary logical proofs, you could possibly have a water-tight buzzword. I don't believe I have ever heard one of those (the marketing favorite, "paradigm shift" is an excellent example of why buzzwords don't have to be logical anyway).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmotyka@lsil.com [mailto:mmotyka@lsil.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 11:19 AM
> To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
> Subject: Geodesic Fractal Whatitz
>
>
>
> Bob,
>
> We *do* all trade with our neighbors so your term is only trouble when
> looking at the wrong part of the geometry. With trade the
> measure should
> not be based on physical space or network geometry, those are
> transient
> and permutable, rather the measure should be based on the proximity of
> the parties in terms of goods consumed, goods produced and
> pricing. The
> networks are not electrical or geographical they're economic. So while
> it does affect cost all this communication and transportation
> technology
> is only the physical layer.
>
> Mike
>