"Carskadden, Rush" wrote:

Well, hell, that's what I said.

Well I'll be! I guess you did!

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.

Mathematically I think that's correct. Isn't the blockage the idea that a structure ( the economic network ) must necessarily reflect 1:1 the underlying structures ( transport, communication ) on which it depends?

If I could find out where this stipulation is coming from

the idea that network == internet ?

and figure out the necessary logical proofs, you could possibly have a water-tight buzzword.

Just the thing to keep the softening economy afloat. Pass it on to the new prez, he'll like it and it will the communication of his ideas to the citizens more effective.

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).

Paradigm shifts are very real. Every time I spend 20 cents. Isn't the "synergy" on this list encouraging?

...

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