Geodesic Fractal Whatitz

[mmotyka at lsil.com]

> "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 at 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
> >