Geodesic Fractal Whatitz

[Carskadden, Rush]

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 at lsil.com [mailto:mmotyka at lsil.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 11:19 AM
> 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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 2373 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks-legacy/attachments/20001213/6cf303c3/attachment.txt>