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 [[1]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
   >

References

   1. mailto:mmotyka@lsil.com