🚀 go-pugleaf

trebla@io.org (Albert Y.C. Lai) writes:

>miller@sun.lclark.edu (John Miller) wrote:
>>
>> For example, since 75% of the earth is covered with water, aren't you
>> wasting a lot of code-space?
>
>Who says that we won't be living in remote deep seas in the future? :)

I know I won't be!  However, most all such inhabitants would probably get
there via some oceanic pipeline(s) such as the chunnel. ;^)

Seriously, I have re-thought my original comment.  Coding systems can waste
a fair amount of namespace as long as they do the job. If they waste too much
space OR if they don't get the job done, then they will be a burden to use.

In the case of ocean comunities, their address would more likely be a route
of some kind rather than their coordinates -- it is not as if the commumnity
was lost at sea and we needed to locate it each time we delivered a piece of
mail.  We would know where the place was, and how to send mail to it... and
it wouldn't be because it was described by a set of NAC codes with a
particular shape or boundary.  The community itself would have an indentity
useful in delivery.

Sparse ocean villages or dwellings?  Same.  They'd have established routes
and connections, paths to other places, just as we do on land.

NAC is based on geometry only.  It must be translated either by a map or by
a computer database in order to be used anywhere.  Directional signs could
only give their location, not direction to any area.

John
--
"What's ahead?"