Yes I thought about the corridor theory myself. It
could be the height of the average tallest vehicle, or
it could be the height of the tallest vehicle at any
particular point in time (which would be variable).
But although an interface isn't defined, it still
exists, if only in the set of possibile interfaces, as
you call it - the "indefinite interface."
But I completely disagree that there is no need to
improve upon the text. As of right now it is not
certain whether specific points in 3-D space are in
one country or another, or if they can alternate
between the two. I would want for this uncertainty to
be resolved. It does not make any sense to limit
yourself to a 2-D world (If we wanted to do this, we
could eliminate all sovereignty above the earth's
surface, all concepts of airspace, etc.).
Certain points above the bridge surface are considered
Mexico, while certain others directly above and
directly below are US. I would like to see a clearly
defined interface between them, just as I would like
to see borders clearly defined.
--- m06079 <
barbaria_longa@...> wrote:
> i wonder why all these questions are still out there
> waiting for
> answers
>
> but as quests & pointing tries
> all questions are worthy
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A.
> Nadybal"
> <lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Item 1 - Exclaves or not?
>
> not by our normal technical standards
> tho the word exclave has many meanings
>
> & in any case not yet
>
> but exclaves
> & especially prospective exclaves
> could actually be just about anything you say
>
>
> There have been articles asserting (with
> > substance) that the Israeli's are shaping for
> themselves what
> will be
> > de-facto and de-jure the border between the
> Palestinian and
> Israeli
> > areas of sovereignty (or sovereignty-autonomy, or
> sovereignty-semi or
> > quasi-sovereignty, or ???)
>
> or what
>
> other nonsense stuff
>
>
> at some time in the not too distant future.
> > I contend
>
> but why contend anything
> & why contend about the future
> of all things
>
> & why contend here
> of all places
>
> we do strive together here for the best available
> truth in all our
> multipointing
> & indeed we are quite aggressive in this collective
> pursuit
> but contentiousness as such is not part of the
> program
>
>
> that the two circles of walls proposed, which just
> happen
> > to circumnavigate two Paslestinian towns that
> currently have
> open
> > access to the main body of the West Bank without
> citizens
> having to
> > cross outside of the WestBank into "Israel
> proper", will
> become, de
> > facto, pieces with international sovereign
> administration inside
> of
> > them that won't be Israeli, creating a de facto
> international
> border
> > around them. Any variations between the true
> border and the
> wall,
> > where their "routes" vary and leave Israeli
> sovereign areas
> inside the
> > circle will be Israeli land over which where it
> exercises no
> sovereign
> > rights (except maybe on occasion to paint the side
> of thee wall
> > visible from the Palestinian portion inside). Any
> Palestinian
> lands
> > outside the wall will simply become victim of the
> "what's mine
> is mine
> > and what's yours is negotiable" philosophy, so
> eloquently
> verbalized
> > by John Kennedy in the 1960s.
> >
> > Item 2 - the MX-US spandex boundary being unique.
> I believe
> that also
> > exists on the Vennbahn bridges.
>
> you have claimed this or stuff like this several
> times
>
> & i think you may be right or partly right
>
> but can you prove it
>
> for example by the text of the relevant agreement
>
>
> We have Belgian "Bahnkorper" by
> > treaty crossing over, but uninterrupted German
> sovereignty
> over roads
> > under the bridges, which makes what we think of as
> German
> exclaves to
> > the west of the tracks not necessarily so - given
> that there is
> > uninterrupted road access under the bridges
> without leaving
> Germany.
> > The situation with US-MX seems similar - because
> "what you
> see is what
> > oyu have to deal with", and only when a need
> surfaces, will
> there be
> > consideration given to adding a little additional
> precision to the
> > governing treaty.
> >
> > Item 3 - I still wonder that if one is on the
> bridge on the north
> side
> > of the river bank, and, to escape arrest, would
> drop off of it and
> > land under it, but above part of the buried
> foundation, in what
> > country and which jurisdiction would properly have
> arrest
> powers?
>
> the country & jurisdiction of the bridge area you
> are standing on
> or attached to
> or the country & jurisdiction of the ground you are
> standing on
>
> & if you are attached to both the bridge & the
> ground
> but are actually standing on neither
> then you have slipped into the indefinite interface
> between them
>
> & only when a need to arrest you or someone like you
> surfaces
> as you suggest above
> will consideration be given to achieving the
> necessary precision
>
>
> > Only the Mexican's apparently, could arrest
> someone on the
> bridge
> > south of the border marker, and it seems too easy
> to drop off
> into the
> > US and escape Mexican justice. What if, just
> before the US
> police
> > arrived, the "escapee" found a workman's metal
> step that led
> up the
> > support pillar, and climbed a couple of feet up
> onto it, to be off
> the
> > ground. Would he be back in Mexico?
>
> he would be back in mexico only if he can outclimb
> his pursuers
> from the usa
> thru the indefinite interface
> all the way up to the mexican area on the bridge
> surface
>
> & as in any indefinite area
> might is right
>
>
> >
> > I also wonder if the customs border is contiguous
> with the
> > international line.
>
> yes
> regardless of the location of the customs post
> the international line & customs border are normally
> the same
>
> & i suppose the identity of the 2 makes them
> contiguous too
>
> but to answer what i imagine is the question behind
> your
> question
> the customs border & horizontal international line
> are similarly
> indefinite
>
> more below
>
>
> Dropping contraband off the bridge from Mexico to
> > the US sounds too easy - it would put Mr.
> Ashcroft's people in
> the
> > position of having to intercept packages on the
> way down to
> keep drugs
> > from crossing the border.
> >
> > LN
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > I understand everything that you're saying, but
> I refuse to go
> there.
> > >
> > > A typical boundary might be considered analogous
> to an
> imaginary
> > vertical wall
> > > stretching from the center of the earth to the
> upper reaches of
> the
> > atmosphere
> > > or beyond. However that's only an analogy. The
> situation
> that
> > obtains on MXUS
> > > bridges, with their treaty-ordained vertical
> differentiation, is
> > anything but
> > > typical. It is arguably unique in all the
> world. As such, it does
> > not lend
> > > itself to analogies. To even try would require
> the typical
> > imaginary wall to
> > > become a curtain of the very finest spandex,
> which would
> envelope
> > and cling
> > > around every protuberance and into every orifice
> of the
> human and
> > vehicular
> > > traffic moving upon those segments of the
> bridges that are
> between
> > the movable
> > > middle of the Rio Grande and the fixed boundary
> monuments
> on the
> > bridges.
> > >
> > > This desire to over-analogize the situation
> seems to spring
> from the
> > notion that
> > > boundaries are physical objects or laws of
> nature that are
> subject
> > to the most
> > > minute mensuration. This is not the case.
>
> this desire to overgeneralize the situation seems to
> spring from
> the notion that the most minute mensuration is
> impossible
>
> but the most minute possible mensuration is still
> possible
> & this fact is probably all that matters in any case
>
> geodetic boundaries are normally subject to the most
> minute
> possible mensuration & most precise possible
> determination
>
> i believe we have seen as much as 5 digits of
> precision beyond
> the decimal point of degminsec readings
> or about an average pinpricks worth of exactitude
>
> it is only with the natural boundaries that this
> level of exactitude
> is normally not achievable & not the case
>
> & it is also not the case in the special case of the
> horizontal
> sectors of mxus
> because these are indefinite & indeed practically
> unthought of
>
> thats right
>
> they are indefinite precisely because nobody figured
> the thought
> behind this boundary needed any further elaboration
>
> & indeed it didnt & doesnt need any
> as others have also observed
> until such time as it does
>
>
> end insertions
>
>
>
> Boundaries proceed from
> > the minds
> > > of men, who decide what and where they should
> be.
> Agreements as to
> > these
> > > decisions are committed to paper. Men then go
> out onto the
> > landscape and
> > > jointly demarcate the boundary, relying upon
> nothing more as
> their
> > mandate than
> > > the agreed-upon words and numbers on paper.
> > >
> > > To put it bluntly, there is no provision for a
> clingy spandex
> > curtain in the
> > > MXUS treaty of 1970 (a fact for which the
> International
> Boundary and
> > Water
> > > Commission is undoubtedly grateful). No
> demarcation
> beyond the
> > periodic mapping
> > > of the middle of the main channel of the river
> and the
> placement of
> > monuments on
> > > bridges is mandated. Why? Because that is
> sufficient to
> determine
> > which
> > > sovereignty is applicable to every foreseeable
> practical
> > eventuality. That's
> > > all a boundary is for. If some person, thing,
> or occurrence is
> on a
> > bridge,
> > > sovereignty is determined by the fixed monument
> on the
> bridge. If
> > it's anywhere
> > > else (including on the land or water under the
> bridge or in the
> air
> > above the
> > > bridge), sovereignty is determined by the
> constantly accreting
> and
> > avulsing
> > > median line of the river. It's complex, it's
> simple too, but most
> > of all, it is
> > > sufficient!
> > >
> > > If the two nations ever need a practical way of
> determining
> > sovereignty over a
> > > mosquito flying through the airspace between the
> legs of a
> > pedestrian walking on
> > > the portion of a bridge between the median line
> of the Rio
> Grande
> > and the
> > > monument on the bridge, then perhaps new treaty
> provisions
> will be
> > agreed upon,
> > > and the IWBC will carry them into execution.
> Until then, what
> you
> > see is what
> > > you get.
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 1:41 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Israel Army
> Proposes to
> Create Enclaves
> > >
> > >
> > > > I guess it's how you define it. I gather your
> > > > interpretation is that of taking infinite
> > > > horizontal-plane crossections of the space we
> have in
> > > > question. Then tracing the border and
> projecting
> > > > upwards. The horizontal surfaces as
> differences are
> > > > easy to see if you think about a simplified
> bridge
> > > > with perfectly straight lines.
> > > > But what about a person standing on a bridge.
> Again,
> > > > north of the median line of the Rio Grande,
> but south
> > > > of the marker. Take a horizantal plane
> crossing me at
> > > > some point through my legs. This plane would
> have a
> > > > border as projected directly upwards from the
> river
> > > > median line. It would also contain two
> circular-esque
> > > > enclaves of Mexico in US, the two enclaves
> being the
> > > > cross-section of each leg.
> > > > But you can only project this upwards until
> there is a
> > > > change whereby the cross-section will not
> match the
> > > > one below it. I.E.: Project this scenario
> upwards by
> > > > vertical surfaces until the border changes on
> another
> > > > particluar plane. If we were only thinking of
> the
> > > > river median line, you could project this
> plane
> > > > upwards forever without having to have any
> horizontal
> > > > differentiation. But we have the additional
> > > > complication of the person. If a person was
> made of
> > > > certain regular geometric shapes (like stacks
> of
> > > > squares and rectangles of different sizes on
> each
> > > > other), you may be able to project upwards 4
> inches
> > > > before hitting a difference - creating a
> horizontal
> > > > surface linking two different projections.
> The next
> > > > one up may go 2 inches, etc.
> > > > But people are not a regular shape at all.
> Each
> > > > cross-section you take will be different
> because the
> > > > body (and clothing etc.) is not geometircally
> perfect.
> > > > So you can't project it up any distance
> vertically,
> > > > because the next plane up will be different.
> So you
> > > > have an infinite number of contiguous
> crossectional
> > > > planes which are all different (from the feet
> to the
> > > > head of the person).
> > > > All of the contiguous horizontal planes come
> together
> > > > to form 3-D space. The infinite unchanging
> river
> > > > median line projections come together to form
> a
> > > > vertical surface (you can change your
> z-coordinate
> > > > while maintaining your x and y coords). But
> the
> > > > surface created by the infinte number of lines
> of the
> > > > human cross-sections is not purely vertical.
> If you
> > > > want to change your z-coordinate, you have to
> change
> > > > either your x or your y as well.
> > > > So I think if we call the vertical surface a
> border,
> > > > we have to call the nonvertical surface a
> border too,
> > > > since they are both made up of the same
> infinite
> > > > number of border tracings on contiguous
> planes. I
> > > > would call them both border surfaces.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- m06079 <barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> Michael
> > > > > Kaufman
> > > > > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks for clarifying this, Lowell. Yes,
> this
> > > > > does
> > > > > > make more sense from a practical aspect.
> But it
> > > > > also
> > > > > > adds a level of variability to the exact
> 3-D shape
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the border (i.e.: people and cars move,
> the 3-D
> > > > > border
> > > > > > surface moves with them) that I don't
> recall
> > > > > seeing
> > > > > > elswhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > wait mike
> > > > >
> > > > > youve still almost got it
> > > > >
> > > > > but neither the border nor the border
> surface really
> > > > > moves with
> > > > > the people & the cars
> > > > >
> > > > > in fact
> > > > > border surface
> > > > > as such
> > > > > is a practically meaningless concept
> > > > >
> > > > > for borders really have no surface
> > > > >
> > > > > not a horizontal surface anyway
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > they have a vertical dimension
> > > > > it is true
> > > > >
> > > > > & in rare cases such as this they are
> vertically
> > > > > differentiated
> > > > > besides
> > > > >
> > > > > & so i suppose you could say that the
> vertical
> > > > > projections of
> > > > > border lines do form surfaces of a sort
> > > > >
> > > > > but i think that that is as far as you could
> take
> > > > > this term
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > moreover
> > > > > split level borders must of course adjoin
> horizontal
> > > > > surfaces that
> > > > > link their differing vertical positions &
> > > > > projections
> > > > >
> > > > > but borders per se can have no surface other
> than a
> > > > > vertical one
> > > > > so far as i can see
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > & such a variability as you imagine is the
> case
> > > > > neither on mxus
> > > > > nor anywhere else
> > > > > i believe
> > > > >
> > > > > the variability that does exist on mxus
> consists
> > > > > only in the vertical
> > > > > differentiation between a historic thalweg
> position
> > > > > recorded &
> > > > > frozen on a bridge railing
> > > > > & the ongoing location of the living thalweg
> itself
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > the activity on the bridge doesnt affect the
> > > > > boundary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > & it is true that you havent seen what you
> describe
> > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > since it actually obtains nowhere
> > > > > so far as i am aware
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You've almost got it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not only the physical substance of the
> MXUS
> > > > > bridges,
> > > > > > > but also persons and
> > > > > > > traffic upon them are governed by the
> > > > > established
> > > > > > > boundary monuments on the
> > > > > > > bridges. Anything or anyone not on the
> bridges
> > > > > (in
> > > > > > > the air above or on the
> > > > > > > ground or water below) is governed by
> the
> > > > > current
> > > > > > > location of the middle of the
> > > > > > > main channel of the river. This is by
> the 1970
> > > > > > > treaty.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it were otherwise, the wording on the
> bridge
> > > > > > > monuments and signs would be
> > > > > > > meaningless to their readers if those
> readers
> > > > > had to
> > > > > > > look off the bridge
> > > > > > > (perhaps in darkness) and estimate the
> location
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the middle of the river.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Michael Kaufman"
> <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:17
> AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Israel Army
> > > > > Proposes to
> > > > > > > Create Enclaves
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/10911
> > > > > > > > Due to the changing course of the
> river, the
> > > > > > > > bordermarker on the bridge is now
> directly
> > > > > over
> > > > > > > land
> > > > > > > > on the northern/US bank of the Rio
> Grande.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > bridge
> > > > > > > > itself and its supports are Mexican
> all the
> > > > > way up
> > > > > > > > until the marker. But for everything
> else,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > border
> > > > > > > > is the middle of the river. So for
> instance,
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > could be standing on the bridge say 2
> feet
> > > > > south
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the bordermarker. Directly beneath
> you is a
> > > > > > > sovereign
> > > > > > > > Mexican bridge. But beneath and above
> that is
> > > > > > > > soverign US airspace and land on the
> north
> > > > > bank of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Rio grande. You are in the US even
> though you
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > south of the marker. Only the
> physical bridge
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Mexico. But you can not be in Mexico
> this way
> > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > you would have to occupy the same
> physical
> > > > > space
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > the bridge at the same time, which is,
> of
> > > > > course,
> > > > > > > > impossible. If you were on the bridge
> and
> > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > visit Mexico, you would have to walk
> further
> > > > > south
> > > > > > > > until you pass the middle of the
> river. This
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > how I
> > > > > > > > understand the situation to be.
> > > > > > > > -Mike
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by
> filing
> > > > > online.
> > > > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing
> online.
> > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools