--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
<mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> 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.
well but you are disagreeing not with me but with the governments of
mexico & the usa
who havent improved on the text in 34 years precisely because they
havent felt the need to do so
more below
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.
i understand
& i agree it would be lovely & tidy if it were resolved
but also think it is lovely now too for being so untidy
end insertions
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@h...> 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