[122923] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Feb 23 11:47:15 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100223113439.C27943@egps.egps.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:42:33 -0800
To: awacs@ziskind.us
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 23, 2010, at 8:34 AM, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
> Larry Sheldon wrote (on Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:28:03AM -0600):
>> On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they
>>> can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers.
>>
>> It occurs to me that maybe there is a reason why political conservatives
>> get so excited about "minor, trivial" erosions of sanity; why they worry
>> about "where this might lead"....
>>
>> It's been mentioned--why not "portable" street addresses. Fire
>> departments will just have to adapt.
>
> If you want an example of just what would result, take a trip to Tokyo,
> where house numbers were assigned in the order that building permits
> were issued, and you need *extremely* detailed directions.
>
Seoul is a good example of this as well, but, no-one is even sure that
building age is actually determinant in Seoul. Most of the Koreans I
was working with swear that addresses are assigned by a random
number generator without duplicate detection.
Owen
