duncanr

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by duncanr 19y ago

   I agree with your post 100%, but I think I'm generalising more than you're thinking I am. My cards out on the table: I'm not a student of Economics (a deficiency I intend to correct, as time permits). In terms of evidence, I have none. Howe
2. 2.▲
   by duncanr 19y ago

   I think you'll find it hard to find a more representative microcosm of what an unfettered capitalist society would look like than that of an unsupervised classroom...
3. 3.▲
   by duncanr 19y ago

   Would you be happier to say that the utilisation of raw materials 'tends towards' a zero-sum game, then? ;-) I don't disagree with what you say (although I would argue the likelihood of this theory playing out in practice and over the long
4. 4.▲
   by duncanr 19y ago

   The kids in the post add value by building more complex structures out of the raw materials, no? Does the author of the article think we have an infinite supply of raw materials? I read the original article as an experiment into control of
5. 5.▲
   by duncanr 19y ago

   Hrm... in the section "break/continue": "The symbol 'break' is arbitrary, but is probably a nice choice for YOUR readers." (emphasis mine) A typo, or evidence that perhaps Steve isn't writing all his own content? (Ok, I'm a pedant, but I do
6. 6.▲
   by duncanr 19y ago

   Strange that RTM's worm is ranked at number 1 with 10k - 100k of damages, whilst ILOVEYOU is number 2 with 5.5 - 8.7 billion. I wonder what their ranking criteria is. Cliff Stoll tells a story in "The Cuckoo's Egg" about knocking on RTM's d