In response to question # 3, judging by the discussion on Tuesday, I found myself in the minority in regard to this question.  Most people agreed that these companies with MIT engineers and PhD workers were indeed wasting their talent and contributing nothing to the greater good of the world.  However, I disagree.  First of all, who are we to tell others what they can do with their creative energy and capital that they worked very hard to achieve.  I think that maybe a sense of jealousy has clouded people's judgement.  If the roles were reversed, and they spent so much time in school and developing their abilities, they would not want to be told how they can use their knowledge.  Of course the examples of wasteful applications used were ridiculous and indeed useless, the beauty of capitalism is that if their is a market for it, people can provide what is wanted and make money.  I don't begrudge anyone for making money, as long as it is moral and doesn't hurt anyone.  As Milton Friedman said in his 1980 special about technology, capitalism, and the effects of each on the world, " The creation of products and the market demands for such products have done more to uplift people out of poverty then any government program created to do the same."  Even though such seemingly useless applications appear to do little to help the world, there are hidden benefits that effects that may not be apparent.  I know this trickle down theory is hotly debated, but I think we can agree that the freedom to create whatever one desires is preferable to being told that what you created is not desirable and you have to follow intellectual guidelines.  Eventually developing a "juvenile sense of financial gain instead of a greater investment in human history," will have a positive effect on human history.  The more people who create wealth will do more to uplift others out of poverty then developing an online application that is intellectually more stimulating than a kitten stuck in a jar or babies in a bathtub.