That's absolutely correct, but the point is the continuity in the self-propagating pattern. The person I am today is distinct, both in terms of mental state and composition, from the person I was ten years ago, but it's not like we think of ourselves as the murderers of our previous iterations.

I am not comfortable with the concept of losing the continuity in my self-propagating pattern. I've come to enjoy it. :)

Curiously enough, this didn't stop South Korean telecom companies. When I was living there, I was able to move my phone from company to company without a problem, even with a smartphone plus subsidy. The only limit was that I could only move my phone sixty after signing the initial contract.

I assume that the new company simply bought the phone contract from the old company outright, and simply continued on the same terms with the client.

There was a story about this involving some sort of super AI called Manna. It ended up essentially destroying the economy, I believe, and relegating everyone below the highest classes to concentration camps for poor people.

I don't know that their solution was ideal, but I do suspect that a post-scarce economy is what we need to investigate.

While I agree with your overall point, I disagree with the notion that exposing children to a single strong accent (that is, a strong accent differing from the one used in their environment) could affect their speech patterns. My experiences suggest that it is the overall environment that determines language development, and not a single source of linguistic information. For example, my parents speak English with very heavy accents, and I studied at a French immersion high school. Yet, my English is still excellent and adheres to the Canadian standard, even after four years spent abroad.

Similarly, my ESL students speak rather... less... like me than I would prefer.

Your question is actually fairly complex, and the answer depends on which ideological lens you favour.

The right wing people would likely submit that the richer classes will invest or otherwise use their money, and thus employ many other people, in the so-called 'trickle down effect'. I don't think this actually works very well in practise, but in theory, that's the idea.

The left wing people, on the other hand, might say that your hypothesis is entirely correct: as the people at the top begin to concentrate and accumulate wealth, the nation as a whole becomes impoverished, much like England in the late 1800s. I tend to agree with the left wing people; I think that this situation in the US is actually very worrisome and almost entirely due to excessive hoarding of wealth by higher classes.

The actual answer is probably somewhere between the two, though I favour an answer that's a little closer to the left wing response. No doubt, there are wealthy people who invest sensibly to create jobs, especially entrepreneurs and business owners, but I also suspect that a lot of wealthy people are only stock holders, and I'm not sure how trading stock (after the IPO) is directly beneficial to the economy.

Wealth is infinite in the same way that Gmail has infinite storage. The foundations of wealth have always been in production, whether industrial or intellectual, and there's a finite limit to how much stuff can be produced at one moment. And not only that, but wealth is also being destroyed, most simply by consumption, but for a wide variety of other reasons.

So while you're right on a theoretical level - in that probably more wealth is being created at any given moment than is destroyed - on a practical level, you may as well say that there's a finite amount of wealth.

I've been thinking a lot about the concept of co-op driven economics for a while. Small, owned and operated by the employees themselves, responsibilities and profits both would be shared more equitably.

I'm not sure that this is necessarily a bad thing. If you've been keeping up with the Chosun Ilbo, you may have noticed that there are an increasing number of crimes being routed over the 'net. For example, there've been a lot of cases of online bullying leading to suicides, and unsavoury stories of middle school students being blackmailed into prostitution via online means. Not to mention all the cases of internet addiction.

I admit that this may not be the best idea. Ideally, the police would investigate online crimes like any other crimes. But given that they don't seem very interested in investigating things (unless they're related to foreigner crimes, of course), this might be a valid way to target crimes from another angle.

It depends on what you mean by "cost effective". Many people would argue that our current manufacturing process isn't cost effective either, in the long run - we're simply outsourcing our pollution and other industrial effluvia.

Arguably, building a small, localized industrial base which is extremely flexible might be better than sending all our money to China.

I've occasionally wondered why one doesn't simply set up shop in a country that has more equitable IP laws and a more balanced judicial system. It certainly seems like the US has a system that favours deep pockets, but I wonder if the same would be true in other countries. I'm fairly certain that having deeper pockets doesn't necessarily work as well in Canada as in the US, though I admit that my knowledge of legal procedure isn't much beyond microscopic.

I don't understand your reply.

Are you asserting the need of underprivileged nations to more reliable sources of food? Or are you asserting the rights of individuals to work in their chosen fields?

While both of these are social problems that demand social answers, I think you will agree that they are very different conversations.

Yep. Things are changing over here, though; I'm seeing more and more Apple stuff these days. An awful lot of university students I see are using MacBooks. Plus, the trend seems to be towards mobile: Android is making major headway locally, as well as Safari on iPhone.

Unfortunately, the banks are not changing in what I would call a reasonable way: instead of switching over to standard encryption, they're simply developing custom software for Mac or mobile, which is kind of odd.

Such as in a motorail system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorail

That's an interesting interpretation of the data. I would have read it as, four years well spent developing a mind that can do engineering work. Here are some other points that spring to mind.

First, 'knowledge' is more than the acquisition of facts. This is why we have spent so much time reforming our education system, instead of forcing all students to have a working knowledge of ancient Greek. It may not be perfect, but at least students are currently encouraged to develop their knowledge in a focussed environment, and with experimentation, instead of memorizing knowledge by rote.

Second, university is meant to provide a well-rounded education. You may not see the value of electives in the liberal arts, but consider: do you really want engineering to be reduced to the level of a trade school? Engineers should, ideally, be well-spoken, capable of crafting an understandable phrase, and able to work in a team. This may not be easily achievable with self-directed, isolated studies.

Finally, there is a certain amount of value in having a professionally built curriculum. I will be the first to admit that there are too many commercial fingers in the academic pie, but when it comes to designing buildings or industrial projects, it seems like employing a self-taught wunderkind - or someone who merely thinks that they are - is a little risky.

Efficiency in education is hard to quantify. It's more than simply volume or accessibility of information; it's about applying it meaningfully and developing enough real life experience to innovate in a useful fashion.

Out of curiosity, who does ask the US to do anything? I'm honestly curious. I admit that I tend not to read up on disasters other than in the superficial way, or perhaps the media doesn't report every diplomatic request submitted, but off-hand, I can't recall any significant requests for aid from foreign powers specifically for the US, as opposed to the first world as a whole.