Your criticism is a valid one in general; a non-zero correleation factor rho does not imply causation. This is why the researchers in this case took care using various statistical tests/hypoethesis testing procedures to verify their claims. Causation AND correleation can be tested with mathematical rigor.
If you have a SPECIFIC argument against one of their statistical calculations and/or assumptions, please reply to this post.
If in fact, your post is a general allegation posted without reading the research/article or just skimming the CNET/Wired story, then it is without merit. A general attack on statistics is not valid without specific criticisms of the present study.
Look, a lot of Americans aren't as pissed b/c we're liberating Iraq - we got rid of a brutal dictator, great, good, that's jolly. We all agree Saddam is bad, no one disagrees. Btw though, if we're just using the oppressiveness of the dictator as a measuring stick on who to invade, why not Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and half of central/northern Africa?
There are two main issues that many Americans and the rest of the world do take with the war though:
#1 - The dishonesty with the rest of the world pre-Invasion.
- We were told WMD's were the main reason - no WMD's have been found in Iraq. The main American Arms inspector confirmed that none are likely to be found. And don't tell me that crap about the rest of the world believing Iraq had WMD's; if you read the reports by the German and othet European intelligence agencies, you'll see that the wording was more on the order of, "Saddam *MIGHT* be trying to make WMD's, but we're not sure." Most importantly, NONE of those reports, the CIA's included, in ANY WAY implied that those WMD's were in ANY position to harm America. So the bottom line is, Saddam might've been trying to make bombs (but we're not sure), but no way in hell can he hurt America with them.
#2 Lack of international consenus before going in/impact on post-war rebuilding.
- The Bush administration made a half-assed attempt to get the world on board by sending Colin Powell to make the case. Know how you can tell it's half-assed? They sent Colin Powell only, who the entire UN knew differed with Rumsfeld/Rice/Bush on his views, and was thus not a credible negotiating agent. Russia and various other countries pleaded for more time for the UN Arms Inspectors - Saddam was ready to allow them access, but these requests fell on deaf ears.
Now, we have no one but the Bush Administration for the shitty post-invasion botchup. It's basically the US going it alone with a bit of help from the UK; had Bush waited and built a real coalition like his dad did, we might have Germany, France, China, and Russia all providing troops, and more importantly LEGITIMACY. This legitimacy might also alleviate some of the anti-Western feelings that the US is doing a great job of stoking right now with heavy-handed tactis and prison scandals. This isn't just about politics, this could've meant significantly lower American casualties.
Richard Clarke made repeated attempts at trying to show Condoleeza Rice and Bush that Al-Qaeda was a major threat; the April 2001 date was one of the times where he brought up the topic with the Bush administration, only to be ignored and brushed aside.
After the book came out (and I'm not doubting some things were stretched to sell more copies), numerous news agencies asked Condoleeza Rice about whether Richard Clarke had pleaded with the Bush administration; she can't seem to recall any of those NSC meetings - odd considering her position has National Security Adviser to the president.
See CNN here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/911.comm ission/
Slate has a great op-ed piece too: http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/
"To an unusual degree, the Bush people can't get their story straight. On the one hand, Condi Rice has said that Bush did almost everything that Clarke recommended he do. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show, acted as if Clarke were a lowly, eccentric clerk: "He wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." This is laughably absurd. Clarke wasn't just in the loop, he was the loop."
Another great tidbit: "The Principals meeting, which Clarke urgently requested during Bush's first week in office, did not take place until one week before 9/11. In his 60 Minutes interview, Clarke spelled out the significance of this delay. He contrasted July 2001 with December 1999, when the Clinton White House got word of an impending al-Qaida attack on Los Angeles International Airport and Principals meetings were called instantly and repeatedly:
In December '99, every day or every other day, the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the Attorney General had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things that they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack, so they were going back every night to their departments and shaking the trees personally and finding out all the information. If that had happened in July of 2001, we might have found out in the White House, the Attorney General might have found out that there were al Qaeda operatives in the United States. FBI, at lower levels, knew [but] never told me, never told the highest levels in the FBI.... We could have caught those guys and then we might have been able to pull that thread and get more of the conspiracy. I'm not saying we could have stopped 9/11, but we could have at least had a chance. "
The US is indeed militarily stronger than the rest of the world. The United Nations is also incapable of forcing peace on anyone - the US one of the few countries capable and willing to use war to make peace. Cool irony, huh?
"Yeah, well, that entire religion has hated us for the better part of 150 years. And in earnet since the end of World War II."
There's sufficient justification for that. Starting with the Crusades in the Dark Ages, where Christian soldiers sacked and burned numerous Muslim holy sites and put entire cities to the sword, the West hasn't exactly made a good first impression. Continued US support for Israel while ignoring the humanitarian situation in Palestine has only further inflamed the Arab world. The support of Bush and numerous other preceding President (i'm not excluding the Democrats if you're thinking I'm just a crazy liberal hippie) of the Saudi Royal family and throwing money at tyrants - like Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, hasn't helped either.
The US, since WWII, has actively worked AGAINST the causes of democracy in the Middle East, choosing to leave in totalitarian leaders who censor free speech and torture their people - the Saudi family being a perfect example of this. The reason? It provides a stready supply of cheap oil. Democracy breeds instability because people realize they have a choice, thus the US has continued to support dictators.
The only way to truly ensure the safety of the United States is to work with the Arab people and encourage freedom activists in those repressive regiemes. When was the last time you heard Bush condemn the Saudi family for using Gestapo-like methods to quiet their people? When was the last time you heard America fund democracy activists in the Mideast before Iraq?
I don't particularly like this approach either because it encroaches on these countries sovereignty, but that hasn't seemed to stop the US so far; it's also a far better method than crushing civil liberties within and good-will/respect abroad.
If, say, an invasion of South Korea failed, I could easily see him launching missiles on the rest of the world. --
As far as US intelligence/any intelligence whatsoever knows, North Korea doesn't have any nukes or missiles; they're trying to build them, but failing. They are incredibly far from missiles that can hit anywhere close to the US.
Who's to say that China will never invade Taiwan. --
The only reason China would invade Taiwan is if Taiwan declares independence, in which case the UYS is not going to defend them - look up the treaties. I seriously doubt China, in addition to attacking a heavily armed Taiwan, would also want to aggravate the strongest military power in the world.
Who's to say that India or Pakistan won't try to start a nuclear war. --
Neither India nor Pakistan have ICBM's capable of hitting the US, not even mentioning the fact that both are allied with the US, albeit loosely in Pakistan's case. Again, noen of the US' business.
Missile defense systems shouldn't defend just the US, they should defend our allies around the world --
No one has asked the US to play world police. Perhaps defending American allies can start with doing less things to piss off everyone in the world.
There's a problem with that assumption/speculation. Something very few Americans are aware of is that Al-Qaeda and Saddam not only were not cooperating, but that they actively worked AGAINST each other.
Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization based entirely on religious fanaticism and Islamic fundamentalism; Saddam's regieme was totally secular, and Al-Qaeda and many of the Muslim clerics hated him for that. He wanted an Iraq free of religions power, and worked actively to destroy the influence of Islam in Iraq. If we wanted allies against AL-Qaeda, Saddam would've been part of them - sort of how we allied with him against Iran in the 1980's. Al-Qaeda actually attempted to undermine Saddam in siginificant ways by rousing the population with religious messages, something Saddam and the Baath party both loathed.
"Let a thousand flowers bloom," is an interesting quote. This comment was made by Chairman Mao in the 1970's to see who really opposed his policies by letting everyine express themselves. There was a period of free speech and outpourings of democratic writings, especially on college Campuses, that was followed by brutal repression and jailings of many university students and professors when Mao felt like it had run it's course.
"Let a thousand flowers bloom," was more or less a political tactic by Mao to exterminate his enemies in the Communist Party. Not sure what this has to do with economic policy and such.
No, people like Bush are exactly the type of America that the Founding Fathers expected and wanted. If you read between the lines of the original Constiution, it's clear that a white, Christian, land-owning, upper-class in control America is what they envisioned.
The electoral college and the lack of original direct elections for the Senate are clear proof of this; they didn't want the "rabble" interfering in their Republic. Voting was something to be enjoyed by the upper class who have spare time and considerable estates. In their writings, they make direct references that voting was for "gentlemen," and they know better than the rest so they can make intelligent decisions for all - the core idea of a Republican society. The first president of the US was an avid slave owner, and the concept of "democracy" was viewed by Madison, Franklin, et al to be a terrible and dangerous idea that they should do all in their power to suppress.
Everyone always envisioned the Founding Fathers as people of great equality - they weren't. George W. Bush and people like him are fulfilling the original American dream of inequality for all save the white Christian landowner.
I hate this idea, but that's how the country started out. That's the reason America is the way it is today.
The US is NOT "a confederation of 50 sovereign nations."
That may have been true under the Articles of Confederation, or if you want to stretch things, before the Great Depression, but after the New Deal, federal power far outweights state power. The 1960's Civil Rights movemement and the addition of the "equal protection" and "due process" clauses made damn sure that Federal power quashed any remnants of State control. Through those two clauses and "Interstate Commerce," Congress can get anything it wants through to supercede State control.
Only recently, with the conservative backlash of the 1980's do we see a slight advancement of State's right's, but it's still in a crappy state. (no pun)
Just so this isn't totally off-topic, the founding fathers did not institute a popular vote system because they believe in a Republican form of government; Jefferson, Madison, and Washington all found the idea of a total democracy abhorrent - in no way did they want the "common rabble" to vote for the highest office of the land. before the 19th century, the Senate was even not directly elected. The core belief of a Republican (Republican in the form of the Constitution of Pennsylvania Republican, not GWB Republican - big difference) form of government lies in a very few virtuous citizens making decisions for the rest; in NO way did any of the framers of the Constitution want the common people to have a large say in the world - and dear god, especially not minorities or women.
Sort of like how China's elections are it's problems? Or for that matter, China-Taiwan relations are it's own business?
Sort of like Iraq *was* a sovereign nation which posed NO threat to US National Security, except maybe cheaper prices for gas?
hypocrites.
Telling the Chinese government to go fuck themselves just means the Google gets banned, leaving the Chinese people with NO Google. The Chinese censorship firewall is imperfect, and hints of things that are supposed to be censored are still availible in non-censored sources. Maintaining a Google presence in China means that when the leadership begins to change - and it will change with Jiang Zemin formally resigning as head of the Armed Forces - Google will be there to gradually ease restrictions.
Would your prefer the Chinese people have access to a limited Google News or no Google News whatsoever? If you were a frog at the bottom of a well, would your prefer total darkness or a small view of the sky, and see the occassional bird?
The solution to this problem for Yahoo is obvious. Forget ACLU backed ligitation.
Invade France and liberate the French people from it's oppressive government.
Couple bucks to the Bushes ought to do it.
Name one single instance when Buddhist monks engaged in mass slaughter/genocide. Since the creation of Buddhism, not a single slaughter has been committed by Buddhist zealots.
Government censorship is not inherently a principle of authoritarianism/communism. Classical republican theory (the US Constituation was a classical republican document with a liberal addendum - the Bill of Rights) openly advocates the legislative branch of government creating laws to control the morality of the people. Free speech is NOT an ideal rooted in classical republican theory; in fact, up until the mid-20th century, free speech was not even fully allowed in the United States. In fact, early court cases (1870's through the Lochern Era) clearly recognize "public morality" as a prevailing guide as to whether legislation is constitutional.
Only in the mid-20th century was the first amendment incorporated by the courts through the 14th amendment. Up until this point, free speech rights were only enforced against the FEDERAL branch. The States had every right to control what you spoke/saw/read - if Illinois in 1910 said you can't print bad things about the Illinois governemtn, they had every right to. People on slashdot need to stop assuming that Free Speech is an unalienable right in America, because it's not. Relatively-unlimited speech is a past development of the 20th century.
No courses on Fourier Series? It's pretty damn impossible to code any application relating to audio/video/imaging without hitting Fourier Series/Frequency domain analysis or stuff related to it (Wavelets, etc...)
A good Signals & Systems processing course that includes feedback, Z/Laplace Transforms is also invaluable for coding many types of network applications/design.
A small gripe about your particular example... The purchase of a new bike helmet is almost entirely subsidized by the insurance carrier; a budget of 50 dollars per helmet is usually allowed for every single member of the family, so buying a helmet costs someone who has health insurance absolutely nothing. Of course, the poor people in your example might not have health insurance; but in that case, they have bigger problems to worry about.
Another way to look at it is the poor parents see the ubiqitious warning signs about biking without a helmet on every bike and actually purchase the kid a bike so they won't have to pay a stiff fine later. Lots of ways to look at the problem besides the liberterian lens.
27,000 a year? First tier engineering college graduates average ~65,000 a year fresh out of college. These aren't numbers from during the bubble; they're from last year.
I'd say that's a big difference.
V.92/V.90 56k technology did not exist at the time of 386/486 chips. Old stuff tends to blend together, but I think 56k technology X2/56KFlex/V.90 came out around the time of Pentium/Pentium II's.
Slashdot Mirror
Your criticism is a valid one in general; a non-zero correleation factor rho does not imply causation. This is why the researchers in this case took care using various statistical tests/hypoethesis testing procedures to verify their claims. Causation AND correleation can be tested with mathematical rigor.
If you have a SPECIFIC argument against one of their statistical calculations and/or assumptions, please reply to this post.
If in fact, your post is a general allegation posted without reading the research/article or just skimming the CNET/Wired story, then it is without merit. A general attack on statistics is not valid without specific criticisms of the present study.
Look, a lot of Americans aren't as pissed b/c we're liberating Iraq - we got rid of a brutal dictator, great, good, that's jolly. We all agree Saddam is bad, no one disagrees. Btw though, if we're just using the oppressiveness of the dictator as a measuring stick on who to invade, why not Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and half of central/northern Africa?
There are two main issues that many Americans and the rest of the world do take with the war though:
#1 - The dishonesty with the rest of the world pre-Invasion.
- We were told WMD's were the main reason - no WMD's have been found in Iraq. The main American Arms inspector confirmed that none are likely to be found. And don't tell me that crap about the rest of the world believing Iraq had WMD's; if you read the reports by the German and othet European intelligence agencies, you'll see that the wording was more on the order of, "Saddam *MIGHT* be trying to make WMD's, but we're not sure." Most importantly, NONE of those reports, the CIA's included, in ANY WAY implied that those WMD's were in ANY position to harm America. So the bottom line is, Saddam might've been trying to make bombs (but we're not sure), but no way in hell can he hurt America with them.
#2 Lack of international consenus before going in/impact on post-war rebuilding.
- The Bush administration made a half-assed attempt to get the world on board by sending Colin Powell to make the case. Know how you can tell it's half-assed? They sent Colin Powell only, who the entire UN knew differed with Rumsfeld/Rice/Bush on his views, and was thus not a credible negotiating agent. Russia and various other countries pleaded for more time for the UN Arms Inspectors - Saddam was ready to allow them access, but these requests fell on deaf ears.
Now, we have no one but the Bush Administration for the shitty post-invasion botchup. It's basically the US going it alone with a bit of help from the UK; had Bush waited and built a real coalition like his dad did, we might have Germany, France, China, and Russia all providing troops, and more importantly LEGITIMACY. This legitimacy might also alleviate some of the anti-Western feelings that the US is doing a great job of stoking right now with heavy-handed tactis and prison scandals. This isn't just about politics, this could've meant significantly lower American casualties.
Richard Clarke made repeated attempts at trying to show Condoleeza Rice and Bush that Al-Qaeda was a major threat; the April 2001 date was one of the times where he brought up the topic with the Bush administration, only to be ignored and brushed aside.
m ission/
... We could have caught those guys and then we might have been able to pull that thread and get more of the conspiracy. I'm not saying we could have stopped 9/11, but we could have at least had a chance. "
After the book came out (and I'm not doubting some things were stretched to sell more copies), numerous news agencies asked Condoleeza Rice about whether Richard Clarke had pleaded with the Bush administration; she can't seem to recall any of those NSC meetings - odd considering her position has National Security Adviser to the president.
See CNN here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/911.com
Slate has a great op-ed piece too:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/
"To an unusual degree, the Bush people can't get their story straight. On the one hand, Condi Rice has said that Bush did almost everything that Clarke recommended he do. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show, acted as if Clarke were a lowly, eccentric clerk: "He wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." This is laughably absurd. Clarke wasn't just in the loop, he was the loop."
Another great tidbit:
"The Principals meeting, which Clarke urgently requested during Bush's first week in office, did not take place until one week before 9/11. In his 60 Minutes interview, Clarke spelled out the significance of this delay. He contrasted July 2001 with December 1999, when the Clinton White House got word of an impending al-Qaida attack on Los Angeles International Airport and Principals meetings were called instantly and repeatedly:
In December '99, every day or every other day, the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the Attorney General had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things that they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack, so they were going back every night to their departments and shaking the trees personally and finding out all the information. If that had happened in July of 2001, we might have found out in the White House, the Attorney General might have found out that there were al Qaeda operatives in the United States. FBI, at lower levels, knew [but] never told me, never told the highest levels in the FBI.
If you look closely, one of the usernames appears to be "calbear821@..."
The US is indeed militarily stronger than the rest of the world. The United Nations is also incapable of forcing peace on anyone - the US one of the few countries capable and willing to use war to make peace. Cool irony, huh?
"Yeah, well, that entire religion has hated us for the better part of 150 years. And in earnet since the end of World War II."
There's sufficient justification for that. Starting with the Crusades in the Dark Ages, where Christian soldiers sacked and burned numerous Muslim holy sites and put entire cities to the sword, the West hasn't exactly made a good first impression. Continued US support for Israel while ignoring the humanitarian situation in Palestine has only further inflamed the Arab world. The support of Bush and numerous other preceding President (i'm not excluding the Democrats if you're thinking I'm just a crazy liberal hippie) of the Saudi Royal family and throwing money at tyrants - like Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, hasn't helped either.
The US, since WWII, has actively worked AGAINST the causes of democracy in the Middle East, choosing to leave in totalitarian leaders who censor free speech and torture their people - the Saudi family being a perfect example of this. The reason? It provides a stready supply of cheap oil. Democracy breeds instability because people realize they have a choice, thus the US has continued to support dictators.
The only way to truly ensure the safety of the United States is to work with the Arab people and encourage freedom activists in those repressive regiemes. When was the last time you heard Bush condemn the Saudi family for using Gestapo-like methods to quiet their people? When was the last time you heard America fund democracy activists in the Mideast before Iraq?
I don't particularly like this approach either because it encroaches on these countries sovereignty, but that hasn't seemed to stop the US so far; it's also a far better method than crushing civil liberties within and good-will/respect abroad.
If, say, an invasion of South Korea failed, I could easily see him launching missiles on the rest of the world. -- As far as US intelligence/any intelligence whatsoever knows, North Korea doesn't have any nukes or missiles; they're trying to build them, but failing. They are incredibly far from missiles that can hit anywhere close to the US.
Who's to say that China will never invade Taiwan. -- The only reason China would invade Taiwan is if Taiwan declares independence, in which case the UYS is not going to defend them - look up the treaties. I seriously doubt China, in addition to attacking a heavily armed Taiwan, would also want to aggravate the strongest military power in the world.
Who's to say that India or Pakistan won't try to start a nuclear war. -- Neither India nor Pakistan have ICBM's capable of hitting the US, not even mentioning the fact that both are allied with the US, albeit loosely in Pakistan's case. Again, noen of the US' business.
Missile defense systems shouldn't defend just the US, they should defend our allies around the world -- No one has asked the US to play world police. Perhaps defending American allies can start with doing less things to piss off everyone in the world.
Speaking as a resident of the CA Bay Area, I'd love to move to a place with home prices that are only in the 6 figure range.
There's a problem with that assumption/speculation. Something very few Americans are aware of is that Al-Qaeda and Saddam not only were not cooperating, but that they actively worked AGAINST each other.
Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization based entirely on religious fanaticism and Islamic fundamentalism; Saddam's regieme was totally secular, and Al-Qaeda and many of the Muslim clerics hated him for that. He wanted an Iraq free of religions power, and worked actively to destroy the influence of Islam in Iraq. If we wanted allies against AL-Qaeda, Saddam would've been part of them - sort of how we allied with him against Iran in the 1980's. Al-Qaeda actually attempted to undermine Saddam in siginificant ways by rousing the population with religious messages, something Saddam and the Baath party both loathed.
Hope this clarifies things.
"Let a thousand flowers bloom," is an interesting quote. This comment was made by Chairman Mao in the 1970's to see who really opposed his policies by letting everyine express themselves. There was a period of free speech and outpourings of democratic writings, especially on college Campuses, that was followed by brutal repression and jailings of many university students and professors when Mao felt like it had run it's course.
"Let a thousand flowers bloom," was more or less a political tactic by Mao to exterminate his enemies in the Communist Party. Not sure what this has to do with economic policy and such.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson
No, people like Bush are exactly the type of America that the Founding Fathers expected and wanted. If you read between the lines of the original Constiution, it's clear that a white, Christian, land-owning, upper-class in control America is what they envisioned. The electoral college and the lack of original direct elections for the Senate are clear proof of this; they didn't want the "rabble" interfering in their Republic. Voting was something to be enjoyed by the upper class who have spare time and considerable estates. In their writings, they make direct references that voting was for "gentlemen," and they know better than the rest so they can make intelligent decisions for all - the core idea of a Republican society. The first president of the US was an avid slave owner, and the concept of "democracy" was viewed by Madison, Franklin, et al to be a terrible and dangerous idea that they should do all in their power to suppress. Everyone always envisioned the Founding Fathers as people of great equality - they weren't. George W. Bush and people like him are fulfilling the original American dream of inequality for all save the white Christian landowner. I hate this idea, but that's how the country started out. That's the reason America is the way it is today.
The US is NOT "a confederation of 50 sovereign nations."
That may have been true under the Articles of Confederation, or if you want to stretch things, before the Great Depression, but after the New Deal, federal power far outweights state power. The 1960's Civil Rights movemement and the addition of the "equal protection" and "due process" clauses made damn sure that Federal power quashed any remnants of State control. Through those two clauses and "Interstate Commerce," Congress can get anything it wants through to supercede State control.
Only recently, with the conservative backlash of the 1980's do we see a slight advancement of State's right's, but it's still in a crappy
state. (no pun)
Just so this isn't totally off-topic, the founding fathers did not institute a popular vote system because they believe in a Republican form of government; Jefferson, Madison, and Washington all found the idea of a total democracy abhorrent - in no way did they want the "common rabble" to vote for the highest office of the land. before the 19th century, the Senate was even not directly elected. The core belief of a Republican (Republican in the form of the Constitution of Pennsylvania Republican, not GWB Republican - big difference) form of government lies in a very few virtuous citizens making decisions for the rest; in NO way did any of the framers of the Constitution want the common people to have a large say in the world - and dear god, especially not minorities or women.
Sort of like how China's elections are it's problems? Or for that matter, China-Taiwan relations are it's own business? Sort of like Iraq *was* a sovereign nation which posed NO threat to US National Security, except maybe cheaper prices for gas? hypocrites.
That's stupid.
Telling the Chinese government to go fuck themselves just means the Google gets banned, leaving the Chinese people with NO Google. The Chinese censorship firewall is imperfect, and hints of things that are supposed to be censored are still availible in non-censored sources. Maintaining a Google presence in China means that when the leadership begins to change - and it will change with Jiang Zemin formally resigning as head of the Armed Forces - Google will be there to gradually ease restrictions.
Would your prefer the Chinese people have access to a limited Google News or no Google News whatsoever? If you were a frog at the bottom of a well, would your prefer total darkness or a small view of the sky, and see the occassional bird?
The solution to this problem for Yahoo is obvious. Forget ACLU backed ligitation. Invade France and liberate the French people from it's oppressive government. Couple bucks to the Bushes ought to do it.
Name one single instance when Buddhist monks engaged in mass slaughter/genocide. Since the creation of Buddhism, not a single slaughter has been committed by Buddhist zealots.
Something to think about.
Government censorship is not inherently a principle of authoritarianism/communism. Classical republican theory (the US Constituation was a classical republican document with a liberal addendum - the Bill of Rights) openly advocates the legislative branch of government creating laws to control the morality of the people. Free speech is NOT an ideal rooted in classical republican theory; in fact, up until the mid-20th century, free speech was not even fully allowed in the United States. In fact, early court cases (1870's through the Lochern Era) clearly recognize "public morality" as a prevailing guide as to whether legislation is constitutional. Only in the mid-20th century was the first amendment incorporated by the courts through the 14th amendment. Up until this point, free speech rights were only enforced against the FEDERAL branch. The States had every right to control what you spoke/saw/read - if Illinois in 1910 said you can't print bad things about the Illinois governemtn, they had every right to. People on slashdot need to stop assuming that Free Speech is an unalienable right in America, because it's not. Relatively-unlimited speech is a past development of the 20th century.
No courses on Fourier Series? It's pretty damn impossible to code any application relating to audio/video/imaging without hitting Fourier Series/Frequency domain analysis or stuff related to it (Wavelets, etc...) A good Signals & Systems processing course that includes feedback, Z/Laplace Transforms is also invaluable for coding many types of network applications/design.
A small gripe about your particular example... The purchase of a new bike helmet is almost entirely subsidized by the insurance carrier; a budget of 50 dollars per helmet is usually allowed for every single member of the family, so buying a helmet costs someone who has health insurance absolutely nothing. Of course, the poor people in your example might not have health insurance; but in that case, they have bigger problems to worry about. Another way to look at it is the poor parents see the ubiqitious warning signs about biking without a helmet on every bike and actually purchase the kid a bike so they won't have to pay a stiff fine later. Lots of ways to look at the problem besides the liberterian lens.
27,000 a year? First tier engineering college graduates average ~65,000 a year fresh out of college. These aren't numbers from during the bubble; they're from last year. I'd say that's a big difference.
Capitalistic communism? Try China, where entrepeneuers/business-owners are allowed into the China Communist Party.
V.92/V.90 56k technology did not exist at the time of 386/486 chips. Old stuff tends to blend together, but I think 56k technology X2/56KFlex/V.90 came out around the time of Pentium/Pentium II's.