Slashdot Mirror

Researchers say that 74% of these abusive listings were for local businesses in the U.S. and India, mainly in pockets around certain local hotspots, especially in large metropolitan areas such as New York, Chicago, Houston, or Los Angeles.

I am sure one of these large metro areas is in India, why else would they include India in the countries list? 35 cities in India with population more than 1 million. Top 50 cities in USA

Clearly you haven't spent time in NYC, it is FAR, FAR, FAR more dense than London

Actually New York has half the population density of London. Next question.

http://www.citymayors.com/stat...

They can't find obvious things, things any driver in their home city should know.

A dude in a car would be better in most cases.

Metropolitan Seoul has a population of 25 million. Furthermore, unlike New York City which is laid out in a nice grid, the streets in Seoul are a byzantine mess of turns, angles, and alleyways. Also, as per Asian custom, most of the streets don't have names - the destinations do. (Kinda like Squares in Boston - instead of the street being called Boylston St, it'd simply be called "To Copley Square".) I'm frankly amazed at how many streets the taxicab drivers there know. GPS is a convenience in the U.S., but it's practically required in cities like Seoul which originally grew organically without central planning.

You also have to understand the historical pretext. South Korea, and Seoul in particular, has one of the highest population densities on earth. Of countries with more than 5 million people and excluding city-states, only Bangladesh and Taiwan have higher population density. Space, and especially road space is a premium.

Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, they had a pretty good system. The government taxed cars so that the cost about $40,000 (about $90,000 in 2014 dollars) as a way to discourage car ownership. Instead, people were encouraged to take public transportation and taxis. Even traveling between cities was simple with an extensive express bus system with departures every 5 minutes between major cities. It worked pretty well - I hardly recall seeing any traffic jams during that time, and you could flag down a taxi literally within 30 seconds.

All that fell apart n the late 1980s, one of the U.S. Presidential candidates made an issue of this tax. He complained that Hyundai was allowed to sell its cars in the U.S. for $5,000, while an equivalent U.S. car cost $40,000 in Korea. He conveniently omitted that the same Hyundai cost $40,000 in Korea as well. The huge uproar in the U.S. eventually led to the South Korean government repealing the tax in order to protect its fledgling overseas car sales industry.

What happened next was predictable. Car prices dropped like a rock in Korea, and Koreans bought cars. Tens of millions of them. Way more than the road infrastructure could handle. The streets became parking lots. During the lunar new year, it wasn't uncommon for a 400km road trip to take more than 24 hours - as slow as a fast marathon runner. And not only did it negatively impact car travel, it also slowed down public bus transportation since they were stuck on the streets with the cars.

During the 1990s and 2000s, Korea worked its ass off to expand and improve its roads to handle all these cars. It's still nowhere near as good as it was in the 1970s, but at least traffic moves now, with just the regular traffic jams like you'd expect in any modern urbanized country. There is no way in hell they're going to allow millions more drivers roaming the streets trying to make some extra pocket change with Uber.

The numbers are a few years old, but still pretty relevant.

Seoul is ~16,000 people per square kilometer with > 17.5 million residents
Tokyo/Yokohama is ~4,700 people per square kilometer with > 33 million residents
Los Angeles is ~2,750 people per square kilometer with ~12 million residents
New York City is ~2,050 people per square kilometer with ~18 million residents

The United States has nowhere near the concentrations or densities of people that Japan and South Korea has. On top of that, the USA has vast distances of relatively nothingness that you need to account for as well... you have to look at the big picture of it all.

Source: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

I think your figures are looking at metro areas, not cities -- Wikipedia says NY population density is 27,550/sq mi (10,640/km2),

Those vast areas of nothingness don't really matter if you're rolling out fiber to a city, you don't have to roll out fiber to Kansas if you are rolling it out in New York City.

The numbers are a few years old, but still pretty relevant.

Seoul is ~16,000 people per square kilometer with > 17.5 million residents
Tokyo/Yokohama is ~4,700 people per square kilometer with > 33 million residents
Los Angeles is ~2,750 people per square kilometer with ~12 million residents
New York City is ~2,050 people per square kilometer with ~18 million residents

The United States has nowhere near the concentrations or densities of people that Japan and South Korea has. On top of that, the USA has vast distances of relatively nothingness that you need to account for as well... you have to look at the big picture of it all.

Source: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

While there is truth to the assertion that some private schools are much better than others, this doesn't take into account how bad many government schools are.

Nor does it take into account how good many government schools are; nor does it take into account that private schools get to select their students, while public schools systems don't.

We do not have a public school system in the U.S. -- we have thousands. Each county generally runs its own system, with a bit of oversight and funding at the state level. I live in a narrow strip of Baltimore County between Baltimore City (an independent city, Baltimore is essentially a county unto itself) and Howard County.

Where I live, the schools are decent-to-good; half of Baltimore County public high schools were ranked in the top six percent of high schools by Newsweek, and 85% of graduates go on immediately to higher education. But in a few minutes I can be in Baltimore City -- as seen on The Wire -- which a few years ago had one of the lowest on-time graduation rates in the country, less that 40%, and 11 schools were failing so badly that the State of Maryland tried to take them over directly; there has been marked improvement the past few years, but it's still an underperforming system. Or in a few minutes I can be in Howard County, one of the richest counties in the U.S., where the graduation rate is over 93%, and average SAT scores are over 1100 on the old 1600 point scale.

As one last aside, note that since 1970 real spending per pupil at government schools in the U.S. has more than doubled, with - so far - nothing to show for it.

Nonsense. Since 1970, public schools have had to provide increasing special education, more ESOL education, more free and reduced price meals. They've also introduced more gifted education and AP classes, which didn't exist (or at least, weren't widespread) in 1970. Schools have also become a delivery point for a wide array of social services, which accounts for a very large chunk of spending. Finally, public schools also provide transportation for students -- you may have noticed some increase in gasoline prices since 1970.

In spite of these extra costs, public school expenditures are lower than secular private schools; they spend a bit more than Catholic schools, but get slightly better outcomes. (Note that "expenditure" and "tuition" are very different things, thanks to grants; for example, one school in McLean, Virginia, had a tuition of $25,890 and spending of $35,665.) There are cheaper private schools, but they're usually poor performers. You get what you pay for, and overall, public school price/performance is in line with private schools. The problem is systems like Baltimore; and it's not just the schools that are the problem there, there are enormous issues of economic and social justice at work.

Ummm ok...lets factor in COL. In the list of top 50 most expensive cities, Seoul ranks 14! To give you some perspective, New York is 27 with Los Angeles bringing up 55. Please do a little research before talking about COL.

http://www.citymayors.com/features/cost_survey.html

I really wish we could have seen the full unbridled version of the opening. Maybe some storyboards will surface eventually. I'll bet you almost anything that the North Korean animation operations are pretty substantial given they didn't want to talk about it for good reason, and their conditions I'd bet are pretty horrid. Watch the Simpsons? Support North Korea! Wooooooo what a publicity campaign!

Actually, a billion dollars is WAY more money than any of the examples you gave. It's so much money, most people can't even wrap their minds around how big it is. The top 150 cities of GDP include cities that are ~$5 billion. That's the top 150 cities in the world. So, he has to pay back as much money as some large cities make. As for those hundreds and thousands of well-paid and low-wage people...how much do you consider low wage? (For me, 1000 * $30,000/year = $30 million - not even close to a billion.)

Either way, you're main point is true - the fine is absurd.

Have you been to your local dumpsite? Imagine if there were 1.5 billion Americans (and Canadians). How would North American consumption patterns and "environmental standards" really compare?

Quite well. See Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on recycling. The waste of all North America over the next 1,000 years would fit in a landfill 35 miles square. And none of us would ever have to look at it or worry about it.

Totalitarian systems that don't care about the health of their citizens are a different matter. You don't see any thriving democracies among the most polluted parts of the world.

Check my math.

300,000 people within a ten mile radius is (300,000/(pi*100)) = 955 people per square mile. Multiply by 2.58998811 (mi^2:km^2) to get approximately 2473 people per square kilometer.

Consult this list of the densest cities in the world. Do note that by this list's methodology no US cities have a population density greater than 2473 persons per sq km.

The methodology of that listing is debatable, but the point is that places where people live in such numbers are not terribly common on this planet, and consequently, places with lesser population density are very important, especially since, despite your assertion, you're probably living in one.

As an addendum, the number of cities with a population of more than 300,000 is also a fairly low number. That same website ranks only 232 cities as having equal or larger populations. Only half of the planet lives in cities, so far.

Oh, and one last thing: you're an asshole.

It's not WHERE your population does its urbanizing, it's how much it is urbanized. The actual figure is 75% of the Canadian population lives within 200 mi. of the US border: but if we were EVENLY spread through that area, we would be totally non-urbanized and hugely expensive to network. (It would be less than 15 houses per square mile.)

The population of Canada is 79.4% urbanized (living in centres of >=10,000 population).

http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/canadian_cities.html

The population of the USA is 81% urbanized:

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

The difference is not statistically significant to this issue; to whatever extent it is significant, the USA should have slightly better broadband than Canada. (Significantly higher average income, slightly greater urbanization, 10X the economies of scale for the more-centralized parts of the infrastructure).

That took me 4 minutes with Google. I could have avoided doing the work AGAIN if you'd done the same. I was hoping to avoid it by posting early and stupidly assumed that nobody would just flatly say my assertions were incorrect without bothering to do any research or math.

I don't know why I bother.

I got it from here: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-population-125.html Maybe not the best source. It was the first thing I found that was from the last two years.

I realize this isn't quite the same as measuring specific airborne toxins, but Pittsburgh has some of the worst particulate pollution of any US city. http://www.citymayors.com/environment/polluted_uscities.html

Wow, Malaysia is really cheap! Good for you!

Some cities in Brazil rank among the most expansive in the world, the cost of living in São Paulo and Rio corresponding to 72% of those of New Yorkers who are - as you know "rich Americans."

http://www.citymayors.com/features/cost_survey.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/reporterbbc/story/2007/03/070306_cidadescaras_pu.shtml
(Sorry this BBC article is in Portuguese - but if you read Spanish you can probably handle it).

But anyways, it was US $ 850, I stand corrected, which by today's exchange rate is R$ 1528.3. Which is way better, but you still don't qualify as middle class (well, technically you would, but that would be "lower middle class"). Anyhow, that's around 4 times less than a better qualified job (such as a software engineer for a big Brazilian bank).

It's all about population density. Japan and most Asian and European countries are very densly populated. The reasons for this are many; good urban planning, good public transportation, lack of space, or simply the fact that the cities themselves grew in poverty or before the invention of the automobile.

American cities are spread out. Most US cities didn't really start exploding in population until cars were ubiquitous. That meant that you could live 30 miles from your job and the commute wasn't prohibitive.

The way wireless coverage area works, you don't need just twice as many towers to serve the same amount of people living at half the density of Europe, you need about 4 times as many. Forget the rural areas, covering the cities and suburbs is hard enough.

Now factor in that even the densest of US cities, Los Angeles (90th most dense city in the world,) is only about 1/2 as dense as Tokyo, or a staggering 1/10 as dense as Seoul (source: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-citie s-density-125.html ). Most major Asian and European cities on the same scale. Because square area is an exponential function, you need 100 times as many towers to serve a population that is 1/10 as dense (you need less cells per tower, but it's still more physical locations to manage and upgrade.)

With these sorts of density figures, it definitely starts to screw with the numbers. You can't upgrade as often and still make a profit, and you have to treat your customers like crap because you can't afford to treat them well and still make money (and if they weren't making money, we wouldn't be getting cell service.)

You start looking at where you can make money, and it eventually leads to the fact that you have to make more off of every customer by nickel and diming them while you can't upgrade your network as quickly because it takes too long and is too expensive.

Well right off I can give you my short list (in no particular order):
Finland
Norway
Switzerland
Netherlands
Sweden
Australia
Perhaps UK somewhere (England, Ireland, Scotland)

of course I live in Canada so I can't pick that (and no I would NOT move to the USA)

The main disadvantages that many might have with the scandinavian countries are A) the cold weather, B) the taxes, and C)relitive remoteness and smaller urbanized areas.

Well Canada is A) Cold, B) has high taxes also, and C) unless you live in Toronto, Vancouver can be somewhat remote and smaller urban areas. So not so different really, certainly not so much to cause distress.

I picked Australia pretty much because as far are warmer countries go it seems pretty nice. Also I hear girls down under dig the Canadian accent :) . The one thing that sort of bothers me is that everything seems to be poisonious. I have also read some stuff about their current conservative government... of course these things come and go... Currently we have a like problem, though Harper isn't so bad as far as robots go, you just have to get to know him...

Another great thing about Australia and the UK is I don't need to learn a new language (though I know that most of the Scandinavian contries seem to have an absurd rate of english speaking also like 80-90%, but I would feel bad living there without learning the native tounge). The other great thing about the UK is all the shared heritage between them and Canada. Lots of relations on both sides, shared culture. Being from Nova Scotia (New Scotland), there are a lot of shared traditions with the British Iles, more so than central, or western Canada.

Also just to illistrate how great my choices are, here are some links to stuff like UN polls etc...

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/ displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372495&d=2005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9085910/

I was looking for the actual UN list of top 50 or whatever, as I remember Canada used to be at #1 for many years, until Norway finally de-throned us Canadians. Though I suspect it had more to do with Norway's expansion of oil production in the North Sea, and the smart way they are using the funds for the future (Canada has oil as well, but it doesn't seemed to be handled in as intelligent way, too many competing interests).

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/04/eui.sur vey/
http://www.citymayors.com/environment/eiu_bestciti es.html

apparently some of the best cities to live in are in Australia and Switzerland.

Also these countries have a robust Hockey culture as well. I have friends who love Soccer, but I am not one of them.
Finland
Norway
Switzerland
Sweden

So I think this is the difinitive choices of where to live!
Finland
Norway
Switzerland
Netherlands
Sweden
Australia
Ireland

And of course Canada, if you are not already there! :)

I can't believe no-one linked to this:

"The world's top cities offering the best quality of life"

Since half this thread debated the Netherlands, I'll point out that the top 12 cities are not in the Netherlands, but in these countries:
- Switzerland
- Canada
- Austria
- New Zealand
- Germany
- Australia
- Denmark

Almost pointless at the end of such a long thread, but hopefully some lucky soul reads this.
SLM

What you are actually referring to is "Healthcare paid for by involuntary contributions, taken by force, known colloquially as taxes"

What I read there is "I don't want to pay your healthcare. Pay it yourself or fuck you". But what if "I" is someone else and "your healthcare" is yours? What if I cannot pay an insurance because I have to pay more than half of my salary to the renter of my home?

And there are better places to cut expenses.

BTW, Nagin is an idiot, not evil, I kinda think of him as the 'black Bush' of New Orleans. Also before the election, he was a life long Republican and supported the Bush Administration.

Nagin was, at that time, a known Bush supporter, having contributed to the president's campaign.(reference)

Fiscal Responsibility my ass. Those corrupt Republicans LOVE single issue voters, in particular ones who they can scare into the polls. Sure they can drum up legislation they don't expect to pass, or make vague promises, but where do they really deliver? Money into their pockets.

I am not American or Canadian, but I lived in both countries for a couple of years. In fact I've lived in 4 countries during the last 5 years (Chile, US, Canada, and France). Based on my experience I think each one has its own advantanges/disadvantages. US has its very "developed economy" and individualist culture that gives more opportunities to people and makes it a vey "CHEAP" place to live. If you do not believe me compare the price of an apartment, car, or PC in any big European city and an American one. Canada has its multicultural/socialist society that makes a very good but "EXPENSIVE" place to live.

After living in different countries I have realized that the single most important point I consider to move to a new place is the quality of life of their cities. That is more important that higher salary, cheaper computers, etc. You can check the cities with better quality of life at http://www.citymayors.com/features/quality_survey. html. My favorite city in North America, Vancouver, where I lived and I expect to move soon, appears as third one. Please check the position of the first US city.

When comparing health systems I think it is important to ask what is the main purpose of a health care system. To me a good health care system is the one that can offer a long healthy life to MOST of its population. Go check this page http://www.aneki.com/expectancy.html to see wich country has the longer life expectancy. You can also check other index of social development.
I visited doctors in the US and Canada. As far as I am concerned the only difference was that in US I got a bill of US$300 plus my insurance coverage while in Canada I did not pay anything else that the provincial health insurance. The quality was the same, I would say a little better and more "human" in Canada.

I like US, but Americans should recognize that there are a lot of better places to live... I think US IS the largest economic/militar power in the world, but it IS NOT the best place to live or raise my children. I hope Americans will find the energy and motivation to make US the best place to live, too.

I could have stayed in US, but I decided to move to Canada. I hope Americans that are concerned about inmigrants will feel better now. Since my education (PhD) was paid by the taxes of citizens of many countries including US, I wish the best to those people. I know Canadians feels better they got a new inmigrant with a lot of energy to build a better society.

Here is more information on several ongoing tests in europe:

It says that in Reykjavik (iceland) and Stockholm (sweden) the hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water using "clean" electicity. (wind, hydro and solar energy). Another clean energy carrier+source many busses use are ecologic "ethanol"-fuel (a paper industry by-product).

One cool thing with these hydrogen-busses, except that they are absolutley silent and environmental friendly, is that they produce a white smoke (I saw one such bus when it was cold). It looks as if it has a steam engine, and they acctually look more bad to the environment than gasoline powered busses :) I cant understand why they dont have some sort of condensor for the steam, so they vent water instead of steam?

See here.

One has got to wonder if there will be unhealthy air humidity (can result in fungus, diseases, etc) in cities instead of smog in the future, when nearly all busses/cars are hydrogen powered.

The idea is to get rid of the personal repulsion properties of the drivers.

What about implementing separation techniques (much like IFR flying) that would permit vehicles, first in specialty lanes and then later on the road at alrge, to operate safely at predetermined distances.

Together with reversible-direction lanes, we could save many of the billions of hours (how many human lifetimes is that) wasted sitting in traffic each year.

In a major(-ish - hey, I live in Sydney) city