Slashdot Mirror

Actually, you're quite off in terms of main-spoken language and bilingualism

(from the 1996 Census)
Population by knowledge of official language
(Knowledge of official language: Refers to the ability to conduct a conversation in English only, in French only, in both English and French, or in neither of the official languages of Canada)

Total Population: 7,125,575
English Only: 327,045 (4.59%)
French Only: 3,831,350 (53.77%)
Both English and French: 2,907,700 (40.81%)
Neither English nor French: 59,485

Of the Both English and French category: 1,792,750 (61.66%) of those people live in Montreal

(from the 2001 Census)

Population by mother tongue
Total Population: 7,125,580
English: 557,040 (7.82%)
French: 5,761,765 (80.86%)
English and French: 50,060

Population by home language
(Home language: the language spoken most often or on a regular basis at home by the individual at the time of the census)

Total population: 7,125,580
English: 480,040 (6.74%)
French: 5,484,280 (76.97%)
English and French: 477,955 (6.71%)

So English *far* from being the main spoken language in Quebec. In fact 408,185 out of 557,040 of people identifying english as their mother tongue live in Montreal and 376,620 out of
480,040 'home language' as english people.

So it would be *far* more accurate to say that outside Montreal, english is barely used.

Actually, you're quite off in terms of main-spoken language and bilingualism

(from the 1996 Census)
Population by knowledge of official language
(Knowledge of official language: Refers to the ability to conduct a conversation in English only, in French only, in both English and French, or in neither of the official languages of Canada)

Total Population: 7,125,575
English Only: 327,045 (4.59%)
French Only: 3,831,350 (53.77%)
Both English and French: 2,907,700 (40.81%)
Neither English nor French: 59,485

Of the Both English and French category: 1,792,750 (61.66%) of those people live in Montreal

(from the 2001 Census)

Population by mother tongue
Total Population: 7,125,580
English: 557,040 (7.82%)
French: 5,761,765 (80.86%)
English and French: 50,060

Population by home language
(Home language: the language spoken most often or on a regular basis at home by the individual at the time of the census)

Total population: 7,125,580
English: 480,040 (6.74%)
French: 5,484,280 (76.97%)
English and French: 477,955 (6.71%)

So English *far* from being the main spoken language in Quebec. In fact 408,185 out of 557,040 of people identifying english as their mother tongue live in Montreal and 376,620 out of
480,040 'home language' as english people.

So it would be *far* more accurate to say that outside Montreal, english is barely used.

Actually, you're quite off in terms of main-spoken language and bilingualism

(from the 1996 Census)
Population by knowledge of official language
(Knowledge of official language: Refers to the ability to conduct a conversation in English only, in French only, in both English and French, or in neither of the official languages of Canada)

Total Population: 7,125,575
English Only: 327,045 (4.59%)
French Only: 3,831,350 (53.77%)
Both English and French: 2,907,700 (40.81%)
Neither English nor French: 59,485

Of the Both English and French category: 1,792,750 (61.66%) of those people live in Montreal

(from the 2001 Census)

Population by mother tongue
Total Population: 7,125,580
English: 557,040 (7.82%)
French: 5,761,765 (80.86%)
English and French: 50,060

Population by home language
(Home language: the language spoken most often or on a regular basis at home by the individual at the time of the census)

Total population: 7,125,580
English: 480,040 (6.74%)
French: 5,484,280 (76.97%)
English and French: 477,955 (6.71%)

So English *far* from being the main spoken language in Quebec. In fact 408,185 out of 557,040 of people identifying english as their mother tongue live in Montreal and 376,620 out of
480,040 'home language' as english people.

So it would be *far* more accurate to say that outside Montreal, english is barely used.

Add to this the fact that the apparent next Prime Minister is one of the most independently wealthy people in Canada. Kinda hard to bribe someone like that.
It is interesting to note that Canada is one of the most over governed countries in the world. We have a population similar to California. (31+ Million Canada 35 Million California) We have 24 Senators, 4 for each province.California has 2.
More political numbers and facts on Canada

If this is the case, then it is bad software, since "ZIP codes" are a "US centric" thing (most other contries call them Postal/Post Codes), we all have a good idea where the problem lies.

Ignorance is not a valid excuse, do a little research:

• Belgium & Switzerland: 9999
• France, Italy, Spain, & Mexico: 99999
• Japan: 999-9999
• USA: 99999 or 99999-9999")
• Canada: A9A 9A9
• GB: A99 9AA, AA9 9AA, A9A 9AA, AA99 9AA, AA9A 9AA, or A9 9AA
• Netherlands: 9999-AA

The NAC (Natural Area Coding) system that they are proposing is a mathamatical short-hand for the actual latitude and longitude (see here, good for systems, not easy for humans.

So how short is too "short-term"? Since the example you gave was in the 1960's, apparently 40 years is enough to make it "long-term", or at least long enough to become highly profitable... correct? So, is 5 years still "short-term"? How about 10? 15? Do you vote in Canada (or France, or wherever the hell you came from)? How long between elections? 5 years? 10? 15? Do you think about who will be in office 2 or 3 elections from now? If not, then you're obviously not concerned about the "management" of your "long-term" "investment".

The only people that are helpless are those that are unmotivated. There are thousands of examples of the "helpless" people in history that rose up and made a change for the better. I believe France had one... or two... or was it three in the past 200 years? I can't keep track anymore.

I think you just like spelling french words, like "bourgeois". I don't, however, think you understand the definition. "Bourgeois" refers to the middle class. I prefer to think of myself as better than "mediocre", so maybe "aristocrat" would be more appropriate. After all, if Socialism has its way, then all people would be equal, and since nobody would be rich or poor, would we all be bourgeoisie?

I agree. We do need a State committed to protecting the people's interests. They can do that without an incredibly high tax rate and without Socialism. We lasted for quite a while without it. On the other hand, if I understand Socialism correctly, everyone is equal in all possible ways, including possessions and finances, correct? If so, my interests would be no more important than the interests of the person trying to screw me. What makes ME so much more important?

As far as the Canadian economy being "very strong", maybe you should look to your Trusted Government for the facts. Specifically, the 7.7% unemployment rate, as of 2002. Funny how it's never been lower than 6.8%, eh Comrade? Oddly enough, the terrible economy of the US is only at 6.0% as of April.

So Socialism is the complete lack of a free market... I didn't know that. Isn't the production of any goods or services that results in any amount of profit technically enriching themselves at the public's expense?

The most significant element of this release, and the greatest hope I have for my country, is that the people who report "no-religion" exploded from 12% to 16%, making "no-religion" the 2nd largest group (RC was mid40s).

see here for a synopsis @ statcan

Certainly, there are problems with the US broadband providers. I've been using the internet on an hourly basis since 1993. I've got a DSL connection, my own domain and mail/http server at home, and an elaborate home network. But I've considered giving it all up just so I don't have to deal with the phone company anymore...

But comparing the "broadband connectivity" of these countries based on these statistics really is comparing apples and oranges.

At least, that's how it would go down in a civilized nation. Don't know how it would go down in Canada.

Need I remind you that last year the capital of your "civilized nation" alone has a murder rate nearly 48 times that of my entire nation -> Washington DC, 48.5 murders per 100 000 people, compared to the entire country of Canada, 1.78 murders per 100 000 people. Also of note from Stats Canada on murders involving guns:

"Of the 171 firearm-related homicides, 110 were committed with a handgun, 46 with a rifle or shotgun, 7 with a sawed-off rifle or shotgun, 3 with a fully automatic firearm, and 5 with another type of firearm.

Handguns were used in 65% of all firearm homicides. This proportion has risen from 46% in 1998 as a result of the continuing decline in the number of homicides involving rifles or shotguns."

That's out of 554 total murders in the entire country of 32 million during 2001. Compare that to Los Angeles, with 658 murders in the same time, but with 1/3 the population.

In the "civilized nation" 65.6%of all the murders were committed with a firearm during the same time.

Hmmmm, perhaps there are some people who are "too stupid to have a gun".

Say what you will about "mummy government", I am quite safe from gun violence here as are my children. That is, after all, why I elected my governement - to ensure my life, liberty and security of the person.

If all you have protecting you from sending ammo clips through the mail is a minimum wage postal clerk, then you have the country you deserve... :)

Let' start with the nonsense. First, they say sales have fallen $250 million in the past two years, from 1.2 billion to 950 million. That is a 20 percent drop, and is significant. As has been repeatedly stated, it is unclear how much of this is piracy and how much is caused by the fact that people simply have no disposable liquid funds. For instance, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is down about 20% over the past year. In Canada 2002 starting with an 8% unemployment rate, and is still above 7%. I find the suggestion that unemployed people should continue to buy CDs, instead of say food, ridiculous.

Worldwide, the entire music business is still worth a whopping $66.6 billion (all figures Canadian) but only if you factor in cash-cow ventures such as sponsorship deals and tour profits that together account for some 40 per cent of all profits.
All I will say about this is that is same book cooking that the major athletic organizations use. The teams are losing money and putting the owners in poorhouse, but only because concessions and other promotions are listed as separate enterprises.

But the real tragedy of this article are the solutions. In the introduction text it is admitted that CDs are crap and are not making money. It is admitted that the money is to made in concerts. In the solutions it is admitted that radio sucks and the long term progress is to let people download songs. And yet the solutions listed are all about stopping download and repackaging CD. It is silly. If selling music isn't making money and concert are, then grow the concert business. If CDs aren't selling, simple economics says to drop the price. I am not going to pay 20 dollars for a CD when for $25 I can see an excellent local artist and purchase a one of the CDs.

The dropping of CD prices is critical. I see a kid buying a CD then selling copies for $5 with cover art(his cost about $2). If CDs were sold for $8-$15 dollars it would not only make them more attractive to a cash strapped population, but also cut into the underground market.

As has been said before this is not about saving musicians and artist, it is about saving a inefficient and antiquated bureaucracy. It is sad jobs will be lost, but jobs are being lost everywhere. Perhaps the guy who stuffs cocaine and cash into envelopes for the industry big wigs can be retrained to stuff envelopes at home. I get Spam offering me big buck for such work all the time.

• Aboriginal origins (North American Indian, Métis and Inuit.)
• Chinese
• South Asian origin
• Portugese
• Filipino
• Spanish
• Jamaican

well i'll start out by saying i'm not a gun fan to begin with, however if you like hunting or collecting old antique guns or a target shooter, that's fine cause your gun is being used for something useful. however the hobbiest, not one of the aforementioned hobbiests, or the person who gets the gun for "personal protection" is more likely to use the gun in a way it's not intended to be used, ie on another person.

the "personal protection" people worry me the most cause a lot of them think that since they have a gun they can shoot anyone that pulls a gun on them. ask any cop and they will say "don't be a hero give the person with the gun what they want cause if you don't you'll probly get shot"

this is very true if there is any doubt, call your local police station and ask them what you should do. if there's further doubt look into how many convient store clerks get shot or other people who try to be heroes, the few that do live are lucky and there's always the quote in the paper of the officer saying something to the effect of "well this isn't something you should normally do that person was very lucky they didn't get shot"

the fact of the matter is people who try to be heroes in that way 9 time out of 10 get shot, most die and some get wounded.

gun control doesn't stop people from getting guns it just tells the powers that be who has what gun. criminals will always get guns cause well they probly aren't registered in the first place and well they're criminals so what's one more law to break.

if you have the gun for legal purposes why should it matter who knows who has it. the government knows your liscence plate and it's registered to your car. they know your social security/social insurance numbers and they point to you. so why not guns that are rather violent weapons?

i think it's ok for them to know who owns it

however what having gun control does do is stop the criminal from being overly trigger happy. if they know you don't have a gun they will be less likely to shoot first and ask questions later, also it stops people from wanting to be john wayne ,john mclane or some other hero type who wins the day by killing the bad guy.

it also stops kids from having access to the guns and inadvertantly shooting themselve or others, ala columbine.

one last thing it stops is police from doing their job, now they don't have to violent deal with people who may or may not be packing a hand cannon.

i live in canada and we do have strict gun laws. we must have trigger locks on all the guns, the ammunition must be stored in another locked cabinet on the other side of the house and there's something with the keys as well but i'm not sure totally as ianal but i'm sure there will be someone here who can fill you in on that info.

also up here we don't have the opp, rcmp or other provincial police pulling guns on the person when they get pulled over like the state troopers do. harking back to the shoot first ask questions later attitude and the surprise of the person packing a hand cannnon.

as for our murder rate it's pretty low compared to the states. a quick survey of the statistics canada website will give you the info you need on murder by method

in 2001 there was a one to one ratio of shooting and stabbing murders, i doubt the american methods are anywhere close to that.

i've heard people argue about it protecting from invading forces, though last time i checked invaders was a military issue not some weekend warrior issue. i mean if an army comes in i doubt there's much that a single person can do and if they know the citizens are armed then it's kill them all and let god sort them out. so more people die that don't have to.

hopefully this clears up some issues, tho it will spiral into some annoying flame war more than likely cause i've found americans are rather touchy about gun control. tho i've found once a family member or friend has their head blown off, either accidently or in a way that could have been prevented, they change their tune about the whole issue.

well i'll start out by saying i'm not a gun fan to begin with, however if you like hunting or collecting old antique guns or a target shooter, that's fine cause your gun is being used for something useful. however the hobbiest, not one of the aforementioned hobbiests, or the person who gets the gun for "personal protection" is more likely to use the gun in a way it's not intended to be used, ie on another person.

the "personal protection" people worry me the most cause a lot of them think that since they have a gun they can shoot anyone that pulls a gun on them. ask any cop and they will say "don't be a hero give the person with the gun what they want cause if you don't you'll probly get shot"

this is very true if there is any doubt, call your local police station and ask them what you should do. if there's further doubt look into how many convient store clerks get shot or other people who try to be heroes, the few that do live are lucky and there's always the quote in the paper of the officer saying something to the effect of "well this isn't something you should normally do that person was very lucky they didn't get shot"

the fact of the matter is people who try to be heroes in that way 9 time out of 10 get shot, most die and some get wounded.

gun control doesn't stop people from getting guns it just tells the powers that be who has what gun. criminals will always get guns cause well they probly aren't registered in the first place and well they're criminals so what's one more law to break.

if you have the gun for legal purposes why should it matter who knows who has it. the government knows your liscence plate and it's registered to your car. they know your social security/social insurance numbers and they point to you. so why not guns that are rather violent weapons?

i think it's ok for them to know who owns it

however what having gun control does do is stop the criminal from being overly trigger happy. if they know you don't have a gun they will be less likely to shoot first and ask questions later, also it stops people from wanting to be john wayne ,john mclane or some other hero type who wins the day by killing the bad guy.

it also stops kids from having access to the guns and inadvertantly shooting themselve or others, ala columbine.

one last thing it stops is police from doing their job, now they don't have to violent deal with people who may or may not be packing a hand cannon.

i live in canada and we do have strict gun laws. we must have trigger locks on all the guns, the ammunition must be stored in another locked cabinet on the other side of the house and there's something with the keys as well but i'm not sure totally as ianal but i'm sure there will be someone here who can fill you in on that info.

also up here we don't have the opp, rcmp or other provincial police pulling guns on the person when they get pulled over like the state troopers do. harking back to the shoot first ask questions later attitude and the surprise of the person packing a hand cannnon.

as for our murder rate it's pretty low compared to the states. a quick survey of the statistics canada website will give you the info you need on murder by method

in 2001 there was a one to one ratio of shooting and stabbing murders, i doubt the american methods are anywhere close to that.

i've heard people argue about it protecting from invading forces, though last time i checked invaders was a military issue not some weekend warrior issue. i mean if an army comes in i doubt there's much that a single person can do and if they know the citizens are armed then it's kill them all and let god sort them out. so more people die that don't have to.

hopefully this clears up some issues, tho it will spiral into some annoying flame war more than likely cause i've found americans are rather touchy about gun control. tho i've found once a family member or friend has their head blown off, either accidently or in a way that could have been prevented, they change their tune about the whole issue.

"Canada is made up of considerably more rural area than urban

LOL! More rural than urban? I think not... almost half the population of Ontario lives in the GTA, or at least the Golden Horseshoe. If you check out Statistics Canada, you will find that in 2001 79.7% of Canada and 84.7% of Ontario are urban dwellers. I guess if you're talking area rather than population, you're right... but that wouldn't make sense in this context.

I am about to spend way too much time on this, but this is an argument I've had before and I want to end it here and now.

"I suspect the difference is due to the use of "metropolitan area" versus city."

"Metropolitan area" is a very vague definition. The Canadian census folks talked about it being a city and the surrounding area that economically relies on the city blah blah blah... I'm sure the relatively arbitrary definition of these "metropolitan areas" is usefull for bureocratic statisticians, but I don't find it useful here. For example, your areaconnect.com link claims that all of New Jersey is a "metropolitan area," even though I know for a fact that there are farms in New Jersey.

"The largest population centre, Toronto, has a density of 603 p/sqkm. Compare this to the entire state of New Jersey: 437p/sqkm. That is a "high density" city compared to a state. New York state is better at 155p/sqkm. But this is still higher then the density of southern Ontario and Quebec."

But looking at the population density for an area the size of even the relatively small New Jersey is meaningless. The scale is too great; the people of New Jersey aren't spread out uniformly. And of course you'll find higher numbers when you consider there are about ten Americans for every Canadian. I think something a bit more meaningful is needed.

Information on New Jersey can conveniently be found here. According to the numbers on this page, about 14.1% of New Jersey's population live in its ten most populous cities. For the three most populous states, New York has 45.5%, California has 24.8% and Florida has 22.1%.

Unfortunately, Canada doesn't seem to have such an easy-to-follow presentation of information, so I needed to go digging. For Ontario, I went here and went digging through for the ten most populous cities (not "metroplitain areas" not "regional municipalities," honest to God cities). They are:

Toronto 2,481,494
Ottawa 774,072
Mississauga 612,925
Hamilton 490,268
London 336,539
Brampton 325,428
Windsor 208,402
Kitchener 190,399
Vaughan 182,022
Greater Sudbury 155,219

This means 50.5% of the people in Ontario live in Ontario's ten most populous cities. Not only is this ratio more than New York, it's also a numerical majority.

Moving on to Quebec, we have:

Montreal 1,039,534
Laval 343,005
Quebec 169,076
Longueuil 128,016
Gatineau 102,898
Montreal-Nord 83,600
Saint-Laurent 77,391
Sherbrooke 75,916
Saint-Hubert 75,912
LaSalle 73,983

So Quebec has 29.9%. Nowhere near as bad as Ontario, but still more than California and Florida by a comfortable margin.

More numbers to chew on include:

Rhode Island: 48.3%
Connecticut: 27.4%
Massachusetts: 23.8%
PEI: 34.7% live in either Charlottetown or Summerside

And what if we look at just the three most populous cities?

New York: 41.8%
California: 16.9%
Florida: 14.7%

Ontario: 33.9%
Quebec: 21.4%

(rant mode ON)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Canadians are a heck of a lot more concentrated than Americans! You have fewer meters of phone lines to upgrade per capita! You have fewer kilometers of road to burn gas on per capita! You have less area cell towers need to cover! So don't give me all this crap about how good everything is in Canada compared to the US because it's amazing what you can accomplish when y'all freakin' live next door to one another!

Ontario has slightly fewer people than New York, is about 4 to 5 times larger, and yet the average Ontarian can't throw a rock without hitting another one! Come on people! You live in the second largest country in the world! Don't you want a freakin' back yard?!?! New York's numbers are skewed by having one of the most populous cities in the world, what's Ontario's excuse?

No wonder so many of the links I found when looking up this info talked about Canadian city-states...
(rant mode OFF)

I am about to spend way too much time on this, but this is an argument I've had before and I want to end it here and now.

"I suspect the difference is due to the use of "metropolitan area" versus city."

"Metropolitan area" is a very vague definition. The Canadian census folks talked about it being a city and the surrounding area that economically relies on the city blah blah blah... I'm sure the relatively arbitrary definition of these "metropolitan areas" is usefull for bureocratic statisticians, but I don't find it useful here. For example, your areaconnect.com link claims that all of New Jersey is a "metropolitan area," even though I know for a fact that there are farms in New Jersey.

"The largest population centre, Toronto, has a density of 603 p/sqkm. Compare this to the entire state of New Jersey: 437p/sqkm. That is a "high density" city compared to a state. New York state is better at 155p/sqkm. But this is still higher then the density of southern Ontario and Quebec."

But looking at the population density for an area the size of even the relatively small New Jersey is meaningless. The scale is too great; the people of New Jersey aren't spread out uniformly. And of course you'll find higher numbers when you consider there are about ten Americans for every Canadian. I think something a bit more meaningful is needed.

Information on New Jersey can conveniently be found here. According to the numbers on this page, about 14.1% of New Jersey's population live in its ten most populous cities. For the three most populous states, New York has 45.5%, California has 24.8% and Florida has 22.1%.

Unfortunately, Canada doesn't seem to have such an easy-to-follow presentation of information, so I needed to go digging. For Ontario, I went here and went digging through for the ten most populous cities (not "metroplitain areas" not "regional municipalities," honest to God cities). They are:

Toronto 2,481,494
Ottawa 774,072
Mississauga 612,925
Hamilton 490,268
London 336,539
Brampton 325,428
Windsor 208,402
Kitchener 190,399
Vaughan 182,022
Greater Sudbury 155,219

This means 50.5% of the people in Ontario live in Ontario's ten most populous cities. Not only is this ratio more than New York, it's also a numerical majority.

Moving on to Quebec, we have:

Montreal 1,039,534
Laval 343,005
Quebec 169,076
Longueuil 128,016
Gatineau 102,898
Montreal-Nord 83,600
Saint-Laurent 77,391
Sherbrooke 75,916
Saint-Hubert 75,912
LaSalle 73,983

So Quebec has 29.9%. Nowhere near as bad as Ontario, but still more than California and Florida by a comfortable margin.

More numbers to chew on include:

Rhode Island: 48.3%
Connecticut: 27.4%
Massachusetts: 23.8%
PEI: 34.7% live in either Charlottetown or Summerside

And what if we look at just the three most populous cities?

New York: 41.8%
California: 16.9%
Florida: 14.7%

Ontario: 33.9%
Quebec: 21.4%

(rant mode ON)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Canadians are a heck of a lot more concentrated than Americans! You have fewer meters of phone lines to upgrade per capita! You have fewer kilometers of road to burn gas on per capita! You have less area cell towers need to cover! So don't give me all this crap about how good everything is in Canada compared to the US because it's amazing what you can accomplish when y'all freakin' live next door to one another!

Ontario has slightly fewer people than New York, is about 4 to 5 times larger, and yet the average Ontarian can't throw a rock without hitting another one! Come on people! You live in the second largest country in the world! Don't you want a freakin' back yard?!?! New York's numbers are skewed by having one of the most populous cities in the world, what's Ontario's excuse?

No wonder so many of the links I found when looking up this info talked about Canadian city-states...
(rant mode OFF)

If you saw a map of the US you would see the same thing. Have a look at the USA state by state
census. Compare The eastern states to the central states, and western states.

Have a look at these census numbers for Canada's 27 Metropolitan areas. The top four cities have 1, 2, 3.5, and 4.7 million people. Two more cities are just under 1million, 3 more are just under 700thousand. The other 18 areas are spread between 150, 450 thousand. Does this really mean the population is more concentrated? The largest population centre, Toronto, has a density of 603 p/sqkm. Compare this to the entire state of New Jersey: 437p/sqkm. That is a "high density" city compared to a state. New York state is better at 155p/sqkm. But this is still higher then the density of southern Ontario and Quebec. The most densly populated regions of the country. 20% of the popluation live in small towns of 10k or less. These seems to compare favorably with the USA where 80% of the population live in "metro."

*My 2-3 million number was wrong. I suspect the difference is due to the use of "metropolitan area" versus city.

87,613 actually. And why exactly would we want to spend more money on that?? (By the way, per capita that's not a whole lot less than the U.S.). Seems to me that money could be better spent on tonnes of things. (Including iris scanners, of course).

Since when did the Europeans start being the competitive ones?

Someone posts a STATISTIC (not a competition) and every ego-centric American goes off about how the US kick's Europe's butts at numbers?

I don't see any Canadians getting all pissy about a statistic... (FYI, we Canucks are a pretty small part of that 182 million... sorry guys, we're not pulling our own weight)

Yeah. According to Statistics Canada, 85% of homes with cable tv also have cable internet connections. That's a pretty big chunk of people.

Canada: 9,976,140 sq km
US: 9,629,091 sq km


Terribly sorry; I stand corrected.

This is odd: Stats Canada gives 9,984,670 sq km.. I am not sure where Stats Canada found the extra 8,000 odd sq km.

In terms of Alberta:

1. We have unmetered local calling. So does the rest of the country, afaik. Dial-up is hardly "good enough". People who've experienced broadband almost never go back.

2. The city of Edmonton (capital of Alberta) has a census metropolitan area of 9,000+ sq. km and only 900,000 (and change) people living in roughly 370,000 individual homes (source: Stats Canada). The city of Calgary (also in Alberta) is somewhat more dense, but not by much. The province of Alberta is a bit smaller than Texas and only has 3 million people. Canada as a whole is one of the least dense countries in the world. My point: we're at least as spread out as you guys and yet we're making broadband work even out in the most remote areas.

3. Cable companies hold regionally regulated monopolies in Canada. For instance, in Edmonton there is only one cable provider, Shaw. In Calgary I believe it's Roger's.

Telcos are deregulated for long distance and business lines, but you can only get your residential voice services through a single provider in Alberta (may be different elsewhere). However, I can get DSL from, at last count, 4 different providers. One of which (Telus) holds the residential voice service monopoly.

The rates we pay are comparable, or cheaper than the rates most Americans in large cities pay, but in Canadian dollars (meaning, it's WAY less expensive). Our coverage is also much better thanks to government intiatives like the Alberta Supernet.

The first Canadian broadband services were offered in New Brunswick and Saskatachewan. In particular, Saskatoon (Saskatchewan) and Saint John (New Brunswick) were the first wired communities, both measuring near the bottom of the Canadian population densities according to Stats Canada.

New Brunswick (71,450 sq km & 900,000 people) and Saskatchewan in particular (591,000 sq km & 1.0 million people) make Maine (56,000 sq km & 1.3 million people) look relatively dense. Yet the broadband capabilities of rural New Brunswick where I live (50,000 population) surpass that of Toronto, not just in cost, but availability, quality of service, and with the recent introduction of broadband cable, choice.

My parents, who live in the sticks of Newfoundland (village population 10000), now have broadband cable for US$25/mo. Sure, it took years for it to get there after I got it here, but they have it, and the majority of the US, which has population densities magnitues higher, have nil prospects for broadband in the next decade.

It's not surprising that Toronto and other cities have decent broadband, particularly considering the higher tax rates in Canada than the USA. However, I doubt that the rest of Canada has good residential broadband service.

Maybe I can add some insight here. Right now I am working on a project on behalf of CIDA and Statistics Canada to provide IT expertise to the Zambian Census Agency.

Part of said project includes training their LAN Admin's, Sysadmins and Web Developers. Now, while this wouldn't be such a big deal in North America or Europe, please believe me when I tell you that most of the people whom I am working with have little or no experience with these sorts of things whatsoever. None of them (the LAN Admins) had even installed (any) operating system until I walked them through it just yesterday nor do any of the web developers know more than the three or four HTML tags I've made them write out in notepad thus far.

Now I'm not sure exactly what your experience is with open source in Africa, but I think that outside of the more developed countries (i.e. South Africa) you'll probably find little or no acceptance of open source in the public sector merely because these people really lack the basic exposure to computers in general that we take for granted in North America and while they certainly are intelligent enough to understand how to use open source effectively. It is going to take a fair amount of time before they are truely able to use it by themselves.

Another thing that I might add which you may not be aquiainted with is that the 'brain drain' here dwarfs anything you've read about in North America. Government workers in Zambia are paid a pittance compared to private sector IT people. All the people who I've spoken with who (I think) are competant enough to really grasp things like Linux are just using their government jobs as a way to get experience in order to score a private sector job.

(But on the bright side, I do know that most of the the local ISP's/consultanting companies use Linux to a certain degree)

Read Stastistics Canada's op-ed on why they do not keep track of "poverty" and why the concept of a "poverty line" is flawed (at an international level at least). You'll note that the CIA factbook has Canada's "population below poverty line" listed as "NA%", and for good reason.

Road building is not a solution. Increasing infrastructure increases demand. That's like pouring gasoline on the fire. The goal is to reduce congestion and pollution, and the only way to do that is change people's habits, not by temporarily making it easier and reinforcing current habits. Besides, in this case, have you ever been to Britain? They're running out of countryside that can be covered with concrete and tarmac. In numbers, the whole country has an AVERAGE population density of 242 residents per km^2, versus the US's 29.1 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Populat ion/demo01.htm).

The Globe and Mail has been runnign a series on this subject. A comparison of the systems can be found here while a rebuttal can be found here. While the rebuttal is significant the tone of the first article is that there are many positives and negatives to both systems and that solutions to the problems north and south of the border are going to be a little complex. Incidentally, the first article also talks about the French system approaching a crisis state.

That being said there are some interesting figures to note. US health care spending is $4055 per capita (from this Newsweek article in the "Data Bank" about 1/3 of the way down). In Canada it's about $3068.58 (The 2000 Grand Total/a 2000 population of about 31,000,000). Converted to USD that's about $1927.98 US. If we use purchasing power parity of about 80% that's still $2454.86 US. The Canadian system costs just over half of the US system and everyone is covered. That being said the extra money in the US system goes into much faster response time to help people.

Make of it what you will but both systems need to be looked at and neither contains a universal truth.

IMHO, as per.

J:)

The difference here is, in Canada we believe in education for EVERYONE, or at least for the most possible. Not money, nor family connections, matter.

At least, we like to think so, and our government sure likes to tell us so. Too bad the statistics say otherwise. Basically, if you're poor, you have only half the chance of attending university of someone who's rich. That may be better odds than the states, it may not, but it definitely doesn't fit with the "money doesn't make a difference" line.

As for tuitions, Canadian university tuitions work out to about the same as many US universities and colleges. In fact, unless they're going to a University away from home, the average American student can wind up paying less thanks to the larger number of scholarship/grant programs available.

Of course, if you're Canadian, you can work on changing this. Start with your MLA and be sure to send a copy on to your MP. If enough people bring the issue up to the electeds, maybe they'll finally start doing something about it.

Here are corresponding stats for Canada (numbers in thousands):

Toronto (Ontario) 4,881.4
Montréal (Quebec) 3,511.8
Vancouver (British Columbia) 2,078.8
Ottawa-Hull (Ontario/Quebec) 1,106.9
Calgary (Alberta) 971.5
Edmonton (Alberta) 956.8
Québec (Quebec) 693.1
Winnipeg (Manitoba) 684.8
Hamilton (Ontario) 680.6
London (Ontario) 426.3
Kitchener (Ontario) 431.7
St. Catharines-Niagara (Ontario) 393.1
Halifax (Nova Scotia) 359.2
Victoria (British Columbia) 318.8
Windsor (Ontario) 313.8
Oshawa (Ontario) 305.3
Saskatoon (Saskatchewan) 230.5
Regina (Saskatchewan) 198.1
St. John's (Newfoundland) 176.2
ChicoutimiJonquière (Quebec) 158.7
Sudbury (Ontario) 156.7
Sherbrooke (Quebec) 154.9
Trois-Rivières (Quebec) 141.5
Saint John (New Brunswick) 128.1
Thunder Bay (Ontario) 124.6

Add it up, and 2/3 of Canada's population is concentrated in 25 cities. Hook me up, Scotty!

From http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Populati on/demo01.htm, population density in 1999 of:

US = 29.1 residents/km^2
Canada = 3.1 residents/km^2

In my experience of travelling in both countries, Canadians are no more packed in than Americans, in fact it's probably the reverse.

Actually, Canada is highly urbanized, even moreso than the US, I think. 13.6-million of 31.0-million Canadians live in six major cities. (19.6-million in 25 cities.)

Also, Canada's population tends to be concentrated on a 200km band along the US border, with the bulk of the northern area being wasteland. (It's not necessarily that they like Americans so much, just that lower latitudes have better climates.) A straight line is a simple topology to match a network to. The US population pattern is more "two-dimensional", making distance a much more expensive problem for network infrastructure.

Why do you continue to assume that owning a gun makes you violent?

I don't assume or suggest that. I do not see any reason to believe that having more guns out there will make anyone safer. Why do you assume that more guns = less crime?

When the US and soviet Union finally had enough weaponry so as to assure the planet would not be left for anyone in th event of war, peace arrived as the only solution. Tremendous amounts of fear led us towards peace.

Well, that is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that the people in charge came to their senses. As the song by Sting goes, "I hope the Russians love their children too".

I only suggested the would-be criminal turning around and walking out when he saw all the guns on the other patrons' hips. This has already been proven in the biggest way.

Show me a study that demonstrates this!! It has NOT been proven at all. Please prove this is not a fallacy perpetuated by the gun lobby.

Some people have suggested that European nations are too homogeneous to be a valid comparison. For the sake of argument, I will grant that point. Consider Canada then. Handguns are virtually impossible to get, and all other firearms must be registered with the government. Canada is a far more heterogeneous nation than the US. It is officially multicultural and diversity is encouraged and celebrated. The violent crime rate in Canada is significantly lower per capita. In fact, the crime rate is is at it's lowest point in twenty years. Admittedly the culture there is not a violent one, but it seems to discredit the notion that arming the population reduces crime rates. Guns are not violent.

Tell me, what legitimate use does a handgun have, other than to kill people? Handguns are not good for hunting or target shooting because the barrel is too short and they are not accurate at anything other than short distances.

how many inhabitants does Canada have? 20 millions?

31 million. Australia is in the 20-million range.

comparing Canadian crime data from here and population data from here vs U.S. crime and population data from here it appears that, per capita, Canada has a much higher violent crime rate than the U.S. (over double) - and it's illegal for you guys to own firearms. So why would it be safer up there?

comparing Canadian crime data from here and population data from here vs U.S. crime and population data from here it appears that, per capita, Canada has a much higher violent crime rate than the U.S. (over double) - and it's illegal for you guys to own firearms. So why would it be safer up there?

interesting things are happening in terms of numbers of males and females.
This chart from StatCan shows women outnumbering men 10:7 in total number of degrees granted. But in Eng. that is reversed 5:1.
Does this mean it's permisible for me to marry for money?

interesting things are happening in terms of numbers of males and females.
This chart from StatCan shows women outnumbering men 10:7 in total number of degrees granted. But in Eng. that is reversed 5:1.
Does this mean it's permisible for me to marry for money?

In my experience (which I won't pretend is representative), the majority of Canadian Internet users use cable modem or ADSL. In cities, cable modem and 56K modem access are about the same price.

So I'm going to say there are around almost one million households who would be the market for this. Mind you if the cable modem, the probably have cable TV. So that brings their market down to about one person, Joe in Windsor, who's too lazy to move his fat ass to the living room to watch his TV.

So I agree with you: there isn't a very big market for this.

I'm not being condescending - you're just plain wrong. Sorry. You are the one making arrogant presumptions here. Recall, I -live- in Canada (and have lived in the United States, and 6 other countries as well).

Statistics Canada 1996 minority figures.

2.7 million individuals with French only backgroundspeaking. This figure is probably low. If you are not aware of the ethnic related problems in Quebec, I don't know where you've been. In any case, that's close to 10% of the population. Sum the 1996 figures for those with Asian origins and we get: 1,968,465. 1996 was prior to Hong Kong's reunification with PRC, this figure may have as much as doubled since that time. But lets say it hasn't. That's still another 7% of the population. Summing some of the other 'single origins' groups together yields another 1,225,630, 4.2%. So without accounting for those with multiple minority origins at all we're looking at over 20% of Canada's population representing ethnic minorities. Even with this very naive figure that's one person in five. Not exactly homogeneous, eh? In major cities such as Toronto, I would say it's more like 1 in 3, and in Vancouver 1 in 2.

Regards,
Obasan

If a tree falls in the forest, and kills a mime, does anyone care?

I'll concede Canada is past 30 million, but just. It was 28 million when I moved here early to mid 90's.

Official government population stats from Statistics Canada

I'm afraid you're quite mistaken about Chinese replacing French as the second most spoken language in Canada. Funny, I've heard this rumour a few times now and yet it's not even close to reflecting reality. Check out this link from the last census: CDN CENSUS DATA

You'll see that French-speakers still make up just shy of 25% of the population. Chinese-speakers are about 2.5%, a tenth of the number of French-speakers.

The big news is the incredible growth in that percentage amount. Twenty years ago the Chinese percentage was 0.4%. That's an incredible growth rate. Chinese is the first language to knock the big two "allophone" languages down a notch. Chinese has supplanted Italian and German in Canada, but by no means French.

p.s. I thought the rest of your post was pretty cool