Slashdot Mirror

Not every place can rely on solar power. Those that can't may have to rely on very long transmission lines which may not be practical. If you live in Las Vegas, solar salt thermal is practical with its 200+ days of sunshine whereas Seattle only has 71 days. In terms of constant power generation, fossil fuels and nuclear are really the most reliable and can be used anywhere.

SF may not be a mecca of *warmth* (in the summer - in winter it's warmer than most or the rest of the Bay Area), but it still WAY in the top percentage of US cities as far as sunny days goes. Not only blows away Seattle by 2x, it beats most major cities outside of CA and AZ...

http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/weatherfacts/numbersunny_city_desc.php

Caveat - this does not apply if you live in the Sunset, in that case the rest of SF pities you :)

Well, based on this table I would say almost ALL US cities have half overcast days since only 8 listed have more than 188 days of sunshine.

Here are the links again right from my browser history: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/07/28 /crime_stats040728.html http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/ lfs-en.htm http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/r u http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_de sc.php http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/1999/06/think_01.h tml

Let me say that I enjoy the Canadian way of life myself, but let's look at some numbers:

Source: http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_de sc.php [worldfactsandfigures.com]
GDP per capita Canada: $29,700
GDP per capita USA: $37,800

Source: http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/1999/06/think_01.h tml [readersdigest.ca]
National average total taxation Canada: 48.2 %
National average total taxation USA: 41.4 %

Source: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/ lfs-en.htm [statcan.ca]
National unemployment rate Canada: 6.6%
National unemployment rate USA: 4.9%

Source: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040728/d040728 a.htm [statcan.ca] & http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm [disastercenter.com]
Total Violent crime per 100,000 people Canada: 963
Total violent crime per 100,000 people in USA: 466

By all of these measures you are better off in the USA.

[This may be a duplicate of a previous Anonymous Coward posting that I did not intend.]

Let me say that I enjoy the Canadian way of life myself, but let's look at some numbers:

Source: http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_de sc.php [worldfactsandfigures.com]
GDP per capita Canada: $29,700
GDP per capita USA: $37,800

Source: http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/1999/06/think_01.h tml [readersdigest.ca]
National average total taxation Canada: 48.2 %
National average total taxation USA: 41.4 %

Source: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/ lfs-en.htm [statcan.ca]
National unemployment rate Canada: 6.6%
National unemployment rate USA: 4.9%

Source: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040728/d040728 a.htm [statcan.ca] & http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm [disastercenter.com]
Total Violent crime per 100,000 people Canada: 963
Total violent crime per 100,000 people in USA: 466

By all of these measures you are better off in the USA.

By GDP per capita Luxembourg is way ahead of the US, and Sweden is pretty much tied. See here.

Of course those figures are a little out of date - the US dollar has fallen significantly against the Euro since then so the US may be even worse off by now.

Jedidiah.

What standards are you using for power?
Economic, as that underlies all else. Gross National Product and Gross Domestic Product. If you're unfamiliar, GNP measures total money value of products and services produced by a nation in a year; GDP is similar but limits to production done within the country.

As of the most recent measures (2003) not only did the United States have the largest GNP, but Texas by itself ranked #8, right behind China.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/303148theconomy .html

For GDP, the United States again tops the list easily.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko rder/2001rank.html

Most successful eh?
See Conductor's response; I'm not going to point out the error of your social state panacea, but again, I submit the above. Perhaps it can be argued we're not as our GDP per capita is 2nd behind Luxembourg. But I would argue Luxembourg cannot scale to match the U.S.
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_de sc.php ..all of those countries...
What is your measure of power & success? You mention diplomatic power. Do you have a metric by which to judge this? Are you aware that the coalition of countries that the US put together for the Iraq war was larger than that for the Korean War, and this was done without the UN's backing? After the invasion, the UN then gave its permission for the continued occupation of Iraq, after initally opposing it. For that matter, who funds the UN? Or that the US was able to hold the first democratic election in Afghanistan just recently? I think the US has far more diplomatic power than you speculate.

Please submit 1 country who you believe is more successful and powerful, and what measurements you use to determine such. Take into consideration whether that country could have accomplished even one of those items I just listed.

Finally...your knee jerk reaction of "military power" tells volumes about how you perceive both power and those on the other side of the political spectrum from you.

USA: #2
Bermuda: #4
Hong Kong: #15
Bahrain: #53
Oman: #63

The French and Germans have loads of holidays compared to North Americans, and yet their productivity per capita is actually higher than in the USA.

It should also be noted that Slovenia was always the wealthies part of Yugoslavia.

how does Japan manage to stay lightyears ahead of everyone else in wireless?

Might have something to do with the fact that they have 130 Million people in an area slightly smaller than california.

Lot less area to provide coverage for. Not to mention 26 million people in Tokyo alone, making it the highest density city on the planet.

You're right in that the United States rates as third in population and size.

But consider the fact that China is essentially the same size as the United States but has 4.5 times the population. Also, India is almost a third the size of the US but has 3.7 times the population. The US population is larger than Indonesia's population by 1/5th but Indonesia is more than 5 times smaller than the United States.

So in terms of densities, the United States ranks as a midsize country. If the European Union was considered a country it would edge out the US by around 100 million people. If the EU accepts Russia into the fold than it will be always twice the population of the US.

It is true that most of Europe is near zero-growth but I wouldn't use the word stagnant. That implies there's something wrong with zero-growth. It will undoubtedly mean a change in social spending but in positive direction. Fewer mouths to feed means better food for others.

You're right in that the United States rates as third in population and size.

But consider the fact that China is essentially the same size as the United States but has 4.5 times the population. Also, India is almost a third the size of the US but has 3.7 times the population. The US population is larger than Indonesia's population by 1/5th but Indonesia is more than 5 times smaller than the United States.

So in terms of densities, the United States ranks as a midsize country. If the European Union was considered a country it would edge out the US by around 100 million people. If the EU accepts Russia into the fold than it will be always twice the population of the US.

It is true that most of Europe is near zero-growth but I wouldn't use the word stagnant. That implies there's something wrong with zero-growth. It will undoubtedly mean a change in social spending but in positive direction. Fewer mouths to feed means better food for others.

what a troll... I can't resist. There are 290 million US citizens. Would you condemn all of them on behalf of 19 million Australians? To judge an entire country by the actions of its politicians is ridiculous.

Citizens of the "United States of Mexico" are commonly called "Mexicans" just as citizens of the United States of America are commonly called Americans.

Someone who lives in North America may be called "North American" and someone who lives in South America may be called "South American."

There is no continent called "America", although North and South America are often referred to collectively as "The Americas."

References:

1. World Atlas
2. World Atlas 2000
3. The Continents
4. Continents of the World
5. World Facts and Figures

Get over it.

According to World Facts and Figures, Russia currently has the 84th highest per capita GDP in the world, tying with Oman and the Seychelles at $7,700 per year. By contrast, the U.S. is #2 at $36,200 (Luxembourg, at #1, isn't far ahead at $36,400). The U.S. has 278 million people, compared to Russia's 145.5 million. In other words, Russia is trying to maintain a viable space program when it has about one-tenth the total annual GDP of the U.S. I think the fact that they've managed to do so in spite of their economic problems demonstrates that they actually have a great deal of pride, and are willing to do what it takes to keep the program moving along. The fact is that the Russians are probably not going to be in any financial shape to launch space shuttles for quite some time, if ever. On the other hand, the Soyuz is a solid, reliable design, and there's really no need for the Russians to drop it in favor of an alternative that still needs a lot of work and would be far more expensive to operate.