China to Top U.S. in Broadband Subscribers

An anonymous reader writes "China already is rapidly approaching the United States as the country with the largest number of broadband subscribers, according to the El Segundo, Calif.-based firm, and by the end of the year, China is expected to have 34 million subscribers, compared to 39 million in the United States. By the end of 2007, China is expected to have 57 million broadband subscribers, compared to 54 million in the United States, with an even wider lead in the years to follow."

Comments

i would hope so

[hsmith]

considering they have 4x as many people than us in an are that is a bit more densely populated

Re:i would hope so

[Janitha]

In this case, percentage numbers would make sense.

Re:i would hope so

[SeventyBang]

Regardless of how many of them there are, how many (a percentage will do as an alternative to headcount) of them get to see an unfiltered Internet?

It's well-documented there are watchers in chat rooms who redact material real-time which is "against policy", some horrendous filters which screen practically everything but spam, and I'll bet the only address they're allowed to connect to with FTP is 127.0.0.1.

Sheer numbers and population percentages mean nothing when there's nothing to look at. Trust me: the Chinese will have a better chance at seeing CineMax sans filtering at midnight before they get an unfiltered connection to the Internet.

Re:i would hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

Those bastards are taking all of our IP addresses!

Re:i would hope so

[g-doo]

Yes, it's not fair to use numbers of people to compare two countries with drastically different population sizes.

But one thing we can say is that, of all the broadband users in the world (borders and nations aside), they're going to make up the largest portion of that chunk.

Population percentages aside, their broadband companies have more customers than our broadband companies.

But yes, the article should still mention percentages.

Re:i would hope so

[Waffle Iron]

and I'll bet the only address they're allowed to connect to with FTP is 127.0.0.1

That's not so bad; it's a kickass site. Lightning fast, too.

Re:i would hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

So when raw numbers (in the case of China) are not in your favor you call for percentages, and of course, when percentages show your are behind (South Korea, Japan, Canada, etc.) you say we should make comparison based on respective populations. Contradictions?

Re:i would hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they have 4x as many people as we have.
But their GDP is $7.262 trillion, quite lower than the GDP in the US which is $11.75 trillion.

That's why it's worth a story!
Their GDP per capita is much lower than ours, however, they manage to have more highspeed internet access than us.

Use your brain, for once, for chriiss sake.

Re:i would hope so

[Lord Kano]

That's not so bad; it's a kickass site. Lightning fast, too.

And whoever runs it likes all of the same pr0n that I do.

LK

Re:i would hope so

[DiscoFreq]

If you would look at it in percentages instead of numbers they would be behind the US, but several European countries would come first.

Re:i would hope so

[MysteriousPreacher]

I wonder, could it then be similar to the situation with mobile phones. Some poorer countries seem to be skipping the whole land-line thing and just going straight for mobiles because the land-line infrastructure is piss-poor.

Taking this as face value, it would seem that these countries have a higher mobile phone adoption rate that more developed countries.

Re:i would hope so

[Marcion]

I bet they will exceed US broadband connections but the vast majority of Spam will still come from Americans albeit often and increasingly re-routed through Russia, Eastern Europe, Nigeria etc. States like the US, and their unregulated allies, constitute an axis of spam, emailing to threaten the inboxes of the world. By seeking people to buy viagra and sign of for credit cards, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.

Re:i would hope so

[eyeye]

Sheer number will affect the internet too, obviously language is a barrier but the number of chinese people we come into contact with on the internet must be rising at a similarly fast rate.

Re:i would hope so

[ZiakII]

o god if china's comming online how will we ever have enough IPs... so when is V6 comming out?

Re:i would hope so

[ZiakII]

Well my salary is less then $20k a year (miltary) but you can be damn sure that my inner geek in me made sure I had a fast computer and broadband before I ever thought about getting a car.

Re:i would hope so

[databyss]

"States like the US"

You mean "Countries like the US" or "States, like the US"?

Re:i would hope so

[databyss]

It'll be ok, China only need one IP, the router will assign the rest...

Re:i would hope so

[hackstraw]

also consider that the average annual wage there is under $5k/year (the last I heard, I can't find any newer data right now)

Re:i would hope so

[Marcion]

LOL, you are not correcting my grammar, that is a (mis)quote from George W. Bush, sorry you didn't get the joke (dodgy British humour).

Re:i would hope so

[databyss]

My apologies sir/madam, he's got too many for us Americans to remember.

1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a lot easier to have more subscribers/anything when you have almost 4 times the population.

This isn't very interesting news at all.

Next on slashdot: China Tops US in rice consumption.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[Anonymous Coward]

Followed by US tops China in arrogance

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[SaDan]

Yeah, but they'll NEVER beat us at BUTTER consumption!

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[jmv]

Next: China tops US in fuel consumption. That's when it's going to get really scary (I guess it's already scary that 4% of the world population consumes 25% of the energy).

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[TheKidWho]

and also produces 25% of all goods.

Makes sense doesn't it now? Turn off your selective memory.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[Anonymous Coward]

We are the richest, most powerful, most successful nation in the history of mankind.

For starters, China would own the US in anyway war, and most successful? haha, look up some history, oh wait, you're American.. you're too ignorant.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[august sun]

seriously. while we're at it, let's talk about percentage with access to running or literacy rates, or hell, any other humanitarian statistic for that matter.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[CRCulver]

They have nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. That's all the really matters in this day and age. Infantry is nice and all, but no longer the deciding factor in winning a war.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[britneys 9th husband]

and given the huge trade deficit, probably consumes something like 30% of all goods.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[bombadier_beetle]

You people need to calm down. China and the US have very little to fight about, militarily speaking. The CCP and the GOP have very compatible global agendas - not that there's anything good about that.

And for the specific point raised about military capacity, China claims that it could take on one or possibly two US carrier groups in battle. The US has 12 of them. But so what? That kind of thing just doesn't matter anymore.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[zephyr1024]

whats the point of this prediction when there will be NO WAR at all between US and China. and if there is a serious on going on, I bet some kicking ass weapon(ie nuclear) will play a huge part and we probably wont be living long enough til the end to see WHO IS BETTER.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[Dun Malg]

They have nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. That's all the really matters in this day and age. Infantry is nice and all, but no longer the deciding factor in winning a war.

Hogwash. In order to win a war, you need to have men on the ground pointing guns at the enemy's government officials. No way to do that with just nukes. You cannot name a single war which was won without occupying infantry.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[stupidfoo]

Actually the US produces closer to 29-30% of the world's goods with 25% of the world's "resources". So, we produce goods at a higher efficiency than the rest of the world (on average).

But you're right, that doesn't sound quite as sexy. It's like when people complain about the US's "record" deficits even though it, as a percentage of it's GDP, is no where near record levels and is lower than most of Europe. But again, that's not as sexy.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[ergo98]

For starters, China would own the US in anyway war

Are you for real? The worldwide annual military expenditures is ~$900 billion. The US portion of that is 1/2. That's right - one half of the world's militarism is the US. China is barely a blip, and is generally equipped with Russian cast-offs and cheap knock-offs.

Perhaps you're confused by the fact that China has the largest standing army - when you are dominated from the air and sea, that's what they call "cannon fodder". It's an absolutely irrelevant number, and really just represents how big of a casualty count you can rack up.

I'm not trying to piss on China - it is going to be great nation in coming years, and will definitely achieve the influence it deserves - but you clearly are so blinded by your anti-US rhetoric that you totally fell off the clue boat.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[jmv]

...and consumes 25% of all goods. It's not like the US is really producing goods for other countries (yes, I've heard of exportations), since its commercial balance is negative. The environmental situation is already bad with what the US does (it's not the only country polluting, but the largest at the moment). What's even more scary is the thought of China imitating the US development and reaching the same level of production/pollution as the US _per capita_. That would mean 5 times more pollution than the US and at least twice the *global* amount of pollution. I don't want to see that.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[gnuman99]

It is at about 5% GDP. Some European countries have more even though they said they wouldn't.. Screws up all of Europe due to single currency.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[gnuman99]

You are in luck! There is not enough oil production to sustain that much pollution :) We are already at peak oil.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[udowish]

R u really that stupid? The US can't even hang onto a semi average size nation in the middle east never mind China... The Marines are having the WORST training accident rate in their history, the number of defections and charges laid in Iraq is approaching Vietman proportions and one US commander said the very structure of the Army is starting to break down...and you think China won't be able to handle the US until 2030's?? Keep smoking my friend... In 10 years the US will be completely bankrupt, the CHINEESE and the Japs hold 80% of your Debt...I see the last decade or so of the mighty US empire starting to fall. History is simply going to repeat itself again.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[scotch]

World War II - pacific theater. Somehow seems germane to the discussion.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[strider44]

you could say that the US 280 million at the moment isn't very impressive against the 48,598,175 (googled) of South Korea. A number is a number, nothing else.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[jmv]

Indeed, that's the only partially reassuring point. I say partially because peak is probably only temporary, as prospection is going at a fast pace. Also, oil is unfortunately not the only source of energy (also coal, gas, ...) and pollution (chemicals of all kinds).

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[jmv]

That ought to explain why it's currently one of fastest growing economy in the world, right? Ever heard of "When China wakes, it will shake the world" (Napoleon Bonaparte), well it still applies, and it's happening.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[FidelCatsro]

Problem there is ,have you checked at what percentage of this internal consumption IE:Within the USA .
I have a feeling it will be a rather large percentage which would make it just as bad..

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[j.blechert]

if it would come to a war, how long do think would it take for the carmanufactors to produce tanks en masse?

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[camcorder]

Is that what Bush tells you to excuse not signing Kyoto treaty?

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[eyeye]

Well in war there is no real winner, no Pwning so to speak...

Look at iraq, they had practically no military and were starved for 10 years and then bombed to crap and they are still resisting, US soldiers fear for their lives and the US admin is so scared they dont dare even announce when they are visiting hence the sudden unannounced visits.

Look at afghanistan, the US basically has given up there and is actively paying off local warlords. A couple of days ago a woman was executed for adultery.

And then there was vietnam..

So.. what is this winning you speak of :-)

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[STrinity]

China could give every adult male a tank, but it wouldn't help them pwn the US in a war unless they invade Russia first and build a bridge across the Bering Strait. The US would have to invade them for them to have a chance of beating us.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[SerpentMage]

Want to know something. Imagine 300 million Chinese decided one day to the next to pick and leave. There would still be 1.2 billion living in the country. This "little" group walks through Siberia, and then reaches Alaska. So Alaska will have 300 million people knocking on their door. What is the US going to do? Bomb them? Yeah, right! You might as well just bomb all of Alaska while you are at it. There are 300 million people saying let me in, and there is not a darn thing you or anybody can do about it!

Frankly the Far East is the power of the 21'th century, as I sit here in the Western "Civilized" world.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[djmurdoch]

Actually the US produces closer to 29-30% of the world's goods with 25% of the world's "resources". So, we produce goods at a higher efficiency than the rest of the world (on average).

What is your source for those numbers? I don't doubt them (much; nationmaster.com says the US produces 23% of the world's GDP, but they can't even spell their own name right on their home page), but I'd like to look up how China compares. My guess would be that its ratio of goods produced per resources used would be a lot higher than the American ratio of 1.2.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[yivi]

The remaining problem is who gets to receive those 'goods'.

If 4% of the population consume 25% of the produced energy to manufacture 30% of the total goods, only to benefit a 5% of the global populace; well, that seems to spell trouble.

I am not in position of contesting your numbers, and mine are invented, but posting little parts of a complex equation does very little to have a civilized argument.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[djmurdoch]

That's a good idea, but I don't know where to find those stats. However, I can find the one the AC suggested:

Population in prison (2003):

USA: 2078570
China: 1549000

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[Linzer]

All the arguing that's going on here is just depressing.

So YES, the US is the largest militaristic country ever. Yes, it can nuke the crap out of any country it happens to dislike. Yes, this costs a lot of taxpayer money. It has also cost a lot of human lifes, and it's not over yet.

Now, is *this* something to claim and be proud of?

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[TheKidWho]

Those are occupations though, in a war with China the US would most likely have no desire to occupy china. If it did, Im going on a hunch, I believe that it would be more like the US occupation of japan after WW2 rather then the current occupation in Iraq.

The winning im talking about is defending our people and stopping their government from attacking other nations. Anyways, I posted what I did because the douche parent before me is one of those people who blindly posts that China is going to pwn the US in a few years. I know very well that the US isn't going to just go along a pwn China, and it is much much more complicated then that.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[TheKidWho]

... yeah because you know, 300million people walking through siberia would be soooo easy and trivial, I mean the people wouldn't starve, and it would be so easy to get all the transportation and fuel for them to get there! oooo let's not forget where the hell are they going to get the boats to cross into Alaska from Siberia? A human bridge? haha! Your rambling like a six year old, what you say is impossible.

You go If A then B then C, but your A is WRONG which means your B and C are also wrong.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[ergo98]

Now, is *this* something to claim and be proud of?

Who's proud of it? I'm personally a Canadian, and was simply responding with a statement of fact to someone that was clearly a little bit deluded about the degree of China's ascent.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[ergo98]

The US can't even hang onto a semi average size nation in the middle east never mind China

The US walked over Iraq with unbelievable ease (with just a couple of battlefield casualties). Policing is an entirely different matter altogether, and you can't (well, normally) call in a strike package against insurgents hidden amidst a bunch of innocents.

In other words, if you think the policy and democracy building in Iraq is indicative of the war-capability of the US, you are very, very misguided.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[eyeye]

Of course it does depend a lot on the circumstances of the war.

The winning im talking about is defending our people and stopping their government from attacking other nations.

Haven't seen much or any of that happening recently, in fact it is the US government that is regularly attacking other nations and their people.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[ergo98]

Who do you think pays for US military? Ever thought where those billions of dollars that Chinese and Japanese loan to you go?

Firstly, I'm not American. I realize that some people can't read facts without getting confused about the biases behind them.

Secondly, your take on economics is laughable.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[phlinn]

Well, since we did in fact have thousands of troops in the region when we won, and the presence of those troops was a large part of the threat to Japan, the GP is correct that you cannot name a war that was won without occupying infantry. Without those troops, we would not have been able to force Japan to reform in such a way that they were no longer a threat.

If you are willing to accept complete and utter distruction of your enemy as a winning condition, then it is theoretically possible to win with just long range munitions. That is an unacceptable win for most people.

I would have to agree that the GGP has a point as well though, since the long range munitions have a significant impact in any conflict. They just aren't capable of victory by themselves.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[scotch]

We didn't have occupying forces in Japan though, did we? Territories took from the japanese, sure, but not the homeland. Specifically, related to the GGP, we didn't have troops on the ground in Japan, occupying and pointing guns at the government officials' heads. I agree with you that the threat of ground invasion was a factor, but I disagree with both of you that occupation is always necesssary. The realistic threat or demostrated use of long-range massively destructive weapons could win a war. I don't think it is reliable or common, only possible, and I think Japan demostrates the effect that hopefully will never be repeated. Perhaps "complete and utter destruction of your enemy" was acceptible back then, but is not now (at the moment).

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[phlinn]

That could have something to do with the US using imprisonment and fines as the primary punishment. China has about 4 times our per capita execution rate. Our per capita crime rate is fairly high, with china not even on the list. Maybe executing people really does act as a deterrent, or maybe it just means that career criminals tend to have short careers in China. That sight include imprisonment rate per GDP, and we are extremely low there. Is there actually a relationship there, and if so which way does the influence run? I could see an argument either direction.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[slaad]

Actually, according to the population clock, we're up to about 296 million people now.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[Dun Malg]

World War II - pacific theater. Somehow seems germane to the discussion.

The US military occupied Japan from August 1945 until some time in 1952. The fact that the Japanese agreed beforehand to not shoot at them is largely irrelevant. Infantrymen, armed with rifles, stood around for seven years in Japan making sure that they didn't change their mind.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[scotch]

So you're playing a game of "what if", so what? They surrendered before occupation: the war was won. You might be right that without the occupation, the peace would not have has lasted. However, aside from the crystal ball / virtual reallity / full world simulation device you need to prove that, I don't believe lasting peace is any requirement that one war be determined finished.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[Dun Malg]

So you're playing a game of "what if", so what?

Huh? No "what if" about it. US military did occupy Japan. Their willingness, ability, and intent to do so was already a foregone conclusion by war's end. They surrendered before occupation: the war was won.

If you want to split technical hairs like that, then partial occupation had already been achieved by then on Okinawa. The presence of a large US ground force which was steamrolling towards Tokyo was certainly not an insignificant detail in the pacific theater.

Really, the original point was whether a war can be won by simply bombing without ground forces. It has never worked like that any time in history, so it seems to me that those claiming otherwise are the ones using a crystal ball.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[scotch]

You are right and I am wrong. It was the US occupation of Japan and not the atomic destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that ended WWII in the pacific theater. My apologies for playing the devil's advocate on this one.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[djmurdoch]

I think you need to look at more countries than just the USA and China if you want to start drawing conclusions about relations between capital punishment and deterrence.

For example, look at the analysis at the bottom of the page:

"For every 100,000 people in the U.S., 726 are imprisoned, compared to figures of 142 per 100,000 for England, 91 for France, and 58 for Japan. Almost 13 percent of black males in their late 20s are in prison or jail, while for Hispanics the corresponding figure is 3.6 percent. Only 1.7 percent of white twentysomething males are incarcerated.

While the violent crime rate in the U.S. dropped by one-third from 1994 to 2003, and the property crime rate by 23 percent, the prison population has increased by an annual average of 3.5 percent since 1995. Much of the increase is due to convicts reoffending; two out of every three prisoners released return to prison within three years."

The land of the free just stands way out from every other large country in its rate of imprisonment of its citizens.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[ergo98]

So shut up with the American extolling, ok?

Dear idiot,

The US military can whoop any nation's ass (I'm talking conventional. There are no winners in a nuclear conflict). In fact I will go so far as to say that hte US military can whoop any combination of 5 nations' ass, probably more. That crazy "research" investment is the reason why the US has so few casualties in actual combat (doesn't help with policing though).

Now if you're idiotic enough, which I know you are, to confuse that statement of plain fact with "extolling", then you're hopeless.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[ergo98]

Uh, okay.

It's more about world-scale piracy and stealing

Oh god, busting over laughing. And you're saying this in defense of China, which is unbelievably over the top.

I'm not even frickin' American, but I have the capability to see the world in something other than delusional paranoid escapism.

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[WindBourne]

Actually, if you believe the oilmen, we already peaked. Saudi Arabia, and Iran peaked about a decade ago. Worse, since they pumped too fast during the 80's, they are now resorting to injecting h2o and co2 to get their production up. Check english.aljezerra.net for more info on that.

It is thought that in the middle east, only Iraq's fields have not been blown, which may help explain our current issues. Of course, just about all of opec (except for SA and Iraq) seems to be cutting deals with China rather than let the free market dominate. Once again some interesting stuff in aljezerra. (take it with a grain of salt; it is like reading fox news; some good stuff, intermixed with lots of propoganda).

Re:1.1 Billion vs 280 Million

[SerpentMage]

You are missing the issue. Sure the 300 million people would be easy to target, but that's missing the point. Imagine the uproar of any country that decided to kill 100 million people? You would have a bloody world war.

Starvation, transportation, boats, and fuel. Come on people can feed themselves. It just needs to be organized. And why do you assume that they all of the sudden decide to drive? Why could they not walk and trucks carry the supplies?

What I say is not impossible, and what the problem is that people in the Western world do not think it is possible. However, in many other parts of the world people need quite a bit less and can get along with simpler solutions.

Percentages

[smilheim]

Be nice to see this number in percentage of population.

Re:Percentages

[Anonymous Coward]

China has 1,298,847,624 and USA has 293,027,571

So China has about 4% and USA has 18%.

Re:Percentages

[LibertarianWackJob]

Yes, per capita numbers would be nice but even stratify it more by including number of people / income bracket. Now there would be some meaningful numbers. After all I wouldn't expect some pennyless farmer in a rural area to have a DSL connection.

Re:Percentages

[Anonymous Coward]

And 18% is nothing to brag about, really. At least, not when compared to other countries.

Re:Percentages

[YrWrstNtmr]

So, according to that article, 80% of Americans have access to broadband, if they want it. 18% currently have broadband. That means 62% choose not to, or can't afford it. Let's be really generous and split that 62% down the middle.

Almost 1/3 of Americans who do have access to broadband choose not to. If that 30% were to sign up, the US would be at almost 50% penetration.

Re:Percentages

[dtfarmer]

18% isn't bad considering the logistics. The US is nearly 100x larger in area than South Korea...

South Korea - http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/skorea.html
Population 48m
Area 38k sq. miles (about the size of Indiana or Kentucky)

US - http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/area.s html
Population 293m
Area 3.5m sq. miles (2.9m continental)

I wonder what the percentage would be if we only accounted for metro areas like Seattle, New York, LA... while I'm sure it's nowhere near 73%, I bet it's well above 18%.

Re:Percentages

[ramblin billy]

Plus how many of those 62% are members of households that do have broadband? How many have access at work? I travel to towns of all sizes and geographic distribution and have yet to find one without public high speed access, usually for free. The only problem I've had was one cybercafe in Berkeley where the only box available had an OS in Korean. I didn't understand everything the folks there were saying, but I'm pretty sure they were ganging up on me at Unreal Tournament.

billy - respawning means never having to say you're sorry

Re:Percentages

[NemoX]

Don't forget to take into account land mass. The US is the third largest, while China is the forth largest. With the thought that, the smaller area there is to cover, the easier it is to connect your citizens. So, we have a 14% higher boadband usage AND a larger land mass, therefore, I think we are well not to consider this any pressing news.

Data gathered from:
http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.h tml
http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.h tml

Re:Percentages

[dtfarmer]

Surely, someone as educated as yourself must have something rather more important to do than picking nits about my (lack of) capitalization of the abbreviation of million...

Re:Percentages

[h4x0r-3l337]

So, according to that article, 80% of Americans have access to broadband, if they want it

Two comments about that:

• what is considered "broadband" in the US is considered laughably slow and outdated in places like Japan (you can get 22 megabits/sec for about $22 a month in Japan)
• in the US, "access to broadband" means "there is at least one location in this zipcode that can have broadband", hardly a fair and accurate measure.

Re:Percentages

[bryce1012]

I wouldn't expect some pennyless farmer in a rural area to have a DSL connection.

And yet we do. OK, ok, so we're not "pennyless," but plenty of farmers in MY rural area (SE South Dakota) have DSL connections. They're really not that much more expensive than dialup, and pretty widely available considering the crappy population density around here.

Re:Percentages

[steve_bryan]

Thanks you for injecting numbers that have some actual relevance to an intelligent discussion. There is a real groupthink idea that everyone simply has to pay to have broadband access regardless of every other factor. If you are a shareholder in a cable or phone company that might qualify as a good idea but not so good if you are interested in the best allocation of your own resources.

Internet access is not some absolute good that reason dictates everyone must maximize. How much downloaded music, porn and wonderfully engaging but empty chatting is really needed? I am somewhat surprised, but pleased, that a significant number of people are effectively saying no to the specific offers of bandwidth at current prices. I think it shows a measure of sanity that people are not willing to squander their money.

As has been pointed out the important number from a development, infrastructure point of view is how many households have an option to install broadband. The specific number who take up the offer is an issue of price versus benefit. Don't forget that it is predominantly an entertainment purchase, not unlike the choice to subscribe to cable TV. In my case I subscribe to broadband but not cable TV. But that is a pricing decision. If cable TV were less expensive I would be likely to subscribe.

Trying to glean some insight into geopolitical trends from this sort of statistic is just nonsense. Much more important would be availability of high quality educational opportunities and capital formation for risky new ventures (e.g. nanotechnology, gene therapy, space elevator, etc). Being able to download pictures of pretty naked ladies is wonderful, but not exactly part of a rational assessment of future economic vitality.

An analogy from a previous era would be the obsession developing countries used to have about capacity for steel production. These statistics were supposed to indicate that the days of US hegemony were numbered. There were French intellectuals back in the fifties and sixties crowing about how China would soon eclipse the US because of this sort of statistic. They were wrong then and they are probably wrong now.

Re:Percentages

[Raven Tarantino]

do you know the difference of the definition of "broadband" in US and China??? In china it is generally 3 - 20 Mbps but in US 1 - 3 Mbps is already a modest service

Re:Percentages

[databyss]

Then what fun is slashdot?

Re:Percentages

[databyss]

Mb or MB?

I get slightly more than 3Mbps on my comcast cable broadband here in the US. But I definately don't get anywhere near 3MBps.

While at college I easily got 10MBps, if not more.

It's the weekly....

[Anonymous Coward]

"USA is a technological backwater because people aren't getting broadband" thread. Maybe we should force more people to get it so that we can stop hearing this over and over and over at /.?

Re:It's the weekly....

[AstrumPreliator]

"USA is a technological backwater because people aren't getting broadband" thread. Maybe we should force more people to get it so that we can stop hearing this over and over and over at /.?

Or perhaps we can look at the percentage of subcribers out of the whole population instead of just the number of subscribers. We're ahead percentage wise and will still be ahead percentage wise in 2007 (according to the prediction). They might have more subscribers in 2007, but they also have roughly four times the population of the US. This really isn't an interesting piece of news, more like a slanted piece of news that gets responses like yours.

Re:It's the weekly....

[SengirV]

It's backwater because there are lots of people who WANT broadband, but it's not available. And the big telcos couldn't give a rats ass.

Re:It's the weekly....

[quarkscat]

Correction: "The USA is turning into a technological backwater because the regime in power would rather focus on their monopolist corporate contributors' profits instead of leveling the high tech "playing field" through uniform improvements to infrastructure and access."

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

High speed access to everything the government wants them to see.

Re:Great!

[refactored]

They have the Grreat Firewall of China, you have the Grreat DMCA of America.

Speaking as a person living outside both those countries, it looks like you guys are pretty even.

Re:Great!

[Infinite Entropy]

Damn I hate it when people say things like this. Say what you will about the US, and I might even agree with a few of them, but it is NOTHING LIKE CHINA!! I can call Bush a complete idiot with no consequences, or that the Republican party is utterly corrupt without being thrown in prison. This is not true in China. If you really belive what you said you really nead to learn more about just how politically repressive the Chinese government is.

Re:Great!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

So, in China, powerless people can speak because they are not powerful enough to threaten. And in the US, the powerful can speak because they are too powerful to be threatened.

Re:Great!

[grammar fascist]

So, in China, powerless people can speak because they are not powerful enough to threaten. And in the US, the powerful can speak because they are too powerful to be threatened.

And...in China, powerful people can speak because they have total control. In the US, the powerless can speak because they have a secured right to it.

Man, when you put the other half in, it doesn't sound nearly so good, does it? I totally neutered your post, and I didn't even have to disagree with it. That smells like an error in logic to me.

Re:Great!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Wow, you must really be fun at parties.

(I was restating the grandparent post, in a snarky manner. If you have an issue with the logic, go talk to him.)

Re:Great!

[argStyopa]

Is it really broadband?

(1.5m bps connection - 1.476m bps censor/filter = 24k bps)

Re:Great!

[northcat]

You Americans can't let go even one article about China without somehow criticising China (usually "censorship"), can you?

Re:Great!

[Jerrry]

You're a fool. I live in China, and people routinely talk about how corrupt the CCP is, or how much Hu or Jiang was/is an idiot, and get this, they don't get thrown into prison!

If that's the case, then why are you posting as an ananymous coward? Why not use your real Slashdot user ID?

Re:Great!

[refactored]

Interestingly enough someone from China has full out contradicted you. (From other sources I have, I would believe him.)

I would like to see your response to him.

Re:Great!

[Infinite Entropy]

Chinese prisons contain plenty of people whose only crime was voicing opposition to the Party. What about Falun Gong?

Re:Great!

[Infinite Entropy]

Falun Gong. The second that the Party felt threatend by the size and zeal of them, they came down hard. Nothing like that can happen in the US.

Re:Great!

[Infinite Entropy]

Not really comparable. Were talking 80 or so nut jobs versus as many as a 100 million chinese! I really don't think the Federal Governemnt felt very threatend by them. And I don't beleive that the government caused the fire. That entire situation was caused by the Davidians. If they hadn't been stupid enough to get into a fire fight and just let the government search the building and submit to our laws, nothing too bad would have happend. But they had to behave like the religious idiots they were. I really can't feel sympathy for people who could and should have left at any time.

Re:Great!

[Infinite Entropy]

The US has no laws against the formation of cults, the reason the whole Waco fiasco started was that the governemnt had recieved reports that the Davidians had been stockpiling illegal weapons. So the ATF did a very stupid thing and launched a very intimidating assault. They should have just arrested David Koresh. But Falun Gong was certianly not a cult. It had a huge following, many more adherants than judiasm even, and surely that isn't a cult? If the Davidians hadn't started that firefight and just let the ATF confiscate the illegals weapons they would have left the Davidians in peace to practice thier insane beliefs. The only reason the Chinese government cracked down on FG is they got nervous about the number of people and their orginizational abilities and decided to preemptively disrupt them instead of risking letting them become a possible challenger to the CCP.

Re:Great!

[Infinite Entropy]

It is you who are very ignorant if you feel the behavior of the Chinese government was justified, and I'm trying to explain to you why I DON'T feel that the situations are NOT comparable. The Waco Wackos were NOT killed, they died through thier own stupidity. Even as the fire started they all could have escaped, only a few chose to.

Re:Great!

[refactored]

Napster.

The second that the RIAA felt threatened by the size and zeal of them, they came down hard.

The difference I guess is America trying damn hard to hound Norwegians and Russians and everybody else with DMCA. China is content just to make rumbling noises at North Korea and Taiwan.

So?

[Raul654]

Look at a population map of china. Now look at one of the US. Half of china has a population density of less than 2.5 people per square mile, and the other half has more than 500. Getting a large section of the country wired very quickly is pretty easy. The US population, on the other hand, is spread really thin. So it's not surprising that China could overtake the US quickly.

Re:So?

[anandpur]

'Black cat, white cat, who cares what colour cat, as long as it catches the mice', said Deng. 'Let some people get rich first'.
http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/16 2/162_chin.htm

Re:So?

[timeOday]

The reasons, or excuses, or whatever you want to call it, are not really relevant to their threat as a competitor. They are churning out engineers and other educated people in huge numbers, and their economy is growing very fast.

Some aspects of economics are zero-sum. The world has a fixed amount of minerals and fossil fuels, and only needs a small handful of semiconductor companies.

Re:So?

[Raul654]

City dwellers tend to vote democratic. People in rural areas tend to vote republican. I don't mean any disrepect, but is that supposed to be a revalation?

Re:So?

[Seumas]

Chinese population: 1,300,000,000 (57 million is about 4%)
American population: 293,000,000 (54 million is about 20%)

20% versus 4% - please explain how China is overtaking America?

Re:So?

[bleckywelcky]

People who live in rural areas are typically conservative ... they are self-reliant and feel they are accountable for their own actions and only get out of life what they put into it.

City dwellers are typically liberal ... they want a government handout and want everyone else to solve their problems for them. It's always someone else's fault, or their non-ideal upbringing, or their job stress.

So what's new? Rural votes conservative, urban votes liberal?

You know what's pathetic? Presidential elections are basically determined by only a handful of people. Los Angeles and New York City. Their numbers barely tip the scales for California and New York, who subsequently barely tip the scales for the rest of the country. If you left out LA and NYC, conservatives would have won all the elections back to the 1980s by land slides. But in these big cities, you get a bunch of poor people grouping together who want the rest of the country to give them handouts. So what do they do? They vote for liberal leaders to get into office and force the rest of the country to give them handouts.

Re:So?

[bowloframen]

Like most places, the US population is concentrated in the coastal cities. Looking at your population map of the US, it looks like roughly half of the country has a population density less than 10 people per square mile. Your argument would be more coherent if you noted that China is roughly equal to the US in size but has more than four times as many people. So it's not really a matter of how the population density is divided since both countries are divided pretty similarly. China is simply a much denser country.

Anyway, I think most people are missing the point. Everybody seems to be taking a defensive approach, quick to note that China has a much bigger population. This isn't so much about the US falling back as much as China catching up. India has more than a billion people; how many of them do you think have broadband access? How about Indonesia, which has a population similar to that of the US? China is still considered a developing country and broadband access is one of those perks of society that naturally is associated with the developed countries, but the point is, China is making some headway.

Re:So?

[cujo_1111]

Maybe he was talking about the population as a whole...

Re:So?

[Peyna]

. But in these big cities, you get a bunch of poor people grouping together who want the rest of the country to give them handouts.

The poor have the lowest voter turnouts in the country. So, nice try, but you're theory doesn't float.

If every eligible person in the country voted, the more liberal candidates would win by a landslide. Minorities, poor, and other marginalized groups tend to be very unlikely to vote for a wide variety of reasons. These groups overwhelmingly support liberal candidates.

Re:So?

[Peyna]

You know what's pathetic? Presidential elections are basically determined by only a handful of people. Los Angeles and New York City. Their numbers barely tip the scales for California and New York, who subsequently barely tip the scales for the rest of the country. If you left out LA and NYC, conservatives would have won all the elections back to the 1980s by land slides.

We have a thing called the Senate which protects the rights of the smaller states from being trampled upon by the larger states.

Re:So?

[tratten]

South Korea has about 78%. The article was about number of broadband subscribers, not the percentage of the people with broadband access. If it was about percentage, US wouldn't be mentioned.

Re:So?

[anactofgod]

Riiiight.

So, you posit that rural dwellers are self-reliant and accountable for their own actions, while city dwellers want government handouts.

Well, actually, the real data shows that the opposite is true. Let's talk taxes. Consider this study of the 2000 Bush-v-Gore election results, as mapped against states that receive net benefits from federal spending. If you want more recent data, you can map the raw facts yourself against the result of the 2004 Bush-v-Kerry election using this data published by taxfoundation.org.

I'm come from plain talking folk, so let me just say it how it is. How red staters can keep posing about their hardy self-reliance while simultaneously sucking so hard on the public teat provided by the blue staters strikes me as being, at the very least, impolite. I don't mind contributing my fair share of taxes - I view it as an investment in my country for all that it provides to me- and for some of those taxes to go to support the undereducated, indigent or unfortunate, be they rural or urban. I don't even expect the recipients to say "please" or "thank you" when they take the money given to them. But do expect not to have my hand spit when I'm trying to give you the handout.

So, pass this around to your fellow self-reliant, hardy, accountable red staters -- Strut around and pose all you want, but if you can't be polite, give us back our taxes.

Thanks a bunch.

Re:So?

[maxjenius22]

Um, I live in a "red state" and I oppose handouts. I know that a lot of other people in my state get them, but maybe that's why I oppose them.

Or maybe we think, "The blue-staters keep trying to give us handouts we don't want. Oh well, if they are gonna keep being so retarded, I guess we'll take their money."

Re:So?

[maxjenius22]

if you can't be polite, give us back our taxes.

We keep trying to give them back to you, but you keep passing these retarded social programs.

Re:So?

[anactofgod]

Yeah...well, we now have executive and legislative branches dominated by those who ran on a platform to end those subsidies. Even though those in my state and in my tax bracket may get more cash back from the Feds, how much do you want to bet that subsidies to the red states will actually *increase* over the next four years? I'm willing to bet that fiscal irresponsibility will abound in order to keep the red staters fat and sassy.

Instead of giving the money back, I'd appreciate it if the red states would spend some of it on their educational systems. The US going to need a better educated workforce if we're going to stay competitive. That, or keep recruiting the top foreign talent in place of the brains we're not willing to train at home.

Continuing the discussion of the disconnect between red state political ideals and realities. Guess which ten states have the highest bankruptcy rates? Utah, Tennessee, Nevada, Georgia, Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Ohio, Mississippi and Idaho - all red states. Nice, huh? What an incredible demonstration of fiscal responsibility and self reliance! Still, I like that your representatives are willing to put the screws to you with the change in bankrupcy laws they are trying to enact.

Once red staters stop drinking the Kool-Aid and realize that they were never as self-reliant as they think they are, and that the Republican elite DON'T have their best economic interests at heart, they're going to switch. It might kill them to join up with gay-loving baby killers, but they'll do it anyway when they can't feed their families. And they'll be begging for those safety nets that are being slowly stripped away.

Don't worry. We blue staters are an understanding and tolerant lot. Comes with the territory, so to speak. *grynn* You'll be welcome back into the mainstream fold.

Re:So?

[anactofgod]

It's should be pretty clear what I'm saying. My original post was in response to bleckywelcky's claim that rural dwellers are self-reliant, while city dwellers walk around with their hands out, expecting help from the government. My post was to point out, breaking the geography of the country down economically, the exact opposite is true.

Fact of the matter is, I use the "red state"/"blue state" terms because they are popularly understood, but I don't even believe in the characterization. "Red states"/"blue states" are merely an artifact of the peculiarities of our federal election system. The fact that you live in a "red state" and oppose government subsidies is not relevant to my argument. You somehow thought it was, since that was your specific contribution, along with two flippant comments, in reponse to my post, completely ignoring the broader point that I was making.

So, I'll restate the broader point, differently. "Red states" residents who feel so strongly that the federal subsidies should be restrained should apply pressure locally and at a state level to wean their local communities off those subsidies. If they can't do that, they stop touting their "self-reliance" and "responsibility" and recognize that they are the primariy beneficiary of our welfare state, and therefore part of the problem, and not the other way around.

FYI, I don't believe that there is much difference in either party. It just happens that those who claim to be Democrats (I'm not one) seem to be less hypocritical about fiscal policy that those who claim to be Republican (I'm not one of them, either). Both parties cater to their base by providing welfare to their constituencies, as required. It's just that the Republican pols do it, and their supporters expect it, all the while claiming the opposite is true.

So, I'm not bashing half the country. I'm criticizing that fraction of the country that doesn't recognize how it benefits from the current system, and seeks to tear it down without fixing the problem first. If your state/community/region/demographic/etc can live within its means, contribute meaningfully to the economy, and generates a surplus for the collective coffers, then great. Criticize away and work to fix the problem at the federal level. Otherwise, fix your state, walk the talk, demonstrate that you can live without the subsidies your state is from the wealthier states, then come talk to us about how bad welfare is.

BTW, I'd be MUCH happier to pay less in Federal taxes. i just don't think the red state part of the country can handle it. The red states may be an anchor, but its easier to keep them dragging along and hope they shape up, rather than let them collapse and try to fix the mess later. Ounce of prevention, and all that.

Get my point now?

Re:So?

[maxjenius22]

I mostly agree with that except for the following snippet:

"Red states" residents who feel so strongly that the federal subsidies should be restrained should apply pressure locally and at a state level to wean their local communities off those subsidies.

The reason I disagree is that I think to wean them is impossible. I'd like to end the subsidies from the federal government so that the local communities have to quit cold-turkey. Only then we will see if rural types are as self-reliant as they say they are (and I think they will be).

I know many people who could be totally self-reliant, but they take in huge amounts of farm subsidies, because it's easier than working. (In fact, they get paid to do nothing.)

Re:So?

[maxjenius22]

Actually, I see in the report that I come from a rare state that is both "red" and a "net contributor", so I guess that just means that my state isn't as hypocritical as the other red states when it comes to federal spending.

Re:So?

[the_chuck]

sorry to disagree with you and this whole thread. I am a farmer (blue state), and unemployed developer/architect. No subsidies, and I don't know anyone who gets any. Bash us rurals all you want, but don't plan on eating if we go away.

Re:So?

[iwadasn]

In addition, if they could avoid trying to vote away our rights, that would be great too.

thanks.

Re:So?

[rtb144]

Instead of lies or damned lies, you chose statistics. The amount of federal taxes paid is usually a function of income and as we all know, it is not a linear function. I'm willing to bet that the average wage * population in New York or New Jersey is greater than say Alabama, Alaska, or Arizona so its real easy to gain the upper hand in taxes paid. On the other side of the equation, we really need to know what constitues the Federal dollars spent. Many red states have large amounts of Interstates, Military Institutions and other federal interests. Its really hard to say exactly how many "Handouts" the constituents of rural areas really get from the government. Another thing to consider is that large agricultural corporations are the largest recipients of farm aid how is that money accounted for? Does the state with the company land count as the place that recieved the money, or is it the state the company is headquartered in. A lot of red states have National Parks in them larger than New York City, do tax dollars spent here count against the state? Undevelopable land trapped in non taxable National Parks is actually a drain on most red states for many reasons. Finally, I'm not making excuses, but you have to realize that throwing around statistics is very easy to do, but try to compare states in this country based on averages and percentages is not very scientific without the background numbers to explain what you are trying to show.

Re:So?

[Cigarra]

I'm sorry, but you've got a TOTALLY REVERSED idea of what liberalism is. In 95% of the world, a liberal would be someone who wants the government as non-intrusive as possible.

Re:So?

[bluGill]

Its there, so we[1] do, but we don't need it. We have many back roads where you can legally drive 55 for long stretches with no stop lights or other traffic (other than a few tractors at 10 Mph) to get in the way. In most of those areas if you speed is under 70mph the local sheriff (sheriffs are elected) will pass you, while if you go faster they will ignore it unless you are a danger. (I wouldn't try it though - some are strict about speed, and a few target outsiders)

The city needs the interstate in rural areas to get cargo between cities. Trains do a lot of this (and should do more), but trucks have there place in city to city runs. The interstate was built for military and industrial needs.

Actually we use the interstate when it goes where it needs to go. Most states have one north-south interstate, and one east-west one. The interstates go big city to big city. (even out here, though our big cities count as a small town by standards of the coasts) That leaves a lot of people who rarely take the freeway because it doesn't go anywhere close to where they travel normally.

[1]Actually I live in the city, so by we I mean those who live in rural areas. I identify with them, and long to be there, but the jobs I like to do are in the city so I'm forced into the city.

Re:So?

[bleckywelcky]

That study is actually a bit misleading, because much of the spending in the small western states can not be offset by their comparatively small populations. Example: Let's look at Wyoming. Wyoming has less than 0.5 million people. Yet, they have 3 major interstate highways running clear across their state: I80, I90, and I25. These are major routes of passage that states all across the nation use to transport goods from north to south, from the east coast to the west coast. With a population of less than 500k, if Wyoming had to pay for these roads themselves, it would bankrupt their government. Therefore, the money they receive from the Federal Gov to maintain these roads already offsets a large portion of their income tax contribution to the Federal Gov. Yet a state like California with it's 34 million (legal) residents dwarfs Wyoming in its contribution of income tax to the Federal Government, yet it still receives similar amounts of money for upkeep of interstate highways running through its borders. Therefore, you quickly develop an imbalance of contributions to the Federal government versus receipts from the Federal government when looking at small states versus large states.

Another example (although more controversial) are some of the subsidies Wyoming receives. Wyoming's natural resources (minerals, gases, etc) are heavily subsidized from a strategic standpoint. If no subsidies existed, Wyoming would have stripped out much more of these resources than they currently have, selling them to other countries and economies. The result would have been a quick depletion of these particular natural resources in the US. So, the federal government pays Wyoming to not harvest the resources, and the result is that the US holds onto more of the resources for future needs. This is a strategic move by the Federal government to ensure that we are not left in a vulnerable position with respect to foreign countries and our natural resource needs (as we currently seem to be with oil, and the problems are apparent).

However, subsidies do exist that are not strategic and that need to be eliminated. Example: cotton subsidies. Cotton is not a strategic resource, who cares if our white shirts come from the USA or Thailand (unless they decide to lace our cotton shirts with germs, heh). Yet farmers still receive cotton subsidies. The industry is not fledgling, and could probably be streamlined even better if the subsidies were eliminated and the farmers realized they needed to reduce expenses.

Real conservatives do not believe in sustained subsidies (except, possibly, for strategic means), tax breaks, or welfare. About the only thing they might believe in is low cost health care, to ensure that the population stays healthy. Still, health care should only be partially funded by the Federal Gov so that industry still has motivation to invest in research. The only subsidies true conservatives ever support are those for fledgling industries. IE hybrid cars - if they were deemed a beneficial technology, yet were having a hard time taking off. The government can run subsidies for a few years and the industry starts growing. Once the industry has a firm foothold, the subsidies are cut off.

Bush does not represent real conservatives. He represents some sort of spend-happy, big government republican. True conservatives are not right-wing religious fanatics. They are typically religious, but they firmly believe in the separation of church and state. They realize that the system works better when this separation is in place. They believe everyone should be accountable for their own actions and that you only get out of life what you put into it.

Re:So?

[bleckywelcky]

Refer to my other reply further down that talks about the imbalance of contributions and receipts for smaller rural states versus larger urban states.

The fact of the matter is that corporate subsidies and welfare payouts dwarf rural subsidies by any way you look at it. In fact, corporate subsidies dwarf welfare payouts on its own. But here we are talking about industries like the train/rail indsutry and the airline industry. These are not rural industries. (Nor can they specifically be labeled urban industries.) Your average rural farmer or rural trade worker or rural laborer does not get subsidized at all. Yet you see urban laborers receiving too much welfare.

Refer to http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm063099.html on corporate subsidies.

Re:So?

[AaronStJ]

A more blunt way to put it would be "fuck the south".

Re:So?

[ZooDog]

If I had mod point I'd give 'em all to you. Well said.

But most of the content is unavailable...

[binaryspiral]

So what if more people in China have broadband... most of the content of the Internet is monitored and filtered by the Chinese government.

Score one for the rest of the free world.

Re:But most of the content is unavailable...

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Amen brother. Having broadband with nothing critical on it (as is the case with China) is like.... CABLE TV!!!!

RS

Re:But most of the content is unavailable...

[trawg]

Heh, yeh. If I ran a government that was attempting to control what people thought, I'd want them to have as much bandwidth as possible so I could ram my doctrines down their through all the time!

I'd probably use Flash to do it. Yeh, great big web pages, made entirely of Flash. That'd keep me supressed.

Re:But most of the content is unavailable...

[huge colin]

Take a shower, cut your hair, get a job, and shut the hell up.

Re:But most of the content is unavailable...

[hackstraw]

Score one for the rest of the free world.

You must not get bombarded by spam and breakin attempts from China. As for me, I have a number of specific firewall rules against whole IP ranges that originate in China because even if one of them is up to good, I could care less because 99% of them are not.

Re:But most of the content is unavailable...

[Locke2005]

So, not only do they have much more bandwidth, they are also not wasting most of their bandwidth on porn! Which of course brings up the question... what do they need all that bandwidth for?

How can you trust any country that has a population of 1.2 billion and still claims that their favorite indoor sport is ping-pong?

Re:chinese democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish the U.S. had this option! erhm.

Re:Dialup

[red5]

I had to help my sister figure out some computer related things at work this morning. They had AOL dial-up internet. I didn't even know they made that anymore.

It's worthless....

[Palal]

...because they are being blocked from having access to many websites. And we aren't! HA. Ha. ha.

Re:It's worthless....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be interesting if the internet in the United States were being filtered without us even realizing it?

Re:It's worthless....

[NineNine]

That's true. On my server, I block entire subnets that allow spamming. I know that I have several class A's, and lots of Class B's, and the majority are based in china. And, it's not websites... it's all IP traffic. They're essentially a rogue state on Net. If anything, I think that we'll soon see a Net for China, and a Net for everybody else.

Re:It's worthless....

[SeventyBang]

Most spam still originates from within the US. And I'm not talking about people who are in the US, sign on to hardware in China, then send crap back here.

There are enough US ISPs willing to accept easy money from spammers and have no intention of cutting the cable until|unless they lose money as a result of maintaining that connection.

Congruity

[PktLoss]

Doesn't the article title contridict what the summary says.

Could the title be 'China soon to topple US...'?

Re:Congruity

[PktLoss]

Now either 'to' was added to the title, or I need to get some more sleep.

Great firewall

[mrogers]

Now they can fail to find information about democracy, Falun Gong, Christianity or encryption software at blazing 2 megabit speeds! Hooray for broadband!

Re:Newsflash!

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Except "Lesser amount of people" we've got the most least amount of people.

Further Developments

[Capella or Bust]

In other news, reports indicate that the China has far surpassed the US in terms of the number of households that contain "lungs." These "lungs" are being used by the Chinese to breathe "air," and it is widely fear that the Chinese may very well breath more "air" than any other civilized nation on earth, followed closely by India.

Re:Further Developments

[galdur]

Hmm. That must mean those produce more CO2, then.

What a relief the Kyoto protocol doesn't address *that*...

Yes, but who'd got MORE access?

[joetheappleguy]

A big chunk of the Internet is denied to people behind the Great Firewall of China.

Good or bad our 54 million broadband subscribers get the WHOLE Internet, even the crazy North Korean bits

Now when is China going to beat that?

Re:Yes, but who'd got MORE access?

[jameszhou2000]

not a big chunk. i think the number of blocked web sites is less than one hundred.

Re:Yes, but who'd got MORE access?

[vertinox]

Oh, that's ok. Most of the internet sucks anyways.

As long as you can get to /., SomethingAwful, Penny Arcade, Wikipedia, LiveJournal, and maybe Gamespy then you'll be ok... Oh wait...

Of course...

[carambola5]

Of course for China, that's 2.9% while for the US, it's 13.5%.

Check for yourself: http://www.census.gov/ipc/prod/wp02/tabA-04.pdf

Hooray for manipulating statistics!

Re:Mmmmm....

[mrogers]

Nah, I hear they have a great firewall.

What good is broadband if it's censored?

[Anonymous Coward]

What good is broadband if you can only access government-approved content? It's well known that the Chinese government censors its citizens' Internet Web site usage: try this or this or this or this...and that's just for starters. (Try Googling "Internet censorship in China.")

Imagine if we all had personal Gigabit connections directly to the Internet backbone but...the RIAA controlled what sites you could visit. Alternatively, consider this: imagine having that personal Gigabit connection, but you have to subscribe to AOL (with all its...quirks). You can't use any other content provider.

Basically, what China has is a monopoly on information. What good is broadband if you can't even choose what you want to look at?

Re:What good is broadband if it's censored?

[lxw56]

What good is broadband if you can't even choose what you want to look at?

It speeds up Freenet

Re:What good is broadband if it's censored?

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

It lets them pump more spam out of the three or four IP addresses they have left that aren't in blocklists.

Re:What good is broadband if it's censored?

[dedeman]

I would imagine that there is at least a small element of internal "organizations" operating underground, in some capacity. It may give those attempting to subvert governmental information filtration a greater ability to do so, or at least a faster way to do so.
Of course, I don't know many particulars of the technologies limiting access and their thresholds/backdoors. I would think that if there are going to be active monitors, as the population needing monitoring increases, so to would the number of monitors, and inside the monitoring group would be at least a small percentage of those believing that information should be more accessible then it currently is.

Re:What good is broadband if it's censored?

[liangzai]

Broadband is good because virtually nothing is blocked the way you believe it is blocked. I sit here in Shanghai, read my daily /., download all the porn I could ever want, read articles on Tibet, human rights, etc., and it all go through. There's no fucking difference from surfing in the West.

If I one day would come across something that is blocked, I would of course go to virtualbrowser.com or use a proxy from proxy4free.com, both of which are totally unblocked in China (as is 99.9999% of the web, including Slashdot, goatse porn, news and protest sites about Tibet -- I could mail you screen shots if you don't believe me).

People continue to believe in this myth that the Chinese are blocked from surfing the web. There IS blocking of web sites, but it is so limited that it has no effect whatsoever. If a site doesn't work, just google up another similar site or a mirror. Or use a proxy.

There is no way you could effectively block content on such a thing as tah Intarweb... the whole thing seems to be a domestic political farse to make it look like the authorities are doing something to curb the Western influence.

I am pleased with the service from China Telecom. They give me broadband for 80 yuan per month, including a perfectly working Huawei modem. I have no complaints.

Even Canada is higher..

[Quickfry]

Canada is higher than the US, per capita (which is what counts) I mean hell, our country is made up of lots of ice, mountains, and trees, and even our eskimos have a fat pipe!

Re:Even Canada is higher..

[Wicked187]

...even our eskimos have a fat pipe!

I am not sure that is what they are speaking of.

Re:Even Canada is higher..

[Quickfry]

Ah. You have obviously heard about Canadians and their 'fat pipes' It's all true.

Re:Even Canada is higher..

[THotze]

Its funny you'd make that point... like China, Canada is a really big nation with a very densely populated area and an area that's not at all densely populated, although the difference between the two regions is obviously greater.

Its easy to wire major metropolitan areas in Canada for broadband, they're relatively large and not too spaced out. the region from Québec City, through Montréal, Ottawa and heading to Toronto is the population equivalent of the US's northeast, the centre for industry and most of the population. whereas the Northeastern US is really just a fraction of the population, this part of central Canada could easily encompass 1/2 the Canadian population... throw in Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver, and youv'e got the vast majority of the Canadian population living in major urban centres that are ideal for broadband.

Compare to the US where you have entire regions where you have smaller cities (like say, North Dakota heading south to Oklahoma City, maybe even Texas), making it harder to get broadband access to people who live there.

The Canadian population is slightly (ever so slightly) more urbanized than the US population, facilitating broadband access.

Tim

Re:Even Canada is higher..

[gnuman99]

Bullshit squared! I can move in the middle of nowhere, to a town with 1000 people, 300km for anything you can call a city (actually, 3 cities in this province - rest you can call towns as < 20,000). I can get 5.0MBps DSL. Some places are really remote so you can only get 1.5MBps. If you live 300km from nowhere (ie. no phone, no power, etc.), then you can still get Internet over satellite.

Broadband is everywhere in Canada. In urban and a lot of rural areas (ie. small towns). Governments invested here a lot of money to provide broadband to everyone. If you can get phone service, there is a good chance you can get DSL.

BTW: North Dakota has a higher population than the province I'm talking about. Also, ND is quite small in comparison.

Re:Even Canada is higher..

[gobbo]

Broadband is everywhere in Canada.

Yes, well, I'm about to move to a rural place that is within eyeshot of Vancouver, yet v.90 is still the best bet, unless you're living on one of the hills that gets good wireless. No DSL yet, despite petitioning for years. About 30 households in the community get cable access, no more cable will be run. So no, broadband is not everywhere, sadly for me.

Re:Even Canada is higher..

[sabernet]

I live in rural Nova-Scotia and have a cable internet connection. The majority of rural Canada does. It's due to a gov't plan called the Canadian Broadband Initiative where the gov't pays benefits to telco's and cable companies for expanding their broadband areas.

Re:Even Canada is higher..

[Quickfry]

You -must- be talking about New Brunswick.

Re:Even Canada is higher..

[updatelee]

Clearwater, BC, Canada has a population of 5000 and theyve got ADSL ... Thats about as small as they get. and they got it.

Re:Dialup

[LibertarianWackJob]

Me Too!!! :-)

DOH!
Never mind.

Could we proof-read the cut'n'paste blurbs, pls?

[rco3]

The summary says,

"...according to the El Segundo, Calif.-based firm..."

Er... according to WHICH El Segundo, Calif.-based firm? There must be more than one firm in El Segundo, Calif. Or is this the teaser that's supposed to entice me to read the fine article?

Too bad

[Phil06]

too bad they don't have a constitution protecting their right to use it to it's full potential

Re:Too bad

[travellerjohn]

Whereas the USA has a constitution that protects the use of all media to its full potential

...unless of course you want to show a breast on prime time TV

...or maybe teach Evolution in high school

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Dishnet aims for India-wide WiFi coverage in 2 yrs

[anandpur]

Other news by 2007 every Indian can be Subscribers of Broadband

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=tech nologyNews&storyID=8386370

Re:chinese democracy

[TummyX]

WTF? How was that racist?

If anything, YOU ARE BEING RACIST for thinking implying that democracy is incompatible with the Chinese way of thinking.

The US still beats China in the # of total users

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the number in China has changed dramatically, the US has many more Internet users. Check the top 100 countries by number of Internet users

Re:Newsflash!

[SeventyBang]

Right.

What about the average family size?

How many kids are Chinese couples permitted to have?

Any Catholic and Mormon Chinese couples have got to be twisting in the wind over what to do with family planning.

Re:chinese democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they would trade their broadband for US' democracy.

Is that the same democracy that has a US president and Congress making laws that apply to single individuals?

Is that the same democracy that holds people indefinitely without charge and without representation in cuba?

Is that the same democracy that give governments the right to spy on you without court orders and without your knowledge?

Is that the same democracy that executes juvenile offenders and the mentally impaired?

Is that the same democracy that has Congress enacting laws which give ridiculous amounts of power to big corporations. (e.g. DMCA, copyright extensions, Broadcast flag )

Hmmm,
Keep your democracy. The rest of the world is better off without it.

Is there a Free Software community in China?

[LionKimbro]

I frequently wonder: "What are the Chinese doing with their broadband? Are they writing Free Software with it?"

I look at the Planet Gnome map, and I see like: 4 GNOME developers in China.

Is there a Free Software community in China?

Are they working on stuff we don't know about?

I'm having visions of like: One day, we discover there's a third pillar, in addition to just KDE and GNOME. And we didn't even know about it, because everything was worked on in Chinese, which we never searched for.

Re:Is there a Free Software community in China?

[tcpli]

Your speculation makes very much sense, for most western people cannot read Chinese. [The percentage of Chinese who can read English could be much higher than that of Western countries including US]

Re:Is there a Free Software community in China?

[Wizarth]

That's a very interesting idea. I realise that a lot of people are very English orientated (I know I am!) and it would be very humbling to find out that our believed superiority was merely because we didn't look in the right places.

Re:Is there a Free Software community in China?

[guardiangod]

Short answer: no

long answer: no, we like to rip off other people's programs.

Case in point: Western people developed a few forum scripts (vBulletin, phpBB, Invision, YaBB, etc.)- you rarely see forum that uses scripts other than the ones above.
If you look at the chinese forum community, however, you will go OMFG how many forum softwares are there?!!! It seems that each forum has its own script (with its own name) that incidentally looks a lot like their western counterparts.

Of course thse scripts are rip-off :) , but this is the whole point: we, as Asin, likes to rip off others, modify it a bit, and put in our own name.

I am not very fond of this practice mind you.

Re:Is there a Free Software community in China?

[guardiangod]

It would be a good thing if they release the code along with the product- but sadly, they don't.
This doesn't really apply to forum scripts (as they are in code form anyway), but what the heck- you would never see the "creator" release the code to everyone, just the ones that bought the program.

Re:chinese democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the same democracy...

Yes, it is, and it is still superior to the complete lack of democracy that China has.

Oh snap. I just fucking smoked your comment out of the water. Time for my victor lap.

Population

[Corpus_Callosum]

China's middle class is quickly rising and is currently approximately twice the entire U.S. population (a bit more than 600 million middle class people in China).

Think about that for a moment...

Re:Population

[grumpygrodyguy]

China's middle class is quickly rising and is currently approximately twice the entire U.S. population

Yep, and our middle-class is on the floor after getting it's nuts kicked repeatedly over the last 5 years.

Re:Population

[grumpygrodyguy]

that is nice coming from a non US citizen who called us the US of Asshole's in a previous post.

Actually, I _am_ a US citizen living in Atlanta, GA. Born and raised US, white, middle-class, etc. And I meant what I said in that post.

Re:Population

[northcat]

Dude, don't use people's comment-histories in arguments, it's pathetic. And retarded. It makes you look like a 5 year old kid.

Re:Population

[grumpygrodyguy]

Glad you admit you're an asshole even by your own publicly claimed and held standards. Brilliant.

Isn't it strange how most people who find it necessary to paint with a large brush and do gross generalizations are really the ones who are truly what-they-are-trying-to-describe?

Actually, admitting that I'm part of the problem tells you that I'm at least honest with myself. Something that is required before an individual can consider changing his/her behavior. Most americans are totally unaware how badly their behavior, thinking, and voting practices effect everone else, including other americans.

And thats a fair comparison how?

[powerlinekid]

34 million subscribers, compared to 39 million in the United States. By the end of 2007, China is expected to have 57 million broadband subscribers, compared to 54 million in the United States, with an even wider lead in the years to follow."


39 million... out of 300 million total people.
34 million... out of 6 billion total people.

So 1/9 verse 1/20th of the overall population... hardly seems so bad now. I will say the US is slipping, but that has more to do with our geography and population spread than anything else.

Re:And thats a fair comparison how?

[mithras the prophet]

It's ``fair" because raw numbers matter. Which is the same reason the U.S. is a very important market, as opposed to say, Iceland. If you want to make a bunch of money selling services to broadband subscribers, who cares what the overall population is, if there's a bigger market in absolute terms?

China's rate of overall subscriber growth

[migs]

China's rate of growth for all Internet users is probably a whole lot higher than the US. The US market is already saturated, while China is just getting started. Check the chart for total number of Internet users (CIA data)

Chinese economic growth

[NickHydroxide]

I believe some people are missing the point, and aren't looking at the underlying issue. The relative disparity between economic growth, 'market' (I use the term loosely) functionality and political stability over the past 50 years has meant that while the US has enjoyed sustained and profitable economic growth, China has only turned around a number of its economic policies in the last decade or so; it is thus only recently beginning to develop technologically.

The essence of a comparison is that while the US has proved a hegemonic economic superpower for half a century, a late starter such as China (with a small GDP per capita nowadays, compared to the US, and one which was even smaller 10 years ago) is still able to outstrip the number of broadband connections (clearly indicia of technological advancement and economic modernity).

In one sense, people here are decrying this report as comparing apples and oranges (gross number of connections as opposed to percentages), while simultaneously expounding a similar methodology (comparing countries with gross disparities between GDP and economic histories).

Just something to keep in mind.

Re:Chinese economic growth

[Xarius]

If you were to go on percentages instead of a headcount, you'd find the US isn't in the top 3, maybe even top 5, or worldwide broadband usage figures...

Re:chinese democracy

[updog]

I bet most people wouldn't. Everyone I've met while in China is generally content, they're much better off than a generation ago. Prosperity abounds and the future looks bright - they are generally happy with their government, and probably wouldn't want to screw things up.

I'm personally a huge fan of democracy, but don't assume that everyone else in the world agrees with us, and certainly don't be lead to believe they want democracy forced upon them.

Re:chinese democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is, and it is still superior to the complete lack of democracy that China has.

China has come a long way toward democracy lately. You sure can't compare them to North Korea. Moving to quickly can create instabilities. So as long as they are going in the right direction this is a good thing.

As far as the US being superior to China, that is somewhat debatable because it has its own problems in the form of powerful oligarchies which run big business and government.

The US is not a democracy. If it was then it would be 'one person/one vote' NOT 'one dollar/one vote' as it currently tends to be.

Most of Europe and Canada offer much better models for democracy then the US.

Oh snap. I just fucking smoked your comment out of the water. Time for my victor lap.

Only in your mind

Just another symptom.

[stealth.c]

Within a decade, China's going to be "it." Not the USA. I know it's blasphemy to most Americans to say so, but it's a plain and simple fact.

At least when that happens, maybe we can get our manufacturing jobs back. Maybe we won't have to live in this stagnant consumer culture and it'll be fashionable to NOT be up to your earlobes in debt. Maybe sunshine will burst out of our asses.

I, for one, welcome our new Sino-Overlords.

Re:Just another symptom.

[Shamashmuddamiq]

It's not blasphemy, it's just common sense. If China has 4 times the population of the US, then it should be 4 times as productive as the US. The real question is, why has it taken this long for these countries to "catch up" to their potential? From an economic point of view, it's inexcusable. Think of the cancer treatments we would have, the incredibly stable world economy, the competition that would drive product costs down and job satisfaction up...We should have had all this hundreds of years ago.

What's most annoying, however, is when I hear an insecure Anti-American say something like, "America is going down! The American age is over." Not really. What's really happening is that the USA is finally taking its rightful place among the economic powers of the world.

Re:Just another symptom.

[Lu Xun]

I, for one, welcome our new Sino-Overlords.

That is, of course, until their tanks interrupt your shopping trip.

Re:Just another symptom.

[xenocide2]

When (if) China becomes a economic supercenter, it won't be at the direct expense of the American lifestyle. Economics isn't a zero sum game, after all.

Re:Just another symptom.

[killjoe]

" When (if) China becomes a economic supercenter, it won't be at the direct expense of the American lifestyle. Economics isn't a zero sum game, after all."

No it will be at the expense of natural resources. The economy IS a zero sum game but not the way most people think. Economic advancement comes at the cost of natural resources. Since there is not an infinate amount of natural resources the economy is a zero sum game.

Actually the only way for the economy not be a zero sum game would be for there to be an infinate amount of something in the universe. We all know that even the number of atoms in the universe is finite so the economy HAS to be a zero sum game.

Re:Just another symptom.

[Pros_n_Cons]

I know its "in" to hate the USA (certainly on this site) but this story shows the desperation of people to show how the "USA is losing it" and this is the best they can come up with? That is testement to just how darned strong the USA still is. While the rest of the world is trying so hard to show up the americans, the US is busy working on the next technology that will leave half of the world in the dust. Cars were suppose to be the end of the US, but little did they know about this TCP/computers thingy being worked on. Now the rest of the world fights over broadband while we're up on mars studying the water we just found. Think about it.

Re:Just another symptom.

[jimi the hippie]

"If China has 4 times the population of the US, then it should be 4 times as productive as the US. The real question is, why has it taken this long for these countries to "catch up" to their potential? From an economic point of view, it's inexcusable."

It's common sense. Their economic system (marxism merging into a psuedo-communism) has prevented the growth. No system which refuses to reward individual achievement is ever going to reach high levels of achievement.

Re:Just another symptom.

[Anonymous Coward]

the US is busy working on the next technology that will leave half of the world in the dust.

That wouldn't surprise me at all.

Re:Just another symptom.

[rodgerd]

Let me know how that works out with oil supplies, and steel, and all those natural resources in this thing called the "real world" that seems to present such a challenge to so many economists (or those who follow them around, shitting out poorly-understood aphorisms).

Re:Just another symptom.

[Eminence]

• Within a decade, China's going to be "it." Not the USA. I know it's blasphemy to most Americans to say so, but it's a plain and simple fact.

Nope. For one simple yet profound reason. You can't become Chinese. I can't become Chinese. But there are Americans who were born in China.

Got it?

Re:Just another symptom.

[FidelCatsro]

To me it actualy dosn't show any patriotic or anti-patriotic, anti or pro US sentiment.
To it basicaly says that china is pulling up its society now more than ever to adapt to the 21st centuary and the technoligy there of.
you forget the GPD per head in china is a hell of alot lower than the USA so this is a rather large thing in that sense .

If people wanted to show that the US is perhaps on a decline to a more resonible position(avoiding the flame terminoligy), they would most likely speak of the economy, the state of the dollar and national debt.

As for technoligy id say the US has its fair share(even after the current administration cuts) of great tech on the way , so has the rest of the world so i dont think anyone is getting left on the dust.

I dont hate the USA , I do hate some of the work of the current US administration.
But hate for a gouvernment and hate for the land and its people are two very very diffrent things .Hell I hate my own gouvernment aswell ;)

You will be on mars whilst we are off doing massive stem cell research and furthering genetic therapys and other things crippled by the bush administration.

You see the world is more and more inter dependant on the varying nation states.
You develop one area of tech whilst we go for another ,this is how it should work and it will work well .Pro-american(As in "We are so far superior to the rest of the world") or anti-american sentiment is not helping any of us.
The sooner you realise we all rely on each other the better.

Together we stand divided we waste alot of money by not sharing research.

Re:Just another symptom.

[glesga_kiss]

I know its "in" to hate the USA (certainly on this site)

Sigh...it's not "in", it's a direct response to recent behaviour. I used to love the USA, I've been over many times for both business and pleasure. Not anymore though...

shows the desperation of people to show how the "USA is losing it" and this is the best they can come up with?

OK, how about:

• Your government is openly corrupt, with bribes a key part of the election process
• The rest of the world no longer sees the US as the pinacle of democracy
• The rest of the world no longer sees the US as the pinacle of freedom
• Your economy is in the crapper
• Your exchange rate is in the crapper
• Tourism is way down
• Exports are fucked up
• One in three people live below the poverty line
• You invaded a resourse laiden country over a lie, and the rest of us saw through the WMD lies way back at the start

This is what we mean when it is said that the US is losing it. We've all grown up on the Hollywood vision of America, where truth and justice were core. Perhaps as a citizen, you still see things that way, but as a (terrified) obvserver, we don't. Your leadership openly misleads you to justify a war that had no other aim than the economic and strategic betterment of those who were behind it.

The US is in the terminal stages of empire. You are spread to thin, yet still your leaders are commiting resources to combat communism in the former USSR. It's all like a big game of Risk, but the problem is that your country simply cannot keep up. The leadership know this but frankly don't care, so long as the fall doesn't happen during their term. There is a really interesting article on this subject here

I want the old US back.This new one scares me; with things going from bad to worse, I can only see the US acting like a cornered animal, lashing out at others.

Re:Just another symptom.

[jpop32]

What's really happening is that the USA is finally taking its rightful place among the economic powers of the world.

Yeah. But, I believe that the idea od the US as a 3rd or 4th economic power in the world is going to be a hard sell for the american people.

But, then again, americans also seem to think that they are the biggest, oldest and the most advanced democracy in the world. ;-)

Re:Just another symptom.

[jpop32]

You can't become Chinese. I can't become Chinese. But there are Americans who were born in China.

What? I can't become an American. Millions of illegal emigrants in the US can't either. Vigilante groups watch the Mexico border making sure none of the Mexicans enter. US coast guard turns back Cubans on rafts trying to come to the US.

You seem to have missed it, but the days of 'Give us your poor...' are long gone. Now it's 'You can visit, but you cannot stay'. And even that only if you don't object to fingerprinting and background checks. And you don't come from a wrong part of the world, or have the wrong kind of skin.

Got it?

Nope.

Re:Just another symptom.

[skubeedooo]

What you say is correct only if you define the economy in terms of the total energy in the universe. I think you're probably on your own with that one. There are lots of different ways of measuring the wealth of people, as there are many ways of measuring the quality of peoples life. Unsurprisingly, none of them involve the total energy of the universe, basically because it would be both trivial (since it's conserved) and irrelevant (people don't give a shit). So to say that the economy is a zero sum game because there is conservation of energy is just plain ridiculous. Sorry.

As an aside, it is statements like yours, often involving bad definitions and attention to irrelevant details which makes the general population very wary of science.

Re:Just another symptom.

[iwadasn]

You've clearly never worked on a large project. With any large project, 90% of the work is done in 10% of the time, that other 10% of the work takes 90% of the time.

It's easy to go from nothing to something, and I applaud the Chinese for that. It is much harder to go from something to everything, just look at Japan. China suffers far more from crony capitalism than Japan does, so they have a much greater mess to clean up. Also, as soon as they are no longer the cheapest source of labor in the world, they'll find that businesses aren't flocking in quite as fast, then what do they do? What happens when walmart starts laying them off? And yes, I have actually been to china, large swaths of it at least, so I kindof know what I'm talking about.

It won't be an endless sea of poverty forever, that is good. Go back and watch rising sun, and see what the movie thinks japan will be like compared to what it is, the same thing will happen with China.

Re:Just another symptom.

[_am99_]

I don't know how you can claim that China is not gaining on the U.S., which would have to logically imply, even outside a zero sum game, that the "USA is losing it".

Look at 2 numbers:
1) the increasing trade deficit
2) the increasing federal deficit

Re:Just another symptom.

[bechthros]

"I want the old US back."

Speaking as an American citizen, me too.

"This new one scares me"

Scares YOU? I'm the one the black helicopters will be swooping down on when free expression is finally equated to terrorism (don't worry, it won't be long).

Re:Just another symptom.

[Pros_n_Cons]

I'd love to go point by point on your bulletpoints but I have to get to work so I'll address the 'theme' you're making things seem worse than they are but for what reason? Why are you trying to make the US seem like its on its death bed sick and can hardly move? Is this what the BBC is saying these days? our freedom is gone, our democracy, our economy are all dead? I can tell you things are not as bad as you want them to be.

Re:Just another symptom.

[mikapc]

I see China overtaking us in the manufacturing area but that doesn't mean we will lose our technological edge.

Re:Just another symptom.

[killjoe]

Economy takes energy. Even for purely intellectual forms of commerce there is a heavy natural resources component. If you are going to attempt to argue something try aguing against this statement and let's see where it gets you.

"All forms of eceonomic activity use natural resources in an unsustainable manner". That's right ALL of them. Even if you are a lawyer or an accountant who produces no real goods you eat, you need clothing, you drive, you shit, you need to be kept warm and cooled down. All of that requires natural resouces which you are consuming at a rate faster then they can regenerate.

If you want to assert that the economy is not a zero sum game prove my sentence wrong.

Re:Just another symptom.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

The new one is just the old one, it can't bother in "keeping up appearances" anymore.

Kennedy assasinations should have been a big tip-off about what was under the mask.

Re:Just another symptom.

[bluGill]

Bribes? Prove they are any worse than other governments. For that matter prove they really exist.

How the rest of the world sees the US has no bearing on any facts. The facts are hard to see without a lot of history to look at, something we won't have for a few hundred years. (and that assumes the history is recorded correctly)

Have you ever heard of economic cycles? They happen to everyone. The US has already hit the low point in the latest cycle, and is raising back up. Happens all the time. It has always been popular to think that the current position in the cycle will hold on forever, but the facts have never bore that out.

It is n surprise the currency is also down because of the cycle. Exchange rates are tied to economy. This is a good thing, it means when you have a bad day relative to others, the others can buy more of your stuff for the same amount of money, which means they are more likely to buy from you, which will lift you back up. Once you are up and booming your currency raises, and people look for goods elsewhere, helping someone else.

Tourism is in part a reflection of economy. Even so, tourism is just one use of spare money and time, if people suddenly decide to take up gardening in their spare time, that would hurt tourism. You have stated a fact, as if it was bad, but there is no reason to assume it is.

The "poverty line" is defined by politicians for their advantage. People below the poverty line in the US normally make several times the average person in the world. I know people who are below the "poverty line", and their life is just fine. They don't have all the luxuries that politicians think you need to live but that doesn't mean their life is bad.

WMD were just one of the reasons for the war. It was big, and it didn't pan out, so you pick on it. You ignore the other reasons completely, and some of them are still valid.

Re:Just another symptom.

[skubeedooo]

I think you are missing the point of what zero-sum means. You seem to be suggesting that you think it means that every good thing you do has at least some bad consequence to it. E.g. if you build solar panels then although you get nearly free electricity you have to use up other natural resources to create the panels. But that's not what zero-sum is about, it's about actually measuring these things, putting a value on them and adding them up.

It is crucially important what values you put on things. If you use energy, then you will find that as time progresses the sum remains the same, it is zero-sum. If you measure money in bank accounts then (assuming neither the banks nor the government insert more into the system) that also remains the same as time progresses, it too is a conserved quantity.

To return to your sentence, it claims that for every economic activity that we may assign a value to, it will have caused a depletion in 'natural resources'. More or less, I agree with that, however I disagree that the value is always equal and opposite. I hope you see by now that your sentence does not actually show that anything is zero-sum at all. The statement 'zero-sum' should imply that you are talking about measurable consequences.

Or maybe you do think there is some non-trivial and relevant measure to do with economic activity that is actually zero-sum, always. If so, then I would like to hear it.

Re:Just another symptom.

[killjoe]

You are missing the point entirely. The argument was that the economy is not a zero sum process because if china got richer it would not have to be at the expense of US. In other words it's possible for all nations to get richer without bounds and not cause economic harm to other nations. I have also seen similar arguments about individual wealth as if it was theoretically possible for every person to be a billionaire.

So you can bet your ass that if china gets richer it will impact the US and most other nations too. We are all dependent on the same pool of natural resources whether they be oil, trees, water or air.

Re:Just another symptom.

[skubeedooo]

In other words it's possible for all nations to get richer without bounds and not cause economic harm to other nations.

Of course, both of these statements are false. But their falsehood does NOT mean that it is zero-sum. Just because a number is not +infinity, it doesn't make it 0.

I have also seen similar arguments about individual wealth as if it was theoretically possible for every person to be a billionaire.

And most people in the developed world are billionaires in comparison to the people living a couple of hundred years ago. And this is due to economic and technological reasons. Even if you disagree with this, it doesn't mean it has anything to do with the initial argument. Just because you've had to witness an idiot arguing about wealth, it doesn't mean that every argument in the future will be with an idiot.

Re:Just another symptom.

[skubeedooo]

The argument was that the economy is not a zero sum process because if china got richer it would not have to be at the expense of US.

Yes, that was the original posters argument. Your argument on the other hand was about economic activity + natural resources being zero sum...which it isn't. I agree that the rise of china will most likely create a huge drain on natural resources. But that is merely a necessary condition for it being zero-sum, not a sufficient one.

Re:Just another symptom.

[glesga_kiss]

"as bad as you want them to be"

Who said anything about "want"? Certainly wasn't me, as you would see if you read the "tone" of my post.

The founding father's of the USA believed that dissent was key to democracy, now you are "unpatriotic" or "with the terrorists" if you sway from the party line.

Your economy speaks for itself, and if you argue that you clearly don't know anything about economics and I'll just ignore you. I only have modest investments in the US, but even I have lost thousands.

Democracy, well where to begin? OK, every US election for the past thirty years was won by the one that spent the most money. you have a two party system with little difference between them. Voters are encouraged to vote based on their religion, and if you believe that is democracy then I pity you.

but for what reason? Why are you trying to make the US seem like its on its death bed sick and can hardly move?

I?m not. What I am trying to do is improve things by raising awareness. Americans are blinkered to the views of others, it's almost a deliberate endeavor. By pointing out problems, I hope to try and get through to at least some people in a positive way.

The biggest problem is that most people, like yourself, seem to take it personally. It's not your fault that this has happened, but it is your responsibility to sort it out. Personally, I'd prefer if this took place before world war three. You have a man in the Whitehouse that not only believes in Revelations (and his Rapture, saving his own ass), AND HAS THE POWER TO BRING IT ABOUT.

We all have to live on this planet together, and we'd all appreciate if you could try and take care of your little part of it. Otherwise, I fear that you may all "take care" of us sometime.

Re:Just another symptom.

[killjoe]

"Yes, that was the original posters argument. Your argument on the other hand was about economic activity + natural resources being zero sum...which it isn't."

If you don't think it is then perhaps you should make an argument as why or how.

The earth is a closed system and so is the universe. In order for the economy NOT to be a zero sum game there would have to be an infinate source of money someplace where it would come into this universe and make everybody billionaires.

"But that is merely a necessary condition for it being zero-sum, not a sufficient one."

Again how and why?

Re:Just another symptom.

[xenocide2]

Generally, the economic argument is that as the supply dwindles, new technology will reduce consumption, promote substitutes and improve extraction. This means we'll need less per unit, get more out of the ground than we currently estimate and reduce dependence on a particular good. It's not like alternatives don't exists; they just can't compete on price. It's not a bad theory, overall. It's just that they neglect to tell you that this will likely happen in lumps rather than a smooth transition. Like the Oil Embargo, which crushed American manufacturers, who were slow to respond to the drastic pricing increase (adjusted for inflation, the price of gas was close to 4.50 at the worst of it).

Certainly, there are some strange theories out there. The discussions this spawned are very relevant to your argument, and I think you should consider it carefully. And just to spoil thing for ya, the economist won handily. Even without adjusting for inflation, the price of raw commodities fell.

Re:Just another symptom.

[glesga_kiss]

Bribes? Prove they are any worse than other governments. For that matter prove they really exist.

Anyone can make a donation to a political party under guise of a "campaign contribution", which is generally done by businesses. People who expect Return on Investment. My country is no better.

The facts are hard to see without a lot of history to look at, something we won't have for a few hundred years. (and that assumes the history is recorded correctly)

What is "recorded" in most peoples minds about the US is Hollywood, which makes the US out to be a global saviour. What history you have that is real, especially the last 50 years is quite the opposite, but due to the sugar coating, the vast majority of the people are completely unaware of it. This is a dangerous state of affairs, evident in the fact that you believe the war in Iraq is valid.

The US is nothing special in regard to this self-censorship, most countries do this. It just you guys seem to have taken it a little too far now.

Have you ever heard of economic cycles? They happen to everyone. [snip] . Exchange rates are tied to economy. This is a good thing, it means when you have a bad day relative to others, the others can buy more of your stuff

Yes, and I know. However, the US isn't all that big on manufacture anymore, and the internet just evened the field for many other industries. You'll have to drop a long way before you can challenge countries where $1 per hour is a great wage. IP and other legislation is making it less and less easy to develop new products. You really see it picking up? If you do, please say because I'm considering bailing on my investments. ;-) Seriously, you obviously are closer to the issues than I am, so if you genuinely believe it's just a dip, I'd quite like to be convinced!

Tourism is huge for America. Fingerprinting visitors and treating them like criminals is not the way to encourage tourism. Neither is the bad PR that Iraq caused. Remember, post 9/11, everyone was your ally. To fuck that up is truly impressive. Making enemies and killing middle-eastern folks is what led to 9/11, I could not imagine a response to make (Iraq) that could be any more wrong!! Grossly stupid call. Unless your leaders want more terror that is, it seems to be working for them...

WMD were just one of the reasons for the war. It was big, and it didn't pan out, so you pick on it. You ignore the other reasons completely, and some of them are still valid.

Bullshit. There isn't a single reason that could not be applied to several other countries, in fact you could pin the lot on a couple of them. Only one has the second largest oil reserves on the planet. You know some economics, I presume you know of Peak Oil?

Or you could look at it this way. This isn't a big conspiracy or anything, the Project for a New American Century is all open. Iraq was in planning prior to 9/11, and this has been covered in the media. The current administration used, no ABUSED, the tragedy of 9/11 to firstly implant a casual link in the publics mind between Saddam and the terrorists involved. You can watch any speach made during the period to see this. The war was entirely propaganda from the start, even the now infamous toppling of the statue was fake.

Had I lost family on that day in 2001, I would be extremely pissed of about this. Not only have they taken a shit on ground zero and wiped their ass with the US flag, but the have incited the very hatred that is the problem in the first place. And to spin this hatred into "they hate freedom" is completely disgracefull, but it's entirely predictable. They might has well have added "they eat babies" if you are going down that tried and tested route of making war.

Re:Just another symptom.

[bluGill]

here isn't a single reason that could not be applied to several other countries, in fact you could pin the lot on a couple of them.

One exception: Iraq once attacked a US ally. Then they failed to abide by the peace agreement after we kicked them out.

The world needs a lot of cleaning. We started with Iraq, and may never get around to others.

Re:Just another symptom.

[skubeedooo]

If you don't think it is then perhaps you should make an argument as why or how.

Simple. Suppose there are two families in the world. One family is very good at making bread (including growing the wheat and other ingredients) and the other is very good at building houses (built from the locally growing trees). If left on their own, one family would end up being cold, and the other would end up hungry. Both of them could be considered poor because of this. Not because they don't have money, money doesn't exist to them, but because they don't have access to things that would clearly improve the quality of their lives.

Now, an economist steps in and says to the two families "right, why doesn't family A cook family B food, in return for family B building a house for family A". So they do this, and end up both being slightly better off. The natural resources are left almost the same because the wheat grows every year (due to solar energy), as do the trees. When it comes to a purely economic analysis, both families are better off and so it is not zero sum. If the natural resources are taken into account, some metric is required for measuring the importance of a few trees being cut down (which will grow back) against a famaily having warmth and shelter. Whilst this is somewhat arbitrary and dependent on someone's value judgements, since the enivronmental effect is negligible it would be sensible for the negative effect to be only slightly so. So overall, there is a net positive. Caused by an improved economic system.

It hasn't created any money, but then money is not always the metric that is used in measuring wealth, and would clearly be inappropriate in this case.

Re:Just another symptom.

[killjoe]

"Now, an economist steps in and says to the two families "right, why doesn't family A cook family B food, in return for family B building a house for family A". So they do this, and end up both being slightly better off. The natural resources are left almost the same because the wheat grows every year (due to solar energy), as do the trees."

OK but your premise is messed up. The reality is that the use of trees, soils, water, oil, coal etc are not being used at the rate in which they are being replenished. Trees are only a renewable resource if they are being used at a rate less then or equal to the rate at which they renew.

"Whilst this is somewhat arbitrary and dependent on someone's value judgements, since the enivronmental effect is negligible it would be sensible for the negative effect to be only slightly so. So overall, there is a net positive. Caused by an improved economic system."

Here you have a small point. Humans as a general rule do not value trees, fish, animals etc as much as they value their new car. They are gladly willing to decimate rainforests to eat hamburgers.

Your claim that environmental effects are negligable OTOH is way off. One day when you get a chance take a look at forest coverage 200 years ago vs today. In fact go read the lewis and clark diaries to see how much the US has changed in the last 200 years.

Needless to say the rate of depletion is not going to slow down anytime soon. Just as americans are paying 2.30 for gas because china is buying way more oil then they used to there will be further economic effects of the emergence of the chinese (and indian) consumer class.

There is only so much oil, coal, air, water, and trees to go around. Pretending that it's all being used in a sustainable manner and that the effects of the economy are negligable is foolish at best. As economies of other countries grow there will be increased competition for those precious resources. Right now we are fighting wars for oil soon it will be water.

Re:Just another symptom.

[glesga_kiss]

Iraq and Kuwait? lol, that's another mistruth, you're practically illustrating my points for me! Saddam asked for permission for the US government and was told something along the lines of "we have no opinion on that". He invaded and not much happened for quite some time. Then, the ousted Kuwaiti dictatorship hired a PR firm (a US one IIRC) to persuade congress and the US public to "liberate" Kuwait. Until, this point, Saddam was considered an ally. The PR campaign culminated with the daughter of someone directly involved in US/Kuwait diplomatic relations lying before congress, stating that she witnessed Iraqi soldiers stealing incubators from Kuwaiti hospitals, leaving the babies on the floor to die. It was later proven that she wasn't even in the country at the time. Google for "iraq incubator congress" for info. This oft used tactic (babies) caused public outrage, switching public and congressional opinion in favor of the Kuwaitis. The rest is history.

Not quite the popular knowledge of the war, but that's my point. It was US weapons that rolled into Kuwait. Don't take my word on it, how about this respected source?

Shortly after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the organization Citizens for a Free Kuwait was formed in the US. It hired the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton for about $11 million, money from the Kuwaiti government. This firm went on to manufacture a fake campaign, which described Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and letting them die on the floor. A video news release was widely distributed by US TV networks; false supporting testimony was given before Congress and before the UN Security Council. The fifteen-year-old girl testifying before Congress was later revealed to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States; the supposed surgeon testifying at the UN was in fact a dentist who later admitted to having lied. [MCA] (For more, see Nurse Nayirah.)

And I still maintain that the latest Iraq campaign was entirely counter-productive. Saddam was a bastard, that much is true, but he was never a threat to anyone. Unlike some of the other bastards our leaders seem to enjoy dealing with. Note how co-operative dictators are A-OK, despite their own continued human rights violations. It caused no end of anger, and it will only fuel the fire. Your (and my) country is responsible for the death of 25,000 "non-combatants", and the only reason that number is known is because the Geneva Convention demands it. Their family, friends and orphaned children will be the next generation of terrorists.

If you still believe that you are the just party in this fight, then I suggest you read some history. "the terrorists" are a subset of a bunch of people that we have fucked over hugely over the years. Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if we deserve it.

Re:Just another symptom.

[skubeedooo]

Yes, my premise does not represent OUR economy. But i am not trying to represent OUR economy, I am trying to show that there is no particular reason to think that things should be zero sum.

Maybe they are positive sum, maybe they are negative sum. Perhaps, and it is very very unlikely, they are zero sum. Since it is in general very unlikely for a real life system to be exactly zero sum, the onus is on YOU to substantiate this claim. Not by ranting about cars, hamburgers, Lenovo and china, but by coming up with some actual measurable DATA that supports a zero sum claim.

But i get the impression that you are not in the least bit concerned about actually being factually correct nor about using words and phrases as they are generally understood.

You can go on about how thoughtless and corrupt the general populus is as much as you like, but it doesn't actually stregthen your case about economics one iota. Goodnight.

Re:Just another symptom.

[killjoe]

It's zero sum. Just like matter and energy are the same thing natural resources and tghe economy are the same thing. In fact economy is nothing more then turning natural resources into money.

I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge something obvious and simple as this.

The growth of china will come at the expense of the US and other world economies because we are all fighting over the same limited set of natural resources.

Re:Just another symptom.

[stealth.c]

Sorry, but that's the perception too many Americans have, so that's the way I articulated the idea. Thankfully, most Slashdotters *are* smarter than that. By "it" I partially meant "the superpower holding a bludgeon to the planet." The USA currently is the largest and most influential empire in history. I'm not particularly proud of the kind of influence nor how it got its empire status, but that's the way things are. I was merely pointing out that this situation will not be permanent.

While our country is losing its political potency (Bush parading around Europe, accomplishing nothing, was evidence enough), there has been an "it"ness about the USA in an economic sense because it has been the largest consumer base and the collection area of vast amounts of wealth. When China becomes "it," China will be the global consumer target and perhaps the global power/wealth center. That's all.

Many Americans think their country is so screaming important, when the reality is that we're just another bunch of people on another swatch of land just like everybody else.

Re:Just another symptom.

[skubeedooo]

The reason why they are different is because energy cannot be destroyed, it is always converted into something else. Natural resources, however, CAN be destroyed WITHOUT deriving any economic benefit. Since this is true, it is entirely posibble that our current economic position could be increased without decreasing natural resources by becomming more efficient.

Re:Just another symptom.

[Pros_n_Cons]

The founding father's of the USA believed that dissent was key to democracy, now you are "unpatriotic" or "with the terrorists" if you sway from the party line

Certainly some people feel that way, but some people are morons who think how marketing tells them to.

Your economy speaks for itself, and if you argue that you clearly don't know anything about economics and I'll just ignore you. I only have modest investments in the US, but even I have lost thousands.

It all depends on what your investements are in, that money you lost?... someone else got it. This is the point I wish I had time to address earlier but I can now. saying our economy sucks and if i disagree i have no crediblity but I think something similar for one who thinks the economy is a static thing.
Say we had the best cars 30 years ago or whatever, then Japan took over and we went onto something else. Now Japan hands cars to Korea, and korea handed thier "manufacturing" to China, Just like India gets software, etc. That is the business many people fail to comprehend. You let go of one branch to grab another. The smart people know when to let go and do something else, that is partly why Russia fell. they were not willing to 'share' their technology like the rest of the world does, instead of keeping $100 and giving a smaller country $80 they wanted the $180. Believe it or not America lets that $80 go that is why the world _allows_ us to lead in many things.

Think about this S.Korea spends a year making 1 million cars, we buy from them at cheaper prices we can't compete with right? Thier profit is $100 million Okay now we sell them the rights to show starwars the movie getting a percentage from every ticket sold, and we just made back that 1 million cars worth of profit.
In the future maybe India takes all our IT jobs and we buy 20 billion bucks worth of software from them, but hey, they buy one space shuttle from us and there is our 20 Billion back.. get what i'm trying to say? There is 100 examples like the above two but the end result is always the same.

Right now Europe is trying to build a bull market there like we have here where they feed you alot of confidence things. "were going to have a great future be happy and buy stuff" You're being trained for the arrogance many people so much despise in Americans. Right now many think China is ready to take over. How can they? Nobody will follow someone who has no vision that is why people still listen to Japan, the USA, Europe cause they are the ones with the ideas. China can certainly be strong no doubt about it. But to take over? they've had Armys throughout history that could crush everyone but never did.. why?

Democracy, well where to begin? OK, every US election for the past thirty years was won by the one that spent the most money.

Ross Perot a few elections ago. not that it really matters when you're talking about 250 million each anyway. Its not like bush spent much more. they both broke records in fundrasing/spending so what if Bush had one more commercial at 7 million bucks a pop. The presidency isnt won because one guy could afford another commercial. Bush won because just over half of our country isn't ready to be 'progressive' just yet. after all the talking heads and thinktanks make noise thats what it really comes down to. Europe is there, we are not and may never be.

The biggest problem is that most people, like yourself, seem to take it personally.

Yes, a little. Its hard to not take it personally when everyone is saying your whole country is stupid for voting Bush when his buddy Blair's party just won its 3rd term. You're so busy yelling at us as a reflex you forget to look in the mirror.

We all have to live on this planet together, and we'd all appreciate if you could try and take care of your little part of it.

Agreed thats why countries like Iraq, and N. Korea upset the ballance we've all built. Like mentioned earlier how the economies work,

Re:Just another symptom.

[killjoe]

I'll have to think about whether it's possible to destroy natural resources without deriving economic benefit. I really don't think that's true but I am willing to give it some thought.

On the other hand it's impossible to gain economic benefit without destroying natural resources

The word efficiency is a canard. There is no such thing as efficiency without humans and machines. Both humans and machines consume natural resources faster then they can be regenarated.

Re:Just another symptom.

[xenocide2]

I'm pretty sure the tsunami caused the destruction of natural resources (beaches) without deriving any economic benefit from it. I'm quite impressed by the argument going on here, even if it is just two guys hitting their heads against the walls.

What I sense is an engineer or physisict rationalizing about what is ultimately a human science. The first thing to realize is that by zero sum, I mean that by getting richer and more populus, China isn't hurting us through commodity consumption more than we're gaining in an upwardly mobile consumer market. Second, economic gain pretty much means money (or maybe "purchasing power"). You can question whether that's an appropriate measure, but you'd be venturing dangerously close to the useless pursuit of philosophy.

Your statement about economic benefit being at opposite ends with natural resources is misleading. Most people would agree that sunlight is a reasonably constant and infinite resource. Sure, in a few kajillion years, it will be a dying red sun or whatever, but for a fairly acceptable era, the sun will come out tomorrow. Agriculture is reliant upon sunlight, and nutrients in the soil. If natural resources are finite as you imagine, then some day we'll simply run out of food. Maybe once a critical amount of mass is dedicated to humans, but it's doubtful that this will happen anytime soon, and we'll probably be capable of mining asteroids asteriods by then. But is eating food a destruction of natural resources? Not really. It's just a very complex method of moving energy from sunlight to ATP in our cells. There's plenty of waste product for nature to reclaim in the process. Just like you aren't really "wasting" water by building a golf course in Phoenix. You're really wasting the purification process.

Anyways, China has been growing rapidly lately (10 percent in 2004), which is why its becoming a focus in the news outlets. But that growth should wind up causing more domestic demand and raising prices. What we're seeing is a government regulation of the yuan to keep manufacturing attractive compared to the costs of say, East Timor. This policy is hurting the chinese, whose money is worth less than it should be, and the US, who can't compete with such cheap manufactured goods. The only benefactor of the policy is the Federal Reserve, who's bonds are being bought up ad nausem to keep the dollar from becoming cheaper.

Re:Just another symptom.

[killjoe]

"I'm pretty sure the tsunami caused the destruction of natural resources (beaches) without deriving any economic benefit from it."

It depends on your definition of the word destroy. Beaches erode and created all the time. It's a natural event. A beach is destroyed ony insofar as you can't lay out on it. It doesn't matter all that much to the cretures living in the sea or in the immediate area.

"Most people would agree that sunlight is a reasonably constant and infinite resource"

I agree that for most practical purposes there is an infinate amount of sunlight. That sunlight is enough to sustain life on this planet. It is not enough however to fuel our economy. In order to do that we have to take the end result of millions of years of sunlight and gravity (oil and coal) and start depleting those. So we are spending all that energy that was saved by the earth throughout the last few million years.

As for eating you'd be right if the overall balance was being kept. The problem is that there is no balance. The problem is that food production is causing all kinds of chaos on the planet.

Do I think tommorow everything is going to fall apart? Of course not. Do I think that in a hundred years everything will fall apart? Yes I do. Oddly enough our children will live to see it. What's worse is the wars that will rage over the dwindling supplies of water and oil will make life miserable for them.

Re:Just another symptom.

[Stephen Ma]

Oops, forgot to log in. The above article was mine.

Re:Just another symptom.

[jpop32]

However, there are ways of immigrating to this country legally, and anyone who has a sincere desire to become an American can do it.

Right. And all those people who go to trouble of illegally crossing the border are doing so because...? They can't be bothered to go in legal way? Their desire to go to the US is not sincere?

Dude, wake up.

Re:Just another symptom.

[skubeedooo]

I'll have to think about whether it's possible to destroy natural resources without deriving economic benefit.

How about

• Starting a forest fire
• Poisoning fish
• Salting farmland
• ...

If you really think that any of these constitute an economic benefit EQUAL to all other uses that have the same outcome, then you really must be smoking crack.

You can definitely have increased efficiency without a machine. Taking the above examples, almost any course of action is more efficient than these. In the poisoning fish example, a more efficient method would be to catch a fish and eat it, rather than poisoning them.

The reason i keep giving simplistic examples is because when you make them more complex they very quickly become far too complex to solve. There is absolutely no way of precisely measuring the effects on a global scale without you saying "ahh, but what about...". But what I have done is show that there are systems which are very clearly not zero-sum, and very clearly have different efficiencies. Since you were proposing a universal relationship between resources and economy, that is all I had to do to falsify your claim.

I agree with you that there is no way to derive economic benefit without using natural resources, but I must stress that this in no way implies either your zero-sum relation or that there is no such thing as efficiency. I think you ought to start looking for an alternative world view.

firewall?

[karpediem]

With THAT many people on high speed connections, how does Big Brother intend to censor them from that evil word, *democracy*? I imagine they could use their Great Wall of China as a hardware firewall if push comes to shove!

Re:firewall?

[iamrojo]

Broadband in an envelope is not that great. Biggest network INSIDE the country. Whup te do. No News Here.

Re:firewall?

[doctorjay]

OOO GREAT FIREWALL OF CHINA

Re:chinese democracy

[rsborg]

I bet they would trade their broadband for US' democracy.

Gee, I wonder, is this the democracy that we call a "catastropic success", oh, say that Iraq is having right now? Or maybe you're talking about the our wonderfully successful policy of spreading democracy that doesn't work? I'm sure China would love to get some of that action...

Not just China

[msbsod]

How about a comparison with other regions, such as the European Union? I know, some people prefer to compare the US with countries such as Luxembourg. Anyway, IT Facts reported an estimated 38M homes with broadband access by the end of 2004. They only list the "old" EU countries. Add the new members and you get a better picture.

I do not have the numbers for Japan at hand, but I could imagine that they do like broadband connections, too.

http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P2282

Umm... 6 billion is the world population...

[Quiet_Desperation]

Although your point is taken.

It's like comparing the penetration of broadband in Asian countries where everyone lives in the same three square mile urban singularity with the far more spread out USA.

Slashdot fearfactor...

[NullProg]

Name any five major Chinese cities and you have a greater population than the United States as a whole. In the future, internet access will be 10 to 1 in favor of China. Will it be un-censored? Look up the population of India and see what it's internet access will be once the infrastructure is in place.

Does it mean anything? No. Considering most of our rural population still has multiple choices for dial-up/satellite internet access. Hell, my sister is in Nebraska with no choice of broadband, but she has three dialup providers (I have a choice between Dialup, DSL, Cable and soon Fiber).

Is this supposed to be a topic on bashing the United States or a topic on internet access? Some people have cable access. Some people have fiber. Hopefully, most people on the planet will have internet access one day so they may just see the opinions of others just like me or you.

I know the internet has helped me become a leftwing radical moderate liberal supporting the rightwing faction, who by which I am a member of, supports the vast radical right wing consipracy. In which I've learned that neither group has any common sense.

But I digress,
Enjoy,

Re:chinese democracy

[hoferbr]

No. It's the democracy that did us a favor and won this war. I'm not even american, but I know when to respect a country.

Re:chinese democracy

[qurk]

Look I can go out in the street and distribute pamphlets talking shit on the US government all I want to. As long as I dont go extremist and advocate violence and just talk about the facts, I am completely in my rights to annoy anyone I want to about how I feel about the wrongs in our government. That is completely legal in China? If I was a Chinese citizen I could go out and advocate stuff that the government doesn't like? Sure, I can't smoke pot and if I was gay I wouldn't be able to get married, but by and large you need to do some fact checking before you even think about saying that China is better than the USA for civil rights. Do textbooks in China even bring up Tianneman Square? Also, what is the percentage of babies who are discarded because they are female, compared to in the US. China is a great country, but they have faults too :P

Re:chinese democracy

[amliebsch]

Is that the same democracy that executes juvenile offenders and the mentally impaired?

This is no longer true. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) and Roper v. Simmons, 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005). Please update your canned talking points.

Ooooff

[Kenrod]

Here's a better article, with some statistics:

How exactly do they collect this information? It's not like the Chinese are real forthcoming with reliable info.

BTW, This is just another excuse for slashdot editors to kick the US in the crotch.

Re:Ooooff

[jfiresto]

Yet another marketing release from the same company, iSuppli, masquerading as news. Sigh.

Re:chinese democracy

[wlan0]

You mean that the US has a good democracy? Don't make me laugh.

editors, come ON!

[GeekTek]

Which El Segundo firm? This is 7th grade book report level editing. Come ON.

Re:Breed Geeks, breed!

[Vombatus]

Geeks do your partiotic duty.

Go forth and multiply?

Where did I leave my pocket calculator?

Will be Buried in their own Toxic Waste

[Anonymous Coward]

China is growing only in the cities - the countryside remains primitive without even decent roads. There's little infrastructure.

In the countryside manufacturing is poisoning entire regions (we're talking millions of square miles here) because there are no environmental laws and the local governments are utterly and completely corrupt and in the hands of industrialists. Thousands of people are dying of chemically-induced cancer and chemical poisoning. But the Chinese government attitude is that the fewer people the better.

In 10 years China will be like East Germany is today - buried in pollution and toxic waste. While it may take Germany another 30 years to recover, China may never do so. The reason is that by then a war will have started and the fecal matter will really impinge upon the rotating impeller device.

The relationship between government and industry in China is simple fascism - just like Germany before World War II.

pick a metric

[Dun Malg]

China is expected to have 34 million subscribers, compared to 39 million in the United States.

So, we measure broadband penetration by percentage of total population when we compare the US to Korea, but for China we just look at the straight population numbers? Well so long as the US lools bad, right?

Re:chinese democracy

[ScentCone]

So as long as they are going in the right direction this is a good thing

Right! Threatening Taiwan, that's a good thing. Lying about how much independence they'd allow to thrive in Hong Kong, that's a good thing. Controlling the information that people in the country can read (like filtering out this site!), that's a good thing. So, how many years of inching forwards and backwards towards the right thing makes it OK?

powerful oligarchies which run big business and government

What? China is completely corrupt in this regard. The communist government there directly involves itself in private business to a degree that would never be tolerated in the US.

The US is not a democracy

Right, the US is a republic, with democratically elected representatives in the legislature, and executives elected by the states.

'one person/one vote' NOT 'one dollar/one vote'

Well, that doesn't even make sense. No one pays to vote, and no one gets paid to vote. If you mean, do organizations like moveon.org take huge amounts of cash from people like George Soros to push certain issues and candidates before an election, then you're at least making the connection of money to politics in an indirect way.

Most of Europe and Canada offer much better models for democracy then the US

Except that those arrangements often allow people with only a small portion of the votes to hold office. It's not always the best fit for making definitive policies.

Communism at work..

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

Not surprising really, since most 'broadband' sharing type setups are very socialist in nature. I wonder just how 'broad' that band really is.
I mean, I've heard Cuba touted as having the 'best' healthcare system in the world (honestly!)... , but I don't think you'd have easy access to a CAT scan unless your name was Fidel. It might be the most 'even' perhaps in that almost everyone has the same lack of access.
Any bandwidth figures?

Re:Communism at work..

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

I shouldn't dignify this with response, especially since it's likely to be modded down, but it's late and I've had a few so what the hell.

Anonymous Coward said: (alarm bells are going off, Willy!)

You are an idiot.
A fair and balanced opener that reinforces your points well.

China isn't communist, and hasn't been for decades (or ever, if you're being pedantic.) Nowadays it's ultracapitalist.
Not sure how to address this. I don't even know what an ultracapitalist state is. Suffice it to say that a search for "Communist China" on Google returns 4 million results. A search for "Ultracapitalist China" returns 70. I think the burden of proof on this statement lies in your court.

Broadband there works the same way it does here (although admittedly the speeds aren't quite as good for sites not in Asia -- I usually can't get more than 20 kbps down from kernel.org using Shanghai Telecom).

Thank you for making my point for me.

Oh, and just to annoy you further: the country with the lowest infant mortality rate in the Americas is none other than Cuba. This, mind you, is despite the long standing American trade embargo which prevents US pharma corps (who make most of the world's medicine) from trading with the country.

Several factually incorrect statements here, and I could get into the whole generics issue, but that's for another post...

Their doctors are so good, in fact, that Venezuela (an exceptionally oil rich country whose current administration is somewhat anti-American) has struck a deal with Cuba: doctors for oil. No joke.

A latin G77 country exchanging a nautral resource for a value-added commodity from another latin G77 country? Stop the presses!

Not that Cuba is better than the US or anything (whatever that means), but you really should get out and see more of the world.

As a matter of fact I have 'seen' (that is to say been employed and resided) in both China and Cuba. Thanks for your concern.

Sometimes I think Americans (and I am American) gobble up propaganda more readily than even Chinese people.

Glad to see you are applying your critical thinking skills. What part of my post makes you think I am American?
I'm surprised you think the Chinese people would have the time to gobble up propaganda, what with the UltraCapitalism and all....

Rape of Tibet

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not be so gung ho about how the Chinese are embracing high technology. Being a high-quality society requires much more than technology.

A key element of Western society, the finest in the world, is compassion. Consider what the Chinese are doing in Tibet. They are raping and killing women and children. This barbarism approaches the Nazi medical experiments of World War II.

Re:chinese democracy

[magarity]

Like all good talking points, yours extract a pound of FUD from an ounce of truth.

1. I assume you're referring to that flap over Schiavo, in which case, the "laws that apply to single individual" was not reviewed because the SC said it WASN'T about one person.
2. These non-US citizens who were caught in a foriegn country while actively fighting uniformed US soldiers deserve exactly what kind of representation under what US law?
3. What the heck is this babbling about? Every law regarding spying on individuals, INCLUDING THE PATRIOT ACT, requires judicial oversight.
4. You seem unaware that federal cases have done away with both of these practices.
5. What is this, if slightly exaggerated, legitimate complaint doing in your rant of outright falsehoods?
6. Move to the average dictatorship and publicly proclaim the rest of the world would be better without it.

Yeah!

[TheRealStubot]

And that was with ONE Linksys wireless router, strategically placed in Bejing.

Where the hell can you go?

[BubbaTheBarbarian]

Great, i can get my fill of propoganda FASTER now.

Who do these fucks think they are kidding. Just like SARS was under control and the bridge over the river that was DAMMED, this is in line with everything else. The only music download that does not include your closest relative paying for the bullet is "Dance Like Mao".

Just wait, they will get close, then fall away like every other US wannabe. Maybe they can have a cross between commie and rep, get everyone included, stop acting like the barbarians they are, and get with the program.

Oh, I know, I cannot talkk to Poeple's Republic like that.

Re:Where the hell can you go?

[vertinox]

They are more Nationalist these days than Communist and even the government says on occasion Mao was three fourth's right and one fourth wrong because of the Great Cultural Revolution which left millions starved to death (but not like they talk about it that much). Yes there is quite a bit of repression compared to the USA, but China today is more like Fascist Italy in the 1930s than say Stalinist Russia ever was.

The chinese urbanites (not rurals) have pop music, video games, fast food, TV, and basically many things westerners enjoy, but obviously you can't have a game that makes the government look bad or sell music of a pop singer that is shoutting "MAO SUCKS!", but it doesn't mean everything they indulge is government propaganda unlike every song in the DPRK (North Korea) has to mention Dear Leader or Kim Jong Il.

North Korea is still way Stalinist mind you but that is a different story all together.

That and you know that only 50,000 people are set to watch the great fire wall of China? That's a lot, but when you think about how many people they have to watch and I think they've been having problems clamping down on the Nationalist websites that are anti-Japanese. Most of the protests were organized via blogs, SMS, and via the web so the great fire wall isn't all that great.

That and like all governments you find apathy and bueracracy in which they let things slide. As you may not bribing is a major problem in China. Not as hardliner as you think.

It's nice to have broadband and all...

[phorm]

But nicer when you can go places with it, or at least without fears of persecution...

check out how much torrent flows in china.

[zephyr1024]

being a chinese my self(and using us broadband),i watch the chinese torrent trackers and sites increase exponentially these days. while chinese dont really care about the "real" politics, they do know alot about hollywood movies. i bet chinese torrent flow in ratio is even greater than the us flow; there is no regulation and the government is not putting one on anytime soon.

Re:chinese democracy

[Xoro]

Look I can go out in the street and distribute pamphlets talking shit on the US government all I want to. As long as I dont go extremist and advocate violence and just talk about the facts, I am completely in my rights to annoy anyone I want to about how I feel about the wrongs in our government. That is completely legal in China?

Yes, it's perfectly legal in China to go out in the street and distribute pamphlets taking a shit on the US government. :P

Re:chinese democracy

[ramblin billy]

Yep - the same one where you can say shit like that all you want. Hell, you don't even have to post as anonymous coward. We know we got problems. We bitch about 'em more than the rest of the world combined. Oh, by the way, any Americans ever get killed protecting your country?

billy - America...love it or change it

Re:Newsflash!

[DigiShaman]

One child per couple, but that only applies for living in the major cities. Out in the country side however, you are encouraged to have a large brood to help out with agriculture and take part of the Chinese Army.

Head in the sand

[travellerjohn]

More broadband, more people, booming economy, bigger army.

When the US going to wake up and realise that China is big and powerful and growing?

A quick trip around some of the major Chinese cities and and you can see a booming economy, new cars, lots of construction, retail and manufacturing. The Chinese are catching up quick. And I dont think most Chinese are too worried about censorship so long as they can make money.

Meanwhile the US is mucking about in Iraq, and lecturing other people on how to run their own countries. (Something that doesnt go down too well.)

It is only a matter of time before the Chinese economy catches up with the US, and I dont think they will be too well inclined towards the US. Then perhaps we will be wishing we paid a little more attention and were a little less arrogant.

Broadband is only one of many indicators that the USA's economic dominance might be shortlived.

Not that simple.

[fm6]

1.1 billion people is just so many warm bodies --they mean nothing unless they're part of a vital economy. Fifty years the population ratio was almost as lopsided, but the Chinese couldn't even feed themselves, much less buy fancy technology. At that time, the U.S. dominated the planet in infrastructure, manufacturing base, skilled workforce, advanced, raw economic power, and a lot of other factors. Not led, dominated.

In 1955, most people wouldn't have had any notion what "Broadband Internet Access" was. But if you could make them understand that it was a key technology of the 21st century, and that it would be more available in China than in the U.S....

An American would have reported you to the FBI for spreading commie propaganda. And a Chinese would have shaken his head at your obvious dementia. The U.S. has lost its edge, and this is another sign of it.

Re:Not that simple.

[Breakfast Pants]

"and that it would be more available in China than in the U.S...."

It's not more available in China than the US. To use your "China couldn't feed itself" analogy that is like saying that while "China couldn't feed itself" it still consumed more food than the US did in 1955 and therefore food was "more availble in China than in the US." Also you conviently forget that the internet in China is not the same as the internet in the US. The US has more restrictions on it than a lot of other places, but certainly not more than China.

South Korea has the highest percent

[krunk4ever]

According to Lessons from South Korea: When Broadband Meets the Mass Market, South Korea has over 50% (8.5 million) of their population on broadband.

Countries like Korea and Japan are densely populated so rolling out broadband technology is going to be a lot easier than rolling out broadband technology out in Montana or North Dakota.

If both percentage and actual count aren't good measurements, what exactly is then?

% * n / density?

Re:South Korea has the highest percent

[rodgerd]

Whatever measurement allows the grandparent to chant, "USA! USA! USA! Number One! Best country in the history of history!"

Seriously, the contortions some people will go to rather than think about whether they ought to be concerned about the state of their nation.

Re:South Korea has the highest percent

[steve_bryan]

Oh, please, your contortions are ridiculous. Consumer adoption of broadband is no more significant than subscription rates for cable TV. It is almost entirely an entertainment option. If you are looking for important infrastructure issues then you should be looking at things like the deployment of Internet 2 or other advanced networks. How's that doing in China? No, I'm really asking because I don't know. I do know that there are significant numbers of research institutions in the US that are participating.

These attempts to find a pretext for disparaging remarks about the US tell more about the person making the remarks than about their target.

What's wrong here?

[ChiefPilot]

What's the problem? Does the PRCs increasing standard of living somehow diminish ours? What's wrong with our sense of perspective here?

Oh come on...

[RobinH]

I see this all the time, only usually like, "there are as many MRI machines in New York State as there are in all of Canada". That's shocking, but have you ever compared the populations?

What a stupid story. You can compare some things based on actual numbers, like military figures, but this kind of stuff has to be per capita.

General consumption...

[zxflash]

America is pretty good at consuming goods/services but with the population advantage China has theye's no doubt they'll have more broadband, doctors, sell more Big Macs, and have bigger political problems...

Re:chinese democracy

[cujo_1111]

2. These non-US citizens who were caught in a foriegn country while actively fighting uniformed US soldiers deserve exactly what kind of representation under what US law?

As opposed to the US soldiers occupying a foreign country illegally? Nevermind the many civilian deaths...

Uhhh....Missing Something?

[walters5]

I think the more important aspect of there being more Chinese with broadband than Americans has a lot less to do with what Chinese citizens can find on Google. Broadband is a catalyst for business and information services. It's even a catalyst for change in culture. Look at the other asian countries that have spent millions on broadband spending. If South Korean teens consider online gaming to be as everyday as more 'conventional' sports like soccer, how much will making computers and the internet a common understanding change the way they do business? The last thing I want to see is the US falling behind in IT growth in areas like broadband.

Too bad it already is. What the hell is the FCC thinking?

Re:Uhhh....Missing Something?

[walters5]

Mod this guy down!!!

That explains Amercan interest in WiMax.

[MtViewGuy]

The big problem in the USA is that due to the sprawled-out nature of many surburban areas and the large number of people living in rural areas, trying to get broadband Internet via xDSL, cable modem or T-1/T-3 connections to these folks becomes economically unfeasible; this is unlike Europe, Japan, South Korea or eastern China, where the population density is high enough to hardwire every residence and/or small business for broadband access economically despite the exorbitant construction costs involved.

Now you know what there is so much interest in the USA in 802.16/802.20 WiMax long-range wireless networking. Given that a single WiMax antenna array can support thousands of users almost effectively to line of sight limits, we only need a relatively small number of WiMax antenna arrays to cover an entire metropolitan area and extend coverage out to rural regions; this is VASTLY cheaper than hardwiring every residence and/or small business to support broadband Internet access.

Realy? Realy, realy? Realy realy realy???

[KZigurs]

Really? No, REALLY? Really, really, really??? Where did you get the 25% number?

1. Take a look at USA trade deficite. That is by no means an indicator that we are dealing with a country that is manifacturing 1/4 of goods producing worldwide. It was what, something like ~60BN USD when I last took a look at it.

2. Take a look at where the plants are located. Have any significant amount of manifacturing action in US? Ok, big, fuel thursty cards and overpriced medicaments, but anything else?

3. USA dollar is failing. And failing miserably - it already is about 0.75 it's worth it has 5-6 years ago. Currencies of manifacturing countries don't tend to fall - economics. What brings us to the next point:

4. With the ratio of 4% / 25% there is no fucking chage the above points wouldn't be true.

There is a difference between manifacturing (that makes a lot-of-bling-bling goe round-and-round while leaving nice big pile-o-money in economy from trade surplus
and owning companies in other countries that leaves us with theoretically wealthiest country in the world where the majority of capital is invested outside of the country and often sithout supporting national currency.

Bling-bling!

Re:Realy? Realy, realy? Realy realy realy???

[Airneil]

I would really, really like to understand what you are saying, but your grammer and spelling make it impossible to comprehend what you mean.

Re:Realy? Realy, realy? Realy realy realy???

[jmv]

The fact that they are not does not mean that the US does not produce as much as it does - in fact, according to Bloomberg.com, the US is the largest manufacturieing economy in the world - manufacturing accounts for 13% of GDP.

The fact that most of what is produced in the US is consumed in the US is important here. It means that it's really the US way of living that is consuming ~25% of the planet resources and creating ~25% of the planet's pollution.
If most of the goods were exported, it would at least mean that it's consumers from other countries are really responsible for US pollution (but it's not the case). Going a bit further, you could say that the US is actually using more than 25% of the planet's resources, because part of what is being consumed in the US is accounted for in another country (because of the trade deficit).

4% of what? Regardless, your points simply are not true.

4% of the population consuming 25% of the resources. It's just not sustainable. As China is developing rapidly, there *will* be conflicts, because to reach US level, China itself would need more resources than what the planet has.

Capital is not fleeing the US - with the dollar low, investing in the US is a bargain - remember, buy low, sell high.

Yes, but low and high are relative, and the lower the dollar, the more it costs to import stuff. There is always a tipping point somewhere (don't know where it is), that leads to rampant inflation and a collapse of the economy (it's happened before). The huge trade deficit really doesn't help in that respect.

The Chinese government certainly recognizes that which is why they've artificially held their currency low for years.

I'm not sure that's still the case. The Chinese government is now trying to *slow* down the groth of its economy (they passed laws for that) so it can remain under control.

China has more Internet freedom than US

[dillee1]

The infamous "Great Firewall" does censor "politically incorrect" contents, but everything else you are free to do whatever you want; e.g. BT mp3/pirated sf like hell. No one really give a fuck with it. In US you always worried of **AA after you ass, or get sure with DMCA mysteriously when you try to excise your fair use right.

Re:China has more Internet freedom than US

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, while you live in your uptopia of "freedom", I think I'll stay here in the good ol' states and put up with a few draconian copyright laws.

I'll take the much lesser of two evils, thanks.

Re:China has more Internet freedom than US

[seven of five]

Confucius say, China citizen with broadband have fast car with no wheels.

fucking retart!

[KZigurs]

You will not get away with this!!!

heh

[KZigurs]

If I had a good english skills (without help from a pirated copy of a certain software from a certain software marketing company) would I be questioning the supremacy of US?

Unless I were British, that is ;)

How utterly naive of you...

[jtbauki]

...to think the rest of the world can't comprehend the same things you do. You think the Chinese people are stupid? A lot of the Chinese people I know in China that wish to access "restricted" sites can use other sites to circumvent the filters. You hear about Chinese hackers and such, yet you don't think they have the ability to bypass a simple firewall. Everyone here on Slashdot knows how hard it is for any state in the US to moniter websites such as porn sites or bomb sites. Yet, you think China can easily block all the websites they don't want their citizens to see?

Re:How utterly naive of you...

[binaryspiral]

How utterly naive are you to defend the necessity to break a law in one country to view content or post content without the fear of getting your skull crushed in by some miltary police batton?

I don't think I read any post that said Chinese people are stupid.

However, a lot of Chinese people I know are enjoying US residency and are coping with freedom very well.

The fact that end users can circumvent these technical hurdles with encrypted proxy streams or alternative sources of access... doesn't mean the traffic isn't still getting traced.

I would like to know

[Horkdoom]

how the first post can be redudndant, who is the moron that was given mod points for that one?

Re:chinese democracy

[jericho4.0]

"2. These non-US citizens who were caught in a foriegn country while actively fighting uniformed US soldiers deserve exactly what kind of representation under what US law?"

See, it's the "foriegn country" bit that that kind of bugs us foriegners....

Access isn't everything

[wyoung76]

Just because you and much of the rest of the democratic world has ready and free access to the "entire" internet, it doesn't mean that it's all good either.

With such freedoms, we also have to be constantly aware of the problems that it breeds, and the responsibility we place on ourselves to keep such problems under control.

Without limits, we run the risk of being desensitized to all and sundry. Sometimes having a little bit of "parenting" can be a good thing.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty that China could improve with their parenting skills!

Breaking Myths

[WindBourne]

I find it interesting that so many will try to argue the record deficits are low when expressed relative to GDP, without looking at the data. Here is one
And this one includes Federal spending as a percentage of GDP.
In both cases, the GWB spending is not only record on total, but nearing as a percentage of GDP. In fact, only during WWII (when we had a manufactuering base) and Regans first term has it been higher.

a lot of character

[armed ahmed]

About ten years ago people were talking about the problem of millions of chinese and other peoples with complex character sets coming to the net. It was estimated that around something like 2020 the most used language in the net would be cantonese and that content written in english would be becoming a minority. It was said that if the automatic web-page translators wouldn't keep up, we westerners would soon find ourselves in a position of a tourist in a strange land when surfing the net.

Of course the webs content would only increase and diversify, not change into chinese, so I don't think there will be THAT kind of problems. But I wouldn't wonder if all the pop-ups and the ads in slashdot would one day be full of characters that are alien to me advertising something I could only guess at.

Re:a lot of character

[armed ahmed]

I agree, it doesn't sound plausible that chinese would become a creative majority in the net any time soon. As you say, the chinese internet population is mostly consumers, so I would expect a lot of the advertising on the net to be targeted at them soon. Again, not a majority, but a lot.

West creates most of the content of the net at the moment, and it remains to be seen whether the chinese will ever exceed the wests cultural output, or indeed if they'll ever be allowed to do so. I suppose you're right in saying that "Westerners don't care about Chinese blogs or webpages of minor signifcance", I myself only ever get onto chinese or indian homepages when looking for curiosities of the net.

Then again, I do believe that no matter how culturally starved the chinese people may be, they still probably are equal to an average american webpage maker in the ability to add new content to the net. I know from personal experience that a globally insignificant culture can root itself very strongly on the net. The sense of a cultural net community is tightly tied to the language of the culture. Once the number of chinese, indian, african etc. webpages is enough to sustain an interest from their respective members, the web will be very different from what it is now. Which is nice.

Re:a lot of character

[armed ahmed]

You're absolutely right. Don't know why I said cantonese, probably was just too tired when typing the thing :)

Re:chinese democracy

[SQL Error]

China has come a long way toward democracy lately. You sure can't compare them to North Korea.

While this is true, "not as bad as North Korea" isn't much of an endorsement. North Korea is the most benighted country on Earth. Literally.

Re:chinese democracy

[Brian_Ellenberger]

Is that the same democracy that has a US president and Congress making laws that apply to single individuals? Is that the same democracy that holds people indefinitely without charge and without representation in cuba? Is that the same democracy that give governments the right to spy on you without court orders and without your knowledge? Is that the same democracy that executes juvenile offenders and the mentally impaired? Is that the same democracy that has Congress enacting laws which give ridiculous amounts of power to big corporations. (e.g. DMCA, copyright extensions, Broadcast flag ) . . Is that the same democracy that has Congress enacting laws which give ridiculous amounts of power to big corporations. Hmmm, Keep your democracy. The rest of the world is better off without it

So what is the better alternative? China, where the central government has supreme power and regularly does all these nasty things without fear of any consequences. In America you can write all those bad things about the government on a website and not be afraid the secret police are going to come pay you a visit. And if you don't like the government you can choose to protest it or work to elect a new one. I recall the last time there was a massive protest against the Chinese government they brought in armored tanks...

Brian Ellenberger

Re:The posts here are pretty biased.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as bad as the media makes it out to be.

Proof?

People in China in general are more worried about their lifestyle than politics or the right to protest the government.

The political dissent and protests would argue otherwise.

In fact, in some cases, the absence of political discussion in China is a positive since they don't have to hear about partisan bickering like the United States.

Whatever you say, Adolf.

Who the fuck are you.. the Chinese Information Minister? I've never seen such load of garbage.

BTW, I am a Chinese American. My father fleed China, you have some fucking gall to sit here and try to put a false spin on the totally tyrannical conditions China is in right now.

ChiCom bureaucrats are more rational than the FCC

[Brian Stretch]

There have been numerous calls in the conservative press for Bush/Congress to put the FCC on the short leash and let whoever wants to build high-speed networks to do so without having to beg Big Brother's permission (except for the use of regulated wireless bandwidth, and there's been calls for more unregulated spectrum) and without being forced to share what they've built with their competitors at regulated rates. Governments would cease granting legal monopolies at the same time. Let cable vs. DSL vs. FTTH vs. WiMAX vs. genetically engineered carrier pigeon have at it.

I'm sure this is a tired point, but...

[breakbeatninja]

What good is broadband if your government censors nearly everything? Do you really want high speed propaganda?

Re:I'm sure this is a tired point, but...

[jpop32]

What good is broadband if your government censors nearly everything?

It doesn't censor downloading of warez, pr0n, movies and mp3s. What else could you possibly need from your broardband connection? :-)

How broad?

[GoClick]

I've got 3.6Mbit to my home and my parents have 5.6mbit, I can't imagine many people in China get that kind of service, and not for 193 Yuan a month either.

SO F****** WHAT?

[muyuubyou]

I'm tired already of this argument. It's not about "merit" but about CONSEQUENCES. How come this is not interesting?

You know what? the USA is the biggest economy also LARGELY because of its population (ranking 3rd after China and India). Norway, Luxembourg, Japan, Germany to name a few would be as big in GDP, in some cases more, than the USA if they had its population. A country with the standard of living of the USA but, say, 10 million inhabitants wouldn't be very relevant in the global scale of matters.

So... we're not talking about "merit" but direct consequences of an internet with a massive and active Chinese-speaking community that we will probably notice in years to come.
If China topped the USA in GDP... would you say again "this isn't very interesting news at all"?
Now when China "tops the USA at everything" like some other enlightened slashdotter pointed out, people post it in FP.

Missing stats, what would be helpful....

[AKosygin]

It would be SIGNIFICANTLY more helpful if they gave a "ratio" WITH the raw data rather than just raw numbers, especially with such disproportionate base population.

What would be also more interesting to note is the PRICE of broadband and speed there compared to the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. For example (that I know): In the U.S., broadband prices are about $15 to $30 for 1.5Mbps down and 256kbps up. In Japan, it is $10 to $20 for 10Mbps down and 1Mbps up, sometimes with better deals! Why? Population density! Cheaper to bring fat pipes over short distances to lots of people to disaggregate the cost.

And then when you compare that to the household income of someone in Tokyo versus say Los Angeles, their internet cost is pocket change! (Though Tokyo's demand/standard of living is higher.)

When doing such comparative statistics, you gotta make sure the numbers aren't affected by some other third factor, in this case, a significantly larger base population and higher density.

What other things would be interesting, would be a ratio of clients to servers. I am willing to bet that the U.S. has a higher server ratio than China.

Information wants to be free

[Colin Smith]

As soon as people have easy access to information, specifically the internet, trying to stop the spread of information of any kind is akin to trying to hold back the ocean. It doesn't work. The result is going to be a very very interesting liberalisation of Chinese political system. Hopefully they'll ultimately decide on a better system than what the UK and US loosely call democracy.

It's good to be

[Senor_Programmer]

Chinese.

From: CIA


CHina
Population:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
1,306,313,812 (July 2005 est.)
Age structure:
Definition Field Listing
0-14 years: 21.4% (male 148,134,928/female
131,045,415)
15-64 years: 71% (male 477,182,072/female
450,664,933)
65 years and over: 7.6% (male
47,400,282/female 51,886,182) (2005 est.)

USA
Population:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
295,734,134 (July 2005 est.)
Age structure:
Definition Field Listing
0-14 years: 20.6% (male 31,095,725/female
29,703,997)
15-64 years: 67% (male 98,914,382/female
99,324,126)
65 years and over: 12.4% (male
15,298,676/female 21,397,228) (2005 est.)

It's worth noting that the land area is almost the same for China ans USA.

As for the population and Broadband...

Articles 2007 numbers as a percentage of total population.

China-4.36
USA-18.25

Game developers should take note of the number of males in 0-14 age bracket.
China-148,134,928
USA-31,095,725
When you multiply by % of population with broadband, the numbers are almost identical.

Re:Breed Geeks, breed!

[julesh]

Nah, you have to do it in your head. Quick, whats 37 * 52?

Re:NullProg is making up false statistics

[NullProg]

You forgot Hong Kong, but good point. I should have said twenty cities.

Enjoy.

MOD PARENT UP

[northcat]

Good point. Grandparent's point actually works against his argument.

News Flash : China has more people

[nurb432]

Geesh, of course they have more broadband users, they have more people then the rest of the world combined..

And now that they have decided to go high tech, we can expect to be suprassed on several levels. When the government TELLS you what to do under threat of death and you have nearly unlimited resources to do it with, you can do things you didnt think you could.

Re:fucking retart(sic)!

[bcattwoo]

fucking retart!

Oh, the irony...

Okay, lemme get this straight.

[Pyrion]

In a previous article, the reigning complaint was that on a percentage basis, South Korea easily outshines the United States in broadband connectivity as a percentage of the population (their 73% to our 12%). Using raw numbers, the United States' broadband users outnumber that of the South Koreans by a narrow margin.

Now we're using raw numbers to say that China (wherein 57 million is about 4% their population, whereas 54 million is about 20% ours) is due to outpace the United States.

So lemme get this straight. South Korea > United States because 73% of their population has broadband versus our 12%, and in the near future when we have our 20% China will have its 4% and be considered "ahead"?

For the sake of consistency, it'll either be South Korea > United States > China, or China > United States > South Korea. Which shall it be?

Good news/Bad news

[hey!]

Instead of giving the money back, I'd appreciate it if the red states would spend some of it on their educational systems. The US going to need a better educated workforce if we're going to stay competitive.

Well, I have some good news and some bad news for you.

Good News: the red states will be spending that money on their schools!

Bad News: those schools will be teaching creationism.

Broadband Provider PR piece?

[emilng]

Is it just me or did that article read like a PR piece promoting the deregulation of the broadband industry?
As far as why they don't list percentages, looking at the editorials on the site, it also seems like they have an anti-China agenda.

Re:Broadband Provider PR piece?

[Trepalium]

It probably was. What gets me is why you guys pay so much for your broadband connectivity. For some other numbers on this, you can check this site which has percentages of broadband penetration compared to various different countries.

If we lose them, they're not coming back soon

[hey!]

At least when that happens, maybe we can get our manufacturing jobs back

Don't count on it.

Manufacturing requires expertise, infrastructure and a kind of supporting ecology of suppliers and tool makers to make it happen. If the economic playing field is leveled with respect to wages and working conditions, it would still take decades to get back in the game because of the disparity of these factors.

The only way to do it faster would be to abandon laissez-faire and take a page from China's book: massive intervention in the economy to keep wages artificially low in international terms, a concerted policy to promote manufacturing and import expertise and capital for it, and abandoning any concern for downstream social or environmental consequences.

Peronsally, the movement by the pentagon to allow more international sourcing bothers me. This could be the life support system that keeps at least some US manufacturing expertise in place. Also, if there's going to be spending on a boondoggle, I'd like the economic multiplier effect from my tax dollars to work locally.

This is news?

[ncb000gt]

It seems obvious to me that this would be an outcome...in fact i'm surprised it hasn't happened already. The population is massive and so i would easily expect this to happen.

Still no broadband at my home

[sapped]

Speaking as somebody who tried to have cable broadband installed unsuccessfully this weekend I must say that I will not be surprised. It is quite pathetic in this day and age that I cannot get some form of broadband at my house for a reasonable price.

I don't live in the middle of nowhere either.

Unfortunately all I seem to be able to get is a T1 for around $330/month. Slightly difficult to justify for an internet connection and the neighbors will be difficult to group together for a big line like that.

Re:Ultimate Weapon

[vertinox]

What battle exactly?

Think about this...

A Chinese version of /.

They could link the US version of Slashdot on the front page and melt the uncrashable servers instantly. The immense power of this weapon they would have! I quiver with fear at the very thought.

Re: Georgia (a bit OT)

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

I've traveled to a lot of places and Georgia (particularly Atlanta and Savannah) has some of the nicest, most beautiful people I've ever seen. I have so many anecdotes. People have invited me off the street to their parties, I have nearly gotten in accidents while in dumbfounded awe at the beauty of some women... I was invited to sit with a table full of women at this restaurant and a cake shaped like a penis came out, it was insane... and most ironic of all, I met a girl in a Boston bar the other night (I've lived in Boston for a year, now) and she was beautiful, sweet... and only in town for the weekend... from Atlanta, Georgia. Damn.

The only thing appalling for me down there, actually, is the whole bible-belt thing and perhaps some old-school racism.

Sorta OT, but those Georgia folks sure have a clue how to live, it seems. Especially from a single guy's perspective...

per capita?

[geekoid]

shouldn't we look at per capita numbers?
I mean really.

Is the band really that broad in China?

[afa]

So far as i know (,as I am right here right now in P.R.China), the result could possibly be negative in general. From the aspect of hardware, you can call it broadband, because you are using 100M ethernet, adsl, cable or so. But in actual fact, most of the users( like me), can hardly say that we have get band as described, not to mention the Great Fire WALL! The ISP here are cheaters! Go damnned!!

this is news?

[aggieben]

China should have more subscribers to *everything* than the United States.

Re:chinese democracy

[magarity]

See, it's the "foriegn country" bit that that kind of bugs us foriegners

Is your country's government actively involved in training suicide mission murders to come kill our citizens? If not, don't sweat it. If so, what else should you expect us to reasonably do? Well, OK, obviously if you were involved in training murderers then you'd be happier if we did nothing.

Re:chinese democracy

[jericho4.0]

BWAHAHAHA!!!! "actively involved in training suicide mission murders" I suppose you still think there going to find WMDs, also. Get real.

Re:Breed Geeks, breed!

[kesuki]

that's easy it's 1924. and yes i did that in my head, but no i'm not telling you how many seconds it took, or if I wrote down a partial answer in this post first. multiplication is easy, there are people who can multiply complex numbers in seconds in thier heads. I'm not as fast as those people, but I learned the tricks for doing multiplication in one's head, without scratch paper. basically, the trick is to memorize the basic multiplication table, and then individualize and sum the results, and not get places wrong, and carry all the ones... so 5x 37 is 185 and 2x 37 is 74 so 1850+74 = 1924 basically, it should take a math whiz less than a minute to do the multiplication of 1337* 31337 in their heads without scratch paper. I mean it's only 41,897,596... (on that one I cheated, i'm lazy, but I coulda done it in my head, but a minute of my time is valuable, I'm reading slashdot afterall!)
As a disclaimer, I can solve 13 steps of algebraic formula in my head too... in fact I can do 13 steps of algebraic solution faster than I can multiply complex numbers.

Re:Breed Geeks, breed!

[julesh]

Gah. You your notation polish reverse and hell to go can.

Should(any(fool),know(is(functional(notation),be tt er))).