Slashdot Mirror


Canada Tops List of Most Science-Literate Countries

An anonymous reader writes "A recent survey of scientific education and attitudes showed the Canadian population to have the highest level of scientific literacy in the world, as well as the fewest reservations about the direction of scientific progress (full report). A key factor is a high level of scientific knowledge among the general population (despite comparatively low numbers of people employed in STEM fields). Another is a higher level of comfort with choosing rationality over religious belief — only 25% of Canadians surveyed agreed with the statement "We depend too much on science and not enough on faith", as opposed to 55% in the U.S. and 38% in the E.U.

I also wonder if the vaunted Canadian healthcare system plays a role. When advances in medical science are something you automatically expect to benefit from personally if you need them, they look a lot better than when you have to scramble just to cover your bills for what we have now."

44 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Could have fooled me by RichMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am canadian, and if we are the most scientiically literate. I really pity the rest of you.

    1. Re: Could have fooled me by itsenrique · · Score: 3, Funny

      There are cynics everywhere...

    2. Re:Could have fooled me by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am canadian, and if we are the most scientiically literate. I really pity the rest of you.

      I pity us also. Does Canada have lots of relatively successful* politicians with whackadoodle opinions on climate change, Earth's age, and female reproductive biology?

      * In terms of votes, not intelligence ranking.

    3. Re:Could have fooled me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Stephen Harper fits that bill... as do a number of people in his cabinet.

      Stuff like that tends to float to the top.

    4. Re:Could have fooled me by phrostie · · Score: 3, Funny

      well, for what it's worth, you have the best SciFi.

    5. Re:Could have fooled me by Beck_Neard · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As someone who is not Canadian but has lived in Canada... whoo boy, you have no idea. I'm not surprised by this article in the least. Now if only it weren't so cold...

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    6. Re:Could have fooled me by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am canadian, and if we are the most scientiically literate. I really pity the rest of you.

      I don't think this poll was really measuring anything. Asking people if they believe in the statement "We depend too much on science and not enough on faith" is not measuring their knowledge of science at all. Someone that has no scientific education could disagree, while a PhD in astrophysics may think otherwise. It is also implying a conflict between faith and knowledge. Through history, most scientists have also held religious beliefs. Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. Does that mean he was "scientifically illiterate"?

    7. Re:Could have fooled me by radtea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Does Canada have lots of relatively successful* politicians with whackadoodle opinions on climate change, Earth's age, and female reproductive biology?

      We are having a bit of a moment with some wack-jobs in the "Conservative" Party of Canada at the moment, which is actually a radical populist party that is opposed to everything conservatism in this country has ever stood for (fiscal probity, institutional stability, Westminsterian democracy...)

      A few of the loonier tunes, like Justice Minister Peter McKay, seem to believe that women have no agency (or at least that's what one infers from his attempts to push a "Swedish model" prostitution law through the system) and I believe former party leader [*] Stockwell Day is on record for a Young Earth.

      This has more to do with the wonderful (and I do mean that seriously) randomness of our electoral system, which is capable of electing a majority government with 35% of the vote, as well as the institutional disarray of the Liberal Party in the past decade. We're reasonably likely to throw the bastards out next year, although the Liberals have more than a few loonies of their own.

      [*] The history of the CPC is complex, but Day was the leader of one of it's fore-runners about ten years ago.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    8. Re:Could have fooled me by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      It's offtopic? It's flamebait?

    9. Re:Could have fooled me by evenmoreconfused · · Score: 2

      According to TFA, there are several different sections. The statement about depending on science was from a portion designed to clarify prevailing attitudes towards science in general. It was separate from the part evaluating scientific literacy.

      [The report] contains the results of a new public survey that assesses Canadians’ science attitudes, engagement, and knowledge. The report reviews data on Canadians’ science skills and the current peer-reviewed literature on science culture. It also features an inventory and analysis of the organizations and programs that support and promote science culture in Canada, particularly among youth.

      However, it turns out the survey was commissioned by a number of Canadian agencies. It was performed internationally, but a Canadian report saying Canada is number one in science is at best somewhat suspect.

      --
      No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
    10. Re:Could have fooled me by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am canadian, and if we are the most scientiically literate. I really pity the rest of you.

      I pity us also. Does Canada have lots of relatively successful* politicians with whackadoodle opinions on climate change, Earth's age, and female reproductive biology?

      * In terms of votes, not intelligence ranking.

      True but it's much more a piece of trivia than a politically relevant fact.

      A few years back I remember an article about Stephan Dion and Jack Layton (the then leaders of the 2nd and 3rd largest parties in a minority Parliament) claiming they were both atheists.

      I don't know if it was true or not, I honestly didn't care that much. The astounding thing was that was the opinion shared by the overwhelming majority of online comments on the website of what I recall was a right wing paper. A few engaged in mild speculation but no one really cared enough to even dig or get emotional.

      These were the 2nd and 3rd most important politicians in the country and the topic of their religious affiliation was so irrelevant people scarcely bothered to investigate.

      By contrast the US is so obsessed with religion that congress doesn't have a single open atheist. Not to mention the massive religious examinations of presidential candidates.

      Sure this stuff does become relevant, particularly with regards to climate change, but we have nowhere near the culture wars that are going on in the US.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    11. Re:Could have fooled me by Gavrielkay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I shouldn't respond to a troll... but how about ban abortion until men suffer the exact same social disgrace as women for having children out of wedlock. Or suffer the same career setbacks, the same physical burden, the same social expectation of putting all of your dreams aside to raise a kid. There is no male equivalent to carrying a developing child around inside you for 9 months and therefore I see no reason why the law should treat them the same.

      If you are a man who absolutely does not want a child, then you'd best find a woman who agrees with you. And if you're a man who absolutely couldn't bear to have your child aborted, then again, you'd best find someone who agrees with you. Using the law to force a woman to carry your child around for 9 months is horrible, as is forcing her to abort because the man doesn't want it.

      It's the woman's body and it should be between her and her doctor what happens to it.

    12. Re:Could have fooled me by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More fun statistics, from Wikipedia:

      • - Canada has 67% Christians and the United States has 73%
      • - 24% of Canadians and 20% of Americans declare no religious affiliation.
      • - Only 7% of Canadians are Evangelicals compared to the US's 30-35%.

      ...I was going somewhere with the Evangelicals stat, since they're generally the most fervent, but then I realised that there are plenty of insufferably stolid palaeoconservative Anglicans in the UK and it wasn't really a point worth making.

      It really comes down to the fundamental collectivist-vs-individualist difference between the Canadian and American cultures, I think; despite Stephen Harper's best efforts to destroy the country, our charter of rights and freedoms was still a missive about how we were free from harassment by peers (thus sending the message "we are all siblings"), as contrasted with the American declaration of independence's emphasis on being free from harassment by authority (thus sending the message "you are free to do as you please"). Interestingly, a hundred years ago you would not really find this; Canada was just as much of a racist hellhole as the US at the time, although as there were practically no black people we could only complain about other European ethnicities. It was only as our population and economy fell behind, and we started accepting in huge numbers of immigrants following World War II, that this really started to take shape.

      I'm sure the relatively weak levels of religious conviction help too (only 25% of Christians attend church regularly in Canada; above the rates of Northern Europe but far below the rate in the US) and that is doubtlessly a function of what flavour (can we call them 'distros' yet?) of Christianity is in question, too, since many Anglican ministers now preach actual biblical scholarship (my favourite quote, heavily paraphrased, is "Hell (as a threat) was invented in the Middle Ages") rather than what most think of as the typical naive system of "swallow-and-enjoy-your-life-textbook-with-no-critical-thinking" morality. Whatever the exact impact of each component is, it doesn't really jive with the idea of excluding us poor little minority atheists.

      ...except maybe in profoundly Catholic areas. I bet they care more in Newfoundland and Quebec. British Columbia is barely half Christian (54.9%) so you can bet they sure don't.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    13. Re:Could have fooled me by cbeaudry · · Score: 2

      Yes in Quebec over 75% are Christians and more than 75% of Christians are Roman Catholic.
      However, this is followed sharply with 12% atheists being the 2nd largest demographic.

      Also, even though 75% have been baptized, its more of a cultural thing than people actually having faith and practicing religions.
      Most likely more than half of the 75% Christians have no faith, do not practice and do not care about religion.

      As others have mentioned, there is a heavy separation of religion and state in Canada, especially in Quebec after what was call a "quiet" revolution in the 1960's.
      As such, religion plays almost NO role in politics here.

    14. Re:Could have fooled me by MouseR · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nobody asked me if I wanted to be baptized. They do this at a young enough age you have no idea whats going on.

      Couldn't give a hoot if they splashed water on me.

      Born Christian, soon realized it's all hogwash.

    15. Re:Could have fooled me by Layzej · · Score: 3, Informative

      This may depend on which province you live in. We certainly don't have $7 daycare where I live. Closer to $45. I believe in Quebec it is covered entirely by the province.

    16. Re:Could have fooled me by abies · · Score: 2

      Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. Does that mean he was "scientifically illiterate"?

      I would rather disagree with devout _Christian_
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
      [...]
      not holding to Trinitarianism.'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'
      [...]
      Newton refused viaticum before his death.
      [...]

      Yes, he was a person of faith, but he was very far from being Christian - both in his times meaning and in contemporary meaning.

  2. Those stupid Canadians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They think maple syrup grows on trees!

    1. Re:Those stupid Canadians! by vux984 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They think maple syrup grows on trees!

      No they don't. It grows IN trees not on them; that's why you need to install a tap.

    2. Re:Those stupid Canadians! by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      They think maple syrup grows on trees!

      No they don't. It grows IN trees not on them; that's why you need to install a tap.

      This is a whoosh, but even more of a whoosh to whomever modded it informative.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    3. Re:Those stupid Canadians! by grcumb · · Score: 2

      They think maple syrup grows on trees!

      The translation from Quebecois to English caused your confusion. Ha! Ha!

      Dat's correck. Ever'body knows it's grows to de trees.

      And jus' to prove dat I'm a really a real québecois, ah now will swear at you in ma native langue: Calice d'ostie de saint ciboire que les anglos ont la tête dur!

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    4. Re:Those stupid Canadians! by Cocioc · · Score: 2

      Calice d'ostie de saint ciboire que les anglos ont la tête dur!

      Devrait être "dure"...

  3. Stephen Harper doing his best to change that by jblb · · Score: 5, Informative

    The current regime seems pretty anti-science though, unless it is directly related to increasing tar sands oil extraction efficiency? http://science.slashdot.org/st... http://news.slashdot.org/story...

  4. Biased by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "[O]nly 25% of Canadians surveyed agreed with the statement "We depend too much on science and not enough on faith", as opposed to 55% in the U.S. and 38% in the E.U."

    Seriously? I was expecting a survey of scientific literacy to be about, you know, scientific literacy, not asking people the relative merits, as it were, between science and religion.

    I'm not sure how this proves, quote, "Canada is a nation of science geeks." It's a complete non-sequitor. It doesn't even match the data, in which 58% of Canadians couldn't understand basic science concepts from newspaper stories, and in which Canada ranks 19th out of 29th in science degrees (by percentage).

    Contrawise, Americans, sure, value religion probably more highly than other countries, and might even think that we could use more religion, but that is not a question of scientific literacy or attitudes towards science in and of itself. It seems to presuppose the long-discredited Conflict Thesis, which states that religion and science are inherently always in conflict.

    The clincher for me - which indisputably shows the authors' bias - is that Canada ranks #1 in people protesting GMOs and nuclear power, and the authors consider this a good sign that their population is scientifically literate!

    The authors should get back to euphorically sniffing their own armpits, and stop pretending to be scientists. Or whatever you call the people that work at science museums.

    1. Re:Biased by radtea · · Score: 5, Informative

      The clincher for me - which indisputably shows the authors' bias - is that Canada ranks #1 in people protesting GMOs and nuclear power, and the authors consider this a good sign that their population is scientifically literate!

      The report says nothing of the kind. Did you read it? GMOs and nuclear power are mentioned as divisive issues, but there is no data on the ranking of people against them.

      The Globe and Mail article says, "Canadians also expressed the lowest level of reservation about science and its impacts. Compared with the U.S., Europe and Japan, far fewer Canadians said that they thought science is making our way of life change too fast."

      Sounds about right.

      Canadians are generally very aware that our lives would be miserable if it weren't for science and technology keeping us safe and warm and fed. We have our tree-hugging reactionaries, of course, but they have far less influence than you might think despite the vast amounts of noise (and I do mean "noise" in the information theoretic sense) they generate.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    2. Re:Biased by CanadianRealist · · Score: 4, Informative

      The linked article is not very clear. There's much better coverage on the CBC site.

      The study considered two different things, scientific literacy, and level of reservations towards science.

      The "we depend too much on science..." was from the second part - about reservations towards science.

      The science literacy part asked questions like:
      Does the sun go around the earth or does the earth go around the sun?
      Human beings as we know them today developed from earlier species of animals. True or false?
      Electrons are smaller than atoms. True or false?

    3. Re:Biased by CanadianRealist · · Score: 2

      I guess it was for the 13% of people who got the wrong answer. I liked the following quote in the CBC article:

      "While 87 per cent knowing that the earth goes around the sun is pretty good, that still leaves 13 per cent of Canadians that haven't absorbed the scientific knowledge of several centuries ago," Ingram said.

      It was also a pretty tough question for the Catholic church for quite a long time. And their top guy is supposed to have a direct line to the guy who created the universe.

      And then there are also plenty of people who still have problems with the second question, about humans evolving from earlier species.

    4. Re:Biased by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      It's perfectly possible to mathematically model, 100% correctly, a universe where the sun revolves around the earth.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Biased by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      Does the sun go around the earth or does the earth go around the sun?

      I'm guessing you're Canadian by your name.

      The fact that neither you nor the authors of the study know that in a relativistic framework this question is meaningless, makes their conclusion not just meaningless but paradoxical.

      I strongly suspect the science museum "scientist" who wrote the study never got past Newtonian physics.

      It's like giving all the OECD a math test, and then only marking right the students who define Pi to be exactly 3. And then announcing that fundamentalist Christians "Rank #1 in mathematical literacy!"

  5. Re:ROLF! by Livius · · Score: 2

    Canadian health care has its problems, but it's still better than most of the alternatives.

    However, the problem with public health care is that Canadians generally do not think about how their medical services are provided, and thus they are unaware of how much they cost, whether they are cost effective, and whether they represent the latest technological advances. The last point is why the summary's suggestion is laughable.

  6. Is the anonymous reader aware of Europe? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 4, Informative

    They say

    I also wonder if the vaunted Canadian healthcare system plays a role. When advances in medical science are something you automatically expect to benefit from personally if you need them, they look a lot better than when you have to scramble just to cover your bills for what we have now.

    but it sounds as if they're comparing the Canadian system for paying for health care with the US system, as opposed to the systems used in for example, Western Europe.

  7. Re:Submitter editorializing by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

    An actual connection is not required for those that are so defensive about the US healthcare reform failure that they have to make up such ridiculous assertions.

  8. We certainly can't thank Stephen Harper by sandbagger · · Score: 4, Informative

    That man ordered irreplaceable scientific records be taken to the dump, destroying generations of scientific data. He's closed musea in order to build up fake War of 1812 war memorials. He's closed the scientific lakes project that was the programme responsible for identifying acid rain thanks to decades of data.

    This man has been utterly destructive to Canada's intellectual property, its scientific pedigree and ability to generate new knowledge. Moreover, he's gagged scientists from discussing their own peer-revirewed data. Instead, political interns get to act as mouthpieces.

    Anyone in the scientific or technical community can't help but see how destructive Harper-ism is to Canada's ability to create the next generation of knowledge.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  9. Re:Flamebait by dryeo · · Score: 2

    The governments (healthcare is a Provincial responsibility with the feds setting minimum standards and in charge of equalization payments) have an interest in educating the population on health as a healthy population is cheaper.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  10. Re:The problem with beaurocrats. by CanadianRealist · · Score: 4, Informative

    I live near the border and I can see all the wealthy Canadians bypass the socialized system by coming down here with cash.

    Now look across the border and see the non wealthy Canadians who still get treated* without going bankrupt just because they got sick. Who don't have to worry about what a trip to the doctor will cost when they need treatment. (*Get treated, including preventative care, without having to wait until problems become serious enough to justify a trip to the emergency room.)

    The US health care system may be really good for the wealthy, but it really is not so good for the non wealthy people who can't afford it. We socialist Canadians think everyone should have health care.

  11. Probably going to be a rant: by mewsenews · · Score: 2

    I'm Canadian and I'm very pro-science. Not because I'm left-wing or right-wing, but because my mother was a science teacher and I've basically absorbed it. I literally have no personal attributes that I can try to commend regarding my decent scientific knowledge. Regarding the fucking article, I'm Canadian and I have a science education. A bachelors to be technical. I hated science courses in university. They were dry and the instructors had no interest in helping me. It was a night and day difference from my high school experience. Back to the topic of this article, Canadians understand science to be the truth. We've got less religious disruption than the Americans, and probably many European countries. I told my mother a few months ago that "I need to tell you, growing up I didn't realize that scientific beliefs would be repeatedly questioned in front of me as if there were no experimental evidence" and she went off on some other tangent as mothers do, but I was trying to tell her that she is the basis of everything I believe in the world. My parents took me to church and it was obviously bullshit. My mom told me about chemical reactions and it made sense. I hate myself for not being kinder to my mother.

  12. Re:More useless statistics... by Skarjak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bill 101 is necessary to preserve French in a sea of anglophones. Look at francophone communities outside of Quebec. Their numbers are diminishing. Unfortunately, we have to impose regulations to protect our language. You also have to remember that not long ago, almost all of the wealth of the province belonged to anglophones. People think that stuff is ancient history, but my grand-parents can tell you about living in a Quebec dominated by an english minority. Bill 101 exists in part to ensure that francophones will never again be second class citizens. They can get overzealous at times, but if you spend any amount of time on slashdot, you know government fuck ups are a reality. The bill does a lot more good than harm. I am disappointed that so many anglophones seem to think Quebecois are some kind of strange animal, that we act irrationally, when if you understand where we're coming from and what our values are, our actions make perfect sense. I think if bilingualism was more common in the country, then people could read french media for themselves and realize that we make a lot of sense, rather than getting second hand information with some bias thrown in. That would solve a lot of issues.

    As for the attitude you got, that's a pretty unfortunate reality of a polarized country. There's generally more resentment amongst the older folks or the less educated, or those who are less in contact with anglophones. We're like 2 generations away from having taken control of our province, so it'll take a little while for that stuff to die down. The important thing is that these people are not given a podium and do not have an opinion that is considered mainstream, so their ignorance will disappear with them. Reading newspapers from other provinces, and having lived in Toronto for a while, the anti-Quebec sentiment, while not shared by every Canadian, seems a lot more mainstream...

    Anyway, I'm sorry people treated you badly, but I thought the comment I was replying to was an all too common gratuitous attack. When people start talking about which region of a country is "the worst", you know that this way lies terrible generalization. You don't add to it by bashing your favourite target...

  13. Re:Nice article. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

    The health care system in Canada needs fixing. Many can't get a family physician because there aren't enough and have to go to clinics. Having no doctor because you can't afford one is no worse than not having one because they aren't there. Having primary care physician is the best way to stay healthy. Specialist wait times are crazy and you must have a referral.

    The system is going downhill, but because it was the best 50 years ago, people here think it still is. If you talk change the radical parrots all squawk 'no American style health care!' as if that is the only other system out there. And then they are so satisfied with themselves thinking they have preserved a great system. Meanwhile they are mostly the ones who do have family physicians and are afraid of change, even for the better because they don't want to lose their doctor (which they wouldn't). Canada's health care system ranked 30th in 2000 according to the WHO. America 36th.But most Americans at least know it could be better, while too many Canadians don't think the same way about our system. Attitude is slowly changing, but too slowly.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  14. Re:The problem with beaurocrats. by dywolf · · Score: 2

    It is. The statement is completely true. but first you have to realize that the hospitals are seperate entities from the paper pushers in the AA adminstration. The problem isnt the healthcare provided, like most US healthcare its really quite good (our main problem isnt quality, its quantity and cost). The problem is the horribly mismanaged and innefficient VA adminstration.

    Part of it is the adminstration has only a few offices that handle very large regions (consisting of several entire states each). And then the adminstration also handles ALL VA and service related benefits, not just medical care. GI bill, service-related disability pay, healthcare, etc etc on and on. That's not to excuse the problem, or that some officials tried to cover up their inefficiency by lying, but simply to show the scale of the problem.

    And then politicians repeatedly NOT doing anything to fix it ("it costs too much") but demanding more and more results, and even cutting funding doesn't help either. And there is something to be said for how fighting two wars for over a decade will tend to dramatically increasing the number of veterans applying to the system, thus increasing backlogs even further.....

    But as the man said:
    Americans have a proud tradition and history of serving their country honorably.
    And America has a sorry history, dating back to the Revolutionary war, of messing those veterans over once the fighting is done.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  15. Re:More useless statistics... by William+Baric · · Score: 2

    I live in Quebec. On Tuesday, I went to see The Lion King (the broadway show, not the movie). The show was in English, but at one time, after a long monologue from Rafiki in an African language (which was not translated), the actress turn to the audience and asked : vous avez compris?

    Not only people laughed (because obviously no one understood), but they cheered for this very simple use of the French language.

    We do have some fanatics who are on a holy war for the language, but most of the time the problem comes from English speaking people who act like they are a master race. They act like everyone in the whole world should adapt to them.

    Because of your opinion of French speaking Canadians, my guess is you never cared to learn a few word in French. I don't know, something like : je suis désolé, je ne parle pas français, parlez-vous anglais? If you did, if you were ever polite and respectful, you would have realized that most people in Quebec would have greeted you with a big smile and would even have shown you gratitude for taking 5 minutes to learn those few words.

    I'm a Quebecer, so you may despise me all you want, but it certainly seems to me that your opinion of Quebecers is only because you're just another fucking asshole.

  16. Re:Science is a religion to some by dskoll · · Score: 2

    How, exactly, is "faith" a "way of coming to knowledge?" What knowledge is revealed by believing in burning bushes, virgin births, or flying horses?

  17. Re:ROLF! by Phisbut · · Score: 4, Informative

    " the vaunted Canadian healthcare system"

    - 17 hour average wait time in the Emergency Room

    While I can't argue with you about the other ones, this one here is utter bullshit. If you stumble into the Emergency Room with an emergency, you will be treated accordingly. What people complain about is having to wait 17 hours in the ER because they sprained an ankle.

    On one occasion, I ended up in the ER with a life-threatening acute heart condition. I was brought in an ambulance, and the doctor was actually waiting for me rather than me waiting for him... that's like negative wait time. On a second occasion (not so long after the first episode), I also had heart troubles but I managed to get to the ER on my own, and the nurse that does the triage sent me right into a room where a doctor arrived within 2 minutes. That is what the emergency room is about. Emergencies.

    The fact that people end up in the ER for very trivial stuff is a symptom of a system that is utterly broken in many other ways (lack of family doctors, long waiting lists for specialists, and so on), but the ER itself is the one thing in the whole system that works exactly as intended, but it receives too much undeserved flak because that's what the population actually see, while they do not understand the failings of the bigger system above it.

    Two trips to the ER which saved my life, a heart surgery that stabilized my condition, allows me a high quality of life and lets me contribute to society, all that without paying a dime. That is what the vaunted Canadian healthcare system is all about. By getting me back on my feet as a productive member of society, I have already paid back way more in income tax and other fiscal contributions than what the whole ordeal could have cost, so it is a net gain for society.

    --
    After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
    - The Tao of Programming
  18. Re:More useless statistics... by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 2

    I am an anglophone from Texas, but I have a love of learning foreign languages, of which French is at the top of the list. On several occasions while visiting Montreal, I endeavored to speak French *only* and my experiences ranged from delight that I was speaking French so well to the other person answering me in English, which didn't exactly encourage me to continue in French. Perhaps the ones who answered me in English could hear my accent, or maybe they were anglophones themselves and thought it simpler to reply in English. Overall, I enjoyed my visits there and I'm looking forward to going again in the future.

    --
    In C++, your friends can see your privates.
  19. Re:More useless statistics... by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 2

    Bilingual conversations are really common here. I'm from Alberta originally, and my spoken French isn't great (I can get by, but I don't like speaking it). That said, I have plenty of friends that speak to me in French. I answer in English. We just go with whatever's easiest. Montreallers are really easy going that way.

    Usually it's just faster for them to switch to English, though. Quebec French has its own peculiarities, so I found that on the few times where I started a conversation in French, it would usually switch to English just to hurry things along.