For those who think I'm anti-photographer, ironically on this same day I took pictures of downtown Toronto, however never did I put anyone else out in doing so.
It doesn't elicit the same reaction as when you see someone pointing a camera (politely get out of the way, don't step in front of a picture-taker when walking, etc).
Completely offtopic, however as a personal rule I've given up on trying to avoid the pictures of tourists, etc. It is the picture takers responsibility to find a good location to take a clear picture (and to wait for a clear break in the traffic without impeding everyone else), not the random guy going about his business who needs to worry about it. Most touristy locations have set aside special "picture taking" locations specifically where they don't impede with the movements of everyone else, and if they didn't then too damn bad: Deal with it and find a picture.
Why did this elicit this response? A couple of weeks ago in downtown Toronto I was outside on the side waiting for my wife to get out of a play, when the patrons started streaming out. Out came a family who proceeded to get on one side of a TREMENDOUSLY busy downtown sidewalk, while the photographer got on the other, and these anti-social, inconsiderate, tremendously selfish morons then actually scolded everyone who walked into their picture! A show full of several thousand people, apparently, should wait while they get their picture. Across the street was an empty park with all the same backdrops and more, but that would have required some effort on their part. I've seen the same scene play out in many different places, always with the photographer believing that pointing a camera yields some sort of magic barrier that shouldn't be intruded.
Re:this shouldn't have been accepted by /.
on
Jet Turbine Locomotives
·
· Score: 2, Informative
but the US and Canada, who still have these ridiculous diesel engines that are just not suited to getting people around
Umm...why not? The engine is locomotion unit, and whether it uses diesel, gerbils, or a squadron of nerds, it simply needs to move some cars. I use Go Transit to get to work, and they utilize diesel engines fabulously in a light rail system: Works superbly.
Wow, 10L and it puts out just 1600HP? Thanks for proving my point. A 3L F1 engine puts out, however it's intentionally fed air at atmospheric pressure (to intentionally keep the power low). Let's give a better example and consider the ChampCAR engines, which are mildly turbocharged (though again, far less than they could be. Again in the hopes for safety they've limited the turbocharge pressure): 2.6L, again putting out 850HP. So at 1/4 the displacement, they put out over half the engine of your dream Sonny Leonard drag motor. Again, the point is that displacement != power.
I would hardly categorize the Altima as a ricer, unless your definition of "ricer" really is just a racist term (i.e. versus the class "Honda Civic with a racing stripe, useless ground effects, and a ripped TypeR logo taped on the back). Secondly, you compare a standard, production car, for which I was simply stating that it has a good amount of normally aspirated power for a relatively small displacement, with your customized car and then you pronounce that it's nothing because the torque, which is more than the HP, isn't as much as your torque, which is more than your HP. Huh?
Well I didn't say it was cheap, though the only reason why F1 engines are so tremendously expensive is simply because there really isn't a lot of volume in the F1 engine market (especially given that most teams don't want volume: They want to keep that tiny little advantage that they have to themselves). However an F1 engine proves that one can build a non-turbocharged, normally aspirated engine running on pretty much regular "petrol", with a relatively small displacement, that is ground thumpingly powerful. Engine design is a complex give and take, and if they went to 6L, for example, I highly doubt they'd be pushing 18,000RPM.
I should note that the only reason they are 3L is that FIA keeps reducing the displacement because the cars are too powerful, however each time the engine manufacturers find a way to push even more power out of continually smaller engines.
Both specint and specfp are barely memory intensive at all (from what I recall), and I suspect that the extremely beefed up L3 cache was of very limited benefit.
In any case, aren't we talking about a CPU approaching 2Ghz, versus the 1Ghz and 1.3Ghz in this article? I still haven't figured out if the upper end unit that HP tested is a dual-core or not.
BTW: I realize that they list the 690 Turbo separately, but I can't figure out if that comes equipped with the dual-core version of the CPU or not (the HP page is incredibly vague about that, and while they specifically mention that the 630 is single-core and is available in dual-core versions, they don't mention what the 690 is). Given that the numbers for the 690 Turbo is only about 35% higher (which can be attributed to the extreme L3 memory, and 30% higher clockspeed) than the single-core 630, I suspect that it as well is a single core, though of course I can't verify that.
I'm not so sure about that. That HP page specifically mentions that it's refering to the single core version of the Power4. To quote:
The figures for the 1-way, single core Power4 is for the IBM eServer pSeries 630, the latest Power4 based system and the first to be available in 1-way (one processor core) and 2-way (2 processor cores) configurations.
MHz and GHz are fine, but that's just RPMs. As anyone who has driven a bored out V8 or massive V10 will tell you, there is no replacement for displacement. You can rev a crappy 2L engine to 7,000rpm and make your itty bitty wheels spin and make a nice smell. But if you want to throw asphalt into the air and stike terror into living things you put the pedal to 8 or 10L of fire-breathing cast iron.
Bad analogy. A 3L F1 engine puts out in excess of 850HP, courtesy of a high tech design that can go in excess of 18,000 RPMs. A 3.5L modern engine in the Altima can put out 240HP, versus the 220 or so horsepower of a 5L Mustang engine of but a few years ago.
Both the Power4 and Itanium are tremendously powerful processors. See this page, ironically intending to promote the Itanium2 (which is a tremendously powerful chip), to see how a 1.3Ghz Power4 compares with a P4.
Chapters (aka Indigo) has it for $21.00 CDN (for those in the iRewards program it drops an additional $2.10, to $18.90 CDN), which is equal to about $13.20 US. Amazon.ca has it for $23.10 CDN.
The original SA Tivo runs on a 55Mghz PPC chip with 16 Meg of RAM.
I would imagine, with quite a bit of certainty, that it additionally has a video compression coprocessor to perform video compression and decompression (see this page which seems to concur, showing separate board chips for video compression and decompression, separate from the CPU), hence leaving the main processor basically as a custodian. I highly suspect this, as 4Mbps MPEG2 compression simply doesn't seem possible on a 55Mhz PowerPC.
Of course Microsoft could just get together with Sigma Designs or such and get some custom hardware to do it much more efficiently, but they probably want programmability (i.e. custom hardware can't adapt when a new codec comes out)
While it doesn't explain the GF4, the CPU can be explained as necessary if they haven't integrated a coprocessor for video compression: Even 3Mbps (ok quality) MPEG2 has my Athlon XP 1800+ gasping for air. I don't know what sort of video codec they're using, but if it's WM9 (a sort of super-MPEG4 supposedly) then increase the CPU usage accordingly. The desired goal is that they'd put actual integrated video compression hardware on there.
Personally I think this is a product area that will get huge: For everyone who's talking about how expensive it is, realize that people buy TV systems exceeding that cost frequently: This isn't a surprisingly high home entertainment cost. Hell, the home theatre market continues to strive, selling five digit projectors and similarly priced audio gear. I personally have been having a debate regarding my own entertainment system: My DVD player was one of the early ones, and I want to replace it with a progressive scan player. Additionally I want something to play MP3 and WMA, preferably over the network from one of my other PCs. What I end up needing, of course, is a computer at my TV, and that's the direction that I'm headed. My biggest problem was software (i.e. I would rather super simple, can't-screw-up, software for family and friends), however the Media Center software seems to fit the bill perfectly.
Literally, when these video consortiums are talking about video codecs, PCs are often the furthest thing from their minds: Their business is DVD players, settop boxes, and other integrated electronics. While indeed many set-top boxes can receive code updates, I'm thinking more in terms of the companies releasing a new version with minimal engineering changes: That is what they strive for. With 3-4x more processing power though, there are very few that'll have enough processing power, requiring significant changes.
I'm going out of a limb here, but I'm guessing that they really aren't all that concerned with the ripping/P2P crowd. Instead this is intended for media companies that'll make one master digital MPEG4p10 stream, and cable companies can use it for PPV streams/movies on demand, etc. Digital boxes right now are being sent dozens of streams in, I believe, MPEG2, and the bitrate cannot keep up with fast action, and there are significant artifacts in parts. By going to the new codec, not only will they improve the video, they'll lower the bitrate as well, allowing them to fit more "channels" in a given frequenecy.
Uh...probably because they're generally talking about DVD players/set-top boxes? You know, devices that don't have x86 or PowerPC processors, and are generally spec'd to have a processor that is barely adequate for the job (for power, heat, and cost issues, they usually only want a tiny headroom, hence why the current crop of set-top boxes would largely be insufficient for this new codec).
Yes, well since you don't honor our patents on drugs, we're doing all the R&D for you. Of course, in the long run you're denying yourselves lifesaving technology, but you're too shortsighted to see that.
We don't honour US patents? BULLSHIT. We indeed have different rules, different expiry lengths, etc, but that's because we're...surprize.... a different country! Sorry if we don't roll over to whatever serves you (ironically being an Australian, though speaking on behalf of the US apparently) best.
But that's typical: when important work has to be done, wars have to be fought, etc, the USA does the heavy lifting. We're used to it.
I thought you were Australian. Claiming the glory of the US too?
Regarding the heavy lifting comment, the US is indeed a world superpower: A position it strove for and got, without any question of a doubt. The US spent tremendous amounts on military hardware and R&D, and they are reaping the rewards for it. They have quite a lot of sway, and get their way a lot. Yet often individual Americans portray themselves as a poor martyr victim, like the boss at work making $200K and driving the Lexus complaining about the overtime: The rewards have costs, and don't pretend that they should be shared when you're enjoying the fruits of it. Don't play martyr when you're up to bat and pretty much setting the rules worldwide.
Yeah, it's easy to grow a small economy. US GDP: $10 Trillion. What's Canada's again?
The Canadian economy is indeed about 1/10th the size (just under a trillion US $), however that's coupled with 1/10th the number of people to grow it: Saying that it's "easier" to grow a small economy is absurd (or is Australia absolutely hopping with growth right now?). Indeed, historically we have been MORE negatively affected when the US economy falters, however some tax breaks and some robust fundamentals have built a healthy base that's helping Canada roll through this worldwide slowdown fairly well (and I think if we'll "feel it soon enough" we would have felt it already. The US has been slowed down for going on 2 years now. Traditionally we react to US slowdowns pretty much instantly).
Yes, you guys have such great healthcare that back in 1997 you guys started sending pregnant women to detroit becase you didn't have enough doctors to deliver the babies.
Wow, and in the history of the United States, never have there been a localized emergency situations where patients had to be diverted: I guess the wonders of the HMO means that there are an infinite number of doctors in every field in every town. Amazing.
BTW: Generally neighbouring US cities are considering neighbouring cities, not "another country" (despite the fact that they practically are). If it's easier for Windsor patients to be redirected to Detroit, then so be it. I suppose it would have been better if they did the drive to Chatham?
Anyways, never has the Canadian Healthcare system been portrayed as perfect. It is far from it. But I love how the HMO misled anti, err, "socialism" (again, I'm waiting until the US eliminates all levels of government, public roads, police, fire departments, EPA, federal agriculture subsidies, the military, etc. THEN come ranting about socialism. Until then it's a tiny degree difference blown up as if it is the definition of socialism) ignores the massive failures in the US system (such as the fact that despite the lack of certain specialists, and certain pieces of equipment, your survival rates for most forms of cancer, heart disease, etc, is significantly better in Canada). Believe me, our newspapers are full of endless complaints our health care system quite simply because we know that we can make it better (and hopefully the quest for a better system never ends).
If there is one trait of Canadians that I'm very pleased with it is that we are extremely self-critical. This is trait that many Americans might be advantaged to learn.
The US is the center of world attention and Canadians are notorious for bitching about the US to anyone who will listen.
Canada happens to be a country of 30,000,000+ people right beside the United States, and there happens to be quite a few Canadians in the US (probably more than any other Western country), hence saying that we're "notorious" seems a little false. Of the Australians I know, none could stop talking about how great Australia was. It's pretty common for people who are in foreign nations to bitch about that nation compared to where they came from. I recently was preached to by an Iranian who moved to Canada, speaking at length about the failings of Canada compared to her home country. It's hardly surprizing.
Having said that, Canadians are brutal self critics (read some of our newspapers for a while. The National Post, for instance, expends about 90% of each issue telling us how much we suck. On the flip side they portray any disagreement with the US as "anti-American". For instance, recently there was a poll that asked Canadians if we believed that Western actions partially led to September 11th, and a majority said yes. This led to a endless stream of editorials about how we're "anti-American". Imagine the surprize when the same sort of polls got virtually the same response in the United States. I suppose they're all Anti-American?), however just like a family that'll happily criticize each other, we don't like hearing criticism from outsiders, especially when uninformed. I was on a tour recently in Italy, and there were loads of wonderful Americans (among with other nations), however there was one American couple, from Texas, that insisted upon telling us the ills of the Canadian healthcare system, and they could not have been further from the truth in their understand, yet they absolutely were forceful with their opinion. It is that sort of thing that raises the hairs on our backs.
My other points, I'll pass on for now, as I don't feel a need to offend your "national pride" any further.
The humor in this statement is the condescending portrayal that it's others who are nationalistic, when in reality it's your original post that reeks of "it's okay...but not compared to the US" jingoism.
First off, 'major Canadian cities' are smaller than major American cities.
Obviously you should compare similar sized cities to get a good indication. There are plenty of relatively small, 500,000 or so cities that are featured on COPS consistently, and they certainly aren't crime free.
But even there, since pistols became all but outlawed in Canada, crime has shot way up.
When were pistols not "outlawed" in Canada? For decades it has been illegal for anyone but the police and Brinks-type guys to carry guns. It just seems like you portray this as some recent thing.
When Grandma and Gangsta Mallone both have guns, it doesn't matter so much that Mallone weighs 3 times what Grandma does. But with crime the way it is in Canada now, muscle is boss.
This qualifies as one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on Slashdot. About 95% of the time that Grandma has a pistol, she gets shot by her own pistol.
About Canadian healthcare - sure, you all have the same level of healthcare, but is it really that good? Most good Canadian doctors come to the United States where they can make real money for their hard work.
Firstly, there are plenty of American workers who've gone to the middle East to get the "real money": Does that mean that that's where the going is good? Of course it doesn't. It means that for those particular people it is most lucrative. Secondly, Canadian doctors make about $150K/year: Sorry, but I'm crying no tears for them (anyways we have excellent schools pumping out thousands of extremely good doctors). Thirdly, I am very proud of our healthcare, even in the face of countless Americans reciting the unbelievable rhetoric and BS that their HMOs (rolling in the dough) are feeding them. Did you know that for most forms of generally terminal illnesses, you have a better rate of survival, when in treatment (meaning excluding those who can't even get healthcare in the US), in Canada than the US? Of course all we'll hear about is the guy who was in a waiting list too long. Why don't you recite about the countless people die because their HMO decides that they don't want to cover treatment? Life spans are longer in Canada. The death rate is lower virtually across the board. Tell me again why our healthcare system sucks?
Slashdot Mirror
For those who think I'm anti-photographer, ironically on this same day I took pictures of downtown Toronto, however never did I put anyone else out in doing so.
It doesn't elicit the same reaction as when you see someone pointing a camera (politely get out of the way, don't step in front of a picture-taker when walking, etc).
Completely offtopic, however as a personal rule I've given up on trying to avoid the pictures of tourists, etc. It is the picture takers responsibility to find a good location to take a clear picture (and to wait for a clear break in the traffic without impeding everyone else), not the random guy going about his business who needs to worry about it. Most touristy locations have set aside special "picture taking" locations specifically where they don't impede with the movements of everyone else, and if they didn't then too damn bad: Deal with it and find a picture.
Why did this elicit this response? A couple of weeks ago in downtown Toronto I was outside on the side waiting for my wife to get out of a play, when the patrons started streaming out. Out came a family who proceeded to get on one side of a TREMENDOUSLY busy downtown sidewalk, while the photographer got on the other, and these anti-social, inconsiderate, tremendously selfish morons then actually scolded everyone who walked into their picture! A show full of several thousand people, apparently, should wait while they get their picture. Across the street was an empty park with all the same backdrops and more, but that would have required some effort on their part. I've seen the same scene play out in many different places, always with the photographer believing that pointing a camera yields some sort of magic barrier that shouldn't be intruded.
but the US and Canada, who still have these ridiculous diesel engines that are just not suited to getting people around
Umm...why not? The engine is locomotion unit, and whether it uses diesel, gerbils, or a squadron of nerds, it simply needs to move some cars. I use Go Transit to get to work, and they utilize diesel engines fabulously in a light rail system: Works superbly.
McDonalds doesn't sell cheese. Instead they sell "processed cheese", which is basically cheese "cut" with vegetable oil.
Wow, 10L and it puts out just 1600HP? Thanks for proving my point. A 3L F1 engine puts out, however it's intentionally fed air at atmospheric pressure (to intentionally keep the power low). Let's give a better example and consider the ChampCAR engines, which are mildly turbocharged (though again, far less than they could be. Again in the hopes for safety they've limited the turbocharge pressure): 2.6L, again putting out 850HP. So at 1/4 the displacement, they put out over half the engine of your dream Sonny Leonard drag motor. Again, the point is that displacement != power.
I would hardly categorize the Altima as a ricer, unless your definition of "ricer" really is just a racist term (i.e. versus the class "Honda Civic with a racing stripe, useless ground effects, and a ripped TypeR logo taped on the back). Secondly, you compare a standard, production car, for which I was simply stating that it has a good amount of normally aspirated power for a relatively small displacement, with your customized car and then you pronounce that it's nothing because the torque, which is more than the HP, isn't as much as your torque, which is more than your HP. Huh?
Indeed, they call it "unified L3 cache" so I wonder if it's just a segment of main memory set aside for the CPUs to do their thing.
Well I didn't say it was cheap, though the only reason why F1 engines are so tremendously expensive is simply because there really isn't a lot of volume in the F1 engine market (especially given that most teams don't want volume: They want to keep that tiny little advantage that they have to themselves). However an F1 engine proves that one can build a non-turbocharged, normally aspirated engine running on pretty much regular "petrol", with a relatively small displacement, that is ground thumpingly powerful. Engine design is a complex give and take, and if they went to 6L, for example, I highly doubt they'd be pushing 18,000RPM.
I should note that the only reason they are 3L is that FIA keeps reducing the displacement because the cars are too powerful, however each time the engine manufacturers find a way to push even more power out of continually smaller engines.
Both specint and specfp are barely memory intensive at all (from what I recall), and I suspect that the extremely beefed up L3 cache was of very limited benefit.
In any case, aren't we talking about a CPU approaching 2Ghz, versus the 1Ghz and 1.3Ghz in this article? I still haven't figured out if the upper end unit that HP tested is a dual-core or not.
BTW: I realize that they list the 690 Turbo separately, but I can't figure out if that comes equipped with the dual-core version of the CPU or not (the HP page is incredibly vague about that, and while they specifically mention that the 630 is single-core and is available in dual-core versions, they don't mention what the 690 is). Given that the numbers for the 690 Turbo is only about 35% higher (which can be attributed to the extreme L3 memory, and 30% higher clockspeed) than the single-core 630, I suspect that it as well is a single core, though of course I can't verify that.
I'm not so sure about that. That HP page specifically mentions that it's refering to the single core version of the Power4. To quote:
The figures for the 1-way, single core Power4 is for the IBM eServer pSeries 630, the latest Power4 based system and the first to be available in 1-way (one processor core) and 2-way (2 processor cores) configurations.
MHz and GHz are fine, but that's just RPMs. As anyone who has driven a bored out V8 or massive V10 will tell you, there is no replacement for displacement. You can rev a crappy 2L engine to 7,000rpm and make your itty bitty wheels spin and make a nice smell. But if you want to throw asphalt into the air and stike terror into living things you put the pedal to 8 or 10L of fire-breathing cast iron.
Bad analogy. A 3L F1 engine puts out in excess of 850HP, courtesy of a high tech design that can go in excess of 18,000 RPMs. A 3.5L modern engine in the Altima can put out 240HP, versus the 220 or so horsepower of a 5L Mustang engine of but a few years ago.
Both the Power4 and Itanium are tremendously powerful processors. See this page, ironically intending to promote the Itanium2 (which is a tremendously powerful chip), to see how a 1.3Ghz Power4 compares with a P4.
Chapters (aka Indigo) has it for $21.00 CDN (for those in the iRewards program it drops an additional $2.10, to $18.90 CDN), which is equal to about $13.20 US. Amazon.ca has it for $23.10 CDN.
Get yourself a Sigma Designs XCard and dump a low power PC near your TV.
The original SA Tivo runs on a 55Mghz PPC chip with 16 Meg of RAM.
I would imagine, with quite a bit of certainty, that it additionally has a video compression coprocessor to perform video compression and decompression (see this page which seems to concur, showing separate board chips for video compression and decompression, separate from the CPU), hence leaving the main processor basically as a custodian. I highly suspect this, as 4Mbps MPEG2 compression simply doesn't seem possible on a 55Mhz PowerPC.
Of course Microsoft could just get together with Sigma Designs or such and get some custom hardware to do it much more efficiently, but they probably want programmability (i.e. custom hardware can't adapt when a new codec comes out)
While it doesn't explain the GF4, the CPU can be explained as necessary if they haven't integrated a coprocessor for video compression: Even 3Mbps (ok quality) MPEG2 has my Athlon XP 1800+ gasping for air. I don't know what sort of video codec they're using, but if it's WM9 (a sort of super-MPEG4 supposedly) then increase the CPU usage accordingly. The desired goal is that they'd put actual integrated video compression hardware on there.
Personally I think this is a product area that will get huge: For everyone who's talking about how expensive it is, realize that people buy TV systems exceeding that cost frequently: This isn't a surprisingly high home entertainment cost. Hell, the home theatre market continues to strive, selling five digit projectors and similarly priced audio gear. I personally have been having a debate regarding my own entertainment system: My DVD player was one of the early ones, and I want to replace it with a progressive scan player. Additionally I want something to play MP3 and WMA, preferably over the network from one of my other PCs. What I end up needing, of course, is a computer at my TV, and that's the direction that I'm headed. My biggest problem was software (i.e. I would rather super simple, can't-screw-up, software for family and friends), however the Media Center software seems to fit the bill perfectly.
Literally, when these video consortiums are talking about video codecs, PCs are often the furthest thing from their minds: Their business is DVD players, settop boxes, and other integrated electronics. While indeed many set-top boxes can receive code updates, I'm thinking more in terms of the companies releasing a new version with minimal engineering changes: That is what they strive for. With 3-4x more processing power though, there are very few that'll have enough processing power, requiring significant changes.
I'm going out of a limb here, but I'm guessing that they really aren't all that concerned with the ripping/P2P crowd. Instead this is intended for media companies that'll make one master digital MPEG4p10 stream, and cable companies can use it for PPV streams/movies on demand, etc. Digital boxes right now are being sent dozens of streams in, I believe, MPEG2, and the bitrate cannot keep up with fast action, and there are significant artifacts in parts. By going to the new codec, not only will they improve the video, they'll lower the bitrate as well, allowing them to fit more "channels" in a given frequenecy.
Uh...probably because they're generally talking about DVD players/set-top boxes? You know, devices that don't have x86 or PowerPC processors, and are generally spec'd to have a processor that is barely adequate for the job (for power, heat, and cost issues, they usually only want a tiny headroom, hence why the current crop of set-top boxes would largely be insufficient for this new codec).
Yes, well since you don't honor our patents on drugs, we're doing all the R&D for you. Of course, in the long run you're denying yourselves lifesaving technology, but you're too shortsighted to see that.
We don't honour US patents? BULLSHIT. We indeed have different rules, different expiry lengths, etc, but that's because we're...surprize.... a different country! Sorry if we don't roll over to whatever serves you (ironically being an Australian, though speaking on behalf of the US apparently) best.
But that's typical: when important work has to be done, wars have to be fought, etc, the USA does the heavy lifting. We're used to it.
I thought you were Australian. Claiming the glory of the US too?
Regarding the heavy lifting comment, the US is indeed a world superpower: A position it strove for and got, without any question of a doubt. The US spent tremendous amounts on military hardware and R&D, and they are reaping the rewards for it. They have quite a lot of sway, and get their way a lot. Yet often individual Americans portray themselves as a poor martyr victim, like the boss at work making $200K and driving the Lexus complaining about the overtime: The rewards have costs, and don't pretend that they should be shared when you're enjoying the fruits of it. Don't play martyr when you're up to bat and pretty much setting the rules worldwide.
Yeah, it's easy to grow a small economy. US GDP: $10 Trillion. What's Canada's again?
The Canadian economy is indeed about 1/10th the size (just under a trillion US $), however that's coupled with 1/10th the number of people to grow it: Saying that it's "easier" to grow a small economy is absurd (or is Australia absolutely hopping with growth right now?). Indeed, historically we have been MORE negatively affected when the US economy falters, however some tax breaks and some robust fundamentals have built a healthy base that's helping Canada roll through this worldwide slowdown fairly well (and I think if we'll "feel it soon enough" we would have felt it already. The US has been slowed down for going on 2 years now. Traditionally we react to US slowdowns pretty much instantly).
Yes, you guys have such great healthcare that back in 1997 you guys started sending pregnant women to detroit becase you didn't have enough doctors to deliver the babies.
Wow, and in the history of the United States, never have there been a localized emergency situations where patients had to be diverted: I guess the wonders of the HMO means that there are an infinite number of doctors in every field in every town. Amazing.
BTW: Generally neighbouring US cities are considering neighbouring cities, not "another country" (despite the fact that they practically are). If it's easier for Windsor patients to be redirected to Detroit, then so be it. I suppose it would have been better if they did the drive to Chatham?
Anyways, never has the Canadian Healthcare system been portrayed as perfect. It is far from it. But I love how the HMO misled anti, err, "socialism" (again, I'm waiting until the US eliminates all levels of government, public roads, police, fire departments, EPA, federal agriculture subsidies, the military, etc. THEN come ranting about socialism. Until then it's a tiny degree difference blown up as if it is the definition of socialism) ignores the massive failures in the US system (such as the fact that despite the lack of certain specialists, and certain pieces of equipment, your survival rates for most forms of cancer, heart disease, etc, is significantly better in Canada). Believe me, our newspapers are full of endless complaints our health care system quite simply because we know that we can make it better (and hopefully the quest for a better system never ends).
If there is one trait of Canadians that I'm very pleased with it is that we are extremely self-critical. This is trait that many Americans might be advantaged to learn.
The US is the center of world attention and Canadians are notorious for bitching about the US to anyone who will listen.
Canada happens to be a country of 30,000,000+ people right beside the United States, and there happens to be quite a few Canadians in the US (probably more than any other Western country), hence saying that we're "notorious" seems a little false. Of the Australians I know, none could stop talking about how great Australia was. It's pretty common for people who are in foreign nations to bitch about that nation compared to where they came from. I recently was preached to by an Iranian who moved to Canada, speaking at length about the failings of Canada compared to her home country. It's hardly surprizing.
Having said that, Canadians are brutal self critics (read some of our newspapers for a while. The National Post, for instance, expends about 90% of each issue telling us how much we suck. On the flip side they portray any disagreement with the US as "anti-American". For instance, recently there was a poll that asked Canadians if we believed that Western actions partially led to September 11th, and a majority said yes. This led to a endless stream of editorials about how we're "anti-American". Imagine the surprize when the same sort of polls got virtually the same response in the United States. I suppose they're all Anti-American?), however just like a family that'll happily criticize each other, we don't like hearing criticism from outsiders, especially when uninformed. I was on a tour recently in Italy, and there were loads of wonderful Americans (among with other nations), however there was one American couple, from Texas, that insisted upon telling us the ills of the Canadian healthcare system, and they could not have been further from the truth in their understand, yet they absolutely were forceful with their opinion. It is that sort of thing that raises the hairs on our backs.
My other points, I'll pass on for now, as I don't feel a need to offend your "national pride" any further.
The humor in this statement is the condescending portrayal that it's others who are nationalistic, when in reality it's your original post that reeks of "it's okay...but not compared to the US" jingoism.
First off, 'major Canadian cities' are smaller than major American cities.
Obviously you should compare similar sized cities to get a good indication. There are plenty of relatively small, 500,000 or so cities that are featured on COPS consistently, and they certainly aren't crime free.
But even there, since pistols became all but outlawed in Canada, crime has shot way up.
When were pistols not "outlawed" in Canada? For decades it has been illegal for anyone but the police and Brinks-type guys to carry guns. It just seems like you portray this as some recent thing.
When Grandma and Gangsta Mallone both have guns, it doesn't matter so much that Mallone weighs 3 times what Grandma does. But with crime the way it is in Canada now, muscle is boss.
This qualifies as one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on Slashdot. About 95% of the time that Grandma has a pistol, she gets shot by her own pistol.
About Canadian healthcare - sure, you all have the same level of healthcare, but is it really that good? Most good Canadian doctors come to the United States where they can make real money for their hard work.
Firstly, there are plenty of American workers who've gone to the middle East to get the "real money": Does that mean that that's where the going is good? Of course it doesn't. It means that for those particular people it is most lucrative. Secondly, Canadian doctors make about $150K/year: Sorry, but I'm crying no tears for them (anyways we have excellent schools pumping out thousands of extremely good doctors). Thirdly, I am very proud of our healthcare, even in the face of countless Americans reciting the unbelievable rhetoric and BS that their HMOs (rolling in the dough) are feeding them. Did you know that for most forms of generally terminal illnesses, you have a better rate of survival, when in treatment (meaning excluding those who can't even get healthcare in the US), in Canada than the US? Of course all we'll hear about is the guy who was in a waiting list too long. Why don't you recite about the countless people die because their HMO decides that they don't want to cover treatment? Life spans are longer in Canada. The death rate is lower virtually across the board. Tell me again why our healthcare system sucks?