Hmm, replying to my own post with a correction I noticed when I re-read after posting, before some uber-network-guru calls me an idiot... :-) The multiple responses on the same hop number aren't additional routers not incrementing the hopcount (would have three times each) they were the three indivitual ICMP echo requests being responded to by the different (parallel) routers that happened to be the one passing the packet and responding the request.

Your maximum speed has nothing to do with latency, which is what the ping time is measuring. Most protocols adjust for increased latency, so even on a satellite connection with a 1s ping time due to physical distance, you can still get many Mbps on a large transfer. Response time for anything interactive is a completely different story.

All of the physical distance is probably on savvis' network then... Why does that make them suck?

I tested three different connections at the same location here in Calgary since I have all three available here in the mini-NOC for troubleshooting when parts of the internet melt, a 25 Mbps business-class Shaw cable, a 6 Mbps Telus ADSL2+ and one on our own in-house DSL equipment running at 3 Mbps backhauled via fiber that eventually peers upstream with both Telus and Shaw... Local IPs have been hidden...

These were each tested directly from a FreeBSD router to the appropriate modem.

*** SHAW
As I expected, despite having the fastest rated "speed", the Shaw connection's LATENCY (which is what we're measuring) was the worst (don't read too much into hop count on today's backbones, ie. here we happen see many of the hops inside level3, including several which did not increment the hopcount, but many backbones will not show (m)any depending on their transport, design, etc.):

Ping times vary, usually 90-100ms but as usual on cable, sometimes they spike WAY up, even on this "business class" network version:

PING slashdot.org (216.34.181.45): 56 data bytes ...
319 packets transmitted, 286 packets received, 10.3% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 88.485/93.094/106.992/3.029 ms

Here, I happened to catch some suckiness for a few seconds (ie. why cable generally is bad):

PING slashdot.org (216.34.181.45): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 216.34.181.45: icmp_seq=0 ttl=241 time=92.786 ms
64 bytes from 216.34.181.45: icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=95.201 ms
64 bytes from 216.34.181.45: icmp_seq=2 ttl=241 time=571.284 ms
64 bytes from 216.34.181.45: icmp_seq=3 ttl=241 time=554.097 ms
64 bytes from 216.34.181.45: icmp_seq=4 ttl=241 time=553.406 ms
64 bytes from 216.34.181.45: icmp_seq=5 ttl=241 time=333.319 ms
64 bytes from 216.34.181.45: icmp_seq=6 ttl=241 time=551.926 ms
64 bytes from 216.34.181.45: icmp_seq=7 ttl=241 time=567.186 ms
64 bytes from 216.34.181.45: icmp_seq=8 ttl=241 time=208.858 ms
64 bytes from 216.34.181.45: icmp_seq=9 ttl=241 time=89.081 ms
64 bytes from 216.34.181.45: icmp_seq=10 ttl=241 time=93.182 ms ...
11 packets transmitted, 11 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 89.081/337.302/571.284/213.942 ms

traceroute to slashdot.org (216.34.181.45), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
  1 64.x.x.x (shaw) 13.378 ms 14.725 ms 12.000 ms
  2 66.x.x.x (shaw) 29.474 ms 34.974 ms 24.177 ms
  3 66.x.x.x (shaw) 29.671 ms 39.214 ms 31.993 ms
  4 xe-8-3-1.edge1.Seattle3.Level3.net (4.59.232.37) 25.604 ms 30.470 ms 28.631 ms
  5 ae-31-51.ebr1.Seattle1.Level3.net (4.69.147.150) 56.912 ms 45.714 ms 46.577 ms
  6 ae-7-7.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.132.49) 48.333 ms 48.885 ms 54.355 ms
  7 ae-92-92.csw4.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.153.30) 46.860 ms
        ae-62-62.csw1.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.153.18) 44.887 ms
        ae-72-72.csw2.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.69.153.22) 50.558 ms
  8 ae-3-80.edge1.SanJose3.Level3.net (4.69.152.144) 47.736 ms
        ae-4-90.edge1.SanJose3.Level3.net (4.69.152.208) 57.435 ms
        ae-2-70.edge1.SanJose3.Level3.net (4.69.152.80) 50.952 ms
9 Savvis-Level3.Dallas3.Level3.net (4.68.62.106) 45.752 ms 46.598 ms 110.005 ms
10 cr2-tenge-0-5-0-2.sanfrancisco.savvis.net (204.70.200.198) 49.200 ms 46.154 ms
        cr2-tengig0-7-3-0.sanfrancisco.savvis.net (204.70.206.57) 46.903 ms
11 cr1-ten-0-4-0-1.chd.savvis.net (204.70.192.134) 90.065 ms 90.816 ms 90.150 ms
12 hr1-te-12-0-1.elkgrovech3.savvis.net (204.70.198.73) 96.279 ms 90.123 ms 89.796 ms
13 das6-v3034.ch3.savvis.net (64.37.207.166) 93.088 ms 91.937 ms 90.050 ms
14 64.27.160.198 (64.27.160.198) 104.232 ms 107.131 ms 90.055 ms
15 slashdot.org (216.34.181.45) 89.878 ms 90.898 ms 91.700 ms

(Actually at least 20 hops on visible, responding routers , though it shows only 15)

*** TELUS
The Telus was second and has the shortest number of SHOWN hops, but there are many pieces of equipment between here and slashdot, they just don't show up:

PING slashdot.org (216.34.181.45): 56 data bytes ...
422 packets transmitted, 409 packets received, 3% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 51.477/52.423/55.586/0.583 ms

traceroute to slashdot.org (216.34.181.45), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
  1 telus (199.x.x.x) 12.157 ms 12.164 ms 11.399 ms
  2 telus (173.x.x.x) 11.637 ms 13.749 ms 11.600 ms
  3 telus (75.154.223.178) 40.949 ms 40.419 ms 40.927 ms
  4 savvis (216.91.69.45) 40.962 ms 40.460 ms 40.901 ms
  5 hr1-te-9-0-0.elkgrovech3.savvis.net (204.70.196.14) 41.965 ms 42.152 ms 41.620 ms
  6 das5-v3032.ch3.savvis.net (64.37.207.158) 51.590 ms 51.634 ms 51.969 ms
  7 64.27.160.194 (64.27.160.194) 50.586 ms 41.884 ms 49.791 ms
  8 slashdot.org (216.34.181.45) 51.784 ms 53.937 ms 52.490 ms

***SATURN
Our network adds a couple extra hops and the test link is 3 Mbps vs 6 for the Telus but since it ends up routing these packets through the Telus backbone upstream, performance is similar but ends up being a TINY bit faster despite the extra latency on the DSL line because our internal network is less loaded and very carefully controlled:

PING slashdot.org (216.34.181.45): 56 data bytes ...
347 packets transmitted, 347 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 47.759/48.731/50.917/0.592 ms

traceroute to slashdot.org (216.34.181.45), 64 hops max, 44 byte packets
  1 66.x.x.x (internal) 6.926 ms 7.586 ms 6.661 ms
  2 66.x.x.x (internal) 6.279 ms 5.862 ms 7.596 ms
  3 208.x.x.x (telus) 10.341 ms 7.386 ms 7.621 ms
  4 154.x.x.x (telus) 7.306 ms 7.756 ms 7.623 ms
  5 205.x.x.x (telus) 16.328 ms 22.365 ms 10.594 ms
  6 75.154.223.178 (telus) 56.833 ms 57.388 ms 56.590 ms
  7 216.91.69.45 (savvis) 56.336 ms 57.315 ms 56.449 ms
  8 hr1-te-9-0-0.elkgrovech3.savvis.net (204.70.196.14) 57.320 ms 57.742 ms 58.591 ms
  9 das5-v3032.ch3.savvis.net (64.37.207.158) 48.837 ms 47.399 ms 48.580 ms
10 64.27.160.194 (64.27.160.194) 48.328 ms 54.349 ms 53.628 ms
11 slashdot.org (216.34.181.45) 48.329 ms 47.359 ms 49.541 ms

YMMV

I was dismayed to see this article in the paper today:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Smartphone+storage+memory+cards+exempt+from+copying+fees/7920963/story.html

I didn't think we'd (Canada) be stupid enough to actually go through with this new copyright bill, but it seems that it has.

My favorite was the Dataproducts B-300/600 band printer... We had one of the 300s at the office until the early 90s but it had an uppercase-only band and PROM in it so it did the 600 lines per minute like the LBP-600 could do with the upper/lower case band... Man, did that thing ever have a fast paper feed on it... I think the 600 LPM rating was for full 15" wide printout, full character lines because it sure spit out the average page of text much faster than 10 pages per minute (Unlike today where you'll rarely see the "up to X ppm" in most usage)... Made the neatest cha-buzz cha-buzz noise when printing, too... What a beast! I can only imagine the 2000 LPM and faster models... I miss that thing :-)

Actually, flatbed plotters were quite nifty little units back in the day... The big roll-types are still used today for large-format schematics, drawings (floorplans, etc.), or really anything vector/wireframe works very nicely on a plotter... SUPER slow, but you're not usually doing a lot of copies... :-)

You could also mount a spindle and motor in your 3D and engrave everything onto the material of your choice... That's always fun....

Where can you find a 27X cartridge for $20? Around here they are about $200 for the HP original, and about $150 for a re-manufactured/refilled... Certainly not $20...

I'm surprised more people here don't still use a dot matrix... Very low cost per page for general output compared to laser or especially ink-jet... I have lasers and ink-jets too but my go-to printer for most stuff is still my trusty old Okidata 393C color 24-pin dot matrix... (Actually I have 3 x 393Cs and a B&W 393... Spares I've aquired each time I ran across someone else was retiring one, but my original one's never had a problem and I think we got that one in 1988... LOL) That and the LaserJet III are probably my favorite printers of all time... Indestructable. I have a LJ3 here with almost a million pages on the engine... Still works when I can get decent toner cartridges for it...

Ditto.

We all know the USA is far and away the best country in the world, by all metrics in all categories.

--
In the only episode of that "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" show that I ever watched, the contestant honestly didn't know what country was located to the north of the United States. (To be fair, all the 5th graders did... :-) )

Yes, thank you... I was meaning "we" when I said North America; my point being it's not just the USA that seemingly doesn't manufacture as much, and yes I'm fully aware that "we" still manufacture many, many things, but it at least seems to me that we've outsourced many types of production to the point that we almost don't remember how to make them... Consumer products, etc. especially... How many "regular" consumer items that you buy lately have a made in Canada/USA/Mexico label on them? My T-shirt was made in Bangladesh, my shoes in Vietnam, my Dodge truck which was assembled in Detroit has a Nippon-Denso alternator and starter, not the USA/Canada made Mopar parts like my trusty old maxivan, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum... My 20 year old 4800W garage space heater was made in Canada, and it still works perfectly after thousands and thousands and thousands of hours of use... The company still exists, making large ventilation fans and such, but doesn't make things like $50 heaters you buy at Home Depot / whatever anymore... I've repaired a friend's "made in China" similar model thrice already and it's only 2 years old.... Regardless of how much we "still manufacture" it SEEMS to ME that some things have really been lost. YMMV

North America has generally seemed to have forgotten how to actually build things. I'm located in Canada, and on those few items my tiny company makes, I'm proud to put the stamp and seal of where it's made on my products...

isn't it?

It wasn't the Harper government... The Liberals tabled far wider reaching anti-privacy and oversight legislation!! It was the conservatives that avoided that only to now bring their own only-slightly-less-ridiculous bills...

Web developers are a huge part of the problem (as was/is IE in general). The whole idea of HTML in the first place was that the browser shouldn't matter... You should be able to render a reasonable version of a page with any browser! That hasn't worked for a long time and the content is mostly to blame. It should never return different data depending on what browser you use. It shouldn't have to by design... but it's broken!