The Gaming Den

I never had a problem when I was living in Alberta. Awesome public care.

FrankTrollman wrote:

The Vigilante wrote:Just to clarify my point here, since I don't like people to credit me with statements I didn't actually make.

The only thing I actually said was that stating that every right-wing (not the same thing as American Conservative) position is a religious belief is itself a religious statement, or at least something that sounds like an article of faith to me.

So you jumped into a discussion about American Politics because you were offended and afraid that a sweeping generalization being made about the arguments being made in American Politics might be seen to cast aspersions on you, despite the fact that you live in another country, where politics are different. News flash: when people talk about American Politics, they frequently talk about "Liberals" without any thought or care to mention that the "Liberal Party" of Australia is actually the Conservative party. Similarly, when we're talking about American Politics, and we talk about "Nationalist Policies" we are statistically unlikely to be talking about the Nationalist Front of Malaysia's policies.

So when you come in and start throwing around some example from local politics in Quebec, that's completely not a refutation of Kaelik's original statement. Indeed, you're talking about Local Quebec Politics, which I can't fact check. Because I don't care. And even my Canadian girl friend does not care. Because she's from BC, and does not know - or care - what the issues are in your local politics in Quebec.

-Username17

That'd be a pretty good point, except for the fact that I didn't jump in a discussion about American politics; I jumped into a discussion about global warming and its deniers. Believe it or not, both of those issues affect people outside America. A lot of right-wingers (myself not included, thank you) are global warming deniers here, so I guess you could understand how I jumped to the conclusion that for Kaelik, Global Warming deniers = right wing (wherever they are) = irrational nutjobs. Whatever I guess.

violence in the media wrote: I have to ask about this, because it comes up a lot in health care discussions, but do ALL people have to spend 12 hours waiting in the emergency room? The people suffering strokes, heart attacks, and allergic reactions just have to put that shit on hold and buckle down in the waiting room for half a day? Or are the people subject to these wait times usually the ones that can wait and are thus, definitionally, not an emergency?

Of course people usually get quick treatment when their lives are at stake, but a lot of mistakes are made and people actually die in the waiting room because the overworked staff misjudged the actual emergency. Also, there is a bad medical doctor shortage here in the province (EDIT : sorry, I don't mean that we lack actual doctors, but that their working hours are wasted in bureaucracy and paperwork) ; for example I do not have a family doctor and so if I need any treatment I have no choice but to go to the ER. That really slows the system down. Also a lot of people die on waiting LISTS because they have to wait for years to get surgery.

You say that the system would benefit if people could buy supplemental coverage that would be provided by the same doctors that currently provide the government coverage (though they'd have to work mostly for the government), right? How is that actually supposed to work, anyway? Do they get more compensation through this supplemental scheme, or do they get paid the same? If they're paid the same, why not just keep working in the public sector? If they're paid more, how much more? Would the new rules and bureaucracy cost more than simply raising the wages of medical workers?

Basically they'd get paid market wages, so probably a little more than the public sector. I do not know the actual details about additional costs so it might end up being more, but what I know is that it'd lighten the public sector's burden.

Or is this just an exercise to create a way to cut in front of the hoi polloi? Would you consider a system that just cuts out all of the necessary additional bureaucracy and simply institutes a policy where a person could walk into an ER, throw down $500 and buy their way to the front of the line? People could get into bidding wars right there, if they felt it necessary, and your doctor could literally be bought out from under you in front of your face. That would be a way more honest system, as at least you'd have to look someone in the face when you told them that your economic prosperity made you more important than them, regardless of your relative medical needs.

No I wouldn't support it. It wouldn't be any more fair because it'd completely avoid the safeguards I talked about to insure the basic safety net that implies that the doctors, nurses and surgeons mostly work in the public sector, to avoid the pitfalls you have talked about.

The basic problem is that there is an unused portion of the ressources, be they human ressources or material ressources (because of government mismanagement), that'd be used by the supplemental private sector ; thus ensuring better coverage both in the public and the new private sector.

The 'right wing' is generally authoritarian in nature, and as such, tends to believe doctrine over evidence.

So yeah, I can see the connection there, and that would make it relevant, Frank.

-Crissa

Also, did anyone notice tzor answered the charter school question 'why do conservatives like it' fairly reliably?

It's like there's two tzors in there.

-Crissa

mean_liar wrote:I never had a problem when I was living in Alberta. Awesome public care.

I can sort of see why, since Alberta is Canada's official rich-as-fuck province and doesn't even need income tax to offer the same services as the other provinces do.

And Crissa, if you were adressing the statements I made, I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean I'm placing more value on doctrine than evidence ?

By the way, I want to say that I don't think a two-tier system is the best option. I think that the government as an insurer and the private sector as a supplier would do the best job in providing healthcare to all the people.

FrankTrollman wrote:How do you get from "some other dude maintains the email server" to "a FOI Request dealing with a scientist's personal email and ongoing work can and even should be handled without consultation with, and thus effort by the scientist in question"?

This rant leads me to believe you don't have any idea how an email compliance system works. Its not trawling through your mailboxes, or trawling through the backups. Every time an email is sent to your mailbox a copy is sent to the compliance server before it reaches your mailbox. Every time you send an email a copy is sent to the compliance server, before it reaches the recipient. The compliance server therefore has everything, even if you deleted it. This is US software too, so don't try some shit about this being how it works in .au

And yes, if an investigation requires the target is not even informed. An FOI request that wasn't handled to the requester's satisfaction is just the kind of thing that might get this treatment too. You're about to rant about these being bullshit FOIs, don't bother. In oder for the process to mean anything it needs to be possible to sidestep the targets, even if they claim they sent everything. Because thats exactly what they would say if they were hiding stuff.

Privacy is a complete illusion when you work for an organisation subject to these laws. We have to sign a statement to this effect. I imagine its the same all over the world, anyone who has worked somewhere subject to FOI can tell me I'm wrong though. This is a good thing too, I'm sure every corrupt person ever regards the records of corruption as private, privacy can't be a defense.

Finally, its not the scientist's call to decide these requests are in bad faith. For reasons that should be obvious (conflict of interest) someone else needs to be making that call.

PS: nice try with the hippie insult.

Wow Draco, you are fucking retarded.

These are specifically FOI requests that have already been handled and are being refiled.

And you know what, if an FOI isn't handled to the satisfaction of the requester, tough shit. It's handled to the satisfaction of the fucking judge, because there are fucking laws.

@The Vigilante: There is no evidence to support that the bureaucratic overhead in the US is less than in Canada. It is probably more than Denmark.

Kaelik wrote:And you know what, if an FOI isn't handled to the satisfaction of the requester, tough shit. It's handled to the satisfaction of the fucking judge, because there are fucking laws.

FOIs don't start by going through a judge. A member of the public can just make one to the body they want the information from. So yes, there does have to be an escalation.

And refiled requests are the easiest thing ever, you just give back the same package of data you gave last time. You even keep the packages on file anyway so its a simple matter of burning another DVD or whatever. Thats not even close to an excuse to start talking about deleting shit.

If you're going to talk about FOIs know something about how they are handled first.

cthulhu wrote:@The Vigilante: There is no evidence to support that the bureaucratic overhead in the US is less than in Canada. It is probably more than Denmark.

It might be the case, in fact I think you're right about Canada and the US (I don't know shit about Denmark). But what does that have to do with anything I've said ? I haven't talked about the US system at all, I have just mentioned the problem in Quebec's system (which doesn't work exactly like the rest of Canada, what with our fucking obsession with doing things unlike anybody else on the planet) and the suggestion that has been made to improve the system. Even that suggestion is not the same at all as the US system, since there aren't two separate systems, as the private on is palliative and collaborative to the public one, and not in competition with it.

Draco_Argentum wrote:

Kaelik wrote:And you know what, if an FOI isn't handled to the satisfaction of the requester, tough shit. It's handled to the satisfaction of the fucking judge, because there are fucking laws.

FOIs don't start by going through a judge. A member of the public can just make one to the body they want the information from. So yes, there does have to be an escalation.

And refiled requests are the easiest thing ever, you just give back the same package of data you gave last time. You even keep the packages on file anyway so its a simple matter of burning another DVD or whatever. Thats not even close to an excuse to start talking about deleting shit.

If you're going to talk about FOIs know something about how they are handled first.

I'm not talking about deleting things. You are claiming that FOIs are not used for harassment, and literally cannot be. But you are also claiming that if someone is upset about the information they got, they can just demand more, and the people have to give them more, but they also don't have to give them more, but they also have to give them everything, even the stuff that it's illegal to give them.

Your claims of how FOIs work have been getting progressively more crazy.

Kaelik wrote:I'm not talking about deleting things.

Well fuck off then because the whole discussion is about whether the request to delete emails was wrong or not.

And yes, you can appeal an FOI you tool. Since the default process is for an agency to handle it internally there is an option to appeal and have and external agency conduct a second search. This isn't even hard the top result on google for "Environmental Information Regulations request appeal" gives:

"Refusal notices, Complaints and Appeals
Under EIR the Council have a duty to have an internal review procedure. Should the Council refuse to supply the information or states that it does not hold the information the requestor must be provided with a refusal notice which will include details of: the Council's review/complaints procedure in case of appeal against the decision the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) the Information Commissioner's enforcement powers the right of the public and the public authority's right to appeal to the Information Tribunal following the Commissioner's decision."

So, you can be required to give more than you did. Why would you even contest that claim? Its not like anyone who can use google can't verify that you are wrong with 5 seconds of effort.

Draco_Argentum wrote:So, you can be required to give more than you did. Why would you even contest that claim? Its not like anyone who can use google can't verify that you are wrong with 5 seconds of effort.

Hey dumbfuck. You are the one who just said that all you have to do when someone requests an FOI on something you've already given them is to send the same packet.

If that's not the case, then why the fuck did you say it like a dumbfuck?

Kaelik wrote:Hey dumbfuck. You are the one who just said that all you have to do when someone requests an FOI on something you've already given them is to send the same packet.

If that's not the case, then why the fuck did you say it like a dumbfuck?

That would be for multiple vexatious claims from different people, which is what the denialists are doing.

Try to understand the process before you talk. If someone is unsatisfied they can appeal and if granted another data gathering operation has to be conducted.

If two people request the same info you supply it twice and get on with whatever else occupies your day.

This isn't even hard to understand, surely the concept of an appeals process isn't foreign to you? You're a dickhead, Kaelik, you never bring a real argument to any thread. All you ever do is shout insults at people in the hope of drowning them out. Even when you are right.

The Vigilante wrote: But what does that have to do with anything I've said ? I haven't talked about the US system at all, I have just mentioned the problem in Quebec's system (which doesn't work exactly like the rest of Canada, what with our fucking obsession with doing things unlike anybody else on the planet) and the suggestion that has been made to improve the system.

Also, there is a bad medical doctor shortage here in the province (EDIT : sorry, I don't mean that we lack actual doctors, but that their working hours are wasted in bureaucracy and paperwork)

Because realistically a certain amount of bureaucratic overhead is endemic to the system. In healthcare, the best solution is a eHealth system. Canada is building one quite quickly (Alberta is ahead of the curve).

You are massively behind Denmark (which build one years ago), but at the end of the day the doctor still hast to type the case notes into his computer, write up the referral etc. Automation is the only way to reduce this workload, and for that you need a big technology install which is very hard to do.

Certainly that time isn't *wasted* - it's critical to the functioning of the healthcare system. It may be inefficent, but you only demonstrably lag the leaders in the field.

I couched it in terms of the US and Denmark to show that Canada was middle of the pack currently in terms of overheads, but those overheads are there for a reason.

Actually, Draco, no, it's not that easy.

Hard scientists don't work for fucking corporations. Their IT and legal department are literally whatever grad students they have around, and usually themselves.

NASA projects may have thousands of people work on it, but the project itself is smaller than your average big-box store in the way of employment. Less complicated science packages are generally one or two people working on it themselves. Their level of required compliance with FOI is that they don't have to record shit.

So when these stupid letters land in their laps, they tend to get angry, yes.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Actually, Draco, no, it's not that easy.

Hard scientists don't work for fucking corporations. Their IT and legal department are literally whatever grad students they have around, and usually themselves.

These guys work for an University with an IT department. Remember, its the email's we're talking about. That infrastructure is unlikely to be run by the scientists, unless you have evidence to the contrary. So while you're right its not relevant.

Draco, what do you think the process is for a FOI Request? Why do you think it would not require any work or thought on the part of the people whose research is being requested? How do you think the process of deciding which documents the CRU has the legal right to redistribute is to be done without the involvement of the people who know that information?

-Username17

Technically, they should be deciding on the documents every time they create one.

But my point was that they did not have a legal team or an IT team to send out the documents for them. They do this themselves, which cuts into research and leisure time.

I don't know what college you worked for, but even at Stanford and NASA, IT and legal are usually jobs that scientists work as well as their own.

-Crissa

I studied at the UEA in the last couple of years, so I have some vague idea of the computer systems. And, well, its not all that good.

The Computing department duplicates a whole lot of network capabilities because ITCS (the main computer technicians) are so bad. As in, when the couple of hundred Computing students log into the university computers they all access one network and the rest of the university uses a completely different network.

The ITCS is understaffed, overworked, and a lot of them are made up of undergraduates. The CRU itself only has one IT administrator and no Information Policy manager.

And then if you look at the UEA's Freedom of Information Act policy, it says that:

c. As with current procedures for managing subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998, this will usually involve Divisions and Faculties assisting in retrieving information and supplying it to the UEA Information Policy Officer.
....
(1) Documents and information stored electronically will be accessed from networked and individual PCs and work will be done in cooperation with the individuals, Faculties and/or Divisions concerned. This work will be coordinated by the Faculty/ Division Contact.

As in, the CRU has to do it themselves each and every time, and the network administrators can't do it for them.

Parthenon wrote:As in, the CRU has to do it themselves each and every time, and the network administrators can't do it for them.

Well thanks Parthenon for actually researching something instead of being Kaelik and screaming that there was a judge okaying the results of an FOI.

I still disagree, its vastly more important that FOI style regulations are followed precisely than giving scientists with I agree with a free pass is. Doing something dodgy like suggesting deletion of material is a short term win for CRU and a long term loss for society.

Over to Frank for his closing argument.

Draco_Argentum wrote:Well thanks Parthenon for actually researching something instead of being Kaelik and screaming that there was a judge okaying the results of an FOI.

Hey dumbfuck. You claimed that people had to give out more information if the people applying didn't like what they got.

That was you. You said that.

The fact that you also said that the subject of the FOI could just send the same info, and that directly contradicts the other thing you said is your own problem.

The only thing I've been using are your words because I don't have to look anything up since your own words contradict your other words, so one way or another, you are wrong.

Either they have to give more information, and reevaluate, and it is in fact work to do an FOI, and FOIs really can be used (and therefore likely are being used) to harass scientists. In which case you are wrong.

Or, if an FOI has already been filed, you can just ignore the fuckers, or send the same packet you sent that you keep on file, and FOIs aren't a big deal, and you don't have to give out information if you don't feel like it, and you are still dead wrong.

The fact that every time I say what you have already said you counter with "Jeeze, if you only took two seconds to type in the most obvious possible search query into google, "FOI squared - 12, X, judges, 18th of may" you would see that the very first link is something directly contradicting what I said two posts ago. Do some Research Dummy!"

Doesn't mean that I'm an idiot for not doing an in depth investigation of FOI procedures in countries that aren't even under discussion in order to counter the claims by someone who has already countered their own claims.

The thing is, if they're subject to a freedom of information act charge, it gets to the point there is a judge or commissioner breathing down their neck looking for hidden channels of communication.

But for most of these guys, the only things that are allowed to be requested is budgetary or test data. Not things like email. But proving that the emails you're writing or the laptop you have don't carry probative value is something seriously annoying.

And like I said, most of these guys don't have a legal or IT department who has the information and can hand it out. Because that would cost money they don't have.

-Crissa

Kaelik wrote:Hey dumbfuck. You claimed that people had to give out more information if the people applying didn't like what they got.

No, I claimed that an appeal process is available and you can be forced to. And thats true. Its also true that you can use the same response if two people make the same request.

The fact that you can't separate the two scenarios isn't much of a suprise, you're Kaelik, you only care about finding places to use the word dumbfuck. As Lago put it shrill brinksmanship is your only means of replying to anything ever.

PS: I quoted the British EIR act, seeing that happens to be the piece of law in question you are an idiot for not researching it. A screaming idiot.

So Draco: do you accept that your original statement that it was no actual work for a scientist at EAU to get hit with multiple FOI requests a day was wrong? If not, why not?

-Username17