Gee ! 9 0f 20 get Canucks bucks in aid

[Shwa]

I think that if they publish the raw data then non profit analysis services will emerge on their own. Put the documents online, and index them, so that they can be easily searched. This is sortof like the wikileaks model, where you just flush out all the data, and put it online for everyone to look at.

They could use the hardware the now defunkt gun registry ran on.

Documents that are not classified, and would be turned over for a FOI request can just be put online.

I think this is a great idea and some US databases do this. Some Canadian databases could do this too. Know any COBOL database programmers?

Although EMR has their raw mapping data online for you to pick and choose. Progress is so slow...

[dre]

Nobody's complaining but it would be valuable for us to have tools to evaluate governments at our fingertips.

Really, the problem is you have to deal with government.

And the reality is that this isnt even hard stuff to do. Even if you just hired a private company to host all the documents, it wouldnt cost that much. Turns out theres this thing called the internet thats sole purpose is the hosting and searching of large volumes of data, pretty affordably.

The government could get these documents online for FREE. They could simply pose as an anonymous Canadian intelligence operative, and send all the documents to wikileaks. Wikileaks would host all our data for free, and news organizations around the world would pour through it and look for interesting snippets in the data... for free.

Edited November 7, 2011 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

And the reality is that this isnt even hard stuff to do. Even if you just hired a private company to host all the documents, it wouldnt cost that much. Turns out theres this thing called the internet thats sole purpose is the hosting and searching of large volumes of data, pretty affordably.

The government could get these documents online for FREE. They could simply pose as an anonymous Canadian intelligence operative, and send all the documents to wikileaks. Wikileaks would host all our data for free, and news organizations around the world would pour through it and look for interesting snippets in the data... for free.

We need to set them up on an ongoing basis though:

Summary of service levels, costs benchmarked against plan in an easy to read format.

Ideally, there would be forums set up to discuss these as well - and supporting documents indicating the purpose and critical success factors for projects.

[Shwa]

The government could get these documents online for FREE. They could simply pose as an anonymous Canadian intelligence operative, and send all the documents to wikileaks. Wikileaks would host all our data for free, and news organizations around the world would pour through it and look for interesting snippets in the data... for free.

Simply brilliant idea. Then all the interesting snippets would be posted on message boards and stuff. Or the news media would hire people to go through all the crap and filter it out. We wouldn't even have to access it ourselves, it would be delivered.

dre for PM!

[dre]

I think this is a great idea and some US databases do this. Some Canadian databases could do this too. Know any COBOL database programmers?

Although EMR has their raw mapping data online for you to pick and choose. Progress is so slow...

Im a sequel guy. Not much cobol experience. I AM a document guy though. The format stuff is pretty easy these days. Its really pretty similar to EDiscovery during large litigation. You just gotta process all the data using a product like Oracle/Stellent which can suck content and meta data out of about 5000 file formats. Then you tokenize all text with one of the many indexing technologies out there.

[scribblet]

Seems I have one, following me. So far all you have chosen to do is take ad hominem disparaging shots at me.

I suppose that's will suffice to one unprepared to defend ANY position but willing and able to call someone they know nothing about, denigrating labels. Parrot indeed. So then are you a pheasant, a pheasant plucker perchance?

If all you can add to the subject is insults join the wankers elsewhere.

China's standing army, 1,700,000 (world's largest) plus 3,520 combat aircraft. World's second largest.

We have to be very selective in aid $ to other countries. We certainly should not be 'giving' any benefits to countries in the G20.

Totally agree, there is no reason why we should be giving aid in any form to China. Last year we gave 36 million to a country that has over 2 trillion in reserves, along with a huge military. We really need to ask a lot tougher questions about how our foreign aid dollars are used.

[dre]

Simply brilliant idea. Then all the interesting snippets would be posted on message boards and stuff. Or the news media would hire people to go through all the crap and filter it out. We wouldn't even have to access it ourselves, it would be delivered.

dre for PM!

[guyser]

This makes sense to me, actually.

Dont they sell some of this data? And if so, thats a loss by putting it online

[Michael Hardner]

Dont they sell some of this data? And if so, thats a loss by putting it online

Some of it, yes, but this stuff should be commonly known.

[dre]

Dont they sell some of this data? And if so, thats a loss by putting it online

Maybe but its not free to process FOI requests either. People could now make their own FOI requests, so the government should save some money. If "freedom of information" is really the goal, then having people fill out forms on a request by request basis is about the most expensive and least effective ways of sharing information possible.

[Shwa]

Totally agree, there is no reason why we should be giving aid in any form to China. Last year we gave 36 million to a country that has over 2 trillion in reserves, along with a huge military. We really need to ask a lot tougher questions about how our foreign aid dollars are used.

Now is you chance Scribblet. Your beloved Conservatives are in power and they will listen to you. For sure, I can pretty much guarantee you are the type of person they love to talk with. I mean, write Bev Oda a nice hand written note (she likes those) and make your protestations known. No doubt she'll invite you up to her offices to discuss your issues with full seriousness.

Let us know how it goes.

[scribblet]

India also receives aid payments from Canada, yet as with China they have grown their capital through their expanding economies so I don't see that we need to continue giving aid to India either. It doesn't seem right to hand over millions of dollars to countries whose economies are booming as we lose jobs at home.

[Shwa]

India also receives aid payments from Canada, yet as with China they have grown their capital through their expanding economies so I don't see that we need to continue giving aid to India either. It doesn't seem right to hand over millions of dollars to countries whose economies are booming as we lose jobs at home.

Is that what we're doing Scribblet? Handing over millions of dollars to them? Big bags of gold or something?

[scribblet]

Not counting Canada or the European Union, Canadian taxpayers provide foreign aid to half the remaining members of the G20.

List of G20 nations receiving foreign aid from Canada

•Argentina $2.66 million

•Brazil $9.43 million

•China $35.86

•India $29.51 million

•Indonesia - $36.93 million

•Mexico $2.6 million

•Russia $3.38 million

•South Africa $19.85

•Turkey $1.07 million

[Michael Hardner]

I guess if we wanted to know what was being done with these funds, and why we could send an email to someone, or make an FOI request.

Until somebody makes the data available, we have to rely on interpreters such as the editorial in the OP to tell us what it means. This relates very closely to the discussion we had on 'faith vs. reason'.

If we had the facts in an easy-to-access place we could decide for ourselves, like adults. Until that time, all we know is what others want us to know.

[Shwa]

Not counting Canada or the European Union, Canadian taxpayers provide foreign aid to half the remaining members of the G20.

List of G20 nations receiving foreign aid from Canada

•Argentina $2.66 million

•Brazil $9.43 million

•China $35.86

•India $29.51 million

•Indonesia - $36.93 million

•Mexico $2.6 million

•Russia $3.38 million

•South Africa $19.85

•Turkey $1.07 million

So? If you don't know how the money is spent, you squawk out of ignorance like a parrot that only knows about the cracker.

Personally I think joint ventures with multi-national research organizations for projects such as water, environment, culture, science, etc. are all worth contributions. A lot of the projects appear to be aligned with our share of responsibility with the UN, Pan American agreements, and international policy, study and research organizations. The other side of it is that it is good to have Canadians participating in such projects in those countries for purposes of cultural exchange, trade, spying, market and investment development for Canadian goods and services, etc.

Gawd... we wouldn't want that would we??? Market development in foreign countries?

You should contact Bev right away scribblet and let her know. Those damned Conservatives and their imperialist agenda!

[Shwa]

I guess if we wanted to know what was being done with these funds, and why we could send an email to someone, or make an FOI request.

Until somebody makes the data available, we have to rely on interpreters such as the editorial in the OP to tell us what it means. This relates very closely to the discussion we had on 'faith vs. reason'.

If we had the facts in an easy-to-access place we could decide for ourselves, like adults. Until that time, all we know is what others want us to know.

I found the information in 30 seconds from the CIDA website. I bet you didn't even look.

You didn't did you?

[Michael Hardner]

So? If you don't know how the money is spent, you squawk out of ignorance like a parrot that only knows about the cracker.

How much time is a citizen obligated to spend researching such things ? The answer is 'zero'. They can vote based on part information. Unless someone makes an effort to inform, the herd will respond in this way.

[Michael Hardner]

You didn't did you?

Nope.

I will look now, though, and let you know how it works for me.

[Shwa]

How much time is a citizen obligated to spend researching such things ? The answer is 'zero'. They can vote based on part information. Unless someone makes an effort to inform, the herd will respond in this way.

CIDA has made an "ffort to inform." It's on their website and takes 30 seconds.

I sometimes wonder if the herd prefers to remain ignorant. That way, their petty squawking has a built in excuse.

[Michael Hardner]

Googled Canadian aid to foreign countries.

The top two sites were these:

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/7916-e.htm

http://acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/acdi-cida.nsf/eng/FRA-825105226-KFT

The 2nd result - the CIDA site - had some good information and explanation of audits and so on however their 'countries of focus' page doesn't list any G20 countries.

If I was starting from scratch, having read the OP, I'd still be confused. This is the results of 10 minutes of search.

[Shwa]

If I was starting from scratch, having read the OP, I'd still be confused. This is the results of 10 minutes of search.

Oh, gawd Michael! 10 minutes out of your life for an issue that is just burning you up, even making posters change the font size in disgust?

I found the 'Project Browser' on the left hand menu from the CIDA in 30 seconds.

Thank God the sale of Canadian armaments to ethnic warlords doesn't burn you up. That might take an hour or even a day. Or, *gasp* even having to reference an expert.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh, gawd Michael! 10 minutes out of your life for an issue that is just burning you up, even making posters change the font size in disgust?

That's all the time I had for now. I have spent hours looking for healthcare stats, and so on.

The question is: what's a reasonable expectation for a member of the public to spend time on research on a single issue ? I think ten minutes is more than reasonable.

I found the 'Project Browser' on the left hand menu from the CIDA in 30 seconds.

What is 'project browser' though ? I wanted to find out about aid to China. And WHERE is that ? I looked for project browser on the landing page, and didn't find it.

Of course, you expect people to pick around for awhile to find the information, which leads me back to my first question. People rarely spend ten minutes on any website to find what they need. Jakob Nielsen is an industry leader in usability research and he says users spend 29 seconds on a page

Thank God the sale of Canadian armaments to ethnic warlords doesn't burn you up. That might take an hour or even a day. Or, *gasp* even having to reference an expert.

Think about what you're saying here: you expect the public to spend hours/days to research issues ? I don't think that's realistic but let's find some common ground first:

How much time should we expect the average voter to spend looking for information on an issue ? How much time overall ?

[Shwa]

That's all the time I had for now. I have spent hours looking for healthcare stats, and so on.

The question is: what's a reasonable expectation for a member of the public to spend time on research on a single issue ? I think ten minutes is more than reasonable.

Really? 10 minutes to become versed on an issue?

What is 'project browser' though ? I wanted to find out about aid to China. And WHERE is that ? I looked for project browser on the landing page, and didn't find it.

Of course, you expect people to pick around for awhile to find the information, which leads me back to my first question. People rarely spend ten minutes on any website to find what they need. Jakob Nielsen is an industry leader in usability research and he says users spend 29 seconds on a page.

I am a little more patient than 29 seconds. I bet most people that are, have a little more success.

Think about what you're saying here: you expect the public to spend hours/days to research issues ? I don't think that's realistic but let's find some common ground first:

How much time should we expect the average voter to spend looking for information on an issue ? How much time overall ?

I expect someone to put in as much time as required for them to feel like they have some reasonable understanding based on the complexity of the issue they are researching. Don't you? Do you expect someone to become familiar with an issue in 30 seconds? 10 minutes?

Is there some sort of metric that the "public" is to be known by?

Edited November 8, 2011 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

I expect someone to put in as much time as required for them to feel like they have some reasonable understanding based on the complexity of the issue they are researching. Don't you? Do you expect someone to become familiar with an issue in 30 seconds? 10 minutes?

Is there some sort of metric that the "public" is to be known by?

I expect them to be able to find what they're looking for in 30 seconds maximum, or at least get them to the next page where they will expect to find what they're looking for.

Once I find the report, I'll be glad to spend 10 minutes reading the information but searching for 10 minutes is annoying and not on for most people.

What do you think is reasonable time for someone to spend searching then ? We can say "as much time is required" but in fact people give up.