Those outside of Canada probably won't get the joke.
Every conservative MP in canada begins everything they say with "Lets be clear", "Let me make it very clear" etc... as some sort of warning that a major porky is on the way...
Or, maybe it wasn't a joke. Maybe - just maybe - I was trying to make sure that people knew that what I was saying was strictly my own opinion, based only on the information that's available to everybody else - ie, TFA.
In the immortal words of Grouch Marx..... sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
Hey genius - who is paying for her research? It's the taxpayers of Canada. The same taxpayers the fascists running the government want to keep in the dark about research findings that will have a direct impact on the public well-being.
I know people love to call anybody even remotely right of centre fascists, and that they love to see conspiracies in everything.... but I'm having a hard time trying to think of a scenario where publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a journal as prestigious and well-known as the Lancet could possibly be considered to be "keeping people in the dark". But hey, that's just me.
I'm curious - what is the point of having her NOT talk to the press before this judicial inquiry (which isn't a trial as far as I can tell) while the information is already out in the public domain? Will the evidence be tainted? Are there precedents for this sort of thing?
First, let me make it very, very clear - I don't have access to any information other than what's contained in the article. I have, however, been rather heavily involved in politics at the national level in Ottawa in the past, so I've got a bit of an idea of the mindset. What I'm about to say is my own suspicion - and it's what *I* would be worried about, if I was in that position.
I doubt her paper is directly related to what she is expected to testify to before the inquiry - otherwise, she'd not have been allowed to publish it in the first place. So I don't think that's it.
It is, however, reasonable to assume she's going to testify about something related, however tangentially - her research was job related, and her testimony is also going to be job related.
Depending on how wide-ranging or open the interview is - or how naive SHE is when dealing with the press, or if a reporter is a fan of the 60 minutes school of ambush interviewing - there's a chance she could say something what *would* have potential political and legal consequences, if some of her statements regarding her paper overlap the subject matter of the inquiry. So the safest course of action would be to simply not talk to reporters until her testimony. Seems reasonable to me, and not something to worry about or waste righteous indignation on.
Now - if after her testimony she is still not allowed to talk to the press, THEN you have something that's a news story, and something to get cranked about. But I don't think there's anything here yet.
Politicians of all stripes screw up all the time - sorry, folks, but it wasn't invented by the Tories, the Liberals, the Left, the Right, the Inbetweens, or anybody else.
So why not just take a deep breath, calm down, and wait for something to happen that's worth getting cranked about? It's only a matter of time. There's no need to invent shit.
I'm warning you - if I will still remember to follow this theme in the end of August or whenever that final paper will be out, and she still can't speak her mind, i WILL come back here and reply to you: "Ha! Told you so!"
I agree on you, that bad science is worse than no science. Still, I wouldn't muffle anybody. It's like Barbra Streisand effect.
Apparently, you haven't read TFA *or* my comment. First - the final paper is out and published. That's what caused the media interest in the first place. Second - the whole point of my comment was that she *hasn't* been muzzled because of her science, the results or indeed, for any reason - she's been told she can't speak until her testimony at a legal proceeding has been completed.
It'd kinda like telling your friends that your mother said you aren't allowed to play with them for the rest of your life, when all she did was say you had to clean your room first.
She is being muzzled because she is not being allowed to talk about her findings to the public via the press. Her findings are buried in a pay for access science journal that is likely written in language that most in the public will not understand.
TFA said she was told she couldn't speak because she has to give evidence in a judicial inquiry. Then came much officious huffing and puffing from lefty paranoids about how it was an excuse and that she was being muzzled.
Unfortunately for those theories, TFA also said, near the end of the article, that she will be allowed to speak in August, WHEN HER TESTIMONY HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
So call the PMO paranoid. Make fun of them, if that's your wont - god knows that hasn't been a PMO since the country began that hasn't been stupid or out to lunch is very many ways, both Tory and Liberal. Vote against the Tories next chance you get, if you are so inclined.
But you don't need to invent stuff or pull it out of your arse just to score political points. All it does is make you look strident, knee-jerk, and absolutely invalidates the point you were trying to make in the first place.
First - I'm "old enough" to have seen patterns myself. Feel free to get off my lawn any time.
Second - "large corporations" is a strawman argument - unless you can give me a single example of any large scale example of ANY energy generator that is *not* a "large corporation"? That's where the regulatory framework comes in.
Third - There are probably more people that die in just West Virginia each year than have died IN TOTAL due to nuclear accidents. Hint: mining disasters aren't even close to being the worst offender - take a look at the stats regarding cancers, black lung, silicosis and other diseases caused by long-term exposure to coal dust in the mines.
Forth - when has anybody, anywhere, described fission as a free lunch? All systems and technologies have their costs. As somebody commented earlier, nuclear energy right now is just one of the best of a bunch of bad options.
Except that there is in fact a lot of nuclear astroturfing going on.
How is it astroturfing if they are a) a group specifically and publicly formed by and for the nuclear industry, b) not hiding who they are, but openly and honestly giving their side of the debate, c) to an audience that is there specifically to hear what they have to say because they WANT to hear what they have to say?
Sorry, but that's just silly. It's kinda like saying the catholic church astroturfs every time a priest stands up and gives a sermon.
Nope, nothing gay about muscled, oil men, rolling around on the floor, while pretending to wrestle, while trying to present bad drama. Normally that roll is reserved for drama queens.
The most mysterious hold in all of wrestling is the one it has on it's viewers.
As Machiavelli pointed out hundreds of years ago: fear is a great motivator.
And as my friend, who was also a campaign manager for one of the political parties here loved to say..... "Grab them by the balls, and their hearts & minds WILL follow":-)
Absolutely. I think the big difference between what TFA talks about, and what we did, was that it wasn't set up as a game, and we weren't employees - we were outside consultants.
Nobody knew where, or how, we'd try to get in. All the staff would know is that "sometime in the next XX weeks/months" we would be trying to get in. Sometimes, they wouldn't even know that much. Let's face it - hackers don't tend make appointments before they do their thing.
At the time, I didn't have any security training per se, but I did have a background in intelligence. The guy that headed up our Tiger Teams was a retired major from the SAS, who had spent a few years working at GCHQ before he came to Canada. It was one hellova interesting way to earn a living:-)
Phonecalls are metered (well mine are- 18c/minute).
Scarce resource. (Finite radio bandwidth)
Why not megabytes?
Not a scarce resource.
Remember, the whole reason (justification) for this application in the first place was to fight network congestion. The problem is that congestion is based on the NUMBER of connections, not the bandwidth used per connection.
The smaller ISPs have had contracts to buy pipes - bandwidth. It is (should be) a matter between them and their customers how they are paid for. This decision forces to smaller, independent ISPs to fit into Bells business model.
However, until someone figures out how to accomplish that, it is true that some countries have rather low amounts of corruption and well-functioning governments and regulation (i.e., Western Europe), while others have astonishingly high amounts of corruption and a complete lack of regulation (i.e., USA and Mexico).
Putting Mexico and the USA in the same category in terms of corruption makes about as much sense as saying that an actor is the same as somebody with MPD because they both exhibit multiple personalities.
I'll see if I can find a more direct and recent quote and post it here. But googling for "stalinism fascism" turns up a bit too much to make such a search easy.
Welcome to the internet. Fascism gets thrown around in political arguments almost as much as spousal abuse does in a divorce court..... and usually with about as much validity.
Not quite. In a country with proper government regulation of business and a lack of corruption, you can have capitalism without fascism. Fascism is when the corporations take over the government, which is what we have in the USA.
You just made my point for me. Because nothing is perfect, there will never be a government where you have always/100% "proper" regulation, and total lack of corruption. Which is why I said you can always pick examples that show that a capitalist society is fascist. Again, as I said above, that is where you get into a matter of degree.
Note that according to your definition, the US is also arguably fascist. (Not so much according to the second definition, though.)
Agreed, for some definitions of "Fascist". But since fascism implies some form of capitalism, you can probably pick examples that will show that almost *any* capitalist society is fascist. It's a lot like many personality disorders - we've all got bits of everything. It's only when it passes a certain threshold that it's considered to be a disorder or disease.
Some Political Science 101 for the people in this thread, who have been throwing around terms loosely with no real understanding of their meanings.
Communism: A political/economic theory with the proletariat (the people) at the centre, who wield power. In a communist society, there *is* no state - it has "withered away", to quote some old dead guy named Marx, who was also the only Marx in history without a sense of humour.
Fascism: A political/economic theory with corporations at the centre, with the government wielding power on their behalf.
Spain under Franco was Fascist, no argument.
Soviet Union under Stalin was *not* communist, in any way shape or form. It espoused communism, but there is a difference between using communism as a rationalization for your actions, and actually *being* communist.
The Soviet Union was, depending on the time, either a dictatorship, or an oligarchy (think dictatorship, but instead of having a single ruler, it is run by a group of individuals. That would be the Politburo). It could accurately be described as an oligarchy, a dictatorship, or a police state.
Spain under Franco could also be described as a dictatorship, a police state, *or* a fascist state. All are accurate.
But there is no possible way to describe the Soviet Union as fascist. It's just plain wrong.
and now for a "get off of my lawn" moment..........
comments in linux, none in SVR4? Well, let's see
Linux was written on a PC, using a full-screen editor with a metric buttload of memory (AT LEAST 640k) and an even bigger buttload of disk space to store all the pretty formatted code, that Linux probably bought with his student loans, or proceeds from his summer job.
SVR4 was written on big, expensive minicomputers (that were called mini computers because they only filled HALF the room/floor), when 32k of memory was not only enough for anybody, but was enough for a whole bunch of anybodies to use at the same time, who also had to share the 4 meg, $45,000, 3 foot wide hard drive.
Also, I seem to recall a pending suit against the labels filed by artists who haven't been paid for the use of their work on compilation CDs. Using the RIAA's own figures, they alleged something like 60 billion dollars in damages if I recall. This would reduce that figure enormously
The case you're thinking of is in Canada, and prosecuted under Canadian, not American law. This decision will have exactly zero effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Those outside of Canada probably won't get the joke. Every conservative MP in canada begins everything they say with "Lets be clear", "Let me make it very clear" etc... as some sort of warning that a major porky is on the way...
Or, maybe it wasn't a joke. Maybe - just maybe - I was trying to make sure that people knew that what I was saying was strictly my own opinion, based only on the information that's available to everybody else - ie, TFA.
..... sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
In the immortal words of Grouch Marx
Hey genius - who is paying for her research? It's the taxpayers of Canada. The same taxpayers the fascists running the government want to keep in the dark about research findings that will have a direct impact on the public well-being.
I know people love to call anybody even remotely right of centre fascists, and that they love to see conspiracies in everything .... but I'm having a hard time trying to think of a scenario where publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a journal as prestigious and well-known as the Lancet could possibly be considered to be "keeping people in the dark". But hey, that's just me.
I'm curious - what is the point of having her NOT talk to the press before this judicial inquiry (which isn't a trial as far as I can tell) while the information is already out in the public domain? Will the evidence be tainted? Are there precedents for this sort of thing?
First, let me make it very, very clear - I don't have access to any information other than what's contained in the article. I have, however, been rather heavily involved in politics at the national level in Ottawa in the past, so I've got a bit of an idea of the mindset. What I'm about to say is my own suspicion - and it's what *I* would be worried about, if I was in that position. I doubt her paper is directly related to what she is expected to testify to before the inquiry - otherwise, she'd not have been allowed to publish it in the first place. So I don't think that's it.
It is, however, reasonable to assume she's going to testify about something related, however tangentially - her research was job related, and her testimony is also going to be job related.
Depending on how wide-ranging or open the interview is - or how naive SHE is when dealing with the press, or if a reporter is a fan of the 60 minutes school of ambush interviewing - there's a chance she could say something what *would* have potential political and legal consequences, if some of her statements regarding her paper overlap the subject matter of the inquiry. So the safest course of action would be to simply not talk to reporters until her testimony. Seems reasonable to me, and not something to worry about or waste righteous indignation on.
Now - if after her testimony she is still not allowed to talk to the press, THEN you have something that's a news story, and something to get cranked about. But I don't think there's anything here yet.
Politicians of all stripes screw up all the time - sorry, folks, but it wasn't invented by the Tories, the Liberals, the Left, the Right, the Inbetweens, or anybody else.
So why not just take a deep breath, calm down, and wait for something to happen that's worth getting cranked about? It's only a matter of time. There's no need to invent shit.
I'm warning you - if I will still remember to follow this theme in the end of August or whenever that final paper will be out, and she still can't speak her mind, i WILL come back here and reply to you: "Ha! Told you so!" I agree on you, that bad science is worse than no science. Still, I wouldn't muffle anybody. It's like Barbra Streisand effect.
Apparently, you haven't read TFA *or* my comment. First - the final paper is out and published. That's what caused the media interest in the first place. Second - the whole point of my comment was that she *hasn't* been muzzled because of her science, the results or indeed, for any reason - she's been told she can't speak until her testimony at a legal proceeding has been completed.
It'd kinda like telling your friends that your mother said you aren't allowed to play with them for the rest of your life, when all she did was say you had to clean your room first.
She is being muzzled because she is not being allowed to talk about her findings to the public via the press. Her findings are buried in a pay for access science journal that is likely written in language that most in the public will not understand.
TFA said she was told she couldn't speak because she has to give evidence in a judicial inquiry. Then came much officious huffing and puffing from lefty paranoids about how it was an excuse and that she was being muzzled.
Unfortunately for those theories, TFA also said, near the end of the article, that she will be allowed to speak in August, WHEN HER TESTIMONY HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
So call the PMO paranoid. Make fun of them, if that's your wont - god knows that hasn't been a PMO since the country began that hasn't been stupid or out to lunch is very many ways, both Tory and Liberal. Vote against the Tories next chance you get, if you are so inclined.
But you don't need to invent stuff or pull it out of your arse just to score political points. All it does is make you look strident, knee-jerk, and absolutely invalidates the point you were trying to make in the first place.
Apps must be vetted by Apple in order to be included in the App Store, but I can't recall the last time an app was rejected for being too useful.
And how could you possibly know? If an app was rejected for being too useful, you wouldn't even know about it ...... because it was rejected.
First - I'm "old enough" to have seen patterns myself. Feel free to get off my lawn any time.
Second - "large corporations" is a strawman argument - unless you can give me a single example of any large scale example of ANY energy generator that is *not* a "large corporation"? That's where the regulatory framework comes in.
Third - There are probably more people that die in just West Virginia each year than have died IN TOTAL due to nuclear accidents. Hint: mining disasters aren't even close to being the worst offender - take a look at the stats regarding cancers, black lung, silicosis and other diseases caused by long-term exposure to coal dust in the mines.
Forth - when has anybody, anywhere, described fission as a free lunch? All systems and technologies have their costs. As somebody commented earlier, nuclear energy right now is just one of the best of a bunch of bad options.
Except that there is in fact a lot of nuclear astroturfing going on.
How is it astroturfing if they are a) a group specifically and publicly formed by and for the nuclear industry, b) not hiding who they are, but openly and honestly giving their side of the debate, c) to an audience that is there specifically to hear what they have to say because they WANT to hear what they have to say?
Sorry, but that's just silly. It's kinda like saying the catholic church astroturfs every time a priest stands up and gives a sermon.
I believe it's been published by Mythbusters Press
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
There are 10 kinds of people in this world: Those that understand binary, and those that don't.
Nope, nothing gay about muscled, oil men, rolling around on the floor, while pretending to wrestle, while trying to present bad drama. Normally that roll is reserved for drama queens.
The most mysterious hold in all of wrestling is the one it has on it's viewers.
And as my friend, who was also a campaign manager for one of the political parties here loved to say ..... "Grab them by the balls, and their hearts & minds WILL follow" :-)
Absolutely. I think the big difference between what TFA talks about, and what we did, was that it wasn't set up as a game, and we weren't employees - we were outside consultants.
:-)
Nobody knew where, or how, we'd try to get in. All the staff would know is that "sometime in the next XX weeks/months" we would be trying to get in. Sometimes, they wouldn't even know that much. Let's face it - hackers don't tend make appointments before they do their thing.
At the time, I didn't have any security training per se, but I did have a background in intelligence. The guy that headed up our Tiger Teams was a retired major from the SAS, who had spent a few years working at GCHQ before he came to Canada. It was one hellova interesting way to earn a living
I remember doing security studies like this, years & years ago. We called them "Tiger Teams". This is hardly a new technique.
The CRTC doesn't need to be disbanded. It just has to be populated by somebody other than former tech executives.
Gasoline is metered.
Scarce resource.
Diesel is metered.
Scarce resource.
Electricity is metered.
Scarce resource.
Water is metered.
Scarce resource.
Phonecalls are metered (well mine are- 18c/minute).
Scarce resource. (Finite radio bandwidth)
Why not megabytes?
Not a scarce resource. Remember, the whole reason (justification) for this application in the first place was to fight network congestion. The problem is that congestion is based on the NUMBER of connections, not the bandwidth used per connection.
The smaller ISPs have had contracts to buy pipes - bandwidth. It is (should be) a matter between them and their customers how they are paid for. This decision forces to smaller, independent ISPs to fit into Bells business model.
Putting Mexico and the USA in the same category in terms of corruption makes about as much sense as saying that an actor is the same as somebody with MPD because they both exhibit multiple personalities.
Welcome to the internet. Fascism gets thrown around in political arguments almost as much as spousal abuse does in a divorce court ..... and usually with about as much validity.
You just made my point for me. Because nothing is perfect, there will never be a government where you have always/100% "proper" regulation, and total lack of corruption. Which is why I said you can always pick examples that show that a capitalist society is fascist. Again, as I said above, that is where you get into a matter of degree.
Agreed, for some definitions of "Fascist". But since fascism implies some form of capitalism, you can probably pick examples that will show that almost *any* capitalist society is fascist. It's a lot like many personality disorders - we've all got bits of everything. It's only when it passes a certain threshold that it's considered to be a disorder or disease.
Got a name?
Some Political Science 101 for the people in this thread, who have been throwing around terms loosely with no real understanding of their meanings.
Communism: A political/economic theory with the proletariat (the people) at the centre, who wield power. In a communist society, there *is* no state - it has "withered away", to quote some old dead guy named Marx, who was also the only Marx in history without a sense of humour.
Fascism: A political/economic theory with corporations at the centre, with the government wielding power on their behalf.
Spain under Franco was Fascist, no argument.
Soviet Union under Stalin was *not* communist, in any way shape or form. It espoused communism, but there is a difference between using communism as a rationalization for your actions, and actually *being* communist.
The Soviet Union was, depending on the time, either a dictatorship, or an oligarchy (think dictatorship, but instead of having a single ruler, it is run by a group of individuals. That would be the Politburo). It could accurately be described as an oligarchy, a dictatorship, or a police state.
Spain under Franco could also be described as a dictatorship, a police state, *or* a fascist state. All are accurate.
But there is no possible way to describe the Soviet Union as fascist. It's just plain wrong.
signals and intelligence, in army jargon.
Not quite - Signals Intelligence, without the 'and'. It refers to intelligence derived FROM signals (think WWII ULTRA intelligence)
and now for a "get off of my lawn" moment ..........
comments in linux, none in SVR4? Well, let's see
Linux was written on a PC, using a full-screen editor with a metric buttload of memory (AT LEAST 640k) and an even bigger buttload of disk space to store all the pretty formatted code, that Linux probably bought with his student loans, or proceeds from his summer job.
SVR4 was written on big, expensive minicomputers (that were called mini computers because they only filled HALF the room/floor), when 32k of memory was not only enough for anybody, but was enough for a whole bunch of anybodies to use at the same time, who also had to share the 4 meg, $45,000, 3 foot wide hard drive.
Also, I seem to recall a pending suit against the labels filed by artists who haven't been paid for the use of their work on compilation CDs. Using the RIAA's own figures, they alleged something like 60 billion dollars in damages if I recall. This would reduce that figure enormously
The case you're thinking of is in Canada, and prosecuted under Canadian, not American law. This decision will have exactly zero effect.