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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world: Those that understand binary, and those that don't.

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 :-)

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.

Scarce resource.

Scarce resource.

Scarce resource.

Scarce resource.

Scarce resource. (Finite radio bandwidth)

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.