How to help the government get more info on Canada’s military activities

With military spending soaring and tensions running high, the Harper government has been pushing ahead with plans to open up its national security archives and make them available to Canadians.

In a letter to defence minister Harjit Sajjan, obtained by CBC News, the Office of the Defence Information Commissioner said it will release all of the files it has in its archives as of the end of 2019.

It’s a move that has the blessing of some of the highest-ranking government officials, but it’s also a bit controversial.

The office of defence secretary, Gen. Sean MacGregor, has said the files should remain classified, citing the need to protect Canadians from any future harm.

The government has defended the move saying it’s to provide Canadians with the full picture of what’s going on on the ground.

The office of the defence secretary said in a statement that the government has made every effort to ensure the files are classified, but they can still be released.

We’ve had a number of people in our government have asked us to say no.

So it is a matter of what we’re comfortable with, and if that is not possible we will make an exception for the files.

How to tell if a product is a good deal or a junk food?

New Scientist article A study by researchers at the University of Cambridge has found that people are far more likely to associate the term “good” with food than it is with alcohol, even when it’s not clear which drink or food is being offered.

The research, published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, used online surveys to test how consumers perceive good and bad food in a range of popular brands, including McDonald’s and Domino’s.

They found that “good food” is often more associated with products with high-profile marketing.

For example, the popular McDonald’s “McFlurry” was described as “one of the most popular brands of pizza in the world”, and it is also available in the UK.

But the researchers say it “had a reputation for being the least nutritious of the brands on offer” – meaning the public was less likely to perceive the product as a good value.

The findings are important because they highlight the need for food manufacturers to rethink their packaging practices, they say.

In addition, they suggest that consumers could be less willing to pay more for foods when the price is lower.

In a study published last year, for example, researchers at Stanford University found that when consumers pay more, they are more likely “to feel more good about what they’re paying for”, which is “more consistent with the idea that people pay more to feel good about something”.

The Cambridge study was the first to test the impact of price on perceptions of food quality.

It used the same online surveys as Stanford, but this time asked people to rate five different food brands, from “cheapest” to “most expensive”.

They found that consumers were less likely than in the Stanford study to consider a product’s quality “good”, as a result of the “cheapness” label.

It’s possible that the differences between the Stanford and Cambridge surveys are due to the way respondents rated the different food categories, and the way they rated them, compared with their own personal experiences of eating food.

But Dr Rachael Kelleher, who led the Cambridge study, said she was concerned that consumers “don’t know the difference between good and poor quality”.

The researchers also compared the ratings of the five food brands they tested to those of consumers of similar types of products.

They looked at the perceived value of the product, not the actual price, and found that the perception of quality was significantly higher for products that were “more expensive” than for those that were more affordable.

For instance, the researchers found that if you were offered a cheap hamburger at a McDonald’s restaurant, the perception that you were being “charged more than the value of what you were buying” would be more likely than if the same hamburger were offered at a supermarket.

In this case, they found that in general, the perceived quality of the food you’re buying is higher if you’re offered the same product at a higher price.

This could explain why people tend to believe “good quality” is associated with cheaper, higher-priced products.

The researchers found a similar pattern for food packaging.

“The packaging is associated more strongly with perceived quality when people are paying more for the product than if they’re not,” they write.

“In other words, the price of a product matters more when people perceive quality than it does when they perceive the price.”

Dr Kelleh’s team is currently conducting a follow-up study to see if consumers are also less likely “good tasting” if they are offered the food they want at a lower price.

They’re also interested in whether consumers’ perceptions of “good taste” is influenced by the “price” of the meal.

Why Amazon won’t let you pay for lyrics to songs you don’t want to buy

Amazon has ruled out paying for lyrics for songs you won’t buy, but a new report says you should.

NBC News has obtained emails that show that Amazon’s policy of denying payment for songs isn’t the first time the company has ruled that out.

Last year, it said it would not pay for Amazon-produced songs, though it did offer a way to do so for free.

It’s unclear if Amazon will continue that policy this time around.

The policy also didn’t prevent customers from making requests for Amazon songs that weren’t in the queue.

But customers with requests would have to wait an hour or more before receiving payment.

Amazon declined to comment.

The news comes after a New York Times report revealed that Amazon is denying payment to users of Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal who want to request music they want to listen to but don’t have a subscription.

Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said that it is “not uncommon” for people to request a song from Amazon, but declined to say whether Amazon is in the process of doing the same thing.