+1 Larry Niven reference

You betcha. You can like or dislike a character, but if your response is "meh", then the story-tellers have failed. It might be the script, direction, or acting, but someone, somewhere has not done their job.

Manufactured infant formula doesn't contain the immunity/protective factors that human breast milk contains, therefore infants (especially those already compromised by other environmental conditions such as slum dwelling, chronic sub-standard diets in the region/country, etc) fed on that formula are denied the benefits of said protective factors, thus leading to increased levels of disease and consequently death in infant populations. Human breast milk (with some exceptions such as maternal drug intake - both prescribed and "recreational" drugs, and some maternal diseases) is nearly always the best food for infants. It's sterile (unless the mother has certain diseases), and has the ideal blend of nutrients for infants. Manufactured formula can come close, but it shouldn't be promoted as the superior quality food, except in the cases I mentioned above.
 
As always, it's the mother's choice whether to breastfeed or not, but she shouldn't be misled about the benefits/quality of one over the other.

Aw, crap. Federal MHR ballots are not optional preferential - you've got to number EVERY box or it's an informal vote. It's going to be interesting - I'm in the electorate of Fisher http://www.aec.gov.au/election/qld/fisher.htm - 10 MHR candidates (including Peter Slipper), and 82 senate candidates. I'm going to download the CSV and try to work out my numbering before I get to the polling booth.

The VOTER decides the preferences, i.e. it's the voter who writes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on, not the parties. All the parties do is print how-to-vote cards that get handed out near the polling stations. It's always been the voter who decides preferences, so if you the voter can't be arsed doing a little research and making your own decisions, and are happy to fill out your ballot according to your party's how-to-vote card, then you deserve the consequences.

Admittedly the senate ballot paper is a pain to fill out completely (numbering every box rather than put a "1" above the line, as most major parties would have you do), but fer crissakes, it's only once every few years, and worth a little research and mental arithmetic.

That reminds me - I should find out if the MHR ballot is optional preferential - that's the best system - you can vote 1 for your preferred candidate, then further numbering is optional.

Try this - it will make your cycling a bit more strenuous, though:

buy a goose-predator-shaped kite (or 2 or 3 of different species for variety), tie it to your bike seat on a sping-loaded line, and pedal off. The kite starts to fly up and behind you; the faster you go, the higher the kite flies, and the earlier it gets seen by the geese ahead of you.

BAM, geese fly away before you reach them.

I left when people I barely knew started "endorsing" me for skills I don't have.
 
"Oh you work in IT, right? I'll endorse you for SEO skills"
 
Never been so insulted in my life.

Well done, sir. I grant you the win in this case, but not when the mods judge our race.

And the expressions on Otto's face then and at various points throughout - that's what I mean by "competent actor".

I'd mod you up if I had points today. I watched "A fish called Wanda" again last night - hadn't seen it for many years, and it still made me laugh. I'd forgotten just how funny it was. A plot that was just outside plausible (thus satisfying my own rule about suspension of disbelief - i.e. don't make me stretch too far). A little bit of stunt work, some very clever dialogue, and competent actors (as opposed to movie stars). Clever casting that appealed to both sides of the atlantic, and a director who knew how to direct a movie, as opposed to a director with his thumb on the detonator for the next explosion/car flip/whatever.
 
I don't mind watching stuff like "The Avengers" - it has a great deal of eye candy, and I can accept it's just there for visual entertainment, but we need more than visual entertainment, and cinema is capable of so much more.

Except that a data center of this size and reputation can't afford to go down, hence there'll be some big BIG BIIIIG backup generators, and I imagine there'll also be a system (some batteries or big caps) to buffer grid fluctuations. I didn't read the article, but are they planning to run their machines on DC?

Especially a BA aircraft - just returned to OZ from the UK via Singapore - flew BA from London the Singapore - I was scared when the damn thing took off - seconds after the wheels left the ground, the whole plane was shuddering and shaking. Noisy, too. Contrast Qantas from Singapore to Brisbane - smooth and quiet. Both aircraft were 747-400s - obviously the BA craft was older, but it was still a BIG contrast to the Qantas jet. Ditto for the staff - to BA, you're a fleeting customer - to Qantas, you're a mate/buddy.

"No spills in microgravity can be allowed, as these have a tendency to migrate into equipment and cause faults. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMtXfwk7PXg

I think copyrights are (or should be) structured fairly to serve a number of interests - those of the public, and those of the author/s (note that I didn't say copyright holder - I wouldn't grant the same rights of exploitation to an entity who has bought the copyright from the author) i.e. you seem to be saying that copyrights should primarily serve the public interest, and I disagree. I can respect your position about driving the hardest bargain possible, but as an author, I also want to drive the hardest bargain possible for my own benefit. I put in time, effort and money to create a work of interest and/or value, and I'll exploit that as much as possible.
 
BTW your statement about "quoting your post" is silly - this is, for all intents and purposes a public forum and we all have the expectation that our posts could be quoted - so there's an implicit permission granted to do so - don't want your post quoted? Don't post it.
 
"Reasonable" is quite a valid term, used frequently in the legal system - as you should know if you're a lawyer. I had the term "reasonable" explained to me by a judge when I was on jury duty - I was told it's an important part of considering all sorts of legal questions. So why shouldn't copyrights and exploitation of creative work be guided by what's "reasonable"? Why do you want creative works not treated reasonably?

There's a bit more to law and justice than the U.S. constitution. Granted, much of this happens under the jurisdiction of the U.S. constitution, but there are these concepts known as "natural justice" and "common law". Not being an expert on the U.S. constitution, I can't comment on "sweat of the brow" being unconstitutional, but whether a right to compensation for your work is enshrined, excluded or just not mentioned under a constitution or even a bill of rights, surely you're not seriously suggesting that the author of a creative work isn't entitled to compensation/income from that work, unless they've chosen to release it into the public domain?
 
I both create and consume content - and I respect the rights of those whose work I want to exploit (musicians, mostly). I ask their permission (and usually get it just by asking politely), but I'm also prepared to negotiate a licence and whatever fee that entails. Sometimes I've had to say "sorry, I can't afford that" and then I don't use that material. It's really that simple - can't afford it? Don't use it. Just because it's relatively easy to copy and distribute digital material doesn't mean you have the right to do so. I don't have the money to prevent you copying my work, so I just have to suck it up. If you buy one of my DVDs, I'm happy for you to back it up, format-shift it to as many of your devices as you want, sell it on, lend it, give it away etc, but I'm not happy for you to make copies for your friends or upload it to youtube, vimeo, etc. I think that's a reasonable approach.