Damn, it's that self-depricating voice in my head again. It sounded like something a very sarcastic teacher used to say to me when my work was substandard: "You worked hard on that, didn't you?" Another one was "You always try hard, don't you?" And then she would look at what I had written and sigh.

Meh. The aliens will fiddle with the time space vortex so that they will have had the recordings before we would have had them.

Other planets? That's nothing. I read an article by a journalist who had gone undercover to audition for Australian Idol. According to her the waiver for the copyright on the footage extended to "this universe, any other universe and beyond".

Thanks you for explaining that. Just to point out, though, that in Australia you can still sue someone who knows they have an STD but does not disclose it to you.

It's not a crazy law. The problem isn't the law, and the problem for Assange isn't facing the charges - even if he is guilty it won't be a big deal. The problem is that there is still some chance that Sweden will extradite him to to the US. And Assange's fellow Australian's will miss out on a chance to vote him into the Senate.

But don't blame the Swedish law; it's just a more advanced country in regards to the human rights of women in this area.

I'm having a slow week.

Let us turn to the Oxford English Dictionary.

"Egoism" and "egotism" are distinct words, each of which have more than one meaning. Definition three for egoism is "sytematic selfishness". Definition four for egotism is "selfishness". So, despite the difference in their meanings, the two have definitions which overlap to mean "selfishness".

Egoism and egotism therefore can be use interchangably if you are descibing a person in a state of selfishness. In other uses the words would not be able to be used interchangably (i.e. an "egoist" is a person who holds with a particular ethical theory (egoism). An egotist is not.)

Thank you for this opportunity to be semanitc.

Have patience. One day they will balance the "addiction" versus "artery clogging" algorithm.

Parisite is in mouse, wants to be in cat, parisite biologically iteracts with mouse so mouse it is attracted to cat urine, parisite successful. Burger is in McDonalds, wants to be in you, burger biologically interacts with you so you are attracted to Mcdonalds, burger successful. "Burger" is a species. They act with a group mind.

Why does it need a possessive? "Microsoft have had a desktop application ... how come Google don't". You think Google owns the "don't"?

No it isn't.

Working nights is listed as a possible carcinogen by IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). The link that has the biggest research base is between breast cancer and night work. The dominant theory is that circadian disruption caused by exposure to light at night lowers melotonin production which is either a causal factor in cancers or supresses protective mechanisms. So, too much sunlight in the day causes skin cancer, too much artifical light at night possibly causes breast cancer.

Humans - at the time - went a "long way" to discover America/Australia etc etc and certainly killed the local inhabitants. Sometimes this was deliberate (shoot 'em) and sometimes this was accidental (common, harmeless diseases that were deadly to them). The best that could be hoped for is that they were "integrated" into the new society in a way that may have been well meant, but ended up causing massive problems to those peoples even hundreds of years later. And they were the same species. Other species we plucked, roasted, hung their teeth around or necks etc. OK - aliens may be different. Or may be the same.

Yes, species that taste yummy to humans (e.g. cows) sometimes get a big survival push because we encourage them to live by selectively breeding/eating them. (Provided that the species are easy to keep - being yummy is a bad trait if you are a wild animal that doesn't suit farming).