Not here (not UK, but a commonwealth country). It's perjury to say you weren't driving when you were. The identification of the driver is a separate matter. You "swear" you weren't driving. You then must give the police a lead, or they will still hold you responsible.

The 5th Amendment exists because people were "asked" to testify, then, when the first charge didn't convict, try them for perjury on their testimony.

That, and beat a confession out of them.

Those were the main reasons for the 5th Amendment. Not to protect your computer files. You are required to hand those over (arguably in the format the prosecutor wants), so long as they get a valid warrant first. But that's a different Amendment.

you have been able to buy cellphone watches for years now. Search ebay for "GSM watch"

"Siri, How do I get icky dying person off my shoes?"

Unobtrusive to me means that the technology does only what I want it to but we all know that technology today serves its master, which is NOT the end user. This is an invasion.

But this one has exclamation points!!!!!!

So you are arguing that subpoenas are illegal?

Toast, orange juice, 2 scrambled eggs, bacon, and black coffee in a Holiday Inn in Elk City, Oklahoma, on a cross-country road trip.

No, I don't have a memory of all my breakfasts, you just picked a lucky week. :)

A counter-claim is $0. Why not just counter claim, and be done with it?

No evidence is needed to provide a counter-notice.

The only reason there's a hold-down time after the counter-notice is to give the (supposed) copyright holder time to file a court case before it's back up.

It's innocent until proven guilty. The person is presumed innocent. The content is blocked until any disputes are settled, as making it available would cause an irrecoverable loss if the copyright holder is right. It's actually pretty sensible, though wasn't intended to have millions of automated take downs issued by non-holders of copyright who claim a 90% miss rate is "good faith". Change the way that's applied against the take-down issuers, and the problems mostly go away.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. At least not without piles and piles of official warnings.

Just buy some Eurofighters...

Yeah, like the vegetables designed to generate their own insecticides, effectively turning the vegetables into poison. Even the "light" versions are generally so that more poisons can be used on them than "normal". Both are scientifically demonstrably to be "bad" for the consumer. The "good" GMO was mostly done with selective breeding. Maybe a few colors or shapes are "good" GMO, but mostly it's about getting the maximum chemicals in/on the food, and that's why GMO is globally hated. That and a fear of terminator genes.

Read http://science.slashdot.org/co... and tell me if you think he's said anything to indicate he's anti-abortion.

He sounds like someone who is anti-abortion, but deliberately saying things to be able to deny it, while strongly suggesting it.

Then present the scientific basis for your position, rather than solely attacking others while not stating your position.