So you're a male with a bushy beard and unkempt hair?

I also use a tireed system.
One password for all the sites I don't give a damn about security ( I actually care a little about my /. account ).
Then a family of passwords for ones I care about, but have no risk to my finances and personal data.
Then secure passwords for sites that could be damaging to me should they get cracked. I use a password safe, which is triple encrypted, so one would need to crack three passwords in succession all in excess of 15 characters in length, and utilizing mnemonics in a language which I invented, except the first password was generated by a random algorithm so it's not very mnemonic (it took a while to memorize).

But I have a bushy beard and unkempt blond hair. So I guess my passwords aren't very secure. If triple encrypted randomly generated passwords in lengths of greater than 15 characters (the second password to pepare the safe for opening is over 40 non-repeating characters in length in "words" which exist in no publicly known language on the planet with a 50 character "alphabet"), is not secure enough, we're all in serious trouble.

Or perhaps this is just another case of Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics in a badly designed, implemented and fawlty conclusions study.

Although, I have no doubt many of my weak Internet passwrds are insecure, but easy to remember (for me, but register as strong or very strong on sites that actually give a damn).

You are confusing belief with theory. Theory is the basis of science. Belief is the realm of religion.

And if you are a two dimensional creature living in flatland, there is no way for you to directly prove that there exists a third dimension. Well unless some external force rotates you along an axis out of your two dimensional space.

But higher dimensions would be a very clean and intuitive solution to some of the paradoxes in Physics. Take for example the creation of a proton-anitproton pair, and deflecting them in opposite directions then once they are sufficiently far apart deflect one and watch the other react in >c time (ie reacts before the light from the other particle of the pair can reach said particle). How can one of the pair react to an action done on the other in less time than it takes light to travel the distance? If the pair are linked in a higher dimension space, it's possible for one to react by "seeing" in less than c time if the higher dimension has a shorter light path.

I'm not saying that is any sort of theory proposed by anyone, or that it is some sort of proof of higher dimensions. It is however a valid sort of topic for investigative experiment to seek out verifying the existence of higher dimensions. Since math and physics agree that higher dimensions are possible, it's much more logical to assume they do exist and try to prove that than to presume they don't exist and try to prove that.

All theory requires making an assumption. It's far easier to assume the positive and try tro prove that. Provided you have some reasonable approach to making attempts to prove.

Only if you admit there is no way to prove a hypothesis, should one say i don't believe in the existence of X. One can't prove the Existence or Nonexistence of God. There is no experiment we can imagine to do so. Therefore there is no reason to believe in God nor any reason not to believe in God. It's irrelevant, and has no place in science. It's like believing there are only three dimensions, because we can't "see" or "prove" a fourth. That in itself is an act of faith.

Science is all about trying to explain things, not saying well "we don't know". If math indicates the answer is due to higher dimensions, Okham's Razor would indicate the rational conclusion is there ARE higher dimensions. The simplest solution is usually the answer. Plus math is pretty good at predicting actual reality and the real world. Math indicates that if you add one apple to a pile of thirteen apples you will have fourteen physical apples. Threfore the realistic perspective is to conclude if math predicts greater than 3 dimensions, it's realistic to assume math is correct and there are actually more than three real dimensions.

Simply saying, "I/we don't know" is equivalent to saying, I/we refuse to speculate on the cause. It might as well be happening by magic. I'm not saying anything in the real world indicates there are higher dimensions, but to me, it is simply one more hypothesis that needs experimental proof and a valid research/theoretical topic.

Actually, a digitally signed statement that can be authenticated as coming from a certain person, making use of the under penalty of perjury clause would be found enforceable by a US court. Especially if there is a notarized paper copy attesting to the truth of that statement.

I'm a Notary Public (among many other hats I wear), and take declarations from people and notarize documents which are legally acceptable for court use and are considered as binding as any testimony given under oath in a court, along with the manifest penalties of perjury. I don't know a way of doing a digital notarization. But it is certainly possible to take a declaration from a person, and notarize it. Many companies have notaries working for them, and could do this on a daily basis.

So, while I left out this detail in my original post, it's certainly feasible. As BranMan noted, however, a court could grant immunity from prosecution and then order you to put the message "back up". But, you see there is the rub. They would have to order it before hand to prevent the deadswitch from happening in the first place. Anything after the fact would just be damage control, and probably too late. Some users would probably notice it going away, and then you'd have some explaining to do. Plus the court would have to grant immunity for every day they force you to put it back up, because each day's statement is another violation that is separately prosecutable. The court order would have to be carefully worded.

But, like I said it's an option. Foolproof? Far from it. A country that doesn't respect it's own laws can't be trusted not to do criminal and illegal things to it's citizens, and the judges are plenty capable of getting pissed off by this act and finding some grounds to prosecute. So, like I said, not legal advice, and check with a lawyer, etc, etc, if you try this. I don't run anything where this would be an issue, so I have no stake in it.

You all seem to miss the important aspects here.

1) Most Americans I talk with, who know about these things happening, hate everything that is going on.
2) But a good number of people aren't paying attention to most of it. My wife, and most of my close family, being among them. And these people don't want to know, because they know they'll get upset and frustrated about it.
3) Among those who know and are disgusted, few complain about it except to friends. Why, because, most of this activity doesn't have an immediate impact on Americans ability to travel "freely", buy food, earn a comfortable living, have spendable money and the ability to spend it mostly how they want, raise a family without major restrictions, go to the church of their own choice, live in any neighborhood they can afford, eat what they what, and have entertainment they want. In other words daily life in the USA is fairly stable and unrestricted. People are comfortable. Until, the activities of the government get so overbearing that life is no longer comfortable, few will be willing to do anything about it.
4) The American Revolution didn't happen because the middle class people weren't comfortable anymore. Life was not really that bad in American Colonies back then. The American Revolution happened because the wealthy were feeling uncomfortable and the Crown was messing with their livlihoods.

Ergo, nothing is going to change, unless:
1) The government actions start having a serious impact on the upper classes, or
2) The government makes life so hard for the average citizen that they have no choice but to revolt. You can complain to your politicians till you're blue in the face and it likely won't change anything, for long. They will relent, for a while, and then try it again when they think you aren't looking. Search your feelings, you know this to be true., or
3) Enough people get fed up and actually start a new political party, that alters the landscape.

Well, there might be a way around it. Disclaimer: This is not legal advise, blah blah blah...

It's possible to post a legally binding statement, such as "Under penalty of perjury, I/we declare we have not been contacted by the government as of yesterday." Make this a daily post, that ages out and disappears at the end of the day. Then each day you have to re-post it. This would be an act of communication.

Now, this should work because, you cannot be forced to commit perjury, even by a court. I.E. you cannot be ordered to commit a crime, and perjury is a crime.

So, it should be workable, because if you get contacted by a secret court order, you can't commincate that without commiting a crime, but you can't put up a new statement, without committing a crime. Not puttinig the statement up is not an act of communication, but a lack of a communication. Sure the lack of a communication may imply the opposite, and the court could order you to put up a statement saying you haven't been contacted, but it can't order you to commit perjury.

The melting point of glass at normal pressure is less than or equal to 1600C (2912F).

LMGTFY

Of course this assumes a pure silica glass, which doesn't exist because then it's just fused quartz. But as all the forms of glass introduce various molecular impurities which actually lower the melting point, this is the upper end. ALL glass will melt at this temperature. Glass transitions all happen at much lower temperatures. Vycor having the highest I know of between 1200 and 1520C. It can actually be used as glass at 1200C, under perfect conditions.

So where's the 6,250 choice (640K -> 4G)? The 12,500 choice? The 25,000 choice (640K -> 16G)? But, I see we have a few dinosaurs out there on the list who actually had Z80s! Thanks for making me feel young again!

But maybe the questions should have used ranges or a greater than/ less than qualifier?

Come on, this is supposed to be a Geek site! Be precise and pedantic for God's sake. Or at least for Quantum's sake.

I'm not sure that's an accurate statement. Here's my reasoning. The product is described as twice as strong than titanium alloys. Liquuidmetal is a zirconium alloy (earlier forms included titanium in the mix with zirconium). Anyway. As strength increase so does brittleness. Or the inventers are due for a Nobel Prize in mechanical engineering. What this alloy is, is an amorphous alloy, rather than a crystalline alloy. There are uses for both alloys, but there is always a trade-off between strength and brittleness. The harder it is, the more brittle it will get. Bronze is also an amorphous alloy. Without seeing Liquidmetal's microstructure, I really can't comment much on the alloy's properties. But, I'm guessing that the molding process includes some form of work-hardening on the metal as it cools. That would be the logical thing to do to increase the strength, while preventing too much crystalization. The alloys look to be in the class of superalloys, but I lack enough information to classify them.

The linked to video shows a ball to demonstrate it's ability to absorb shock, but anyone who's ever played with glass marbles knows that the shape has every thing to do with it. A round ball has distinctly different properties than a flat sheet. What the article fails to point out, is that the attempt to use this metal in the flat part of the golf clubs resulted in a useful life of about 40 hits, before shattering.

That's not to say they done some really cool engineering work, and Apple will be coming out with some very cool cases in the future. But the laws of Physics still apply.

The OP here sets up a set of rules he knows up front results in a logic equation that has no solution. Item number three is the trick, that turns the whole contest into a trick question, like asking for the timing of a 357cu. in. engine in a 1957 Buick Skylark.

"The "benefit" can't be something that benefits all suspects equally, whether they're innocent, guilty of violating a just law, or guilty of violating an unjust law. "

Any benefit that would benefit the innocent would by necessity benefit the guilty as well, at least as much. But that's the point, the point isn't to protect the guilty, but to protect the innocent. Take for example that wonderful video, linked many times in this article "Don't Talk to the Police". But here's the OP's sought for example, anyway. Shamelessly loosely taken from the video.

Police question: "Did you know the victim?"

Innocent Suspect: "Yeah, but I never really liked the guy." [police now have motive for the innocent man - i.e. suspect didn't like him.]

Policeman tells about the murder, then asks if you killed him

Suspect, remembers hearing about the murder on TV, "So and so killed last kight in what appears to be gang-related violence.

Suspect answers: "No, I don't even own a gun.", but police never mentioned the murder weapon, nor did the TV News. This is human nature at work filling in the blanks, based on too little information. Police now have you're testimony corroborating the murder weapon.

There is your example that benefits innocent people. Innocent people get convicted on circumstantial evidence, often times as a result of police questioning. Then of course the OP has the ridiculous idea that bad guys are going to actually tell the truth when asked a question. Asking a murderer if they killed the victim isn't going to help solve the crime even without the 5th. Unless he/she is the World's dumbest criminal.