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.

Well, you know it's not going to happen when they say, "Up to 60 percent of power might come from nuclear sources." I don't think either major party in America would support that, and other countries are actively hostile to nuclear.

However, more interesting is the idea that every new car sold in America will be electric. For that to happen, it would mean electric cars are cost competitive with gasoline cars. I can't see from the paper why they think it will happen within that timeframe.

Don't be deceived by the cheap consumer goods you buy.......the US still has a huge manufacturing sector, and large-scale construction is one of the things it can still do.

I don't dismiss the science. If you have nothing scientific to say, be gone.

So you are arguing that subpoenas are illegal?

So the copious amounts of greenhouse gasses humans are pumping into the stratosphere don't affect global temperatures at all despite the overwhelming evidence that the earth is indeed getting warmer? No extinction level events are happening? Just a localized anomaly huh?

You might want to look in the mirror.

Scripting languages usually feature dynamic, strong typing. (The runtime always knows exactly what type its dealing with.)

Most compiled languages have static, strong typing. C is somewhat of an exception, being relatively weakly typed. (It's easy to make all sorts of bizarre type casts, sometimes implicitely.)

A few languages are very weakly typed, such as Forth.

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.

So, you're endorsing the following?

Is this one of those "very good points"? Because it sure as hell looks like blaming her for becoming a victim, something you claimed wasn't happening.

Yeah, except that we've been using energy from powerful nuclear generation reactors for decades, and if all of that effort had gone instead into the incredibly inefficient solar technology of the day, we'd have had to burn a huge pile of coal or volume of natural gas to make up for the enormous shortfall. You seem to think that time travel is available, and that somehow even somewhat better, but still very inefficient solar tools available today could have been magically manufactured decades ago, and in enormous grids blanketing (where, exactly?). And of course you're probably also suggesting the use of the same time travel machine to send back the scientists who are only just now - despite the availability of huge amounts of capital, decades more accumulated research, and more - figuring out how to make batteries and other storage devices that kind of, sort of make sense relative to things like powering homes, let alone whole cities.

It's a shame that you're wasting all of that energy on such an angry rant when you don't have the patience to educate yourself a bit. The enormous swaths of chopped-down rainforest aren't being allowed to grow back. They're being used to inefficiently provide lumber (once) and then provide development and farming land - activities that in turn also produce more CO2, not that you actually care.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the the fact that their enormous and rapidly growing population is completely overtaking their ability to produce energy, clean water, and enough farmable land to keep up. Hence their steady importation of oil and food from everywhere else.

How is it that you think lying is helping whatever point you're trying to make? The UN has recently pointed out that sub-Saharan Africa has an exploding population, and that the population on that continent will likely quadruple before the century is out. Africa's population is the fastest growing in the world. You know this, everyone else knows this. So the fact that you're pretending it's otherwise, and lead your post with "moron" and "racist" ... well, I guess I should know better than to feed an obvious troll. I've always found that the ones who start their posts by screeching "racist!" are themselves the ones with the race problem. You certainly seem that way.

Hilarious. You're the one fantasizing about population trends that are the opposite of what the UN reports, that imagines time-traveling to solve energy issues, and who sees everyone who doesn't play along with your imagined alternate reality to be morons and racists. Print your post out, on paper, and set it aside someplace safe there in your mom's basement. You'll still be there in ten years, so make an appointment with yourself to read it again, and compare it to each of the next ten years' worth of UN population reports. Not that you'll have the intellectual integrity to actually do that.

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.