The defendant should not have a reason at all to cooperate and should be allowed to remain silent. It's the duty of the prosecutors to prove the crime, and if they have no solid evidence to start with then the case should never have gone to court.
On the other hand, you're also royally boned if you buy a Seagate in the first place. They break unbelievably fast in comparison to any other brand I've tried.
Nah, I can guarantee you that the reason is Bush and his regime. I'm an example myself, I was planning for a long time to apply at a US university and move to your lovely country, but Bush and his gang really did spoil the party.
I know some of you guys think differently, but across the pond Obama is more or less recognized like an overall very reasonable, if not a bit pale and too timid politician. Like, say, Jimmy Carter.
While the scientific merits of their approach are indeed somewhat questionable, their article addresses a topic of widespread public interest and they make a valid point. I suppose it has entered the journal not under the category "original research" but rather under "discussion and critical commentaries".
Once again patent law helps innovative small companies and the customer!
There should be no VOIP 911 calls, for just about the same reason as nuclear missile launch commands should not be transmitted over the Internet.
Car analogy: You shouldn't use Microsoft Windows to control the electronic braking system of your car.
Yes, we know, because we know that Anna Ardin is more or less working for the CIA or at least various institutions that have a proven connection to the CIA - it's clear to anyone who can add 1+1.
Extradition treaties do not work the way you think they are.
For example, Portugal has recently refused to hand over George Wright, a convicted murder and airline hijacker, to the US on the grounds that he has built up a new existence in Portugal.
Your biased assessment would make more sense if Anna Ardin didn't work for the CIA...
Damn, should have checked my spelling of "proof" vs. "prove"...
Then their "proof" seems to be based on a common misunderstanding, though. The halting problem only states that there is no algorithm that allows you to determine of any algorithm (including, notably, itself) that it will halt. It doesn't state that you cannot automatically proof that some specific algorithm (e.g. one for "ethical killing") will halt/is correct or that you cannot proof that most if not all algorithms we're interested in will halt/are correct. While many of the automated theorem provers are not fully automatic and may sometimes require you to choose a proof strategy, this has more to do with the complicated nature of the proofs (and incompleteness of HOL). There are also fully automated HOL theorem provers.
I believe most of the Airbus software based on Spark has been proved using automated theorem provers, but I might be wrong. Anyway, there are many automated correctness proofs for safety-critical software/hardware.
You mean satanist, right? The 'd' stands for daemon.
And just to make this clear, where I live you are allowed to lie to federal officers if you are accused, and there is no such crime as a 'conspiracy to lie to government investigators'. Not all countries are as fascist as the USA.
I did not reply to your first comment but to another one of your countless comments, namely one which was false. Before you pester public forums with your biased opinions on how to interpret idiotic laws, you should perhaps first learn how to argue.