The standard would become "if the police ask the question it must be legitimate, otherwise why would they ask it", which is effectively the same as having no middle ground. Any challenge would necessarily have to happen post fact and would be difficult to prove.

Third party witnesses can only be compelled to speak with a subpoena (in a court of law), otherwise retaining a right to remain silent. In court the attorneys and judge act as checks against each other so that improper questions can be dismissed (although it is not the person being questioned's decision on what is proper). So as for questioning by the police (as opposed to the courts), third-party witnesses have the same rights as a suspect.

As for why the dissimilarity, the Fifth Amendment was reactionary, and remains as a protection against a corrupt court (the most recent example being McCarthyism). Because third-party witnesses are generally not harmed by their testimony (unless they self-incriminate, and they can invoke the Fifth Amendment to prevent that), they were overlooked in protection.

Every counter-answer to you that you seem to be rejecting is that this statement is contradictory. Requiring someone to self-incriminate is the same as saying that the state can compel a confession. This is historic fact, we don't actually have to work with hypotheticals because there are specific historical records which show this abuse.

You imagine, that the way it works without a Fifth Amendment is that there is a particular crime, and police are only allowed to ask if you committed that crime or not. However, without a Fifth Amendment, you must answer all questions the police ask you. There are no more choices. If you don't want it widely known you were in a specific location, you aren't allowed to withhold the information if directly asked.

I'm certain you looked it up already, but the existence of the Fifth Amendment owes to the religious persecution of the Star Court by using "ex officio" oaths. They would bring you in, arrest you, not inform you of charges, and make you swear to answer everything asked. At that point, they would start searching for crimes to charge you with.

Your answer to this always seems to be "there isn't anything preventing this scenario happening under the Fifth Amendment". However, the previously described scenario is legal without the Fifth Amendment, and illegal with it.

As for your second article, the Fifth Amendment should be strengthened. It was an oversight, because tactics up to that point had put a lower value on third party witnesses, and there was much less abuse.

The phrase "Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law." would not exists if this were not the case.

My favorite example is Verbal Judo , which is about how to lie (while conving yourself that you are not lying) in order to manipulate people. It was published by a former police officer, and is used in training courses for police departments around the country. Ostensibly the reason is for defusing domestic violence through words.

Absolutely

No, that's why there's also a right to legal representation.

The system was broken before the constitution was created, and the Bill of Rights serves as a patch over the corruptions of the legacy system.

To-Do list prior to Summer 2015:

• Invent Mr. Fusion
• Government Weather Service to control the Weather
• Widespread neural Interfaces for games, such that a light gun seems like a "baby's toy"
• Widespread use of hover-conversion vehicles
• Volumetric 3D common enough to be used in advertisement, does not require special eyewear, unaffected by sunlight.
• Release 14 more Jaws movies, and schedule Jaws 19 to be a summer blockbuster.
• Invent a new type of soda(pop) container to replace cans/bottles. Also replaces restaurant soda(pop) fountains
• Clothing comes with wearable computer which adjust sizes/ speaks/ air-dries.
• Widespread cybernetics.
• Books so uncommon, that knowledge of dust jackets is unusual. However, newspapers are still around
• In-home fruit planter on motor from ceiling, common in upper-middle class homes.
• Delivery food is now dehydrated. Hydrator replaces Microwave.
• Fax machines make a large-scale comeback and are everywhere.
• Google glass used for everyday tasks, multiple styles.

Non-international (most in my experience) US keyboards don't have an AltGr key. They do have a right Alt key.
Also, the default US keymap causes AltGr to function as a normal Alt.

Note this response took too long to compose, so there have already been some good/better answers below, Prograph, LabView, and the comments about APL are all relevant and interesting

Random idea on how to get around it:

Starting point: utilize some esoteric language that use a limited symbol set and positional coding, i.e. funges. In this case, the screen would be a scrollable grid (say 3x4, for 12 tiles in view at one time), and you would press on grid locations to set their value, possibly through a sub-menu, possibly by just cycling through choices, or maybe a gesture system.
Going further, each grid position wouldn't necessarily be limited to a single symbol, it could be a symbol plus inputs selectable by sub-menu. This would allow you to use multiple registers, not just a single stack. Then, you could save sub-programs with defined inputs/outputs as functions to a library. You could possibly even start putting together classes.
Once you get to the object oriented side, the strict grid might be too limiting, at that level it might be better to view objects as packages, which you can draw connections between. Programming by flowchart/object model.

You won't excise typing completely, because you will need to put in strings at some point. However, class names/function names/variables could all be custom icons.

If they are licensed as a media transfer/derivative work. In the US one of the first major series of copyright cases was about player piano rolls, which contain less data than some MIDI files.

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html

Even, it's #12. The ordering possibly got broken starting with Generations. However, the only movie in the Next-Gen that people agree was good was First Contact.

Vulpecula - Little Vixen, it differs slightly in connotation from the article's translation of Fox.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC250.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

Well, this would probably work because there are churches that are willing to marry same-sex couples. So they could be married, and have their civil union the same as different-sex couples.
    Due to the overwhelming number of statutes at all levels of government, it would require an amendment to the United States Constitution to catch all of the usages. One of the general rules of conservatism (in the United States) is a reluctance to pass constitutional amendments at that level. I don't see social progressives (again using United States standards for the words) willing to cede the word "marriage" to religious institutions. That means that while this is a potential solution, it has a low chance of implementation.
  The other argument being presented is that marriage shouldn't be religious at all, those trappings being added (according to others in this conversation) after Europeans started routinely coming to the Americas.