The exception here is if it's an event, or if the individual is behaving in such a way where they are making a spectacle out of themselves. Then, there's an expectation that you might be filmed if you're participating, and you don't have the right to demand your likeness not be published / broadcast.

However, just walking down the street doesn't qualify, and that's where Google Glass gets into trouble since most states expect that if you do take a picture of someone who isn't aware they're being photographed, and don't get their permission, you must obscure or discard their likeness, and essentially ignore their existence (for example, not look them up on-line). Obviously Google Glass is far less useful if it suffers from legally obligatory amnesia.

If this were to become popular, metro authorities would just raise fares to compensate.

Who wins then?

Law enforcement agencies do 'illegal' things all the time, from a cop speeding to a crime, to shooting an armed suspect, to kidnapping and interrogating suspected terrorists.

Yes, they can do this shit and you can't. Get over it.

Australia has exit border control. You have to contact immigration even if you leave by boat. They will ask you your itinerary, residences overseas, and contacts overseas.

You can be prevented from leaving if you are an Australian citizen or permanent resident and the authorities think you'll be negatively affecting Australia's international interests while abroad.

You can also be arrested and placed in detention if you don't have a valid visa (even if you're leaving!)

So no, the idea of a western country keeping people in, or tabs on them when they leave, is not unheard of.

For those who don't know, you can cruise through the Grand Canyon on the Colorado River via Street (River) view... but who the hell is the guy in the sunglasses?

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=grand+canyon&hl=en&ll=36.180562,-113.116608&spn=0.215596,0.885086&sll=-34.880632,138.660651&sspn=0.030277,0.055318&t=h&hnear=Grand+Canyon&z=11&layer=c&cbll=36.180623,-113.116661&panoid=3hhY7tdbII1RSBq3fRGQ6A&cbp=12,41.4,,0,-2.93

...if you were to loosely identify video game cabinets and consoles as computers (which of course they are.)

After all, Radio Shack introduced its first line of PCs in 1977. Sure, they stopped making their own clones in the mid-90s, but they still kept on selling them.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/

Find and get over 385,550,734 Australian and online resources: books, images, historic newspapers, maps, music, archives and more

My local chemist pre-orders my medication in anticipation that I will continue to buy it from them. However, there is no guarantee of this. I could go somewhere else, wait for that chemist to order the medication (it's not common) and then buy it from them. Still, since I have established a pattern of going to one particular chemist for said medication, that chemist regularly re-orders it after I collect it.

Is this prior art?

This is why the push by major ad companies like Google for ubiquitous broadband.

Once average speeds hit an acceptable point (probably no more than a year or two off), all 'static' content (ie non-video) will be rendered on the server, merged with advertising content, and then sent out to the user as a solid block, probably an imagemap with hotspot data, a second 'reactive' image and some javascript so it all gels and has feedback.

Whole web pages could (and will, I'm sure) be rendered this way. Just leave spaces for the browser to insert widgets and video and you're done.

Of course, more sophisticated ways of detecting and blanking out ads in the image data will probably be developed, but it will make the ad-removal process much more difficult. On the bright side, ads delivered this way will be exclusively still images (unless animated PNG catches on), which are at least less annoying than animated ads or video clips.

Maybe the average adblock user will find this 'balance' acceptable, and see no need to block still image advertising when it appears in this fashion?

Well, except the 'ability' isnt programming per se, but programming in Java or Ruby. Let's be clear about that. People who have difficulty speaking English don't typically have a problem with language in general.

The biggest barrier to minorities becoming programmers is that modern languages have been designed to be efficient and understandable for white males.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, only noting that as languages have evolved, they've become less intuitive for non-core users. Women, for example, typically have no problem learning procedural programming. Pascal was a very popular training language in the 80s and 90s well understood by female students.

So while I can agree with other commenters that modern languages require a certain aptitude, this is more by design than some inherent nature. The solution is to stop a one-sized-fits-all approach and consider different programming styles for different demographics.

Segregation? Sure. But modern apps can already have various chunks written in different languages. There's scope there to use procedural (for example) where feasible.

Why, you ask? Diverse voices make a better product.