For reasons of free expression to basic practicality we can't stop this stuff. As you say people can take your picture and people can produce what amounts to a hash of your facial features.

None of this stuff is a problem. It only becomes a problem when its stored and datamined. What we really need to do is actually regulate big data.

Start regulating what information about people may be stored in machine searchable formats and you can start to solve this problem. Regulate under what circumstances PII may be transferred between parties in machine readable formats and when lookup functions may be exposed to third parties.

Sounds totally practical I am its not as if the operators of these systems can just put a filter in front the camera or anything...

Umm, no that isn't how it works at least not on an issue like this. First the vast majority of those comments will pay no attention whosoever to how you voted. Of the tiny fraction that do pay attention they have other issues that the vote on. They likely will have only one other real choice, and the candidate who 'might' side with them on net neutrality but has never been in a position to really vote on it more than like has some other deal breaker for them. So they will stick with candidate A regardless of their disagreement about this issue.

Congress can fuck this up and if the big ISPs and wireless carries donate enough to their campaigns they will. Don't kid yourself no matter how much support might exist for this it won't be the issue that costs any politician their seat. Unless you can get a Google or somebody like that to help you make noise like SOPA and PIPPA. Don't count on that though. Those actions provoked enough outrage and thinly veiled threats from the political class that Google et al. are not likely to try such shenanigans again. They'd be out trying to stop TPP fast track if they were not running scared.

In what possible situation would PHP be the best tool for new development?

I can't think of ANY.

I'll admin my initial post was does somewhat to act as a provocateur (though not a troll because I am genuinely interested in discussing the subject).

Its my personal view that government should get out of the marriage business. We should simply pass a low recognizing all existing marriage licenses as "Civil union licenses" and convert all marriage rights next of kin, child custody, 5th amendment testimony protections etc, to civil partner rights. Than any two people regardless of sex or gender can enter a civil union. If they are married or not is between them, their clergy, god(s), friends, and the guy who operates their car wash etc.

I find it interesting that various arguements about how having two parent house holds is good for children but the gender of parents does not have so much impact are used to justify arguments in favor of allowing homosexuals to marry. Making marriage a right implies that adultery and act that frequently makes impossible for the partner to remain in the marriage; implies that partners rights are being infringed.

Additionally the state does have pretty clear interest in promoting monogamous sexual relationships issues of morality and gender again set aside there is a clear advantage in the prevention of the spread of disease. Again since we are all "responsible" for each others healthcare costs now it seems perfectly reasonable (within that context) the state should favor policy that prefers monogamy, independent of what you call it; marriage, union, cohabitation contract.... The state has a pretty clear reason to want to encourage the formation of partnerships for raising children.

  As other have pointed out we don't allow people to enter into contract of indentured servitude etc. Again I would come down on an the side of an individuals absolute right to make a contract but society has broadly chosen otherwise. A societal harm is the final underlying justification for most criminal law. Adultery is clearly harmful in the majority of cases. Its hard to escape the conclusion that if marriage is sacred enough to be considered a right that an act which harms its integrity should not be considered a crime.

I don't think your assertion that re-criminalizing adultery would negate the value proposition of marriage, union. There are lots of advantages to having a state recognized relationship (of some name). Child custody, the right to inherit property, tax filing advantages, social security, just to name a few.

Why should adultery not be a crime. We place such a high importance on marriage rights apparently that being free to enter that institution with anyone you wish is now being considered a basic human right. If that contract is so sacred that nobody should be denied it, than are not those who violate the integrity of harming society?

When prosecuting murders killing the person who was cheating with your spouse generally makes it a crime of passion and frequently is used to justify reducing the charges to second degree murder or even down to manslaughter. So obviously adultery poses a significant danger of triggering of provoking other serious crimes like battery and murder.

Its the frequent cause of dissolution of homes which negatively effects the development of children.

The list could go on. I think there is clear pattern of harm to society at large resulting from adultery. It SHOULD be a crime. If you are concerned about being and adulterer don't marry.

Translation: Silence citizen we are above the law and not subject to the oversight of peasants like yourself.

Doubtful.

While its true the ISIS leadership cut their teeth in Iraq, they are essentially an AL-queda offshoot. It isn't as if that group did not exist before the Iraq war. In any case OBL would still have been mostly driven underground. He still would have lost control of at least parts of the organization not being to lead effectively. More than likely the Arab spring would still have happened. Most like the Syrian collapse and subsequent power vacuum would have lead to similar results.

ISIS would still exist it would only be using a different name or be the more radical wing of some other group.

Now had Bush stayed out of Afghanistan it might be a different story.

Lets be totally frank about something else. We only really care about ISIS because their taking of the Iraq we built and trained is embarrassing. Nobody talks about the Syrian cities under ISIS control, at least not on the news. We hear little about what they are doing in Libya and Yemen.

ISIS could be the best thing that ever happened to us in the Middle East if we just left them the hell alone. They might just succeed in reducing the number of independant lunatics and strongmen over there so we would have fewer seperate enemies to deal with. They likely would solve problems like Iran either by being such a distraction it keeps them bottled up or by over running them too. The Russians and the Chinese can deal with preventing further expansion (again probably a positive for us). The smartest thing Obama could do is "Nothing"

So the short version is climate models are worse than useless as a policy and planing tool, because we don't understand how the highest order component behaves.

Except back in 1859 it was not a terrorist or state actor that did it to us; it was SOL and the sun certainly could do it again. While we have some ability to detect and predict when the risk of such an event occurring is higher than usual there ain't much we can do about it either.

So some EMP resilience would be a nice to have. Now the doom sayers are always telling us how after only a few days without electricity we all start dying. Well an EMP is likely to damage transmission lines (because of their length) and possibly some sensitive electronics most stuff won't likely be affected unless its a very very high intensity event. The big east coast power failure of what was it 2k4? Kinda proved we can get on for at least a few days without mains power.

The bigger question is would a China or Russia who might not be similarly given their relationship to the sun at that moment of the event try and take advantage of our condition with a conventional force.

Ever since Exchange 2007 came a long its been a few trivial powershell commands to copy the contents of one mailbox into another. What he probably should do is have his exchange admin copy his mails to a folder in his managers mailbox; so they won't be subject to delete.

That way the person likely to be responsible for anything the submitter would have been will have the information at his finger tips, and in a format that is easy to forward the relevant parts to whomever (s)he finds to do the actual work.

Once a designated replacement is hired that folder can be copied/moved to that persons mailbox.

Maybe it is maybe it isn't. The question is why do you and honestly why did the couple care. This isn't like civil rights battles of the past with Jim Crowe and such.

If blacks were being turned away from a specific lunch counter there would have been no big movement the issue was they were truned away at EVERY counter. We don't have that problem today, certainly not with the GLBTt community.

The fact the so much outrage over the incident exists proves that. They could said well "a fuck you too than" and headed to any other bakery in town. The vast vast majority of which would have said "hey your money is as good as anyone else's is just tell us what you want on the cake."

I can understand their being upset and telling everyone what bigoted assholes the people at the bakery that rejected them are. I can totally understand and support anyone who says "you know what I'd rather spend my money at bakery #2 because they treat everyone like a person and I would rather do business with a place like that". I think asked government to FORCE bakery one to serve any specific client is a bridge to far. We have a freedom of association under the first amendment. Reasonably for that mean anything there is an implied freedom from association. if the American Nazi party tried to hire me to do some work for them I'd turn them down. They are not a client I want, I don't want be associated with them and their ideas in any way. If a Christan baker sincerely believes that openly homosexual people are hell bound unrepentant sinners I can understand they'd feel the same. Why should the rest of us force our value one them?

You do realize that even the dessert is a complex ecosystem of micro flora and fona that would be greatly harmed by being permanently covered in solar cells. You must also be aware that transmission loss with electricity is well HUGE. So you are discussing a large ecosystem altering deployment of solar cells, much larger than anticipated, in place where there is nobody to maintain them. Sounds like a pretty stupid plan.

Right up there with daming another river or installing another giant bird migration path altering wind farm. Those are okay in Europe because the Europeans already killed all the birds in past centuries but they kinda suck in the states.

Someday folks are going to wake up and realize their is more to protecting our the environment than CO2 emissions. All the greenies want to do is run around and spoil the last few unspoiled places are earth to stand up their renewables; personally I'd rather burn a little more oil.

If you actually plan to meet your stated goal yes. If the objective is to score some political points by saying something that sounds good, than it means no such thing. 5 years out and then 10 years out, then 20 years out, when opponents are making noise that threatens you political you just tell supports that "there is still plenty of time, and with the economy....now isn't the time to...."

Don't you seem to want it both ways too. You have to have some responsibility for your car. Ever see someone have a suspension collapse? That does not just happen, that happens because the dipshit could not be arsed to either look at or have someone look at the suspension to make sure it was not dangerously corded and that rubber bushings were not failing etc.

You can automate most aspects of something like a car, but this is a high performance machine that operates in a wide variety of weather and abusive conditions. It has to be serviced and inspected from time to time. dipshit who does no do that now isn't going to start when the thing becomes more automatic than it already is, (s)he will pay even less attention.

So the automaker supposed to be on the hook because YOU last decided to check break fluid six years ago?