Not really. Countries that haven't signed the treaties aren't officially bound by them.
See it more as a formalization of what was thought to be just wrong. The countries that signed it formally declare that they aren't going to use it anymore.

In practice it is used as a handle to allow an incursion if these weapons are used. Even when the user hasn't signed the treaty.
And I don't think that is wrong. Most weapons on that list (biological, chemical, incendiary and mines) are not specific. They can't see the difference between an aggressor and a civilian.
The other two weapons (blinding and traceless) are because they are wrong in other ways. I don't feel as strong about them but apparently the people in Geneva did.
The last part binds the parties to clear up their mess. In Vietnam people still die of the unexploded ordinance the US left there.

One man's freedom fighter is an other man's terrorist.
The one who starts the war always feels he is moral. The one who is attacked always feels the attacker is not moral.
Morality is not as black and white as it feels. There are always shades of grey.
In the end the winner turns out to be moral and the loser turns out to be immoral. Not by an absolute difference in morality but because the winners get to write history. They tend to "forget" the parts where they were wrong. Did you know the US got into the 2nd world war because the Germans were attacking trade ships? They probably didn't like the genocide but trade was the straw that broke the heavily armed camel's back. Nowadays everybody seems to believe they helped because what Germany was doing was wrong. That is what writing history does.

You are reading it wrong. The laws of war prohibit using weapons with the purpose of blinding. The purpose of this is blowing stuff up.

For the moment it is more like mounting the sharks to the lasers.

In that the main difference with closed source is that open source shows it's dirty laundry. Why do you think a closed source solution would not have flaws of similar severity?

Brownish white with some moisture stains in the corner over there.

While that is true, in this case some restrictions should apply.
My simple advice:
1. No drones on or within 100 m of airfields unless allowed by traffic control of that airfield.
2. No drones within 50 m of any manned aircraft.
3. Only drones that can prevent crossing those conditions by themselves can either fly outside of the field of view of the operator or without an operator.

Note: this is excluding 300 pages of encoding by lawyers.

This would not stifle innovation much. It would just push it towards drones with the capabilities of detecting those conditions. Capabilities they need to be able to fly without operator.

Well, just about anything could do that. Clapping my hands has an infinitesimally small chance of doing that.
This has a slightly larger chance.

It lines up perfectly:
Million = 1,000,000 = Mega
Milliard = 1,000,000,000 = Giga
Billion = 1,000,000,000,000 = Tera
Billiard = 1,000,000,000,000,000 = Peta
Trillion = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = Exa
Trilliard = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = Zetta
Quadrillion = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = Yotta
Quadrilliard = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Etc

We will not convince each other so I will drop it.

Embedding the ads as an image: Problem fucking solved. Images aren't half as obtrusive as the script ads.
Writing the website in Flash: They won't because that doesn't work for mobile users.
Product placement: see image.

Any solution that is worse as what is no will be blocked. Any solution that is less bad is a partial solution.

The problem is that the balance is lost. One end is no ads and thus no income from websites. The other end is the current mess. The website operators need to go back to the middle so users will disable ABP. NoScript, ScriptDefender and all others.
They need to regain the user's trust. That is a long way to go.

No need to mourn them. They can get other jobs.

Hint: they do that with scripts. NoScript or it's cousins prevent that.
Not that it is perfect, but it is better than the headaches some sites create.

I agree with that.
Birds are a problem, if only a minor one. There is no need to add drones to that.
Shooting the drones out of the air seems like a reasonable solution.

No. You claim that I feel it should be so and everything is good and, by extension, that slavery was good.
I don't feel that way.
It does lead to "might makes it possible to do what the hell you want" but that doesn't mean that that is right. 10 minutes of medieval history tells you that that is exactly what happened in the past.
For example Elizabeth Bathory: she liked to bathe in human blood.
From the article: "her family's influence kept her from facing trial."

If you protect it then someone is protecting it. You just can't practically protect your rights from everyone.
We pay the government through taxes to protect our rights. We can complain they don't do an adequate job of it because we pay them to do, among other things, that.
If someone is stabbing you in the heart what protection is shouting "it's my right not to be murdered"?

No.

However that is academic.
What is the practical difference between protecting a right for someone and being the source of that right? If you protect someones right you can simply remove that protection. If the other isn't capable of protecting that right, what use is that right? If someone is raping you what protection is "It's my right not to be raped"?

An uncomfortable truth is that we only recently have moved to a system of laws that prevents "might makes it possible to do what the hell you want". And it isn't doing a good job yet. The rich and famous get away with awful things.
Another uncomfortable truth is that there isn't some magical protection on rights. Most likely there is no god, and if there is He isn't doing much on this front. We have to protect the weak ourselves. For that we use governments.

I have worked for temp agencies that were decent, as well as temp agencies that were not. You leave the second kind in hope to find the first kind.

A for mosquitoes: Most drink plant saps, not blood. Only the females of a percentage of the mosquitoes drink blood.
So your comparison was quite apt.