Yes, it's the way most contries operate. The most benefit goes to the politically well connected.

Well, as a Californian I'm on the fence about that split. (Not that that's the one people were trying to get on the ballot. The North-South split actually makes *some* sense. And has ever since the Supreme court decided that the Californian Senate couldn't be elected based on geographic considerations rather than population considerations. (Even after the split, though, the agricultural areas would be underrepresented...for cetain definitions of underrepresented.)

In the current situation it feels as if the Southern counties are using their dominance in population (i.e. representation) to pillage the Northern counties...though that's a bit more extreme that what they are actually doing. But as the drought deepens, the folk in the North are forced into severe water control measures, and the folk of the South are still watering their lawns and letting the overflow flow down the gutter. And some farmers are being forced to cut down parts of their orchards because they can't afford enough water for all of the trees. (So even in the North, the city dwellers are less pressed than the farmers.)

That said, even were such an amendment to pass (in the state) it would need the concurrence of the feds. (I don't know the details, but such an agreement is unlikely.)

Charles Stoss seems to believe that Britain is extracting wealth from Scotland. Perhaps he's wrong, but an earlier post above voiced the same opinion...and also agreed that DevoMax was the better choice...but one which had been manuvered off the ballot by politicians.

I think that Stoss is hoping that the nationalist party will become a lot less radical once they get the vote for independence. I don't know them (I live in the US and don't have any close ties to Scotland), but I'm a bit dubious about that.

I thought most of the oil had already been pumped out...of course, that was before fracking...

Why do you think that would prevent them from being criticized as uncivilized after they had already lost? I'll agree that it's a silly reason, but political decisions are often based around something equally silly...

Were they criticized for it? Not that I know of. This doesn't mean it wasn't a part of the reason. (OTOH, there's no evidence that I know of that *does* indicate it was part of the reason.)

I call it fraud, but the contract says "up to" some speed or other, so technically they're only breaking the contract if they provide you faster service than you paid for.

I still call it fraud. And a contract of adhesion.

That's why you use a "google glass" like thing. You don't use welding goggles, you use something totally opaque, and look at the world through a video camera.

But it only works after you're expecting it.

If you don't see, it's because you aren't looking.

OTOH, I will agree that not anything like all of the protestors of the 1960s & 70s were basically idealistic. Many just didn't want to die in a war they could see no justification for. How terrible.

Perhaps the worst thing to come out of the Vietnam War was the abolition of the draft. Now nobody with power has to even notice that unjust wars are being perpetrated, and certainly they don't feel a direct affect on their children. Perhaps if they did things would be different. OTOH, the government has gotten very good at ignoring opinions that it doesn't want to hear, so it might not have made any difference.

This doesn't mean the convention has nothing to do with it, but it's not surprising that the Geneva convention would choose to adopt the rules that everyone was already following a lot of the time.

Also note that your history indicated that "sawback" bayonets were mainly used by the German armies. Adopting a prohibition against them may have been a political move to allow retroactive condemnation of the "uncivilized" enemy army.

Causation in the real world is usually a complicated thing. Especially when politics and treaties are involved.

Does a uniform count as military equipment?

I do not believe that "cap and trade" is a viable solution. There doesn't seem to be a single implementation around the globe that isn't a nest of loopholes.

Carbon tax could be implemented in quite a straightforwards way internally to a single country. Imports and exports would need a more complex adjustment, however, to balance things so that penalties were not unfairly assessed or bypassed.

OTOH, I'm actually more in favor of a more general "environmental degradation tax", though I can't imagine any generally acceptable way of figuring it.

Sorry, but while it adds fresh water *ICE* to the ocean, it gets added almost entirely as ice without undergoing a melt phase until it gets far north of Antarctica. So you aren't getting a lot of fresh water added to the Antarctic ocean. You're getting ice (which is, indeed, fresh water) added to the ocean. It gets a considerable distance from Antactica before it typically melts. (Except, of course, a little bit, which lubricates the flow of the glaciers.)

OTOH, if the sea ice were trapped around Antarctica, I suppose it would melt. Fresh water has a higher freezing point than salt water. But I don't believe that's what typically happens.

AGW?? I read that as "Anti-Global Warming", but it doesn't match the rest of your message. Perhaps you should spell out your abbreviations a bit more. I suppose it could also be "Anthropogenic Global Warming", but I see that phrase much less often.

When the same TLA could mean two totally opposite things, it might be a good idea to avoid it...or at least to define it in context.

unhhh.... you do know that the Arctic Ocean is essentially clear of ice during the late summer these days don't you? And that passenger ships are starting to ask for the right to route their trips through that area? (It's still not safe enough for a standard ship, because one iceberg can ruin your whole day...but it's getting there.)

Sorry, the *sea ice* volume is probably much higher. You can't as easily measure that from a satellite, but it's what is to be expected. What's happening is the glaciers that were on the Antarctica land mass are moving out into the ocean and floating. This increases the area of sea ice coverage and decreases the amount of ice on land. But sea ice melts as it moves around, so it keeps disappearing as it moves towards the equator.

P.S.: Another way of saying the same story is "Antarctica has been spawning icebergs faster than the bergs have been melting".