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...
Tell me about it. The summary starts with "Linux creator Linus Torvalds..."
When I was in university,I used an HPUX system that had been heavily retrofitted to use all of the gnu applications and utilities that were available at the time. Nobody ever insisted that it ever should have been called GNU/HPUX. At east one release of Minix extensively used gnu software as well. If that was ever an expectation of Stallman's for operating system installations that heavily depended on GNU, then should have been in v1 of the GPL. Doing otherwise, and pulling this only after Linux had started to acquire some notoriety of its own makes him look just as bad as people who sit on patents until some really big company start to use it without knowing about the patent, and start enforcing it only then.
Agreed. Even Solaris uses mostly GNU software now. So are you going to call it GNU/OpenSolaris or GNU/Solaris? Or GNU/MacOSX?
No. It's just Solaris, OpenSolaris, and MacOS X.
Linux has uses it as a primary desktop toolkit
Don't get me wrong, it is extremely well used, but nothing close to universal.
Now that it's been LGPL for a while, possibly if it ditched moc and used standard C++ templates for signals and introspection it could be the primary desktop toolkit. Though to be honest plenty of Linux developers have no love for C++ either.
You do realize that there are more and more parts of the Linux Desktop using Qt directly, even outside of KDE?
For example, LightDM uses Qt and Qt5's QML.
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.