So where is the line where it is ok to break the law for law enforcement? What crime do they have to prosecute so they can ignore any and all rights you have?
Well, it costs multiple thousands for the laser, so I guess after the first use you know for sure which ones your enemy will field.
It would seem that we have reached an agreement. If you need me, I'll be in the Midwest.
Umm... simply come with a set of glasses and put on the ones your enemy wears?
Well, actually it's the Supreme Judicial Court, or SJC.
It is down to a matter of control. One bullet fired at a particular target versus a continuous beam of laser energy including, potential for reflection, aim vagaries and the threat to civilians, much like using chemical or biological weapons. The preference is to get the enemy army to surrender not to mass main or murder as many soldiers and civilian bystanders as quickly as possible. If that was the case we might as well just let the nukes fly and get it over with. So it is worse because of likely hood of collateral damage. As for law enforcement use, a stern legal reminder needs to be issued to law enforcement that the only legal use of force is the minimum use of force to initiate an arrest. They are blatantly abusing the law when they use chemical, electrical, sonic, percussion or brute force weapons upon citizens with no intent to initiate an arrest.
We can also let 99.9999% of businesses decide it. That is the reality by far and away the majority of businesses will benefit by net neutrality, from cheaper data transmission, to protected from interception traffic and competitor driven censorship. All tech staff need to get out and produce an advisory to management about the extremely damaging impact to business digital communications with the loss of net neutrality and the requirement for management to instruct lobbyists to ensure an absolute tiny minority of companies in the order of 0.0001% of companies can control, limit, censor and intercept business communications. A loss of net neutrality is a real threat to the future of by far the majority of businesses.
However Google is not the original use of the word as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.... So Barney Google and his Googly eyes and this of course led to google eyed and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.... This is where Google management got it's search (visual action) from, just your typical nerdy geek derivative use of language, although they emphatically disingenuously deny it now. Looks like there'll be a right barney http://onlineslangdictionary.c... over the word google yet to come. Sorry guys just because it is old and drifted out of use a little doesn't mean you can steal it and you can just bet the comic is going to get a revival now.
Keep in mind utopian failures are not a societal thing they are a species thing. In all cases human utopian societies are subverted and corrupted by a parasitical sub-species of humanity, psychopaths. Quite simply remove them and a lot of humanities problems will go away with them. Empathy and a full set of human emotions are a functional developmental requirement for a human to effectively fit in and cooperatively support the endeavours of the society that they are a part of. Rather than preying upon it and demanding to have far more than others up to and including to the point of triggering the collapse of that society.
So rather than a dystopian view of breeding and future citizen nurturing licences a positive view is likely in order.
Let's be honest there is quite a bit of difference on a planet with 7 billion people to enact laws making procreation and child rearing a privilege and responsibility only for those appropriate to do so versus you can spit out all the ones you want expecting the rest of society to care for them and take responsibility for them, this versus extermination camps.
Suck it up, despite all the whining about how badly it was done in the past it will not ever stop all of us or future generations from biting the bullet, it is a matter of inevitability or total collapse from the 20 billion idiocracy taking over and an extinct species replacing them.
A whole lot of problems can be safely easily eliminated in a generation or three or we can continue to fail future generations with them.
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?