We're still years before selling actual robo-cars.

Still, lots of car makers are packing radars and cameras in the cars. To be used as lane tracking, collision avoiding, etc.
They are sold as extra feature, and work (legally and in terms of responsibility) as form of more complex adaptive auto-cruise (it self just an evolved auto-cruise) as the cars in generation before.
The driver is still the one who is theoretically in charge of the car. Except that now the driver get a big bunch of electronics to watch out and assist

There is a real reason to pack more of it: featuritis! Now auto-maker A can boast that their car does even that few things B & C that the other auto maker aren't doing yet.

One is producing over priced pocket computer, sold a trendy and hip way to get distracted by checking twitter, and posting annoying fb status updates about your health.

The other is an over priced piece of micro mechanics sold as a substitute of jewelry (the origin of the boom of switch watches).

Smal LED screen vs. small piece of gold.

Yeah, confusion is very likely.

Trust me, it's okay. Been there, done that. And basically any plastic bottle would to the job. If you're afraid that the space-age-plastic lining inside your collapsible sport-gear hitech bottle would react badly to ethanol, well just take a simple soda/soft drink/water/whatever bottle: any used 33cL or 50cL bottle will do the job, no problem.

As opposed to carrying a few kg of powdered sugar ?!? Do the math again: either you use a small plastic bottle filled with standard 40-60% booze (or 75%-95% aka 150 to 190 proof in your units - of everclear. If you live in a country where those things are easily sold).
Or you carry the equivalent of several packs of sugar powder, several kg ?!

Yup, you're not loosing volume and weight to a little bit of water that can't be used for drinking.
Instead you're losing volume and weight to a fuckton of sugar polymers cycles. Which basically are just as useless to rehydrate you as the water mixed in the alcool.

Or if you only want to take only a reasonnable amount of powder, well great for you, but that's basically equivalent of a very small plastic flask (the kind that are sold for transporting liquids in airplanes. or the kind in which you get test samples of think in drugstores). Which is really negligiable in size.

Go back to my quick math. For the equivalent of 1 AA battery worth of ethanol, you need to add a few times more volume (1 deck of card and a half) of powder.
Even if the ethanol is diluted 1:1 (because that the highest you can get, welcome in Europe), it still *way much more* space saving and weight saving than the powder. Not as in "we're a few mg better", but "it's a fraction of the place that the powder takes".

For me it's a no brainer.

That's basically a plastic bottle. It's as simple as it can get. Mass is negligible compared to the content. Comes in various size (big range of capacities. Small 100mL flask sold nearly every were as a mean to transport liquids on airplanes within allowed limits. Standard 33cL and 50cL bottle of water and soda, once empty recycle it to transport your booze). They tend to be rather solid.

Also, ethanol evaporates easily. In case you *DO* manage to damage the container (like falling with your back pack on a pointy rock) just let it dry.

(It's pratical experience transporting 60% grand-pa-distilled brandy in plain plastic bottle)

Power: you'll get either a big pack (think pack of flour or sugar) which might leak in a backpack. Or you'll get a carton with individually sealed small bags (think like individual teabags) which adds even more inefficiencies (as if the huge mass of powdered sugar isn't enough).

(Again, pratical experience with chocolate powder)

Just pointing out that the *whole point* is to transport a substance E (with as much ethanol as possible inside) and dilute it before consumption.
It's not a problem that 100% ethanol attract water: you'll be throwing water in it anyway.

(But indeed: 95%-98% is probably the easiest to get, and that few 2-5% of water won't change much the reasoning).

In switzerland, they do. And it's 10 year, at which point the owner can choose to extend it again for the next period of 10 year.

As this trademark was registered on 5 december 1985, the next such 10 year cycle finishes on 5 december 2015. At which point the owner - Leonard Timepieces - can choose to extend it yet again until 5 december 2025.

Trademarks are registered by domain. This "apple" and apple-logo trademark was registered for the domain "timepiece and components" by the whatch maker "Leonard Timepieces".
iPads aren't in the same category anyway.

The only thing remotely related was the wrist strap that could convert the small square iPad Nano into a touch screen watch. And even back then Leonard didn't care to sue.
In fact, in Switzerland, a patent violation is define as someone try to profit by abusing consumer confusion and trying to copycat another product to try to leverage its brand recognition.

For the record, the luxury watches industry was jump-started in switzerland when Calvin decided to outlaw jewelry as an excessive display of wealth, not inline with his protestant views of the world.

Rich people then turned to watches as a mean to display their wealth, luxury watches were born.
as in: "HEY, IT'S NOT A PIECE OF JEWELRY! IT'S A [rather very expensive] TOOL TO GIVE TIME!! IT'S JUST A [luxury] WATCH !!!"

Leonard Timepiece could complain if they think that Apple is trying to earn money by taking advantage of consumer confusion and is trying to copycat Leonard's deisgn of "Apple" watch (something Wilhelm Tell themed, perhaps ?!)

Otherwise nothing happens.
Given that they are not exactly in the same market, (Leonard Timepiece produce luxury timepieces, Apple produces electronics) the risk of confusion is low anyway and probably they won't give a fuck about it.

It's a different category of product. The trademark was registered for "timepieces and components of timepieces".

And they don't need to produce anything. Leonard already owns the trademark, and they are allowed to renew it for yet another 10 year in december 2015 (so keep owning the trademark until 2025).

Not in Switzerland.
In Switzerland, a trademark is granted for 10 years, and the can subsequently be extended, again for 10 year on each successive extension.

The trademark was registered on 5 december 1985.
The next periodic renewal is due on 5 december 2015.
If Leonard Timepiece (the original owner) chooses to do so, they can renew it, and it will get extended to 5 december 2025.

The summary and the Reuters article are *wrong*. It's not a patent, it's a trademark. Here's the original RTS' report (in french).
Here's an announcement from Steiger Legal (in Standard German) that indeed Reuters translated it wrong and then everybody sheepishly repeated it every where.

In 1985, the watch maker "Leonard Timepieces" registered the usage of an apple and the word "Apple" in the domain of timepieces (probably thinking about a "Wilhelm Tell"-themed timepiece design at some point in time).
This trademark was registered on 5 december 1985. The next trade mark periodic renewal (once every 10 years) is on 5 december this year (at which point, if Leonard Timepieces indeed choose to renew it, it will remain valid until 2025).

Now given the Swiss legal system, Apple aren't automatically forbidden to sell their watches in Switzerland. Leonard *could* file a complain (if they think that there's a reasonable risk that Apple is trying to earn money by exploiting consumer confusion and trying to abuse Leonard's brand recognition of *their* apple watch), in which case Apple *could* be barred from selling the watch. But now, there's nothing automatic.

source

100g of powder with 25cl (250ml) of water gives you 4.8%. i.e.: the content of a small can of a rather weak beer (by European standard).

Which is 12ml of pure ethanol (less than a 2cl shot). Which weights ~10g. So you need to transport a power 10x as heavy as the ethanol it self. It one of the least efficient form for transporting ethanol. And is therefore COMPLETELY STUPID.

You're better off transporting a small flask vial of pure ethanol. For reference to another item that you would probably be carrying in your backpack: an AA battery is ~8cm^3, so you need the same volume as about 1 and a half battery of pure ethanol to mix your weak-beer-like beverage small can. So the actual volume is negligible.

Whereas if you pack them with ~90mg of extra powdered sugar cyclic polymer, you'll probably need a space around roughly ~130cm^3 - that's about the volume of 1 and half deck of cards that you need to transport as extra sugar in addition to the ethanol itself, just for the small advantage to keep the ethanol trapped in a powder instead of carrying it in a small plastic liquid container.
(it's an estimation. I don't know the exact density of the specific types of powdered cycle of sugars used in palcohol, I'm doing a rough estimation using starch as a starting point).

You can't beat pure ethanol. It's a liquid. That's as densely as you can pack it at room temperature.
That's the form of pure alcohol, once you remove all the water out of it. Dried alcohol isn't a powder. It's still a liquid (just a liquid that contains no molecule of water, only ethanol). It's not like for example salt nor sugar (salt or sugar diluted in water is a liquid. Dry it, remove all the water and you get powder of NaCl or of glucose. Or crystals of them if you do the drying correctly).
Palcohol is, basically, adding huge sugar cyclic polymer to trap it into a powder. It's a huge waste of space. It's not *concentrated* alcohol (as, I presume, all the people who buy into these stupidity are thinking - by analogy of sugar or salt). It's alcohol cut with heavy space consuming sugar.

The only thing is that, getting food-grade ethanol (that is pure ethanol, not degraded ethanol) at pure concentration without a drop of water inside is heavily regulated in most countries (to avoid that people use it to make their own housemade liquor and sell these without a proper license).
The sugar-ethanol mix isn't (well in some countries. Sugar and ethanol happens to be regulated in some countries due to alcopops.) so probably some people think it's a handy way to transport alcool without needing to get the necessary license / paper work for pure ethanol ("I want to transport my booze in space convenient matter, not start a liquor factory! The paper work is over kill !") The problem is that even then, packing a water-diluted ethanol solution (strong vodka, etc.) is still more space efficient than the powdered sugar.

As a way to pack alcohol, this poweder is asinine.
As a novelty item, with the funnily simple factor ("Powdered cocktail! Just add water and instant* mojitos!!! [*- with a much weaker alcohol content than an actual mojito]") yup, maybe. (Works, because most of the other ingredients *can* be packed as solids/powder, and they can complex a bit of ethanol, specially the sugars).
But it's nothing more than an adult themed cousin of Sherbet-powder to be drank after adding water.

Actually, politics and technology ARE linked.
Because the technology will roll-out *very* slowly, it's going to start appear in everyday life very progressively. People will get time to get accustomed to it in small baby steps. By the time technology actually get mature enough, people will have grown up with it and are completely accustomed to it. They won't see it as bringing the end of the civilisaiton as we know it, only as a useful thing that was always there.

I was naively think that *THIS* is the exact reason why they have their own ugly DRM/online management system that you need to install even when you download a game from Steam.

(Like: you buy a EA game from steam, download it from steam, and it subsequently installs Origin. I've actually seen this DRMception monstruosity).

Apparently they only make these horrors just because they can.

+Funny.

To keep with today's theme:
- Yo mama's so fat, her picture need to "Google Maps" to be viewable
- Yo mama's so fat, said picture can provide secure hash random seeds for the rest of the whole internet's existence.