No, this is not ineptness. They found an excuse to justify shutting off cellphones in case of mass protests which the government does not approve of.

Except of course the person you are replying to told you that it is NOT made by mixing 1:1 ethanol to maltodextrin by mass. They claim that the ratio is 1:5. If they are correct it would be six times as heavy as 200 proof ethanol. That being said, considering that the reason the person behind Palcohol wanted to develop it was to carry it when he went backpacking, it seems likely that is a good use case for it.

Having read the comments here, I tend to agree that there are probably better ways to package alcohol for hiking, That being said, I believe that there are probably some good use cases for this product. I don't know what they are, because I am not willing to spend the time thinking it through. I will say that I, also, believe those use cases would make powdered alcohol a niche product in the long run

And what do these Democratic Party policies have to do with the Republican Party?

Actually, most Republicans have a clear definition of "conservative". Those definitions vary, but they are usually pretty clear. For some, "conservative" is about social issues. However, for an ever growing number the definition of conservative is limiting the federal government to the powers defined in the Constitution as understood by the men who wrote it.

Except of course that Big Oil is paying scientists for studies which say that we need to stop using their products. Even the site which opposes skeptical thinking about AGW says so: http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]

I have seen the reports. I do not know if they are accurate or reliable. I am asked to present citations for this. Yet, I have repeatedly seen people claim that Big Oil supports AGW deniers but no one ever gives any citations to support that stance. It is just accepted as true.

Well here are some citations for what I said. I will repeat that I do not know if they are true, so don't respond by telling me they are biased sources:

http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/la...

Even that promoter of non-skeptical acceptance of global alarmism "Skeptical Science" admits that Big Oil now supports AGW alarmism:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

There are more. How about some citations supporting the allegation that Big Oil supports AGW skeptics?

Actually, I have seen several reports which indicate that Big Oil gives more money to scientists supporting AGW than they do to scientists opposing it. I do not know if those reports are accurate, but I have not seen ANY which actually quantify the money Big Oil gives to each side which disagree.

Do you have any citations which support your claim?

Springer reveals that they are not interested in fixing the problem revealed by SCIgen, they just want to prevent that software from demonstrating that they have not fixed it. They aren't going to change the review process to ensure that they no longer publish papers which are nonsense. No, they developed software to eliminate those papers which were generated by other software.

While you are correct, the question I have is how many pedophiles do they still have on staff that they are covering up for? If you are unaware, Jimmy Savile was a pedophile who hosted a popular children's TV show for the BBC for 40 years. Most of the major figures at BBC were aware that he was a pedophile who used his show to acquire victims.

I take it you have never heard of google?

OK, I see part of your problem. You think that the only way you can make a difference is in Presidential elections. You need to pay closer attention to other offices and vote for difference makers in those offices. Part of the problem in this country is that too many people want the President to be King.

NO, I am saying that if people who complain because they don't have good choices would get involved in the process before those they consider good were eliminated, things might turn out differently. Personally, I do not see any advantage to trying to get more people to vote. If people do not care enough to vote already, they certainly do not care enough to vote if you convince them to do so.

Apparently you did not hear about the case of the campaign operative who was PROUD of voting for Obama multiple times in the same election.
Generally, most people consider "voter fraud" and "election rigging" to be interchangeable terms.

I love how you connect the election fraud to Republicans when all of the cases I know of involve Democrats. I know that I am more likely to remember Democratic election fraud because they are the Party which insists that it is an insignificant problem. However, I also know that there have been more cases of election fraud involving Democrats than Republicans.

Well, I cannot speak for your country, but in the U.S. voter fraud is pretty significant. In the last Presidential election there were numerous voting precincts where more people voted than there were people living in the precinct. Of course, there is no way to know how much voter fraud actually happens, since the government rarely looks for it.

Or someone else's, how would they know?