I don't think you understood what was meant by "efficient". Greater mass (the ethanol plus the absorbent material) makes it a less efficient method of transporting ethanol. This product does not produce a drink nearly as strong as regular 80-proof, 40% liquor. It's not even close. I'd carry some 151 (75.5% alcohol) and be much better off. There are lightweight non-glass containers that would be more than suitable.

Did you ever consider that they already know that? These are people who jumped through so many hoops to get where they are that they just enjoy being in control, flexing their muscles, and feeling secure in their positions by using them to real effect. Frivolous shit like this is the low-hanging fruit for control freaks. The very fact that it doesn't involve anything important means that the degree of serious, committed opposition will be minimal.

The important part for this mentality: if it doesn't work, nothing is really lost and you can wait a bit then keep trying until it sticks; if or when it does work, it establishes a "useful" precedent, giving an appearance of legitimacy to the idea that yes, the state can regulate this thing, too.

This is how sociopaths think. It's about winning and winning is about strategy. Most of that comes from a good knowledge of history, what others have tried beore, which things worked and which backfired, and what one is willing to risk. The campaign promises and speeches are just part of playing the game. The problem, the disconnect, is that average people don't think this way. They keep misinterpreting the actions they're observing.

As long as that keeps happening, things are unlikely to change. It's really difficult to solve a problem you haven't even defined.

See Kingston Coal Ash Pond for example.

You are absolutely correct, don't pay attention to lawsuit trolls like rahvin112 with his nonsensical socialist comment, where he proves that he wants to force everybody to cater to his specific needs whether they want to deal with him or not.

You are correct.

The last 2 and a half comments from you were pure garbage, so I don't see a point talking on these terms. Cheers.

Seems like FB account is something that all businesses jumped onto. I read stats that show that 63% is the average participation on FB (for developed nations I suppose), that 56% people recommend products on FB, 64.2% skim recommendations, 38% conduct product research within 4 weeks of finding a product on FB, 27% are more likely to make a purchase because of FB recommendation.

Now look at it from business point of view, they know they have to be on this media to have those numbers apply to them.

Personally I don't have FB account, but a business seems to need one.

Then it follows from your comment that 99% of English speakers are spoon fed social justice theory that prevents them from understanding the most basic things.

Should a Jewish photographer be forced to take pictures at a Nazi party? Especially when in fact there are thousands of other photographers that will do it for you.

Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for the Klan meeting? Especially when in fact there are thousands of other bakers that will do it for you.

Should an atheist doctor be forced to perform brit milah (circumcision) on religious grounds? Especially when in fact there are thousands of other doctors that will do it for you.

Basically to find a single case of a business that will discriminate against whatever practice or religion or race one has to go very much out of their way.

I am sure that to make a story out of this (like a story of a cake maker that would not make cakes for some gay wedding or a story of a photographer that will not work at a gay wedding) one has to call up dozens if not hundreds of businesses out of Yellow Pages specifically looking to create a story out of nothing.

The zealot is you, the person who believes that if there is one business out there that will not serve you based on whatever prejudice that the business holds, it must be made illegal for that business to exist even though the rules of the market and competition ensure that you have dozens, hundreds, thousands of options.

You are wrong because you don't understand what a right is. You think you have a right to dictate to other people and to take their rights away to get your entitlements, you see rights as something that must be taken away from somebody else and given to you.

Rights are protections against government abuse, you can't have a moral society where some people use violence of the State to steal rights of others and give themselves entitlements they believe they have a 'right' to.

Your belief is a belief of somebody who wants to enslave others to himself and that is definitely immoral.

- civil rights movement did one (1) of 2 things that was correct, it insisted that government must treat everybody equally and it must.

It did one more thing, which was absolutely illegal, unconstitutional and most importantly immoral, it destroyed rights of individuals to private property and association when it caused businesses to be regulated that way.

- that's not what I said. A right is everything that you can do without government abusing you. USA founders said exactly that, some where more insistent than others that the Constitution is the exact literal enumeration of powers allocated to the government, the powers that allow government to step over the rights of an individual under specific conditions. Government is violence by definition, that is all it is and for the governed to accept the government they have to see good reason for it and the way the USA Founders saw it, government had to have very specific powers given to it to deal with cases where people would be denied their rights.

A person in jail is a person, whose right to freedom is denied by government oppression, that oppression has to be enumerated as one of the powers allocated to the government. Government has to prove that it can oppress the right of that individual to freedom.

A person murdered by another person or a person hurt somehow by a company (which is really just another person or a group of people) is an individual situation, where criminal code may apply in order to establish guilt or innocence and to hand out oppression of rights again to those, who basically broke the criminal code rules.

So you can see that rights are related to individual or business and government, while criminal code is related to dealing between individuals or companies.

Government officials can break the law as well of-course, then it also has to be punished according to the criminal code, but government as a system cannot be punished by any criminal code, there is nobody personally to punish, so because government is a system it has to adhere to rules defined in the Constitution, rules as to how the government can oppress/abuse individuals, who have all the rights until the government can use its authority to deny that right.

The right means exactly that: government cannot oppress you and abuse you (and murdering you is a form of oppression and abuse), there is no concept of a 'right' between 2 individuals or businesses and there cannot be, because out of 2 individuals or businesses none of them have any legal authority to dictate to another and/or to use any form of violence. We have to have rights when we are dealing with a government, because government has legal authority to use violence (unfortunately), so to counterbalance that legal authority to violence we have to have rules that prevent governments from just using that violence however they like.

As to violence between 2 individuals or companies, that has nothing to do with rights, that has to do with criminal law as it is understood within that locality. You could have a completely private criminal justice system and still deal with violence that way. People did give up their right to deal with criminal code to governments in most cases, but because the governments are (supposed to be) bound by the rules that are established as individual rights, governments also cannot just pretend to deal with criminal cases without abiding by those rules.

These are completely different issues, a right is about an individual or a company (which I also see as an individual) dealing with the violent government authority and criminal code is about individual and private matters, where individuals are interested in preventing crime committed by other individuals.

Actually the entire idea of these special entitlements that destroy individual rights TO DISCRIMINATE is a power grab by the insane government that is out of control.

Individual people discriminate every day. As a potential employee you can choose to work for a one legged Brazilian tranny and there is nothing any of the other potential employers can do to stop this obvious bigotry and discrimination by you against their businesses, NOR should there be anything they could do to force you to work for them. That's EXACTLY the same thing.

PRECISELY the same thing, since you working for a company is exactly like a company doing work for other people. When you buy a product you are buying work done by a company for you. A company is people standing behind it (corporations are in fact people, not as in 'Google is a living person', it is not. It is as in Google is owned by people, that's the people corporations are). A person that owns/runs a company has his or her right to discriminate and the Constitution of the USA is there to protect that right.

A right is a protection against government oppression and abuse, nothing else.

A government telling somebody that just because they are employing somebody they now lost a right is abuse and oppression and a power grab and unconstitutional and illegal and immoral.

Should people discriminate against each other based on sex, gender, age, race, colour? We know that some will and some do. If a business does so, it will face consequences whatever they are in the market. As to a belief that just because a business exists somewhere you automatically get an entitlement to their service - that is hubris and destruction of the people running that business as individuals and it cannot stand.

Of-course you are absolutely 100% correct, which was my first comment on this topic before the one you replied to. But my first comment appears to be extremely unpopular here.

In case of thie flight, it would have helped if the captain had a code that would have opened the door regardless of it being locked from the inside. But then the copilot might have just killed him first, before diving the plane to the ground.