"It one of the least efficient form for transporting ethanol. "
But still more efficient that carrying the potable form which multiplies the mass by another 2.5x.
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.
Yes, you point out the facts of this; namely that typical strong alcohol at 70 proof is 35% ethanol. The balance is mostly water. This product is about that ratio of ethanol to some sorbent material that appears to go into solution if you add water.
If the legislature of those states who are alarmed just did a little homework, they would realize that this is much ado about nothing.
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.
The act that tied teacher / administrator salaries to the test results.
When will the US learn that capitalism doesn't work on things like health, education, and justice?
Standardised tests are an essential tool used to monitor and compare the progress of different student populations. Making a huge deal about them is not essential, in fact it is detrimental. Stress severely impairs the brain's ability to lay down memories, people simply don't learn well when stressed (eg: cramming for a test). This is not just my opinion, it is what neuroscience has been telling us for a couple of decades now.
There are killers that gets away with less
- Did any of his victims (or customers) remedy their "social inconvenience" via suicide?
- What is a "killer", do spiders count?
Using the phrase "social inconvenience" to describe extortion via sexual humiliation shows that you don't even recognise sexual abuse when it's right under your nose, let alone begin to understand it. Educate yourself on the human mind, you have one of your own, right? I suggest starting with some of the talks from Ruby Wax on YT
And yet people who sexually abuse children get less time than that.
Their business model is to profit from revenge, it is implemented via sexual humiliation (abuse). Personally I don't think 20yrs is long enough to rehabilitate such a badly broken moral compass. The customer may also have psychological problems or may suffer psychological problems associated with the guilt and shame of what they did on the internet at a drunken pity party. The people who run the business have no feelings of guilt or shame, let's all hope they find some in the next 20yrs.
Protecting the what?
Ignoramus, most Hollywood films are not made in Hollywood studios, they're not even made in the US.
And, as a guard, you never thought, well this is fucking stupid ??
Have you ever tried to reason with a PHB? Especially when your argument, however correct and well-supported, doesn't come from someone who has that specific responsibility?
Actually when I read that comment, I thought: "it IS good to consider that this is not solely a Russian problem". I didn't necessarily see an appeal to the bandwagon approach to "morality". The person could have meant that, too, but since it was not specified, we don't actually know that.
But this is Slashdot, where assuming you know the poster's intent (through some sort of psychic powers, I guess) is somehow not considered arrogant.
I can hardly wait for the inevitable posts from while males complaining that if there's discrimination going on, they're not seeing it except against themselves. Their whining is so...
White males are the one group that it's tacitly deemed "okay" to discriminate against. Especially if they happen to be Christian, and even more so if they're Protestant ("WASP").
You just can't have a civil, enlightened society if there's ANY grounp it's okay to fuck with. Even if you think they deserve it. Even if retaliation, based on group identity, against those who didn't personally decide historical events (with their enduring consequences) is somehow your idea of "justice", and simultaneously not your idea of "vengeance". Reversing the tide doesn't cause the state of "tide-free". And it isn't going to.
Otherwise, like if a single individual -- or single institution -- or small group of institutions -- made all these bad decisions, I would be perfectly fine with shunning and refusing to trust that person based on an observed track record. But what you have with the group-guilt scenario is this implicit idea that a large group of people, including those who had no input into the process, should bear some guilt for it. That's a total flat-out rejection of any sort of accountability or individuality.
If you want some kind of one-ness or collective, you don't get it this way. Dystopias are created by trying to find more efficient ways of doing it like that. No, you start by honoring the individual and letting those flourish, interact, and coalesce as they will.
Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.