Scientific theories are supposed to predict things. If they cannot (either because they deal with unobservable, like string theory, or with experiments that cannot be reproduced like big bang), they are more mythology than science.

With the new approach, it looks easier to fold malwares in unexpected places

Different country, different culture: Cuba is not the USA.

To grasp an idea on how Cuba can be suspicious about foreign influence, you have to imagine being embargoed for decades, with hundreds of assassination plots against your political leaders, and dozens of successful military coups in neighbor countries.

Most users do not care about software being free as in speech. Being free as in beer is the major selling (!) point.

Most of the time they are even to surrender any privacy for free (as in beer) stuff.

You just have to warm the DNA from time to time, so that biology recovers the mutations you may have caught while frozen. And then you freeze again.

For DRAM we used to talk about refreshing the memory, here it is the samen but with warming at longer intervals

After looking at TFA, it looks less stupid to me than it did at once.

Indeed DNA changes very easily, mutations and viruses are common. But here they want to store DNA at temperature where biological interaction does not happen anymore. We are left with just mutations from radiation and replication errors, but that may be covered by DNA built-in repair systems. Hence perhaps it makes sense after all.

Since the application is at FCC and not FAA, I assume the permission is about using radio spectrum within US territory, rather than launching a spacecraft.

That leads me to a question: at what altitude do you get outside of a country national space (and therefore you do not have to ask a regulator for using radio spectrum)?

A sovereign state decide to spend taxpayers money to promote some activity. Someone engages in this activity and is therefore eligible to get the money. What is wrong?

The only concern we can have is whether our representants were right when they decided to spend money on something. We can ask for such a decision to be reversed, this is the democratic process.

This is consumerism at its top: first buy, second look for an usage.

I used "can" and "may".

French workers productivity is among the highest, but it is not obvious to tell why. Protective labour laws may help, so may education, healthcare, infrastructures... In fact all that factors probably contribute.

His bad faith is obvious. Many companies manage to do profitable business in France. Labor laws indeed protect workers, but this is just something you can live with and still succeed.

Moreover, I could argue that protective labor laws can help increase workers productivity. When you do not have to wonder about securing your income for the next year, month or week, you may start focus on your job.