I think you're ok for gluten, but I know a few people who can't have vaccines because they're cultured in eggs, to which they're allergic.
I believe you're in favour of much-reduced copyright terms - a few years rather than the endless decades of today.
If copyright were reduced to, say, five years, then the vast majority of GNU code would become public-domain - copyleft depending on copyright as it does, this would mean anyone could create a closed-source fork of, say, emacs. How do you feel about that?
Almost: They invented a *self-coiling* spring - one that can get longer or shorter to order.
You know, like muscles do...
It isn't. Something is *created* when copying something. Nothing is *taken*
In terms of the actual mechanism: as far as I recall, immune cells develop with a random specificity: It's pure chance what they'll recognise.
If they're exposed to something that they will react to in their development time, they die: This is how we prevent them from reacting to ourselves.
So although it won't do anything to existing immune cells, the persistent presence of peanuts will at least prevent any new immune cells popping up that will react to them.
SciFi visions of space travel almost always include gravity. And it's not like it's hard to do: Build round space station, spin it.
I assume there's a good reason why we don't make use of the principle to provide astronauts with some semblance of gravity. What is it?
Absolutely, they should both be taught.
Just teach them appropriately: Evolution gets taught in Science, creationism gets taught in Religious Studies with all the other myths & legends.
No it wouldn't.
With open-circuit gear this would give you nothing - there's more Oxygen than you need in your breathing mix already, adding yet more would be worthless, if not dangerous (Oxygen is toxic at elevated pp)
With a rebreather, Oxygen isn't the limiting factor - that's why rebreathers only have small tanks attached (unless they're intended for bailout purposes as well)
Even if it existed, this device would be worthless at best and lethal at worst.
Every time I've tried to make new software be controlled by it, I've wound up writing horrendous kludges or (where possible) rewriting the source code to make it more upstart-friendly.
Upstart is to init systems what Unity is to desktops - mostly okay for some stuff, and utter **** for anything else.
Well, "not going to war" could be considered an excellent solution to conflict
Eh, it'd be more impressive if they ATE the jellyfish to power themselves
Ubuntu's been my default when I've needed to get Linux installed & working on a machine with minimal fuss for years.
I hate Unity, it's a dreadful UI. But hey, it's Linux - I install my preferred WM and copy my config files into place, and the UI is perfect again.
I dislike the package manager, but I install synaptic and stop caring.
I hate Upstart. I've never been able to use it for a single piece of software without having to jump through hoops (at best) or rewrite the code (at worst). Like Unity, it strikes me as a product designed with a philosophy of "It works pretty well for most cases, and everything else can get stuffed". But I don't often have to make anything work with it, so I can mostly just ignore it.
There was a time when Ubuntu was a distro I genuinely liked and was happy to recommend. That's no longer the case, and appears to be a common attitude. So they've definitely gone into a decline.
But I still reach for the latest Ubuntu when I need a new Linux box. I just take a few more minutes to work around the warts, whereas once I didn't have to. It's still very good at being an easy-to-install Linux distro that mostly JFW. So long as it keeps that, and doesn't screw up by preventing me from working around the crud, it'll do pretty well.
And hey, maybe eventually they'll get back to doing stuff that people like, instead of avoid.
Since bugs like those crop up anyway, it's probably easier to find & exploit existing bugs than to force somebody to introduce them..
Given all the lies and disregard for the law already demonstrated, it's childish to think that any political solution could be trusted. If Obama said tomorrow "We've reined in the NSA, the law has been changed so they can't spy on you any more" only the most naive people would actually believe their Internet traffic was now private.
A political change to make privacy more important would be nice, but implementing a technical solution to make spying harder is vital. Neither is sufficient on its own, the aim HAS to be to get both.
There can't be any "informal agreement" - not since Snowden. Information that is *legally obliged* to be kept confidential can't just ignore the existence of PRISM.
Sure, the EU can change the law to add an exception for government spying. So long as they can get it passed, which is not an easy task.
The one thing organisations can't do is go on as they were now that they know confidential data isn't confidential.
And the alternative isn't trade isolation, it's a massive investment in technologies like end-to-end encryption to make it impossible for PRISM et al to spy on the data in the first place. Which frankly, I'm all in favour of..