That's cute. Companies have been patenting genes for a while now, ones found in the wild without any modification by the company. If that doesn't count as prior art, I don't see how nests or hives would.

6 figure salaries in an area where cost of living makes that a lot of money. But don't let your ignorance stop you from commenting.

I work for a large company that hires based on talent. We can't get enough workers, H-1B or not. We don't discriminate based on age or anything else, just skill. The stories in my area are the same for all companies: we can't get enough skilled programmers.

This headline will just serve as an excuse for people to post rants about how their talent is being overlooked because of the foreigners invading our shores while ignoring the fact that many people who try to work as programmers are just terrible (see: fizzbuzz).

Just because it's simple doesn't mean it's obvious and should be able to be patented. You need someone who knows the field to determine whether it's obvious or not, and if you have someone who knows the field looking at the working code, they could do just as well looking at the application (once it was translated into English, anyway).

It's weird that you have content as a public member but require a getter for position. Seems like you should be consistent one way or the other.

I'm sure he'll spare no expense, maybe make them dependent on something that only he can give them, and then certainly make them all the same gender. Given all that, what's the worst that could happen?

No real scientist would do that.

The way it currently works is that generics don't need to go through the same trials because they're the exact same chemical and re-proving that it's safe and effective doesn't add anything. If it would add something, then we probably improve the required trials so that one set is good enough.

The other argument against requiring generics to go through trials is that cheap generics are an important part of healthcare. If you don't have the insurance to pay for the latest and greatest, you can use the generic instead and it will cost you $10 / month.

In pharma, that red tape is known as "making sure the drug doesn't outright kill you." It's not perfect and it's currently being gamed, but the red tape is absolutely necessary.

The other problem with pharma is that the red tape is only necessary for the first person to do it. Thus, if the patent system goes away but the red tape stays there, then innovation will disappear completely because everyone will jump on the new drugs with generics and no need to recoup the costs of making sure it doesn't kill people.

There are things that need fixing with pharma, but simply eliminating red tape and patents certainly won't do it.

They could put that on literally everything.

I don't think lab animal is at all what he/she would be. The most interesting part of the experiment would be how he/she interacts with humans socially, starting with an actual adoptive family and schooling if appropriate.

From that article:

Also, looking at the graphs of gender gap vs gender equality, there's a trend towards no gender gap as equality goes up. Further, the gender gap is all over the place clustered around or just below 0.

Am I missing something here that says the gender gap isn't artificial?

Sorry for the poor source, but girls and boys are equal in mathematic ability when you look worldwide, which indicates that differences in the west are due to cultural bias, not natural ability.

Physically, men are stronger than women on average, but mentally it appears that it's entirely or nearly entirely cultural. In that case, saying that they're different on average in mental ability is at the very least supporting a sexist construct in our culture.

That VC money doesn't appear out of thin air. It often comes with the intention of the company being acquired, and was money previously invested in other companies that got acquired. It's all part of the ecosystem.

You aren't using significant in the statistical sense. They're basically saying that there was an effect that happened at the same time, but they aren't sure whether it was a random effect or not.