Yes. Sorry for the typo.

This isn't new. Regan reduced funding to the University of California system and raised tuition in the latter half of the 60s, at least partly in reponse to protests against the war in Vietnam. See https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/threat-of-educated-proletariat-created-the-student-debt-crisis/.

One of his advisers later said, "We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat... We have to be selective on who we allow to go through (higher education)."

Can you explain the anon who always replies to your posts with what appears to be a parody? Secret admirer perhaps? Are they using AI, or do you think they actually type out a unique post every single time?

In this very thread you have been intentionally insulting twice. I'm not sure you're the sort of person who should be offering advice on how to obtain "good reactions from people".

Ahhhhh. I took abulafia's sig as simply quoting a line from a song that they like. In my view, abulafia hasn't forgotten what 8 was for; the singer in the song is a different, possibly fictional, person.

I also didn't expect your comment to be that meanspirited, but I am recalibrating my expectations.

Not interested in rsilvergun or the feud you have with him, but I want you to realize the amusing irony of your post:

This is art.

"I forget what 8 was for" is a line in the song Kiss Off by Violent Femmes. It's a really clever line in the context of the song. See Kiss Off lyrics.

It just seems like a dumb product idea. But you're right, if it sells, they'll make a lot on it.

On the one hand, this tempts me to short Apple stock.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that my sentiments are not widely shared and they'll make money off of this.

There Is No Alternative (TINA)

I'll take the general point you're making.

What's that worth these days?

Absolutely asking the right question here. That's a significant chunk of change.

I think the words "directed to" in the quoted part make the law broader than the entire organism. I think a genetic sequence conferring HIV resistance in humans would count as "directed to" a human organism.

If there's some useful sequence patented for use in another animal that is later used in humans, maybe. Even if the first use would require a royalty payment, I have a hard time believing the courts would allow such a patent to cover subsequent generations in humans. Largely because the people ruling on this stuff are humans.

Using current AI for medical advice is ill advised due to the inaccuracies. Sorry you've had bad experiences with doctors. I've had mostly good experiences with a couple of notable exceptions. I'm in the U.S., so insurance is a bigger problem than doctors.

Knock yourself out.

I doubt it. Customers seem pretty happy with some of the stuff I've worked on, but I don't personally need or want any of it. In fact, depending on how literal you want to be, I don't think anyone needs anything I've worked on. That actually bothers me a bit; it's a wider societal issue, I think—so many things are done because they are profitable, not because they need to be done.

That said, I really like designing and testing little circuits, so I do get a kick out of the stuff I work on, even if I think all of it is ultimately unnecessary.

Existing genetically modified organisms fall under the patent category rather than the copyright category. See https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trademark-patent-copyright.