Does this mean that someone born with synthetic DNA is guilty of infringement if they have children? Do they need to buy a licence to keep living? Perhaps as a compromise, the court can decide that they count as three fifths of a person.
[1] http://www.redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/07/18/were-our-found...
In the actual guidelines found here: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html it doesn't say anything about well actually comments. It says be smart in your discussions and don't just get opinionated, it says to present facts and actually address the thing that you're arguing over. I believe having proper arguments and discussions is one of the core things HN is about. It lets people learn and see other points of view. If you don't like a comment just downvote it.
This is not what happened here. rvkennedy did not make a statement of fact, he made an off-the-cuff remark. eldude challenged the substance and tone of that remark in order to prevent further misrepresentation of the point. He corrected and clarified the remark in a clear and substal way, thus falling well outside of the 'well-actually' category.
Oh dear. I've spent way too much time reading SCOTUS rulings/blogs today.
IMHO a much better rule is "avoid acting as thought/discourse police."
I don't think "well-actually" comments are bad. Wikipedia says to avoid weasel words and "expressions that lack precision" [1], and I think well-actually statements often help clear up such ambiguity.
If someone follows up their "well, actually..." with a legitimate correction of the facts, then I don't see a problem with it.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words
Granted, sometimes you gotta break some eggs. But don't be surprised when the hen who laid that egg isn't to be happy about it.
The main thrust of your argument is absolutely correct though, in that the northern folks generally argued that slaves were treated as property (and so should be taxed as such) and the southern folks generally argued that they should count as people. (And should be represented as such.)
No one seemed to get to the idea that if you were going to count someone for the purposes of representation, maybe you also had to let them vote. That would have also brought up interesting questions around the disenfranchisement of various other classes of people, namely women, some white men without property and freed slaves right from the start. Instead we had to wait a long time to start solving those problems.
Politics can be weird.
The party system did not form until George Washington's first term. There were certainly factions, but nothing like the "Republican" or "Democratic" parties of today.
When the party system began during George Washington's first term, the two parties were called the "Federalist" and the "Democratic-Republican" parties. New England was primarily Federalist. The Mid-Atlantic and Southern states were primarily Democratic-Republican.
The Democratic-Republican Party is, in some sense, the ancestor of both major political parties today. The Democratic-Republican Party split into the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party after the 1824 election. This division forms the basis of the two major political parties we have today. (With several messy breakups, reunions, splinterings, and Third Parties.)
In practice, this would be limited by the 14th Amendment. The prohibition against slavery trumps patent law, period. But I'm curious how far biotech companies would go before they got shut down.
EDIT: As pointed out below, 13th not 14th. My bad. Although due process in 14th would probably kick in as well.
The prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude (except as punishment for a crime) is the 13th Amendment, not the 14th Amendment.
I'd hope that a court would hold differently with human reproduction than Bowman v. Monsanto, but even if they don't it wouldn't be anything to do with the 13th Amendment.
Edit: Apparently Myriad patented more than just strands for the BRCA genes, including some methods and tests, which is one of the reasons their case is important to SCOTUS. With our current patent system, I think you'd have to patent a lot more than just the gene to be able to sue people over having it, especially children of genetically engineered parents.
in other words, you own the process of genetically modifying an organism, not the genes.
I dont know how realistic or unrealistic this is, since ianal.
edit: someone else mentioned the monsanto ruling, which makes this idea sound unrealistic