The principles on which America was founded were the ability to run a slave farm without having to pay taxes to Britain, and only allowing rich white men to vote.
Slavery was a source of contention between Northern and Southern states from the beginning. Every state north of Delaware abolished it by 1804. It remained legal in Britain until 1840.
Taxes in the colonies were relatively low.
Neither country guaranteed all women the right to vote until the 1920s. A large minority of British men were disenfranchised by property requirements until after World War I, and a significant number of landowners could vote in multiple districts until 1948.
Or more to the point, does it, really work that way?
It's not too far off. NIH funds more biomedical research than anyone else, and it has rules about sharing resources.
Is this a vaccine that prevent you from getting infected with that anti-captialist altruistism?
Hey, altruism is serious business.
It seems to me that "copyright" refers, in the most straightforward way possible, to the "right to copy."
Etymologically, the 'copy' in 'copyright' refers to the original work. The earliest copyright statutes restricted printing specifically. When the laws were broadened much later, it was primarily to cover new technologies for publishing works, like the phonograph. Copyright includes an exclusive right to reproduction because technologies to reproduce information grew diverse before they grew cheap.
DNA is known to change during one's lifetime. For example: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090116/hl_afp/healthaustraliageneticssugar;_ylt=At8juaZrV2AoHEmOvom1Hj4PLBIF
The article talks about "permanently altering DNA", but the paper is about changes in gene expression, how genes are turned into functional products.
At $1000 I'm not sure who this is targeted at.
1000 AUD is about 600 USD, which seems in line with the competition.
"I've got some amyls. We could either party later or, like, start his heart." -- "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie"