I will admit, now, that I am speaking generally as my knowledge of the US legal system is observational and not participatory, but in fairness and response
a) that they are citing property laws to cover copright violations is a warping of that law's intent (usual disclaimers, IANAL etc.). The fact that property laws have been expanded to cover file sharing, that damages have been awarded in line with property loss and not copyright violation are examples of laws that have been changed or added by the RIAA themselves. The DMCA is a similar example (as I was speaking generally).
b) and you see no problem with using the threat of inappropriate legal action to force people to their preferred business model? This is the gist of my argument. Yes, it is legal for them to do this. No, it is not a useful or even suitable use of the law.
c) property law exists to regulate the movement of property. defintions such as 'theft' become problematic when what is actualyl happening is a dilution of value due to copying. You have to really work hard to make that equal theft in the strict definition. So the law is modified, excepted, re-defined. It grows more complex. Complexity removes it from being readily understood and accessible. When ignorance of the law is not a defence then complexity is hypocritical.
And I am sick of people who think that the objection to actions like this by the RIAA are based on legality alone.
People who focus solely on what is and is not legal (like the RIAA and yourself) are missing the point. Sure what the RIAA is doing is legal. But it is also ludicrous.
By (ab)using the legal system in this fashion, the law must be made ever more stringent, new exceptions and modifications must be introduced and so it grows more complex and (from observation) less flexible.
All that this sort of legalism encourages is a) pressure by special interest groups to change laws to be more favourable or to leave in place laws that have long past their intended purpose to the detriment of the community at large; b) business models based more on litigation than real value; c) an increasingly complex legal structure that becomes less and less a codification of the will of the people and more an artifact to protect those who can best manipulate it.
The law is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. It should be (and again I own to idealism) a means of defining the desires of those who elected the people making those laws.
Take a step back. The law under a democratic system should be a tool for everyone and usable by everyone, and examples like this are making it increasingly apparent it is not.
For a strict definition of 'internet' you are correct. However, more common usage ignores the hardware and protocols and deals with what those are used for. For most people the internet _is_ Google, websites, P2P and the like.
For that definition of 'internet' a lot more of those statements in the article hold true.
The article is not pitched at the technically literate or technically literal.
Many who agree with DLing content and disagree with electronic marketing (spam or otherwise) are quite clear that they disagree with the laws that make one illegal and the other not.
That your family member conducts him or herself in a manner in accord with the law is not (always) being argued. That their actions are objectionable is.
making a sweeping generalisation it may also have to do with patant law and patent culture.
consider that while the first men to fly where from the US, it took government intervention to remove the strangle hold that patent litigation had placed on the fledgling industry while in Europe the aviation industry rapidly overtook that in the US.
the telephony industry had to be forcibly deregulated to try and re-introduce competition and hence innovation that is only now seeing it catching up with similar services overseas.
with a little research i could probably cite more examples, but I am starting to wonder if the example of capitalism that exist in the US, while excellent at promoting invention, also encourages monopolisation and litigation which in turn stifles further development
There is a decent chance that their claims are designed to inflame.
Claim the Open Source community is behind it and you get a bunch of people who have already been accused starting to think they may as well commit the 'crime' for which they are being blamed.
Sure the claims made by SCO have always been seen to be ridiculous, from a technical POV. But their point has never been to convince the geeks. They are playing to a larger audience and seen in that light their bumbling and fumbling, technically, starts to look a little more deliberate.
Call me paranoid, but SCO could be trying to create the incident they claim is ocurring right now.
Re:You just validated terrorism (Was Re:Perspectiv
on
Updates on War in Iraq
·
· Score: 1
known mass murderer who's attempted the takeover of neighboring countries
does the distance from the countries the US has invaded make them different from Hussein, or it their success?
Maybe if we just let these maniacs run loose for a while they'll get their fill on their own turf and never both anybody else
the alternative to doing nothing is not just war as you imply.
You do realize that Saddam is a bad boy playing with toys that the UN has declared he shouldn't have right?
so now that the US has broken a UN recommendation, is it OK for poeple to invade you?
Saddam should have all these weapons around
why is it only the US that is allowed these weapons?
forgetting the difference between "right and wrong" is the most assinine argument
oh, i am prepared to argue 'right and wrong', just not with narrow minded bigots. to them i appeal to their (demonstrated) self interest. read the original, the context matters.
when you do the right think you accept the consequences of that
which is just an 'ends justifies the means' argument.
The fourth plane on Sept 11 realized quickly how to deal with terrorism
what has that got to do with this, apart from demonstrating your inability to filter your own country's propaganda?
Us fanatics keep the enemy scared and keep you safe
no, they are singularly responsible for more death, more destabilisation and more harm than any other group. my safety has _nothing_ to do with the actions of the narrow minded fools who cannot even understand the concept of consequnce.
you have demonstrated the pointlessness of arguing with such people far more eloquently than I could have otherwise. your ignorance, coupled with your inability to conceive of it truly terrifies me.
You just validated terrorism (Was Re:Perspectives)
on
Updates on War in Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Let me get this straight;
You are using a hypothetical solution to the problem of the September 11 attacks that involves a pre-emptive strike (rather than acknowledging that US foreign policy had irritated certain groups to the point where they are prepared to die and kill to express their disatisfaction) to justify the current 'pre-emptive strike'?
Firstly, even if the excuse that Hussein or his regime is planning some sort of war of terror is more than a thin fabrication, all that may be accomplished is to remove Hussein and his regime and create a couple of thousand more people so irritated with the aggression and imperialism of the US that they too are willing to kill and die. You have not solved the problem, just shifted where it lives. What next, pre-emptive strikes on Iran, the Palestine, Turkey...
Secondly, trying to justify the invasion of a foreign nation to remove and (potentially) replace the government on the pretext of targetting people who _may_ take action against the US _justifies_ the actions of terrorists attacking the US by the same logic. They too are targetting a nation they deem to be harbouring those who would seek to do (or have already done) harm to their nation, home or family. They have acted with the sanction of their government (or at least that is the accusation made of Hussein).
Forget for a moment arguments of right and wrong, takelook at the potential consequences of this action. If enlightened self interest does not show that this invasion serves only a very few people and not the majority of the US (or the rest of the world) then I am truly talking to a fanatic.
I am in agreement for the most part, and it was nice to include an example of fundamental axiomatic construction by declaring a rose to _be_. Of course, the rose may not exist except as a perceptual hallucination, but if you need to believe in an ultimate and arbitrary reality which we percieve imperfectly, as compared, for example, to a meaningless sea of chaos on which we impose order, then that too is fine.
There is no bottom, 'Axioms' go all the way down. What gets fun is learning to be able to shift fundamental (personal) axioms. It lets you join other people's 'games' - for what else can you call a group of people all agreeing to operate accordingt o a set of self-imposed rules.
To add a completely personal anecdote in support of this;
I am constantly amazed by some of my contemporaries inability to perform the simplest math functions (approximations, simple addition, etc) without electronic aid.
I had the odd fortune of having most of my calculators stolen through high school (rough school) and after the fourth such incident gave up trying to replace them and just did everything either 'pen and paper' or mentally. Arithmatic, algebra, calculus etc. The difference, then slight, has become increasingly apparent.
This is a little extreme, but the principal remains. If you are teaching basics and fundamentals, remove the crutches.
Author - Ray Bradbury (from memory) and apart from a damn fine read still terrifyingly topical in a world growing ever more obsessed with censorship and 'correct' thought.
The title takes its name from the ignition point of paper and one of the early releases (if not the first) was a limited edition asbestos bound copy. A truly elegant statement.
And on a similar (athough less pyrotechnic) note, try a block of soap. Similar Amazing Expasion (tm) properties to marshmallows and other foodstuffs, but with the advantage of still being functional!
(this community service announcement now returns you to your regular program)
I have worked in a wide variety of positions, only most recently IT. I have worked as a casual labourer, have dug ditches, hauled bricks etc. Yes you are right, it is hard work, but there are still comforts, still differences between foremen who work their people like robots and those who allow a little flexibility.
How far do you think workplaces that prevent staff from using a welding rig on the weekend get? Or insist on telling you how many bricks per load you should be moving for optimum performance (OHS aside)? And while I did not wear earphones, it is a sad site that doesn't have a radio playing somewhere. The comparison you offer is not fair - different places have different perks and different managerial responses to them.
At an office job, use of a few meg (or even gig) of memory is trivial and a nice way to say 'your work is appreciated' or even 'we trust you enough to believe that you will use your time efficiently'. If management do not have this level of trust in their staff then i think it a greater reflection on them than their employees.
I have no argument against companies banning illegal copies of music/software/et al on company property - those sort of risks are born of decisions individuals make and should remain personal. That said, various claims of loss of productivity and bandwidth loss at best rationalisations to prop up a decision already made or, more usually, an attempt by the bean counters to squeeze more work out of staff.
Maximum efficiency and productivity is not the result of maximum effort - there is a point at which more effort reduces efficiency as fatigue sets in, concetration and comfort levels drop etc. While I accept that some companies may have problems where staff are wasting time, trying to cure this by prohibition will have similar effects to the alcahol strategy of the same name.
Allow staff there small comforts. By all means ban illegal copies (and hence P2P networks) but do so for legitimate (ie legal) reasons. Monitor bandwidth, but if you prevent employees from using a resource that the company makes liberal use (and probably misuse) of, then they will become resentful. Even more so if they are told that they are to be prohibited from listening to music to increase their productivity. If staff are unproductive it is more likely to be from poor management, poor organisation, direction or motivation than it is to be from having too much bandwidth or listening to music. Fix the problem, not the blame.
People are not machines, no matter how much this Indistrialised workplace would like them to be. Treating them as such may have short term gains, but is disatrous long term.
Does anyone have any information on how they propose to define the P2P networks they will be targetting? The lawsuits that shut Napster down were able to be directed because of its centralised nature. Fake files, multiple accounts and the like can certainly slow users of sharing networks, but what happens when the next generation of software allows for filtering by IP, allows search by some form of checksum or provides a 'thumbnail' in the form of a low quality/highly compressed image of the original?
Is anyone who uses file-sharing software part of one of these 'pirate networks'? If that argument can be sustained then the more common DoS that we see from script-kiddies may become if not legalised then certainly decriminalised.
This, then, begs the question - Is it possible to characterise the RIAA as a P2P network under this legislation?
There was as time when records were paper and travelled as fast as someone could transport them. A person with the right papers were whomever they claimed to be. Times change, photographic identification becomes the norm, information is swapped between law enforcement agencies, spammers and multinationals and yet, with the right preperation, you are whomever you claim to be.
Sure we face increasing ease of date transfer and collection, there are moves afoot to use various biometrics to identify you, but your fingerprints and DNA have been doing just that for some time. This is just a matter of degree.
Decide your level of privacy and choose your degree of paranoia. If your persona is clean, then what does it matter if your eating habits trigger an increased surveillance by the FBI - they will get bored soon enough.
If you are planning something that requires a degree of secrecy, then apply the appropriate levels of paranoia, develop a secondary (tertiary...) identity and allow it to gradually accumulate data trails until it ceases to be useful. Then abandon it.
The increase in data accumulation just makes it that much easier to assemble what appears to be a sufficient amount of 'mass' to demonstrate a persona's legitimacy.
Students have been producing fake ID since they were introduced to get around the invasion of 'privacy' that is associated with demanding their age; take similar steps if warranted, or accept the inevitability of a trend that has been in force for several centuries.
Actually the news is the government regulating it with something suitably vague about passing royalties on to ARIA. CD copying kiosks have been around for some time - check a number of 7/11s or similar convenience stores.
I somehow doubt it. A number of Edison's patents, 'inventions' and claims to 'firsts' are the result of work either directly appropriated from or the result of other's work - often those of his employees.
As a self-aggrandising publicity machine, he was superb, as an inventor - less prolific than he would have us believe.
This, however, seems to be the sad history of invention and innovation. One person creates, another markets.
An injection that is used to remove wrinkles by paralysing the local area also stops headache pain and stiffness, and "It is not really clear how Botox curbs headache pain and stiffness"?
I am fairly certain similar results would be obtained were a local anaesthetic administered via "about 10 to 25 shots".
This seems remarkably like the modern version of 'snake-oil'. Cures all Ills. Some temporary drooping may be experienced. Still legal in 14 states.
>Are we going to have the best soccer teams now also?
>I almost feel sorry for the rest of the world, we are kicking their ass in every political, social, education, and economic category..
>and now we are schooling them in their own sports? BAHAHAH!
>Whats left, world rugby and cricket champions?
>GO USA!
Political = Bush, bought and paid for
Social = One of the highest rates of violent crime in the first world
Education = The highest rate of adult illiteracy in the first world
Economic = Ok, that's fair, but then, if The US ever paid its debts, a lot of other countries might start to look a little healthier.
So I can understand, given this situation, how proud you must be of the success of 20 or so of your fellow countrymen. It must help take your mnd of your internal and dometic woes.
If you could see your way clear to organising a US cricket or Rugby team - it has been some time since I have seen any worthwhile comedy from the states.
Slashdot Mirror
I will admit, now, that I am speaking generally as my knowledge of the US legal system is observational and not participatory, but in fairness and response
a) that they are citing property laws to cover copright violations is a warping of that law's intent (usual disclaimers, IANAL etc.). The fact that property laws have been expanded to cover file sharing, that damages have been awarded in line with property loss and not copyright violation are examples of laws that have been changed or added by the RIAA themselves. The DMCA is a similar example (as I was speaking generally).
b) and you see no problem with using the threat of inappropriate legal action to force people to their preferred business model? This is the gist of my argument. Yes, it is legal for them to do this. No, it is not a useful or even suitable use of the law.
c) property law exists to regulate the movement of property. defintions such as 'theft' become problematic when what is actualyl happening is a dilution of value due to copying. You have to really work hard to make that equal theft in the strict definition. So the law is modified, excepted, re-defined. It grows more complex. Complexity removes it from being readily understood and accessible. When ignorance of the law is not a defence then complexity is hypocritical.
And I am sick of people who think that the objection to actions like this by the RIAA are based on legality alone.
People who focus solely on what is and is not legal (like the RIAA and yourself) are missing the point. Sure what the RIAA is doing is legal. But it is also ludicrous.
By (ab)using the legal system in this fashion, the law must be made ever more stringent, new exceptions and modifications must be introduced and so it grows more complex and (from observation) less flexible.
All that this sort of legalism encourages is
a) pressure by special interest groups to change laws to be more favourable or to leave in place laws that have long past their intended purpose to the detriment of the community at large;
b) business models based more on litigation than real value;
c) an increasingly complex legal structure that becomes less and less a codification of the will of the people and more an artifact to protect those who can best manipulate it.
The law is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. It should be (and again I own to idealism) a means of defining the desires of those who elected the people making those laws.
Take a step back. The law under a democratic system should be a tool for everyone and usable by everyone, and examples like this are making it increasingly apparent it is not.
For a strict definition of 'internet' you are correct. However, more common usage ignores the hardware and protocols and deals with what those are used for. For most people the internet _is_ Google, websites, P2P and the like.
For that definition of 'internet' a lot more of those statements in the article hold true.
The article is not pitched at the technically literate or technically literal.
I call straw man.
No hypocrisy but what you project;
Many who agree with DLing content and disagree with electronic marketing (spam or otherwise) are quite clear that they disagree with the laws that make one illegal and the other not.
That your family member conducts him or herself in a manner in accord with the law is not (always) being argued. That their actions are objectionable is.
You seem to be confusing 'legal' with 'right'.
making a sweeping generalisation it may also have to do with patant law and patent culture.
consider that while the first men to fly where from the US, it took government intervention to remove the strangle hold that patent litigation had placed on the fledgling industry while in Europe the aviation industry rapidly overtook that in the US.
the telephony industry had to be forcibly deregulated to try and re-introduce competition and hence innovation that is only now seeing it catching up with similar services overseas.
with a little research i could probably cite more examples, but I am starting to wonder if the example of capitalism that exist in the US, while excellent at promoting invention, also encourages monopolisation and litigation which in turn stifles further development
Careful.
There is a decent chance that their claims are designed to inflame.
Claim the Open Source community is behind it and you get a bunch of people who have already been accused starting to think they may as well commit the 'crime' for which they are being blamed.
Sure the claims made by SCO have always been seen to be ridiculous, from a technical POV. But their point has never been to convince the geeks. They are playing to a larger audience and seen in that light their bumbling and fumbling, technically, starts to look a little more deliberate.
Call me paranoid, but SCO could be trying to create the incident they claim is ocurring right now.
known mass murderer who's attempted the takeover of neighboring countries
does the distance from the countries the US has invaded make them different from Hussein, or it their success?
Maybe if we just let these maniacs run loose for a while they'll get their fill on their own turf and never both anybody else
the alternative to doing nothing is not just war as you imply.
You do realize that Saddam is a bad boy playing with toys that the UN has declared he shouldn't have right?
so now that the US has broken a UN recommendation, is it OK for poeple to invade you?
Saddam should have all these weapons around
why is it only the US that is allowed these weapons?
forgetting the difference between "right and wrong" is the most assinine argument
oh, i am prepared to argue 'right and wrong', just not with narrow minded bigots. to them i appeal to their (demonstrated) self interest. read the original, the context matters.
when you do the right think you accept the consequences of that
which is just an 'ends justifies the means' argument.
The fourth plane on Sept 11 realized quickly how to deal with terrorism
what has that got to do with this, apart from demonstrating your inability to filter your own country's propaganda?
Us fanatics keep the enemy scared and keep you safe
no, they are singularly responsible for more death, more destabilisation and more harm than any other group. my safety has _nothing_ to do with the actions of the narrow minded fools who cannot even understand the concept of consequnce.
you have demonstrated the pointlessness of arguing with such people far more eloquently than I could have otherwise. your ignorance, coupled with your inability to conceive of it truly terrifies me.
Let me get this straight;
...
You are using a hypothetical solution to the problem of the September 11 attacks that involves a pre-emptive strike (rather than acknowledging that US foreign policy had irritated certain groups to the point where they are prepared to die and kill to express their disatisfaction) to justify the current 'pre-emptive strike'?
Firstly, even if the excuse that Hussein or his regime is planning some sort of war of terror is more than a thin fabrication, all that may be accomplished is to remove Hussein and his regime and create a couple of thousand more people so irritated with the aggression and imperialism of the US that they too are willing to kill and die. You have not solved the problem, just shifted where it lives. What next, pre-emptive strikes on Iran, the Palestine, Turkey
Secondly, trying to justify the invasion of a foreign nation to remove and (potentially) replace the government on the pretext of targetting people who _may_ take action against the US _justifies_ the actions of terrorists attacking the US by the same logic. They too are targetting a nation they deem to be harbouring those who would seek to do (or have already done) harm to their nation, home or family. They have acted with the sanction of their government (or at least that is the accusation made of Hussein).
Forget for a moment arguments of right and wrong, takelook at the potential consequences of this action. If enlightened self interest does not show that this invasion serves only a very few people and not the majority of the US (or the rest of the world) then I am truly talking to a fanatic.
"well, he _told_ me it was 8 inches, but it turned out to closer to 2 ..."
i know, i know - OT
I am in agreement for the most part, and it was nice to include an example of fundamental axiomatic construction by declaring a rose to _be_. Of course, the rose may not exist except as a perceptual hallucination, but if you need to believe in an ultimate and arbitrary reality which we percieve imperfectly, as compared, for example, to a meaningless sea of chaos on which we impose order, then that too is fine.
There is no bottom, 'Axioms' go all the way down. What gets fun is learning to be able to shift fundamental (personal) axioms. It lets you join other people's 'games' - for what else can you call a group of people all agreeing to operate accordingt o a set of self-imposed rules.
For example, what if a rose was not?
Depending on which 6, probably depression or a stress disorder.
To add a completely personal anecdote in support of this;
I am constantly amazed by some of my contemporaries inability to perform the simplest math functions (approximations, simple addition, etc) without electronic aid.
I had the odd fortune of having most of my calculators stolen through high school (rough school) and after the fourth such incident gave up trying to replace them and just did everything either 'pen and paper' or mentally. Arithmatic, algebra, calculus etc. The difference, then slight, has become increasingly apparent.
This is a little extreme, but the principal remains. If you are teaching basics and fundamentals, remove the crutches.
Author - Ray Bradbury (from memory) and apart from a damn fine read still terrifyingly topical in a world growing ever more obsessed with censorship and 'correct' thought.
The title takes its name from the ignition point of paper and one of the early releases (if not the first) was a limited edition asbestos bound copy. A truly elegant statement.
And on a similar (athough less pyrotechnic) note, try a block of soap. Similar Amazing Expasion (tm) properties to marshmallows and other foodstuffs, but with the advantage of still being functional!
(this community service announcement now returns you to your regular program)
I have worked in a wide variety of positions, only most recently IT. I have worked as a casual labourer, have dug ditches, hauled bricks etc. Yes you are right, it is hard work, but there are still comforts, still differences between foremen who work their people like robots and those who allow a little flexibility.
How far do you think workplaces that prevent staff from using a welding rig on the weekend get? Or insist on telling you how many bricks per load you should be moving for optimum performance (OHS aside)? And while I did not wear earphones, it is a sad site that doesn't have a radio playing somewhere. The comparison you offer is not fair - different places have different perks and different managerial responses to them.
At an office job, use of a few meg (or even gig) of memory is trivial and a nice way to say 'your work is appreciated' or even 'we trust you enough to believe that you will use your time efficiently'. If management do not have this level of trust in their staff then i think it a greater reflection on them than their employees.
I have no argument against companies banning illegal copies of music/software/et al on company property - those sort of risks are born of decisions individuals make and should remain personal. That said, various claims of loss of productivity and bandwidth loss at best rationalisations to prop up a decision already made or, more usually, an attempt by the bean counters to squeeze more work out of staff.
Maximum efficiency and productivity is not the result of maximum effort - there is a point at which more effort reduces efficiency as fatigue sets in, concetration and comfort levels drop etc. While I accept that some companies may have problems where staff are wasting time, trying to cure this by prohibition will have similar effects to the alcahol strategy of the same name.
Allow staff there small comforts. By all means ban illegal copies (and hence P2P networks) but do so for legitimate (ie legal) reasons. Monitor bandwidth, but if you prevent employees from using a resource that the company makes liberal use (and probably misuse) of, then they will become resentful. Even more so if they are told that they are to be prohibited from listening to music to increase their productivity. If staff are unproductive it is more likely to be from poor management, poor organisation, direction or motivation than it is to be from having too much bandwidth or listening to music. Fix the problem, not the blame.
People are not machines, no matter how much this Indistrialised workplace would like them to be. Treating them as such may have short term gains, but is disatrous long term.
Does anyone have any information on how they propose to define the P2P networks they will be targetting? The lawsuits that shut Napster down were able to be directed because of its centralised nature. Fake files, multiple accounts and the like can certainly slow users of sharing networks, but what happens when the next generation of software allows for filtering by IP, allows search by some form of checksum or provides a 'thumbnail' in the form of a low quality/highly compressed image of the original?
Is anyone who uses file-sharing software part of one of these 'pirate networks'? If that argument can be sustained then the more common DoS that we see from script-kiddies may become if not legalised then certainly decriminalised.
This, then, begs the question - Is it possible to characterise the RIAA as a P2P network under this legislation?
There was as time when records were paper and travelled as fast as someone could transport them. A person with the right papers were whomever they claimed to be. Times change, photographic identification becomes the norm, information is swapped between law enforcement agencies, spammers and multinationals and yet, with the right preperation, you are whomever you claim to be.
...) identity and allow it to gradually accumulate data trails until it ceases to be useful. Then abandon it.
Sure we face increasing ease of date transfer and collection, there are moves afoot to use various biometrics to identify you, but your fingerprints and DNA have been doing just that for some time. This is just a matter of degree.
Decide your level of privacy and choose your degree of paranoia. If your persona is clean, then what does it matter if your eating habits trigger an increased surveillance by the FBI - they will get bored soon enough.
If you are planning something that requires a degree of secrecy, then apply the appropriate levels of paranoia, develop a secondary (tertiary
The increase in data accumulation just makes it that much easier to assemble what appears to be a sufficient amount of 'mass' to demonstrate a persona's legitimacy.
Students have been producing fake ID since they were introduced to get around the invasion of 'privacy' that is associated with demanding their age; take similar steps if warranted, or accept the inevitability of a trend that has been in force for several centuries.
Actually the news is the government regulating it with something suitably vague about passing royalties on to ARIA. CD copying kiosks have been around for some time - check a number of 7/11s or similar convenience stores.
I somehow doubt it. A number of Edison's patents, 'inventions' and claims to 'firsts' are the result of work either directly appropriated from or the result of other's work - often those of his employees. As a self-aggrandising publicity machine, he was superb, as an inventor - less prolific than he would have us believe. This, however, seems to be the sad history of invention and innovation. One person creates, another markets.
An injection that is used to remove wrinkles by paralysing the local area also stops headache pain and stiffness, and "It is not really clear how Botox curbs headache pain and stiffness"?
I am fairly certain similar results would be obtained were a local anaesthetic administered via "about 10 to 25 shots".
This seems remarkably like the modern version of 'snake-oil'. Cures all Ills. Some temporary drooping may be experienced. Still legal in 14 states.
>Are we going to have the best soccer teams now also? >I almost feel sorry for the rest of the world, we are kicking their ass in every political, social, education, and economic category.. >and now we are schooling them in their own sports? BAHAHAH! >Whats left, world rugby and cricket champions? >GO USA! Political = Bush, bought and paid for Social = One of the highest rates of violent crime in the first world Education = The highest rate of adult illiteracy in the first world Economic = Ok, that's fair, but then, if The US ever paid its debts, a lot of other countries might start to look a little healthier. So I can understand, given this situation, how proud you must be of the success of 20 or so of your fellow countrymen. It must help take your mnd of your internal and dometic woes. If you could see your way clear to organising a US cricket or Rugby team - it has been some time since I have seen any worthwhile comedy from the states.