first, the training, argument is bullshit. do busineses really sit down and say, "first you take the mouse, move it over the text, push and hold the button, no the left one...". no, you're expected to know how to use a freakin computer. with something like KDE, hell, if some worker drone can't figure it out, they're idiots.
You obviously have never worked for a big company, or even a medium-sized one that actually has non-geeks as employees... you'd be surprised.
You are also acting arrogant, trivializing changes that are non-trivial for people whose main function at work is NOT to learn how to use
new tools to do the same old work.
Now, for small startups the desktop part just MIGHT be ok; or at least training might be just
people teaching each other where to find things that are in different places. But desktop is really the least of worries. Fun starts when users have to switch their office suite, and other essential tools for their jobs. Even apps seemingly simple to use, like web browsers or mail clients, are likely to be very different. Even if individual differences are minor, net effect is big.
Thus, people have to learn to use the new tools;
training for that may be formal or informal,
or even self-training via trial-and-error.
But don't even think there's no learning curve,
temporary lost productivity, and associated
costs. Even if there need not be silly "how to
click my mouse" training.
Of course, similar (level of) training is needed no matter
which direction change is going, to or from
open source, or between closed source environments.
Surely if a company went with all open source software going with Microsoft would cost them a literally infinite amount more?
Only assuming that there are no other costs to software than purchase price. In general support needed by users (for IT depts), training (if any) needed for using tools, time needed to learn tools (OS or non-OS), all have associated costs. And in these areas, open source solutions have costs too, even if there's no sticker price.
1. I'm basing my crash problems on Quark 6 which I have little experience using so far. Previous versions of quark are notoriously buggy so I don't expect this one to be much better.
Whatever else you think about the company, or its products (XPress is not the only one... but only one with much significance), there are huge differences in bugginess between versions. 5.0 was reasonably bug-free, esp. compared to 4.x series (albeit years late), 6.0 is (from what I've heard) also fairly bug-free, due to its internals being
rewritten so dev. team now had full understanding of the code. 4.0 was horrible, in comparison, and took months to get patch releases that made it usable.
As to installation and activation; yeah, that sucks. It's stupid form Q's part to make it that complicated... they are just being paranoid and greedy there.:-/
Film definitely may be furthering author's agenda, but somehow I didn't see it as fear mongering of any sort. He did mix all kinds of ingredients -- which tends to mess the focus -- but I still don't see what fear mongering he was doing. Even regarding
guns he seemed quaintly "moderate" (as per average american standards). And as to success being measure by negative implications... you lost me there. I guess you are saying that what you would consider success, he considers worth resentment?
But the leap from difference of opinions to claiming his moral systems combines that paradox (success means resentment) is just strange.
But everyone sees movies and reads books, based on their background.
Moore greatly overestimates the number of people who watch the "11:00 news" with its gunshot reports", then overestimates the impact it is. Most people don't even watch these shows.
May be? I'm sometimes not sure if that's a good or bad thing though; that some people don't get ANY news is a scary prospect too. That said, I think that newspapers have similar problem too, although fortunately not quite as bad. I guess it's easier to write stories to read, without having to fear short attention span as much as TV news.
... of course there's even scarier possibility; some people get their "news" from radio talk shows. If TV news are reader's digest simplified good vs. bad stories, talk shows are just, well, talk that's ok chatting over a beer, entertainment, but should never be taken as more
than that.
I've also read about Moore's fact twisting, to suit his needs. I don't like it, I just hope people don't completely discredit every point he makes, but use their own judgment on evaluating them. Same thing as I would expect when watching or listening any information. But it's true that the format matters, so that things presented as documentary tend to get, by default, less critical
treatment (by critical I don't mean negative, just objectively critcial).
Simple kinetic weapons work extremely well in space.
That makes sense; oftentimes high-tech gizmoes are
overkill where simpler solution is much more
effective. Just like destroying a high speed
train, say, would be much more easily done by just
locating static object on its way, than trying
to hit the moving target with a missile.
I'd still be curious to know why there's sense
of impending war, considering that tensions between
world's Super Power, and lesser powers (Russia,
China, India, western europe) are actually
much less sever than in centuries... so that
while in case of global war space systems would
be potential targets, I'm not so sure chances
of getting into one are big.
Good points... although some european terrorist groups did have similar goals; esp. german one... RAF, wanted to demolish capitalist system (and
was funded by east-Germany back then). Others
are fighting "occupation" (IRA, ETA).
As to which one is deadliest; due to 9/11, Al-Qaeda does unfortunately have huge lead, plus also its actual impact on world politics is definitely huge. Yet, for every day live's of people, IRA (for example) has had more long-lasting effect, locally, by keeping terror
up for decades.
However, I'm optimist in the sense that I truly feel they were unfortunately lucky bastards in that they had 200% success rate, and doubt they'll ever be able to repeat similar attacks in same scale. I hope I'm right in at least that respect.
In any case, despite the differences, I think
it's good to know the modern history of
terrorism, to get better perspective.
However, I have to disagree with that. Do you believe that a terrorist could not get access to any amount of radioactive material? Do you believe that a terrorist could not figure out how to blow up such material with a conventional explosive? Of course they could.
I'm not arguing so much that they couldn't, but
that they most likely shouldn't bother, and
at least smartest ones, won't. Which leaves
the less dangerous ones to dream of nuclear
holocaust.
It probably would help to really understand
way of thinking of terrorists, to know for sure
how they plan for things, but personally I just
don't see either biological or nuclear material
as primary threat. I still think more convetional
things: explosives, exploding chemicals, or
potentially other kinds of chemicals, are
and remain as bigger threats.
I guess what irritates me is just the assumption that WMD are the best
tools for terrorists, and thus naturally
their first choice. What's forgotten is
the big picture; what's easiest to obtain,
safest to use (ie. won't backfire); and from
that point, plain old weaponry is so easy to
access (in relative terms) that more exotic
alternatives seem like too much hassle.
Besides, for terrorists' home turf those
are not optimal weapons either. Even governments
that harbour terrorists are very very unlikely
to allow them to use WMDs; even without external
pressure -- they may be evil, but they are
not crazy.
Oh jeez. Muslims, like all other people, can hold grudge, can forgive, can remember, can forget. And do, or do not, or will, or won't. That is, there's no single "muslim entity". Also, if it wasn't for Israel nation occasionally doing things exactly as bad as terrorist organizations, perhaps things wouldn't
be quite as bad as they are.
Of course, if you go and ask a fundamentalist youth in terrorist camps, certainly they CLAIM they'll keep fighting forever, never forgive; never give up etc. etc. That's how even NORMAL teenagers talk and feel... and then they grow up, get married, have children and voila, have better things to do than blow things up because of history.
But I guess your understanding of muslims is based on you knowing many muslims and having discussed this with them?
Wouldn't it be nice if you had guts to perhaps not
hide behind anonymity, for strong words you use lose their force, or any credibility you might
otherwise have?
Now, just FYI; I don't hate Americans -- quite the opposite, I like most people I personally know here. But that's exactly why I'm puzzled at things like people here feeling LESS safe than in othere countries -- even people in countries that are factually much much unsafer, poorer.
And as to your "our reaction"; how pompous of you to talk for the whole nation. Especially as anonymous coward.
Finally, to mr. Moore; I'm sure the fact he's overweight greatly reduces worth of his opinions, views, ideas. But judging by same rules, should same apply to other 40% plus overweight citizens? Why are they allowed to vote?
Read my post again; I did not claim it's accurate documentary. I just pointed out that the point it makes about "calamity channels"; media selling fears, is interesting and intriguing one.
And at least for me, it's not that I got the idea
from the movie, it just reiterated something
I've been wondering all along. I grew up in
a country not too dissimilar to Canada, before
moving to US, and I've always been puzzled at
local news that mostly seemt o concentrate on local
(and global) murders, culprits, and sharing
blame.
That many facts are fuzzy, and theories at times contriver is unfortunate; furthermore I agree in that particular connection implied was far-fetched... but it was just one of multiple tangents in the movie.
I may be wasting my time (based on your knee-jerk reaction), but here's quick rebuttal:
I don't care about what you like about BfC
in general, but the basic idea of fear-mongering
causing fear, anxiety, and in turn feeding
violence can not be dismissed by your dislike
of mr. Moore
Terrorists looking to use all kinds of things;
I didn't claim they couldn't be looking for,
just that chance of that being much of a problem
is negligible. But you probably rather boil
in your own fears of various doomsday devices,
than use your brains to consider reasoning
why nuclear stuff is pretty impractical for
terrorism. The idiots amongst them who drool for
nukes are much less of a threat than more practically oriented (== dangerous) ones, like
the scumbags who used planes as missiles.
Xenophobia; you are ignorant if you think
this country is welcoming immigrants. It is
not, currently. Ask ANYONE who is trying to
LEGALLY enter the country, to work here, or
to enter as a political refugee. And contrast
those opinions on ones about "liberal" european
countries like Sweden, Netherlands or France.
You'll be surprised. I'm not claiming individual
people are hostile -- quite the contrary, and
I truly think there's much less racism than
in many other countries.
Why does Slashdot have to be part of fear-peddling media? Of course military is always coming up with new hypothetical threats, just as police does. It's their job to be wary of things, to serve and protect. But it'd be good for others to have perspective on what exactly they are talking about. Their opinions, fears, possibilities. Not certanties or even significant probabilities. And as to space wars, the ideas have been in sci-fi for decades.
I'd strongly suggest people watch "Bowling for Columbine", for one point-of-view on fear mongering as part of the problem, reason, not just consequence.
I remember pointing out (right after 9/11) how silly most fears regarding terrorists using atomic (and to a degree, biological and even chemical weapons is) are, and was told by n+1 people how wrong I was ("nobody thought an airplane would be used as..."). I've yet to see any credible threat from that direction,
and hopefully won't see during my lifetime.
I don't think that's a coincident, or just act of
efficient prevention.
Yet many readers here thought it'd be inevitable, would happen right away. Just like attack of killer bees, Y2K causing armageddon, red threat leading to slavery of human kind, and dozens of other low probability threat people just bought without thinking for themselves. And of course
nowadays in USA, the all-encompassing replacement
for red threat, the almighty terrorism.
American journalists could do well to investigate terrorism in Europe (IRA, ETA, leftist terrorist groups in italy and germany, algerian and corsican-tied ones in french), to see how most of those terrorism waves come and go; how something awful that seems to be part of life may come to a complete halt (germany, late-70s, bader-mainhof); and finally how to, in the end of the day, get on with life. Not disregard dangers, but live with them, while working to get rid of them, if possible.
Sometimes it's just feels that before USA has seen some phenomenon, it's like it never existed. "World has changed forever, nothing will ever be the same". I know it's just part of american cultrue; big words, lots of pompous declarations, hot air; quotes from movies trying act heroic... and still it bothers me; compared to dignified but low-key responses more common in other places, when faced with horrible things.
That's why it'd be great to have better news services; without them, this introvertism regading other countries (while being very social, well mannered and likable within country) will continue to make USA xenophobic (as in fearing and distrusting other countries, and people living there; not as in racism towards different coloured americans).
Sun's sparc strategy has been centered around the
idea of multiple cores and chip-level multi-threading for a while (see
this article for one of latest announcements).
I guess this also validates
Sun's approach with Sparc. Not that it's all that
unique -- I guess all chip makers have similar
goals -- but sometimes it's seems there's bit
of bias here, whereas AMD rocks and everyone else sucks.
and thus it is in violation of the corporate internet policy.
IF it's in violation of the policy. It's doubtful it would be; surfing some sites through
it might be, but proving that was happening is
more difficult.
However, once they find out about specific anonymizing site, they would most likely block it.
I admit I have no inside info on Mozilla's situation, but it seems to be there are a few Open Source projects that are doing quite ok; I'm mostly thinking of various Apache (and Apache Jakarta) projects.
It's different for projects that start being funded by a company though, I guess. Nonetheless, although scope and scale of project may shrink, anything that's truly useful (which I consider both Mozilla and OpenOffice to be), I doubt they'll just completely disappear for god.
Boooo - ring. I enjoy good trolling like the next slashdotter, but yours was just flaccid and stale. Visit FC and learn some trolling basics, and only then come back, kiddo.
Well, even if that happened (not very likely due to a deal with MS, but could happen due to cost savings that analysts have touted or something), it wouldn't be an end to the world... just like Mozilla seems to be doing quite ok without AOL, perhaps OO could survive ok without its sugar daddy.:-)
I'm curious as to how a page with a few links to OpenOffice propaganda is newsworthy, nobody uses OpenOffice.
Perhaps you haven't realized this, but of people who read Slashdot, significant percentage does use OpenOffice, or at least some other Open/Free Office suite. And that's why it is fairly newsworthy.
I have no idea if that's what this GUI API looks like.. but looks vaguely like the "good ole" pre-MFC Windows GUI API? (vaguely as it's been a while since I used that API)... but if it is, perhaps it is to make it easier for Windows coders to use this new thingy? I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing to do, just that that would be one logical reasoning.
And like someone else already pointed out; well, there are n+1 coding styles for Open Source projects, and trust me, there are much much worse examples out there.:-)
Actually, the way I see it, it would make sense
not to discriminate based on ill effects for
individual using substances; instead only
ban ones that cause significant danger / problems for other people. And except for those cases (say, anabolic steroids causing danger via making already aggressive atheletes even more so...), just let athletes use whatever it takes
What I think is the problem right now is that there's just this useless race between doctors/scientist finding new dopes, and then other doctors/scientist deciding such dopes improve performance, getting them banned, devising tests to catch users. Now how useful is that? In general, new innovations stay secret for a while, stay legal (either in strict legal sense, or only in context of sports regulation) for a while, become illegal, and then become mostly useless. It's just wasteful cycle.
Now, I know it's hard for many to give up ideal of "good clean sports", but the thing is that back in the day even simpel TRAINING was considered cheating -- that's where all amateur rules came from (well, in addition to upper classes frowning upon working class people competing). If one had a decent job, they couldn't "train too much". And you might think that's as reasonable as current requirement for avoiding SOME substances. It's ok to drink Gatorade, but not take anabolic steroids. But both do boost performance (through completely different mechanism of course)... what's the
big difference? Or training at high altitude, that improves oxygen intake capability, vs. using erytropoetin (sp?), medication that does similar improvements. Some people claim there
are "natural" things that are ok, and then
"chemical, scientific cheats"... but really
defining which is which is impossible, and
based on subjective ideas and prejudices.
Basically, while I'm not a big sports fan nowadays, I think it would be best for all spectators to drop these convoluted rules of illegal substances and techniques -- just let them use whatever they want, within constraints of law -- and simplify things a lot. No need for testing, no allegations of "others guys using stuff and winning", no legal cases when athletes caught claim innocence.
In a few weeks, the world's strongest player Garry Kasparov...
Jeez. And I thought only skinny nerds played chess... but this Kasparov dude is not only ace chess player, but very strong too? What's he doing with the 'puter then? Smashing it to pieces with a well-placed sucker punch? I'd like to see him duke it out with Arnold!
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously have never worked for a big company, or even a medium-sized one that actually has non-geeks as employees... you'd be surprised. You are also acting arrogant, trivializing changes that are non-trivial for people whose main function at work is NOT to learn how to use new tools to do the same old work.
Now, for small startups the desktop part just MIGHT be ok; or at least training might be just people teaching each other where to find things that are in different places. But desktop is really the least of worries. Fun starts when users have to switch their office suite, and other essential tools for their jobs. Even apps seemingly simple to use, like web browsers or mail clients, are likely to be very different. Even if individual differences are minor, net effect is big. Thus, people have to learn to use the new tools; training for that may be formal or informal, or even self-training via trial-and-error. But don't even think there's no learning curve, temporary lost productivity, and associated costs. Even if there need not be silly "how to click my mouse" training.
Of course, similar (level of) training is needed no matter which direction change is going, to or from open source, or between closed source environments.
Only assuming that there are no other costs to software than purchase price. In general support needed by users (for IT depts), training (if any) needed for using tools, time needed to learn tools (OS or non-OS), all have associated costs. And in these areas, open source solutions have costs too, even if there's no sticker price.
Whatever else you think about the company, or its products (XPress is not the only one... but only one with much significance), there are huge differences in bugginess between versions. 5.0 was reasonably bug-free, esp. compared to 4.x series (albeit years late), 6.0 is (from what I've heard) also fairly bug-free, due to its internals being rewritten so dev. team now had full understanding of the code. 4.0 was horrible, in comparison, and took months to get patch releases that made it usable.
As to installation and activation; yeah, that sucks. It's stupid form Q's part to make it that complicated... they are just being paranoid and greedy there. :-/
But everyone sees movies and reads books, based on their background.
May be? I'm sometimes not sure if that's a good or bad thing though; that some people don't get ANY news is a scary prospect too. That said, I think that newspapers have similar problem too, although fortunately not quite as bad. I guess it's easier to write stories to read, without having to fear short attention span as much as TV news.
I've also read about Moore's fact twisting, to suit his needs. I don't like it, I just hope people don't completely discredit every point he makes, but use their own judgment on evaluating them. Same thing as I would expect when watching or listening any information. But it's true that the format matters, so that things presented as documentary tend to get, by default, less critical treatment (by critical I don't mean negative, just objectively critcial).
That makes sense; oftentimes high-tech gizmoes are overkill where simpler solution is much more effective. Just like destroying a high speed train, say, would be much more easily done by just locating static object on its way, than trying to hit the moving target with a missile.
I'd still be curious to know why there's sense of impending war, considering that tensions between world's Super Power, and lesser powers (Russia, China, India, western europe) are actually much less sever than in centuries... so that while in case of global war space systems would be potential targets, I'm not so sure chances of getting into one are big.
If I had to choose a better wording, I guess I could use "one perspective on".
As to which one is deadliest; due to 9/11, Al-Qaeda does unfortunately have huge lead, plus also its actual impact on world politics is definitely huge. Yet, for every day live's of people, IRA (for example) has had more long-lasting effect, locally, by keeping terror up for decades.
However, I'm optimist in the sense that I truly feel they were unfortunately lucky bastards in that they had 200% success rate, and doubt they'll ever be able to repeat similar attacks in same scale. I hope I'm right in at least that respect.
In any case, despite the differences, I think it's good to know the modern history of terrorism, to get better perspective.
I'm not arguing so much that they couldn't, but that they most likely shouldn't bother, and at least smartest ones, won't. Which leaves the less dangerous ones to dream of nuclear holocaust.
It probably would help to really understand way of thinking of terrorists, to know for sure how they plan for things, but personally I just don't see either biological or nuclear material as primary threat. I still think more convetional things: explosives, exploding chemicals, or potentially other kinds of chemicals, are and remain as bigger threats.
I guess what irritates me is just the assumption that WMD are the best tools for terrorists, and thus naturally their first choice. What's forgotten is the big picture; what's easiest to obtain, safest to use (ie. won't backfire); and from that point, plain old weaponry is so easy to access (in relative terms) that more exotic alternatives seem like too much hassle. Besides, for terrorists' home turf those are not optimal weapons either. Even governments that harbour terrorists are very very unlikely to allow them to use WMDs; even without external pressure -- they may be evil, but they are not crazy.
Of course, if you go and ask a fundamentalist youth in terrorist camps, certainly they CLAIM they'll keep fighting forever, never forgive; never give up etc. etc. That's how even NORMAL teenagers talk and feel... and then they grow up, get married, have children and voila, have better things to do than blow things up because of history.
But I guess your understanding of muslims is based on you knowing many muslims and having discussed this with them?
Now, just FYI; I don't hate Americans -- quite the opposite, I like most people I personally know here. But that's exactly why I'm puzzled at things like people here feeling LESS safe than in othere countries -- even people in countries that are factually much much unsafer, poorer.
And as to your "our reaction"; how pompous of you to talk for the whole nation. Especially as anonymous coward.
Finally, to mr. Moore; I'm sure the fact he's overweight greatly reduces worth of his opinions, views, ideas. But judging by same rules, should same apply to other 40% plus overweight citizens? Why are they allowed to vote?
That many facts are fuzzy, and theories at times contriver is unfortunate; furthermore I agree in that particular connection implied was far-fetched... but it was just one of multiple tangents in the movie.
I'd strongly suggest people watch "Bowling for Columbine", for one point-of-view on fear mongering as part of the problem, reason, not just consequence.
I remember pointing out (right after 9/11) how silly most fears regarding terrorists using atomic (and to a degree, biological and even chemical weapons is) are, and was told by n+1 people how wrong I was ("nobody thought an airplane would be used as..."). I've yet to see any credible threat from that direction, and hopefully won't see during my lifetime. I don't think that's a coincident, or just act of efficient prevention. Yet many readers here thought it'd be inevitable, would happen right away. Just like attack of killer bees, Y2K causing armageddon, red threat leading to slavery of human kind, and dozens of other low probability threat people just bought without thinking for themselves. And of course nowadays in USA, the all-encompassing replacement for red threat, the almighty terrorism.
American journalists could do well to investigate terrorism in Europe (IRA, ETA, leftist terrorist groups in italy and germany, algerian and corsican-tied ones in french), to see how most of those terrorism waves come and go; how something awful that seems to be part of life may come to a complete halt (germany, late-70s, bader-mainhof); and finally how to, in the end of the day, get on with life. Not disregard dangers, but live with them, while working to get rid of them, if possible.
Sometimes it's just feels that before USA has seen some phenomenon, it's like it never existed. "World has changed forever, nothing will ever be the same". I know it's just part of american cultrue; big words, lots of pompous declarations, hot air; quotes from movies trying act heroic... and still it bothers me; compared to dignified but low-key responses more common in other places, when faced with horrible things.
That's why it'd be great to have better news services; without them, this introvertism regading other countries (while being very social, well mannered and likable within country) will continue to make USA xenophobic (as in fearing and distrusting other countries, and people living there; not as in racism towards different coloured americans).
Sun's sparc strategy has been centered around the idea of multiple cores and chip-level multi-threading for a while (see this article for one of latest announcements). I guess this also validates Sun's approach with Sparc. Not that it's all that unique -- I guess all chip makers have similar goals -- but sometimes it's seems there's bit of bias here, whereas AMD rocks and everyone else sucks.
IF it's in violation of the policy. It's doubtful it would be; surfing some sites through it might be, but proving that was happening is more difficult.
However, once they find out about specific anonymizing site, they would most likely block it.
It's different for projects that start being funded by a company though, I guess. Nonetheless, although scope and scale of project may shrink, anything that's truly useful (which I consider both Mozilla and OpenOffice to be), I doubt they'll just completely disappear for god.
Boooo - ring. I enjoy good trolling like the next slashdotter, but yours was just flaccid and stale. Visit FC and learn some trolling basics, and only then come back, kiddo.
Well, even if that happened (not very likely due to a deal with MS, but could happen due to cost savings that analysts have touted or something), it wouldn't be an end to the world... just like Mozilla seems to be doing quite ok without AOL, perhaps OO could survive ok without its sugar daddy. :-)
Perhaps you haven't realized this, but of people who read Slashdot, significant percentage does use OpenOffice, or at least some other Open/Free Office suite. And that's why it is fairly newsworthy.
Just curious... what does "SMT" mean in this context?
And like someone else already pointed out; well, there are n+1 coding styles for Open Source projects, and trust me, there are much much worse examples out there. :-)
What I think is the problem right now is that there's just this useless race between doctors/scientist finding new dopes, and then other doctors/scientist deciding such dopes improve performance, getting them banned, devising tests to catch users. Now how useful is that? In general, new innovations stay secret for a while, stay legal (either in strict legal sense, or only in context of sports regulation) for a while, become illegal, and then become mostly useless. It's just wasteful cycle.
Now, I know it's hard for many to give up ideal of "good clean sports", but the thing is that back in the day even simpel TRAINING was considered cheating -- that's where all amateur rules came from (well, in addition to upper classes frowning upon working class people competing). If one had a decent job, they couldn't "train too much". And you might think that's as reasonable as current requirement for avoiding SOME substances. It's ok to drink Gatorade, but not take anabolic steroids. But both do boost performance (through completely different mechanism of course)... what's the big difference? Or training at high altitude, that improves oxygen intake capability, vs. using erytropoetin (sp?), medication that does similar improvements. Some people claim there are "natural" things that are ok, and then "chemical, scientific cheats"... but really defining which is which is impossible, and based on subjective ideas and prejudices.
Basically, while I'm not a big sports fan nowadays, I think it would be best for all spectators to drop these convoluted rules of illegal substances and techniques -- just let them use whatever they want, within constraints of law -- and simplify things a lot. No need for testing, no allegations of "others guys using stuff and winning", no legal cases when athletes caught claim innocence.
Jeez. And I thought only skinny nerds played chess... but this Kasparov dude is not only ace chess player, but very strong too? What's he doing with the 'puter then? Smashing it to pieces with a well-placed sucker punch? I'd like to see him duke it out with Arnold!
I mean, they are trying to "mitigate" their "damages" aren't they?
Hope this helps!