Whether you call the police or a lawyer depends on what you're trying to achieve.
If you want to press criminal charges (if applicable), call the police. Contrary to stated opinion, police do know the law (maybe not off the top of their collective heads, but it's pretty much a certainty that they have a copy of the statutes and prosecutors they can consult), and in the end the state is the entity that's going to prosecute the room mate, not your private attorney.
OTOH, if you want to sue you'll need an attorney. But as stated elsewhere, you'd better make sure he's got deep enough pockets to make it worthwhile. Even if it's not a criminal offense, I think you may still be able to sue for IIED or under some other tort theory.
Standard disclaimers apply: IANAL (although IAALS, whatever that's worth). As I (and others) stated before, don't look to/. for your legal advice unless you're just looking for amusement. Call a lawyer if you really want an answer.
Any lawyer you speak to is far more likely to be an expert on it than some random guy on/. (apologies to the lawyers in the audience). And even if a lawyer isn't an expert, s/he is probably more than capable of finding the answers or pointing you in the right direction.
You need more than 10 EVs AND be a swing voter state to get attention this round.
So explain why NM (5), OR (7), IA (7), CO(9), NV (5), NH (4), and WV (5) are getting so much attention.
PA, IL, and NY will be getting heavy candidate attention
I think your list is just a little bit off. Outside of the RNC (held in NYC for other political reasons), NY is getting no attention from either party, and last I saw IL is off the campaign list as well (they're both solidly "blue states". PA is still in play though.
Which wouldn't be that different from the way it is now - the only places they really campaign are swing states with a significant number of EC votes. So Oregon, Florida, and Pennsylvania would lose; California, New York and Texas would gain; North Dakota and Idaho probably wouldn't even notice. If anything most states would probably gain at least some attention if the EC went the way of the dodo.
I agree here. But political alignment and political belief are not necessarily the same thing.
I suppose if the worldviews were at opposite ends of the spectrum and both individuals were sycophants of their political faith, allowing it to dictate all aspects of their life, then it clearly wouldn't work
This I think sums up where the disagreement lies. You are arguing that an individual's political faith dictates her life; I am arguing that her political faith is an expression of her life and other beliefs. So it's less "I'm a Democrat and you're a Republican so we can't date" and more "You are a racist [or insert some other belief or statement] and therefore I won't marry you" (cue TMBG). Now I suppose if irrational hatred for a group of individuals isn't a big issue for you, marrying a racist wouldn't be a big issue. But given that I have a rather racially diverse group of friends, I would have a problem being with somebody who wouldn't welcome them into our home.
Well, the American Heritage Book of English Usage and I believe the MLA as well both say it's not grammatically correct. However, as the link above notes it is becoming more acceptable.
And you're correct as far as the origin of the rule goes.
Damn you Ms. Matthews (my freshman HS English teacher, who used that specific example. Or as she said, "When you're rich and famous you can split all the infinitives you want, but if you want an A in my class. ..)
No, McCain is a Republican 95% of the time. He just gets a lot of press and support for the 5% of the time that he bucks the party line and for being a "straight talker".
If people would take a bit more time and actually check into his background and voting record, he is VERY Republican in both belief and action.
And for the record, we've elected a number of senators who were not Republican. Just not any since DeConcini got the boot (partly for doing the same thing that led to McCain's epiphany on campaign finance deform).
What I'm saying is that these differences in worldview should not be more important to a person than their interpersonal relationships.
Now that's just silly. Party affiliation or political ideology shouldn't be the "litmus test" for whether or not to date somebody, but to imply that world view and interpersonal relationships are two totally discreet things is stretching it. Your world view touches every decision you make in your life, from where you want to live, what kind of car you drive (including whether you drive a car at all), reproductive/family planning decisions, where you shop, what you eat, etc. To say that two people with completely opposite world views could have a harmonious, long-term relationship is pretty naive. Now that's not saying that people with different party affiliations or political ideologies can't get along, fall in love, get married, have kids, and live happily ever after. One of my best friends is a solid Republican (generally libertarian with a bit of a TR outdoorsy streak), probably the closest term you could use to identify me is socialist. But we've been good friends for such a long time because we have enough other things in common that we can look past that. We can go out, have a few beers, debate current events, agree to disagree (and on occasion even concede a point or two), and still be good friends. But we're not buying a house together, and that's a good thing; with her love of the 'burbs and my opposition to sprawl, we'd never be able to find a house we could agree on.
If the political differences seem to dominate in a negative way, then one or both of you is giving undue importance to the matter.
Again you're making a blanket generalization that's little more than your own opinion. I would respond that it depends on what the political differences are, and how strongly they influence your life. If your politics very strongly guide the decisions you make, then it's going to be more difficult for you to establish a LTR with somebody of the opposite persuasion. Also, the smaller the political differences are, the easier it will be to bridge them. And again, having a strong base of other common interests is helpful (of course, if you don't have that then even with shared political beliefs you may have a hard time making it work).
Point taken. I will freely confess to not reading the article (or backing up my assertions) due to a time crunch as I was between classes (I know, excuses, excuses. ..). The parent postings implied that it was regulating use of the devices connecting to the campus network, not another ISP, and that the students were in a school dorm. That being said, I stand by my original statements had the situation I assumed been correct, but freely acknowledge that given the actual circumstances, the school is probably over-reaching its authority. My apologies.
Guess I'll never be able to run for President now. . .
But it's not a lease, it's a license. The students don't have a property interest, it's a contractual interest and can be regulated by the terms of the contract.
More likely is that the university will win as an acceptable action under their use policy. They control the network, it is within their right to control access to it and how that access is achieved. They can also control (as the poster mentioned earlier with the hotplate example) what you can and cannot bring into a university-owned property. Universities do it all the time, and as the property owner they have the right to do so (as a student's use of the property is a license not a lease, all they have is a contractual interest in use of the dorm room, not a property interest.
If you really want, I'll dig up a cite or two for you later. For now, back to reading evidence. ..
Before iTMS, music "sharing" was rampant. Nearly everybody and their grandmother was downloading "free" mp3 music from the various P2P networks.
And after iTMS, music sharing is still rampant. Apple, Real, Buy, Napster et al have done little to change the landscape; most people who download music still get theirs through p2p networks vs. the so-called "legit" online stores. So what's your point?
Think whatever you like, but Apple was the first company that found an acceptable balance between convenience and security.
In the opinion of you and other iTMS fans, maybe. But "acceptable" is a personal judgment. There's still far more people not using the iTMS than using it, and for some set of those people I would guess that Apple's chains are still a little too short for their taste.
DRM has a place and a function, so long as it's fair and reasonable. Like anything else, it can be abused.
By definition, DRM is unfair and unreasonable. Contrary to convention wisdom, tools are not value-neutral objects that can be used for "good or evil"; tools are created with purpose, and the purpose of some tools is to do things that are unethical. Like DRM, for example. No amount of eye-candy, pundit butt-kissing, and market-speak can change the fundamental nature of what DRM, the idea that artists/programmers/manufacturers/etc have the right to absolute control over their products long after they have been purchased and cease to be theirs.
As the gentleman in the column said, in Apple's view it's not your iPod, it's Apple's iPod. Thanks to DRM, it's not your music, it's the label's music, and they can exercise more control now over how and where and when you listen to it than ever before. Doesn't sound much like progress to me, nor does it sound very acceptable.
This has been happening ever since Bush took office.
My oh my how short and selective our memory is. While I won't disagree that the Bush administration and its sponsors have been extremely supportive of "free speech ghettos", fencing in protesters is not a new practice, nor is it limited to the Repugnants. Ever since the '68 Democratic Convention (and revived with a vengeance after the '99 WTO protests in Seattle), political parties (including the Demagogues. see Boston), governments and other agencies of corporate hegemony have labored to keep protesters as far away and out of view as possible.
I think you may have missed my point. What I am referring to is more like scripting, storyboarding, etc. Let's face it, in the end the engine and graphics are meaningless if the game isn't any fun to play.
The way that I get myself back on track is by concentrating only on the code that must get done and then I worry about making it more robust later on. I sometimes find myself worrying about the content. This is A Bad Thing(tm) to do while programming a game engine. It's a lot better just to focus on the code and the functionality first.
I thoroughly disagree. Work on the content first, then develop the engine and other technology you need to implement your vision and story. There are already too many games out there that look really pretty but suck in terms of playability because the developer spent too much time on form (engine, graphics, etc.) and too little time time on substance (storyline, characters, etc.). Much like certain filmmakers (Lucas?). . .
. ..then its a little in favor of Bush because he does have expirence, even if it isn't very good expirence. Being President through 9/11 has to count for something.
No, it doesn't count "if it isn't very good EXPERIENCE". Would you want me to rebuild your car engine if I told you that I failed auto shop? At least I took auto shop, and that has to count for something.
I'll take two lawyers over an MBA any day of the week, especially when the MBA in question had middling grades, couldn't get into school without daddy's help, and couldn't run a profitable business to save his life.
It might be interesting to note that the changes in the licensing terms are only for the newly bought songs in 4.5, i.e. for the songs you already purchased before upgrading to 4.5, the old terms still apply.
So long as you continued to use the old version. If you upgraded to 4.5, the new restrictions apply to all songs purchased.
You made a typo - you're not risking breaking the law, you ARE breaking the law.
It's not necessarily a typo - I read the statement to say "I'm taking a risk to get what I want" and the risk he is taking is "breaking the law".
I don't give a damn about property rights as long as I can steal anonymously
I would rephrase that to say "I don't give a damn about illegitimate so-called property rights".
The term "property rights" applied to "intellectual property" is a bit of a misnomer: really it should be "property privileges", since they're really privileges granted to you in exchange for your contribution to society, etc. and (at least in the US) those privileges can be changed or revoked by an act of Congress at anytime. The Copyright clause isn't there to protect artist's and inventor's rights, it's there to promote "progress of the arts and sciences" and copyrights and patents are merely the means to achieve that. Should Congress (as likely as it may be) determine that having no copyrights or patents would be better for achieving that goal, they could decide to pass a law to do so. Article I 8 says Congress has the power to create copyrights and patents and set the length of them, not that it must do so.
Sorry, you're all wrong. Monopolies are sometimes (one might even say usually) legal and sometimes illegal, and I think people need to recognize that. For example, the sewer/phone/utility companies great grandparent refers to are usually government-sanctioned monopolies that are obviously inherently legal and generally heavily regulated for their privilege of being the official monopoly. On the other end of the spectrum would be good 'ole Ma Bell, who was broken up, the extreme penalty for being deemed to be an illegal monopoly (although in effect what the break up did was just created regional monopolies). Break up is generally the final straw though after all efforts to reinvigorate market competition and eliminate the monopoly through whatever government imposed restrictions have been exhausted.
The RIAA only controls the IP of the companies / musicians it represents.
And technically, they don't even control those, the companies still do. The RIAA merely represents the interests of its member companies and takes actions accordingly.
My theory is the reason the RIAA is initiating lawsuits for copyright violations rather than the labels themselves is to shield the labels from direct negative publicity. It's not an outlandish theory, as industries have been organizing trade associations for years with exactly that purpose in mind, to lobby for publicly unpopular policies, etc. without implicating the individual companies themselves. For example, how often do you here "Sony (or Universal, etc.) suing filesharers for copyright violations". it's always "RIAA suing. .." or "Record labels suing. ..", etc. By making it an industry or RIAA effort, your average Joe who thinks it's a bad thing can't really protest except to boycott all the RIAA members, which for most people would mean ceasing to buy music since they typically don't buy much indie label music, and therefore Joe (or Jane for that matter) is likely to do nothing about it beyond ranting.
And, if you buy a car off the lot, it's real property, not intellectual property. There's a big difference, so don't even try to mix it into the argument.
And technically speaking, it's not real property either, it's personal property. Real property refers to land and improvements thereof.
Of course there is no contract yet, so it would be difficult for Napster to prevent them from revealing terms.
Also, such contract provisions may be OK when you're talking about contracts between two private entities, but in this case it's a state-funded university - Napster should be FORCED to publicize how much they're charging the University, students, and the state for access to their crappy service.
one would think the ratio would hold... if, for the sake of argument, 10% of the world was using macs, wouldnt 10% of the virii and worms be for mac, if both sides were equally competant?
Not necessarily. You're most likely to see (as you do now) a vast discrepancy in the percentage of worms/viruses written for a platform vs. the platforms market share until its market share hits a critical mass where it would insure proliferation of the exploit in the wild and be able to inflict the desired damage.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether you call the police or a lawyer depends on what you're trying to achieve.
/. for your legal advice unless you're just looking for amusement. Call a lawyer if you really want an answer.
If you want to press criminal charges (if applicable), call the police. Contrary to stated opinion, police do know the law (maybe not off the top of their collective heads, but it's pretty much a certainty that they have a copy of the statutes and prosecutors they can consult), and in the end the state is the entity that's going to prosecute the room mate, not your private attorney.
OTOH, if you want to sue you'll need an attorney. But as stated elsewhere, you'd better make sure he's got deep enough pockets to make it worthwhile. Even if it's not a criminal offense, I think you may still be able to sue for IIED or under some other tort theory.
Standard disclaimers apply: IANAL (although IAALS, whatever that's worth). As I (and others) stated before, don't look to
Any lawyer you speak to is far more likely to be an expert on it than some random guy on /. (apologies to the lawyers in the audience). And even if a lawyer isn't an expert, s/he is probably more than capable of finding the answers or pointing you in the right direction.
You need more than 10 EVs AND be a swing voter state to get attention this round.
So explain why NM (5), OR (7), IA (7), CO(9), NV (5), NH (4), and WV (5) are getting so much attention.
PA, IL, and NY will be getting heavy candidate attention
I think your list is just a little bit off. Outside of the RNC (held in NYC for other political reasons), NY is getting no attention from either party, and last I saw IL is off the campaign list as well (they're both solidly "blue states". PA is still in play though.
Which wouldn't be that different from the way it is now - the only places they really campaign are swing states with a significant number of EC votes. So Oregon, Florida, and Pennsylvania would lose; California, New York and Texas would gain; North Dakota and Idaho probably wouldn't even notice. If anything most states would probably gain at least some attention if the EC went the way of the dodo.
political alignment would be pretty low priority
I agree here. But political alignment and political belief are not necessarily the same thing.
I suppose if the worldviews were at opposite ends of the spectrum and both individuals were sycophants of their political faith, allowing it to dictate all aspects of their life, then it clearly wouldn't work
This I think sums up where the disagreement lies. You are arguing that an individual's political faith dictates her life; I am arguing that her political faith is an expression of her life and other beliefs. So it's less "I'm a Democrat and you're a Republican so we can't date" and more "You are a racist [or insert some other belief or statement] and therefore I won't marry you" (cue TMBG). Now I suppose if irrational hatred for a group of individuals isn't a big issue for you, marrying a racist wouldn't be a big issue. But given that I have a rather racially diverse group of friends, I would have a problem being with somebody who wouldn't welcome them into our home.
Well, the American Heritage Book of English Usage and I believe the MLA as well both say it's not grammatically correct. However, as the link above notes it is becoming more acceptable.
And you're correct as far as the origin of the rule goes.
More specifically, a split infinitive.
.)
Damn you Ms. Matthews (my freshman HS English teacher, who used that specific example. Or as she said, "When you're rich and famous you can split all the infinitives you want, but if you want an A in my class. .
McCain is a RINO. Republican In Name Only.
No, McCain is a Republican 95% of the time. He just gets a lot of press and support for the 5% of the time that he bucks the party line and for being a "straight talker".
If people would take a bit more time and actually check into his background and voting record, he is VERY Republican in both belief and action.
And for the record, we've elected a number of senators who were not Republican. Just not any since DeConcini got the boot (partly for doing the same thing that led to McCain's epiphany on campaign finance deform).
What I'm saying is that these differences in worldview should not be more important to a person than their interpersonal relationships.
Now that's just silly. Party affiliation or political ideology shouldn't be the "litmus test" for whether or not to date somebody, but to imply that world view and interpersonal relationships are two totally discreet things is stretching it. Your world view touches every decision you make in your life, from where you want to live, what kind of car you drive (including whether you drive a car at all), reproductive/family planning decisions, where you shop, what you eat, etc. To say that two people with completely opposite world views could have a harmonious, long-term relationship is pretty naive. Now that's not saying that people with different party affiliations or political ideologies can't get along, fall in love, get married, have kids, and live happily ever after. One of my best friends is a solid Republican (generally libertarian with a bit of a TR outdoorsy streak), probably the closest term you could use to identify me is socialist. But we've been good friends for such a long time because we have enough other things in common that we can look past that. We can go out, have a few beers, debate current events, agree to disagree (and on occasion even concede a point or two), and still be good friends. But we're not buying a house together, and that's a good thing; with her love of the 'burbs and my opposition to sprawl, we'd never be able to find a house we could agree on.
If the political differences seem to dominate in a negative way, then one or both of you is giving undue importance to the matter.
Again you're making a blanket generalization that's little more than your own opinion. I would respond that it depends on what the political differences are, and how strongly they influence your life. If your politics very strongly guide the decisions you make, then it's going to be more difficult for you to establish a LTR with somebody of the opposite persuasion. Also, the smaller the political differences are, the easier it will be to bridge them. And again, having a strong base of other common interests is helpful (of course, if you don't have that then even with shared political beliefs you may have a hard time making it work).
Point taken. I will freely confess to not reading the article (or backing up my assertions) due to a time crunch as I was between classes (I know, excuses, excuses. . .). The parent postings implied that it was regulating use of the devices connecting to the campus network, not another ISP, and that the students were in a school dorm. That being said, I stand by my original statements had the situation I assumed been correct, but freely acknowledge that given the actual circumstances, the school is probably over-reaching its authority. My apologies.
Guess I'll never be able to run for President now. . .
But it's not a lease, it's a license. The students don't have a property interest, it's a contractual interest and can be regulated by the terms of the contract.
Cite a case or statute or shut up.
.
More likely is that the university will win as an acceptable action under their use policy. They control the network, it is within their right to control access to it and how that access is achieved. They can also control (as the poster mentioned earlier with the hotplate example) what you can and cannot bring into a university-owned property. Universities do it all the time, and as the property owner they have the right to do so (as a student's use of the property is a license not a lease, all they have is a contractual interest in use of the dorm room, not a property interest.
If you really want, I'll dig up a cite or two for you later. For now, back to reading evidence. .
(My Disclaimer: IANAL but IAALS)
Before iTMS, music "sharing" was rampant. Nearly everybody and their grandmother was downloading "free" mp3 music from the various P2P networks.
And after iTMS, music sharing is still rampant. Apple, Real, Buy, Napster et al have done little to change the landscape; most people who download music still get theirs through p2p networks vs. the so-called "legit" online stores. So what's your point?
Think whatever you like, but Apple was the first company that found an acceptable balance between convenience and security.
In the opinion of you and other iTMS fans, maybe. But "acceptable" is a personal judgment. There's still far more people not using the iTMS than using it, and for some set of those people I would guess that Apple's chains are still a little too short for their taste.
DRM has a place and a function, so long as it's fair and reasonable. Like anything else, it can be abused.
By definition, DRM is unfair and unreasonable. Contrary to convention wisdom, tools are not value-neutral objects that can be used for "good or evil"; tools are created with purpose, and the purpose of some tools is to do things that are unethical. Like DRM, for example. No amount of eye-candy, pundit butt-kissing, and market-speak can change the fundamental nature of what DRM, the idea that artists/programmers/manufacturers/etc have the right to absolute control over their products long after they have been purchased and cease to be theirs.
As the gentleman in the column said, in Apple's view it's not your iPod, it's Apple's iPod. Thanks to DRM, it's not your music, it's the label's music, and they can exercise more control now over how and where and when you listen to it than ever before. Doesn't sound much like progress to me, nor does it sound very acceptable.
This has been happening ever since Bush took office.
My oh my how short and selective our memory is. While I won't disagree that the Bush administration and its sponsors have been extremely supportive of "free speech ghettos", fencing in protesters is not a new practice, nor is it limited to the Repugnants. Ever since the '68 Democratic Convention (and revived with a vengeance after the '99 WTO protests in Seattle), political parties (including the Demagogues. see Boston), governments and other agencies of corporate hegemony have labored to keep protesters as far away and out of view as possible.
I think you may have missed my point. What I am referring to is more like scripting, storyboarding, etc. Let's face it, in the end the engine and graphics are meaningless if the game isn't any fun to play.
The way that I get myself back on track is by concentrating only on the code that must get done and then I worry about making it more robust later on. I sometimes find myself worrying about the content. This is A Bad Thing(tm) to do while programming a game engine. It's a lot better just to focus on the code and the functionality first.
I thoroughly disagree. Work on the content first, then develop the engine and other technology you need to implement your vision and story. There are already too many games out there that look really pretty but suck in terms of playability because the developer spent too much time on form (engine, graphics, etc.) and too little time time on substance (storyline, characters, etc.). Much like certain filmmakers (Lucas?). . .
. . .then its a little in favor of Bush because he does have expirence, even if it isn't very good expirence. Being President through 9/11 has to count for something.
No, it doesn't count "if it isn't very good EXPERIENCE". Would you want me to rebuild your car engine if I told you that I failed auto shop? At least I took auto shop, and that has to count for something.
-------------
President of the Internet.
I'll take two lawyers over an MBA any day of the week, especially when the MBA in question had middling grades, couldn't get into school without daddy's help, and couldn't run a profitable business to save his life.
It might be interesting to note that the changes in the licensing terms are only for the newly bought songs in 4.5, i.e. for the songs you already purchased before upgrading to 4.5, the old terms still apply.
So long as you continued to use the old version. If you upgraded to 4.5, the new restrictions apply to all songs purchased.
You made a typo - you're not risking breaking the law, you ARE breaking the law.
It's not necessarily a typo - I read the statement to say "I'm taking a risk to get what I want" and the risk he is taking is "breaking the law".
I don't give a damn about property rights as long as I can steal anonymously
I would rephrase that to say "I don't give a damn about illegitimate so-called property rights".
The term "property rights" applied to "intellectual property" is a bit of a misnomer: really it should be "property privileges", since they're really privileges granted to you in exchange for your contribution to society, etc. and (at least in the US) those privileges can be changed or revoked by an act of Congress at anytime. The Copyright clause isn't there to protect artist's and inventor's rights, it's there to promote "progress of the arts and sciences" and copyrights and patents are merely the means to achieve that. Should Congress (as likely as it may be) determine that having no copyrights or patents would be better for achieving that goal, they could decide to pass a law to do so. Article I 8 says Congress has the power to create copyrights and patents and set the length of them, not that it must do so.
Sorry, you're all wrong. Monopolies are sometimes (one might even say usually) legal and sometimes illegal, and I think people need to recognize that. For example, the sewer/phone/utility companies great grandparent refers to are usually government-sanctioned monopolies that are obviously inherently legal and generally heavily regulated for their privilege of being the official monopoly. On the other end of the spectrum would be good 'ole Ma Bell, who was broken up, the extreme penalty for being deemed to be an illegal monopoly (although in effect what the break up did was just created regional monopolies). Break up is generally the final straw though after all efforts to reinvigorate market competition and eliminate the monopoly through whatever government imposed restrictions have been exhausted.
The RIAA only controls the IP of the companies / musicians it represents.
." or "Record labels suing. . .", etc. By making it an industry or RIAA effort, your average Joe who thinks it's a bad thing can't really protest except to boycott all the RIAA members, which for most people would mean ceasing to buy music since they typically don't buy much indie label music, and therefore Joe (or Jane for that matter) is likely to do nothing about it beyond ranting.
And technically, they don't even control those, the companies still do. The RIAA merely represents the interests of its member companies and takes actions accordingly.
My theory is the reason the RIAA is initiating lawsuits for copyright violations rather than the labels themselves is to shield the labels from direct negative publicity. It's not an outlandish theory, as industries have been organizing trade associations for years with exactly that purpose in mind, to lobby for publicly unpopular policies, etc. without implicating the individual companies themselves. For example, how often do you here "Sony (or Universal, etc.) suing filesharers for copyright violations". it's always "RIAA suing. .
And, if you buy a car off the lot, it's real property, not intellectual property. There's a big difference, so don't even try to mix it into the argument.
And technically speaking, it's not real property either, it's personal property. Real property refers to land and improvements thereof.
Of course there is no contract yet, so it would be difficult for Napster to prevent them from revealing terms.
Also, such contract provisions may be OK when you're talking about contracts between two private entities, but in this case it's a state-funded university - Napster should be FORCED to publicize how much they're charging the University, students, and the state for access to their crappy service.
one would think the ratio would hold... if, for the sake of argument, 10% of the world was using macs, wouldnt 10% of the virii and worms be for mac, if both sides were equally competant?
Not necessarily. You're most likely to see (as you do now) a vast discrepancy in the percentage of worms/viruses written for a platform vs. the platforms market share until its market share hits a critical mass where it would insure proliferation of the exploit in the wild and be able to inflict the desired damage.