Maybe, just maybe, the problem is the copyright law that criminalizes a large portion of the Internet population? How about reforming that law, or at least adapting it to the 21st century? Like, you know, legalizing private non-commercial copying, as the various Pirate Parties in other countries are already asking for?
A large portion of the population also commits theft*. Doesn't mean it should be legalised.
I'm not going to sit here and deny that I have downloaded or shared movies (though I admit to nothing). But how can you justify a push to make copyright infringement legal, merely because it's done for non-commercial purposes? I mean, sure, infringement for commercial purposes is a bigger problem, because it happens on a larger scale. But copyright exists to encourage people to innovate and create.
Why would I invest days/weeks/months/years of my time, and hundreds/thousands/millions of dollars in creating something to sell to people who can make good use of it (as opposed to spending that time working for a salary, and simply holding on to my money) if you have a right to just use it without paying me?
Yes, I am aware of the open-source arguments, and yes, I have contributed to OS projects. But I have also taken time off work to try to create something new. I had to forego three months' salary, to do it. I simply could not afford to give it away for free, because, strangely enough, I couldn't find a landlord who'd give me her house for free, or a supermarket that would donate food to the cause.
OS software works because it's easy for many people to collaborate, and the equipment required to develop software is relatively cheap. The same does not apply to all software, and certainly not to something like music or film, which, at a professional level, simply can't be done without paying for access to specialised, expensive equipment, and specialist people to operate that equipment.
Your position would mean that if I produce something that's useful for commerce, then I deserve to be paid, but if I produce something for personal use (such as a music album or a film), I have to do it out of charity.
As it happens, I do compose music and write lyrics, I do record that music, and I choose to make it available online for free. But that's a choice I made, and a choice I want to have.
There are a lot of problems with copyright law in its current state. Big corporations have certainly tipped the balance in their favour, with longer copyright periods, etc. When copyright was first conceived, individuals created intellectual property. Copyright periods generally ran for some period of time following the creator's death. Corporations, however, are not natural persons, so they cannot die.
There's also the matter of US courts, specifically, awarding outrageously high exemplary damages, which, in turn, means that people agree to higher settlements. In Australia we don't have this problem. Australian courts are far more realistic in awarding damages, and also tend to punish plaintiffs that bring actions over very small matters. There's a reason why we haven't had many filesharing lawsuits in Australia. I believe that if a multi-billion dollar corporation went to the Federal Court to sue a teenager for downloading 300 songs, the Court would, likely as not, find in favour of the corporation (its copyright has, indeed, been infringed), but award only nominal damages.
The problem with your position is that it's just as bad as that of the corporations. There's a middle ground. You're both trying to tip the scales grossly in your favour. Right now the corporations are winning that particular tug of war. By all means, let's bring balance back in, but don't make the same mistakes in the other direction.
* I mean theft, not copyright infringement. You cannot steal intellectual property under Australian law. Copyright is a chose in action (intangible property). Theft is dishonestly appropriating property belonging to
They're not your movies. The medium on which the movie is stored belongs to you. The intellectual property in the movie does not. You merely purchased a restricted licence. You had the choice to purchase or not.
Now, I'm not about to say that I don't download movies (I neither confirm or deny that I do). I'm not going to run around and say you shouldn't do it, because I might, hypothetically, do it too.
But it's not like you have an inherent right to consume a work that someone else created, just as I don't have an inherent right to consume a work you have created. You may not produce films, or software, or music, but you own lots of (probably worthless) intellectual property in letters you write, notes you right, lies you think up, etc. I don't have in inherent right to read your letters. You don't have an inherent right to use the software I write, or to listen to the music I compose.
There are a few important differences between the US and Australia that result in Australia's system not being quite as bad as the American system.
The most significant difference, in my view, is that we in Australia have preferential voting, as opposed to simple plurality (aka "first past the post") voting. This means that you don't "throw away" your vote if you support a minor party. You have to number every box in order of preference**, so you can give your higher preferences to minor parties and put the majors last, if you so wish. (Frankly, a lot of the minor parties are comprised of total nutjobs. Thankfully, most of the real nutjobs never get elected. Most. See Family First, below.)
** At the federal level, there is the option of voting for a party in the Senate. This is still equivalent to numbering every box. Your preferences will be allocated as directed by the party you vote for (and where those preferences go is published prior to election day). This option is available as matter of practicality, as there are often > 70 candidates (at least in my state, Victoria) for the 12 senate seats each of the 6 states holds (each of the 2 territories holds 2 senate seats).
This system means that many people do, in fact, vote for minor parties, comfortable in the knowledge that if their preferred candidate doesn't get up, their preferences will flow to their preferred major party (or perhaps another minor party).
Australia currently has 7 senators from minor parties, and 1 independent. Neither the Labor party (the [nominally] social democratic, centre-left party, which currently holds government) nor the Liberal(centre-right)-National(right) coalition (which held government from 1996 - 2007) holds a majority in the Senate. (Labor and the Libs each have 32 seats, and Nationals have 4 seats.) This means that the government cannot just force legislation through the Senate, but also means the opposition cannot just block legislation out of hand. One side or the other has to negotiate with the "cross-benchers" -- 5 Greens (Lefties), 1 Country Liberal (Right of the Liberal Party, left of the National Party), 1 Family First (right, also insane) and 1 independent.
This means that, generally speaking, there is effective control of the government.
We also have a lot less corporate influence, and far more regulated campaign process. Our national campaigns run in the order of weeks, not months or years. There are, of course, lobbyists, but you don't have corporate sponsorship of candidates, as you effectively have in the US. There have, however, been some allegations of corruption at state level in Queensland recently.
Australia is a parliamentary democracy, so we don't have a discrete Executive branch like the US. The Executive is formed out of the parliament. The person who has the confidence of the House of Representatives is the Prime Minister. In other words, the leader of the party (or parties, if there is a coalition, as we had 96 - 07) that holds the majority is the PM. Members of the Executive are drawn form both houses (the House of Reps and the Senate). Minister Conroy, for example, is a Senator for Victoria.
This does mean that the Executive will almost always be held by a major party. But the Senate, and therefore the legislature as a whole, is not, usually, dominated by a major party. Between July 2005 and and November 2007 the Liberal-National coalition held the majority in both houses. This resulted (in my view) in a disgraceful lack of accountability, and the then-government pushed through some very right-wing ideological laws, which were, ultimately, its undoing.
Now we (finally) have a Labor government, which is, believe it or not, a step in the right direction on many important issues. For example, aside from being denied the right to marry, same-sex couples now have virtually full equality under the law; we have government that doesn't deny the existence of climate change (though it isn't doing a whole lot to deal with it); and w
In California the bar association regulations require that a law firm takes "reasonable care" of client data. That's it. Kinda Scary.
Given that the US is a common law jurisdiction (presumably California is), you shouldn't be too concerned about the rule just being "reasonable care".
There will probably be a case (or a series of cases) that have defined exactly what that means. (I can't be sure; I'm studying law in Australia.)
It's also good, in a way, that it's not defined in any great detail. Imagine if the regs required a specific storage procedure that, because the regs were outdated, made it unlawful to store anything electronically. Leaving these matters open to interpretation by the courts means they can be reinterpreted in keeping with modern practices.
I disagree with the blanket "the French are rude" attitude that I often encounter in the English-speaking world (I have lived in Australia for most of my 27 years, and have lived in the US in the past).
While travelling in Paris a few years ago, I found most people to be quite polite, and helpful.
I have found that, no matter where you go in the non-English-speaking world, people don't respond favourably when you just assume that everyone can or should speak English.
Conversely, people appreciate you making an effort to speak the local language, even if you're not good at it.
When we arrived in Paris, and had to take the Metro to get to our hostel, my friend and I asked someone at a station for directions, in very broken, long-forgotten, high school French. The man smiled, asked us if we spoke English, and explained, in detail, where we needed to go.
He even ran after us when he realised he'd told us the wrong platform number.
Certainly far from rude. We had more encounters like this in Paris.
I had similar experiences in Sweden, and my friend had the same experience in Germany (I'm a fluent German speaker, so I didn't need to speak English there).
I don't think the French (or Parisians) are inherently rude. I think that, generally, if you're rude to people, then they will respond in kind.
If you're travelling through a country, it's a good idea to learn a few key phrases -- especially "thank you", "hello", "goodbye", "where is the toilet" and "do you speak English [or whatever other languages you speak]".
You'll be amazed how much more responsive people are when you can ask them, in their own language, if they speak English, rather than asking in English.
You are required to be there, so you should be paid.
This reminds me PD sessions that my mother's employer (a nursing home) required her to attend, but didn't pay her for. They argued that she was getting a benefit (professional development). I argued that she was required to be there.
(As opposed to optional professional development that my employer sometimes offers, where I choose to attend, and of which failure to attend has no impact on my employment. This usually involves real PD, though, with proper instructors, as opposed to a lecture from the nursing unit manager that my mother got.)
The other thing I'm reminded of is meetings that are shorter than anticipated. I work as a sessional university tutor, and that involves a weekly meeting. I'm required to keep an hour free for this meeting, but the meeting doesn't always last that long. A few years ago we were told that we could only claim the actual duration of the meeting, to the nearest 5 minutes. In other words, they only wanted to pay me for 35 minutes, arguing that I could spend the remaining 25 minutes however I wanted to.
They started paying for the whole hour again soon after some of us stopped blocking out a whole hour, and left after 35 minutes, irrespective of whether or not the meeting had concluded.
Bottom line: If they're requiring you to be there, and while you're there you're doing what you're supposed to be doing (as best you can in the environment provided by the employer), you should get paid for it.
Steven Fielding is the biggest nut job we've had in Parliament for a long time. I'd go as far as to say he's a bigger nut than Pauline Hanson.
Absolute fruit loop. And his electorate office is about 10 minutes' drive from my house. Interestingly, his signage is always covered in graffiti. They tend to be removed regularly, but reappear just as quickly.
Hmmm... yes... that preference deal is not one of the ALP's proudest moments. Makes us left-leaning ALP members cringe every time Fielding/Family First is mentioned. I've never quite understood why my party (supposedly a social democratic party) would stoop to dealing with the crazy right to avoid dealing with the Greens.
And now this nut holds the balance of power in the Senate, and votes with the Liberal Party**.
** In case this hasn't come up, the Liberal Party is Australia's mainstream conservative party. The "Liberal" name comes from neo-liberalism. They're not "liberal" in the way that term is used in American politics (where for some reason it seems to be a dirty word now). But then, in American politics you get called a communist for suggesting the state should provide basic health care. But that's a debate for another day.
Slightly off-topic, but statistics show that "stranger danger" is a myth. Telling kids to avoid strangers might make parents feel like they're achieving something, but will not, generally, make much difference to whether or not kids will be sexually abused.
The vast majority (76% of reported cases in Victoria, for example) of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by an adult male that the child knows (fathers and step-fathers making up the majority of those perpetrators).
And there's no particular profile for the child abuser. The only characteristic of significance is that about 90% of abusers are men. Doesn't say much for my gender.
I don't have the citations for this info at hand, but I've verified the numbers from my lecture notes. I've got a family law exam on Wednesday, so I have this info at hand.
While I don't have the original citation, the lecturer for this unit is a practising family law barrister who has published books on family violence and child abuse, so I am inclined to accept this information as fact.
I would expect that the information (and reference to the source) can be found in her latest book: http://www.amazon.com/Child-Abuse-Family-Understanding-professionals/dp/1865087319
Murder requires intent, which isn't there. QANTAS did not move maintenance offshore with the intention of killing its customers and staff.
I'm uncertain of what the criminal liability would be -- manslaughter could perhaps be made out (I'm not sure you could even prove recklessness though), and there may be specific Commonwealth (federal) legislation that covers aviation accidents.
QANTAS could be sued in negligence. I seem to recall reading on every paper airline ticket, though, that there are international treaties that limit the liability of airlines where crashes are concerned. I don't know if these treaties have been implemented as legislation in Australia.
The airline would certainly be subject to the Australian Commonwealth jurisdiction. It would also be subject to the jurisdiction in which the hypothetical crash occurred.
I use both Webmin and Ensim Pro for Linux at the moment (on different servers), and must say both have their advantages. The biggest thing in Webmin's favour is that it's free.
The server I run Ensim on, though, would not be well served by webmin. I'm not a hosting company, but I look after a server used by 100 clubs on one of Australia's largest university campuses, and want each to have its own hosting account. We initially rented space on a server with a hosting company (a "reseller" account using Ensim -- though we have never charged the clubs for the hosting), but since the university offered us virtually free network access, we figured investing AU$600 in a low-end PC (which is all you need for a server these days) and AU$900 in a single-server, 250 domain Ensim licence (and $0 for Cent OS) would be a better option. Ensim is probably overkill for us (especially at $900 for the licence), but it's a one off expense, and it still beats the $1500/year we were paying for a reseller account where we had far less control.
Ensim does a great job of giving end users the impression that they have their own system, complete with shell access, without allowing users to interfere with each other, or the system itself.
I'm not actually employed as a techie; I do the server administration in my own time, so anything that saves me time is welcome. Ensim also allows me to ask non-techie users to perform some of the every day admin tasks, like creating account for new users, updating mailing lists and enabling various features on hosting accounts.
I can't say how Ensim compares to something like cPanel or Plesk, as I don't have experience with them. When we were first looking for a CP, Ensim was the only one that supported Tomcat, so it was an easy choice, since our own site is a servlet/jsp based one.
All in all, though, I'm extremely happy with Ensim. It's a good extra tool to have, and it doesn't prevent me from doing things manually if I wish to.
As for webmin doing more things than the control panels, this is completely true. However, webmin and Ensim serve different purposes. Webmin is designed to enable comprehensive system administration through a web interface. Ensim (and the other hosting CPs) exist exclusively for hosting applications. It is assumed that a hosting company will have competent sys admins. The CP is there to make hosting easier (the main service they provide is to allow end users to configure their own accounts).
I'm also the end user on a webmin administered server, and from a purely hosting perspective, webmin doesn't come close to ensim. I'm sure I could find modules that can do everything ensim does, but in my experience, Ensim makes it a lot easier. Ensim doesn't do it all, but what it does, it does well.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, just maybe, the problem is the copyright law that criminalizes a large portion of the Internet population? How about reforming that law, or at least adapting it to the 21st century? Like, you know, legalizing private non-commercial copying, as the various Pirate Parties in other countries are already asking for?
A large portion of the population also commits theft*. Doesn't mean it should be legalised.
I'm not going to sit here and deny that I have downloaded or shared movies (though I admit to nothing). But how can you justify a push to make copyright infringement legal, merely because it's done for non-commercial purposes? I mean, sure, infringement for commercial purposes is a bigger problem, because it happens on a larger scale. But copyright exists to encourage people to innovate and create.
Why would I invest days/weeks/months/years of my time, and hundreds/thousands/millions of dollars in creating something to sell to people who can make good use of it (as opposed to spending that time working for a salary, and simply holding on to my money) if you have a right to just use it without paying me?
Yes, I am aware of the open-source arguments, and yes, I have contributed to OS projects. But I have also taken time off work to try to create something new. I had to forego three months' salary, to do it. I simply could not afford to give it away for free, because, strangely enough, I couldn't find a landlord who'd give me her house for free, or a supermarket that would donate food to the cause.
OS software works because it's easy for many people to collaborate, and the equipment required to develop software is relatively cheap. The same does not apply to all software, and certainly not to something like music or film, which, at a professional level, simply can't be done without paying for access to specialised, expensive equipment, and specialist people to operate that equipment.
Your position would mean that if I produce something that's useful for commerce, then I deserve to be paid, but if I produce something for personal use (such as a music album or a film), I have to do it out of charity.
As it happens, I do compose music and write lyrics, I do record that music, and I choose to make it available online for free. But that's a choice I made, and a choice I want to have.
There are a lot of problems with copyright law in its current state. Big corporations have certainly tipped the balance in their favour, with longer copyright periods, etc. When copyright was first conceived, individuals created intellectual property. Copyright periods generally ran for some period of time following the creator's death. Corporations, however, are not natural persons, so they cannot die.
There's also the matter of US courts, specifically, awarding outrageously high exemplary damages, which, in turn, means that people agree to higher settlements. In Australia we don't have this problem. Australian courts are far more realistic in awarding damages, and also tend to punish plaintiffs that bring actions over very small matters. There's a reason why we haven't had many filesharing lawsuits in Australia. I believe that if a multi-billion dollar corporation went to the Federal Court to sue a teenager for downloading 300 songs, the Court would, likely as not, find in favour of the corporation (its copyright has, indeed, been infringed), but award only nominal damages.
The problem with your position is that it's just as bad as that of the corporations. There's a middle ground. You're both trying to tip the scales grossly in your favour. Right now the corporations are winning that particular tug of war. By all means, let's bring balance back in, but don't make the same mistakes in the other direction.
* I mean theft, not copyright infringement. You cannot steal intellectual property under Australian law. Copyright is a chose in action (intangible property). Theft is dishonestly appropriating property belonging to
my movies.
Here is the flaw in your argument.
They're not your movies. The medium on which the movie is stored belongs to you. The intellectual property in the movie does not. You merely purchased a restricted licence. You had the choice to purchase or not.
Now, I'm not about to say that I don't download movies (I neither confirm or deny that I do). I'm not going to run around and say you shouldn't do it, because I might, hypothetically, do it too.
But it's not like you have an inherent right to consume a work that someone else created, just as I don't have an inherent right to consume a work you have created. You may not produce films, or software, or music, but you own lots of (probably worthless) intellectual property in letters you write, notes you right, lies you think up, etc. I don't have in inherent right to read your letters. You don't have an inherent right to use the software I write, or to listen to the music I compose.
What stops government from making even basic encryption illegal?
Elections.
There are a few important differences between the US and Australia that result in Australia's system not being quite as bad as the American system.
The most significant difference, in my view, is that we in Australia have preferential voting, as opposed to simple plurality (aka "first past the post") voting. This means that you don't "throw away" your vote if you support a minor party. You have to number every box in order of preference**, so you can give your higher preferences to minor parties and put the majors last, if you so wish. (Frankly, a lot of the minor parties are comprised of total nutjobs. Thankfully, most of the real nutjobs never get elected. Most. See Family First, below.)
** At the federal level, there is the option of voting for a party in the Senate. This is still equivalent to numbering every box. Your preferences will be allocated as directed by the party you vote for (and where those preferences go is published prior to election day). This option is available as matter of practicality, as there are often > 70 candidates (at least in my state, Victoria) for the 12 senate seats each of the 6 states holds (each of the 2 territories holds 2 senate seats).
This system means that many people do, in fact, vote for minor parties, comfortable in the knowledge that if their preferred candidate doesn't get up, their preferences will flow to their preferred major party (or perhaps another minor party).
Australia currently has 7 senators from minor parties, and 1 independent. Neither the Labor party (the [nominally] social democratic, centre-left party, which currently holds government) nor the Liberal(centre-right)-National(right) coalition (which held government from 1996 - 2007) holds a majority in the Senate. (Labor and the Libs each have 32 seats, and Nationals have 4 seats.) This means that the government cannot just force legislation through the Senate, but also means the opposition cannot just block legislation out of hand. One side or the other has to negotiate with the "cross-benchers" -- 5 Greens (Lefties), 1 Country Liberal (Right of the Liberal Party, left of the National Party), 1 Family First (right, also insane) and 1 independent.
This means that, generally speaking, there is effective control of the government.
We also have a lot less corporate influence, and far more regulated campaign process. Our national campaigns run in the order of weeks, not months or years. There are, of course, lobbyists, but you don't have corporate sponsorship of candidates, as you effectively have in the US. There have, however, been some allegations of corruption at state level in Queensland recently.
Australia is a parliamentary democracy, so we don't have a discrete Executive branch like the US. The Executive is formed out of the parliament. The person who has the confidence of the House of Representatives is the Prime Minister. In other words, the leader of the party (or parties, if there is a coalition, as we had 96 - 07) that holds the majority is the PM. Members of the Executive are drawn form both houses (the House of Reps and the Senate). Minister Conroy, for example, is a Senator for Victoria.
This does mean that the Executive will almost always be held by a major party. But the Senate, and therefore the legislature as a whole, is not, usually, dominated by a major party. Between July 2005 and and November 2007 the Liberal-National coalition held the majority in both houses. This resulted (in my view) in a disgraceful lack of accountability, and the then-government pushed through some very right-wing ideological laws, which were, ultimately, its undoing.
Now we (finally) have a Labor government, which is, believe it or not, a step in the right direction on many important issues. For example, aside from being denied the right to marry, same-sex couples now have virtually full equality under the law; we have government that doesn't deny the existence of climate change (though it isn't doing a whole lot to deal with it); and w
In California the bar association regulations require that a law firm takes "reasonable care" of client data. That's it. Kinda Scary.
Given that the US is a common law jurisdiction (presumably California is), you shouldn't be too concerned about the rule just being "reasonable care".
There will probably be a case (or a series of cases) that have defined exactly what that means. (I can't be sure; I'm studying law in Australia.)
It's also good, in a way, that it's not defined in any great detail. Imagine if the regs required a specific storage procedure that, because the regs were outdated, made it unlawful to store anything electronically. Leaving these matters open to interpretation by the courts means they can be reinterpreted in keeping with modern practices.
I disagree with the blanket "the French are rude" attitude that I often encounter in the English-speaking world (I have lived in Australia for most of my 27 years, and have lived in the US in the past).
While travelling in Paris a few years ago, I found most people to be quite polite, and helpful.
I have found that, no matter where you go in the non-English-speaking world, people don't respond favourably when you just assume that everyone can or should speak English.
Conversely, people appreciate you making an effort to speak the local language, even if you're not good at it.
When we arrived in Paris, and had to take the Metro to get to our hostel, my friend and I asked someone at a station for directions, in very broken, long-forgotten, high school French. The man smiled, asked us if we spoke English, and explained, in detail, where we needed to go.
He even ran after us when he realised he'd told us the wrong platform number.
Certainly far from rude. We had more encounters like this in Paris.
I had similar experiences in Sweden, and my friend had the same experience in Germany (I'm a fluent German speaker, so I didn't need to speak English there).
I don't think the French (or Parisians) are inherently rude. I think that, generally, if you're rude to people, then they will respond in kind.
If you're travelling through a country, it's a good idea to learn a few key phrases -- especially "thank you", "hello", "goodbye", "where is the toilet" and "do you speak English [or whatever other languages you speak]".
You'll be amazed how much more responsive people are when you can ask them, in their own language, if they speak English, rather than asking in English.
Precisely.
You are required to be there, so you should be paid.
This reminds me PD sessions that my mother's employer (a nursing home) required her to attend, but didn't pay her for. They argued that she was getting a benefit (professional development). I argued that she was required to be there.
(As opposed to optional professional development that my employer sometimes offers, where I choose to attend, and of which failure to attend has no impact on my employment. This usually involves real PD, though, with proper instructors, as opposed to a lecture from the nursing unit manager that my mother got.)
The other thing I'm reminded of is meetings that are shorter than anticipated. I work as a sessional university tutor, and that involves a weekly meeting. I'm required to keep an hour free for this meeting, but the meeting doesn't always last that long. A few years ago we were told that we could only claim the actual duration of the meeting, to the nearest 5 minutes. In other words, they only wanted to pay me for 35 minutes, arguing that I could spend the remaining 25 minutes however I wanted to.
They started paying for the whole hour again soon after some of us stopped blocking out a whole hour, and left after 35 minutes, irrespective of whether or not the meeting had concluded.
Bottom line: If they're requiring you to be there, and while you're there you're doing what you're supposed to be doing (as best you can in the environment provided by the employer), you should get paid for it.
Steven Fielding is the biggest nut job we've had in Parliament for a long time. I'd go as far as to say he's a bigger nut than Pauline Hanson. Absolute fruit loop. And his electorate office is about 10 minutes' drive from my house. Interestingly, his signage is always covered in graffiti. They tend to be removed regularly, but reappear just as quickly. Hmmm... yes... that preference deal is not one of the ALP's proudest moments. Makes us left-leaning ALP members cringe every time Fielding/Family First is mentioned. I've never quite understood why my party (supposedly a social democratic party) would stoop to dealing with the crazy right to avoid dealing with the Greens. And now this nut holds the balance of power in the Senate, and votes with the Liberal Party**. ** In case this hasn't come up, the Liberal Party is Australia's mainstream conservative party. The "Liberal" name comes from neo-liberalism. They're not "liberal" in the way that term is used in American politics (where for some reason it seems to be a dirty word now). But then, in American politics you get called a communist for suggesting the state should provide basic health care. But that's a debate for another day.
Slightly off-topic, but statistics show that "stranger danger" is a myth. Telling kids to avoid strangers might make parents feel like they're achieving something, but will not, generally, make much difference to whether or not kids will be sexually abused. The vast majority (76% of reported cases in Victoria, for example) of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by an adult male that the child knows (fathers and step-fathers making up the majority of those perpetrators). And there's no particular profile for the child abuser. The only characteristic of significance is that about 90% of abusers are men. Doesn't say much for my gender. I don't have the citations for this info at hand, but I've verified the numbers from my lecture notes. I've got a family law exam on Wednesday, so I have this info at hand. While I don't have the original citation, the lecturer for this unit is a practising family law barrister who has published books on family violence and child abuse, so I am inclined to accept this information as fact. I would expect that the information (and reference to the source) can be found in her latest book: http://www.amazon.com/Child-Abuse-Family-Understanding-professionals/dp/1865087319
Murder requires intent, which isn't there. QANTAS did not move maintenance offshore with the intention of killing its customers and staff. I'm uncertain of what the criminal liability would be -- manslaughter could perhaps be made out (I'm not sure you could even prove recklessness though), and there may be specific Commonwealth (federal) legislation that covers aviation accidents. QANTAS could be sued in negligence. I seem to recall reading on every paper airline ticket, though, that there are international treaties that limit the liability of airlines where crashes are concerned. I don't know if these treaties have been implemented as legislation in Australia. The airline would certainly be subject to the Australian Commonwealth jurisdiction. It would also be subject to the jurisdiction in which the hypothetical crash occurred.
I use both Webmin and Ensim Pro for Linux at the moment (on different servers), and must say both have their advantages. The biggest thing in Webmin's favour is that it's free.
The server I run Ensim on, though, would not be well served by webmin. I'm not a hosting company, but I look after a server used by 100 clubs on one of Australia's largest university campuses, and want each to have its own hosting account. We initially rented space on a server with a hosting company (a "reseller" account using Ensim -- though we have never charged the clubs for the hosting), but since the university offered us virtually free network access, we figured investing AU$600 in a low-end PC (which is all you need for a server these days) and AU$900 in a single-server, 250 domain Ensim licence (and $0 for Cent OS) would be a better option. Ensim is probably overkill for us (especially at $900 for the licence), but it's a one off expense, and it still beats the $1500/year we were paying for a reseller account where we had far less control.
Ensim does a great job of giving end users the impression that they have their own system, complete with shell access, without allowing users to interfere with each other, or the system itself.
I'm not actually employed as a techie; I do the server administration in my own time, so anything that saves me time is welcome. Ensim also allows me to ask non-techie users to perform some of the every day admin tasks, like creating account for new users, updating mailing lists and enabling various features on hosting accounts.
I can't say how Ensim compares to something like cPanel or Plesk, as I don't have experience with them. When we were first looking for a CP, Ensim was the only one that supported Tomcat, so it was an easy choice, since our own site is a servlet/jsp based one.
All in all, though, I'm extremely happy with Ensim. It's a good extra tool to have, and it doesn't prevent me from doing things manually if I wish to.
As for webmin doing more things than the control panels, this is completely true. However, webmin and Ensim serve different purposes. Webmin is designed to enable comprehensive system administration through a web interface. Ensim (and the other hosting CPs) exist exclusively for hosting applications. It is assumed that a hosting company will have competent sys admins. The CP is there to make hosting easier (the main service they provide is to allow end users to configure their own accounts).
I'm also the end user on a webmin administered server, and from a purely hosting perspective, webmin doesn't come close to ensim. I'm sure I could find modules that can do everything ensim does, but in my experience, Ensim makes it a lot easier. Ensim doesn't do it all, but what it does, it does well.
--schmidty