I'm not so sure about that. Plenty of modern theater contains nudity, even some of which has played in Nebraska, maybe even Lincoln.
You misunderstand my intent: I was referring to the situation at hand, not a theater performance. Flashing someone in a bar has significantly less social/artistic value than does theater.
Anyway, a little research shows that the particular application of Lincoln's ordinance in this case is almost certainly unconsitutional, even if the ordinance on its face is not. From Erie v. Pap's A. M. [529 U.S. 277, 289 (2000)]:
I've seen this opinion, and I interpret it as supporting my view, not yours.:-)
When the government prosecutes public nudity for any "compelling interest" against someone nude for the sole purpose of publishing photography, that runs afowl of prong (3)
Read the opinion again. The law does not discriminate types of nudity, and the justices were very clear that the government's selective prosecution does not invalidate other prosecutions:
That the city made no effort to enforce the ordinance against a [theater] production of Equus involving nudity that was being staged in Erie at the time the ordinance became effective does not render the ordinance discriminatory on its face. The assertion of the city's counsel in the trial court that the ordinance would not cover theatrical productions to the extent their expressive activity rose to a higher level of protected expression simply meant that the ordinance would not be enforceable against such productions if the Constitution forbade it. That limitation does not cause the ordinance to be not generally applicable, in the relevant sense of being targeted against expressive conduct.
As to prong 4 of O'Brien, the whole point here is that there is no significant burden placed on the First Amendment rights of the defendant, just like the court ruled the dancers in the bar in Erie had no significant First Amendment rights being abridged.
Also interesting -- to me -- is the concurring opinion of Scalia and Thomas that says basically what I said earlier: that you don't NEED a compelling government interest for such a law, because the law is regarding an act, not expression. Expression can certainly be a defense of the act (which is why the Equus production was not prosecuted), but the government doesn't
Erie self-consciously modeled its ordinance on the public nudity statute upheld in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560, calculating (one would have supposed reasonably) that the Pennsylvania courts would consider themselves bound by this Court's judgment on a question of federal constitutional law. That statute was constitutional not because it survived some lower level of First Amendment scrutiny, but because, as a general law regulating conduct and not specifically directed at expression, it was not subject to First Amendment scrutiny at all. Id., at 572 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment).
You go, Scalia!:-)
especially since in this case there are apparently no complaining or known witnesses unacquainted with the subject, which is to say, those members of the public which the ordinance was designed to "protect."
Again, you return to this fiction of a requirement for witnesses that were to be offended. There is no such thing in the statute or in the Constitution, or even in O'Brien. You say that since no one was witness to it, the infringement is greater than the government's interest, but the government's interest is that someone *might* see it because it is in public. If she were out in the woods where the defendant had put up borders to make sure no one could see, well, then she may have a defense, because in this case the area would not be open to the public. But a bar during business hours, with no such protections? No.
If the defense challenges the constitutionality of a law, it's the prosecution's burden to show the law is constitutional.
The defense can make specific challenges of constitutionality, and the prosecution can address those specific points. For example, if someone's right to free speech were abridged, the government would need to show that there is a government interest in that. But that is not at all difficult for public nudity laws, which are far more often upheld and enforced than struck down.
The "injury" presupposed by the crime of public nudity is almost always "shock" and/or "offense."
And the injury presupposed by the crime of firing a gun in public is almost always "death" or "maiming." Yet we disallow it even if no such injury occurs, because of the *chance* of such occurrence. We disallow public nudity because you *might* offend people, and you can't know you won't.
To enforce this law as you would like would be chaos: you could, conceivably, have nude people roaming the streets in broad daylight, and unless you could prove the person knew someone would be offended by it, you couldn't do anything about it. That's ridiculous. The law assumes that someone *might* see you and be offended, not that someone *will* see you, or be offended.
The concept that a "moral" crime requires scienter , or mens rea , is an idea "deeply entrenched" in American criminal law
Yes, many laws require knowledge of/intent to commit the act, such as murder, and public nudity. She had such knowledge, clearly, so that's a losing issue.
No, that would be criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, creation of a hazard, and breach of peace.
Do you honestly not see the hole you are digging for yourself? How is public nudity not the same? Firing the gun is negligent, endangerment, and hazardous because I *might* do damage. Public nudity is illegal because you *might* offend someone. And breach of peace is even more obvious: if no one feels unpeaceful, is it still a breach of the peace? Should you need to find a witness who felt unpeaceful as a result in order to convict on that count?
Convictions for negligence, recklessness, etc.... don't require a showing of scienter
That is absolutely false. Sorry. Negligence and recklessness presuppose that you are doing something you know you shouldn't, or that you are not doing something you know you should. If I were legally carrying a firearm and a car hit me, and the firearm discharged, that cannot be negligence or recklessness. "negligence" and "recklessness" have no meaning for someone who acts without scienter.
The ordinance in this case, which forbids "knowingly or intentionally" being nude in public, explicitly references scienter.
Yes, it specifically says the person must be knowingly nude in public. You really think she didn't know she was nude in public? Come on.
If the defense can prove that they took adequate precautions to prevent any member of the public from observing the evil nudity, then they are almost certainly off the hook for the literal violation of the law.
Yes, but only if you read the statute in a way that it isn't written. The statute makes not a single reference to being observed, witnessed, or causing offense. It simply talks about being nude in public, and knowing/intending to be in that state. She was nude in public, and knew it, and intended it. She was literally in violation of the law.
The only way to get out of it would be to challenge the constitutionality, which is a losing battle in Nebraska. They wouldn't stand for it.
Going back to the example of the leash law, suppose that there is an ordinance that, "all dogs in any public park must be on a leash." Is your literal interpretation of such a law that it makes no exclusions for porta-kennels?
I have three dogs, and have lived in several states, and driven
However using your logic I could Photoshop (yes I'm using it as a verb) a pict of me on a grassy nole in Dallas, TX with my 30-30 aimed at JFK's head and write a text blurb saying it was me and I'd be guilty of assassinating JFK. It doesn't really compute, does it?
Yes, because you weren't there. She was there, and there are witnesses. Think a little.:-)
Laws prohibiting public nudity are frequently ruled unconstitutional
That case was related to public nudity, but in a location clearly marked for the purpose of nudity. That's only tangentially related to the case at hand.
However, the government, if faced with an unconstitutionality claim, will have to state exactly what the compelling interest of the law is
That's an interesting fiction.:-) Yes, of course, we often hope that it is such. But in practice, it often isn't. However, I don't see how this would be difficult at all. There have been far more cases upholding nudity laws than striking them down, and the latter are in places like NYC, not Nebraska.
Now, for a conviction of a crime of intent (i.e., other than some kind of neglegence), scienter or "malice aforethought" must be proven.
Which will be exceedingly simple. She has appeared nude in public on many occasions, has documented it, and has even advertised it, on her web site. That's an open-and-shut case.
The defense in this case will almost certainly be able to prove an absence of malice, unless the procecution can produce a member of the public that observed the conduct depicted in the photographs and swears under penalty of purjury that they were shocked and/or offended.
It seems like you are trying to say that the existence of offense is evidence of intent to be nude in public. But the actual existence of offense isn't relevant in any way, as best I can tell, least of all as evidence of intent. I am not sure where you are going with this, but I am pretty sure it's not helping her case.
Actually, I think you are getting hung up on "malice." If you mean "malice aforethought" in the sense of premeditation to cause harm to someone, then no, there is absolutely no need for the prosecution to prove this. This statute does not require that sort of malice, let alone premeditation of it. Only intent to be nude in public is necessary for conviction, not intent to harm anyone.
If we were to follow that route, then any act that did not harm anyone else would be legal. I could -- as noted previously -- shoot a gun in public as much as I wanted to, as long as I didn't hit anyone.
The defense can counter with the likely fact, likely supported by witnesses, that (1) the indoor flashing was for a very brief period of time, and (2) the outdoor flashing was during a private party from which witnesses were being excluded.
And neither argument has any legal relevance. The statute makes no exclusions for brevity, and "private party" isn't relevant if the property is public or open to the public. That would only apply if the property is private AND not open to the public.
When dealing with crazy laws the Judge usually sides with "what is the intent of the law".
I'd say the intent of this law is to prevent people from seeing naked people in public. Since no one saw her naked in public, she didn't break the spirit of the law.
Well, if she had been charged with the law I quoted, no, she violated the very spirit of the law. Read it again. It talks about "where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public." Not that it IS viewed. Even IF members of the public did not see it, that she risked being seen is violative of the spirit, and the letter, of the law. It'd be like shooting a gun into the air in public, being charged with illegal use of a firearm, and saying, "well, I didn't hit anybody, so I didn't violate the spirit of the law."
There could be the motivation to provide images that site visitors are more interested in, without actually participating in an illegal act. Depicting fiction is a common thing we do. Hmm, let's see, have you heard of these things called movies?
There were a lot of people in that bar, it seems. If she says that, and the court provides witnesses that say they saw her, then she gets charged with perjury, and very likley would see jail time for it. That'd be risky, and not too bright, when if she just pleads the innocent and the Fifth (or guilty) she'll get a fine (worth far less than the value of the publicity) and a mark on her record (which I doubt she'd have a real problem with).
It's one thing to say that the locality shouldn't spend resources trying to 'get' people like this. But now that she is charged, they WILL spend resources if she tries to lie about what happened, because it is of negative value to them to get shown up.
well, pudge, you must not pay attention to the supreme court.
Yes, I know of both; but neither is related to the discussion at hand. The court wasn't ruling on public virtual kiddie porn, and the TV ads in question didn't contain nudity... as far as I know (but man, what a disgusting decision/law that is).
Then you also have the right to, in effect, rule on the law itself. If you don't think the law is a good one, you can vote for a not guilty verdict.
Depending on the court, you either swear an oath of some sort, or are otherwise instructed, to rule on the case according to the law; and if you cannot or are unwilling to do that, you will be excused from serving.
That depends on how much you respect the oath you took before taking your position on the jury. You promise to rule on the case according to the law, not your feelings about the law.
To be sure, jury nullification happens, but usually only when the people on the jury find the law to be so abhorrent as to be violative of a principle much more important than adherence to the law, such as with Northern slave laws in the 1800s. You won't find too many people practicing jury nullification over someone flashing their breasts.
If the police were actively searching for the public menace who ludely exposed herself in a public bar and came across these pictures, then I'd have no problem with them being used as evidence. But if the police only learned about the crime from the pictures, it seems wrong to use them against her.
There's been a lot of stupid comments in this discussion, but this wins the prize. "You wouldn't have known about me killing my neighbor if I didn't post pictures of it on the web!" As long as the evidence is not obtained illegally, there is not a damned thing untoward or illegal or wrong with using it.
If nobody saw her when the picture was taken then she wasn't nude in "public".
This is not a legal argument you are making, but a "what I think it should be" argument, and those don't usually hold up so well in court.
if I were defending myself on this I'd argue that since nobody saw me (assuming this is the case) it wasn't a "public" display.
And the judge would laugh at you.:-)
Laws are usually quite specific about what their terms mean; some less so than others, but "public" is very clear in law.
I found one Nebraska public decency law, for example, that says "in a public place and where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public". Whether or not someone saw anything is irrelevant, in this law: it only matters whether the act might reasonably be expected to be seen by members of the public.
So, if it is a private party in a public place, not a problem. If it is during public business hours at a table in the local pub, that's a problem. The law she was cited for is not this one, but it is likely the wording is similar, as most of them are.
Considering today's technology, photographs should never be admissable as evidence unless the source can verified and possibility of tampering is eliminated...
Since the photo came from her, and it is her web site that admits they were taken in the bar in question... this really isn't an issue, in this case. Really.
The only reason she was charged was because the bar owner objected.
Anyone could have objected; it didn't need to be the bar owner, or anyone affiliated with the bar. Maybe someone else would have complained, maybe not, but it has no bearing on the legality, or enforcement.
I am unfamiliar with an "s" permission for root (-rws vs. -rwx). Is this correct?
Yes. It stands for "Set UID/GID". See man chown:
The letters `rwxXstugo' select the new permissions for the affected
users: read (r), write (w), execute (or access for directories) (x),
execute only if the file is a directory or already has execute permis-
sion for some user (X), set user or group ID on execution (s), save
program text on swap device (t), the permissions that the user who owns
the file currently has for it (u), the permissions that other users in
the file's group have for it (g), and the permissions that other users
not in the file's group have for it (o).
It means when you run it as Joe User, it will be run as root, which is why a buffer overflow is such a big problem. If the buffer is overflowed with some executable code -- thereby replacing the existing code with some other code -- then the program can be tricked into running that other code.
This is normally not a huge problem, but when the program is set to execute with setuid, then it is a huge problem. The program cd9660.util is eseentially trusted code: anyone can run it, and nothing bad can happen with it. But with a buffer overflow, now anyone can run it and (conceivably) gain root access to the system by getting it to run a root shell. You might as well, at that point, make bash setuid, or just leave your root password as an empty string.
Then perhaps you don't have Panther, or maybe it is because you've already removed some of the components of it. If you have Panther and the components have not been removed, I find it difficult to believe it is not there.
THere is no obvious setting in the Sharing prefenences control panel
?
System Preferences -> Sharing -> Apple Remote Desktop. Seems pretty obvious to me.:-) It is off by default, and you can click "Stop" if it is running, and edit the Access Privileges.
Why would any normal user want this installed? I blindly installed it now I wish I had not. Seems like a potential security hole lurking. But I cant figure out how to uninstall it.
Again, as noted in the story, if you have Panther installed, you have the ARD Client installed. This is just an update to it.
The ARD Client allows an ARD Admin to remotely control your box. Potential security hole? Probably, but you're soaking in it by virtue of running Panther.
All he said was that parts of MacOSX (sic) that didn't come from BSD were not very well written.
Because it implies anything written in Mac OS X may be written poorly, while nothing from BSD is. Note that the majority of security fixes lately in Mac OS X, that I recall, were in BSD code (esp. ssh). I'm not criticizing ssh or BSD or anyone, it's just a stupid statement for the guy to make. Fine, it's a bug, no need to attempt to impugn Apple's programmers over it. I've said similar statements about people who criticized the ssh crew's code, or abilities, when a new bug is found.
Is that supposed to make sense? Just curious, because it appears as though it is supposed to make sense, but it actually doesn't. I admit to being baffled.
China is and will continue to be a large economy, but that in itself is meaningless. Will they be a big consumer? Will they buy goods from other countries? Will they have the money and the willingness to do these things? It doesn't look like that will happen, any time soon. China is a producer, not a consumer, and most of the world isn't interested in changing their products so Chinese consumers will buy them, because Europe and America are buying a lot more than China is, and that isn't poised to change any time soon.
It is no longer supported, but it is still available, and it still qualifies for the "BBEdit 7.1 Cross-Upgrade from BBEdit Lite, Adobe GoLive, Macromedia Dreamweaver (3.0 or later)" price of BBEdit. Shrug.
I just find it hard to see why someone would switch from something else.
And I find it hard to see why people like the New York Yankees. Shrug.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand my intent: I was referring to the situation at hand, not a theater performance. Flashing someone in a bar has significantly less social/artistic value than does theater.
Anyway, a little research shows that the particular application of Lincoln's ordinance in this case is almost certainly unconsitutional, even if the ordinance on its face is not. From Erie v. Pap's A. M. [529 U.S. 277, 289 (2000)]:
I've seen this opinion, and I interpret it as supporting my view, not yours.
When the government prosecutes public nudity for any "compelling interest" against someone nude for the sole purpose of publishing photography, that runs afowl of prong (3)
Read the opinion again. The law does not discriminate types of nudity, and the justices were very clear that the government's selective prosecution does not invalidate other prosecutions:
As to prong 4 of O'Brien, the whole point here is that there is no significant burden placed on the First Amendment rights of the defendant, just like the court ruled the dancers in the bar in Erie had no significant First Amendment rights being abridged.
Also interesting -- to me -- is the concurring opinion of Scalia and Thomas that says basically what I said earlier: that you don't NEED a compelling government interest for such a law, because the law is regarding an act, not expression. Expression can certainly be a defense of the act (which is why the Equus production was not prosecuted), but the government doesn't
You go, Scalia! :-)
especially since in this case there are apparently no complaining or known witnesses unacquainted with the subject, which is to say, those members of the public which the ordinance was designed to "protect."
Again, you return to this fiction of a requirement for witnesses that were to be offended. There is no such thing in the statute or in the Constitution, or even in O'Brien. You say that since no one was witness to it, the infringement is greater than the government's interest, but the government's interest is that someone *might* see it because it is in public. If she were out in the woods where the defendant had put up borders to make sure no one could see, well, then she may have a defense, because in this case the area would not be open to the public. But a bar during business hours, with no such protections? No.
It might be the realm of Zen koans to determine
No, 2^31 passed. 2^32 would be in 2040.
If the defense challenges the constitutionality of a law, it's the prosecution's burden to show the law is constitutional.
... don't require a showing of scienter
The defense can make specific challenges of constitutionality, and the prosecution can address those specific points. For example, if someone's right to free speech were abridged, the government would need to show that there is a government interest in that. But that is not at all difficult for public nudity laws, which are far more often upheld and enforced than struck down.
The "injury" presupposed by the crime of public nudity is almost always "shock" and/or "offense."
And the injury presupposed by the crime of firing a gun in public is almost always "death" or "maiming." Yet we disallow it even if no such injury occurs, because of the *chance* of such occurrence. We disallow public nudity because you *might* offend people, and you can't know you won't.
To enforce this law as you would like would be chaos: you could, conceivably, have nude people roaming the streets in broad daylight, and unless you could prove the person knew someone would be offended by it, you couldn't do anything about it. That's ridiculous. The law assumes that someone *might* see you and be offended, not that someone *will* see you, or be offended.
The concept that a "moral" crime requires scienter , or mens rea , is an idea "deeply entrenched" in American criminal law
Yes, many laws require knowledge of/intent to commit the act, such as murder, and public nudity. She had such knowledge, clearly, so that's a losing issue.
No, that would be criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, creation of a hazard, and breach of peace.
Do you honestly not see the hole you are digging for yourself? How is public nudity not the same? Firing the gun is negligent, endangerment, and hazardous because I *might* do damage. Public nudity is illegal because you *might* offend someone. And breach of peace is even more obvious: if no one feels unpeaceful, is it still a breach of the peace? Should you need to find a witness who felt unpeaceful as a result in order to convict on that count?
Convictions for negligence, recklessness, etc.
That is absolutely false. Sorry. Negligence and recklessness presuppose that you are doing something you know you shouldn't, or that you are not doing something you know you should. If I were legally carrying a firearm and a car hit me, and the firearm discharged, that cannot be negligence or recklessness. "negligence" and "recklessness" have no meaning for someone who acts without scienter.
The ordinance in this case, which forbids "knowingly or intentionally" being nude in public, explicitly references scienter.
Yes, it specifically says the person must be knowingly nude in public. You really think she didn't know she was nude in public? Come on.
If the defense can prove that they took adequate precautions to prevent any member of the public from observing the evil nudity, then they are almost certainly off the hook for the literal violation of the law.
Yes, but only if you read the statute in a way that it isn't written. The statute makes not a single reference to being observed, witnessed, or causing offense. It simply talks about being nude in public, and knowing/intending to be in that state. She was nude in public, and knew it, and intended it. She was literally in violation of the law.
The only way to get out of it would be to challenge the constitutionality, which is a losing battle in Nebraska. They wouldn't stand for it.
Going back to the example of the leash law, suppose that there is an ordinance that, "all dogs in any public park must be on a leash." Is your literal interpretation of such a law that it makes no exclusions for porta-kennels?
I have three dogs, and have lived in several states, and driven
However using your logic I could Photoshop (yes I'm using it as a verb) a pict of me on a grassy nole in Dallas, TX with my 30-30 aimed at JFK's head and write a text blurb saying it was me and I'd be guilty of assassinating JFK. It doesn't really compute, does it?
:-)
Yes, because you weren't there. She was there, and there are witnesses. Think a little.
Laws prohibiting public nudity are frequently ruled unconstitutional
:-) Yes, of course, we often hope that it is such. But in practice, it often isn't. However, I don't see how this would be difficult at all. There have been far more cases upholding nudity laws than striking them down, and the latter are in places like NYC, not Nebraska.
That case was related to public nudity, but in a location clearly marked for the purpose of nudity. That's only tangentially related to the case at hand.
However, the government, if faced with an unconstitutionality claim, will have to state exactly what the compelling interest of the law is
That's an interesting fiction.
Now, for a conviction of a crime of intent (i.e., other than some kind of neglegence), scienter or "malice aforethought" must be proven.
Which will be exceedingly simple. She has appeared nude in public on many occasions, has documented it, and has even advertised it, on her web site. That's an open-and-shut case.
The defense in this case will almost certainly be able to prove an absence of malice, unless the procecution can produce a member of the public that observed the conduct depicted in the photographs and swears under penalty of purjury that they were shocked and/or offended.
It seems like you are trying to say that the existence of offense is evidence of intent to be nude in public. But the actual existence of offense isn't relevant in any way, as best I can tell, least of all as evidence of intent. I am not sure where you are going with this, but I am pretty sure it's not helping her case.
Actually, I think you are getting hung up on "malice." If you mean "malice aforethought" in the sense of premeditation to cause harm to someone, then no, there is absolutely no need for the prosecution to prove this. This statute does not require that sort of malice, let alone premeditation of it. Only intent to be nude in public is necessary for conviction, not intent to harm anyone.
If we were to follow that route, then any act that did not harm anyone else would be legal. I could -- as noted previously -- shoot a gun in public as much as I wanted to, as long as I didn't hit anyone.
The defense can counter with the likely fact, likely supported by witnesses, that (1) the indoor flashing was for a very brief period of time, and (2) the outdoor flashing was during a private party from which witnesses were being excluded.
And neither argument has any legal relevance. The statute makes no exclusions for brevity, and "private party" isn't relevant if the property is public or open to the public. That would only apply if the property is private AND not open to the public.
When dealing with crazy laws the Judge usually sides with "what is the intent of the law".
I'd say the intent of this law is to prevent people from seeing naked people in public. Since no one saw her naked in public, she didn't break the spirit of the law.
Well, if she had been charged with the law I quoted, no, she violated the very spirit of the law. Read it again. It talks about "where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public." Not that it IS viewed. Even IF members of the public did not see it, that she risked being seen is violative of the spirit, and the letter, of the law. It'd be like shooting a gun into the air in public, being charged with illegal use of a firearm, and saying, "well, I didn't hit anybody, so I didn't violate the spirit of the law."
There could be the motivation to provide images that site visitors are more interested in, without actually participating in an illegal act. Depicting fiction is a common thing we do. Hmm, let's see, have you heard of these things called movies?
There were a lot of people in that bar, it seems. If she says that, and the court provides witnesses that say they saw her, then she gets charged with perjury, and very likley would see jail time for it. That'd be risky, and not too bright, when if she just pleads the innocent and the Fifth (or guilty) she'll get a fine (worth far less than the value of the publicity) and a mark on her record (which I doubt she'd have a real problem with).
It's one thing to say that the locality shouldn't spend resources trying to 'get' people like this. But now that she is charged, they WILL spend resources if she tries to lie about what happened, because it is of negative value to them to get shown up.
well, pudge, you must not pay attention to the supreme court.
... as far as I know (but man, what a disgusting decision/law that is).
Yes, I know of both; but neither is related to the discussion at hand. The court wasn't ruling on public virtual kiddie porn, and the TV ads in question didn't contain nudity
Then you also have the right to, in effect, rule on the law itself. If you don't think the law is a good one, you can vote for a not guilty verdict.
Depending on the court, you either swear an oath of some sort, or are otherwise instructed, to rule on the case according to the law; and if you cannot or are unwilling to do that, you will be excused from serving.
That depends on how much you respect the oath you took before taking your position on the jury. You promise to rule on the case according to the law, not your feelings about the law.
To be sure, jury nullification happens, but usually only when the people on the jury find the law to be so abhorrent as to be violative of a principle much more important than adherence to the law, such as with Northern slave laws in the 1800s. You won't find too many people practicing jury nullification over someone flashing their breasts.
If the police were actively searching for the public menace who ludely exposed herself in a public bar and came across these pictures, then I'd have no problem with them being used as evidence. But if the police only learned about the crime from the pictures, it seems wrong to use them against her.
There's been a lot of stupid comments in this discussion, but this wins the prize. "You wouldn't have known about me killing my neighbor if I didn't post pictures of it on the web!" As long as the evidence is not obtained illegally, there is not a damned thing untoward or illegal or wrong with using it.
If nobody saw her when the picture was taken then she wasn't nude in "public".
:-)
This is not a legal argument you are making, but a "what I think it should be" argument, and those don't usually hold up so well in court.
if I were defending myself on this I'd argue that since nobody saw me (assuming this is the case) it wasn't a "public" display.
And the judge would laugh at you.
Laws are usually quite specific about what their terms mean; some less so than others, but "public" is very clear in law.
I found one Nebraska public decency law, for example, that says "in a public place and where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public". Whether or not someone saw anything is irrelevant, in this law: it only matters whether the act might reasonably be expected to be seen by members of the public.
So, if it is a private party in a public place, not a problem. If it is during public business hours at a table in the local pub, that's a problem. The law she was cited for is not this one, but it is likely the wording is similar, as most of them are.
Considering today's technology, photographs should never be admissable as evidence unless the source can verified and possibility of tampering is eliminated...
... this really isn't an issue, in this case. Really.
Since the photo came from her, and it is her web site that admits they were taken in the bar in question
You honestly think a law prohibiting public nudity sounds unconstitutional? How many Froot Loops box tops did you collect to get your law degree?
The only reason she was charged was because the bar owner objected.
Anyone could have objected; it didn't need to be the bar owner, or anyone affiliated with the bar. Maybe someone else would have complained, maybe not, but it has no bearing on the legality, or enforcement.
Yes. It stands for "Set UID/GID". See man chown:It means when you run it as Joe User, it will be run as root, which is why a buffer overflow is such a big problem. If the buffer is overflowed with some executable code -- thereby replacing the existing code with some other code -- then the program can be tricked into running that other code.
This is normally not a huge problem, but when the program is set to execute with setuid, then it is a huge problem. The program cd9660.util is eseentially trusted code: anyone can run it, and nothing bad can happen with it. But with a buffer overflow, now anyone can run it and (conceivably) gain root access to the system by getting it to run a root shell. You might as well, at that point, make bash setuid, or just leave your root password as an empty string.
Then perhaps you don't have Panther, or maybe it is because you've already removed some of the components of it. If you have Panther and the components have not been removed, I find it difficult to believe it is not there.
THere is no obvious setting in the Sharing prefenences control panel
:-) It is off by default, and you can click "Stop" if it is running, and edit the Access Privileges.
?
System Preferences -> Sharing -> Apple Remote Desktop. Seems pretty obvious to me.
Why would any normal user want this installed? I blindly installed it now I wish I had not. Seems like a potential security hole lurking. But I cant figure out how to uninstall it.
Again, as noted in the story, if you have Panther installed, you have the ARD Client installed. This is just an update to it.
The ARD Client allows an ARD Admin to remotely control your box. Potential security hole? Probably, but you're soaking in it by virtue of running Panther.
It seems to be on by default as there is no preferences to control it.
It is running by default perhaps, but it is not on by default. The prefs are in your Sharing preferences, with file sharing/printer sharing/etc.
All he said was that parts of MacOSX (sic) that didn't come from BSD were not very well written.
Because it implies anything written in Mac OS X may be written poorly, while nothing from BSD is. Note that the majority of security fixes lately in Mac OS X, that I recall, were in BSD code (esp. ssh). I'm not criticizing ssh or BSD or anyone, it's just a stupid statement for the guy to make. Fine, it's a bug, no need to attempt to impugn Apple's programmers over it. I've said similar statements about people who criticized the ssh crew's code, or abilities, when a new bug is found.
Is that supposed to make sense? Just curious, because it appears as though it is supposed to make sense, but it actually doesn't. I admit to being baffled.
China is and will continue to be a large economy, but that in itself is meaningless. Will they be a big consumer? Will they buy goods from other countries? Will they have the money and the willingness to do these things? It doesn't look like that will happen, any time soon. China is a producer, not a consumer, and most of the world isn't interested in changing their products so Chinese consumers will buy them, because Europe and America are buying a lot more than China is, and that isn't poised to change any time soon.
There is no longer any BBEdit Lite.
It is no longer supported, but it is still available, and it still qualifies for the "BBEdit 7.1 Cross-Upgrade from BBEdit Lite, Adobe GoLive, Macromedia Dreamweaver (3.0 or later)" price of BBEdit. Shrug.
I just find it hard to see why someone would switch from something else.
And I find it hard to see why people like the New York Yankees. Shrug.
I can't understand why anyone would pay $179 for BBEdit.
Because they don't realize you can download BBEdit Lite, then buy the BBEdit for the upgrade price of $119?
On a different note: an app you spend all your time in, that you rely heavily on, is worth a lot of money. I'd pay a lot more than $179 for BBEdit.
The thing I really miss in bbedit is the lack of emacs key bindings
:)
That reflects a lot more on you than on BBEdit. Go to Preferences->"Text Editing"->"Use Emacs Key Bindings". It's right there.