... pointing him out of the courtroom, that is. Take a look at this CNN.com article for the details. Mitnick had asked the judge whether job offers from a magazine publisher or a radio station would violate the terms of his probation; his probation officer had poo-poo'ed them, citing a condition of Mitnick's probation that prohibited him from working as a computer consultant.
Obviously Mitnick thought the probation officer was taking things a little too seriously, so he asked the judge for a clarification. Instead she just said it was the probation officer's decision.
I think such a decision is a little silly, really. Judge makes ruling in case. Ruling is ambiguous, and possibly misinterpreted. Defendant asks for clarification of ambiguity. Judge does nothing to explain what she intended the ruling to mean. Wouldn't justice be better served if the judge insured her sentence was carried out the way she intended it? Does anyone else think this is a load of crap?
|Leica M10 further refines rangefinders for the digital age||10|
|NZXT adds purple-and-white finishes to its hardware catalog||8|
|Asus shows off Zenbook 3 Deluxe UX490A in detail||37|
|Tom's Hardware hammers an Intel 600p SSD for science||25|
|Antec Cube Mini-ITX chassis gets EKWB-certified||1|
|iBuypower Snowblind is a fresh take on case side panels||15|
|Radeon 17.1.1 drivers bring support for Resident Evil 7||15|
|NexDock offers a home for Intel Compute Cards||10|
|Imagination Technologies freshens up mid-range PowerVR GPUs||5|