... 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?
|Intel document confirms that Xeons will come in Gold and Platinum||23|
|Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day Shortbread||3|
|Noctua confirms LGA 2066 will host Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X||2|
|Radeon 17.4.4 drivers rise for Dawn of War III||10|
|AMD ships Ryzen Balanced power plan with latest chipset drivers||6|
|Amazon's Echo Look uses machine learning to dress you up||31|
|EK machines a waterblock for the ROG Maximus IX Apex||2|
|Microsoft describes how it uses telemetry data for smoother updates||22|
|id software talks about Ryzen||87|