... 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?
|I made my dumb appliances smarter with the Internet of Things||17|
|Seagate Duet portable drive reaches for the clouds||8|
|Deals of the week: laptops and a mixed bag of goodies||21|
|Panasonic develops an IPS panel with a million-to-one contrast ratio||65|
|ASRock Beebox-S reports for HTPC duty||17|
|Zalman's ZM-K900M RGB LED gaming keyboard reviewed||9|
|Silverstone Primera case looks hot and stays cool||10|
|Poll: Did you buy into the world of VR this year?||105|
|Zotac's VR Go Backpack is ready to strap up||12|
|New! Botnet your case fans!||+41|