>>Let the punishment fit the crime. If he received stolen goods make him perform community service so that he can see the impact that crime has had on others.
Right? That's exactly what I was thinking; give him a little public humiliation and watch the behavior change. I've done some things in the past I'm not proud of, and I did community service as my punishment. As I stated above, how do these two arenas (receiving stolen goods and computer usage) relate in any way to each other?
Exactly WHY did this defendant get internet restrictions imposed by the courts for receiving stolen goods? How are those two domains related in any way? Did this person use the internet to obtain the stolen goods in question?
Personally, it seems like a total reach by the court to impose these restrictions given the context of the article.
It has been a couple of days since I watched the 60 minutes piece, but I was under the impression that eBay's boxes WEREN'T using gas, but some kind of biomass fuel. Please feel free to correct me; I don't have time right now to go back and re-watch the clip.
When I read the story last night about this, I was appalled at the irresponsible actions of this law enforcement agency. What if the bombs had gone off? Whoops?
I keep asking myself this question when I hear about stuff like this but, "What is WRONG with these people?". How can you play with other people's lives like that, all in the name of security? That's just wrong.
is the Milkdonkulous and the Battle for Milkquarious content on the web right now (http://milkquarious.com/#/rock-opera), which is not only hilarious, but has the whole 'milk' message which is done in an entertaining way with an over-the-top, 70's-styled theme throughout the video.
It's worth a watch if you haven't seen it before.
This hits squarely on what Mike is trying to say here, 'Content is advertising, etc'.