Which means, for every Chuck Norris, there can be an infinite number of Chuck Norrises.

And we're worried about Skynet...

Poison is mostly ineffective, but I much like the explosives. Nitroglycerin would seem to be particularly promising.

I've got a fine Chianti...

Well, I can go Moo, Oink, Neigh...so I must be an aminal.

Their nails are sharp, and can quickly gain a leverage advantage on you. Once you're down on the ground, you're pretty helpless unless there's only one or two.

So, you're saying, there's always going to be room for it?

You would have to mandate some amount of play per day, or else this would have the same effect as just taking all the games. Or so I've heard.

That lie would be seen through very easily. Your bail condition would be to eat quite a few florets nightly, else land in jail.

It's more the manner in which the bail was presented; the manner in which the judge decided what the bail should be tends to a presumption of guilt (the judge is ordering surrender of an item valued by the child in lieu of being put in jail); it's a little too 'eye-for-an-eye' for the bail hearing portion of the case. Monetary bail, to a degree, is different; money (while valuable) isn't necessarily an 'item', despite its physical form, and that standard for bail is consistent for any manner of criminal dispute (theft, assault, murder, extortion, and so on).

Some creative maneuvering, and a series of tube slides is actually not a bad hiding spot. You just have to go barefoot (socks slide too much, and shoes make too much noise).

For a minor, it's not the child's financial assets that become an issue; it's his parents/guardians' assets.

That said, this isn't a forcible seizure, either; the 'bail' could go 'unpaid' (the system isn't turned over) and the kid goes to the lockup...however undesirable, there is an element of choice there for him/his parents or guardians/counsel to make.

No, no, no. It'd go like this:

Judge: "What's something of value to you?"
Defendant: "Yo' mama"
Judge: *facepalm* Bail is a grand, take him to lockup..."

Bear in mind, the kid has been charged, not convicted. I would agree, if found guilty, with your reasoning; until then, you're proving a point that may or may not need to be made.

In other words, when you get older, a twat is a twat, tits are tits, and you'll stop minding the jiggly bits in between as much.

Problems I see here...

ICCIDs as sequential numbers - Untrue. 89nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn1 may be a valid ICCID; if it is, 89nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn2 will not be (where n are digits). There may be a pattern utilised, but n+1 is not a reliable method for a given known ICCID.

He immediately alerted the media - Not the company? Sure, the public might have need or right to know, and though his intentions were more or less good, giving up details of an exploit without giving the (in this case) company a good-faith chance to fix what went wrong--thus giving the black-hat types a window to do what they will, with probably more nefarious intent--is in NO way responsible behaviour.

There was no evidence that the addresses were disseminated - gives guy some leeway on the ID theft and probably fraud charges. Conspiracy to commit unauthorized access charge, though? Pretty much indefensible, and probably a non-issue if he'd made a good-faith effort to bring this directly to AT&T's attention and/or if it hadn't been used to the extent of 100k+ addresses.

That said, AT&T isn't in the clear here. Further efforts could have been made on their part to secure this information, though an email address doesn't mean or lead to much except for those a) in the spam business or b) with more nefarious purposes and the appropriate tools at hand, ready to use. Is a stiff sentence fair here? I don't believe so, but nor is acquittal.