What's gotten people burned in several cases I've read about is that they were driving vehicles they didn't own, and the courts make a distinction there. Does the car you regularly drive have your name on the title or your wife's? That's exactly what got one guy's 4th amendment defense thrown out - his wife 'owned' the car he used, so they weren't tracking his property and he didn't have standing.
from Wikipedia under Community Property:
Joint ownership is automatically presumed by law in the absence of specific evidence that would point to a contrary conclusion for a particular piece of property.[1] The community property system is usually justified by the idea that such joint ownership recognizes the theoretically equal contributions of both spouses to the creation and operation of the family unit.[2]
So, unless the wife was claiming sole ownership or these events occurred in a non-community property jurisdiction, he *IS* half-owner of the car *even if he not on the title*!
IANAL, but this seems to me that 4th amendment applies in this case -- specifically due to CO-ownership.
If she can take half, then he (implicitly) owns the other half... Something does not smell right here...
Professors at small colleges and trade schools are extremely hard-up for computers to teach with. The school is not going to pony up for anything that gives the students hands-on access to apply their learning (and many of the students can't afford to buy machines to tinker with themselves).
In previous cleanings, I have listed on CraigsList but often find the same items for sale -- this is extremely disheartening as I generally want these items to go to good use for someone who otherwise would not be able to afford or have access to this. People who sell stuff they get for free make me feel uncomfortable.
One time, I happened upon a professor who teaches introductory computer maintenance and repair at one of the local adult night schools. I have given him the last two batches of gear I have parted with and he has been more than happy to take the hundreds of pounds of CRT and everything from K6 and P2 processors to stripped cases with just a motherboard and random wires.
In the end, this gives him something practical to teach with (and hopefully donate to the school or underprivileged family when repaired)
Plus, you feel good about having made sure your stuff goes to making the world a better place even after it leaves your hands!
... Seems to me more like they want to formalize the "thou shalt not actually use all the bandwidth we sold you..."
But if we go to an "all you can eat" restaurant, then it's the restaurant owner's problem to make sure he can provide what he advertised. If a particularly high-metabolism co-worker finishes half the buffet by himself, tough luck, you may even have my compassion, but it's _not_ ok to paint him as some ruthless predator upon the other patrons and kick him out. If other patrons end up hungry, it's not because of that guy, it's simply because the restaurant didn't provide enough food for the bargain they offered. So, it seems like you are saying that Comcast is a bit like John Pinette's chinese buffet owner?
"You go home now, fatboy! You been here four hour!... Sign say 'All you can eat' not 'You eat all'!"
Slashdot Mirror
What's gotten people burned in several cases I've read about is that they were driving vehicles they didn't own, and the courts make a distinction there. Does the car you regularly drive have your name on the title or your wife's? That's exactly what got one guy's 4th amendment defense thrown out - his wife 'owned' the car he used, so they weren't tracking his property and he didn't have standing.
from Wikipedia under Community Property:
Joint ownership is automatically presumed by law in the absence of specific evidence that would point to a contrary conclusion for a particular piece of property.[1] The community property system is usually justified by the idea that such joint ownership recognizes the theoretically equal contributions of both spouses to the creation and operation of the family unit.[2]
So, unless the wife was claiming sole ownership or these events occurred in a non-community property jurisdiction, he *IS* half-owner of the car *even if he not on the title*!
IANAL, but this seems to me that 4th amendment applies in this case -- specifically due to CO-ownership.
If she can take half, then he (implicitly) owns the other half... Something does not smell right here...
There is a difference between not learning and constantly forgetting. The latter has more to do with ADD/ADHD.
Now get back to work :P
PS: You may want to bookmark this reply in case you forget what you asked, what the response was, or what you need to do :)
Professors at small colleges and trade schools are extremely hard-up for computers to teach with. The school is not going to pony up for anything that gives the students hands-on access to apply their learning (and many of the students can't afford to buy machines to tinker with themselves).
In previous cleanings, I have listed on CraigsList but often find the same items for sale -- this is extremely disheartening as I generally want these items to go to good use for someone who otherwise would not be able to afford or have access to this. People who sell stuff they get for free make me feel uncomfortable.
One time, I happened upon a professor who teaches introductory computer maintenance and repair at one of the local adult night schools. I have given him the last two batches of gear I have parted with and he has been more than happy to take the hundreds of pounds of CRT and everything from K6 and P2 processors to stripped cases with just a motherboard and random wires.
In the end, this gives him something practical to teach with (and hopefully donate to the school or underprivileged family when repaired)
Plus, you feel good about having made sure your stuff goes to making the world a better place even after it leaves your hands!
... Seems to me more like they want to formalize the "thou shalt not actually use all the bandwidth we sold you..."But if we go to an "all you can eat" restaurant, then it's the restaurant owner's problem to make sure he can provide what he advertised. If a particularly high-metabolism co-worker finishes half the buffet by himself, tough luck, you may even have my compassion, but it's _not_ ok to paint him as some ruthless predator upon the other patrons and kick him out. If other patrons end up hungry, it's not because of that guy, it's simply because the restaurant didn't provide enough food for the bargain they offered. So, it seems like you are saying that Comcast is a bit like John Pinette's chinese buffet owner?
"You go home now, fatboy! You been here four hour!