My attorney, Justin Volk V, will be happy to hear this.
My attorney, Justin Volk V, will be happy to hear this.
For one, old people hate this kind of thing in large swaths.
I'm an old people and I'd much rather use the self check than have to stand in line, waiting while the clerk pops her gum and makes small talk with everyone. The older I get, the less time I have to waste on this bullshit.
Because if Google's proprietary OSes that are more locked down than Windows ever was (say what you want about Windows but I can grab a windows laptop and inside of 10 minutes be booting into anything from BSD to Zorin OS, just try that on a Chromebook) now counts as "Linux" because it uses the kernel, which even the community acknowledges that "the kernel is not Linux"? Well sheeit, by that metric you could claim Linux "won" half a decade ago since all those cheapo locked down routers used by millions are using the Linux kernel as part of the embedded OS.
It certainly doesn't come anywhere close to being open or supporting the four freedoms so if this is what it takes to "win" I'd say "well what exactly did you "win" other than replacing one corporate master for another?
to a place where I pay a somewhat hefty fee to recycle (I think around $20-$40).
Bubba's gravel pit and rifle range.
vacuum tubes arent a perfect vacuum.
But a CRT isn't a typical vacuum tube. They only work by steering a straight beam of electrons to the phosphor. Any gas molecules will scatter those electrons and defocus the beam. So CRTs do in fact have very high vacuums inside them.
I'm certain it's on the list somewhere.
Now if only companies like Intel would actually provide
Yes, if only
It's not conversion because the original owner is using the right they retained despite the sale.
No..... The original owner's App linked to the device is a Technical means of access, not a legal right to the property.
It's not like having an undisclosed Easement or Lease against the property, Because easements are actual contracts that Legally encumber
property owner's rights.
I mentioned the example: It's more like handing over the keys to a house after the closing papers are signed, But forgetting or failing to mention that there may be 7 other copies of the keys you handed over, some in your possession, some in your friends' or neighbors possession.
You don't commit a crime by failing to disclose this, BUT If anybody abuses their copy of the key to gain entrance into the house, then
they probably commit the crime of trespassing.
If you complete the sale of your car, the new owner is legally entitled to do Anything with the car after the transfer of ownership, Including have the computer memory reset to factory, or clip off all the antennas to block the remote control features.
Are the previous owners not breaking the law by retaining such control?
Probably not merely by still having the control. The new owner has a certain level of responsibility to ensure that possession and
control are fully transferred to themself, or raise the dispute within a reasonable time period.
For example: If you sell your house,
and happen to still have a copy of the key..... that's not illegal in itself, The generally expected thing to do is for the new homeowner to rekey their locks,
though, Because the previous owner is not really responsible for All the other people, neighbors, etc, they might have shared the key with ---- An oblivious Friend/neighbor unaware of the sale could come into the house with an unknown key 6 months later and not have committed any crime.
It will be illegal if After you sell your house, you come back later knowing that it is no longer your property, and use a copy of the key you kept stashed in order to
enter the building without Permission from the new owner.
Similarly it will be illegal if the previous owner of the car uses their App still linked to locate your car and gain access to it,
or send other commands to the car without the permission of the new Property owner to do those things.
Merely having the app as a file somewhere on their phone is not conversion though.
It's not conversion or break-in/theft until they intentionally take an action unauthorized by the new owner regarding the asset.
No... it doesn't mean the sales have to go through the dealership.
It does mean that the Dealership gets to charge Tax/Service fee to correct the Links apps thing.
But there are other Reasons you might need to change authorized phones other than change of ownership for the car...
For example: Your Cell phone was stolen and you can't wipe the app off, Or you got a divorce, etc, etc.
Job One will be to identify and short to Ground all the GPS and wireless antennas -- except the one for the radio
Except this might interfere with servicing, when the Dealer requires wireless access to the vehicle for routine activities such as resetting warning lights, upgrading firmware to correct issues, or reading diagnostic codes.
Concern is that at some point, the dealers might make cars that literally stop working if they fail to check in to the dealership's systems for a long enough period of time to verify Software licenses, or something
My PACEMAKER IS A ROBOT. What should it or me be taxed?
Robots which provide only personal health or other benefits to a natural person owning or leasing use of the robot not taxed.
Could this get someone in trouble
Yes. Something along the lines of lying to a federal official.
Why not carry two phones? When they ask if you have a phone, say "Yes." When they ask to see it, hand it to them.
You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.