My husband thought that he was co-signing for his son's car.  It turns out that they made my husband the primary loan holder but the dealership only put his son's name on the title.   His son is now in legal trouble and he will be unable to make the payments. We are now responsible for the loan on a car that we can't drive.  Is this legal?  I am not asking about the difference between primary and co-signer. I was asking if anyone knew if the dealership has a legal obligation to put the primary loan holder on the title because in Ohio only the owner of a vehicle can purchase the yearly tags. I am fully aware that the loan is our responsibility. I
My daughter asked me to cosign on a car loan.  Somehow I ended up as the borrower and she a the cosigner.  Is that legal?
How do I clone a subdirectory only of a Git repository? I have my Git repository which, at the root, has two sub directories:  /finisht /static   When this was in , /finisht was checked out in one place, while /static was checked out elsewhere, like so:  svn co svn+ssh://admin@domain.com/home/admin/repos/finisht/static static   Is there a way to do this with Git? Primary question: A common speaking mistake is to exchange syllables of words, saying "It's trace rhyme!" instead of saying "It's race time!", or pronouncing "kickin' chackatory" instead of "chicken cacciatore." Is there an existing name in poetry, linguistics, or English studies for switching syllables of (quasi-)consecutive words? I am not especially interested in the case when switching syllables results in interpretable homonyms or portmanteaus, like in the first example.  Secondary question: if not, what would you call it?  Tertiary question: is there somewhere a (playful?) taxonomy of fruitful or unfruitful lingual aberrations? If $S$ is a finitely generated graded algebra over $S_0$, $S_{(f)}$ is finitely generated algebra over $S_0$? Let $S = \bigoplus_{n\ge 0} S_n$ be a graded commutative ring. Let $f$ be a homogeneous element of $S$ of degree $&gt; 0$. Let $S_{(f)}$ be the degree $0$ part of the graded ring $S_f$, where $S_f$ is the localization with respect to the multiplicative set $\{1, f, f^2,\dots\}$. Suppose $S$ is finitely generated algebra over $S_0$. Then $S_{(f)}$ is a finitely generated algebra over $S_0$. How to install Ubuntu on portable external Hard Drive? I am using a mirror modifier for modelling. When viewing the mesh in edit mode, the vertices in the center are firmly stuck together and cannot be separated.     When in pose mode, I manipulate a wrist bone on my model and the mesh splits in two along the mirror axis center.    I have tried removing the subsurface modifier to see if this was the problem leaving only the armature at the top of the modifier list,i.e. as first modifier (which I am told is the bottom of the stack) and the mirror as the second.  It doesn't separate in edit mode and I've also tried increasing the merge limit to 0.1 and there's no change. Manipulating bones separates the mesh. Prevent pdflatex from writing a bunch of files If I create just a basic hello.tex file an compile it using   pdflatex hello.tex   The pdflatex program is creating a plethora of file which is a little annoying. Currently it writes all those files about which I really don't care:  hello.aux, hello.log, hello.nav, hello.out, hello.snm, hello.toc   Is there a way to tell pdflatex to only write hello.pdf if the build is successful ? If not, can I specify the output directory of those files ? Maybe I could just write them in /tmp. Mathematical Induction Question About A Basis Step sort() and reverse() functions do not work $P_n(x):=1+ \sum_{m=1}^n\dfrac{x^m}{m!}$ has no real root for even $n$ and exactly one real root for odd $n$ Is it true that  $$P_n(x):=1+ \sum_{m=1}^n\dfrac{x^m}{m!}$$ has no real root for even $n$ and exactly one real root for odd $n$? I can only prove that the polynomial cannot have any multiple roots. Am stuck , Please Help. Setting environment variables on OS X What is the proper way to modify environment variables like PATH in OS&nbsp;X?  I've looked on Google a little bit and found three different files to edit:   /etc/paths ~/.profile ~/.tcshrc   I don't even have some of these files, and I'm pretty sure that .tcshrc is wrong, since OS&nbsp;X uses bash now. Where are these variables, especially PATH, defined?  I'm running  (Leopard). How do I bind the tmux prefix to a Super? I find even Ctrl+b to be very emacs like but I understand the point. I'm wondering if I could bind it to a single keypress of a key I don't other wise use? namely Super_L (also known as the left windows key. for why I say Super_L start xev in a terminal and press that key) After offering a bounty to , I realize that I cannot comment on the question because I no longer have the required reputation. Is it possible to change this behavior, so that the bounty owner can comment only on the post with the bounty irrespective of their reputation? While bounty owners are told that they'll lose privileges at the time they place a bounty, it makes sense to allow them to interact with potential answerers/commentators to help solve the problem, or at least provide additional information. Is uncertainty principle a technical difficulty in measurement? Is the uncertainty principle a technical difficulty in measurement or is it an intrinsic concept in quantum mechanics irrelevant of any measurement?  Everyone knows the thought experiment of measuring the position of an electron. One can detect electron's position by hitting it with a photon, due to Compton scattering the collision of the photon with electron will change electron's momentum. This experiment is used to explain uncertainty principle to layman, but it is over simplified, isn't it? It also gives an impression that if there was a better suited experimental method the uncertainty principle becomes irrelevant.   I personally think it is intrinsic as it arises from the non-zero commutator of position and momentum operators irrespective of the measurement process. Am I right?  EDIT: My question is similar to certain extent to  and . The answers there are nice but they focus on explaining basics of quantum mechanics more than they comment on the technical difficulty part. In the answers of question 2 there are statements like "So, it's not a knowledge limit" and "you're sort of correct when you say it's an observational limit" without further comments  To summarize, assume hypothetically we managed to find a way in the future where we can have a look at an electron without disturbing it by measurement or causing its wave function to collapse, would the uncertainty principle still hold in such a case?? Why/Why not? Eigen-Decomposition of Householder operator In Mootools, I'd just run if ($('target')) { ... }.  Does if ($('#target')) { ... } in jQuery work the same way? How do I determine whether a drive is an HDD or SSD in Windows 8? I've recently received an assembled PC. I don't know if the disk is an SSD or old HDD (whether SATA or other technologies).  I can't find a way to tell if the disk is SSD or not, apart from the size of the disk. However, now that the sizes of SSDs are getting close to that of HDDs, checking the size is not a good and robust way to distinguish drive type. Is there some other way to determine if the disk is an SSD? This might be a stupid question, but I just don't get it. In Hamiltonian mechanics when examining conditions for a $(\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{p})\rightarrow(\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{P})$ transformation to be canonical one starts with $$ \dot{q}_ip^i-H(\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{p},t)= \dot{Q}_iP^i-\bar{H}(\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{P},t)+\frac{d}{dt}W(\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{Q},t)$$ where $\bar{H}$ is the transformed Hamiltonian, and $W$ is the generating function (now a function of $\boldsymbol{q}$ and $\boldsymbol{Q}$). This term shouldn't break Hamilton's principle, since $$ \delta\int_{t_1}^{t_2} dt\frac{d}{dt}W(\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{Q},t)=\delta W(\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{Q},t)|_{t_2}-\delta W(\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{Q},t)|_{t_1}=0-0=0 .$$ But I don't see why the variation of $W$ should disappear at the endpoints (say at $t_1$). Expanding leads to: $$ \delta W(\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{Q},t)|_{t_1}=\left(\frac{\partial W}{\partial q_i}\right)_{t_1}\underbrace{\delta q_i(t_1)}_{=0}+ \left(\frac{\partial W}{\partial Q_i}\right)_{t_1}\delta Q_i(t_1)=\left(\frac{\partial W}{\partial Q_i}\right)_{t_1}\delta Q_i(t_1).$$ $\boldsymbol{Q}$ is itself a function of $\boldsymbol{q}$ and $\boldsymbol{p}$, so $$ \delta Q_i(t_1)=\left(\frac{\partial Q_i}{\partial q_k}\right)_{t_1}\underbrace{\delta q_k(t_1)}_{=0}+\left(\frac{\partial Q_i}{\partial p_k}\right)_{t_1}\delta p_k(t_1)=\left(\frac{\partial Q_i}{\partial p_k}\right)_{t_1}\delta p_k(t_1). $$ It seems as if we also needed the variation of $\boldsymbol{p}$ to vanish at the endpoints, and I don't get this because (at least in cartesian coordinates) $\boldsymbol{p}=m\dot{\boldsymbol{q}}$ and the velocity can be different along the original and the varied orbitals even at the endpoints (they can point in totally different directions), so in general $\delta \dot{\boldsymbol{q}}(t_1)\neq 0$. What am I doing wrong? Can someone help me with this, please? Long story short: since custom flag responses are messages to users like any other (answer, comment, suggested edit, chat message etc.), users should be notified about them!!    A problem I have with flagging, as it currently functions, is that flaggers are not notified about custom responses to flags, when they are given. I really don't care if I don't find out about every last flag of mine, whether it was marked "helpful" or not, but if a moderator went to the effort of typing out a custom response to my flag, explaining why it was or was not helpful, I'd like to see that response. The logical place for this response would be in the messages inbox (the red number thingy in the top left corner), where other responses to user actions (like answers, comments, edits, and chat messages) go.  This may also help to alleviate  of users not realizing that their flags go somewhere -- while I agree with her that "We shouldn't send notifications for [all] flag responses; that would be way too noisy for a lot of people," I think that in the event of a custom response, the flagger should be notified (because some mod thought that this information was relevant to the flagger), and it would not be too noisy because (in my experience1) most flags do not receive a custom response. This could provide one way that flaggers can be made aware of their flagging history.2    1 I don't know who can see this, but  on Mi Yodeya, to date, is 55 flags total (49 helpful), and only one custom response (....that I didn't see for a while, till I checked my flagging history for a different reason).  2 While I don't think that this will replace Monica's suggestion entirely, it would certainly help it a little.    To give credit where credit is due, while I came up with this idea myself, I did notice that someone else had posted about a similar idea earlier in a .  Edit: Just spotted  from the related questions along the side of the page; note that while that proposal is similar to this one, it was about sending all declined flags to the inbox, while I suggested that only the ones with custom responses should make it to the inbox. Adjusting space between array rows and columns I am trying the fallowing exercise : Solve $P(X^2 -2)=P(X)^2 -2$ with P a monic polynomial (non-constant)  My attempt :  Let P satisfying $P(X^2-2) = (P(X))^2-2$  Then $Q(X)=P(X^2-2) = (P(X))^2-2$   Therefore,  $$Q(X^2-2) = (P(X^2-2))^2-2 = (P(X)^2-2)^2-2 = Q^2-2$$  As X is a solution, by defining the sequence:  $(P_n)_{n \geq 1}$ with $P_1 = X$ and for all $n \geq 1, P_{n+1} = P_n^2-2$  We obtain a sequence of polynomials which are solutions.   But I don't know how to prove it's the only one. If someone have an idea to prove it or an another method to solve the problem ?   Thank you in advance for your time.