and then pass along all overhead costs to consumers, is too tenuous a connection to constitute a “resale” of the computer services themselves. Second, NHC’s business serves the “everyday needs” of the community. The Court recognizes some of NHC’s business is directed at providing specialized training to IT professionals on complex computer systems. Much of NHC’s business, however, is aimed at teaching consumers how to use basic computer programs in their daily professional and personal pursuits. Moreover, regardless of the level of complexity of the training, in today’s world, any type of computer training serves the everyday needs of the community. See Thornton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 261 F.3d 789, 801 (9th Cir.2001) (Berzon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Carl W. Battle, Smart Maneuvers:
holding that there can be only one final appealable order holding search of probationers computer by probation officers was reasonable even in absence of a search provision when conditions on probationers computer use reduced his expectation of privacy in his computer holding that successful party is one who is the ultimate prevailing party in the litigation recognizing that no one can realis tically expect to be successful in our world of megainformation without being able to use a computer holding that a roommate with shared access to anothers computer has common authority over the computer and can grant consent to search