Right-to-Repair Law To Get DRM Out of Your Car

eldavojohn writes "Ralph Nader's back to hounding the automotive industry ... but it's not about safety this time, it's about the pesky DRM in your car. Most cars have a UART in them that allows you to read off diagnostic codes and information about what may be wrong with the vehicle so you can repair it. Late model cars have been getting increasingly complex and dependent on computers which has caused them, as with most things digital, to move towards a proprietary DRM for these tools, diagnostic codes and updated repair information. This has kept independent auto-shops out of the market for fixing your car and relegating you to depend on pricier dealers to get your automotive ailments cured. The bill still has a provision to protect trade secrets but is a step forward to open up the codes and tools necessary to keep your car running."

Comments

Prediction

[interkin3tic]

Ralph Nader will find a way not only to fail at getting DRM out of cars, but it will somehow result in more DRM everywhere else. Florida will be involved in some way.

Yeah, I'm still somewhat bitter at Ralph Nader, why do you ask?

Re:Prediction

[The Grim Reefer2]

Me too. The Corvair was a cool little car, especially if you dropped a 350 in it. Unsafe at any speed my ass.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't blame Nader, blame your lousy voting system that discourages a third party from forming. Your voting party system is only one party better than the Communism your country hates.

Captcha was: protest

Re:Prediction

[secretplans]

Nadar is not responsible for the failures of the Democratic Party.

Neither are those of us who voted for honesty.

Nadar '12.

Re:Prediction

[interkin3tic]

Don't blame Nader, blame your lousy voting system that discourages a third party from forming.

I do, but the guys who came up with that are all dead. Nader isn't. Yet.

Re:Prediction

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Is NADAR a device which tells you proximity of Ralph Nader?

Re:Prediction

[Architect_sasyr]

NADAR == Not A Damn Accurate Report. Basically anything coming out of the US government lately. Or my government for that matter.

Re:Prediction

[_ivy_ivy_]

Me too. The Corvair was a cool little car, especially if you dropped a 350 in it. Unsafe at any speed my ass.

If it is equally unsafe regardless of speed, it makes perfect sense to drive as fast as possible so you can get to your destination sooner.

Seems like you're using sound logic to me.

Re:Prediction

[causality]

Don't blame Nader, blame your lousy voting system that discourages a third party from forming. Your voting party system is only one party better than the Communism your country hates.

Captcha was: protest

I think the ideal would be for candidates to run as individuals with no such thing as a political party. Then, y'know, people might actually have to think about what the individual candidate stands for (or claims to stand for anyway) rather than reducing voting to the 50/50 chance of "is he a member of my party?" Then the next step would be to get rid of the concept of politicians and return to the concept of the statesman.

If anyone is aware of any writings the Founding Fathers have left behind about political parties in general I'd appreciate any reference you can provide. Ok, mod me off-topic now if that makes you feel better.

Re:Prediction

[Thinboy00]

Don't blame Nader, blame your lousy voting system that discourages a third party from forming. Your voting party system is only one party better than the Communism your country hates.

[snip irrelevant nonsense]

What more do you want?

Re:Prediction

[feepness]

Yeah! Because what we need is less political options! Not more!

I don't even know why we have two!

Re:Prediction

[Eskarel]

Well, Washington thought we should only have one because having two would be divisive, though he didn't really specify which party ought to be the only one, John Adams thought it ought to be illegal to belong to any party other than his, and most of the rest of them seem to have believed that the people shouldn't have had much choice in who was president in the first place.

That said, it's still Nader's fault, because despite the faults of the US voting system, Nader knew those faults, and knew exactly what he was doing. He thought that getting more funding for his party was worth 4 years of George Bush and as I recall he didn't even get enough votes to get the extra funding anyway so he shafted us, and everything he stood for for 8 years to prove a point.

Re:Prediction

[hardburn]

Washington was against political parties, and said so in his Farwell Address:

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

. . .

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

But not everyone agreed, even back then. Washington was the first and last President to not belong to a major political party (except, kinda, John Tyler, who was thrown out of the Whig party).

Re:Prediction

[ragutis]

I mentioned this post to my wife, suggesting that Ralph may be right on this one. Her response was, "like a broken clock."

Disclosure. We were owners of several Corvairs. Yeah, dating ourselves.

Re:Prediction

[zonky]

You're making the bold assumption that electing a "democrat" is in the view of nadar voters a better outcome than electing a "republican". Perhaps those Nader voters felt differently?

Re:Prediction

[Merls the Sneaky]

You also reduce your unsafe minutes spent in the vehicle.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Washington thought there shouldn't be any political parties at all. And John Adams was just plain pro-government, nothing to do with party specifically (of course, the other party still hated him for it.)

Re:Prediction

[hardburn]

Not all Nader voters needed to feel that way. Only a signficant fraction of the ones in Florida needed to.

Re:Prediction

[dbrutus]

In the US, factions coalesce into parties before the election. We elect a government. In parliamentary systems, each faction goes on its own and negotiates a majority after the election under the common use case they can't do one on their own.

It's not self-evident that coalitions before voting are worse or better than coalitions after voting.

Re:Prediction

[digitig]

No, Washington thought there shouldn't be any political parties at all.

Which he probably got from Rousseau, who reckoned that political parties made democracy impossible.

Re:Prediction

[AnyoneEB]

Well, very simply, you could use range voting which is not limited by Arrow's impossibility theorem as it does not satisfy the hypotheses.

In reality, pretty much any voting system other than the current first past the post would be a massive improvement due to strategic voting. All voting systems have problems with it, but under plurality voting, it essentially forces a two-party system. By allowing voters to rank their preferences, votes would come much closer to revealing the true preferences of the electorate, and therefore the government would be closer to what the people really want (or at the very least, the politicians would be claiming to support what the people really want).

In the current system, the major parties are able to shape the debate and effectively silence any opposing viewpoints as no major party candidate holds them so they will get no votes. Admittedly, the major parties tend to absorb popular third-party positions in order to avoid getting voted out, but that is a very slow process.

The voting system does not have to be perfect, but you must keep in mind that it indirectly influences political debate and the responsiveness of the government to the people.

To be fair, the choice of a voting system (and the entire structure of the political process) is a choice of what actually matters in government. A two-party system theoretically forces moderate views and compromise instead of ending up with multiple warring parties sharing power. Also the argument can be made that plurality voting is easier to understand, especially when compared to range voting. That is part of why, despite its flaws, I suspect instant-runoff voting is the most reasonable choice for a voting system.

Re:Prediction

[techno-vampire]

If there is anything they want to undo or do then there is nothing standing in their way.

And the idea of any political party having that type of power should be giving you nightmares.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Washington thought there shouldn't be any political parties at all.

Which he probably got from Rousseau, who reckoned that political parties made democracy impossible.

The British originally had no political parties, but it didn't work very well. Of course they have a Westminster Parliamentary system, so it may not be an appropriate comparison.

Re:Prediction

[sumdumass]

I call bullshit. The two party system only exists because no third party is willing to put an effort forward to gain the grass roots support that the two major parties have. A lot of that has to do with not a lot of people agreeing with everything they say and the third parties basically following the other parties with a few minor exceptions.

Currently the third parties are good for forcing issues into the main stream tables and making candidates acknowledge that at least some of the public is interested in/concerned about them. This is because of the third parties lack of effort and lack of uniqueness, not a two party system or anything inherent that makes it a two party system.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a perfect platform to design a new space vehicle around.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Washington was the first and last President to not belong to a major political party

The same thing would happen in business and every other facet of life if we didn't have anti-racketeering enforcement. That's what all collective bargaining is when you boil it right down. Concentration of force and threat of force.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

No, blame Nader. He had candidates that the (slim) majority would have put in office, but that wasnt good enough for him.

So he screwed us with W.

Re:Prediction

[Saxerman]

How the hell can you blame a guy for running for president when it was the *millions* of other people who voted for the guy who was actually elected? Or are people not suppose to vote for the guy who they feel is the most qualified? When did casting a ballot equate to throwing away your vote if your guy doesn't get elected?

What kind of democracy do you expect to have, where any qualified candidate is required to sell their soul for the funding required from one of your two parties, who stand for nothing more than merely getting their own reelected? They've both been running to center trying to grind out the votes necessary to win without any concern for what principles or political values they're even suppose to stand for anymore. Isn't politics suppose to be the art of comprise rather than forcing down your tyranny of the majority as an entitlement program? Shouldn't be have politicians more focused on what is best for all of us, rather than those they are beholden to? Do you really enjoy run on sound bites and highlight reels rather than any meaningful political discourse?

I understand you're bitter. I'm pretty bitter too. But why derisively spit at anyone who wants to try and stand up and thinks they might be able to do a better job than the other guy. Or maybe just because they believe the other guy is wrong. Do you really find that the politicians getting elected actually represent you and your world view?

Re:Prediction

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That said, it's still Nader's fault, because despite the faults of the US voting system, Nader knew those faults, and knew exactly what he was doing. He thought that getting more funding for his party was worth 4 years of George Bush and as I recall he didn't even get enough votes to get the extra funding anyway so he shafted us, and everything he stood for for 8 years to prove a point.

That is utter bullshit. I didn't vote for Nader, but even I understand that the only reason Nader got votes is because he offered something the other parties didn't. Blaming Nader for being the best choice in some people's eyes is like saying that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those will vote for the status quo.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

And we will all be broke for Ralph's fix. Yep, thanks to the Dem's there will be no choice but to tax like they do in Socialist Europe, 60-70% taxation. At that point, why work. Just let broke uncle sam take care of you. Sounds like a fix

Re:Prediction

[quanticle]

Indeed, if Washington had not chosen to run, political parties would have formed much sooner, for no one else had the broad base of support he did, and therefore they would have had to organize their supporters (in other words, create a political party).

Re:Prediction

[quanticle]

A two-party system theoretically forces moderate views and compromise instead of ending up with multiple warring parties sharing power.

Well, either that or you get two parties that are equally extreme but on opposite ends of the spectrum. Moderates then have to go with the party they find least distasteful at the moment.

The main advantage, in my humble opinion, of a two party system is government stability. The parties in a multi-party parliamentary system may better represent the views of their constituents. However, the large numbers of parties ensures that governments, when they are formed, consist of large, weak coalitions that are often unable to accomplish anything for fear of causing an allied party to go into opposition.

Re:Prediction

[wirelessjb]

Dude, blame Al Gore. I'm a flaming liberal, and I'm serious. He was a sitting VP with a very popular boss. While in the senate he developed a reputation for being the leading expert on not just climate change, but arms control, nuclear weapons, and communications technology (and no, he never really said that he invented the internet in so many words). OK, to be more precise, blame Al Gore's campaign manager. To have a record like that and lose to a first-term governor with a really crappy record takes some serious lack of skill. Al Gore should have won by 20 points. Don't blame Nader.

Re:Prediction

[ElectricRook]

I think the ideal would be for candidates to run as individuals with no such thing as a political party.

Yeah Right... That's part of how Germany ended up with the National Socialist Democratic Party in charge, we call them Nazi's.

How many fools would we have on the ticket? When Schwarzenegger won Ca, he had like 286 opponents.

We could end up with a President David Duke (Klansman). That's how Nicaragua ended up with Ortega again.

Re:Prediction

[ElectricRook]

in Socialist Europe, 60-70% taxation.

Here on the Left coast, we're already there...

California state income tax is ~10%, California sales tax is 9%, Federal income tax is 36%, SSI 6%, Medicare 2%, plus all the little add on stuff to the phone bill, electricity, vehicle license fee.

Except that my RSU stocks are taxed at 70% of value the day they are granted. So they are basically worthless... (RSUs are Registered Shares that high tech workers now get instead of options, thank the Carpenters Union)

A friend of mine lost his house over RSUs, he did not unload them when he received them. In the 2001 crash, they went from $70 to $13, and the tax bill was 70% of $70, so he had a tax bill of $49 on an asset worth $13. Multiply this by a few thousand RSUs.

The tax man was less than sympathetic.

Re:Prediction

[MadUndergrad]

I don't give a shit how much power the Democrats have right now. What matters is what shape the country is in. We would have been in such a better state with Gore instead of Bush that no amount of power in one party can make up the difference.

Re:Prediction

[HeronBlademaster]

It's easy to say that when you can't prove your assertion either way ;)

I, for one, don't want any party to have that much power. Party X may as well not exist, if Party Y can shove anything they want through the pipes - and I'd bet my last dollar that they'll do whatever they can to preserve their power as long as they can.

Re:Prediction

[Stormwatch]

However, the large numbers of parties ensures that governments, when they are formed, consist of large, weak coalitions that are often unable to accomplish anything for fear of causing an allied party to go into opposition.

And that is bad... how?

Re:Prediction

[interkin3tic]

Fine, change the system. Make it such that we can have more than two parties. I'd really like that. Too hard? Fine, give up on it, but don't act like a 3rd party canidate isn't just splitting the vote, because they do, and wishing it wasn't so isn't going to do anything. And don't act like the 2 party system is what's wrong here anyway, that's just absurd.

But that's beside the point, I said nothing about political options originally. Critique me about my inability to forgive for something that happened almost a decade ago, don't put words in my mouth.

Re:Prediction

[Achromatic1978]

A friend of mine lost his house over RSUs, he did not unload them when he received them. In the 2001 crash, they went from $70 to $13, and the tax bill was 70% of $70, so he had a tax bill of $49 on an asset worth $13. Multiply this by a few thousand RSUs.

Because he thought he'd make it big. He'd not be complaining if they went from $70 to $200. He took a gamble, and he lost. He was, or should have been, aware of the risks.

The tax man was less than sympathetic.

Honestly, neither am I. The stock market is not a zero risk endeavor.

Re:Prediction

[SL Baur]

And don't act like the 2 party system is what's wrong here anyway, that's just absurd.

I think it is. For most of the past decade when I've had residence in California, I've had no representation. I (mistakenly) voted for President Bush, but my vote didn't matter, the Electors of the state of California voted for Algore despite my absentee[1] vote. Lois Capps, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein certainly do not represent my views.

[1] Which was counted towards certain ballot totals despite what idiots say to the contrary.

Re:Prediction

[Hal_Porter]

The Whigs and Tory parties have been around for about as long as the Parliamentary system. Even before that there were factional grouping that were analogous to parties.

I think the default state of a parliamentary system or any reasonably free group of humans is for factions to form around individuals. Later on those factions become bound by ideology and become parties. Actually even inside a political party there are always competing factions based around individuals. The winning individual gets to define the ideology to some extent so long as they are party leader. Actually that defining process is really a test whether they still are leader - most British Prime Ministers go because the rest of their party opposes on some ideological issue and unseats them. Arguably even the ones that lose elections have already lost the suppport of their own party.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "the British originally had no political parties". Even during the days of absolute monarchy there were competing factions at court. In fact there were regular uprisings where one faction would try to take over. Post Glorious Revolution the power of the monarchy was limited and the factions moved to Parliament. Formal parties formed soon after. Actual the Conservative party was very informal until quite recently - it was much more like a club or faction, 17th Century style. E.g. leaders 'emerged' rather than being elected until 1965.

A free society is really a set of rules that everyone agrees to on how to decide which faction is in charge peacefully. Those factions would still exist in an unfree society, it's just that they would have to compete for power in a non peaceful way. Given the pressure of open competition factions will turn into parties with more formalised rules eventually. Though the Conservatives managed to do OK as an informal 'faction' for a hundred and thirty years.

Actually the LDP is Japan is an interesting example. It has been in power for most of the time since Japan was a democracy. Still it is highly factional and the policies of one LDP faction can be completely different from another. Back before it lost elections it was widely touted as an alternative model to a multi party system - essentially a single party which contained mutiple competing factions. Even now it's longevity is probably due to the fact that it is not really one party in the normal sense.

Zhao Ziyang, the Chinese Premier said to Gorbachev that "in the short term we will democratize the [Chinese Communist]Party but in the long run a multi party system is inevitable". Of course he was deposed and imprisoned by more traditional types and Leninist party discipline was reimposed ruthlessly. Still it's easy to imagine that his model would work a bit like the LDP in Japan for a while until some factions turned themselves into alternative parties.

Actually the KMT in Taiwan used to be the only party but looks like it has managed to transition to being a Conservative style natural party of government in a democracy. Quite possibly if the CCP had followed Zhao's advice it would have been able to pull off the same trick.

Re:Prediction

[SL Baur]

While in the senate he developed a reputation for being the leading expert on not just climate change, but arms control, nuclear weapons, and communications technology

None of which were deserved.

To have a record like that and lose to a first-term governor with a really crappy record takes some serious lack of skill.

I absolutely agree with you on the last point. A sitting VP has a huge advantage and to waste it shows a tremendous lack of something.

Remember this, Dick Nixon managed to get elected President, even after losing a gubernatorial election in California after losing to Kennedy in 1960. "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around any more".

Re:Prediction

[Jewfro_Macabbi]

Everyone repeatedy votes for politicians who do not represent your values. They then complain when said politicians enact policies conflicting with their values - and blame Ralph Nader.

Seriously, shut your whole.

Re:Prediction

[mwvdlee]

It's dumb enough to bring up a nazi argument, but to use the election of the nazi political party as an argument for keeping political parties as opposed to individual candidates is asinine.

Don't get me wrong here. I agree that political parties would be preferable to individuals, if only because focussing on individuals would likely result in populism instead of realism, but the argument you use is flawed in multiple ways.

Re:Prediction

[mwvdlee]

A two-party system theoretically forces moderate views and compromise

Only true is you assume every issue can only ever have two views.
If a third, entirely seperate view of the issue exists, a two-party system would ignore this view.

Most democratic systems in the world would give your view, even if it was the 385th view or so, a chance to join in the compromise by not only letting you create your own political party, but by also giving that party equal chances at winning as all the others.

Artificially limiting the number of parties that can exert power in government ensures that a significant portion of the voters will not be represented no matter what parties will win.

Re:Prediction

[mwvdlee]

Pre-voting coalitions will make compromises based on their own voters alone, post-voting coalitions will make compromises based on many more voters.

"Better" or "worse" is subjective, but atleast the compromises will be based on a much larger number of the voters.

Re:Prediction

[mwvdlee]

In the two party system, if three different parties each had exactly 1/3rd of the votes, only two would get political power.

If a third party would somehow get a majority of the vote, it would still be a two party system and one of the former major parties would now be powerless.

The two party system exists for no reason other than to limit the number of parties to two.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Every 3rd party candidate got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush in Flordia, the real reason Bush became president is because Scalia voted him in.

Nader only spent 3 days in Flordia, he spent 30 days in New York. He was only working to maximize his vote, and its obvious that he was not ruining the election. Hes not a hypocrit.

Re:Prediction

[asdfndsagse]

Instant-runoff voting

The most rational system created. Makes politicians nice to each other. No spoiling. Great reform for the electoral system.

Re:Prediction

[thegreatemu]

Hear hear!

A government too weak to pass any laws but those that are blindingly, obviously necessary is my kind of government.

Anyone know where I can get one of those?

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bad because you end up with a government that "consist of large, weak coalitions that are often unable to accomplish anything". I live in Norway, believe me, I know.

Re:Prediction

[initialE]

There are 2 factors in play within a voters mind in a first-past-the-post voting system. Who you want to see elected, and who you don't want to see elected.
If your priority is to get your favorite candidate elected, then by all means, you're going to vote for him.
If, however, your overwhelming priority is to see someone _not_ get elected, then it doesn't matter who you want, you're going to vote for the leading candidate running against him. Doubly (dubyaly heh...) true for a president running for reelection.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:Prediction

[c0p0n]

In defense of the US I'd say they're hardly the only democracy that pivot between two political parties. UK, Spain, France to name a few. As for Italy, only Berlusconi's party, whichever it is, exists.

Re:Prediction

[sydneyfong]

You (or at least a large majority) of the voters voted for them.

Why should it give you nightmares? Do you really want politicians to sit there and debate about everything and not actually get anything done?

Re:Prediction

[Late Adopter]

Do you really want politicians to sit there and debate about everything and not actually get anything done?

Yes.

Re:Prediction

[Late Adopter]

Third parties don't have to win to make a difference. The Democratic party now knows exactly the stakes of ignoring the people likely to vote for them. Game theory suggests that they should start adopting some of the Green platform, etc, to draw these voters and win elections.

With elections seeming to get even closer, third parties have increasingly more importance.

Re:Prediction

[Nursie]

Where is that?

It's sure as hell not the UK, or France. Heck, not even the scandinavian countries hit 60%.

Re:Prediction

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

Why should it give you nightmares? Do you really want politicians to sit there and debate about everything and not actually get anything done?

Your reasoning is an example of a 'false dilemma'. Lawmakers and members of the executive branch should debate everything AND get things done.

'Getting things done' without the possibility of debate is dictatorship.

Re:Prediction

[jonadab]

> Don't blame Nader, blame your lousy voting system that discourages a third party from forming.

It's not the voting system that prevents there being three viable parties; it's the demographic properties of the population. The US for its entire history as a nation has always been politically divided, more or less evenly, along substantially geographic boundaries, into two basic categories: more or less conservative, and more or less liberal. The two-party system is a direct result of this.

Incidentally, the US Civil War was another result of the same phenomenon, and we barely managed to hold the nation together. And you may have heard, if you had simple-minded history teachers, that the US Civil War was about slavery. But it's actually more complex than that. Slavery was an important trigger issue, but the war was about much more. There were economic issues (tariffs and protectionism versus free trade), and there were political issues (states' rights versus federalism), but ultimately the war was about whether a people politically divided along mostly geographic boundaries could remain a single nation. It was inevitable that we would have to fight a war to determine this. Even before the revolution, there were strong indications (well, at least in hindsight you can see them now, looking back) that a civil war would eventually have to be fought in some fashion.

There have been a couple of times when a third party (or, indeed, a fourth) became viable (the most famous example being the formation of the Republican party and the election of Lincoln), but the system always collapses back to two main parties, conservative and liberal, within eight years (two presidential elections). This is not mainly because of the voting system. It's because there are two main categories of political worldview in this country.

What the voting system (and specifically the electoral college) does is to force compromise. Specifically, it moves the focus of political campaigns toward the middle ground of the swing states (the areas with a mixed population, conservatives and liberals living together, where people on average are a bit more moderate, perhaps as a result of knowing more people who see things the other way). On the one hand this makes everyone feel like their party doesn't represent them as well as might be: conservatives feel that the Republican party is not conservative enough, and many liberals feel that the Democratic party is too conservative. Put another way, it encourages compromise and allows us to find a middle ground we can all sort of live with, in a pinch. I believe the electoral college is the reason we've only had one civil war in our whole history (two if you count the revolution), rather than one every thirty years or so. IMO, countries that suffer from frequent civil wars due to demographic splits similar to ours (yes, Balkan countries, I'm looking at you) would do well to take a good hard look at our electoral college system.

We are a nation divided, but we stand together anyway.

Re:Prediction

[Keeper Of Keys]

Not enough of you voted Geshel.

Re:Prediction

[RandomFactor]

I'm sorry, i accidentally thought you were a Republican bitching about Libertarians for a moment.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree about the political parties however I think the founding fathers had it right about everyone electing the president. Contrary to popular belief, the USA doesn't have a democracy, it has a representative democracy. This means we should elect people we know at a local level who we trust to elect people at the state level who elect the people at the federal level. Not perfect but still better then having to cater to bread and circles to get elected.
Plus the average American isn't very good at determining what is best for the nation verse what is 'best' for themselves. Add in the fact that the average person has better things to do then elected a president, like picking their nose, and you can easily see why we SHOULD NOT allow the average American to elect the president.

Re:Prediction

[Jack Sombra]

"So, let's let poor Ralph off the hook because the end result here is more power than Dems dared to even dream about 9 years ago." Which is atually a very bad. Ruling party with not checks or balances that a viable opposition provides quickly becomes democracy's worst nightmare. I would take the Dem's any day of the week before Republicans but Dem's not afraid of getting kicked out would be just as bad as 8 years of Bush were

Re:Prediction

[Narpak]

I think it can be argued that each candidate should stand or fall entirely on their own merit; not be shoved to the front and top of an established party structure.

As it appear at the moment the two main parties, the media, interest groups and others, all try to influence who is or can be elected. Idea is to let people decide freely who is the best candidate and certain systems has been implemented to facilitate this. These systems however has in turn been shaped by ideology (in one shape or another) and has now left the people of the United States with a structure that almost rigidly maintains the need for the two parties. But people should be able to get a broader selection of candidates. The broad cultural, social and economical differences means that the ideas held by the citizens themselves are far more nuanced than what is reflected by the electoral system. Or so is my belief. So do not argue against those that support Nader upon the grounds that they are "stealing" votes form a "legitimate candidate"; all candidates are legitimate; and once everyone realize this perhaps one could hope for better and fairer elections.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest problem with the Corvair is that... Ralph Nader crusaded against it. The initial versions of the Corvair had a design flaw. That design flaw got fixed BEFORE Nader went on the warpath, and later testing showed the Corvair (After its suspension was fixed) to actually be one of the SAFEST cars in its class. But Nader had to have his crusade, you see...

Re:Prediction

[Fantom42]

A friend of mine lost his house over RSUs, he did not unload them when he received them. In the 2001 crash, they went from $70 to $13, and the tax bill was 70% of $70, so he had a tax bill of $49 on an asset worth $13. Multiply this by a few thousand RSUs.

With a normal stock you can write this off as a loss by closing the position. Can you not do this with an RSU?

Under normal federal income tax rules, an employee receiving Restricted Stock Units is not taxed at the time of the grant. Instead, the employee is taxed at vesting (when the restrictions lapse) unless the employee chooses to defer receipt of the cash or shares. In these circumstances, the employee must pay statutory minimum taxes as determined by their employer at vesting, but payment of all other taxes can be deferred until the time of distribution, when the employee actually takes receipt of the shares or cash equivalent (depending on the company's plan rules). The amount of income subject to tax is the difference between the fair market value of the grant at the time of vesting or distribution, minus the amount paid for the grant (if any).

It seems that you can... And 70% seems like an awfully high statutory minimum! Yikes!

Re:Prediction

[hesiod]

They've both been running to center trying to grind out the votes necessary to win without any concern for what principles or political values they're even suppose to stand for anymore. Isn't politics suppose to be the art of comprise[...]?

[emphasis mine] Assuming you meant "the art of compromise", that can be construed as "running to center". If "center" is the endpoint of a compromise between two sides, then you are vilifying them for doing the very thing you complain that they aren't doing, in the very next sentence.

Re:Prediction

[mdarksbane]

This is such a core difference of philosophy between libertarians and... apparently... everyone else.

It all boils down to how much you trust your government to do something useful when they decide to do something.

Re:Prediction

[Sausage Nibblets]

Federalist 10 deals somewhat with the issue of political parties.

Re:Prediction

[sesshomaru]

Well, a competent, principled conservative might not have been bad for President.

Instead we got George W. Bush.

In that election, I voted for Harry Browne. I still think he would've been better than either Gore/Lieberman or Bush/Cheney. I don't regret my vote.

I think if I had been a Leftist at the time (I'm considerably further Left now), I wouldn't have regretted voting for Ralph Nader. Al Gore ran as a triangulating New Democrat in the Clinton mold, in other words, outflanking Republicans on popular Right issues. Hence the choice of the neocon Lieberman for his running mate. (Of course, in those days I didn't know what a neocon was... I just knew Lieberman wanted to ban Mortal Kombat. It was a more innocent time.)

After the election, I re-evaluated the two major party candidates, after George W. Bush had had a chance to govern for a while. Of course, the grotesque mis-government of the man, coupled with the disasterous reaction to 9/11 causes Al Gore to look very favorable in retrospect. Well, that and his self-deprecating appearances on Futurama.

However, I don't know if anyone knew exactly how bad GWB was at the time, certainly his incompetance and mendacity were well hidden in the mainstream media.

However, he got elected twice! In other words, we had him in office for 4 years and the majority of the electorate said, "Oh yeah! We want four more years of that freakshow! Maybe when he's done we'll be living in that cool movie, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. Go on, Mr. President, run the country and the world into the ground!"

To quote Kent Brockman, "Democracy doesn't work!"

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

blame your lousy voting system that discourages a third party from forming

Personally, I'm more bothered by our lousy voting system which allows the candidate who gets the second highest vote count to win outright without even a runoff.

Yeah yeah "Electoral College" blah blah "Founding Fathers" blah blah. We've got a system designed at a time when the horse and buggy was high-tech and it shows. Counting two hundred million votes directly over the course of a day or so can be done now, thanks. Perfectly? No, but I could have sworn that the level of noise in noisy data tends to shrink as more data points are added. Errors (accidental or otherwise) are more likely to cancel out in one big pool of votes rather than 50 small ones.

Re:Prediction

[broggyr]

Seriously, shut your whole.

Whole what?

Re:Prediction

[eredin]

Due to significant gerrymandering, my representatives have never represented me. I would find it to be a significant improvement if I could choose one of the other representatives to represent me, and have his vote count that much more. If representatives represented actual people rather than the average person in their district, they might start acting right. If your representative doesn't vote the way you want, you have 434 others to choose from. Of course, Ron Paul's vote would end up being 20 times more powerful than most others, but it's a start.

Re:Prediction

[Jewfro_Macabbi]

He he. You got me there. Sorry. Typos happen, and often prior to morning coffee.

Re:Prediction

[AndersOSU]

He wasn't presenting a false dilemma, he's recognizing the current political reality.

The problem with divided government is that it slows the legislative process way down. This can be observed between 1994 and 2000 and again from 2006 to 2008. Granted, from 1950 to about 1982 it was possible for government to be divided and still productive, but in the current political climate with the GOP entrenched way out in crazyland, a divided government wouldn't be able to do anything substantial. That might be ok when everything is running along a-ok, but that is not the situation we're in at the moment. We need fundamental changes so we don't skid into the economic abyss, so we need either single party control, or we need the republicans to negotiate in good faith. The latter is much, much less feasible than the former.

Re:Prediction

[AndersOSU]

All party X has to do is adopt policy positions different from party Y that people actually support. If party X has all the good ideas, then yeah, there isn't much point to having party Y, but only the most rabid partisans argue that.

What party Y needs to do is get it's head out of it's ass and and stop bowing to AM radio commentator Z.

Re:Prediction

[sbaker25]

I don't believe this is exactly true. This is what Washington said in his 1796 farewell speech:

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Even by /. standards, this is a new land-speed record for thread drift.

Captcha was "miscarry". How appropriate.

Re:Prediction

[Eskarel]

I don't blame Nader because the Republicans were in for 8 years, I blame Nader because George Bush was in for 8 years.

Because of that the whole world got stuck in a war that we can't win, and which wasn't any of our business. Because of that science took a back seat to fundamentalist ideology and the crazies too even more of the US. Because of that countries that could be helping make things better economically don't want anything to do with us. Because of that the US has lost almost all of its soft influence with the rest of the world and it will take someone probably greater than Obama promises he will be, which is probably greater than he can be, years to undo that damage.

I don't give a rats that the republicans won, I liked John McCain in 2000(though not in 2008).

I blame Nader because, though he claims to be an environmentalist, he scuppered a candidate who whatever else he might have or would have done, was probably the greatest hope for real positive change for the planet we had. He didn't do that because he had a chance for winning, he did that to because he wanted more money for his political party.

It would have been wonderful to have been able to freely vote for Nader in 2000. I probably would have if I had been free to do so, but eight years of George Bush is a price the US and the world will be paying for decades to come, whether the republicans or democrats(both of whom are still fighting battles that don't meet the needs of the modern world) ever get elected again.

Re:Prediction

[Cajun Hell]

Do you really want politicians to sit there and debate about everything and not actually get anything done?

Are you kidding? Who doesn't want that?

Re:Prediction

[geekoid]

Cool car does not equal safe.
It is an unsafe car.

Yes, putting a 350 in it is nice.

Re:Prediction

[geekoid]

This was looked into extensively. The out come is that a large percentage of Nadar voters would have voted Dem if Nadar dropped out; which he should have done after he made his point.

Re:Prediction

[ktappe]

So, let's let poor Ralph off the hook because the end result here is more power than Dems dared to even dream about 9 years ago.

So by your logic, the completely unanticipatable ends justify the malevolent means?

Re:Prediction

[jbengt]

Al Gore should have won by 20 points. Don't blame Nader

I blame blowjobs

Re:Prediction

[geekoid]

Actual, it lays on Congress; which was republican when they removed the regulations.

I ahve pointed this out numerous times, it's takes more then the president to make stuff happen.

A common and basic political event is this:
A greater then 2/3 congress pushes for something, it gets to the president who doesn't like it.
Two things can happen at this point:
1) The president Vetos it, it bounce back and get 2/3rds, passing as is, or
2)The president tries to negotiate a little and try to improve it.
Clinton did the second.

If you look at the history of financial deregs since Reagan, it's been republicans in power that have pushed the more libertarian aspects onto the financial system. So now we see when the market runs around unfettered with regulations.

Everything in this post is factual, not an opinion or an ideology. All of it can be looked up.

Re:Prediction

[geekoid]

If you are paying 36%, you are a sucker or stupid.
When I was making 90 and hour I never even came close to that being my end of year tax bill.

Re:Prediction

[fishexe]

It's really Gore's fault. Gore also knew the faults of the US voting system and did what he did anyway. If millions of morons hadn't voted for Gore we would have had 8 years of President Nader.

In a more serious vein, if Gore hadn't (just like Kerry) been so good at saying things that will turn into bad sound bytes, or been so boring in his speaking manner, or tried to distance himself from Clinton at a time when Clinton was both very popular and the only reason anyone cared about Gore, he would have won easily. It's his fault the contest was anywhere near close enough for Bush to steal.

Re:Prediction

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You're making the bold assumption that electing a "democrat" is in the view of nadar voters a better outcome than electing a "republican". Perhaps those Nader voters felt differently?

No, I'm making the bold assumption that electing Al Gore is a different (and better) outcome than electing W. I think history has proven that we would have been better off if the President had been choosen entirely at random (or was a random "yes/no machine").

Anyone who frames an election in terms of a "democrat" vs. a "republican", and yet somehow denegrates the two-party system as limiting choices or thought among the voters, is ridiculously inconsistent.

That said, I do think that Nader voters thought "Heh, there's no difference between a generic democrat and a generic republican, so I shouldn't look at the individual people running." Those people are morons.

Nader voters who refused to vote for Al Gore hated the player, not the game.

Re:Prediction

[sorak]

Agreed. He was asked before about siphoning votes and his attitude was often (and I'm paraphrasing) that Gore is the same as Bush. He was intentionally siphoning votes away from the dems as his way of saying "steer left or lost elections".

Re:Prediction

[quanticle]

A government too weak to pass any laws but those that are blindingly, obviously necessary is my kind of government.

That's not what you get, though. What you get is either a government that's even more dominated by corporate interests than the one we have here (e.g. Italy), or one that's so weak it can't pass any laws, including the ones that are "necessary" and "blindingly obvious" (e.g. India).

Re:Prediction

[Cancer_Cures]

There are millions of more people who did not vote in 2000. Why get mad at 5 of the voters who voted for Nader? Why not look at the 40 or 60 percent of potential voters who did not vote in that election at all??

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm still somewhat bitter at Ralph Nader, why do you ask?

Are you aware that approximately half the voters voted for Bush? And you're mad at Nader? You have literally millions of enemies and you want to turn a neutral into yet another enemy. That's fucked up to the point where I'd say you're trying to lose.

Re:Prediction

[sumdumass]

I think your confused. First, there is nothing limiting the system in the US to two parties outside the participation of third parties. Second, what you are referring to as a default two party system is little more then a coalition of groups to amass power. It exists in every system that has elected representatives that can act for the benefit of the political entity or the people. The current democrat an republicans are exactly that, the results of long standing coalitions between several parties united under one name.

If three parties are present and one party gets 40% of the vote with the other two splitting the remainder, or even a 35-25 split, then the parties will have to work together to get something done. Some things in the federal government are harder to accomplish because of thier nature which means even more cooperation will need to be done. It's the same with just two parties if neither house is controlled by a single party. However, in any case, it isn't detrimental to the people because in order to get control of the house or senate, a majority of people would have had to of supported them at some point in time. In short, it would have been the expressed will of the people at the time the votes were cast.

The two party system exists solely out of convenience and the lack of effort put forth by third parties and the combination of third parties into permanent coalitions in which the make up of both dominant parties today is the result of.

The big problem is that people misconstrue the power and role of the federal government. It isn't to represent the people as most idiots think. It's to put a common face on a collection of states and to represent the states in foreign affairs and in matters that the states aren't capable of handling unbiasedly between themselves. That's why congress needs to approve any interstate agreements and regulates commerce between the states. That's why the constitution specifically put limits on the states but also places limits on the federal government and then reserves all other rights to the states and the people.

When you look at the federal government in this light, you can easily see that the federal government is supposed to be an extension of the states in which it works with the several states to archive a common goal. It originally was divided into two sets of state representation with the senate being appointed by the states and the states deciding how to appoint electors to vote on the president. With the people being represented in the house of representatives and directly relative to the population. If you look, you will also see that there are two ways you can ammend the constitution that would be unconstitutional. one of them had to do with taxes and importing people into a state before 1808 while the other which is still in effect today and would create an unconstitutional amendment to the constitution deals with "states" getting their proper representation. You should see why it is imperative for any third party to gain support throughout a state before expecting support or viability on a federal level. If you or any third party looks at the federal government in any other light, you will be confused claiming that there is a two party system out of some design and you will be confused as well as disappointed when third party efforts fail miserably.

Until they get the into their heads, no third party will be viable outside of forcing issues to the table and making politicians recognize that the people have an interest in them. The federal government is not a supreme branch of government with unlimited powers over the people, it's little more then an extension of state governments and for any third party to exist on a federal level, they need to exist and be supported on a state and local level.

Re:Prediction

[feepness]

The two party system isn't the problem.

People like you are.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up! I'm sick and tired of being told that I wasted my vote. The plain truth is that I didn't endorse either major political party candidate, and I've gone and done exactly what you are supposed to do: use your vote to make a change.

So what if it didn't sway the majority. So what. My vote was cast for a show of support for valid, multiple party political discourse, not for picking the red team or the blue team.

Re:Prediction

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Which he probably got from Rousseau, who reckoned that political parties made democracy impossible.

They certainly make the "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" system unworkable.

By having the same party in control of more than one branch those branches are no longer in significant competition but rather controlled by whomever or whatever group controls the party.

Re:Prediction

[mcvos]

That said, it's still Nader's fault, because despite the faults of the US voting system, Nader knew those faults, and knew exactly what he was doing. He thought that getting more funding for his party was worth 4 years of George Bush and as I recall he didn't even get enough votes to get the extra funding anyway so he shafted us, and everything he stood for for 8 years to prove a point.

This is silly. Nader didn't cast those votes, the voters did. They are the only ones who are to blame for 8 years of George Bush. But mostly Bush and Congress are to blame for what he did in those years, because I don't think he actually ran with an election promise to revoke various civil rights and to torture more people.

Of course the US voters carry all the blame for the last 4 years of the Bush regime. They knew what he did and still re-elected him. That's not something you can blame on Nader.

Re:Prediction

[QuoteMstr]

Or are people not suppose to vote for the guy who they feel is the most qualified? When did casting a ballot equate to throwing away your vote if your guy doesn't get elected?

Yes. That's our system. It's not the one we should have, but it's the one we do have. To cause change, we either need to work within the system or start a revolution, and me, I'd much prefer the former, thanks.

Re:Prediction

[eison]

You get hugely screwed if you accept receipt of the shares but don't cash them out, then the stock drops. You might choose to do this if you think the company will continue to rise in value. You can argue that it's not the best choice, but it looks like a good idea if you think the stock will go up and lots of people lost their shirts in this way.

Re:Prediction

[Blakey Rat]

Here on the Left coast, we're already there...

California state income tax is ~10%, California sales tax is 9%, Federal income tax is 36%, SSI 6%, Medicare 2%, plus all the little add on stuff to the phone bill, electricity, vehicle license fee.

Hey, don't class my beautiful Washington State with your shitty California.

Everybody ignore that "left coast" comment; 2/3rds of the states on the "left coast" are actually sane. Sane being defined, basically, as "not California."

Re:Prediction

[DarthVain]

Apparently the folks up (far) north already figured this out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut#Government

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

In his Farewell Address, Washington said this about the party system:

"It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

Note that he makes no reference to how many parties, he is just discussing party politics in general. Nothing about that seems to imply he favored having only one, or even any, political parties. I got the distinct impression he was against the very idea of political parties, and this is the justification I make for my independent status. I too would love to see every politician run on issues alone.

Captcha word: cautions

Re:Prediction

[crmarvin42]

It's not Nader's fault that Gore failed to be a more appealing option. Just like it's not Perot's fault that Bush Sr. failed to be a more appealing option when Clinton was elected.

It was Gore/Bush Sr.'s jobs to be the most appealing candidate. They both failed to sway enough of the like minded voters that a vote for them was better than a vote for a 3rd party candidate. Tough Shit. That our system is currently designed to favor 2 parties (those in power and their adversaries) is unfortunate and potentially fixable, but not the fault of those not satisfied with either of the current dominant parties, but politically motivated enough to actually try and change things.

I was too young to vote for Perot (although I wouldn't have) and did not vote for Nader, but I don't blame either of them for the out comes.

The feeling that one of them "Handed" the election to someone simply by running is based on the idea that a given politician/political party is "Owed" something by the electorate that happen to consider themselves Democrats or Republicans, or more generally Liberal or Conservative. The reality could not be further from the truth. It is the job of the Party leadership to enable the party members to feel as though a vote for their candidate is a strong positive, not a choice between two negatives. That the loosing party in both cases failed to do an adequate job of that may be unfortunate depending on your political leanings, but it is by no means the fault of another party that did a better job than could normally be expected under our current system.

Re:Prediction

[crmarvin42]

If you want to tax profits, they should be based on exactly that, Profits. The tax rate should be applied at the time the assets are sold, not at the original inception date becuase this fails to account for the potential event of catistrophic losses.

Re:Prediction

[crmarvin42]

This complete ignore those that are too stupid/apathetic to make intelligent decisions themselves and simply go along with the crowd. If you can make it appear as though you are the majority (Bolsheviks = Russion for Majority, despite the party never having a a true majority of the population supporing it.), it won't matter whether the perception is reality or not. No one wants to admit that they are that suseptible to political marketing, but it's been shown over and over again that political adds work no matter how stupid we all believe them to be.

Re:Prediction

[Achromatic1978]

Why should only profits be taxed? The stocks were income, full stop. They were worth $70 each when they were received, and tax was calculated on them at that point, as income. The fact that he held on to them until they were worth a fraction of that, and his tax debt was deferred are unrelated. That tax was owed at the time of receipt. Why on earth would or should they have been imagined to be tax-free income, unless a profit was made over and above?

I bet he wouldn't be arguing that he'd owe tax on the entire $200 if they'd reached that price.

My point still stands - it's not a hidden fact that stocks received are income in the IRS's eyes. That he didn't set aside money for that deferred tax liability is not anyone else's fault. That he lost his house is horrible and extremely unfortunate (though that makes me raise an eyebrow - why wasn't the IRS willing to arrange a payment plan, as they are obligated to do?), but ultimately, blame lies in one place only.

Re:Prediction

[crmarvin42]

I guess I miss understood. I thought that he'd bought the share, not been gifted them. my bad!

Re:Prediction

[mcvos]

Why should it give you nightmares? Do you really want politicians to sit there and debate about everything and not actually get anything done?

Depends on what they want to get done. Compared to the last 8 years, yes, I'd prefer them to not get anything done.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? In 2000 the real estate bubble was an unstoppable force? That makes no sense whatsoever, the bubble started in 2005 or so, hell 2001-2002 is considered by many to be a recession.

Re:Prediction

[mcvos]

I, for one, don't want any party to have that much power.

The only way to accomplish that is by having a multi-party system so no single party will ever have a majority on its own, and by not giving a single elected individual (like a president) too much power on his own.

The US political system is unfortunately designed to work the way it does. If you want it to work differently, you need to change the system.

Re:Prediction

[chrismcb]

Except that my RSU stocks are taxed at 70% of value the day they are granted. So they are basically worthless... (

70%? RSU's are essentially taxed as ordinary income. Who in America pays 70% tax on their income? Unfortunately the rules seemed a bit skewed. If he sells that stock, he can claim a capital gains loss of $57 per share. Skewed because the original tax is regular income, but the loss is capital gains... (Granted if it goes up and he sells it, it is also capital gains)

Re:Prediction

[Saxerman]

I was using 'running to center' to describe how many politicians quickly and easily change their rhetoric to match the perceived political mood of their audience, without actually making any change in their own positions. The two party system makes 'the center' not a platform for compromise, but merely a battle ground for votes, as no party exists there to represent anyone. And the ways in which we try and confirm 'the center' as part of a two dimensional spectrum does a gross insult to the true complexity and nuance of political philosophy.

Re:Prediction

[weaseldaddy]

Washington warned against the formation of political parties in his farewell address at the end of his second term as president. Madison in Federalist Paper #10 warned about unchecked factions; he believed a plethora of divisions would serve to keep a group from becoming a majority and having a controlling share of power.

Re:Prediction

[laughing rabbit]

I remember it as being a rear engine, air cooled car. How you drop that 350 in there?

We dropped Porsche 6 cylinder H-opposed pancake engines in those babies. Now you were unsafe at any speed cause they only went fast!

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

So why shouldn't the government accept some of the risk in the form of a reduction in the tax? If the guy couldn't sell the RSUs on the day he received them, then he shouldn't be taxed on the value they had that day, because they really weren't an asset then.

And just how much control did he have over the manner in which he was compensated? At a previous position with a salary I found acceptable, I was given stock options without asking for them. (I was able to exercise these with cashless sells, which would seem to avoid this guy's tax problem.) What might this guy have had to do to refuse these RSUs? I wouldn't equate his assumption of risk with that of someone who sought out a stock broker.

Re:Prediction

[GryMor]

Range voting is limited by Arrow's impossibility theorem in that it fails the Condorcet criterion.

Re:Prediction

[ElectricRook]

Because he thought he'd make it big

No, actually, he's the kind of guy that works 14+ hours a day, never looks at his stock account, and probably does not even balance his check book.

April 15'th rolled around, and his tax man said Oh Shit...

Re:Prediction

[The Grim Reefer2]

There used to be a company that made a conversion kit for doing just that. You might find these links interesting:

http://www.corvaircorsa.com/crown1a.html
http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/featuredvehicles/54739_1965_chevrolet_corvair_monza_convertible/index.html

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for those that function fairly well:
- Germany
- The Netherlands
- The Scandinavian countries
- Ireland

Every system of government can fail, so it's not surprising that you came up with some examples of bad coalition governments. However, there are also plenty of examples of badly run non-coalition governments.

Re:Prediction

[AndersOSU]

In a totalitarian state, it doesn't matter if you're the actual majority or not, because you can suppress dissent. Additionally, for what it's worth, the Bolsheviks, and every Marxist movement for that matter, were at least in theory populist uprisings - so it's at least logical to argue that in theory they were standing for the majority.

In a democracy, if you're only pretending to be a majority, you'll be voted out of office. That is essentially the great flaw in Rove's 50+1 electoral college politicking.

About political marketing: that is why having a free and independent press is so important.

Re:Prediction

[laughing rabbit]

Way cool, wild and wacky stuff. Thanks.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you really want politicians to sit there and debate about everything and not actually get anything done?"

YES!!! For God's sake YES!

That is EXACTLY what I want to see from government. Public debate. Not intrusive, poorly thought out laws, written and enacted in haste.

Good.

[DinZy]

I'd like them to take it a step further and have it so the owner can see the error codes and refer to the manual. I got a check engine light on a 2 month old car while driving across country with no dealer for 800 miles. I chose to risk it rather than have to pay a local mechanic to look at it. As it turned out it was only a dirty fuel filter caused by crappy gas. Forcing me to worry and go to a dealer 700 miles before my destination is really a crappy way to squeeze money out of someone who just gave you 30 grand.

Re:Good.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

you already can. Go get an OBD2 reader or have a shop pull the codes. Interpreting them is a bit harder - I thought there was legislation requiring manufacturers to divulge the codes, but I'm not sure.

Re:Good.

[Propaganda13]

You can get readers for them which will clear the code after you fixed the problem. I've seen some that give a warning level on how bad the code is. Just because you have the code and maybe even the explanation, doesn't mean you'll know what to do though.

P0411 - secondary air injection incorrect flow

It means either a hose has a hole, or a solenoid, vavle, or pump isn't working. This is basically an emissions system which I'd rip out in a heartbeat if I didn't have to pass an emissions test.

Re:Good.

[publiclurker]

For a lot of the simpler codes, you can buy an OBD code reader for not much money. I bought a really cheap one when my light kept coming on. Unfortunately, it told me that the problem was my knock sensor and not the gas cap being put on wrong, but it saves me from having to pay just to find out that nothing is wrong.

Re:Good.

[drinkypoo]

The real problem right now is reprogramming data. OBD-II cars (everything 1996+ and some earlier) have standard protocol, connector, pinouts (kind of), et cetera. They also have standardized codes. But there are also manufacturer-specific codes which are only required to be provided for a reasonable fee which means (in practice) they can be presented as a book of text and they can charge you a hundred bucks. And most importantly there are manufacturer-specific codes which get sent to the PCM ("powertrain control module", what we used to call the ECU or "engine control unit"... but PCM is standardized terminology per OBD-II spec) which are used for tuning, for example for altitude.

Re:Good.

[0100010001010011]

Cars are already more or less pretty open with some proprietary stuff tacked on. ODB-II (or now CAN) has a set list of standard messages that everyone uses. Now car companies can choose to extend into their own messages if they want. Engine speed, throttle, etc all have a set upon CAN Id.

AutoZone and AdvanceAuto and every other car repair place will read these codes for free. They may be cryptic (Your fault could have probably been FUEL PRESS LOW or something), but Google and auto forums can decode them for you pretty easily.

There are also 3rd party options (at least for VW). Ross-Tech makes VAG-COM which will let you connect to almost any ECM in your car and read diagnostics or monitor blocks which is much cheaper than VW's "OE" tool (Many $k).

Now letting them see the latest service manuals would help, many companies use MATLAB/Simulink to autocode their ECM software. The lines of code and the possibility for bugs is scary. And like software companies, no one is going to be doing software updates on 3-4 year old cars meaning instead of "Don't buy X car because the wheel bearing goes bad" you could get a bug report of "Don't buy X car because the throttle position sensor flips out".

Re:Good.

[jozlod]

i can bridge 2 pins on the ecu plug on mine, and its flashes the dash lights in sequence to give me the codes, its just a matter of looking them up. though im not sure if newer cars are still keeping anything like this available.

Also, generally if your engine light comes on, your car will go into limp home mode, which is a cut back operation that uses default configs and ignores either all or some of the sensors just to enable you to get home, or to a workshop somewhere without the working sensors.

Re:Good.

[drinkypoo]

CAN is a wiring spec and a protocol and falls under OBD-II; You can read all about the SNAFU on Wikipedia but the short form is that there are five protocols including CAN, which is mandatory on 2008 and later vehicles. Wikipedia doesn't make it clear that CAN has been allowed for in OBD-II for years, if not all along, but that is indeed the case. AFAIK CAN is the most expensive of the protocols to implement, so some OBD-II interfaces don't include CAN support. CAN is also commonly used for communications between the PCM and the computer which operates the transmission, so your PCM might actually have multiple CAN interfaces, though only one of them pins out to the OBD-II connector.

Re:Good.

[TinBromide]

You can get the odb-II codes on a PT cruiser by switching the key from off to soft on (electrical system is active but the engine hasn't started) like 3 times or so. It'll then spit out the codes. I used those codes to replace my camshaft location sensor by the side of the road... A $35 dollar part, I sent my wife to buy a new one (she wasn't in the car at the time).

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

A better option is to just reform software patent laws. If we make software patents work like machinery patents this whole thing would be solved.

Specifically-

Source code == Blueprint
Compiled code == working model

You can get a patent with one or the other, or both, but then you have to file it with the patent office.
Any changes to the patented design of a significant functional nature invalidate the patent, just like with hardware.

If I make a device that is designed to alter your product, it is NOT a patent or copyright violation, until you enter the world of software. This is horsecrap. Being able to not only patent a specific program, but an entire algorithm and everything it applies to is a drastic abuse of the very idea of patents.

sigh..

Re:Good.

[NeuralAbyss]

Just a bit of minor nitpicking..

ECU nowadays is a fairly generic term in automotive electronics - any module, be it a body electronics module, engine management system, immobiliser or such can be called an ECU.

Re:Good.

[drinkypoo]

Not really. All of those things have their own specific terminology. BCM, PCM, ABS module... And immobiliser? The immobilization of vehicles is done in the PCM, although sometimes there is an external unit which handles some aspects of security. It's a circuit, not a module, except when it's an add-on. And when it is, you certainly shouldn't call it the ECU, because someone might confuse it with the PCM... since it most certainly WAS normally called the "ECU" in pre-OBD-II ("OBD-I", though that is a significant misnomer it is commonly used) vehicles. We had computer keys with a wired interface before wireless immobilizers were mandated in the UK, but only on some vehicles.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely you didn't screw the gas cap down all the way and got screwed for the cost of replacing the FF (I certainly hope you didn't get charged more than $30).

Any car with a decent warranty would've given you the option of calling their corporate help line to send a flatbed from the nearest dealer. It's pretty standard these days.

Re:Good.

[drinkypoo]

Time to spend more of my state-sponsored education. The mandatory light on all 1996+ cars is known as the MIL or Malfunction Indicator Light. The MIL lights when your vehicle's emissions are out of spec for any reason. I shit you not, that light is there specifically to tell you that your car is putting out excessive emissions. This happens whenever any of the "monitors" fails. A monitor is a list of conditions. Most monitors are "trip" monitors; a trip is a certain set of driving conditions. For example, if you run the vehicle at 50% or more load for a certain period of time and then coast for a certain period of time the car will operate the EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) valve, and it then has a chance to test to see if it is working. There's also a comprehensive monitor which runs every so often (pretty often actually) and checks to see if any sensors are giving a value which seems exceptionally wacky, either on its own or compared to the state of other sensors.

The MIL will clear itself so long as the fault was not serious (IIRC there are four conditions) if the monitor which failed passes three times in succession. All this is from memory so, bear with me if I get something slightly wrong. When it happens a snapshot is also stored. This is some of that "black box" data that can tattle on you in an accident; the car knows the position of the accelerator pedal and how fast it thinks you were going (and usually also knows what gear you're in and how many RPMs you're making, anyway, from separate sensors/senders) as well as the state of every other sensor under the hood, and possibly some others. There may also be a CEL (check engine light) and if the manufacturer is feeling particularly benevolent, a "check gauges" (or even "check gages"... heh heh) light which lights if, say, your oil pressure is low or your coolant temperature is high, but not so high that the computer thinks that what the sender is saying can't possibly be right.

Anyway, when any major sensor/sender flails the car will go into limp-home mode. It will also happen if there are repeated misfires, but misfires cause at least one of the monitors to fail (I forget which one though, sorry) and should light the MIL. The limp-home mode will not only retard the timing and thus reduce performance and worsen emissions, but in some cases it will also restrict maximum speed. When limping home the vehicle usually runs rich, which can kill your catalytic converter but which helps reduce misfires due to many types of engine problem.

Re:Good.

[GaryOlson]

Please read and at least attempt to understand comment before replying...

Could you repeat that comment one more time so I can be sure I have it right?

Re:Good.

[JoeMerchant]

you already can. Go get an OBD2 reader or have a shop pull the codes. Interpreting them is a bit harder - I thought there was legislation requiring manufacturers to divulge the codes, but I'm not sure.

Point of the article is that the standard OBD2 readers aren't cutting it anymore, they're giving the legally required (smog related) codes and nothing else. If you want a reader like the dealer uses, prepare to fork out more than you paid for the car... This is why the independent mechanics are feeling screwed.

Re:Good.

[jozlod]

quite an interesting read, thanks.
I know about the limp home mode, but yea, the emissions thing i havent heard much on, i guess i've always thought it was all the same thing with the engine light and errors codes.
I guess its lucky that i have a 1994 car then :-)

Re:Good.

[Jon Abbott]

Absolutely. I use an Auto-Xray to read all of those different brands, and it works great. It has saved me (and my friends) thousands of dollars over the last few years.

Nowadays I just ride a motorcycle, which is vastly easier to work on than a car. While there is no check engine light, it is very obvious when a cam chain tensioner or something similar goes kaputt. ;^)

Re:Good.

[JoeMerchant]

If I can buy an MP3 player that has a 2" video screen for $50 - the auto manufacturers have no excuse for not having a user-friendly display (better than cryptic flashing lights) built in with the OBDII interface. It should (in the US) use plain English to describe exactly what is wrong and what the implications are - no reference manual required - hell, the reference manual should be available on an on-board http server with a WiFi network that both serves the info to the owner's notebook PC, and downloads updates and tech bulletins (automatically, for free) when driven onto a dealer's lot.

Everything I have described above costs less than one air-bag, and should be standard equipment on all but the most basic models, and provided as an "at cost" option for any car it doesn't come standard on.

Should... in a fantasy world where the corporations are actually serving their customers.

Re:Good.

[waterm]

You are mostly right but the problem isn't that the vehicles don't spit out all of the codes (they will), the problem is interpreting them in a meaningful fashion.

Re:Good.

[Chyeld]

They have the perfect excuse: Money.
They have the perfect backup bs excuse: Cars is hard!

They are protecting the poor, stupid, car owner. Who undoubtedly is incapable of understanding the workings of the modern car and therefore should always be directed to an authorized dealer to diagnose and repair any issues that pop up. Therefore, providing too much information must be avoided. The owner must prove they understand the workings of the car in order to access the information concerning the workings of their car.

You see, it's all for you really.

Re:Good.

[JoeMerchant]

In 1977, I can understand that blinking lights were state of the art, and recorded messages informing you that your door is a jelly container (jar) had their limits.

In 2009, there's no reason they couldn't have a 3rd grade reading level explanation, with pictures and videos, telling that your gas cap needs to be tightened. I believe most cars still send you to the dealer with a check engine light for that one.

Re:Good.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

which is what I was talking about with pending legislation.

Re:Good.

[YrWrstNtmr]

It will also happen if there are repeated misfires, but misfires cause at least one of the monitors to fail

I have an ODBII interface for my laptop. $120. Sucker works great.

Regarding the misfire scenario. It does NOT work in the obvious way...no spark to cylinder #3 = misfire.
No...there is an accelerometer on the crankshaft. As each cylinder fires, the crankshaft accelerates a little. The absence of this is a 'misfire'.

So...at 4000RPM (200 firing cycles per sec among 6 cylinders - suck, squeeze, bang, blow), the onboard computer can sense that 'at this point in the firing cycle, the crankshaft did not register the appropriate acceleration, ergo, cyl #3 sparkplug did not fire properly'.

Buy whatever laptop interface you can find for your (post-95) vehicle. Seriously.

Re:Good.

[YrWrstNtmr]

It should (in the US) use plain English to describe exactly what is wrong and what the implications are

It can't, because there could be many causes, most of which mea absolutely nothing to a non-mechanic.

High cyl head temperature = bad thermostat or blocked radiator or failed water pump or broken belt or low coolant level(why? because the radiator has a pinhole) or collapsed return hose or 18 other things. For something so 'simple' as the cooling system.

Troubleshooting/diagnosis is quite often not so simple.

For those of us who CAN troubleshoot, the tools are easy to buy and use.

Re:Good.

[deraj123]

Any car with a decent warranty would've given you the option of calling their corporate help line to send a flatbed from the nearest dealer. It's pretty standard these days.

This, while being a nice feature, feels a lot less helpful when the closest dealers is 300 miles and you live 500 miles in the other direction. Sure, they'll get your car to the dealership, but your trip is shot, you need transportation, and then you have to figure out how to get your car back after it's fixed. When this happens because of some minor, easily repaired part, and you have no way of knowing that, it is still pretty damned frustrating.

Re:Good.

[Darkness404]

But it would cut down on a lot of pointless service calls. Sure, have the advanced part and use (standard) codes for mechanics, but I'd rather know that my check engine light is something trivial like the gas cap is off or not screwed in tightly. Lets just say that its the cooling system. Most people who don't know much about cars can't fix it themselves, so they take it into a mechanic. However if they keep getting the check engine light for trivial things, they will ignore it and might end up damaging the engine.

It wouldn't be perfect but I'd rather know if its something thats easily fixable or something I need a pro to do.

Re:Good.

[RobertLTux]

if there was a way for the data to be displayed on what stands to be an included (chances are #price rank of car#* 10%) display then even if its gibberish to a non mechanic then all i would take is a mechanic to see the display (maybe via cell phone pic) to advise the person from the "oh not serious come in when you are ready" to "STOP THE CAR RIGHT NOW IM SENDING YOU A TOW TRUCK" range.

Re:Good.

[fractoid]

Yes, but it could at least let you distinguish between serious things like "injectors 3 and 5 are fucked" or "oil leaking into coolant, suspect blown head" and not-so-serious things like "tyre pressure slightly low on left rear tyre".

A while ago I helped a nice middle-aged lady who was sitting at the petrol station all worried because her car's "check tyre" light was on. I checked the pressures in all four of her tyres and they were fine. So this lady had sat around for a good half an hour just because her car was paranoid... not the best outcome, I'd say.

Re:Good.

[guisar]

Unfortunately nobody (well I do but almost nobody) works on their own cars any more- cars now have the same status as jewelery or a blender. As a result, they are dropped off wherever and the repairs are a cost of doing business. Nobody gives a shit about independent mechanics either, few people even use them most people having been convinced that cars are "so complicated" only the dealer can work on them. MB even refuses to publish or allow others to publish detailed maintenance info. Check out the Bentley's manual and see just how sparse it is these days. Cars evidently have some new functions beyond moving forward and reverse that I have missed....

Until owners of cars begin to work on them and get pissed off about the lack of information becomes a purchase consideration manufacturers will continue this trend as it means more money for them. I will continue to drive my Bostig equipped VW van for another 20 years....

Re:Good.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'd like them to take it a step further and have it so the owner can see the error codes and refer to the manual.

You can go to most any major chain auto store like Autozone and they will typically read the code out for free or at worst a very minor charge. If it is a common code, the guy will probably know exactly what it means, if it isn't so common, chances are you can google it pretty easily.

That's not to say I don't agree with you - I think any car that has one of those big LCD displays on the console ought to also be able to display any and all diagnostic events with a paragraph of explanation. I'm just saying you had another option besidkes driving to a dealer 700 miles away and over paying them.

Re:Good.

[drinkypoo]

Yes, I'm aware. You need a crank angle sensor AND a cam angle sensor to "reliably" detect misfire in this manner. (It's not that reliable. Depending on engine design it might misdetect.)

Anyway, both of my vehicles are Pre-1996 Diesels, a 1982 MBZ 300SD and a 1992 Ford F250 4x4 with an International engine. Neither one has an ECU, much less a PCM :D

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your cheap screen from a $50 MP3 player will be lucky to last 2 years... I wouldn't want it as the diagnostic readout to my car. Cars are faced with some extreme conditions, depending on climate... cold in the winter, to baking hot inside in the summer, to stifling humidity... not to mention constant vibration, sometimes extreme shock, spilled soda, etc... I'll gladly take blinking lights as long as they provide me the list of what each blink means.

Re:Good.

[greetings programs]

I love my VAG-COM, it has saved me litterally thousands of dollars. I wish every car make could have a tool like this. This is the main reason I own two VWs.

Re:Good.

[sjames]

As a shade tree mechanic (professional mechanic years ago) who does not have money shooting out of any of my body orifices, I would prefer a simple well documented way to get at the codes.

That's doubly true if I'm not at home at the time (a remarkably common condition when I'm driving a car!) and want to know if I'll be better off completing my errands then fix it, returning home immediately and hope I get there, or try to limp somewhere and park it.

For your example, High cyl head temperature tells me to take it easy and park it for a bit to cool down. Check the belts then see if it needs coolant. Etc.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is modded funny - while I detect a little satire it's true. My ol' man sells Cadillacs to old folks who don't know what the hell to do with all that technology - none the less understand what a MAP sensor is or what it does ... and if they do understand, it's still best for them not to touch it because it's not like their old AMC Gremlin or their old Starcruiser.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any chance they'd make the messages deliberately misleading? For better or worse, many people ignore their check engine light exactly because it is so easily triggered.
Add a text display, and that "gas cap needs tightening" could be presented as "fuel vapor leak"
which is infinitely more scary.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

AutoZone in California claims they can't provide these services anymore. The employee told me that it was a result of automakers lobbying the state legislature... cop out, anyone?

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

"MB even refuses to publish or allow others to publish detailed maintenance info."

Milton Bradley never had a manual included with the Monopoly car. They just expect you to "trade in" for some other piece, which usually requires mortgaging some property.

Re:Good.

[Achromatic1978]

But it would cut down on a lot of pointless service calls.

Ah, I see your problem. You're thinking like a consumer, not a producer. Dealers love 'pointless service calls'. They get the base fee, and it takes all of 5-10 minutes for the apprentice to diagnose.

Re:Good.

[Falkener]

In Europe they are working on standardizing all diagnostic and calibration communication for cars, i.e. a tester (that workshop thingy) can connect and diagnose a car, no matter who the manufacturer is. The standard is called ASAM-MCD uses OBD and is supported by new cars from BMW, AUDI, DAIMLER, CHRYSLER, PORSCHE and VW. (yes, I work in the core group for this new ISO standard). It is also used by manufacturers to produce cars from different companies in the same plant (see VW and AUDI). No different hardware or software required. Unfortunately you need the XML-Data for each car, which the company lets you pay for. This was done to preempt a new law in the European Union from forcing the manufacturers to comply with a standard created by the union. By creating their own standard, the manufacturers could design it themselves. Which of course led it to be very useful for them and still leaving the local workshops without a solution, as the xml-data is not readily sold or cheap.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

The hardware would cost less than one air-bag. But to explain every error code with the implications in a language understandable for non-engineers is a huge task. And most of the time it is not simple to know the implications just by knowing the error-code

Re:Good.

[SlashWombat]

This is good to know ... I must say though, BMW is the only car I have seen that requires a RESET though the OBD loop to get rid of the fault light on the dash, even if this light only came up because it was time for a service! That is what I call obnoxious in the extreme! (Worse, I imagine it will then obscure real faults!)

Now, will the Japanese, and the USA follow these ISO regulations? The USA car industry does have a bad habit of following SAE regulations, and effectively ignoring the ISO standards.

Re:Good.

[Gordonjcp]

Any workshop manual I have up to about the late 90s calls pretty much anything with a microprocessor in it an ECU. Well, that or something sufficiently complicated - the ECU for L- and LE-Jetronic fuel injection has no CPU (it's all analogue), and the ABS ECU for my '88 Citroën CX is analogue too.

Re:Good.

[MrMr]

Don't buy X car because the throttle position sensor flips out
Just got my 10 year old firmware updated for exactly that reason...

Re:Good.

[IdolizingStewie]

Did you check the spare? Sometimes those have sensors too.

Re:Good.

[YrWrstNtmr]

I would prefer a simple well documented way to get at the codes.

Any of the laptop ODBII interfaces display all of the codes (incl the individual manufacturers extended set), what fault caused the light to come on, the ability to turn it off. The one I have allows you to 'record' a drive and monitor several settings. Later, download that to a spreadsheet and build graphs to see what happened when.

Now...I agree it would be nice to have that display built into the car, but for the vast majority of people, a useless tool.

Re:Good.

[JoeMerchant]

The implications of High cyl head temp could be, in laymen's terms, something to the effect of:

"Engine is hot, continued driving may cause engine failure and damage requiring expensive repair or replacement of the engine. Stop the vehicle in a safe location and keep the engine running."

When in park,

"Cylinder head temperature is dropping, do not turn off your engine, unless there is a safety issue. The cylinder head temperature gauge is measuring 477 degrees. Normal operating range for cylinder head temperature in this vehicle is 180 to 350 degrees. Operation with cylinder head temperatures above 450 degrees for more than a few minutes can lead to head gasket failure, lubrication failure, and will eventually lead to complete engine failure. Possible causes for elevated cylinder head temperature include cooling system failure, lean fuel mixture, and operation at high engine load for extended time in a hot environment. As long as the cylinder head temperature continues to drop quickly, the engine should be kept running to allow the cooling system to operate. This vehicle has experienced high cylinder head temperatures 3 times in the past year, indicating a possible intermittent problem with the engine, or operation in extreme conditions. Consultation with a qualified mechanic is recommended."

Later,

Cylinder head temperature is 342 degrees, this is within normal operating range (180-350). All other engine status monitors are within normal range. If cylinder head temperatures continue to run above normal your vehicle should be serviced by a qualified mechanic as soon as possible.

Most of this information is already codified in a reasonable form for the service techs, it wouldn't take as much effort or expense to put it into owner consumable form as it does to formulate a seasonal marketing strategy for a splinter brand (Pontiac, for example.)

One diagnostic that I could have used would have read something like:

The engine coolant temperature gauge is measuring 877 degrees. This indicates a lack of coolant in the system, or possibly a faulty temperature sensor. All other engine status monitors are within normal range. Recommend service with a qualified technician as soon as possible, the engine monitoring system cannot function properly without accurate engine coolant temperature information.

Instead, I just got a pegged temperature gauge and a check engine light. This, coincidentally, happened just after I hooked up a rather heavy trailer to a new-ish pickup truck. Freaked me out, but it was just a bad sensor, we were lucky to find a mechanic in a strange town who would fix it on a Saturday afternoon. If the light had come on 3 hours later, it would have been a nerve wracking Sunday driving 400 miles with the temp needle spiked, check engine light on, and nothing really wrong.

Re:Good.

[Lumpy]

code 303 - Fuel gasses recovery system malfunction..
Causes can include, Gas cap missing or loose.

It CAN be plain English, Cantonese, French,etc.... In fact you cant give me ANY situation where it needs to be in a cryptic data stream.

Re:Good.

[Lumpy]

Really????

my Snap on Solus Pro http://www1.snapon.com/soluspro scan tool cost me $2700.00 and can read everything as well as log all sensors and even trip functions in the car. Hell I can read the tranny codes.

it costs more than most cars headed to the junk heap or are winter beater cheapies, but nowhere near the price of any new car. and it's what MOST garages use.

Re:Good.

[digitalaudiorock]

As I understand it, that technique of bridging the pins to get the flashing codes only works with older OBD-I interfaces...mostly on cars made prior to 1996. I know it can't be done on my 1996 Saturn, built the first year they used the OBD-II spec.

I spent about $100 on a Scantool. I even got the software to compile on my Gentoo laptop. It works on essentially all newer domestic and foreign cars. It's great to have even if you only use it to find out if a "check engine" light is something serious enough to warrant towing to your mechanic.

Re:Good.

[JoeMerchant]

Right now, you need a laptop to get at those codes - if ASUS can deliver complete netbooks for $300, it shouldn't cost much more than that to integrate a 7" touch screen display into the dash of your $30,000 new vehicle.

Re:Good.

[TyrainDreams]

I know this is slightly off topic but I did want to comment. I work in IT for an Auto parts distributor for ACDelco and Motorcraft. If you think the readers are expensive you should see the chip programmers. And not only that but the ridiculous requirements, I was under the impression this was just simple serial or maybe some fancy USB connection maybe its more complicated than that. But when the only supported operating systems are Window XP SP3 and Vista running on a laptop with at least a dual core process thats 2.4ghz or faster with at least 2 gigs of DDR2 memory something is wrong here.*

For my money they are fixing the price of these devices with licensing and everything else...And thats just ridiculous... I've programmed a chip before...it doesn't require a super powerful computer...sending data from one computer to another shouldn't really have any system requirements besides the medium of transfer...

If you own it, and you can do whatever the fuck you want with it, I'm going to sound super pro-open source when i say this but goddamn, you should be allowed to know how the fuck it works.

(*Latest System Requirements for Tech II)

Re:Good.

[MartinSchou]

Source code == Blueprint
Compiled code == working model

Then what the hell do you call all the documentation that goes into creating that source code?

I realise that a lot of people tend to think you can just recreate and understand anything if you have the source code, but just isn't the case.

I can make a blueprint of a skyscraper in about 10 minutes, but getting that built ... requires a lot more than just the blueprint. Since I know absolutely fuck all about load bearing stresses, building materials and all the other "magic" bits that goes into building anything, you'd need a pretty big dose of ACTUAL magic to transform my blueprint into a working model let alone a functioning building.

Your basic idea is good, but it fails right after that.

Re:Good.

[JoeMerchant]

If your Solus Pro comes with (reasonably priced) updates that cover a wide range of manufacturers, then things are improving. I looked at getting into OBDII code reading when the Palm Pilot was all the rage (1998ish), at that time the only complete code reading systems on the market were running $50K+, and they were for single manufacturer lines.

Re:Good.

[berashith]

My car is currently compaining about ABS, and the brake light problem indicator on the dash is on, and the traction control is disabled. I used a friend's code reader to watch the sensor in the right rear break not detect any speed, so we replaced the sensor. We then used the reader to watch the new sensor detect speed correctly, so the problem is fixed. The error that was thrown is apparently a "hard" error code, and cannot be cleared without reflashing the entire computer. This requires the super expensive dealer owned reader. So basically ... no one can restore the safety features in my car that are perfectly usable except for the dealer, and only at dealer prices. I feel this is intentional sabotage, so I just drive like I learned to years ago, before there was traction control... I use my brains and skill to stay out of ditches.

Re:Good.

[Ellis D. Tripp]

That's exactly what happens with the current OBDII codes. When my wife's car had a loose gas cap, the code that turned the light on translated as "Major Leak in Evaporative Emissions Control System".

Luckily, I knew enough about cars to realize what the most probable cause of that "major leak" would be.

Re:Good.

[fractoid]

Nope, I've never had one of these new-fangled thinks-it-knows-better-than-me ve-hickles. My car lets me know something's wrong the old fashioned way... by overheating or making a 'funny noise'. :)

Re:Good.

[geekoid]

"but I'd rather know that my check engine light is something trivial like the gas cap is off or not screwed in tightly. "

Unfortunately the pressure problem that causes your light to go on can be a gas cap, as well as a series of very serious problems.

Re:Good.

[sjames]

Many cars already have a display built in to the dash that would be good enough to scroll a message for any error code. Many of those displays can already report the coolant temp, fuel consumption, etc, so they clearly have a connection to the relevant systems. They should be able to report on error codes as well just by improving the firmware.

Of course, now many people routinely ignore the check engine light anyway. That is primarily because it has been used as a FUD device to get you in for dealer service which consisted of clearing the code that turned out to be "time for an oil change" in spite of the fact that you DID change the oil twice in that time period (since the error code was based on running time rather than any actual measurement of oil condition). That is, it's the "dealer's kid needs tuition" light. If it would tell people WHY they need to check engine, they might not ignore the more important conditions.

Re:Good.

[sjames]

First, that pre-supposes that I happen to have my laptop with me. Second, that software would be cheaper (and many open source alternatives) if all of the codes were publicly documented knowledge.

Re:Good.

[swm]

> Should... in a fantasy world where the corporations are actually serving their customers.

BZZZTTT

Corporations serve their shareholders, not their customers.
But thanks for playing.

Re:Good.

[n7ytd]

How about just putting another button next to the OnStar button that speed dials 1-888-CAR-TALK?

Re:Good.

[n7ytd]

Here in Utah, several counties require yearly emissions tests to register the vehicle. These used to be performed with exhaust probes, but these days they just use the ODB port to query the state of the car's on-board sensors.
If the Check Engine light is on, you fail automatically, as it often indicates emissions problems.
If your car is turning on the Check Engine light, you will need to have it turned off before your next renewal, which means a visit to either the dealer or to the parts store with the friendly staff that will pull the codes and allow you to reset the light.

Re:Good.

[JoeMerchant]

I've dealt with similar inspections in Florida (Dade county) and Texas (Houston), Dade county gave up after about 10 years of harassing their populace and having all the junkers registered in other counties to dodge the rules. Houston is still going strong AFAIK. I had to do about $400 worth of "repairs" to get past Houston emissions on my first try (tailpipe sniff test) - didn't really improve overall emissions, and it is such a crock in Houston to drive past a petrochemical plant that is belching literally tons of particulates into the air per minute and be dinged because your Miata is 3% over the unburned hydrocarbons limit.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of petrochemical plants there, and at least one day a month they run dirty enough to leave a sticky film on everything within 10 miles downwind of the plant.

Re:Good.

[JoeMerchant]

We had a wheel speed sensor go out and give us an ABS malfunction light at 35,920 miles, when we were about 120 miles from home on a 36Kmi warranty.

The dealer took the vehicle for the whole day to make the swap out repair and charged us $200 for it.

ABS is overrated, but it is a nice thing to have on the rear wheels of an empty pickup truck. Of course, in my old (1977) pickup without ABS when someone would cut me off in traffic, I could just tap the brakes and make a big chattering tire smoking show for their rear-view... looks much more dangerous than it really is.

Re:Good.

[QuoteMstr]

My Prius already *has* a perfectly good touchscreen. There's no reason it couldn't also display diagnostic information.

Re:Good.

[JoeMerchant]

When I looked into manufacturing my own OBDII to Palm Pilot interface cable (in about 1998), there were societies you had to be a member of to get access to the documentation, with membership fees of $25K per year and up.

Yeah, it's price fixing, collusion, etc. and it has been illegal in the US since the 1920s.

On the "openness" side, they are probably being encouraged by the feds to lock out access to Joe Sixpack as much as possible, otherwise he is liable to soup up his new ride and put out more emissions. New chips are almost all in-circuit reprogrammable, the interface is generally a couple of wires and should be able to be driven by any computer that the software is compatible with - so they make the software cryptic to discourage tinkering, and incidentally support a pretty big aftermarket filled with vendors who spend tons of time and money researching things that should have just been published in the first place.

Re:Good.

[matt20102]

The job of a corporation is to maximize shareholders investment value, not serve customers. If the former can be achieved through the latter, then so much the better for everyone.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hit a forum specific to your car. There is always a reset method besides the dealer's scan tool. On my car it's a voodoo sequence of keypresses on the dash. On some cars you play with the ground wire. There is a way on your car, you just have to ask around.
Also note that the ABS pumps (actually any pumps in general) go bad after several years of not being used much, so if you find it's still not working after you get the code reset, cycle the pump some (again, forums, should be able to tell you how to manually activate the pump without needing to go out and panic stop) then be prepared to replace it the abs pump.
It's a good safety feature, I'd put a weekend into getting it working again.

Re:Good.

[yamfry]

This is incorrect. Both the MIL and CEL indicate that the piece of electrical tape covering the light has fallen off and needs to be replaced.

Re:Good.

[idontgno]

Hey, a loose* gas cap is srs bzns!

*Yes, that includes "lose", as in "If you lose your gas cap, that stupid check engine light will come on!"

And every problem is serious... as in, "serious source of revenue at dealership service departments".

Remember, it's not a convenience to you, it's primarily (per the language of the law) to protect the environment from your poorly-tuned smog-spitter, and only slightly less importantly to generate unavoidable trips to the mechanic.

Re:Good.

[inject_hotmail.com]

Yep.

Actually, the whole point of the ECU in a car is for emissions control. Pretty much any code that will be set (which will illuminate the MIL) will indicate an emission system problem.

A gas cap with a cracking rubber seal/rusting fuel filler neck can set a code like P3942 - EVAP System Slow Leak Detect (not a real code, I'm just demonstrating the logic). Go in to the dealer for $100 + their $40 OEM gas cap...for something that can be had at a car parts store for $15. Why don't the car companies have a little $50 LCD display that displays diagnostic information?

Where I live, we have (however infrequent) patrols that pull over regular people and check for emissions equipment. It happened to me. The guy was making sure my EGR was on the back of my engine. As he was on my engine a nasty rusting POS Chrysler K car went smokin' (literally) by with his exhaust flopping around on the ground.

I was going to say "instead of hassling me in my 100% non-smokey perfectly-muffled relatively recently made rust-free respectable sedan, you could have been pulling that smog spewing crap box over there", but I decided against it. He could have made my life hell for no reason other than he "suspects" emissions equipment isn't functioning properly. And the ticket is in the $1000 to $2000 range. Ultimately he found nothing wrong, and let me go. I was late for work.

Joy.

Re:Good.

[inject_hotmail.com]

i can bridge 2 pins on the ecu plug on mine, and its flashes the dash lights in sequence to give me the codes, its just a matter of looking them up. though im not sure if newer cars are still keeping anything like this available.

Also, generally if your engine light comes on, your car will go into limp home mode, which is a cut back operation that uses default configs and ignores either all or some of the sensors just to enable you to get home, or to a workshop somewhere without the working sensors.

That's a GM OBD-I. I had a few cars that could do that...I kept a paperclip handy in the ash tray. The codes provided were pretty standard...maybe 30 different types of codes at most.

Fords of the era had the same idea, but the "flashes" are measured by the pulses of a multimeter via a lead under the hood.

OBD-II is more resilient. Only if there is a severe problem does it go into 'limp' mode. It doesn't have the ability to retrieve codes without some sort of code-reading device. ElmScan is well priced, compatible with any car which conforms to OBD-II (pretty much all 1996 and newer). One needs a computer for those, but the free software available for it is fantastic at deciphering the codes and monitoring various sensors like RPM, O2 sensor voltage, Manifold Absolute Pressure, Calculated Engine Load, Throttle Position. One guy made an app using an ElmScan to calculate an estimated fuel economy based on the Mass Air Flow and Speed sensors. One can also get hand-held readers, which usually have an accompanying manual with all the code meanings included.

Re:Good.

[JoeMerchant]

Corporations, politicians, police, neighborhood association boards are all supposed to serve their constituents.

Of course, the corporation's constituents are the shareholders, not the customers... which is why there are laws against monopolies, price fixing, collusion, etc. Not that those laws have ever been effectively enforced, but the ideal has at least been established. What we need is real choice among auto manufacturers, as it is, they all screw the customer the same way, so if you want a car, you make your own, or buy from them.

Re:Good.

[Leebert]

Just to add to the fun:

There are federally mandated warranty periods on emissions systems that can actually exceed the warranty period of the vehicle. Some components are covered up to 80,000 miles.

See http://www.epa.gov/obd/warranties.htm

Re:Good.

[YrWrstNtmr]

The cost for that was just for the hardware. The software is free (beer).
Technical info on how and what the OBD puts out, so you can roll your own.
A Linux variant. Not much recent activity, though. Here is an apparently open source finished product. Again, the hardware is the cost.

This is a very old issue

[erroneus]

And I thought it was resolved long ago. But now that I am part owner of "big auto" since my government now owns controlling shares in it, I have to say that there is NO "trade secret" that should be allowed to supercede the right to repair or modifiy your personally owned equipment. This is especially true when the purpose of said "trade secret" is the protection measure itself.

Re:This is a very old issue

[Rayeth]

The argument for DRM in the car MIGHT fly in cars that are leased (which in my lay-person's brain sounds somewhat similar to a license for using software), but there can be absolutely no reason for preventing me from accessing information on something that I own outright.

Its not like I bought a license to drive the car (that was provided freely (sans a few yearly fees) by the government of my state), I own the metal. What possible argument can there be for preventing me from reading the information in my car's engine?

Re:This is a very old issue

[maxume]

Ford just sent you a letter; it reads "Ha-ha".

Re:This is a very old issue

[erroneus]

The same argument that says you can only used licensed DVD players to play the DVDs that you own.

Re:This is a very old issue

[nbates]

Could they make you sign an EULA?

Re:This is a very old issue

[solafide]

Meet foriegn car manufacturers. Not all car companies take US Gov't bribes.

Re:This is a very old issue

[Darinbob]

Yes, "personally owned equipment" is probably key here. The auto companies are not "licensing" the car to me, or the software on it. I own my car outright. I should be able to do anything I want with it. Of course, the manufacturer has the right to revoke any outstanding warranty as well as well as be absolved of any liability if I make changes.

Read-only data should have no restrictions here. But modifying data though can have reasonable exceptions. Ie, if the diagnostics dongle allowed me to reset the odometer, then it would violate several laws. Or if I could erase maintenance data before reselling the auto, or remove smog protection, etc. Of course, the skilled hacker could get around this, just like the skilled mechanic in the past could create illegal modifications. It's not unreasonable for the manufacturer to put in a few hurdles in your way.

Re:This is a very old issue

[surmak]

The same argument that says you can only used licensed DVD players to play the DVDs that you own.

Bingo!

And so, I hope that Nader wins, and we have a reasonable precedent, what could be leveraged to get some the more abusive parts the the DMCA overturned.

Re:This is a very old issue

[dbrutus]

If a diagnostics dongle allowed you to reset the odometer, the manufacturer would likely be violating several laws, starting with plain old fraud. Those odometers are represented and relied on as being unresettable.

Re:This is a very old issue

[Darinbob]

But if the odometer is implemented in software, then there's inevitably a way to change them. Including the good old fashioned feature of resetting them in the factory before shipping. This becomes more likely over time as the odometer stops being a separate black box item and is more tightly integrated as just one part of a dashboard.

Re:This is a very old issue

[fractoid]

Don't joke about it - car companies could easily turn around and say "as of 2010, we no longer sell cars, instead we offer them on 10 year hire-purchase". They could then set whatever conditions they liked on the vehicle during that time. I know that was how they sold virtually all of the first wave of battery-electric vehicles, and then when the CARB mandate got neutered, all (I believe) of the companies immediately recalled their cars, and GM at least crushed them. The Ford Ranger EVs only survived due to strong grass-roots action.

Re:This is a very old issue

[fractoid]

That sounds weird. O.o I'm pretty sure that (in Australia at least) it's not the case - if you buy a vehicle and then de-register it (returning the plates etc.) it's yours to do whatever the hell you want with. Titling and registration of vehicles is only required if you want to drive legally on public roads.

Re:This is a very old issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Analogy fails -- the DVD is the medium for distribution of video or other data. You can (frequently illegally) perfectly reproduce everything of value contained on a DVD without needing the physical DVD.

The car is not the medium for distribution of anything; the car is the actual product. You cannot reproduce the car without creating a new car.

(*Yes, you can achieve some if its utility by other means, such as riding a bicycle. This is quite unrelated to the question of physical ownership of a car, however.)

Re:This is a very old issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap, a reversed car analogy!

Re:This is a very old issue

[Anonymous Coward]

You "gold standard" retards need to die in a fire.

Re:This is a very old issue

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the case in America either. He's stupid or trolling.

Re:This is a very old issue

[geekoid]

Except then they would 'invoke' a whole new series of protection laws.

Autos are held to a very high safety standard, maintenance standard, and parts standard.

All of which would have prohibitive for the EV-1. Meaning GM would need to create a line of replaceable batteries, deal with the headache of people complaining since the batteries weren't lasting as long as they had predicted, and there were concerns about safety of the vehicle. The fact that they weren't moving as hoped, and there wasn't any indicators at that time that actually putting them a full production lines they would get bought in the numbers needed to offset the concerns I mentioned.

Had gas been 4 bucks a gallon, it probably would have been a different story.

They can have their DRM...

[Statecraftsman]

on the essential car systems stuff but can auto manufacturers separate it from the user facing stuff? I'm thinking I'd like one of these to be driving the GPS, screen, and sound system.

Re:They can have their DRM...

[camperdave]

They can have their DRM on the essential car systems stuff but can auto manufacturers separate it from the user facing stuff?

Not sure what you mean by essential car systems stuff vs. user facing stuff (the computers running the engine, traction control, brakes, navigation radars, autodrive, etc. all report to the user via the dashboard) however DRM is meant to protect copyrighted material. Last I heard, lists of data (such as the error logs that a car's computer might produce) are not copyrightable material. I could understand having such protection on the software running the computer, but not on the data it produces.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[geekboy642]

Way to miss the point, pornologist. In a free market, ANY mechanic would work on ANY car he/she felt like figuring out. We have a government-enforced monopoly on any car with a computer in it, thanks to the DMCA and similar laws. That's not freedom; that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Nader needs a nerd army, sign up today!

[Xanavi]

Sounds reasonable to me. Common standards are always good to have, even if hardly used. Nice to have around just in case.

Re:Nader needs a nerd army, sign up today!

[dunkelfalke]

Actually, cars do use a common standard - CAN bus. The actual problem is the higher level protocol which is vendor-specific. It gets even more complicated, though, because many vendors use third-party parts from common suppliers (for example Bosch or Continental). Depending on what vendor has requested the part first, it may happen, that a BMW has a device which speaks Daimler protocol so there is a device inbetween which translates Mercedes protocol to BMW protocol.

DRM when your life is at stake?

[syousef]

Its one thing to introduce DRM to protect the copyright on a song, book or video. That isn't fair but it's also unlikely to get anyone killed. (Laws that introduce overly harsh penalties like jail time, ruin a career, or bankrupt someone are a whole other kettle of fish). How can any company justify pricing people out of having their car repaired? Lives are at stake. I wonder how long it'll take before people start suing because repair work was so unreasonably expensive via authorized channels that it leads to injury and death? It should be illegal to lock up certain kinds of information. It should be illegal to use laws like these to prevent competition where lives are at stake.

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[TheGratefulNet]

Lives are at stake

see: big pharma.

clue: no one cares about 'lives'. the world is only about money and power and control.

(sorry for the wake-up call).

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[syousef]

see: big pharma.

clue: no one cares about 'lives'. the world is only about money and power and control.

See: Rule of Law

Clue: Laws were invented and should be revised to protect people and allow society to function more smoothly. Your condescension, cynicism and defeatism are unhelpful.

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[DriedClexler]

Your post is kind of vague but it sounds like your criticizing the evil pharmas for not giving away patents on drugs they spent billions researching when no one else did the same with the success they had, and that this therefore proves that the law doesn't care about saving lives.

I think it's an unfair criticism.

If you were to void all patents today, yes, you would make some medications more affordable and save more lives. You would also make these pharmas think really, really hard about investing another penny into drugs, and cancel work on anything that they can't break even on within about a month. You'd also scare the shit out of anyone who wants to make a long-term investment, since the government would reveal just how capricious it's willing to be.

Now, you may disagree about how exactly resources would be redirected if patents were voided, but it's certainly not a clear case of the law sacrificing lives for profits. It's sacrificing X1 lives and Y1 profits for X2 lives and Y2 dollars, where no one knows for sure what the relative values of those four are.

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[waterm]

I don't think their actions are as insidious as you make them out to be.

Why would a business want to make their product harder to service? Wouldn't that give them a reputation for high cost of ownership? Wouldn't a higher cost of ownership drive (excuse the pun) customers to purchase competing products?

It isn't in a car company's best interest to screw their customers.

I know this is slashdot and DRM is bad, but what are VALID reasons for having secured functionality hidden away from the customer? How about ensuring:
- government mandated emissions controls aren't disabled
- fuel economy functions are not disabled
- safety related functions are not modified
- traceability information isn't altered (prevent swapping stolen parts)

In my opinion people should have a right to competitive service, but don't attribute the "DRM" usage to negative intentions. /disclosure: I work in the auto industry, we aren't ENTIRELY evil

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[dbrutus]

Just finished listening to the latest econtalk podcast and they covered this very thing. The majority of the sunk cost in bringing a drug to market is in the clinical trials. You could get rid of patents on drugs by simply requiring any competing manufacturer who wanted to make the same drug to buy out the original drug company's clinical trials investment. Let's say the first company spent $800M on those trials. Somebody else wants to make the drug? No problem, pony up $400M and you now have two manufacturers. Subsequent companies also pay $400M but it gets split up among the prior license holders.

It's an ingenious way to spread the costs so drug innovation continues without patents.

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[diablovision]

Why then would you want to risk $800M in the first place when you can let your competitor spend the $800M, pay them a paltry $400M for the one thing that succeeded and then split the much larger profit to be made? Extra points if your marketing department is much better and you take a much larger fraction of the resulting market.

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[Anonymous Coward]

This ignores completely the failed clinical trial cost.
With simplifications: If a drug company has a really high rate of success, lets say 90%, and they spend $800M per trial, the more accurate cost is $889M ( say ten trials, total cost 8 billion, over 9 successes). In your model, other companies can buy in at less than half the cost, not properly compensating the risk taking company.
Also your distribution of 3rd and further participants' buy-in makes no sense. The initial holder gets payments of 400,200,133,100... meaning by the time you get to the 6th license holder, people start making money just for their spot in line. This also makes it less likely for more producers to enter the market, and you do away with some of the price power you were hoping to get.

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[BZ]

The math on this doesn't work out.

As a simple example, say that clinical trials in fact cost $800M for each drug, and that 1 in 2 drugs comes out of trials marketable (doesn't kill people, actually helps for the disease).

Now on average, someone who's developing and testing drugs is paying $1600M per drug they bring to market. Someone just buying the production rights, per the above proposal, is paying $400M for half the profits from the production.

So at that point one party has invested $1200M, the other has invested $400M, and both get the same absolute return on their investment (half the drug sales). As more parties buy in, the money is split among the existing licence holders (evenly?); depending on how this is split and how many other parties buy in maybe the original drug developer/tester might come out ok.

But pending that, the obvious conclusion is that developing and testing drugs is a sucker deal. The right thing to be doing is buying into rights on already-successful drugs.

One solution might be to set the price based on the cost of the trials that failed too.... but that gets very complicated (e.g., which particular trials for failed drugs should be included in the licensing terms for which successful drugs?).

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[TheGratefulNet]

its not about 'giving away' patents.

its about HUMANITY, something pharma is a complete stranger to.

lives are at stake. do they care? clearly they don't; they make life saving drugs impossible to afford to many people and even maintenance drugs are enough to make it hard to afford other things in life (like food and rent).

pharma WASTES more money on advertising than they do on research. so don't give me this 'they deserve their profits' because they don't. not when lives are at stake, as was said in the post I responded to.

sometimes, just sometimes, its about humanity and not profit.

but they don't get that. or, they simply choose not to.

everyone should be hostile to the drug co's. if you aren't, you have not been following along with what they're entirely about.

to be able to save lives and yet to hold back for profit motives; its lower than low. its so basic, you either 'get' that or you don't. I can't say much else to make you understand what humanity is supposed to be about. you get it or you don't.

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[Dan Ost]

Spot on analysis. I wish I had mod points.

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[geekoid]

"Big Pharma" has save a shit load of lives, and continues to do so every year.

Big pharma does care about saving lives and making money.

"ewww, there a big company and that's bad, lets give them a scary name and make stuff up."

Fucking morons.

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[geekoid]

Not billions. and expensive drug to research will hit 30 million. a lot of money, but lets not make crap up. They will spend that much again on advertising.

Also, patent on drugs are different then other patents. There shorter, for one.

You are correct, if they could control a revenue stream for a period of time, there would be less research done by private companies.
So we would need to put more funding into government research to make up for it.
Now if they exchange is anyone who pays a licensing fee can make and sell the drugs researched by the government it might be worth while.

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[geekoid]

I hope those weren't the numbers that podcast was using, because they aren't even close to the real numbers. The numbers you post are FAR higher then the actually amounts spent.

No, it's not ingenuous because private companies want to control the revenue stream for a period of time.

If that show did not mention how drug patents are different, then they ahve done you a diservece and are probably selling you an ideaology and not facts.

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[shentino]

See: Iron Triangle

Clue: Laws are written by legislators that are in bed with the people with money and power.

We, the Land of the Free, have been overrun by corporate powermongers who IMHO are doing ten times worse than King George ever did before 1776.

Re:DRM when your life is at stake?

[geekoid]

Making money is how the save lives, you hippie.
DO you think they should just give away there drugs? how long do you think they would stay in business? and guess the fuck what? they go out of business and MILLIONS die.

Yes, they do deserve their profits. And advertising a product is how people find out that you have a product to sell, hardly a waste.

Again, becasue you are stupid:
IF THE DRUG COMPANIES DON'T MAKE MONEY, THEN NEW DRUGS DON'T GET DEVELOPED AND MILLIONs DIE.

Is it not better to save 90% of the people dying for a disease then 0%?

SO yes, the deserve to get there profits, the deserve to have control of there product for a limited time.

When ponies and rainbows start tossing out free direction on how to make cures, then your point will be valid.

I bet you don't even know the details of a drug patents, how long they last, or any detail an intelligent person would look into before spouting of and saying moronic things.

Humanity has been better served with limited time duration patents.

Not technically necessary, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The article cites the DMCA as a legal problem, but this doesn't apply in this case. In fact, two of the cases it cites, garage door openers and printer ink cartridges, have already gone to court, and in both cases the judge determined that "lock-out" codes are not protected by the DMCA because they're meant to prevent interoperability, not copyright infringement.

Technically, this Right To Repair act is unnecessary. As long as you're bypassing the restrictions for the sake of interoperability, you're legally in the clear.

But that's only in a perfect world. Unfortunately, in this litigious society you're likely to get sued anyway. It's too bad doing something perfectly legal can still end up costing you thousands in legal fees. Hopefully with an actual law to back up the rulings, there will be a lot fewer lawsuits

Re:Not technically necessary, but...

[erroneus]

The law is necessary because without it written clearly (and sometimes even when it IS written clearly) it will not stop the auto makers from trying to sue you with their army of lawyers. And you could be right... but they will still lawyer you to death. We've all seen it.

Re:Not technically necessary, but...

[GaryOlson]

...auto makers from trying to sue you with their army of lawyers.

The most accurate statement of the reason American automotive companies are failing -- focusing on developing fine points of law instead of the fine points of automotive engineering.

Re:They can have their DRM...or not

[Anonymous Coward]

sure they can have their drm..as long as it's still THEIR car.. once it becomes MY car, then no, they can't.

The roll of the dice

[westlake]

I got a check engine light on a 2 month old car while driving across country with no dealer for 800 miles. I chose to risk it rather than have to pay a local mechanic to look at it.

You gambled. You won. This time.

Now tell me why you chose a car which has one dealer every 1000 miles. 30 grand does not buy you a Rolls-Royce.

Re:The roll of the dice

[publiclurker]

I take it you haven't driven cross-country before? It's rather easy to get in a situation like this.

Re:The roll of the dice

[zippthorne]

Perhaps he was in a place where there was no dealer of any kind for 800 miles. He didn't say what country he was driving across. Still, Autozone keeps advertising in my area that they'll read the code for you for free, so dealers must not be the only people who can read 'em.

Re:The roll of the dice

[Daniel_Staal]

In a Rolls-Royce he could have pulled over to the side of the road, borrowed a passing motorist's cell phone, and had them send a tow truck to the nearest town, where they would put him up in a hotel, while they flew a mechanic to him.

(Or at least, that used to be their policy. I've heard some amazing stories about the level of service they give. Of course, if you charge that much for a car, I'd expect amazing service.)

Re:The roll of the dice

[mzs]

The other thing is that a local mechanic can do the work and submit it as warranty work for almost all cars. They need to do some paper work, but they generally like it since the manufacturer lets them say that it even took more than the book time that dealer service gets to quote. This is the case precisely since there are some cases where a dealer service center is just too far away. Sometimes oyu have to pay for a really expensive tow though.

Re:The roll of the dice

[guisar]

Usually check engine lights don't matter- loose fuel caps etc will set them off. The basics haven't changed- if you have oil pressure and water flow you're more or less good to go. WHile the efficiency of the engine may suffer cars of the 1950s got along just fine without all this stuff so if your ECU is letting spark and fuel get to the engine the check engine light really doesn't mean shit. If you are worried get a scan gauge (about $150) and it will let you know if something crucial like fuel flow, turbo boost, water temp, oil, etc is gone wrong.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[Chris Burke]

That's not freedom; that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

Also known as "Trickle-Down Economics" aka "Trickle-Upon Economics" aka "Reagan Free Market Capitalism", as in big corporations a "free" to fuck you six ways till Sunday.

He made it perfectly clear what he was referring to. I don't know why you were confused!

We should call Richard Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

The geek world already has a 'public' opponent of DRM: Richard Stallman. Nader has questionable ethical leanings...

Re:We should call Richard Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

The geek world already has a 'public' opponent of DRM: Richard Stallman. Nader has questionable ethical leanings...

On the other hand, which Nader seems far more photogenic and charismatic than Stallman, especially to non-geeks.

Happening in Canada too

[Anonymous Coward]

Right-to-Repair is also being fought over in Canadian federal parliament. Bill C273 just passed its second reading

http://www.righttorepair.ca/

Re:Happening in Canada too

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this limited to cars/vehicles? Why can't they make one law that also covers washing machines, air conditioners, TVs, etc? Why should I not have a right to repair my toaster oven or CD player? Back in the good old days, radios came with a circuit diagram attached to the inside of the lid, or included in the printed documentation, why are those not mandatory to be available on the internet by now?

Re:Happening in Canada too

[MobyDisk]

This is the comment I was looking for. If only I had mod points. law ~= s/Car/Technology/g. Right to repair should apply to every product.

Be Prepared

[sexconker]

Trees are teh awesome.

Re:Be Prepared

[sexconker]

Hey mods, learn to internet:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/nader

Re:Be Prepared

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not our responsibility to know everything on the internet, or to think "What an obscure comment that appears to be offtopic, let me look it up."

now that's just dumb

[ClioCJS]

You're going to blame the 500 people who voted independent, while ignoring the millions who voted republican? As if those 500 votes somehow counted more? Nope. You should look to the 120,000 democrats who voted for Bush in florida. Every Nader vote could have gone to Gore, but the Democrats who voted Republican still would have fucked up up. and you know why? Because they're paying to the 2-party "system". (Which doesn't actually exist, because THERE WERE MORE THAN 2 PARTIES ON THE BALLOT!)

Ironically, the mentality you are carrying today in 2009 is far more responsible for what happened in 2000, than those who have gotten past your mentality. YOUR mentality is what held us back in 2000.

Re:now that's just dumb

[_ivy_ivy_]

You should look to the 120,000 democrats who voted for Bush in florida.

Exactly. The result had more to do with the fact that Gore is as big an idiot as Bush, albeit one with less of a bend on world domination.

I can just picture him boring the Taliban out of Afganistan with a powerpoint presentation.

Re:now that's just dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

He's just as bent on world domination as Bush is... He's just as happy telling the entire world how they have to live their life. Don't forget to buy your indulgences from his company.

Much like Bush abandoned free market principles to save the free market, I could see Gore nuking the world to save the world from humanity.

Re:now that's just dumb

[iYk6]

I can just picture [Gore] boring the Taliban out of Afganistan with a powerpoint presentation.

Hey, if it works, great. On a similar note, my favorite President was Clinton, because he made me laugh, and he kept America out of trouble with his distractions.

Re:now that's just dumb

[quanticle]

You do realize that the DMCA was passed under Clinton's watch, right?

Re:now that's just dumb

[SL Baur]

Civil Forfeiture and Money Laundering were invented in the Reagan Administration.

If impeached ex-President Clinton had just let his little head think a bit more for his big head and not fought against "gridlock" I'd rank him up with the best of the Presidents.

The worst of the evils of the Bush administration (the so-called "Patriot" act) were all successfully beaten down during the Clinton era.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[westlake]

In a free market, ANY mechanic would work on ANY car he/she felt like figuring out.

You are not asking Gus to take a look at your Ford V-8.

I don't want the mechanic who thinks he can figure it out. I want the mechanic who knows what to do.

Related: build your own car diagnostic reader

[Anonymous Coward]

I found instructions on how to build your own OBD-II protocol reader, although it only works on some types of cars. Apparently the manufacturers couldn't agree on one protocol...

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why you pay top dollar at the dealership, and when they screw you without lube you just shut up and take it.

Most of us are trying to avoid that. Some of us even (gasp!) do the work ourselves, learning as we go along. YIKES!

some comments on OBD-II

[mzs]

OBD-II (the UART mentioned in the article) does not really tell you what is wrong with your car. It gives you another clue. Experience, know-how, tools, other clues, and a process of elimination tells you what is wrong with your car. OBD-II tells you that something was detected like a knock, misfire, oxygen rich, emissions leak, etc. Now a mechanic has to hunt down the cause and fix that. I just wanted to make that clear. It is like looking at iostat not dtrace.

It will be nice to get the codes, but most of them are pretty much known by now. Some ranges are pretty defacto standard too. It's annoying though that the codes can be different on the same model car sold in CA vs IL though. That can trip you up when you have a code list that does not include the correct region.

Re:some comments on OBD-II

[characterZer0]

Right. And the codes are often useless. I had a car that was running rich. I could tell by the response, decreased mileage, and smell of the exhaust. I had somebody read the codes. I got a nice little printout that said . . .

"fuel mixture rich"

Re:some comments on OBD-II

[Jon Abbott]

Agreed. Chapter 9 of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance talks about that in more detail.

Re:some comments on OBD-II

[LackThereof]

If the mix is rich, and the computer KNOWS that the mix is rich, that narrows it down quite a bit. Then the only possibilities are the airflow sensor, or possibly the fuel pressure regulator. (Of course, if it's a car without an airflow sensor, it could potentially be the throttle position sensor or maybe the manifold air pressure sensor. But most cars rely on a MAF sensor nowdays.)

If the mix is rich, and the computer claims "fuel mixture lean" or believes nothing at all is wrong, the problem is most likely the O2 sensor, and the computer is being fooled into enriching the mix.

I think the codes are quite useful. They let you know what the car is thinking.

Re:some comments on OBD-II

[thesandbender]

I'm not sure which cars you've been working on, but the OBD-II interface on my 2001 BMW provides an insane amount of information. Fuel flows, air flows, oxygen sensor voltage, etc... all real time. A lot of times people are just using those little $100-200 hand held OBD-II readers you can buy at PepBoys. Those just flash the error codes and maybe some real time information. Repair shops will have a dedicated console or a laptop with software that can display all the additional information. Your right in that it won't always tell you the specific problem... a busted catalytic convert will show up as a bad post-cat O2 sensor. However, it does provide very detailed and specific information that allows you narrow down the problem before you even start tooling on the car.

Re:some comments on OBD-II

[mzs]

Oh you lack experience, it could be lots of other things. Semi often I have seen a gummed-up PCV valve. Was that the cause though? Nope how did it get that way? Why bound or worn piston rings. That let too much blow back into the crank case. The oils gummed-up the valve, then the gas vapors go right back in the cylinder constantly, making it rich.

What evidence did I have other than a small LCD screen for this back in the day? The valves made a characteristic sound from the carbon deposits and the oil looked black soon after being changed. Lots of things can cause those, but it is just another piece of the puzzle.

Reseat the valve, replace the PCV valve and the piston rings, then things were great. (Well you had to adjust the carb(s) too of course.)

Re:some comments on OBD-II

[gfim]

I've just been having a discussion with our service people about something similar. I write software that interfaces to a number of third-party hardware devices. When I get an error code from one of these, I log it. The service people want the software to interpret the codes for them. So, for example, I get an error code that says "timeout". They want me to translate that into "check the comms cable between A and B, check the power supply at C, look at the LED at D and if it's green, replace E". And it's not even that simple, there are about a dozen other possible causes - but they're less likely.

The combinatorial aspect of it's bad enough, but you're always certain to miss possible causes. I've told them that they should have some kind of knowledge base that matches symptoms to solutions. That way, they can add to it as they find causes and solutions.

So, when your car says "fuel mixture rich", it's reporting what the sensors tell it - it's not attempting to diagnose the cause. If it was going to do that, it would need a zillion more sensors (that could all go wrong, and would raise the cost of the car). Be thankful you get the clue that you did and take it to someone who knows what their doing. Or diagnose it yourself.

Re:some comments on OBD-II

[Anonymous Coward]

Rich fuel conditions can also be caused by improper temperature sensors (colder engine needs richer mixture), short in the ground to TTL from injector solenoid, plunger in solenoid hanging up, the list goes on and on and on...

Re:some comments on OBD-II

[the_one(2)]

This sound like the perfect place for expert systems. A simple "AI" that can accurately diagnose the car would be nice

Re:some comments on OBD-II

[Anonymous Coward]

he thinks he's people

Re:some comments on OBD-II

[mzs]

I've done Dodge, Volvo, Mazda, Ford, and Chevy. When I needed to deal with VW I had to use a better reader that my tech friend had access to. It is neat the stuff that you can get off of the VAG on a notebook. There are all these curves plus it is a lot like a PLC and for various modules you can set parameters that are essentially 16-bit words exported in the address space of every module. Still it only tells you such and such a sensor detected this and you need to use instinct, gut, and experience to figure-out why.

Re:some comments on OBD-II

[mzs]

I'm in sort of a similar predicament here at work. A few years ago I did the software for some hardware replacement. Think industrial controls. A year later they wanted diagnostics like that. The old system was like that, since the field bus was so primitive. Basically no communications meant go replace the module with a spare. Now things are much more complicated. There is a remote box, then there is a fiber or serial cable to a PMC (like small PCI) card. That then is on a VME processor board with an ethernet jack. That goes into a switch, and a whole mess after that. There is another computer in the control system that is a consolidator/gateway. Then there is the console that gets run over X11 (through an ssh gateway) on some PC. You can see how when I get an error like request timed-out it is now basically impossible to say where the problem occurred (it is most likely not the hardware).

But they wanted something, so I made a procedure. It is essentially this:

Do a remote reset over the network of the remote unit.
Do a remote reset over the network of the VME crate.
Go out to the remote unit with a kit (I put it together).
Press the reset button.
Put on the dongle, press the reset button. (The dongle being present clears the NVRAM on reset, there is a lot more you can do over the serial interface though.)
Go to the VME crate, cycle power.
Replace the fiber or serial cable (in the kit).
Replace the remote unit (in the kit).
Replace the PMC (in the kit).
Call the tech on the call-in list (could be me).

Whatever you replaced bring back, a tech will look at it then during normal work hours.

That works pretty well in practice actually.

Re:some comments on OBD-II

[mzs]

Not really, there are not enough sensors to narrow it down enough. A competent tech knows what to do next to diagnose anyway and does not need any AI to help. You also always have to imagine that the sensor is bad as well. In fact that is why there are often more than one of each sensor.

I'm... I'm confused...

[RyoShin]

Do... do I still try to make a car analogy?

Maybe a simple "In Soviet Russia car analogy make you?"

Re:I'm... I'm confused...

[againjj]

In Soviet America, only the dealers make the car analogies.

Re:I'm... I'm confused...

[erroneus]

No, you have to make computer analogies.

DRM on cars is bad as DRM on computer software and data access. We can already demonstrate why DRM is a bad idea for data and software. Now you just make an analogy that car owners can understand.

Interestingly enough, if lawmakers can be convinced that DRM on cars is bad, we just got closer to killing the DMCA.

Re:I'm... I'm confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

And then we can finally torrent all the cars we want to! =D

Re:I'm... I'm confused...

[VisceralLogic]

Sup dawg, I herd you liek cars, so I stuck a car analogy in your car thread so you can talk about cars while you're talking about cars!

Suprised at Nader

[Anonymous Coward]

Ralph will lose this one. Manufacturers will claim energy efficiency and emissions will suffer if they aren't permitted to sell proprietary products capable of meeting 'tough new requirements.' Manufacturers will convince the lobbies involved that their exclusive service is the only way to ensure the behavior of these designs. Produce exactly one credible example where 'right-to-repair' enables more power in place of better economy and you will never hear about 'right-to-repair' again. The enviro argument trumps all.

Enjoy. You voted for it.

Cars are too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

We should just go back to points-and-condenser ignition systems and carburetors on stovebolt-6 engines with 4-speed manual transmissions feeding rear-wheel-drive on a full steel chassis (i.e. not unibody). Then ANYBody could work on it!

I can access codes on my car without any tool.

[mister_playboy]

Interesting, numerous Cadillac models built after the start of OBD1 have the ability for the owner to both access and clear diagnostic codes by him/herself. My 1993 Cadillac Seville is one such car... I hold down two buttons on the dash, and I can access all of this information via the dash display.

In-dash text displays were rare in 1993, but now all most all cars have them... so this functionality really ought to be in all new vehicles.

It's YOUR car, isn't it? Then again, BMW has build a few models that have no dipstick and no oil cap (visible, anyway)... :(

Re:I can access codes on my car without any tool.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, BMW has build a few models that have no dipstick and no oil cap (visible, anyway)... :(

They bigger problem is that BMW has gone to runflat tires to save the space for the spare tire. Runflats are handy, but they are MUCH more expensive to replace. Winter runflat tires are even more expensive.

Re:I can access codes on my car without any tool.

[mzs]

Lots of cars were like this. I had a Mazda with with a few terminals. There was a screw to ground a pin to reset the codes. Another terminal you could put an multimeter prong in when you grounded another pin with the same screw. Then you watched the needle for the codes.

I had a Volvo that had a little box with a LED and a couple of buttons, very simple. These were early OBD-II cars.

Re:I can access codes on my car without any tool.

[fractoid]

Can't you just use normal tyres and carry tyre-in-a-can? Unless you *really* screw a tyre up you'll be able to limp home with that.

Re:I can access codes on my car without any tool.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I hold down two buttons on the dash, and I can access all of this information via the dash display."

That's exactly what I'd want in a car. If I do ever buy a new car again then I will tell the dealer that my car will come with a service manual (including diagnostic codes) and access to all TSBs (present and future) or I won't be buying it.

-bzt-

Re:I can access codes on my car without any tool.

[Anonymous Coward]

All BMW models I see on the road have at least one dipstick. Trust me on this.

Re:I can access codes on my car without any tool.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as fancy, but all my Jeeps have had a similar feature.
Special sequence of turning the key and the digital odometer will read out all the error codes currently tripped. Very handy.

Re:I can access codes on my car without any tool.

[Alzheimers]

What's the difference between a BMW and an Elephant?

On an Elephant, the trunk is in the front and the asshole is in the rear.

Meh.

[rfuilrez]

Well, most car manufacturers ARE offering pretty reasonable warranties anymore. 10year/100,000Miles is not unheard of, and actually pretty common. When they're backing the car for that much time / wear should they not have an exclusive right to the work done on the vehicle?

As it stands, they are doing everything legal. The government said "You need to provide us with a standardized list of codes for EMISSIONS diagnosis and repair. It has to be available on a standard connector, with standard pin locations. The codes have to be able to be read by any OBDII compliant code reader." It even has it specified how fast baud rate of the datastream has to be. So they did that. They put more "debugging" stuff in their for their own help. If you want to spent the money, you can buy your own OEM scan tools, and have everything that dealer technicians have.

Lets use a software analogy since we can't use a car analogy. If Microsoft built in debugging modes into Windows 8, and didn't provide anyone who is not a Microsoft certified IT specialist have access to it without costing a bunch of money to unlock it, are they in the wrong?

Re:Meh.

[couchslug]

"Well, most car manufacturers ARE offering pretty reasonable warranties anymore. 10year/100,000Miles is not unheard of, and actually pretty common. When they're backing the car for that much time / wear should they not have an exclusive right to the work done on the vehicle?"

They are offering those to be competitive, it isn't generosity, and the warranties are not for every part of the car under every circumstance. For example, what about someone repairing crash damage? Should they be forced to go to a dealer?

A ten-year-old car is often not worth paying dealer labor rates to fix, so this is really "planned obsolescence by vendor lock". As a mechanic I gan get around this affordably by playing "swaptronics", but the general public are not so fortunate.

Re:Meh.

[deepershade]

are they in the wrong?

Er.. clearly yes? At least in the EU they would be, I dunno have things work over there, but fairly to provide that sorta info would get them in a reasonable amount of trouble afaik.

Re:Meh.

[iowannaski]

If Microsoft ... are they in the wrong?

Yes. Generally speaking.

Re:Meh.

[halcyon1234]

Well, most car manufacturers ARE offering pretty reasonable warranties anymore. 10year/100,000Miles is not unheard of, and actually pretty common.

True, but a car company lasting 10 years might be unheard of. So much for the warranty.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[LaskoVortex]

I don't want the mechanic who thinks he can figure it out.

Weeding guys out that don't know what they are doing is what the free market is for. It's the USA. No one is forcing you to go to an incompetent (see the word "compete" in there?) mechanic. If you want to go to the dealer, go to the dealer. Me? I'm going to keep driving my 10 year old Ford and take it to my broham, Juan, when it doesn't run well. He knows where to find and how to replace the several on board computers. And I support the local economy more directly by using an independent mechanic. Competition baby!

That's One For Ralph! . . but

[MarkvW]

Now he only needs to do four trillion more good things before he evens out in my karma book. Sometimes Ralph's freakishly huge ego works for good; other times. . ..

Car Analogy ?

[anonymousNR]

This will bring a whole new paradigm in car analogies on slashdot.

How was this Conceived!?

[neanderslob]

Who at the company said that this would be a good idea!? I wonder how the conversation in that meeting went. "Well I'll agree to invest in this new technology but ONLY on the condition that we use encryptions for the sole purpose of making it HARDER for the customer to fix their $40,000 investment." The only thing that would make this better is if Chevy Ford or Chrysler helped to pioneer this piece cerebral excrement.

Open standards before cars can fly...

[Onyma]

I hope they get this sorted out before cars can fly. I'd like to know that 3 long blinks and 2 short ones means my parachute failed... long before I'm cursing the manual while free-falling from 20,000 feet.

So in short...

[Yaa 101]

We need open source auto mechanics.

Outright Dangerous

[nick_davison]

In my case it was an error code that Mini do everything they can to keep meaningless... as opposed to DRM. It was also potentially life threatening.

Coming back out of the mountains, the electric system shut off in the car, the engine cut out. There was no shoulder so the first place out of traffic we could get to was the gap between the main freeway traffic and an oncoming merge lane.

It was a fairly dangerous spot - no walls, no guard rail to get behind, between two streams of traffic moving at speed - but the best option we had.

The car restarted, flashing up CC-ID 354 - whatever that meant. Most likely, we'd be safe pulling away and finding a less risky spot. But, if it was about to fail again, as we accelerated, we'd be dumped, stalled, in the middle of moving traffic with no shoulder.

Obvious answer: Call Mini service. First Mini dealership couldn't get their service department to answer. They sent me to Mini Roadside Assistance. That muppet had a call sheet he had to work through and couldn't do anything as he couldn't find out VIN in the system. By this point, as we got buffeted by every passing big rig, my wife told him she didn't give a damn about whether we were in the system or not, we simply needed to know if 354 meant it was safe or unsafe to move... Turns out he has none of the details. All he can do is call a tow truck. We hung up and called another dealership's service. They at least answered but refused to say what it meant, only that we shouldn't drive it. No details about whether it would likely get us half a mile to the next off ramp, nothing.

An online search (thank you iPhones) turned up nothing (curse you googles). Turns out the codes are kept pretty much to Mini alone.

What angers me about the whole experience is that "Error 354 means a fuse has blown and the car will stall over 10mph" would've told me there really was no safe way off. "Error 354 means the keyless ignition charger has a faulty connection, drive with the key out of the charger and take it in for service." would have told me it was safe to get out of that exposed position. "It's a secret" did nothing save endanger us.

Re:Outright Dangerous

[cvtan]

I have found MINI service to be really excellent in my area. However, there appears to be multiple sets of error codes. I bought a ScanGauge to read the error codes in my 2005 MINI. When the supercharger bypass valve flaked out, I could retrieve a P-code error code that I could look up, but the dealer doesn't use those OBDII codes to fix the car. There are an entirely separate set of codes that can only be read by MINI diagnostic equipment at the dealer. So if I tell the dealer that P1346 was detected, it means nothing to him. Two helpful hints: Don't reset the codes just before going to the dealer. If something breaks; he can't diagnose anything without the code being set. If the car dies, don't just sit there and don't necessarily drive in limp-home mode. Reboot by turning it off and then start it up again; it might recover long enough to get someplace safe.

Re:Outright Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Be sure your Congressman and Senators know about your experience before they consider this bill.

Re:Outright Dangerous

[Mr. Roadkill]

I understand your anger, and feel a lot of sympathy for you, but look at it from their perspective. The car has shut down, and for all they knew you might be some wack-job who'd sue if they said "go ahead" and either the vehicle or you were damaged. Under those circumstances, even telling you what the defect was and letting you make up your own mind may be enough for your landsharks to go after them.

That said, would this information have been handy?
http://www.mini2.com/forum/faults-fixes/160336-fault-codes.html

The only "354" I can find in there suggests it may have been one of the ignition coils, and it's probably not good to run short of one cylinder (your injectors would still dump fuel in there, so neither the catalytic convertor nor your rings would be happy if you ran that way for an extended time).

IANAM (I am not a mechanic), but my thoughts are that it might have been something as simple as a loose ignition lead or loose wire to that coil. Even if the coil was fried, it *may* have been relatively safe to drive the vehicle a short distance if you could find a way to disable the injector for that cylinder and thus save your rings and the catalytic convertor. Maybe they even automatically disable the injector on cylinders that aren't firing, I don't know (it would make sense to me, but it's also just one more thing to potentially go wrong in the software). If I was a mechanic, though, I wouldn't have tried to diagnose that kind of thing and provide advice over the phone. Over the phone, they can't necessarily tell the difference between a clueful user and a clueless luser. There must surely be things *you* wouldn't tell people over the phone too, for *everybody's* protection.

A non-dealer Mini-specialist reasonably local to your home address *might* have been more forthcoming, especially if there was a chance of gaining a new customer from the experience. But dealer service departments? Anything they do that *might* be construed to be a "Yeah, don't worry, drive it anyway" statement could get them in trouble with their bosses or their bosses lawyers.

Re:Outright Dangerous

[mzs]

Sometimes you get different code sets depending on the region your car is initially sold in (different code in the firmware that runs different monitors) or where the ABS module was from Bosche or another later cheaper OEM.

Re:Outright Dangerous

[Uberbah]

I understand your anger, and feel a lot of sympathy for you, but look at it from their perspective.

Okay...done, and they're still wrong - if it was something major, say so. If it's something minor, say that too.

The car has shut down, and for all they knew you might be some wack-job who'd sue if they said "go ahead" and either the vehicle or you were damaged. Under those circumstances, even telling you what the defect was and letting you make up your own mind may be enough for your landsharks to go after them.

But not only is that counter-balanced by the above scenario, it's also a PR disaster waiting to happen.

"Car stops for woman going home from work late at night, and she's sexually assaulted after she pulled off the road...turns out the car shut off because the steering fluid was low...."

Re:Outright Dangerous

[Glendale2x]

"Car stops for woman going home from work late at night, and she's sexually assaulted after she pulled off the road...turns out the car shut off because the steering fluid was low...."

The sad truth is they'd rather have that happen than tell you their top secret codes.

Re:Outright Dangerous

[Uberbah]

Sounds like the meat packing industry just before the mad cow disease scare. They used a process called reclamation, iirc, that would suck every last bit of meat off a carcass. Problem is, this process was very messy and would spray bits of cow onto other carcasses, greatly increasing the chances of cross contamination. Regulators wanted to get rid of the process, but the packing industry said it saved them $130 million a year. But then the mad cow scare hit, and rather than worrying about losing $130 million they had to worry about losing a few BILLION dollars. Pennywise, pound stupid decision.

Same with these car companies - aside from a huge jury award in my hypothetical example, what would the PR cost be? Who would want to buy Brand X after someone gets hurt or killed because they pettily refused to release a simple code?

Re:Outright Dangerous

[CopaceticOpus]

It's true that they should not have told him it was safe to drive. However, they should have told him exactly what the error code meant, and also advised him not to drive. If he then decided to drive based on the meaning of the error code, it would be his risk.

Re:Outright Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

An online search (thank you iPhones) turned up nothing (curse you googles). Turns out the codes are kept pretty much to Mini alone.

This is the exact reason why I will not ever purchase a Sony computer nor will I ever authorize the purchase of Sony computers. I was unable to find any information on the internet about a POST code from a Sony Vaio that failed to boot. Sony declined to share the information regarding that POST code. If Sony thinks their POST codes are so important that they must keep them to themselves, well then they can keep their computers to themselves as well.

DRM ? UART?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most New Cars use the CAN Bus. Not RS-232.
DRM = Digital Rights Management?
No It is Just Proprietary codes. You could try to figure them out.
The Issue is that with out the definition of the codes mean you can not fix the car. No codes no locks no DRM. Just plain old fashion Obscurity.

Re:DRM ? UART?

[dunkelfalke]

Actually there are lots of buses in new cars. CAN bus is used for component interconnection. LIN bus is used for sensors. MOST bus is used for car multimedia. FlexRay is the replacement for CAN bus but not yet widely used. That UART mentioned is just a diagnostic output.

Re:DRM ? UART?

[LackThereof]

I remember when people with Fords were hacking the "proprietary" OBD-1 service connector on the newfangled fuel injected cars with the EEC-IV.

People just jammed jumpers and multimeters in the connectors and figured out how to make it output the codes.

Of course, it helped that the super-secret Ford diagnostic tool was a push button connected to two pins, and a lamp connected to the another two pins. Service technicians pushed the button, and counted the flashes.

Of course, Ford didn't raise a stink when people published instructions on how to read the codes without buying the tool. And third parties make boxes that just display the number, which Ford continues to allow.

But that may have simply been a marketing decision, made in a day when a lot of mechanics mistrusted electronic engine management. However, nowadays it's an assumption; no one wants to go back to fiddling with carburetors and distributors. Manufacturers can start to lock them down and try to wrangle more money from the independent mechanics.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

I can believe this Thread. There is no "government-enforced monopoly" every car company has their own unpublished spec.

This is a battle between any company (DVD, DVR, BIOS, ect.) to not publish their API's and source code. AND The right of people to get there cars fix at the place of there choice. The government has to make laws to force them to publish.
    There was never a law saying to have to tell anyone how your stuff works.
That is why patents where created in the first place, to encourage it.

Jeep Oil Change indicator

[flyingfsck]

So, while we are on a vehicle codes and warning issue:
Does anyone know how to reset the fscking Oil Change warning on a Jeep?

No, the 3 time gas pedal thing DOES NOT work...

Re:Jeep Oil Change indicator

[deraj123]

I find a piece of black electrical tape does the trick quite nicely. Fixes that damned "shift" light too.

Re:Jeep Oil Change indicator

[NoName Studios]

I just looked up the oil change indicator reset for the newer Jeeps. That is freaking insane! The old Grand Cherokee ZJ model was hold down two buttons for two seconds when turning the vehicle on.

The gas pedal reset, from what I understand it requires quick press and release of the gas pedal within ten seconds. Not the slow press as indicated in the manual.

More complex than that

[mikefocke]

The ODB2 standard defined certain codes that had to be standard and certain codes that must be revealed and any $49 code reader can read them and potentially shut them off.

But manufacturers also implement extensions to those codes that are for diagnostic purposes or option enabling purposes that they do not allow access to except through proprietary computers which they sell at extremely high cost (high 4 figures) mostly to dealers or to mechanics who specialize in one make of car.

The problem is a "we work on all cars repair shop" can't have the diagnostic computers for all the makes let alone all the manuals that tell them how to troubleshoot the problem (multi-page flow charts), the parts on hand to make the repair a prompt one, the specialized repair tools necessary to do the job or the expertise to do the job right.

I have all the repair codes for one of my cars and all the repair manuals and a code reader. Doesn't mean I can or should do most of the work, (but it does help me keep the repair shop honest).

Doesn't mean a do everything shop is gonna be the right place to take my car for all the possibilities of failure either. I want a shop working on my car that is doing the same car day in and day out and thus has the computer, manuals, parts and expertise to do the job right and promptly.

All makes shops can do some jobs, but there are lots they shouldn't attempt any more than I should.

Nadar's request won't change this because the do every make shop will still not have the parts or manuals or expertise to do many jobs.

It is up to us as consumers to know what each shop can do and pick the right one.

Re:More complex than that

[sjames]

It's not as if every make and model is designed from first principles! The O2 sensor does the same thing no matter what the make and model is, same for practically everything else in the engine.

If the codes and specs were open by law, the fix anything shop would do just fine and would likely have the needed manual (there are DVDs that cover many cars over many years, it's not hard to have them all). The one computer interface they have would be equally useful on any make and model then because the codes would be just a matter of a database.

As for parts, those are very rarely all in-house anyway. They go and get them like everyone else.

Should you find yourself limping into a full service station in the middle of nowhere, you'd probably appreciate if the fix everything mechanic can run the diagnostic and get you going without having your car towed hundreds of miles to a dealer who will charge you double (or more) the amount anyway because he knows you're stuck.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[toddestan]

I don't want the mechanic who thinks he can figure it out. I want the mechanic who knows what to do.

And in a free market, you'd be able to choose whatever mechanic who you think knows what they are doing. So what's the issue?

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[Runaway1956]

People like you deserve DRM. Really, you do. You put your faith in the corporation, you deserve to be raped by the corporation. Some of us prefer more normal, consensual relations. I'm not putting you down, of course. This IS a free country. If you truly enjoy being boned with a huge wood rasp and no lubricant, go for it.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[hardburn]

OBD-II is the spec. However, manufacturers tend to add all sorts of extentions and lock-out codes. With the right legal fanagiling, you could argue that these are copy protection schemes under the DMCA, or maybe just trade secrets. Either case is a government-enforced monopoly.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[dbrutus]

Actually, the monopolies exist because of unserious politicians. Intellectual property exists in the US Constitution because it was viewed as an acceptable betrayal of principle in order to promote innovation for the public good. It's one of the less odious of those sorts of things (the worst being, of course slavery) but it is a compromise on the principles of liberty this country was founded on.

If US politicians were serious, we'd be having periodic reviews aimed at deciding if it was time to ditch the compromise entirely and live our principles or adjust the terms to maximize public good. Right now we're clearly tilted way off the original idea.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[dbrutus]

Big corporations generally screw you six ways from Sunday by buying up the law in one way or another. The more you regulate the economy, the more likely that guys who have connections will have the ability to ruin you.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[dbrutus]

Nobody's arguing against your right to contract with a dealer and get whatever repairs done you'd like. Other people would like the liberty to choose a different path. Why do you want to deny them that?

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[dbrutus]

Try reverse engineering the spec. Do you think a DMCA takedown is any more pleasant when it's done by Chrysler or Honda than when it's done by the RIAA?

OpenToyota 2.0

[nausea_malvarma]

DRM in my car!!! Shit... can't I just wipe it, and install linux on it?

BMW vs. Mercedes

[VGVL]

This already happens with BMW vs. Mercedes-Benz, and it's the reason I choose BMW. On a BMW I can use standard metric tools, I can buy the service manuals with the mechanical and electric diagrams, and contrary to popular belief parts are actually cheaper than most makes. I couldn't believe that a radiator for a Saturn costs twice as much at the dealer than one for my 5-Series at the BMW dealer. With Mercedes it's an entirely different matter. The "techs" are always secretive about what they're doing to MY car. When I asked if I could purchase the service manuals they looked at me weird, like "What sort of crazy Mercedes-Benz owner would want to get his hands dirty and fix his own car?" That sounds an awful lot like DRM, even if there's no encryption involved.

Re:BMW vs. Mercedes

[stox]

Odd, I chose Mercedes for exactly the same reason. Mercedes service information is available for all post 1994 models at www.startekinfo.com. The complete Electronic Parts Catalog ( EPC ) is free to residents of the US. Full DVD service manuals are available for models that are out of warrranty. Of course the techs won't tell you this, they would lose business. I do most of my own work on my CL500 and AMG.

Re:BMW vs. Mercedes

[NoName Studios]

The encryption is the mechanics. You just need to break the encryption/mechanics then. :D

Re:BMW vs. Mercedes

[anonymous cowshed]

That's interesting indeed- I know Merc's parts support for old models is great but didn't realise they did manuals etc too. Currently I run an Audi quattro, but Audi's attitude is to take down anywhere that puts up it's "EKTA" parts catalogue. Their parts supply is dreadful too, you really would be amazed at how many things are NLA or extra hard to get. I've got a fog light lens that has been on back order for over a year. Looks like my next car's going to be a Merc.

Re:BMW vs. Mercedes

[CompMD]

My family has had Mercedes cars for over 40 years, partially because of MB's openness. The dealers I've worked with have had no problem printing off exploded views of systems with a BOM. I still have no trouble whatsoever getting information from MB on my 1973 450SL when I need it. I do all the work on my SL, and I would do all the work on my 300SD and 300E also. If I really wanted to pay out the nose, several dealers will even still work on that car.

Volvo isn't too bad with openness either. I have an IPD ECU on my XC70 and have all the diagnostic and monitoring software on a laptop that can read everything, including Volvo specific data.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

In a free market, the dealers could not only use DRM to prevent non-dealer mechanics working on cars, but also refuse to do business with anyone associated with any mechanic that tries to circumvent their DRM. In a free market, being a big player is still a way of stifling competition. The bigger you are, the more power you have to manipulate the market, free or not.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[ScrewMaster]

Big corporations generally screw you six ways from Sunday by buying up the law in one way or another. The more you regulate the economy, the more likely that guys who have connections will have the ability to ruin you.

And if you don't regulate, the guys who don't have any connections because they don't need them will still ruin you.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[ScrewMaster]

I don't want the mechanic who thinks he can figure it out.

Weeding guys out that don't know what they are doing is what the free market is for. It's the USA. No one is forcing you to go to an incompetent (see the word "compete" in there?) mechanic. If you want to go to the dealer, go to the dealer. Me? I'm going to keep driving my 10 year old Ford and take it to my broham, Juan, when it doesn't run well. He knows where to find and how to replace the several on board computers. And I support the local economy more directly by using an independent mechanic. Competition baby!

I've been going to the same mechanic for about thirteen years now. The only time I go to the dealer is when he comes across some dealer-only part (sometimes he can get it anyway.)

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[GrpA]

There was never a law saying to have to tell anyone how your stuff works.

No, but there is a law saying it's illegal for you to figure out how someone else's stuff works and another that stops you from creating something that works the same way.

Them having to tell you is irrelevant most of the time, because humans can (could) figure most things out... Until they started calling it "Reverse Engineering"...

GrpA

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[profplump]

Trade secrets are only protected from sharing by people subject to non-disclosure and other similar agreements. As an outsider you are allowed legally reverse engineer or otherwise guess a trade secret and use it without penalty.

Independent shops aren't locked out

[Anonymous Coward]

Independent repair shops in the US can purchase the same tools and repair information that franchised car dealers can.

Details about individual manufacturer's offerings to the aftermarket as far as tools, service information, and training can be found at http://nastf.org/

Freedom of Choice

[Mal-2]

Apparently where it's offered, it isn't selling. From http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/633960:

The voters in B.C. weren't just electing a new legislature on Tuesday; they were also voting in a referendum on a new electoral system - the "single transferable vote," or STV.

STV is too complex to describe briefly. Suffice it to say that it is a form of proportional representation now in use in several small places. It was almost adopted by B.C. voters in a 2005 referendum, where it fell just two percentage points short of the threshold of 60 per cent required for passage. Electoral reform advocates across Canada were hoping to breathe new life into their cause by achieving a breakthrough in B.C. this time.

Instead, B.C. voters delivered a crushing defeat to STV. Just 39 per cent of them supported the complex system, while 61 per cent opted for the first-past-the-post status quo.

Following on the heels of an even more resounding defeat for proportional representation in the 2007 referendum in Ontario, this surely should bring an end to the electoral reform movement in our country. Canadian voters in two major provinces have sent a strong message that this issue is not high on their priority list.

I only knew about this because I had to watch Ustream feeds of Hockey Night in Canada to see the Canucks-Blackhawks series, and every third ad was policital -- a lot of them being either for or against the Single Transferable Vote.

Mal-2

Re:Freedom of Choice

[AnyoneEB]

Thanks for the link. They already have a proportional representation system which is significantly better than the US system for avoiding a two party system. It is a bit disappointing that the voters would consider STV too complicated, but it does sound like it significantly changes the political landscape, especially in that it sounds like it changes the focus of voting from parties to individuals which may make the elected individuals less predictable as they would not necessarily be kept in line by their party.

The regional lines that legislative positions are based on in the US mean that PR is not really an option. IRV is basically the same system, but it does become slightly simpler when counting for only one position.

There are a few places that use IRV, even some in the US.

Re:Freedom of Choice

[bVork]

Well, people who don't vote along party lines tend to get thrown out of parties here in Canada.

Anyway, there were other reasons to vote against STV. The major reason was that the proposal would have created several super ridings with multiple representatives. Who are you supposed to go to in order to make your opinion heard? What about ridings that cover a large area of rural landscape as well as a few towns? Are the representatives even going to care about rural outliers when most of the voters will be living in towns? Furthermore, there is nothing stopping parties from fielding multiple candidates, and I suspect people would be more likely to just vote along party lines - which would yield even more homogeneous results than the current system, as larger ridings with more people would average the results even more than the first-past-the-post system that we currently have.

Re:Freedom of Choice

[Timmmm]

"STV is too complex to describe briefly."

Wha? How about this: "STV is a voting system whereby voters rank candidates in order of preference. If their primary choice stands no chance of election their vote is transfered to their second choice. This is repeated until only one candidate remains."

Really though, how complicated is "Rank the candidates according to your preference."? Stupid people.

You almost had me believing you knew stuff....

[CFD339]

...until you tossed out 1970's era emissions gear assumptions. Most modern emissions control gear actually works by improving the efficiency of the engine. Not all of it (have to put that here because it's /. and someone will point out catalytic converters and a few other things) but mostly, all that computer control fuel metering and mixture controls, increased engine running temperatures and variable timing (and so on) serve to make the engine run more efficiently, which is why there are fewer artifacts of poor combustion left over. The "smog pump" pretty much went out with bell bottom pants.

Re:You almost had me believing you knew stuff....

[Propaganda13]

I wasn't talking about all emissions control gear, just the secondary air injection.

The system helps warm up the catalytic converter to operating temperature.

After that, what does it do?
Mine never runs after the first minute. I've noticed no difference in power or fuel consumption

$50 solenoid plus $300 pump plus $100 valve and some hose = not worth it.

for most people

[CFD339]

there's a really long gulf from changing a pcv to replacing the piston rings. Even a valve job is relatively easy compared to that. I'd be 90% of shade tree mechanics haven't replaced their own rings in the last 20 years.

Re:for most people

[mzs]

I'm lucky. I had a very frugal father. He bought only GM cars when I was a kid in the US. Mostly SBC but there was an Olds 307 and a Buick 350 (also a Ford Grand Torino, but it was such a mess he gave it to my uncle who sold it quickly). In the '80s we had used cars from the '70s to give an idea. I was always curious and around him (even when very young and he worked on a pair of Skodas in Austria and a Ford Tractor in Poland). In the second grade I helped him rebuild a small Briggs and Stratton (I was the gopher, go-fer that wrench, etc). Then in the fifth grade I rebuilt the same small engine over two evenings with him looking over my shoulder from time to time. Then I helped him and my uncle more and more with the cars. My mother worked for an OEM soldering electronics and building wiring harnesses. My aunt and uncle worked as auto mechanics and later my uncle started a parts store. My aunt would rebuild alternators, starters, transmissions, etc for him. My father was an engineer but in aerospace/defense. By the time I had my first beater I had a lot of help and enough experience to get into trouble. I loved it. In 2004 I bought a new car for the first time for my wife. A few years later I sold the Mazda and bought a new car of my own. I've done a lot less work since then. I really miss it, though free weekends and evenings are nice and I know some former neighbors very much did not like my working on the Mazda and Volvo (the last of my project/daily driver cars).

Proprietary, not DRM

[ltkije]

Agreeing with the commenter up-thread, it really is just proprietary stuff. Fred Von Lohmann, usually an astute guy, gets it wrong this time.

Back around 2000 I did some work on diagnostic tools. Engine- and emissions-related trouble codes are industry standard as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). There are plenty of tools that will read these trouble codes. Where it gets interesting is that in various cars, the communication hardware could be UART-based, PWM, in the last few years, mostly CAN, but there were others.

A decade ago, I think it was under a consent decree, the 3 Detroit auto companies had to make diagnostic information available after one year. This being the auto industry, through incestuous business relationships one company got to collect the information, and of course they were the only source for the second year, and after that your friendly neighborhood repair shop could get the information from several sources.

The thing about vehicle buses is that they carry a lot more information besides diagnostics, and this "everything else" is held pretty closely by the auto companies. Dealers get access to at least some of it because repairs are where the cash flow is. Also, making warranty repairs quicker helps the auto companies keep their costs down.

Slashdot readers should realize that the world of embedded software inside the car has very little in common with desktop computing; automotive electronics resemble distributed systems more and more every year; and the shadetree mechanic is SOL these days.

Re:Proprietary, not DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot readers should realize that the world of embedded software inside the car has very little in common with desktop computing; automotive electronics resemble distributed systems more and more every year; and the shadetree mechanic is SOL these days.

This really is true. There are important safety reasons and real-time constraints on vehicle electronics. And each car is different! That's the reality.

The car is open. In fact most cars (despite wildly different protocols) follow similar Keyword 2000 commands for basic stuff like get faults, live data, etc.

Firmware update is where the "fun" begins.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[quanticle]

Well, that ignores that the effect of this regulation is to cancel out the effect of other regulation (i.e. the DMCA) so that the total effect of the regulation is increased freedom, not decreased freedom.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[Quothz]

I want the mechanic who knows what to do.

And currently, you get the mechanic hired by the franchise. If, say, the franchise owner is looking for spare cash and hires a guy whose total experience is earning a C+ in high school shop, then that's your tough luck.

DRM? Really?

[bruckie]

It sounds to me like the EFF is overreacting again. When the new iPod shuffle came out, the they sounded the alarm about headphones requiring "DRM authentication". They later retracted their statement. Turns out that the "DRM" was just an electrical signaling protocol that allowed the headphones to send button press events to the iPod. You knowâ"the kind that any EE would design. The headphones and the iPod have to communicate somehow.

It sounds to me like this is more of the same. From the article:

car manufacturers now severely limit the number of repair shops that are allowed to have the tools, diagnostic codes and updated repair information essential to being able to repair late-model cars

A lack of information, or the need for sophisticated test equipment does not automatically imply DRM.

I'm all for making information on car diagnostic protocols and diagnostic code semantics more freely available, but let's call it what it really is.

--Bruce

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[chthonicdaemon]

So you don't feel like you should have the right to fix your own car?

Open? Buy GM instead of a Honda

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you guys got a Buick, Chevy, etc., you would not have this problem. I can get ALL codes for my Buick (and parents Cadillac), I don't need special hardware (there's a GM scan tool but a generic will work just as well.. the Caddy you can dump codes WITHOUT a scan tool) and I can even get the service manual straight from them if I want, if I don't want there's plenty of 3rd-party information.

          On the flip side, Honda. They are in fact the WORST about witholding information, they REALLY want you to go to an "authorized" Honda shop or dealer for work. You can't get service info from them. Even the likes of Chiltons & Haynes, Honda "requested" they not make repair books for newer models. I do believe Mercedes is more in this camp too.

          In between, there's kind of the full range -- some few others are fully open, many are open except for a few details, and some few tight as Honda.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[diamondmagic]

You misunderstand the meaning of "free" then start bashing your own misunderstanding. How is it free market capitalism if there is a legal monopoly granted on the technology, keeping *out* cooperations and businesses? Freedom favors no person over another. If a company can produce a proprietary technology, good for them. If someone else can reverse engineer it, good for them too. But this legal monopoly (patents, DMCA, etc) is anything but free, which is a system biased against smaller bases.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[SL Baur]

Also known as "Trickle-Down Economics" aka "Trickle-Upon Economics" aka "Reagan Free Market Capitalism", as in big corporations a "free" to fuck you six ways till Sunday.

President Reagan had his faults (Civil Forfeiture and "Money Laundering"), but I do believe you are confusing Clintonomics and Obamanomics.

How much more fucked does it get when you loan a company money (via buying secured bonds) and the government arbitrarily changes the laws that says you are no longer required to be paid back (and the preferred creditors do not want control of the company)?

Legislation already in place

[alecwood]

It's already mandatory in the EU (and Japan I believe) for auto manufacturers to make all diagnostic code information which affects the "function or efficiency of the vehicle" freely available.

Now, while the EU obviously has no bearing on the US, auto manufacture is a global industry, standard parts abound, and most US manufacturers have one or more European brands in their stables. You'd have to have some kind of Canute complex to think that if you were to try and charge the US drivers for this information, they wouldn't just turn to the net and ask their European associates for it.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[JAlexoi]

FFS. Stop thinking that capitalism equates to freedom. It does not. Some of the worst regimes in the world are capitalist. As is, the much hated Saddam's regime was 100% capitalist.

Parties are too monolithic

[Keeper Of Keys]

In the modern age, is it really necessary to have a separate debating / decision-making class? It would be technically feasible for anyone who was interested in or concerned about a particular issue to have a say in how it was dealt with. Let the factions and disagreements form around particular problems, then be dissolved once the matter is closed so that new ones can form around the next issue at hand.

Re:Parties are too monolithic

[ckaminski]

I have to agree with you. If we can somehow manage to collect taxes for 250+ million people by April 15th every year, I don't see why we can't directly vote on law ourselves.

The technology is there, people are going to game the system no matter what, arguably it can be made harder by an impartial computer than with bribable humans...

Re:Parties are too monolithic

[AndersOSU]

That's more or less the situation with ballot initiatives in California.

The problem is one of accountability, if lawmakers vote for a proposal that bankrupts the state you can change the lawmakers. When the state is bankrupted by ballot initiative, solutions are much harder to come by.

Re:Parties are too monolithic

[JoeRandomHacker]

Woohoo! Mob rule!!!

Re:Parties are too monolithic

[geekoid]

actually, it's about 110,000 million taxpayers.

The technology is not there yet. Just ebcause we can connect everyone together doesn't mean it can be done securely, and reasonably.

What we need to do is adjust certain aspects of the current system.

Starting with removing riders from bills. This is critical to help curb abuse.

Oh, and there are a lot of laws, so the research alone wouldn't happen for most people, and they would just vote party lines, without a chance for negotiation. Lobbying would become so much easier.

Re:Parties are too monolithic

[crmarvin42]

It's more a problem of the uneducated masses making decisions they are not qualified to make. Even those with college educations are usually only qualified to make important decisions on a handful of topics. Someone with an advanced degree in law is probably not qualified to make important decisions concerning agriculture and vice versa. Never mind those with no college, or HS drop-outs, or immigrants with no HS equivalent.

Politicians are necessary not because of what they already know, but becuase they can (presumably) be educated about the topics as necessary. That this currently leads to influence peddling, and corruption is unfortunate and needing to be addressed, but does not negate the need for somone to fill the role of an educated advocate/decision maker.

I recommend reading up on the two-party system.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if you want to look like an uneducated lout in front of people who actually understand the benefits and disadvantages of a two-party system in the future, feel free to ignore my suggestion.

PROTIP: The two-party system has a number of significant benefits, which is why it has lasted so long in the United States. Whether or not you consider these benefits worth the disadvantages is up to personal taste.

Wait wait...

[copponex]

Who's doing their business plan? Apple??

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[Lumpy]

Bingo!

there is NO REASON for the ecm data stream to the repair interface to not be plain english Rs232 data.

The reason they use bizzare ass protocols and data packets is to keep you and "unwanted" people out of there.

There is a crapload of extra processing power in today's cars. There is ZERO reason that you cant pull up the diagnostic info on the stereo or other display other than the executives at that corporation decided that fucking the customer is the right thing to do.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[Lumpy]

There-in lies the problem.

Stupid people BUY new cars that cant be easily worked on. they buy a car because "it's pretty" or has that mp3 player port. They don't buy a car based on important things like, is it serviceable? was it designed by morons? nope....

Ohh it's BLUE! is far more important that if the car can be readily fixed in 10 years at jim-bob's auto emporium and pet store on I-46 in the middle of nowhere.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[Lumpy]

Me too! That's why I try to do all my own work. My Sports car and my bike NEVER get touched by anyone but me.

Last 3 times I went to a dealer, the idiots that work there screwed up the car. I had to fix what they screwed up.

Last 2 times I took a motorcycle to the dealer to have something simple done like tire replacement. I had to remove the wheel and re assemble it right because the drooling idiots they hire at dealers cant work on the freaking bikes.

Finding a mechanic that knows what he is doing and can re-assemble the car correctly when done is hard. The 3 I know do not work at dealerships, but actually work out of their garage on the side for cash only. These guys can reassemble the car CORRECTLY, and fix the problem the FIRST TIME. One even repairs transmissions himself.

It's like how ASE certification is as useless as MCSE certification. It means you passed a test, not that you know what you are doing.

Too much info/BS. 100% pure BS.

[silver007]

Give the general public access to information they -think- they understand and watch cars start to blow up at red lights. I am a bit of a shadetree mechanic and have never ran across a late-model vehicle I couldn't diagnose and fix. If I can do it, surely these fancy "SAE Certified" mechanics can, right? Oh no, you don't suggest... that... maybe, they're not all they're, um... cracked up to be? Maybe... they want a little midget to jump out of the dash and tell them exactly what to do? This isn't about DRM, FFS, DMCA, PCM's, ECM's or any of the other fancy little acronyms these folks would like to blame their lack of skills on. It's good ol' laziness and lack of education. The auto repair industry has been a magnet for unqualified, less-than-desireable humans for decades. They're not trying to make the leap from ignorant to ignorant victim. Oh, the irony.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[sheph]

It's kind of hard for the mechanic to know what to do when everything is computerized, and he's locked out of the terminal. Imagine trying to configure a computer without being able to log in to it. That's what these independent shops are up against.

not really

[airdrummer]

by the time nadir[tm;-] came out with unsafe-a-a-s, the 2nd gen. corvair had a fully independent rear suspension, and arguably handled better than the corvette of the era.

but i can attest to the vicious whip-spins of the pre-64s (which had a camber compensator to limit the swing axle's jacking effect when braking...or even letting off...in a turn) i spun my '63 2x, learned not to do THAT;-)

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[lobsterGun]

Actually, a free market offers no protection in this case. Right now, manufacturers use the DMCA to protect their diagnostic gear, but without its protections they could use any scheme they wanted.

Imagine instead each diagnostic code encrypted via a one time pad that is unique to each car that rolls off the line. Only members of the companies authorized repair network would be able to access it.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[jbengt]

How much more fucked does it get when you loan a company money (via buying secured bonds) and the government arbitrarily changes the laws that says you are no longer required to be paid back (and the preferred creditors do not want control of the company)?

Not that I think it was entirely fair, but no laws were changed.
It was a bankruptcy negotiation where the representatives of the largest creditor/investor (the US government) swung their weight around and "forced" a compromise that might keep the business in operation to some extent.

Nader was used as a tactic to trick the public...

[bussdriver]

The DFL was distracted by those inside and outside the party who WANTED TO AVOID PUBLIC SCRUTINY of the broken election system in the USA.

Blame Nader when Gore won by all recounts and the other 3rd party candidates INCLUDING the nearly non-existent COMMUNIST PARTY who got more than the margin of difference. Under this line of reasoning you can blame EVERY 3rd party or just blame the communists... or just blame Nader.

Can't ever get the public upset over their broken voting system! We're #1 after all...

We HAD computer voting systems with "bugs" of heavily pre-loaded results that would have gone unnoticed; and essentially it did-- because in 2004 we had more of the "buggy" things. Proper attention in 2000 would have prevented their spread.

FYI:
I personally heard Nader talking behind the scenes (2000) and he didn't care if Bush won and conjectured that it might be good if Bush won broke everything! Waking up the sleeping public before it was too late to fix things! Perhaps this was the case; perhaps Pearl Harbor was needed or we'd all be speaking German?

I voted for Gore, BTW. I pick the lesser of two declines.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[geekoid]

Clearly not true.

IT was making the financial market nmore libertariean that causesed this mess we are in.

Contrary to the idiot group think here on slashdot thinks, the government isn't a bunch of corrupt bribeable people only interested in gathering money.

Most of them, most of the time are actually trying to help the citizens.
Sometimes things go askew, but it does right itself.

The regulated market we had 25 years ago was far safer for the people then what we ahve now.

What you are saying is no accountability is better then accountability; which is ridiculous.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[geekoid]

Sure, but most people aren't stupid. Stupid peopel can keep going to the dealer for repairs, the rest of us aren't stupid and want options to whom we can go to.

This is complicated.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a disclaimer I am the lead engineer for an aftermarket scan tool product. First of call, it is a bit more complex than a UART these days.

Oh, and even for cars that do have UART (so called "K-Line" communication); guess what -- they have a variable baud rate and at least require some baud detector hardware. OBD-II sets the baud rate at specifically 10400bps -- but OBD-II is very simple.

See, OBD-II is a form of *legislated diagnostics* That means that the fault codes, data link protocols (all 5 of them), and operation are defined by a standards body. That would be great if all cars were identical. But they aren't. So manufacturers have to extend things to properly diagnose the vehicle.

Now that just covers powertrain anyhow. What about your radio (yes, in some cars it too can be diagnosed), or instrument cluster, or theft deterrent system. All of these are complex and very vehicle specific. And as for simple UART - its often much more complex than that. I remember one vehicle that had 9-bit K-line communication. And that 9th bit was a data bit, not a partiy bit.

But actually working in the industry and dealing with the OEMs I can often tell you often even they don't have the information. First, depending on a variety of factors a car can be sometimes assembled with a variety of different components. The car companies often keep this "as built" database around but the scan tools have to consult it.

Even if you know the exact make-up of a car you have to deal with differing software levels. Yup, new fault codes come, old ones go away, new live data equations need to be written... all depending on the version of code loaded into the car.

And you know the ECUs (and their software) aren't always developed in house by the OEMs. So the guys at the OEM often have to fight their vendor (which sometimes is even fighting their vendor!).

Then there are things that I can understand them wanting to protect (and usually there is a simple seed-key lock mechanism). But air bag and drive authorization are often protected. Otherwise hot wiring a car would be eaiser -- or you could fudge air bag insurance info.

Then if you replace a part you have to get the right firmware blob into it (sometimes they come with just a bootloader) -- and the right firmware blob depends on three other modules and their software in the car.

Of course the OEMs try and do sneaky stuff. Especially in the past. These days they seem far more willing to work with people and aftermarket companies. Some standards (like J2534 - if it weren't so ill specified) can also help with the whole out of date problems. The auto companies are even trying to move to a more generalized form of disseminating data (ODX I guess is going to happen). So I really think the auto companies aren't being the dicks they could be.

Now, good luck getting as much access to the firmware in your cable box or electric meter than your car gives you.

It's easy for the uninitiated to look at the OBD-II connector and say "why did they do it this proprietary way." But I can say most of the reasons are technical (and of course, shudder, legacy).

Being on both sides (writing ECU firmware) and diagnostic tools as well as many other industries I can say that automotive companies really aren't the dicks they could be.

-MYG

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[infinite9]

Most people don't realize how big a deal this is. I was talking to an IT recruiter lady one day. She was telling me about how it cost her $1200 for front brakes on her landrover discovery. Most cars aren't that much, but $600 for front brakes is common. I can do it in my driveway for around $50 depending on the car. And it's not hard to do at all. The repair cost justification for accepting a car loan payment for a new car with a warranty sort of falls apart.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[Chris Burke]

Big corporations generally screw you six ways from Sunday by buying up the law in one way or another. The more you regulate the economy, the more likely that guys who have connections will have the ability to ruin you.

Yes, that's why it's the Reagan Free Market, and not just a free market. In Reaganomics, regulations that prevent a corporation from fucking you six ways till Sunday are bad, but regulations that help a corporation fuck you six ways till Sunday are good. Because after raping your wallet, some of that money will trickle back down on your head.

That it isn't the REAL free market was entirely my point. :P

What exactly is this law supposed to address...

[Peepsalot]

That is not already covered by OBD and J2534 standards?

Broken voting system

[Nerdposeur]

Don't blame Nader, blame your lousy voting system that discourages a third party from forming.

This is my biggest political beef. People can't vote their conscience because they think they'll be "throwing their vote away." In a true democracy, you should not be ABLE to waste your vote.

Instead of making me pick one candidate, why not let me vote on each one - "For," "Against," or "No Opinion?" We would get a much more accurate reflection of what people think, instead of what they think everybody ELSE thinks.

That's Awesome.

[DarthVain]

That's Awesome.

Couldn't have said it better!

[doronbc]

FTA-"In short, thanks to the DMCA, we need a Right-To-Repair Act not just for cars, but increasingly for all the things we own."

That is just the first step

[drkwatr]

It is nice to see someone showing the public about some of the things wrong with the current auto industry. Nevermind the fact that gobbling up all the smaller companies earlier in the last century took away their competitive edge. I just wish we hadn't bailed them out. The financial district makes more sense even though I don't agree with the fact of having too few large institutions in charge of such masses of possible economic prowless. If they go under so would the economy. The auto industry? No, we would move on. They had their chance a few years back but decided against "innovating" and reverted backwards in design. Screw them let them go belly up. Too many years they have had me and other mechanics pay god awful sums of money for a "special" tool, because they were too damn stupid/and or lazy to engineer something right the first time. I have had enough. I started designing my own vehicles and will be releasing them under a GPL. The first will be the ZR1, an electric motorcycle utilizing a dual-variable gear CVT coupled to an electric motor. Gives excellent dynamic range, and can simulate the sound of a traditional cycle. Since it is open in design anyone will be able to change that sound, and more. It reminds me of the old Zephyr 2's that Zenith Motorcycles released about a 100 years ago. Excellent bikes, but anyways stay posted on the internet for more. With the economy collapsing it is pretty darn clear for me what direction to take. Do more for myself. Design and build my own stuff, and all these over the hill no skilled hack of CEOs who make 70 times what the president makes but yet have the utter responsibility that is reduced to something like 1/70 of his can go get a real job and leave us the hell alone. Laters. =)

$55,000

[jago25_98]

Democracy. Has it ever worked?

Back on topic.

  I like this way of addressing the problem because it's addressing it with a new angle of a new law, allowing right to repair.

  Another way is through the weak antitrust, fair competition regulators.

  Small garages need to band together to survive.

  2600 ran a piece on this 5+ years ago over podcast with lots of info.

  The OBD-II standard is very basic. It mostly covers safety measures and emissions. To get the really interesting stuff you have to move into manufacturers codes. They do obfuscate. I'm not sure if car makers have attacked reverse engineering attempts.

Prices from the UK:
- VAGCOM (VW) £250, reverse engineered, I think, but RossTech haven't been sued as far as I know
- Do it all machines. Took a while to come out but here they are. Seen prices at £25,000 (~$55,000), and £7,500. The £25k one is updateable with OS onboard and everything.
- ebay, generic cables and warezed software. ~£15-100. These sometimes break. Could be bad at handling odd voltages from damaged cars perhaps?

The only option out of all those to the person who actually owns the car is the ebay £15 option because you might not use it again.

This is a major thing to think about when buying your next car. BMW are particularly bad for it and it's been getting worse and worse with newer cars. Reverse engineering is always one step behind. My girlfriend isn't going to understand a thing like this. Nor is my dad. In fact, the vast majority won't `get it` until they get hit by a massive bill from the manufacturer garage, and even then they might not understand -just like OpenSource. Things change in time.

I always ask what a mechanic drives. They seem to go for the older cars. Vauxhall(opel) Vectras seem popular.

Ask yourself, can I see if my mechanic has lied to me?

I've had these experiences with car mechanics:

- crashed shortly after a service including wheels, no investigation so can't be sure
- welded over brake pedal (emergency failover in case of brake fluid loss removed)
- replaced brake pads that didn't need replacing, showed me other pads worn down, which I knew weren't mine
- put standard tyres on when I said I wanted something for Ski resorts, not informing me of snow tyres

Thank god, I now have 10 year old vehicle and a mechanic I trust.

So, get yourself informed, before it literally kills you!

-j, UK

Renault R10

[Anonymous Coward]

Had the same config (single knuckle) but with nylon straps to prevemt the roll over on a jacked axle

Some of the "DRM" is mandated ...

[PuertoRican]

While I generally support the notion that if you own the vehicle you should be allowed to hack the vehicle, some of the protections for in-vehicle electronics are either mandated by external entities or self-imposed.

Someone mentioned earlier the fact that auto manufacturing today is global in scope. That is a fact, and the electrical systems in vehicles today are designed to be used in as many markets as possible to minimize engineering costs.

Since virtually all of the ECUs in a vehicle are reprogrammable these days, and since many of those ECUs are involved in the security features built into vehicles these days, the European Insurance lobby (whose name escapes me at the moment) requires auto manufacturers selling vehicles in Europe to "secure" their ECUs against tampering. This allows the manufacturer to obtain good ratings from the insurance providers, otherwise the vehicle is essentially docked points for being unsecure. These features obviously affect the average consumers ability to do things to their vehicles.

Secondly, as more and more features are software driven, the OEMs have the ability to provide vehicle features via software. Therefore they have some incentive to "secure" the ECUs in order to prevent customers from obtaining features that they either didn't pay for or should not be enabled in the vehicle depending on where it was sold.

Somehow I doubt that Nader is taking any of this into consideration, and I highly doubt his initiative will gain enough momentum to overcome these hurdles.

Re:Parties

[Anonymous Coward]

One big problem with the two major parties is that they are tacitly recognized as unofficial branches of government. Party line committee appointments, public funding of primary elections (which are the parties' private business, which they should pay for--not send the bill to taxpayers who belong to a third party, or none at all), public funding of campaigns (but only for parties that are "big enough"), party-directed gerrymandering of election districts: it all ensures that the two dominant parties stay that way by ensuring the irrelevance of any other parties. In return, we get cookie-cutter candidates who may speak differently, but are hardly discernible in their actions (see Hotelling's law). Even Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party couldn't break the stranglehood the Republicrat/Demican duopoly has on American politics.

Re:I believe in free market capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a bankruptcy negotiation where the representatives of the largest creditor/investor (the US government) swung their weight around and "forced" a compromise that might keep the business in operation to some extent.

Um, no. And there was nothing legal about the bailout to begin with.

A compromise or any kind of contract must be legal. Laws were ignored.

The biggest creditors were the bond holders and they got screwed. It was Der Fuhrer Obama dictating the results.