Slashdot Mirror


American Farmers Are Still Fighting Tractor Software Locks (npr.org)

Manufacturers lock consumers into restrictive "user agreements," and inside "there's things like you won't open the case, you won't repair," complains a U.S. advocacy group called The Repair Association. But now the issue is getting some more attention in the American press. An anonymous reader quotes NPR: Modern tractors, essentially, have two keys to make the engine work. One key starts the engine. But because today's tractors are high-tech machines that can steer themselves by GPS, you also need a software key -- to fix the programs that make a tractor run properly. And farmers don't get that key.

"You're paying for the metal but the electronic parts technically you don't own it. They do," says Kyle Schwarting, who plants and harvests fields in southeast Nebraska... "Maybe a gasket or something you can fix, but everything else is computer controlled and so if it breaks down I'm really in a bad spot," Schwarting says. He has to call the dealer. Only dealerships have the software to make those parts work, and it costs hundreds of dollars just to get a service call. Schwarting worries about being broken down in a field, waiting for a dealer to show up with a software key.

The article points out that equipment dealers are using those expensive repair calls to offset slumping tractor sales. But it also reports that eight U.S. states, including Nebraska, Illinois and New York, are still considering bills requiring manufacturers to sell repair software, adding that after Massachusetts passed a similar lar, "car makers started selling repair software."

316 comments

  1. Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it's a great thing that people who typically vote for more corporate freedom finally get to see the price of unrestrained corporatism.

    1. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry, the market will work it out. Some upstart company will decide to forego the huge income resulting from repair restrictions and will provide an alternative, and so many buyers will switch to that company to make up for those losses. Shouldn't be more than 90% have to switch for that to work, so it won't be long before all the companies drop the restriction! Right?

    2. Re: Positive by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This would happen, if it were not for manufacturers' intellectual property control over their software. Just like pharma companies, the manufacturers have imposed socialism for themselves by having protectionism written into the law. Capitalism is for the customers.

      We need to define 'right to repair' as an extension of fair use.

    3. Re: Positive by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Disruptive business plans are a real thing. It's basically the business culture of Silicon Valley: find a traditional business, kill it and feast off its corpse. The problem is that it's a lot harder to do with something like tractors than it is with services or retail.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. The upstart company will get sued due to some patent bullshit (which doesn't necessarily need to be true) and it will all stop there. Nobody can switch and the ol-companies will remain in business.

    5. Re: Positive by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't worry, the market will work it out. Some upstart company will...

      Nah, the sort of company that does this to farmers will have a large portfolio of dumb patents and an army of lawyers to back it up.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way out is to buy from manufacturers who don't do this. If all American companies include the software key, then you'll have to buy from someone else. The pride for `made in america' will have to wait until sales go down and the american companies decide to react (which could be by removing software lock ins... or by imposing higher tax on foreing tractors).

    7. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it's a great thing that people who typically vote for more corporate freedom finally get to see the price of unrestrained corporatism.

      I don't think many farmers voted for Clinton. One of the major reasons she lost was because she sold out to Wall Street.

      The Corporate Party has infested all sides of politics.

    8. Re:Positive by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trump said he was going to drain that swamp, all he's done so far is sign bills that deregulate business to let them screw over customers/the planet in any way they like.

      Corporate profits now come first, priority is given to the companies Trump has shares in.

      --
      No sig today...
    9. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to drain the water to make a landfill.

    10. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing to do with socialism, but everything with good old abuse of market power by a private monopoly facilitated by US IP law.

    11. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think you know what socialism is. It's not this.

      What you're looking at is monopolistic competition; it's a routine outcome of an underregulated capitalist system.

      And then, to compound your misunderstanding of socialism, the remedy you're after is regulation.

    12. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is ALL contingent upon the coercive IP laws that are imposed and enforced by government. Free market my ass.

    13. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you embrace the DRM, the DRM embraces you...

    14. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look up "barriers to entry"

    15. Re: Positive by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Words mean things. Socialism isn't just a word meaning "bad things I don't like". Why not just have done with it and call them "SJWs"?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really have a hard on for him, don't you? Do you dream about him at night?

    17. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These abuses would not be possible without intellectual property laws, which are a form of regulation. Limiting the scope of these laws is a *reduction* of regulation, bringing about something closer to an ideal free-market system.

      Socialism is an economic philosophy in which laws are designed to directly improve the lot of society. (How well this works is, of course, a matter for debate.) The GP was pointing out that the manufacturers have established socialism for *themselves*: the laws are designed to directly improve the lot of the manufacturers.

    18. Re: Positive by judoguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you're looking at is monopolistic competition; it's a routine outcome of an underregulated capitalist system.

      Wrong. What you're looking at is called Fascism. Or what Mussolini called Corporatism. The unholy alliance of anti free market big business and the coercive power of the State.

      ObamaCare is an excellent example, if you need another.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    19. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      In this case it is, but a completely "free" market has no anti-trust protections so you get the same result there... eventually one player manages to figure out how to destroy their competitors' businesses, or just lucks out when disaster befalls them, and then they embark on a campaign to buy and/or squash any little startups that threaten to eat into their market. Without institutional regulation, the winner of the capitalist game becomes the institution.

    20. Re:Positive by judoguy · · Score: 0

      Trump said he was going to drain that swamp, all he's done so far is sign bills that deregulate business to let them screw over customers/the planet in any way they like.

      Corporate profits now come first, priority is given to the companies Trump has shares in.

      Citation please. Really, I'd like to see them.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    21. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      More anti-capitalist mouth vomit. You only prove that you know nothing about capitalism or monopoly.

      Nothing in regulation prevents monopolies, but through regulatory capture it sure has created a few. Regulation only leads to the very thing you are trying to prevent.

      FCC: Did you want a free market? No, you get to choose from the ISP's "monopolies" we bless!
      Disney: Did you want that movie in the Public domain from decades ago? You can't have it, we bought your politicians and through "regulation" we got to extend copyright effectively through your entire life!
      Gas & Oil: O yea... we are really suffering by your "regulations"... they keep production down and demand high! Keep paying us you fools, we will be happy to run to the podium and cry some crocodile tears when needed to make you idiots happy that your "regulations" are hurting us. We just do what we want and pay a fine or two... you don't even get the money the government does so you get fucked twice... we love it! Enjoy your oil bath... brought to you by BP!

      Government: You want regulation? Why of course, we are happy to help! Please ignore the loop holes and monopolies we create with these new regulatory laws... you asked us to do this remember? You need to step away from the table now and don't forget to leave a donation on your way out... don't forget the lube either... we like to get rough on that ass! In fact we are beginning to thing you love this shit... the more we politicians treat you people like chattel & serfs the more you come running to us! It's a real win-win for us!

      You need to stop blaming capitalism for something regulation does not prevent either! You only succeed in revealing that you are an ignorance mouth piece.

    22. Re:Positive by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure this is issue predated Trump by a few years.

      Yes, there's many issues with the Trump presidency (including some that are criminal in nature). But DRM on tractors is a longer term issue than something he created over the past few months.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    23. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right to repair is not nearly far enough. This is just going to spread to anything and everything with a computer in it through "licensing" the software. And computers are going into toasters these days so you can expect them to go into pretty much everything, with increasing efforts to make it impossible, both technologically and illegally, for you to do anything the company does not want you to do with the system. Essentially, at this point, it is viable for a company to effectively own hardware through built-in software, whether or not you actually paid for it. It is their computer. That's what Windows 10 is all about, in fact, and arguably Android, though better than Windows 10, has that in mind as well.

      Ultimately, given the innumerable dangers of IP law as-is (including, but not limited to, the severe damage inflicted culturally by effectively perpetual copyright, unnecessary burdens on innovation that go far beyond "incentivizing" invention, loss of property rights and control, loss of control of personal data, censorship through abuse that is impractical to defend against, and that's just for starters), it needs to have its back broken and rebuilt from the ground up. Especially since the companies are increasingly of the "all-or-nothing" mindset, with shills tromping out the "but you wouldn't work for free, would you?" bullshit that overlooks that copyright can be changed for a sane duration as well as more reasonable restrictions, and that's aside from the fact that if you're on this site you are probably using a lot of complex software that was in fact written for free.

      Unfortunately it may be a very, very long time before that actually happens, and by then, it will likely have caused severe damage throughout much of society.

    24. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well sure, the upstarts will gain success until the giant monolith buys them out and either destroys them and forces them to follow their policy. Corporate freedom at work again.

    25. Re: Positive by thunderclees · · Score: 1

      Not just US, BMW is considering offering cars with features present but disabled that can be enabled permanently or rented by the customer with a phone call. I'm sure they are not the ones considering it.

    26. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be more impressed if you illiterate rednecks knew the correct word for the subject is "we" not "us."

    27. Re: Positive by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think what they're getting at is anything that says you can't legally repair something is an artificial market protection.

      In a completely free market, no such clause would be legally enforceable, and any secondary market vendor who wanted to hack the system and repair it for a lower charge than the manufacturer could do so without any legal headaches.

      All the trouble that comes along with the DMCA or things like Monsanto copyrighting seeds and such is most certainly NOT free market capitalism.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    28. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure this is issue predated Trump by a few years.

      Yes, there's many issues with the Trump presidency (including some that are criminal in nature). But DRM on tractors is a longer term issue than something he created over the past few months.

      Nobody said he created it, rather the opposite, that the Swamp existed, and he's merely failing to do anything in the way of swamp draining.

    29. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't seem to be very well informed either. The US has antitrust laws since the late 19th Century whose main purpose is to prevent monopolies. They have been weakened by strong lobby groups, though, like anyone else that would enable stronger competition. It's also not hard to see that unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies and/or collusion at least in some markets, and no economist who knows his or her profession would deny that. It follows even from simple game theoretic models. There is plenty of disagreement about ways to prevent monopolies and the amount of intervention needed, of course, but that's another matter.

      Regulation works fine in other countries, so if it doesn't work in the US, as you agree with, then I guess that's because US senators can be quite literally bought in ways that would be illegal on many other high-level industrialized Western countries.

      Another issue that should be mentioned is that capitalism can only 'work' at all whenever there are free markets. In many domains there can be no free markets, e.g. roads and utilities, including physical cables. A free market requires dozens of competing participants, you will never get a free market with only 3-4 players like Comcast or AT&T, it's impossible. So your FCC example is particularly misleading and ignorant.

    30. Re: Positive by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      the remedy you're after is regulation.

      Which would you rather have, regulations written by private corporations, or ones written by your elected officials? And besides, are regulations written to increase personal freedom necessarily a bad thing?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    31. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump said he was going to drain that swamp, all he's done so far is sign bills that deregulate business to let them screw over customers/the planet in any way they like.

      Corporate profits now come first, priority is given to the companies Trump has shares in.

      Citation please. Really, I'd like to see them.

      The list of bills Donald J. Trump has signed, Mother Fucker.

    32. Re:Positive by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      And "Swamp Draining" was one of his key election promises.

      --
      No sig today...
    33. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socialism isn't just a word meaning "bad things I don't like"

      It is in the muuurica.

    34. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go buy an oscilloscope. Or a spectrum analyser. Or any other expensive bit of electronics. They all work like this, and have done forever. Because the costs of the fancy analysis package for your scope is in the development, not in the (non-existent) extra cost of including more software with the scope.

      And this isn't a new thing, either. 40 years ago, you bought a VAX like this. Identical hardware, but different features turned on depending on how much you paid.

    35. Re:Positive by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      (including some that are criminal in nature).

      Hillary wasn't free of criminal allegations either. Hell, the Obama Administration is now looking very tainted with the whole spying on Trump campaign thing going on.

      And now, you know why I didn't vote for either.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    36. Re: Positive by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      BINGO we have a winner!

      Time to reverse engineer the shit out of the abusive corporations and post it out in the open for all to see. Hack the planet.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    37. Re: Positive by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      False dichotomy. I would rather have regulations removed, so that people are free to go about their own business without impediments. PEOPLE, not corporations. Regulate Corporate behavior, not sovereign citizens.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    38. Re: Positive by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 0, Troll

      And the DMCA, which of course was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

    39. Re: Positive by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      traditional business, kill it and feast off its corpse.

      Makes for more efficient markets. If it doesn't, then there is some sort of regulation or law preventing new enterprises to fill the gap, and those are the real problems.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    40. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's a great thing that people who typically vote for more corporate freedom finally get to see the price of unrestrained corporatism.

      I think it's sad that simplistic stereotypes of farmers earn someone a +4 informative label.

      Take a look at the state by state presedential results:
          http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2017/Pres/averages.html

      About one in four people voted for Clinton in the states where she lost by the widest margin (Wyoming, with 23% for Clinton). In only six states did less than about one in three people vote for her.

      Complaining that all people in a group deserve to suffer because some of them have some property is bigotry. If the target of your stereotype was a race or a gender, you would be flamed into oblivion. Why do you get upvoted when your target is farmers?

    41. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary wasn't free of criminal allegations either.

      When your allegations include a body count in the dozens, on which list they're tacked a variety of individuals who happened to live in the same state, it's not exactly very credible. It's about as credible as Trump's allegations about Obama's Birth Certificate, or 3 million illegal voters, or the Central Park 5.

      Hell, the Obama Administration is now looking very tainted with the whole spying on Trump campaign thing going on.

      Spying on the Trump campaign through surveillance on known foreign agents is probably the LEAST tainted thing the Obama Administration did.

      And now, you know why I didn't vote for either.

      You couldn't pass the test of finding the polling place on the right day? You do know you could have asked for an Absentee ballot, so you wouldn't even have to have left your basement.

    42. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not under regulated it's over regulated. The government has given them the rights to this control. It's illegal to circumvent the problem or someone would have already provided that solution.

    43. Re: Positive by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Look-up the words 'cartel', 'monopoly' and 'mafia'.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    44. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In a completely free market, it'd be quite legally enforceable, the contract between people (or people & businesses) being quite mighty. It's not a law that prevents it other than basic contract law. They are trying to get a law that would override contract law and allow for repairs.

      But you are correct there would be secondary vendors who were buying old ones and hacking around, but there would likely be heavier encryption on the firmware.

      Also, the seeds are copyrighted, they are patented. And many are falling out of favor. But even without the patents, contract law prevents farmers from hoarding seeds, saving some for planting next year, selling the offspring (not quite the same seeds) and allows for inspections from Monsanto for up to 5 years after the last seed purchase.

      Ditto for the iPhone, Chinese companies would be allowed to copy it, build it, and sell it in the US as the iPhone although it wouldn't be authentic.

    45. Re: Positive by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      And passed by REPUBLICAN senators and represenatives.

      You assholes deserve as much blame.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    46. Re:Positive by deadwill69 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's see. First we have more than one can reference on the swamp draining:
      Search google for "Trump drain the swamp" and you'll find a quick 469,000 articles to reference.

      As for the corporate profits, I think a quick review of his stock portfolio might shed some light:
      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      A quick search for his financials leads a to a whole lot more. He made a nice penny off the spike in oil last week after a little fireworks show.
      http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06...
      http://www.reuters.com/article...
      https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

      And one of his holdings stands to make a pretty penny on replacing those little rockets:
      http://www.raytheon.com/capabi...

      I can find you more if this isn't enough.

    47. Re: Positive by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      More recently, there was an x86 chip with a floating-point processor that was locked out in the low-price version.

    48. Re: Positive by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Regulate Corporate behavior, not sovereign citizens.

      Anybody being nominated to do that?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    49. Re: Positive by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is actually a pretty common usage. It came up a lot around the crash of 2008. The banks had, for years, kept profits for their investors, but when they were faced with losses, they wanted those losses socialized - spread around to everyone (or to "society").

      It isn't, strictly speaking, a reference to Marxist "socialism".

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    50. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unrestrained?

      Pray tell me, how is the government protecting John Deere with the DMCA unrestrained?

      In an unrestrained world, I would create a box that destroys John Deere's protection, and I'd sell it for a reasonable one time fee. Farmers would buy them by the dozens. I would be very rich. John Deere would lose money as the protection they spend loads on is worthless. The market only works if you don't interfere with it.

    51. Re: Positive by Oceanplexian · · Score: 0

      I like how the socialists automatically think the reason for any monopoly is because of an underregulated system. Not one that is so overburdened and over-regulated that it is impossible to start a tractor company without millions of dollars in lawyers, startup costs, labor expenses, and compliance expenses. If me and three buddies wanted to build and sell tractors without any of that, they would lock us up in jail. That is socialism, not capitalism.

    52. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and still there's no software liability.

    53. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla already does this. Ludicrous mode is a software enabled option (albeit only on certain models), and some battery packs are "crippled" unless you pay to unlock the better mode.

    54. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A truly free market would mitigate the problem a bit.
      Sure, the tractor manufacturer would refuse to sell tractors to anyone caught using unlicensed software so you would have to copy the entire tractor, not just the software so everything IP including patents would have to go.
      Of course it will still be more expensive than licensing the software from the tractor manufacturer since you are only building one of them.
      You can try to reduce the overhead by building many copies and sell them, but the typical monopoly response is to sell the tractors at a loss in your area until you file for bankruptcy. They can finance it with the profit they get from other areas.

      Monopolies exists and causes problems in areas without IP protection today. That is why we have specific laws against those monopoly practices.
      A truly free market haven't been able to solve that yet.

    55. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a linguistic styling to emphasize "we".
      You know, English is not just about the rules...

      CAP === 'hardcopy'

    56. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be fair. That's not all he's done!

      He's also given top jobs to wall street insiders!

    57. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In DRMISTAN the SOVIET is in you.

    58. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would happen, but lawyers will shut them down with 4000 patents on such innovations as "tractor like wheels".

    59. Re: Positive by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That was my point, that both sides were to blame, but you made it personal. Fuck you.

    60. Re: Positive by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      PEOPLE, not corporations. Regulate Corporate behavior, not sovereign citizens.

      But remember Mitt Romney said, "corporations are people" and the Citizens United ruling basically asserts the same thing. I don't agree with either of those, but that's the way it is.

      On the other hand, if corporations *are* people then they should have the same responsibilities as people and I should have the same opportunities as corporations -- for example, I'd like to register myself in Delaware, while, living elsewhere, to take advantage of that state's favorable banking and corporate litigation regulations, and/or when a corporation does something illegal, someone should definitely go to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, instead of being able to pay a fine, etc...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    61. Re:Positive by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 1

      I think it's a great thing that people who typically vote for more corporate freedom finally get to see the price of unrestrained corporatism.

      And I think it is awful that people use stereotypes to express their own opinions as facts and insults.

      Being a farmer doesn't necessarily make you vote for one party or another. I have met farmers that have opposing political views. You cannot claim all farmers think and act a certain way any more accurately than you can claim all people from large cities are gang-bangers and thugs.

    62. Re:Positive by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Except that it's abuse of IP law that enables this to happen in the first place.

    63. Re: Positive by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Sure it does. Can't have law-enforced artificial scarcity without government oversight. It's the heart of crony capitalism, a hallmark of socialist societies.

    64. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the no true socialist fallacy.

    65. Re: Positive by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Sounds equally bad, since 'elected' officials are the ones selling out anyway.

    66. Re: Positive by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It is actually a pretty common usage.

      No it isn't. And it *still* doesn't mean "bad stuff" except for people who have no idea what it means.

      The banks had, for years, kept profits for their investors, but when they were faced with losses, they wanted those losses socialized - spread around to everyone (or to "society").

      Yes?

      That doesn't in any way support your point.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    67. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't have to buy the product.

    68. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why anyone would buy a product you can't tweak or fix is beyond me (cough cough... windows.. cough cough).

    69. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Mussolini never said that. Really.

      There is not one single source for that quote.

      And if you think Obamacare is fascism you're deluded.

    70. Re: Positive by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, well, with a 97% reelection rate, that would be the voters' fault

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    71. Re: Positive by CheapEngineer · · Score: 0

      Actually, you made it "Goddamn Clinton" so right back at ya.

    72. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Words mean things. Capitalism isn't just a word meaning "bad things I don't like." Why just have done with it and call them "fascists"?

    73. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More recently than current oscilloscpes?

    74. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet DRMistan, you own DRM.

    75. Re: Positive by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1, Troll

      but a completely "free" market has no anti-trust protections

      The free market is a natural anti-trust protection. Monopolies rely on government regulation to maintain monopoly status.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    76. Re: Positive by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      We need to define 'right to repair' as an extension of fair use.

      No, that's backwards. We need to recognize that when the privileges given to holders of "Imaginary Property" conflict with the rights of owners of actual property, it is the actual property rights that must prevail, not the imaginary property privileges.

      In other words, it shouldn't be that the right to repair is a limited exception of copyright; it should be that copyright is a limited(!) exception to ownership rights.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    77. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does owning a house make a President guilty of a conflict of interest if they enact a policy that results in the price of real estate going up during their term?

    78. Re:Positive by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People who lived paycheck to paycheck had NO health insurance. This was the problem obamacare was trying to fix. Something like 20% of the population of the United States has no insurance or terrible insurance. You can try to pretend that this isn't true, you can assert loudly that it is "their choice" not to buy insurance, but -- remember, they are living PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK or on NO PAYCHECK AT ALL. If they chop out $200 to $300 each month (or far, far more) for insurance, you're just saying that they have a choice between eating, or wearing shoes, or living somewhere other than under a highway overpass, and health insurance.

      My wife is a physician and has been taking care of these patients for her whole career. Your "free market" solution for most of her career was this: If an indigent patient (or one who lived paycheck to paycheck, or one who just couldn't/wouldn't afford to pay) walked in to see her, she could see the patient, accept whatever medicare (elderly) or medicaid) (poor) payments they might qualify for -- well under the market value of her billable time -- or just see them pro bono, which she might well do for a patient she'd been seeing who lost their job. Hospitals were in an even worse state. If somebody walked in off the street into a hospital ER, they were LEGALLY OBLIGATED to take care of them, whether or not they could pay. Even a very small hospital/ER visit costs a lot of money, and medicare/medicaid (if it pays or paid anything at all) payed only a small fraction of the actual cost of the visit.

      Your "free market" pre-obamacare solution was thus to screw the physicians and hospitals and nurses by simultaneously requiring them to provide medical treatment to people who couldn't afford it and exploiting their good nature on top of that for people living on the edge of the poverty who -- at best -- could only afford to pay something much less than the cost of the service and cannot possibly afford even the cheapest health insurance. And before you even start, let me assure you that for a physician in pretty much any practice, overhead is AT LEAST 2/3 of their billing, maybe a little bit more, so a free patient isn't just a matter of a physician contributing a bit of time, it is contributing their own time and PAYING their nurses, receptionists, PAs, for the lab (and any labs they order) and of course there is the building itself and all utilities all paid OUT OF POCKET -- directly eating into their income. This isn't a zero sum break even games, they lose money for underbilling and collectable accounts, and medicare/medicaid doesn't even pay for the overhead on the visits they supposedly pay for. So yeah, in order not to go broke WHILE working 60-65 hour weeks for half of what they would be making in a "free" market, they charge 30% more to everybody else (more like 100% in hospitals, where hospital ERs are the most expensive possible way to deliver routine health care). Guess what! You've socialized medicine, but in the worst possible way, the least fair way. And the saddest thing of all is that people don't even realize that this has happened, and yammer on about free markets and how having competitive insurance plans is somehow optimal and can take care of everybody that needs -- is mandated in law -- to be taken care of.

      Obamacare didn't fix this problem, of course. It did, however, make it a lot better, and more fair, in that by increasing the number of the insured and directly subsidizing insurance for the working poor who previously had to rely on the charity of doctors or hospitals to get medical treatment or routine well-patient care, they passed the costs on to the people of the US collectively instead of forcing the physicians and hospitals individually to do what they insisted that they do, at a loss. And I'm not just talking the unemployed, I'm largely talking about precisely those living paycheck to paycheck, often working several jobs because employers don't want to have to provide benefits and only let them work 30 hours a week (each). I have

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    79. Re: Positive by judoguy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But remember Mitt Romney said, "corporations are people" and the Citizens United ruling basically asserts the same thing. I don't agree with either of those, but that's the way it is.

      Well, corporations sort of *are* people. To "incorporate" is literally to "embody".

      No person, business, town (incorporated) or anything else comprising one or more people can exist, i.e., do business, with anyone else without having a "body". So yes, a corporation has rights. Just like your body. Corporations are born and die every day.

      Sometimes they are powerful "people" and get by with stuff that a smaller, less powerful "person" can't. But a "corporation" isn't a bad thing in itself. It's merely a legal entity that can continue if one or more members leave.

      So, they are "people", in many important ways.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    80. Re:Positive by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      If he pushed for laws or took actions that specifically targeted his own properties at the expense of others, yes.

    81. Re: Positive by hey! · · Score: 1

      Makes for more efficient markets

      Sure, but since this is economics you have to add the proviso: except when it doesn't.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    82. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Monopolies are legal. Abuse by monopolies is illegal.

    83. Re: Positive by davester666 · · Score: 1

      You mean like GM's OnStar? That's what, a decade old already...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    84. Re: Positive by parkinglot777 · · Score: 2

      Well, corporations sort of *are* people. To "incorporate" is literally to "embody".

      No person, business, town (incorporated) or anything else comprising one or more people can exist, i.e., do business, with anyone else without having a "body". So yes, a corporation has rights. Just like your body. Corporations are born and die every day.

      Sometimes they are powerful "people" and get by with stuff that a smaller, less powerful "person" can't. But a "corporation" isn't a bad thing in itself. It's merely a legal entity that can continue if one or more members leave.

      So, they are "people", in many important ways.

      You attempt to mislead others by extending the meaning of the word "embody" as people; however. the word "embody" is not the same as "body". Also, a corporation/incorporated business consists of investors that aren't really have anything much to do together besides "business". People are humans. We are much more than just business. In other words, corporation is just a part of people activities, not people themselves.

    85. Re:Positive by BigChigger · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Nebraska farmers are known corporatists.

    86. Re: Positive by Baleet · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not according to the history I have read about Rockefeller and Standard Oil. There are government-regulated monopolies, for sure, such as the old telephone company or utilities companies. But monopolies such as Standard Oil occur through aggressive business practices.

    87. Re: Positive by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 0

      Not according to the history I have read about Rockefeller and Standard Oil. There are government-regulated monopolies, for sure, such as the old telephone company or utilities companies. But monopolies such as Standard Oil occur through aggressive business practices.

      Maybe you've been reading some biased history. Here is a detailed and well-sourced document that counters the "big-government-is-needed-to-solve-every-problem" standard view that you've always read.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    88. Re: Positive by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      As the politicians who took the job, it is their responsibility not to lie or sell out voters' interests.

    89. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fall of 96, so >2 decades.

    90. Re:Positive by deadwill69 · · Score: 1

      Yes. Laws, not yet. Actions, there are many already:

      https://www.theatlantic.com/bu...

      (it will annoy you about ad blockers is you go down any of the links, but they are touched on in the article)

    91. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that his every decision is based on what's good for this or that particular stock he owns as if they're not also bad for this or that other stock he holds because he owns tons of different stocks? Most of his holdings are his buildings. Increased oil prices means he has to charge more for heating to his residents, except at his hotels, where he has to raise room rates.

      Also consider that he has between 3 and 10 billion dollars and wants to leave a legacy in the history books.

      Why don't I go look through your 401k, find some company that opposed Trump in there, and conclude that you're just shilling for them.

      Madness.

    92. Re: Positive by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 2

      Can you post a list of tractor/combine manufacturing companies that DON'T do this? I think you'll find that there are none. Meanwhile, there are fields to harvest, and if you prefer to work with the older tools, that's fine, but your competitor is using the new "locked-down" tractor. This is one of those times when the only way out is collective action by a group of citizens acting as one to force a change... i.e., representative government regulation.

    93. Re:Positive by aphelion_rock · · Score: 1

      I think it's a great thing that people who typically vote for more corporate freedom finally get to see the price of unrestrained corporatism.

      Let market forces run their course.
      Like any monopoly that overcharges for their product, someone will develop an open source tractor that can be put together out of generic parts that some enterprising group have developed and controlled by an Arduino / Raspberry Pi or similar.

    94. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socialism is also when corporations who could not compete on a level playing field, gets unfair advantage through laws, tax-breaks, and government subsidies.

      Do not pull out the "socialism" card, Medicare, government mandated schools, public roads, fits in this too. Most people who use the word "socialism" has never lived in it.

      Taxation of the rich is not good, it is only for the poor people, so the tax collectors can bail out businesses when they fuck up.

    95. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of political parties, I think we could stop having IP laws enforced so rigidly. Loosening those rules would be in favor of free markets, not against it. Eliminate patent forum shopping at the very least, but also consider scaling back what can actually be patented.

      By the way, the DMCA is a good thing overall, just the provisions against free speech are what ruins it. That said, get rid of any rules that don't permit you to talk about circumvention, get rid of rules against selling a product that circumvents so long as the product provides for a non-infringing use, and get rid of any and all rules that forbid linking to webpages (i.e. forcing Google to de-index content.)

      (Besides, as a counter-example, SOPA was slightly more favored by Democrats than Republicans.)

    96. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make third-party controller boards, and oh look, if they use less in electronics to "refacter" their CPUs right out of the equation, than a year's service calls, all the better. A smart thing to do would be to test this hardware out when not needing the tractor. And if it doesn't work, just put all the old junk back in there.

    97. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the farmers can form a trade union(a corporation!) of their own. They can also share hacked hardware and firmware, which is a form of civil disobedience. Sadly, this opens them up to selective enforcement, unless say, all the farmers in a state go MAD with the company that pulls the trigger first. BTW, in Dr Strangelove (a movie about MAD), it was completely useless to have a doomsday weapon, that no one knew about. XD I'm saying, make it clear what'll happen to the first company to screw with their customers.

    98. Re: Positive by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      You attempt to mislead others ...

      No they were exploring etymologically, why it is that Corporations are persons ('people' is not exactly the correct word even though the idea is the same).

      Also, a corporation/incorporated business consists of investors that aren't really have anything much to do together besides "business".

      The same might be said of an unincorporated company. What primarily distinguishes a corporation from an unincorporated company, is that the corporation is a person in its own right (and can therefore enter into contract, sue and be sued etc), whereas the unincorporated company can only conduct itself in the name of the people .. sorry the persons .. it comprises.

      People are humans.

      Natural persons are humans, corporate persons are corporations.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    99. Re: Positive by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Hardly matters if the voters don't hold them to it. It's up to them to take charge. Nobody's gonna help them.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    100. Re: Positive by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      A free market requires dozens of competing participants, you will never get a free market with only 3-4 players like Comcast or AT&T, it's impossible.

      Actually there have been studies done (and covered on Slashdot years ago), and the results were a competitive market emerges if there are a minimum of 4 competitors. It doesn't require dozens. It does, however, require that all 4 competitors be perfectly substitutable. For example, a Big Mac, a Whopper, and whatever the equivalents are from Carls Jr. and Wendy's are all perfectly substitutable in this context, though obviously not identical. A cable modem and a wireless data plan are not substitutable, no matter how hard Comcast and AT&T lie about it. Unfortunately, that hasn't prevented Congress and both the current and previous FCC's from believing the lie.

    101. Re: Positive by Rande · · Score: 1

      In a completely free market, you'd be allowed to have indentured servants too.
      Contract law can't override peoples rights. And in a free society, you have a right to do whatever you like as long as it's not restricted by law.
      So all you need to do is remove/amend the law that restricts people from repairing their own devices and all the clauses in contracts stopping that won't mean a thing.
      Sure, they can encrypt their code up the wazoo, but you'd be free to buy software to replace it or do a live patch. You know, like you can replace the OS of your computer or add/replace a DLL.

    102. Re: Positive by Rande · · Score: 1

      If they were considered actual people, then they'd lock up their assets for 10-20 years for corporate manslaughter.
      Maybe with their 'assets' being used by Bubba in the meantime to get the full prison effect.

    103. Re: Positive by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yep, Sadly he cant even remember what he wrote.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    104. Re: Positive by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Under what charge would you and your friends go to jail?

      Socialism is the direct or indirect ownership or control of the means of production by the workers. You and your three buddies would be establishing a socialist enterprise.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    105. Re: Positive by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Software liability is not a legal problem. Liability in general is, and it isn't any different because it's in the cloud/on a computer/electronic. If someone does something that hurts others sufficiently to cause legal liability, it doesn't matter how they did it. Typically, if they're using software, the software terms will disclaim all liability, or all liability over the purchase price of the software. If companies refused to accept such terms, software companies would be forced to assume liability in order to make sales.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    106. Re:Positive by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Criminal allegations? I can make criminal allegations about you, and then you'll not be free of criminal allegations either.

      Exactly what evidence is there that the government was spying on the Trump campaign? As far as I can tell, that's not even being claimed by Trump's staff.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    107. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all have Apple to thank for this... Binary code wasn't considered copyrightable until Apple vs. Franklin.

    108. Re:Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely right about the problems faced by poorly paid workers and those out of work. I've had that experience years ago myself and quickly learned that having no money means having no choices.
      I'm an Australian aged pensioner (after a life time of paying taxes), not very well paid by the Government, but I can live on what they pay.
      18 months ago I spent 5 days in a public hospital ICU. That and the follow up treatment cost me $0. Part of my pension benefits are that I only pay $6 per prescription, and a fee for some pathology tests. All other costs are covered under our Medicare system, for which every taxpayer pays a levy. Private insurance is recommended for those working, particularly families with children, but can be quite expensive. I'm not boasting, just trying to show what can be achieved, although there are some in Parliament that would like to repeal the Medicare act, or gut it and refrain only because it would be political suicide.
      If caring for your "neighbor" is considered socialist, then so be it.
      I'm sure the US as a nation that places a high value on the lives of people could do a lot better, but you like other Western countries are hamstrung by corporate greed and Government inaction.
      Marginalizing some sections of society is never a good idea; it doesn't even make good sense economically. A person with empty pockets can't contribute to the economy, can't buy products and services that generate wealth for companies.
      I sincerely hope that you can find a leader with the vision and fortitude to change things for the better.

    109. Re: Positive by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      You're misusing the term "free market". It is not a market without regulations; it is a market where buyers and sellers are free to set prices without government interference. Nothing in the definition of "free market" precludes anti-trust regulations.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    110. Re: Positive by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1
      That's not what Citizens United said. It said that corporations are groups of people, who retain their individual rights while still assembled.

      The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals therefore, have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    111. Re:Positive by syntotic · · Score: 1

      If they can fix them, they can ultimately make them instead of importing them from overseas China.

  2. How long by peragrin · · Score: 1

    How long until slashdot fixes the mistake in the summary? it is currently 7:04 am EST

    Also how long until manufacturer's realize that by artificially limiting options and driving up price they drive themselves out of business?

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    1. Re:How long by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Try, just TRY to get around John Deere. It's not like you have a lot of options.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re: How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There outta be a lar about mistakes in summaries!

      (I hope Lars don't get out of hand over this.)

    3. Re:How long by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      What mistake?

      Are you sure you have set your timezone right in your profile?

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also how long until manufacturer's realize that by artificially limiting options and driving up price they drive themselves out of business?

      Seems to work fine for Apple.

      If you've got market share and pathologically loyal customers, you can weather the PR storm long enough until your bullshit becomes normalized. Other manufacturers will swiftly jump on board with your scheme, too, as soon as it becomes publicly acceptable to do so.

    5. Re: How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, John Deere had an advantage in being profitable enough to design exhaust systems that met the new clean air exhaust requirements.

    6. Re:How long by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Try, just TRY to get around John Deere. It's not like you have a lot of options.

      John Deere, ~67% market share followed by Case IH at ~17% and New Holland at ~9%, that's perilously close to a monopoly. You could try to give big old JD some hard competition by importing tractors from places where they don't try to rape you over software updates but if you do 'The Donald' will slap a 30% import tariff on you so farmers are now literally fucked in every possible way.

    7. Re:How long by ls671 · · Score: 2

      I live on the ISS you insensitive clod, we simply use Zulu time.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    8. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just import the tractor from Europe, where the corporations are not yet in total control of the state. You will also get a better quality device as a bonus.

    9. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'The Donald' will slap a 30% import tariff on you so farmers are now literally fucked in every possible way.

      Vote analysis would suggest that the majority of farmers voted for him, so it's obviously what they want.

    10. Re:How long by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      isikhathi manje 14:21

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    11. Re:How long by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      adding that after Massachusetts passed a similar lar [sic]

      The summary has lar instead of law.

    12. Re:How long by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Hey, over 98% of Austria voted for a "reunion" with Germany in 1938, so I guess Austrians are fans of destroyed towns.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:How long by dheltzel · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Case, IH, and New Holland are all owned by Fiat/Chrysler, so if your numbers are correct, then the #2 spot is 26%. The bigger problem for those companies is the rather intense loyalty shown by JD owners. But if you are trying to kill off all your customer loyalty, you could hardly do better than approach outlined here.

      Farmers talk amongst themselves, a lot, so a crop threatening failure to provide needed service, can quickly become a huge negative in the minds of any farmers shopping for new equipment.

      Nothing like "pissing off your best customers to make more profits" as a business model, is it.

    14. Re:How long by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Trump will slap a huge tax on them as soon as more than two arrive on a single ship.

      --
      No sig today...
    15. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'The Donald' will slap a 30% import tariff on you so farmers are now literally fucked in every possible way.

      Vote analysis would suggest that the majority of farmers voted for him, so it's obviously what they want.

      Yeah, but that is one mistake that is easy to correct. Vote him out, plus, farmers weren't the only ones who voted for 'The Donald' by a long shot.

    16. Re:How long by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Na, it's currently 12:38 in Zulu time. See here for current Zulu time:

      https://www.timeanddate.com/wo...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    17. Re:How long by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fuck it, having worked briefly with farmers when I was younger, I'll play devil's advocate here:

      1) Farmers know damned well that companies like John Deere sell their hardware at cost (or even a loss), with the intention of making their money in servicing the vehicles.

      2) Farmers will howl like dogs if John Deere says "Okay, we'll sell you models that you can fix yourself. But they'll cost twice as much to buy."

      And if you hadn't yet deduced it from the previous two points:

      3) Farmers are a notorious bunch of whiny cheapskates who live to complain about EVERYTHING and will go to any length (legal or otherwise) to save a penny. Seriously, asking a farmer about his farm is like asking an old person about their health--expect to hear nothing but complaints, how much they're suffering, how they need this and that, woe is me, etc. And they will do ANYTHING to make even an extra dime, including hiring illegals, buying seed they know damned well is illegal, cutting corners on sanitation requirements, trying to cheat their workers and work them off the clock, lying to the government about their crop yields to get higher insurance or fallow payouts, etc., etc., etc.

      In other words, farmers want their cake and to eat it too. They want all the latest developments in the technology, and they want it to be repairable by third parties--but they also want it to still be as cheap as it is now (at the price that's based on a maintenance subsidy).

      And that's me playing devil's advocate for today and risking the karma hit from those of you who've never had to deal with farmers before.

      John Deere should respond. "Dear farmers: We can sell it to you cheap or we can sell it to you repairable. Pick any one."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    18. Re:How long by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, they should. That would at least be honest. But that's not what John Deere wants either.

      It's not like we haven't seen that before. Anyone owning a printer knows the bait-and-switch gambit.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can assure you that John Deere doesn't sell vehicles at cost or a loss. Also, the dealers are not owned by John Deere so they can't "make it up in service".

    20. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of the complaint I have heard is not so much about cost but downtime. When you have a window for planting or harvest you need to take it. If your equipment is out for 2 weeks so it can get serviced you are in trouble. Imagine if to get your computer fixed you had to send it away for 2 weeks, imagine your workflow and your business. No good, no good at all. If they are going to do this then they at least need to have enough certified places with available tech. (or have a licensing system for the farmers with parts availability.

    21. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      importing tractors from places where they don't try to rape you over software updates but if you do 'The Donald' will slap a 30% import tariff

      Or maybe you could make the tractors, in the USA.

    22. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, you can't get him out of your mind.

      Should Melania worry you'll steal him away?

    23. Re:How long by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      JD just needs to FULLY embrace tractor as a service and swap them out a loaner if a tractor is down.
      Obviously they're not effective in selling this idea to the farmers.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    24. Re:How long by oobayly · · Score: 0

      Easy - if my computer dies, I'll just dig out a spare one, or if necessary buy a new one. How hard can it be to do the same with tractor. /s.

    25. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cite please. The only import taxes he has been talking about are for places where there is a large trade imbalance. EU is not one of them.

    26. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since most 'farmers' are do-it-yourselfers and have historically fixed things on their own, you should have led with your second point first.
      No one but you & the dealers seem to know about this "we'll sell you a self-fixable model too".

    27. Re:How long by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Not if you ask a Zulu. Then it's probably time to cook the result of the hunt of the day.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    28. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John Deere, ~67% market share followed by Case IH at ~17% and New Holland at ~9%

      So, John Deere has 67% and CNH Industries (a division of Fiat Group) has 26%. That's what I'm hearing here.

      Case-IH and New Holland have been merged under the Fiat Group banner for a couple of decades now. Oh, and Fiat bought Ford's tractor division and rolled it into CNH Industries, too. So all of the "my tractor is better than your tractor" good-ol'-boys can have a dick-waving contest from opposite sides of the CNH showroom if they want. And trust me, CNH is just an orange-painted version of Deere, as corporations go. (But if you ask nicely, they'll let you paint them black and red, or blue, or a different blue, or...)

      So Deere holds its own, and CNH consolidates everyone else to compete with Deere. All of those other brands, under the CNH/Fiat name, are turning into the monster they're fighting, just like they wanted to do in the first place.

    29. Re:How long by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      It's only one bribe away from reality and you know it.

      --
      No sig today...
    30. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be true, but you don't replace a $100k+ tractor on a whim.

    31. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if that happens then it would actually be a real impeachable offense ... so you win either way.

    32. Re:How long by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      He wouldn't accept the bribe personally, dumbass.

      One of the DeVos family would accept it on his behalf in a foreign bank account then make some more massive "campaign contributions" here in the USA.

      Something like that.

      --
      No sig today...
    33. Re:How long by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

      Your mistake is assuming a 'farmer' is some guy that has been farming since birth like his father and grand father before him.

      Corporate megafarms are the new customers that JD is catering to. I wouldn't be shocked if they do have a TaaS in place already. They have service contracts that say if a tractor is down for more than N hours JD reimburses them.

      It's the MO of most heavy equipment these days in mines and on big construction projects.

    34. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with a 30% tarriff who cares... as long as you get the manuals and parts to fix it.

      I think that China could get a good combine together with little effort. They do have the ability to make very high quality products if you pay them to.

    35. Re:How long by MBGMorden · · Score: 0

      Which is indeed how many auto makers how gotten around tariffs.

      If you look into the "Chicken Tax", from the 1960's, you'll notice that there's a 25% tariff imposed on "light trucks", however you'll notice that the Nissan Frontier is still cheapest light truck on the market right now and the Toyota Tacoma is the best selling.

      How are their prices still competitive? They built plants here in the US and build the trucks here. To me that's a win/win. They still provide good competition, they can still do business for their shareholders (regardless of their homes), and the construction of those vehicles being sold here employs American workers.

      Funnily enough, that's also why at the moment Ford isn't selling the Ranger in the US anymore (and Nissan is still selling the aforementioned Frontier instead of their much newer design, the Navara, available globally). They're only produced outside of the US right now and they wouldn't be profitable to import.

      When it comes to our economy, I'm all for making it so that if something is imported, it better be either so cheap to import that the tariffs still mean it's not profitable to make here, or it's a luxury good that people don't mind paying extra for.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    36. Re:How long by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Nothing like "pissing off your best customers to make more profits" as a business model, is it.

      "It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Lets see how it works for them" source

    37. Re:How long by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      bah, and I even misquoted. Mondays...

    38. Re:How long by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I have to admit the use of the term "Zulu time" might seem pejorative at first glance...

      On the contrary, I would vouch that some people, somewhere, have a clue. After all, did people using Zulu time realized the kind of major problems that could occur if they weren't?

      Then; Zulu==smart

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    39. Re:How long by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's not like there's any lack of impeachable offenses right now. Businesses Trump has interests in have been accepting money from governments, which is unconstitutional.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    40. Re:How long by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Seriously this time, consider the following Unix timestamp:
      120314165174Z

      The "Z" means the Z timezone which is basically a short for UTC.

      Now, airplane pilots and military often spell as follow:
      tap: tango alfa papa
      zoo: zulu oscar oscar

      So, the Z timezone slowly became the "Zulu" timezone.

      Denoting UTC as Z began around 1950 and it simply means "zero offset" to UTC.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    41. Re:How long by ls671 · · Score: 1

      I had noticed your user name from the start ;-) hence the punch with somehow called zulu time...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  3. root the tractors by ls671 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It seems like somebody needs to step in and develop a root kit for those tractors.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:root the tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In before open-source tractor software

    2. Re:root the tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would certainly help farmers who grow carrots, beets and other root vegetables, but maize farmers would require a cobkit.

    3. Re:root the tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are kits available from Eastern Europe. The core problem is the DMCA has made them illegal.
      You need the proprietary program to turn the key.
      They can't keep China from making replacement parts. They can DMCA you from activating them.

    4. Re:root the tractors by hackertourist · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, they're require a kernel.

    5. Re:root the tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very nicely played.

    6. Re:root the tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >... a kernel.

      Get it? HaaHaaa!! That's a corney joke, haahaa.

    7. Re:root the tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SERIOUSLY...

      You can not just root, but entirely REPLACE the computer systems on these tractors with Raspberry Pi and other open hardware such as Laptops, FPGA, GPS, etc running BSD or Linux. Same with any vehicle. I should know, I've done it (Illinois, USA).
      All a tractor / vehicle system is is a bunch of sensors rigged to a computer that in turn drives other servos and controls.
      You probe out the existing harness while running ... start, idle, 0-100% load, then load all the curves into your replacement, then jack it in place.
      After that, you can tweak however you want.
      Making an engine start and run without melting down and with original or better economy is easy.

      All you hackers out there want to make some money?
      Forget the courts and all that "legal" bullshit... move to truly free and voluntary markets...
      Start working with farmers to rip out and replace their OEM garbage.
      Like Anarchism, route around the control problem that arbitrarily stands in the way of your success.

    8. Re:root the tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer to cut my corn off the cob. I guess that requires a kernel hack...

  4. Buy smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy Chinese.

    It's the American tractor manufacturers doing this - shoving it up the ass of their FELLOW AMERICANS!

    Tweet about that Trump!

    1. Re:Buy smart by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      Except that if you buy Chinese you will have to buy a new tractor each time it breaks down. But maybe that's cheaper - you may get two Chinese tractors for the price of one American.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Buy smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans are not cheap.

    3. Re:Buy smart by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except that if you buy Chinese you will have to buy a new tractor each time it breaks down. But maybe that's cheaper - you may get two Chinese tractors for the price of one American.

      That's not necessarily a bad thing although I'd go for E-European or Ukrainian before Chinese but that requires you to be a bit more hands-on (like farmers used to be) and fix stuff yourself unlike when you use western equipment where you typically call in a service person. If Americans can use AK-47s without being worried about catching communism from them why not Ukrainian trucks or tractors? I came across a bunch of civilianized Ukrainian KrAZ army trucks in a farming village in western Europe and we're not talking some former communist nation, this was deep inside bedrock NATO territory. So I'm walking around these things taking a very close look, largely because I'd seen these beasts in news footage from war zones except painted green instead of red and with rocket artillery or AAA guns in place of the hydraulic open-box bed, when this guy shows up. He asks if he can help me so I just told him the truth, that I was pretty amazed to see these things in that particular corner of the world, which made him quite a lot more friendly and we got talking. He told me that him and several farmers in the area had decided to set up a truck pool and found it was an expensive proposition until somebody discovered that several of these Soviet/Ukrainian cold war army trucks could be had brand spanking new for the price of a much smaller number of MAN,Mercedes,Volvo,... trucks, so they just bought a couple of dozen of these things. There was little that could break down, when it did the parts were cheap, electronics were minimal and they had hired a Ukrainian mechanic to maintain them who knew these things better than his own trouser pockets.

    4. Re:Buy smart by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Well, my parents bought one Zetor 6748 and one 8045 in the 70's and they are still running. Some quirks, but overall nothing that's impossible to take care of.

      And if you get the opportunity - try a Dutra (Hungarian). Straight-cut gears and unsynchronized gearbox.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:Buy smart by jandersen · · Score: 2

      Except that if you buy Chinese you will have to buy a new tractor each time it breaks down.

      Do you have a lot of experience with Chinese farm equipment, or are you just spreading baseless crap about something you know little about?

      Having traveled a lot in China over the last ~20 years, I have at least seen some f the things they use in the fields. A lot of it is clearly rather old, but then it wouldn't be old, if it broke down and had to be scrapped every year, as you say. In fact, it must be both reliable and repairable, like things used to be in the West not all that long ago; back when the saying was that all you needed to repair a Land Rover was a hammer and a bit of string.

      One of the contraption I've seen in China looks a bit like an oversized garden tractor - the ones with two wheels and a pair of handles - but very big. They've got one enormous cylinder and sound like an old fashioned fishing vessel. When I tell farmers here in UK about that one, they all go "I wish I had one of those". Simple, reliable and repairable is gold when your livelyhood depends on getting things done in time, before the weather turns.

    6. Re:Buy smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a lot of experience with Chinese farm equipment

      I have experience with enough Chinese export products to discern a general pattern.

    7. Re:Buy smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't go Chinese.

      I would go Indian. Seriously!

      Mahindra makes a nice line of tractors, and for extremely good prices:
      http://mahindrausa.com/Tractors/series

      Great for field work. Although the manual transmissions would be a PITA for the forestry work we used our Kubota L5030 for. Hopefully Mahindra gets into the the really big workhorses John Deere is into and eats their stupid, money-grubbing lunch.

    8. Re:Buy smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was a joke about the consumer electronics industry. That, or Poe's law is invoked and they were actually serious? XD

    9. Re:Buy smart by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I have experience with enough Chinese export products to discern a general pattern.

      Yeah - I have tasted enough McDonald and KFC stuff back in the 80es and 90es to discern a certain pattern, so I just "know" that all American food is cheap shit. Just imagine my shock when I came to the States and tasted what ordinary Americans eat and realised that there is a lot of very good, genuinely American food, only you won't find it in a McDonald's in UK. We can all do with opening our minds a little, don't you think?

  5. Finally something politicians "get" by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Until now, the whole "software lock in" thing has been something few politicians can grasp. Worse, it's something that few of their constituents give a shit about, so they don't bother to even try to understand it. Usually, everyone who would has something else they care about and few actually depend on it for a living. Outside Silicon Valley, who gave 2 shits about software?

    This could definitely be a game changer. First, farmers are a VERY vocal group and the proverbial epitome of freedom of the land, founder spirit and everything that the average American feels good about. Everyone has a farmer somewhere in his ancestry and everyone can at least somehow understand how that's important. These people make the stuff you eat, after all!

    And more important, people understand fixing agricultural machines. Maybe they don't do it themselves, but basically everyone who didn't exclusively grow up in a downtown area of a metropolis has at some point in time notice that these things break down and that some oil-covered mechanic is working his magic lying underneath one of those beasts to make it wroom again. People understand that this is a necessity, and more important, people expect this to be possible. They grew up with this being possible. This not being possible is something they'd consider impossible, and, worse, someone keeping you from fixing something you own, at least if it's something outside the "fixing costs more than buying a new one" throwaway-appliance garbage, is someone people consider despicable.

    This could wake up our politicians. Mostly because it's no longer large corporate lobbying groups against consumers. It's large corporate lobbying groups against large farmer lobbying groups.

    Grab the popcorn, folks, this is going to get interesting!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Finally something politicians "get" by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      Someone's an opportunist.

    2. Re:Finally something politicians "get" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, don't hold your breath. Once that corporate dick is up your ass it ain't coming out.

      Look at all the good the moaning about Windows 10 has done.

    3. Re: Finally something politicians "get" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except one may argue that DRM is necessary to prevent the machine from harming others (bypassed auto-drive causes road accident), excessively polluting (bypassed exhaust sensors), killing the mechanic (cracked firmware engages belt while hood is open), and killing the operator (bypassed safety system does not disengage belt when hood is opened to clean chaff.). There does not exist an inexpensive solution when there is risk of loss of life and property due to failure. The manufacturers have compelling arguments; if they were to offer a way to unlock the software, they would certainly void warranty and service agreements.

    4. Re:Finally something politicians "get" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nobody any politician gives a shit about is moaning about Win10. Does it cut into the GDP?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re: Finally something politicians "get" by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      Of course there is an inexpensive solution when risk is involved, you even mention it: Voiding warranties and service agreements. You break the seal of approval and the walrus of customer protection? Fine, then you're on your own.

      Funny how Americans are usually all about "self determination" and "self reliance", but that seems to apply onto towards governments, when you get to be slaves to corporations, it's suddenly a-ok.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re: Finally something politicians "get" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful with the generalizations there. As an American I've been arguing that what you wrote is how it should be for a very long time. I should be allowed to void my warranty at will without risk of legal prosecution. And I am fine with the company not supporting me after voiding it. Granted I'm sure some part of the problem with all this is the people who void the warranty and then argue that they didn't when they fubar things.

    7. Re: Finally something politicians "get" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      We're in a time when it is trivial to prove that something has been tampered with. You can easily create a logic that can be altered but not without showing signs of alteration, even if rolled back later. You can sign your firmware, there are ways to document in a tamper-proof way the times that hardware has been written to and take that flag into account when calculating the signature which pretty much means doing a firmware backup and trying to roll it back by writing the original firmware to the system again when you want to cheat warranty is not going to work.

      And that's just one example. It is much harder with all-purpose computers, but trivial when you have total control over hard- and software.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re: Finally something politicians "get" by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      Unless you pull the flash chips, clone them, and work off the clones.

      Put the originals back in when you want to make a warranty claim.

    9. Re:Finally something politicians "get" by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      This could definitely be a game changer. First, farmers are a VERY vocal group and the proverbial epitome of freedom of the land, founder spirit and everything that the average American feels good about. Everyone has a farmer somewhere in his ancestry and everyone can at least somehow understand how that's important. These people make the stuff you eat, after all!

      Except the average American farmer is a large conglomeration who doesn't fix their own stuff, it's either leased with service or handled by a dealer. Th family farmer, while part of the popular culture, is disappearing; but given the challenges with making a living I can understand why they are against restrictive do not repair EULAs.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    10. Re: Finally something politicians "get" by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      Except one may argue that DRM is necessary to prevent the machine from harming others (bypassed auto-drive causes road accident)

      Bullshit.

      excessively polluting (bypassed exhaust sensors)

      Bullshit.

      killing the mechanic (cracked firmware engages belt while hood is open),

      More bullshit.

      and killing the operator (bypassed safety system does not disengage belt when hood is opened to clean chaff.).

      And even more bullshit!

      Every one of those arguments -- and every possible argument -- is complete and utter bullshit.

      Why?

      Because the owner has always been, still is, and should always be the one liable for any harm caused by his property. This is well-established law, and "but software!" is absolutely not, at all, even slightly, in any conceivable way, ever anything resembling something even close to a valid reason to change it!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    11. Re: Finally something politicians "get" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Aside of the old fashioned sealing with leads, which could be done in many ways here, there is actually a technical solution for this. Basically what you use is signature chips where you can't read the key inside, what they do is they take traffic and sign it, allowing you to verify the key but not duplicate it, quite similar to how PGP works. So these chips have to be in the machine or it won't start. And of course these chips can also trivially see just what they're signing. If they're supposed to sign something the vendor doesn't want to be signed (i.e. hacked firmware), just have them burn the "was tampered with" fuse.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Finally something politicians "get" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grab the popcorn, folks, this is going to get interesting!

      If only the corn was harvested in time this year

    13. Re: Finally something politicians "get" by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Violating emissions standards is harm. We also have laws restricting what level of danger people can put others into. We do that because damage is not necessarily fixable. If you drive drunk, you might kill someone, and that's not fixable. You might do property damage beyond your ability to pay. You're not allowed to drive with impaired brakes, for much the same reasons. You're not allowed to make things dangerous to work on without proper warnings, whether or not a computer is involved.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re: Finally something politicians "get" by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Violating emissions standards is harm.

      What part of "MODIFYING THE DEVICE DOESN'T IMPLY VIOLATING EMISSIONS STANDARDS" do you not fucking get?

      This is absolutely not like prohibiting drunk driving; this is like prohibiting ownership of cars entirely because somebody might drive one drunk!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    15. Re: Finally something politicians "get" by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      One of the phrases you called "Bullshit" on was "excessively polluting". There was a parenthetical comment noting how this might be related to user-modified software.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    16. Re: Finally something politicians "get" by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      No, I called bullshit on the complete clause:

      DRM is necessary to prevent the machine from... excessively polluting (bypassed exhaust sensors)

      It was just unnecessary to quote the first half of it more than once (assuming an audience with decent reading comprehension skills, anyway).

      And it is bullshit, because DRM is in no way "necessary" to prevent pollution. What actually prevents pollution is emissions testing. If you can stick a sensor up the tailpipe and measure the emissions to prove that it's passing, who the fuck cares why it's passing? Maybe it's stock, or maybe the owner modified it to get 1000% more horsepower and run on unicorn farts -- either way, it doesn't matter because the only thing relevant is the actual amounts of pollutants emitted.

      Incidentally, this absurd practice of checking the technology for compliance instead of checking the actual result is what led to the whole VW emissions scandal. VW was only able to cheat because the test machine tells the car's ECU "hey, I'm gonna run an emissions test on you now." If they'd used a simple chassis dyno and an exhaust probe, there would have been no way for the car to know it was being tested and therefore no way to program it to cheat.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  6. Similar lar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is a "lar"?

    Some things never change...

    1. Re:Similar lar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is a "lar"?

      Some things never change...

      It's similar to a "yout".

    2. Re:Similar lar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that as "household gardening spirit", read like the old V for Victory, "victory gardens".

  7. A nice, simple law would help by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "If the consumer can not repair the purchased item, then the vendor must provide free parts and labour for the advertised lifetime of the item, provided within a reasonable response time for the industry and item in question".

    In other words, a mandatory all-encompassing warranty with an SLA.

    You want to lock in your customer base? How about the customer base locks in the manufacturer?

    1. Re:A nice, simple law would help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm unknown and politically insignificant, but I approve this message.

    2. Re:A nice, simple law would help by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      "If the consumer can not repair the purchased item, then the vendor must provide free parts and labour for the advertised lifetime of the item, provided within a reasonable response time for the industry and item in question".

      Yes judge, my client suffer from a rare form of dyslexia in which he can never remember which way to turn a bolt or a screw, in order to either loosen or tighten, on any sort of farm equipment. Due to this debilitating condition he is unable to repair any of the equipment he owns. As such we respectfully petition the court to force Tractors 'R' Us to comply with the law and provide for free all repairs and maintenance to equipment that my client has purchased from them, and that said repairs and maintenance needs to be done in a timely manner in order ensure that the farm does not irreparably suffer financially.

      In addition we have noted that the most timely way to determine if said repairs and maintenance are needed is for the person doing the repairs and maintenance to be intimately involved with the operation of the equipment. Thus we request that Tractors 'R' Us supply personnel to drive my clients equipment during the upcoming harvest in order that they can recognize and and repair problems as soon as they arise during a critical phase of farm operations.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:A nice, simple law would help by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >Due to this debilitating condition he is unable to repair any of the equipment he owns.

      And this is why my 'nice, simple law' would have to go through a few rounds of review and improvement - because the obvious intent isn't enough to stop the legal system from subverting it based on the imprecision of the English language.

      Let's go with revision two:

      "If the vendor prohibits the consumer from repairing the purchased item or contracting a 3rd party of their choice to do so on their behalf, then the vendor must provide free parts and labour for the advertised lifetime of the item, provided within a reasonable response time for the industry and item in question".

      And I'd certainly allow a vendor to void any warranty if self or 3rd party repair was done against the sales agreement. I'm OK with that, just not with "we're the only one you can go to, no matter what, because we want to be able to charge you till we've milked the marrow from your bones".

    4. Re:A nice, simple law would help by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      There's the problem tho, things are being tilted further and further to the end user's disadvantage... We need a fair system of give and take.

      Manufacturers should provide a warranty up front which is a fixed cost or included in the price, with a fixed duration, or an ongoing service for a monthly/annual cost etc. And users should also have the documentation necessary to repair the products themselves, especially once the manufacturer has lost interest in supporting the product at all. Nothing wrong with making the two mutually exclusive (ie you can no longer claim warranty repairs after attempting repairs yourself), but options should always be available for the customer.

      Products with a defined "end of life" are extremely damaging to consumers and to the environment. Old devices should be available cheaply for people with limited finances. Various old devices in a variety of fields are still extremely useful and there's often no practical reason why they couldn't continue to be used. Even if they lack the features or performance of modern equivalents, they can be repurposed or used for educational purposes which is far better than ending up in landfill.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    5. Re:A nice, simple law would help by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >Products with a defined "end of life" are extremely damaging to consumers and to the environment

      A defined end of life would only mean that's when the manufacturer was no longer legally bound to support the product (if they'd chosen that rather than opening up the repair process to the end-user and 3rd party parts and service).

      Though you're right, maybe there'd have to be a reclaim/recycle clause in there too... because what good is a device you can't fix, unless it never breaks?

      > especially once the manufacturer has lost interest in supporting the product at all.

      Now that one really annoys me (specifically with software that depends on a remote server only the vendor can supply). If something's no longer supported due to lack of demand, the vendor should be required to make public the code required to build the back end server and also the modifications required to point the clients to it. At least for any software you've paid for, anyway.

    6. Re:A nice, simple law would help by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      "If the consumer can not repair the purchased item, then the vendor must provide free parts and labour for the advertised lifetime of the item, provided within a reasonable response time for the industry and item in question".

      In other words, a mandatory all-encompassing warranty with an SLA.

      You want to lock in your customer base? How about the customer base locks in the manufacturer?

      Sure, I'll just look at my anticipated repair costs per unit, and jack up the price 150% and give "free" parts and labor for the advertised lifetime, which just happens to be the warranty period. TINSTAAFL

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    7. Re:A nice, simple law would help by dwillden · · Score: 1

      FTFY
      TANSTAFFL
      If you are going to steal/borrow a slang acronym from literature, get it right.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    8. Re:A nice, simple law would help by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Which is perfectly acceptable. Why would you think I'd have any issue with that?

      In fact, it would force vendors to supply a more accurate TCO.

    9. Re:A nice, simple law would help by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      TINSTAAFL (two As, only one F!!!) is grammatically corrected.

      There's nothing wrong with replacing "ain't" with "is", especially since it also removes an annoying double negative.

      We're not Russian ex-con Loonies, so why talk like them?

    10. Re:A nice, simple law would help by dwillden · · Score: 1

      oops hit the wrong key twice. I'm guilty of a typo in my correction.
      But it is an A not an I
      The word is Ain't not is. The annoying double negative is part of the charm of the phrase.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    11. Re:A nice, simple law would help by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      That would work great!

      ...For about ten seconds, until the manufacturers started habitually incorporating a new company for each product, declaring bankruptcy whenever they wanted to quit supporting it, and buying back the assets (but not the warranty liabilities) to repeat the cycle.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:A nice, simple law would help by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Which is perfectly acceptable. Why would you think I'd have any issue with that?

      In fact, it would force vendors to supply a more accurate TCO.

      Except all would subsidize the failures of a few and pay a premium to do so because of the regulation. Why not just offer a separate warranty add on so a better indication f TOC can be made? Personally, I think the best solution is right to repair; as someone who works on his own vehicles and finds it getting harder and harder. I'd rather buy a legit copy of the manufacturer's software than run a bootleg or someone else not as full featured alternative.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    13. Re:A nice, simple law would help by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      > Products with a defined "end of life" are extremely damaging to consumers and to the environment. Not in all cases. There are some things where the environmental quality of the device has come such a long way, it would actually be better if they did have a defined end-of-life so they leave service. Other items are so environmentally intensive to replace, it makes sense to keep even the worst running as long as possible. It varies wildly by device depending upon manufacturing damage vs ongoing-use damage.

    14. Re:A nice, simple law would help by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      It also depends upon the use case of the device... A modern car may be far more environmentally friendly than one from 30 years ago, but if you only use it occasionally then the resources required to produce a modern replacement would exceed the difference in usage over a considerable period of time. The same is true for many physical devices.

      But for software the opposite is likely to be true - newer software is generally more resource intensive than old, and therefore will require more energy to operate assuming it can run on the same physical hardware (and if it cant, thats likely to be an artificial limitation such as lack of drivers for the newer hardware).

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  8. DRM - lost copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is quite simple. If you lock your software with DRM or artificial lock, the unrestricted warranty of whole product including hw+sw fix automatically rise from 1(2) to 10 years. And the manufacturer / vendor is hereby required to be able to fix any issue on such product until the copyright to it is expired.

    1. Re:DRM - lost copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think a tractor should work more than 10 years.

    2. Re:DRM - lost copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is quite simple. If you lock your software with DRM or artificial lock, the unrestricted warranty of whole product including hw+sw fix automatically rise from 1(2) to 10 years. And the manufacturer / vendor is hereby required to be able to fix any issue on such product until the copyright to it is expired.

      I think a tractor should work more than 10 years.

      Considering that we currently have copyright lengths of life of the creator plus 70 years, I think this would pretty much cover more than 10 years.

      Actually, it may provide coverage indefinitely, as the "creator" of these products, in many cases, is the company itself. An entity, that is a legal "person", that never dies. (Also tends to require assignment of copyright to itself by it's workers employment contracts. (And in some cases even when those employees are off the clock.)) So the plus 70 years thing never kicks in.

      I think this, if done right, might actually encourage companies to allow their copyright terms to expire. Why would you want to continue having to maintain the support for a product (especially any computer / phone / tablet / etc.) 20+ years after it's EoL? Better (and cheaper) for the company in this case to allow the copyright to expire and let the plebs maintain it themselves if they don't want to continue paying. (Otherwise, under this the company has to pay to be able to maintain it.)

      Someone get the lobbyists on the phone, we've got a new bill for them to push.

    3. Re:DRM - lost copyright by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, copyright was always supposed to be a give and take but in recent times it has become abused and distorted.
      If you want to retain copyright you should be required to support your product as well as making it available to anyone willing to purchase it (for the original price or less, or companies will abuse it by increasing the price so massively that its effectively not available).

      If you want to wash your hands of a product you have to relinquish copyrights and put it into the public domain, no keeping it locked up for years.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:DRM - lost copyright by fox171171 · · Score: 1

      Every item expensive enough to have a warranty should have a prominently displayed tag stating how long the manufacturer expects their product to last, and the warranty should be at least that long, with all costs of repair within that time covered by the warranty.

      I had a hard drive that the MTBF was listed by the manufacturer as something like 45 years, but the warranty on it was only three years, and it only lasted three months past that.

    5. Re:DRM - lost copyright by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Corporate copyrights are not eternal. They're something like 95 years after publication or 120 after creation. Those are still, technically, limited times.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  9. The cow says 'mooo' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, I thought regulating businesses was a bad thing. Are they trying to kill the tractor industry with these unreasonable demands? If this was a problem, the invisible hand of the free market would correct it.

    Republitards need to make up their mind.

    1. Re:The cow says 'mooo' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, I thought regulating businesses was a bad thing. Are they trying to kill the tractor industry with these unreasonable demands? If this was a problem, the invisible hand of the free market would correct it.

      Republitards need to make up their mind.

      We did. We beat Hillary!, and you progtards still can't get over it.

      And it didn't take long for Trump to show how feckless and worthless Obama's foreign policy was. Weren't we assured that Obama's deal meant Syria had given up all their chemical weapons?

      Suuuure they did.

      The scary part is Obama did a bigger "deal" with Iran - over nuclear weapons.

      So nuclear war in the Middle East is going to be Obama's true legacy - he's already got the WMD box checked for chemical weapons...

    2. Re:The cow says 'mooo' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, I thought regulating businesses was a bad thing. Are they trying to kill the tractor industry with these unreasonable demands? If this was a problem, the invisible hand of the free market would correct it.

      Republitards need to make up their mind.

      We did. We beat Hillary!, and you progtards still can't get over it.

      And it didn't take long for Trump to show how feckless and worthless Obama's foreign policy was. Weren't we assured that Obama's deal meant Syria had given up all their chemical weapons?

      Suuuure they did.

      The scary part is Obama did a bigger "deal" with Iran - over nuclear weapons.

      So nuclear war in the Middle East is going to be Obama's true legacy - he's already got the WMD box checked for chemical weapons...

      Wow, you guys still don't understand what you've unleashed. But you showed those progtards, didn't you? I mean, Obama should have just launched an ineffective missile strike, right? The airfield was literally back in use the next day. Like your preferred President, you don't seem to grasp the seriousness and complexity of international relations and geo-strategy. You won't be happy until we're in a hot war with Russia. And you'll probably think that's a good thing.

  10. Cannot buy old combines anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step 1) EPA passed strict clean exhaust requirements for all new farm implements, taking effect in the last 3 years.
    Step 2) Farmers rushed to buy new equipment right before the regulations required model changes with expensive exhaust scrubbers.
    Step 3) Farmers trade-in their old polluting equipment to auctioneers who sell and ship it around the world.
    Step 4) Farmers get PO'd over FUD regarding losing farm subsidies in new trade agreements. Trump signs go up across the Midwest.
    Step 4) Farmers realize they cannot repair their new machinery due to software DRM. No worries, just use cracked firmware on $X00,000 machines.
    Step 5) ???
    Step 6) Corporate takeover of small farms. Heavy AI automation. T-100s cyborgs stacking hay and straw bales.
    Step 7) Even more vertical integration leads to price fixing ala "The Informant" movie.
    Step 8) Other countries invest in America's mega food corporations and squeeze our fat bellies.

  11. No need to fight by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The farmers have voted for the candidate that will be all for the farmers and will be doing what is needed for the farmers. Right?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:No need to fight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you make this about Trump? There's no indication Hillary would be any different.

    2. Re:No need to fight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The farmers have voted for the candidate that will be all for the farmers and will be doing what is needed for the farmers. Right?

      What kind of special stupid are you that you think this problem just appeared in the last 3 months, or that the Democrats (who had a chance to do something about it for 8 years) would suddenly do something about it?

      And what the fuck is wrong with people who are so incapable of doing anything productive with themselves that all they can do is try and steer any conversation, no matter how irrelevant, into something they want to whine about?

    3. Re:No need to fight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Begin Civics Lesson
      The Federal House & Senate is where most real work gets done; which is why they are called the legislative branch. The Orange Peanut is amusing, but is not the King. Unless "We the People," are stoopid enough to let that be.
      As far as him causing problems, he will line his pockets but will work hard to keep "We the people entertained." in other news hopefully we will survive the next 4 years and become generationally wiser.
      >End Civics Lesson

  12. Ukrainians already have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The real solution however is for us tech nerds to start performing outreach to the farming community and get them on board to lobby together against hardware enforced software signing. With the brunt of America's farming community behind us (as a result of their own problems caused by Tivo-ized tractors.) we should have no trouble pushing legislation through congress to end Tivoization once and for all.

    Maybe a nationwide boycott by the farming and techie community. Let's see how everybody feels after a week or two of internet and agriculture blackouts.

    1. Re:Ukrainians already have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe local 2600 clubs, Linux user groups, and whatever nerds are out there should take this opportunity to learn about this Ukranian firmware and how to install it for farmers. You could probably get a lot of free stuff from a farmer for making his equipment repairable.

  13. What about the free market? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't free market solution is that someone can develop and sell alternative software? Why aren't the free market people telling us why this isn't happening?

    FREE MARKET ZEALOTS, PLEASE SPEAK UP!

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:What about the free market? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just as Free Market, if farmers are pissed off about a product they should stop buying that product. Make a market with unrestricted tractors. Let them sort the problem out for themselves

    2. Re:What about the free market? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Tragic strategic weakness of free markets exposed: nobody wants to work on boring shit.

    3. Re:What about the free market? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      the free market doesn't react in a few days. sometimes things take years to play out. especially with products like tractors which take years to design and test and have a useful and accounting depreciation life of years once they are bought. farmers have to do their taxes like everyone else and major purchases like tractors are depreciated on their balance sheets over many years. and most times you have to finance new tractors so it's not like you're just going to dump your old one and run out and buy a new one like a phone

    4. Re:What about the free market? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice thread-hijack, but ultimately backwards. Intellectual property is a product of corporatism, not capitalism. In a true free-market scenario, patents wouldn't even exist.

    5. Re:What about the free market? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      For that some company in Russia, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Germany or France would have to export a product into the USA that meets US emission and food standards.
      The free market worked, the USA owns it all and uses that profit to keep the world out. Policy of buy out or keep out.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:What about the free market? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      We saw a story on /. last week reporting that farmers were using firmware developed by Ukrainian hackers to unlock their tractors. What do you think would happen if someone decided to start a commercial software company to sell similar products? I think they'd get slapped down immediately for violations of the DMCA. Remember that it's illegal even to assist someone in circumventing DRM.
      Farmers are also required to sign an EULA for use of the firmware. There are civil penalties for any 3rd party which interferes in a contractual relationship. John Deere would therefore sue any company which was openly trying to sell unlocking software to farmers by claiming that the EULA is a contract and the company is encouraging farmers to violate the terms.

      How can the free market work when government has ruined any potential business model ? Government has created barriers which make a free market solution impossible, but as usual, a black market develops to fill the need.

    7. Re:What about the free market? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice thread-hijack, but ultimately backwards. Intellectual property is a product of corporatism, not capitalism. In a true free-market scenario, patents wouldn't even exist.

      No true Scotsman, eh?

    8. Re:What about the free market? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      How can the free market work when government has ruined any potential business model ? Government has created barriers which make a free market solution impossible, but as usual, a black market develops to fill the need.

      Exactly, so why aren't all the free market people speaking out against DRM? I would also like to point out that the government doesn't give a shit about people cracking DRM, it's the politicians that have been bought that made this mess.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    9. Re:What about the free market? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      the free market doesn't react in a few days. sometimes things take years to play out.

      it's already been years.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    10. Re:What about the free market? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free market contradicts itself here. The original vendor should be allowed to sell its products any way they like; including locking them down so that they require an authorized person to repair them. However the free market also says anyone should be able to sell a service repairing any equipment. Just one example of why the free market isn't the answer to everything...

  14. Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by geekmux · · Score: 1

    If someone spends $90,000 on a brand-new Tesla and a "service call" costs a few hundred dollars, that's likely a reasonable and expected expense for a complex machine, as long as those service calls don't happen too frequently. By comparison, farmers are spending 2-3x more on high-end computer-controlled farming equipment, so what is a reasonable cost for service calls? Again, not trying to justify a vendor ripping off a customer, but from a cost vs. maintenance expense ratio, bitching about a few hundred dollars seems like a hollow complaint. Bottom line is your farming equipment needs more than a 1/2" wrench and a flathead screwdriver to work on these days, just like your new car.

    Are vendors being greedy, or are they controlling what an end-user can do with their equipment because of the complexity, and perhaps even safety? Joe Mechanic sure as hell isn't gonna pop the titanium lid and DIY his Tesla battery bank. If it turns out to be little more than vendor greed, then certainly ensure that it becomes fair for all parties involved.

    Those who hate the complexity of modern equipment have a simple solution too; go buy 40-year old shit.

    1. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I really want to know if this is just a vocal minority thing, or is this a real problem. If you spend $300,000+ on a tractor, is the farmer or some other non-certified technician really qualified to perform software updates on the tractor? modern tractors probably have more in common with industrial robots than they do with the tractors of 50 years ago. You probably won't find a modern factory owner complaining that they can't go around and put whatever software they want on the robotics systems that build their widgets. A farm is basically a food factory, and things will only get more automated in the future.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is it cost the farmer $500 to do the repair on the previous model themselves, in an hour. The new model also costs the farmer $500 to do the repair themselves, in an hour; however, the tractor won't "go" until they pay a technician an additional $1,500 to drive out, wave their badge at the device, and whisper the secret word into its ear.

      Part of the complaint is they can't fix their tractor and get back to work; they have to take a relatively-significant hit to productivity and put their farm at risk waiting for a service call.

    3. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      The problem is it cost the farmer $500 to do the repair on the previous model themselves, in an hour. The new model also costs the farmer $500 to do the repair themselves, in an hour; however, the tractor won't "go" until they pay a technician an additional $1,500 to drive out, wave their badge at the device, and whisper the secret word into its ear.

      On the surface, this certainly seems more like vendor greed, but we are talking about very large equipment that perhaps justifies some level of safety validation after a DIY operation. Should a Tesla simply trust Joe Mechanic's DIY battery pack refresh, or does it make sense the vehicle won't "go" until a certified technician runs a proper diagnostic on the vehicle to ensure it is safe to operate? Guess I'm struggling a bit between vendor greed and safety here.

      Part of the complaint is they can't fix their tractor and get back to work; they have to take a relatively-significant hit to productivity and put their farm at risk waiting for a service call.

      I get the impact to productivity, but perhaps it comes with the territory. A modern tractor might cost an extra $10,000/year to operate due to complexity, but could also provide $40,000 in savings because of the efficiency and productivity gains. Again, the alternative is to go buy 40-year old hardware that you can still wrench on, but won't operate with the same level of efficiency and accuracy.

    4. Re: Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most 40 year old kit that still works is very often far better built than the crap today..
      Mind you,having had to use John Deere crap, I wouldn't ever buy anything from them with my own money..
      I reckon they use recycled beer cans etc for their "metal" parts..
      I spent so many hours repairing jd crap that it was quicker/easier to do the job in another way and leave jd craps rusting in the corner.

    5. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

      Imagine every time you went to reboot your computer after a power outage the computer said: "Your computer restarted unexpectedly. Insert technician USB key to complete reboot sequence". That is the level of control John Deere is exerting and why farmers are buying hacked Russian motherboards for their tractors.

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    6. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by Rastl · · Score: 1

      If someone spends $90,000 on a brand-new Tesla and a "service call" costs a few hundred dollars, that's likely a reasonable and expected expense for a complex machine, as long as those service calls don't happen too frequently. By comparison, farmers are spending 2-3x more on high-end computer-controlled farming equipment, so what is a reasonable cost for service calls? Again, not trying to justify a vendor ripping off a customer, but from a cost vs. maintenance expense ratio, bitching about a few hundred dollars seems like a hollow complaint. Bottom line is your farming equipment needs more than a 1/2" wrench and a flathead screwdriver to work on these days, just like your new car. Are vendors being greedy, or are they controlling what an end-user can do with their equipment because of the complexity, and perhaps even safety? Joe Mechanic sure as hell isn't gonna pop the titanium lid and DIY his Tesla battery bank. If it turns out to be little more than vendor greed, then certainly ensure that it becomes fair for all parties involved. Those who hate the complexity of modern equipment have a simple solution too; go buy 40-year old shit.

      You need to do some more research. Farming is very time sensitive. If they have the right to repair and it's changing out the fuel pump then they can get back to work in very little time. As it is they have to wait until an authorized repair person replaces the pump and tells the software it's OK to start working again. For no other reason than they control the software.

      Most farmers can do a lot of mechanical work on their own. When the vendor is required to provide access to manuals and computer diagnostics (like the auto industry was beaten into doing) then suddenly their income from their mandatory service department is going to plummet. That's the real reason they do the software lock in.

    7. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we are talking about very large equipment that perhaps justifies some level of safety validation after a DIY operation.

      how is it any different from a car or a small truck? you are talking about farmers in a field, i am talking about vehicles on crowded roads

      so your argument would say that all cars and trucks should be inspected by factory representatives after each oil change

      you are SO full of shit

    8. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's a tractor. You sit on it and ride. It's not a stationary machine or a commercial jetliner.

      We're not talking about an extra $10k; we're talking about the tractor sitting around non-working while enough time passes to call that $10k per minute because it leads to a several-percent drop in yields on a million-acre farm. It's not as direct in farming as it is anywhere else: if you get back on in X time, no big deal; if you have to wait 2 weeks, everything goes to shit. An afternoon of annoyance and some overtime is a lot different than losing a dozen days out of a 100-day growing season.

    9. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      It's a tractor. You sit on it and ride. It's not a stationary machine or a commercial jetliner.

      We're not talking about an extra $10k; we're talking about the tractor sitting around non-working while enough time passes to call that $10k per minute because it leads to a several-percent drop in yields on a million-acre farm. It's not as direct in farming as it is anywhere else: if you get back on in X time, no big deal; if you have to wait 2 weeks, everything goes to shit. An afternoon of annoyance and some overtime is a lot different than losing a dozen days out of a 100-day growing season.

      If the failure of any single piece of equipment manages to create that kind of impact against an operation, then it is the business owner who has fucked up. $10k per minute justifies backup hardware very quickly to properly mitigate the risk of downtime.

      Shit happens. Prepare for it. That rule still applies regardless if your tractor was made in 2017 or 1967.

    10. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      we are talking about very large equipment that perhaps justifies some level of safety validation after a DIY operation.

      how is it any different from a car or a small truck? you are talking about farmers in a field, i am talking about vehicles on crowded roads

      so your argument would say that all cars and trucks should be inspected by factory representatives after each oil change

      you are SO full of shit

      I was specifically talking about complex and potentially dangerous repair operations, not standard maintenance. In other words, I'm saying that a Tesla should be inspected by factory representatives if Joe Mechanic decided to rip open the battery pack and replace all the cells himself.

      If it's simple standard maintenance, then no, it should not require a vendor magic wand to get the machine operational again.

    11. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The business owners were prepared for it. Somebody changed the rules. Now they have to have a $250,000 back-up tractor that's going to sit around not doing a damned thing, rusting out, and becoming obsolete. They won't be able to use it once it's obsolete because they can't replace a part that breaks; since that part's not made and John Deere won't repair the tractor anymore, they need to junk it out. Farmers want a 20% profit margin, but the market only gives them an average of 10%, sometimes 8%; that means that one piece of equipment represents profit off $2,500,000 of revenue, and some farms are quite small.

      What do you do if a change in business operations at a supplier can have that kind of impact against an operation? What does CareFirst Blue Cross do if the failure of a RAID drive in a server results in the server shutting down for 2 weeks until a Dell technician comes out with a hard drive, replaces it, and resets the RAID controller so it knows it's okay to rebuild the array and turn the server back on? Note that, today, a failed disk in a RAID array doesn't cause a service interruption, and Dell will have replacement hardware in your hands in under four hours; an immediate halt of service and a two-week lag time to get a new drive installed would be a major change to business operations.

      What do you do if shit like that happens?

    12. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      ...we are talking about very large equipment that perhaps justifies some level of safety validation after a DIY operation. Should a Tesla simply trust Joe Mechanic's DIY battery pack refresh...

      AB-SO-FUCKING-LUTELY WE SHOULD!

      Why? Because it's Joe's goddamn property, which means that he has the both the right to do what he wants with it and the liability for it harming someone. This is not a new concept; this is how ownership and liability have always fucking worked! Sure, Joe needs to be a competent programmer in order to safely modify the software -- in exactly the same way that he already needed to be a competent mechanic in order to safely modify the hardware. Software isn't magical fairy dust or some shit; the fact that it is in a device changes nothing whatsoever. And more to the point, it sure as Hell doesn't somehow justify property-rights-destroying literal tyranny!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by zvar · · Score: 1

      On the surface, this certainly seems more like vendor greed, but we are talking about very large equipment that perhaps justifies some level of safety validation after a DIY operation. Should a Tesla simply trust Joe Mechanic's DIY battery pack refresh, or does it make sense the vehicle won't "go" until a certified technician runs a proper diagnostic on the vehicle to ensure it is safe to operate? Guess I'm struggling a bit between vendor greed and safety here.

      I agree with others that Tesla should allow the battery pack to be installed (with monitoring so if something does go wrong it can be blamed on the battery pack.) Even if I did agreed Tesla should not allow the battery to be changed, you are missing one vital component.
      Farm tractors are designed to be used on well, the farm. While I understand they do go on roads between lots, that's a very small portion of their usage. It would be hard to find a safety reason to prevent a farmer to modify his own equipment, used only on his own land, with little to no public danger.

    14. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      The business owners were prepared for it. Somebody changed the rules. Now they have to have a $250,000 back-up tractor that's going to sit around not doing a damned thing, rusting out, and becoming obsolete. They won't be able to use it once it's obsolete because they can't replace a part that breaks; since that part's not made and John Deere won't repair the tractor anymore, they need to junk it out. Farmers want a 20% profit margin, but the market only gives them an average of 10%, sometimes 8%; that means that one piece of equipment represents profit off $2,500,000 of revenue, and some farms are quite small.

      A secondary piece of hardware can serve both as a functional device and as a backup. No need for it to sit around unused. And the scenario you outlined where downtime costs "10k per minute" does not define a "quite small" operation; hence they can likely afford it.

      What do you do if a change in business operations at a supplier can have that kind of impact against an operation? What does CareFirst Blue Cross do if the failure of a RAID drive in a server results in the server shutting down for 2 weeks until a Dell technician comes out with a hard drive, replaces it, and resets the RAID controller so it knows it's okay to rebuild the array and turn the server back on? Note that, today, a failed disk in a RAID array doesn't cause a service interruption, and Dell will have replacement hardware in your hands in under four hours; an immediate halt of service and a two-week lag time to get a new drive installed would be a major change to business operations.

      What do you do if shit like that happens?

      Dell would not have hardware in my hands in "under four hours" unless I pay for it through an extra service agreement which is budgeted and justified. If the impact to business is great enough, then I have a secondary RAID controller running as a backup at all times. If the impact of downtime justifies the expense, then it justifies the expense. Those who wish to be cheap are called gamblers because you don't always win.

      If a vendor changes the rules and voids that service contract as a result, then I want to know why they violated an agreement and take legal action if necessary. And if that vendor could no longer offer an SLA that met the needs of the DR/BC plan, then I would not do business with that vendor. Plain and simple. Perhaps John Deere will wake up to this fact as their sales decline over the next 5-10 years, or perhaps they wise up about it and start offering an extra service agreement to minimize downtime, much like Dell does.

      The parallels are consistent here, and define the solution quite clearly.

    15. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Hard real-time requirements, with slow firing. A slow fuse that burns in 15 seconds protects a million dollars's worth of equipment; a slow fuse that burns in 16 seconds causes a million-dollar fire. At that crossing, the fuse's failure to react incurs a cost of $62,500 per second; after that crossing, the per-second cost of failure is essentially zero; before that failure, it's also essentially zero.

      Dell would not have hardware in my hands in "under four hours" unless I pay for it through an extra service agreement which is budgeted and justified.

      Then: Dell stopped offering that service, and you no longer have a choice but to have an entire set of cold-backup systems ready to go.

      If a vendor changes the rules and voids that service contract as a result, then I want to know why they violated an agreement and take legal action if necessary

      Oh, no, no need to void the service agreement; just stop renewing these contracts at the end of current terms. Suddenly your clients must buy 3x as much shit from you to manage the same risks. That means instead of a $350 RAID controller with $1,500 of disks in your $8,000 server, you have to buy an $80,000 SAN and add a $35,000 secondary controller--in case the controller goes.

      Note that I described a different problem, though: the new RAID controllers don't work like the old ones. It's not that your RAID controller failed; it's that your old RAID controller detected a disk failing and used RAID parity to keep running, and your new one detects a disk failure and immediately shuts down the array--no replication, no access, nothing. RAID-10 mirroring and one drive in one side of the mirror failed? Your server immediately crashes. The data on these drives is locked out as inaccessible "so there's no data loss" until Dell can bring you a fresh drive "within the next few weeks" and input the magic code.

      So your existing RAID arrays run fine; when they're no longer adequate (burned out, don't handle new technology, etc.), you have to buy one of these new RAID controllers. These new RAID controllers take down your storage array as soon as a disk fails, and they don't bring it back up until Dell sends a representative to deal with it in a few weeks.

      Would you continue to shop with Dell after this?

    16. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Dell would not have hardware in my hands in "under four hours" unless I pay for it through an extra service agreement which is budgeted and justified.

      Then: Dell stopped offering that service, and you no longer have a choice but to have an entire set of cold-backup systems ready to go.

      If a vendor changes the rules and voids that service contract as a result, then I want to know why they violated an agreement and take legal action if necessary

      Oh, no, no need to void the service agreement; just stop renewing these contracts at the end of current terms...

      If the previous contracts and services met the needs of the defined business SLA and DR/BC plan, and no longer do so, then you initiate the risk analysis cycle again and properly adjust. If the end result of that analysis justifies cold backup hardware, then you go fucking do it. If it justifies selling all of your hardware and buying something from a competitor, then you do that instead. The point is, if the rules change, you measure impact and adjust accordingly to protect the business properly.

      If you fail to do this, then you're no longer mitigating risk, you're gambling with it.

      Would you continue to shop with Dell after this?

      Fuck no. I would go see what the competition has to offer, which is why it is critical to ensure we have competition. John Deere makes a good tractor in much the same way Mercedes Benz makes a good car. That certainly doesn't mean they're the only solution available, and if John Deere keeps pulling bullshit like this, I'm willing to bet competitors will have some enticing offers to switch brands.

    17. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't that you're no longer mitigating risk; it's that the requirement to mitigate risk were ~$1,000 before, and now are ~$250,000.

      Likewise, risk mitigation in the situation I describe is practically-impossible. When I stated that the prior RAID arrays kept running but the new devices simply shut down, hard, immediately, that had implications: you don't get to say, "Oh, okay, it's failed; time to duplicate that to the second, back-up system I got." Nope. At trouble time, your data is locked away; you have what you duplicated prior to failure. Current RAID operates during failure and allows you to replicate.

      A live system running on a replicating SAN speced as such would have to crash all systems using said SAN immediately. They couldn't continue running, because the SAN would fail to replicate something that was written, and everything would expect it to have been, and then damage and data loss would occur. You need a reboot and storage array check to recover.

      For farmers, the cost of risk here is higher than practical. The result is anyone who simply accepts the risk rides on that kind of danger; anyone who mitigates has to raise prices outside what their competitors are currently charging, and the market won't bear them--they fail immediately, instead of when an uncontrollable risk kicks in. They're easily-replaceable, so they'd just come and go, and the system would (worst-case) fail to supply stable food production.

      Best-case, the price of food goes up by a large (5%-15%) margin to cover equipment bought but not used. Consumers pay the difference.

      Fuck no. I would go see what the competition has to offer, which is why it is critical to ensure we have competition.

      That's the heart of much of the argument and many of the comments here: what John Deere is doing isn't something you reasonably respond to by taking extra steps to manage risk. Those "extra steps" aren't viable in the market, and they aren't necessary. Fortunately, John Deere doesn't make all viable farm equipment of any class or purpose, and farmers are quite capable of going and getting the same shit from someone else.

      The other argument is that the next competitor--and the next, and the next--are perfectly-capable of implementing the same shit as John Deere at some point in the future. When your remaining competition is too small to provide reliable service and supply--not enough current business to guarantee parts and equipment availability during scale-up to meet new demand for the reasonable foreseeable future--they're no longer an option. Likewise, when that entire sector is small and you have two or three big players eating under 40% of the market each, those big players can buy the little players and claim someone else just as big as them is in the market as competition, and thus that buying up the little players to lock up the market isn't unfair competition, avoiding FTA anti-trust action.

      There are failure conditions here in the open market model that require boundary-setting. There are failure conditions in boundary-setting, too, which scares the shit out of people.

  15. Wrong Way by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Selling the software is not a valid response. Make that repair software free and easy to get. If they can't make a profit simply building tractors get out of the business. The idea is to build a better and cheaper tractor and the best company stays alive. Those that can't compete and use tactics to force people to spend money need to be put out of business. The auto industry is loaded with the same type of corruption. Tesla has a superior product and the industry is trying like crazy to pull any stunt that will hurt Tesla. If you can't compete move other and let others pass you by.

    1. Re:Wrong Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you to tell me how to make money? This isn't the USSR. This is America. I have a divine right to pursue life and liberty, and I don't want or need you to tell me how. You don't get to define anything for anyone else, just yourself. Keep your fucking nose out of my business.

  16. Re:Farmers usually vote Republican by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only real farming left in the US are large industrial farms.

    Quit parroting that left wing lie. It's total bullshit that one 5 second Google query absolutely disproves.

  17. RE:"The article points out that equipment dealers" by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "using those expensive repair calls to offset slumping tractor sales."

    maybe people dont want to buy new tractors with this new "tractor with expensive propitiatory software, so they are keeping their old tractors, and even buying old tractors because they can fix them their selves without some greedy corporate tractor dealer scalping their pocketbooks every time they need work done on their tractor

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  18. Service Level Agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the approach to this is all wrong. In the tech industry when we buy a "service" from another vendor, we usually have a service level agreement in place, which includes support and turn around time for support. Although this most likely would be sold as an "add on" service for additional money, at least you know what you are getting yourself into. Lest we forget the power of the consumer. A downturn in sales is a pretty powerful statement to a tractor dealer. Alternatively, I am sure a good market for used equipment will surface if manufacturers continue with these draconian tactics....

  19. Open Source Farming Collective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like some enterprising farmers (aren't they all?) should rather form a collective to make their own equipment, and open source the development. I'm sure it would put companies like Deer to shame in short order. However, this is proof that capitalism works - to make money. The profit motive of companies to do exactly this to earn more revenue far exceeds their desire to be good corporate citizens.

    Even if rooting the tractor were possible, it's likely that these tractor EULA's forbid the replacement of the original software, likely as an all encompassing warranty waiver clause.... adding to the purchase costs, of even those who would forego the software entirely.

  20. Following this and the previous Slashdot article.. by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    . . . I see no mention of any other company than John Deere doing this, and only on recent models.

    I see no mention of New Holland, Kubota, Mahindra, or other brands. Seems like a marketing advantage for all the other brands.

    This looks like John Deere's "New Coke" moment , , , ,

  21. Apple Button - same deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple has made the home button unique. So you have to take it to a store to get a new one mated to it. $$
    The tractors likely will have some more simple parts that will need to be mated to the machine.
    This will take copyrighted software to do. Your brake pads have a numbered circuit in them.
    You can replace the hardware, but getting them mated back up will require a software patch that is copyrighted.
    Using a hack is a violation of the DMCA.
    -- Sadly the DMCA was meant to keep knock offs from stealing the actual control software, not this BS.

  22. Key information... by ckatko · · Score: 1

    ...how often does the software actually break?

    Once a year per vehicle? Once every ten years per fleet?

    And I'm ALL FOR Right To Repair laws, and have spent literally hundreds of hours this year alone tearing apart things from vacuums, to computers, to synthesizers.

    But before I can just give this guy my vote of support, I need to know what the actual stakes are.

    The article doesn't provide any more details. Though, the quotes from the manufacturer already make me lean toward him. The manufacturer is trying to "protect pollution controls" (my ass) and "ensure resellability"... how does software impact vehicle wear? A vehicle hits a pothole, it breaks a rim. You check the rim. An engine blows, you replace the engine. What the hell could the software possibly touch that isn't also a part that could also mechanically fail?

    1. Re:Key information... by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      One farmer interviewed on CBC radio said the seasonal nature of farming ensures there's nowhere even close to an adequate supply of service people available when they're needed, and calls for service are often hundreds of miles apart. So during the time he desperately needs his tractor working, and could fix it easily himself, he's required to wait for hours or even days for a service rep to show up, plug in a USB drive, and fix some software glitch in a matter of seconds.

      The farmer, whose identity was protected, had downloaded "grey market" software to do such repairs himself.

      The manufacturer's representative who was interviewed afterward made a completely unconvincing case. He claimed they would have somebody at a farm almost instantly, and that they weren't interested in prosecuting farmers who downloaded hacked repair software. In other words, the manufacturer's representative was a bare-faced liar.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:Key information... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The software breaks every time you make a change. Need to pull out the transmission and replace a damaged gear fork? The software now requires an authorized technician sign off on the repair, and disables the tractor.

    3. Re:Key information... by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

      Its similar to what Microsoft was considering about 10 years ago. If you swapped to many cards the computer would consider it a new computer and demand a fresh install key. Microsoft backed down on that one. But there are stories Microsoft moving the idea along.

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    4. Re:Key information... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If your motherboard dies and you replace it with a new one with the same chipset, Windows 7 will boot just fine, but it will then deactivate and demand a new activation code. When you try to use automated reactivation, it will fail. But when you call Microsoft up and tell them what happened, they will reactivate for you. And I have not heard of anyone being denied reactivation in that circumstance, even though the ToS says they can because a new MB is a new PC according to them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Key information... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I need to know what the actual stakes are.

      The stakes are the continued existence of property rights as a concept.

      The ultimate goal of John Deere -- and every other company that has embraced DRM, from Lexmark to Sony to Microsoft to Amazon to Tesla -- is to bind the users of their products into a relationship that more resembles a feudal lord-peasant relationship, than a capitalist seller-buyer one.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  23. A perfect opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cat could use this as a tool to step into the farming market with a line of open tractors and save their slumping sales.

  24. Ermehgerd! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    adding that after Massachusetts passed a similar lar

    Ermehgerd they persed a similar lar!

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  25. sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's time for open-source tractors

  26. When and if I become a hipster farmer by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    When and if I become a hipster farmer, I want to chill during my tractor experience. And when I call for support I want the call center to be supportive and say to me that I'm OK. The actual problem mustn't be mentioned as it is so coarse to do so.

    No, I'd only want to sit in a comfy chair. On mild days wearing sun glasses. Contemplating the world. Gently stroking my Al Qaeda beard. Feeling good about how good I feel.

    And when the harvest fails I'll activate the suing experience that will take care of the tractor experience provider.

    But all the way I'll smile like an idiot behind my beard. Let us do farming and it suddenly becomes cool, neat and a doddle.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  27. re: devil's advocate about farming by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not going to say I have strong evidence to disagree with your observations about farmers. But I do live in an area that's still largely rural, in Western Maryland. And my interactions with them (including doing some computer service work for a couple of them) tells me they're not very different from anyone else trying to remain successful, running their own small business.

    Last I checked on tractor pricing, John Deere products suitable for farm use weren't exactly inexpensive, as it is. You really believe they're selling all of these tractors at or below their cost to build them? I'd like to see some evidence to back that claim up.....

    I'm sure that this is just an attempt for the industry to find a new avenue to monetize its products -- seeing how far they can push the boundaries before the law pushes back. The auto industry would *love* to impose the same rules on every car and truck it sells -- but that change would impact so many people (including hundreds of thousands of independent garages, auto parts dealers, etc.) - it can't realistically enforce it right now.

    Picking a relative niche market like farm tractor sales is a better strategy. John Deere knows that #1. it has enough market share so farmers can't go to that many alternatives to avoid them, and #2. it sells a product that's not just purchased for pleasure or convenience. The success of an entire season's crop is at stake.

    Besides, it wasn't always this way. Not all that long ago, a John Deere tractor had no such software lock because the technology to implement it didn't even exist yet. Did you suddenly see tractor prices drop sharply when they decided to start subsidizing them with this forced maintenance?

  28. Re:Farmers usually vote Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    DFL??
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Democratic%E2%80%93Farmer%E2%80%93Labor_Party

  29. Apple tractor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tractor as a service?

    I think we need to see third party software solutions, Root/jailbreak the tractor, install Tractor Linux.

    Tractor Linux, a Linux, for tractors.

    1. Re:Apple tractor. by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

      As noted elsewhere. Go buy a Russian motherboard for your john deere. https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
  30. Software Repair by Elfich47 · · Score: 2

    The issue isn't the software breaking as much as the software has lockouts for any and all replacement parts. Consider if you changed the oil and you had to log into your car to check the RFID tag in the oil filter and if you didn't have the password and an RFID approved oil filter the engine wouldn't start.

    It also means you can't alter any part of the operation of the tractor that is computer controlled. You want a custom library for a specific crop: Pay John Deere. There was a story about a month ago about farmers buying hacked motherboards. https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
  31. Re: devil's advocate about farming by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

    He's just making shit up.

  32. if they win car's are next just wait for the $15 n by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    if they win car's are next just wait for the $15-$30 non dealer change oil reset code.

  33. tractors vs cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Locked down cars are coming too. Especially with electric vehicles.

    Tractors are first, because of the pain of getting your tractor to the "dealer".

    But without a change in direction, we will all face this problem.

  34. Classic Tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get an old Massey Ferguson 135 and show them who's the boss...

  35. Not recognized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't recognize manufacturer claims.

    If I buy something then I own it and can do whatever I like with it. If I want to modify or even re-sell it, so long as I sell just the tractor and all it's parts and don't just try to sell the modified software.

  36. Russian motherboards by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

    As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread: https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
  37. Re:Following this and the previous Slashdot articl by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

    The sleazy thing John Deere did was change the terms of service for all of the older equipment they could get away with; all at once. I think it was back in October 2016. And the threat was: If you don't agree to the new terms of service we won't service your tractor.

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
  38. wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not unrestrained corporatism. This is cronyism.

    If only copyright law was the same as patent law (all IP should be treated equal) - this would not be happening. But they bought the politicians and became cronies, so they got this ridiculous situation.

    if this had been actual capitalism (not corporatism) there would be no such IP law preventing repairs.

  39. Your brand new dystopia by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    Another version of this story suggested that some farmers had turned to unlocked copies of the control software to troubleshoot, resolve issues.
    It's beginning to look a lot like Gibson...

  40. Hacking a tractor... by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    Now that sounds like fun. I would buy one just to screw with if I had that kind of money just laying around.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  41. Can you not by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Can you not just buy a tractor these days? One that doesn't have all this software on it that is just basically a tractor?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    1. Re:Can you not by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      replace the word "tractor" with "car"... and the answer is no

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    2. Re:Can you not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, you can buy a classic Massey Ferguson 2nd hand and it probably still costs the same as it did when it was new. You just add a little diesel, pull start it and BOOF! off it goes... The only trouble is that you need 10 of them to do the work of one modern large tractor.

    3. Re:Can you not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. But the scale of what is needed is probably the issue. Sure you can get a tractor that can mow your yard or plow a couple of acres. But tractors today, the ones that are YUUUUGE that are needed to do hundreds of acres, do not come in the Green Acres variety.

      That being said, maybe you can get a tractor and unwire everything electric and have at. But they have GPS and all sorts of bells and whistles now. Being a farmer now isn't like being a farmer 50 years ago.

  42. Re:Farmers usually vote Republican by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    The number of "farmers" is increasing but the number of "farmers" producing food is going down. There are tax incentives to be a farmer so people will produce low-value crops (like almonds) that they don't even harvest and then take the tax deduction on a huge swath of land. So calling this a "left wing lie" based on the contents of the Wikipedia article is not really accurate.

  43. Tariffs by sjbe · · Score: 2

    You could try to give big old JD some hard competition by importing tractors from places where they don't try to rape you over software updates but if you do 'The Donald' will slap a 30% import tariff on you so farmers are now literally fucked in every possible way.

    Those same farmers evidently voted for Trump overwhelmingly so if they do get hit with an import tariff they have no right to complain. They knew the guy was a xenophobe and protectionist when they voted for him. They made their bed so they can sleep in it.

    Only downside I can see is that those costs ultimately get passed along to you and me. Allowing JD to engage in this sort of shenanigans ultimately is paid for by us at the grocery store.

    1. Re:Tariffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can Slashdot require readers to reveal how much they're getting paid by Shareblue for each post?

      How in the fuck does a problem that proliferated under Obama become Trump's fault less than three months after taking office?

  44. The view from the manufacturers side by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Here's the problem with this: Farmer buys fancy tractor. Farmer borks fancy tractor trying to "fix" it. Farmer complains to manufacturer and goes on a social media tirade while conveniently forgetting they they are a ham-fisted individual.

    ACHTUNG!
    ALLES TURISTEN UND NONTEKNISCHEN LOOKENPEEPERS!
    DAS KOMPUTERMASCHINE IST NICHT FÜR DER GEFINGERPOKEN UND MITTENGRABEN! ODERWISE IST EASY TO SCHNAPPEN DER SPRINGENWERK, BLOWENFUSEN UND POPPENCORKEN MIT SPITZENSPARKEN. IST NICHT FÜR GEWERKEN BEI DUMMKOPFEN. DER RUBBERNECKEN SIGHTSEEREN KEEPEN DAS COTTONPICKEN HÄNDER IN DAS POCKETS MUSS.
    ZO RELAXEN UND WATSCHEN DER BLINKENLICHTEN.

  45. They elected him by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but that is one mistake that is easy to correct. Vote him out

    "Easy to correct"? Not likely. Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that he can do a lot of damage in 4 years, much of which will take a long time to correct.

    Vote him out, plus, farmers weren't the only ones who voted for 'The Donald' by a long shot.

    No but let's not pretend he would have been elected without them. They voted directly contrary to their own self interest so I'm not oozing sympathy for any problems they incur as a result.

  46. Re:Farmers usually vote Republican by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

    The section of the article to which I linked cites numbers provided by Obama's Dept. of Agriculture -- they're right at the bottom of the page if you'd cared to look. Where are the numbers to back up your claims?

  47. Hot swap redundant modules. by nbritton · · Score: 1

    As a farmer, why would you even consider buying a mission critical machine that you can't service? Harvesting is time and weather sensitive, so why don't these machines have modular components that can be swapped out with a standby part by the farmer? The computer should be a redundant hot swap module that can be swapped out by the farmer in just a few minutes. You should be able drive to your local JD dealer and exchange the computer module with one off the shelf.

  48. Ignorence of the Contract by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    I know this is not really the "right" way to think about it, but where these things not made clear at purchase, that in a lot of ways "purchase" meant "rent"? I'm sure contracts were signed, this isn't a $300 piece of software that you click through the EULA. My point is that these farmers knew or should have known what they were signing for when they bought that $400,000 tractor.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  49. The right to read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Richard Stallman is a communist moron. Right?

  50. What about legal liability of a rogue tractor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised nobody has commented on the potential liability of a GPS-controlled tractor going wild because of an incompetent thirty-party repair. I think you're going to see exactly these same software locks on self-driving cars. Why in the world would any autonomous vehicle manufacturer expose itself to expensive litigation from accidents that might be caused by shade-tree mechanics?

  51. Just buy older tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they just buy older second hand tractors? If this is indeed such a problem, shouldn't we see a boom in the demand of older/used tractors? We should be seeing their prices rise? Is this happening?

  52. Re: devil's advocate about farming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in central Nebraska. He's not.

  53. Re: devil's advocate about farming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will come to cars as well when cars are self driving. Change a lightbulb and you just commited a felony.

  54. This Bizarre Practices Incentivises Lousy Products by CAOgdin · · Score: 1

    If you make a second stream of income from your products...like repair...there is a perverse incentive to design your products to require frequent repair. If you pay $800 for the cellphone, and get it repaired only infrequently by your local guru, you'll probably spend $1,000-1,200 over the full lifetime of the phone.

    Now, if you can buy that phone for $500 (but I doubt they'll actually lower the selling price), you'll now spend $2,000-2,400 over the same lifetime, you are a customer worth up to $1,200 more to the seller over the lifetime of the product. The lousier the phone, the more repairs it will demand; the more repairs it demands, the higher the sellers' profit. It also will probably serve to reduce local sales tax revenues by shipping phones to where the service won't be taxed, so cities and counties will get poorer, and service will take longer (oh, but we'll give you faster service for only a slightly higher (50%) premium!)

    This is a perverse incentive to drive quality down so as ti increase future "repair and service" revenue...by charging, say, $250 to replace a $50 battery, because a local business person, making a living off after-market repair, could do it for $25 for that same $50 battery. So, if the batteries replaced by the vendor are half as good as those provided by the aftermarket repair option, you end up paying lots more for the service your technology delivers to you.

    This is how oligarchy works. If Congress and the Courts don't stop this perverse scheme to capture excess revenue through "restraint of trade," we'll probably all have to go back to land-line phones and keep our beloved Windows 7 computers for the indefinite future. The effects will produce short-term gains, and stagger our economy with higher costs and lower quality, causing the markets for new products to decline dramatically.

    Hey, we have the congresscritters we let the largest companies pay for...so, what could POSSIBLY go wrong if sale no longer means "sale," but "lease?"

  55. Re:"The article points out that equipment dealers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, fuck someone sell them their unlocked tractors already. Should be a winner!

  56. Re:Farmers usually vote Republican by drew_kime · · Score: 1

    What about contract farms? From your link:

    Farming contracts are agreements between a farmer and a buyer that stipulates what the farmer will grow and how much they will grow usually in return for guaranteed purchase of the product or financial support in purchase of inputs (e.g. feed for livestock growers).[14] In most instances of contract farming, the farm is family owned while the buyer is a larger corporation.[15] This makes it difficult to distinguish the contract farmers from "corporate farms," because they are family farms but with significant corporate influence. This subtle distinction left a loop-hole in many state laws that prohibited corporate farming, effectively allowing corporations to farm in these states as long as they contracted with local farm owners.

    Another 5 seconds on Google found this:

    As of 2012, 34.8% of the value of U.S. agricultural production was governed by production or marketing contracts, up from 11% in 1969 [1][2]. These contracts are made between a farmer and a contractor (another person or company, such as a processor) for the production of agricultural commodities. In theory, contracts can benefit both parties, but in some cases, and in the poultry sector in particular, the structure of the industry allows agribusiness to set contract terms that take advantage of farmers and federal subsidies while externalizing costs and risk.

    The vast majority of chickens produced in the U.S. – 96%, according to the 2012 Census of Agriculture – are raised under production contracts, which set terms for how the chickens are raised, which inputs the farmer and the company provide, and how the farmer is paid.

    How much of our food supply is grown by independent family farms, not under contract?

    How much of that is still dependent on inputs from other corporate farms? eg: Corporate (or contract) corn as the primary feed for livestock.

    --
    Nope, no sig
  57. FUD, FUD, FUD! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    Not only is this "concern" invalid, I question the motives of anyone who brings it up.

    It is well-established law that the liability for harm done by a device rests with the owner in control of the device. It always has, and nothing about having software in the damn thing changes that.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  58. Re:Farmers usually vote Republican by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    A farm is defined as any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the year. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topic... So yes, there are a lot of "small farms" but they don't produce an appreciable quantity of food. States have tried to stop the takeover of corporate farms, but have lost in the courts. http://nationalaglawcenter.org... So while most of our farms are not "corporate," most of the food is produced on corporate farms. The others are mostly tax schemes.

  59. Re:Farmers usually vote Republican by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

    The only real farming left in the US are large industrial farms.

    That will come as a shock to all the family farmers near my home in Michigan, who supply much of the food my wife and I eat.

    And to all the family farmers near my vacation home in New Mexico, who supply much of the food my wife and I eat on vacation.

    I'm pretty sure they think they're real. And their food has a certain ... ontological robustness, shall we say. A material reliability. An utter lack of being imaginary.