Slashdot Mirror


Elizabeth Warren Calls For a National Right-to-Repair Law for Tractors (vice.com)

Massachusetts Senator and Democratic Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has become the highest profile politician to support right to repair legislation in the United States. From a report: On Wednesday, Warren outlined a sweeping plan to support family farms and diminish the power of corporate agriculture. At the top of the list, she supports a national right-to-repair law for tractors and other agricultural equipment. That means she supports the simple idea that people who own a tractor should be able to repair it without permission from John Deere or any other manufacturer. "Farmers should be able to repair their own equipment or choose between multiple repair shops," Warren said in a Medium post outlining her proposal. "That's why I strongly support a national right-to-repair law that empowers farmers to repair their equipment without going to an authorized agent." For now, Warren's proposal would apply only to farm equipment, not consumer electronics.

[...] Farmers operating John Deere tractors have been fighting against John Deere's repair monopoly for years. Device manufacturers don't want people repairing their own stuff and they've taken pains to make it difficult to do so. Newer John Deere equipment comes loaded with software and firmware that make it impossible for farmers to fix their own equipment. Instead, they have to call an authorized dealer and wait for them to show up -- a fix that's too slow and too costly for a farmer. "The national right-to-repair law should require manufacturers of farm equipment to make diagnostic tools, manuals, and other repair-related resources available to any individual or business, not just their own dealerships and authorized agents," Warren said. "This will not only allow individuals to fix their own equipment -- reducing delays -- but it will also create competition among dealers and independent repair shops, bringing down prices overall."
Further reading: Grandson of Legendary John Deere Inventor Calls Out Company On Right To Repair.

243 comments

  1. Right to repair != easy to repair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't think technological progress should be slowed down by right to repair laws. Instead, what would be nice are full blown service manuals that detail how to dismantle, how to probe, a BOM, and so on.

    If there was an obligation to make that material easily (though not necessarily freely) available, I think that's all we'd need.

    Those who know what they are doing can start their own repair business, or repair items themselves, and those that don't know what they are doing can go to a repair shop.

    I mean, this is how life was like at one point. *shrug*

    1. Re: Right to repair != easy to repair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right to repair does not automatically mean inconvenience. It gives choices. Maybe the dealer is the best choice for some stuff. Maybe not.

    2. Re: Right to repair != easy to repair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe repair shops that aren't the dealer would offer some competitive pricing for services you're forced to go to the dealer when you don't have the right to repair.

    3. Re:Right to repair != easy to repair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think technological progress should be slowed down by right to repair laws. Instead, what would be nice are full blown service manuals that detail how to dismantle, how to probe, a BOM, and so on.

      If there was an obligation to make that material easily (though not necessarily freely) available, I think that's all we'd need.

      Those who know what they are doing can start their own repair business, or repair items themselves, and those that don't know what they are doing can go to a repair shop.

      I mean, this is how life was like at one point. *shrug*

      What a WONDERFUL idea! So you can change the oil on your tractor, and replace other parts that need it, but according to your plan, they STILL have to wait for the John Deer guy to come out and reset the software lock that it put in place, or it won't even start. And probably pay hundreds of dollars just to reset it, without even having done any work. WONDERFUL idea!

    4. Re:Right to repair != easy to repair by EndlessNameless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there was an obligation to make that material easily (though not necessarily freely) available, I think that's all we'd need.

      Right-to-repair laws include exactly this. I would like to see it universal rather than only applicable to tractors.

      In general, RTR laws include three provisions: availability of documentation, availability of parts (to anyone, not just vendor shops), and a rule against "lock out".

      In this particular case, John Deere is well known for firmware lockouts that prevent new parts from working until they are authorized.

      And don't let the corps BS you on this one either: US warranty laws ALREADY allow them to void warranties due to improper modifications. They are already protected from bad workmanship, and the issue is 100% distraction.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    5. Re:Right to repair != easy to repair by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there was an obligation to make that material easily (though not necessarily freely) available, I think that's all we'd need.

      Wrong, it needs one more thing. It needs to be legalized.

      It's currently illegal to repair things that you own, if the manufacturer uses a technological measure to limit access (i.e. DRM). Until we repeal DMCA, a lot of everyone's common sense will remain legally incorrect. It's a corrupt law, purely motivated by corruption and nothing else.

      I'd ask Warren, though, why tractors are a special case.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    6. Re:Right to repair != easy to repair by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I'd ask Warren, though, why tractors are a special case.

      I have it on good authority that she thinks someone's tractor is sexy.

      But really, how else is one of the four horsemen of liberals going to pick up some of the rural, conservative vote? Medicade for all might help, but a LOT of small town farmers have gotten screwed by crap like this, and it may well resonate with them. I think it's a good idea on her part - she's trying to be the champion of the little people, and this is definitely an area where giant corporations are being very abusive.

      Seems right in her wheelhouse, if a bit of a niche.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    7. Re: Right to repair != easy to repair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not just a price issue. Farming is very seasonal and restricting who can repair a tractor by even a week can cause major losses.

    8. Re:Right to repair != easy to repair by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Instead, what would be nice are full blown service manuals that detail how to dismantle, how to probe, a BOM, and so on.

      That's adequate until you need to reflash some device's firmware, and the device won't accept the flash without it having been signed by the manufacturer's private key. Also, repair manuals are easily obtainable from the manufacturer for a lot of things, but they're not cheap. 20 years ago, the service manuals for my car were available from GM for the low, low price of $300. I shudder to think about what the comparable manual for the new model would cost.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    9. Re: Right to repair != easy to repair by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Which is why you have TWO tractors available... When it's time to harvest, it's time to harvest. (Just to tell Deere, they will have to stop the buy one, get one half off sales if you do).

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re: Right to repair != easy to repair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you just bend right over preemptively for any demanding swinging cock that comes along, don't you toady? You are a nutless little bitch lol. "Buy another tractor" is your excuse here? Go fuck yourself in Hell, lol.

    11. Re:Right to repair != easy to repair by lazarusdishwasher · · Score: 1

      20 years ago, the service manuals for my car were available from GM for the low, low price of $300. I shudder to think about what the comparable manual for the new model would cost.

      I am not sure if you can purchase a set of books anymore, you can gain 3 days access to GM Service Information for $20.

      https://www.acdelcotds.com/sub...

    12. Re:Right to repair != easy to repair by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I don't think technological progress should be slowed down by right to repair laws.

      I don't think technological progress should be slowed down by prohibition to repair laws.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    13. Re: Right to repair != easy to repair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. I believe the solution long term is to require all large machinery manufacturers (including consumer automobiles) to own the machines and rent them based on usage and legally force a service level agreement.

      If right to repair is an issue, itâ(TM)s because there is no real return on investment for machine manufacturers to prolong the machine life longer than necessary. Cars and tractors with lifetimes measured typically as less than 20 years is a mistake. In 2019, there is absolutely no reason why a machine vendor should not be able to push lifespans to 50+ years.

      If car and machine companies cannot financially justify making equipment like this as they know their income comes from either selling a new machine or repairing an old one, then they are highly incentivized to sell crap.

      With a subscription oriented service, their incentive would be to produce equipment that lasts as long as possible with minimal service. In addition, they would be almost forced to modularize their designs so new features can be easily added.

      As a bonus, all large equipment manufacturers should be punished harshly for disposal of old equipment. So for example, any tractor sold after 2025 that is sent to the scrap yard should cost at least 75% of the original sale price (adjusted for inflation), decreasing by 1% per year.

      This will almost certainly crush small farmers, but we shouldnâ(TM)t be supporting small farms anymore anyway. Itâ(TM)s wasteful and stupid. Big agriculture makes more sense. The world food supply isnâ(TM)t a game or a toy. Itâ(TM)s not a hobby. Any farm land that isnâ(TM)t part of a large scale, managed, computer driven infrastructure is a liability to humanity.

      If you disagree, take a look at the slew of farmers who were screwed by this years soy crops. If this was big agriculture, it wouldnâ(TM)t have been such a big deal. And if the farmers are worried that thatâ(TM)s all theyâ(TM)re qualified for... letâ(TM)s be honest, theyâ(TM)re no more screwed than the truck drivers about to be automated out of work.

    14. Re:Right to repair != easy to repair by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      You just outlined what right to repair is asking for, manuals & access to spare parts.

    15. Re: Right to repair != easy to repair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not gonna read that due to all the "â(TM)" business.

      Fix your iPhone. Shit-quotes can be turned off, learn how to do it.

    16. Re:Right to repair != easy to repair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If there was an obligation to make that material easily (though not necessarily freely) available, I think that's all we'd need

      ???

      That's what right to repair is numbnuts.

      Nobody said anything about re-engineering things.

      Quit making shit up.

    17. Re:Right to repair != easy to repair by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      I dunno, as someone in tech I care about Right to Repair, and I care about farmer's costs, which affect my food costs, and I generally care about farmers. Just because I'm not a farmer doesn't mean I wouldn't support a politician who's doing good work for the country.

  2. why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why the narrow thinking? This is a good idea for many more classes of items.

    1. Re:why limit it to tractors by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 2

      Because politics: Warren is generally weak amongst farmers and needs to signal to them specifically.

    2. Re:why limit it to tractors by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      If she comes out with any idea Apple doesn't like they'll cut her down well before she has a chance to be completely destroyed in the primaries.

      You dummy, she wants to put the corporate tax rate back to where it was which I guarantee Apple doesn't like.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:why limit it to tractors by edi_guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not even red states, this is targeted strictly at Iowa, and PR stunts like this aren't restricted to any one party or candidate. It's fairly insane that Iowa and NH have such outsized influences in the American political process.

    4. Re:why limit it to tractors by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Warren is generally weak amongst farmers

      Polls of Iowa voters show Warren beating Donald Trump in a head-to-head election. Let me repeat: IOWA voters.

      On the other hand, Iowa Democratic voters put her 4th or 5th among other Democrats. It appears Iowa really doesn't want the Republican incumbent to win again. The trade war has hurt a lot of them, badly.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:why limit it to tractors by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Right to repair isn't a bad idea nonetheless.

      If people can't repair their own stuff it actually leads to dumbing down of society in general.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    6. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why would Warren care about red states? She knows they're chock full of morons happily marching into retarded and obvious dystopian bondage, at a traitor's command... It's like caring about Lemmings. Nah.

      Warren cares about people who can think for themselves, not red state idiots marching to a fraud's lies, preying upon their overlarge amygdalas and fears of brown skin tones and other languages.

    7. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trade war has hurt a lot of them, badly.

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/soybean-farmers-trump-trade-war/index.html

      You think?

    8. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not even that...

      Companies have been systematically taking away consumers' right to actually OWN things. That's at the heart of the problem.

    9. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's it like, living in bizarro world?

    10. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These the same pollers that showed Hillary winning 2016?

    11. Re:why limit it to tractors by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      These the same pollers that showed Hillary winning 2016?

      No.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would Warren care about red states? She knows they're chock full of morons happily marching into retarded and obvious dystopian bondage, at a traitor's command... It's like caring about Lemmings. Nah.

      Warren cares about people who can think for themselves, not red state idiots marching to a fraud's lies, preying upon their overlarge amygdalas and fears of brown skin tones and other languages.

      Jesus, where are my mod points when I need them????

      Damn straight!

    13. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you were being sarcastic... gotta admit, you had me there for a second.

    14. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I love how you think Apple pays taxes.

      http://fortune.com/2018/01/18/apple-bonuses-money-us-350-billion-taxes-trump/

    15. Re:why limit it to tractors by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      This doesn't matter. They'd like to be able to repair their own tractors, but do they want to own guns and prevent abortions more? If they were indifferent to those positions or already agreed with Warren's position on them, then this would help her. It might make them more friendly, but it's not going to flip many votes.

      Also, why is she calling for a law? She's in Congress, she can actually propose legislation. Talk is cheap.

    16. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sucks, but don't worry, we'll get Trump out in 2020, so we can get back to normal.

    17. Re: why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its a stupid idea that could only ever come from democrat party hacks. we need more tax cuts to keep economy strong, not big goverment regulation to hurt farmers.

    18. Re:why limit it to tractors by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Because she doesn't give a shit and is only trying to win points in red states. If she comes out with any idea Apple doesn't like they'll cut her down well before she has a chance to be completely destroyed in the primaries.

      You ain't wrong.... Although I don't believe Apple has that much power alone... They could easily put together a coalition to torpedo her campaign though.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    19. Re:why limit it to tractors by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Why would Warren care about red states? She knows they're chock full of morons happily marching into retarded and obvious dystopian bondage, at a traitor's command... It's like caring about Lemmings. Nah.

      Warren cares about people who can think for themselves, not red state idiots marching to a fraud's lies, preying upon their overlarge amygdalas and fears of brown skin tones and other languages.

      Because, the Iowa straw polls and the money they can bring... Come on, this is about the primary fight, at least at this point, and has nothing to do with the general. Don't forget, democrats in the Red States have quite a bit of say in who wins the nomination, so winning primaries in red states is a good thing even if you are a democrat.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    20. Re:why limit it to tractors by bobbied · · Score: 1

      These the same pollers that showed Hillary winning 2016?

      Yea, the same ones who where actually within the margin of error for the most part, just skewed about 3% across the board.

      It was the punditry who where saying Hillary would win, who ignored the MOE's and over stated the level of certainty the polls had.

      However, I will say that any polls at this point are not worth the paper they are printed on for anything. We are still 19 months out. A whole lot of stuff is going to happen between now and then that will drive the polls. Warren won't survive the third state's primary, so how she polls vrs Trump is about as useless information as you can get. MAYBE it's useful to select the VP pick but I just don't see Warren on anybody's short list for that.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    21. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trade war has hurt a lot of them, badly.

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/soybean-farmers-trump-trade-war/index.html

      You think?

      ... and that has no other factors like other countries not wanting glyphosate soaked, GMO laden stuffs, etc., sure.
      I guess you have a few bridges in NY to sell me as well.

    22. Re: why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Polls in general are useless.
      Asking a Democrat as to whether a Democrat can beat orange man? OF COURSE REEEEEESIST!

      Asking a Republican if Fauxcahontas can beat Trump before primaries have even started? Hell yes! - aka, please, please nominate her, the comedy gold in the debates will be unbelievable.

      Asking independents? Seems more reasonable, but... nah. We don't give a fuck about your party masturbation and will fuck with you as payment for interrupting our dinner.

    23. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter because Apple just keeps their profits in an offshore tax haven

    24. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's already lost Iowa, as has all Democrats that have voiced their approval of killing the electoral college. Those Iowans and other rural state hicks are stupid, but even they know that if the electoral college is kaput, presidential candidates need not ever campaign in flyover country again.

    25. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nov 2020, remember, up and down your arms, not across.

    26. Re:why limit it to tractors by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      fivethirtyeight.com did a good job on the poll analysis. Somewhat simplified, before the 2016 election they were saying: Clinton is clearly ahead in the polls, but the amount she is ahead by is about the same as the typical polling error (i.e. when after the election we compare average-of-polls to actual-votes-cast.) This means there are three roughly equally probable outcomes: 1/3 probability, the polls are close to being correct, and Clinton wins. 1/3 probability the polls are significantly out, underestimating Clinton's support, so Clinton wins big. 1/3 probability the polls are significantly out, underestimating Trump's support, so Trump wins narrowly. (Of course their analysis was more subtle - they didn't just identify three outcomes and arbitrarily say they were equally likely, it just so happened that these possibilities came out to be roughly 1/3 each.)

      I haven't looked at the analyses that were giving something like 98% win to Clinton, but likely they made a bad assumption that poll errors were uncorrelated - that if Trump outperformed polls in one state, that made it no more or less likely that he'd outperform in other states.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    27. Re:why limit it to tractors by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Not even red states, this is targeted strictly at Iowa, and PR stunts like this aren't restricted to any one party or candidate. It's fairly insane that Iowa and NH have such outsized influences in the American political process.

      Whenever states try to advance their primaries to have more influence, they get shot down by the national party, who does not want some regional issue deciding the national candidate, which could hurt the national chances.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    28. Re:why limit it to tractors by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It would be just desserts for the Democrats if somehow they got the Constitution changed, forcing the Republicans to fight tooth and nail in the "very blue" giant states, that they have largely given up on.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    29. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the narrative is not true. Getting rid of the Electoral College means direct election of our highest office, you know like many other Republics as well?

      Just run through calculations with the amount of eligible voters, and even historically with the actual voter turn out. If you really think 2-3 cities is all you need to win an election, you have a severe case of civics failure. Even with 100% turnout, you're talking about 200M votes total, which means the winner will need over 100M to win it all.

      Sorry, but any candidate will have to do more than just win the following (at 100 percent turnout, heck at 50 percent turnout) to win based on DECADES of exit polls/results: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Miami, San Francisco, Phoenix, etc. etc. The list goes on and on.

      Every vote counts, from the densest of areas, to the sparsest of regions. Removal of the Electoral forces a full nationwide campaign instead of the "battleground"states.

    30. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fivethirtyeight.com is full of shit. No amount of spin can redeem them. Details aside, you don't get to show an 80% or 90% chance that Clinton would win and then say "no, really, we actually thought it was close".

      DO NOT BELIEVE _ANY!!!_ POLLS!

      Do not be distracted from your mission to fix the f--kup that electing Trump was. Do not allow anyone to tell you that some liberal is comfortably leading - so, no need for you to go out and vote, everything is well in hand. Screw that!

      I believe that the entire country is much more liberal than is being represented in our 'representative' democracy (don't get me started on gerrymandering). As a result, if the democratic party manages to run a reasonable candidate, I recommend you vote for them. Why? Because similar or better third party candidates may well appear - but they will not be able to win (barring special circumstances).

      Please, ensure that we positively go liberal in the next election. Once we get that done, then will be the time to decide which variety of even more liberal candidates we might like to choose. But for now, we have to get out of the dark ages, and reclaim 50 years of social advancement. Please help.

    31. Re:why limit it to tractors by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Nobody is trying to change the Constitution. Instead, States are passing laws that say that once enough States pass the same law so that it adds up to enough electoral votes to win the election, then the law goes into effect and those States agree to assign all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

      Simple, easy, no Amendment needed. This is coming. Probably not this cycle. But it is coming.

    32. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the national parties really don't want regional issues to have undue influence they should require every state branch of the party to hold their primaries on the same day. That would force the candidates to run one campaign which would therefore have to appeal to the entire country, i.e. the same cohort of voters that will actually vote in the election that counts. The winning candidate would therefore in theory be the one with the greatest chance of national success.

    33. Re:why limit it to tractors by jythie · · Score: 1

      The case is easier to make for industrial tools than consumer entertainment devices.

    34. Re:why limit it to tractors by Talderas · · Score: 1

      It's not about winning Iowa in the general election. It's about winning or placing well in the Iowa Democrat caucus. There are currently eighteen candidates seeking the nomination. If all of them make it to the Iowa caucuses expect fourteen to sixteen of them to drop out shortly after the caucuses are held.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    35. Re:why limit it to tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The compact hasn't seen a Constitutionality challenge (it won't until 270 electoral votes are pledged to it to permit it to take effect) and it would most likely fall before the Supreme Court and it closely reviews any efforts by the states that would cause a fundamental change to elections and the compact would fundamentally change it from electors to popular vote. Standing precedent from the Supreme Court has overruled state laws that imposed term limits on congressional delegates because it went beyond the scope of state powers. It changed the underlying fundamentals of the electoral process and more importantly the Supreme Court said that such a change could only be change by an Article V amendment. There's also a wealth of information about the intents of the framers and the protections that were put in place with the electoral system specifically to prevent combinations to influence the electors from both domestic and foreign influences.

      Other interesting cases involve the Supreme Court striking down one-chamber vetos in legislation and the Supreme Court overruling line-item veto. Both of these were determined to be unconstitutional since they sought to subvert the Constitution.

    36. Re:why limit it to tractors by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      There weren't many that showed her "winning" in 2016. What they showed was that she generally had a higher share of the vote, but you had to aggregate and process the polls to determine whether she was actually going to win the EC. FiveThirtyEight, possibly the strongest of the polling analysis organizations, said that, given the margins of errors and previous history of each poll, Clinton had, at best, a 2/3 chance of winning the election.

      But the general sense of the polls was that Clinton would get more votes than Trump, with a margin of 3M or more. That's exactly what happened. The polls didn't fail in 2016, the analysts did.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    37. Re:why limit it to tractors by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      State legislatures have the authority to appoint electors. Voting for them is optional, and is done because States choose to. The Supreme Court isn't going to even take that sort of challenge; it is very very settled law. It is in the Constitution.

      The Constitution says:

      Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

      You do have a right to vote on Representatives in the House:

      The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

      Or at least, to vote on Electors who choose the Representatives.

      But not Senators, those can by selected however the State legislature chooses:

      The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

      The SCOTUS is only going to be willing to look at if the Legislature did in fact pass the law that assigns the Electors. There is no challenge to be had there.

  3. How about for everything instead of just tractors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So the farm lobby has greased her palm but what about the rest of us?

    I'd like to be able to own things also. You know out of box admin access to my phone without jailbreaking. I'd like to be able to tell game consoles to do what I want them to do rather than what Sony, MS want them to do.
    If I buy a TV I do not want someone else making money off my property by having it show me pop up ads by default.

  4. Ditch Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The real root of this problem is the government's protection of corporations via IP laws.

    If IP laws didn't exist, John Deere and anybody else would have no leverage with which to prevent their products from being repaired/altered by a customer or other business.
    But of course, like any politician, Warren isn't addressing the root cause.

    She just wants to levy another patchwork of thousands of pages of laws and regulations and pretend that fixes the problem when in actuality it'll have a myriad of second and third order effects on the economy in various foreseeable and unforeseeable ways.

    1. Re:Ditch Intellectual Property by Stolovaya · · Score: 1

      The real root of this problem is the government's protection of corporations via IP laws.

      Agreed. But I imagine taking that on will be a gigantic challenge, with many more players coming out against it.

      This might just be "chipping away at the problem". Start with stuff like farm equipment. If there's success there, maybe it can be broadened into other areas.

      A complete guess on my part, though.

    2. Re:Ditch Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that idea is this doesn't chip away at anything, it adds to the problem.

      If the root of the problem is IP laws, then adding additional laws doesn't fix the problem but rather the complete opposite.

    3. Re:Ditch Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I'll bite, how does the "right to repair" as we here rhetorically understand it to do exactly that and only that, going to ADD to the problem of being unable to repair the tractor you bought instead of being intentionally gouged?

      Flesh out your argument or it's pure bullshit.

    4. Re:Ditch Intellectual Property by Stolovaya · · Score: 1

      This is certainly a band-aid and doesn't address the root of the problem, but I don't see how it adds to the problem. How is it "the complete opposite"? It fixes one small area, but at least that area is fixed.

  5. Don't politicize common sense! by sobachatina · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Darn it!

    Now this very practical bit of needed legislation will become politicized. Republicans will oppose it as a knee jerk reaction and Trump will create an agency or executive order banning all aftermarket repairs.

    This is not an anti Republican post. Both sides do this with every thing. As an independent I'm thoroughly sick of it.

    1. Re:Don't politicize common sense! by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Darn it!

      Now this very practical bit of needed legislation will become politicized. Republicans will oppose it as a knee jerk reaction and Trump will create an agency or executive order banning all aftermarket repairs.

      They can't though. The only 2 things more American than farmers are coal miners and the NRA. Farmers have already been hurt by the trade war Trump started with China, and steps he took to try and make it up have so far fallen short. And really, it's a good tactic. If she can get the Republicans to go with it (because they don't want to be seen as going against farmers) and get it into law, then it is a foothold for RtR to spread to other areas as well.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Don't politicize common sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Straw man? Are you sure you're using that word correctly? Further you're asking how well Article 13 is working - I wouldn't know. I don't live there. Also I'm against it. But you wouldn't know that because you aren't arguing against a real person, but rather an ideation of a person... perhaps one made of straw... I referred to the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney's healthcare plan, which is essentially what we have - at least for the next week or so. It became radioactive as soon as a Democrat did it. The reason for that is that they are untrustworthy, not because they are talking about an issue people care about. "Politicization" is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

    3. Re:Don't politicize common sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All legislation is political in nature. Politicians pass the legislation. To me it seems that there are lots of "practical bit(s) of needed legislation" and in my opinion the majority of these are supported by the democrats and opposed by republicans.

      This would not go anywhere without one of the two major parties supporting it, so why not get off the fence you're claiming you sit on and vote for the one who's in favor of the "practical bit of needed legislation"? That's how this process is supposed to work - you team up with others in favor of legislation you'd like and get it passed. So get on board! The alternative is waiting for republicans to come around to the idea, which will never happen.

    4. Re:Don't politicize common sense! by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Right to repair was in the past a very bi-partisan issue. In fact there is already legislation requiring it for automobiles that covered tractors in the past. But under the Bush admin when Republicans controlled congress they wrote an exception for Tractors into the law after Deere funneled a bunch of money into Congress. Now Republicans are trying to defend this exception to keep the Deere money flowing even though their constituents want the exception ended.

      Deere created this exception and I have no doubt they will fight tooth and nail to avoid the exception being lifted. They make very good money using software and copyright to prevent people from doing something completely legal. It's an abuse of copyright by using the copyright to gain control of another market in the same vein as using a monopoly to gain control of a separate market. This is exactly the same type of abuse the anti-trust laws were created to address in normal markets but copyright abuse makes this possible while laying outside the anti-trust laws protections.

      The penalty of abusing a copyright like this should be revocation of the copyright. Deere should lose copyright on all their software for doing this along with any other manufacturer engaged in similar behavior. On top of that it should be perfectly legal for anyone to break their software locks and provide tools to do so.

    5. Re:Don't politicize common sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How were farmers hurt by a trade war with China? Not jesting, but I am genuinely curious. Is it because we exported a lot of produce to China?

    6. Re:Don't politicize common sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soy beans, also other countries saw an opportunity so they started selling soy beans as well and the price has plummeted.

    7. Re:Don't politicize common sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup - soybeans in particular. There are tons of last fall's soybeans rotting now that we can't sell to anyone, as china was the big purchaser.

    8. Re:Don't politicize common sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No there isn’t. You have zero right to repair a Tesla. It’s illegal to obtain any parts, repair information or programming tools.

    9. Re: Don't politicize common sense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep dreaming and living off that propaganda. Hi t: the farmers you see on CNN were selected. Most of them hate your guts and want you gone. Literally.

    10. Re:Don't politicize common sense! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      You have to get to that point, first. Currently there are user agreements , shrink wrap equivalents, hacking laws, copyright laws, and other things stacking up to block repairs as if it was a copy of Office.

      It's perfectly fine for Congress to declare this a misuse of these laws.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    11. Re:Don't politicize common sense! by Phasedshift · · Score: 2

      Uh, no. My family are "farmers". Soybean prices dipped but have recovered to the price prior to the China trade issue. Many farmers just silo'd the soybeans until later in the year and sold them then.
      Source: https://www.macrotrends.net/2531/soybean-prices-historical-chart-data

      The right to repair issue IS a big deal to farmers, but, just like everything that comes out of most politicians, it is likely to be a broken campaign promise. However, I do welcome the attention brought to the issue, even if apparently it isn't getting a mention on the MSM.

    12. Re:Don't politicize common sense! by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

      It's a good notion and, on its face, simple. In fact, it is so simple that there is no reason for legislation supporting the notion to be more than a single page. Single paragraph, even. Unfortunately, legislation and simplicity are incompatible. So, what I'm opposed to is a complicated regulation that is ultimately going to come with a cost that prices small businesses out of the market, stifling innovation. If, however, the scope were only tractors, or the only requirement with such regulation were to provide owners with a technical manual and eliminate regulations preventing companies from specializing in after market parts and repairs, sounds good to me.

  6. Forget tractors! by Pitawg · · Score: 2

    Forget tractors!
    There needs to be a right to repair Politicians!

    1. Re:Forget tractors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      NO! Throw them out. Get a new one. Term limit is needed. Of course, none of them will vote for that; rather, only say they would. If you really want more, switch houses. This is OUR America god dammit not Corporate America.

    2. Re:Forget tractors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you return a politician to factory spec? Diapers and baby formula? Binkies and bouncy chairs?

    3. Re:Forget tractors! by EvilSS · · Score: 4, Funny

      I prefer my politicians disposable with build in obsolescence.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    4. Re:Forget tractors! by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      There needs to be a right to repair Politicians!

      There is. The repair is performed by voting.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re:Forget tractors! by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I prefer my politicians disposable with build in obsolescence.

      It's called "Term Limits" and we need them for congress...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Forget tractors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit, and for disposable they should be way cheaper... :-)

    7. Re:Forget tractors! by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Start petitioning among the states and Article V it. That's the only way it'll get done.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    8. Re: Forget tractors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mandate use-by dates stamped to their foreheads.

    9. Re:Forget tractors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      15 states have already signed on for Article V convention. Mississippi is the latest one.

  7. Nice smoke-screen by gweihir · · Score: 0

    She will probably forget about all these ideas fast, should she get elected.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Nice smoke-screen by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      She will probably forget about all these ideas fast, should she get elected.

      This is why we're screwed. Even when someone from the "other side" comes up with something you really like you cannot bring yourself to say anything positive at all. Enjoy your partisan hellhole.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Nice smoke-screen by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, you have either never seen this happening or you have not realized what was going on. I have seen this numerous times. Anybody that wants power on this level is corrupt and has no honor. No exceptions. So they will investigate what people want to hear, pick a group they think can give them a win and say anything tho please that group.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Nice smoke-screen by Talderas · · Score: 1

      She will probably forget about all these ideas fast, should she get elected.

      That's being optimistic. She'll forget about it after Feb 3, 2020 with the Iowa caucuses over.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    4. Re:Nice smoke-screen by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  8. I understand... by argStyopa · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ....that she's at least 1/1024 farmer.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:I understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans are similarly educated, with 1 simplistic childlike attack out of millions of possible grown-up, actual policy points you might make. Tsk, children lol.

    2. Re:I understand... by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      she is still not white enough for you.

    3. Re:I understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dems are both the white nationalist KKK (David Duke) and Islam party (Farrakhan) and now the fake identity party (Warren & Beto).

    4. Re:I understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David Duke is a Republican since the 80's... Louis Farrakhan was never a Democrat either. Lol, I guess your inbreeding is coming to the surface again, nazi faggots are uneducable.

    5. Re:I understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww...you triggered the snowflakes.

    6. Re:I understand... by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      David Duke jumped back to Democrat, he hates Donald Trump

    7. Re:I understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farrakhan may have never been a democrat officially, but a whole lot of democrats have flocked to him in an effort to appeal to a specific racial group which is a common democrat voting block. They courted him for his influence and the votes he could possibly deliver.

      David Duke has ben repudiated by the Republican party, long ago. He may call himself a republican, but he does not represent the party's position in any official way.

      So, in one case the democrats flock to be seen with somebody who preached violence and anti American topes, so you bristle at being lumped in with him, yet when the republicans have NEVER followed Duke and have roundly rejected his violent message you don't recognize they are different? Double standard much?

    8. Re:I understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      White is right ... nibber is fibber ... The DemoRat infatuation with Mi-13 type imports / ghetto ratchets / gaffot Stalinist Antifa will come back to bite-their-azzwhole come 2020 elections.

  9. Native American nobility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    First they teach us to plant corn, now they want to help us keep our tractors running to harvest corn efficiently. Such a great and giving people.

  10. My dad had this problem by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Bought a Long Tractor because they were cheap and it was the same one the state of Virginia was using. When it inevitably broke down, he just plain couldn't get the parts to fix it, so it just sat out in the yard for several years, immovable. Not sure if he ever got rid of it.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:My dad had this problem by mOzone · · Score: 1

      it must have been before the web there is like 10 sites dictated to long tractors and eBay amazon etc for parts

  11. She would make a great VP candidate by Shaitan · · Score: 0

    I don't like Warren for Pres but alongside Sanders as his VP candidate she'd be excellent.

    For Pres she has too much focus on women's issues and has taken irrational positions falling in with female groupthink. But as long as the subject of women doesn't come up she is actually pretty solid. Since Sanders lost some of her positions have led me to worry she has been folded into the party.

    She is one of the few congress critters that has actually worked to help real people and protect consumers from banks. That goes perfectly alongside Sanders, the only longstanding Senator with a track record of integrity. Sanders has supported the right things for the right reasons. Even where you disagree with the lean of his politics you have to admit, if you were going to give try to make those solutions work his approach is closer to what it looks like. These half-assed water down compromises have neither the efficiency and cost savings of central control nor allow a free market with healthy competition resulting in bloated and monopolized anti-consumer markets.

    1. Re:She would make a great VP candidate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She lied about her heritage for personal gain.

    2. Re:She would make a great VP candidate by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Something only possible because of laws that discriminate against her racially.

      That is like striking someone's hand when they are about to pull the trigger. Sometimes you have to commit a small evil to prevent a greater miscarriage of justice. Our founders did that when they rebelled against England. Granted, the severity is less than either of those two examples but nonetheless she committed a small offense to prevent a great one.

      I would think most sane people identify as black women on any forms these days.

    3. Re:She would make a great VP candidate by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Also, it is worth pointing out that technically you can't lie about those things. Race is literally defined as what you identify as legally. That was firmly established because many Hispanic Puerto Ricans identify as white and there aren't actually legitimate definitions for race.

    4. Re:She would make a great VP candidate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      irrational positions falling in with female groupthink

      This tells me everything anyone will ever need to know about you...

    5. Re:She would make a great VP candidate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She cynically commited fraud in a controversial system that she supports. Yet she persists in being a public figure. She's completely unaware of what she is, how she hurts her own agenda, her party, and the interests of her constituents. Anyone who picks her as a running mate is completely out of touch.

    6. Re:She would make a great VP candidate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is legal can still be immoral.

    7. Re:She would make a great VP candidate by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Race is an artificial concept determined by self-identification because there is no definition. She didn't lie because you can't lie whatever box you check is what you are legally speaking.

      Are you really claiming there is an option out there who hasn't done far worse than this? Seriously is that really the best dirt they can come up with to disparage the woman who spearheaded banking reform and is the reason you don't pay hundreds in overdraft fees because the bank reordered transactions when you really had one overdraft of .56 cents in the actual order you paid that day?

      My wife works in finance, she hates Warren as a worker for all the reasons she supports her as a candidate. All those consumer protections in lending she put in. If you aren't filthy rich you should be supporting a Sanders/Warren ticket. Don't let a man making $250k/yr (or whatever senators are up to now) buying a $600k beach house within his means or a woman who supposedly fibbed on a form when she was a kid throw you off. The other options either aren't qualified or definitely have way more dirt in their closets than this.

      What matters is how they vote and who they fight for. Not any dirt someone comes up with for a smear campaign no matter what it is. I don't believe either of these are up to anything particularly dirty but even if they were I don't really care. We have executives and politicians pocketing millions and even billions all over the map and we shouldn't throw away people in the system who are actually going to fight for real people just to pick another one of those who is better with laundry.

    8. Re:She would make a great VP candidate by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Basing policies on something you can't even define is immoral not checking a box to get around the immoral policies.

  12. Re:Ugly as fuck Goebbels propaganda bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone please shoot her already.

    Like...with a bow and arrow?

  13. Re:How about for everything instead of just tracto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So the farm lobby has greased her palm"

    Doubt it. Most farming in the US is done by big multinationals, and they couldn't care less about tractor repair.

  14. Visions of Michael Dukakis on a tank by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

    Just kidding. Sen. Warren's too smart to go sit on a tractor (I hope).

    1. Re:Visions of Michael Dukakis on a tank by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Just kidding. Sen. Warren's too smart to go sit on a tractor (I hope).

      Your hopes will be dashed: I'm gonna have me a beer!

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Visions of Michael Dukakis on a tank by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      Oh, good grief.

      "I'm just like you. I drink beer after a hard day hammering my political opponents."

      It's like if she took a DNA test to prove she has Native American ancestry. At least she hasn't done that yet. /s

  15. Sanders has integrity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the guy who had $400k when he ran for president and the week after losing the primary bought a beach house for $600k cash?
    The same guys who's wife is being investigated for massive theft at the college she ran?

    Sanders just figured out he liked the beach house and needs more campaign money in his pocket. That is why he is running again. He learned from AOC how to pocket it illegally and not be charged.

    lols, Sanders has integrity.

    1. Re:Sanders has integrity? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      You do realize that Sanders cannot spend his campaign money on anything except campaigning?

      Campaigns are required to report on how they spend their campaign money. I'm too lazy to chase down examples right now, but my observation is that both parties have messed up handling or reporting of campaign money from time to time. They have to fix the problem and possibly pay a fine. But the point is, candidates cannot do whatever they want with campaign money.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Sanders has integrity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He learned from AOC how to pocket it illegally

      LOL holy shit you're dumb as hell.

    3. Re:Sanders has integrity? by rsborg · · Score: 1

      [cite needed]

      And don't link to fake news sites, please.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    4. Re:Sanders has integrity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that Sanders cannot spend his campaign money on anything except campaigning?

      Campaigns are required to report on how they spend their campaign money. I'm too lazy to chase down examples right now, but my observation is that both parties have messed up handling or reporting of campaign money from time to time. They have to fix the problem and possibly pay a fine. But the point is, candidates cannot do whatever they want with campaign money.

      When they get caught, they get fined... Unless you have an R after your name and live in the southern district of NY, then you go to jail.... But let's be honest, he was a sleaze ball, deserved jail time for many other things and was pretty much forced into the plea deal for partisan reasons, not because the rules actually got broken in this case.

  16. As a sitting US Senator by kenh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why doesn't she put forth legislation to that effect? If she waits till elected President, she'll have to convince someone in either chamber of Congress to put the bill forward.

    She's not helpless, she needs to step up.

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:As a sitting US Senator by robinsonne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because in the current Senate if it doesn't:
      1)Give a tax cut to the rich
      2)Install a conservative judge

      Then Mitch McConnell won't even bring it up for a vote.

    2. Re: As a sitting US Senator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn.. you idiots are nothing now that your collusion conspiracy theory fell through, what an unfunny joke.

    3. Re:As a sitting US Senator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right - and the first step to passing something nobody but a tiny group really cares about (repairing tractors) is to make a big deal about it.
      If she gets the country collectively saying "that sounds like a good idea", it becomes that much more difficult to shoot down or bury.

  17. We're from the Government and we're here to help by elainerd · · Score: 0

    So we couldn't just let the free market and consumer choice fix the problem, because that would be supporting EVIL capitalism which is responsible for America's standard of living and affluence. Bad bad stuff. I mean John Deere is like one of a thousand tractor manufacturers. This sounds like more of a consumer advocacy education cause rather than the need for more REGULATIONS. Buy a different brand.

    --
    Faith: Belief in Truth. Superstition: Belief in Falsehood.
  18. What can't they do? by magzteel · · Score: 0

    Serious question, what is it that farmers cant do? From this "wired" article,
    https://www.wired.com/story/jo...

    - No resetting immobilizer systems.
    - No reprogramming electronic control units or engine control modules.
    - No changing equipment or engine settings that might negatively affect emissions or safety.
    - No downloading or accessing the source code of any proprietary embedded software.

    Which doesn't sound out of line. That article then goes on to say:

    "These restrictions are enormous. If car mechanics couldn’t reprogram car computers, a good portion of modern repairs just wouldn’t be possible. When you hire a mechanic to fix the air-conditioning in a Civic, they may have to reprogram the electronic control unit."

    I was a mechanic for years and this is complete nonsense. No typical repair shop reprograms ECU's.
    Even if you could it would probably violate the warranty.

    1. Re: What can't they do? by ruddk · · Score: 1

      True. but it is easier finding the error if you have the right interface and software.
      After having my type-r at the official dealer 3 times and $2000 later without them actually being able to fix my ac which only worked for 10 minutes after starting the car, I managed to diagnose it in 20 minutes using the repair manual and a the official interface and software myself. (Worm down clutch basic really)
      I wonder how long it would have taken them not to fix it. I gave he idiots a detailed description and asked them to drive it for 20 minutes afterwards to test it out.
      Iâ(TM)ll just leave the name here for google to index. It was Henrik Larsen Automobiler now called P. Christensen. Overpriced wankers.

    2. Re: What can't they do? by magzteel · · Score: 1

      True. but it is easier finding the error if you have the right interface and software.
      After having my type-r at the official dealer 3 times and $2000 later without them actually being able to fix my ac which only worked for 10 minutes after starting the car, I managed to diagnose it in 20 minutes using the repair manual and a the official interface and software myself. (Worm down clutch basic really)
      I wonder how long it would have taken them not to fix it. I gave he idiots a detailed description and asked them to drive it for 20 minutes afterwards to test it out.
      Iâ(TM)ll just leave the name here for google to index. It was Henrik Larsen Automobiler now called P. Christensen. Overpriced wankers.

      Lots of shops have limited expertise. They are just parts-changers. It's rough on the consumers.

      The article mentioned service manuals were available but did not mention diagnostic tools. There is a big difference between diagnostics and ECU modding/reflashing. Some speed shops do it, like http://www.ivansperformancepro... . I'm planning to do this for one of my rides, but it definitely voids the warranty.

    3. Re:What can't they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure when you were a mechanic, but ABS, Airbags, security, etc, etc usually require dealer diagnostic tools to reset warnings. Some stuff can be done with generic ODB tools, but many things can't. Add to that a tractor has a whole lot of hydraulic systems that a car doesn't, and there is a lot of scope for needing to be able to update settings held in the ECU or related control units.

      I think you are confusing what they mean by "reprogram" (although plenty of places will do reprogramming of maps on ECUs, it often requires an aftermarked ECU anyway).

    4. Re:What can't they do? by magzteel · · Score: 1

      Not sure when you were a mechanic, but ABS, Airbags, security, etc, etc usually require dealer diagnostic tools to reset warnings. Some stuff can be done with generic ODB tools, but many things can't. Add to that a tractor has a whole lot of hydraulic systems that a car doesn't, and there is a lot of scope for needing to be able to update settings held in the ECU or related control units.

      I think you are confusing what they mean by "reprogram" (although plenty of places will do reprogramming of maps on ECUs, it often requires an aftermarked ECU anyway).

      I've worked on all this. As I wrote, I do not know what the situation is with regards to tractor diagnostic tool availability from the manufacturer or aftermarket.

      Reading live and freeze-frame diagnostics and resetting diagnostic codes is in no way "reprogramming". I think the article author is confused (or is deliberately confusing) the line is between legitimate diagnostic interaction and modding.

    5. Re:What can't they do? by Agent0013 · · Score: 2

      Plenty of the parts have DRM on the firmware that prevents them from working in the tractor until an approved person unlocks it. So you can install the new parts all you want, but they won't work until John Deere sends someone out to activate the new parts.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    6. Re:What can't they do? by mOzone · · Score: 1

      unless they have a crane or ultra heavy lifting gear not much they can do that's major ..and when it comes to high end drive by wire {joystick} and GPS auto nav why would they wish to re-flash or mess with something i could actually kill someone by mistake

    7. Re:What can't they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't trust wired. They get a vague idea of what to write about and make up the other 90% about 90% of the time. The issue is more complicated than that. If you swap certain components out of a John Deere, and the part registers as different (think hardware ID like Windows detects # of hardware changes), then it locks the tractor until an OK code is given to it. It's ridiculous. Forget aftermarket altogether... say the same part that fits a John Deere, but comes from the Yanmar brand - Machined by the same people on the exact same run, but doesn't include the John Deere label or key to get an OK code to work.

    8. Re:What can't they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I work for John Deere, and while there are some controllers that require dealer intervention the vast, vast majority do not. Engine controllers are probably the biggest one, due to emissions regulations. Those regulations effectively require that to be the case. If the engine manufacturer cannot provide certain information, it can result in very large fines.

    9. Re: What can't they do? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Why would you ever take a car to a dealership for non-warranty service?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:What can't they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No sane person will flash the ECU solely to put more emissions to air. Emission control is also about fuel efficiency control -- engines running with lowest emissions also have best efficiency. Why would people flash ECU to waste more money on gas?

    11. Re:What can't they do? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You're simply wrong. When the government talks about reprogramming machines, it does include updating the settings. Don't confuse yourself with arguments about what you believe words are required to mean. Sometimes you have to learn that words mean different things in different situations.

      And literally, when you clear a code, you're reprogramming the EEPROM values or something equivalent.

      Regarding diagnostic tools, no, you're totally banned from having the tools currently, by manufacturer decree. There is no aftermarket.

      The main thing this proposal does is to prevent the manufacturer from interfering with the aftermarket. (which would quickly appear, because these tractors are big business)

    12. Re:What can't they do? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      due to emissions regulations. Those regulations effectively require that to be the case.

      Bullshit spill in the produce section

    13. Re: What can't they do? by ruddk · · Score: 1

      I hoped they could fix the problem so I didn’t have to fix it myself. Clearly I was wrong.
      I retrospect I also remember that I paid to have my disc brakes in back cleaned as I hadn’t been doing any track days for a while and they hadn’t been exercised enough. When I switched the tires two days later the metal rims that were on the car was rusted and completely stuck. They clearly hadn’t removed them to clean anything.
      Blah. Guess I learned my lesson the expensive way.

    14. Re: What can't they do? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Most stealerships have, at most, one or two competent techs. The rest are cheap (to them).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  19. Sounds good but... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    if modern tractors are anything like modern cars they are full of computers. Modern cars require really expensive computer diagnostic equipment that makes it impractical to repair them on your own. What her proposal might do though is open it up to 3rd party repair shops that could do it a lot cheaper than the dealer would.

    1. Re:Sounds good but... by GregMmm · · Score: 1

      Visiting a friend of ours who is a farmer in eastern Washington I learned a lot about this issue.
      1) Farmers who make it are not dumb, in fact they usually can fix anything because either they have the tools, or their neighbors do. Farmers help each other out. By the way this is as simple as changing a part with bolts on it. Not just the fancy software. But right now you can't do this.
      2) Farmers can't wait for the repair man to show up. It can take a couple of weeks and this is suicide for a farmer. If it's time to plant and dry enough, you have to go. It could mean success or failure of a crop.
      3) Even if it's just the software, you know how easy it is to show up and install an update. Make a video how to do it. But this wouldn't line the pockets of John Deere. It's just a USB stick.

    2. Re:Sounds good but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's what she is proposing to do.
      this is from the summery that you must have failed to even read.
      "The national right-to-repair law should require manufacturers of farm equipment to make diagnostic tools, manuals, and other repair-related resources available to any individual or business, not just their own dealerships and authorized agents," Warren said. "This will not only allow individuals to fix their own equipment -- reducing delays -- but it will also create competition among dealers and independent repair shops, bringing down prices overall."

    3. Re:Sounds good but... by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      It is really expensive computer diagnostic equipment only because the manufacturer is trying to control the repair market. Modern engines are run by computers that know a lot about what is going right and what is going wrong, without any outside guidance. Simple error codes or status codes should be sufficient.

      In most cases, an experienced mechanic could figure out what needs to be replaced even without the aid of a computer, by observing what does not work or listening to the engine.

      But your John Deere combine might shut itself down if it detects a non-John Deere part. For your protection, of course.

    4. Re:Sounds good but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deere employee here(opinions are my own, blah, blah): Most software updates can be done over the air, at least on all the bigger vehicles. They come with a telematics ECU installed by default and the telematics ECU can program the other controllers. Deere has been doing this for a long, long time. Remote diagnostics are also available via telematics. Most of the fancy displays can be updated by a USB stick as well if they have a USB port.

      It doesn't take weeks for a repair guy to show up unless you have a really shitty dealer. Deere collects data on that kind of thing, and the response time of most dealers is pretty damn good from what I've been told. Deere also has a large logistics operation to ensure dealers have the parts they need when they need them, and is especially active during planting and harvest.

    5. Re:Sounds good but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern engines are run by computers that know a lot about what is going right and what is going wrong, without any outside guidance. Simple error codes or status codes should be sufficient.

      That is exactly what most of the ECUs on tractors do today. They report DM1 diagnostic messages as defined by the Society for Automotive Engineers J1939 standard. It provides a SPN(Suspect Parameter Number), which indicates the problem area is (i.e. Injector 1), an FMI(Failure Mode Indicator) which indicates what the problem is(i.e. out of range high) and an occurrence count. There is a manufacturer specific range of SPNs that is sometimes used, but SAE defines a lot of SPNs, and those cover most of the system.

  20. By 'reprogram' perhaps they mean 'reflash' by Brannon · · Score: 1

    It's probably reasonable for a 3rd party service shop to be able to reflash a component to a known good factory-provided image.

    Your point stands, though. These right-to-repair laws need to be written sensibly. There are all sorts of dangerous scenarios if someone is allowed to freely poke around in firmware. And it is perfectly reasonable to insist on some level of training and certification for servicing certain sensitive parts.

    The baseline standard should be that a sufficiently trained & certified 3rd party shop should be able to perform the same sorts of common repairs that your own internal service personnel are trained to perform.

    The tricky thing to legislate around is security. What if a product has a good reason to implement lockouts for non-standard code or components? The motivation could at least plausibly be for security or safety reasons.

  21. Re:The only reason Trump hates it = Obama's name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like the Adult discussion that there's not an endless supply of money to fund healthcare even though there are so many sick people? You can't just snap your fingers and poof the money problem disappears. Oh wait, for Dems it does because they ignore it that healthcare costs money that's not just growing on trees. Even if you taxed everyone 100% do you believe it would pay for healthcare for everyone? Do you believe Obamacare covered everyone fairly and equitably? Dems.

  22. Trump dies in prison for his lifetime of fraud? k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Donald Trump dies in prison for his lifetime of fraud either way, good point.

  23. Get Your Tractors off Our Lawn` by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Any politics involving tractors always reminds me of British PM John Major's bizarre "Get Your Tractors Off Our Lawn" speech and makes me smile.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  24. I like Warren by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I like Bernie more because while Warren gets more done she, like a lot of Democrats, is a bit too defeatist. Democrats give up too easy, even when a position is 70-90% popular. Warren's already backed off Medicare for All into a public option. Now, I know what she's up to (a properly implemented public option would quickly out-compete private, for profit insurance programs) but the trouble is the other side isn't negotiating in good faith, and will use cyclic political changes to undermine the law. They did it with Obamacare, where a popular law is currently on the chopping block because it's been systematically undermined.

    I want Warren and the whole of the Dems to stop reaching across the isle. Everytime they do the GOP moves a little further right to escape their grasp. That's how we got Trump, and that's how we got to the point where we're talking about turning Social Security into a Welfare Program.

    Back in the 90s Newt Gingrich and the GOP came up with "A Contract for America" which when you stripped away the niceties was a plan to block everything the other side did no matter what while advancing the most radical ideas of their party. It completely revitalized the GOP. The Dems need something like that. They need to draw a line in the sand and say "This is who we are, and this is what's right. This is what we're doing". On the plus side most of their positions (Medicare for All, $15/minimum wage, Tuition Free college, childcare, paid family medical leave, public works and infrastructure programs, etc, etc) are overwhelmingly popular.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I like Warren by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      >Warren gets more done she,like a lot of Democrats
      Except for when it comes to voting on their own proposals. Then all of the sudden they can't be bothered to do the only job they have to do which is to vote yea or nay.

      >the other side isn't negotiating in good faith
      Right. I believe the side that put forward the ACA that was designed to fail so that single payer medicare for all would be put in its place. That's good faith politics.

      >I want Warren and the whole of the Dems to stop reaching across the isle.
      Did you know that the Dems reach across the isle less? Whoops.

      >are overwhelmingly popular.
      Right until you ask the details of how those programs will pay and how it will affect their lives through their economic impact. Whoops. Why can't you do those things in your own state instead of forcing them on the entire nation? Why does Montana need a $15 minimum wage because Silicon Valley can't fix their damn housing problems?

    2. Re: I like Warren by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like communists trying to destroy our civilization.

  25. Except when he does by virtig01 · · Score: 2

    He brought the Green New Deal up for a vote.... and the vote to limit the national emergency powers of the President.

    1. Re:Except when he does by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      He brought the Green New Deal up for a vote

      That was a trick! You see even though the democrats sponsored and support the GND they didn't intend to vote on it.

      The best part of that was Mike Lee. Reagon on a dinosaur, TaunTauns, Aquaman, and the "documentary" Sharknado 4 are forever part of congressional history.

    2. Re:Except when he does by theycallmeB · · Score: 1

      McConnell brought the Green New Deal up for a vote so that he and friends could do a bit of grandstanding against. Will play well with the base but whether it will bite them in butt with other voters is up in the air.

      For the national emergency vote, that was legally required to have a floor vote in the Senate once it was approved by the House (also works the other way around). Not a whole lot of credit due for actually following your own laws.

  26. Goodby yellow brick road by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Don't remove the restraining bolt or those droids will run off into the hills. There will be no end to the trouble.

    --

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

  27. Re:AOC by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    Did you seriously just reference a fox story? What next the weekly world news? CNN?

  28. both suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    republicans save america, democrat party only wants to tare it down!

    1. Re: both suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They both want to destroy America, one just likes to make bald eagle noises while selling you out to a foreign interest, while the other purposely tries to destroy the culture that built the country by dilution.

      Caw caw!

  29. Very Naive by TRRosen · · Score: 1

    The reality is farmers own their machines less and less. Outside of simple tractors they are too complex and too expensive. Combines today are processing plants on wheels. Pass this and they will just stop selling altogether and only lease.
    You want things opened up give manufacturers immunity from liability. Manufacturers don't care about few hundred dollars in service work. The dealer gets most of that anyway. They care about a multi-million dollar lawsuit because some idiot bypassed the safety lock and ground himself into kibble. Jurys don't care about who's really at fault. they just see a poor farmer and a billion dollar company.
    The fact is these companies can be fined and sued for things they allow others to do with their product.

  30. Just make an DMCA exemptions so hosting leeked by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Just make an DMCA exemptions so hosting leaked software for repair / restore images is 100% legal.

  31. Re:The only reason Trump hates it = Obama's name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " there's not an endless supply of money " = So you're advocating the richest and corporations to start paying their fair share again? Great. That's what is needed.

    "You can't just snap your fingers and poof the money problem disappears." = EXACTLY what Trump did stealing 1 Billion from armed forces personnel for 50 miles of fencing, just now. You're being silly.

    People are willing to pay for health care, but there is gouging allowed under GOP "deregulation" platform bullshit rules. They are being bribed and lobbied to preserve these loopholes and flaws. They are corrupt.

    However, "Obamacare" = the ACA = initially a Romney Republican plan, and it did work - so you can't escape that fact so easily just by slapping Obama's name on it - Republicans also edited and passed the law.

    In fact, Obama nor the Democrats could pass ANY health care law without the Republican obstructionists agreeing, so your whining is doubly retarded. Your party agreed to it. Crying after the fact changes nothing.

    As does your lying about it, it changes nothing.

    "Even if you taxed everyone 100% do you believe it would pay for healthcare for everyone?" = Your "adult" math skills on display, lol. What a child.

  32. Why just farm equipment? by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    Why the f--- do we no longer have the right to repair something we bought?
    What nation wide law was passed that took that right away?
    What's next, bread that we aren't allowed to slice?

    --
    No brain, no pain.
    1. Re: Why just farm equipment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DMCA. That's the difference between violating the terms of a EULA and breaking copyright law.

    2. Re: Why just farm equipment? by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      Thank you.
      I hate that it is allowed to be so, not seeing terms during the buying process is allowed to be binding.
      Thank you supreme court, I can always count on your honesty, much like congress.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
  33. Right to repair is the wrong way to do it by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instead, just make it so if a company requires repairs be done through themselves or their authorized dealer chain, then the repairs are free. i.e. If the company wants to insist on exclusivity of repairs for 10 years, then their product basically has to have a 10 year warranty. If they want to insist on exclusivity forever, then the product is warranted forever.

    The advantage is that a right to repair law can be challenged on the grounds that it's violating the manufacturer's right to offer its products for sale in whatever fashion it sees fit. If you do it my way, companies can still do what John Deere does with tractors, or Epson does with chipped printer cartridges, or Apple does with iPhones. But if they elect to do it that way, then the purchase essentially becomes a lease - the lessee gets use of the product, but the lessor is responsible for the maintenance and repair costs (not always obvious, but if your leased car breaks down and is too expensive to repair, you can just walk away from the lease and leave the car company to eat the loss on their broken product, not you). And the legal framework for leases is very well established so is unlikely to be overturned by a court challenge.

    Basically, don't set up a confrontation between the buyer's right to repair and the seller's right to design a product as they see fit. Instead, channel products which come without restrictions on the owner into purchases, while products where the manufacturer retains control over after possession is transferred to the "buyer" become leases.

    1. Re: Right to repair is the wrong way to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an interesting idea, thanks. What about 'right to repair' being an umbrella term for modifying products? Ie attaching 3rd party sensors to tractors rather than OEM parts? Not sure if your solution deals with that, other than letting the market decide.

    2. Re:Right to repair is the wrong way to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's also a regulation. Right wing folks are opposed to all regulations. They don't actually want a solution; they just want companies to be free to do whatever they want.

  34. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Typical: Someone in power shows signs of getting it and the response is to shit all over them. Nice job.

  35. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by epyT-R · · Score: 2

    They all 'get it'. They just don't care. Sometimes a few decide to pretend to care thinking it will get them votes. Then when it's time to pay the piper, they reneg.

  36. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by bobbied · · Score: 0

    Get it? I don't think you get it at all.. She's slumming for votes and just happened to find an acorn you like, just like a blind pig.

    I expect all the candidates to "get it" on all sorts of topics and ideas, but I don't think most of them are serious about any of it. They just want the sound bite, to be seen as "getting it" by as many as possible in hopes of "getting" their votes.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  37. There are restrictions. by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    You can design anything you like but you can't necessarily sell it. Specifically products have to comply with the FCC and UL just a name a couple groups of regulations.

    An anti-obsolescence law against waste would be very American. And it would strengthen the security of the country. Products do need minimum standards.

  38. Re: She needs a good plowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Laughs at his own jokes, how droll.

    You know who never laughs? Donald J. Trump

  39. Shameless and Shallow Grab at Middle America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She doesn't actually want right to repair. She just wants votes from the people who put Trump in office. She doesn't mean it, because liberals never mean it.

  40. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well to be fair, she shit all over the public first.

  41. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by lgw · · Score: 0

    Typical: Someone in power shows signs of getting it and the response is to shit all over them. Nice job.

    She's the one with the history, sorry bub. Like I said, though, better her than no-one.

    It's a smart move for her if she' s running in 2020. I actually find it shocking to see a candidate make an "appeal to the grass roots" move like this. It's the only way to beat Trump.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  42. Re:How about for everything instead of just tracto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they get to mobility scooters let me know. They now work just like tractors and cars and need a proprietary programmer that STILL locks out half the settings after you pay $750 for a $50 controller :( The answer to resetting the very low top speed was buy a new $400 controller module! The only person we knew in the business that could override that has died :(

    Only $486 to change the speed of your $1000 chair. How could any one object to wonderful deal like that?

  43. deare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck trying to get separate facilities for transtractors, though I admit I didn't RTFA.

  44. The result is no family farms get tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The business of major capital equipment is in the repair and maintenance. This is because the systems need to be complex to gain the benefits and features of modern technology, but because they are so complex they cost to much to manufacture, but the volume is not so high that it's difficult to get an economy of scale. On top of that, if you make one purchase, that's a single point of revenue to maintain a business that has labor that must be paid consistently. As such, without the repair contract, the companies would have to price the systems with margins so high so they could make their payrolls on a regular basis that no small business could afford one.

    Basically if you're an equipment manufacturer, you have two options: build in planned obsolescence and force your customers to upgrade when they don't want to, or maintain a system for the long haul on a locked-in, guaranteed contract but ensure it works for decades. This true of aircraft engines, diesel engines, nuclear power plants, etc. If they sold tractors at a cost plus some margin, no small family farm could afford one and you'd be left with only the big farms iwth the financial resources to afford them.

  45. Re:The only reason Trump hates it = Obama's name by bobbied · · Score: 0

    "Obamacare" = the ACA, passed by Republicans, edited by Republicans, invented and successfully implemented by Mitt Romney = ROMNEYCARE = REPUBLICANCARE, for all anyone cares about the name.

    Go check.. Not even ONE republican voted for the ACA, not in the house, not in the senate, not even ONE vote. Your often repeated trope is a lie, a really big one.

    Also, your "Romney Care" name is pretty funny. The ACA wasn't even close to the mistake made in MA, which Romney vetoed the majority of by the way. It may have been patterned after this ill advised law made in a liberal state, but this was roundly opposed by the republicans in the state, just like it was at the federal level. And just because Romney ran for president as a Republican, doesn't make this a mainline republican idea.

    In short, the ACA was anything BUT bi-partisan. It was the democrats ram rodding though a mistake both for the country and for the democrat party's grasp on power, it was hyper partisan. All your claims to the contrary are just a bald faced lie and until your side admits to it's mistake, I don't expect to see much improvement in your caucus' ability to push any of your agenda. You guys ticked off the voters in this country with this ACA thing, sold on a pack of lies starting from Obama on down. The voters have punished you for this, and will keep punishing you if you keep pushing this tripe.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  46. Re: She needs a good plowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Pretty sure he's been laughing since November 2016.

  47. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People were sh:tting on her long before she even thought about this. She's better than Trump, but she's no prize.

  48. Re:Ugly as fuck Goebbels propaganda bitch by bobbied · · Score: 0

    Someone please shoot her already.

    OH no! Keep her around.... PLEASE!

    We are going to need the comic relief this election cycle. It's going to be one huge shrill circus complete with side shows and cheesy freak show of candidates. You thought the Republican primary was fun last time, you ain't seen nothing yet. There will be so many candidates in the democrat primary that they won't fit on three stages, much less two. And every one of them will be vying for some unique niche commination of political ideology, gender, race, and ethnicity.

    Once a candidate rises to the top, the general will be a race vrs Trump, the king of crazy talk and master of the verbal jab. It's going to be a circus of epic proportion and hyper partisan to the bitter end. Get your large screen TV and popcorn supply in now, or if this kind of thing bothers you, your stock pile of Xanax and ear plugs.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  49. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

    Did she suggest or introduce legislation regarding this before announcing her desire to be president?

  50. Re:AOC by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Hey at least it wasn't a link to breitbart or 8chan.
    You know, Fox is respectable fake news.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  51. Re: Trump dies in prison for his lifetime of fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at least you moved beyond traitor. Good job. There ishope for you yet.

  52. This is all because of overbearing emissions laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Companies don't want to get hauled off to EPA-prison for some customer's action, right or wrong. The emissions rules have gotten out of hand and there are no legal protections in place for businesses. Same thing with commercial trucks and passenger vehicles.

  53. Re: Trump dies in prison for his lifetime of fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL.. You guys slay me.. They cannot find a shred of evidence on the man on the most serious of charges after blathering about it for 2 years claiming it was all but proven and you still believe them when they say nasty things about Trump? What's that saying, Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice.... Shame on you.

  54. Re:AOC by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    Story that says differently. AOC stole $1 million out of her campaign and pocketed it for personal use, hasn't been charged.

    You're grossly mischaracterizing the Fox News story. Here's what it actually says:

    - Saikat Chakrabarti (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' chief of staff) transferred $885,000 from two PACs to two LLCs he controls.
    - Such transfers (even large ones) are not uncommon.
    - The PACs claimed the transfers were for "strategic consulting".
    - The complaint (and that's all it is right now) alleges that this was an attempt to dodge FEC reporting requirements.
    - The complaint was filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, a Virginia-based conservative organization.

    So no, AOC did not "steal" money from her campaign and pocket it "for personal use". And it's hardly outrageous that she hasn't been charged, because at this point it's still just a complaint.

    Reactions from several former FEC officials appear to be mixed. Chakrabarti has been very forthcoming with explanations of what he did and why. So it doesn't appear he's trying to hide anything.

    TL/DR: this looks complicated, but let's not jump to conclusions.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  55. Re: She needs a good plowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got footage? Face it, Mueller's report came in, and he found no evidence that Trump has a sense of humor. That's why you've never seen him laugh. He's too stupid to get jokes.

  56. Broken clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Broken clock. Right at the moment, but for all the wrong reasons, and it keeps going cuckloo cluckoo.

  57. The only tractor in America is by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    they have to call an authorized dealer and wait for them to show up -- a fix that's too slow and too costly for a farmer.

    Why do they insist on buying John Deere tractors then? Isn't this where the invisible hand of the free market makes consumers prefer tractors that CAN be repaired on site by anyone, and where John Deere goes out of business because it can't sell tractors any more? I'm sure Ford or Massey or Tracto Universal or any of a hundred other tractor manufacturers wouldn't mind the extra business. There's something fishy here if a law is required.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:The only tractor in America is by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Informative

      They have patents and aggressive lawyers, you probably can't build a competing tractor for a long time.

    2. Re:The only tractor in America is by strikethree · · Score: 1

      They have patents and aggressive lawyers, you probably can't build a competing tractor for a long time.

      Patents? What could there possibly be to patent on a fucking tractor? IIRC, patents are for things that not obvious to anyone familiar with the subject. What could fail to be obvious about a tractor? Using GPS? How is that not obvious? Are they using some sort of new combustion technique? Surely, combustion is exhausted of all patents by now. What could possibly be patented ON A TRACTOR?

      I could see Copyright on the software... but god, what an abomination of a thought. The purpose is the tractor, not the software.

      I just don't see John Deere having any patents that should be considered valid.

      Wait! I figured it out! They patented Air Conditioning the cab. Of course it's not obvious. Look at all the old tractors: Open to the air, no protection from sunlight, etc. And I am sure that no farmer anywhere or even tractor manufacturer anywhere, except John Deere, had the idea and the courage to add a climate controlled cab to the tractor.

      Never mind. Carry on. Everything is normal.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    3. Re:The only tractor in America is by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      They have patents and aggressive lawyers, you probably can't build a competing tractor for a long time.

      Patents? What could there possibly be to patent on a fucking tractor? IIRC

      Stop trying to recall, and go look it up. Modern tractors that farmers actually use are not merely powered plows. Fucking duh.

      Also, patent law doesn't care about what makes sense to you. There is no need for you to try to "figure it out." Stop fucking figuring and look shit up; educate yourself about the subject.

    4. Re:The only tractor in America is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just John Deere that is doing it. Everyone just mentions John Deere because it is a household name that anyone would recognize.

  58. Uh huh. Under what time frame? by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instead, just make it so if a company requires repairs be done through themselves or their authorized dealer chain, then the repairs are free. i.e. If the company wants to insist on exclusivity of repairs for 10 years, then their product basically has to have a 10 year warranty. If they want to insist on exclusivity forever, then the product is warranted forever.

    Farmer Bill: Hey, John Deere, my tractor broke down. I need it fixed ASAP as the window for planting in Spring 2019 is closing.

    John Deere: Sure, Bill, no problem. We'll get your tractor fixed at no charge - in time for the 2020 planting season.

    Farmer Bill: I can't wait that long! If I can't plant my crop in time I'll lose my farm.

    John Deere: We're happy to help. If you fork over $25,000 we'll get it fixed by Easter. $65,000 for expedited service if you want it by the weekend. Have a nice day!

    1. Re:Uh huh. Under what time frame? by Snufu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you can mandate 10 year warranties, you can mandate free replacements while your tractor is being serviced. You are leasing, not buying.

  59. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of them care, and don't pretend like "the parties are the same". They aren't.

  60. The details aren't impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how to you craft a law that fixes this?

    Perhaps the first thing to do is to prevent using IP laws (especially DMCA) to impede repair. (Provide an exemption to IP rules for something you own. Make it clear that if it smells like you bought it, but a license says you don't, then the exemption still works.)

    Require the enablement after repair to be available with menus on the equipment available from information in the owner's manual. Provide EPA guidance to allow this when the repair deals with environmental safeguards. Provide liability limits for the manufacturer when the repair deals with safety guards. (In other words, eliminate excuses for the manufacturer not to do this.)

    Require the manufacturer to make available to the customer what is available to their dealer's repair shop at a reasonable price.

    Require some sort or disclosure on how locked into the s/w the information needed to repair is before purchase. (A repair friendly indicator, like an epa milage indicator)

  61. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trotsky-slut DemoProg Warren needs to "plow under" tons of her own pestilent bullshit. It just STREAMS out of her. Enough crap each month to fertilizer the Elysian Fields planted with genuine Indian-Tribe sweet-corn.

  62. Re:AOC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Liberal breaks law, other liberals give pass..

    See Somollett in Chicago. One rule for them, another for you.

    News at 11.

  63. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by Psion · · Score: 1

    Oh, please. She's a stopped clock; occasionally right.

  64. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by Psion · · Score: 1

    While I doubt she'll get far in the primaries, I hope she sticks with the issue -- she might be able to get it to the Democratic party's platform in exchange for her endorsement.

  65. Re:AOC by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    Liberal breaks law, other liberals give pass..

    See Somollett in Chicago. One rule for them, another for you.

    News at 11.

    Anthony Weiner, Al Franken, Rod Blagojevich, John Conyers, and so on ... all were urged to resign by their fellow Democrats.

    Ditto for the two guys in Virginia, although they have refused to leave (yet).

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  66. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by DarkVader · · Score: 1

    She's been working for people and against Wall Street for years.

    I'm still supporting Bernie in the primaries, because she still thinks capitalism is somehow functional. But she's one of the good ones.

  67. RtR is the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btEpF334Rtc

  68. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this some sort of Trump-Fu? Hillary Clinton was better than Trump, but she was no prize either.

  69. Okay, this is actually something I can get behind. by Chas · · Score: 0

    As much as I dislike the woman, her Pocohontas bullshit and most of her policy stances.
    As much as I wish the market would fix itself on this. It ain't gonna happen.

    As such, I'm all for a right-to-repair. I mean, we're not talking about a cheap.
    We;re not talking about a $300 lawmower here.

    We're talking about actual farm equipment. Where each individual vehicle is worth HUNDREDS of thosuands of dollars.
    And they've been engineered in such a way that if something small breaks, the entire damn vehicle is USELESS.
    And the only to fix some of these things is to pay a vendor certified mechanic and WAIT for him to come out. Or try to ship the thing to him and hope it comes back in a timely manner!

    And it's not like an 80 year old tractor. Where all you need is a couple parts and you can tear it down and rebuild yourself.
    You need parts which either which most vendors won't sell to you directly.
    Or you need to buy grey-market versions.

    And all of this adds up to LOTS AND LOTS of additional cash outlay for a piece of equipment whose payments are a MAJOR chunk of said farmer's monetary outlay every year.

    Here's a little something-something off the John Deere Site.
    https://configure.deere.com/cb...

    8400R Wheeled (Tracked option available too) Row-Crop tractor.
    Base Price: $424,055.
    And you can slap in upwards of $125,000 in additional equipment (not options).
    You can tweak options up to about $80,000
    Hell, their longest warranty is 5 years and costs an extra $17,000!
    Yes, that's right. A warranty for one of these things is OPTIONAL!

    I truly think that, while manufacturers have made lots of great advances that make a farmer's life easier, that they're too far into lock-in mentality to view this equitably.

    And "Just go out and buy a different vehicle!" doesn't work because ALL OF THE VENDORS DO THIS.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  70. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

    American capitalism is functional. Its just riddled with corruption because the foxes are guarding the henhouse, between the DOJ, SEC, and laws passed by Congress. The fault lies on the voters, because they have the power to remove politicians that are too brazenly deferential towards Wall Street.

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  71. Re:How about for everything instead of just tracto by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    She's already committed to only accepting individual donations. Don't be a mean dunce.

  72. Re:Okay, this is actually something I can get behi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need Elon Musk to sell an electric tractor.

    With separate oxygen and LCH4 turbopumps.

  73. Other makes of tractor are available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If farmers hate John Deere that much, why aren't they transitioning to Claas, New Holland, Kubota.... Seems like if it's that much of an issue it ought to have become a key driver to get farmers using other brands.

    1. Re:Other makes of tractor are available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but for a lot of people, the brand names they flash around are a matter of national pride. Showing off how patriotic you are is a virtue signal popular among farmers.

      If you buy a Claas, New Holland or Kubota tractor, you're just buying a tractor.

      If you buy a John Deere tractor, you're buying a 'MURRICAN tractor, son!

      Also, a lot of these farmers were brand loyal for several family generations *before* John Deere started fucking them over, so they were caught by surprise when it came time to repair their tractors. I'm sure at least some of them would have bought a different brand if they knew repairing their Deeres would be a pain in the ass, but they bought what they bought and can't afford a new one just yet. I'd imagine all this DRM business has harmed the resale values on used John Deere tractors as well, so it's not as simple as selling your tractor to subsidize the purchase of your next one.

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

    You talking about the KKK member the DNC is currently supporting in VA? Yea, he is still there supported by the DNC
    Also talking about the serial rapist the DNC is supporting in VA? They decided to not impeach him. As far as I can tell he is not being charged.

    Weiner got caught with classified information on his laptop, no charge for it being there for anyone.

    Not entirely sure what your point was other than to give more backups for my point.

    Liberals give pass to federal felonies, KKK members, and serial rapists because they are DNC members.
    News at 11.

  75. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by Talderas · · Score: 1

    It's a smart move for her if she' s running in 2020. I actually find it shocking to see a candidate make an "appeal to the grass roots" move like this.

    There's nothing shocking about this. Warren is currently campaigning in Iowa, announced this right to repair for tractors, and also announced a plan to target large agri-business like Tyson. These are all maneuvers to get her in the heads of Iowa caucus members. The caucus tend to result with all but two to four candidates dropping out. She may never bring it up again after Feb 3, 2020.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  76. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blind pigs eat acorns?

  77. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by stinkyjak · · Score: 0

    Like the half ass net neutrality law passed by Obama. It was better than nothing, but still protected the monopolies and didnâ(TM)t provide true unbiased access and routing to all public domains and addresses. Allowed more tracking. Like Trump on infrastructure.... where are the upgraded roads, power grids, and communications?

  78. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by stinkyjak · · Score: 0

    Even the biggest shit producing cow can give us some good milk. Seems like a very republican thing to do, allowing people to manage can repair their own property without having to pay some union or OEM to do work they could do on their own. Very republican to do your own work and not rely on others. That is what it once was, be for corruption ( mostly monopoly lobby) perverted the working party. Democrats historically side withe the OEM, Unions, slave owners....

  79. Re:The only reason Trump hates it = Obama's name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go check.. Not even ONE republican voted for the ACA, not in the house, not in the senate, not even ONE vote. Your often repeated trope is a lie, a really big one.

    He's talking about the original plan the ACA was based upon, not the version passed in the US Congress. Mitt Romney came up with the original plan, and signed a slightly modified version of it, you fucking lying dumbass..

    Or is Mitt not a fucking Republican now?

  80. Ooh! Lookie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Liz found another bandwagon to try and ride. So what if she's years late to that party. So what if she is just pandering to the illiterate and ignorant proletariat in her effort to get hers too.

    What a cunt.

  81. Re:Fox News by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    "Sorry you are so fucking stupid that you don't realize whatever news outlet you use has outright lied to you for two years and I guess you still believe them."

    No, I'm just not stupid enough to believe there is one that doesn't lie. The problem with the liberal media post Trump is that they've become more like Fox which has never had problems lying not only through omission but with outright false reporting all along.

  82. Don't stop there by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

    If something is legal to do by oneself, it should always be legal to pay someone else to do it for you.

    --
    ...
  83. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by lgw · · Score: 1

    It's shocking to me because it seems like every DC politician has forgotten that voters even exist, except to occasionally mock them. A candidate that actually campaigns? That doesn't act like she entitled to the office? It's a refreshing change, to be sure.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  84. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Republicans ... be for corruption? Yep. It checks out.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  85. termlimits.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Already in-progress. Seriously: https://www.termlimits.com/

      Now get to work!

  86. Re: I can see why she'd be a big tractor fan by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

    Between gerrymandered districts, incredibly huge amounts of corporate cash going into PACs to run ads and way voter opinion, poor education and the like, is it really only the fault of the voters that the USA is seeing such huge problems.