So if you don't conform to the appropriate language use as deemed required by left-leaning to very left political activists then censorship is justifiable but not political.
Got it.
Some libertarians don't really want capitalism in the sense of competition. If the big companies merged into one giant monopoly, they don't care, often believing other forces will eventually compensate or end the monopoly without gov't intervention.
Regarding the bolded portion : Like competition enabled through true free markets?
I'm not saying we have a truly free market. But that would be the ideal for real libertarians. But hell, we don't really have real libertarians anymore either so....
As a federal worker I can tell you without question that most people there have a total disconnect between their job and its source of employee salaries. In every level of government from local city govt to the feds there's a ritual every fiscal quarter to find ways to spend what's left from the last budget. Managers encourage employees to come up with ways to get it done because if they don't spend every dime they got on the last budget they can't reasonably argue for more on the next. This is totally aside from the plethora of management that get a healthy portion of their self-worth from the size of their own little fiefdom within government. The more people, servers, vehicles, buildings, land, etc under their control, the more important they are in the eyes of themselves and the other bureaucrats. The more influence they have, the more likely they are for promotion, and on and on.
I've seen people get cash awards for literally doing nothing more than holding open a door.
I've seen groups buy thousands of dollars of office supplies, from paper to staplers to toner cartridges to pens, only to lock them in cabinets no one is allowed to access for years until all the stuff they already have an excess of is expended.
I've seen groups buy thousands of dollars worth of chairs that sit in storage rooms for years unused.
I've seen groups increase the size of their cubicles, not because the employees need or even want more space, but because it allows them to keep entire suites in federal buildings all to themselves, rather than share the previously unused space with other groups.
I've seen tens of thousands of dollars spent on brand new servers that sit in boxes never opened in computer rooms for years until their manufacturers warranty expires and they are "excessed".
I've seen managers refuse to turn off racks filled to overflowing with obsolete servers powered on in datacenters because "someone might need them someday", all the while sucking power because turning them off would cause people to ask why they are there at all but leaving them on with nice bright green lights causes not a single blink of an eye. .
(I've been paged in the middle of the night for more than one of those servers because a hard drive light was amber....)
I've seen staff members flown to conferences that have nothing to do with their job only because, "well, we have travel and training money in the budget, so lets send the Windows administrators to a seminar in Taos to learn about some software we don't have and don't intend to buy".
I've seen staff giddy over the fact that they were gifted meaningless trinkets in appreciation for all their hard work, and then look at me stupefied when I said, "You know you bought that right?
I've seen software purchases in the tens of thousands of dollars to do what 4 other pieces of software we already have do in our production environment already.
And yes, I've reported these things. They are ignored.
Short of punching someone in the nose it's damn near impossible to get fired from federal public service. Managers have to fully document every failure, document every attempt at modifying the behavior, and prove that by the end of a full one year period the employee refuses to adjust. Aside from proving that being really difficult, all the employee has to do is say, "I'm struggling, and I need help.", for which the manager is required to send them to training, counseling or whatever else seems appropriate, and the one year idiocy clock resets. All this while the federal worker's union crawls up the manager's ass with a flaming torch and pitchfork.
And all THAT assumes that the manager even tries to correct the behavior, which is my experience is somewhat uncommon. Instead they give the employee passing job evaluations that happen every quarter. To do otherwise would ensure that no other federal manager (who has access to every applicants federal work history records) will hire an employee with a documented h
They can (and do) produce overly complex, marginally operable, and bloated frankensteins with unnecessary out-of-scope bells and whistles that are entirely outside what is necessary to complete the originally intended goal of the mission. They do so to pad political allies' pockets and to placate idiot Congressman with pet projects and asinine desires who would otherwise refuse to pass funding for the endeavor.
You, as the consumer, end up paying for Mercedes sports cars when in fact what was really needed was a solid reliable pickup truck at half the cost. Again, you as the consumer weren't given a say so, but you sure as hell paid the price.
The insinuation in your post is that the private sector screws consumers wherever possible. If that's true then why is Walmart one of the most successful retailers in the world? It's not because they produce high quality items at a low cost. It's because most consumers make the conscious choice to buy a cheap plastic piece of shit now for nearly nothing with the intention of replacing it later when it fails. That's a driving force in the market, and while it's possible to create much higher quality goods, it's a provable truth that only a fraction of the population is willing to pay what it's worth to manufacture. The alternative is to attempt to pass good intentioned but short sighted laws the force an arbitrary standard that jacks the costs of items beyond the reach of a substantial portion of the populace, who will invariably bitch and likely picket for more laws that essentially tell manufacturers to take a loss on selling the item because somehow toaster ovens are a "right".
At least when the private sector is appropriately engaged in public jobs a failure of the project because of provable cut corners or negligence can result in non-payment to the vendor. But when NASA blows up a$125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because people didnt convert from feet to meters, you pay regardless.
SpaceX are getting there with reliability, but Musk needs to learn to STFU when it comes to price sensitivity because for some customers thats not the driving factor.
Thats certainly the case with the Federal Govt. They don't care about prices. There's no profit motive for them, so they don't "lose" anything for bloated budgets. And after all, it's not their money....
And how does that make him different than any other politician? If your answer is that you like the news sources that condemn everything he does then, kettle meets pot.
No, I'm actually quite vocal about the things I think the Trump administration are doing wrong. I HATE their position on Imminent Domain. I'm not at all comfortable with tweeting from the hip in the middle of the night. I don't like the fact that they just say they are going to do "great" things but don't seem to have an actual plan at all.
See this is the difference between me and many. I call bullshit and hypocrisy where I see it, not just where it suits my political position. And in this particular case this is an obvious hack job story meant entirely to damage the President.
That's why I said "or whatever he is". I don't know what the truth is, so I qualified that statement. Pull your glasses out of Hillary's panties. I'm not a Trump fan. I didnt vote for him, and I think his administration has fucked up repeatedly because they, and he specifically are rookies at politics. But that doesnt mean I won't call out irrational and hyperbolic bullshit when I see it.
Like the admitted Fast and Furious initiative?
Like the admitted IRS Targeting?
Like the admitted and provable lie that Benghazi was because of a video?
Like the admitted falsehood that "the cops acted stupidly"?
Like the admitted inappropriate conversation of the former President and husband of a subject of FBI investigation having a private meeting with the head of the FBI in a private jet hours before the FBI decides that despite significant findings of negligence that the investigation is not even being handed over to prosecutors?
Sorry, but the "manufactured" scandals all bore fruit. There was just a total lack of will by the press to report it let alone pursue it and instead used every opportunity to excuse it simply because it ran counter to their own political interests. The lack of public pressure that resulted allowed Democrats to quietly move along with little consequence. And apparently you bought into their bullshit hook, line and sinker.
You don't become a billionaire (or whatever he is) by tipping your hand to your competitors. You don't make enemies along the way either, who'd love to air your dirty laundry or destroy your reputation, or harm you business in a variety of other ways. With the volume of people that Trump and his empire have stomped on over a period of decades you don't think he's learned to be paranoid? If he hadn't there'd be tons of stories about him to present that the press would be creaming their shorts over just trying to decide which to release first.
You make a pretty significant assumption that he uses the same network thats configured for use by any schmoe that is at the resort. You also assume that the whole network is not layered and secured appropriately for the level of business being conducted.
This article is itself a rather glaring misdirection, giving limited information in the context of it being all inclusive of the resort's security posture. It's like saying that because every reputable hotel in the world has freely accessible wifi that all hotel chains are easily hackable to their core. This is a hack job of a "report" done with blatantly biased slant and omission of detail.
This is the equivalent of saying that because there are 1000's of US Government websites that face the public domain on port 80 that the federal government as a whole is ripe for intrusion.
No, we wont ever live in a utopia because a utopia is a fantasy. You're not going to find a single topic on which all people globally agree and you never will. That being the case, one group will always be telling others how things should be, and the others will resist the demanded change. This is not wrong, its not associated purely with wealth or religion or anything else. It's not even associated with "better", because "better" is usually subjective.
I wish I had all my GI Joe action figures still. They'd be worth a lot. But alas, we blew them all to hell on a regular basis with the Blackcats, Ladyfingers and bottle rockets we bought at the nearest convenience store with our allowance.
By today's standards I'd be assumed to have grown up to be a crack-addled homicidal maniac.
So on the one hand you are normalizing violence beginning at a young age. It's just something that everyone should expect and accept. On the other hand you're teaching kids that sexuality is shameful , and hide it from them until they are older and need to start figuring it out without any context or guidance.
How is it logical to give a pass to violence with kids by saying it's "outside the normal experience" while also saying it's perfectly acceptable in society to glorify it, and telling kids at the same time that sexuality which is nearly universally something that will be part of their "normal experience" is something that they should feel ashamed of?
People seem to think it makes perfect sense to glorify the thing that we do not want people to engage in, while demonizing the thing we know they will engage in as an entirely natural and healthy part of human existence.
Kill someone in a movie and the hero is applauded. Show a boob and it's assumed that a boob is a dirty thing that should be hidden, and that you should feel shame at enjoying the sight of.
One teaches that killing the "bad guy" is good. The other teaches that the human body and the entirely natural and necessary function of its parts is bad.
Have you actually seen many war movies?
The enemies usually don't get a name, a personality, any lines... You might get one or two who have some kind of 2D, paper-thin personality, just so that the heroes have someone to give their struggle context and meaning. The vast bulk of them are just a faceless hoard, sometimes literally as these days there isn't much point putting a proper face texture on a CGI soldier who ends up being 3 pixels high.
That's precisely the point people are trying to make. How is that different than a computer game? In the movie the "bad guy's" backstory isn't fleshed out, and you feel no sympathy for the fact that he has a wife and child back home in Kiev or wherever. You don't care about his demise because you have no association with him at all. He's just part of the vague and largely undefined "bad". In a computer game the "bad guy" is the guy trying to kill you, and you him. He's a CGI character often only a few pixels high that you're lobbing artillery rounds at from 300 yards. He's a nameless, faceless target. While in a computer game you might want him dead because it up's your game score, it's not unlike the gratuitous deaths of dozens or hundreds of "bad guys" in movies to up their ratings and box office sales because the viewer feels a connection to the "good guy" who's overcome his adversaries.
But you don't see any Hollywood elitist deuchebags campaigning against violence in film, do you? You instead see hypocritical shitbrains that will lecture you on how the Second Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means, that no one (except them) have any need for firearms of any kind, and then tell you that the movies they themselves massacre dozens of bad guys with said firearms in are entirely disassociated with any kind of real world violence and it's purely entertainment.
Well what is a warranty? It's a promise by the manufacturer to repair or replace equipment if it fails. If you modify the equipment and it fails because of your modification, they are not liable for the failure and not held responsible for the repairs. Right? You make modifications that cause a failure then it's no longer their problem.
I will concede though that often manufacturers will claim that any modification releases them from all responsibility, regardless whether that modification has any impact whatsoever on whatever failures might have or may eventually occur. That's outside the bounds in my mind, and the law you pointed to would seem to support the notion.
Obviously there are circumstances that could lean the "right" decision to one side of the fence or the other.
While I will admit to not having read the legal content of the law, I did read a couple of summaries. The law you cite is primarily meant to require those companies who issue warranty agreements to clearly and unambiguously define the terms, and protect consumers from shady or deceptive warranty jargon.
One line that was up on Wiki and the meaning repeated elsewhere states:
The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.
In other words if you disassemble the product, place new/different/altered components on it, and it can be determined that those new/different/altered components caused the product to fail, then the manufacturer is not liable to repair it under warranty.
It takes an almost unfathomable level of stupidity to try to correlate a notion of respect for the rights of all people to live without interference, with that of elitism and brutality to take property and rights by brute force. Anyone that tells you that Somalia is an example of Libertarianism is selling you a lie, and you're an idiot if you buy it.
Nice to see that Rachel Maddow has at least one viewer remaining.
Libertarians just want to be left the fuck alone. They believe that if you are harmed you have every right to seek redress in the courts, but that government doesnt have the right to pass laws that mean to make it impossible to ever be guilty of causing harm. You know, that notion that you're innocent until proven guilty?
I'm not supporting this asinine notion that farmers cannot fix their own equipment. I'm wholly against it. I was simply responding to someone suggesting that John Deere's motivation is protecting themselves from people breaking JD equipment and then forcing JD to fix it for free. What JD is doing is trying to monopolize maintenance on all their equipment, and do it when they get around to it and at inflated costs.
Slashdot Mirror
So if you don't conform to the appropriate language use as deemed required by left-leaning to very left political activists then censorship is justifiable but not political.
Got it.
Some libertarians don't really want capitalism in the sense of competition. If the big companies merged into one giant monopoly, they don't care, often believing other forces will eventually compensate or end the monopoly without gov't intervention.
Regarding the bolded portion : Like competition enabled through true free markets? I'm not saying we have a truly free market. But that would be the ideal for real libertarians. But hell, we don't really have real libertarians anymore either so....
In other news, /. ends tradition of summaries and posts entire encyclopedia to front page.
As a federal worker I can tell you without question that most people there have a total disconnect between their job and its source of employee salaries. In every level of government from local city govt to the feds there's a ritual every fiscal quarter to find ways to spend what's left from the last budget. Managers encourage employees to come up with ways to get it done because if they don't spend every dime they got on the last budget they can't reasonably argue for more on the next. This is totally aside from the plethora of management that get a healthy portion of their self-worth from the size of their own little fiefdom within government. The more people, servers, vehicles, buildings, land, etc under their control, the more important they are in the eyes of themselves and the other bureaucrats. The more influence they have, the more likely they are for promotion, and on and on.
I've seen people get cash awards for literally doing nothing more than holding open a door.
I've seen groups buy thousands of dollars of office supplies, from paper to staplers to toner cartridges to pens, only to lock them in cabinets no one is allowed to access for years until all the stuff they already have an excess of is expended.
I've seen groups buy thousands of dollars worth of chairs that sit in storage rooms for years unused.
I've seen groups increase the size of their cubicles, not because the employees need or even want more space, but because it allows them to keep entire suites in federal buildings all to themselves, rather than share the previously unused space with other groups.
I've seen tens of thousands of dollars spent on brand new servers that sit in boxes never opened in computer rooms for years until their manufacturers warranty expires and they are "excessed".
I've seen managers refuse to turn off racks filled to overflowing with obsolete servers powered on in datacenters because "someone might need them someday", all the while sucking power because turning them off would cause people to ask why they are there at all but leaving them on with nice bright green lights causes not a single blink of an eye. .
(I've been paged in the middle of the night for more than one of those servers because a hard drive light was amber....)
I've seen staff members flown to conferences that have nothing to do with their job only because, "well, we have travel and training money in the budget, so lets send the Windows administrators to a seminar in Taos to learn about some software we don't have and don't intend to buy".
I've seen staff giddy over the fact that they were gifted meaningless trinkets in appreciation for all their hard work, and then look at me stupefied when I said, "You know you bought that right?
I've seen software purchases in the tens of thousands of dollars to do what 4 other pieces of software we already have do in our production environment already.
And yes, I've reported these things. They are ignored.
Short of punching someone in the nose it's damn near impossible to get fired from federal public service. Managers have to fully document every failure, document every attempt at modifying the behavior, and prove that by the end of a full one year period the employee refuses to adjust. Aside from proving that being really difficult, all the employee has to do is say, "I'm struggling, and I need help.", for which the manager is required to send them to training, counseling or whatever else seems appropriate, and the one year idiocy clock resets. All this while the federal worker's union crawls up the manager's ass with a flaming torch and pitchfork.
And all THAT assumes that the manager even tries to correct the behavior, which is my experience is somewhat uncommon. Instead they give the employee passing job evaluations that happen every quarter. To do otherwise would ensure that no other federal manager (who has access to every applicants federal work history records) will hire an employee with a documented h
They can (and do) produce overly complex, marginally operable, and bloated frankensteins with unnecessary out-of-scope bells and whistles that are entirely outside what is necessary to complete the originally intended goal of the mission. They do so to pad political allies' pockets and to placate idiot Congressman with pet projects and asinine desires who would otherwise refuse to pass funding for the endeavor.
You, as the consumer, end up paying for Mercedes sports cars when in fact what was really needed was a solid reliable pickup truck at half the cost. Again, you as the consumer weren't given a say so, but you sure as hell paid the price.
The insinuation in your post is that the private sector screws consumers wherever possible. If that's true then why is Walmart one of the most successful retailers in the world? It's not because they produce high quality items at a low cost. It's because most consumers make the conscious choice to buy a cheap plastic piece of shit now for nearly nothing with the intention of replacing it later when it fails. That's a driving force in the market, and while it's possible to create much higher quality goods, it's a provable truth that only a fraction of the population is willing to pay what it's worth to manufacture. The alternative is to attempt to pass good intentioned but short sighted laws the force an arbitrary standard that jacks the costs of items beyond the reach of a substantial portion of the populace, who will invariably bitch and likely picket for more laws that essentially tell manufacturers to take a loss on selling the item because somehow toaster ovens are a "right". At least when the private sector is appropriately engaged in public jobs a failure of the project because of provable cut corners or negligence can result in non-payment to the vendor. But when NASA blows up a$125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because people didnt convert from feet to meters, you pay regardless.
SpaceX are getting there with reliability, but Musk needs to learn to STFU when it comes to price sensitivity because for some customers thats not the driving factor.
Thats certainly the case with the Federal Govt. They don't care about prices. There's no profit motive for them, so they don't "lose" anything for bloated budgets. And after all, it's not their money....
And how does that make him different than any other politician? If your answer is that you like the news sources that condemn everything he does then, kettle meets pot.
No, I'm actually quite vocal about the things I think the Trump administration are doing wrong. I HATE their position on Imminent Domain. I'm not at all comfortable with tweeting from the hip in the middle of the night. I don't like the fact that they just say they are going to do "great" things but don't seem to have an actual plan at all.
See this is the difference between me and many. I call bullshit and hypocrisy where I see it, not just where it suits my political position. And in this particular case this is an obvious hack job story meant entirely to damage the President.
That's why I said "or whatever he is". I don't know what the truth is, so I qualified that statement. Pull your glasses out of Hillary's panties. I'm not a Trump fan. I didnt vote for him, and I think his administration has fucked up repeatedly because they, and he specifically are rookies at politics. But that doesnt mean I won't call out irrational and hyperbolic bullshit when I see it.
I see. So...
Obama = Good. Therefore missteps = poor judgement, but nothing to pursue.
Conversely,
Trump = Bad. Therefore missteps = "evidence" of criminal intent that require impeachment proceedings.
Yeah, perfectly balanced.
Manufactured?
Like the admitted Fast and Furious initiative?
Like the admitted IRS Targeting?
Like the admitted and provable lie that Benghazi was because of a video?
Like the admitted falsehood that "the cops acted stupidly"?
Like the admitted inappropriate conversation of the former President and husband of a subject of FBI investigation having a private meeting with the head of the FBI in a private jet hours before the FBI decides that despite significant findings of negligence that the investigation is not even being handed over to prosecutors?
Sorry, but the "manufactured" scandals all bore fruit. There was just a total lack of will by the press to report it let alone pursue it and instead used every opportunity to excuse it simply because it ran counter to their own political interests. The lack of public pressure that resulted allowed Democrats to quietly move along with little consequence. And apparently you bought into their bullshit hook, line and sinker.
You don't become a billionaire (or whatever he is) by tipping your hand to your competitors. You don't make enemies along the way either, who'd love to air your dirty laundry or destroy your reputation, or harm you business in a variety of other ways. With the volume of people that Trump and his empire have stomped on over a period of decades you don't think he's learned to be paranoid? If he hadn't there'd be tons of stories about him to present that the press would be creaming their shorts over just trying to decide which to release first.
You make a pretty significant assumption that he uses the same network thats configured for use by any schmoe that is at the resort. You also assume that the whole network is not layered and secured appropriately for the level of business being conducted.
This article is itself a rather glaring misdirection, giving limited information in the context of it being all inclusive of the resort's security posture. It's like saying that because every reputable hotel in the world has freely accessible wifi that all hotel chains are easily hackable to their core. This is a hack job of a "report" done with blatantly biased slant and omission of detail.
This is the equivalent of saying that because there are 1000's of US Government websites that face the public domain on port 80 that the federal government as a whole is ripe for intrusion.
Measure ourselves by whose idea of what "utopia" means?
No, we wont ever live in a utopia because a utopia is a fantasy. You're not going to find a single topic on which all people globally agree and you never will. That being the case, one group will always be telling others how things should be, and the others will resist the demanded change. This is not wrong, its not associated purely with wealth or religion or anything else. It's not even associated with "better", because "better" is usually subjective.
I wish I had all my GI Joe action figures still. They'd be worth a lot. But alas, we blew them all to hell on a regular basis with the Blackcats, Ladyfingers and bottle rockets we bought at the nearest convenience store with our allowance.
By today's standards I'd be assumed to have grown up to be a crack-addled homicidal maniac.
So on the one hand you are normalizing violence beginning at a young age. It's just something that everyone should expect and accept. On the other hand you're teaching kids that sexuality is shameful , and hide it from them until they are older and need to start figuring it out without any context or guidance.
How is it logical to give a pass to violence with kids by saying it's "outside the normal experience" while also saying it's perfectly acceptable in society to glorify it, and telling kids at the same time that sexuality which is nearly universally something that will be part of their "normal experience" is something that they should feel ashamed of?
People seem to think it makes perfect sense to glorify the thing that we do not want people to engage in, while demonizing the thing we know they will engage in as an entirely natural and healthy part of human existence.
No. I don't.
Kill someone in a movie and the hero is applauded. Show a boob and it's assumed that a boob is a dirty thing that should be hidden, and that you should feel shame at enjoying the sight of.
One teaches that killing the "bad guy" is good. The other teaches that the human body and the entirely natural and necessary function of its parts is bad.
Have you actually seen many war movies? The enemies usually don't get a name, a personality, any lines... You might get one or two who have some kind of 2D, paper-thin personality, just so that the heroes have someone to give their struggle context and meaning. The vast bulk of them are just a faceless hoard, sometimes literally as these days there isn't much point putting a proper face texture on a CGI soldier who ends up being 3 pixels high.
That's precisely the point people are trying to make. How is that different than a computer game? In the movie the "bad guy's" backstory isn't fleshed out, and you feel no sympathy for the fact that he has a wife and child back home in Kiev or wherever. You don't care about his demise because you have no association with him at all. He's just part of the vague and largely undefined "bad". In a computer game the "bad guy" is the guy trying to kill you, and you him. He's a CGI character often only a few pixels high that you're lobbing artillery rounds at from 300 yards. He's a nameless, faceless target. While in a computer game you might want him dead because it up's your game score, it's not unlike the gratuitous deaths of dozens or hundreds of "bad guys" in movies to up their ratings and box office sales because the viewer feels a connection to the "good guy" who's overcome his adversaries.
But you don't see any Hollywood elitist deuchebags campaigning against violence in film, do you? You instead see hypocritical shitbrains that will lecture you on how the Second Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means, that no one (except them) have any need for firearms of any kind, and then tell you that the movies they themselves massacre dozens of bad guys with said firearms in are entirely disassociated with any kind of real world violence and it's purely entertainment.
The hypocrisy is the point.
Well what is a warranty? It's a promise by the manufacturer to repair or replace equipment if it fails. If you modify the equipment and it fails because of your modification, they are not liable for the failure and not held responsible for the repairs. Right? You make modifications that cause a failure then it's no longer their problem.
I will concede though that often manufacturers will claim that any modification releases them from all responsibility, regardless whether that modification has any impact whatsoever on whatever failures might have or may eventually occur. That's outside the bounds in my mind, and the law you pointed to would seem to support the notion.
Obviously there are circumstances that could lean the "right" decision to one side of the fence or the other.
One line that was up on Wiki and the meaning repeated elsewhere states:
The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.
In other words if you disassemble the product, place new/different/altered components on it, and it can be determined that those new/different/altered components caused the product to fail, then the manufacturer is not liable to repair it under warranty.
Hey Joe Dipshit, try jailbreaking your iPhone and get Apple to fix it for free.
It takes an almost unfathomable level of stupidity to try to correlate a notion of respect for the rights of all people to live without interference, with that of elitism and brutality to take property and rights by brute force. Anyone that tells you that Somalia is an example of Libertarianism is selling you a lie, and you're an idiot if you buy it.
Nice to see that Rachel Maddow has at least one viewer remaining.
Libertarians just want to be left the fuck alone. They believe that if you are harmed you have every right to seek redress in the courts, but that government doesnt have the right to pass laws that mean to make it impossible to ever be guilty of causing harm. You know, that notion that you're innocent until proven guilty?
I'm not supporting this asinine notion that farmers cannot fix their own equipment. I'm wholly against it. I was simply responding to someone suggesting that John Deere's motivation is protecting themselves from people breaking JD equipment and then forcing JD to fix it for free. What JD is doing is trying to monopolize maintenance on all their equipment, and do it when they get around to it and at inflated costs.