Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Tractor Breakers, not Fixers. (Score 1) 495

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.

Comment Re:Tractor Breakers, not Fixers. (Score 1) 495

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.

Comment Re: Liability (Score -1, Troll) 495

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.

Comment Re: Liability (Score 0) 495

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?

Comment Re:Tractor Breakers, not Fixers. (Score 1) 495

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.

Comment Re:Tractor Breakers, not Fixers. (Score 5, Informative) 495

That's a different conversation. If you modify the tractor in a way that is unsupported by the manufacturer, you void the warranty and John Deere is released from responsibility. It's not at all unlike your TV, or your cell phone, or millions of other products on the market. But what we're talking about here goes well beyond that. John Deere and other manufacturers are lobbying government to make law out of the notion that while you might have paid upward of a quarter million for that tractor (not an unusual sum with modern agriculture equipment), you don't actually own it, and you're not allowed to do anything with it that John Deere doesn't expressly allow.

Comment Re:So now under Trump... (Score 1) 341

The media refuses to cover peaceful protests?!?? Seriously? They report every single day since inauguration about a protest somewhere, but most of them completely fail to mention the burning police cars, burning limousines, smashed business windows, and people being drug out of their cars and getting the shit beat out of them. Or if they do it's a passing mention. There's absolutely shit that isnt getting reported, but it isnt the the peaceful protesters.

Comment Re:What kind of story... (Score 1) 183

And then what kind of hack creates, and what other kind of hack fails to edit a /. summary that fails to mention a move like MS is making was (according to the article) targeted specifically at the Chrome education sector that desires the ability to lock down devices. That's a very key factor in this discussion that wasnt mentioned by the submitter or caught by the editors.

Comment Re: Nah... (Score 1) 659

I agree that the hypocrisy is ridiculous. But singling out Trump as a prime example is just as ridiculous. We could collectively produce 100's or even 1000's of examples of politicians doing precisely that over the course of the last decade on both sides of the aisle, and do so on topics a hell of a lot more consequential than the number of people who attended an event. In the grand scheme that particular little nugget is absolutely meaningless. It's as significant as Trump literally saying his shit doesnt stink. Who cares?! Does it effect my taxes? Domestic policy? Foreign policy? Civil rights? Growing violence? Perception of law enforcement? No. It means nothing at all, and spending the inordinate amount of time on it that the press and Trump opposition seems vested in spending just boggles the mind. I mean seriously, even if you say its evidence that the man is willing to bold-faced lie to you, if that one example is really the biggest example you can verify then we're far better off than with the last administration or the one before it that bold-faced lied about PEOPLE DYING. Did the lies about Benghazi not mean something signicantly more? Or the lies about fast and furious? Or the IRS and how they "lost" all the data that they "found" and were ordered to keep? Or the lies about how many mobile devices Hillary used? Or "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq?

My problem is the total lack of perspective, and the apparent psychosis to latch onto something that is as unimportant as what comes out of narcissistic garbage spewing from elitist self-aggrandizing dipshits in Hollywood and yet held with such inflated importance.

Comment Re:"The highest bidder"? (Score 1, Insightful) 284

Actually, I did read the article. Did you? If yes, did you comprehend it?

From the article :

Zuckerberg's lawyer, Keoni Shultz of the firm Cades Schutte, in a statement to CNBC said, "It is common in Hawaii to have small parcels of land within the boundaries of a larger tract, and for the title to these smaller parcels to have become broken or clouded over time."

"In some cases, co-owners may not even be aware of their interests," ...

Start with the understanding that the declaration is from an atorney for Zuckpunk. And even given his obvious and perfectly legitimate bias he makes no claim that the statement is all inclusive. It is not a blanket assessment. It is not predetermined that all property owners have the same situations, knowledge of ownership, desire for ownership, or unpaid tax liabilities. It instead suggests that while a person with a shared ownership of a parcel might be fully vested in remaining an owner, other co-owners of that parcel might not know that they also have stake in the land.

In fact the only place that the article even mentions taxes is in the case of a single partial owner of a particular parcel.

One of that worker's great-grandchildren, Carlos Andrade, 72, lived on the property until recently, the paper said. But the retired university professor told the Star-Advertiser that he is helping Zuckerberg's case as a co-plaintiff in an effort to make sure the land is not surrendered to the county if no one in his extended clan steps up to take responsibility for paying property taxes on the plots.

Care to amend your comments?

Slashdot Top Deals

My idea of roughing it turning the air conditioner too low.

Working...