Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
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) 497

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) 497

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) 497

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) 497

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) 497

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) 497

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:Counting water (Score 1) 331


So often people say this kind of crap about water and the **ENTIRE** point is water that is usable! It takes energy to make random source of water into water that we would call "drinking" water or water we would give to cattle, etc. Water doesn't just magically revert back into "usable" water once it is consumed. Granted that right now the major pusher for recycling water is the sun energy via evaporation. However, then we're at the whims of where the water falls and when. So we either have to get better at using the water when it randomly hits the ground (large collection pits and storage systems), or we need to get vastly better at moving water that's already hit the ground (national pipe work for moving water all over the US), or some combination of both.

Same problem can be said for wind power, we're just hoping that the wind is randomly blowing in some section of the planet we have mills in, but the plus side of that is the energy we generate from the random spots wind can be easily moved around on power lines. There isn't an easy moving around for water at the current moment. So while yes the absolute amount of water on the planet hasn't changed, the amount of energy it will take to get it back to the form it came from is high, but we don't notice it since we mostly rely on the free energy from the sun to take care of it and hope all of the plus and negatives just wash out in the end. At the rate aquifers are being drained versus the rate at which they can be refilled by nature, were in serious negative territory. Nature just doesn't move as fast as industry can produce. The reason we still stay afloat is because nature had a few million years on us to build those reserves.

Well, in case of meat production — or indeed any other Earth-bound activity — no water is lost. Zero. Nada. So, what is the quoted statement supposed to mean?

We are never going to run out of water in an absolute sense, that's just stupid. But we will run out of economically viable water, that's the entire point. When water becomes too expensive to actually buy/refine/return back into a usable form/whatever, it won't matter how much absolute volume of water is on this planet, you will have no access to it unless you have enough money for it. The same is true for crude oil. This planet will never have zero mL of oil on it, ever. Thinking otherwise is ignoring how absolutely massive the amount of crude oil on this planet is. However, we are quickly running low on economically viable crude oil. At some point, oil will become so expensive that the majority of people will choose another option or they'll be up a shit creek without a paddle. The entire point of anything is to try and get ahead of the curve so you don't find yourself on that creek.

Yes, parent said all of this already in their comment, but I feel that if it isn't S-P-E-L-L-E-D out, that some folks might not get it. We're past the point in which nature can resupply water sources as fast as we use them. We either need to resupply those sources or we need to get better at using the sources, because not doing either of those is slowly going to increase the price of everything that depends on it and for water that's a lot of things.

Comment Re:Only a penny a page, duplex? (Score 1) 5

I'll be better able to figure it when the cartridge is empty. The savings come from not having to pay eight or ten bucks for copies that I'm proofreading.

They're already online as free e-books, HTML, and PDF, with printed copies available at a price.

Comment Cataracts and Suse (Score 1) 6

IIRC you're Canadian (if in the US you'll need insurance) and should be able to get CrystaLens implants for an extra $2,000. They cure nearsightedness, farsightedness, astigmatism, and cataracts.

I ran Suse back in 2003 and liked it, but moved to Mandrake because my TV didn;t like it; I was using the TV as a monitor with an S-video cable. Still trying to find a distro that will run on an old Gateway laptop.

Comment Re:Only a penny a page, duplex? (Score 1) 5

I based the estimate on $5o for a cartridge that prints an average of 3,000 pages. A color laser would be nice, but as you say, far more expensive both in up-front costs and toner. And changing toner in a color printer is a PITA, at least the ones at work were.

Slashdot Top Deals

UFOs are for real: the Air Force doesn't exist.