Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

ifixit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 354 posts

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#321

Post by mortenjorck »

Symbiote wrote: post #274
mortenjorck wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My building replaced its elevators last year, and one car still has an “activate Windows” overlay in the corner of the screen. A recent change to the floor selection wallpaper has somehow resulted in the button font in another car mysteriously reverting to Verdana. All I can do is remind myself there’s a mechanical interlock to keep the car from free-falling.

I've never seen a lift controlled by a touchscreen. Is there any way for blind people to use it?

There’s a secondary interface at wheelchair height with a Braille-equipped keypad where you can type in a floor.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#322

Post by tristor »

Coincoin wrote: post #309
MertsA wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>especially if you become dependent on it. Nobody is ever going to become dependent on locking up their brakes during normal driving. Power brakes would be dangerous if they failed because without them you get very substantially reduced braking but in no way would the lack of ABS be any more dangerous than driving a car without ABS to begin with.

There is a lot of snow where I live and the ABS triggers all the time and yes some people just slam the brakes expecting their ABS to optimally slow down on ice.

Yep, and those people are dangerous idiots. Even with ABS it is improper to slam on your brakes on low-traction surfaces. The purpose of ABS is to prevent wheel locking under hard braking, but it is not intended to respond and recover from pure idiocy.

The correct way to apply the brakes is the same with or without ABS, you should always do it smoothly with increasing force as necessary. Doing this would allow ABS to function properly, and in the case of no-ABS, will allow you to feel and respond when locking may occur.

Even if your ABS were to fail, that does not absolve you of the responsibility of driving like a complete moron. It's an unfortunate reality that most of the people on the road in the US frankly should not be driving.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#323

Post by ddingus »

cptskippy wrote: post #312
ddingus wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They put 6 nuggets in the 4 nugget box. You paid to eat 4. Those other two cost a little extra to eat. You can't eat them, until you pay for a catalyst that renders them edible.

That's one way to look at it but it belies the fact that the box was designed and intended for 6, not 4. They didn't force and extra 2 in the box, it's not out of spec.

Actually, the box is either 4 or 10, but just a quibble.

I do not care that Tesla shipped more battery personally. Just got sucked into the analogy here.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#324

Post by arcticbull »

collyw wrote: post #293
arcticbull wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about entitlement, it's about the fact it's there . It's about how it feels. It's different when someone sells you something that does 2 things, then tells you that unless you pay them more it'll only do one, forever. It's a nagging feeling. It's mine now, not theirs. Then they ask for tons of money, don't give you anything new or different, just enable the product to do what it could already do -- what I "a…

Its the opposite of the hacking spirit where you make something do more than it is supposed to. Something many people here take an interest in - its in the name Hacker news.

That's probably the most accurate way to describe it, nice work. You get an updoot.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#325

Post by mark-r »

MertsA wrote: post #308
mark-r wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An ABS failure could easily become fatal if it increased your stopping distance beyond what you'd achieve without it. After all it works by modulating the signal you send to the brakes.

That's irrelevant and it doesn't change the fact that no one drives with the intention to brake hard enough that ABS activates. There's zero chance of anyone becoming dependent on it.

My point is that ABS failure isn't equivalent to not having ABS at all - it can fail in a way that is actively harmful.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#326

Post by Renevith »

aliswe wrote: post #306
CamperBob2 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I thought, and then I fragged a Ferrari engine. Dunning-Kruger is not a river in Egypt...

Had to look this up. Denial, is a river in egypt. But thats just a meaningless pun. The Nile is a river in egypt. What do you mean by your saying?

I think it's just supposed to carry the same meaning as "Denial is not a river in Egypt," which is: hey, denial is a real thing, and you're facing it right now.

I'm not the OP but I hope that helps.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#327

Post by thefiregecko »

John_KZ wrote: post #111
nimbius wrote: post #56

As an automotive mechanic, this is awesome. You have no idea how many sensors/controllers in a car can only be reset by violating the DRM. Example: the suspension control computer for newer fords (so far just raptor and newer commercial F series) is separate from the ECU, and if it faults out you need to buy a new $2500 computer and sensor pack. You can, however, replace a commonly blown diode or fuse on the computer…

Congrats, you presented the one and only case where the manufacturers are right: Nobody should tamper with critical control systems. I don't want a DIY arduino-hacked suspension control chip or ABS. Neither would your clients. Unless of course your client understands this and it goes into the service logbook and you take full legal responsibility for any accidents this might cause in the future. However I couldn't ca…

In this case the only thing that is changing is a fault state and standard circuit components, not the code running on the device or the device being used. As long as the components are within spec the only problem could be environmental damage from the device being unsealed. I agree with some of the points you made, but not in the context of the previous post.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#328

Post by cptskippy »

ddingus wrote: post #323
cptskippy wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one way to look at it but it belies the fact that the box was designed and intended for 6, not 4. They didn't force and extra 2 in the box, it's not out of spec.

Actually, the box is either 4 or 10, but just a quibble. I do not care that Tesla shipped more battery personally. Just got sucked into the analogy here.

I actually looked on the McDonald's website but couldn't find anything but the 4 pack. I remember working their in the 90s and they had at least 4 different sizes (like 4, 6, 9, 20).

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#329

Post by JaimeThompson »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #240
romwell wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so you are afraid people that people who use and repair tractors, and can already break them in many ways that you don't understand (e.g. mechanically), will break them in a way you do understand (using software!), and so you would rather have those ways be illegal to keep you from worrying. Using your line of reasoning, we should close down repair shops altogether. How can we trust people without engineering deg…

Make up any story you like, but please don't attribute it to me. That's just a Strawman and we expect better here. I won't respond any more, since I'm pretty sure that's trolling.

To be honest statements like "before we know it a combine will run through an elementary school." could be considered a bit extreme / trollish don't you think?

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#330

Post by Someone »

kbenson wrote: post #252
Someone wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

”Literally, anything that looks like an Apple part, but isn't an Apple part according to Apple, gets blocked” If importing Apple-labeled products that aren’t Apple‘s property nor have been sold by Apple were legal, Apple couldn’t outsource production, as it would be undercut by its own manufacturers. So, I don’t see why, in general, you should be able to ”import a real part into the US from the very same Chinese fact…

> If importing Apple-labeled products that aren’t Apple‘s property nor have been sold by Apple That's moving the goal post. The original statement said "looks like an Apple part", and now you're assuming it was never sold by Apple. How is customs to know the difference of whether it's original unsold inventory or refurbished inventory? I have a well defined legal right to sell an iPhone I own (whether bought from App…

”My rights should not be curtailed because the market needs of a single company”

That’s at the root of the problem. Many customers want to have access to spare parts, but is it their right? I think car manufacturers are required to provide spare parts for a reasonable time, but I’m not aware of laws or regulations requiring that for other products.

Even if they exist, I don’t know enough about the examples involving Apple to know whether they are in breach of any regulations.

Post reply on HN