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

Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

freightwaves.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 180 posts

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#151

Post by hansvm »

pc86 wrote: post #147
teddyh wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a “right to use” of software?

If software is licensed, and you don't comply with the license, you don't have a right to use it. Seems pretty straightforward. In this example, if you steal a piece of hardware with embedded software on it, it seems unlikely that you're licensed to use that piece of software.

Seems like a stretch. The person interacting with the hardware need not know or care about the software. Under that same logic I think you could:

(1) Buy an alarm clock with an embedded chip

(2) Contained in the packaging was a link to a license agreement. You never read it and certainly didn't agree to it.

(3) A year later, weekday alarms are remotely disabled because you've used up your free trial. The license specifies $3/mo as the rate to continue being woken up on weekdays.

Courts are already not upholding a lot of this "reading this ToS constitutes agreement to all future versions" bullshit in modern software, and I doubt they'd be friendly to the idea that somebody can be beholden to a contract they had no good reason to even know about.

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#152

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

hansvm wrote: post #151
pc86 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If software is licensed, and you don't comply with the license, you don't have a right to use it. Seems pretty straightforward. In this example, if you steal a piece of hardware with embedded software on it, it seems unlikely that you're licensed to use that piece of software.

Seems like a stretch. The person interacting with the hardware need not know or care about the software. Under that same logic I think you could: (1) Buy an alarm clock with an embedded chip (2) Contained in the packaging was a link to a license agreement. You never read it and certainly didn't agree to it. (3) A year later, weekday alarms are remotely disabled because you've used up your free trial. The license spec…

Have you seen the recent rulings out of the Supreme Court? They’re ruling off of their feelings and poorly justifying their conclusions by working backwards and making stuff up from whole cloth whenever necessary.

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#153

Post by adhesive_wombat »

lostmsu wrote: post #72
r00fus wrote: post #31

"The rip-offs of common powertrain control module 4 units relate to the ongoing shortage of microchips" So how long does the microchip shortage continue?

Ever played Factorio?

My money is on the semiconductor shortage bring resolved way before The Factory has finished growing.

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#154

Post by MertsA »

VLM wrote: post #107
r00fus wrote: post #31

"The rip-offs of common powertrain control module 4 units relate to the ongoing shortage of microchips" So how long does the microchip shortage continue?

We're still in the toilet-paper-hoarding stage. Also people are still reselling at 400% to 1000% markup. Probably at least a couple years. Imagine if a shipment of 100K Raspberry Pi 2 W Zero came in today. "Everybody knows" if you buy direct you can pay $5, and the lowest price for scalpers on Amazon for a 2 W Zero is currently $149 so you can probably actually sell for $130-ish and clear $125 of scalping profit per…

OMFG, I thought this was a hypothetical at the start of this comment. Forget GPUs, $150 for a Raspberry Pi Zero??? And people say Bitcoin is Tulip mania.

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#155

Post by m3047 »

vfclists wrote: post #92

There is a reason why truck operators in Africa prefer the older trucks which don't have these fancy electronics. Servicing and parts are not a problem. This whole business about semiconductors shortages affecting vehicle manufacturing is just ridiculous. Humanity has survived without these advanced electronics for ages. What difference doesn't make if you don't have electronic geegaws in your vehicle?

Might not be as efficient, but it probably isn't going to stop on the highway with a load of chickens in the beating sun because the diesel was contaminated (at least not right away).

You might not be able to brick your combine if someone steals it, but nobody can brick it while you're trying to get the harvest in either.

Bureacratic enforcement suffers, but who cares as long as the bureacrats get paid, right?

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#156

Post by riffraff »

aidenn0 wrote: post #64
riffraff wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a common transliteration of japanese to use R for L and show the devoiced U for voiceless consonant? I'm pretty sure I've seen it used often when the intent is to show "japeneseness".

I assume the mistake was the proper romanization of アイドル is aidoru.

ah, of course, thanks.

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#157

Post by ddingus »

chasd00 wrote: post #142
ddingus wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That appears to be ramping up again. One of the people on a project I'm working with them on just had theirs stolen. And it could total their car! People driving used Hondas may find out insurance won't cover, or will want to just total used cars due to the converter being worth more than the paper value of the car, despite a used market valuing the car much higher! Cost $1,200 to $2,400 to replace and due to the las…

my neighbor had their's stolen in the parking lot of a grocery store while they were shopping.

It can be done in a couple minutes using an aggressive saw.

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#158

Post by UncleEntity »

bob1029 wrote: post #84
UncleEntity wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collision avoidance that likes to have false alarms going around curves on wet, sub-freezing roads. Auto transmission that wants to downshift into redline going down hills. General unpredictable behavior on slick roads where it is pretty important to be able to pick your gear. Partially this is the company’s fault because they turn off a bunch of stuff for “fuel economy”.

Why does something with as much mass as a semi truck have the ability to wrest control away from the operator in the first place? Collision avoidance nannies seem substantially more tolerable when the physics equation has 2 zeroes removed from the mass figure. It's not like arbitrary jackasses can get behind the wheel of these vehicles anyways... there is a reason a commercial licensing program exists.

There was one time I was driving around the Atlanta Super Speedway and a car intentionally slammed on the brakes right in front of me. Without collision avoidance I would have slammed right into the back of him because the truck was breaking before I even realized what they were doing. Not that big of a deal though since the truck had a dashcam which would have shown them to be clearly at fault.

Other than that it is mostly just annoying and slams on the brakes for things like people turning (while you’re actively slowing down) or people slowing down on the exit ramp who are no longer on the highway. That last one I used to use to wake up my co-driver when I was running team when it was time to switch because, why not.

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#159

Post by UncleEntity »

mschuster91 wrote: post #101
bob1029 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does something with as much mass as a semi truck have the ability to wrest control away from the operator in the first place? Collision avoidance nannies seem substantially more tolerable when the physics equation has 2 zeroes removed from the mass figure. It's not like arbitrary jackasses can get behind the wheel of these vehicles anyways... there is a reason a commercial licensing program exists.

> It's not like arbitrary jackasses can get behind the wheel of these vehicles anyways... there is a reason a commercial licensing program exists. The problem isn't "arbitrary jackasses", the problem is the relentless pace modern truckers are put through. Utterly insane demands for just-in-time delivery that have absolutely no margin left for inevitable delays or completely unrealistic schedules that many drivers com…

> delivery that have absolutely no margin left for inevitable delays or completely unrealistic schedules that many drivers compensate for by driving longer than allowed. Add on that drivers who self-medicate the loneliness on the road with alcohol, dope or other stuff and that explains a majority of the accidents that could be (or are) prevented with collision avoidance systems.

Back in the 70s it was like that…

I first started driving in ‘98 and if you weren’t at one of the larger companies you could get away with a lot due to paper logbooks. Now it’s all electronic logs and GPS tracking so you can get away with basically nothing, gone are the days where you delivered the load and then made your logs look pretty — up until the DOT would start targeting specific companies so they would crack down on the drivers turning in falsified logs.

And drug/alcohol testing has been mandatory since the Reagan administration. People still do it but they don’t last very long.

One in a while they give me a load or two where I have to push it harder than I like but that just burns all my hours so they can’t do it very often if they want the truck to keep moving. In the before times you’d just rewrite your logbook and magically have enough hours to keep moving but that doesn’t work anymore.

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#160

Post by teddyh »

pc86 wrote: post #147
teddyh wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a “right to use” of software?

If software is licensed, and you don't comply with the license, you don't have a right to use it. Seems pretty straightforward. In this example, if you steal a piece of hardware with embedded software on it, it seems unlikely that you're licensed to use that piece of software.

> you don't have a right to use it. Seems pretty straightforward.

But why do I have to accept a license? I already have a copy of the software; what law says I can’t run the copy I have?

Post reply on HN