Looks like a perfect time for someone to open a nice tractor business. There is lots of money in tractors and while it takes a lot more than making a new iphone app, it certainly is less effort than floating cities or going to mars, which on here are propositions that are regularly treated seriously.
We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
191–200 of 405 posts
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#192throwaway account
Introducing Tesla Electric Tractor Co.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#193This is what happens when lawyers run your company.
I was funded out of a John Deere Technology Innovation Center (JDTIC) during my PhD. Their approach to data was what ultimately pushed me to quit the program and go back to work. Everything was priceless and proprietary, yet nothing ever was done with it.
They insisted all research conducted by students was performed on their computers, which in itself was only annoying. The part that killed it (in addition to the promise of field data that never came after several years on the project) was that every library installed had to be approved by their IT security team.
I kid you not: the datetime library in Perl was not allowed.
On the upside, quitting the PhD has been an awesome decision, so I guess I should thank them.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sort of is. The Wired article mentions that some farmers are preferring to buy old tractors without the electronics. This demand increases the value for the used market and should depress the value of new tractors. There will likely be a growth in the business of maintaining old tractors and, potentially, enough public awareness of the benefits of tractors without electronics that another manufacturer can step in.…
Maybe tractor hacking will become a thing, too. I know lots of guys who circumvent the computers in their cars with pirated software, to make them racier. Might be a career in it for some of them.
Recreational farmers probably do/will. However, its more problematic for farms functioning as a business.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
One wonders how the corporations farm them. The situation you describe doesn't sound like it would be any more economically feasible for them to work than your neighbor. (Hm. Random calculation: 120 bushels of corn at 56 lbs per bushel, per acre, is about 11 metric tons per hectare[1]. According to the FDA[2], the US average projected production for 2014/2015 is 10.7 metric tons (the world average is about half that)…
Mega corporations have economies of scale on their side for production costs, and likely much better interest rates on the land. So they can farm the land for cheaper, and the cost of the land on a per-annus basis is cheaper too.
Plus they have more access to getting government subsidies and price controls.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#196Richard Stallman spent the last 30 years telling us this would happen. As soon as books become computer files, you don't buy them anymore, you lease usage rights. As soon as tractors contain computer code, you don't own them anymore, you are granted a license to use them. When will it stop? More and more everyday objects are incorporating software and firmware in many different forms. I remember reading Stallman's sh…
This is getting meta and no longer directly responsive to the article, which I don't wholly disagree with. A tractor and a book are different situations. Books are hard to copy, while files are easy to copy. Writers have to get paid, and people are cheap and don't want to pay them... even while they will pay the same for a fancy cup of coffee. Hence a scramble for some way to set up a toll booth that is hard to circu…
I'm getting tired of explaining why this kind of reasoning is wrong. Specifically, your statement about how "In his world, the creators of things starve." No, for the thousandth time, it's not true at all.
There is nothing standing in the way of content creators selling GPL code, and even keeping it private until its been bought. Full stop. stop perpetuating this fallacious myth abouth FOSS, please.
That being said, the real issue still is about ownership. If I buy a block of wood, even if you already shaped it into your "art" i have every right to modify it as I see fit. Its a physical thing that I own. Now, I couldnt copy your work and sell it though.
In reality a tractor isnt that much different. Its a physical object, with software "which could be argued is also physical in the form of 1s and 0s", and if I buy it I have the right to modify it as I see fit. What if something goes wrong with the software and I want to fix it? Oh no, thats illegal?!
In reality this is about control of the user, and money, not about anything else. It reduces freedom and security and functionality in almost every way.
A good example of this is my bad purchase of a samsung smart tv. Even though I know its running linux and hence gplv2, samsung has made it almost impossible to root the device without bricking it. Why? because they want control over the user and lots of their money system is setup around that. Its not about protecting the user. Its not about warranty issues, because I would gladly click the "i accept that my device is no longer under warranty if I load debian on it instead of your crappy samsung os". Its about app store and ad money, and pitentially about surveillance.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#197Richard Stallman spent the last 30 years telling us this would happen. As soon as books become computer files, you don't buy them anymore, you lease usage rights. As soon as tractors contain computer code, you don't own them anymore, you are granted a license to use them. When will it stop? More and more everyday objects are incorporating software and firmware in many different forms. I remember reading Stallman's sh…
To me, this is particularly concerning in the case where the physical equipment outlasts the software support cycle. We (society) haven't worried about this so much with computers because the $/compute-power has declined so precipitously over the years.
But it seems more important than ever that we have a way for individual users of software-controlled devices to move their "business logic" between standardized service vendors, whether that service is compute cycles in the cloud, or the physical work provided by a tractor.
Also, if the equipment is ultimately being rented, and the user owns the configuration, then the farmer could just rent another tractor (maybe from a competing tractor rental vendor), load his configuration on it, and keep the farm running.
Of course this is far from Stallman's vision of the everyman owning/modifying the code down to the bare metal, but it at least tries to shift the balance of control back toward the user.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is getting meta and no longer directly responsive to the article, which I don't wholly disagree with. A tractor and a book are different situations. Books are hard to copy, while files are easy to copy. Writers have to get paid, and people are cheap and don't want to pay them... even while they will pay the same for a fancy cup of coffee. Hence a scramble for some way to set up a toll booth that is hard to circu…
There is little wrong with DRM as a concept, "But" just because you call something DRM does not mean it should be able to do anything. IMO, a DRM bill of rights needs to exist to qualify for government protection. Data needs to be transferable FOR FREE to a new user. You can't shut down your DRM servers without first removing the DRM. You can't remotely change anything on a user’s system. Source code must be freely a…
> DRM can only protect information not the operation of a physical device.
So I think it would actually be reasonable for the DRM to protect a physical device; but the contract should be structured as such.
If I have title to my car and can dispose of it as I see fit; I shouldn't have to abide by DRM. If it is rented and doesn't actually belong to me, then I could see technological mechanisms such as limiting mileage or range as a valid way to enforce part of the contract.
What the line of appropriate vs. not appropriate is of course not necessarily black and white; but I do think John Deere is in the wrong here and the farmer is in the right.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
He does not get paid by the FSF, nor does he accept speaking fees (insofar as I am aware; I'm not sure if there are certain sponsors, but he insists that those be donated to the FSF, not himself); his time is donated. He received a MacArthur grant a while back, while he is able to live off of.
After a quick google, it seems he was granted $500,000 (paid over 5 years) in 1990. [1] This seemed like quite a lot until I divided it by the 25 years he's been living on it. £20k/year doesn't actually strike me as that much. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Fellows_Program
[deleted]
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#200Richard Stallman spent the last 30 years telling us this would happen. As soon as books become computer files, you don't buy them anymore, you lease usage rights. As soon as tractors contain computer code, you don't own them anymore, you are granted a license to use them. When will it stop? More and more everyday objects are incorporating software and firmware in many different forms. I remember reading Stallman's sh…
This is getting meta and no longer directly responsive to the article, which I don't wholly disagree with. A tractor and a book are different situations. Books are hard to copy, while files are easy to copy. Writers have to get paid, and people are cheap and don't want to pay them... even while they will pay the same for a fancy cup of coffee. Hence a scramble for some way to set up a toll booth that is hard to circu…
Creators can't have it both ways. The info you sell has to be useful to the people buying it...or they won't buy it. Just because we now have a technically literate population doesn't mean that you can change the rules to make selling new shit still applicable.
Information is free if you sell it (in a book...in a prog...written on a stone tablet) you are letting others use it. Farmers are an easier target for them cause mostly they font own their land, or seed, now it would seem even their tractors. I think they have been hanging out too close to Monsanto and others whom make our litigious society possible while logically incongruent.
And if everyone is a creator then why how can everyone starve? It will only starve the ones who create poorly.