Manufacturers owns your stuff by claiming you only licence the firmware. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2024, 12:43:36 pm
content: "The right to repair" is a big issue in farming communities. Of course, it applies to many other product lines, one of which is being discussed in the Hakko thread. However, unlike commodities and cars, farm equipment lasts years. That has caused inverted used market prices. Newer equipment out of warranty can sell for less than older equipment without the manufacturer's maintenance traps.From my perspective, I suspect whatever legislation gets passed will be mostly a paper tiger. That is, it sounds good, but is ineffective. Examples abound. Check out the "Can Spam Act," or even current right to repair laws. Prosecution of offenders, if left to state attorney generals, will rarely occur unless it is politically expedient. To make canning spam effective, just establish a statutory penalty payable in full to the victim and allow the victims to prosecute the offender in their own state courts and recover costs. The US tort system has a lot of faults, but it also has good points.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 12:10:23 am
content: Yes, ownership adds "friction" for long-term business growth. It must be banned.And a right to repair? Who do consumers think they are exactly?

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 12:46:34 am
content: What if you replaced all the firmware with open source firmware?

author: Macbeth
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 01:09:56 am
content: All of this is completely irrelevant. The so called "labour party" is fully trying to force family farmers to give up their land to the WEF corporates. UK is fucked just like the Netherlands.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 01:22:47 am
content: intresting point about the manufacturers getting access to the harvest data before it hits the markets,all most sounds like insider trading

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 02:01:59 am
content: Quote from: Macbeth on November 22, 2024, 01:09:56 amThe whole EU is.

author: flipper
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 02:38:22 am
content: How about "You only own the paper upon which currency is printed, I own the monetary value printed across it" - that would be a nice thing to be able to do - retract the ink! LOL

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 09:54:23 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on November 22, 2024, 12:46:34 amThe result has been that as soon as the manufacturer discovers the other software, you can no longer buy specific parts for the equipment. Specific parts can be fuel injectors, starting solenoids, bushings, etc. It can be difficult to find replacement generic parts. The volume may not be not high enough to justify for "made for" aftermarket supplier or the cost for the aftermarket part may be very high. It's hit or miss to find something that fits and successful, full-time farmers can't afford the downtime.Here's a specific example. JD makes a series of compact utility tractors (CUT) in the 35 HP to 45 or 50 HP range. The price goes up with the HP. Someone early on discovered that they were virtually identical, and the difference in HP was determined only by engine software. If you "updated" that software, you lost access to JD parts for that tractor.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 10:35:23 am
content: Quote from: Macbeth on November 22, 2024, 01:09:56 amIf anything the opposite. Remove the loophole of farmland being used by mega landlords like James Dyson to bypass inheritance tax, so farmland is used just for farmers.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 11:03:14 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on November 22, 2024, 10:35:23 amThe problem is the land is expensive, yet the annual income it generates is low.Take a small a family owned farm for example. It might be worth 2 million, but it only generates 50k per year, so how the heck are the farmer's children going to be able to afford the tax bill, when its owner passes away and it's handed down to them? They'll have no choice but to sell the farm to someone rich, who'll probably sell it on for housing. The result will be no more family owned farms in few decades.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 11:25:07 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on November 22, 2024, 12:46:34 amBootloaders are locked, obviously

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 11:37:11 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 22, 2024, 11:03:14 amFarming operations, by its nature, are generally only profitable on cheap land.So if land increases in value, that landholder needs to find a commensurate revenue stream if they want to keep that land. Whether that revenue stream is agricultural or real estate is immaterial.The bigger picture is that "family owned" farms are only viable in poor countries. The economies of scale of wealthy countries preclude small family operations.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 12:00:17 pm
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on November 22, 2024, 11:37:11 amThat may the case in Australia, but there is no cheap land in the UK. Farmers have a lot of capital, but not much liquidity. It affects large, just as much as small farms, but the former will be hit harder.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 12:02:08 pm
content: According to Google, "97 percent of all U.S. farms are family-owned, and family farms account for 90 percent of all farm production by value."In Ohio and probably other states, land for taxation can be evaluated in different ways. In cities, "highest and best use (with limitations)" may be used. That has obvious consequences.Real farmland may be valued at "Current Agricultural Use Value (CAUV)." That allows it to be kept in families. My home is in an area zoned "residential/agricultural" and allows either residential or CAUV evaluations. Of course, transfer of land taxed as CAUV to residential has a lot of hurdles. CAUV has a minimum size and production minimums. Currently, that is 10 or more acres and $2,500 per year (used to be $1,200) gross income in Ohio. Forestry is taxed differently, as it may not have an annual crop.Edit: Valuations by Zillow and others are are not very accurate for homes in agricultural areas.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 12:25:40 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 22, 2024, 12:00:17 pmYou've just reiterated my point.... farms on expensive land are unviable.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 01:20:41 pm
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on November 22, 2024, 12:25:40 pmNot at all. You don't understand how farming works in the UK.Land used to be cheap in this country. The price has gone up thanks to government policies over the last 60 years.Most farms are on land which has been handed down for generations. The value of the land is unimportant, when it comes to running a farm. The land doesn't cost anything to maintain, other than what's necessary to produce food, of course and that's the same, irrespective of the value of the land.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 01:23:56 pm
content: QuoteAnd of course that has nothing to do with it being a nice tax fiddle to pass your estate on without getting clobbered by the tax man. Farmers are complaining there profits are to small,but still bend over and take a good shafting from the supermarkets screwing the prices down for maximum profit.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 02:07:46 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on November 22, 2024, 01:23:56 pmSupermarkets just offer the market rate, which means having to compete with cheap imports.If they're that bothered about tax dodging, then a more sane policy would be to only collect the tax when they sell the land. The children who inherit the land don't have to pay anything, until they sell it, then they pay the standard rate of inheritance.

author: zilp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 04:24:47 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 22, 2024, 02:07:46 pmThen they are still dodging the tax. I mean, I am not familiar with the details in the UK, but something doesn't add up if land is supposedly so valuable but also supposedly produces so little profit. If it can not produce more profit, then something with how the land is valued for tax purposes is wrong, and that should be fixed so that the taxable value of the land is assessed correctly. On the other hand, if the land can in fact produce more profit, in line with what taxes are based on, then the children would obviously be dodging taxes if they only had to pay when selling the land (because they would not ever have to sell, plus they make interest gains by paying later).If the problem is that agricultural use only produces little profit, but the land is valuable because you could use it for other purposes, and it is a political goal to allow the agricultural use, then the correct solution would be offer the option for the children to (partially) give up the right to use the land for non-agricultural purposes in exchange for reduced taxes. I.e., they would only pay taxes based on the "agricultural value" of the inherited land, but they would lose the right to ever use the land for non-agricultural purposes.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 06:01:57 pm
content: Quote from: zilp on November 22, 2024, 04:24:47 pmOr they could just do what is right and abolish inheritance tax altogether, at least for physical assets, until they're sold, in which case it can be taken in the form of income tax.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 06:08:53 pm
content: I am generally in agreement with @zilp. In a fair market, land sells for what it's worth. People have said here that farmland in GB is too expensive. What else can it be used for? In currency per hectare or acre, what do those posters consider "expensive." I know that living on an island limits your expansion more than a farm in Seward, Nebraska or rural Ohio*.The two main exceptions to fair market are socialist governments trying to control and foreign investors. In the US , the former is not much of a problem, but the latter is. For example, when China attempted to buy a very large farming area right next to Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota -- a major strategic and missile base -- it was big news. Here's just one report:https://apnews.com/article/china-bomber-spying-cfius-bases-68c3945b8cddb242fbaf3dd88d659021Obvioulsy, China's purchase was not just to grow soybeans for pigs, and price was no concern.*In the US, we have several very large Amish and a few other conservative religion communities. They almost never sell farmland to anyone outside their religious community, so prices are meaningless in those areas. They are wonderful places to visit and buy from local craft shops. In fact, I have found nothing better than an Amish straw hat when working in the Summer sun Beware, there are lots of made in China imitations. Authentic are typically round with very little ornamentation, and the sizes run large. Mine was less than half the price of the China imports, but I had to drive a ways to get it.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 06:15:38 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 22, 2024, 11:03:14 amWell, the bigger issue is that land that only generates 50k a year should really only be worth 500k-1M, i.e. 5-10% asset yield, which is about what it is for most rental properties. In this case, the cost has been inflated precisely because of this loophole in inheritance tax, where rich people have bought up land, leased it to farmers or contract-farmed it to make a bit of cash, and then handed that land down to their kids, who can sell it on. Jeremy Clarkson explicitly admitted as much in 2019 when he opened his farm:QuoteThe situation needed correcting sooner or later.Farmers are upset in particular because this change will wipe out a lot of the value of their land, but it is a necessary change. Still, I recall it's the case that the first £3m is effectively exempt, so it really is only the wealthier farmers that are going to suffer. If you own more than £3m in land, the chances are very good that you will be able to afford the tax bill.I guess it's a bit like how Banksy paintings are only worth what they are because they are used as a store of wealth, but in that case, there's no particular harm to society for that, whereas expensive farmland actually makes it harder for new farmers to enter the business.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 06:19:44 pm
content: QuoteThe value of the land isn't what its worth physically,but how big a tax fiddle its worth,funnily enough yet another legacy of my least favorite witch.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 06:24:13 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on November 22, 2024, 06:15:38 pmClarkson is an exception to the rule. If you watch the entire interview, you'll find he said it's protesting on behalf of others who've been affected, not because he's that bothered.Quote from: jpanhalt on November 22, 2024, 06:08:53 pmIt depends on whether or not planning permission will be granted or not. If the tax authorities think they'll be able to build houses on it, then the value will be much higher, than it would if it were to remain as farmland.QuoteThat's pretty much the case for farms here, other than the fact that religion doesn't play a role.Do you think they would like it, if the US government wanted them to pay inheritance tax on the value of the land, when they die and pass it down to their children? Fortunately this is just a thought experiment, as this won't happen soon.Quote from: themadhippy on November 22, 2024, 06:19:44 pmBlair is also to blame for this.

author: zilp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 06:51:54 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 22, 2024, 06:01:57 pmAs I already explained, that is still dodging the tax, as you don't have to sell, and because of interest gains. Also, taxing when it's sold is not equivalent, because then the state also takes on risk, because the asset might well depreciate between inheritance and sale. Also, none of that has anything to do with income tax, because you generally have to pay income tax based on income, and income is generally the sum of valuable assets that have become your property minus what you had to spend to gain those assets, so under income tax rules, you would have to pay at the time of inheritance, based on the value at the time of inheritance, and usually much higher rates than inheritance tax.Also, making special rules for "physical assets" is effectively just a tax reduction for rich people, because with large wealth, it is easy to just buy "physical assets" if that is what gets preferential treatment, and to just borrow against those assets to avoid the tax completely. (Which then also has the side effect of inflating the prices of physical assets, thus leading to the problem of high land prices in the first place - if you have to pay lower taxes for physical assets, then rich people will buy those assets simply for tax reasons, and the demand drives the prices up.)

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 07:03:07 pm
content: It's also worth noting HMRC has a scheme for inheritance tax where you can repay it over 10 years without interest (for farmland).So say Bob inherits £5m in farmland from his father. His father was married, so the first £3m is exempt. £2m is taxable. Bob needs to find 20% of £2m or £400k, but can repay £400k over 10 years. So Bob gets an asset worth £5m and pays £40k/year for that asset.It's not really that bad. Especially because £5m in farmland should really be earning somewhere around £250-500k a year.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 08:21:38 pm
content: Quote from: zilp on November 22, 2024, 06:51:54 pmGood points. I would just abolish inheritance tax altogether. You pay enough tax as it is throughout your life, so it's not right to be taxed again, just scrap the whole thing. Problem solved.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2024, 09:31:36 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 22, 2024, 08:21:38 pmDisagree, I'm okay with someone with >>£3m in assets paying tax upon them inheriting that. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with taxing things twice, provided it's proportionate, which this seems to be.

author: zilp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2024, 01:57:05 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 22, 2024, 08:21:38 pmNoone is "taxed again" with inheritance tax. You are taxed on whatever you inherit exactly once, and that is the inheritance tax. Really, inheritance tax is a reduced tax rate for income that you gain through inheritance.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2024, 02:42:57 am
content: Quote from: Macbeth on November 22, 2024, 01:09:56 amTalk about fiefdoms!It really makes me wonder if deep future space wars... might end up being about wheat. Because England is like a advanced civilization compared to what it used to be, and it seemingly has a similar problem come up that probobly lead to giant wars in the Medieval times. We can't seem to shake farmer related disputes. I just imagined the 'Asgard' having a war about food landI always hear about England having the absolute best most advanced equipment for farms and it seemingly settles very little and it sounds like pitch forks might go into the air at some point. Perhaps robot pitch forks.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2024, 03:00:19 am
content: And I think farm land in general needs special consideration (tax cuts), because its like a strategic resource. How many BIG problems start when you have a food import shortage? Being able to make food which can be distributed internally is like strategic security and its worth ALOT more then the face value of revenue per year and land cost.A lack of food will destroy the government faster then anything else, other then maybe a water shortage. it also gives the government massive leverage in any kind of international negotiations.. aka they get what they want and you don't starve and have to revolt for sandwiches.Some people need a reality check when it comes to farm and food policy, I hear some strange things and I wonder "have you ever actually been hungry before? probobly not." Like 2-3 days with 0 food and only water. I think alot of people have no idea what that is like. And then they have stupid opinions about massive centralization, super farms and don't think about things like plant diseases and 'outbreaks'. Isolated smaller farmers using different techniques, equipment and additives/fertilizers help ensure food security. A mega farm will homogenize all of their farms to reduce cost. I think we pretty much all know how internal corporate 'safety matrices' end up working out. "Just say that one is impossible"Not to mention for some reason the produce always ends up tasting substandard, probobly because it got super corporate and they figured out some way to screw it up. if I get tomatoes from random people, usually you can eat them all summer every day. If you get them in the store, after two weeks it feels like a bad idea to eat anymore. I think it says something about nutrition.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2024, 10:25:39 pm
content: What takes the piss is the government are paying £536 million a year to foreign farmers, who compete with British farmers. If they want to save money, then they need to stop paying that. It will save them even more than because it'll make British farms more competitive and they'll get more income tax as a result.https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1979140/farmers-foreign-aid-fury

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2024, 11:22:30 pm
content: You can tell that article is intended for a certain demographic of reader. It's trying to cast international aid as a negative thing, but fails miserably. Most right-thinking people know that an amount of international aid is necessary. There will always be some unintended consequences, farmers are not unique in experiencing that not everything will go their way.The article comments that the aid is being used to produce tea that is being exported. That's providing jobs, and tea. I wonder where the tea production is acceptable to the farmers.Everybody (well, normal people) know that there is a massive social benefit if the world is not starving and if people are not in poverty. You can't guarantee every penny/cent is going to go to those that need it. Doesn't mean you shouldn't try.If it were not for US intervention decades ago,there'd still be famines repeatedly in India/Bangladesh/Pakistan. Billions of lives have been saved, and sure India is now an exporter of those very things that people starved over at one time. That benefitted everyone (i.e. including Western nations) overall; it would have been too short-sighted to do anything else.I suspect most British are proud their country actually is making a difference worldwide.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2024, 11:24:22 pm
content: Quoteremind me, how many tons of tea do we grow in the uk?

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2024, 11:45:29 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on November 22, 2024, 12:46:34 amI imagine a huge hurdle will be anything emissions/EPA related.Any combustion engine control systems are going to be 100% locked down from the factory. Any control unit that even tangentially effects emissions, legally at least, would have to be unmodifiable.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 01:50:52 am
content: Quote from: John B on November 23, 2024, 11:45:29 pmJust a disclaimer away:https://vector-tuning.com.au/car-chip-tuning/tuning-box/toyota-prius-1.8-hybrid-06-20081

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 03:32:07 am
content: Quote from: John B on November 23, 2024, 11:45:29 pmWhat if you replaced all the firmware with open source firmware in EV farm equipment?I realise that EV farm equipment isn't widespread, but it's only to illustrate the original point of this thread, that by banning DIY repair, manufacturers effectively own your equipment.

author: zilp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 04:50:16 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 23, 2024, 10:25:39 pmYou are seriously citing a tabloid as a source?Like, you are aware that tabloids have a strong tendency to scandalize and emotionalize things rather than having a reputation for accurate reporting? In particular, that they tend to leave out information that would be important for actually understanding an issue, and instead just cherry pick aspects that get people who aren't familiar with a topic riled up?Now, as before, I am not familiar with details of what is going on in the UK, so I can't really comment on the specific issue, but just going on what you wrote about it: You do realize that "making British farms more competitive" is economically equivalent to "making food in the UK more expensive", right? So, your suggested course of action might well end up with the state saving £500 million, but also with citizens spending £1000 million more on food. Now, obviously, I have no idea about the concrete circumstances in the UK, especially so given that others in this thread seem to suggest that this is all about tea, which maybe isn't even grown in the UK anyway ... but the point is that that's the kind of background information that you'd need to actually be able to judge whether this really is a scandal or just manipulative reporting. Also, whether it is a scandal might very well depend on who you are. If you are a farmer, you might well like the idea of people paying more for your products. If you are not ... maybe not so much?

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 12:37:16 pm
content: Quote from: shabaz on November 23, 2024, 11:22:30 pmWhat demographic? Does it make any difference?Most right thinking people think governments should prioritise on helping their own people first. A big problem with aid is it's misspent. Plenty of countries receive loads of aid, yet have always remained poor. Investing money is far better than just giving it away, because one only invests in something if they can make a return and if they're able to make a return, it'll also help those who've received the investment.Quote from: zilp on November 24, 2024, 04:50:16 amCutting taxes for farmers, rather than increasing them, would both make British farmers more competitive and food in the UK cheaper. If they government really need the money, then they can save it by cutting the aid budget. Cheaper food also means people will have more disposable income and can spend their money elsewhere

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 02:08:16 pm
content: Quotecut? they hardly pay any as it is,always claiming to be skint and grabbing as many subsides as possible.Meanwhile the wife's dropping the kids of at the private school in the latest range rover, an essential farm vehicle thats never been off the tarmac.

author: Stringwinder
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 03:18:43 pm
content: ... and don't forget that farmers have lots of free fertilizers in the lakes and rivers whereprivatized water companies dumped the poo that they could not "afford" to take care of.... and then we have the NHS, the railroad system and the lack of affordable housing for young families.Downton Abbey is on ITV3 now as a reference to "when we were fab".

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 03:56:16 pm
content: QuoteAnd of course farmers are never to blame for large amounts of fertilizers finding there way into the water

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 04:09:26 pm
content: What the farmers seem to be missing is that there is no inheritance tax to be paid if the assets are gifted 7 years before their death. So with a family-run farm, all they need to do is gift the farm to whichever kid would be taking it over and it's done. They would be getting it in the end after all, but perhaps the farmers don't trust their own kids not to kick them out early or something.

author: zilp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 04:19:21 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 24, 2024, 12:37:16 pmYou were talking about cutting foreign aid, not cutting taxes, so why are you switching the topic rather than responding to what I wrote?Also, it doesn't follow that when you reduce taxes for some part of the economy, that therefore, their products will get cheaper, especially so when there is an international market. No business will reduce prices just because they could, they will reduce prices only if they expect that doing so will increase their profit. If costs are reduced for whatever reason for only a small fraction of the producers in a market, you can generally expect that to have no effect on the price. In agricultural goods that are traded internationally, UK farmers are only a small fraction of the producers.So, as far as I can tell, you are proposing a policy that might well result in higher food prices (due to cutting the aid, assuming your assertion that that aid reduces food prices ("make UK farmers non-competitive") is correct) and higher profits for UK farmers due to both higher prices and lower tax burden.Again, I don't know anything about the specific situation in the UK, but your posts don't exactly read like a well-founded economic analysis that considers the higher-order effects of whatever you are proposing.

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 04:55:18 pm
content: They are putting the farmers' argument alongside international aid because that's what their readers want, i.e., a fake attempt at fake patriotism. However, in this case, even the Express readers of that article noticed that and were not swayed by that as an argument to support the farmers' position.Everyone knows that farming needs special consideration, subsidies, Europe-wide decision-making (except they burned their bridge with that one), and the like, because it's that critical, and no one wants to deny farmers that - but I think in this protest, it's fair that those who inherit a certain wealth of these assets should pay tax. The only supporters of the protest either have their own personal agenda (such as retaining that mechanism for protecting their own assets [famously, an ex-Top Gear member stated out aloud, that he's using his farm as a mechanism to avoid tax] or to stop international aid, and so on) or are useful idiots to precisely those people.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 07:06:20 pm
content: The economic argument makes perfect sense. Up the tax on food producers, make food more expensive. Yes farmers pollute the rivers, but importing more food is also bad for the environment. Other countries have less stringent laws when it comes to pollution and transporting food is very polluting.Foreign aid is relevant to this discussion because it goes to our competition.Subsidies are a bad idea in general. I don't want my taxes going directly into UK farmer's pockets but it's better than them going abroad. There are plenty of charities who help foreigners people can donate their money to if they want to.Taxes are a necessary evil for public services, but our government are robbing us.

author: Stringwinder
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 07:44:23 pm
content: When you elect dim-wits like Boris Johnson and Liz Truss you created your own mess.Feeling robbed but still you have understaffed hospitals, lousy railways and no affordablehousing for young families? So who takes all your money?Less than 1 percent own 50 percent of the land in UK.They make a lot of noise but do they contribute in the solving of todays problemsor just guarding their wealth?

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 07:56:26 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 24, 2024, 07:06:20 pmWell of course, it's a free world, we all can have any opinions we wish.Hopefully you're not actually responsible for any agricultural policies.If it were not for government intervention and co-ordinated policies with the rest of the world, you'd probably still be eating dried macaroni and Heinz beans.Let me guess - you were outraged and believed the Bendy Banana stories from Boris Johnson.

author: Ben321
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 08:11:45 pm
content: Quote from: MT on November 21, 2024, 12:18:56 pmThey don't "own your stuff". They just own the software that runs in it. They physical hardware is yours. You aren't licensing the hardware, just the right to use the software. Technically you could just toss out the vehicle's computer, and replace it with a computer run by firmware that's either freeware or even open source software. As long at the communication protocol between the computer and the devices was the same, and the the manner in which the firmware worked was the same, the non-proprietary software would work just as well. Note that this would require "clean" reverse engineering technique to be legal (one team of engineers reverse engineers the working of the proprietary software and writes a high level description of its operation but not exact code, and the second team of engineers writes its own code to perform those high level actions). And yes, reverse engineering is itself legal. The copyright law says that reverse engineering for the purpose of developing compatible equipment is legal. And that's exactly what would be happening here.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2024, 08:22:41 pm
content: QuoteIn theory, maybe, but in reality the hardware isn't going to do anything without the software, and you aren't going to find any replacement. If, by a miracle, there was replacement software, you wouldn't be able to get spares for the hardware. There is also the small matter that the hardware is essentially a carrier for the software - you pay the big money for all the cleverness, not so much the metal (otherwise you'd've bought a cheaper non-JD tool).

author: zilp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2024, 06:52:29 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 24, 2024, 07:06:20 pmGiven that I explained how it really doesn't make much sense: Can you explain what the error is in my explanation?Quote from: Zero999 on November 24, 2024, 07:06:20 pmWhy is that better? Especially so given your premise that cutting the foreign aid would drive up food prices in the UK?

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2024, 06:28:40 pm
content: Quote from: zilp on November 24, 2024, 04:50:16 amThe "source" quoted is a well known right-wing reactionary hack-rag. I wouldn't trust them to tell me the sky is blue (this is the UK, so it's definitely going to be grey). The figures they present do not match the ones found in the source they themselves quote, which is this one:https://devtracker.fcdo.gov.uk/No real surprise, a tabloid chip wrapper taking things hugely out of context in order to elicit indignant xenophobic rage in their microcephalic readership.What would be far more useful to farmers is legislation to prevent the supermarkets bullying them on prices (which we have), and to then enforce said laws (which doesn't happen).

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2024, 11:10:35 am
content: Quote from: zilp on November 25, 2024, 06:52:29 amThe fact remains the same: increase taxes for food producers, prices go up.If the government want to save money, they could just cut foreign aid.Reducing spending generally saves more money than increasing taxes, because the latter also cost money to collect. Cutting 500 million in foreign aid, will save much more money than increasing taxes by the same amount.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2024, 12:27:50 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on November 24, 2024, 08:22:41 pmThere seems to be a very organized push to turn farming into a subscription service. Everything from seeds, fertilizers to equipment is now an uphill battle. I mean they say that seed saving, a practice that pretty much responsible for the entire human civilization is violation of "intellectual property laws". We all know these huge conglomerates that force these (in my opinion) unlawful practices on farmers.All this is going to be the downfall of these companies. John Deere almost budlighted itself with their DEI campaign, the only reason they survived that is that replacing this equipment is difficult. I think we are not far away from a world where the farmer will just buy a tractor from China because it's being sold at fraction of the cost without the preaching and the subscriptions.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2024, 01:33:56 pm
content: QuoteInitially. Once they gain traction the subscriptions will follow.Few of years ago I bought a DJI mobile gimbal. Returned straight away once it became apparent that one couldn't actually use it without activating it online. I mean, what on earth does it need activating for? It's a bloody gimbal with control buttons and all that. Shouldn't need a connection to anything, never mind activation. But without activating it did nothing whatsoever. And people fall over themselves to buy quite expensive DJI kit

author: lokin4areason
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2024, 02:01:24 pm
content: this has been going on for year(s) and decade(s) . . .esp. w/ software ( windows for instances )as mentioned , its trying to gain traction and they are trying to get their paw(s) in every or anything that they can that makes coin ( esp. in their pockets )

author: zilp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2024, 04:46:19 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 27, 2024, 11:10:35 amGiven that I have already epxlained that that is not how it works: Can you explain what the error in my explanation is?Quote from: Zero999 on November 27, 2024, 11:10:35 amHow did you determine that?

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2024, 05:26:11 am
content: Farmers couldn't have believed there would be zero impact to them if they voted for Brexit, which many of them were dumb enough to do. There was guaranteed to be a financial impact to them, possibly more than for most other vocations. Now, successive governments will have to deal with the mess long into the future, to ensure farming doesn't suffer excessively. Therefore it seems very reasonable that some farmers will have to contribute a bit more, if they inherit large amounts of assets compared to the average person. Same for fishermen, they too ought to have known they would be impacted massively, and now they have to leave it to the adults to deal with, while Express readers continue to whinge, about foreign aid!

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2024, 09:43:28 pm
content: Quote from: shabaz on November 28, 2024, 05:26:11 amWhat does it have anything to do with the topic, your guess is as good as mine.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2024, 09:45:59 pm
content: V-Zug has introduced subscription-based features for their dishwashers:https://www.digitec.ch/en/page/a-plan-for-doing-the-dishes-v-zug-charges-extra-for-special-functions-35179