This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

GeekNights Monday - Right to Repair

Tonight on GeekNights, we discuss the right to repair in a practical sense, and how there is no appetite to fix the problem. In the news, Rym got some christmas cheese, Zipcar is dead, Linux Kernel 4.7 is out I guess, Verizon bought most of what's left of Yahoo, and the EU is auditing Apache and Keepass security.

See us live at PAX West! Support us on Patreon! Buy our Shirts!

Download MP3
Source Link
«1

Comments

  • The piano video was fascinating. One of the first times in a long time I've been genuinely excited to get home and see a Thing of the Day video.
  • You guys notice that Tekserve is closing its doors at the end of the month?
  • Matt said:

    You guys notice that Tekserve is closing its doors at the end of the month?

    I go to http://thedeviceshop.com/
  • I'm with @Rym on the companies only doing one thing arguement. The semantic argument of what defines a thing is important because those kind of arguments lead to loopholes that get exploited.
  • I think I'm more with Scott. Making a semantic argument IS the legal loophole. Something with a simple and obvious definition like companies with more money than X in total assets need to be broken up leaves very little wiggle room. Either commit crimes on your taxes or be broken up. Either way you are anti-trusting them.
  • I don't want to hobble the collaboration of single entities on complex multi-faceted projects.
    But I also don't want to allow companies like Verizon to exist.
  • I know that none of you are strict constitutionalists. You're not hanging with zombie Scalia. So why do you change your mind suddenly when you are dealing with a lesser law of the land like the DMCA?

    Human language, English or otherwise, is shitty. The real world has infinite possibilities. Mathematically precise language can separate all states of a finite board or video game into legal and illegal states. That is not possible for even basic laws governing society.

    You want to spend a ton of time on perfecting semantics to avoid loopholes, but it is actually the slavish devotion to semantics that allows for loopholes in the first place. Allowing judiciaries to use common sense, and to give proper respect to the spirit of a law, closes all loopholes.

    "Yes, John Deere, the law says you can do this. However, it is obvious to anyone that the DMCA was intended to prevent people from sharing music and movies online without paying. It was not intended to give you a monopoly on tractor repair. The people who wrote the DMCA are still alive, and we actually asked them. Go fuck yourself and pay the farmer's legal fees. Dismissed."

    Now, some people might be worried about increasing judiciary power in the face of corruption. But corrupt courts are already a problem in this country. Your precious words aren't stopping them now. If anything, semantics of anti-corruption law are enabling them. "It's not technically corruption that I took all that money, because it wasn't quid pro quo! Can't pin this on me, suckers! By the way, I rule in favor of all these patent trolls." Allowing for a bit more common sense, would actually help defend against its own weakness.

    TL;DR: Why do you allow your pedantry to excuse injustice?
  • In a functioning government, Congress would immediately convene, debate changes, and update the DMCA in the span of a few weeks. But they have an active interest in leaving it as-is.
  • edited July 2016
    Rym said:

    In a functioning government, Congress would immediately convene, debate changes, and update the DMCA in the span of a few weeks. But they have an active interest in leaving it as-is.

    Except we don't have that. Also, there are other countries with legislative bodies that function at least somewhat better than ours, and they also allow judges to rule with more common sense. It has served them well. Here is a nice article about how Germany does it more right than we do, but they are far from alone in this regard.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/what-america-can-learn-from-germanys-justice-system/258208/

    I guarantee that if the DMCA were a German law, with the language being as similar as possible, it would not prevent a farmer from fixing their own tractor.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • There. The YouTube mirror should be working again.

    I don't care about the Linux 4.7 kernel.

    Scott, read GEB. You can't tune a piano.
  • Apreche said:

    I know that none of you are strict constitutionalists. You're not hanging with zombie Scalia. So why do you change your mind suddenly when you are dealing with a lesser law of the land like the DMCA?

    Human language, English or otherwise, is shitty. The real world has infinite possibilities. Mathematically precise language can separate all states of a finite board or video game into legal and illegal states. That is not possible for even basic laws governing society.

    You want to spend a ton of time on perfecting semantics to avoid loopholes, but it is actually the slavish devotion to semantics that allows for loopholes in the first place. Allowing judiciaries to use common sense, and to give proper respect to the spirit of a law, closes all loopholes.

    "Yes, John Deere, the law says you can do this. However, it is obvious to anyone that the DMCA was intended to prevent people from sharing music and movies online without paying. It was not intended to give you a monopoly on tractor repair. The people who wrote the DMCA are still alive, and we actually asked them. Go fuck yourself and pay the farmer's legal fees. Dismissed."

    Now, some people might be worried about increasing judiciary power in the face of corruption. But corrupt courts are already a problem in this country. Your precious words aren't stopping them now. If anything, semantics of anti-corruption law are enabling them. "It's not technically corruption that I took all that money, because it wasn't quid pro quo! Can't pin this on me, suckers! By the way, I rule in favor of all these patent trolls." Allowing for a bit more common sense, would actually help defend against its own weakness.

    TL;DR: Why do you allow your pedantry to excuse injustice?

    I agree completely with this, good explanation, although I would like to point out that I was saying pedantry was important (I agree now that it's also a huge part of the problem), not saying that pedantry excused the issues.
  • I feel like this suit was already brought against automakers and they lost.
  • edited July 2016
    Common sense is not common. Decisions based on implicit understandings/assumptions are open to the loophole of perception, intention, bias, and other social & cultural differences. There's only the illusion that people who behave similarly to yourself (or your image of yourself) function more rationally than those who don't, because you superimpose your thought process/priorities onto your assessment of theirs. It's a rationalization to call it common, and assume the authority of majority, whether it exists or not.

    Failure to acknowledge that allows common sense to be used as a weapon. See discrimination of all kinds in that regards.
    Post edited by no fun girl on
  • There. The YouTube mirror should be working again.

    I don't care about the Linux 4.7 kernel.

    Scott, read GEB. You can't tune a piano.

    Thanks for updating that I am now able to share with some family members the video on hosting parties, keep up the good work.
  • Common sense is not common. Decisions based on implicit understandings/assumptions are open to the loophole of perception, intention, bias, and other social & cultural differences. There's only the illusion that people who behave similarly to yourself (or your image of yourself) function more rationally than those who don't, because you superimpose your thought process/priorities onto your assessment of theirs. It's a rationalization to call it common, and assume the authority of majority, whether it exists or not.

    Failure to acknowledge that allows common sense to be used as a weapon. See discrimination of all kinds in that regards.

    If your concern is that giving more power to racist/sexist/homophobic judges will result in more injustices against minorities, I don't think that is anything to worry about.

    Why is it that the most discriminatory and awful justices are almost uniformly textualists?

    If giving more latitude to judges will result in greater discrimination, why would racists and homophobes be so strongly against it? They went to law school and know way more about this than I do, but they don't agree with me?

    The reason is that the current system already allows them to be as discriminatory as they want. But also, it ties the hands of good judges and forces them to be discriminatory when they would rather not be.

    Imagine a case where a black kid kid brings Tylenol to school. Strict interpretation of the law would require all judges to send them to juvie. Allowing for judges to recognize the intent of the law was to stop dangerous drug dealers, and not to ruin people's lives because they had a headache, would allow the non-racists to be non-racist.

    Also, such strict interpretation gives courts a convenient excuse for any horrible results they may produce. It's not their fault. They are just doing what the law says to do. Just following instructions from the evil legislature. Their hands are tied.

    Giving more power to the judicial branch also puts more responsibility on the judicial branch. When one judge does differently than another, their discriminatory ways will be laid bare for all to see. And not only would they be found out, but they could be held accountable for their evil ways since their excuse is gone. And the anti-discrimination and anti-corruption laws could be enforced, in spirit, against judges as much by judges.
  • Given that there's no such thing as overly pedantic on this forum, I'd argue that a piano can be perfectly tuned to whatever notes you want, but there is no "ideal" set of notes.
  • I would have put a mic drop at the end of the post, given that the point of argument is now "define 'perfect'."

    Well done.
  • Don't think I don't see where you are coming from. But idealism has a tendency to be underwhelming in execution, and highly vulnerable to the biases of the executor, willful or ignorant.

    Consider philanthropy tourism, where unskilled but well meaning and privileged people go to a poor region to "help". Building schools or whatever. But the money they spend (plus the shoddy work they do) would have been better spent training/hiring the local population.

    Consider also that state sanctioned racism is VERY apparent at the moment, but there's a large enough disparity in perception that progress, if any, is minimal. I suppose you could argue that loose interpretation would relieve that, but I would be skeptical until I saw it (in America, which has a VERY different social, legal, and moral dynamic than Germany, see jaywalking).
  • Scott also ignores the typical and widespread use of law in, well, every other aspect of living in the US. Copyright, statutory rights around intellectual property, zoning laws, etc... If they are not strictly defined, then there is severe danger in doing anything ever, for fear that a judge interprets a vague rule differently from another judge.

    The more discretion a judge is given in a law, the more well defined the parameters of that discretion have to be. Most law is far more complex than Scott is willing to admit, and there is good reason for that. He conflates the "obvious" problems he sees with the idea of well-written law, as opposed to the real problem which lies solely in the slow pace of congressional action on modifying law as it is used (or misused).
  • State sanctioned racism is indeed very apparent, but the justice system can't correct for it because you can't pin it on any individual. Nobody is technically breaking any laws. If we enforced anti-discrimination laws in spirit, a lot of people who are technically innocent today would be guilty tomorrow.

    Also, I already talked about how most right-wing judges are textualists. On the flip side, most so-called "activist judges" in the US are big lefties. And not the elected kind, the appointed kind who can't be unseated easily. If the leash holding them back were loosened a bit they could fix a lot of shit regardless of perception, public opinion, corrupt legislators, etc.
  • edited July 2016
    Rym said:

    If they are not strictly defined, then there is severe danger in doing anything ever, for fear that a judge interprets a vague rule differently from another judge.

    Not only this, but the room for corruption increases incredibly. Money tends to be a stronger motivator than principles. Apart from that, social biases play a role. I have a friend who is a very high level lawyer. He will literally say "Oh, judge so&so likes me & tends to decide in my favor."
    Apreche said:

    State sanctioned racism is indeed very apparent, but the justice system can't correct for it because you can't pin it on any individual. Nobody is technically breaking any laws.

    I'm specifically referring to situations where police kill people.
    Apreche said:

    If the leash holding them back were loosened a bit they could fix a lot of shit regardless of perception, public opinion, corrupt legislators, etc.

    Both ideological groups are bending the law as far as they can in either direction. And yes, the activists judged could do a lot, but the douchebag judges could also do a lot more. Scalia always claimed to be a textualist, but I noticed he was rather selective with his ideological purity.

    Aren't you the one who supports very specific rules in games?
    Post edited by no fun girl on

  • Both ideological groups are bending the law as far as they can in either direction. And yes, the activists judged could do a lot, but the douchebag judges could also do a lot more. Scalia always claimed to be a textualist, but I noticed he was rather selective with his ideological purity.

    Both sides are "activists", but conservatives have strong tendency to pull the childish "I know you are, but what am I" shit, framing it so that the only "activists" are liberal judges, while conservative judges who do the same things are "textualists." I think half of why they get away with it is they're typically white men wrapping themselves in the mantle of dead white men.

    It's a load of semantics and horseshit.
  • Aren't you the one who supports very specific rules in games?

    The fact you said this shows you didn't read all the words I have written. This is literally the first point I addressed.
  • Apreche said:

    Aren't you the one who supports very specific rules in games?

    The fact you said this shows you didn't read all the words I have written. This is literally the first point I addressed.
    I beg to differ. ;)
  • edited July 2016
    Apreche said:

    Aren't you the one who supports very specific rules in games?

    The fact you said this shows you didn't read all the words I have written. This is literally the first point I addressed.
    Ah I missed that; it was a light hearted statement but I think the principle still applies. I think your perspective is just as simplistic by assuming that the "good guys" would get a greater advantage than those who have already proven themselves to be ruthless, greedy, and lacking in empathy.

    Pilitus, I agree 100%

    Plus, American behavior as a whole is very "textualist". "You didn't SAY I couldn't ______. Neener!" Things here have to be explicitly stated, or people use it as an excuse for bad behavior. It's one of my biggest frustrations with Americans. Can't have nice things. I doubt you could even enforce loose interpretation without being mired down in endless appeals.
    Post edited by no fun girl on
  • It's not a Geeknights thread until there's a semantics argument on semantics.
  • Isn't the fun of laws finding a way around them?
  • Apreche said:

    Aren't you the one who supports very specific rules in games?

    The fact you said this shows you didn't read all the words I have written. This is literally the first point I addressed.
    Ah I missed that; it was a light hearted statement but I think the principle still applies. I think your perspective is just as simplistic by assuming that the "good guys" would get a greater advantage than those who have already proven themselves to be ruthless, greedy, and lacking in empathy.

    Pilitus, I agree 100%

    Plus, American behavior as a whole is very "textualist". "You didn't SAY I couldn't ______. Neener!" Things here have to be explicitly stated, or people use it as an excuse for bad behavior. It's one of my biggest frustrations with Americans. Can't have nice things. I doubt you could even enforce loose interpretation without being mired down in endless appeals.
    Yes, american behavior is that way. That's why I'm advocating we put a stop to it. You won't be able to have an excuse for bad behavior just because of some words. You won't be able to move your money to another country to avoid taxes. You won't be able to get away with murder because your weapon was a car. You won't be able to use a law like the DMCA in a way it wasn't intended. The intent and purpose of a law should be taken into account in the court room.

    As for the good/bad guys getting a greater advantage. I don't think that it will give good guys a greater advantage. Anyone with power will use that power to serve their own interests. I just think that bad guys already have maximum advantage, and that slightly more power won't allow them to do any worse than they do today. They are already letting the cop who murdered someone completely off the hook. Given slightly more power they will, let the cop who murdered someone off the hook. No change.

    Meanwhile, there are good guys who are forced to do worse than they would like because they strictly follow the exact letter of the law against the intent of the law, and against their better judgement. Look at all the stupid stories of injustice you see on Fark. You think the courts actually wanted to rule that way on all of those cases? In many cases, they were forced to by stupidly written laws.

    Even if our legislatures were functioning and could rewrite and revise laws quickly, and well, they will always have flaws that result in those kinds of injustices. Given the complexity of the world and the limitations of language, these problems will always exist. The purpose of even having a judicial system with human brains is to cover for those errors. If you just want to follow the letter of the law precisely, we can do away with layers, judges, and juries, and let computers do their work.
  • Apreche said:

    You won't be able to have an excuse for bad behavior just because of some words.

    And who decides what "bad" behavior is?

    A lot of things you would assume are bad are not, they're just complex. Who gets to be the expert to decide what complex tax thing is perfectly sound and what complex tax thing is "bad?"

    And before you switch to arguing that anything complex is bad or that the tax stuff needs to be simpler, do you acknowledge that there are things in this complex world for which a complex regulatory framework, beyond the ken of the laity, is necessary?

    Who's a good guy? Who's a bad guy?
    Apreche said:

    If you just want to follow the letter of the law precisely, we can do away with layers, judges, and juries, and let computers do their work.

    Isn't that the goal in the end? Precise rules for the exertion of specific coercion to prevent adverse behavior and/or promote positive outcomes? Judges are the backup, failsafe, and conscience only.

    More importantly, you forget something very important. Judge is a partisan, usually elected, position. You would put all the vast power of our society in the hands of the same partisan system, where now it stands apart ONLY due to its relative lack of direct power. The courts are largely independent primarily because their sole power is to interpret and sometimes augment the law as written by congress.

    Increase the power of judges, and then whether you vote for a Republican or Democrat judge matters a whole lot more. Judicial elections become entangled with the rest of our elections, and we effectively become a two-branch government.

Sign In or Register to comment.