In reply to erohslc:
I'm totally joining so long as I don't have to tithe.
In reply to erohslc:
I'm totally joining so long as I don't have to tithe.
The reality is third world countries get "cars" void of the nannies. Without the lawyers to protect the common man the producers of cars provide transportation that will do the job at the lowest cost.
If I am willing to sign the waver, can I buy that car? Why not?
HiTempguy wrote:Kreb wrote: This is right alongside the self-driving car post. The manufacturers and government wants us to buy toasters dressed up as cars. It's not an overnight thing, but that's the endgame to be sure. We'll still have our automotive toys, but precious few opportunities to enjoy them as we do now. Our kids won't care because they'll have their virtual reality on and wonder what all the fuss over "real life" was all about. Nah, I'm not cynical. I'll just be hanging with my friends Philip K Dick and Issac Asimov here.At the end of the day, virtual reality will allow people to enjoy these experiences in identical-to-reality settings. It sucks, but it will be the way of the future... Unless we start colonizing other planets ;)
Look at the resolution in video games. Look at guys flying their quadcopters POV. Why dump a ton of money into a Miata to drive your local track when you can strap yourself into a machine that puts you into a Ferrari at the Ring for a few bucks?
Alfa/Ford dude. I understand that the manufacturers/government can't bring about this future without the consent of the masses. I'm not ranting about it. Just projecting the inevitable.
OTOH an old friend of mine connected with a statuesque beauty a couple of years ago, and they'll soon be married. One of the things that attracted her to him is that while she's been into cars and motorcycles her entire life, he was the first guy she knew who actually built the E36 M3 that he drove.
So there's hope for us fuddy duddys.
bgkast wrote:WIRED said: The pièce de résistance in John Deere’s argument: permitting owners to root around in a tractor’s programming might lead to pirating music through a vehicle’s entertainment system.The funny/sad thing about this is that Deere pissing off the farmers will properly be what does this whole stupid idea in. Farmers have some good lobbyists!
I just wish all the fanbois of Deere realized they were idiots.....I cannot tell you how many believe they have led every innovation in farm machinery. Hell, they tried to claim they had the industry first CVT Tractor back in the early 2000's......only to find out Fendt(AGCO) had beat them by about a decade(and there were already Massey/Challenger/AGCO with it by then), same went for the axial rotor combine, which New Holland/International/White/Massey/Gleaner all beat them by about 35 years. 
John Deere seems to think "First for our company" means "Industry First" when they do marketing.
Interesting topic here, and of course the nanny car concept irritates me immensely (though I drove my nanny car Focus today).
Alfa driver's comments on the modifying of cars polluting your neighbors air I think is OBE in this day and age. The days of putting a single plane and a double pumper on your 8.0 to 1 CR 302 Ford Granada 4-speed, and the attendant raw fuel pouring out the back, are long gone. If the point of that comment was those who modify don't care about their neighbor's safety, it's still a red herring. There are idiots in any endeavor in that case.
Having worked with software guys on complex stuff (I was a contracts weenie), I know the more you add the harder it is to get it to function 100% reliably - and commentary on OE liability for some bonehead making a change is at least half of their motivation. Nobody sues joe six-pack, he doesn't have any money. Billions in revenue Ford? You bet. They'll find a way to tie Ford to it. The other half is to put independent repair shops out of business, or at least make it a lot harder - more profit for them (and probably still some of the liability issue...).
What surprises me is that there aren't more Factory Five type companies out there, since I think that's eventually where the hobby is going. In the 40's and 50's, there were plenty of 20's and 30's cars that could be modded easily, and now those cars are more or less the street rod niche - which I think is pretty small these days. Muscle cars I think are going that way if not there already. It's why you see steel repro's of Mustangs and Camaro's, like happened with street rods/32 Fords back in the 80s.
Combine that with the trend of young kids not caring about having a car because of all the tech wizardry, and you'll see where I'm going. If they want a car, it'll be because of all the tech they can access while driving (A recent CD article talked about a lady in a test drive that cared more about accessing her email from the car than the car itself). The self driving car is an evolution of the concept.
Speaking of which, I think based on Moore's law, you'll see self drivers in 10 years or so. The company I work for now (well, not "now" now, obviously - ) has contracts for the automated highway. The tech will be there in no time, and the change in society has already created the demand.
It further makes me wonder about our hobby, since what's the point of autocrossing a self driving car!? The new hero's of motorsport won't be the drivers, they'll be the software programmers.
OldGray320i wrote: It further makes me wonder about our hobby, since what's the point of autocrossing a self driving car!? The new hero's of motorsport won't be the drivers, they'll be the software programmers.
The hobby will be WAY better! You can still go race horses if you like, but you don't have to ride your horse to the track.
If we don't have to commute, we can make 100% of our driving be fun driving! What's better than that?
OldGray320i wrote: Having worked with software guys on complex stuff (I was a contracts weenie), I know the more you add the harder it is to get it to function 100% reliably - and commentary on OE liability for some bonehead making a change is at least half of their motivation. Nobody sues joe six-pack, he doesn't have any money. Billions in revenue Ford? You bet. They'll find a way to tie Ford to it. The other half is to put independent repair shops out of business, or at least make it a lot harder - more profit for them (and probably still some of the liability issue...).
That's it, in a nutshell. Some smartass lawyer will find a way to hang an 'unauthorized modification' around Ford's (or some other OE's) neck, probably using the premise 'you didn't do enough to stop me'. It's already been used in lawsuits. So since they can't make a completely non hackable ECU or telematics module, they'll make the software proprietary and copyrighted, thus illegal to tamper with.
This isn't really new; back when the New Beetle came out VW did not have a cabrio version and people were clamoring for them. The story goes a couple of dealerships contracted aftermarket companies to behead Beetles and make ragtop frames etc. VW freaked because the modifications of course meant any crash testing went right out the window.
So their response was to set a company policy that any- and I mean ANY- modification of any sort involving aftermarket parts of any sort would not only void the warranty, it would place all responsibility for said modifications squarely on the shoulders of the dealership and the car's owner. I must have read the memo about 40 times; it was clear that even aftermarket radios and wheels fell under this. Better yet, it said the dealership must not 'facilitate' an aftermarket modification; if the dealership sold a car then told the customer to take it to a 3rd party such as Joe Blow's radio shop or convertible conversion company then VW washed their hands of it and dropped the whole thing in the dealer's lap.
rcutclif wrote:OldGray320i wrote: It further makes me wonder about our hobby, since what's the point of autocrossing a self driving car!? The new hero's of motorsport won't be the drivers, they'll be the software programmers.The hobby will be WAY better! You can still go race horses if you like, but you don't have to ride your horse to the track. If we don't have to commute, we can make 100% of our driving be fun driving! What's better than that?
Yeah, but horse racing still has live jockeys - with a self driving car, there is no jockey!!!
In reply to OldGray320i:
I guess I meant you could still choose to drive a non self driving car...
Curmudgeon wrote: That's it, in a nutshell. Some smartass lawyer will find a way to hang an 'unauthorized modification' around Ford's (or some other OE's) neck, probably using the premise 'you didn't do enough to stop me'. It's already been used in lawsuits. So since they can't make a completely non hackable ECU or telematics module, they'll make the software proprietary and copyrighted, thus illegal to tamper with.
It's been a while since I've involved myself with IP, so thinking out loud, but if you buy the car and they want to keep "rights" to underlying software, it would have to be in the sales contract (and maybe it is, if I had my Focus' docs I could go read it).
You couldn't use their software design and build something using it to make money at, that would be infringement. I think copyright is generally the same concept, just with words.
Software that I worked around was delivered in executable, not source, and for which IP was claimed, and delivered with "license rights" but those were government contracts, so in large part apples and oranges. But, if you "buy" the executable with the car then in theory you should be free to modify outputs (absent any language to the contrary)? It seems to me that our cars are essentially delivered like a laptop/firmware to operate the vehicle, but I may have it all bass ackwards.
Their out is that you've tampered with the operation of the vehicle and thus voided the warranty, and that's fair, but I'm a little iffy on the remainder. However, all of it is subject to UCC, and I have no knowledge of the ins and outs, so it may be worse than any of us realize. Or, given case law, better.
OldGray320i wrote: It further makes me wonder about our hobby, since what's the point of autocrossing a self driving car!? The new hero's of motorsport won't be the drivers, they'll be the software programmers.
I don't plan on buying a new car for myself again. For the wife? Yeah, maybe, but her vehicles don't get messed with.
There seems to be a lot of "what ifs" going on in this thread. I'm not going to worry about it. I understand carburetors and know how they work. Unless they start talking about and getting really close to banning old cars, I'm not worried about it. Very little built after the 70's interest me any way.
Kreb wrote: Look at the resolution in video games. Look at guys flying their quadcopters POV. Why dump a ton of money into a Miata to drive your local track when you can strap yourself into a machine that puts you into a Ferrari at the Ring for a few bucks?
I've been videogaming my entire life, grew up with it...
The real thing vs a videogame, especially with cars isn't even comparable, its like comparing "cortona" to your actual girlfriend. If its far more expensive its far more expensive because its worth that much more on all accounts.
Also AlfaDriver mentioned the Tempo being the worst driving car ever, clearly he has never driven a "Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais".... I've driven both, and the Tempo feels like a race-car compared to the Calais, and that is saying somthing
The Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais has to be the most diabolical car ever made 
rcutclif wrote: In reply to OldGray320i: I guess I meant you could still choose to drive a non self driving car...
until they do away with that ability …
where's my tinfoil hat ????
gearheadE30 wrote: Also, why does everyone feel like they need to be protected from everything these days? ...Gas cans have these stupid E36 M3ty impossible to use nozzles because apparently those are dangerous.
Off topic, but I was just reflecting on how stupid modern gas can design is yesterday. You have to twist, push the nozzle and there is a butterfly valve with an o-ring...dumb thing is so safe that it pisses gas all over everything. Gas can design was perfected 45-50 years ago, why mess with it now?
As for the rest of this thread:
I can't believe anyone would argue against ABS these days. You can't out-brake it. There is no arguing that cars are safer than ever and I'm glad that John Q Public has traction control...(just give me a way to defeat it.) We are an incredibly small cross-section of the car-buying public, most of whom don't grasp the physics of hurling a 2-ton metal can through space at 80mph.
There's a thin line between 'aids' and 'nannies.' A nanny will prevent your car from speeding, whereas an aid will help you drive faster than you otherwise should.
I'm not in favor of laws preventing people from working on their own cars, even if Justrolledintotheshop is a showcase of why they shouldn't.
We're coming full circle. 100 years ago, everybody had autonomous vehicles. There was no direct connection between driver and controls -- you just suggested inputs. Most had antilock 'whoa' and trotting-control.
Tyler H wrote: I can't believe anyone would argue against ABS these days. You can't out-brake it.
Do you completely fail at understanding what antilock braking systems do? 
In a nutshell, they sacrifice braking distance for the ability to maneuver. You can beat ABS with non-ABS by simply avoiding lockup. 
yamaha wrote: Do you completely fail at understanding what antilock braking systems do?
Wrong, they do the same thing you do by avoiding lockup, just tens or hundreds of times faster than you could. Maintaining maneuverability is just a side-effect - again, same as you could do, just far faster.
Trying to think of some other ways somebody MIGHT be able to use the DMCA against aftermarket modifications. It's possible that they might sue somebody for having copied ECU firmware to a computer for analysis. How much damages they'd be able to get from a handful of "infringements" that were never sold, though, is not clear. And they'd have to prove in court that this was how they came up with their tuning device, which may not be easy. Especially since telegraphing that punch could give the infringer plenty of time to destroy any evidence.
On the potential for actual misuse, I came up with another possibility. Some GM tuners appear to be passing around complete firmware files for GM ECUs (often with some minor code change). That's blatant enough that if it isn't being done with GM's approval, they wouldn't even need the DMCA to sue if they were so inclined - it would fall under ordinary copyright violations. Theoretically, someone could construct an unauthorized copy of a GM ECU and load it with the firmware file, although I'm not aware of such a thing being built.
On the other hand, creating a diagnostic tool based on an industry standard or black box reverse engineering (running a sniffer between a factory ECU and a legally obtained scan tool, for instance) is likely to be fair game.
yamaha wrote:Tyler H wrote: I can't believe anyone would argue against ABS these days. You can't out-brake it.Do you completely fail at understanding what antilock braking systems do?
At one time that was true. Not anymore. The ABS on modern cars and even more-so on bikes like the R1000RR is better than pro road racers can do on a non-ABS bike.
I know first hand that ABS and airbag systems are made EXTREMELY hard to hack for obvious reasons. Not impossible, just really hard; the problem the manufacturers are probably looking at is 'the aftermarket has shown it can get into our code, we can't make the wall high enough that that's impossible'. The interconnectedness of systems now makes this a real issue. For instance, the yaw sensor for the traction control is inside the airbag module on some Chrysler products. Cars with speed sensitive radios use the VSS signal from the ECU to adjust the radio volume. The same system on Mercedes gets a signal from the convertible top control module to tell the radio and ECU when the top is down and adjusts the radio volume accordingly. Yeah that's a gimmick but it demonstrates how interconnected everything is in new cars. So from the manufacturers' POV hacking the ECU can have real yet unintended consequences elsewhere and they don't want to possibly be on the hook for that.
They have been thinking about this for some time now. Way back when, Kelsey Hayes had a problem with the ABS module on Rodeos, the brake pedal would sink to the floor if the rear wheels got off the ground during an ABS event. It was a software issue; rather than update the existing module's software it was necessary to replace the module itself. The scan tools of the era could retrieve codes from those ABS modules but that was it.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
The difference is prior to versus post lockup. Maybe new setups are better as the newest car I've had thus far is a 2005, and even it braked better with ABS disabled(granted, that difference in stopping distance was 997 911 territory versus c5 vette territory) IMHO, with that car, the 10ft or so from 60mph made it worth it.
rcutclif wrote: In reply to OldGray320i: I guess I meant you could still choose to drive a non self driving car...
When the day comes. You might be able to keep your self driver for awhile. As long as you maintain it yourself with parts you have stocked up.
But forget about driving it anywhere but on private property. You won't be able to license it or insure it for very long.
with the millions and millions of roads in this country (think of all the gravel back roads), not to mention all the residential roads, both public and private, I don't see there ever being cars that you can't drive yourself … for that matter how would you ever park one … anywhere … at a store, in your driveway … anywhere ?
If they outlaw non-self driving cars then only outlaws will have non-self driving cars.
wbjones wrote: with the millions and millions of roads in this country (think of all the gravel back roads), not to mention all the residential roads, both public and private, I don't see there ever being cars that you can't drive yourself … for that matter how would you ever park one … anywhere … at a store, in your driveway … anywhere ?
My uncle has a country place, that no one knows about...
You'll need to log in to post.
