Right to Repair Bills!

[slipperybidness]

I suspect the decision not to include a hydraulic relief valve was made by a marketing/management team to save a few $$.

I can understand the desire to keep your software proprietary as it governs how you meet certain regulations. But it does make it difficult as an owner to diagnose when things go wrong.

I fix my CNC myself. The manufacturer is over in Italy and their tech support and main operation in the US is in Atlanta. Their whole solution to issues is for me to pay for a tech to fly in from Atlanta (when the tech becomes available) and have the tech take a look. So as the machine owner, I'm supposed to sit with this equipment idle until a tech becomes available and then commit to at least $5,000 in the hope that he can fix it? I don't think so.

On one issue, the tech figured it was a bad pneumatic valve. The manufacturer's repair part cost...$400. If I let them do the repair, I would have been out roughly $5,000 or more depending on his time. I found the manufacturer of the valve and bought one for $65 and replaced it myself. It wasn't the problem.

If the manufacturer wants the repair/support business, they need to have regionally placed techs. I would pay for a guy to drive up from Chicago. I am not going to pay to fly a guy in from Atlanta. Needless to say, I am not going to buy from this manufacturer when it comes time to replace the CNC. Support is huge. The last fiasco was a drive motor for the Y-axis on the CNC. The encoder on the motor was bad. Fine, except they used a spec motor/encoder that is so finicky that the encoder can't be field replaced. Fine. I'mm buy a new motor/encoder combo. Oh wait, it's a Euro spec motor and Yaskawa Europe won't let Yaskawa North America touch their stuff because having global support for all of your products would make since but you have pissing contests over territory so the customer is left in the lurch. Fine, the CNC manufacturer has a motor in stock in Atlanta. $2,600 later it's over-nighted in. Awesome! I'm off and running...wait, there is no pulley on the new motor and there is no way to get the old one off. Tech support call later (1 hour delay) and the old pulley is a heat shrink fit and the US tech support didn't know about the pulley as it's not in their parts diagram and there is no part number for it. Their best solution is for me to wait 6 days to get a motor and pulley shipped in from Italy. Yeah, I can't afford another 6 days down. $260, 4 cycles of a acetylene torch and impact wrench at a local motor shop and I have a pulley off the old and on the new motor. I'm back up and running 5 days earlier than the best option.

If I couldn't work on the equipment I own, I would be out of business. Actually, the equipment would be sold and I'd be running stuff that I could work on. I can't afford to drop a crap load of coin every time a piece of equipment doesn't work right. I can't afford to be down for a long time either.

I feel the pain. That is one of the other huge advantages of doing the work in-house--I can have the machine repaired well before a tech can even get on site to troubleshoot!

At my work, we tend to have redundant tools. It is an absolute necessity when you are supporting multi-million $ businesses! We could easily lose $100K PER HOUR of downtime!

 

[Midwesthonky]

I feel the pain. That is one of the other huge advantages of doing the work in-house--I can have the machine repaired well before a tech can even get on site to troubleshoot!

At my work, we tend to have redundant tools. It is an absolute necessity when you are supporting multi-million $ businesses! We could easily lose $100K PER HOUR of downtime!

My shop is only 6k sq ft so I can't afford a second CNC. But, our customer base is growing rapidly and I expect I will be space constrained in the next 2-3 years. At that point, my CNC will be about 16-18 years old and I will be seriously looking to upgrade or add a new primary and keep the old as a secondary machine for peak volume demand.

It's weird how my entire career has given me the tools to diagnose and do most repairs myself. It's a good thing as my business isn't at the level of of the big dogs but we grew 20% in 2016 over 2015 and so far indications look for an even bigger jump in 2017. Being down for us is a cost of hundreds $ per hour, not the thousands you do. But when you factor in overtime to catch up, it does get expensive. That Friday after I got the CNC back up and running, I was in Saturday and running parts so my guys would have parts first thing Monday.

My big planer went down. Bringing in a tech would have cost $100 or more per hour. Finally tracked down the electrical schematic. There is a fuse hidden way up inside behind an access panel. Found it and popped it out. Blown. Pack of 3 fuses are $5 at Radio Shack.

 

[Chu Gai]

Hacking John Deere article.

 

[slipperybidness]

https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/19/tech-companies-are-trying-to-crush-mom-and-pop-repair-shops/

 

[jinjuku]

One of the articles has this:

"If you’re six figures deep in a purchase, it’s troubling to hear that you can’t fix your own equipment. In his article, Wiens mentions one farmer — Kerry Adams — who can’t fix an expensive transplanter because he doesn’t have access to the right diagnostic software."

This isn't like the days when a product owner figured out how to modify/improve his purchase for his use. This sounds like a guy who thinks the mfg should be obligated to help him figure out how to modify/improve his purchase.

That's where this argument loses me. I think when you buy something, you should be able to do whatever you want with it. However, if you can't figure out how to do something yourself, you take it to the shop. Companies have put seals and tamper resistant mechanisms on their products for years. If you mess with it, it becomes obvious, and the mfg is no longer responsible for it.

This sounds like a function that the manufacturer has provided for years, if not decades, and figured out a way wrap it in a sensor and software envelope and now barred what used to be user serviceable.

I feel the same way about most you guys and the Internet. Used to be you had to have chops writing connection strings and script files, know a few connection protocols, TCP/IP etc.

Then AOL went and figured out how to let everyone on the Internet.

I say lets right this wrong, make it incredibly hard to get on the Internet, and then I'll take your position on the matter that it's not the fact that gaining access is too hard, it's just that your too stupid.

 

[killdozzer]

I even believe that when you successfully repair a product the company should compensate you. It should be treated like outsourcing the maintenance of their products. You saved them company time, materials and "tool-wear" so they should pay you like they do their contractors.

Same goes for on-line banking. If you go on-line and manage your bank account instead of the teller at your bank, the bank (not the state) should compensate you. The way it is now, not only do they get to employ fewer teller workers, they charge you to volunteer for them by doing teller's job on your free time.

You see how companies do educate you in maintaining their "products" if they can benefit from it by having less employees. Something very similar to "right to repair".

Polluters should compensate you for separating waste. Why should the law force you in free labour for private companies? When you prepare these "raw materials" whose production cycle already polluted once, for the next pollution/production cycle so that yesterday's garbage can be sold overpriced back to you, shouldn't you get something for your work/time? Mopping up someone else's spilled milk to prolong the life expectancy of the polluters?? And being coerced to do so by laws lobbied by private companies greed?

I'm sorry, is this too rad? I have a feeling this might be too rad.

 

[slipperybidness]

https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/30/supreme-court-decision-lifts-ownership-rights-over-patent-law/

 

[jinjuku]

I even believe that when you successfully repair a product the company should compensate you. It should be treated like outsourcing the maintenance of their products. You saved them company time, materials and "tool-wear" so they should pay you like they do their contractors.

Same goes for on-line banking. If you go on-line and manage your bank account instead of the teller at your bank, the bank (not the state) should compensate you. The way it is now, not only do they get to employ fewer teller workers, they charge you to volunteer for them by doing teller's job on your free time.

Companies will point out that:

1. Self service saves you time

2. Self service indeed lowers blended costs for consumers.

 

[killdozzer]

Companies will point out that:

1. Self service saves you time

2. Self service indeed lowers blended costs for consumers.

I know, I know. There are thousands of ways to justify what they do. Time saving is relative though, if you're downtown on any business or chores then it probably won't save you time.

But, no costs were ever lowered for me. It just gets more and more expensive. In my part of the world you pay extra 2 euros for using online banking. No other cost drops in any noticeable way. You'll have to visit your bank sooner or later as not everything is possible through e-banking services.

If a bank has 100 000 people using e-banking (and it has more) that totals to 200 000€. That is 224510$ every month. My question is where did the cost lowered for me and does anyone have the guts to tell me that maintaining the e-banking page actually costs 224510$ per month.

In today's way of doing business I would rather not justify banks. The best thing I can say is banks "could be good and beneficial" for the citizens. Right now they couldn't be further from that (or could they I'm afraid to ask).

The money is too expensive, they're not giving up on that. They try to operate with 0% risk transferring it all to their clients and using police and courts to make sure they have as little damage as possible. All this in times when the "nature" of the currency in circulation is grounded in a mere political decision (well debt more accurately, as that became the commodity that banks produce) not reflecting any real existing value, being issued as loans at as high as 30 to 1 ratio.

And this is where other products come into mind; outsource labour onto the customers themselves but treat it as a service you provide and make them pay for it. And then comes "you don't have to use it, you know" holy mantra. All this makes money they lend even more expensive and no loan ever became cheaper or more available because they make extra 2€ per customer. No loan ever!

Well, yes, you don't have to use it, but in the mean time tellers are being reduced and your waiting time in the bank (if you choose not to pay the bank for your own work) nears one hour. Funny how when it's national health system in question waiting periods are one of the most important argument for unsustainability. Go figure

I'll tell you this, I devised a way in which "run on the banks" is still possible even when money is just numbers in a program. And that fact is something that makes me smile from time to time.

 

[highfigh]

I even believe that when you successfully repair a product the company should compensate you. It should be treated like outsourcing the maintenance of their products. You saved them company time, materials and "tool-wear" so they should pay you like they do their contractors.

Same goes for on-line banking. If you go on-line and manage your bank account instead of the teller at your bank, the bank (not the state) should compensate you. The way it is now, not only do they get to employ fewer teller workers, they charge you to volunteer for them by doing teller's job on your free time.

You see how companies do educate you in maintaining their "products" if they can benefit from it by having less employees. Something very similar to "right to repair".

Polluters should compensate you for separating waste. Why should the law force you in free labour for private companies? When you prepare these "raw materials" whose production cycle already polluted once, for the next pollution/production cycle so that yesterday's garbage can be sold overpriced back to you, shouldn't you get something for your work/time? Mopping up someone else's spilled milk to prolong the life expectancy of the polluters?? And being coerced to do so by laws lobbied by private companies greed?

I'm sorry, is this too rad? I have a feeling this might be too rad.

Imagine you make a product, or a range of products. Now, imagine that someone who owns your product opens it and starts monkeying around inside in the event that it stops working, even though they know enough to be dangerous. A lot of electrical engineers can't troubleshoot electronics because designing and troubleshooting are two completely different skill sets. Of course, there's always the possibility that someone could accidentally solve the problem, but during the warranty period, I sure wouldn't want people digging around inside my product.

If something has a problem during the warranty period, they should cover the cost of the repair or replacement. Why place an undue burden on a company when it's already hard to compete in a particular industry?

"Polluters should compensate you for separating waste"? Who forced you to use their product, rather than one with a compostable package? Who forces you to repair a broken product? Recycled packaging (plastic, glass, paper or metal) isn't washed and re-used, it's shredded and reconstituted. The cost of this recycled material is lower than virgin.

 

[highfigh]

I know, I know. There are thousands of ways to justify what they do. Time saving is relative though, if you're downtown on any business or chores then it probably won't save you time.

But, no costs were ever lowered for me. It just gets more and more expensive. In my part of the world you pay extra 2 euros for using online banking. No other cost drops in any noticeable way. You'll have to visit your bank sooner or later as not everything is possible through e-banking services.

If a bank has 100 000 people using e-banking (and it has more) that totals to 200 000€. That is 224510$ every month. My question is where did the cost lowered for me and does anyone have the guts to tell me that maintaining the e-banking page actually costs 224510$ per month.

In today's way of doing business I would rather not justify banks. The best thing I can say is banks "could be good and beneficial" for the citizens. Right now they couldn't be further from that (or could they I'm afraid to ask).

The money is too expensive, they're not giving up on that. They try to operate with 0% risk transferring it all to their clients and using police and courts to make sure they have as little damage as possible. All this in times when the "nature" of the currency in circulation is grounded in a mere political decision (well debt more accurately, as that became the commodity that banks produce) not reflecting any real existing value, being issued as loans at as high as 30 to 1 ratio.

And this is where other products come into mind; outsource labour onto the customers themselves but treat it as a service you provide and make them pay for it. And then comes "you don't have to use it, you know" holy mantra. All this makes money they lend even more expensive and no loan ever became cheaper or more available because they make extra 2€ per customer. No loan ever!

Well, yes, you don't have to use it, but in the mean time tellers are being reduced and your waiting time in the bank (if you choose not to pay the bank for your own work) nears one hour. Funny how when it's national health system in question waiting periods are one of the most important argument for unsustainability. Go figure

I'll tell you this, I devised a way in which "run on the banks" is still possible even when money is just numbers in a program. And that fact is something that makes me smile from time to time.

For reference, what is your part of the world?

If banks are allowed to charge exorbitant fees, contact the government and change it. If your politicians are allowed to invest while in office, this is obviously not likely to change, but I guess you could try.

 

[killdozzer]

For reference, what is your part of the world?

If banks are allowed to charge exorbitant fees, contact the government and change it. If your politicians are allowed to invest while in office, this is obviously not likely to change, but I guess you could try.

I do try. I don't want to spill my entire life on this page or any other. But you deserved a "like" for this encouragement no matter how unnecessary it may be.

When I write a post I often try to avoid obvious questions in order to push the conversation in a more productive way.

This is exactly why I already covered this "who's forcing you to..." type of questions. Waste separation is being enforced by law more and more and it makes no difference whose products you buy. You can't ask me who forces you to buy this or that. It's the same for all products/all waste. The cost of waste separation should be calculated in a different way completely. First you should see how expensive it would be for a company that wishes to reuse someone's waste if they hired workers to separate it. This is the real cost. I don't care how hard is it for the company. I could simply throw the same question back at that company (or you in this case); who is forcing you to worship the worst mode of production since the beginning of the production itself? Not me, so you don't get to lobby the state into making me your free labour (well, slave in short).

Very often people try to point out what they see is wrong with this "how would you feel" type of comeback. But I assure you I follow my views all the way. I do make something that gets fiddled with, but I still entice it.

My position is: everyone should be free to try and repair something and it should make guarantee void only in case the fault is the direct cause of owners efforts to repair it.

You all place far too much fate in the companies and their supposed "having your best interests at heart".

However, I didn't expect you to agree with me. Once already I backed out of a conversation when I sensed it's about to get emotional. I don't care much for heated conversations.

But at least you can talk to me normally even if we disagree, (I'm not insulting you in any way, am I?) unlike some members who read something they don't agree with and go: "hey!! look, that guy is saying something that in no way reflects exactly what I'm thinking in my head, so he must be stupid, let me jump right on it and label him "dumb", he must be, after all I don't agree with him one bit, so there's no other explanation".

kd

 

[KEW]

Personally, I take my Deere to the Deere shop for repair, my Chevy to the Chevy shop for repair, my Nissan to the Nissan place for repair, my Rolex to the Rolex shop for repair, etc.

Even so, you benefit greatly from the competition offered by other repair shops! If each of these companies managed to obtain control over all repairs they would have a captive market and could basically charge whatever they want and, as long as it was less than replacing the item, you would be compelled to pay it.
This perplexes me. I get that you don't want the government telling you (or companies) what to do, but it seems like that same desire for independence would cause you to be resistant to giving the companies that much control over how much repairs cost you!
Furthermore, if you are stranded on the side of the road, do you really want to enter into scheduling your repair with a company that knows you can only use them for the repair?
Do you somehow have an idealistic view that companies will forego profits for the betterment of mankind? Some actually may try, but they usually lose to the companies that are cutting corners and maximizing profits.

I know this is a non-sequitur, but lets go back a century...
If I own a company but don't believe in child labor for my company, can I survive competing with other companies who are paying child rates for their labor? I suspect (hope) many companies saw the problems with child labor as a drag on the working class (compromising the kids education and undermining the value of adult labor). However, unless there are extenuating circumstances, as long as one company was willing to use child labor, all competing companies either had to engage child labor or run the risk of closing down (which made child labor a better alternative to losing all of the jobs of the people who work for you).
That is the problem; capitalism is a sociopath! If left purely to itself, it will, of its own system, cater to the lowest common denominator. The one guy willing to use child labor essentially forced the other companies to!
Don't get me wrong, capitalism is an excellent and efficient system for growth, but it has no conscience and that has to come from somewhere, and strangely, it is the government that is uniquely positioned to be the conscience. (did I really just write that?)
Surely, you must admit some situations where government controlled rules allow people/companies of good moral character survive/remain true to their principals!

 

[highfigh]

I do try. I don't want to spill my entire life on this page or any other. But you deserved a "like" for this encouragement no matter how unnecessary it may be.

When I write a post I often try to avoid obvious questions in order to push the conversation in a more productive way.

This is exactly why I already covered this "who's forcing you to..." type of questions. Waste separation is being enforced by law more and more and it makes no difference whose products you buy. You can't ask me who forces you to buy this or that. It's the same for all products/all waste. The cost of waste separation should be calculated in a different way completely. First you should see how expensive it would be for a company that wishes to reuse someone's waste if they hired workers to separate it. This is the real cost. I don't care how hard is it for the company. I could simply throw the same question back at that company (or you in this case); who is forcing you to worship the worst mode of production since the beginning of the production itself? Not me, so you don't get to lobby the state into making me your free labour (well, slave in short).

Very often people try to point out what they see is wrong with this "how would you feel" type of comeback. But I assure you I follow my views all the way. I do make something that gets fiddled with, but I still entice it.

My position is: everyone should be free to try and repair something and it should make guarantee void only in case the fault is the direct cause of owners efforts to repair it.

You all place far too much fate in the companies and their supposed "having your best interests at heart".

However, I didn't expect you to agree with me. Once already I backed out of a conversation when I sensed it's about to get emotional. I don't care much for heated conversations.

But at least you can talk to me normally even if we disagree, (I'm not insulting you in any way, am I?) unlike some members who read something they don't agree with and go: "hey!! look, that guy is saying something that in no way reflects exactly what I'm thinking in my head, so he must be stupid, let me jump right on it and label him "dumb", he must be, after all I don't agree with him one bit, so there's no other explanation".

kd

Oh, yeah?

 

[highfigh]

I do try. I don't want to spill my entire life on this page or any other. But you deserved a "like" for this encouragement no matter how unnecessary it may be.

When I write a post I often try to avoid obvious questions in order to push the conversation in a more productive way.

This is exactly why I already covered this "who's forcing you to..." type of questions. Waste separation is being enforced by law more and more and it makes no difference whose products you buy. You can't ask me who forces you to buy this or that. It's the same for all products/all waste. The cost of waste separation should be calculated in a different way completely. First you should see how expensive it would be for a company that wishes to reuse someone's waste if they hired workers to separate it. This is the real cost. I don't care how hard is it for the company. I could simply throw the same question back at that company (or you in this case); who is forcing you to worship the worst mode of production since the beginning of the production itself? Not me, so you don't get to lobby the state into making me your free labour (well, slave in short).

Very often people try to point out what they see is wrong with this "how would you feel" type of comeback. But I assure you I follow my views all the way. I do make something that gets fiddled with, but I still entice it.

My position is: everyone should be free to try and repair something and it should make guarantee void only in case the fault is the direct cause of owners efforts to repair it.

You all place far too much fate in the companies and their supposed "having your best interests at heart".

However, I didn't expect you to agree with me. Once already I backed out of a conversation when I sensed it's about to get emotional. I don't care much for heated conversations.

But at least you can talk to me normally even if we disagree, (I'm not insulting you in any way, am I?) unlike some members who read something they don't agree with and go: "hey!! look, that guy is saying something that in no way reflects exactly what I'm thinking in my head, so he must be stupid, let me jump right on it and label him "dumb", he must be, after all I don't agree with him one bit, so there's no other explanation".

kd

I only asked where you are for perspective because I can't know who requires what from its citizens in all places.

In many places, waste separation with the intent of selling the material for re-use makes it a commodity that may/may not be able to be mixed with virgin material, depending on the specs from the client. If one company can't use recycled material, someone else can, and it won't usually go to waste. It's one way to change the cost of the materials but if virgin is cheaper (which almost never happens), it just makes sense to use that from a cost perspective. However, separating small amounts of waste at the consumer end is a lot easier that sorting a mountain of mixed stuff in a large space or building.

I agree about being able to work on things, but only after the warranty is over. Once that's gone, have at it.

I doubt any company has our best interest in mind- I'm sure that if they could do away with most safety measures and devices, they would. The only reason to include them might be for their own employees' safety in the event that the product comes back as an initial defect- they don't want to give their insurance or worker's comp a workout.

CBS cares.

WRT online and interpersonal civility (or the lack, thereof), I have a theory- people have had social media for close to 20 years and online, they can send a snappy answer in a matter of seconds without bothering to worry about spelling, punctuation and unfortunately, without caring whether the comments make someone angry, legitimately hurts them, are completely offensive or whatever. In some cases, people over-react and become incredibly angry, leading to insults, threats and sometimes, action. In others, I think the person who takes offense should get over themselves and the comments because it's just not very important. Other times, the person making/writing/posting or recording video of the event does it without caring about the reaction, just that they have a way to make the statement and it's gonna get out there, dammit!

Kathy Griffin's photo is a prime example- it was uncalled for, it as an attempt to gain attention and when the reactions came in, she blames everyone else for her problems. In light of the beheadings done by terrorists, I think she should have just stayed silent but rather than admit that she screwed up, she cried and said that Trump broke here. Really? I wonder how Daniel Pearl's family feels about her photo. To make it worse, the proof that she wanted attention comes from the fact that she had a video crew there at the time of the photo shoot.

We see more fights, more murders and other crimes that started as small disagreements- my theory is that people have all but stopped thinking about the consequences and if they see a backlash, they're surprised, but don't understand that they're at fault.

I think the lack of civility is pathetic and it shows that people are far from as advanced as they think. Sure, we have developed amazing technologies, but we're still just another member of the animal kingdom.

Happy to discuss almost anything, as long as it remains sane.

 

[killdozzer]

I'll just write a few comments on your post to avoid quoting and making it too long. I'll go in order they were written.

I'm not avoiding answering where I am, I'm just trying to keep it focused - since, no matter where you live, you shouldn't be forced by law to give any kind of free labour (unless it is public work instead of a legal fine or few days of prison), it shouldn't make any difference where I'm from.

I live in Croatia, if you're interested, and we are mimicking some of the laws of other EU states. Soon enough it will be punishable by law not to separate waste (I think it already is). The only reason for waste separation is re-use. Regardless of whether there's a company that might go for raw material rather than for waste, waste will re-enter production.

Of course it is easier to separate waste at individual level, I don't care for that. That actually makes it worse, Microsoft saying: "it is a lot easier for us to have small children in China going through a heap of waste stripping copper from old circuits and a lot cheaper" doesn't make it better one bit. I'm not working for private companies for free, and that's it.

First of all, I strongly believe that no private company should ever profit from volunteer work whatsoever. Once you allow this, you'll never be able to tell whether it is really volunteering or just despair.

Also, I think recycling is a crime. It is ideologically deeply and profoundly wrong.

When I said some members seem to have too much trust in companies having our best interest at heart, I never meant you. But, I did get it as an answer in a post. Companies are about profit and they see money in our pockets. Our minds, if we'd bother to develop some, are obstacles in their way of getting the money. All their efforts could be summed up as solving obstacles on their way.

I'm sorry, I don't know what is (or who is) CBS. Unless you're thinking of Columbia Broadcasting System in which case I must disagree. Some companies may have ways of solving obstacles in a way that is slightly more pleasing to people, but that's it. There are other companies like these. A lot of them are always welcome here in these forums. Companies that try to get your money by fooling you less and fulfilling your demands more. These are the compromises I have to accept. They are far from good.

I guess you're not thinking of a "water restoration technician" when you say WRT, so it's probably "with regards to". I see over-reacting as throwing a tantrum, but calling it out as unfair or simply as provoking to no constructive end, I don't see that as over-reacting.

I'm not familiar with Kathy Griffin's case, but only by reading your passage I can give you this comment (not mine, I'm paraphrasing a great scholar in UK) although I refuse all conspiracy drivel and babble, and I don't think anyone intentionally did this, western media, and this is precisely when it follows its own rules and standards (whatever those may be in today's world) became the most suited instrument of fundamentalist terror. If you think of what is the goal of acts of terror, it is fear. And when you think of what are the "conditio sine qua non" of western media, these two fit like a hand in a glove. Western media makes sure that fear is well packaged, that it has a "seat in the front row", that it reaches as many people as possible (thus actually producing more fear than the act of terror initially did), that it's all dressed up with all the click baits and hooks to get a crowd. Bitter irony for the liberals or at least it should be.

I'm far more critical of civility. Originally (and still today in a lot of situations) civility is about control, oppression, imposing rules and subjugation. It didn't spring out of a good place. It always go down the ladder (oppressed have to be civil, the oppressors don't) and it is a great tool of discrimination. I do, however, respect superiors being civil to their subordinates and peers being civil to one another (but not too much, because they're not real friends then). I can't stand superiors demanding civility from their subordinates.


This is spreading like wildfire, this conversation. I like to talk to people, but I'm afraid if we continue covering every aspect it'll soon be a book and we've strayed from the topic.

I see fix it yourself as a part of do it yourself. I see do it yourself as power to the people. I see this "just leave it alone and feed the dogs" approach as dumbing people down which, I believe, leads to more dumbness. It is creating dependency. This is what is behind John Deere's effort at banning all repairs.

I think "fix it yourself" and all the "do it yourself" should be promoted as beneficial for the people. When companies start to appropriate skills, nothing good is behind it.They are not trying to stop you from fixin' it because you might make it worse, they are trying to stop you precisely because you might fix it.

Of course, I should be fair to you and say I'm a communist. This is why I don't expect too much agreement on just about anything. But the real question should be, IMO, why would a communist like this web site? We're all good capitalists here, how come?

I just hope you're not still blacklisting someone for being a communist!

 

[killdozzer]

@highfigh I must say I didn't understand your Oh yeah? post.

 

[highfigh]

@highfigh I must say I didn't understand your Oh yeah? post.

I can be difficult to convey the intent of the reply, but it would be similar to being offended by a compliment-

"Nice shirt"

Oh, yeah?

 

[highfigh]

I'll just write a few comments on your post to avoid quoting and making it too long. I'll go in order they were written.

I'm not avoiding answering where I am, I'm just trying to keep it focused - since, no matter where you live, you shouldn't be forced by law to give any kind of free labour (unless it is public work instead of a legal fine or few days of prison), it shouldn't make any difference where I'm from.

I live in Croatia, if you're interested, and we are mimicking some of the laws of other EU states. Soon enough it will be punishable by law not to separate waste (I think it already is). The only reason for waste separation is re-use. Regardless of whether there's a company that might go for raw material rather than for waste, waste will re-enter production.

Of course it is easier to separate waste at individual level, I don't care for that. That actually makes it worse, Microsoft saying: "it is a lot easier for us to have small children in China going through a heap of waste stripping copper from old circuits and a lot cheaper" doesn't make it better one bit. I'm not working for private companies for free, and that's it.

First of all, I strongly believe that no private company should ever profit from volunteer work whatsoever. Once you allow this, you'll never be able to tell whether it is really volunteering or just despair.

Also, I think recycling is a crime. It is ideologically deeply and profoundly wrong.

When I said some members seem to have too much trust in companies having our best interest at heart, I never meant you. But, I did get it as an answer in a post. Companies are about profit and they see money in our pockets. Our minds, if we'd bother to develop some, are obstacles in their way of getting the money. All their efforts could be summed up as solving obstacles on their way.

I'm sorry, I don't know what is (or who is) CBS. Unless you're thinking of Columbia Broadcasting System in which case I must disagree. Some companies may have ways of solving obstacles in a way that is slightly more pleasing to people, but that's it. There are other companies like these. A lot of them are always welcome here in these forums. Companies that try to get your money by fooling you less and fulfilling your demands more. These are the compromises I have to accept. They are far from good.

I guess you're not thinking of a "water restoration technician" when you say WRT, so it's probably "with regards to". I see over-reacting as throwing a tantrum, but calling it out as unfair or simply as provoking to no constructive end, I don't see that as over-reacting.

I'm not familiar with Kathy Griffin's case, but only by reading your passage I can give you this comment (not mine, I'm paraphrasing a great scholar in UK) although I refuse all conspiracy drivel and babble, and I don't think anyone intentionally did this, western media, and this is precisely when it follows its own rules and standards (whatever those may be in today's world) became the most suited instrument of fundamentalist terror. If you think of what is the goal of acts of terror, it is fear. And when you think of what are the "conditio sine qua non" of western media, these two fit like a hand in a glove. Western media makes sure that fear is well packaged, that it has a "seat in the front row", that it reaches as many people as possible (thus actually producing more fear than the act of terror initially did), that it's all dressed up with all the click baits and hooks to get a crowd. Bitter irony for the liberals or at least it should be.

I'm far more critical of civility. Originally (and still today in a lot of situations) civility is about control, oppression, imposing rules and subjugation. It didn't spring out of a good place. It always go down the ladder (oppressed have to be civil, the oppressors don't) and it is a great tool of discrimination. I do, however, respect superiors being civil to their subordinates and peers being civil to one another (but not too much, because they're not real friends then). I can't stand superiors demanding civility from their subordinates.


This is spreading like wildfire, this conversation. I like to talk to people, but I'm afraid if we continue covering every aspect it'll soon be a book and we've strayed from the topic.

I see fix it yourself as a part of do it yourself. I see do it yourself as power to the people. I see this "just leave it alone and feed the dogs" approach as dumbing people down which, I believe, leads to more dumbness. It is creating dependency. This is what is behind John Deere's effort at banning all repairs.

I think "fix it yourself" and all the "do it yourself" should be promoted as beneficial for the people. When companies start to appropriate skills, nothing good is behind it.They are not trying to stop you from fixin' it because you might make it worse, they are trying to stop you precisely because you might fix it.

Of course, I should be fair to you and say I'm a communist. This is why I don't expect too much agreement on just about anything. But the real question should be, IMO, why would a communist like this web site? We're all good capitalists here, how come?

I just hope you're not still blacklisting someone for being a communist!

From some of your previous posts, I suspected you were somewhere in Europe- I think the US is the only place where 'labour' (and some other words) end with 'our' and comments that didn't convey fondness for companies and corporations told me that you might not be a fan of American-style capitalism. My perception of this in your comments comes from hearing very similar statements from a friend- he doesn't like Capitalism and thinks it's evil, but I always tell him that it doesn't need to be and it isn't, in all cases. In fact, I almost asked in you're Communist, but I decided not to.

It seems to me that your resistance to recycling at home comes from being forced by a government to do things you didn't want to do- I haven't been to (or lived in) a Communist country, but I know people who came to the US after they decided they could no longer remain where they were. If your government was the type that controlled every aspect of your life, I can understand the resistance to this.

Yes- WRT='With Respect To'. Sorry, it seems that using acronyms is so frequent that I thought it would be easier to know this.

How is recycling a crime? The planet has a limited amount of natural resources and the cost to refine them is sometimes excessive. Aluminum is one of the easiest to recycle and it's also one of the most expensive to produce. Plastic is mainly made from oil and we all know about the environmental costs and how oil is generally controlled by a cartel. Paper is easy to recycle- why should forests be stripped, just to provide paper made from virgin materials when recycled material works as well?

I see your point about being an unpaid laborer, but it's not the same as child labor, where they're force to work with hazardous materials without pay, risking their life and health. What happens to the trash from packaging on food and other items in Croatia? Is it burned or put in land fills?

CBS- yes, Columbia Broadcast System. They had a habit of showing a Public Service Announcement, followed by someone saying "CBS cares". Again, without knowing your location, I didn't know that you wouldn't know this, but when I post some things that may not be known, I make the assumption that some readers will do a google search to learn what I mean.

When I mention civility, I don't mean in the sense that it's forced by the State, I mean that people should generally be civil to each other in order to not live in a society where crime and violence are rampant. We already have many places where this is happening and it's because people just don't bother to respect the right of others to retain their possessions and to walk without being beaten or shot. I'm not a fan of total political correctness, but I don't see a reason to treat others badly, just because I have a Constitutional Right to say what I want or own a gun.

I agree with your comments about over-reacting and the media- anything for peoples' attention and they switch from one topic to another, without bothering to make sure it's accurate or even true. If they report something that's incorrect, they issue a little "Oops!" and move on. It's a media circus and it's making a lot of people into idiots. They spend countless hours watching TV shows about other people when they could be improving their own lives- it's one of the reasons I'm disappointed by people. When I say I'm disappointed, some say that I'm just being negative, but I think I'm just being realistic, based on my observations. I also agree with you about being able to do things for myself, but if the manufacturer will make that a problem when something is in warranty, I might leave it for someone else to attempt (I wrote 'attempt' because they don't always know how and it amuses me to see someone who is the "Authorized Service Technician" in that position).

I know someone who traveled to at least one European country, to teach conversational English- might have been the Czech Republic. One comment he made about the situation in that country was that the people were basically told "You pretend to work and we'll pretend to pay you". I also know someone from school who came to the US from Prague after the Soviet invasion and when someone asked how they lived, he said "We didn't live, we existed". I wouldn't want to live where the government controls every aspect of peoples' lives and forced them to do whatever the government wants.

In theory, a company is often started because they have some kind of goods and/or services that may be different or better than what others provide, but some only enter business to make money, by whatever means possible and that may or may not include acting ethically. I'm in the first camp- I have worked for other companies that sell and install AV/network equipment, so I know how they operate and the quality of their work. At some point, I reached the conclusion that I didn't like what they did or their methods, so I decided to start my own. I'm not getting rich but I can sleep soundly, knowing that I didn't screw anyone. The fact that I get all of my business through referrals and additional work with long-term customers tells me I'm doing something good. While I was writing this, I received a phone call asking me to do some work from someone who was referred to me by a couple of others, who were referred by someone I had worked for over 30 years ago. The movie 'Citizen Kane' has a line that refers to making money- some see that as the single motive for doing anything and some use it as a means to an end.

Jerry Thompson: He made an awful lot of money.

Mr. Bernstein: Well, it's no trick to make a lot of money... if what you want to do is make a lot of money.

Companies that don't provide what they promise are the reason the US formed the Federal Trade Commission, but they're so far behind with cases they'll never catch up unless they force all companies to close and stop all commerce. I think they might reach the end of the list of unscrupulous businesses in about a hundred years.

Thanks for providing the info- it helps.

 

[killdozzer]

You're really interesting and a nice chat companion. I hate having someone always agreeing with me and I hate having someone who calls me dumb for having a different opinion. If other members don't mind, I'd be more than happy to continue this conversation.

I was taught British English and I do my best to stick with it (colour and not color, favour and not favor). I hope you don't mind that.

As a communist (is this spelled with a capital letter? my spelling checker seems to allow both) I'm fond of an idea of a big powerful government that controls all aspects of society and human life except thinking, privacy, art, information, sex, tastes, preferences etc. You can read the BS Grover Norquist unloads, but you can't practice it, you can read about devising explosives, but you can't devise them other than under the control of the governemnt.

So, you got me completely ( COMPLETELY) wrong about where my resistance comes from. I'm all for imposing everything that benefits most of us regardless of whether everyone understands exactly why it is being imposed (if they wish to understand they are free to learn). It has to do with negative and positive freedom, you can find it in Isaiah Berlin's writing, although he promotes negative type which is the American type, but what he describes as positive is what I'm interested in. (Here positive and negative are not quality markers i.e. negative (American) is far better in Berlin's opinion - put simply negative is just free from (rules, laws, etiquete, compassion, solidarity...) positive is free to (organize, uprise, rebel, strike change the world for better)

What I oppose is private sector using state to force people into something by law which in the end benefits private sector and no one else.

I did learn several of these abbreviations, but not all!

While I was teaching at the University I had a lot of problems explaining this exact same thought - recycling being bad. It is widely accepted as being positive. I usually say; whenever you see something widely accepted question it. I don't assume the outcome, perhaps you'll simply reassert it after questioning, but do question it.

Here goes, in short: it is impossible to recycle the material alone without recycling the mode of production. I'm happy to see you also agree with planet being limited, I don't have to go into all Tansley and brothers Odum on ecosystems etc. The current mode of production is very bad for the planet and one should not recycle it. In a hypothetical state, where there's no fear of overproduction, where there's no calculated fallability, no commodity fetishism, where products are made in order to serve a purpose and not reflect how you feel, or who you are and similar BS, where the goal is to make them to last as long as possible, where your grand, grand, grand, grand nephews still use your washing machine... Recycling would be a good thing. If instead of one life-time (or several life-times if your grand kids get to use it) washing machine, you have to buy a new one every couple of years, actual price is: every unit's price + all pollution of production of 10 washing machines instead of one + pollution of 10 recycling processes... You see where I'm heading with this.

If planet is finite, short lasting products are a crime. If that crime can be concealed with recycling, recycling is a crime.

Of course, me separating waste is not completely the same as child labour, but a bad thing benefiting private sector and no one else. I would recycle in aforementioned hypothetical state.

Sure, I do a lot of (well not googling, but...) duckduckgoing on everything you say. This is the least amount of respect. CBS is far better than some and I respect it, but only as much as I would respect Blue Jeans Cables (the way you describe them, haven't had any). I did eventually find out what CBS was, but didn't want to assume, once again. I would say CBS and PBS and Frontline are as good as it gets.

OK, so we mostly agree on civility. If it is something I'm giving and it is not being understood in any way by anyone who is higher up the hierarchy, I'm all for it. And in that case even my superiors would get some civility from me.

Regarding your Eastern Europe remark, please, although you don't have to, give me the benefit of the doubt and let's not sink our conversation to a level of: well, look at Stalin, there's your communism. Stalin was, first and foremost, a psychopath idiot. It would be really hard to find justifications for what he did to (then) Czechoslovakia (or anywhere else) in communist literature. Same as when Joseph Kabila calls Congo a Democratic State of Congo, I wouldn't tell you: see what your democracy does. We're discussing ideas. I don't condone to almost anything Stalin did and I think I would have no problems proving that SSSR wasn't communism. But the West liked the idea of embracing the Stalin's point of view so they could dismiss it more easily.

I'm not so naive (I'd like to believe) to say all capitalism is bad. I don't even think it's bad. I think it is a successful mode of production (coming from a commie bastard, ey!!). But it really does operate as an ideology today and it shouldn't. If it was ran a tight ship by state, It could be good.

So, if profit says shut the EPA down and you do it for the sake of profit, it is bad. If we, the people, say; no, we can make only as much profit as the environment allows us, it is all good.

This is the most important question and the foundation of all ideological fervor today, are ecosystems static or dynamic?

Free market preachers say it is static, it always tries to get back into balance. So today it's oil, tomorrow we make sneakers from the plastic floating in pacific (heap the size of Texas).

Controlled market preachers say it is dynamic. It is very likely to be pushed into a form that is completely unsuited for human kind. So ecosystem is the frame that sets the rules for the mode of production.

Trump only goes along with free market people; profit should in no way be burdened with regards to nature and environment because in that case 'the invisible hand' can't operate. One's man pollution is another's man future source of raw material. It can go endlessly.

I don't believe this and even if it's true, I think the price is too high. Gambling on losing all biodiversity for a faint chance that some other biodiversity MIGHT come in its place in the future is too high of a stake.

This conundrum can even be solved logically, but I don't want be a bore. If you ask me to, I'll demonstrate.

Have a nice day!
kd