4 ms·

But for something like a tractor, the firmware is part of the machine. If you could change it, you might get it to say, break EPA regs for carbon emissions or o

But for something like a tractor, the firmware is part of the machine. If you could change it, you might get it to say, break EPA regs for carbon emissions or otherwise behave in an unsafe manner. With all due respect, it sounds like they guy just doesn't wanna pay a tech to come out ( whether the reason is cost in dollars or cost in time ) . I don't blame him at all, but these things have to be done in a controlled manner. And strictly speaking, the thing shouldn't be broken in the first place. I won't go as far as to say engine monitors should never have any problems upon release, but it's close to that. This sort of thing should be close to "C.A.R. Tony Hoare complete" and very nearly provably correct.

wvenable 11y ago
> If you could change it, you might get it to say, break EPA regs for carbon emissions or otherwise behave in an unsafe manner. People have been doing this for a hundred years. You could always change a machine to make it unsafe. This has only become illegal now that software is involved. The idea that people are no longer able to fix their own equipment, or that it has to be done "in a controlled manner", is a new idea. As a society, we've been heading down this slippery slope for a long time and it's now to the point that your opinion isn't outside of the norm even on a site called Hacker News. It's overall a lack of trust for one's fellow man. Here you are arguing about farmers breaking EPA regs or making their own equipment unsafe. When farmers are arguing to be able to make their equipment work when it needs to work using their own skills.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  You are 100% correct, but from the perspective of the tractor manufacturer's legal team... It is a new idea. And the irony of me saying this on Hacker News is thick as cheese. I do have to wonder how a farmer can "fix" code for an engine status display. If it's just "broken" broken, then you'd need parts anyway.
SolarNet 11y ago
Regulations like the EPA regulations typically only apply to selling the hardware. If you own and operate it on your own property and never sell it to anyone you have a lot more leeway.

wvenable 11y ago

> If you could change it, you might get it to say, break EPA regs for carbon emissions or otherwise behave in an unsafe manner. People have been doing this for a hundred years. You could always change a machine to make it unsafe. This has only become illegal now that software is involved. The idea that people are no longer able to fix their own equipment, or that it has to be done "in a controlled manner", is a new idea. As a society, we've been heading down this slippery slope for a long time and it's now to the point that your opinion isn't outside of the norm even on a site called Hacker News. It's overall a lack of trust for one's fellow man. Here you are arguing about farmers breaking EPA regs or making their own equipment unsafe. When farmers are arguing to be able to make their equipment work when it needs to work using their own skills.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
You are 100% correct, but from the perspective of the tractor manufacturer's legal team... It is a new idea. And the irony of me saying this on Hacker News is thick as cheese. I do have to wonder how a farmer can "fix" code for an engine status display. If it's just "broken" broken, then you'd need parts anyway.

SolarNet 11y ago

Regulations like the EPA regulations typically only apply to selling the hardware. If you own and operate it on your own property and never sell it to anyone you have a lot more leeway.