3 ms·

I'm just really curious and don't have a dog in this fight against/for ability to do as you will with a product you purchase. A) a hypothetical device, let's n

by soheil 6y ago

I'm just really curious and don't have a dog in this fight against/for ability to do as you will with a product you purchase. A) a hypothetical device, let's not call it a computer, but similar, exists that asks you politely by means of something like a license not to modify it even though it would be possible to do so pretty easily. B) another device, this time a hypothetical CPU that is next to impossible to modify with any degree of ease since it requires nanoscale tools. Why should there be a fundamental difference in a person's ability to modify one of the above, but not the other? Just because the laws of Physics don't allow mere mortals to so (not at least without a highly sophisticated nano fabrication lab) doesn't seem like a very convincing principled answer. Is there a stronger argument?

lmm 6y ago
Intent is important in law and in most people's moral principles (acknowledged or not). It seems to me that going out of your way to make the things you sell easier to repair is supererogatory, but going out of your way to make the things you sell harder to repair is bad and wrong, even if two companies did those two different things and reached the same end result.
coldtea 6y ago
>Why should there be a fundamental difference in a person's ability to modify one of the above, but not the other? Because one could trivially modify the first, and people do all the time (and screw the law), whereas the second is, as you said, "next to impossible" to modify even if you want it. >Just because the laws of Physics don't allow mere mortals to so (not at least without a highly sophisticated nano fabrication lab) doesn't seem like a very convincing principled answer In what universe do "the laws of physics prevent this to be done easily without millions of dollars" is not a convincing answer?

by soheil 6y ago

lmm 6y ago

Intent is important in law and in most people's moral principles (acknowledged or not). It seems to me that going out of your way to make the things you sell easier to repair is supererogatory, but going out of your way to make the things you sell harder to repair is bad and wrong, even if two companies did those two different things and reached the same end result.

coldtea 6y ago

>Why should there be a fundamental difference in a person's ability to modify one of the above, but not the other? Because one could trivially modify the first, and people do all the time (and screw the law), whereas the second is, as you said, "next to impossible" to modify even if you want it. >Just because the laws of Physics don't allow mere mortals to so (not at least without a highly sophisticated nano fabrication lab) doesn't seem like a very convincing principled answer In what universe do "the laws of physics prevent this to be done easily without millions of dollars" is not a convincing answer?