4 ms·

I disagree. You can mess with odometer as much as you like. Trying to sell it off with a different amount of miles than have actually been put on it is called f

by ixwt 3y ago

I disagree. You can mess with odometer as much as you like. Trying to sell it off with a different amount of miles than have actually been put on it is called fraud. You should own your car and be able to do as you wish. You should also be able to turn on or off any tracking. There are just consequences for some of the things you might want to do.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> should own your car Ownership is a legal concept. What it means, what that package of rights tied to a piece of property entails, is entirely dependent on the law. Using ownership as a guideline for rule-making is bad form because it’s tautology; I can justify and condemn anything on the basis of my or adjoining persons’ purported ownership rights. The machine languages of ownership are control and possession. That’s what we’re delineating, and unfortunately it generally must be done piecemeal. In this case, the pieces are the data cars beam home. Currently, the manufacturer controls it. You and I agree—I think—that it should be the user, which we—by this conjecture—make its owner. The ownership flows from control, not the other way. (The problem is trebled with cars given they’re typically driven on roads the driver doesn’t own nor control.)
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  ownership has a legal definition, the concept of ownership exists outside of the law.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the concept of ownership exists outside of the law Not really. The common definitions either fall back to control or invoke the term property, another legalistic word. What ownership means is incredibly fluid and context dependent; consider how ambiguous it is when it comes to its classic form, real estate.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      we should label this movement you're describing. how about "legal absolutism"? If it's not codified in law it doesn't exist and therefore cannot be a part of people's vernacular. Once this takes over we can update all our dictionaries to stop marking specific definitions as being legal definitions as they'll all, by definition (heh) be the legal definition. Or, to put it another way, this is the internet, where you're free to say whatever you want but that doesn't mean you'll be taken seriously.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > if it's not codified in law it doesn't exist and therefore cannot be a part of people's vernacular Within the context of lawmaking, for social constructs like ownership, absolutely. It’s sort of like starting with legality when writing drug regulations; outside the lawmaking context, that makes sense, within it, it’s nonsense. I’m not saying never use the word ownership in common parlance. But when discussing a new law, yes, it pays to be precise. Because starting from ownership will result in a law that is ineffective or misdirected.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        the comment that started this > You should own your car and be able to do as you wish. no "new law" was being discussed, you yourself tried to limit the scope to the legal definition and now you're trying to argue that no one should be discussing anything but the legal definition (well, for the second time, just with different words).
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > no "new law" was being discussed, you yourself tried to limit the scope to the legal definition It's a normative statement. And I'm not solely talking legal definitions. But when we're debating the proper boundaries of ownership, it is tautological to invoke ownership in the definition. The original phrase is stronger as "you should be able to do [with your car] as you wish." Which is not a commonly-held view even if we restrict ourselves to vehicles solely driven on private property--to the point of absurdity, you can't mow down pedestrians just because it's your car and land.
drbawb 3y ago
>I disagree. You can mess with odometer as much as you like. Trying to sell it off with a different amount of miles than have actually been put on it is called fraud. For a long time this was just a fact of buying any car that lived long enough. I have bought several cars where the transaction went something like: "so the odometer has rolled over twice; so there's actually 376,000 miles on the frame... but only 118,000 of those are on this motor and I swapped the transmission with a reman 76,000 miles ago." Of course we've added a few significant figures to odometers since then, and in the era of digital odometers I imagine "rolling over" behaves very differently. (Will the chassis survive 4 billion miles? Seems unlikely. Do the display and storage have different bit resolutions? Is it a saturating counter internally? Externally?)

by ixwt 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> should own your car Ownership is a legal concept. What it means, what that package of rights tied to a piece of property entails, is entirely dependent on the law. Using ownership as a guideline for rule-making is bad form because it’s tautology; I can justify and condemn anything on the basis of my or adjoining persons’ purported ownership rights. The machine languages of ownership are control and possession. That’s what we’re delineating, and unfortunately it generally must be done piecemeal. In this case, the pieces are the data cars beam home. Currently, the manufacturer controls it. You and I agree—I think—that it should be the user, which we—by this conjecture—make its owner. The ownership flows from control, not the other way. (The problem is trebled with cars given they’re typically driven on roads the driver doesn’t own nor control.)

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
ownership has a legal definition, the concept of ownership exists outside of the law.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > the concept of ownership exists outside of the law Not really. The common definitions either fall back to control or invoke the term property, another legalistic word. What ownership means is incredibly fluid and context dependent; consider how ambiguous it is when it comes to its classic form, real estate.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    we should label this movement you're describing. how about "legal absolutism"? If it's not codified in law it doesn't exist and therefore cannot be a part of people's vernacular. Once this takes over we can update all our dictionaries to stop marking specific definitions as being legal definitions as they'll all, by definition (heh) be the legal definition. Or, to put it another way, this is the internet, where you're free to say whatever you want but that doesn't mean you'll be taken seriously.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > if it's not codified in law it doesn't exist and therefore cannot be a part of people's vernacular Within the context of lawmaking, for social constructs like ownership, absolutely. It’s sort of like starting with legality when writing drug regulations; outside the lawmaking context, that makes sense, within it, it’s nonsense. I’m not saying never use the word ownership in common parlance. But when discussing a new law, yes, it pays to be precise. Because starting from ownership will result in a law that is ineffective or misdirected.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        the comment that started this > You should own your car and be able to do as you wish. no "new law" was being discussed, you yourself tried to limit the scope to the legal definition and now you're trying to argue that no one should be discussing anything but the legal definition (well, for the second time, just with different words).
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > no "new law" was being discussed, you yourself tried to limit the scope to the legal definition It's a normative statement. And I'm not solely talking legal definitions. But when we're debating the proper boundaries of ownership, it is tautological to invoke ownership in the definition. The original phrase is stronger as "you should be able to do [with your car] as you wish." Which is not a commonly-held view even if we restrict ourselves to vehicles solely driven on private property--to the point of absurdity, you can't mow down pedestrians just because it's your car and land.

drbawb 3y ago

>I disagree. You can mess with odometer as much as you like. Trying to sell it off with a different amount of miles than have actually been put on it is called fraud. For a long time this was just a fact of buying any car that lived long enough. I have bought several cars where the transaction went something like: "so the odometer has rolled over twice; so there's actually 376,000 miles on the frame... but only 118,000 of those are on this motor and I swapped the transmission with a reman 76,000 miles ago." Of course we've added a few significant figures to odometers since then, and in the era of digital odometers I imagine "rolling over" behaves very differently. (Will the chassis survive 4 billion miles? Seems unlikely. Do the display and storage have different bit resolutions? Is it a saturating counter internally? Externally?)