It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

You bought it, so you should own it, right? Wrong.

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Luckily we (grandsons) were all taught by a grandfather that hated to drive and refused to learn how to operate vehicles/machinery how to work the fields with teams of mules and our tractors are/were from thE 60's (BS computer free).

They want their computers , they can have them. Ruined perfectly good cars, trucks and tractors snyway . Give me an old Dodge Ram with it's good old slant 6 . You can sit on the wheel well and work on it and if you drop a wrench it actually hits the ground !
edit on 22-4-2015 by Stonecutter45 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: wasaka

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: paradoxious

Now I wonder... if GM owns the vehicle and I only have a license to use, wouldn't GM be responsible to the DMV for title and registration since GM has given me license to use it?


Same way the ehm "your" government has given you the right to use the roads, hence your license.

So you're not allowed to navigate yourself around your country in a mechanised vehicle (or plane for that matter), without a permit.

Can you show me the line in the constitution that explains that?




Source: By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter):



The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the States have a "RIGHT" to travel, without approval or restriction, (license), and that this "RIGHT" is protected under the U.S. Constitution. After all, who do the roadways belong to anyway? The People-At-Large. The following are additional court decisions that expound the same facts:

educate-yourself.org...




So why do we have Licenses and tests and checks?



One the one hand we Constitutional Rights, but
on the other hand we have Statutes.

These written law passed by a legislative body
are not Common Law, or Natural Law, they just
like a city ordinance (which doesn't apply to
everyone). Often these Statutes will contradict
and effective render moot the Constitutional Right
and sadly people just accept this.

Such is the case law that govern motor vehicles
and those who operate them.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Irishhaf

This is why I want to buy an antiquated rust bucket, fix it up myself, and fit after market power steering and a couple of other bits and bobs myself, rather than getting hold of some glorified calculator on wheels.

Look at what you get with modern cars:

Keys which run out of battery power randomly, and can cause your car to lock itself down from the engine to the doors, in a most annoying fashion.

Computer assisted brakes, which when they fail can have catastrophic consequences for the lives and well being of drivers, passengers, and indeed other road users and pedestrians.

Plastic bumpers and trim. Awful, just awful. Either chrome, or go home.

Engine management computers, which not only give the manufacturer these idiotic ideas of perpetual ownership over the vehicle, but mean that a person cannot expect to be able to fix their own automobile.

Engine covers with fixings which have heads that only registered dealerships and mechanics can get the driver bits for.

Committee designed, homogenous econoboxes with no soul, flair, or individuality.

With old cars you get:

Keys. Just keys. Good old fashioned keys. You can change the barrels for more secure ones if you want, and add after market security to them for peace of mind, but you will never get locked out of one, because the computer inside the car thinks it is wise to lock the door on you (happens to people all the damned time). Reason? No computer!


Brakes which are mechanically activated by foot pressure, not by some assemblage of computer chips with delusions of their own importance.

Chromium plated, METAL bumpers, which do not crack, chip, or split because they have had too much sun.

An engine, which you can modify, tune, and tinker with to your hearts content, without any problem or limitation beyond the size of the engine bay and the type of engine you have to work with.

A bonnet (or hood for our American cousins), which is the only impediment between the user of the vehicle and the thumping guts of the machine. No silly covers, no stupid rare driver heads required, just a lever inside the vehicle, or a catch under the bonnet itself.

I know which I prefer the idea of.


I love you.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Trueman

If you were an Amish farmer you wouldn't be here with us on ATS.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

It seems to me that if JD retains true ownership of the very DNA, then they also own 100% of any liability their owned property creates, either intentional or not.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   
They can claim ownership all they want, until its outlived its usefulness, and i've either sent it to salvage or sold it to another


Now if they want to buy it back at fair market value? I'm all ears..If not they can Piss up a rope...I'll just buy older Equipment or Chinese.

Seems they are only hurting themselves by their greed



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
The concept of licensing is a bane on human freedom. No longer is possession indicative of ownership. Possession only indicates possession.

Its a big reason why I avoid Apple. From a personal level, the forcing of purchasing from a narrow band consumer outlet seems to be the antithesis of what I believe freedom to be.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
The bastards.

Review this important decision: Kirtsaeng vs. Jon Wiley and Son, a good decision and with deep implications, for everyone, everywhere. The case went through two appeals, and a Surpeme Court reversal, so it was close, and we ought to be grateful for the reversal. Certainly, there are forces at work behind this movement, as it further subjugates man. It surprises me that it came out as it did.

I became viscerally disturbed just by glancing at the nature of this case, as it was tried, and tried again. Implications are hard to look, to conjure even. The police state becomes central to it's working. The smart grid. The world becomes quite different were this case won by Wiley. Smaller. Less private. Full o surprises. Lots of em.

Hey, look Honey, Wiley World, next exit.

How'd that happen?

en.wikipedia.org...

These bastards. They just keep on coming. So much for the heartbeat of Amerika.
It's my gawd damn tractor and I'll bury it with my cold dead hands if I want to!

# 420

edit on 22-4-2015 by TheWhiteKnight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

Sprint is doing the same thing with their new phone "lease" plan.

If we don't own it then I guess the company who does is responsible for wear and tear and replacement / upkeep?



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Anyone have a list of the other manufacturers? I want to know if Im pissed at my car's manufacturer.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

That's bull#. It's immoral, same as pulling a trigger of a gun aimed as someones face. Don't obfuscate this simple situation.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Lol, cars - people don't even own the land there home sits on.
edit on 23-4-2015 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

As others have mentioned in this thread (or the other similar one) this is standard practice for software. There's only one copy of the intellectual property for software, so it's licensed out letting a person rent it for a set period of time. It's not a physical good which only a finite number of copies can be made for. That's the quick theory behind why software works the way it does.

Being a software developer myself I see both sides of this. I think this is faulty engineering on the part of John Deere. A similar case happened with PS3's a few years ago where they were originally marketed as being ideal linux boxes. Then Sony changed their mind and removed that feature from the items people had bought. Many were upset and it sparked the hacks that plague Sony to this day. Sony was in the wrong there, John Deere was in the wrong here.

In my mind, licenses are all about who has the right to sell the software. However for personal use there is nothing wrong with modifying your copy. We allow that to happen with virtually any other product (sometimes voiding warrantys). So why not allow it with software?



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   
If this is true and you only have a licence to use the vehicles, and you never actually own them.. What's going to happen to the secohd-hand markets as you can't sell something you don't own?

Thankfully I'm in Europe where the courts have already ruled this kind of rubbish is unlawful and unenforceable.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Don't know how this is surprising, since when does anyone own anything?

you buy a house, a road needs to be built there, well you got no choice get out and leave the house you thought you owned. And you will be given hat we think its worth, if ya lucky.

just like the illusion of freedom so is the same with ownership.

SNIP



a reply to: wasaka


edit on 11/27/2016 by Blaine91555 because: Snipped vulgar comment.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I would love to see a modern auto company start making vehicles with no computers attached to the engine. Just use the best tech we have today to make a mechanical gasoline engine like they did back in the 60's and 70's. It would still need a battery to start, it might even have a dashboard radio or even GPS, but you wouldn't need to worry about the computer malfunctioning or a sensor going bad (happens in my car all the damn time). I don't know why modern day vehicles are so dependent upon them, when they only seem to break down more often and cost us even more money. But costing us more money is probably the whole point.

I wonder what a sedan with gasoline engine and no computer would cost? I bet they could get one that costs less than $10,000, especially if they avoided using space age materials like carbon fiber and went with an all steel frame and exterior. Funny Tesla was just saying that their new model III will cost $35,000 and will be affordable to the average american family - I guess by their definition my family isn't average. If I had that much money I would be buying a house with it, and not living with my parents. IMO the model III will be another flop, just like all the other over-priced electric cars before it.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
I would love to see a modern auto company start making vehicles with no computers attached to the engine. Just use the best tech we have today to make a mechanical gasoline engine like they did back in the 60's and 70's. It would still need a battery to start, it might even have a dashboard radio or even GPS, but you wouldn't need to worry about the computer malfunctioning or a sensor going bad (happens in my car all the damn time). I don't know why modern day vehicles are so dependent upon them, when they only seem to break down more often and cost us even more money. But costing us more money is probably the whole point.

I wonder what a sedan with gasoline engine and no computer would cost? I bet they could get one that costs less than $10,000, especially if they avoided using space age materials like carbon fiber and went with an all steel frame and exterior. Funny Tesla was just saying that their new model III will cost $35,000 and will be affordable to the average american family - I guess by their definition my family isn't average. If I had that much money I would be buying a house with it, and not living with my parents. IMO the model III will be another flop, just like all the other over-priced electric cars before it.


The greed of corporations combined with the power lust of governing bodies prevents this.
35,000 is "affordable" to the "average" american family because that family is used to carrying a $500 a month car payment.

The auto companies like money. The banksters like money, too.
Once loans were available for cars, the cost of cars slowly started creeping up, forcing more and more people to borrow and make payments.

That money is made up out of thin air thanks to fractional reserve lending, and now you're paying interest on money that didn't exist until you bought a car- to the banks. They win, you lose.

The banks hand over money to the auto manufacturer- a hell of a lot more than they'd otherwise get for their new and improved junkbox SUX 9000 (now with more planned obsolescence!)-- the auto manufacturers win, you lose.

In the 80's, an interesting thing happened. Toyota made one of the most reliable cars ever built, the corolla with the 4age engine. Honda had a civic shortly after that would run forever if maintained. Even VW made a 1.6D engine that was practically unstoppable. These vehicles, if maintained, run for 30+ years, or over half a million miles between engines.
Very few remain on the road, however.
About the time reliable imports were hitting american roads, GM saw the writing on the wall, and it was too late for them to keep up. So they did what all big corporations do- they cheated.

The rust belt won't keep a brand new car on the road for ten years, anymore- because we spray magnesium chloride on the roads half the year instead of just sand and salt.
Cash for clunkers (tax payer dollars) came through in the 90's and tricked everyone to trading in their 10+ year old reliable cars for credit towards a down payment on a piece of junk GM SUV.
Remember when you could go out and get a reliable beater car for a grand? This is where they all went. They hauled them off, dumped sand in the oil, and ran the engines WOT until they popped- then crushed the cars.
Now a good used car costs 3-4k- you can't buy a 10+ year old car that isn't junk (case in point, early 00's BMW changed their transmission fluid policy from 80k changes to lifetime, exact same gearbox and fluid)


What I'm getting at, here, is that automotive manufacturers don't WANT you to have a good, reliable car. They WANT you to go buy a brand new 9000SUX with a $500 a month car payment and then trade it in for the next model in three years. Then they can re-sell the now less reliable three year old second hand junkbucket to someone who can only afford 300 a month, and after five years they'll have it paid off and it's got one foot in the grave, needing thousands a year in upkeep.

They don't make money if you don't buy new cars- and they're all owned by the banksters (just like us citizens) so they have no choice but to get up every morning and come up with creative new ways to juice their customers for more money.

They even know that the "average" person is running out of money. It's very hard to borrow money to make a car payment on a ten year old car, even if it's in great condition with low miles. The banks know that car wasn't designed to last more than ten years, and they know you probably won't pay them back if the car doesn't outlast your payment.

Auto loan terms have been creeping up in length- in the 90's you couldn't get a five year term for a new car. Now they're commonplace, even for second hand cars (less than five years old)- and new car terms are creeping up on seven years.
There was a time when a ten year mortgage wasn't unheard of. Soon we'll have ten year car loans- available only to people who fully intend to trade that car in after three to five years for credit towards the next car payment.

When the amount of time it takes your average person to pay for the average car exceeds the estimated lifespan of that car, THEN cars will get more reliable.
Not a moment sooner.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

When I purchased my newer truck in 2006 it had to be special ordered . Why? Because I didn't want more , I wanted less . I refused to pay for all the bells and whistles . No keyless entry , no power windows , no leather/heated seats , no GPS etc; etc; . The salesman said he wasn't making any money on the sale , i told him if i wanted all that crap I would buy a sedan . I need my truck to be , well , a TRUCK . It is impossible to find a truck any more that is not loaded down with unneeded bullsh*t .

Just bought the wife a new car for $17,000 (after trade in of her oil leaking , run to death older car) . For only $10,000 more I could have gotten the same car with fancier rims, fog lights, back up camera and a dashboard computer/GPS . The salesman tried everything he could to talk us into the more expensive model . I told him the wheels still roll with the less fancy rims , we can turn our necks so the backup camera was unneeded and we both can read a road map. Also with smart phones and tablets with GPS and map apps , why would anyone pay a couple/few thousand dollars more for a car just to get GPS/computer in the dashboard ?
edit on 23-4-2015 by Stonecutter45 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

Time to dust off the ol' Massey Ferguson I guess...

This is beyond stupid IMO. Farmers and manufacturers of farming machinery have a symbiotic relationship and all John Deere has done is shoot themselves in the foot because brand recognition is huge amongst farmers.

To paraphrase a Simpsons quote "it's time to write John Deere a Dear John."



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
If you have ever clicked the "I agree" button at the bottom of a EULA (End User License Agreement, just in you are acronym impaired) then you have already conceded the point. Software is licensed, not sold. Software is increasingly used in mechanical devices to control their operation, and that, also, is licensed, not sold. It's not such a difficult leap.

Exactly, I called this issue out in an earlier thread and it was admonished as nonsense:

PLEASE don't dismiss the "click-wrap agreement" issue. Remember we will be "agreeing" to use software, not "agreeing to follow the rules of the road in vehicles under our own control".

Mark my words, we will see in our lifetime, both "Digital Cars" and Self-driving cars with "click-wrap agreements", where passengers waive the right to sue and "agreement" will be automatically acknowledged by stepping into the vehicle, to be digitally signed by the cellphones in the passengers pocket, wirelessly. I can GUARANTEE that users/owners of these new kinds of "Digital Cars", both the self-driven and human-driven varieties, are also going to be forced to waive their right to a Jury Trial and will be REQUIRED to sign either "jury waivers" at the time purchase/lease and/or to go through forced private arbitration.

John Deere and GM are just getting their legal duck in a row before the tech becomes mainstream and a majority of the vehicles on the roads are of this design. They are testing the waters for all the other big corporations to do the same.


originally posted by: lordcomac
They don't make money if you don't buy new cars- and they're all owned by the banksters (just like us citizens) so they have no choice but to get up every morning and come up with creative new ways to juice their customers for more money.


I've talked about this before as well and its a shot across the bow of Regular Joes. Yes...consumers will not have choices in the future because purchases will be mandatory in some way. "Click-Wrap Agreements" will make that transition easier for the "Owners of Capital" to force on the general populace.

Policies structured like Obamacare should have taught us ALL how these kinds of scenarios will play out. Obamacare is merely the test run of how to implement legislated purchases on a large scale. "Click-Wrap Agreements" will only strengthen similar policies in the future.

What do I mean exactly?

Many forget that we now live in what "could" be considered a fascist country, with oligopolies running it behind the scenes. What usually results, is a situation where the "owners of capital", can and will "legislate" mandatory purchases in the future, if revenue does not match their expectations or projections (for the good of the nation of course, i.e., Too-Big-to-Fail).

So for example, if someone chooses not to buy unneeded goods or services, they will simply pay a "penalty" at tax time. When the "owners of capital" run out of consumer goods that they can "strongly coerce" people to buy, in order to go to work, such as, gasoline, internet connection, car insurance, bus/subway fare, cell phones, suits/uniforms, soap, deodorant, razors, etc. One day they will simply make it law that you have to buy them, in certain quantities before tax season (the current Healthcare dependent, Flexible Spending Account, FSA, is just the pilot program, one day we will have an FSA for ALL goods and services, and you can bet they will be use-it or lose-it). Also, since you won't own these new "digital cars" that means you could be billed for "damage to the vehicle" from the "real owners" at any time.

You will not be allowed to be frugal in the future because the "owners of capital" will take close to the same amount back, when a person tries to save money by reducing purchases, in the form of "tax penalties" or other method (cashless, digital currency, deductions from bank accounts whenever the "owners of capital" see fit). A cashless society, dominated by "click-wrap agreements" is the easiest way to structure "forced purchases" into the larger economy. In the future when someone chooses "not to buy" and then doesn't have the proper "proof of purchase" coupon, etc, to prove they bought these items, in the required quantities, when tax fillings come due, the IRS will have some way to calculate the amount "you should have purchased" (sounds a little like a college FASFA in reverse).

Look at solar roof panels, for example, many local governments are taxing people for installing them because they reduce dependence on local utilities, which in turn drive down privatized revenue being collected by the contract companies hired running the utilities.

I choose to not trust the intentions of corporations, AT ALL TIMES. The tech being created today is merely a tool of the "Owners of Capital" to oppress regular people. IN THE NEAR FUTURE, tech will absolutely be designed and bound to do the bidding of corporations and to enforce the will of government. It will not be independent of the real "owners of capital", by any stretch of the imagination. Currently, people falsely believe tech will save and unite them, when in reality it was designed by "corporate committee" to do just the opposite. The only way to prevent that shift, is to not buy such tech, oppose the development of said tech and discourage others from buying and using it, even if it means using force.

Note, I said OWNERS, not "creators", "purchasers" or "users".
edit on 23-4-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join