Begged question - mfg liability on a per-use basis?
I like how you're approaching it but you've begged the question of *WHETHER* the manufacturer of a motor vehicle has any liability in its eventual use. The many lawsuits about brakes failing, accelerator pedals depressing, airbags with shrapnel, etc. are all based on a systemic failure, not a PER-USE failure.
I strongly suspect that the begged question, if asked, would be answered that NO, the manufacturer's liability does not change nor shift based on the PER-USE function of the vehicle. Rather, the liability is based on the overall function-as-expected/described/required-bylaw of the vehicle.
For that reason I think Tesla has no different liability whether the vehicle is used to carry your kids to the ballgame, your spouse to her office, or you to the store to buy groceries... or to take your drunk friend home... or to take someone else's drunk friend home for pay.
A motor vehicle sold in the United States is directly subject to the first-sale doctrine. That also means that the purchaser of said vehicle can safely ignore the post-sale conditions.
If Tesla were to limit or downgrade its software based on post-sale condition violations I happily predict their loss in court. It's not just a *stupid* strategy, a *closed* strategy, but also one that's in violation of established law.
Ehud P.S. I'm not a lawyer. I offer opinions on the law.
The Defendant can always file a counterclaim. If they do so before the Plaintiff dismisses the case, the Plaintiff is unable to unilaterally dismiss the case. The P must either get a stipulation from the D agreeing to it, or file a motion and get the Court to do so despite D objecting.
So ... if Donald Trump is stupid enough to sue the NYT, the NYT should --instead of waiting it out-- file some counterclaims. Those will survive a Trump attempt at dismissal, and he WILL be subject to Rule 26 disclosure.
Unfortunately that discovery would not be published, and would likely be subject to mostly being under seal. However, it sure would be fun knowing he's going to fight hard not to be grilled... and for a change... it will cost HIM.
I live in Arizona. We call it "The State of Maricopa County" because all the money and all the politics originate in that one county - with Phoenix at its center.
The rest of the state is not red, not batshit crazy, and not high on their own gasses. Unfortunately through decades the powers in Phoenix wrest more and more resources from the rest of the state to expand their power base.
But hey, it's pretty cool for you to say "Elect better ones." I'll be repeating that to you in November ;)
It's an Ultrabook. You can't change the hardware. The solid state drive (SSD) is on the board and not removable (so it can't be replaced by a cheaper larger one not sold by the manufacturer).
That drive is connected to the built-in on-board controller, which can either do Advanced Host Controller Interface (AHCI) or RAID. Lenovo has elected to have its BIOS only allow the controller to do RAID mode.
As Intel has not released a Linux RAID driver for this chipset -- or even the specifications -- Linux has no way to access this drive through the built in controller.
Note that Intel hasn't released the specs to Microsoft either. That's why their proprietary driver is required for e.g. Windows 10 to boot.
The crux is that there are two issues here: 1. Intel has not provided any drivers for Linux. They have for Windows, and 2. Intel wants Lenovo to put the device in RAID mode so the normal Windows drivers won't attach; Intel's custom driver will; that driver will set some power profile stuff that will make the laptop run cooler longer.
Put those two together and we have a laptop that COULD have linux installed on it except it defaults to putting storage in an unusable state and has the BIOS setting to fix it locked out.
Garret also suggests the Lenovo quote is misunderstood and likely references Microsoft's UEFI requirements, not some dastardly deal with Lenovo.
Attempting to pass that off and gain value from that is.
See, it's easy to make up stuff on the Internet and pretend to be knowledgeable but then look kinda stupid when someone points out that the criminal code is pretty clear about this.
It's not a crime to copy a digital file. It's not even a crime to have "GAINED" something (you know, like that copy). The "value of a license" is the shrill cry of someone who doesn't understand what copyright is for. Go read US Code Chapter 17 and get a clear understanding that the word "license" is not what it's about.
Best of luck with comprehension. It seems you came in here to troll... and no amount of FACTS (what IS and what IS NOT a crime) will change that.
Piracy is the taking of someone's property, usually at sea, to the detriment of the victim. I understand Big Media has managed to get public UJC dictionaries to add "oh and also when they copy our stuff." It is not.
In piracy, only one party gets to have that property; the other is forever deprived of it; there's also a potential loss of life or limb. Pirates didn't just drink rum and sing a lot (they did the former to remain compliant and they did not do the latter). They killed people and TOOK things. Not "made exact identical reproductions" lol.
That is nothing like the "reproduction of content" and no matter how much Gertruding you do to pretend you don't go for Big Media's lie, you've begged the question on your headline and the premise.
Piracy has nothing to do with copying content.
Any attempt to beg that question or pretend otherwise is to accept the lie that Big Media has been selling since Jack Valenti wanted to kill the VCR.
It's not 1984. The VCR did not kill hollywood. Copying is not piracy.
TL;DR - the Internet would need to be redesigned from scratch in a way that wouldn't work with today's applications, web pages, etc. Governments are against encryption and authentication (by others) so this will likely never see the light of day outside of research labs.
Now the part for people with attention spans:
The Internet wasn't designed for its evolution. The original founding fathers of the Internet include Jon Postel (RIP) who famously created "The Robustness Principle" which states "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" (RFC-1122).
The Internet was designed to do something that hadn't been done before -- get interoperability. Prior to TCP/IP (and IMPs nee routers) IBM devices talked SAN. DEC devices talked DECnet. On a lower layer there were token-ring networks, coaxial-Ethernet networks, none of which could communicate effectively with each other.
Jon's philosophy encouraged and enabled interoperability -- the original goal. As a result in "being liberal in what you accept" there were no firewall considerations, very little protocol checking (the IP packet checksum, for example, only provides a rudimentary check that the IP header has not been changed in transit... but now of course a MITM attack does exactly that). There was no crypto consideration so no hashing or signing of packets, port connect request, transmission control protocol streams, etc.
Now we are in a new era. It started somewhere in 1993 when the "commercial Internet" became a thing. The ubiquitous "coasters" sent by AOL, Netcom, and others (originally 3.5" floppies and then later CDs) allowed anyone with a MODEM to connect at incredible speeds of 9600 baud to 52Kbps (yes, baud and bps are different).
The evolutionary phases continued: everyone could get email; web 2.0; e-commerce; social media. With that came companies eager to connect the millions of worldwide businesses to the net, and also the hundreds of millions of worldwide users.
As with any society, once something is open to all that means even that bad guys have access. That had evolutionary phases too. Spam. DoS. DDoS. Malware. Then a combination of those (spam to get you to download malware and malware that put your computer in a botnet to do a DDoS). Now we have the latest which is ransomware, and this "attack vector intrusion tests."
The Internet, as designed, doesn't have the mechanisms to protect against any of this, nor can retrofitting it be done simply. The move to IPv6 (a VERY VERY incremental change) has taken over a decade and is still at less than 25% adoption.
Protecting against DDoS attack vectors requires that intermediary devices block LEGITIMATE-APPEARING-TRAFFIC. That goes against the grain of all the ISPs contracts with their customers. It also requires validation of IP addresses (to prevent spoofing) and elimination of non stream-oriented (UDP) protocols. These changes will not happen on the current Internet and they will not happen in an interoperable ("be liberal in what you accept") way with current TCP/IP.
SO philosophically, yes, we need a new communication infrastructure with signing, encryption, and elimination of Windows (malware/DDoS vector). Governments the world over do not want any of this to occur.