Dude, did you know that gasoline is FLAMMABLE? That stuff could ignite at almost any time! And they let unqualified people just squirt it willy nilly into any old car! Have you ever seen anyone stop and read the ICSC for gas? Neither have I! In fact, one time, I saw a movie that had a scene with a bunch of guys spraying each other with gasoline and then one of them lights a cigarette and blows them all up! Proof that people don't know what they are doing!
Right-to-Refuel, what a joke. Leave refueling to the professionals, that's what I say.
Because money. If you have to go to an authorized dealer for every repair (and if you haven't noticed, authorized dealer rates are almost always MUCH higher than the guy down the road that repairs lawnmowers) then John Deere gets that much more money, probably in licensing fees and also because the authorized dealer will only buy the parts from John Deere.
"Why in the world is using the DMCA to prevent 3rd party repairs on a product under warranty legal to begin with?"
I'm not sure if this answers your question exactly, but it may get you down the road aways:
Companies put small bits of proprietary hardware/software in places they don't necessarily need to be, then claim that reverse engineering violates the DMCA, which *very* literally speaking, such act probably does, because the DMCA is worded very poorly.
I'll play Devil's Advocate. Disclaimer: I don't like Apple, and I don't use their products.
It is more than just possible. Google or checkout YouTube for punctured lithium battery videos. A tiny puncture in that battery will lead to a runaway reaction that looks like a special effects show. Their are a few non-reactive batteries being researched, but I don't think any are in production yet.
Do I think people should be able to repair their own stuff? Absolutely. In fact, I'll say that it should be regulated that any battery operated product over a certain threshold (say 200 dollars maybe?) must have replaceable batteries.
"The public overwhelmingly supports net neutrality, and attempts to undermine it will lead the internet to speak up again."
The problem is that the public in general is going to be o.k. with the current zero-rating schemes, because there is instant gratification. John Doe isn't worried about the next internet startup that won't happen because it can't afford the zero-rating tax, but he is happy that he isn't going over on his 5 gig data plan because video streams don't count against it.
"Chelsea committed a crime and deserves punishment, same goes for Snowden."
Thanks Judge Dredd, for laying that down for us. But some of us actually think a person is innocent until proven guilty.
On a more serious note, I personally believe that Snowden felt that he was committing crimes daily by just doing his job, which included illegal spying on the American public. So he was in an impossible position of "shut up and continue breaking the law" or "speak up and break the law (but supposed to be protected by whistleblower protections that have never actually worked for anyone)".
Apparently, the RIAA just doesn't understand the meaning of the word "value". In a time not so very long ago, people would demonstrate how much they valued a person's music/performance by throwing coins up on the stage at the end of the performance. The value of that music/performance was the amount those coins added up to, once collected. The performer could do this as often as they were able and people were willing to listen and/or pay.
Somewhere along the way, this got perverted into the modern way of thinking: every "listen" should be paid for. Those old bards would chuckle cynically; they know full well that not everyone paid, heck they were probably happy if even a quarter of the listeners paid.
Also, all of the "technology" (and I use the word very loosely) created to restrict usage of texting/facetime/whatever while driving inevitably rely on the speed of the device to ascertain that the user is driving. So now, how do you determine if the user is driving, and shouldn't be texting/facetime/whatever, or if the user is a passenger, and shouldn't be similarly restricted?
The whole thing is stupid. Personal responsibility is the key, and this is just another Steve Dallas lawsuit that will fail.
OP said "no forced updates". CentOS, RHEL, and many other distros no longer give you the option to use initd. I guess my point is that Linux has it's own hurdles, and should not be considered as simple and turnkey as OP makes it sound.