But as we know, "impulsive and arbitrary" is within the scope of what the Mods can do.

I liked the hard edge of the "no automotive" ban because it was pretty easy to enforce. Extending the reach of the ban makes the edges grey again and, to my way of thinking, harder to understand and enforce.

 

Huh? That is way out of the context of anything I have written so far

You explicitly referenced a government registered vehicle as being your defining criteria for what constitutes an automobile that should be regulated by a governing body:

I don't consider anything that does not require a licence plate government/ Department Of Transportation (DOT) registration and a drivers licence of any sort to be a transportation device that would fall under government control and regulation.

Like I said, despite how you feel, a government will take its own path in deciding what's "safe" to drive around.

which governments do require any and every mobile piece of machinery to be registered with them regardless of size speed or application and that no one can do any form of work on said equipment due to safety or liability concerns at the government level? ?

Shifting the burden of proof. As a blanket statement, in order to mitigate the need to know the varying laws of each political region, the owner decided to ban automotive.

I am not a follower of 'what if' concerns. I need legitimate confirmable statistical facts to back up such claims.

You clearly already have an opinion, despite a lack of those statistics you claim you need. Or is it you already have them and are trying to bait people in to a response?

A simple, reasonable person can ascertain that a person with two wires does not pose as much of a threat that as a person whose car won't stop accelerating does to the general public.

 

You explicitly referenced a government registered vehicle as being your defining criteria for what constitutes an automobile that should be regulated by a governing body:

To clarify what I mean is if a motor vehicle or device that can be used for self transport is not required by law to have to be registered with the acting Department Of transportation and have a actively upkeep licence plate and registration I do not see how that could be considered an automobile. Like a farm tractor, riding lawn mower, kids or adults electric scooter or go-cart or a common bicycle.

As far as I know none of those are mobile vehicles that require to be registered with governing transportation agencies and none of them require to be registered and licenced nor do they require a operator's permit or driver's licence to operate.

Like I said, despite how you feel, a government will take its own path in deciding what's "safe" to drive around.

That was not my point. I was simply using the common law definition of automobile to be a mobile vehicle that has to be registered and operated by a person with a driver's licence. I could care less about what the governments say otherwise. If they don't require a transportation vehicle to be registered with them and or it to only be operated by a licensed person I don't see where it can be called an automobile and thus be excludable in our discussion here. Especially so being that in the past such vehicles and their modifications were not subject to being justified thread lockdown material.

Shifting the burden of proof. As a blanket statement, in order to mitigate the need to know the varying laws of each political region, the owner decided to ban automotive.

Burden of proof of what? I am asking about how and where the line defining an automobile by this sites TOS now includes anything that anyone can ride on when common definition and general law does not. As far as what's legal or not and where most every subject on this site is in some place onthe this planet considered illegal yet we have no problems with discussing those openly and freely.

You clearly already have an opinion, despite a lack of those statistics you claim you need. Or is it you already have them and are trying to bait people in to a response?

I was not aware that statistics were needed to ask how a grey area on this forum is defined.

A simple, reasonable person can ascertain that a person with two wires does not pose as much of a threat that as a person whose car won't stop accelerating does to the general public.

Again as I have stated multiple times so far I am not questioning the sites TOS about modifying electrical or electronics systems on any automotive vehicle. I agree with the reasoning entirely. What I don't get is how using any non descriptive electrical or electronics devices that operate through any plug and play type power or connection point in a automobile can be considered an illegal modification or potential threat to personal or public safety and be a off limits topic to discussion.


My point is how does a non automotive type transportation vehicle that does not and never did require to be registered with any government agency, or at least the one where this site originates from, that oversees transportation nor does require any form of operator's licence or permits get lumped in with being called an automobile to become a non discussable subject on this forum?

 

My point is how does a non automotive type transportation vehicle that does not and never did require to be registered with any government agency, or at least the one where this site originates from, that oversees transportation nor does require any form of operator's licence or permits get lumped in with being called an automobile to become a non discussable subject on this forum?

You are allowing your cultural understanding of what an automobile is define how this international forum should approach the topic. There are many different cultural definitions for what an automobile is. That, therefore, impacts the laws that are associated with governing them and their definitions and restrictions of their use. This forum, in not wanting to discuss potentially illegal modifications of vehicles, decided to ban their discussion outright.

That said, everyone here, moderators included, have their own interpretation to what the wording in the TOS means and the extent to which they apply. So, my point - cut the moderators a little slack.

 

There are many different cultural definitions for what an automobile is. That, therefore, impacts the laws that are associated with governing them and their definitions and restrictions of their use. This forum, in not wanting to discuss potentially illegal modifications of vehicles, decided to ban their discussion outright.

In a way that makes my point exactly.

How can this forum say that such and such a things is a automobile and such and such an action is deemed as a illegal and potentially dangerous modification or repair yet in every other area of common discussion have no regards for what is or may be seen and illegal and or possibly dangerous repairs, modifications, redesigns or other actions to anything else?

GIven out TOS and if such a broad inclusive range was applied to every other item on the restricted topics list near nothing could be discussed here.

6. Restricted topics. The following topics are regularly raised however are considered "off-topic" at all times and will result in Your thread being closed without question:

• Any kind of over-unity devices and systems
• Automotive modifications
• Devices designed to electrocute or shock another person
• LEDs to mains
• Phone jammers
• Rail guns and high-energy projectile devices
• Transformer-less power supplies

Well if repurposing a 12 volt USB adapter to another purpose can be considered a automotive modification and a homemade electric scooter can be defined s an automobile then...

Devices designed to electrocute or shock another person.

Must include any device that could produce a voltage and current that could in even the most remotely possible sense be modified or accidentally used in any way that could harm or lead to a persons death a restricted item. This would also have to include accidental death by indirect response to said device such as it making a sound or shorting out a releasing smoke that could inadvertently startle you into doing some undefined action that lead to your or someone else's ultimate injury or death.

LEDs to mains.

Since the term mains is undefined and in many electronics circuits and or other languages than english the primary power rails can/could also be referred to as the mains power then all circuits that have LED's can not be allowed.

Phone jammers.

Most any and all electronics circuits could be potential RF or other forms of EM emitters that could interfere with a cell phone or any other undefined phone or phone like communications device that could operate on most any undefined frequency or method of actions then by default all electronics circuitry could be a potential phone jammer intentional or otherwise.

Transformer-less power supplies.

By definition of a transformer then any single winding based inductor is not a transformer therefore any buck or boost type voltage or current changing circuit could be considered a transformerless power supply. Same with any linear type of power control or conditioning circuit and that would also have to include any power source that is not a transformer like a battery, generator, alternator, dynamo, magneto, piezoelectric element, solar panel, or energy accumulating and storing circuit as well.

See what I am getting at here. If one area gets an all encompassing restriction than to be fair all others must as well otherwise we're just being a bunch of undefined law braking ultimate liability and safety ignoring hypocrites that could be putting the safety and lives of countless people in danger.

Or we could simply define what an automobile is and what is not and not call all things with wheels or that float or that fly automobiles.

 

[...]See what I am getting at here.[...]

Yes, you are ignoring the reasonable amount of damage to the general public each might do (as I indicated in my initial post in this thread).

You are trading reasonable judgment for stringent and rigid application of rules intended to be interpreted on a case by case basis.

 

The fact that we are having this discussion at all seems to me to indicate a deeper issue with current moderation and/or newer activity by (some) newer members.

 

Yes, you are ignoring the reasonable amount of damage to the general public each might do (as I indicated in my initial post in this thread).

What realistic damage? I fully agree with the TOS rules relating to modifying any automobiles stock factory wiring or control systems. As far as I know there is no rational plausible way that adding an accessory to any factory supplied power port or power access plug in it's stock wiring harness systems will give any type of plug and play devices total unstoppable control over the engine, transmission and or brake systems.

As far as a person building a 100% drive by wire vehicle that could pass DOT inspection and would be legal on the road and having the designers systems fail in a full throttle no brakes scenario that again is not any fault or responsibility of AAC being no one here would allow a thread relating to such a vehicle to live long enough to get that far.

So as I said, what realistic way can any personally built or modified automotive accessory realistically take over any vehicle with full unstoppable control through a power port? I know of none and no rational way to do so that would allow for anything but a overload of the electrical system by bypassing stock sizes and locations of fuse to the point of the vehicle shutting off which in itself still does not give a person an totally uncontrollable vehicle.

The worst case I can see if if the driver was distracted with his device but then again drivers being distracted by their own fascinations rather than concentrating on driving is not any responsibility or liability of AAC or anyone else for that matter. That's operator error plain and simple.

 

The fact that we are having this discussion at all seems to me to indicate a deeper issue with current moderation and/or newer activity by (some) newer members.

In a way yes but I want to know the when where and why of how formerly discussable topics and concepts suddenly became off limits under some very weakly associated attachments or safety/liability reasoning to what have been fairly well defined rules and common internet sense.

For me it's like when my wife claimed that 50% of all people who go swimming drown so therefore we could not go swimming. If a persons going to make excuses for not doing or allowing something I just want some rational explanations other than really weak lame or outrightly false excuses. 50% of all people who go swimming drown. NOPE . Not gonna believe it without some serious documented justification and proof! I'm fat lazy and just don't want to go. Well yea I can see why you don't want to go.

That's all I'm saying. Dont BS me. I'm many things but I'm not that gullible or dumb.

 

tcmtech,

What would your code of ethics or code of conduct be for a forum such as AAC?

Here is the IEEE code of ethics: http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html

Attached is the IEEE code of conduct:

 

Those seem pretty reasonable provided they are being evenly and fairly applied to all aspects of work or such and not being given the blind eye on one subject while being used to nit pick another or being misinterpreted or embellished on to justify false pretences or rational for the justification doing or not doing certain actions.

All I am saying is if standards of safety, responsibility, liability or other such ethical and or moral fortifications are to be used don't pick and choose the where and why of their implementation or lack there of.
The law of everyone excludes no one and favors no one for any reason just as it makes no discernment for what should or should not be acted on or ignored.

If the law says we shall not discuss pink elephants than I will not discuss pink elephants but when it tries to tell me that a cats are now a pink elephants because they both have four legs and a tail I am going to question said declaration to no end until a solid rational explanation is given. (Or the law makers admit that they are idiots who can't tell the difference between pink elephants and cats. )

 

Those seem pretty reasonable provided they are being evenly and fairly applied to all aspects of work or such and not being given the blind eye on one subject while being used to nit pick another or being misinterpreted or embellished on to justify false pretences or rational for the justification doing or not doing certain actions.

Agreed.

How do you propose we abide by:

We will comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations governing IEEE’s business conduct worldwide.

Remember, ignorance of the law is not excused.

on edit:

And in the a$$ you save maybe your own department ... the electrical shock issue is illustrated nicely at http://www.spgs-ground.com/information/shock-hazard

 

Seems like someone will blow a vein in their neck before this is over.

 

I often wondered if anyone PM'd the TS of the thread that got this thread started with an answer.

 

How do you propose we abide by:

We will comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations governing IEEE’s business conduct worldwide.

Remember, ignorance of the law is not excused.

It's impossible. The first sentence and the third can and eventually will be found to at some point paradoxically contradict each other.

By complying with all applicable laws eventually two or more laws will eventually be found to contradict each other when enacted and followed. Given a large enough base of reference for laws will eventually show that all actions are both legal and illegal in some way somewhere.

The only rational solution is to define the applied laws of one location such as the country of origin of the entity that is in question. However in doing so then the definitions of items or actions that come up as being legally questionables would also have to be based on the ruling laws and definitions of said place of origin.

That and it's no more possible for everyone to know and implement every law ever written than it is for everyone to know every law and action of all sciences and nature itself.

Basically I know things you don't know and you know things I don't know so which one of us is at greater fault for not knowing what the other knows being to not know all laws is akin to not having all knowledge of everything?

BTW.

The Communications Decency Act
This prompted Congress to pass the Communications Decency Act in 1996. The Act contains deceptively simple language under the heading "Protection for Good Samaritan blocking and screening of offensive material":

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Section 230 further provides that "[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."

Websites Covered by Section 230
Is an "interactive computer service" some special type of website? No. For purposes of Section 230, an

"interactive computer service" means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server.
Most courts have held that through these provisions, Congress granted interactive services of all types, including blogs, forums, and listservs, immunity from tort liability so long as the information is provided by a third party.

As a result of Section 230, Internet publishers are treated differently from publishers in print, television, and radio. Let's look at these difference in more detail.

From http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-under-communications-decency-act

As I read it basically forums are for the most part immune to being liable for what info their members post nullifying all excuses from moderators or site ownership over liability, legal, ethical and moral concerns regarding what it's members say void.

If it's not profane, lewd, sexually explicit or generally indecent by this sites target audience AAC is not responsible for it's posting or whom follows it to what end.

 

Hi,

I didnt know there was a ban on automobiles. Does this mean we cant talk about say installing an inverter in your car? I mean like where you'd like to have it wired in with say #6 gauge wire so you dont have to keep hooking it up every time you want to use it, probably also with a cutout switch. So im not talking about a dinky little 100 watt inverter, but not a huge one like 10000 watts either...like say a 1000 watt unit.
Would that be considered against the rules?

If it was against the rules, then i would have to wonder how all the other electronic sites get away with it. Is it because they dont know any better, or is it because sites cant be held responsible for what the forum members talk about? Also, has any site like this on record ever been sued for any related content chat of any kind?

I dont think people should be talking about making weapons though, that's where i draw the line myself. I wont help anyone who wants to make a weapon on any site.

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

 

I didnt know there was a ban on automobiles. Does this mean we cant talk about say installing an inverter in your car? I mean like where you'd like to have it wired in with say #6 gauge wire so you dont have to keep hooking it up every time you want to use it, probably also with a cutout switch. So im not talking about a dinky little 100 watt inverter, but not a huge one like 10000 watts either...like say a 1000 watt unit.
Would that be considered against the rules?

Well as I and others have seen recently even things modifying a common 12 volt USB power adapter to work as a dedicated power supply for any in vehicle gadget that requires it's own 5 volt power source was considered a automotive modification resulting in threads being locked down.

So yea a power inverter that requires actual heavy gauge wiring and a dedicated feed from the vehicles battery would definitely be considered a automotive mod.

If it was against the rules, then i would have to wonder how all the other electronic sites get away with it. Is it because they dont know any better, or is it because sites cant be held responsible for what the forum members talk about? Also, has any site like this on record ever been sued for any related content chat of any kind?

They are likely aware of the overall immunity to liability and such that is provided by the communications decency act and it related rule sets as can be viewed and scrutinized here.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-under-communications-decency-act

Basically it says that forums such as AAC are not liable for any form of accidents injury, death, self perceived insults or other misfortunes to anyone who followed any advice they found on this site making the 'we can't discus XYZ because of potential site liability or safety concerns' excuse a total BS cop out.

 

At considerable risk of opening yet another 'can of worms', what about RC models (i.e. unmanned vehicles)? Which, as recent events have shown, can likewise be rather hazardous in negligent hands...
http://nypost.com/2013/09/05/man-decapitated-by-remote-controlled-toy-helicopter/

Best regards
HP

 

Well as I and others have seen recently even things modifying a common 12 volt USB power adapter to work as a dedicated power supply for any in vehicle gadget that requires it's own 5 volt power source was considered a automotive modification resulting in threads being locked down.

So yea a power inverter that requires actual heavy gauge wiring and a dedicated feed from the vehicles battery would definitely be considered a automotive mod.



They are likely aware of the overall immunity to liability and such that is provided by the communications decency act and it related rule sets as can be viewed and scrutinized here.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-under-communications-decency-act

Basically it says that forums such as AAC are not liable for any form of accidents injury, death, self perceived insults or other misfortunes to anyone who followed any advice they found on this site making the 'we can't discus XYZ because of potential site liability or safety concerns' excuse a total BS cop out.

It's like you aren't listening - the laws and definitions of one nation are not applicable in an international context. You just keep quoting laws from a single country and using that as the of basis for why it should be allowed.

 

It's like you aren't listening - the laws and definitions of one nation are not applicable in an international context. You just keep quoting laws from a single country and using that as the of basis for why it should be allowed.

What exactly is the to listen to or say. What may be legal on one country may not be in another. Given that if every law from every country that forbids anything were to be acknowledged and adhered to by AAC then everything here would be illegal and nothing could be discussed.

I'm from the USA so I have zero interest in upholding the rules and laws of say Cuba or North Korea and how they view what is or is not legal on the internet or anywhere else.

From what I can find AAC is from the USA, according to their listed address, so by my understanding the US rules and laws of internet commerce are what stand first.

AAC US Office:
404 S. 8th St. Ste. 203 Boise ID, 83702