Quote1) A customer who buys a product unlocks a feature they've not paid for is immoral because it deprives the manufacture of revenue.
I would suggest that this kind of hacking activity is 'priced in' to the business model for the product by the manufacturer anyway.
If the hacking got to the point where the business model breaks down then they would change the way they control hardware and software features. But the business model may reveal that moderate levels of hacking may actually be of benefit to the business. Who here really knows?
Quote2) When a customer buys a product, they can do with it what they please, including modify it to improve the performance and unlock whatever features they like.For home/hobby use that's the way I see things.
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over?
Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over?Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
Quote1) A customer who buys a product unlocks a feature they've not paid for is immoral because it deprives the manufacture of revenue.
I would suggest that this kind of hacking activity is 'priced in' to the business model for the product by the manufacturer anyway.
It has to be priced in regardless of whether or not they do so explicitly. If it isn't, then they end up undercharging or overcharging for their products, and will eventually go out of business until they strike the right price versus sales balance. Put another way, the market automatically takes care of this one way or another.QuoteIf the hacking got to the point where the business model breaks down then they would change the way they control hardware and software features. But the business model may reveal that moderate levels of hacking may actually be of benefit to the business. Who here really knows?
It is logical that hacking on the part of hobbyists would be of benefit to the manufacturer, especially if that isn't available with other brands, because it would make the hackable products more desirable than those of the competitors (since the capability to price ratio of the hackable brand ends up being higher than that of the nonhackable brand). And since most businesses won't hack their instruments because those instruments are mission critical to the business and therefore the business can't risk loss of support for them, the end result is that the hackability of an instrument only really makes a difference in the hobbyist market -- and the difference there is a positive one for the manufacturer.QuoteQuote2) When a customer buys a product, they can do with it what they please, including modify it to improve the performance and unlock whatever features they like.For home/hobby use that's the way I see things.
I don't see why it would (or should) be any different when the customer is a business. Whether it's a home/hobby user or a business, as long as the customer isn't actively harming someone else with what they purchased, why should they be restricted in what they do with what they purchased?
I think vk6zgo has it right on: people are used to the notion of being able to do what they please with hardware, but have grown up in a culture where doing what you please with software has rarely been allowed. So they automatically come to view the two as completely different things, when they are exactly the same save for one thing: hardware cannot be copied at will and at no cost, while software can. Supply and demand automatically applies to hardware, so the standard economic mechanisms (along with patents) provide sufficient incentive for people to build hardware devices for sale. But because software can be copied at will at no cost, the standard economic mechanisms are insufficient to maintain a healthy software market.
This is why copyright applies to software, and why unilateral contractual terms and conditions arising from it should be no more acceptable than the same would be when applied to hardware. Most people here would be outraged if the manufacturers of the hardware they buy forbade them from reverse engineering it or modifying it, and would be up in arms if they were forbidden from opening that hardware up at all, but they not only have no problem with those things as regards software, they support it!! That is hypocrisy, pure and simple. And I haven't even touched on the additional contractual terms and conditions those people will support on the software side of things (look at this thread!), when they almost certainly wouldn't support any such thing on the hardware side of things.
Software is already covered by patents as well. That and simple prohibitions on distributing copies (be it of the original or of derivatives) would be sufficient to make software identical to hardware as regards the health of the market. At that point, it would operate in the same way. But software vendors (e.g., Microsoft) got greedy and used their influence to warp the law, and the end result is the ultra-restrictive software market we have today, where even reverse engineering is generally forbidden by unilaterally-imposed contract.
1) A customer who buys a product unlocks a feature they've not paid for is immoral because it deprives the manufacture of revenue.
I would suggest that this kind of hacking activity is 'priced in' to the business model for the product by the manufacturer anyway.
It has to be priced in regardless of whether or not they do so explicitly. If it isn't, then they end up undercharging or overcharging for their products, and will eventually go out of business until they strike the right price versus sales balance. Put another way, the market automatically takes care of this one way or another.
If the hacking got to the point where the business model breaks down then they would change the way they control hardware and software features. But the business model may reveal that moderate levels of hacking may actually be of benefit to the business. Who here really knows?
It is logical that hacking on the part of hobbyists would be of benefit to the manufacturer, especially if that isn't available with other brands, because it would make the hackable products more desirable than those of the competitors (since the capability to price ratio of the hackable brand ends up being higher than that of the nonhackable brand). And since most businesses won't hack their instruments because those instruments are mission critical to the business and therefore the business can't risk loss of support for them, the end result is that the hackability of an instrument only really makes a difference in the hobbyist market -- and the difference there is a positive one for the manufacturer.
2) When a customer buys a product, they can do with it what they please, including modify it to improve the performance and unlock whatever features they like.For home/hobby use that's the way I see things.
I don't see why it would (or should) be any different when the customer is a business. Whether it's a home/hobby user or a business, as long as the customer isn't actively harming someone else with what they purchased, why should they be restricted in what they do with what they purchased?
I think vk6zgo has it right on: people are used to the notion of being able to do what they please with hardware, but have grown up in a culture where doing what you please with software has rarely been allowed. So they automatically come to view the two as completely different things, when they are exactly the same save for one thing: hardware cannot be copied at will and at no cost, while software can. Supply and demand automatically applies to hardware, so the standard economic mechanisms (along with patents) provide sufficient incentive for people to build hardware devices for sale. But because software can be copied at will at no cost, the standard economic mechanisms are insufficient to maintain a healthy software market.
This is why copyright applies to software, and why unilateral contractual terms and conditions arising from it should be no more acceptable than the same would be when applied to hardware. Most people here would be outraged if the manufacturers of the hardware they buy forbade them from reverse engineering it or modifying it, and would be up in arms if they were forbidden from opening that hardware up at all, but they not only have no problem with those things as regards software, they support it!! That is hypocrisy, pure and simple. And I haven't even touched on the additional contractual terms and conditions those people will support on the software side of things (look at this thread!), when they almost certainly wouldn't support any such thing on the hardware side of things.
Software is already covered by patents as well. That and simple prohibitions on distributing copies (be it of the original or of derivatives) would be sufficient to make software identical to hardware as regards the health of the market. At that point, it would operate in the same way. But software vendors (e.g., Microsoft) got greedy and used their influence to warp the law, and the end result is the ultra-restrictive software market we have today, where even reverse engineering is generally forbidden by unilaterally-imposed contract.
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over?Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.
In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over?Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.
In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over?Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.
In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.
No, they don't. They have different software. Now it may be that there are only a few bytes difference, but that is sufficient. After all, in most processors it is only necessary to have a single bit difference in order to completely change the operation of the computer - just think what you can achieve by changing a JNZ instruction into a JZ instruction.
No they do not. They have exactly the same software. No code has changed. Only a variable which the user enters and are able to easily do so, with or without paying the manufacturer.
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over?Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.
In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.
No, they don't. They have different software. Now it may be that there are only a few bytes difference, but that is sufficient. After all, in most processors it is only necessary to have a single bit difference in order to completely change the operation of the computer - just think what you can achieve by changing a JNZ instruction into a JZ instruction.No they do not. They have exactly the same software. No code has changed. Only a variable which the user enters and are able to easily do so, with or without paying the manufacturer.
I don't see why it would (or should) be any different when the customer is a business. Whether it's a home/hobby user or a business, as long as the customer isn't actively harming someone else with what they purchased, why should they be restricted in what they do with what they purchased?
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over?Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.
In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.
No, they don't. They have different software. Now it may be that there are only a few bytes difference, but that is sufficient. After all, in most processors it is only necessary to have a single bit difference in order to completely change the operation of the computer - just think what you can achieve by changing a JNZ instruction into a JZ instruction.No they do not. They have exactly the same software. No code has changed. Only a variable which the user enters and are able to easily do so, with or without paying the manufacturer.
Nonsense.
There are no "variables" in the customer's purchase - there are only bit patterns in a EPROM. Those bit patterns are interpreted by a hardware "universal machine" to perform a function. There might have been concepts that could be identifed as "variables" in the source code, but that is irrelevant since the customer has not bought the source code.
There is no difference between changing a few of the bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted as a JNZ or a JZ instruction) or a few other bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted by the hardware as input to a JNZ or JZ instruction).
The key is instructions that determines the machines function. The source code is an instruction that determines the source code instruction.
The machines' operation is the interpretation of bits, all the way down (with apologies to Terry Pratchett).
Entering a code to unlock features which both the software and hardware are already capable of does not. It just needs the correct code to be entered, via the user interface
you're just enabling functionality which already exists within it.
QuoteEntering a code to unlock features which both the software and hardware are already capable of does not. It just needs the correct code to be entered, via the user interfacePlease add some context here. Because to unlock any software (Windows, games, et al) that is distributed through CD's or downloads (and doesn't require constant internet connection/verification, anyway), all you need to do is enter the right code.... it's just a hell of a lot harder to crack in most cases.
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over?Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.
In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.
No, they don't. They have different software. Now it may be that there are only a few bytes difference, but that is sufficient. After all, in most processors it is only necessary to have a single bit difference in order to completely change the operation of the computer - just think what you can achieve by changing a JNZ instruction into a JZ instruction.No they do not. They have exactly the same software. No code has changed. Only a variable which the user enters and are able to easily do so, with or without paying the manufacturer.
Nonsense.
There are no "variables" in the customer's purchase - there are only bit patterns in a EPROM. Those bit patterns are interpreted by a hardware "universal machine" to perform a function. There might have been concepts that could be identifed as "variables" in the source code, but that is irrelevant since the customer has not bought the source code.
There is no difference between changing a few of the bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted as a JNZ or a JZ instruction) or a few other bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted by the hardware as input to a JNZ or JZ instruction).
The key is instructions that determines the machines function. The source code is an instruction that determines the source code instruction.
The machines' operation is the interpretation of bits, all the way down (with apologies to Terry Pratchett).No there is a big difference. Changing an instruction would require modification of the software. Entering a code to unlock features which both the software and hardware are already capable of does not. It just needs the correct code to be entered, via the user interface. From the firmware's point of view it is no different to changing any other setting on the oscilloscope.
When you unlock more bandwidth on your oscilloscope, you're just enabling functionality which already exists within it.
So if I stumble on the right unlock code, I'm good? If I stumble on the right combination on someone else's locker, I guess I can take their stuff. I'm just unlocking the feautures that were already in there.
If I put my key in another person's car and it happens to fit, I can take it?
Locks are there topreventdeter theft. If you bypass the lock, no matter how simple, what does that make you?
Sure, if you bought the scope because you KNEW how to unlock it, and that's the only reason you bought it, and the only reason you are unlocking it is for personal use, then I see no problem. Again not legal or ethical. Just common sense. This is a small minority of customers, and it won't make a difference to anyone. I wonder if this discussion would be different if the company in question were HP or Tek.
QuoteI don't see why it would (or should) be any different when the customer is a business. Whether it's a home/hobby user or a business, as long as the customer isn't actively harming someone else with what they purchased, why should they be restricted in what they do with what they purchased?
I feel like there is a difference. Not that it's based on ethics or law. The distinction here is that an oscilloscope is essentially a tool. Now music and movies and video games are often "consumed" by the end-user for their own sole pleasure. Unless that music or movie is played in a place of business or illegally shared/sold to other parties, it is simply a consumption item, not a tool.
So if I stumble on the right unlock code, I'm good? If I stumble on the right combination on someone else's locker, I guess I can take their stuff. I'm just unlocking the feautures that were already in there.
If I put my key in another person's car and it happens to fit, I can take it?
Locks are there topreventdeter theft. If you bypass the lock, no matter how simple, what does that make you?
Sure, if you bought the scope because you KNEW how to unlock it, and that's the only reason you bought it, and the only reason you are unlocking it is for personal use, then I see no problem. Again not legal or ethical. Just common sense. This is a small minority of customers, and it won't make a difference to anyone. I wonder if this discussion would be different if the company in question were HP or Tek.
It is all software! it is all bits. The two are, in very very deep philosophical and practical ways, completely identical.
What's the difference betweenAnswer: in very deep practical ways, absolutely none.
- changing one EPROM location from 0x1234 to 0xabcd - where 0x1234 is the key that causes the lower bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware and 0xabcd is the key that causes the higher bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware
- changing another EPROM location from 0x1234 to 0xabcd - where 0x1234 is a JZ opcode that causes the lower bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware and 0xabcd is the JNZ opcode that causes the higher bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware
There are no "special" bits. There are only bits. And any of those bits can be changed by an editor.
Why does it matter whether you are unlocking it for personal use or for business use? Sure, it may matter as regards the support you can expect afterwards, but whether or not that serves as sufficient reason to refrain is dependent solely on the circumstances of the individual.
I think you misunderstood my meaning. I wasn't referring to the difference between a tool (something used for productivity) and a toy (something used for fun). I was referring to the difference between a business customer and a home/hobby customer.
This logic is unsound. "A purpose of a lock is to prevent/deter theft, therefore all uses of a lock are for the purpose of preventing/deterring theft, and therefore to bypass the lock indicates intent to steal".
Whether the access is desired by someone who has a right to it or not is an independent variable.
the only truly legitimate justification for preventing either of them from doing what they want with what they purchased is active harm that may result from that use.
Why does it matter whether you are unlocking it for personal use or for business use? Sure, it may matter as regards the support you can expect afterwards, but whether or not that serves as sufficient reason to refrain is dependent solely on the circumstances of the individual.
I buy a car in which for some reason the seller has locked the glovebox.
I discover that I really need the glovebox,& also that the same glovebox key fits all of that model.
I borrow my neighbour's key,unlock the glovebox & leave it unlocked.
QuoteI think you misunderstood my meaning. I wasn't referring to the difference between a tool (something used for productivity) and a toy (something used for fun). I was referring to the difference between a business customer and a home/hobby customer.Well, I made this connection myself. Home/hobby = fun/entertainment. Learning. Experimenting/playing. Fixing the occasional thing. Designing the occasional thing (for personal use). Whereas business customer is earning money through the use of the tool.
QuoteI buy a car in which for some reason the seller has locked the glovebox.
I discover that I really need the glovebox,& also that the same glovebox key fits all of that model.
I borrow my neighbour's key,unlock the glovebox & leave it unlocked.No one here is so dense that they cannot understand this. This has been repeated in varying forms many times in the thread. This is not a clear cut analogy to me. If you write software for a living, you might see this differently. (And besides, you did not "discover" that the seller locked the glovebox. You purchased the car knowing it did not come with a glovebox; you were also offered a car WITH a glovebox, but you were too cheap to buy it.)
At the end of the day, the fundamental justification you're using for supporting such arbitrary constraints on the purchaser is to make it possible for the manufacturer to employ arbitrary schemes to control what functionality is available so that the manufacturer may profit from those schemes, and to fully control the conditions under which that functionality is made available even when what is supplied to the customer is fully capable of performing the functions in question. That is the same as insisting that a car manufacturer should be able to dictate to you how fast you can drive your car, with the only thing preventing you from going any faster is a switch that you can flip. You are insisting that it would be wrong for the purchaser to flip that switch. In essence, you are insisting that the manufacturer reserves every right to unilaterally tell you what to do with what you purchase from them, as long as that control results in greater profit for them. On what basis do you claim that my characterization here is incorrect?
employ arbitrary schemes to control what functionality is available
car manufacturer should be able to dictate to you how fast you can drive your car, with the only thing preventing you from going any faster is a switch that you can flip.