Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday September 23 2019, @11:45AM   Printer-friendly
from the software-written-by-humans dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

The Chevrolet Malibu sedan is subject to a new recall that surrounds a software bug may lead to disabled fuel injectors.

Documents filed with NHTSA show the automaker will https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/make/chevrolet/ the 2018 Chevy Malibu. Total, the recall hits 177,276 Malibus with the 1.5-liter turbo-4 engine. The problem rests in an error that can occur in the engine control module (ECM). Should the fault occur, data may become corrupted in the ECM, and in turn, the computer could disable the fuel injectors.

If the fuel injectors are disabled, owners may find the engine will not start. In some cases, the engine could stall while driving, which increases the risk of a crash. Chevy did not mention any incidents related to the safety recall. If the problem is present, owners will likely see the check engine light illuminate. Other Malibus without the 1.5-liter turbo-4 do not house the same ECM software and are not included in the recall.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday September 23 2019, @03:58PM (3 children)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 23 2019, @03:58PM (#897627)

    Shuttle is too exotic of an example. We have plenty of case law going back 3773 years for collapsed houses.

    Hammurabi 229:

    If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its construction sound, and the house which he has built collapses and causes the death of the owner of the house, the builder shall be put to death.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 23 2019, @04:56PM (2 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday September 23 2019, @04:56PM (#897665)

    But, from the time of Hammurabi, there has been considerable evolution of "who is the builder?"

    Do we make all builders of a product liable to all consumers of the product? In that case, when someone with photosensitive epilepsy (1/10,000 in the general population) has a costly seizure from watching Incredibles 2, do they get to sue the entire credits roll of content producers who "brought Incredibles 2 to them"? Just those who were directly involved in the production of the offensive scenes? Just the projectionist at the theater who failed to play the warning reel again after they came in late from the popcorn line? The projection was an automated program, you say? Well, do we sue that programming team as well?

    When thousands of people contribute to the creation of a product, none has the capacity to ensure the final delivery to the consumer will be safe. Five pieces of independently "safe" code can later be used in combination causing an unsafe condition - is it the fault of a programmer, no longer with the company, that a single threaded routine he wrote got imported to a multithreaded project and used, inappropriately? How about if someone threw a comment on his function: "Thread safe" because they tested it on their desktop for 5 minutes and nothing blew up?

    In the time of Hammurabi, a single builder both designed and constructed single homes - the trail of liability was clear.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday September 27 2019, @11:07AM (1 child)

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 27 2019, @11:07AM (#899516)

      Its an interesting hack against the problem of "imaginary property" or "intellectual property" to sue the owner.

      Kinda like if someone slipped and broke their leg in front of my house on ice... in theory some good lawsuit targets would be the city contractor who cast the sidewalk, the mfgr of the shovel I cleared the sidewalk with, the mfgr of the salt I applied to the sidewalk, etc, but in practice it would be me and my house / umbrella insurance as the owner.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 27 2019, @11:54AM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday September 27 2019, @11:54AM (#899527)

        in practice it would be me and my house / umbrella insurance as the owner

        In practice, it's easier (and much more predictable) for the lawyers to do what they always have done and to sue the property owner / insurance, and not bother suing if there's no insurance because they know from experience that the realistic outcome of that scenario is that they spend more in legal work than they recoup from the broke-ass owner who has no insurance.

        In a case where the city poured the sidewalk for you, and the sidewalk was poured and cured at an unusually high slope, e.g. some dumbass contractor thinking that if he gets the concrete good and thick and cures it with a big slope that the water will drain off better, and it does most of the time, training people who walk on your sidewalk to think that they don't have to worry about ice because there's never ice there, but that one particular storm manages to deposit a nice glassy layer of hard ice even with the slope, and now your confident neighbors hit the ice, on a relatively high slope that they've never encountered ice on before, and slip, fall and break their leg... yeah, sure, that is traceable fault to the non-standard construction of the sidewalk, but... who's going to bother arguing that in court when you can just get paid for taking the standard settlement from the owner's insurance?

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]