AIR USE. (for sure).

HEEEEEE'ZZZZZZZz baaaaaaak:

http://www.yourdon.com/tyr/issues/0115.html

When Technology Fails, Will Its Creators Acknowledge It?

Ford Motor Company has been
in the news quite a lot recently, mostly because of the problems its target=_blank
href="http://www.edmunds.com/newtrucks/2000/ford/explorer/xlt4wd.html">Explorer
SUV vehicles have been experiencing with Firestone tires. But while I was
preparing this week's issue of TYR, a stunning article, entitled
"href="http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/12/business/12FORD.html">Documents Indicate
Ford Knew of Defect but Failed to Report It," appeared in the September 12th
issue of The New York Times, suggesting that Ford had an entirely
different engineering problem that it failed to disclose to government safety
regulators. The problem involved a computerized ignition system known as T.F.I.,
which a California Superior Court judge in one case described as "delicate
electronic, computer-driven technology," prone to shutting down at high
temperatures. According to the Times article, "it was placed near the
engine on a number of Ford models, from 1983 to 1995 and including some makes of
the Bronco, Escort, Grand Marquis, Mustang, Sable, Taurus, Tempo, Thunderbird,
Topaz and Town Car." The article goes on to say,

"When thousands of car owners
complained in the 1980's and 1990's that their Fords unexpectedly stalled, often
on highways and while making left turns across oncoming traffic, top company
executives repeatedly assured regulators that there was no way to know what
might be causing the problem.

But throughout the period,
Ford documents show, the company's engineers, safety officials and even its
board were aware of growing problems with one particular part -- a computerized
ignition system attached to the engine's distributor Q that would shut the
engine down if it got too hot."

It's not clear whether this problem will turn out to be as widespread and
serious as the more widely-discussed Ford/Firestone tire problem, though it
appears that it may involve 22 million Ford cars produced between 1983 and 1995,
almost 15 million of which remain on the road. It's also not clear whether
Ford's defense, which the Times summarizes as "the [T.F.I.] module was
far more reliable than earlier ignition systems and there had not been an
inordinate number of accidents caused by cars that stalled" will prove
persuasive.

What does seem fairly clear -- in this case, and the Bridgestone tire
case, and in many other cases involving technology-related problems -- is that
manufacturers typically have far more relevant information at their disposal,
for significant periods of time, than do the customers and relevant government
agencies. Even if the data does not prove to be legally conclusive or
incriminating, it may well turn out to be data which an informed consumer might
have used to make entirely different purchasing or operational/behavioral
decisions -- e.g., both the tire problem and the T.F.I. problem appear to have
been more common in hot weather than in cold weather, which might have led some
consumers to drive more slowly and carefully during the summer months.

I should emphasize that I'm in no position to render a legal or a
technical judgment in either of these Ford cases; nor do I have any desire to
pick on the Ford Motor Company, which has more than enough critics already.
Though Ford may be getting the lion's share of publicity these days, I believe
there are similar problems festering in the products of many other manufacturing
companies around the world. And the problems show up not only in the consumer
products that we purchase, but also in the side-effects of the manufacturing
processes; year after year, we read about toxic waste, radiation leakage,
chemical spills, and other forms of environmental pollution caused years, or
even decades, earlier by companies who managed to find one reason or another to
avoid disclosing the problem to regulators and the public.

When the information finally does see the light of day, a number of things
tend to occur: politicians make speeches, committees hold hearings, scapegoats
are identified, fines are imposed, laws are enacted, and future occurrences of
the problem are reduced, minimized, or perhaps even eliminated. But that doesn't
necessarily help the victims of the original problem -- some of whom have spent
years fighting government neglect and bureaucracy, combined with corporate
stonewalling and obfuscation, in their attempt to seek compensation for the
financial losses, injuries, or deaths they have suffered.

As I've suggested in the sidebar to the left, the Internet may prove to be a
useful weapon for consumers who feel they have been wronged -- and stonewalled
to boot -- by a manufacturer. Interestingly, when I typed "I Hate Ford" into my
Google search engine, the first "hit" was a "href="http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6256/">I Hate GM" page! But the
phrase "Ford Explorer Problems" produced some interesting href="http://www.stretcher.com/stories/970404b.htm">hits, as did "target=_blank href="http://www.nettally.com/silly34/tfi.htm">Thick Film
Ignition" and "href="http://www.theautochannel.com/news/date/19960212/news00129.html">Ford
lawsuits," which produced an article from as far back as February 1996.
Bottom line: the Internet won't solve your consumer-complaint problems,
and it won't necessarily produce a court-room victory; but if you feel that
you're alone in your battle against a giant corporation, you may well be able to
find friends and allies on the Internet -- and with sufficient numbers, you may
have the strength to prevail.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 15, 2000

Answers

Should start "FAIR USE" not AIR but in his case............LOLOLOL.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 15, 2000.

I realize that you probably won't listen to this, but I feel I must try anyway. CPR, you are not a hero who has saved the country from the menace of the "doomers". There never was such a menace. It is completely imaginary. You are a real estate salesman with no "special powers". You are completely unimportant except to yourself and your friends, if you have any. Your delusions of grandeur and your delusions of persecution indicate that you are seriously ill and need help right away ... before you start acting out your fantasies in "real life" and hurt yourself or someone else. Please seek counseling immediately, for everyone's sake.

-- ABC (a@b.c), September 15, 2000.

You 'would' think it funny, now wouldnt you?

My sis happened to have owned ford which had this problem. It was awful it DID stall, mainly on highways, and NOBODY could figure out the problem. I do recall someone telling her it 'maybe' the TFI. That 'could' have cost her life.

WHY is any of this funny to you? ANY of it.?

Find somethin else to laugh about, but thanks for the break from the usual blather.

Tell me before I go, hows the raincoat?

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), September 15, 2000.

I smell a new Yourdon FUD book in the works... "TIREBOMB 2000".

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), September 15, 2000.

"WHY is any of this funny to you? ANY of it.? "

LOL! You can't tell?

It's funny because it's written by formerly respected Systems Analysis author, turned Y2K expert, turned wannabe survivalist, now turned International General Technology Pundit, Ed Yourdon!

"The Yourdon Report"

That's funny all by itself.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 15, 2000.

Must be a lot of fans for TIRE BOMB 2000 like King of Pain and little "shakey" here:

--

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 15, 2000.

FUNNY ......the Yappers don't show up when their Demi-god is EXPOSED.

LOLOLOLOL

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 15, 2000.