Dispatch From the Future: Uber To Purchase 2,500 Driverless Cars From Google 282
First time accepted submitter Dave Jurgensen writes "Uber has said it will be purchasing 2,500 of Google's self driving GX3200 cars to be used around America. They are hoping to have their first set of driverless cars on the road by the end of the year. From the article: 'Uber has committed to invest up to $375 million for a fleet of Google’s GX3200 vehicles, which are the company’s third generation of autonomous driving cars, but the first to be approved for commercial use in the U.S. The deal marks the largest single capital investment that Uber has made to date, and is also the first enterprise deal that Google has struck for its new line of driverless vehicles.'" Update: Yes, this is a piece of speculative fiction.
Don't wanna be first... (Score:2, Informative)
I don't want to be the first one to post this, but "What could possiblie go wrong?".
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:5, Funny)
"What could possiblie go wrong?".
My question is, how do we give a car analogy when the story is already about a car?
Re: (Score:2)
These cars are driverless, and that analogy was made without me controlling where it was going. Does/did Ford even make Thunderbirds? I assume they have mufflers.
I guess the lesson here is that we should be very concerned with driverless cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Yo dawg is already a car analogy as it originates from that "Pimp Yo Ride" show or whatever its called.
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:4, Funny)
You mean one that automatically and effectively drives effectively and avoids obstacles? That doesn't seem very appropriate considering the number of random obstacles that the house has thrown up that Obama managed to crash into.
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of things. And they will.
But statistically, it'll probably be better than having humans behind the wheel. Not that this will stop anyone the first time the car backs over a kid, despite their excellent safety record.
Re: (Score:3)
They will be far less likely to back over a kid, or confuse pedals like oldsters around here love to do. This is because the outside of the car can be covered in sensors instead of being a hinderance to visibility to the driver.
Re: (Score:2)
They will be far less likely to back over a kid, or confuse pedals like oldsters around here love to do. This is because the outside of the car can be covered in sensors instead of being a hinderance to visibility to the driver.
Really? statistically, what is the likelihood of a taxi backing over a kid or even being driven by a senior citizen. These are self driving cars for consumers, these are commercial vehicles such as taxis and delivery vehicles.
As for covering a vehicle in sensors instead of being a hindrance to visibility to the driver, the same visibility requirements exist for human driven vehicles and self-driven vehicles because humans have to be able to drive self-driven vehicles on occasion, so if you need to cover al
Re: (Score:3)
He wasn't suggesting covering the windows, but most humans only have 2 eyes. Autonomous cars can be looking in every direction, all at the same time. They can be watching the side mirror to make sure they are backing up straight AND the rear view mirror to make sure your unattended child didn't run behind the car AT THE SAME TIME. Personally, I view this as both a win for saving lives, and a loss for circumventing natural selection.
Re: (Score:2)
The google car already has over 300k miles on it without a single at-fault incident. Although I thought the law required a person to be in the car ready to assume control at all times?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The google car already has over 300k miles on it without a single at-fault incident. Although I thought the law required a person to be in the car ready to assume control at all times?
I drive an original 1973 VW Beetle every day with over 300K miles on it without a single accident (at-fault or otherwise). I would not use that statistic to say that all VW Beetles are safe vehicles. Just because a small handful of these cars have been tested does not mean that they are safe in the real world. To do a proper study, you have to have a large enough sample size. Maybe that has been accomplished, because that probably only needs around 1,000 vehicles. However, testing those 1,000 vehicles in d
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, 300,000 miles without an accident isn't that awesome.
I've probably come close to driving around 300k in about 16 years and I have yet to have an accident. I HAVE had a number of close calls, and I will admit every now and then one of those close calls would have been my fault had there been an accident (legally and realistically).
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, 300,000 miles without an accident isn't that awesome.
Yes it is! Many of those miles are not cruising the freeway, but on a test track under conditions that were designed to cause an accident. Test dummies have been used to simulate pedestrians stepping into traffic. Other cars pull in front, or cut off the Google car, or drop objects onto the road. The self driving cars have been able to avoid thousands of accidents where a human would likely not have been able to react in time.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, 300,000 miles without an accident isn't that awesome.
Yes it is! Many of those miles are not cruising the freeway, but on a test track under conditions that were designed to cause an accident. Test dummies have been used to simulate pedestrians stepping into traffic. Other cars pull in front, or cut off the Google car, or drop objects onto the road. The self driving cars have been able to avoid thousands of accidents where a human would likely not have been able to react in time.
So you are saying that the 300,000 miles is in a laboratory controlled environment instead of a real world environment? Boy that instills confidence, because we all know how realistic that is. I wonder how many Boeing 787 had battery fires in their controlled test environments instead of real world environment? I would hazard a guess of not too many or the problem would have been addressed before releasing the plane. Controlled tests can only go so far. Obviously if you fail the controlled ones you will fa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google's definition of "accident":
Noun
1. An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
2. A crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury.
Accidents can also be caused by chance, but the word itself doesn't have to mean that. When someone says there was an accident somewhere, they aren't (necessarily) implying that nobody was to blame.
I think replacing human driven cars with these things would save a lot of lives.
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:4, Insightful)
Google's definition of "accident":
Noun
1. An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
2. A crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury.
Accidents can also be caused by chance, but the word itself doesn't have to mean that. When someone says there was an accident somewhere, they aren't (necessarily) implying that nobody was to blame.
I think replacing human driven cars with these things would save a lot of lives.
In risk management there is a big difference between incident and accident. When two airplanes fly too close (what is call a near-miss), that is an incident. If they actually hit, that is an accident. All accidents are incidents, but not all incidents are accidents. What is needed to evaluate the google car is the incident rate, not the accident rate. Why? To minimize accidents, you need to minimize incidents. If google cars are involved in a high rate of incidents, even if they avoid accidents, then the risk of an accident is high.
Think of it this way. Most teenagers do not have accidents, but they do have incidents. Accidents always occur from incidents, so insurance premiums are higher on teenage drivers. It is not the accident rate that is important in evaluating the self driving cars, it is the incident rate. Because even with low accidents, if there are high incidents eventually there will be high accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet we call bandages "Band-Aids". We use a lift to go down. In the south they order a "Coke" when they're actually ordering Pepsi. It's common use has made it mean crash, even if it was on purpose. Hell, even the government accepts the terminology now: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf [census.gov]
Stop being such a pedant. If you know what someone means, and they communicate it in a generally accepted manner, there is no need to get uptight. It's the meaning of the words, not the actua
Re: (Score:2)
So, we should stop calling 13 year olds "children," and consensual sex with them "rape." They're "young adults" and what you had is "consensual sexual contact with a minor."
We really should; but the example tends to underscore certain emotional responses people have to meaning. Calling collisions and other vehicular incidents "accidents" disclaims responsibility. Accidents have consequences; accidents happen and that's okay, they can't be prevented and we should really accept them, nobody is wrong, we m
Re: (Score:3)
I am pretty sure the average person has an at fault accident more often than 300k miles driven.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:5, Insightful)
The technology Double Standard.
If a person does it, they have a particular fault rate, if the rate is low enough they get credited as really good job.
If a computer does it, and they have a fault rate that exceeds the human fault rate by good factors, and it still fails, the idea is a disaster.
In general people don't like giving up control, and doesn't like doing the math to see if they are better off.
The automated driver, has a key advantage, it doesn't get distracted from driving, its primary goal is to get you from point a to point b as safe as possible. It doesn't get distracted by those bad drivers it is just an obstacle to avoid, after it avoided it, it isn't getting all pissy from it. Or if it is stuck in traffic, it will just drive the same without getting stressed about getting late.
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:5, Interesting)
A quick search reveals this:
http://mashable.com/2012/08/07/google-driverless-cars-safer-than-you/ [mashable.com]
And their math says 165,000 miles per accident for a person.
This one below says 5.7 crashes per million miles driven for women and 5.1 crashes per million miles. That gives you 175K or women and 196,078 for men. A bit off from the first, but not too far off.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980516133725data_trunc_sys.shtml [scienceagogo.com]
There are a few other links. So while you say 300,000 miles without a single at fault incident is not that good, it is almost twice what people do from the articles I can find.
While having any accidents will trigger panic and people screaming how terrible this is and how it should be banned, if people examine the data it says that at the present 300K we would reduce accidents by nearly 30%-50%. If it goes to 600K without an incident, we just reduced accidents and deaths to 25-30%% of what they were.
Statistics (Score:2)
You simply cannot calculate the chance of having an accident that way. Driving 300,000 miles in Montana is going to be different than driving 300,000 miles in New York City. If you want accident statistic rates, one need look no further that auto insurance. If it was a matter of dividing total mileage by number of accidents, none of us could afford our premiums.
If your articles don't make sense. The first one, the pro google article (what would you expect them to tell you about the safety) claims that peo
Re: (Score:2)
300k miles is not really a good safety record
Oh? How many miles have you driven since your last accident?
Re: (Score:2)
HA HA HA HA HA You think such a thing actually exists??!!
Speaking as a traffic engineer, I'd like to inform you that we're not nearly that good. (mostly because most of our work is poorly funded by the government, so the results are barely adequate, at best). For example, the functional classification map (that labels streets as "local," "collector" or "arterial") for Atlanta was last updated around 1970 -- that's over forty years ago. And you think we have the reso
Re: (Score:2)
You think a company like Google, that sends cars down every road taking pictures every 10n feet or so where n is small, is relying on your maps, do you?
I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
If the autopilots have a common database they can reference, if one vehicle has trouble with an area, it can be noted and placed on a GPS map, so subsequent vehicles can take precautions (such as changing to the left lane to avoid potholes, noting that bicycles tend to be on a road, so slow down at a crest of a hill, etc.)
Of course, this info can be hacked to cause abuse, but that that is a solvable problem.
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that this will stop anyone the first time the car backs over a kid, despite their excellent safety record.
The Google cars have backup cameras, radar, and bump sensors. They have been specifically designed and tested to not run over kids/pets while backing, under many different light and weather conditions. So your scenario is very unlikely to happen.
A much more likely scenario: After self driving cars are common, some human driver backs over a kid, and people ask why we should continue to allow humans to drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of things. And they will.
But statistically, it'll probably be better than having humans behind the wheel. Not that this will stop anyone the first time the car backs over a kid, despite their excellent safety record.
Think about that. These are going to be used as taxis in New York. So, not only will you have to be able to get one, but it will have to figure out where you are going, whether you speak with an accent or not. Of course, you could just type your destination into your smart phone and forgo the talking, but if the car can't get the voice recognition algorithm correct, then that makes the safe driving algorithm suspect.
Then who is going stop all sort of stuff from happening in the back seat? Will the next pers
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That they have a lower crash rate than humans and we are all forced to switch to them.
Not sure that is going wrong though.
If they can reduce the fatality rate, and the eventually will, it will not matter if different folks die only that less die. This is the same thing as vaccines. You trade X deaths for X/Y deaths, while those latter deaths are unlikely to be the same folks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not going to happen.
Reducing the fatality rate is only a political argument to make people accept speed cameras, which in turn generate a lot of profit for the state.
Driverless cars would render speed cameras useless, so they will never be mandated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The question ought to be "what could possibly(sic) do wrong ten years from now?"
RTFA, baby since the rocket scientists who now run slashdot can't be bothered to do it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA
The company hopes to have its first set of driverless cars on the road by the end of the year, introducing a new service called uberAUTO using those vehicles in one or two of its markets at first. Based on the reception there, Uber says it could have the service available in up to 10 markets by the end of next year.
Not sure what the "what could go wrong 10 years from now" has to do with anything. Apart from cars being hi-jacked remotely. Outside of that, everything else seems to be a plus over driven cars. I mean, I love driving for fun, but commuting is boring.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see. Even if I'd read that (and I filter out dates at the start of articles just the same as I skip most Slashdot comment titles, unless the comment itself doesn't seem to make any sense), I maybe would have thought it was a typo. Well, that's pretty fucking lame. Guess we're stuck with manual cars for now.
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:5, Interesting)
My guess, the list of people waiting on organ donors will get longer.
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:5, Funny)
Hello, I'm Johnny Cab, where can I take you tonight?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm arming my Jag with an RPG pod.
Re: (Score:2)
Startup company plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. What could possibly go wrong. Right, Webvan?
Maybe Google will make a little money selling some cars before Uber goes bankrupt.
Re: (Score:3)
One should note that we're inching towards driverless cars faster than you can imagine.
Things like cruise control were the first step. Now we have lane awareness (where it alerts you If you start to drift from your lane), forward accident detection and prevention (applies brakes if you start approaching an obstacle in front), auto-cruise control (keeps you paced with the car in front automatically), parallel parking assistance, radar, etc.
The driverless car probably won't come as one go, but all the technol
Re: (Score:3)
The good news is that they are already loaded with camera's. As camera's are a component of their collision avoidance sensor suite.
Re: (Score:3)
I have see playback from these sensors (not from a google car though) it is better than most any camera. IE it is a 3D representation that shows exact speed and direction + distance of everything around, overlaid with the actions the vehicle is attempting. About the only "issue" I see, is that dense fog/snow/rain can affect most of these sensors just about as bad as a person. The problem arises, that these vehicles will likely be programmed to not overdrive their visibility to stopping distance. Many pe
worst idea since flying cars (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Incorrect, so long as it kills less people it will be fine.
2. Toyota had a market problem not a software problem. They were simply old geezers confusing the pedals.
3. there is no reason why good security could not be used in driverless cars.
Re:worst idea since flying cars (Score:5, Insightful)
I can also imagine people who oppose driverless cars will be going to great expense to try and trip them up, causing accidents. There are some people, that no matter how extensive the evidence is that driverless cars kill fewer people by huge margins, are going to try and stop their adoption. So many people are killed by human error while driving it doesn't even make the news anymore, but I guarantee one driverless car accident will be international headlines. Like 3D printers being used to print guns. Forget the fact they can do anything else like printing organs, food or prototyping innovative ideas. OMG they print guns quick start the presses the masses must know of this injustice.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Incorrect, so long as it kills less people it will be fine.
While I would hope this is true, I would find it more likely that the news media would play the deaths up for their own gain and cause masses to have unfavorable opinions of the technology. A four year old dieing in a firey blaze because of something that the majority would probably already by distrustful of likely cause the technology to be banned or highly contrained, statistics be damned.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Incorrect, so long as it kills less people it will be fine.
2. Toyota had a market problem not a software problem. They were simply old geezers confusing the pedals.
3. there is no reason why good security could not be used in driverless cars.
Actually, the OP is probably correct about #1. He's not talking about logic, he's talking about human reaction.
All it will take is 1 robot-car to hit a single person and the news will have a field day. They will whip up the population into a frenzy with "Murderous robots on your highway? News at 11" Seriously, they will hit this issue HARD because in their view it's just all kinds of s*xy... Robots, death, fear-of-the-unknown, making-the-news-team-seem-sympathetic, etc.
Meanwhile politicians will jump on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A small personal-type of drone, as opposed to large military drone, weighing only a couple of pounds of only injured a couple people. In other words, a remote control helicopter with a camera crashed.
Robot car driving at lethal speeds where the smallest mistake could kill someone... will eventually hit someone.
One is a s*xier story than the other. Trust me, when a robot car hits and hurts someone.... anchormen around the world are going to need to make sure their desks aren't made of glass otherwise the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google can afford lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers. More lawyers, more imposing lawyers than Fido's owners can. Really bad analogy.
A slightly better one would be an auto insurance company suing Google (or it's holding company / subsidiary or whatever legal arrangement they make). Then it's lawyer on lawyer action (ewwww....). Still and all, you have to think that Google's admin team has figured this out. After all, we did. And made suitable arrangements.
Poor Fido, here's a couple hundred bucks, get
Re: (Score:2)
As an aside, agism is just as bad as sexism, racism, homophobism, etc. Oh, and by the way, you'll be one, too.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the one that did not know to shift a car into neutral?
Makes me wonder how they train state troopers.
Re: (Score:2)
However, that isn't how the unwashed masses
Careful, your contempt is showing.
Re: (Score:2)
However, that isn't how the unwashed masses
Careful, your contempt is showing.
Nothing but undeveloped, unevolved, barely conscious pond scum, totally convinced of their own superiority as they scurry about their short, pointless lives.
There, fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
All it takes is one single person to get hit by one of these and they're illegal in 50 states.
You may be right but I doubt that would make a significant difference by the time they're ready for the mass market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In future and today you can use self-driving car, at least in urban areas. They are called buses, trams and commuter rail. They work quite perfectly. In addition there are taxis. All these means of transportation work fine for elderly people (at least if they use modern equipment). And yes, I know they are not driver-less, but you do not have to drive yourself and in certain cities commuter rail services are already really driver-less, like in London or Nuremberg.
Re:worst idea since flying cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Cabs are acceptable for a once in awhile thing, but are too expensive to use on a regular basis.
Re: (Score:2)
While Google navigation does a great job of getting a person with a smart phone, and ability to use it around on multiple transfers. I am not sure that people too blind to drive are going to do well roaming around in the streets trying to see, is that the #5 or the #6 bus.
From what I see currently most Americans just give up traveling (at least without a able companion) at this point in life, if the driver-less vehicle gives a familiar trusted enclosure, that always knows how to get me home no matter how f
Re: (Score:2)
Get back to us when that bus, tram or train
Jeez, did you even READ the article? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's dateline is 2023. It's fiction. NOT news.
Re:Jeez, did you even READ the article? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/7363/20130826/report-2-500-google-robo-taxi-driverless-cars-will-take.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2402047/Would-hail-cab-driven-ROBOT-Rumours-Googles-self-driving-cars-day-form-robo-taxi-service.html
http://www.efinancehub.com/uber-has-decided-to-invest-up-to-375-million-for-google-inc-nasdaqgoogs-gx3200-sedans/122229.html
There's more, too. How scarey is it that this is being reported as news elsewhere based on an article from TechCrunch that opens with a date ten years in the future in bold letters? They didn't just not investigate, they didn't read the article they then based their own articles on. At this point, I'd be surprised if it wasn't on Fox tonight.
Re: (Score:2)
Work of speculative fiction (Score:5, Informative)
Unless TechCrunch has a time machine, this is a work of speculative fiction. The dateline of July 25, 2023 should be a dead giveaway, but since when did the Slashdot edittors ever RTFA?
Re: (Score:2)
...since when did the Slashdot edittors ever RTFA?
Not since they upgraded to the new JohnnyDot editorless publishing system. If you turn the sound up on your computer while submitting a story, you'll hear Robert Picardo's voice [wikipedia.org] asking, "Please state the nature of the stuff that matters emergency."
(Picardo's voiced the JohnnyCab robot in Total Recall, and his face was used as the model for the robot. He also played the holographic doctor on Voyager and the robotic bureaucrat who thought he could run Stargate Atlantis.)
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, the current crop of Google Cars might have good stats, but they are stats generated under very controlled situations, such as not in rush hour LA traffic. Or rush hour downtown city traffic.
Jonnycab 1.0 (Score:2)
EOM
Early April Fools? (Score:5, Informative)
It's bad enough to have April Fools come once a year and have to wade through the fake posts, but it's far from April 1st.
From TFA: "Dispatch From The Future: Uber To Purchase 2,500 Driverless Cars From Google July 25, 2023 "
Re: (Score:2)
You are not supposed to read the articles.
Get off my LAWN!
ha ha (Score:2)
very funny slashdot.. you got me again.. apparently, everyday is april fools day.
First we get browser shortcuts (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First we get browser shortcuts (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've said this many times before, but when CmdrTaco left, it was the beginning of the end for Slashdot. The writing was on the wall for a long time before that, but Malda's departure was a very clear demarcation of where the site was headed. We're witnessing a slow death spiral. Within 10-20 years, Slashdot will no longer exist in its current form. It will be gobbled up by Gizmodo, Techcrunch, CNet, or the likes, and eventually merged into their conglomerate and redirected to the parent company's site.
Re: (Score:2)
Good old capitalism (Score:2)
I see the benefit of driverless cars, but people need jobs too. We need to think about that when we eliminate jobs instead of demonizing the unemployed. If companies and society are putting these people out of work, we need to do something. Our increasing productivity is producing a class of unemployable people. IMO, If we don't want that, we should hire these people to do what robots could.
Re:Good old capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So long as there is a single *job* that has to be done by humans, we all have to be concerned with jobs.
This is one of the reason why I'm a big proponent of work sharing as opposed to welfare.
Just picture yourself as one of America's corporate workers today. Slugging it out in brutal competition, 50 hour work weeks, being push and push to squeeze out every last ounce of productivity... and then being told... we need to tax you more to give some people free money... hey relax... it's good for you, they will
Re: (Score:3)
When robots can do a task faster, cheaper, and more reliably than humans, it's inevitable that they will be replaced.
People have been fearing machines causing long-term and large scale unemployment since the cotton gin... history shows that actual unemployment increases caused by replacing workers with automation are not anywhere nearly as massive as was feared by some beforehand, but also extremely temporary.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that for every displaced worker, some kind of habitation and space should be set aside for these newly unemployable. If they are essentially being made redundant to the continuation of the human species maybe a reserve is where they belong. I'm thinking along the lines of intentional communities, not ghettos. Very open, no support provided but also no economic output expected. Just put them out on nice fertile land where they can thrive outside of the hustle and bustle. No they won't be sterili
Who? (Score:2)
Elder drivers (Score:2)
OH... (Score:2)
I read the article, but didn't note the date - so I was rather confused by a story about some mega-delivery company I'd never heard of that mentioned facts that weren't remotely true!
But, even in 2023... How is this supposed to work? They're a delivery company - are the customers supposed to be on the honor system, coming out to the curb and taking only the packages addressed to them? The basic idea doesn't really work, unless the car also has fold-out legs and can walk up to the door...
I read this article earlier this morning... (Score:2)
... and I was laughing at the posters on TechCrunch that read it as anything other than fiction. Including the people arguing over whether a private companies stock price could jump 10% in a day....
I made a mental note not to visit that website anymore, their users failed my mental Darwinian challenge.
Now I fire up Slashdot for my post coffee 'news' blitz, and I'm left with a bitter taste in my mouth that has nothing to do with over roasting of beans.
I'm having a sad nostalgia moment where I feel this commu
wild business? (Score:2)
Likewise, Amazon, could do well to use them for delivery on their same day service. If you click on a button saying you'll
I wouldn't assume the editors noticed it's a joke (Score:3, Interesting)
The editors of the Daily Mail [dailymail.co.uk] didn't.
They were going to change their name, too... (Score:2)
But it's already taken ...
There's companies in both California [johnnycabsandiego.com] and Hawaii [johnnycabhi.com], likely others.
Fooled DailyMail and eFinanceHub... (Score:2)
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/7363/20130826/report-2-500-google-robo-taxi-driverless-cars-will-take.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2402047/Would-hail-cab-driven-ROBOT-Rumours-Googles-self-driving-cars-day-form-robo-taxi-service.html
http://www.efinancehub.com/uber-has-decided-to-invest-up-to-375-million-for-google-inc-nasdaqgoogs-gx3200-sedans/122229.html
I know, scarey right?
Think About It! (Score:3, Interesting)
Although this article is a spoof it should point to another issue. We are well aware that robotic transport is close at hand on a large scale. And this is a perfect example of an issue that no one is confronting. As it has occurred in other trades we will see misery applied to a very large number of professional drivers. They will simply be out of work, permanently. And then there is a ripple effect. The diners that serve truckers, cab drivers and others will close or lay off workers. Motels will do the same. Even sales of items such as CB radios could take a hit.
I would not be overly shocked to learn that robotic vehicles displaced five million workers in the US. Although nobody is entitled to earn a living we will have to create an economic system that makes certain that all people are well paid without regard for whether they work or not. People without good pay checks can not purchase nor can they pay taxes. Unemployment and under employment will shift the tax burdens to those who work and it will also collapse or limit the income of businesses leading to an ever deepening, chronic poverty.
We are now confronted with a social reality that forces a sea change in our economic and political beliefs. We have no options at all other than to create a very socialistic society. Human labor, whether physical or mental, is in decline as far as value is concerned. I strongly suspect that our youth have glimpsed that which explains their lack of concern with education and their willingness to participate in activities likely to destroy them whether that be surfing a thirty foot wave, racing a motorcycle or shooting heroin.
Go for it (Score:2)
Stop all the talk and just get these things on the road. The sooner the concept fails the sooner we can move on. I also don't want to see a post to ONE car driving safely down the road, I want to see a highway where 40-50% of the cars are autonomous intermingling with some of the dumbest drivers on the planet.
I'd rather strap myself into a coffin and be shot across the country in a big metal straw before I get into an autonomous car driving down the highway with other humans..
I can't wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
So I was right (Score:2)
I saw the summary just before I went to lunch...came back and tried to find details on the Google GX3200 autonomous car. Results for "google gx3200 -uber" give nothing about any cars.
Refresh page and...yeah, it was a bunch of marketing bullshit.
Tmp obstruction, sheriff says roll down window... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of a cab driver there is a cab "minder". He sits in the front but doesn't touch the controls. Instead his only job is lift people's bags into the trunk and chat with the passengers. He is a temp worker at 30 hours a week, paid minimum wage (+ the temp agency's cut).
All of those people who have no skills beyond their meager abilities to process sensory input and turn the results into mechanical action. All of them replaced by machines and possibly minimum wage, no-benefits, temp workers.
Yeah, right. Once elevators got buttons, how long did we keep elevator operators around? Same with cabs. Another quarter million on the government teat.