Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Google

How Google, Tesla, and Uber Could Team Up For the Driverless Taxis of the Future 126

Posted by Soulskill
from the deprecating-human-beings dept.
cartechboy writes "Follow the thinking for a second. Google drops $258 million into the car-taxi app Uber. Google says it will make self-driving cars available within four years, based on its ground-breaking research into self-driving cars. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has spoken with Google about driverless technology for future Tesla vehicles. So, are we watching the assembly of a massive driverless taxi service of the future? Battery-electric vehicles make excellent autonomous taxis (very few moving parts, low per-mile energy cost, and zero noise or emissions) Could Google use some of its cash hoard to buy Tesla outright (making Elon Musk its third largest shareholder in the process), then grab Uber and turn the whole thing into an app? Musk's goal has always been to transform the very nature of transportation. This might just do that."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Google, Tesla, and Uber Could Team Up For the Driverless Taxis of the Future

Comments Filter:
  • by MrEricSir (398214) on Friday September 13, 2013 @03:34PM (#44843743) Homepage

    More at 11.

  • cash hoard (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13, 2013 @03:35PM (#44843757)

    Why would Musk become the third-largest GOOG shareholder if it was purchased if TSLA was purchased with cash? That doesn't make any sense.

    • That doesn't make any sense.

      ... a statement which pretty much sums up this summary.

    • by Firethorn (177587)

      That's a good question. I know that sometimes in mergers they issue new stock instead of giving money, where $1k of TSLA stock is converted into $1k of GOOG stock, but that shouldn't happen with cash. Or maybe they're assuming that Musk would buy the equivalent amount of Google stock with his payment.

      • by Teancum (67324)

        While Google may have a pile of cash, I doubt they have that much cash on hand to actually pay Elon Musk on the spot with that much liquid assets. Frankly, any public company capable of being able to pay out that much money immediately should have their entire board of directors replaced and have every signatory officer (CEO, those with the "Vice President" in their title, and likely the general counsel too) fired for utter incompetence. We are talking billions of dollars worth of money here, as any such

    • Why would Musk become the third-largest GOOG shareholder if it was purchased if TSLA was purchased with cash? That doesn't make any sense.

      When they talk about mergers/takeovers/buyouts, purchasing "with cash" doesn't mean actual dollars, it means any liquid or near-liquid asset. Stock is often counted as "cash" unless otherwise specified.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I like how you saved three characters by using their stock market symbols instead of their commonly known brand names. Oh aren't you ever so clever.

    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      Perhaps whoever fantasized that scenario imagined Google would pay for Tesla in Google shares instead of money.
      Still doesn't make any sense, though.

      • Perhaps whoever fantasized that scenario imagined Google would pay for Tesla in Google shares instead of money.

        Except that the author specifically says "cash" earlier in the same sentence.

        • Well, in bizarro fantasy world, NSAGOOGLE abolish the $USD and GOOG stock certificates are the only form of legal tender.
  • What? (Score:5, Funny)

    by rnturn (11092) on Friday September 13, 2013 @03:39PM (#44843791)
    No "JohnnyCab" tag?
    • Why don't they buy out Moller while they're at it and give us autonomous flying taxicabs (like in Fifth Element)?

  • Wobbly bridges, nonexistent highways, and GPS coordinate usage that looks like the clocks were off by about forty yards.

    Think I'll pass.

    • by Sperbels (1008585)
      Since I'm in Denver, I'm thinking of washed out roads.
    • by tsa (15680)

      I was thinking more about taxis filled with empty beer cans, vomit, excrement and graffiti. I can think of even worse things, but here in Amsterdam these will be the norm quite soon I'm afraid.

  • Common arguments... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Firethorn (177587) on Friday September 13, 2013 @03:46PM (#44843849) Homepage Journal

    Some arguments I've heard against driverless taxis/transport services:
    1. People will dirty/graffiti/vandalize/steal the vehicles
    2. What if it breaks down!!!
    3. It'll get lost/not understand directions
    4. Somebody will hide on board to attack the next passenger
    5. People will do drugs/have sex/sleep in them(see #1)

    I'll note that I don't believe any of these are can't be mitigated to the point that driverless taxis are practical, or are at least no more of a problem than manned taxis.

    • Don't forget the possibilities of Death by GPS. [slashdot.org]

      Best part of that link is reading through the comments and imagining how they would/would not apply to an auto-car.

      • Self-driving cars don't rely on GPS alone. Sensors and image recognition could easily detect incorrect GPS readings and bad map data. The failure mode might not be optimal - perhaps the car would stop and signal an error (including sending a notification to the central office) - but it'd hardly be catastrophic.

        • Self-driving cars don't rely on GPS alone

          Neither do human drivers, but that doesn't change the fact they occasionally get themselves into bad situations by putting too much trust into "the computer."

          Sensors and image recognition could easily detect incorrect GPS readings and bad map data.

          Assuming the computer knows beforehand that the readings are incorrect. There are roads that go into Death's Valley, for example.

          The failure mode might not be optimal - perhaps the car would stop and signal an error (including sending a notification to the central office) - but it'd hardly be catastrophic.

          Yea, well, we could speculate all day on what *might* happen in that type of situation, but we'll never know for sure until it happens.

    • by Nerdfest (867930) on Friday September 13, 2013 @03:55PM (#44843917)

      Having several cameras recording the interior of the car should solve almost all of those problems. Most Cabs in many places have cameras already for the same reasons. A "phone home" operation for human assistance in unusual situations should solve the rest.

      • by Necroman (61604)

        My thoughts exactly. To take it further. "Dispatch" for these self-driving cabs would just be sitting there watching feeds from all the cabs they have out and about. They could look illegal behavior and either send someone to look into the problem or to call authorities.

        As for someone "hiding in the cab", I'm pretty sure they could easily tell the weight changes to the vehicle (preventing someone from sticking around).

      • by arth1 (260657)

        Cameras are only useful if you have someone to go through all the footage, and when the camera isn't the first thing to get vandalized.

        But that's not the real problem as I see it. Endless traffic jams is what I envision, because autonomous systems have to err on the side of caution, and stop whenever they face something they haven't been programmed for. There is no such thing as an expert system with common sense.

        • by Nerdfest (867930) on Friday September 13, 2013 @04:16PM (#44844145)

          There really isn't such a thing as common sense. A traffic jam is just another common situation to be programmed for, and quite an easy one at that. If we have enough driverless vehicles, I think the number of traffic jams will be drastically reduce, as AI based cars are unlikely to tailgate an tap their brakes constantly like many (brain-damaged) humans.

          • by arth1 (260657)

            There really isn't such a thing as common sense. A traffic jam is just another common situation to be programmed for, and quite an easy one at that.

            You misunderstood completely. The problem won't be autonomous dealing with traffic jams, but causing them, because they have to always err on the side of caution when faced when something they haven't been programmed for.

            Where a human driver can, in a fraction of a second, determine whether a T-shirt in the road can be driven over, or whether the person waving at you from the side is someone selling charity car wash or a policeman asking you to drive on the lawn to get around broken glass in the road.
            Auto

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          Cameras are only useful if you have someone to go through all the footage, and when the camera isn't the first thing to get vandalized.

          If the camera is the first thing to be vandalized, that's a problem, but it doesn't make the camera useless. It at least gives you a picture of whoever vandalized the camera. Hiding cameras in the interior can reduce the chances that this will happen; cameras are cheap now. Machine analysis of the video can take the place of having an eye on every moment of footage, but what you said isn't actually true anyway. There's often substantial evidence of any crime that the camera might help you observe, anyway. T

        • Easy solution: if the camera is vandalized, lock the doors and drive to the police station.

    • by Minwee (522556)

      People will dirty/graffiti/vandalize/steal the vehicles

      They would already have giant pink moustaches on the front. What could any vandal do that would be worse?

    • by jpampuch (72782)

      Today, I think hybrids make a better taxi than all-electric. I suppose with battery swap stations conveniently place around cities, it could work, but I'd get pretty annoyed if I got into a taxi and found out it didn't have enough range to get to my destination.

      • Simple solution: Have an app for your 'calling' your taxi that also asks for the destination(helping you confirm that the system can actually get you there before you wait for the taxi), or give it to the dispatcher(who checks for improbable destinations/problems), and the system automatically selects one with sufficient charge to reach you, your destination, and back to the charging station with sufficient overhead. Worst case, it'll likely have dropped you off already before it dies. 'Emergency mode' s

    • And that's even ignoring the fact that driving a taxi through a busy street in San Francisco is much much more difficult from an AI perspective than driving on the freeway.
      • by Firethorn (177587)

        That's a valid concern, though I understand that Google's been driving it's autonomous cars through San Francisco for quite some time.

        • Thanks for the tip. I did a search, unfortunately it's hard to get good info on the topic of how well it's done.
          • by Firethorn (177587)

            No real idea on how 'conservative' Google's been with the driving(As in avoiding dangerous/complex situations in the first place), but it's my understanding that they've done many more miles than would be average for a car to have an at-fault accident. Thus far all accidents have been the fault of others - google cars have been hit, but not vice versa.

            They've even run it through at least one drive-through.

    • All of those issues besides #4 apply to non-autonomous cabs. And if you're worried about number 4, never walk near an alley, or really anywhere in a big city.

    • by Sarten-X (1102295)

      Exactly my thoughts. Yeah, there are problems, but they're all solvable as long as profit margins are high enough. Google's general procedure seems to have low-margin services, and make them appeal universally enough that they can make profit in volume.

      On another branch of thought, consider that most of these criticisms apply to current taxis (2, 3) or subway systems (1, 4, 5). Generally, in a taxi, the vehicle isn't restricted to a rail, so it can get lost or stranded far away from where the passenger expe

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Couldn't you make almost all of those arguments about city buses as well though? It's not like the bus driver is hopping up from his seat with a cattle prod and keeping people in line. At best he can yell at people, stop the bus or call the cops. Seems like you could do just about the same thing with a PA and some cameras in vandalism deterrent casing like those that are currently installed on city buses already.

    • 5. People will do drugs/have sex/sleep in them

      Wait... is that an argument for or against?

      • by Firethorn (177587)

        Wait... is that an argument for or against?

        Given the type who make that complaint? They obviously consider it a negative. My only concern about it is whether they make a mess.

        IE discarded needles/bodily fluids, which is why my note was 'see #1'.

  • Who will make the "life-like" driver busts that can banter with eleven different sorts of inane chatter? JohnnyCab it is not!

  • No windows, the entire passenger area covered with advertising screens.

    • by Sarten-X (1102295)

      In-car audio advertisement as you start moving or approach the destination. It serves as a welcome and a warning, and is presented to a captive audience with a profile of where they go and what they're probably doing.

      Why would Google not do this?

      • Because, eventually, society is going to get fed up with not being able to do anything without having advertisements shoved in their faces every second, and will actively revolt by deliberately avoiding any and all businesses whose adverts pissed them off.

        At least, in a perfect world, where everyone is just like me. [youtube.com]

        • Because, eventually, society is going to get fed up with not being able to do anything without having advertisements shoved in their faces every second, and will actively revolt by deliberately avoiding any and all businesses whose adverts pissed them off.

          Or maybe Google will learn to detect which ads you don't like and send you only ads that you find entertaining, or for products that you really do want to learn more about. For instance I would like to see more ads for metal lathes and band saw blades, but almost never see them even though I frequently visit metal working websites.

          • by mwvdlee (775178)

            Great idea. With all the porn I'd get for free in the cab I could save cost on my internet connection!

    • You're thinking inside the box.

      You type in your destination and tell it to go, and off you go.
      If you tell it to go to the beach, it'll stop at whatever surf shop shelled out the most cash and yell at you to buy shit.
      But what's this? It's taking you to the McDonald's drive through first? You then have to get on the squawk box and tell the minimum wage burger jockey "No, I don't want anything, my car just brought me here, sorry." and hope they understand.

    • No windows, the entire passenger area covered with advertising screens.

      Targeted advertising screens. Not to mention recording your shopping habits and recording anything you say while inside the cab....

      • No windows, the entire passenger area covered with advertising screens.

        Targeted advertising screens. Not to mention recording your shopping habits and recording anything you say while inside the cab....

        Seditious speech detected. Please remain calm and seated as your route is redirected to the nearest government re-education center.

  • by asamad (658115)

    Is going to own the cans
    The local council should own the cans of they are driverless

  • by Joe_Dragon (2206452) on Friday September 13, 2013 @03:51PM (#44843897)

    Will the courts / laws be ready in 4 years?

    also one big / bad accident can lead to a big count case / even an order to stop useing the cars till the case can go though so things can get worked out without adding more victims to the penning cases.

    • Robo driver should be better in an accident than a human. If they're capturing speed, location, sensor data (and video) of nearby cars, a lot of bullshit auto accident lawsuits could be eliminated.
  • by rockmuelle (575982) on Friday September 13, 2013 @03:57PM (#44843937)

    Follow the thinking for a second. Outbox* collects people's mail, scans it, and delivers it to them in "a beautiful digital format". Outbox is located in Austin. Its founder has spoken at Capital Factory. President Obama has also spoken at Capital Factory. President Obama's government runs the Post Office. Clearly, Outbox, Capital Factory, and the President are going to replace the Post Office with Outbox.

    Makes as much sense as the OP. Happy Friday!

    *(I have no affiliation with them, I just live in Austin and see their silly cars driving around collecting people's mail and wonder why seemingly sane investors gave them money - I think this post answers the question!)

    • by Minwee (522556)

      Follow the thinking for a second. Outbox* collects people's mail, scans it, and delivers it to them in "a beautiful digital format". Outbox is located in Austin. Its founder has spoken at Capital Factory. President Obama has also spoken at Capital Factory. President Obama's government runs the Post Office. Clearly, Outbox, Capital Factory, and the President are going to replace the Post Office with Outbox.

      If you follow that logic, it means that Half Life 3 will be released next summer! I KNEW it!

  • by Animats (122034) on Friday September 13, 2013 @03:57PM (#44843939) Homepage

    "The problem with Google's current approach is that the sensor system is too expensive" - Musk

    He's referring to the expensive Velodyne rotating array of 64 LIDARs [velodynelidar.com] found on top of Google's cars. It's a useful device, but it's a research tool, not something that belongs on top of production vehicles.

    What's needed is a compact solid-state 3D LIDAR for outdoor use. Advanced Scientific Concepts [advancedsc...ncepts.com] makes such things, but they're sold to DoD for about $100K each. Typical performance is 300 meter range, 128x128 pixels, 30 FPS. There's no fundamental reason the technology needs to be that expensive; it's just that the things are hand-made at a lab in Santa Barbara, CA. (I visited them a decade ago when we were doing a DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle. Back then, they had the technology working on an optical bench, but didn't have usable hardware yet.) This technology needs to be turned into a mass market product. The current generation Kinect, (which is a true LIDAR, not a trianguation sensor like the previous model) does roughly the same thing, but with a less sensitive sensor and a weaker laser. Eventually somebody will put enough money behind this to get it right.

    • Just beef up body strength the cars and have them "Drive By Braille."

    • by Goldsmith (561202)

      Already done for you! Toyota and Mercedes have taken the technological lead on vehicle based radar systems. The radar sensors you're seeing on high end cars right now are solid state, mass produced and very functional. Go out to a Lexus dealer, you probably wont find a new car on the lot that doesn't have front and back linear radar arrays (they're assuming you're driving on a relatively flat road).

      It's been a while since DoD really wanted cutting edge radar/lidar research.

      • by Animats (122034)

        Already done for you! Toyota and Mercedes have taken the technological lead on vehicle based radar systems.

        Simple anti-collision automotive radars have been around for almost two decades. The Eaton VORAD, which is a phased-array radar which scans in one axis, is relatively decent. It gets you range, range rate, and bearing on targets of motorcycle size and larger.

        Newer radars are down in the millimeter range (77GHz is popular) and can get a return off human-sized targets. But these are strictly anti-collision devices - they cannot profile the ground and see bumps, potholes, curbs, cliffs, etc.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      It seems like a few stereo cameras would be a cheaper solution. Kinda like multiple Kinect sensors mounted around the car.

      I'm surprised someone hasn't tried to fit them to a human driven car yet. They could eliminate blind spots and provide a bird's-eye view with the car in the middle and the position of other traffic around it. Would also be good for parking.

      • by Animats (122034)

        It seems like a few stereo cameras would be a cheaper solution.

        Stereo vision isn't as reliable as LIDAR. Stereo systems need edges to lock on, and aren't good with smooth surfaces. Camera systems are also vulnerable to glare. If you get a return from a LIDAR, you have good confidence there isn't anything closer than that return.

        The high mounting position usually used on driverless vehicles is to allow imaging the road ahead. LIDARs up high image potholes and such easily.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      If they can get the hard part down by teaching the car to drive by itself and all that's needed for mass roll out is some cheap hardware I imagine that problem would be sorted in no time. I'm sure you can get good enough sensors at a reasonable cost, it's doing the right things that is hard.

  • Scary ... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gstoddart (321705)

    OK, tinfoil hat perspective time:

    Do we want to be driven around in a fleet of self driving cars, dispatched and tracked mercilessly by Google, thereby integrating a search history of your entire life, equipped with full time video, GPS and everything else they can jam into it??

    And of course all of this gets handed over to the government, if not granted a direct feed.

    That almost is cyberpunk.

    Just saying, but this creeps me out.

    • OK, tinfoil hat perspective time:

      Do we want to be driven around in a fleet of self driving cars, dispatched and tracked mercilessly by Google, thereby integrating a search history of your entire life, equipped with full time video, GPS and everything else they can jam into it??

      That, sir (or madam), is anything but tin-foil hattery!

      Being kidnapped is most definitely a legitimate concern.

    • by Jeremi (14640)

      And of course all of this gets handed over to the government, if not granted a direct feed.

      It's even better than that -- you get handed over to the government anytime the Feds present Google with the necessary warrant (and/or back-room strong-arming) for your arrest.

      That way they don't have to send out officers to find and arrest you; they just wait for the next time you need to travel somewhere, and -- presto, you are delivered to the local police station instead :)

      • They'll also make walking without a tracking device attached to you a federal crime.

        Can't be too careful citizen! Gone are the easy days of fighting the British empire, or Nazi Germany and the Japanese empire simultaneously, or dealing with enough nuclear warheads to wipe out the planet aimed at us and deliverable within an hour. Nowadays we face a real danger to our existence with people trying to put bombs in their underwear.

  • Future carshare? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RevWaldo (1186281) on Friday September 13, 2013 @04:07PM (#44844039)
    Imagine a carshare service like Zipcar, but instead of having to make reservations, go to the lot, etc, you open an app, say you need a car, and it just shows up a few minutes later. You run your errands, go home, and the car goes away. And you only pay a (mostly?) flat yearly subscription for the service.

    City folk would jump on such an option, and probably even some suburbanites.

    .
    • If that gets to the point where it's reliable and it's cheaper than owning a car I'd switch in a hot minute. It would have to be better than calling a taxi though, like average wait times of less than 10 minutes.
    • by mythosaz (572040)

      An all electric one can probably DRIVE in circles in San Fran cheaper than parking when not in use...

      Now it just needs in-drive refueling.

  • fugg yes, JCVD!

  • Google says it will make self-driving carsavailable within four years

    I want to buy one for travel into work. Ok, I want to be able to tint the windows so I can surf for porn on the way in. You married guys know what I'm saying.

  • 1st caveat: I am very cheap and never pay for anything that I don't feel like I need.

    Is there enough demand for services like this? I have lived in very large urban areas (Toronto) where the public transportation (taxis included) are well used and well implemented. But I still see dozens of empty taxis (at all hours) queued up near theaters, bars, conerts and other similar venues waiting for clients. Empty/Idle taxis are losing money.

    I always hear on the radio that taxi companies wanting the city to all

    • by mythosaz (572040)

      Asking for more licenses is only proof that there's still money to be made by taxi companies. The market may be saturated, but taxi drivers still earn enough to show up tomorrow while spending half their day waiting in line.

      Aside, the payment model for taxi-drivers vary from city to city. In some locations, they're employees, getting paid an hourly and a cut of the fares and tips. In other locations, they're contractors, renting the taxi for a flat fee and hustling to earn enough fares to cover their shi

    • Depends on where you are. Sometimes taxi lines are short, sometimes they're long. My wife and I walked from the vicinity of the Musee d'Orsay to the Opera in Paris - a little over a mile - without being able to get a single taxi. No taxis at the marked taxi ranks, nothing available on the street. I'd have killed for Uber.

      That night, I looked up the number of a Paris taxi company and put their English-speaking operator's number in my phone.
  • Robots (Score:4, Interesting)

    by foniksonik (573572) on Friday September 13, 2013 @05:07PM (#44844613) Homepage Journal

    If you can build autonomous cars you can build autonomous robots ( at what point are they the same thing?).

    • you mean like transformers??

      autonomous cars are limited by their problem definition ("Transportation")
      robots while still limited by their problem domain are more general purpose and would include things like assembly, inspection, servicing.

  • For the entire idea to even be feasible, let alone economical and profitable, all three companies have big hurdles to beat. Google has to prove that it's technology can be deployed affordably over a large fleet of cars. Tesla has to prove that it can mass produce their vehicles at a price point that makes this scheme economical. Uber has to figure out how it's going to get through all the strict taxi regulations in each city; they barely have peace in a few metropolitan areas now, but if you talk about a
  • The very original concepts of the self driving car was that not everyone would need a car anymore, and they could be mass transportation. Just summon with a smart phone, and a close one will come. Or scheduled one for the week to get to work. Etc. No one specific is "revolutionizing transportation". If anyone takes credit for this, the people who think he did something special are all idiots. Hey, any programmer could write an ap now to summon automated cars now. Call it future ap, and have people bo
    • Just a clarification: The automatic driving car and smart phones are a technological marvels. The amount of work someone needs to integrate the two is trivial.

      As soon as the cars go on the market, buying up a ton, and allowing people to buy time on phones is a no brainer. It is like free cash to people who are already wealthy given these cars work.
  • since we're clearly dealing with hypotheticasl that aren't going to happen I'd just like to point out that unicorns are far more efficient than electric cars, they just eat candy and poop rainbows.

    Google already has technology to retrofit existing cars into self driving ones -- which is MUCH better. The google tech can be licensed to every car manufacturer .. they can watch the market for a few years then buy one (ex: motorola).
    Most manufacturers are already busy adding collision, proximity, velocity sensor

  • by Tom (822)

    Taxi drivers will go the way of the Dodo bird within our lifetime. Over here in Europe, car sharing is massively on the rise. In my city, for example, there are a couple hundred smarts, and I can find the nearest one available using an app on my smartphone, walk up to it, rent it right there without going into any office, drive it to my destination, and just leave it there for the next guy to pick it up.

    Just add self-driving to this and you have a perfect city-wide coverage. Not only because I could use it

    • "You can take the bus in 12 minutes, or I can get you a car. Going by car will be 18 minutes faster."

      The first time I read this it put me into a spontaneous time warp. But I got it on the second try, so I should be back in a few minutes ago. ;-)

      Seriously though, I agree this is the future we're heading toward. I just wonder how long it will take before driverless/autopilot tech becomes mandatory. Then how long after that before "manual" driving becomes illegal? I'm all for safety and convenience, but a lot of us also enjoy driving just for fun. Will that eventually become "quaint" and old fashioned... sort

      • by Tom (822)

        Then how long after that before "manual" driving becomes illegal?

        omfg

        Will that eventually become "quaint" and old fashioned... sorta like home-brewing your own beer?

        You do understand the vast, massive, continent-wide distance between "quaint" and "illegal", yes?

        • It's not as big with driving as it is with brewing beer as a hobby. Cars are often involved in lethal accidents. I hope that in time self driving will become illegal, except on a race track.
          • by Tom (822)

            It's not as big with driving as it is with brewing beer as a hobby.

            Errr... yes, it is.

            Having a plastic dog with a wobbling head on your rear shelf is quaint. And not in any danger of becoming illegal.

            Cars are often involved in lethal accidents.

            Which is the point. Basic laws of causation, really. There is no causal link between "quaint" and "illegal" whatsoever. It just happens that some things happen to be both, just like "red" and "big" have no causal connection, but some things are both.

            It's such a sad world where lies and strawman like the ones the GP posted are easier understood than simple truths like a third v

  • When this future arrives, the taxi fare will be zero. But there will be a video camera that will record you in the cab all the way, and a robot will rifle through all the papers and bags you are carrying and record it. Then it will upload it all to your google+ account and nag you to share it with rest of the world. And somehow it will figure out from all this, what you want to buy next and pitch ads to you all along the ride.

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...