Report: Google Partners With Ford To Make Self-Driving Cars (yahoo.com) 143
An anonymous reader writes: A new report from Yahoo Autos says Google and Ford plan to announce a partnership to build self-driving cars. "By pairing with Google, Ford gets a massive boost in self-driving software development; while the automaker has been experimenting with its own systems for years, it only revealed plans this month to begin testing on public streets in California. Google has 53 test vehicles on the road in California and Texas, with 1.3 million miles logged in autonomous driving. By pairing with Ford, the search-engine giant avoids spending billions of dollars and several years that building its own automotive manufacturing expertise would require. Earlier this year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin said the company was looking for manufacturing partners that would use the company's self-driving system, which it believes could someday eliminate the roughly 33,000 annual deaths on U.S. roads." Automotive News reported on the same plans independently, saying, "It isn't clear whether Ford would design a purpose-built vehicle for Google or supply a standard production car fitted with the sensors and computers that the car needs to guide itself down the road."
Electric? (Score:2)
Given that they'll be testing in California, is there any chance those cars will be electric?
Self Driving Ford Fiesta XR2 (Score:1)
You know you want one.
Why not self-driving trains first? (Score:2)
I still don't understand, why we don't have self-driving trains already — the task is so much simpler with one-dimensional roads, no size/weight restrictions on the necessary equipment, and full control of the signs and signals — without having to teach the computer to understand, what's meant for humans...
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't understand, why we don't have self-driving trains already
Blame the Unions, which oppose, strenuously, any automation that could 'cost jobs'.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Unions in this country behave more like (and often are) the mafia. Compare them vs the ones in Europe, big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Unions in Germany seem to manage to pump out some of the world's best industrial products and help make that country a powerhouse of high-tech exports.
Unions in America.... not so much.
There's obviously something very different about them, judging by the results.
Re: (Score:1)
The US spent more money rebuilding their infrastructure than our own, maybe? A good infrastructure and a health economy and populace go a long ways. They've also been able to spend trivial amounts on defense so they can afford to keep things like a good maintenance schedule and spend tax dollars elsewhere.
Those might be contributing factors, if we're wanting to actually look at some potential reasons. You get good products from happy, cared for, intelligent people. They're in a position to be all three of t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe pharmaceuticals aren't made with union labor. Planes are made in Washington state, and the west coast isn't known for being a big union stronghold like the Rust Belt. The US has net imports because its citizens are not nearly as productive as Germany's in producing high-end manufactured goods. Sorry, but coal and corn are not a high-value goods. And France and Germany make at least as many planes as Boeing with Airbus. Finally, where are the US-made multi-billion-dollar cruise ships? O
Re: (Score:2)
The Gerald Ford isn't a commercial ship and doesn't help the US economy any, it's a drain on the economy like all defense spending. It has its uses of course, and defense spending is necessary for any normal country, but much like the police, it's a cost center, not something that's generating revenue. It does help serve as a jobs program I guess.
As far as the US exporting ships, I'm not aware of the US building any ships of real size outside of military ships. It's the Europeans and Koreans who are buil
Re: (Score:1)
"Yeah, they just violated environmental laws with a willful and deliberate scheme, I guess that's ok!
Show me where I said it was OK. I'm just pointing out that GM directly murdered their own customers (much like Ford with the Pinto, but at least that was a long time ago); VW didn't quite go that far."
VW's little trick with NOX emissions has probably helped kill on the order of tens of thousands of people, could be a lot more. Its just much harder to prove any kind of direct liability in cases like pollution
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't that many late-model diesel VWs driving around here in America to have an effect like that. That's plainly ridiculous.
Already being done (Score:4, Informative)
I still don't understand, why we don't have self-driving trains already
We already do [wikipedia.org]. You could have found that out in under 20 seconds on google. It's being implemented on normal railways too [wikipedia.org].
the task is so much simpler with one-dimensional roads, no size/weight restrictions on the necessary equipment, and full control of the signs and signals
I think you may be underestimating the complexity of train operations. Nevertheless the cost of a person to operate the train is much smaller in comparison to a car. Trains already do have a lot of automation and are getting more all the time but the financial potential of automation isn't nearly as large as with automobiles.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
According to the link, the first such automated train line opened in 1967. That 50 years later the vast majority of trains remain human-operated, is a sign of failure.
Do enlighten me then. What is the train-driver ("engineer") supposed to do, that a computer-program can not do? A program much simpler, than the kind, that can read anthropocentric road-signs and judge intentions of human drivers on a 4-way stop?
Re:Already being done (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a few practical considerations:
1) They're operated by professionals. I have a relative that is a long haul driver here in Norway, here's some of the differences:
a) Far more rigorous training to drive a truck than my car
b) Health cerificate (otherwise only drivers above 70)
c) More frequent renewal
d) Rest periods verified by electronic meter
e) Can not drink alcohol up to 24 hours before driving
f) Maximum speed is capped to 90-100 km/h depening on class
g) Far more frequent road checks of papers, technical condition and securing of cargo
2) Pilots, bus drivers, train drivers and so on have a responsibility for a lot of lives. Most of them take it very seriously and act professionally.
3) We only need a small fraction of the population to be professional drivers, if it's not right for you there's plenty of other occupations.
Regular cars on the other hand is operated by almost everyone, which tells you the requirements aren't all too high. And we have a lot of people who might be qualified drivers if they were sober, rested and paying attention but just drive when they shouldn't. Or our health is failing and the car is our lifeline to getting around, so we refuse to give it up. And ultimately we as a society depend on cars, so we don't really want to put the thumbscrews on the requirements or punishments. So the potential for improvement is far greater.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, sure. Their pay may be well-earned. But would not a computer be cheaper and better still?
Computers are not always the answer (Score:3)
But would not a computer be cheaper and better still?
Not necessarily and the reasons are usually based in economics. I run a manufacturing plant for my day job. Much of what we make in our plant can be substantially automated. The technology already exists and I could write a check to buy it tomorrow. But I don't most of the time. Why? No return on investment. For automation to make sense a few things have to happen. 1) The automation has to do a job with adequate or better competence than the people it is replacing. 2) The automation has to deliver
Economics drive automation (Score:2)
What is the train-driver ("engineer") supposed to do, that a computer-program can not do?
Train engineers are effectively a pilot very much like the pilot for an airplane or a ship. Much of what they do can be and has been automated to some degree. In a few cases there are no human operators but not always. Engineers are useful both technically and economically. Full automation of any kind has to cover enough corner cases, do all the things that human operators can and be low enough priced to justify the high up front costs. Do a little studying on what it takes to operate and pilot a train
Re: (Score:3)
I am guessing that it is the "one-dimensional" nature that holds the answer to your question.
How much does it cost to employ 1 engineer to operate (speed up, slow down, etc) 1 train?
How much would it cost to develop, test, implement and support a computer system for 1 train? More than it costs to employ 1 person for that train? There you go.
Now... self driving tractors on the highway... that would be huge...
Re: (Score:2)
You beat me to it, I was going to simply say, if it was profitable, it would already be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Proportionnally (Score:2)
but the per-unit costs should be substantially lower.
The salary of the train drivers is only a small fraction of the total operative costs for the train company.
Same also for a potential computer.
Whoever/whatever you put on the command of a train isn't going going to play a big part on the price of the ticket.
Companies have no financial incentive to switch from one to the other. Maybe they'll spare a small fraction of percent of the price.
What will probably happen in the near future is probably what happens in some airplanes and a few high-speed trains:
as th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't understand, why we don't have self-driving trains already — the task is so much simpler with one-dimensional roads, no size/weight restrictions on the necessary equipment, and full control of the signs and signals — without having to teach the computer to understand, what's meant for humans...
We do have self-driving trains, and have had them for ages. The most immediate example that springs to mind is the Paris Metro, which has an entire line that is fully automated [wikipedia.org].
It has carried well in excess of 100 million passengers with only a handful of minor incidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not self-driving trains first? (Score:5, Informative)
We do. The elevated trains in Chicago went from four employees to three to two down to one, who is basically just there for emergencies.
They won't do unmanned self-driving trains because people would freak out if they didn't think there was at least one human manning the train. Not everyone is enlightened as we few, we happy delusional few, we band of nerds who actually believe we're all going to be riding in self-driving cars in our lifetime.
It's the same with airplanes. There's no need for pilots and co-pilots on commercial passenger airlines any more. But take the pilot out of the cockpit and a lot of people ain't gonna fly anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone is enlightened as we few, we happy delusional few, we band of nerds who actually believe we're all going to be riding in self-driving cars in our lifetime.
To be honest, I don't care. As long as they haven't been out with the torches and pitchforks against Google's car, they hopefully won't protest against others riding in self-driving cars. All the people who won't ride the newfangled horseless carriage is not really my concern.
Re: (Score:2)
All the people who won't ride the newfangled horseless carriage is not really my concern.
It is when they pass a law that you can only drive it when there's another person walking in front of it, waving a red flag.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need for pilots and co-pilots on commercial passenger airlines any more. But take the pilot out of the cockpit and a lot of people ain't gonna fly anywhere.
Not sure where you got that. Flying a huge passenger plane through dense, highly controlled airspace isn't nearly the same as flying a drone over Afghanistan. Not to mention getting approved by the Feckless Aviation Administration.
Re: (Score:2)
We do. The elevated trains in Chicago went from four employees to three to two down to one, who is basically just there for emergencies.
They won't do unmanned self-driving trains because people would freak out if they didn't think there was at least one human manning the train. Not everyone is enlightened as we few, we happy delusional few, we band of nerds who actually believe we're all going to be riding in self-driving cars in our lifetime.
It's the same with airplanes. There's no need for pilots and co-pilots on commercial passenger airlines any more. But take the pilot out of the cockpit and a lot of people ain't gonna fly anywhere.
Hi, It looks like you're delusional about automated controls, would you like some help.
Autopilot is far from infallible, that's why we need two pilots in the cockpit. People on US Air flight 1549 will sure as fuck be glad there were real humans in the cockpit. ILS are regularly turned off or degraded for a variety of reasons, this is reason behind Asiana 214 which crashed at SFO. There is a lot of wisdom in refusing to fly on a plane without pilots.
Aslo pilots aren't sitting in the cockpit drinking co
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. And at least one person at the front of the train, if you don't mind.
Whoa there. You're preaching to the choir. I don't believe that anyone reading this will live to see ubiquitous autonomous cars. I think it's all a lot of hype.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been on the Vancouver SkyTrain. Nobody was freaking out. They were all enjoying fare-dodging because there was nobody on the train to check their ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Canadians are more chill than Americans, and generally more drunk.
Re: (Score:3)
"I still don't understand, why we don't have self-driving trains already — the task is so much simpler with one-dimensional roads, no size/weight restrictions on the necessary equipment, and full control of the signs and signals — without having to teach the computer to understand, what's meant for humans..."
We have all that already, even backwards countries have at least automatic slowdowns, automatic braking when a pre-signal is ignored, automatic speed control and so on, only there has to be
Who is "we"? (Score:2)
Step outside the technological backwater known as the USA (sorry, but you are now) and you'll find self driving trains have been around for decades in europe and the far east.
Re: (Score:2)
They are used in large parts of the world. For example, an ICE is entirely self-driving above 160km/h, the operator can only trigger an emergency-brake. The US is just completely stuck in the past here.
Re: (Score:2)
When a passenger train carries 2000 people, or a freight train pulls 100 cars, the cost of the driver is pretty small per unit of cargo. Contrast with a bus with 40 passengers, or a taxi with one passenger, or a single truck. So there is less of an economic need to automate.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I do not. It is just that decided to not mention them in the hope of avoiding the avalanche of hate [slashdot.org] the despicable institutions still manage to direct at opponents.
Re: (Score:2)
Unions are why you won't have to go into work on Christmas Day, Bob Cratchit.
Re:Why not self-driving trains first? (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you have to negotiate for sick days on your job? No? Do you know why? Because a standard was set - by unions.
Re: (Score:1)
"There is much higher demand for self-driving cars."
Really? I've never heard or read anyone say they wanted a self driving car except for rare occasions on long trips. Self driving cars are not being demanded , they're being foisted on an indifferent public by companies slavering at the possible money to be made and insurance companies hoping they'll lead to fewer crashes and hence less payout.
Just because something is technically possible doesn't always make it desirable. In the case of self driving cars i
Re: (Score:3)
Self driving cars are not being demanded
Yes they are. I will buy one as soon as they are available, because I would much rather read, sleep, or just daydream, rather than stare at the back bumper of the car ahead of me. So will many others, including millions of elderly, blind, and handicapped people.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes they are."
Really? So you've been into your local dealership and demanded to know when the self driving cars will be for sale have you? I don't think so.
" including millions of elderly, blind, and handicapped people."
No government is going to allow a blind person to be in charge of a vehicle whether its self driving or not. For them there are already these amazing things called taxis.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the camp of "demanding", in that if I were in a focus group I would tell them that the first sub-$50k self driving car which hits the market, I'll probably buy.
The blind and elderly may still be better served by taxis with "drivers" who could assist them, but the driving should be done by the car. And the goal of self driving cars is to have them able to drive with no one in them, ie. no need for a blind person to be in charge any more than you or I would be.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree completely. Not that companies aren't all over pushing technologies that nobody actually cares about (3d tvs, anyone?), but self-driving cars are absolutely not in that category. I'm looking forward to them, my wife is looking forward to them, tons of people at work are looking forward to them.
I do think those crazy futurists predicting that learning to driving will be totally obsolete in our lifetime are either being wildly optimistic, or more likely, are making hyperbolic predictions in the int
Re: (Score:3)
They've been working on automation for Amtrak for quite a while, but dragging their feet. As a result, some moron operator killed a bunch of people less than a year ago near Philly when he went around a turn way too fast.
Eliminate 33,000 deaths (Score:1)
Either way (Score:2)
Either way, the odds are good the Ford front end will yet again be cribbed from the Aston Martin style book.
What Google gets (Score:3, Interesting)
- Political clout. Ford has plants in many states, and a network of dealerships in every state. And many loyal truck and car owners who vote.
Anything else? Well I did mention the network of dealerships, right.
Three observations (Score:4, Insightful)
1. There was no way Google was ramping up a manufacturing line. That would have been too risky and costly. It's always been about selling the software IP, just like Microsoft knew the money was in software licensing not the commodity hardware. Vehicles will be defined by software in the future. Expect Apple to jump into this game as well.
2. The pod car (sans steering wheel) Google has been testing would never have been marketed to consumers; it was a service vehicle for the taxi and delivery industries.
3. Autonomous vehicles will mostly be electric and aimed at urban areas where short travel distances don't require exceptionally high-capacity batteries and high-concentrations of pollution can best be targeted for reduction.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt self-driving cars are going to be in common use anytime soon maybe in two or three decades if at all. Assisted driving already exists to some extent and will likely get much better before that.
Re: (Score:2)
And with the new Raspberry Pi Zero, the cost of making a self-driving car has been cut by 75%.
Re: (Score:2)
Na. Self driving cars can be run with open source software and a Raspberry Pi. Just need a few years for things to catch up. There's zero money to be made here. Apple don't want none of this.
Apple is already working on it.
Google Pinto (Score:4, Funny)
Just what we need, the Google Pinto!
Re: (Score:2)
There's a better choice than "Pinto" for the name of the Google Ford:
https://cdn.psychologytoday.co... [psychologytoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
SYNC (Score:2)
This is cool, but it would be great if they could start by having Google replace SYNC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not familiar with the SYNC software, but if Android is anything to go by, I definitely don't want Google making the software for my car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I hear mixed things. My car has the bare Sync from 2011. I have to pull the fuse and do a system reset every so often to reindex everything (I'm on the latest version that supports my car). I know the 1st gen MyFord Touch was widely hated, but I hear that the 2nd gen is much improved.
I'd like to see the 3rd gen that is going to be based off of QNX.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be happier if they just replace iGoogle.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been promising Android Auto on Sync 3 vehicles since early 2015. As a matter of fact, I wanted to buy a Ford vehicle if they would just roll out Android Auto (and/or include Sync 3 on all new sync-equipped 2016 vehicles).
Sync 1 & 2 deserve to be dead. But Sync 3 is based on QNX instead of Windows Embedded and in a test run it handled everything I threw at it - FLAC, AAC, MP3. But what I'd really rather have is Android Auto.
I gave up on waiting and bought a Hyundai Sonata. What they lack buil
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed (not that I want something with such bad gas mileage). They demoed Android Auto in a 2015 Mustang at CES. They did not sell one to the public like this yet. Android Auto support is coming to several 2016 models, supposedly, but in a firmware update to be released at a TBA time.
Re: (Score:2)
Model G (Score:1)
This is the only partnership that would let them get away with using the Model G name. It was inevitable.
This is EXCACTLY like that time... (Score:1)
We put that dress on a pig. It's going to run a muck and shit all over place, and everyone is going to say,"Well. Yeah. But it's silk."
Safer someday (Score:2)
"it's understood the venture would be legally separate from Ford, in part to shield the automaker from liability concerns"...because it may eliminate 33,000 deaths/year "someday".
This is not showing a whole lot of confidence for the short term, however. If there was a high confidence that the cars actually were safer, and that the financial risks were manageable, then Ford would just build the cars without a liability shield.
Ford and Google will take the profits, and the public can assume the risks.
jump manufacturers like with Nexus? (Score:1)
If Nexus line is any indication, that will switch through every car manufacturer?
1.3 million miles relatively tiny number (Score:2, Informative)
An average taxi driver will rack up 70,000 miles a year, so any individual taxi driver who has been in work for 20 years has more miles under his belt than Google's entire project.
Gord (Score:2)
Drive a gord, the greenest vehicle on the planet. Grow 'em in your back yard and put wheels on 'em. Sorry. I'm just in that kind of mood.
And what does Ford get? (Score:2)
A partnership that could work (Score:2)
Makes sense. Ford has expertise and factories to mass produce cars. Google has the AI, computer vision, and other necessary expertise to make the self-driving part work. Google is not a manufacturing company at heart and it doesn't make sense for it to become one, at least not right now. (That could change in the future, as it has for Microsoft.)
Some hard questions remain. Should Google find an exclusive manufacturing partner or offer Google Cars that are made by more than one company? How should the cars b
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I have a Mazda 6 with a Ford 3.0 Duratec engine (that's what they used to put in the V6 version). I have abused this vehicle and the engine is still going strong after 300 000 km.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Mazda 6 with a Ford 3.0 Duratec engine (that's what they used to put in the V6 version). I have abused this vehicle and the engine is still going strong after 300 000 km.
It'd probably be a good idea to send that engine back to Detroit so they can find out why it didn't break down.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll let you know that Ford in the last 10 years has had vehicles make the top 3 most reliable vehicles over some of the top 10 most reliable auto makers. If you think that Ford is behind other manufacturers you need to go and align your facts. $$$ for $$$ Ford has some of the most reliable vehicle. The yearly study for JDP is also questionable since it doesn't take vehicle value or longevity into consideration. Its like comparing MacBook with an Acer Laptop or equivalent spec. Last I checked the Ford F-250
Re: (Score:2)
Or my 2001 ranger with 312,000 miles and the only thing I have changed on the engine other than regular maintenance is the water pump.
I see, the motor's fine but how's the rest of the vehicle? Four Old Rusty Doors?
Re: (Score:2)
Or my 2001 ranger with 312,000 miles and the only thing I have changed on the engine other than regular maintenance is the water pump.
Ford Ranger is actually a Mazda B3000 or B4000 depending which model of Ranger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It might be fix or repair daily but at least you can repair it. I can't say the same thing for Chevy which, in my experience, always fail in the most catastrophic way possible that necessitates getting a new car.
After it was Found On Road Dead, Driver Returned On Foot. Anyway, do you mean itty bitty wannabe Chevy or big metal V engine Chevy? I have little experience with vehicles in the former category, if I want a Japanese import I buy one. I did notice that only about one Saturn is a non-interference engine, though. What I've found about the latter type of Chevy is that all the trivial shit will break and they will charge you way too much for it. They don't stock door handles, just assemblies, so you have to spen
Re:FORD? (Score:5, Funny)
Presumably the self-driving car will have a built-in computer and cellular data connectivity, so that it can call it's own tow truck.
Re: (Score:1)
I thought Ford stood for "fix it again Henry, you Nazi sympathizer".
I might have that wrong.
Re:FORD? (Score:4, Funny)
Backwards, it's Driver Returned On Foot
Re:FORD? (Score:5, Funny)
Decent Company. Shame about the cars. (Score:1)
Ford is actually a decently managed company--maybe the only major US Automaker not to declare bankruptcy during the financial crisis.
I've never had an especially good experience with their cars. The last Ford I rented was so short inside that sitting down, the top of my head hit the ceiling. But their trucks are okay.
Either way, though, a self-driving car is a significant competitive advantage, and google has both experience and a lot of mindshare in the space.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and the Germans were very grateful.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and the Germans were very grateful.
I had an aunt that married an ex-wehrmacht soldier. When I was a kid, he used to tell us some fascinating stories about the war. He said that the German tanks were ten times better than the American tanks ... but the Americans always had that 11th tank. Sometimes quantity matters more than quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop it you Honda fan boy. All auto makers have had major failures in their vehicles and they all flow up and down the JDP reliability chart year after year. Ford had some really bad years in the early 90s. They eventually got their shit together. The Ford Fusion made the list of most reliable sedans a few times and the F150 is the best selling truck in NA which according to motor trend is the result of a well engineered product with limited failure to it's major components.
Another interesting stat was the
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please, the JD Powers survey is for "initial quality", it has nothing to do with long-term reliability. They basically just ask people how they like their new car after having it for a short time. So cars which do badly are ones which have warranty defects, and high-end cars tend to do worse because their buyers are pickier about things like squeaks and rattles.
As for DIY maintenance, that affects any low-end brand. I've met far more people who tinkered on their Hondas than probably any other brand; i
Re: (Score:2)
As for DIY maintenance, that affects any low-end brand. I've met far more people who tinkered on their Hondas than probably any other brand; it's only really old farts who tinkered on Chryslers, and no one does any more.
That's a matter of perspective. I'm on the exact opposite of the spectrum where most people I know tinker on American built vehicles. I'm one that tinkers on a Mazda 6 which happens to have Ford engine in it. I personally don't prefer Ford over anything but I despise when people take a stance on a brand because of what they perceive to be the truth. Ford had some bad years, Honda did too. The two Fords I owned in the past did me well both reaching 250+ km before I replaced them. Ford has managed to keep the
Re: (Score:2)
There are advantages to both models with the current model being better from a socioeconomic standpoint and the Apple model being better from a customer's standpoint.
How on earth is the current model better "from a socioeconomic standpoint" unless you're one of the shysters who runs a dealership? Or do you subscribe to the broken-window-theory notion that more jobs == better even if those jobs entail ripping people off and costing society overall?
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like the model banking is based on here in the uk..
Re: (Score:2)
History has shown that allowing one entity to control all aspect of business also centralizes the profit. The end result is that profits aren't spent in the local community and that is especially bad in rural areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the Broken Window Fallacy, or something like that.
Basically, you're advocating for a very large, additional tax on people in the local community, so that some people can get rich, and then a small portion of their takings may be spent back in the local community.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just levy a 10% local sales tax on cars instead? (In addition to the regular state sales tax) That way, a lot more money would be spend in the local community, rather than just on a giant mansion for the
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the Broken Window Fallacy, or something like that.
I would hoping you would bring that up because it's too often used as an argument on /.
Inefficiency is a net loss no matter how you turn it yet you benefit from this every single day of your life. If you tell me what you do for a living I can probably suggest 95% of what you do is not efficient in the scheme of thing, one way or another. Hence your existence is a net loss to society. Humans aren't efficient and because humans aren't cars you can park you need to keep them employed and happy. When you centra
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if you want to hand out money to people for doing bullshit work, go right ahead. I want no part of it, and especially not from people who have a terrible reputation for ripping people off. Auto dealerships have some of the worst customer service reputations in modern society. Why the hell do you want to support this and force people to support these con artists?
It sounds like you're basically supporting communism really. They used to do this stuff in eastern-bloc countries: have a factory building
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was wondering. However, to be fair I will say that it least they didn't team up with GM. At least Ford hasn't intentionally murdered people (that we know of yet) since the 1970s with the Pinto fiasco. GM intentionally murdered people as late as the mid-late 2000s with their ignition switch fiasco.
Re: (Score:2)
Ford Windstar owners from the late 90s and early 2000s are continuing to push Ford to do a safety recall on their ABS controllers because of solder joint failures caused by excess heat from proximity to some part of the engine, IIRC. I don't know how many deaths, if any, have resulted from ABS contro
Re: (Score:1)
If they wanna do long-distance testing, they're gonna need something other than a Ford....