Should Self-Driving Cars Chauffeur Shopping 'Whales' For Free?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Should Self-Driving Cars Chauffeur Shopping 'Whales' For Free?

Posted by timothy on Thursday January 23, 2014 @11:05AM from the let's-go-on-a-comping-trip dept.

theodp writes "Probably not the most fortuitous timing, but the USPTO has granted Google its wish for a patent on Transportation-Aware Physical Advertising Conversions, a system that arranges for free or discounted transportation to an advertiser's business location that will be more or less convenient based upon how profitable a customer is deemed. It's reminiscent of the free personal chauffeured limousine rides long enjoyed by Las Vegas casino 'whales', but at scale and using cars that may not have drivers. A server, Google explains, 'arranges the selected transportation option, for example, by dispatching a vehicle or providing instructions for using public transportation.' So, it seems a Larry or Sergey type might expect to be taken gratis to the Tesla dealership via a private autonomous car or even helicopter, while others may get a discount on a SF Muni bus ride to Safeway. Google also describes how advertisers will be able to use a customer's profile 'to exclude a customer from being considered for an offer based on exclusion criteria identified by a business,' such as age, job title, purchasing history, clothing size, or other 'desirable' characteristics."

142 of 213 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Discriminate by age and other characteristics by sideslash · 2014-01-23 11:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Like race, perhaps? Even if it works out to race by other proxy characteristics, this has a lot of potential to blow up in the merchants' faces.
1. Re:Discriminate by age and other characteristics by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 11:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Biologically, 19 is a good age to get knocked up. When would you prefer women to bear children? After menopause? No wonder birth rates are declining.
  Young adults have no income because they can't find jobs. They're on welfare because they can't find jobs. They're doing crimes because they can't find jobs. They're on drugs because they can't find jobs. Here's a thought: give a nigger a job. Give a nigger some gainful employment. Give a nigger something to do. Moving in the right direction is that simple.
2. Re: Discriminate by age and other characteristics by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  GIVE, GIVE, GIVE.
  Go out and earn it. Nobody knocked on my door and handed me a job. I had to hit the streets well prepared to find work.
3. Re:Discriminate by age and other characteristics by Charliemopps · 2014-01-23 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  um... this isn't the pick & save... this is the jail... hey car... CAR! Get back here!
4. Re: Discriminate by age and other characteristics by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  Actually someone did. Someone gave you a job. Sure you had to look hard for one but when you finally found one, someone took a chance on hiring you. A black guy will do 10 times the leg work you did and maybe find an even crappier job than you got all because an employer will think, "I'm not hiring a black person"
5. Re:Discriminate by age and other characteristics by volmtech · 2014-01-23 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Made me laugh. In my town the Pick & Save was just a 100 yard dash across the railroad tracks into the "hood". We called it the Pick & Steal.
6. Re:Discriminate by age and other characteristics by cascadingstylesheet · 2014-01-23 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  Like race, perhaps? Even if it works out to race by other proxy characteristics, this has a lot of potential to blow up in the merchants' faces.
  Pretty much any sorting ends up inadvertently sorting by race as a side effect
  Then we all get to run around in ever smaller circles with our hair on fire, freaking out about it.
... on a computer. by bob_super · 2014-01-23 11:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Once again, let me look around for something people have been doing and go to patent it "on a server" "based on online behavior" or "using a smartphone"
I can't blame them for abusing the system, I can only blame the idiots who won't fix the system.
Shopping whales? Damn you! by PPH · 2014-01-23 11:10 · Score: 4, Funny

Now I can't get http://www.peopleofwalmart.com... out of my brain.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
The Economics of self driving cars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 11:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's a really cool thought experiment. Frankly I've always thought the rise of self driving cars would just make a world of taxis. You call a car on your "smart device" get in, it takes you wherever, you get off and it goes on to its next customer. Should be ultra, fantastically cheap and efficient, and you just make the interior able to be power hosed down every four hours. Or maybe a nicer automated cleaning for the "better" services.
I wonder if gas stations will disappear because of that. After all why have your own car when hopping in an auto taxi will be just as fast, and involve no insurance, maintenance, or anything else that comes with a car, thus making it cheaper too? Meanwhile the auto taxis fill up back at "base", whether that's electric or gas or whatever.
1. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by sideslash · 2014-01-23 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  And when there's an auto accident it makes the national news. That sounds pretty good to me.
2. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by taustin · 2014-01-23 11:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What you describe is not much different than taxis today. And yet, in most places, everybody has their own car. Self-driving cars are cheaper, sure, by the cost of a taxi driver, but that's not that big a savings, really. The reason people don't rely on taxis now is that you don't "call a car on your "smart device" get in, it takes you wherever." It's "call a car on your "smart device," wait until it arrives get in, it takes you wherever". That missing part is the big one. Particularly if the self-driving taxi service is for-profit, giving a considerable incentive to minimize costs (which is to say, number of vehicles - keep every one of them working 100% of the time). It will not be just as fast. Hell, today, you can book a taxi days in advance, and you can't count on them being there on time.
  As for cleaning, would you really want to ride any distance in a car that can be "power hosed down"? I'd rather have something a little more comfortable.
  And for everything you don't need - insurance, maintenance, etc., you have an increase in cost in the taxi service, because those things still have to be done.
  So your high tech utopia is, instead of jumping in your jalopy and going where you want to go immediately, will be call for the taxi, wait for it to arrive, pay fares at least as high as a taxi now, and probably have to pay extra to keep from having to share it with someone else going the same direction.
  No thanks.
3. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by taustin · 2014-01-23 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  What'll really make the news is the legal fight over liability. Car manufacturer blames manufacturer who made the self-driving system. Manufacturer blames the software company who wrote the software, or the manufacturer of the subsystem that failed. Software company/subcontractor blames "hackers," government blames "terrorists," and in the end, the guy with the least amount of money for lawyers gets the bill - and that'd the be the passenger.
4. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by TheRaven64 · 2014-01-23 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just leaving the Bay Area, and most of my US-based friends use an app that you give a destination to, it automatically knows your location from GPS, calls a taxi, takes you to the destination, your phones both agree on the distance, and the charge is taken from your account. It's very smooth and convenient (and removes that awkward thing in the US of working out how much you're meant to tip the taxi driver, one of the tipping situations that appears to make no sense because having someone drive you is the service you are paying for). Add in self-driving cars and you remove the cost of the driver. The ancillary infrastructure is there already, waiting for the self-driving cars...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
5. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by profplump · 2014-01-23 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Just like we hold airline passengers responsible for crashes.
  Wait, I forgot that we're all pretending there's no analogy for liability and accident investigation for automated vehicles. Because planes are still controlled by WWII vets yanking on cables.
6. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by jrumney · 2014-01-23 12:29 · Score: 2
  
  When more people use taxis, it will make more sense to provide more of them, so there is more chance that one is nearby when you want it. At peak times it makes more sense to use buses (where trains are not available).
7. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by Copid · 2014-01-23 12:31 · Score: 2
  
  Self-driving cars are cheaper, sure, by the cost of a taxi driver, but that's not that big a savings, really.
  I think you may be underestimating the impact of a human driver on the cost of a taxi. Let's conservatively say the taxi gets 20mpg and pays $4 per gallon for gas. If it averages 30mph (very aggressive, given it's mostly city driving with a lot of idle time), it's burning $6 in gas per hour and at, say, $0.55 per mile in wear and tear, you have about $22.50 per hour in marginal costs from the car. Even if the car costs $100,000 and only lasts 100,000 miles, that's another $30 an hour, totalling $52.50 per hour. Adding enough dollars hourly to keep a human alive is a pretty non-negligible addition to that number.
  
  I suspect that a ridiculously huge part of the cost you pay for a taxi is the cost of the medallion in most places. Drop the medallion system and you'd see a surge in supply and a crash in prices, probably to the point where the driver is the next biggest expense.
  
  --
  An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
8. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  When parked in town I am rarely closer to my car than I am to a taxi -- parking takes a non-trivial amount of time (and space, and direct expense) in many places, and taxies are often at least as fast (and more convenient). If they were cheaper I would *never* use my car for intra-city travel. That's not true everywhere, but it's also not only true in Manhattan.
  And it's currently fantastically expensive to idle a taxi -- drivers make that problem worse not better.
9. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by mjwx · 2014-01-23 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  That's a really cool thought experiment. Frankly I've always thought the rise of self driving cars would just make a world of taxis. You call a car on your "smart device" get in, it takes you wherever, you get off and it goes on to its next customer. Should be ultra, fantastically cheap and efficient, and you just make the interior able to be power hosed down every four hours. Or maybe a nicer automated cleaning for the "better" services.
  I highly doubt self driving cars will become like taxi's. Definitely not in the short term because people will still own their own self driving car and organising a municipal fleet is expensive and fraught with bureaucracy (especially if it's done by the private sector, the politics of it will be even worse than city/state politics). Maybe in the long term but it would require a significant shift in the way we think about transportation in our society or for individual cars to become so expensive that owning one is something only the rich can afford.
  
  Automated taxis will operate like traditional taxi's except that the driver will speak English and smell slightly better. So people will still want to own their own cars as they don't want to wait 45 minutes for a peak period taxi. There will still be long waits because you have a majority of the city wanting to move at the same time and a limited number of taxis. On this subject, automated cars are not a magic bullet for traffic congestion because it doesn't actually remove cars from the road.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
10. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by demonlapin · 2014-01-23 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  At peak times it makes more sense to use buses (where trains are not available).
  No, at peak times, when all the traffic moves slowly, a taxi driver with extensive knowledge of alternate routes and the quickest route to your destination will flatten a bus that has to make scheduled stops.
11. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by demonlapin · 2014-01-23 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  ... ergo Über.
12. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by jrumney · 2014-01-23 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  You'll most likely spend more time waiting for that taxi at peak times than you saved by the taxi driver using rat runs to avoid the traffic.
13. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by Zynder · 2014-01-23 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  After all why have your own car when hopping in an auto taxi
  I'll give you one rock solid reason that many people on here don't give 2 shits about and will probably flame me over but it's a practical honest answer. I am a smoker. I know I'm not the only smoker on /. so there are others here who feel my pain. You cannot smoke in a taxi, bus, train, or even the freakin sidewalk these days. I can go several hours without smoking if I have to so it wouldn't affect me too much, but my wife smokes every 15 mins like clockwork. She absolutely refuses to ride with anyone who will not allow smoking in their vehicle. I don't blame them at all but that means I have to drive damned near everywhere. I can't even use a damned rental car if she's tagging along so there is no way I would ever give up my own vehicle. I do look forward to some self driving cars but I will retain ownership if legally possible.
  InB4 the trolls: yadda yadda quit yadda yadda. You aren't saying anything I haven't heard eleventy billion times before.
14. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by bickerdyke · 2014-01-23 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  Solution a) reduce addiction to a sicially accepted level
  Solution b) have smoker and non-smoker cars
  This is not a plane or a train compartment where smoke would fan out to hundreds of people.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
15. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by Your.Master · 2014-01-23 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  The theory would be that the number of taxis would be basically the same as present cars during peak traffic (give or take), since they are replacing private vehicles, and they will be distributed appropriately.
  I'm not convinced of the "world of taxis" theory. I'm not even sure it will lead to reduced private car ownership. You can in principle have a private car for young children at an age where today we wouldn't trust them with a driver's license but we would trust them to bike to the store. It can drive itself to a parking lot you don't need parking on your property for all your vehicles, just your main "I decided to go out right now" vehicle (similarly, you don't need a parking lot at every last box store).
  But you have to make reasonable assumptions. Asserting a 45 minute wait for a peak period taxi is like saying that cars can't replace horses because you can't switch to a new car at the stables when your old one gets tired of carrying you on a long journey. That's only an argument against the world of taxis if you simply cannot imagine a reasonable scenario that doesn't have a 45 minute wait, and we surely can imagine such a scenario -- 1:1 replacement of all private cars with taxis would be more than enough; you realistically only need a fraction of that. Especially if the world can get behind the idea of staggered work hours.
  Or you can look at the line of reasoning that lead to this guy making terrible predictions: http://www.newsweek.com/cliffo... (he has commented with embarrassment about the article).
16. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by Your.Master · 2014-01-23 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  I can imagine a market for self driving car taxis that cater specifically to smokers. Part of why you can't do it in taxis now is that there's a driver to consider, and another part is the lingering effects of smell etc.. The majority of autotaxis would be nonsmoker but there would be smoker vehicles as well, and your wife could refuse to ride the nonsmoker autotaxis and call the smoker taxi company.
  Another thing is that even in the "world of taxis" theory, I don't think private cars are outlawed. A smoker could still get their our private self-driving car because they want to smoke on the way to work, but most would not because these days most people do not smoke, and even most smokers can deal with the stretch of time in a car as you can (and then, if you can't afford the private self-driving car and still want to smoke in the car, *that's* where the "well then you should quit because you can't afford it" arguments come in).
17. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by Patch86 · 2014-01-23 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  Not that big of a saving?
  Lets assume that a taxi driver wants to earn £10 an hour. That'd be a good but unambitious wage. For a 15 minute drive in day time in my town, I'd expect to pay...maybe £6 or £7. So let's call that £20 an hour in revenues, less the dead time between fares.
  So, by removing the driver's salary from the equation, you could cut taxi fares in half. I'd consider "half" a big saving. While private car ownership might still work out a little cheaper in the long run, suddenly being a permanent taxi user is starting to look a lot more competitive on price terms. And depending on your perspective, taxi use has other advantages over car ownership too (no responsibility for maintenance, repairs, no risk of theft or vandalism, etc.).
  And if you're willing to mix taxi use with public mass transit (buses and trains and whatnot), which are inherently cheaper, you might, might be able to tip the cost argument in favour of non car ownership.
18. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by cascadingstylesheet · 2014-01-23 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  So your high tech utopia is, instead of jumping in your jalopy and going where you want to go immediately, will be call for the taxi, wait for it to arrive, pay fares at least as high as a taxi now, and probably have to pay extra to keep from having to share it with someone else going the same direction.
  No thanks.
  And that's the transit utopia.
  Transit for the masses involves much more crowding, inconvenience, dirt, and crime.
  I'll keep my car, thanks ... maybe hide it in my uncle's country place that no one knows about ...
19. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by silentcoder · 2014-01-24 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  You're forgetting one crucial factor - I won't say I know the total impact of this but it's big - namely if ALL the vehicles are self-driving then the self-driving taxi will get to you in a quarter of the time it does now (assuming all other factors remain the same - such as number of taxis per company) because self driving cars can move at maximum efficiency, there need never be a traffic jam again (research has pretty much proven that traffic jams are caused by human error NOT the amount of cars, having more cars just means more humans meaning more errors).
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
20. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by silentcoder · 2014-01-24 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Take it from me - living in a country where the taxi system pretty much originated that way - you don't want that. The results:
  An ultracompetitive market where taxi drivers drive like absolute maniacs just to earn enough to survive becoming the number one accident risk on our roads, and still being broke at the end.
  Everybody lost (and for a great many people what they lost was their lives).
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
21. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by Antique+Geekmeister · 2014-01-24 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  This is why cab stands near bus and train stops can make good money. When you've missed a bus, a cab to get you to the meeting on time, or in which you can use a cell phone without bus noise, is invaluable. I used one yesterday.
22. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by Copid · 2014-01-24 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm really not sure about that analysis for a few reasons.
  
  1) Cab drivers are always incentivized to maximize their return by driving like maniacs. And they do.
  2) The medallion system doesn't appear to increase taxi driver incomes in a meaningful way. It increases taxi prices, but in return it requires a massive capital expenditure in the form of the medallion (which, for example, costs over $1M in NYC these days). The result is that most drivers work for a company that owns the medallions and hoovers up the excess profits from the regulated market.
  3) If there are drivers willing to drive wages down to slave wage levels in the absence of medallions, those guys are still around willing to work for slave wage contracts for the medallion holders. That pretty much guarantees that all of the excess profits go to the company and not to the driver.
  
  Of course, we're talking about automated cars now. The self-driving car eliminates even the ostensible need for a medallion because there are no drivers to "protect." It's a pure capital investment whose marginal cost we want to drive as low as possible. Imagine a $200K self-driving car: Too expensive for the average driver, but a NYC cab fleet owner could by five of them and still have cash left over for the price of one medallion.
  
  --
  An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
23. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by taustin · 2014-01-24 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't a passenger aircraft operating anywhere in the world today without a live pilot. And there is considerable resistance at all levels to there ever being one. Liability is one of the reasons.
24. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by ceoyoyo · 2014-01-24 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, tipping taxi drivers is one of the situations I find tipping to make a lot of sense. Taxi drivers vary immensely from great guys who give great service, to complete assholes. Making part of their fee contingent on customer satisfaction seems like a great idea.
25. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by Zynder · 2014-01-24 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Good ideas but it won't matter at all. There are some folks so dead set against smokers that if they even think they smell smoke, they have a psychosomatic allergic reaction and their "symptoms" arise. I usually find the worst culprits are ex-smokers. If they can't smoke, NO ONE CAN!
26. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by Zynder · 2014-01-24 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah, that was what I was referring to in the last couple sentences of my post. I'll keep my private car as long as possible. I was just kind of imagining a world where once all of the statics prove the autocars are safer than humans, human driving will be made illegal or impractical either by law or economic pressure.
27. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by bluegutang · 2014-01-26 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Self-driving cars are cheaper, sure, by the cost of a taxi driver, but that's not that big a savings, really.
  That's an IMMENSE savings. In a city bus, the largest expense, by far is the driver's salary. That's for a giant vehicle that carries dozens of people. For a taxi car, with much lower gas and maintenance expenses, the percentage will of course be even higher.
Re:But who will keep the cars clean? by neminem · 2014-01-23 11:23 · Score: 1

What prevents you from going up to a hotel, going in their elevator, waiting until you were alone, and taking a dump in their elevator? What prevents you from going up to a bank, signing up for a vault box, waiting until you were alone, and then taking a dump in the vault box room? I'm sure you could imagine any number of other semi-private locations owned by private entities other than yourself that you could imagine people taking dumps in, and the answer is the same for all of them: the fact that they probably have security cameras, and they wouldn't hesitate to track you down and make you pay for cleanup (well, that and in the majority of cases of people who are neither hobos nor psychopaths, they wouldn't even think of doing anything that absurd in the first place... but for the benefit of hobos and psychopaths, the above.)
Presumably such hypothetical cars would have security. Probably less for the benefit of warding off poo-leavers, and more for the benefit of warding off, you know, hot-wirers looking for free cars. But it would apply equally for both.
Should? by Tailhook · 2014-01-23 11:24 · Score: 4, Funny

Should self-driving cars chauffeur shopping 'whales' for free? Well I don't know if they should. However, I am absolutely certain they will. Unless some topples the powers-that-be, discards the Constitution and imposes the necessary rules to prevent it, that is.
When a whale car shows up it "should" have a piping hot meal ready for consumption as well. Also, as the whale car proceeds to and from the mall it "should" be careful to avoid blighted neighborhoods to prevent any whale discouragement or whale hunting.
Now the only question is; "should" the whale car meal include alcohol? Or perhaps marijuana, if it's a Colorado whale car?
So, who wants to fund my new startup; Waylz, Inc.? Our e-business analyzes neighborhood disposition based on property values and crime rates to compute optimal routes; neighborhood navigation for retailers.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Mod the parent up. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 11:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm black. I'll freely admit it. And you're spot-on correct. Blacks in America today are given every opportunity to excel, and then some additional opportunities beyond that. We get the same access to public schools as anyone else. We get special scholarships at most colleges. We even get preferential treatment when applying for certain well-paying jobs. There's absolutely no excuse for a black youth of today to grow up into anything other than a successful, self-sustaining, law-abiding individual. When one chooses to engage in gangs, drugs, prostitution, and various forms of thuggery, then anyone and everyone should discriminate against that person. If they behave like shit, then I, as a black man, wish that they be treated like the shit that they are. Don't feel sorry for them. Don't cater to them. Just ostracize them. I personally wish that more of us successful blacks called out the pieces of trash who sully what should be our excellent reputation. If they choose to reject all that is so generously given to them, then we shouldn't feel sorry. We did what we can. If they don't want to do their part, then to hell with them.
1. Re:Mod the parent up. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 11:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Unfortunately, that's not the whole story. Many of those kids come from wildly dysfunctional families. When your mom was knocked up at 16, you don't know who your dad is, and your uncle is a junkie, things won't be that easy. This is a self-perpetuating problem - it's been like that for well over a century.
2. Re:Mod the parent up. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 11:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm black.
  And yet, regardless of the rest of the content, you have no problem with a post that starts w/ the "N" word. You're black, and I'm the Queen of England.
3. Re:Mod the parent up. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 12:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And yet, regardless of the rest of the content, you have no problem with a post that starts w/ the "N" word.
  Chris Rock said it best. There are black people, and there are niggers.
4. Re:Mod the parent up. by ShanghaiBill · 2014-01-23 12:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  it's been like that for well over a century.
  No it hasn't. In 1960, 5.3% of black babies were born out of wedlock. In 2012 it was 69%. We can "blame society" for many of the problems, due to misguided social policies on the left, and massive expansion of prisons on the right, but there is still plenty of additional blame to heap on the individuals for their own bad choices.
5. Re:Mod the parent up. by AK+Marc · 2014-01-23 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  And what about the black people harassed by "the man" (whatever form that takes)? I'm thinking of something like http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... though I was personally involved with a person (of color) arrested for loitering at a bus stop. It's not one isolated case in FL. It's everywhere in the US, every day. Still. When that ends, then maybe some more people will take the hand offered to them. Until then, I don't blame them for the lack of trust in the help offered. Free treatment for syphilis? Sounds fun, why are my symptoms getting worse?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
6. Re:Mod the parent up. by artor3 · 2014-01-23 12:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm black
  No, you're not. You're a racist AC, probably visiting from Stormfront. But if there's one thing people love, it's for an anonymous "black" guy to tell them that their racism is justified.
  This is low, even by Slashdot standards.
7. Re:Mod the parent up. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 13:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Being born out of wedlock isn't a problem unless you're a religious nut. A stable relationship is important, and marriage, by far, guarantees no such thing (as we've seen with divorce rates).
8. Re:Mod the parent up. by mjwx · 2014-01-23 13:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  it's been like that for well over a century.
  No it hasn't. In 1960, 5.3% of black babies were born out of wedlock. In 2012 it was 69%. We can "blame society" for many of the problems, due to misguided social policies on the left, and massive expansion of prisons on the right, but there is still plenty of additional blame to heap on the individuals for their own bad choices.
  In 1960 if you knocked up a 16 yr old girl, her dad made you marry her at gunpoint.
  In 2012, if you knock up a 16 yr old girl, you get counseling whilst she goes on 16 and pregnant.
  Marriage is a terrible metric for teen pregnancy considering fewer people in this age are actually getting married and those that do are generally getting married later in life. Now I think that teen pregnancy is actually lower today than in 1960 simply because there is more emphasis on contraception and sexual education.
  As for blaming society, people are ultimately the product of the society they live in. Trying to push the blame solely onto individuals is a cop out. If you don't take measures to improve society, you cant expect individuals to better themselves en mass. When a lot of individuals from the same area or socioeconomic background make the same mistakes, you can almost always trace this back to their education (or lack their of), which makes is a social issue.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
9. Re:Mod the parent up. by HiThere · 2014-01-23 14:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Got some problems here. Yes, there are problems that need to be addressed that are social problems more than individual problems. There are also problems that need to be addressed that are more individual than social. And the two sets of problems are tightly intertwined. But ANY either/or "solution" is not a solution.
  E.g., marriage. Did you ever read/see "My Fair Lady"? Consider the morality of Eliza's father. She was out of wedlock. He knew of her, and didn't feel obliged to support her. (More the converse, actually.) Now realize that this is a romanticized version of Shaw's Pygmalion, and that Shaw, himself, was not poor. But he knew his population. The poor, because of their economic incentives, diidn't take things like marriage seriously. The middle class did. So when Professor 'iggins arranged for Eliza's father to become relatively prosperous, he ended up getting married to Eliza's mother.
  Well, fiction is not life. It's a simplified image of life. And many considered Shaw to be "too brutally frank". So I think we can be sure that he made things look better than they really were. But he also didn't lie about what he saw as the nature of morality. (This frequently got people quite upset with him.)
  Now when we look at the modern US we see similar social customs. (Well, we need to mix in "Mack the Knife" to get an accurate image. Different authors show different aspects of their current social scene.) But when we see the same patterns popping up again, we are justified in assuming that there is something systematic going on. Blaming individuals won't solve that. But some people will succeed despite the environment. This is probably due to more luck than they will admit, but also due in part to their nature.
  Additionally, "As the twig is bent..." has an unfortunate amount of truth to it. Solving the social problems won't immediately cure the individuals who have been warped by the existing system. Indeed, epigenetics suggests that there may be some physical damage that persists for several generations. (I think three is the largest that has been shown experimentally.) And the social equivalent of that is that children who are raised by parents who have been warped tend to acquire a warped personality in turn. Again, this has been shown to disipate over generations, but THIS problem can significantly diminish over just a few years. So it persists, but the level at which it persists can become low enough that it stops being a major impediment to others.
  Please note that I have not recommended any particular means of solving the problem. I haven't been convinced by any proposal I've heard. Certainly not by any "anonomous coward" who claims to have escaped from the mess. Even if I had a real reason to believe that he is who he says, I would probably consider him mainly (though not entirely) someone who was extremely fortunate.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
10. Re: Mod the parent up. by CohibaVancouver · 2014-01-23 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  That is what we call a "Cosby-nigger"
  Hey Anonymous Coward, Bill Cosby was one of four boys. His mother was a maid and his dad was a seaman in the navy who was away a lot of the time.
  
  He got where he was through hard work, and through a mother who raised him with values. Cosby talks a lot about how he didn't misbehave in his youth because he was worried about not embarrassing his mother.
11. Re:Mod the parent up. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  Not your parent, but do I smell a lot of white guilt here?
  Inevitably, there are a lot of self critical blacks just like Norman Finkelstein has been (unfairly) called a self-hating jew. You can find the more public of these figures pontificating on youtube, although Bill Cosby tried to berate the black community the same way and got a good reception from his older peers and a bad one from the younger generation.
  You, sir, are a hypocrite of the highest order because instead of allowing discussion, you sit there in your liberal tower dictating how others should or should not discuss things on your plantation of thought.
12. Re:Mod the parent up. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 19:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Marriage may be a terrible metric, but study after study has proven that the best place for a child to grow up is in a stable home with a mother and a father looking after them. That sounds oddly familiar. Almost like it used to be a standard arrangement to have children in ...
  When Mommy is knocked up at 16, there is no Daddy in sight and extended family, at best, doesn't care and at worst has their own problems (ie. drugs, alcohol, etc) to deal with, what hope does the kid have?
  You are wrong. There are several studies from various tribes where children don't get raised by their mother and father, but by the whole village. They even breast feed eachothers children. The children are socially very well off. Having lots of adults they know and trust is very good for them. The children are mentally not as dependant of their own mother and father. The children learn to deal with diferent type of adults. A mother, father, and a child is not somehow magically best arrangement for children. The best is having multiple stable and caring adults around daily. (your extended family, if you wish. Any adults will do) Also having lots of siblings (or other kids, they don't really care about the blood relation) is generally good. Humans are social creatures, we thrive with other people around. When you separate everyone to their own boxes anxiety grows, and people become very awkward. All kinds of mental illnesses start showing up. Just look at the news. Antisocial behauvior stems directly from not learning to be normally social at young age.
13. Re:Mod the parent up. by Vintermann · 2014-01-23 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  The higher divorce rate is a consequence, not just a cause, of poor people's woes (of all races). Money can't buy happiness, but it can plaster over a lot of problems, including relationship problems.
  
  there is still plenty of additional blame to heap on the individuals for their own bad choices
  
  Funny how "bad choices" aren't randomly distributed, but concentrated with people who struggle with things they can't be blamed for (their parents, where they're born, etc.)
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
14. Re:Mod the parent up. by Vintermann · 2014-01-23 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  True as far as it goes. The legal status of your parent's relationship doesn't matter (much), but being raised by two biological parents do.
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
15. Re:Mod the parent up. by Vintermann · 2014-01-23 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  In 2012, if you knock up a 16 yr old girl, you get counseling
  In the US? No, you end up on the sex offender registry. In some cases even if you're 16 or younger yourself.
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
16. Re:Mod the parent up. by wonkey_monkey · 2014-01-23 20:37 · Score: 1
  
  And yet, regardless of the rest of the content, you have no problem with a post that starts w/ the "N" word.
  So, what you're saying is, you know that all black people feel a certain way about something...
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
17. Re:Mod the parent up. by bickerdyke · 2014-01-23 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  Marriage may be a terrible metric, but study after study has proven that the best place for a child to grow up is in a stable home with a mother and a father looking after them. That sounds oddly familiar. Almost like it used to be a standard arrangement to have children in ...
  Yes. But where is that situation tied to marriage?
  "Loving&caring family" and "Marriage" aren't synonyms.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
18. Re: Mod the parent up. by bickerdyke · 2014-01-23 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yes.. I forgot that getting an education instead of going to jail for petty crimes or even - heavens beware - having success is considered treason on tghe black race....
  
  --
  bickerdyke
19. Re:Mod the parent up. by Patch86 · 2014-01-23 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  So, what you're saying is, you know that all black people feel a certain way about something, your majesty...
  FTFY, you dirty peasant.
20. Re:Mod the parent up. by cascadingstylesheet · 2014-01-23 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  Being born out of wedlock isn't a problem unless you're a religious nut. A stable relationship is important, and marriage, by far, guarantees no such thing (as we've seen with divorce rates).
  Which have gone nowhere but up, post sexual revolution. Along with all other indicators of dysfunction.
  But why look at actual reality? That's for "religious nuts".
21. Re:Mod the parent up. by cascadingstylesheet · 2014-01-23 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  But if there's one thing people love, it's for an anonymous "black" guy to tell them that their racism is justified.
  This is low, even by Slashdot standards.
  It's "racist" to say that most sorting results in racial sorting? Even when that is very obviously true? (Have you seen the NBA, for example?)
22. Re:Mod the parent up. by AmiMoJo · 2014-01-24 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  Just out of interesting how can they prove who the father is? Can they force a DNA test?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
23. Re:Mod the parent up. by silentcoder · 2014-01-24 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  I love what you wrote - and for the most part I agree. I would say - read up a bit about UBI case studies - a solution that has been tested in proper trials around the world from the richest to the poorest countries, and actually works.
  Welfare WITHOUT a disincentive to work, without any need for a big, expensive bureaucracy or interference in personal decisions and which has shown massive positive benefits where-ever it was applied. Promoted by such economists as Hayek and Friedman (and then forgotten by their supposed ideological children on the right), and also by leftists from across the spectrum.
  Recently adopted by the Swis government to replace their previous systems due to it's amazing track record, much lower cost and proven success.
  Was very nearly signed into law in the USA by the Nixon government and the reason they ultimately didn't go through with it was since proven to have been a mistake (in fact the single data-point which they thought were a negative was a calculation error and it never even existed).
  Sometimes, the best sollution really is the simplest one - and it turns out the best way to cure poverty is the most obvious one: give the poor money, no strings attached, no rules about what they can buy or not.
  Results: addicts rarely spend it on drugs - but they do seek treatment.
  Work hours in the community barely affected, the slight decline entirely attributable to young adults who previously could not afford to do so dropping out of work to become students and then returning to the job market with better qualifications
  You can do away with minimum wage entirely which increases hiring at the bottom end and reduces unemployment
  A lot of people will use the money to start businesses and now the unemployed become employers.
  Simply put: if you want people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps - give them boots.
  I spent over a decade arguing to preserve welfare on the basis that "despite the flaws it's an over-all positive" - after the Swis decision I started looking into the scientific literature on UBI programs... and I'm sold, it's the one economic upliftment idea that has, actually, been scientifically proven.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
24. Re:Mod the parent up. by silentcoder · 2014-01-24 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  The rightwingers think they are. They also think "married" means "man and woman" and they probably think "polyamory" is something you veneer kitchen cupboards with.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
25. Re:Mod the parent up. by drinkypoo · 2014-01-24 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  Marriage is a failing institution. It exists solely to make arrangements for the care of children and the disposition of property. One day, children will be legally be people as opposed to property (they enjoy substantially fewer natural "rights" than the rest of us) and perhaps we will even learn to care for one another (beginning with a COLA, and not from pepsico or cocacolaco) and then child support won't even be a thing any more. People will form interpartner or childcare contracts conferring the legal rights which are now granted by marriage or by birth.
  In the mean time, the idea that traditional values apply is what's holding us back. My mother felt she "just had to" have a child. She thought my father would stick around and help care for me because that's just what men did. Those expectations have now been replaced with the expectation that the state will care for children. That doesn't lead anywhere positive.
  As for endemic depression growing throughout the first world, it would be more surprising if it weren't happening as every social institution we've counted on for our whole lives is failing. It was bound to happen, because they were based on false assumptions. In fact, the system hasn't been working, though it gives the appearance of doing so. Just as comfort and survival can't be equated, neither can you equate persistence with success. The system has been producing sad, broken people as long as it's been in operation. That's the secret to its apparent success, in fact. As long as people are sad and broken, they're easy to manipulate.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
26. Re:Mod the parent up. by onyxruby · 2014-01-24 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  Around that time welfare laws were written that only provided benefits if the child was born out of wedlock. Before that blacks actually had just as high of rate of marriage as whites in the US. At the time it was thought that welfare should only be for families where the father couldn't support the child and the cash was set to follow that idea. You only got the cash if you didn't have a family, the results of which have been widely documented.
27. Re:Mod the parent up. by dabadab · 2014-01-24 01:04 · Score: 2
  
  How did you come to the conclusion that the situation where noone is caring for you is equal with a situation where a whole tribe takes care of you?
  
  --
  Real life is overrated.
28. Re:Mod the parent up. by morgauxo · 2014-01-24 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  It takes money to start a business. How is someone making LESS than the current minimum wage going to do that?
29. Re:Mod the parent up. by morgauxo · 2014-01-24 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  That depends on the state.
30. Re:Mod the parent up. by silentcoder · 2014-01-24 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't bother to find out what a UBI plan is, did you ?
  Universal Basic Income - it means everybody, rich and poor alike, get a certain amount from the government (set at just above the current poverty rate) every month (and yes, it means the rich are subsidizing because it comes from taxes) - but everybody gets it, to spend as you wish - no questions asked.
  That's UBI. So Even if your job earns you less than minimum wage you've still GOT way MORE than minimum wage was, that's why suddenly poor but smart kids start going to college, and unemployed people start businesses.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
31. Re:Mod the parent up. by internerdj · 2014-01-24 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Oh for some mod points.
32. Re:Mod the parent up. by Urza9814 · 2014-01-24 03:08 · Score: 2
  
  You seem to think you're disagreeing with him, when you're both actually making the exact same point.
  Divorce rates have gone up, which is an indicator that marriage is no guarantee of a stable relationship, despite the constant insistence by "religious nuts" that marriage is essentially the *only* guarantee of one.
  Divorce isn't necessarily an indicator of dysfunction though either -- a wife who stays married to her abusive husband is more dysfunctional than if she divorced him. Easier to do that today than it ever has been. Not that I'm suggesting that such cases are the sole or majority cause of the divorce rate increasing; merely that you can't possibly assert that divorce rates alone are a solid indicator of dysfunctional relationships.
33. Re:Mod the parent up. by Vaphell · 2014-01-24 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Many (most?) places take the woman's word at face value. As a man you have to actively contest it in court and usually you have only a short window of opportunity, like a year or so. After that you are the father in the eyes of the state and on the hook for support. Papers informing you that you were named as the father got eaten by a postman's dog? Sucks to be you.
  IIRC in France paternity tests are illegal because apparently they affect wellbeing of children negatively, of course no man slaving away for 20 years to provide for a child that is not his was available to comment on his own wellbeing.
34. Re:Mod the parent up. by cayenne8 · 2014-01-24 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Universal Basic Income - it means everybody, rich and poor alike, get a certain amount from the government (set at just above the current poverty rate) every month (and yes, it means the rich are subsidizing because it comes from taxes) - but everybody gets it, to spend as you wish - no questions asked.
  So, exactly what incentive is there for someone getting paid for doing nothing, to get away from being a leech on society and trying to work or better themselves?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
35. Re:Mod the parent up. by silentcoder · 2014-01-24 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  See, you need to ask that because you are thinking ideologically - I don't need to answer it because I can cite literally thousands of case studies around the world proving that you don't NEED that incentive - that the institution of UBI's did not reduce people working and in fact led to INCREASED employment.
  The thing about science is, it remains true whether or not it makes sense to you - and it turns out the vast, vast majority of people really, really HATE not working.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
36. Re:Mod the parent up. by ceoyoyo · 2014-01-24 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have numbers to back that up? With a divorce rate of 50% I wouldn't be so sure.
37. Re:Mod the parent up. by ceoyoyo · 2014-01-24 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  We did, until recently. They were called "neighbourhoods."
  Now parents are so paranoid that leaving little Johnny with the neighbour is out of the question, along with letting him play at the park with the other kids.
38. Re:Mod the parent up. by Shirley+Marquez · 2014-01-24 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  DNA cannot prove who the father is. The possibility remains that the real father is a close relative, or somebody who just happens to have a lot of DNA in common. They can disprove the possibility that a given man is the father.
39. Re:Mod the parent up. by Shirley+Marquez · 2014-01-24 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that you get paid more for doing something. If the UBI is high enough you can eke out a bare existence on it, but most people don't enjoy that kind of existence. And in the UBI setup there is always an incentive to earn money because you get to keep the money you earn (minus the usual taxes), unlike the current system where there are disincentives under some circumstances.
  One example: if you are receiving unemployment benefits, and if you take a part-time job and earn some money but less than the amount of your benefits, the money you earn reduces your benefits one-for-one so you have no more money than before. But working is more expensive than not working; you have transportation expenses to get to work, you have to wear good clothing (which costs money) unless the job provides a uniform, you can't have all your meals at home so your food expenses increase, and if you're doing physical labor your caloric expenditure rises so you have to buy and eat more food. So you end up worse off than if you didn't take the job.
  Another example: many kinds of public assistance have income thresholds for qualifying. Medicaid and WIC are two well known cases; there are many more, such as the fuel assistance provided by some northern states. Making enough money to put you over the threshold causes you to lose the benefit, which may cost you far more than you earn from your job.
  If there is a UBI, a small number of people will choose to live on it. (Many of those will be people who contribute to society in ways that don't make money, such as political activists, dedicated volunteers for causes with little money, and aspiring artists and musicians. Some will just be lazy.) Others will live on it but not by choice; there is no work available that fits their skills and abilities, or they may face discrimination in the workplace because of age, race, gender expression, or past criminal or financial record. (Read about how employers are using credit reports.) Some will live on it because the cost of working is higher than the amount of money they can earn; that is most likely to apply to people who are caretakers of young children, elderly parents, or disabled people. (Hiring care for those people is expensive; if the only work available pays minimum wage it is likely to be more cost effective to stay home and care for them yourself.) The vast majority will continue to work.
40. Re:Mod the parent up. by cayenne8 · 2014-01-24 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  The thing about science is, it remains true whether or not it makes sense to you - and it turns out the vast, vast majority of people really, really HATE not working.
  I dunno..I don't think that is the case in the US.
  I see what's hanging out in the projects and all down here, and I don't see any of them really wanting to better themselves or get / grow out of that life. It may work in other countries, but I think we have too much of an entitlement mentality here in the US.
  That being said...at what point do you STOP getting an UBI payment? Or, does everyone no matter your fiscal means get that government check every month? If you don't always get it..at some marker where it gets cut off...people will stop just shy of that to keep from losing that chunk of govt money coming in to supplement their income.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
41. Re:Mod the parent up. by BalthCat · 2014-01-24 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm betting this "successful black" was born middle or upper class and received proper nutrition and education growing up, and denies the benefits that gave them.
42. Re:Mod the parent up. by BalthCat · 2014-01-24 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  You might want to actually cite some reliable studies that insist a traditional gender split is required, rather than simply stable families with multiple active guardian members for the child. For example, does your study actually show that a mother with two extremely involved grandparents, or two doting fathers, are inferior to a mother and father. To my knowledge, no such study has been found reliable (ie: not NOM-funded).
43. Re:Mod the parent up. by silentcoder · 2014-01-24 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  >I dunno..I don't think that is the case in the US.
  One of the case studies was done in the US - there was a 10 year UBI program ran in Detroit to test the idea in the late 1960's and early 1970s. Just like everywhere else:
  *Average total working hours in the community went down only 9% - 7% of that accounted for by young adults who couldn't previously afford it who stopped working in order to pursue college educations. The other 2% by new mothers taking longer maternity breaks (not a bad thing).
  *Employment numbers went up - faster than the national average (much faster actually) because in the absence of minimum wage businesses were more eager to hire starters and many of them used the UBI to start new businesses.
  *Marriage age went up, especially among the very poor
  *Number of children went slightly down (again - a good thing).
  People say the same thing (about entitlement culture) everywhere, including here in my home country of South Africa - yet case studies here also showed the same results.
  The thing is - even though UBI is usually higher than what the lowest jobs pay it is standard to set it just above the poverty-rate (so nobody has to be poor with UBI) - but it will always be lower than UBI + low job.
  Unemployment welfare can create a disincentive to work because when you do start working you lose it, so nobody will work for less than what unemployment pays (anymore than people will leave their job for one that pays less unless there's an extreme circumstance forcing them to) but because UBI goes to everybody, working or not no such disincentive is created - even a bad job with UBI is better than just UBI, and suddenly it can actually be a stepping stone since you're no longer having to spend absolutely everything you earn just to survive today - it's actually POSSIBLE to save and invest in your future.
  To answer your practical questions:
  1) Never
  2) Yes, everyone - now if you're rich you're paying in way more than the UBI you get back, but because nobody doesn't get it - you don't have to spend any money trying to verify who should or prevent fraud - which saves you far more than what you spend on having more recipients (you're getting rid of a gigantic beaurocracy for something that can be run by a couple of banking clerks). Ironically the fact that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would also get their UBI checks may just make it easier to sell to the rightwingers (especially as it was originally their idea - it was the one GOOD idea libertarians had - like I said F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman came up with. Hayek went so far as to say that without it the labour market can never BE competitive - it can ONLY produce a race-to-the-bottom). Of course if you're Warren Buffet your UBI check is small change, but there are a lot more poor kids in the hood who have given up on life due to a lack of prospects than there are Buffets, and it gives them back their future.
  3) That's an ideological prediction - I am not aware of anybody having done a UBI trial with a cut-off so it's unproven. However I wouldn't suggest it having a cut-off, it makes most sense if it's truly universal, then the exact same plan replaces your ENTIRE welfare system - from childcare grants all the way to government pension plans.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
44. Re:Mod the parent up. by HornWumpus · 2014-01-24 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  In practice, what he wants exists in the USA. Anybody can get SSDI with persistence and a shyster lawyer. They then work off the books. Millions of them.
  SSDI basic income must suck to actually live on. Yet none of the actually disabled will call out the scammers for taking their money.
  My point is that the basic income sucks. Which is right and good.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
45. Re:Mod the parent up. by Vintermann · 2014-01-27 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, loving is hard to measure, but it's true: If your single mom never (re)marries, or marries someone else than your dad, that makes statistically no difference for your life outcomes.
  Adopted kids don't do too badly - but that's because prospective adoptive parents are heavily screened (and thus more likely to be loving and stable, sure!) not because biology is unimportant.
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
46. Re:Mod the parent up. by cayenne8 · 2014-01-27 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  One of the case studies was done in the US - there was a 10 year UBI program ran in Detroit to test the idea in the late 1960's and early 1970s. Just like everywhere else:
  | Hmm....and we can see the shining example of success that Detroit has become....
  :(
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
47. Re:Mod the parent up. by silentcoder · 2014-01-27 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  It was a remarkable success - but it was a trial program. The results, in fact, was so good that Nixon wanted to make UBI a national law, he lost his senatorial support at the last minute over an increase in divorce rates during the trial - which the senators feared was indicative of "too much female emancipation".
  That turned out to be a mistake - it was later confirmed that divorce rates did not, in fact, go up in Detroit (and even if they had - today, we wouldn't consider that such a bad thing if the reason was emancipation).
  Unfortunately - that mistake stopped the law from being signed, UBI was ended in Detroit and gradually the poverty it had begun to end returned - ultimately it pretty much destroyed the city.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
So long as they stay off the roads by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-23 11:31 · Score: 1

The second one of these hits and kills a kid, it's lawsuit city, baby.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
1. Re:So long as they stay off the roads by Copid · 2014-01-23 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  A lawsuit over an automobile hitting a kid? I don't want to live in a world where that could happen.
  
  --
  An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
2. Re:So long as they stay off the roads by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-23 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  I think you meant to say "I don't want to live in a world where a robot car murdering a kid would not result in a massive lawsuit".
  Fixed it for you.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
3. Re:So long as they stay off the roads by Copid · 2014-01-23 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  What I meant to say was, "There are already massive lawsuits whenever a kid is killed in a car accident."
  
  The major difference is that with computer-driven cars, it should happen a lot less. At least, unless we decide that a computer-driven car killing a kid is so much worse than a human doing it that the payouts should go up 10x.
  
  --
  An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
4. Re:So long as they stay off the roads by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-23 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  I see you have failed to install the Human Reaction Chip.
  Would you like assistance with that?
  (people react even more harshly to robots killing kids than to humans killing kids while driving)
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
5. Re:So long as they stay off the roads by Zynder · 2014-01-23 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  GAHHHHH!!!! I keep clicking the close button on your damned popup box and yet you keep taunting me you bastard paper clip!
6. Re:So long as they stay off the roads by ceoyoyo · 2014-01-24 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  You guys are really going to have to fix that lawsuit thing. Every time someone proposes to do anything new the first objection is "you're going to get sued."
  In civilized places you buy insurance. The insurance company is really good at figuring out how risky you are and charges you appropriate premiums. Figuring out how risky robotic cars are is a lot easier.
God I hate our patent system. by TsuruchiBrian · 2014-01-23 11:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Instead of rewarding people for innovating, we incentivize people/companies to patent trivially simple ideas to lock their potential competitors out of new markets and actually stifle innovation.
Patents are supposed to drive people to come up with ideas that would be cost prohibitive if they were not given some kind of incentive like a temporary government enforced monopoly. Giving out these monopolies in exchange for for such obvious ideas (i,.e. they would be invented regardless) is a shitty deal for society.
1. Re:God I hate our patent system. by abhi_beckert · 2014-01-23 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  Patents are supposed to drive people to come up with ideas that would be cost prohibitive if they were not given some kind of incentive like a temporary government enforced monopoly.
  Patents *were* supposed to do that. There have been a bunch of amendments since, and now their sole purpose is to make a lot of money for big companies. Which is arguably good for the economy of countries that have a lot of big entrenched companies, and bad for the economy of the rest of the world.
  
  Giving out these monopolies in exchange for for such obvious ideas (i,.e. they would be invented regardless) is a shitty deal for society.
  I agree 100%.
The kind of offer managemet described ... by quax · 2014-01-23 11:38 · Score: 1

... in the summary ...
"Google also describes how advertisers will be able to use a customer's profile 'to exclude a customer from being considered for an offer based on exclusion criteria identified by a business,' such as age, job title, purchasing history, clothing size, or other 'desirable' characteristics."
... is about as old as business IT. So now it includes a tiered offer for a transportation discount. The only new aspect is the self driven car, may as well give a gas discount to the customers who prefer to drive themselves.
Re:Dear Timothy... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 11:38 · Score: 1

Indeed. For those wondering: "Whales" = "Big Spenders".
Re:Dear Timothy... by Lodlaiden · 2014-01-23 11:39 · Score: 1

This is.

--
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
Re:Why do you discriminate against discriminators? by camperdave · 2014-01-23 11:42 · Score: 1

Discriminating against a physical trait is a lot different than discriminating against bad character.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Nest tie in by abhi_beckert · 2014-01-23 11:55 · Score: 1

Google also describes how advertisers will be able to use a customer's profile 'to exclude a customer from being considered for an offer based on exclusion criteria identified by a business,' such as age, job title, purchasing history, clothing size, or other 'desirable' characteristics.
For example, if you're at home when a football game is on, then obviously you're a fan of the sport.
No thanks, I won't be buying anything off Nest.
1. Re:Nest tie in by the+eric+conspiracy · 2014-01-23 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because that's really working out well for Abercrombie & Fitch.
  Blech.
Re:Slashdot - Dice assholes by Lodlaiden · 2014-01-23 11:59 · Score: 1

But you didn't bother to go to Dice and look for a job?

--
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
Why? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-01-23 12:11 · Score: 2

So it's basically a concierge, which has existed for thousands of years?
Good job, patent office.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Ah, Google being evil again by kcwhitta · 2014-01-23 12:16 · Score: 2

I'm sure this has already been said, but Google's positive index on the evil scale seems to be higher (or lower). Once again, they seem to be bordering on true neutral from a D&D sense; I guess that's not too bad considering they are a huge public corporation (that I don't think I'll work for any time soon). ~ Keenan
Age discrimination by SoftwareArtist · 2014-01-23 12:27 · Score: 1, Informative

I'm pretty sure that at least in the U.S., deciding whether to give people a special offer based on their age is illegal. It's called age discrimination.

--
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
1. Re:Age discrimination by artor3 · 2014-01-23 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  Uhh, how do you explain senior discounts? Or the AARP? Heck, how about Social Security and Medicare?
  If there's a law against giving special offers based on a person's age, they're certainly doing a shit job enforcing it.
2. Re:Age discrimination by Xeno+man · 2014-01-23 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  Age discrimination is legal for many instances. We discriminate based on age for when you can get a drivers license, when you can consume alcohol, when you can vote and when you can have sex. Many places offer senior discounts that the young are not eligible for and if I was selling an adult product, I want to be damn sure that only adults will see my offers.
3. Re:Age discrimination by war4peace · 2014-01-23 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  All youngsters under 21 applaud your willingness to serve them alcohol. Doing otherwise would be age discrimination.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
4. Re:Age discrimination by ElectricTurtle · 2014-01-23 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not the best example considering a) the US has the highest drinking age in the world, bar none and b) the fact that special rights are being conferred after the age of legal majority for voting and all sorts of other independent actions is ethically incongruent at a minimum.
  
  You should have picked on something sensible, like not allowing tweens to drive.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
5. Re:Age discrimination by Lehk228 · 2014-01-23 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  only if they are being discriminated against for being older
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
6. Re:Age discrimination by SoftwareArtist · 2014-01-23 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  You're confusing two completely different things: laws that take your age into account (which by definition is legal - it's the law), and illegal discrimination based on age (which is illegal because the law says it is). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... for example.
  
  --
  "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
7. Re:Age discrimination by petermgreen · 2014-01-23 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  It seems they have banned discriminating against old people but not discriminating against young people.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
8. Re:Age discrimination by AmiMoJo · 2014-01-23 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that it's almost impossible to prove. Say you go for a job interview at age 55, they can easily say you were overqualified or not "dynamic" enough. It might be easier to prove here because there will be code written that checks the age bracket entry in your file, but it wouldn't be hard to obfuscate.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
9. Re:Age discrimination by ceoyoyo · 2014-01-24 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's rare that a ban on discrimination is more than half a ban on discrimination.
Re:Why do you discriminate against discriminators? by AK+Marc · 2014-01-23 12:43 · Score: 1

Him being a hypocrite doesn't invalidate the argument. It just shows that you are unable to refute the logic, and instead must attack the man offering it. The only thing I can't tolerate is intolerance.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:automated transportation is "un-American" by profplump · 2014-01-23 12:44 · Score: 2

A) We already have that in many places. For example, toll roads and pay-to-use-carpool-lane systems. Such things have existed for a long time. You might not think they're a good idea, but they're hardly a new trend.
B) You're assuming it's not possible to build "enough" infrastructure to provide basic transportation so travel will be impractical without excessive usage fees. That doesn't reflect the status quo, and it's not clear why changing the way vehicles are piloted would reduce the amount of road infrastructure we can afford for public, free usage.
C) If you can trust cars to do what they are told (or what they collectively agree to do) you need way less infrastructure for the same amount of traffic. For example, there's no reason to have directional lanes or traffic lights. So even without building anything new traffic would be expected to decrease in the system you describe, at least until the growth in number of vehicles in use catches back up.
Re:automated transportation is "un-American" by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-01-23 12:47 · Score: 2

Huh? The poor stand around waiting for busses already. Many drive junkers
So they wait for busses in the future, or drive a junker with a robot brain.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
What a seriously stupid question. by new+death+barbie · 2014-01-23 12:50 · Score: 2

"Should Self-Driving Cars Chauffeur Shopping 'Whales' For Free?"
It's a just PATENT APPLICATION, for criminy's sake. They're not asking for anybody's permission. It's not going to come up for a vote on Slashdot. Nothing like a rabble-rousing headline to get those hits up.
Why SHOULDN'T merchants be allowed to underwrite the use of a self-driving car? Why shouldn't a high-end merchant offer to pay for the taxi of (or send their own car for) a big-spending customer today (would that be prior art)? Some do. It's their call.
It's not like there are no other taxis for the rest of us, and it's not like if there are SOME self-driving cars out there, underwritten by merchants, there won't be others out there for the rest of us, if we're willing to pay.

--

It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
Walleeeeee by nomasteryoda · 2014-01-23 13:24 · Score: 1

At first read, I thought this meant whale mover cars, you know... Like those rolling through the local Buy-N-Large ... We're all about discontinued use of the metacarpals.

--
- Good things come to he who waits... but, but Arch Linux FTW!
Re:But who will keep the cars clean? by Areyoukiddingme · 2014-01-23 13:43 · Score: 1

Not to mention the pervasive turds in those automated trams at airports. Won't someone think of the children?
Seriously though, why is this meme so pervasive? The exact same thing came up when Personal Rapid Transit was proposed. It was all over the place. There were even YouTube videos of badly animated homeless people puking in PRT capsules.
I can only conclude there is some segment of the population that somehow knows how to use a computer while simultaneously failing to be toilet trained. I know our culture encourages permanent childishness, but permanent babies? It's ridiculous.
Prior Art by SuperKendall · 2014-01-23 13:44 · Score: 2

a system that arranges for free or discounted transportation to an advertiser's business location that will be more or less convenient based upon how profitable a customer is deemed.
Strip clubs in Vegas and brothels in Nevada already give you free rides to their respective places of business.
I'm pretty sure they also are more or less convenient, based on where they will be picking you up from...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'll do you one better by Charliemopps · 2014-01-23 13:55 · Score: 1

Why the hell would I want a free ride to walmart? Why can't I sit on my ass in my house, click on all the crap I want and have the car show up with it a few minutes later? Now the car doesn't even need seats.
Finally, the rich get a break. by Delusion_ · 2014-01-23 13:56 · Score: 1

I'm reminded of the mortgage company where I worked where loan officers pulling in monthly commissions of $10,000 a month and higher were "incentivized" by awarding the top sales every month perks like a $500 gift certificate for a golf shop, and the people who did the most work (hourly and salary employees) were incentivized by the knowledge that, if the owner ever needed to make a payment on his BMW SLK and his finances were tight, the money the company and owners saved from firing any of those employees would be more than enough to offset the burden.
This happened more than once.
1. Re:Finally, the rich get a break. by demonlapin · 2014-01-23 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  The obvious difference is that the loan officers brought in clients and their money, and the other employees didn't.
2. Re:Finally, the rich get a break. by Patch86 · 2014-01-23 21:59 · Score: 2
  
  [Marxism]
  It's be nice to see what would happen if one of those Loan Officers brought in all that "new business", but there was no-one around to do the work for them. A salesman might seem like he's the one making the money, but he'd be worthless without the factory workers giving him things to sell.
  [/Marxism]
3. Re:Finally, the rich get a break. by MitchDev · 2014-01-24 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Damn right. These corporate assholes and the executives wouldn't have shit if it weren't for all the REAL workers doing the real work.
  Most can't even figure out how to print a simple document to a printer...
4. Re:Finally, the rich get a break. by demonlapin · 2014-01-24 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  Do people actually believe anything this stupid, though?
Re:But who will keep the cars clean? by HiThere · 2014-01-23 14:29 · Score: 1

I don't know if you've heard, but there's a condominium complex in, I think it was, Texas that decided to go after dog owners who didn't clean up after their dogs. So they genetically sequence each dog, and each turd that is left. And then they send the bill to the owner of the dog.
Perhaps you had better reconsider your planned activities.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Free ride *TO* the business location by Qzukk · 2014-01-23 15:44 · Score: 1

system that arranges for free or discounted transportation to an advertiser's business location that will be more or less convenient based upon how profitable a customer is deemed.
"Now that we've picked you up and driven you across town, it's best that you be thinking of spending a few thousand dollars. You'd like to get back home sometime today, wouldn't you?"

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:But who will keep the cars clean? by bickerdyke · 2014-01-23 21:03 · Score: 1

If I had to see that that often, I'd consider moving.
You don't happen to have a friend called Taylor Durden?

--
bickerdyke
Patentable Subject Matter? by advocate_one · 2014-01-24 00:15 · Score: 1

It's an algorithm FFS... just mathematics applied to variables to derive the customer's worthiness... Stupid American Patent Office... should be throwing this rubbish out...

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Really? by MitchDev · 2014-01-24 01:45 · Score: 1

"Google also describes how advertisers will be able to use a customer's profile 'to exclude a customer from being considered for an offer based on exclusion criteria identified by a business,' such as age, job title, purchasing history, clothing size, or other 'desirable' characteristics.""
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are licking their lips and lawyers are lining up for the discrimination lawsuits...
Incentive to shop by Salgat · 2014-01-24 02:08 · Score: 1

It'd be interesting to see if a company like Target or Costco offered people a free self-driven van to pick up and drop them back off for shopping trips. Perhaps make it free if spending over $100. A great way to draw in business at the cost of maybe $3-5 per trip to the company.
1. Re:Incentive to shop by number17 · 2014-01-24 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps make it free if spending over $100.
  Something tells me you might need to up that minimum spending to $1000.
  
  A "quick trip" to Costco is rarely under $100 even with only 4 items in the cart.
WTF? by Etherwalk · 2014-01-24 02:20 · Score: 2

I'm black
No, you're not. You're a racist AC...
Actually, you just assumed he was not black based on the idea that a black person would never say what he said. You're generalizing and stereotyping, and while it's admittedly *unlikely* that a black person would say what he said, it's incredibly insulting and demeaning to blacks to say that someone *isn't black* because of taking a particular position. Kind of like saying you're not white if you claim to be, say, a contractor describing his white privilege.
1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-24 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'm black
  No, you're not. You're a racist AC...
  Actually, you just assumed he was not black based on the idea that a black person would never say what he said. You're generalizing and stereotyping, and while it's admittedly *unlikely* that a black person would say what he said, it's incredibly insulting and demeaning to blacks to say that someone *isn't black* because of taking a particular position. Kind of like saying you're not white if you claim to be, say, a contractor describing his white privilege.
  No, it's not generalizing or stereotyping. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that OP is what he claims to be. When an AC on the Internet (and yes, I realize I'm also posting AC) professes to be part of a group, while offering no evidence whatsoever, and then expresses strong critiques of the group that they claim to be part of, they should be assumed to be a troll.
  There are some blacks who are critical of black society, women who are opposed to feminism, gays who are socially conservative, credentialed scientists who don't believe in anthropromorphic global warming...but when people claim to be these on the Internet, they should be assumed to be trolls unless proven otherwise. Not because no such people exist, but because, in the absence of supporting evidence, it's far more likely that they are not what they claim to be.
2. Re:WTF? by Code+Yanker · 2014-01-24 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Anthropomorphic Global Warming
  I'm a credentialed scientist, and I can confirm that the weather is indeed an asshole!
Re:automated transportation is "un-American" by number17 · 2014-01-24 02:42 · Score: 1

C) If you can trust cars to do what they are told (or what they collectively agree to do) you need way less infrastructure for the same amount of traffic. For example, there's no reason to have directional lanes or traffic lights.
How would a pedestrian cross the road?

How would you ride a bike in such an environment without being killed?
Talk about an opportunity.... by pastafazou · 2014-01-24 05:02 · Score: 1

to take out an entire class of people in one shot. A fully automated car that shows up and ferries people around. A car which is naturally heavily computer reliant, as well as potentially prone to being hacked. And a system which would see the majority, if not all, politicians/lawyers/CEOs/board members/movie stars shuffled around in these. 1 Malicious hack later, and you've got a serious issue...
Re:automated transportation is "un-American" by ceoyoyo · 2014-01-24 05:04 · Score: 1

Have you been to an airport in the last, oh, few decades? The rich people go through special priority lanes to get to their special seats-that-fold-down-into-beds. Whenever I see it I smile, because that rich guy who just paid $5,000 for his seat means I got mine for $200. Enjoy your priority lane and comfy seat, sucker.
Re:automated transportation is "un-American" by Urza9814 · 2014-01-24 05:30 · Score: 1

How would a pedestrian cross the road?
A) They'll look for a gap in traffic and cross
B) Just because you don't have traffic lights doesn't mean you can't have walk signals. Those will just broadcast to oncoming traffic directly instead of changing a traffic light.

How would you ride a bike in such an environment without being killed?
Presumably the cars won't be programmed to attack cyclists. C'mon man, this isn't 1920, we're not theorizing cars driving blindly on a system of rails or something. They'll have a number of sensors to avoid such things. You won't need to avoid cars; cars will avoid you. But I'm sure there will still be bike lanes, there will still be bike signals just like we'll still have walk signals. At least until we get self-driving bikes... ;)