Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on 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."

30 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Discriminate by age and other characteristics by sideslash · · 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 · · 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. ... on a computer. by bob_super · · 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.

  3. Shopping whales? Damn you! by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  4. The Economics of self driving cars by Anonymous Coward · · 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 taustin · · 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.

    2. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by jrumney · · 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).

    3. Re:The Economics of self driving cars by Copid · · 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"
  5. Should? by Tailhook · · 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!
  6. Mod the parent up. by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 artor3 · · 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.

    6. Re:Mod the parent up. by Anonymous Coward · · 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).

    7. Re:Mod the parent up. by mjwx · · 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.
    8. Re:Mod the parent up. by HiThere · · 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.
    9. Re:Mod the parent up. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    10. Re:Mod the parent up. by dabadab · · 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.
    11. Re:Mod the parent up. by Urza9814 · · 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.

  7. God I hate our patent system. by TsuruchiBrian · · 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.

  8. Why? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · 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.
  9. Ah, Google being evil again by kcwhitta · · 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

  10. Re:automated transportation is "un-American" by profplump · · 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.

  11. Re:automated transportation is "un-American" by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · 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.
  12. What a seriously stupid question. by new+death+barbie · · 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.

  13. Prior Art by SuperKendall · · 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
  14. Re:Finally, the rich get a break. by Patch86 · · 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]

  15. WTF? by Etherwalk · · 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.