Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

12 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.

  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. 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!
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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).

  11. 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.
  12. 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.