Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lyft And Waymo Announce They'll Collaborate On Self-Driving Cars (nbcnews.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the speaking-of-hybrids dept.

An anonymous reader quotes NBC: In the race to the self-driving future, Lyft has agreed to work with Waymo, the self-driving car company owned by Google's parent company, to bring autonomous vehicles to the masses, both companies told NBC News on Sunday night. The announcement comes as Waymo has accused Lyft's biggest competitor, Uber, of stealing trade secrets from the company to advance its own self-driving operation...
Both companies issued gushy statements about their new partners. Lyft said Waymo "holds today's best self-driving technology, and collaborating with them will accelerate our shared vision of improving lives with the world's best transportation." And Waymo applauded Lyft's "vision and commitment to improving the way cities move", saying it would help their technology "reach more people, in more places."

26 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. Sharp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is just poking Uber in the eye.
    If they were Microsoft, they would be throwing chairs. Except Google actually has the capability to hurt Uber, whereas Microsoft had nothing.

    1. Re: Sharp by vtcodger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uber -- which seems to be pretty much the poster child for everything that can be wrong with capitalism -- isn't likely to go quietly. They'll probably kill and maim no small number of innocents on their way to the dustbin of history.

      But this is probably good news. Lyft is, if nothing else, adroit at avoiding bad publicity and may actually be a fairly decent company.

      And Google -- no matter what you may think of their activities and ethics in other fields -- seems to be developing autonomous vehicle technology in a sane, methodical, responsible manner. Might be a great combo.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re: Sharp by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If anybody tells you that you're shallow, obnoxious and a nitwit, I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand.

      Try thinking a bit, for a change. You might even find that actually using the brain that you may have been given produces interesting results.

      Did I say that socialism works well? Nope. Didn't say that. Don't think that. The record says it can do a pretty good job with healthcare, weapons systems, and heavy industry. Sucks pretty much everywhere and always at agriculture and producing/distributing consumer goods

      But capitalism has -- whether you like it or not -- a few problems as well.

      It is claimed they say in Russia. "Everything Marx told us about communism was wrong. Unfortunately, everything he told us about capitalism was right." Try thinking about it. You might learn something.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    3. Re: Sharp by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      What we really need is capitalism with a government that ignores everything else except what is good for its citizens. You know, "by the people, for the people".

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  2. The dangers of 'self-driving' by hughbar · · Score: 2

    I wonder why no-one thinks about this, the car is always connected to the network. So someone can probably take over your car and drive you to the police station. That is a better outcome, anyway, than driving you to the outskirts, robbing and shooting you.

    Of course, the cars will be fully protected from this kind of behaviour, firewalls, virus protection until something sneaks in through the entertainment system. In other words, fully protected, until it isn't, business as usual.

    Just thought I'd mention this, with the ransomware thing, it's been that kind of week.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
    1. Re:The dangers of 'self-driving' by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      SSSHHH you're supposed to pretend self driving has been solved when you post here.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:The dangers of 'self-driving' by hughbar · · Score: 1

      Yes, sorry. I'm getting really old and forgetful. I'll need my self-driving car to remember where I need to go, real soon now.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
    3. Re:The dangers of 'self-driving' by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I wonder why no-one thinks about this, the car is always connected to the network. So someone can probably take over your car and drive you to the police station. That is a better outcome, anyway, than driving you to the outskirts, robbing and shooting you...

      I recently moved to a different county, where it seems that everyone drives the exact speed limit. In every lane.

      Normally I'm not prone to becoming frustrated and angry behind the wheel, but as I sit there unable to pass anyone in the left lane, I started to wonder....is this bullshit what is to be expected when autonomous cars start to take over? Computers programmed to never exceed the speed limit, and drive in a sane controlled manner all the time?

      Not saying that doesn't make sense, especially as not-so-sane human drivers kill and maim tens of thousands annually. Just pointing out the fact that it won't go over well in the transitional years as human drivers share the road with autonomous vehicles. Chances are they'll be more violence with impatient humans dealing with that shit than their ever will be coming from car hackers looking to kidnap and shoot you on the outskirts of the city.

    4. Re: The dangers of 'self-driving' by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      If self driving cars can be hacked it will basically be all your fault for being cool with allowing your entertainment system to be on the same network as the the control system. Same thing with having an insecure unvetted system that is subject to auto updates. I mean the whole system is closed, what if someone malicious works at Tesla? Is code that runs the control system subject to independent review/audit? Anybody give a shit?

    5. Re: The dangers of 'self-driving' by hughbar · · Score: 1

      That's the reason I mentioned the entertainment system, this has 'probably' happened for in-flight: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05... so why not cars? Easy mitigation/prevention of course, but hey, that's extra work that cuts into profits.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
    6. Re:The dangers of 'self-driving' by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      A thousand times this. If self driving as it is today (rule-based) becomes the norm, we will forever be driving behind a grey haired old lady.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    7. Re:The dangers of 'self-driving' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A thousand times this. If self driving as it is today (rule-based) becomes the norm, we will forever be driving behind a grey haired old lady.

      Yeah but you'll be sleeping or watching a movie, so it woin't matter.

    8. Re:The dangers of 'self-driving' by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      There will be many people who will have to drive behind and around these vehicles. What kind of self involved moron will be happy to watch a movie while there is a lineup of 10 cars behind them?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:The dangers of 'self-driving' by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I believe the AC's point is that the people in all 11 cars can watch a movie.

      A couple of other points:

      1. The passing lane is the passing lane. It's not for cruising in, and if someone passes you on the right and they're not driving like a crazy person, in many jurisdictions you'll be the one ticketed, not them. That means if self driving cars are following the rules, they're not going to be cruising in the passing lane, for exactly the same reason that they're not going to be breaking the speed limit.

      2. The issue with gray haired old ladies is not that they drive at the speed limit. God bless 'em if they ever do. It's that they drive at 50, 45, 50, 45, 40, 39, 45, 35, 50, 34, 40, 42, 40, 45. If they drove at 45 in a 45 zone, there wouldn't a problem, we'd just set our cruise controls and relax.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re: The dangers of 'self-driving' by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      There's an easy way to avoid making self driving cars that are hacked, and that's to use software that's tried and tested, rather than installing whatever the latest technology is. For example, I would use Windows XP, rather than trying to build a computer based upon Windows 10. The latter has new bugs being introduced all the time.

      I would also use the simplest protocols. For example, rather than the latest greatest file transfer protocols which are pretty much guaranteed to have bugs, I would just use XP's built in support for the first version of SMB. That way you should have an operating system that's old enough to have all of the security holes and bugs fixed, combined with an implementation of a networking stack that's old enough to have all of the security holes and bugs fixed, and a networking protocol that itself is old enough to have all of the security holes and bugs fixed.

      How say everyone else?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re:The dangers of 'self-driving' by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      But my point is that it will be 200 years before all 11 people are in an automated car. Also, it's not likely that I am going to find my time in the car that productive since I don't really have anywhere to go that is the length of a movie and I would prefer to do my watching at home anyway. Since my purpose of using the car is to get somewhere, I would like it to continue my manually driven car objective of just trying to get me where I need to go as quickly as possible. I don't have a problem with people driving the speed limit or even below the speed limit in the non-passing lane. However, I know where I live people don't feel our roads are of the type where they should be doing that and I don't like it when they hold me up.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re:The dangers of 'self-driving' by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Imagine WannaCry virus in hyper-connected cars. Good chance of a 100% infection rate there. If you think manually human driven cars are worse, you're crazy.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    13. Re: The dangers of 'self-driving' by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The only way to be secure is to remove all extraneous code. For an automated car, the GUI in windows XP is extraneous. Supporting every device is extraneous. It is much better to go with something like openbsd where every line of code can realistically be reviewed and scrutinized.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    14. Re: The dangers of 'self-driving' by hughbar · · Score: 1

      So agree. However, that message needs to go towards the manufacturers. I hope this week will be something of a wake-up too.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
  3. The dangers of 'self-driving' = dealership only by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    The dangers of 'self-driving' = dealership only service even for lights and oil changes Maybe even tires as well!

    1. Re:The dangers of 'self-driving' = dealership only by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The dangers of 'self-driving' = dealership only service even for lights and oil changes Maybe even tires as well!

      Who cares? I have as much interest in servicing my car as I do in tinkering with my fridge. None.

      I'm sure you'll be allowed to play around with cars as a hobby if you really enjoy it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:The dangers of 'self-driving' = dealership only by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      How does a computer being able to turn the steering wheel prevent me from changing it's oil in the driveway when it's turned off?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  4. Re:Aha by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

    Or, it could come from the people at Uber being complete fucking assholes, and assholery at the top of famous darling corps always eventually gets reported on.

    But yeah, I'm sure it's your Google - GM conspiracy. Better adjust the tinfoil hat, buddy.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  5. Re:i'll bite... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    The problem here is that you are treating socialism as an economical system (which is what the original intent for it was)

    Socialism is an economic system. That's the whole point of it all. An economy sorts out how you allocate scarce resources, and that is exactly what socialism intends to do (and it does a very poor job of it, I might add.) Anyways, I think Russia's issues with capitalism stem from a big government corruption problem (mainly on the part of the oligarchs and Putin) and not necessarily capitalism itself.

    Let's put things in perspective for a second here:

    1980's soviet grocery store: https://youtu.be/oOBFMMbUFI8?t...
    Modern russian supermarket: https://youtu.be/pzmZxiIv8mA?t...

    Also, somebody from the former eastern block was telling me about how in Russia they like a lot of things that have been imported there from the west and I mentioned "I guess they like capitalism now", and he replied "they love capitalism, they just don't like democracy", and that makes perfect sense. I read the article recently about how Putin banned images depicting him as a gay clown, and I'm having a difficult time believing that he's legitimately elected to that position. Nonetheless, he's abusing his power and many there may confuse this with capitalism, but this has nothing to do with capitalism; it's just government corruption, the same type of corruption that existed before the fall of the USSR, I might add.

  6. hobby what about paying $150 for basic oil change by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    hobby what about paying $150 for basic oil change at dealer when there is no jiffy lube to keep them in check.
    Paying $100 for a light change as that is the dealership min fee for service.
    $150-$200 to change an battery? you can change it own your own but that may trigger battery suicide mode that can void your warranty just like capcom did in the past.

  7. Future Business Model? by hackel · · Score: 1

    Will Lyft (and Uber) continue to operate on a contract basis, expecting individual contractors (since they're not drivers, perhaps they need to be called "investors?") to purchase their own self-driving cars to use with the service? Or will these companies purchase their own vehicles and get into the actual service business themselves? I personally think the ideal situation in the future is the complete elimination of personal vehicle ownership, but since I don't see that happening, allowing people to direct their vehicles to work for rise-sharing services while they are at work or sleeping seems like a great idea.