# 'We Need To Fire Anthony': Google Before Finding Out Self-Driving Car Engineer Allegedly Stole Tech



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

http://jalopnik.com/we-need-to-fire-anthony-google-before-finding-out-self-1811689572
*'We Need To Fire Anthony': Google Before Finding Out Self-Driving Car Engineer Allegedly Stole Tech*
Jalopnik.com 9/14/17 by Ryan Felton

Google is currently locked in a bitter legal fight with Uber over whether an engineer at the former company stole self-driving tech and brought it to the latter. That engineer abruptly left Google in January 2016 to launch a self-driving truck startup called Otto, which Uber quickly sought to purchase. But as early as August 2015, Google's self-driving car guru knew the guy had to go and didn't mince words about it.

In August 2015, Google's former self-driving car chief, Chris Urmson, advocated firing the self-driving tech engineer Anthony Levandowski. He did this after learning Levandowski had approached several Google employees to set up a "package deal of people that he could sell en masse to Uber," according to testimony in the ongoing lawsuit.

Waymo, Google's self-driving car project, is suing the ride-hailing company, claiming Uber hatched a plan with Levandowski to steal Google's self-driving car secrets and use them to advance the ride-hailing company's own autonomous vehicle ambitions.

Urmson's testimony, taken in a deposition late last month, indicates that Levandowski had been frustrated for years before ultimately leaving the company.

At one point, Urmson was asked about negative performance reviews that Levandowski seemingly received in 2013 and 2014. Urmson said it coincided with a transition period in Project Chauffeur-a codeword for Google's self-driving car project at the time-where it became evident that he was leading the endeavor, and not Levandowski.

"[T]here was a period after it became clear that I was leading Chauffeur and he was not, where I worked very hard to kind of mend bridges and bring him, you know, into the fold, so to speak," Urmson said. "Over time my patience with his manipulations and lack of enthusiasm and commitment to the project, it became clearer and clearer that this was a lost cause. And so I think what you're seeing is some of that turn in my sentiment towards him."

That sentiment seems obvious in emails from Urmson that were cited by attorneys during the August 24 deposition.

In an August 4, 2015, email, for example, Urmson started an email to colleagues that said: "We need to fire Anthony Levandowski."









​Urmson went on, "I have just heard today from two different sources that Anthony is approaching members of their team attempting to set up a package deal of people that he could sell en masse to Uber."

Levandowski's rocky departure from Google has been the subject of intense focus from Uber, which hopes to argue at trial that a dispute between Google and Levandowski over a $120 million bonus led him to allegedly steal an array of trade secrets from the company. Waymo has said Uber's "bonus theory" is without merit.

*Records show that Levandowski communicated with Uber executives throughout 2015, and by the end of the year, a tentative deal was already in place between the ride-hailing company and the former Googler to purchase his future start-up Otto.*

Jalopnik first reported that, in early December 2015, Uber had drafted a term sheet to acquire "Newco," a startup understood to be Levandowski's self-driving truck startup called Otto. Uber officially purchased Otto in August 2016 for a reported $680 million.

Spokespeople for Uber and Waymo, as well as Levandowski's attorneys, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case between Uber and Waymo heads to trial next month.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Definantly trouble.


----------



## Jo3030 (Jan 2, 2016)

Down in flames they go.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Jo3030 said:


> Down in flames they go.


I think Kalanick is facing potential jail time. This is why the investors demanded he step down, "it wasn't Uber, it was Kalanick." This shows collusion between Kalanick and Levandowski to steal Google's self driving car tech, which is new. Levandowski's startup self driving truck company, Otto, was just a ruse to allow Uber to steal the tech. Yesterday it was reported Google is thinking about investing one billion in Lyft. I think Google sees Uber as mortally wounded and would love to help finish them off.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

I would take great pleasure in boober falling apart.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> I think Google sees Uber as mortally wounded and would love to help finish them off.


I doubt anyone would seriously view Uber as mortally wounded. They are the big dog of the industry. They might have to pay some fines here and there but I expect they will keep rolling along.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> I doubt anyone would seriously view Uber as mortally wounded. They are the big dog of the industry. They might have to pay some fines here and there but I expect they will keep rolling along.


They are the big dog in the typewriter business the day before personal computers hit. Self driving cars make rideshare obsolete.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> They are the big dog in the typewriter business the day before personal computers hit. Self driving cars make rideshare obsolete.


In theory yes but real world implementation is always the tricky part.


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Records show that Levandowski was communicating with Uber executives throughout 2015, and by the end of the year, a tentative deal was already in place between the ride-hailing company and the former Googler to purchase his future start-up Otto.
> 
> http://jalopnik.com/we-need-to-fire-anthony-google-before-finding-out-self-1811689572


WOW. This Waymo company sure has come a long from Frisbees and hula hoops to this.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> In theory yes but real world implementation is always the tricky part.


Uber has charged 30,000 customers full fare operated by SDC's. Uber wouldn't be doing this if the safety driver had to take over 10 times a trip. These 30k pax are telling everyone they know about the trip. For companies to allow the public to see SDC's in action means it's getting very close. Google is doing the same thing but not charging. Yet.


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

Gung-Ho said:


> WOW. This Waymo company sure has come a long from Frisbees and hula hoops to this.


Can't forget about slip-n-slides!


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> Uber has charged 30,000 customers full fare operated by SDC's. Uber wouldn't be doing this if the safety driver had to take over 10 times a trip. These 30k pax are telling everyone they know about the trip. For companies to allow the public to SDC's in action means it's getting very close. Google is doing the same thing but not charging. Yet.


They have a long way to go.

http://triblive.com/business/techno...way-to-go-to-prove-self-driving-cars-are-safe


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

goneubering said:


> They have a long way to go.
> 
> http://triblive.com/business/techno...way-to-go-to-prove-self-driving-cars-are-safe


30,000 is about 1/3 of 1% of daily rides given by uber.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

wk1102 said:


> 30,000 is about 1/3 of 1% of daily rides given by uber.


And?



wk1102 said:


> 30,000 is about 1/3 of 1% of daily rides given by uber.


So what you're saying is, Uber has already replaced 10 drivers before the system is even ready. Good point.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

goneubering said:


> I doubt anyone would seriously view Uber as mortally wounded. They are the big dog of the industry. They might have to pay some fines here and there but I expect they will keep rolling along.


Big dogs? No they are a prifitless goliath they will NEVER make a profit because of 2 simple things
1. No tipping forces them to subsidize drivers or raise rates.
2. Sdcs will kill them. Without a million drivers which they spent billions on to acquire, they have NOTHING


----------



## wk1102 (Dec 25, 2015)

Fubernuber said:


> . Sdcs will kill them. Without a million drivers which they spent billions on to acquire, they have NOTHING


Uber isn't going to own the cars.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

wk1102 said:


> Uber isn't going to own the cars.


Thats right. Someone will and that someone can own and operate them with a lesser operating expense


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Fubernuber said:


> Thats right. Someone will and that someone can own and operate them with a lesser operating expense


This is true. All Uber has to offer is their large existing customer base. In order for Uber to survive they have to partner with a SDC company and it seems most are hesitant to associate themselves with Uber at this point. That could change but things are moving fast and Uber can't afford to lose any more time. Google is rumored to be seriously considering investing 1 billion in Lyft. Google would love nothing more than to crush Uber and take a wiz on their smoldering ashes.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> Uber has charged 30,000 customers full fare operated by SDC's. Uber wouldn't be doing this if the safety driver had to take over 10 times a trip. These 30k pax are telling everyone they know about the trip. For companies to allow the public to SDC's in action means it's getting very close. Google is doing the same thing but not charging. Yet.


lol you're still spouting this nonsense.

Uber still isn't anywhere near close to having any chance of ever having a sdc on the road.

It seems you forgot about this.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcr...er-recode-leaked-autonomous-vehicle-data/amp/

And all supposed sdc's that pick up riders have drivers in them. Thats the only reason people still get in them.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol you're still spouting this nonsense.
> 
> Uber still isn't anywhere near close to having any chance of ever having a sdc on the road.
> 
> ...





uberdriverfornow said:


> lol you're still spouting this nonsense.
> 
> Uber still isn't anywhere near close to having any chance of ever having a sdc on the road.
> 
> ...


Uber is not even in the top 10 when it comes to self driving cars, and yet they are far enough along to be able to charge pax full fare. Uber won't win the SDC race but they could still survive if they partner with the right company.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Uber is not even in the top 10 when it comes to self driving cars, and yet they are far enough along to be able to charge pax full fare. Uber won't win the SDC race but they could still survive if they partner with the right company.


I think uber isn't gonna get the full fare, if anything they will franchise the cars out somehow and then make money off of them with software, commission and maintenance.

It's gonna Sell a business that you dont have to be at.

Plus they can sell the data to other manufacturers. Its uber TECHNOLOGIES


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Kodyhead said:


> I think uber isn't gonna get the full fare, if anything they will franchise the cars out somehow and then make money off of them with software, commission and maintenance.
> 
> It's gonna Sell a business that you dont have to be at.
> 
> Plus they can sell the data to other manufacturers. Its uber TECHNOLOGIES


I'm referring to the fact that in several cities, right now, you can order an Uber and a self driving car picks you up but with a safety driver. It's not free, or discounted, you pay the same fare as if a human were driving.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

Tomato, tomauto..


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol you're still spouting this nonsense.
> 
> Uber still isn't anywhere near close to having any chance of ever having a sdc on the road.
> 
> ...


You're probably right. Intel buying Mobileye for 15 billion, yes BILLION, was simply stupid. And everyone knows Intel is stupid, just been lucky since 1968. BMW's purchase of HERE for 3 billion also stupid.
Ford's investment of 1 billion in Agro - stupid
GM buying Cruise for half a billion - stupid
Google's investment in SDC's of 1.1 billion thus far - stupid
Every major car company on planet earth working on SDC's - stupid
Samsung, Apple, Intel - stupid, stupid, stupid.
If all these stupid companies would just read UberPeople they'd save billions and billions of dollars.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

msft paid billions for nokia and it was a stupid decision. murdoch paid a billion for myspace and it was stupid. 

just like your stupid full-of-logical-fallacies argument.


----------



## d0n (Oct 16, 2016)

That Uber legal who quit did it for a reason, she knows they are guilty and she doesn't wanna get her career dragged on the streets.

She knows what this means and so does Uber.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> msft paid billions for nokia and it was a stupid decision. murdoch paid a billion for myspace and it was stupid.
> 
> just like your stupid full-of-logical-fallacies argument.


Google's initial foray into self driving cars was a risky moonshot. Now: 

"Putting Google aside for a moment, the motivation of every other company is simple. *Survival"*

"Google understood technology improvement curves and the first mover advantage"

"After about five years of active work, all the non Google watchers realized that faSDVs were going to be real sooner than they thought"

"And worse, these companies began to understand the economic impact of faSDV technology on their business. This faSDV tech was a probable binary event&#8230; their company might survive (even prosper), or it will die"

"If you can't produce faSDVs, you go out of business. Really soon. Assuming 2020 is the date for initial volume delivery of faSDVs, any car company without a viable product by 2024 will be dead or walking dead"
You should read this article 3 times every night. Commit it to memory. Cause it's going to happen.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...-into-the-self-driving-car-race/#bc636f73fe5a


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> This is true. All Uber has to offer is their large existing customer base. In order for Uber to survive they have to partner with a SDC company and it seems most are hesitant to associate themselves with Uber at this point. That could change but things are moving fast and Uber can't afford to lose any more time. Google is rumored to be seriously considering investing 1 billion in Lyft. Google would love nothing more than to crush Uber and take a wiz on their smoldering ashes.


One billion dollars invested in Lyft will not crush Uber but it might help Lyft survive.



tomatopaste said:


> Google's initial foray into self driving cars was a risky moonshot. Now:
> 
> "Putting Google aside for a moment, the motivation of every other company is simple. *Survival"*
> 
> ...


I often agree with Forbes but I don't in this case even though Google is a powerful force.



Fubernuber said:


> Big dogs? No they are a prifitless goliath they will NEVER make a profit because of 2 simple things
> 1. No tipping forces them to subsidize drivers or raise rates.
> 2. Sdcs will kill them. Without a million drivers which they spent billions on to acquire, they have NOTHING


You must not drive for Uber. I got two nice tips on their system today.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> Uber is not even in the top 10 when it comes to self driving cars, and yet they are far enough along to be able to charge pax full fare. Uber won't win the SDC race but they could still survive if they partner with the right company.


Uber is charging full price because it's just a regular ride that simply costs Uber more, because they have added technology in an attempt to fool investors into pumping more money into their company. There is no benefit whatsoever to the rider. In fact, they are taking enough risk just being in one. Uber couldn't pay me to get in one of those. Me and all riders I give rides to, talk to, and ask if they would get in one. And this is even with a driver in there. The last thing I want is for a car I'm driving to drive me off a cliff. I want complete and total control over my car at all times and no robot will EVER drive better than I do. Plain and simple.

Anything else you want me to help you with, just ask.



tomatopaste said:


> Google's initial foray into self driving cars was a risky moonshot. Now:
> 
> "Putting Google aside for a moment, the motivation of every other company is simple. *Survival"*
> 
> ...


You don't seem to understand the motivation for sdc's. Investors have invested billions of dollars into Uber. Everyone wants a piece of the pie. For most companies, even if sdc's can't ever work on the roads, they can just backdoor into selling them to customers as cars with "driver assist technology". This means someone sits in them and watches them drive but will always be in the driver seat.

For Uber and Lyft, however, the only benefit for sdc's is to completely remove the driver. When it becomes apparent it's not going to work then those cars will be of no benefit to them, and their model reverts back to actually supporting drivers again.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> They are the big dog in the typewriter business the day before personal computers hit. Self driving cars make rideshare obsolete.


Once self driving cars come out, everyone who can afford a car will own their own self driving car...

Rideshare= byebye

Taxis will also take a massive hit.

How often does someone ONLY get a ride share/taxi

WHEN:
They are too drunk to drive themselves?
They don't want to pay airport parking?
They don't want to pay parking in general?
They have 1 car in the household and their spouse is using it?

Self driving (perfectly self driving) cars will Eliminate the need to HIRE a car during ALL the above times...
This could be a MAJORITY of for-hire transportation as it is now... while being a small segment of automobile travel in general.

Self driving cars will knock out the for-hire industry massively above and beyond what these geniuses think it will. And it won't be uber/lyft turning a profit unless it's them SELLING THE TECH to GM, Chevy, ford, Toyota, Hyundai ect...

It won't be uber selling rides...

People won't tolerate how nasty these cars get...
The back of a taxi/uber car can get pretty grimy with a driver in the car monitoring things... Self driving cars? Yeah.. i see that working well..

And also there will be a massive reduction in the number of for-hire rides when people start loaning their self driving car to their friends to give them rides...

I would do it...

I would do it with people i wouldn't loan a car to now...

Where's the demand going to be in for-hire transportation?

The people that are... well...

TOURISTS...


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Uber is charging full price because it's just a regular ride that simply costs Uber more, because they have added technology in an attempt to fool investors into pumping more money into their company. There is no benefit whatsoever to the rider. In fact, they are taking enough risk just being in one. Uber couldn't pay me to get in one of those. Me and all riders I give rides to, talk to, and ask if they would get in one. And this is even with a driver in there. The last thing I want is for a car I'm driving to drive me off a cliff. I want complete and total control over my car at all times and no robot will EVER drive better than I do. Plain and simple.
> 
> Anything else you want me to help you with, just ask.


Uber is charging full price because, why not? They are the only ones charging for SDC's rides, period. Google and GM are offering their SDC rides for free. Uber can't afford to, they're on pace to lose another 3 billion dollars this year. Yes it is an added risk that passengers are taking and yet 30k Uber pax have been willing to take that extra risk. Why? because it's cool as hell. I'd pay double to ride in a self driving car. At least the first time.

No human will be able to drive as well as a self driving car. Plain and simple. Next time you're driving and have to change lanes on the freeway in heavy traffic, notice how you check your mirrors to make sure there's room to get over and then quickly have to look forward to make sure you're not getting too close to the car in front of you. How many times have you said, 'oh shit' when you looked forward? Self driving cars can look in all directions at the same time.

Yes, how long do you suppose you and others like you are going to be able to deny the inevitable transition to self driving cars? I mean without most people pointing and laughing?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Once self driving cars come out, everyone who can afford a car will own their own self driving car...
> 
> Rideshare= byebye
> 
> ...


You're forgetting a few things. Most people won't own cars, cause why own a car when it costs one quarter the price to travel the same miles with a subscription to a self driving taxi service? Yes people will still own their own cars but most won't. If it costs 500 dollars extra a month to own your own car most people will rather use the 500 dollars on other things.

Taxis won't take a hit, self driving taxis will be the norm. Yes now people only take taxis or Uber for certain trips because it's too expensive due to the cost of the driver. Take out the driver and it's less expensive to use SD taxis for everything, compared to owning your own car.

Uber Lyft won't be selling the technology. Neither are serious players in the SDC race. The only thing they have to offer the SDC companies is a large in place customer base.



ChortlingCrison said:


> Tomato, tomauto..


More tomato hate. Sad.



uberdriverfornow said:


> Uber is charging full price because it's just a regular ride that simply costs Uber more, because they have added technology in an attempt to fool investors into pumping more money into their company. There is no benefit whatsoever to the rider. In fact, they are taking enough risk just being in one. Uber couldn't pay me to get in one of those. Me and all riders I give rides to, talk to, and ask if they would get in one. And this is even with a driver in there. The last thing I want is for a car I'm driving to drive me off a cliff. I want complete and total control over my car at all times and no robot will EVER drive better than I do. Plain and simple.
> 
> Anything else you want me to help you with, just ask.
> 
> ...


Some people have to see it to believe it. You're one of those people. Problem though is others will have seen this coming and made decisions accordingly. You'll eventually get it but only after having bought a new Cadillac Escalade with a 700 dollar monthly payment.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> You'll eventually get it but only after you've bought a new Cadillac Escalade with a 700 dollar monthly payment.


Hahahaha! Now I know you're not serious.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

goneubering said:


> One billion dollars invested in Lyft will not crush Uber but it might help Lyft survive.
> 
> I often agree with Forbes but I don't in this case even though Google is a powerful force.
> 
> You must not drive for Uber. I got two nice tips on their system today.


I can tell a young man that leans far left with just a few comments


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> You're forgetting a few things. Most people won't own cars, cause why own a car when it costs one quarter the price to travel the same miles with a subscription to a self driving taxi service? Yes people will still own their own cars but most won't. If it costs 500 dollars extra a month to own your own car most people will rather use the 500 dollars on other things.
> 
> Taxis won't take a hit, self driving taxis will be the norm. Yes now people only take taxis or Uber for certain trips because it's too expensive due to the cost of the driver. Take out the driver and it's less expensive to use SD taxis for everything, compared to owning your own car.
> 
> ...


lol most people won't own cars ? where are you getting that nonsense ? you do realize that most people that use Uber today still have cars ?

there's no difference to a rider from an uber with a driver and an uber with a supposed sdc with no driver.

there's no difference and no benefit AT ALL

the sooner you realize that the better because this notion that somehow nobody is going to own a car is a utopian dream


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol most people won't own cars ? where are you getting that nonsense ? you do realize that most people that use Uber today still have cars ?
> 
> there's no difference to a rider from an uber with a driver and an uber with a supposed sdc with no driver.
> 
> ...


You realize SD taxis will cost 1/3 to 1/4 what Uber is charging, right? I'm just joking, of course you don't.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> You realize SD taxis will cost 1/3 to 1/4 what Uber is charging, right? I'm just joking, of course you don't.


Great!!!!!! They can scrape the bottom of the barrel for pennies.


----------



## brianboru (Nov 3, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> Uber has charged 30,000 customers full fare operated by SDC's. Uber wouldn't be doing this if the safety driver had to take over 10 times a trip. These 30k pax are telling everyone they know about the trip. For companies to allow the public to see SDC's in action means it's getting very close. Google is doing the same thing but not charging. Yet.


10x a trip? LOL. 1x a trip is too many. Until they can run without human backup it will never happen. Don't hold your breath and tell your grandkids, once you have them, not to hold theirs either.



tomatopaste said:


> Uber is not even in the top 10 when it comes to self driving cars, and yet they are far enough along to be able to charge pax full fare. Uber won't win the SDC race but they could still survive if they partner with the right company.


You are shamelessly exaggerating. It isn't self driving until there is no human backup.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

brianboru said:


> 10x a trip? LOL. 1x a trip is too many. Until they can run without human backup it will never happen. Don't hold your breath and tell your grandkids, once you have them, not to hold theirs either.
> 
> You are shamelessly exaggerating. It isn't self driving until there is no human backup.


If the human doesn't touch the gas or brake or steering wheel, the car drove itself. When they get to the point where the human never has to intercede, they pull out the human backup. They're getting close.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> the sooner you realize that the better because this notion that somehow nobody is going to own a car is a utopian dream


seriously. the thought is so asinine. what about contractors who need big trucks? what about people who tow boats/campers/horse trailers/all the other crap people tow around?

what about people who use their car for camping purposes? what about people who enjoy cars for pleasure?

it's so childish to think people are just going to give up their freedom of mobility. like i get it, most millennials are ******* and hate that they sometimes have to look away from their phones for a few minutes to drive somewhere but that doesn't mean the billions of other people who enjoy driving will just stop.



tomatopaste said:


> . They're getting close.


no they're not.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disengagement_report_2016


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

heynow321 said:


> no they're not.
> 
> https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disengagement_report_2016


Number of disengagements (The human driver taking control) total and per mile

BMW 638 miles 1 disengagement (this car would get into an accident or get stuck 4 TIMES PER WEEK
Bosch 405 disengagements t0 153 miles. or 2.6 disengagements PER MILE!
Google is at about .2 disengagements per thousand miles

Which would have EACH self driving taxi go fubar and risk/cause an accident... once every other week..


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> seriously. the thought is so asinine. what about contractors who need big trucks? what about people who tow boats/campers/horse trailers/all the other crap people tow around?
> 
> what about people who use their car for camping purposes? what about people who enjoy cars for pleasure?
> 
> ...


Why can't a SD truck tow your boat? Why can't a self driving truck like this pick up your container containing all your tools that also has a small compartment in it for "pleasure?"






Once SD taxis hit, the two car family comes to an end. Car sales are cut in half.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> You realize SD taxis will cost 1/3 to 1/4 what Uber is charging, right? I'm just joking, of course you don't.


Says who ? Uber ? Oh, you mean the people trying to sell the idea on these cars? How many cars does Uber have ? Where is it gonna maintain these cars ? Who's gonna maintain them ? Yes, Uber has been selling the investors on how much money it's going to save but that's like giving control of the hen house to the wolf. Of course the wolf is going to tell you what it wants you to hear about how safe it's going to be.



tomatopaste said:


> You're probably right. Intel buying Mobileye for 15 billion, yes BILLION, was simply stupid. And everyone knows Intel is stupid, just been lucky since 1968. BMW's purchase of HERE for 3 billion also stupid.
> Ford's investment of 1 billion in Agro - stupid
> GM buying Cruise for half a billion - stupid
> Google's investment in SDC's of 1.1 billion thus far - stupid
> ...


They are working on sdc's that will ALWAYS have a driver in them. Like I said before.

For example, from Intel...

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/9/16119000/intel-mobileye-self-driving-cars-level-4



> The cars will be Level 4 autonomous, meaning that they will be capable of handing most driving situations themselves, whereas Level 5 is largely theoretical and covers complete automation in any condition.


This is how it's going to work. There will always be a driver. Even all the Uber employees during the current mass exodus are seeing the writing on the wall for fully autonomous vehicles with no driver whatsoever in them.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

tomatopaste said:


> They are the big dog in the typewriter business the day before personal computers hit. Self driving cars make rideshare obsolete.


No they wont' It took a long time for PCs to completely replace typewriters. PCs hit it big around 1994, and I didn't chuck my typewriter and buy a computer until 2000, same with a lot of people.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Gung-Ho said:


> WOW. This Waymo company sure has come a long from Frisbees and hula hoops to this.


POST OF THR MONTH


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> No they wont' It took a long time for PCs to completely replace typewriters. PCs hit it big around 1994, and I didn't chuck my typewriter and buy a computer until 2000, same with a lot of people.


Yes but you had to pony up 2k or so for a computer and printer. To start using a self driving taxi service you don't have to invest anything. People aren't going to get rid of their cars overnight but they won't have to. They can start using the self driving limo service and leave their car in the garage.

There will be different levels as well, similar to; x, select and black. What if it costs you less per month to have a 100k Mercedes drive you everywhere than for you do drive your Corolla?

It will take decades to replace most current cars with SDC's but the transition to SD taxis can, and I believe will, happen overnight.



uberdriverfornow said:


> Says who ? Uber ? Oh, you mean the people trying to sell the idea on these cars? How many cars does Uber have ? Where is it gonna maintain these cars ? Who's gonna maintain them ? Yes, Uber has been selling the investors on how much money it's going to save but that's like giving control of the hen house to the wolf. Of course the wolf is going to tell you what it wants you to hear about how safe it's going to be.


Q: Says who? 
A: Says me and the and the SDC companies, but mostly me.

Q: Where is it gonna maintain these cars? 
A: Third and Lexington

Q: Who's gonna maintain them? 
A: Vinny


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> Q: Says who?
> A: Says me and the and the SDC companies, but mostly me.
> 
> Q: Where is it gonna maintain these cars?
> ...


Looks like you're throwing up the white towel. Good idea.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Says who ? Uber ? Oh, you mean the people trying to sell the idea on these cars? How many cars does Uber have ? Where is it gonna maintain these cars ? Who's gonna maintain them ? Yes, Uber has been selling the investors on how much money it's going to save but that's like giving control of the hen house to the wolf. Of course the wolf is going to tell you what it wants you to hear about how safe it's going to be.
> 
> They are working on sdc's that will ALWAYS have a driver in them. Like I said before.
> 
> ...


What exactly in that article do you believe bolsters your argument?


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> If all these stupid companies would just read UberPeople they'd save billions and billions of dollars.


HAHA. This made me laugh.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Looks like you're throwing up the white towel. Good idea.


Are you looking for the GPS coordinates of the Yellow Cab service facility and the social security number of Vinny? Cause I can get them.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> Tomato, tomauto..


LETS CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF!


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> POST OF THR MONTH


WHAT DO I WIN!!!


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Gung-Ho said:


> WHAT DO I WIN!!!


A taxi drivers respect


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

Cableguynoe said:


> A taxi drivers respect


I've been a taxi driver for over 25 years...I'll take it.

But maybe could they throw in coupon for a cup of coffee or something.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

brianboru said:


> 10x a trip? LOL. 1x a trip is too many. Until they can run without human backup it will never happen. Don't hold your breath and tell your grandkids, once you have them, not to hold theirs either.
> 
> You are shamelessly exaggerating. It isn't self driving until there is no human backup.


Whoopsie, no driver
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-in-netherlands-will-be-first-on-public-roads


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Whoopsie, no driver
> https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-in-netherlands-will-be-first-on-public-roads


Oh my god are you really so daft as to think that thing is somehow representative of level five self driving cars shuttling around people in all conditions in major cities? That thing goes 5 mph on a pre-programmed route that it does not deviate from. To use your same ******ed logic the train at SeaTac international airport that connects terminals has been self driving for like 25 years ! Oh my God everyone !


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Whoopsie, no driver
> https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-in-netherlands-will-be-first-on-public-roads


200m ? I'm guessing meters. Test run.

Trial speed 5 mph. Max speed 15 mph

Hopes to expand service area to 4 mile stretch of road.

I'M FINALLY ON BOARD!!! THESE BABIES ARE READY FOR PRIME TIME


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> Oh my god are you really so daft as to think that thing is somehow representative of level five self driving cars shuttling around people in all conditions in major cities? That thing goes 5 mph on a pre-programmed route that it does not deviate from. To use your same ******ed logic the train at SeaTac international airport that connects terminals has been self driving for like 25 years ! Oh my God everyone !


I just wanted to watch you guys do this:







Gung-Ho said:


> 200m ? I'm guessing meters. Test run.
> 
> Trial speed 5 mph. Max speed 15 mph
> 
> ...


You have no vision, Ho. Imagine every airport using these to transport pax from the terminal to the Uber lot, taxi lot, parking lots. No cars are allowed in the terminal area, just these. The pax walks out of terminal steps in one of these and it automatically drives right to your car. You also drop pax off in the Uber lot and he jumps in one of these. Better airport terminal security, improves traffic.

Say it, Ho: I have no vision.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> I just wanted to watch you guys do this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have a vivid imagination. Nothing wrong with that but I prefer reality.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> What exactly in that article do you believe bolsters your argument?


This is you referencing Intel as if they are on the road to sdc's that have no driver in them.



tomatopaste said:


> Intel


This is, yet again, the article I posted to rebut that ridiculous claim that Intel is on the road to sdc's with no driver in them.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/9/16119000/intel-mobileye-self-driving-cars-level-4

This is the same direct quote from that article....



> The cars will be Level 4 autonomous, meaning that they will be capable of handing most driving situations themselves, whereas Level 5 is largely theoretical and covers complete automation in any condition.


As already stated, even your boys Intel have gone on record saying that Level 5 of having sdc's with no driver in them is largely theoretical.

I have posted numerous arguments that prove flatly that sdc's with no driver will either not work or take many many years(atleast 2000 to be liberal) to even have a shot of being on the road by themselves with no driver in them. You continue just ignoring it and acting like I didn't post my arguments up to, and including, right now.

You're still not going to get it 'cause you're a troll.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> This is you referencing Intel as if they are on the road to sdc's that have no driver in them.
> 
> This is, yet again, the article I posted to rebut that ridiculous claim that Intel is on the road to sdc's with no driver in them.
> 
> ...


I see the problem here, you're quoting an author from "The Verge" and then believing an author from "The Verge" knows what he's talking about. Hint: he doesn't. Let's read the quote again and then go over it, shall we?

"The cars will be Level 4 autonomous, meaning that they will be capable of handing most driving situations themselves, whereas Level 5 is largely theoretical and covers complete automation in any condition."​
No. Level 4 means fully autonomous self driving. It can handle everything. You could put your infant in the car and send him to grandma's house. Level four means it can handle everything within the geo-fenced area. Meaning everything that's been 3D digitally mapped. But the only places SDC's are going to drive is where it's been mapped, which will be virtually everywhere. Level five means it could "theoretically" drive where it hasn't been mapped. Say like driving through the desert from L.A. to Las Vegas. Level 5 is theoretical because level 5 will never be needed and will never exist.

Happy I could clear this up for you.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

lol you're so delusional and basically blatantly lie about anything that doesn't prove your point 

how you can just tell people that what the author said means something completely different from what he said is just wow


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol you're so delusional and basically blatantly lie about anything that doesn't prove your point
> 
> how you can just tell people that what the author said means something completely different from what he said is just wow


How can I respond when you begin with that devastating use of "lol?" I'm still reeling. You were on the debate team, weren't you? I can tell.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Uber has their own tow trucks????

http://triblive.com/local/allegheny...rivng-cars-grounded-in-pittsburgh-after-crash


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> Uber has their own tow trucks????
> 
> http://triblive.com/local/allegheny...rivng-cars-grounded-in-pittsburgh-after-crash


This is going to make a lot of people very unhappy. It was only a fender bender and the human driver was do the driving, not the software. CRAP!



uberdriverfornow said:


> lol you're so delusional and basically blatantly lie about anything that doesn't prove your point
> 
> how you can just tell people that what the author said means something completely different from what he said is just wow


Well, several reasons:
1. I inform myself so when an author says something, I can understand if they're intentionally trying to mislead me.
2. Common sense. Intel would not have spent 15 BILLION dollars acquiring Mobileye just to deceive the investors. Mostly because Intel* IS!* the investor.
3. I listen to the top minds in the self driving car business, like Chris Urmson. (video 53:30 to 54:35)






Notice at the end where he says: "we're actually really quite close." My guess is when he says "we're actually really quite close", he means, we're actually really quite close.


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> I just wanted to watch you guys do this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is sarcasm right?

You don't seriously believe a passenger getting off a 15 hour international flight and having cleared customs or any other passenger on any domestic flight is going to be excited about humping their luggage into a driverless drone vehicle to get a ride perhaps a half mile to a designated parking area so they can unload and then reload their luggage into a human driven taxi, limo or ride share car?

Or maybe you do...vision!!!

I say...EFFICIENCY!...NOT!!!


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Gung-Ho said:


> This is sarcasm right?
> 
> You don't seriously believe a passenger getting off a 15 hour international flight and having cleared customs or any other passenger on any domestic flight is going to be excited about humping their luggage into a driverless drone vehicle to get a ride perhaps a half mile to a designated parking area so they can unload and then reload their luggage into a human driven taxi, limo or ride share car?
> 
> ...


This would reduce the amount of lugging required. Now they lug their luggage all the way to the curb and stand among 50 other people looking for your car. They wave at you and you point 50 feet ahead where you can pull in. They then have to lug the luggage 50 feet to your car. Look at the video:

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-in-netherlands-will-be-first-on-public-roads

The floor of the cab is at curb height, the most they have to lug their luggage is an extra three inches from where they're already standing on the curb and lift it 1/4 of an inch, maybe 1/8th.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Gung-Ho said:


> This is sarcasm right?
> 
> You don't seriously believe a passenger getting off a 15 hour international flight and having cleared customs or any other passenger on any domestic flight is going to be excited about humping their luggage into a driverless drone vehicle to get a ride perhaps a half mile to a designated parking area so they can unload and then reload their luggage into a human driven taxi, limo or ride share car?
> 
> ...


How about this? You eliminate baggage claim altogether. You get off the plane and go straight to the self driving shuttle car waiting for you at the curb, it takes you to your Uber. The bags come off the plane and go directly into a small baggage sized shuttle that meets you at your Uber. You turn the entire baggage claim area into a water park. Vision baby, vision.


----------



## WaveRunner1 (Jun 11, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> I think Kalanick is facing potential jail time. This is why the investors demanded he step down, "it wasn't Uber, it was Kalanick." This shows collusion between Kalanick and Levandowski to steal Google's self driving car tech, which is new. Levandowski's startup self driving truck company, Otto, was just a ruse to allow Uber to steal the tech. Yesterday it was reported Google is thinking about investing one billion in Lyft. I think Google sees Uber as mortally wounded and would love to help finish them off.


Kalanick wasn't the only rotten egg. His administration needs to be removed as well. Consider Rachel Holt, manager of Uber NA. She's done an inferior job addressing issues and managing Uber here in America. So while yes ridership grows, much of that growth is hollow as one rarely develops loyalty to Uber and will easily jump ship when possible.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

WaveRunner1 said:


> Kalanick wasn't the only rotten egg. His administration needs to be removed as well. Consider Rachel Holt, manager of Uber NA. She's done an inferior job addressing issues and managing Uber here in America. So while yes ridership grows, much of that growth is hollow as one rarely develops loyalty to Uber and will easily jump ship when possible.


True. Kalanick and Levandowski are now going to be deposed. They will not survive a deposition. Could be pokey time.


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> How about this? You eliminate baggage claim altogether. You get off the plane and go straight to the self driving shuttle car waiting for you at the curb, it takes you to your Uber. The bags come off the plane and go directly into a small baggage sized shuttle that meets you at your Uber. You turn the entire baggage claim area into a water park. Vision baby, vision.


Right. Sure. How does baggage claim know which luggage belongs to people waiting on a hired car as oppossed to a person who self parked?


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Gung-Ho said:


> Right. Sure. How does baggage claim know which luggage belongs to people waiting on a hired car as oppossed to a person who self parked?


That's easy!!!! The sdc will scan your hand for the implanted chip and then match it with the luggage carrying the same chip signature.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Gung-Ho said:


> Right. Sure. How does baggage claim know which luggage belongs to people waiting on a hired car as oppossed to a person who self parked?


Your bags have a tag with a barcode which is connected to your account, your plane ticket. When you order an Uber or Lyft or put in your parking space, or the parking space in the pax waiting lot where your mom is parked, it updates your account and tells the baggage shuttle where to go. You may now praise me.


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Your bags have a tag with a barcode which is connected to your account, your plane ticket. When you order an Uber or Lyft or put in your parking space, or the parking space in the pax waiting lot where your mom is parked, it updates your account and tells the baggage shuttle where to go. You may now praise me.


So each individual has their own pod shuttle delivering their bags to them?

That really sounds like a cure for airport congestion


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Gung-Ho said:


> So each individual has their own pod shuttle delivering their bags to them?
> 
> That really sounds like a cure for airport congestion


Realize there will be no human driven vehicles on the terminal roads connecting the various lots to the terminal. These things could be flying. Plus you could have two rows of baggage shuttles in each lane, bumper to bumper going 50 mph. Half of pax only have carry-on so they'd have it with them in the pax shuttle. If pax has 10 bags you could add carts like a train. Baggage shuttle could have, say 3 separate compartments and make 3 stops if the system sees several pax are all going to the Uber lot.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> Realize there will be no human driven vehicles on the terminal roads connecting the various lots to the terminal. These things could be flying. Plus you could have two rows of baggage shuttles in each lane, bumper to bumper going 50 mph. Half of pax only have carry-on so they'd have it with them in the pax shuttle. If pax has 10 bags you could add carts like a train. Baggage shuttle could have, say 3 separate compartments and make 3 stops if the system sees several pax are all going to the Uber lot.


Add flying suitcases and you have the recipe for mass chaos. You're funny.


----------



## Gung-Ho (Jun 2, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Realize there will be no human driven vehicles on the terminal roads connecting the various lots to the terminal. These things could be flying. Plus you could have two rows of baggage shuttles in each lane, bumper to bumper going 50 mph. Half of pax only have carry-on so they'd have it with them in the pax shuttle. If pax has 10 bags you could add carts like a train. Baggage shuttle could have, say 3 separate compartments and make 3 stops if the system sees several pax are all going to the Uber lot.


I'll say my final bit before I move from this lunacy.

You apparently have never been to an airport. Baggage handlers have a hard enough time unloading a plane and chucking suitcases on a conveyor belt and still manage to lose bags or put them on the wrong carousels.

So now you propose these people will now have to sort the bags and place them into individual pod vehicles so they can be delivered to a customer who will be standing on a curb waiting for this circus to roll up.

That would mean an additional 10 to 20 thousand baggage handlers per airport.

EFFICIENCY!!!


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Gung-Ho said:


> I'll say my final bit before I move from this lunacy.
> 
> You apparently have never been to an airport. Baggage handlers have a hard enough time unloading a plane and chucking suitcases on a conveyor belt and still manage to lose bags or put them on the wrong carousels.
> 
> ...


They don't have to do anything, just put the bag in the baggage shuttle


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> I think Kalanick is facing potential jail time. This is why the investors demanded he step down, "it wasn't Uber, it was Kalanick." This shows collusion between Kalanick and Levandowski to steal Google's self driving car tech, which is new. Levandowski's startup self driving truck company, Otto, was just a ruse to allow Uber to steal the tech. Yesterday it was reported Google is thinking about investing one billion in Lyft. I think Google sees Uber as mortally wounded and would love to help finish them off.


They Dont Dare Jail our Fearless Leader !

Martha Stewart recovered from Federal Prison.

So can Travis.
And
Learn how to weave wallets from cigarette packs !

Ever been to the Prison Arts & Crafts show ?

Also noteworthy is ANGOLA PRISON RODEO.

Ever seen Lifers mauled by car sized bulls ?
C'mon down . . . they do it just for the Pain Meds !

More fun than a room full of Lectric Chair Rockers !

Nothing like the sound of a bullriders head hitting a steel pipe fence while hanging sideways off the back of an enraged Bull on a cool autumn evening !

Thonk, Thunk , Thonk . . . .
Brings back memories !

Closest You will ever come to seeing Christians Feeding the Lions in the Coliseum in Rome in Your Lifetime !


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

There were a few bugs that had to be worked out in the Denver airport, the automated baggage handling capital of the world and I'm not sure that they ever got to where they wanted to be, but I digress.

I have no doubt that self driving cars will come to fruition at some point. I do however think it's a minimum of 10 years away because there are a lot of hurdles that still need to be jumped and a level of perfection that we are entitled to. tomatopaste I have no doubt that somewhere in the 20 to 50 year time frame SDC's will drastically change how we move people and things. I could easily see levels of car utility rental. from cheap low end vehicle that you pool in to high end luxury by yourself in priority mode. These could cost a monthly fee like electricity and would probably be much cheaper than car ownership. But again, this will take time and some behavioral engineering to make it work. Right now I could see a SDC sitting in the middle of a traffic jam in NYC, never moving forward because people keep cutting in front of it. Lots of fun little problems to solve before you let them loose on the street.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Disgusted Driver said:


> There were a few bugs that had to be worked out in the Denver airport, the automated baggage handling capital of the world and I'm not sure that they ever got to where they wanted to be, but I digress.
> 
> I have no doubt that self driving cars will come to fruition at some point. I do however think it's a minimum of 10 years away because there are a lot of hurdles that still need to be jumped and a level of perfection that we are entitled to. tomatopaste I have no doubt that somewhere in the 20 to 50 year time frame SDC's will drastically change how we move people and things. I could easily see levels of car utility rental. from cheap low end vehicle that you pool in to high end luxury by yourself in priority mode. These could cost a monthly fee like electricity and would probably be much cheaper than car ownership. But again, this will take time and some behavioral engineering to make it work. Right now I could see a SDC sitting in the middle of a traffic jam in NYC, never moving forward because people keep cutting in front of it. Lots of fun little problems to solve before you let them loose on the street.


I think the ideal situation for this technology would be to build a new city from scratch and only allow SDCs there. The human factor is the wild card just like you mentioned about a NYC traffic jam. I would love to watch that action go down!!!!


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> I think Kalanick is facing potential jail time. This is why the investors demanded he step down, "it wasn't Uber, it was Kalanick." This shows collusion between Kalanick and Levandowski to steal Google's self driving car tech, which is new. Levandowski's startup self driving truck company, Otto, was just a ruse to allow Uber to steal the tech. Yesterday it was reported Google is thinking about investing one billion in Lyft. I think Google sees Uber as mortally wounded and would love to help finish them off.


I read that it is Alphabet that is going to invest one billion in Lyft. The judge said that if Waymo can't show damage, they are in real trouble. It has been proven that Uber's self driving work does not incorporate any of Waymo's designs. The 14,000 files that were stolen, were to make sure Waymo paid Lewendowski his severance pay of $120M, according to Uber. And the beat goes on!

my dog would not ride is a SDC


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Tom Harding said:


> I read that it is Alphabet that is going to invest one billion in Lyft. The judge said that if Waymo can't show damage, they are in real trouble. It has been proven that Uber's self driving work does not incorporate any of Waymo's designs. The 14,000 files that were stolen, were to make sure Waymo paid Lewendowski his severance pay of $120M, according to Uber. And the beat goes on!
> 
> my dog would not ride is a SDC


People said the same thing about horseless carriages


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> How can I respond when you begin with that devastating use of "lol?" I'm still reeling. You were on the debate team, weren't you? I can tell.


There is no debate.

All there is is me posting facts and you lying about any and everything. It seems you've learned a lot from Trump.

It's so bad for you for some reason you're actually critiquing someones use of lol.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> There is no debate.
> 
> All there is is me posting facts and you lying about any and everything. It seems you've learned a lot from Trump.
> 
> It's so bad for you for some reason you're actually critiquing someones use of lol.


You don't respond to facts. You run and hide.

These are facts. Respond.
Well, several reasons:
1. I inform myself so when an author says something, I can understand if they're intentionally trying to mislead me.
2. Common sense. Intel would not have spent 15 BILLION dollars acquiring Mobileye just to deceive the investors. Mostly because Intel* IS!* the investor.
3. I listen to the top minds in the self driving car business, like Chris Urmson. (video 53:30 to 54:35)

Notice at the end where he says: "we're actually really quite close." My guess is when he says "we're actually really quite close", he means, we're actually really quite close.​


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> You don't respond to facts. You run and hide.
> 
> These are facts. Respond.
> Well, several reasons:
> ...


Nobody is deceiving investors. Now you're gonna lie about Intel?

They are making a sdc that will always have a driver in the car, just as they previously said.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Nobody is deceiving investors. Now you're gonna lie about Intel?
> 
> They are making a sdc that will always have a driver in the car, just as they previously said.


Intel spent 15 billion on the acquisition of Mobileye for the purpose of having a human driver behind the wheel? Would you like to expand on that?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

tomatopaste said:


> Intel spent 15 billion on the acquisition of Mobileye for the purpose of having a human driver behind the wheel? Would you like to expand on that?


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

Jo3030 said:


> Down in flames they go.


I was wondering what that smoke I smelled was all about!



Jo3030 said:


> Down in flames they go.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Nobody is deceiving investors. Now you're gonna lie about Intel?
> 
> They are making a sdc that will always have a driver in the car, just as they previously said.


That's odd. Cause Delphi says they plan to pull the driver out by 2020.


De Vos said Delphi expects to begin testing its automated driving systems in pilot projects with ride-service fleets by 2019, with plans to "take the driver out by 2020.
And Delphi is partners with Intel.

Delphi's partners on the CSLP platform include Intel Corp's Mobileye and Silicon Valley startup Renovo.
Doesn't it stand to reason that if Delphi plans to pull the driver out by 2020 and Dephi and Intel are partners, that Intel also plans to pull the driver out by 2020? I mean if A = B and B = C then A = C, right?

http://gadgets.ndtv.com/transportat...-on-self-driving-car-operating-system-1753167


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

tomatopaste said:


> That's odd. Cause Delphi says they plan to pull the driver out by 2020.
> 
> 
> De Vos said Delphi expects to begin testing its automated driving systems in pilot projects with ride-service fleets by 2019, with plans to "take the driver out by 2020.
> ...


1) This is a company that has no cars at all on the road, expecting to go faster than a company like Google that's been operating self driving cars for years and still has no plans to take the driver out.

and

2)


> The initial fleets of vehicles will be small and limited to defined routes in cities


Even if they get the driver out in only 1 year ( lol ), which is laughable to say the least, who do you think would bother being inconvenienced by a car that can only go down a few roads ?

Just another typical sdc money grab. So keep trying.



tomatopaste said:


> Intel spent 15 billion on the acquisition of Mobileye for the purpose of having a human driver behind the wheel? Would you like to expand on that?


Sure. How does "lol" sound ?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> 1) This is a company that has no cars at all on the road, expecting to go faster than a company like Google that's been operating self driving cars for years and still has no plans to take the driver out.
> 
> and
> 
> ...


Yes, this is a company that got in the game late after they saw what Google had accomplished. HOLY #$%^!

Google has no plans to take the driver out? If Delphi and Intel plan to take out the driver in 2020, where do you think Google is, today?

Please explain how spending 15 billion dollars for Moblileye is a money grab.

The use of 'lol' sounds like someone who knows their arguments are sad but hopes to salvage a sliver of credibility because he thinks most readers of UberPeople are not that bright.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

tomatopaste said:


> People said the same thing about horseless carriages


People like to use this argument frequently. The difference is when the automobile was introduced you were able to control the vehicle yourself. SDC's are computers... different ballgame. Not to mention when vehicles came out there wasn't thousands upon thousands of other 2+ ton pieces of metal going 30-40 mph down the road. Different game my friend.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Brooklyn said:


> People like to use this argument frequently. The difference is when the automobile was introduced you were able to control the vehicle yourself. SDC's are computers... different ballgame. Not to mention when vehicles came out there wasn't thousands upon thousands of other 2+ ton pieces of metal going 30-40 mph down the road. Different game my friend.


People will have an understandable yet irrational fear of self driving cars. People jump out of airplanes, surf 20 foot waves, play football. These are the personality types that will embrace self driving cars to begin with. After a few months they will have real data to prove it's ten times safer than a human driven car.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

tomatopaste said:


> People will have an understandable yet irrational fear of self driving cars. People jump out of airplanes, surf 20 foot waves, play football. These are the personality types that will embrace self driving cars to begin with. After a few months they will have real data to prove it's ten times safer than a human driven car.


How do you know this? Or are you just repeating what you were told? I don't want to see studies about 1 car on every other thousand street. I wanna see the reaction of a thousand cars on one street. Then we'll see how safe these vehicles are.

And again... NONE of that has to do with the transition from horses to vehicles.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Brooklyn said:


> How do you know this? Or are you just repeating what you were told? I don't want to see studies about 1 car on every other thousand street. I wanna see the reaction of a thousand cars on one street. Then we'll see how safe these vehicles are.
> 
> And again... NONE of that has to do with the transition from horses to vehicles.


Yes it does. People had an irrational fear of the unknown with horseless carriages, same as with self driving cars. It soon became clear cars were actually safer than horse driven carriages. People eventually overcame their fear of cars, much like they will do with self driving cars.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

tomatopaste said:


> Yes it does. People had an irrational fear of the unknown with horseless carriages, same as with self driving cars. It soon became clear cars were actually safer than horse driven carriages. People eventually overcame their fear of cars, much like they will do with self driving cars.


How are you trying to compare someone controlling the speed, stop, and direction of a vehicle to trusting a computer? Come on man.

The upgrade from maintaining a horse to driving a vehicle is NOT the same as sitting in a car where it is driven by a computer. We still don't even have driverless trains which are on tracks.. the hell I look like trusting a SDC?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Brooklyn said:


> How are you trying to compare someone controlling the speed, stop, and direction of a vehicle to trusting a computer? Come on man.
> 
> The upgrade from maintaining a horse to driving a vehicle is NOT the same as sitting in a car where it is driven by a computer. We still don't even have driverless trains which are on tracks.. the hell I look like trusting a SDC?


Because the computer is controlling the steering, acceleration and braking of the car. As well as navigation. The computer will be able to handle all of these tasks far better than any human. For one, they'll be able to see in all directions at the same time. Far faster reaction times and will be able to process far more information than a human can, in far less time.



Brooklyn said:


> The upgrade from maintaining a horse to driving a vehicle is NOT the same as sitting in a car where it is driven by a computer. We still don't even have driverless trains which are on tracks.. the hell I look like trusting a SDC?


The horse drawn carriage was dangerous cause you not only had to rely on the skill of the person directing the horses but also on the horses themselves. Cars eliminated one of these weak links. Driverless cars will eliminate the remaining weak link.


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Yes it does. People had an irrational fear of the unknown with horseless carriages, same as with self driving cars. It soon became clear cars were actually safer than horse driven carriages. People eventually overcame their fear of cars, much like they will do with self driving cars.


Yes, but early cars weren't hackable. People will be able to do unthinkable things with these cars with all the shenanigans going on in the tech world these days. Also, all computers have bugs and go offline when you least expect it. There are of variables that will have to be taken into account. Planes are basically self-driven...but there is far more space between them out in airspace than cars in an urban area and even on the open road.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

ABC123DEF said:


> Yes, but early cars weren't hackable. People will be able to do unthinkable things with these cars with all the shenanigans going on in the tech world these days. Also, all computers have bugs and go offline when you least expect it. There are of variables that will have to be taken into account. Planes are basically self-driven...but there is far more space between them out in airspace than cars in an urban area and even on the open road.


Neither are these cars hackable. 1. The cars are driven by onboard software, they are not getting info from the cloud for navigation. 2. The redundant sensors make it virtually hack proof. 3. But let's say for argument's sake you were able to hack into the car, the car is still not going to drive into a group of pedestrians. The most it will do is pull over to the side of the road.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

ABC123DEF said:


> Yes, but early cars weren't hackable. People will be able to do unthinkable things with these cars with all the shenanigans going on in the tech world these days. Also, all computers have bugs and go offline when you least expect it. There are of variables that will have to be taken into account. Planes are basically self-driven...but there is far more space between them out in airspace than cars in an urban area and even on the open road.


Don't you love it when you have people who play fantasy world and pretend nothing can or will go wrong? In today's day people still end up with lemon cars and errors and malfunctions... imagine these SDC's.. but according to this guy NOTHING can happen.. just look at his responses.. if the most these cars will do is pull over and park then I guess I'm gonna have a blast when 1,000 of them are driving down 7th Avenue in Times Square and I just jump in front of one just to watch 1,000 cars pull to the side and park.


tomatopaste said:


> Neither are these cars hackable. 1. The cars are driven by onboard software, they are not getting info from the cloud for navigation. 2. The redundant sensors make it virtually hack proof. 3. But let's say for argument's sake you were able to hack into the car, the car is still not going to drive into a group of pedestrians. The most it will do is pull over to the side of the road.


Oh and a few quick things before you start making up scenarios to make yourself the all knowing and seeing.

You don't think for one instant that NO ONE will be able to hack the navigation software of a vehicle? you see hacks happening at all stages to every company every day... you mean to tell me VEHICLES is where hacking will stop?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Brooklyn said:


> Don't you love it when you have people who play fantasy world and pretend nothing can or will go wrong? In today's day people still end up with lemon cars and errors and malfunctions... imagine these SDC's.. but according to this guy NOTHING can happen.. just look at his responses.. if the most these cars will do is pull over and park then I guess I'm gonna have a blast when 1,000 of them are driving down 7th Avenue in Times Square and I just jump in front of one just to watch 1,000 cars pull to the side and park.
> 
> Oh and a few quick things before you start making up scenarios to make yourself the all knowing and seeing.
> 
> You don't think for one instant that NO ONE will be able to hack the navigation software of a vehicle? you see hacks happening at all stages to every company every day... you mean to tell me VEHICLES is where hacking will stop?


Don't you love it when the Luddites get on here and come up with 50 reasons a day why self driving cars will kill every living creature on planet earth within the first year?

Don't you also love it when they act as though the top companies on planet earth working on self driving cars, having invested billions of dollars and have their entire companies riding on the line, somehow managed to overlook all potential security threats? I mean they just totally spaced, didn't even give security a second thought. I know you do. I can hear you snickering.

I'm going to have champagne on ice waiting for you to jump out in front of a self driving car as it calmly stops in front of you and then immediately sends the video to the local police. I'm also going to have a second bottle of champagne ready for when Chongo in cell 5 makes you his b.i. itch.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

tomatopaste said:


> Don't you love it when the Luddites get on here and come up with 50 reasons a day why self driving cars will kill every living creature on planet earth within the first year?
> 
> Don't you also love it when they act as though the top companies on planet earth working on self driving cars, having invested billions of dollars and have their entire companies riding on the line, somehow managed to overlook all potential security threats? I mean they just totally spaced, didn't even give security a second thought. I know you do. I can hear you snickering.
> 
> I'm going to have champagne on ice waiting for you to jump out in front of a self driving car as it calmly stops in front of you and then immediately sends the video to the local police. I'm also going to have a second bottle of champagne ready for when Chongo in cell 5 makes you his b.i. itch.


So because they invest all of that money means it will happen? do you know how many things, ideas and etc.. billions of dollars have been spent on that did not pan out? not to say SDC's won't... just your whole idea and vision seems a bit.... out there.. you seem a bit out there completely but that's for a different topic.

just because people invest billions does not mean it WILL work..

my friend, you put too much faith in some companies... Sony is worth billions upon billions... remember when they got hacked? NASA? Google?... hell our government gets hacked all the time. Look at the credit rating agency that just got hacked. You mean to tell me a vehicle moving with an onboard software with no cloud connection to keep the vehicle safe from hackers can't be hacked? lol.. Some of the greatest companies the world has ever seen have been hacked in their own headquarters by people on the other side of the world.... a car moving is not safer bud.

And nice way to get all childish because you think you can just spit out a bunch of jibberish on the internet and people will take it as if your word means anything.. I'll be there one to be a bit more mature here and tell you to have a great day.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Brooklyn said:


> So because they invest all of that money means it will happen? do you know how many things, ideas and etc.. billions of dollars have been spent on that did not pan out? not to say SDC's won't... just your whole idea and vision seems a bit.... out there.. you seem a bit out there completely but that's for a different topic.
> 
> just because people invest billions does not mean it WILL work..
> 
> ...


By the time we got to Apollo 10 we knew we were going to land on the moon. We had never landed on the moon but smart people knew what it took to get to the moon and they knew Apollo 11 would get there. Maybe on Apollo 1 there was justifiable skepticism but by Apollo 10 we knew nothing was going to stop us.

Will people try to hack self driving cars? Yes, every second of every day. Will they succeed in gaining access and be able to steer it into a school playground full of children? No.

Should we pull all the current Teslas off the road? How about every car with On-Star? How about every car with Sirius XM? Are we all idiots for having money in a bank account? You realize they can be hacked, right?

It was the Chongo thing, wasn't it? It's all fun and games til someone insinuates Chongo will make you his boy toy.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

tomatopaste said:


> By the time we got to Apollo 10 we knew we were going to land on the moon. We had never landed on the moon but smart people knew what it took to get to the moon and they knew Apollo 11 would get there. Maybe on Apollo 1 there was justifiable skepticism but by Apollo 10 we knew nothing was going to stop us.
> 
> Will people try to hack self driving cars? Yes, every second of every day. Will they succeed in gaining access and be able to steer it into a school playground full of children? No.
> 
> ...


So what you're telling me is people can hack freaking NASA.. they can hack a whole country.. but a self driving car is off that list?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Brooklyn said:


> So what you're telling me is people can hack freaking NASA.. they can hack a whole country.. but a self driving car is off that list?


I'm saying the doomsday scenario you're trying to portray is not possible. That ISIS will be able to tap into the network and take over control of all self driving cars and mow down millions of people. Is it possible hackers might hack into the system? Yes. Will it also be one of the most secure systems on the planet? Yes. Do terrorist take control of vehicles now and mow down civilians? Yes. Will they be able to take control of self driving cars and mow down people? No.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Brooklyn said:


> So what you're telling me is people can hack freaking NASA.. they can hack a whole country.. but a self driving car is off that list?


Why aren't you demanding all commercial jetliners be grounded? Almost 100 percent use autopilot at some point during the flight. Why isn't ISIS hacking into the system and sending thousands of planes a day into an uncontrollable spin, ending in a fiery mushroom cloud?


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Don't you love it when the Luddites get on here and come up with 50 reasons a day why self driving cars will kill every living creature on planet earth within the first year?
> 
> Don't you also love it when they act as though the top companies on planet earth working on self driving cars, having invested billions of dollars and have their entire companies riding on the line, somehow managed to overlook all potential security threats? I mean they just totally spaced, didn't even give security a second thought. I know you do. I can hear you snickering.
> 
> I'm going to have champagne on ice waiting for you to jump out in front of a self driving car as it calmly stops in front of you and then immediately sends the video to the local police. I'm also going to have a second bottle of champagne ready for when Chongo in cell 5 makes you his b.i. itch.


The police don't have anything better to do than chase down every little interference with a self-driving car? They aren't curing cancer or anything.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

ABC123DEF said:


> The police don't have anything better to do than chase down every little interference with a self-driving car? They aren't curing cancer or anything.


How many nights do you suppose the average yahoo will need to spend in jail before he realizes becoming Chongo or his brother Mongo's boy toy just ain't worth it? I say one.


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> How many nights do you suppose the average yahoo will need to spend in jail before he realizes becoming Chongo or his brother Mongo's boy toy just ain't worth it? I say one.


I say it remains to be seen. I say law enforcement agencies have better things to focus on.


----------

