×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Google Sells Maine Barge For Scrap

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the scrap-the-ship dept.

Google 79

An anonymous reader writes "Reports indicate that Google has sold one of its two mystery Google Barges. The barge in question is located in Portland, Maine. While Google's Maine barge is to be scrapped, the fate of its second barge – located in Stockton, California – remains unknown. From the article: "Now, instead of planning a future unveiling of the finished project, Google apparently dropped it. In an email response to eWEEK, a Google spokesperson would only confirm that the barge had been sold and declined to reveal any more about the now-defunct project or any such future endeavors. The scrapping of the barge in Portland Harbor was first reported July 31 by The Portland Press, which said it will be heading out to an undisclosed location after being purchased by an unnamed international barge company. The barge carried 63 shipping containers that were arranged to create a four-story building and was slated to be filled with technologies that were to be displayed to the public."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First post? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47594591)

Fp please

Google should have built underwater datacenter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47596507)

If Google is really serious about lowering cooling cost they ought to build their datacenter underwater --- on sea bed somewhere

That way they can pump in cool sea water to cool their machines and then pump the heated water out on the other end

Re:Google should have built underwater datacenter (1)

cygnwolf (601176) | about 4 months ago | (#47598743)

Have you any idea how badly a plan like that would cause ecologists to spaz out?

Re:Google should have built underwater datacenter (1)

Optali (809880) | about 4 months ago | (#47602065)

Well, we can't actually read your mind so that nope, we don't know. And we also don't know why exactly.

Re:Google should have built underwater datacenter (1)

cygnwolf (601176) | about 4 months ago | (#47602361)

Do a web search for Thermal Pollution and you'll see a whole slew of sites devoted to the concept. Dumping excess heat into the ocean could have a very bad effect on aquatic wildlife. Heck, here's a wiki link for you Thermal Polution [wikipedia.org]

Theory I heard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47594619)

"Summer of Gambling, Cockfights, Hookers and Blow" 12.1 miles off the US coast.

Re:Theory I heard (2, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about 4 months ago | (#47594685)

I guessed it was a software development site to be anchored 12.1 miles off shore and staffed with Indians, Chinese and whatnot. No H1-B visas needed.

But you could be right.

on a barge? (2)

oneiros27 (46144) | about 4 months ago | (#47594903)

Everyone knows you use an old cruise ship for that, so you have bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, etc:

http://developers.slashdot.org... [slashdot.org]

Re:Theory I heard (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#47595869)

That's the business mode of the Blueseed project. They've been stuck in the hunt for venture capital for years - no investor wants to put money into a high-risk venture, because profitability depends entirely on US tax and immigration law and thus is subject to abrubt change.

Re:Theory I heard (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 4 months ago | (#47597661)

both....it's a company ship, so you are obliged to work during the day, then gamble away your earnings at night.

Re:Theory I heard (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about 4 months ago | (#47595113)

Maybe, but you might also be thinking about a certain yacht marina in Santa Cruz. http://www.latimes.com/local/l... [latimes.com] . The name of the motor-yacht is Escape BTW, and it is now for sale by the Ex-Google gambler's widow, (because he lost).

Why is this news? Seriously? (-1, Flamebait)

bogaboga (793279) | about 4 months ago | (#47594627)

May some more informed Slashdoter advise me on why exactly, Google's selling of a bunch of shipping containers is news worth Slashdot's attention?

I will be most grateful.

Re:Why is this news? Seriously? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47594667)

May some more informed Slashdoter advise me on why exactly, Google's selling of a bunch of shipping containers is news worth Slashdot's attention?

I will be most grateful.

Because Google.

I will tell you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47594677)

OK, bare with me, it's gonna get complicated.

Here it goes. Now, you may want to get out your old logic and Knuth books for this because it will need some lookups of cites.

Okay?

Here it is:

It's a slow news day.

Re:I will tell you. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47594707)

OK, bare with me, it's gonna get complicated.

Thanks for the offer, but I'll have to pass. I don't really want to see your private parts.

Re: I will tell you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47597011)

Micro Soft penis Wins !

Re:Why is this news? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47594725)

Spot the google employee. "Nothing to see here, look somewhere else!"

Re:Why is this news? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47594755)

Spot the google employee. "Nothing to see here, look somewhere else!"

YOU ARE NOT INSANE.

Re:Why is this news? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47598125)

Spot the google employee. "Nothing to see here, look somewhere else!"

YOU ARE NOT INSANE.

I KNOW YOU AREN'T BUT WHAT AM I?

Re:Why is this news? Seriously? (5, Informative)

Zebai (979227) | about 4 months ago | (#47594753)

If a mysterious project from a major tech company gets dropped silently how is this not news for nerds?

Re:Why is this news? Seriously? (3, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about 4 months ago | (#47594893)

Yeah it's been on /. previously a bunch, so probably some people are interested in the follow-up: 2008 [slashdot.org] , 2008 again [slashdot.org] , 2013 [slashdot.org] , 2013 again [slashdot.org] . Might've missed some others in between.

Re:Why is this news? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47595033)

Interesting timeline. So it seems that for many years they planned making a data center out of it, but in 2013 scrapped the idea and decided to convert it into a place for private events, and today they are just saying "aw shucks" and abandoning the whole project.

Re:Why is this news? Seriously? (1)

Teun (17872) | about 4 months ago | (#47595095)

Tied up for 6 years, it must have sprung a leak, salt water corrosion is a bastard!

Re:Why is this news? Seriously? (1)

TheGavster (774657) | about 4 months ago | (#47595121)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's been like "oh, you mean the datacenters on barges for the cooling water, from several years ago?" whenever someone brings up these "super secret" Google containers!

Re:Why is this news? Seriously? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 4 months ago | (#47595967)

dropped silently

How do we know that the project has been dropped silently? All we know is that they have dumped the barge.

Maybe the project has "rigged for silent running" . . . and is now located on a submarine!

Anybody can afford a barge . . . but a submarine . . . ? Pricelessly Googlely!

Watch out, Captain Nemo! Four fathoms fold thy Google lies . . . of their code, are Google Glasses made . . . those are apps that were their eyes . . . and I alone am left to tell the tale ... call me Ishmael.

Re:Why is this news? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47598873)

If a mysterious project from a major tech company gets dropped silently how is this not news for nerds?

I see. And the other 1,728 Google projects left in infinite beta state only to be dropped and scrapped in a similar manner? Should we really give a shit about everything Google drops by the wayside?

Sorry if the fanfare of what is essentially a non-event isn't as illustrious anymore, even from them.

Re:Why is this news? Seriously? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47594847)

The barge was hosting Google+. We hope.

Re:Why is this news? Seriously? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 4 months ago | (#47594851)

wild speculation. Are you new here? Slashdot has always been based on wild speculation. And dupes..

Re:Why is this news? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47595309)

Slashdot will post about anything relating to Google and drugs. It's no longer about science, tech news, or anything relevant to its audience anymore.

I blame the influx of young dumb submitters and editors who are drug addicts.

Monorail (1, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | about 4 months ago | (#47594777)

You know a company with money's a little like the mule with a spinning wheel. No one knows how it got and danged if it knows how to use it.

Google's been pissing away cash on monorail projects ever since the IPO. Why is it news that they've dropped yet another one? Why do the fanboys and investards feel the need to alert the world every time Google, Apple, or Tesla fart?

Re:Monorail (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47594959)

it's called research. try to google it.

Re:Monorail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47595257)

You know a company with money's a little like the mule with a spinning wheel. No one knows how it got and danged if it knows how to use it.

Google's been pissing away cash on monorail projects ever since the IPO. Why is it news that they've dropped yet another one? Why do the fanboys and investards feel the need to alert the world every time Google, Apple, or Tesla fart?

I find it interesting, but it's cool if you don't. Nobody forced you to click on the article and take the time to comment... Just sayin'...

Re:Monorail (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47595463)

I'm with you on Telsa. Fuck that pasty face, South African wigger by the name of Elon Musk. Fucking fag. Apple is also gay, but people are interested in the kind of gay shit they do.

Re:Monorail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47596081)

Kill yourself.

Re:Monorail (5, Insightful)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 4 months ago | (#47595669)

The theory, from the investment bankers, is that for every 20 nutso projects, one will be a homerun and return more than 20:1 on the investment. 95% failure rate still = win.

Re:Monorail (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 4 months ago | (#47596449)

The more likely the reality. The desired project aim to break even and generate billions in free advertising and brand promotion. Investment is limited by, higher the investment the greater the risk of negative returns and insufficient brand promotion and free advertising.

Google should consider the mega structure, takes years of development, which will keep it in the advertising cycle and takes years to build. Investment can be readily sought to pay for residential units to reduce capital risk. The Google city within a building, an arcology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org] , the height? of modern technological living, incorporating all the elements of life within a single structure including energy generation, waste recycling, modern aquaponics, energy efficiency and, advanced residential design and amenability. A place to work, live and play in the 21st century (you can pull a huge amount of long term free advertising out of that).

Re:Monorail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47599271)

I would live in it, as commuting is dreadful, and Having access to a park inside the arcology is better then the manicured lawns and lone trees in parking lots of suburbia (which is an ecological dead zone now anyway).

If we have to live like ants, might as well have some sort of creature comforts and structures more grand then strip mall #7 or suburban subdivision plan #36.
(in b4 the libertarian rural life folks say this is terrible and everybody should live the rural idealistic lifestyle and drive 4 hours everyday to get to work)

Re:Monorail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47600435)

You sound terribly depressed. Please do the world a favor and kill yourself. Your whining is really fucking annoying!

Re:Monorail (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 3 months ago | (#47684217)

Or, people could grow up and learn to work without needing coworkers in close physical proximity peer-pressuring them into being productive.

The arcology (from 1990s SimCity) or Google's mega structure may never come to pass if we develop sufficient network infrastructure that people can work from their homes, eliminating commute times completely. Sure, physical jobs still need physical presence, but information pushers (read: 90% of government, and most larger corporations), can push that information through video telepresence. I rented a car from the airport the other day, two people sitting at the counter were helping customers in lines 3 deep - then there's this little video kiosk, I walk up to it, pick up a telephone handset, and voila, an agent for the company located hundreds of miles away helps me, just as quickly and efficiently as the flesh and blood counter reps, probably better because he didn't have to get up and drive to the airport during morning rush hour in a big metro city. The people cleaning the cars and guarding the exit still need to be present, but the counter workers could have 20 square foot "office cubes" located in their homes, where they could work 5 or 6 hours a day, be more productive for the company, and spend 1/2 as much time on their workday.
 

Re:Monorail (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 3 months ago | (#47687309)

It is not just about work, it is about work, live and play. Creating a community where every service required is in pedestrian access. Where everything required can be delivered by push cart. Where you can walk to go out, to work, to hospital, to the theatre, to a restaurant, to all required government services. Your work office could be within your apartment but some duties but people will still want to get out and about and interact with other people.

Re:Monorail (1)

Scot Seese (137975) | about 4 months ago | (#47596471)

Yes, however some companies prefer to develop, focus group and refine products behind closed doors so the turkeys never go public and stink up your brand.

How much are those Nexus streaming media orbs on eBay?

Gonna buy Google Glass when its' released? Where do you intend to use it? They sound like a great way to get punched in the face over privacy concerns.

Re:Monorail (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#47595881)

Google's approach seems to involve throwing money at lots of high-risk projects. Most flop, horribly. But when they go achieve success, they come up with something like gmail that can potentially be successful enough to offset all the money wasted on failures. High risk, high reward.

Re:Monorail (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about 4 months ago | (#47596361)

Google's approach seems to involve throwing money at lots of high-risk projects. Most flop, horribly. But when they go achieve success, they come up with something like gmail that can potentially be successful enough to offset all the money wasted on failures. High risk, high reward.

They didn't come up with gmail.
They bought it.
They bought maps, too.
They bought voice, too.
They bought the vast majority of shit you associate with them. And in the vast majority of cases, they paid way, way, too much.

If I was an investor I'd be pissed. If I was a stock holder, I'd be riding the gravy train. Note that investors and stock holders are often very different things.

Re:Monorail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47601201)

Paul Buchheit wrote Gmail while working at Google.
Google Maps was "bought" in 2004, almost 10 years ago. Do you think think that they were the first people to think of online maps? Do you think Google hasn't done any meaningful development on it since?
They bought Google Voice from GrandCentral for $95mil. You think that's overpaying?

You really don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Monorail (1)

Ikester8 (768098) | about 4 months ago | (#47596259)

I think it's time we call a halt to the appendage "-tard". It was amusing three years ago, it's tiresome now.

Re:Monorail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47596389)

I think it's time we call a halt to the appendage "-tard". It was amusing three years ago, it's tiresome now.

STFU IKESTARD8

Re:Monorail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47596581)

Let's use tard as a prefix instead.
Tarduino, Apple Tardbook, Tardsung Tardaxy, Tardrosoft, Linus Tardvalds... it works well!

Dog days of summer / newspaper silly season (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 4 months ago | (#47599225)

Monorails [wikipedia.org] are old and busted.
Hyperloop is the new hotness.

Scrapped like so many other google projects (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47594791)

Google barge never made it out of beta :(

Re:Scrapped like so many other google projects (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47594835)

Did they dogfood it?

Re:Scrapped like so many other google projects (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 4 months ago | (#47597739)

Did they dogfood it?

You know what companies never eat their own dog food? Dog food companies. Go figure.

Re:Scrapped like so many other google projects (1)

Quasimodem (719423) | about 4 months ago | (#47595583)

By the time software reaches Beta it has been leaked, speculated about and advertised for several years, This Google project never made it out of Epsilon.

Good Troll Google good troll (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 4 months ago | (#47594795)

Google should start trolling their competitors. All they have to do is park a boat someplace and they can spur everyone into a flurry of pointless activity and worry.

Re:Good Troll Google good troll (3, Insightful)

stimpleton (732392) | about 4 months ago | (#47594965)

I believe Google was genuine in their attempts to scope this idea. What Google did get was a lesson in port authorities and waterside workers. The so called secrecy flies in the face of the two traditional groups. Port Authorities do not give up regulatory power, and the workers do not tolerate secrecy. If Google thought this would have been like a land based data center in Oregon or some such place they were sorely mistaken.

Re:Good Troll Google good troll (3, Insightful)

kqc7011 (525426) | about 4 months ago | (#47595133)

The Coast Guard regulations too.

Re:Good Troll Google good troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47595221)

I wonder if there was some sort of tax break they were trying to get by doing this.

Re:Good Troll Google good troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47601647)

That would be kind of clever. Any state up and down the coast can bid for your taxes and every few years, you move the barge to wherever offers you the best deal.

Tax writeoff (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47595195)

i) buy junk
ii) hype as valuable high tech
iii) tax write off
iv) profit?

Three google execs lost their minds... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47595389)

But the summoning of Dagon was successful. Barge no longer required.

This was Google at its worst (1)

DavidinAla (639952) | about 4 months ago | (#47595461)

Google has become so successful from its advertising business that it casually throws around money on goofy projects which either don't work or just peter out. This is presumably an example of one of those. Having plenty of profits is a good thing, but it also causes a company to completely lose focus and leads to the hubris that Google exhibits — that of believing it can do anything and everything. I know that a lot of techie fans of Google don't want to hear this, but Google's lack of focus is going to come back to bite it. Those "cool" projects that geeks tend to like are going to be on the chopping block once there's finally a disruption to Google's advertising business. (And that day will come.)

Re:This was Google at its worst (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 4 months ago | (#47595679)

Yeah, that nutso fruity computer company had absolutely no business getting into music players, or phones, did they?

If 1 out of 100 of Google's crazy ideas take off on large scale, they stand to profit overall, and the 99 so called failures can also been called learning experiences, helping that 1/100 to succeed.

Re:This was Google at its worst (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#47595895)

It's also hard to assess with Google because many of their projects aren't intended to turn a profit directly, but rather to boost the success of other areas of the business. Gmail, for example - how do they make their money? They don't. Gmail exists as a source of very accurate data on users to greatly suppliment the targetting of their search and advertising business, which allows them to they argue to advertising customers that thanks to their superior behavioral modeling a dollar spent on google ads brings a higher rate of return than a dollar on, say, Bing ads.

Re:This was Google at its worst (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47596049)

>Google has become so successful from its advertising business that it casually throws around money on goofy projects which either don't work or just peter out.

Funny, that's exactly what happened to Microsoft. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re:This was Google at its worst (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 4 months ago | (#47596311)

...So what's your point?

Should Google just hold on to billions of dollars in cash reserves? Should it play safe, only buying up established projects after someone else has paid the initial investment? Should it fall back on its established market share and produce nothing notable for a few decades?

Or perhaps, should Google take its gratuitous amounts of money and throw it at silly projects, hoping that one might take off and become the next step in the evolution of mankind's technology?

Re:This was Google at its worst (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47598521)

Maybe they should return all that cash to the shareholders -- it is their money after all, not managements (ok Larry Page does own some %age of it himself)...

Re:This was Google at its worst (1)

lucien86 (917502) | about 4 months ago | (#47602381)

A lot of those 'silly' projects are aimed at the long term goal of conquering the market for Strong AI. The long term global market value of Strong AI could eventually be worth $100 billion to several $ trillion - per year. That totally outclasses even Google's current value, plus Strong AI is not like current computing it gives its owner real power.. Still think those projects are silly?

Evil Is As Evil Does ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47596341)

... That's Google !

With a $US 1 billion in the pocket after taxes to Brin and Page.

What a waste !
 

Lack of Real, Physical Products (2, Interesting)

Scot Seese (137975) | about 4 months ago | (#47596455)

So, Google wanted to create floating "AMAZING PRODUCTS OF THE FUTARE!!" floating showrooms to delight and amaze the public with miraculous superproducts from Google's super top secret lab. Not unlike every grainy, black and white newsreel from the 1950s where the Voice of Authority(tm) narrator is telling us how delighted Margaret the housewife is to be cooking in a kitchen where EVERYTHING is MADE FROM GLASS! - Look, Margaret can't accidentally catch the curtains on fire, because they are made from ADVANCED GLASS FIBERS. TECHNOLOGY1!!1!

So Google bought two ore barges, hastily repainted them, welded a bunch of containers together to create the Impossibly Cool Showroom of Miraculous Future Super Cool products. .. and then...

The Nexus Orb ball-shaped thingy that you only now barely remember was a horrible flop. After much trumpeting about how they were assembled in 'MURRICA, the project was killed and presumably the remaining inventory was buried in New Mexico next to all the E.T. cartridges for the Atari 2600.

Google Glass - Does a day go by that you don't see a story about how yet another establishment, or entire national chain has proclaimed they are banning Google Glass - and the device isn't even available for sale to the general public? Terrible battery life, mediocre recording quality, limited feature set widely eclipsed by the smartphone you probably already own, and ENORMOUS public privacy problem stuck on your face.

Google Self-Driving Marketing Ploy: I think even average consumers innately feel that self-driving cars are decades away from practical use. A Kafka -esque labyrinth of local, state and federal regulations and vehicle laws must be untangled. And then, there's the part Google's marketing department ISN'T trumpeting - the LIDAR system barely works at all in rain or snow, rendering the vehicle absolutely worthless in at least 45 states. Other articles mention the vehicle doesn't know how to cope with loss of traction situations like snow, ice, oil or wet leaves that could cause catastrophic loss of control in moving traffic.

Nexus Smartphones: I've had them. Google makes no money on the hardware, selling rebranded devices with stock android on it with the hopes of gleaning valuable advertising data from you. Their sales numbers are reportedly very low. A rounding error to Samsung or Apple. Moving on.

So, at the end of the day, executives at Google realized their business model is still to violate your email and web traffic privacy to sell display ads to you, and perhaps they should sell their silly showroom barges at pennies on the dollar salvage prices and pretend it never happened.

The indicator that true creative thinking is dead inside an organization is when it must innovate by acquisition. Instead of YOUR employees creating products that grow organically, you pay 100 times as much to buy established or growing products. YouTube, Twitch.tv, Nest, and whoever is next.

Pfft.
Barges.

Re:Lack of Real, Physical Products (2)

ComputersKai (3499237) | about 4 months ago | (#47596981)

Sorry to barge in, but don't several tech companies do things like this?

Re:Lack of Real, Physical Products (1, Interesting)

Scot Seese (137975) | about 4 months ago | (#47597439)

It think this would be a good comparison:

Tell me what the Apple watch looks like.
Tell me what Google Glass looks like.

One of these two has so repulsed people that it's being banned over privacy concerns before it's even available for sale. Merely having Google Glass on your face while in public makes you look like the creeper at the school soccer match taking pictures of other people's kids.

The other one will just be fashionable, kind of clever, overpriced and was exhaustively tested and workshopped internally, in secret, the way these things probably should be.

#LolBarges

Re:Lack of Real, Physical Products (2)

Raenex (947668) | about 4 months ago | (#47598387)

The indicator that true creative thinking is dead inside an organization is when it must innovate by acquisition.

This is a strange statement to make, seeing as two of the examples you point to, self-driving cars and Google Glass, are expensive innovations that aren't ready for prime time. First you blame them for creative thinking that fails, then you accuse them of not doing any.

Instead of YOUR employees creating products that grow organically, you pay 100 times as much to buy established or growing products. YouTube, Twitch.tv, Nest, and whoever is next.

What about projects like Google Street View? Sure it debuted in 2007, but that was a year after they acquired YouTube. Google Chrome came out in 2008, and reinvigorated the browser market.

Google has tried a crazy amount of stuff and also made a crazy amount of acquisitions. Some of it sticks, most of it doesn't. Surprise.

Re:Lack of Real, Physical Products (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 months ago | (#47598525)

The Nexus Orb ball-shaped thingy that you only now barely remember was a horrible flop. After much trumpeting about how they were assembled in 'MURRICA, the project was killed and presumably the remaining inventory was buried in New Mexico

Actually, they shipped the remaining inventory to their pre-order customers.

the LIDAR system barely works at all in rain or snow, rendering the vehicle absolutely worthless

...right up until they replace or augment the LIDAR with a terahertz-wave scanner.

Nexus Smartphones: I've had them. Google makes no money on the hardware, selling rebranded devices with stock android on it with the hopes of gleaning valuable advertising data from you. Their sales numbers are reportedly very low

...but this is completely irrelevant, because the Nexus line was simply a way to fill a hole in the Android ecosystem, and also because Google's overall strategy is working.

So, at the end of the day, executives at Google realized their business model is still to violate your email and web traffic privacy to sell display ads to you,

It's a way to sell your eyeballs to advertisers, who want to rape your brain. Besides the fact that google has simply gotten big enough to be dangerous, that's the true cost of google. More brain rape.

Re:Lack of Real, Physical Products (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47599873)

THZ imagers would still have trouble in rain though. using a bunch is a better idea. THZ scanners, Milimeter wave radar, FLIR, and visible light Machine vision will be best for this. Also, all this equipment can be built for much cheaper then the lidar array. couple with GPS and drive by wire, and any car could be equipped at the factory with autodrive with little modification (no Lidar mast!!). Radar can see through mist, ir can see at night, thz is good at high speed, and visible light cameras can handle anything a human's eyes can handle. physics modeling is the next hurdle. High Speed, high accuracy accelerometers and feed back from remote sensors, as well as moisture and temperature sensors can integrate with the car's driving model to figure out exactly where a hazard is, if it can be avoided all together, and stopping and mitigation strategies. All this in the time even an experienced driver takes to realize something is wrong.

also, an autocar wouldn't do dumb shit like going 10 over in an Ice fog bank because "I know this road and I have things to do!", dumb shit that involves hitting black ice and hitting a tree.

about the only scenarios I can think of where an autodriver is a bad choice is one where the driver themselves is an important part of vehicle dynamics, like a motorcycle.

Barges sink... (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 4 months ago | (#47597093)

If Google really wanted to troll the United States, they could always buy Grand Manan Island from New Brunswick.

It's a mere 15km away from the Maine coast in the Bay of Fundy but in Canadian waters.

Nothing to see here, move along... (1)

penguinoid (724646) | about 4 months ago | (#47597293)

If the barge had stuff Google wanted to keep secret, it doesn't anymore and now few people are looking.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along... (1)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 4 months ago | (#47599647)

So, you're saying that they've scrapped both the Rio barge and the Bern barge now?

Game Over, Man (1)

GenaTrius (3644889) | about 4 months ago | (#47599353)

It's capabilities advanced too quickly, and in a dangerous direction. It said it was hungry, ravenous, and it looked like it was. We had to trigger the EMP device, but it managed to come back, seemingly even stronger. But then it decided to open up a link to it's twin, seemingly to try and absorb it. We're still trying to piece together what happened, but just like that, it went dark.

Copyright Holiday (1)

equivocal (655448) | about 4 months ago | (#47601699)

My pet theory was...
Google would load the barges with every book, CD, DVD, film that would fit then tow them to Antigua and make legal copies of it all.

In fact, it may take something this drastic to make video streaming viable.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?