Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's self-driving car gathers almost 1 GB/sec

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: Google's self-driving car gathers almost 1 GB/sec

#21

Post by ari_elle »

hammock wrote: post #4

Dear moderator, why did you change the title? I worked hard to abbreviate it to 80 characters without changing the wording or editorializing. And it's not the fact that I found interesting, it was the picture. Thanks. For the record I had GOOG Self-Driving Car gathers almost 1 GB/sec.What it "sees" making L turn [pic]

I can't believe that you were willing to abbr. "Google" with "GOOG" but had to use "almost" in this sentence (utterly redundant word here) or "1 GB/sec" instead of "1 GB/s"

Sorry, i don't know how much "effort" you put into your abbreviation but your title looks like a dirty hack, i would never want on the front page.

Google Car gathers 1GB/sec. What it "sees" making Left turn

That would have been better in my opinion.

With all due respect, i think the Mod changing the title is justified in this case.

Re: Google's self-driving car gathers almost 1 GB/sec

#22

Post by jkldotio »

salman89 wrote: post #11

What are things city planners can do from an infrastructure perspective so that we can drop the amount of data that needs to analyzed in real time? For example, can we use special paint for road lines in order to make the cost of detection of road lanes lower?

I can't imagine many too many cases where they'd be useful in everyday situations because if the car can't handle everyday situations then it's not going to be a good car and is going to sink to the "we're concerned for safety" lobbying that rivals will engage in to ban it off the road until they've caught up. Perhaps QR-code machine readable parking with the available hours, that'd be useful even without self-driving cars.

see:

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ParkingTransportandRoads/Par...

http://www.tamworth.nsw.gov.au/Images/UserUploadedImages/144...

Re: Google's self-driving car gathers almost 1 GB/sec

#23

Post by Game_Ender »

He is off by an order of magnitude. The Velodyne 64 on that car only has a 100 Mbit connection [1]. Each of the 5-10 radars on that vehicle is connected over a 1MBit CAN bus [2]. The front facing is almost definitely a Gigi-E or Firewire camera so it's at most 1000MBit.

Doing the math: 100 + 10*1 + 1000 = 1100MBit != 8192Mbit (1 GB)

1. http://velodynelidar.com/lidar/products/brochure/HDL-64E%20S...

2. http://www.kvaser.com/zh/about-can/the-can-protocol/19.html

Re: Google's self-driving car gathers almost 1 GB/sec

#24

Post by hkmurakami »

eksith wrote: post #14
hammock wrote: post #4

Dear moderator, why did you change the title? I worked hard to abbreviate it to 80 characters without changing the wording or editorializing. And it's not the fact that I found interesting, it was the picture. Thanks. For the record I had GOOG Self-Driving Car gathers almost 1 GB/sec.What it "sees" making L turn [pic]

It doesn't seem to have changed the meaning much. If anything, I think it's a bit easier to read at a quick glance. I like to scan titles or I'd never get past the first few pages on HN. GOOG Self-Driving Car gathers almost 1 GB/sec.What it "sees" making L turn vs. Google's self-driving car gathers almost 1 GB/sec

I would have never clicked the link to the twitter post if not for the callout to the "image".

Titles do change our behavior by proving us with clues with why we should be interested.

Re: Google's self-driving car gathers almost 1 GB/sec

#26

Post by dsl »

spellboots wrote: post #16
dsl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 1 GB/sec of data from sensors. Likely processed, but not stored. To get 1 GB/sec write throughput in a moving car you would need to be using some form of solid state storage, which would be pretty darn pricey over an hour test drive.

It's likely far cheaper to store it than it would be to run the test again. This is Google, they can certainly afford it – I'd be incredibly surprised if they weren't storing it.

Having developed autonomous vehicles in a previous career, I can tell you that raw sensor data is far less useful than you think. By the time you are starting to hand over controls to the system itself you are pretty damn confident that your pipeline up to the control logic is all very solid.

Also, i'm not entirely sure what you think the costs involved in a test are? We purchased about 20 acres of land for a test track, but that was the only real expense involved in day to day development.

Re: Google's self-driving car gathers almost 1 GB/sec

#28

Post by VikingCoder »

Game_Ender wrote: post #23

He is off by an order of magnitude. The Velodyne 64 on that car only has a 100 Mbit connection [1]. Each of the 5-10 radars on that vehicle is connected over a 1MBit CAN bus [2]. The front facing is almost definitely a Gigi-E or Firewire camera so it's at most 1000MBit. Doing the math: 100 + 10*1 + 1000 = 1100MBit != 8192Mbit (1 GB) 1. http://velodynelidar.com/lidar/products/brochure/HDL-64E%20S... 2. http://www.kvas…

Doesn't it also know about Google Maps data?

Meaning, it can look at a lot more data than just its raw sensors, every second.

Also, why do you assume the front-facing camera is the only one?

Re: Google's self-driving car gathers almost 1 GB/sec

#29

Post by protomyth »

salman89 wrote: post #11

What are things city planners can do from an infrastructure perspective so that we can drop the amount of data that needs to analyzed in real time? For example, can we use special paint for road lines in order to make the cost of detection of road lanes lower?

Last week we had snow on the road and I couldn't see the lines. On my way into work this morning, I noticed some truck had drop clumps of hay on the road. I am thinking that the car better be able to handle things without extra work on the road.

Re: Google's self-driving car gathers almost 1 GB/sec

#30

Post by kamkazemoose »

ari_elle wrote: post #21
hammock wrote: post #4

Dear moderator, why did you change the title? I worked hard to abbreviate it to 80 characters without changing the wording or editorializing. And it's not the fact that I found interesting, it was the picture. Thanks. For the record I had GOOG Self-Driving Car gathers almost 1 GB/sec.What it "sees" making L turn [pic]

I can't believe that you were willing to abbr. "Google" with "GOOG" but had to use "almost" in this sentence (utterly redundant word here) or "1 GB/sec" instead of "1 GB/s" Sorry, i don't know how much "effort" you put into your abbreviation but your title looks like a dirty hack, i would never want on the front page. Google Car gathers 1GB/sec. What it "sees" making Left turn That would have been better in my opinio…

I don't think you can leave out the self-driving car. 'Google Car' is ambiguous and could mean either the Google Streetview cars or their self-driving cars.
Post reply on HN