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

51–60 of 77 posts

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

#51

Post by conductor »

shreyansj wrote: post #45
conductor wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are my analyses: When somebody hacks into one's computer, he can't do any physical harm, he sure can steal money, spy on the victim, but he can't make the computer burn or somehow harm the victim. The computers that can be used for doing real damage (i.e. bomb activation, drone command and control centre, etc.) are well protected from the hackers (not connected to the internet and physicall inaccessable). Contro…

> We should not allow a computer to do things that can kill people Should we not allow computers (auto-pilot) to fly airplanes?

Though your example is not the best (pilots are still there and can disable the auto-pilot and drive in the manual mode) I will correct myself: I think we should now allow computers, which can be easily accessed and potentially altered/hacked, to do things that can kill people.

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

#52

Post by sillysaurus »

hammock wrote: post #47
ari_elle wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The word almost was not kept for accuracy's sake (could have said ~1GB/sec), but for the word's storytelling quality. Imagine if we had said the car "collects barely 1 GB/sec." Without "almost," it becomes more difficult, however so slightly, to grasp that 1 GB/sec is an impressive amount of data.

~1GB/s

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

#54

Post by toomuchtodo »

deftnerd wrote: post #43
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?

They should let every electronic light have some infrared LEDs and come up with a standard communications protocol to allow for fast transfers of alerts without the overhead of image processing. For example, emergency vehicles could be broadcasting their presence and speed. Schoolbuses could be doing the same and also broadcast when they are letting children out. same with the blinking light on school zone signs.

Emergency vehicles already broadcast their presence to traffic signals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption#Line-...

What you're looking for is something similar to ADS-B in aircraft, hopefully designed properly this time with encryption and authentication.

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

#55

Post by [deleted] »

DasIch wrote: post #37
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.

You only need to store the data until you can upload it, which might not be that long if the car has an internet connection. Furthermore I assume not all parts of that data is equally valuable. If this is raw data coming from sensors I think it is fair to assume that a significant part is noise that can be discarded. So I would assume that even though you are probably unable to store 1GB/s of data - today at least -…

[deleted]

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

#56

Post by steve19 »

Game_Ender wrote: post #40
beambot wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If other robots I've worked with (eg. the PR2) are any indication... 1GB/sec. is probably on the low end for the total data throughput. The PR2 had a high-res camera (GigE?), quad stereo cams in head (narrow and wide FoV), dual "wrist" cameras, a Kinect (usually), dual Hokuyo UTM LRF's, full 14+ DoF kinematics at 1KHz, and lots and lots of diagnostic info (eg. "heartbeat", system diagnostics, localization signals, IM…

That was an upper bound to show the absurdity of his non sourced "fact". The reality is much lower because the main sensor is the Velodyne, and it only produces 5-6MB/s. The primary focus of his picture is the Velodyne point cloud. Which he says is "1 GB per second" which is 100 times larger than it really is. I have worked on several fully autonomous vehicle projects based on Velodynes and their processing and loggi…

how well does the Velodyne work in heavy rain or snow?

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

#57

Post by markit »

steve19 wrote: post #56
Game_Ender wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was an upper bound to show the absurdity of his non sourced "fact". The reality is much lower because the main sensor is the Velodyne, and it only produces 5-6MB/s. The primary focus of his picture is the Velodyne point cloud. Which he says is "1 GB per second" which is 100 times larger than it really is. I have worked on several fully autonomous vehicle projects based on Velodynes and their processing and loggi…

how well does the Velodyne work in heavy rain or snow?

Not well at all, snow covers road markings and doesn't always reflect back to the sensor, rain is similar. Puddles are invisible.

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

#58

Post by rodgerd »

conductor wrote: post #32

Computers get hacked evey now and then, I predict software assassinations in the future, i.e. somebody hacks into a self-driving car, installs a software component which will be activated at some point (i.e. when it identifies a specific car/human and crash into it). Then it can auto-destruct, no evidence left. I ask, who will be responsible?

People have already demonstrated this capability with modern human-driven cars. The only way you can avoid that would be to remove electronics from card to get back to a 1960s level.

The loss of ABS, traction control, and engine management systems would likely kill more people than any phantom assassination threat ever will.

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

#59

Post by Houshalter »

dsl wrote: post #6
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 really dislike the mods here changing titles to bend to personal views. I've had a few submissions that gained good traction and got heavy upvotes until a mod changed the title to something meaningless and unrelated.

A lot of the titles are terrible. Like a single word or phrase that means absolutely nothing without context. I hope the mods are not doing that.

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

#60

Post by piyush_soni »

DasIch wrote: post #38
piyush_soni wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably find the hacker? Just like what we do right now ...

You are assuming detecting manipulation is straightforward or even possible. What if someone is able to MITM software updates?

I'm not assuming it's possible or feasible. I'm saying the problems are the same even as of today - it's difficult even now. Of course, hackers capabilities will increase, but same goes with those who are trying to catch them. Eventually, everyone will be monitored though ... And apparently US govt. has already started doing that ...
Post reply on HN