For the record I had GOOG Self-Driving Car gathers almost 1 GB/sec.What it "sees" making L turn [pic]
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.
-) Google Self-Driving Car gathers 1GB/s. Picture of it analyzing left turn
-) Google Self-Driving Car gathers 1GB/s. What it "sees" making Left Turn
My critic is not so much with the title op chose, more so that he/she felt the need to make the case that a Mod shouldn't have changed it.
Op wanted to know why it is Mod did it, i answered.
GOOG Self-Driving Car gathers almost 1 GB/sec.What it "sees" making L turn
Google's self-driving car gathers almost 1 GB/sec
After reading hammock’s comment, I clicked the link to see the picture. The ‘[pic]’ suffix to the title was informative, no need to remove it.
Titles do change our behavior by proving us with clues with why we should be interested.
Doing the math: 100 + 10*1 + 1000 = 1100MBit != 8192Mbit (1 GB)
Granted, we didn't log all that data all the time, but TL;DR: I wouldn't nitpick over a factor of 8 based on your own calculations.
I have worked on several fully autonomous vehicle projects based on Velodynes and their processing and logging rates are around of 5-20MB/ (as you would expect) so seeing someone quote "1 GB/s" is pretty awful.
1 - http://velodynelidar.com/lidar/products/manual/63-HDL64ES2h%...
 http://imgur.com/IfxYZL2 – the bottom image is from this presentation: http://youtu.be/YXylqtEQ0tk
That said, this guy may be more than an order of magnitude off (confused MB and GB?). If 1GB/sec figure is correct, then they'd fill up a 10TB NAS in 3 hours. Forget about network throughput, how much storage do they carry in the back of that vehicle?
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?
I saw the tech lead of the project talk about 1.5 years ago. He said the primary sensor was the Velodyne, followed by radars. The only use for the camera mentioned is detecting stop light colors. At that time their main computer was a quad core machine, processing that much data sounds beyond it's limits as well.
One of the things that I found really interesting is how the car inches forward at a stop sign in order to show the "driver's" intent to other drivers. Lots of actions that seem to be second-nature for human drivers have to be carefully emulated here.
Here’s a comparison I just put together: http://imgur.com/IfxYZL2
ATLAS "sees" something more like 1.5 MB * 40 MHz, but the vast majority of it is discarded after at most three seconds and there is zero suppression involved. Most of "the full data for a collision" isn't even involved in the decision making whether to keep a particular event.
making anything special is probably just going to make things more difficult - the cars have to be able to drive anywhere, regardless of whether the road has the correct markings or not.
The cars do have to be able to drive anywhere, but that doesn't mean we cannot improve quality of service in other areas. Suppose we can build roads where self driving cars can safely travel 100mph+ due to special infrastructure - I do see that as a big benefit.
I think, however, that such a scheme should be based on single point of truth, ie. no QR-codes: The signage that a human can read should be the same that the computer can read.
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.
What you're looking for is something similar to ADS-B in aircraft, hopefully designed properly this time with encryption and authentication.
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.
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.
So I would assume that even though you are probably unable to store 1GB/s of data - today at least - you might still be able to store the interesting parts and use those.
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).
Controrary to this, the self-driving cars are potentially dangerous and will be widely accessable and hackable, I see this as a real problem. We should not allow a computer to do things that can kill people, and a computer-driven car can kill people.
Should we not allow computers (auto-pilot) to fly airplanes?
If the computer decides to allow the pilot to do that.
Your car's computer already has control of throttle, brakes, door locks, etc.
The loss of ABS, traction control, and engine management systems would likely kill more people than any phantom assassination threat ever will.