Just what are they doing with all that data???

In reply to bentwrench:

I don't think the MS agreement is there anymore.

Still, I'm not aware that cars require occasional reboots in the field. They are considerably more reliable than PCs.

Wait...you can just deny a warrent? Isn't non-compliance subject to arrest?

alfadriver wrote: In reply to bentwrench: I don't think the MS agreement is there anymore. Still, I'm not aware that cars require occasional reboots in the field. They are considerably more reliable than PCs.

I'd imagine our buses don't get as much testing and development as they would from a large auto manufacturer but since they've computerized everything we regularly have problems that are solved at least temporarily by turning the bus off waiting five minutes and turning it back on again.

This, I think, is a large part of the answer. That aircraft code and especially the FADEC's and all the fly by wire, has been gone through line by line and verified and signed off by several different people.

I did some feed water control at a nuclear installation and how it worked was this: the high level pseudo-code (basically just a drawing showing how the logic was supposed to work) was passed down to me from nuclear engineering folks. I took that drawing and coded it into the logic controller. Now the fun part: two other people who did not know me or know each other went through my code line by line and determined 1) would it work and 2) was it the best implementation. They had to sign their names and date a spreadsheet which had entries for each and every line of code.

I could have written that code in a week. And I'm sure it would have worked OK. Instead, it took us well over a year to get it done. But that's how mission critical control loops are done. Cars are not mission critical beyond safety and meeting emissions.

FADEC = full authority digital engine control

BrokenYugo wrote: Based on what came out of the Toyota unintended acceleration cases, probably just lots of half assed inefficient spaghetti code. Code controlling fly by wire in an aircraft will be very well written, probably held to standards.

Best answer

codrus wrote: The statement "150 million lines of code" means basically nothing. For one thing, "lines of code" is a truly lousy way to measure program complexity. What is a "line of code"? Is it just the line count of all of the source files? Or do you exclude blank lines, comments, and lines with just formatting characters on them ("{", "}", etc). Combine those questions with the choice of code formatting conventions, and you can have a 10x difference in the number of "lines". Combine that with questions about what language is being used and you get another 10x difference. Secondly, modern computers are astoundingly cheap in terms of dollar per MIPS of computation power or GB of memory. Engineering time, however, is more expensive than ever. These two factors together mean that modern computers are built on a huge underlying foundation of pre-existing code. That code is general-purpose code, it does lots of things, both the things that are required to implement the software, and a whole bunch of other things that aren't. You could trim out a huge amount of this "code bloat" if you wanted to, but it's much cheaper to just throw an extra gig or two or ram into the system than to pay a hundred engineers for a year to trim stuff out. For example, modern embedded systems are all built on Linux. They don't need anything approaching the full functionality of Linux, but it's free, it's available, and most of the developers are already familiar with it. That means it's cheap. The Linux kernel, BTW, at last count was rated around 30 million lines of code. That's just the kernel, mind you, not counting the various libraries and utilities that run on top of it. And yes, see previous comment about how much that number is actually worth. Most of that code is for device drivers for every common PC peripheral anyone has manufactured in the last three decades (and a huge number of uncommon ones too). You're probably using less than 0.1% of that code in any given system. So, Ford probably buys the stereo from a 3rd party manufacturer. That stereo is probably running Linux -- there's 30M+ lines right there. Then there's the NAV system, I bet that's running Linux too, and probably came from a different 3rd party manufacturer, so now we're at 60M. Etc, etc. Boeing, OTOH, is unlikely to be using Linux in any of the control systems of their aircraft. I bet it's in the in-flight entertainment system, though (and since that 7M number is less than that's what's in the kernel, it's probably not included). Writing special-purpose code costs money -- that's one of the reasons why 787 Dreamliners cost $300M each. :)

I just make it really unpleasant to listen to me. Listen up spying bitches, I got something for you to never unhear.

In reply to alfadriver:

AFAIK, you may be the person in this thread with potentially the most knowledge on this subject.

You are communicating quite a bit by saying very little.

I can't say much, anyway.

I can say, if there currently is spying going on, it's with the knowledge of the consumer.

That, and "lines of code" translating to spying is not a connection I would make.

In reply to alfadriver:

I agree, except I would say "consent of the consumer" not "knowledge".

Put a big enough stack of paper in front of someone at the closing table, and they will give consent to almost anything, even when they have no knowledge whatsoever.

pointofdeparture wrote: Obviously the work of the Illuminati. Really though, if that is the kind of thing people are afraid of I feel like the only real choice is just not to participate in modern society. Tear out your internet connection and throw away your computer. Smash up your cellphone, god forbid you have a smartphone with a camera and GPS they can track you with. Don't go out in public to anywhere that has a security camera with a mic (you would be AMAZED how good modern security cameras are). Only drive something with a carburetor and no electronics, and don't bother with a license plate because any LEO or repo man can scan and track it at the push of a button anyway (I always laugh at people covering their plates in online photos because it's not as if hundreds of people don't see it daily anyway). Privacy in the modern age is nothing but an illusion, as far as I'm concerned. For all the things I would actually worry about compromising the little privacy I have, the amount of code required to propel a modern vehicle is not very high on that list!

You forgot about the eyes in the sky: planes/drones/satellites. Also the neighbors/people you work with/live with.

I visited the GM tech center here in Atlanta where a lot of OnStar stuff comes from. GM gives you a free year of OnStar for a reason, they want the data. They can pinpoint a component failure with insane accuracy, or even predict when it may fail based on other failures. All that driving data is recorded. Wait til you got to buy a used Corvette and the dealer touts "never been above 80% throttle" and they can prove it!

You all need to come to the last bastion of mechanical purity, Just let me know when you wanna go riding

Carro Atrezzi wrote: This, I think, is a large part of the answer. That aircraft code and especially the FADEC's and all the fly by wire, has been gone through line by line and verified and signed off by several different people. I did some feed water control at a nuclear installation and how it worked was this: the high level pseudo-code (basically just a drawing showing how the logic was supposed to work) was passed down to me from nuclear engineering folks. I took that drawing and coded it into the logic controller. Now the fun part: two other people who did not know me or know each other went through my code line by line and determined 1) would it work and 2) was it the best implementation. They had to sign their names and date a spreadsheet which had entries for each and every line of code. I could have written that code in a week. And I'm sure it would have worked OK. Instead, it took us well over a year to get it done. But that's how mission critical control loops are done. Cars are not mission critical beyond safety and meeting emissions. FADEC = full authority digital engine control

BrokenYugo wrote: Based on what came out of the Toyota unintended acceleration cases, probably just lots of half assed inefficient spaghetti code. Code controlling fly by wire in an aircraft will be very well written, probably held to standards.

Ever had to sit on an Airbus as they rebooted the computers so the redundant flight systems would agree? ;)

Big Brother "can" see and hear virtually everything you do. IF he were to care enough to actually look at you.

Here's the issue for every about to go get a tin foil hat and tape over your cameras: YOU don't matter that much. BB has too much to worry about, bigger worries than your habits/quirks/foibles. BB has very limited resources to assign to each problem and there are simply put, bigger fish to fry.

So we live in a sea of data. And our devices may occasionally pick up a key word and creepily anticipate our next request. But with 330 million other fish in our small sea, and 7.5 billion in our larger ocean there just isn't the capability to really track each and every one.

Pshhh, a 787 only has 7 million lines of code because aircraft are optimized for weight....can you imagine how much cargo capacity they'd lose and how much fuel they'd burn lugging those extra bits around?

KyAllroad wrote: Big Brother "can" see and hear virtually everything you do. IF he were to care enough to actually look at you. Here's the issue for every about to go get a tin foil hat and tape over your cameras: YOU don't matter that much. BB has too much to worry about, bigger worries than your habits/quirks/foibles. BB has very limited resources to assign to each problem and there are simply put, bigger fish to fry. So we live in a sea of data. And our devices may occasionally pick up a key word and creepily anticipate our next request. But with 330 million other fish in our small sea, and 7.5 billion in our larger ocean there just isn't the capability to really track each and every one.

There is certainly the capability to track everyone and BB's resources aren't that limited in relation to this goal. There isn't the capability for a human to pay ongoing attention to each individual, but that's a different matter - and it isn't necessary when computers can tell the humans who to pay attention to.

See these buildings in the middle?

They're jammed full of top-of-the-line hard drives storing everything possible to learn from the electronic communications of every human being who has lived since the 80s or so.

You'd be astounded at how much information is available on people - individuals and in aggregate - just to small businesses. Data giants like Amazon and google? You bet they're paying attention.

To get it back on topic, I can give an actual answer why.... To make it pretty!

Making functional code for a device doesn't actually take as much room as you think. It's when you start adding in graphics and audio, and particularly any kind of visually animated stuff, that the amount of data starts to balloon exponentially. I'd bet the vast majority of the data is going into the graphical displays for the dash and infotainment system, and also the database for the nav system.

On a 787, it's made to be clear and readable on the flat panel displays, but you're not going to have swooshy transitions between screens, colorfully blended backgrounds, or any of that crap. Airway maps are also a hell of a lot less complicated than GPS road maps. Nor will you have the distances to every Starbucks, Wendy's and McDonalds in Dijabouti.... despite the fact you're driving in Ohio.

I don't have any input on the spying part of the discussion, but having been involved in automotive steering (read: electronic) I know there is A LOT of code in modern vehicles to allow them to do the features that many of us on this forum don't care for. Lane keeping, park assist, trailer backing, hands off detection, different drive modes, etc. All of the various systems of the car are being moved to computers that all need software to function properly. Electronic braking, throttle control, airbag sensors.....

daeman wrote: It won't be long before police end pursuits remotely and speeding fines etc are displayed automatically on the infotainment screen as you drive, a hard copy automatically generated and posted to your mailing address.

I respectfully disagree.

If we knew with certainty that we’d get a ticket when we broke the law, we’d hardly ever break the law which would greatly reduce the number of law enforcement officers needed.

No my friend, the sad truth is that we’re inexorably intertwined in a symbiotic relationship of hunter and hunted and like any wise predator, they carefully refrain from gorging to preserve future harvests.

In reply to RX Reven':

There are plenty of other crimes that traffic cops could focus on if they didn't have to worry about traffic violations, so I'm not sure it would lead to any downsizing of police forces directly. What would hurt though, would be the decreased revenue without traffic violations.

In reply to STM317:

Without the revenue steam of tickets many places won't be able to afford to keep as many officers on the payroll.

So, my question... if these cars are theoretically all "Big Brother", how are they communicating? Think every car has a cell connection back to the Mothership? I don't think so...

Knurled wrote: So, my question... if these cars are theoretically all "Big Brother", how are they communicating? Think every car has a cell connection back to the Mothership? I don't think so...

Shark fin antenna.

New cars all seem to have bluetooth and there are roadside gadgets that record every car that passes by it. They use these to collect the data that feeds those signs on the interstate that say things like 13 minutes to exit 273. Those are based on actual observed speeds collected by bluetooth scanners. As far as I know, the NSA doesn't collect and store this data like they do with all of our phone calls, emails, text messages and browsing history, but they could be. The GPS in our cellphones makes this fairly redundant especially if they deploy a Stingray type device.