Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Google's first production model self-driving car is a worthy successor to the Homer   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Fail, Google, home runs, driverless car, distracted driving, self-driving, front end, National Highway, library  
•       •       •

3371 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 May 2014 at 12:23 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



119 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-05-28 10:09:22 AM  
imagizer.imageshack.us
 
2014-05-28 11:31:39 AM  
Throw in a sleeping compartment and a wet bar and I'll take three.
 
2014-05-28 11:34:59 AM  
"...their delighted reactions to the sensation of being transported without the need to control the car. "

Um... You mean like being A PASSENGER?
 
2014-05-28 12:09:13 PM  

Quasar: "...their delighted reactions to the sensation of being transported without the need to control the car. "

Um... You mean like being A PASSENGER?


Co-founder Sergey Brin unveiled the car...at a conference in California.



Sooo, no.
 
2014-05-28 12:27:23 PM  
I like it for what it is. A functional self driving car with no steering wheel.
The body could use some work tho...
 
2014-05-28 12:34:44 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: [imagizer.imageshack.us image 400x356]


Had a friend in High School who drove one of these.
/Damn death trap
 
2014-05-28 12:38:05 PM  
The idea is awesome. The car, while a prototype, is cute. The fact that there is no emergency manual override option (a steering wheel and pedals) terrifies me.
 
2014-05-28 12:38:52 PM  
Well I like it
So there
 
2014-05-28 12:39:45 PM  
Looks like an uncomfortable place to have sex.
 
2014-05-28 12:39:46 PM  

Naesen: The idea is awesome. The car, while a prototype, is cute. The fact that there is no emergency manual override option (a steering wheel and pedals) terrifies me.


This, because software programmers (these days) write absolutely flawless code.
 
2014-05-28 12:44:33 PM  

Naesen: The idea is awesome. The car, while a prototype, is cute. The fact that there is no emergency manual override option (a steering wheel and pedals) terrifies me.


It's only going 25 mph, so basically it is a glorified golf cart, so at worst you'd just get into a fender bender type accident. Also, I have to wonder if giving a driver a manual override option would cause more accidents because people would freak out, override at the last minute, and then cause a collision that otherwise wouldn't have happened had they trusted the vehicle to do its job.
 
2014-05-28 12:46:40 PM  

Quasar: "...their delighted reactions to the sensation of being transported without the need to control the car. "

Um... You mean like being A PASSENGER?



I've also, you know, been on a train before.
 
2014-05-28 12:50:28 PM  
Cross the oceans?  The stupid thing only flew like 50 feet and could only carry one person.  These things are stupid and will never amount to anything aside from a past time.

www.learning-to-fly.com
 
2014-05-28 12:51:10 PM  
Once again, "fail" used erroneously.
 
2014-05-28 12:51:15 PM  
I hate to get all QA on this.  I think this is a great idea and can't wait for a world where electronic chauffers drive us everywhere allowing us to spend our commutes resting our minds rather than focusing on a mundane, aggrivating task.  Logically speaking, a world filled with robot drivers are going to be way safer on average than a world filled with human drivers.  (Hey, it worked for airplanes.)

But the world is not logical.  These cars will be held to expectations much higher than human drivers.

Every time one of these cars causes an accident or death, Google is going to be sued for millions.  Every time a Google car kills an armadilly, Google is going to be sued.  Every time a stupid ass college student jumps out into the street without looking and is hit by one of these cars, Google is going to be sued.  The technology has to really be perfected to the extreme (and that's probably going to mean "battle tested") before we can get one of these.  Also the benefits to traffic and infrastructure won't be realized until most or all cars on the road are robotic.

Still, when that day comes it'll be great, it's just unfortunately going to be awhile off.
 
2014-05-28 12:52:46 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Once again, "fail" used erroneously.


I'm pretty sure tag is for the design.
 
2014-05-28 12:53:22 PM  
WANT. *hic*
 
2014-05-28 12:56:18 PM  
Srsly, no Johnnie Cab reference yet?
 
2014-05-28 12:57:13 PM  

Naesen: The idea is awesome. The car, while a prototype, is cute. The fact that there is no emergency manual override option (a steering wheel and pedals) terrifies me.


In many new cars, the steering wheel and pedals are just formalities anyway.  Your steering wheel and gas pedal are just connected to encoders and a servo motor does the actual work.  It's called drive-by-wire.  Some of them even provide a motor on the steering column to emulate road feedback.
 
2014-05-28 12:57:51 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Naesen: The idea is awesome. The car, while a prototype, is cute. The fact that there is no emergency manual override option (a steering wheel and pedals) terrifies me.

It's only going 25 mph, so basically it is a glorified golf cart, so at worst you'd just get into a fender bender type accident. Also, I have to wonder if giving a driver a manual override option would cause more accidents because people would freak out, override at the last minute, and then cause a collision that otherwise wouldn't have happened had they trusted the vehicle to do its job.


It's a prototype. As an engineer, I understand the limitations of the current vehicle, but if google decides to go all the way with this and keep the basic model, the glorified golf cart is going to be travelling at highway speeds.

And I would much prefer an accident caused by human error (which implies they at least had a chance to save themselves) than one caused by machine error (which implies a zero control horrifying ride right to the crash scene).
 
2014-05-28 12:57:52 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Looks like an uncomfortable place to have sex.


The challenge just makes it exciting. That would be one of the first things I'd do in that car.
 
2014-05-28 12:58:13 PM  
Last month I was driving into St. Louis when I apparently hit some sort of errant cell tower because the GPS suddenly thought it was half a mile from where I was.  I'd love to see how the self driving car works when it's convinced its destination is the middle of the Mississippi river.
 
2014-05-28 01:03:06 PM  
the problem with this technology is not the car or tech at all.  its the other drivers and people who DON'T have this that I'd be worried about.  its not predicting things.  like a ball rolling across the street...is likely followed by a small child jumping out from behind a parked car.  or maybe stay out of the way of the person that doesn't look like they can stay between the lines, or the woman putting on makeup while driving.

i'd also be interested in if this can predict road conditions before it reaches them.  such as the difference between tarmac/wet spots/glare ice.  i can clearly see that there is 30 feet of pure ice leading up to a stop sign, but does the car know that?
 
2014-05-28 01:04:49 PM  

Gary-L: Naesen: The idea is awesome. The car, while a prototype, is cute. The fact that there is no emergency manual override option (a steering wheel and pedals) terrifies me.

This, because software programmers (these days) write absolutely flawless code.


There's a huge difference between generalized computer code, and application specific embedded code.  It doesn't take much to craft redundancy and failure models into embedded systems, and it's much easier to work out the bugs.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's not the scary monster everyone makes it out to be.  Look at your engine for instance.  It's probably run by a computer, and most people never have their engine shutting down due to a software bug in the ECU.  Component failures on the ECU maybe, but not a software bug.
 
2014-05-28 01:05:08 PM  

aerojockey: Still, when that day comes it'll be great, it's just unfortunately going to be awhile off.


A year or two ago, Daimler had announced that they intended to have a self-driving luxury vehicle on the road in a decade. As far as I know, Google is far, far ahead of Daimler in the actual technology part.
 
2014-05-28 01:06:31 PM  
laughingsquid.com
 
2014-05-28 01:07:57 PM  
Powerful like a gorilla yet soft and yielding like a nerf ball.
 
2014-05-28 01:10:10 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Looks like an uncomfortable place to have sex.


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you won't have to worry about that as it's already been made illegal in self-driving cars. At least in California. And I believe Google even lobbied for it. The same goes for reading, drinking alcohol, being drunk, and sleeping.
 
2014-05-28 01:11:38 PM  

Naesen: And I would much prefer an accident caused by human error (which implies they at least had a chance to save themselves) than one caused by machine error (which implies a zero control horrifying ride right to the crash scene).


We'll see how it goes with self driving cars, but I'm betting that at the end of the day that scenario will be something that people are scared of at first, but more people chill out once they see how much less likely machine error is than human error. I figure the anything going at highway speeds will be mandated to have a manual backup, but I'm willing to bet money that in the early days more accidents will be caused by driver overrides screwing things up than machine error.
 
2014-05-28 01:12:42 PM  

Mongo No.5: the problem with this technology is not the car or tech at all.  its the other drivers and people who DON'T have this that I'd be worried about.  its not predicting things.  like a ball rolling across the street...is likely followed by a small child jumping out from behind a parked car.  or maybe stay out of the way of the person that doesn't look like they can stay between the lines, or the woman putting on makeup while driving.


It does do prediction. I don't know about the specific ball scenario you had, but they can recognize and react to a large amount of stimulus appropriately. The autonomous vehicle also has the benefit of near-instantaneous reaction times, never gets sleepy or distracted, and has a 360 degree field of vision.

These cars have been driving for tens of thousands of miles with no problems so far. I think the link below is the one where they show some moronic bicyclist swerve all over the lanes, and the autonomous car handles it as well or better than a person would.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsaES--OTzM
 
2014-05-28 01:12:57 PM  
:-|
 
2014-05-28 01:13:39 PM  
i.kinja-img.com
 
2014-05-28 01:13:54 PM  

Driedsponge: Gary-L: Naesen: The idea is awesome. The car, while a prototype, is cute. The fact that there is no emergency manual override option (a steering wheel and pedals) terrifies me.

This, because software programmers (these days) write absolutely flawless code.

There's a huge difference between generalized computer code, and application specific embedded code.  It doesn't take much to craft redundancy and failure models into embedded systems, and it's much easier to work out the bugs.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's not the scary monster everyone makes it out to be.  Look at your engine for instance.  It's probably run by a computer, and most people never have their engine shutting down due to a software bug in the ECU.  Component failures on the ECU maybe, but not a software bug.


Au contraire.  I am active on a few automotive forums and have read of many issues that were corrected by having either the PCM or ECU reflashed.  I think almost every automotive manufacturer has had to issue a recall to correct random stalling of the engine.  Sometimes, a seemingly ridiculous issue will cause the vehicle's computer to put the vehicle into "LIMP MODE", at which point it has to be towed to a repair facility.

I understand your point and honestly hope the computer piloted cars succeed; however, software bugs are still an issue.
 
2014-05-28 01:17:12 PM  

Driedsponge: There's a huge difference between generalized computer code, and application specific embedded code.  It doesn't take much to craft redundancy and failure models into embedded systems, and it's much easier to work out the bugs.


Also, take into account that a self-driving car's code is probably a lot more forgiving than you'd think it to be. It sounds really scary and high-stakes, and it is, but at the end of the day there's not a big difference between the car being out of position by a few inches here or there.

From an engineering standpoint, the question isn't whether a car can be made to drive perfectly, it's whether we can make it drive as well or better than a person. My guess is that they're already there.
 
2014-05-28 01:23:46 PM  

Naesen: The idea is awesome. The car, while a prototype, is cute. The fact that there is no emergency manual override option (a steering wheel and pedals) terrifies me.


Yep: Fark that. And does the car take you to where the ads are served? "You want to go to Quizno's" "No, no I don't" "You are going to Quizno's".
 
2014-05-28 01:25:56 PM  

aerojockey: I hate to get all QA on this.  I think this is a great idea and can't wait for a world where electronic chauffers drive us everywhere allowing us to spend our commutes resting our minds rather than focusing on a mundane, aggrivating task.  Logically speaking, a world filled with robot drivers are going to be way safer on average than a world filled with human drivers.  (Hey, it worked for airplanes.)

But the world is not logical.  These cars will be held to expectations much higher than human drivers.

Every time one of these cars causes an accident or death, Google is going to be sued for millions.  Every time a Google car kills an armadilly, Google is going to be sued.  Every time a stupid ass college student jumps out into the street without looking and is hit by one of these cars, Google is going to be sued.  The technology has to really be perfected to the extreme (and that's probably going to mean "battle tested") before we can get one of these.  Also the benefits to traffic and infrastructure won't be realized until most or all cars on the road are robotic.

Still, when that day comes it'll be great, it's just unfortunately going to be awhile off.


This kind of car will actually handle each one of your examples better than a human driver.  It will never be drunk, distracted, or fatigued.  It can pay attention to more than one thing at a time and doesn't have blind spots. It can interact with human drivers as well as robotic ones.

The biggest threat to safety here is the humans inside it.  Are they hanging out the skylight?  If they are given a manual override, will they use it to increase the speed of the car to an unsafe level?  Will a human driver attempt to prank robotic drivers by driving dangerously?

The technology will eventually be accepted, but much higher safety standards will be put on it.  People right now accept sharing the road with other people driving too fast, erratically, drunkenly, stupidly, or underage because they feel like they are in control of the situation (even though I would argue they are not).  Put them on the road in a vehicle over which they have no control and they will feel they are being led to their inevitable deaths, even though it is the safer alternative.
 
2014-05-28 01:27:18 PM  

Gary-L: Au contraire.  I am active on a few automotive forums and have read of many issues that were corrected by having either the PCM or ECU reflashed.  I think almost every automotive manufacturer has had to issue a recall to correct random stalling of the engine.  Sometimes, a seemingly ridiculous issue will cause the vehicle's computer to put the vehicle into "LIMP MODE", at which point it has to be towed to a repair facility.


Believe it or not, but a car is probably an easier control problem than an engine is. A car essentially has three degrees of control: throttle position, break position, and wheel position, and honestly the first two are going to be heavily interdependent. The reason we haven't had self-driving cars before now isn't because controlling the car is hard, it's because sensing the world and interpreting it was hard.

An engine is going to have a lot more control inputs:

Fuel injection
Ignition timing
air intake
exhaust pressure
exhaust temperature
etc.

The problem is made worse by the fact that these aren't nicely continuous problems. In
the car's case, everything it cares about (other cars, trucks, bicyclists, people) are relatively slow moving objects that follow simple laws of physics. The control inputs are also continuous. In contrast, the engine inputs aren't continuous, and things in the engine happen much more quickly, relative to the computer.

That all isn't to say that computer bugs won't be an issue for self-driving cars, but the software challenge isn't as great as you'd expect it to be. Software engineers have been working in much more demanding domains for a while now.
 
2014-05-28 01:29:13 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Looks like an uncomfortable place to have sex.


Fortunately if you drove around in one you would never get laid again.
 
2014-05-28 01:29:22 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Last month I was driving into St. Louis when I apparently hit some sort of errant cell tower because the GPS suddenly thought it was half a mile from where I was.  I'd love to see how the self driving car works when it's convinced its destination is the middle of the Mississippi river.


I know right?  Google should totally not rely on just GPS maps and should put some sort of sensor array on the car.  This sensor array could feed input into various on board computers and the car would then react appropriately.  You should totally write to google and notify them of this glaring lapse.  I'll even let you have my idea for free, you don't even have to mention my name when you tell them of this huge gap in their technology.
 
2014-05-28 01:29:36 PM  
The coolest thing about this entire exercise is getting to watch such a disruptive technology take off.  This will happen WAY faster than the computer did (40 years to develop from room sized to smartphone).  Self-driving cars will be more comparable to the airplane, jumping from a barely controllable death trap at the end of WWI to a dominating transportation/fighting machine in WWII.  I would even reason to bet it will go faster with the aid of the computer speeding up the development process.

All the people thinking that legislatures will have problems with this are on crack.  They can and will pass laws to limit liability like they have for so many other industries.  They can't ignore the benefits: elderly/disabled able to drive, reduction in pollution, improved traffic flow, improved quality of life, improved road safety, and on and on and on.
 
2014-05-28 01:35:24 PM  

Mongo No.5: the problem with this technology is not the car or tech at all.  its the other drivers and people who DON'T have this that I'd be worried about.  its not predicting things.  like a ball rolling across the street...is likely followed by a small child jumping out from behind a parked car.  or maybe stay out of the way of the person that doesn't look like they can stay between the lines, or the woman putting on makeup while driving.

i'd also be interested in if this can predict road conditions before it reaches them.  such as the difference between tarmac/wet spots/glare ice.  i can clearly see that there is 30 feet of pure ice leading up to a stop sign, but does the car know that?


Modern cameras and sensors can detect those things (and more) far more accurately (not to mention faster and more consistently) than any human.  Even your child jumping out from behind a car would fare much, much better with a computer driver than a human one.

At CES this past January, I rode in a vehicle equipped with a little device from Bosch above the rear view mirror.  The device had two inexpensive cameras and interfaces to the brake and accelerator pedal modules of the vehicle.  We rode down a parking lot at ~25 MPH IIRC.  As we approached the back bumper of a car parallel parked on the road we were driving on, a mannequin of a child darted out in front of us from the front of that parked vehicle.  With no interaction from the driver, the car recognized the pedestrian, applied the brake to achieve maximum braking given the conditions, and came to a complete stop inches away from the child.  I doubt any human driver would have been able to avoid the collision, even if they were 100% focused on driving.

Oh, and this isn't some prototype that's 5-10 years from being production ready.  Bosch has it available for car manufacturers to buy right now to use in production vehicles.  It's called Predictive Pedestrian Protection.   IIRC, they said that Audi or Mercedes made it an available option in one of their high end vehicles.

Fail tag must be for the subby who is apparently complaining about the aesthetics of a product that is an incredible achievement in engineering and represents a massive step forward in this field. And it's a prototype.  Who cares what it looks like?!
 
2014-05-28 01:35:32 PM  

digistil: Mad_Radhu: Looks like an uncomfortable place to have sex.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you won't have to worry about that as it's already been made illegal in self-driving cars. At least in California. And I believe Google even lobbied for it. The same goes for reading, drinking alcohol, being drunk, and sleeping.


Well, then what would be the point of a self-driving car? If I have to pay attention to the road anyway, I might as well be driving. At least then I can cut off dickbags.
 
2014-05-28 01:35:43 PM  

plcow: The coolest thing about this entire exercise is getting to watch such a disruptive technology take off.  This will happen WAY faster than the computer did (40 years to develop from room sized to smartphone).  Self-driving cars will be more comparable to the airplane, jumping from a barely controllable death trap at the end of WWI to a dominating transportation/fighting machine in WWII.  I would even reason to bet it will go faster with the aid of the computer speeding up the development process.

All the people thinking that legislatures will have problems with this are on crack.  They can and will pass laws to limit liability like they have for so many other industries.  They can't ignore the benefits: elderly/disabled able to drive, reduction in pollution, improved traffic flow, improved quality of life, improved road safety, and on and on and on.


I will be very surprised if we don't have a mass-market, non-luxury vehicle with self-driving capability by 2020. According to <redacted>, the major auto makers are looking to market their first self-driving car upgrades for about $10,000 above the base price, and the actual cost of the hardware (sensors&computers) is less than $2000.
 
2014-05-28 01:36:55 PM  
A Playschool toy had sex with a Smart car and Goggle finished it off with some tech bukkake...
 
2014-05-28 01:38:02 PM  

Fubini: the major auto makers are looking to market their first self-driving car upgrades for about $10,000 above the base price,


That, by the way is the early-adopter price for high-end luxury vehicles. You should expect it to come down significantly by the time it's available for entry-level vehicles.
 
2014-05-28 01:38:58 PM  

adrift1827: Mongo No.5: the problem with this technology is not the car or tech at all.  its the other drivers and people who DON'T have this that I'd be worried about.  its not predicting things.  like a ball rolling across the street...is likely followed by a small child jumping out from behind a parked car.  or maybe stay out of the way of the person that doesn't look like they can stay between the lines, or the woman putting on makeup while driving.

i'd also be interested in if this can predict road conditions before it reaches them.  such as the difference between tarmac/wet spots/glare ice.  i can clearly see that there is 30 feet of pure ice leading up to a stop sign, but does the car know that?

Modern cameras and sensors can detect those things (and more) far more accurately (not to mention faster and more consistently) than any human.  Even your child jumping out from behind a car would fare much, much better with a computer driver than a human one.

At CES this past January, I rode in a vehicle equipped with a little device from Bosch above the rear view mirror.  The device had two inexpensive cameras and interfaces to the brake and accelerator pedal modules of the vehicle.  We rode down a parking lot at ~25 MPH IIRC.  As we approached the back bumper of a car parallel parked on the road we were driving on, a mannequin of a child darted out in front of us from the front of that parked vehicle.  With no interaction from the driver, the car recognized the pedestrian, applied the brake to achieve maximum braking given the conditions, and came to a complete stop inches away from the child.  I doubt any human driver would have been able to avoid the collision, even if they were 100% focused on driving.

Oh, and this isn't some prototype that's 5-10 years from being production ready.  Bosch has it available for car manufacturers to buy right now to use in production vehicles.  It's called Predictive Pedestrian Protection.   IIRC, they said that Audi or Mercedes made it an ...


Hell, that sounds like the automated braking thing Clarkson was complaining about in a Mazda CX5.... last farking year.
 
2014-05-28 01:48:05 PM  

adrift1827: Mongo No.5: the problem with this technology is not the car or tech at all.  its the other drivers and people who DON'T have this that I'd be worried about.  its not predicting things.  like a ball rolling across the street...is likely followed by a small child jumping out from behind a parked car.  or maybe stay out of the way of the person that doesn't look like they can stay between the lines, or the woman putting on makeup while driving.

i'd also be interested in if this can predict road conditions before it reaches them.  such as the difference between tarmac/wet spots/glare ice.  i can clearly see that there is 30 feet of pure ice leading up to a stop sign, but does the car know that?

Modern cameras and sensors can detect those things (and more) far more accurately (not to mention faster and more consistently) than any human.  Even your child jumping out from behind a car would fare much, much better with a computer driver than a human one.

At CES this past January, I rode in a vehicle equipped with a little device from Bosch above the rear view mirror.  The device had two inexpensive cameras and interfaces to the brake and accelerator pedal modules of the vehicle.  We rode down a parking lot at ~25 MPH IIRC.  As we approached the back bumper of a car parallel parked on the road we were driving on, a mannequin of a child darted out in front of us from the front of that parked vehicle.  With no interaction from the driver, the car recognized the pedestrian, applied the brake to achieve maximum braking given the conditions, and came to a complete stop inches away from the child.  I doubt any human driver would have been able to avoid the collision, even if they were 100% focused on driving.

Oh, and this isn't some prototype that's 5-10 years from being production ready.  Bosch has it available for car manufacturers to buy right now to use in production vehicles.  It's called Predictive Pedestrian Protection.   IIRC, they said that Audi or Mercedes made it an ...


Its not so much the reaction, but the prediction.  I see a toy in the street and I slow way down until I'm clear of the potentially dangerous situation of someone going to retrieve it.  The car is reacting to the obstacle/child, i'm able to react to the POSSIBILITY of the child.
 
2014-05-28 01:51:33 PM  
Does it come with a mini-fridge and wi-fi?

Because if I can hop in, crack open a beer and read Fark on my commute home (Without being arrested)... I think that's worth the risk of being murdered by our robot-car overlords.
 
2014-05-28 01:52:06 PM  

mainsail: Naesen: The idea is awesome. The car, while a prototype, is cute. The fact that there is no emergency manual override option (a steering wheel and pedals) terrifies me.

Yep: Fark that. And does the car take you to where the ads are served? "You want to go to Quizno's" "No, no I don't" "You are going to Quizno's".


Geez mine would then just drive in circles looking for mature german lesbian swinger porn street.
 
2014-05-28 01:52:49 PM  

Mongo No.5: Its not so much the reaction, but the prediction.  I see a toy in the street and I slow way down until I'm clear of the potentially dangerous situation of someone going to retrieve it.  The car is reacting to the obstacle/child, i'm able to react to the POSSIBILITY of the child.


So can the car. The people programming these things are just as intelligent and world-weary as you and I are.

Also, the car is able to react to the child nearly instantaneously, has perfect information about the surrounding environment, and can plot an optimal avoidance path, so the ability to perform prediction is less important for it than it is for you.
 
Displayed 50 of 119 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report