Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Autonomous vehicles

Autonomous vehicles (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Here's one, corruption in navigation data, causing the system to turn on to a bike path, thinking it's a one-way alley. The car then proceeds to run over an on-coming biker, while the car's driver is asleep.
It sounds like you think an autonomous car will blindly follow GPS coordinates, which isn't the case. The array of anti-collision sensors will stop it before it runs over a bicyclist at the very least, if every other location-awareness measure fails.
( Last edited by Laminar; Oct 28, 2013 at 04:24 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 03:55 PM
 
One of the things I'm not sure people are factoring in is, well, it's the car that's driving. When you're running late, you drive very differently than if you're taking a pleasure trip.

Your car will always drive like it's on a pleasure trip. You'll have to learn to cope with your car saying "it will take X minutes, shall I notify your place of employment you will be Y minutes late, Sarah Connor?"

In a similar vein, a human driver has to make the call when to pull over because of the weather. My guess is almost every human pushes it. Lack of patience being a key factor. The SDC won't. That may seem annoying at first, but not in the context of having your coffee, putting on makeup, checking Facebook, browsing MacNN... just like you're doing when the car is moving.



Now, I'll take a high-flying left turn. Google's endgame is building a virtual copy of the world. What may seem like a side effect of this is in fact the main effect. Google has a catalog of what is.

The old fashioned way of looking at something like an SDC was you almost needed to build a simulation of a person, because the system needed to be able to react to unknown behavior.

Turns out, it's going to be easier to brute force it. The system won't have to react to unknowns. There aren't any anymore. Not the kinds which involve driving down the street. Not on this planet.
( Last edited by subego; Oct 28, 2013 at 04:08 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 03:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
The B52 landing gear was designed for that

I'd assume this jet wasn't, and it looks like the pilot has to yank the whole plane around at the last second so it lined up with the direction of travel.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Here's one, corruption in navigation data, causing the system to turn on to a bike path, thinking it's a one-way alley. The car then proceeds to run over an on-coming biker, while the car's driver is asleep. Software failure? Hardware? Stupid driver asleep at the wrong time? One thing is certain, litigation would be imminent.
This'll get caught by the "jaywalker" algorithm.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This'll get caught by the "jaywalker" algorithm.
It's limited by how fast it can react (like a person would be), if a bike is coming around a corner at >20mph, the system wouldn't be able to react fast enough to miss it, since the blind corner would mask the approach of the biker. Then you're left with, "why was the car there to begin with?"

Yes, I know it's unlikely, but with potentially that many systems on the road, eventually we're going to see some pretty nutty things happen. I don't believe that anything can be 100% bulletproof.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yes, I know it's unlikely, but with potentially that many systems on the road, eventually we're going to see some pretty nutty things happen. I don't believe that anything can be 100% bulletproof.
So we see pretty nutty things happen, meanwhile the cars never merge into lanes already occupied, rear-end other cars because they're not paying attention, etc. Pretty sure that's still a net positive.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Fair enough, but using name-calling as a debate tool, specifically when used against the person you're in the discussion with, tends to push my buttons.
I agree, but I felt that was offset by the nature of the allegation.

The allegation is turtle can be boiled down to not providing any supporting evidence. In trying to provoke a substantive response (regardless of the means in which he did it), US clearly desires turtle to do so.

If turtle does so, the allegation will have been shown to be false.

IOW, US is trying to provoke behavior which will disprove his name calling. I think that mitigates things somewhat compared to flat-out name calling.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's limited by how fast it can react (like a person would be), if a bike is coming around a corner at >20mph, the system wouldn't be able to react fast enough to miss it, since the blind corner would mask the approach of the biker. Then you're left with, "why was the car there to begin with?"

Yes, I know it's unlikely, but with potentially that many systems on the road, eventually we're going to see some pretty nutty things happen. I don't believe that anything can be 100% bulletproof.
I'm willing to work with you to come up with interesting scenarios. I like that kind of thing. This particular scenario has problems though. An accident would be less likely because the car would be traveling at "alley" speed, which would be obnoxiously slow because things pop out in alleys.

In fact, I would assume the system would be highly prejudiced against using alleys except when going to a designated garage.

Add to that, Google has gotten really good at this map thing. If they're going to actually be the guts of a SDC system, how much more resources will they dump into it (like adding redundancy)? How much better will they get by the time the cars are fully self driving on side streets while you sleep? That's going to be 5-10 years from now.


Again, that's not to say we can't come up with a scenario, this one needs work though.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 04:37 PM
 
A shorter way to look at it is who made the bum GPS data will get sued, and rightfully so.

This forms the impetus not to **** things like that up.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So we see pretty nutty things happen, meanwhile the cars never merge into lanes already occupied, rear-end other cars because they're not paying attention, etc. Pretty sure that's still a net positive.
But the point is (and it's not a bad one) you're opening yourself up to a lot of liability. It boils down to whether you can find an insurance company willing to underwrite your system, and if those rates take too much out of the bottom line.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
But the point is (and it's not a bad one) you're opening yourself up to a lot of liability. It boils down to whether you can find an insurance company willing to underwrite your system, and if those rates take too much out of the bottom line.
I think you already pointed out this would be the fault of the mapping software, among other holes.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 05:20 PM
 
I agree.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 05:54 PM
 
There's already software to warn against crossing the white lines at the edge of the road - and available in quite a few cars. Thicker line (or some sort of bike path pattern) : car does not cross when in autopilot.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 09:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The error in this reasoning is turtle never quits.
Bullshit. I stopped arguing with Uncle because there was no point.

Why the need for this sweeping generalization ?

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
We already have electronically-controlled ABS systems that specifically release brake pressure applied by the driver, and we have the ability for the car's computer to apply the brakes when the driver doesn't, how much more brake-by-wire can we get?
It's not the technical ability, it's mostly the liability and safety aspect that makes the OEMs shy away from full brake-by-wire.

With most of today's cars, when you step on the brake pedal, the power is still transmitted through brake fluids.

There is an inherent believe that the traditional way (mechanical braking) is safer and / or better understood and controlled than you just stepping on a switch or position sensor, which then actuates the brakes.

Don't ask me why that is, it just seems to be that way.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 09:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The allegation is turtle can be boiled down to not providing any supporting evidence. In trying to provoke a substantive response (regardless of the means in which he did it), US clearly desires turtle to do so.

If turtle does so, the allegation will have been shown to be false.
Uncle is an idiot for blaming me for no evidence. Where is HIS evidence that there won't be any lawsuits ? All he had to offer is ridicule and calling my thoughts FUD. He was being a complete asshat.

What kind of f*cking evidence am I supposed to provide about the future potential issues of tort liability cases that arise from autonomous vehicles getting into accidents ?

I'm taking a look at today's trigger happy lawyers and sue-happy society. Give me one reason why they would suddenly stop at autonomous vehicles ?

Yes, laws could be changed to limit lawsuits, and I would very much welcome that.
But judging by the fierce opposition to tort reform today, I very much see that as a long shot.
Furthermore, recent political endeavors always seemed to go in the general direction of placing more responsibility (i.e. liability) on those "greedy corporations", making them pay. Go figure what the risk appetite of those companies is.


-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 10:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So we see pretty nutty things happen, meanwhile the cars never merge into lanes already occupied, rear-end other cars because they're not paying attention, etc. Pretty sure that's still a net positive.
I didn't say it couldn't be, but there will still be liability issues. Which was my point to begin with.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2013, 10:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The error in this reasoning is turtle never quits.
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Uncle is an idiot for blaming me for no evidence. Where is HIS evidence that there won't be any lawsuits ? All he had to offer is ridicule and calling my thoughts FUD. He was being a complete asshat.
Q.E.D.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 02:57 AM
 
I would like such vehicles. I dislike driving especially long distances. If I can get into some sort of pod, sleep, and wake up at my destination, I would be happy.
{{{ mindwaves }}}
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 03:30 AM
 
Another example of where the car pulling over in dangerous circumstances isn't any skin off your nose.

At least until the human driven car fishtails into the shoulder.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
There is an inherent believe that the traditional way (mechanical braking) is safer and / or better understood and controlled than you just stepping on a switch or position sensor, which then actuates the brakes.

Don't ask me why that is, it just seems to be that way.
People seem to think that hydraulic braking systems are better understood than the alternatives because they are better understood than their alternatives. We have a hundred years of experience designing, maintaining and using hydraulic brakes. They're dead simple and dead reliable, a simple FMEA will tell you that it's the least failure-prone option for stopping available to us today.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I didn't say it couldn't be, but there will still be liability issues. Which was my point to begin with.
Autonomous cars will never make ti to market if they're doing the crazy shit you mentioned. Otherwise, insurance companies will likely be handing discount to people who use autonomous cars because of the removal of human error.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 11:54 AM
 
Then they'll never make it to market, no system can be perfect.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Then they'll never make it to market, no system can be perfect.


You're killing me. There isn't some mysterious middle ground between incompetent death trap and flawless god mode where these things will be accepted in market?

Hell, aren't states already issuing licenses for driverless cars? The future has already started. (Bikers beware!)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 12:03 PM
 
Yes, it's pretty clear that the standard is not perfection, but rather "enough better than the current system to justify costs".
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 12:16 PM
 
It seems like an autonomous vehicle is a vehicle don't need a driver, because autonomous translate as self-existent, substantive, am I correct
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 01:07 PM
 
Yes, that is the definition of autonomous vehicle.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 01:08 PM
 
Statistically will they be safer? Yes. Will they be flawless? No. Will there still be lawsuits? Yes. Why? Because people will still be riding in the vehicles, and people love suing others.

Some states are issuing permits to companies for the testing of autonomous systems, but they aren't just handing out licenses left, right, and center.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 01:11 PM
 
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Yes, that is the definition of autonomous vehicle.
I see, thank you
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 02:27 PM
 
Part of it depends on how safe a driver each person is. While true, self-driving cars will be safer than most humans, there are, and will be, exceptions.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Yes, that is the definition of autonomous vehicle.
You're a saint.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Part of it depends on how safe a driver each person is. While true, self-driving cars will be safer than most humans, there are, and will be, exceptions.
This seems so obvious as to be...completely obvious. I am not aware of anyone proposing that self-driving cars be competitive in the Daytona 500 or Monaco Grand Prix. They merely need to be safe under normal driving conditions (I have no idea how the Goole car fares in winter conditions, but I imagine there are very practical problems such as "all the lines are covered"?), and not be accidentally distracted by a text, the person sitting next to them, the kids in the back seat, the view out the passenger side window, or having not slept for 20 hours.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 04:10 PM
 
@Shaddim,

Are you actually resistant to the whole SDC idea?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 05:22 PM
 
He owns a Ferrari.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 05:32 PM
 
A Ferrari?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 07:34 PM
 
If other people want them, that's fine, but unless it's long range interstate or freeway travel (4+ hours), I wouldn't use it. Driving is my favorite hobby.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
A Ferrari?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2013, 11:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I didn't say it couldn't be, but there will still be liability issues. Which was my point to begin with.
There are already "liability issues" with the cars you drive today. If this is such a big problem, then why do you still take on the liability of driving?

If your answer at any point includes the sentiment "I'm a better/safer driver than the average driver," then you're arguing in favor of self-driving cars, not against them. They will be better and safer than the average driver too. Not to mention that when a single entity has design discretion over BOTH manufacture and operation, they can reduce the actual risk of failure, in the same way Apple can reduce the risk of incompatibility between hardware and software when it designs both of them. They'll be taking two existing liabilities (manufacturer and driver) and merging them into something that's lower (better) than the sum of its parts.


Originally Posted by subego
This'll get caught by the "jaywalker" algorithm.
Bingo, not to mention the "deer" and "toddler" algorithms. Even if Google maps every inch of civilization, their models won't be able to track all the autonomous obstacles out there, so they'll still have to be fully ready for un-planned bike-sized mobile obstacles.


Originally Posted by Shaddim
since the blind corner would mask the approach of the biker
Do you drive fast enough towards blind corners that you could be blind-sided by a bike? I don't, and I'm not a fantastic driver. I don't expect an algorithm to beat the best drivers, but I would be shocked if it couldn't beat my driving.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2013, 07:34 AM
 
No, I have no doubt the car would slow to a crawl, most likely, but the biker could be hauling ass. It's not like he's expecting a car on the path.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2013, 10:52 PM
 
In order for this to play out and result in a lawsuit, the bike then needs to be moving so fast that it is physically unable to stop for an obstacle around a blind corner. But bikes need to be able to avoid running over deer, toddlers, and hapless pedestrians too, even today with no self-driving cars to worry about. A bike in that scenario would be just as much at fault as the driver would.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2013, 11:19 PM
 
Shouldn't we both sue the path designer for making the corner blind in the first place?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2013, 02:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
In order for this to play out and result in a lawsuit, the bike then needs to be moving so fast that it is physically unable to stop for an obstacle around a blind corner. But bikes need to be able to avoid running over deer, toddlers, and hapless pedestrians too, even today with no self-driving cars to worry about. A bike in that scenario would be just as much at fault as the driver would.
Except for the fact the car isn't even supposed to be anywhere near there, right?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2013, 09:18 AM
 
Honestly, if you guys step back you will realize that you are deep into the legal vagaries of a robot car accidentally travelling down a bike path.

Let me go way out on a limb and suggest that it is probably a scenario just as likely to happen with a human driver, and that it is one that seems very easily fixable. For example, many bike-or-walking-only paths have fence posts at public entrances, set wide enough so they're not a distraction to users but also prohibit any car traffic. Boom. Problem solved, at the cost of some fence posts. Can this tiresome what-if scenario be laid to rest now? Thank you.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2013, 09:52 AM
 
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2013, 10:57 AM
 


(those guys look related!)
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 09:45 AM
 
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 10:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This too seems relevant:
Lower insurance costs flip consumer interest in self-driving cars from 18% to 90%

A pessimist would say consumers put savings above safety. An optimist would say consumers subconsciously know that lower premiums undermine the assumption of reduced safety in the first place. I'm an optimist

(also the idea that human-driven cars are safe is preposterous; if we cared about safety we would have moved to self-driving cars 10 years ago)
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 11:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
A pessimist would say consumers put savings above safety.
The pessimist would be right: Se also, seatbelt laws, and helmet laws.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The pessimist would be right
They're both right. Lower cost of ownership and higher safety both favor the self-driving car over the moron-driven car. The human is the weakest link in the big picture of modern roadways, and removing that link is both safer and cheaper.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The pessimist would be right: Se also, seatbelt laws, and helmet laws.
Corrrrrect. "I don't want anything driving for me! Oh, you're saying I can save 70% on my insurance? I welcome our automated overlords, sign me up!"
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:33 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2