

Driverless cars are further away than you think - kungfooey
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520431/driverless-cars-are-further-away-than-you-think/

======
cromwellian
One of the author's main criticisms seems to be that BMW et are commercialized
(e.g. good looking and cheap) self-driving cars and Google is making ugly
expensive ones.

But I'd argue that concern is backwards. First, go for correctness. Perfect
the algorithm and sensors, get the car working. Then look at scaling down the
technology and making it cheaper. The fact that Google doesn't make cars (a
point the author made) is kind of irrelevant, because this is a
sensor/control/software problem, not a car problem.

Recognize that BMW/Daimler/et al really don't want true self driving cars.
It's not really in their interest, because it would radically reduce the need
for car ownership and would open up a new world of on-the-fly car rental.
Human drivers required = good business. I'm not saying its a conspiracy, just
that they have no passion to disrupt their industry in this way.

Even the cost is somewhat moot if the business model is different. Let's say
the Google Car sensor package costs $100,000. That's cost prohibitive for
individual ownership, but it would not be a problem for a business model like
ZipCar + Uber, where you call a car on your mobile phone to get you, and 'rent
it' for a short self-driving or assisted trip. If car use moves from ownership
to renting, then many people can spread the cost of the sensors.

~~~
rob05c
> Recognize that BMW/Daimler/et al really don't want true self driving cars.

They don't have a passion to, but they must. Capitalism forces companies to
adapt to competition, even when it isn't in their individual self-interest.
BMW has to, because if they don't, Toyota will.

Companies make necessary self-defeating choices all the time. Newspaper
companies have websites. Barnes & Noble sells e-books. The Empire made the
Death Star.

I think Capitalism is a pretty broken concept, but I think this particular
facet of it tends to work.

~~~
joenathan
> Capitalism forces companies to adapt to competition

Only in theory, in practice this sort of thing happens:
[http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/november/lcd-price-
fixi...](http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/november/lcd-price-fixing-
conspiracy)

~~~
runeks
It should have read "Competition forces companies to adapt to market demand".
Fortunately, there's a lot of competition in the automotive industry; less so
in the production of LCD panels.

------
ggreer
A self-driving car never gets tired or drunk. It never gets bored. It never
talks on the phone, and it's never distracted by passengers or music. With the
right sensors, it can see better than any human. It can react faster and more
accurately than a Formula 1 driver.

Even with all these advantages, some automated vehicles will crash and kill
their occupants. Some will even kill pedestrians, and sometimes this will be
due to software error.

But humans do this already, and we do it so often that it doesn't even get on
the news. Around 1.2 million people die in traffic accidents each year. That's
just over 2% of all deaths[1]. Unless the automated vehicles of the future are
orders of magnitude worse than current ones, switching to them will save
millions of lives and prevent tens of millions of injuries.

It's sad that bureaucracy and human irrationality cause so much unnecessary
death and suffering.

1\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_motor_vehicle_c...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_motor_vehicle_collisions)

~~~
xfs
Whatever accidents happen on a car driven by human, it is usually the fault of
the driver. For self-driving cars, then it becomes that the manufacturers are
responsible for all accidents. This is unmanageable liability.

~~~
Shinkei
Where's your data? According to Google, their cars have gone 300,000 miles
without an accident under autonomous control. At this rate, we wouldn't need
auto insurance... so probably this liability cost will simply be part of the
car's purchase price or a new type of insurance product offered to those who
buy these cars.

~~~
bsdetector
On well-maintained roads that the software has been specifically trained on,
with very expensive sensors and equipment, with a human driver that can take
over instantly. Not that the work isn't impressive, but this 300k-no-accidents
claim is just marketing spin and doesn't tell us anything about how close the
system is to being ready for use.

------
tachyonbeam
> for all its expertise in developing search technology and software, Google
> has zero experience building cars. To understand how autonomous driving is
> more likely to emerge, it is more instructive to see what some of the
> world’s most advanced automakers are working on

What is this bullshit? He basically dismisses the entire Google effort right
off the bat, and provides no information about it whatsoever? Just like that?
As far as I know, Google is in fact much farther along than BMW, and I'd
really like to know what they're capable of. It doesn't matter that Google
isn't a car company. If they can manage reliable driverless cars, car
companies will be lining up to license their technology.

~~~
conroy
I agree the swipe at Google is unwarranted, but later in the article he
mentions that the LIDAR sensors used in Google's cars cost $80,000 a pop.

~~~
dangrossman
I've also read that LIDAR doesn't work in rain, or even fog. I never see
weather brought up in any detail in any writeups of autonomous vehicles. How
close can we be if the sensors they're using only function on sunny California
days? How will any car deal with the rest of the country where several months
a year, a coating of snow can block _any_ sensor from seeing lane markings,
signs and signals, and even the outline of the roadway?

~~~
nitrogen
LIDAR can be augmented or replaced by other sensing technologies that
penetrate precipitation better than human eyesight can; the algorithms will
most likely still work. When the road is coated with snow, the cars could do
what human drivers do: analyze the behavior of other cars, look for emergent
traffic flows (in my experience a four-lane freeway becomes three well-spaced
lanes in well-packed but not deep snow, and flows surprisingly well), and
follow the pack.

~~~
ericd
Right, the beautiful thing about probabilistic machine learning/AI is that it
can use the signals it gets, and even ignore some conflicting evidence,
without having to be explicitly programmed with rules. I think a lot of people
underestimate what's possible there, or take an overly simplistic view of what
it'd be capable of, since we're so used to having to design behavior.

------
zaroth
I've always wondered if there isn't an intermediate step, a sort of 80/20 rule
to gain most of the benefits for 20% of the work, without your car actually
taking you for a drive while you sleep in the back seat.

For example, lets assume highway traffic is caused primarily from exceeding
road capacity, and road capacity is a function primarily of the size of the
gap that we are taught to leave between cars. Why are we taught to leave a 2
second gap between cars? In theory, that's how much time/space you need if the
car in front of you decides to go full-tilt on the breaks with no warning.

I've read about autonomous caravans (the article calls them platoons) where
cars line up behind a follow vehicle. The follow-cars in that scenario
typically also take over steering. Like in the 2014 Mercedes S-Class from the
article;

    
    
      A jovial safety engineer drove me around a test track, showing how the car can lock
      onto a vehicle in front and follow it along the road at a safe distance. To follow
      at a constant distance, the car’s computers take over not only braking and
      accelerating, as with conventional adaptive cruise control, but steering too.
    

But why does it have to steer? If the car takes over JUST breaking and
acceleration the software and sensors required are vastly simplified. Given a
target maximum speed, set by the user (so it can be set at 85mph and not
65mph), the car drives at the designated speed, or else maintains a close
follow (250ms is ~30ft at 85mph). Why can't the driver still be responsible
for steering while this is happening?

I think the key is giving the driver very high confidence that "no, there is
no way that my car will let me rear-end the guy in front of me" even if you're
just 30ft back at 85mph. That's not "scary close" but at that distance, you
are trusting the car in front not to apply maximum breaks given human reaction
times. Computers could apply sufficient stopping force in time, although the
responsiveness required of the algorithm might make regular driving a bit
"twitchy" depending on the human driver you're following.

I've never even driven a vehicle with adaptive cruise control, so I have no
idea how "aggressive" the system is, or how it feels as the driver. I don't
think any of the adaptive cruise systems out there will take you down to 0mph
and then also start moving again, which seems like a must-have. But I bet if
Tesla added "maintain Xmph or close follow" to their Model S, owners would
trust it, use it, and look quite badass in the process.

You might benefit from some obvious (but not distracting) signal to other cars
when this mode is active, and spend a boat-load of money on awareness, to try
to avoid the inevitable "oh this asshole is tail-gating me, I better slow
down."

Another caveat is that it's easier to steer smoothly at high speeds when you
look far down the road ahead of you, which is kind of hard to do when you're
breathing down the neck of the car in front of you. Obviously if drivers start
losing the ability to stay in lane when following that closely, the idea falls
apart.

Ultimately I think "cruise control" is something every driver understands and
trusts. Make cruise control better. Call it "super cruise" and put it in the
Tesla Model S. Try to educate other drivers about "super cruising" so that
they know you're not actually driving like an ass. More brands will follow.

If most highway traffic is caused by exceeding road capacity by just 1 or 2%
(personally hard to believe, but that's what experts say) then in theory if
"super cruise" reduced inter-car gap by 50% for 5% of cars on the highway,
then POOF no more traffic jams. Of course as adoption increased much past 5%,
only then you would need to add software to support zipper merging ;-)

~~~
kondro
These technologies basically already exist in current production cars:

Autonomous Cruise Control
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_cruise_control_syste...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_cruise_control_system)]
for changing speed up/down and even breaking depending on the car in front.

Lane Departure Warning System
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_departure_warning_system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_departure_warning_system)]
for ensuring you stay in the right lane, some cars will even steer you back
in.

Audi has a gearbox that changes it's shift pattern based on upcoming corners
identified by the GPS.

Mercedes has advanced pedestrian/object detection integrated into their
higher-end cars to prevent collisions.

and there are probably many other advances already present in cars that
basically allow them to drive themselves without much user-concentration these
days.

~~~
zaroth
I think basically they are "not there yet".

Latest BMW 7-series: "A new Enhanced Active Cruise Control system builds on
the last-generation Active Cruise Control System with Stop & Go to add the
ability to brake to a complete stop if the driver doesn't react to stopping
traffic in time. The system alerts the driver to the situation along the way,
but will ultimately take over if it deems it necessary."

That sounds quite lame actually. Not the kind of system that instills trust
and confidence in the driver. I don't want to hear the damn thing beeping at
me every time it has to do its job.

For example, see:
[http://f10.5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=457861](http://f10.5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=457861)
\- seems like a pretty knowledgeable bunch of BMW owners speaking from
experience.

Maybe by the time you solve it well enough, you may as well be steering.

~~~
tobyjsullivan
Volvo has had adaptive cruise control for a while which sounds a lot better
than that BMW system you quoted.

Here's a terribly boring, real-world demo from 2011:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCevarh5j5g](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCevarh5j5g)

~~~
zaroth
Thanks for the link, interesting to see it in action.

But this is actually the complete opposite of what I want. This system reduces
road capacity by almost half. Look at the gap it's leaving. Look at how slow
it is to start up from a stop. I think I'd be on the horn if this guy was in
front of me.

When you leave that much space in front of you ("to be nice" or to "smooth it
out") the empty road where 2 or 3 cars could have been is actually reducing
road capacity causing significantly worse traffic behind you.

Most of this video is shot below 25mph. Average follow distance of a competent
computer "super cruiser" should be < 10ft, which would make the car
essentially "free" from a capacity standpoint. When the speed finally gets up
to 50mph, the follow distance is practically too long to count, something like
5 seconds back.

The driver even comments just after t=5:00, "See how big the gap is? I have it
set at 75, it's doing about 50." That car has a 300hp engine, why is the
computer driving like it's drunk?

"I'll just sit back and relax and get to work when I get to work." No! You
probably impose a several thousand dollar "productivity tax" on SoCal
commuters by driving like that over the course of a year.

------
tokenadult
This article is full of details and well worth a read. It's kind of a bummer
for me, because I can't wait for the day when driverless cars replace the
clueless drivers of Minnesota among whom I have to commute. But the technical
challenges of bringing driverless cars into routine consumer use are still
immense.

The article notes, about an expected transitional phase of development when
driverless cars augment rather than replace human driving, "An important
challenge with a system that drives all by itself, but only some of the time,
is that it must be able to predict when it may be about to fail, to give the
driver enough time to take over. This ability is limited by the range of a
car’s sensors and by the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of a
complex situation. 'Maybe the driver is completely distracted,' Werner Huber
said. 'He takes five, six, seven seconds to come back to the driving task—that
means the car has to know [in advance] when its limitation is reached. The
challenge is very big.'"

My dream is the dream of fully door-to-door driverless cars. I think the
article "Why Driverless Cars Are Inevitable--and a Good Thing"

[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000087239639044352490...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390443524904577651552635911824)

by Dan Neil of the Wall Street Journal, published last year, is a good
commentary on why ordinary people will mostly be glad to use driverless cars,
and regulators and insurers will be glad to nudge drivers to use them. But
that's only if they work, and it's not clear how soon driverless cars will
work reliably and be manufactured inexpensively enough to become routine on
our streets and roads.

~~~
a_bonobo
> mostly be glad to use driverless cars,

Exactly!

a) As it says in OP's text, the most dangerous point in driving these
automated cars is when a half-distracted driver takes over; having a fully
automated car prevents this.

b) OP's text seems to see the biggest danger in automated cars not reacting
properly to other humans driving erratically. This is easy to fix - once 100%
of a road's cars are automated (and ideally communicate with each other), the
problem of erratic driving simply disappears.

A question for thought: If I'm drunk in a driverless car, current laws would
say that's illegal, since I'm still the main driver. But if it's fully
automated, why should I stay sober?

~~~
gpvos
I understood that the biggest problem is driving in non-highway, e.g., urban,
situations. How will you deal with children playing at the side of the road?
Bicycles? Mopeds?

------
ChuckMcM
One of the Good things about autonomous cars is that we're close to having
cars that can drive, when people want them to succeed. One of the bad things
is that messing with them will be too over powering to resist and that will
slow their deployment.

The typical "mess with this" kind of action would be walk up on the edge of a
freeway and pop up a full sized STOP sign on the shoulder. Humans will say
'wtf?' and keep driving but autonomous cars, unable to know if it isn't a
legit stop sign, will slam on the brakes to stop. Resulting in hugely funny
(to some) traffic jams. Similarly with inflatable stoplights.

Then there are the things where even human drivers have issues (a person
standing on the side of the road signalling traffic to slow down).

There are many situations that autonomous cars will need to be able to handle,
that are handled in a fail safe way today by humans, yet to be programmed.
Definitely will take longer than you think.

~~~
SEJeff
And something tells me that would be made very illegal assuming it isn't now
(which it most likely is) very very quickly. It would be funny until it got
someone killed. Then, not so much

~~~
nl
_Three defendants were sentenced to 15 years each in state prison Friday for
uprooting a stop sign at an intersection where three teen-agers were killed in
a crash a few hours later._

[http://edition.cnn.com/US/9706/20/stop.sign/](http://edition.cnn.com/US/9706/20/stop.sign/)

------
avn2109
"But for all its expertise in developing search technology and software,
Google has zero experience building cars..."

The article is fundamentally missing the point of autonomous vehicles---
namely, that this is a _software_ problem, not a mechanical problem, so car
building is an irrelevant skill. Automakers have decades of experience with
all sorts of useful things, like machine design, manufacturing, fit and
finish, etc. But they suck at software, as evidenced by the hilariously low
quality of all* dashboard media/navigation/tech clusters ever. Google, on the
other hand, is pretty good at software, and is therefore much better
positioned to win in this space. Empiricism verifies this, because the Google
autonomous cars work better than the automakers'.

In fairness, the article's claim about the high cost of Google LIDAR is solid.

*Yeah, I know. Tesla's doesn't suck. But they're not a real automaker yet.

~~~
leoedin
The LIDAR is expensive because it's not a commodity product. Once you take
that LIDAR unit and spread the development costs over millions, embed all the
digital electronics into one chip and start churning them out the cost will
fall significantly. It might still be 5 figures, but it'll be at the low end.

------
jdmitch
_the terrible irony [is] that when the car is driving autonomously it is much
safer, but because of the inability of humans to get back in the loop it may
ultimately be less safe._

Driverless cars are only 90% there for complete autonomy, and the last 10%
could take another 50 years.

------
platz
The pilots' confusion in the Asiana 214 crash [1] [2] was likely due to
uncertainty about how/if autopilot was managing the airplane, and what the
human crew still had responsibility for.

"The difficulty of re-engaging distracted drivers" \- This is the danger that
will be faced in driverless cars just like Asiana 214. If the expectation is
that drivers must retain full "Situational Awareness", it seems like a lot of
the benefits of being "driverless" are lost.

Perhaps it should be called "Assisted Driving" instead under given this
expectation.

I can't believe they'd call such a vehicle a "driverless car", when the
software simply _gives up_ when there are too many things going on. Seriously,
that software problem needs to be solved.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214)

[2] [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/07/13/asiana-
crash-t...](http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/07/13/asiana-crash-
thought-positive-exchange-of-flight-controls-between-autopilot-and-human-
crew/)

------
tobyjsullivan
Wow, this comes off as the first of many hit pieces against Google more than
an objective review of the current state of affairs. It wouldn't be surprising
to see this as competition picks up.

The entire article is summed up fairly well in this one line "But for all its
expertise in developing search technology and software, Google has zero
experience building cars."

He effectively ignores the fact that Google is demonstrably farther along in
development than any other company. Not to mention this isn't even a problem
of building cars, it is a problem of software and AI, both of which Google is
slightly more experienced than BMW, Audi, or any of the other companies he
mentions.

All of his concerns about the timeline of this work seem to be based on some
idea that in ten years, automation will only be ready for "limited highway
driving" and that there are a lot of "Uncertain road" issues that aren't
accounted for in these estimates. This differs greatly from Google's claims I
read last year.

I couldn't bring myself to do more than skim the second half of the article
but I saw no actual evidence to support his thesis of automation being farther
away than expected (i.e., ten years). I only saw evidence to suggest I
shouldn't bank on the auto-makers to get there first.

------
ars
It seems to me that diverless cars will [at first] only work on prepared
roads.

These are roads where _only_ driverless cars will be allowed (perhaps just a
lane on an existing road), and all the traffic, and lane, markings are
designed for the computer to read. The roads are very carefully mapped out.

In some ways kind of like a train track.

The computer knows when it's almost time to exit the road and go to a regular
road, and can alert the driver in advance. (Or simply pull off into a parking
lot.)

~~~
Volpe
I doubt that, with Accurate gps and a mindstorm kit, I could build a "car"
that follows any road. I don't see why it would need to be 'prepared'.

With sonar, infrared, sign reading, gps, rain sensor, traffic management
integration, line reading... exactly what does the cpu not "know" that a
driver does?

------
Shinkei
People keep throwing around the liability/cost issues, but the savings to our
system in the healthcare and auto insurance sectors alone will more than
offset any potential downside, to say nothing of the lives that will be saved.
My prediction is that it will be so good, that it will eventually become a
requirement in all new cars and it will fundamentally change the face of our
society. Trauma bays, EMTs, auto insurance companies and the like will all
have to cope with this change.

------
dirtyaura
The most interesting aspect that the article raises is the hand-over from
automated driving mode to human controlled mode and potential difficulty for
humans to shift their attention. What a fascinating problem that is going to
play a part in every AI assisted job in the future.

Imagine reading HN from a mobile phone and then suddenly shifting to driving
mode: it's obvious that you will be very disoriented for a few seconds. Thus,
we need to constraint the consumption setting: projecting a screen to the
front window is likely to shave a couple of seconds off from the
disorientation phase. initially both mobile phones and sleeping are banned
while driving self-driving cars. Constantly projecting extra peripheral
sensory information to the screen is also needed. This would be immensely
useful already today without self-driving cars.

However, it's obvious that the shift of attention will take a couple of
seconds thus the car can't change the control mode in dangerous situations.
It's likely that there will be self-driving zones like highways and the
control is changed mostly at borders of these

------
ericd
This is almost entirely an algorithm arms race, since that will enable better
capabilities with cheaper sensors/noisier data sources. As such, I predict
that Google will mop the floor with the traditional car makers' efforts. For
some perspective, most car makers can barely design decent entertainment
center software, what makes anyone think they can compete in the computer
vision and AI category?

A fully autonomous car with the ability to make complex decisions on local
roads is miles different from the adaptive cruise control and lane
following/changing they're talking about here, and Google is the only one
tackling the whole package.

And the gulf in safety between something that can drive all the time and
something that needs the driver to jump back in when it hits a situation it
doesn't know how to solve is huge to the point that I probably wouldn't touch
the halfway solution with a pole.

------
discodave
What the author does not understand is that the vector for self driving cars
will be Zipcar, Getaround, goget and other 'car sharing' companies. Cab
companies might get in on it but they will struggle to deal with their large
existing workforce.

There was another article on here the other day in which Elon Musk said that
the last 10% was very difficult but it's easy to see how a car sharing company
could offer a self driving service by avoiding that last 10%. They could do
this because:

* The car might not have to go very far from it's pod to your location * They don't necessarily have to go in driveways and other hard to reach places. "closer than public transport would get you" is good enough. * The service can be restricted to urban areas with good map coverage

As other people have noted the opinions and even the technology of the major
car companies is irrelevant.

------
Osiris
My brother is a CHP officer and he told that he cannot wait for autonomous
vehicles. He said at least 80% of all traffic accidents are directly due to
human error (I would venture to guess that nearly 100% of accidents are due to
some form of human error).

------
bambax
> _But for all its expertise in developing search technology and software,
> Google has zero experience building cars. To understand how autonomous
> driving is more likely to emerge, it is more instructive to see what some of
> the world’s most advanced automakers are working on..._

"But for all its expertise in developing automobiles, Ford has zero experience
feeding horses. To understand where the world is going, it's more instructive
to interview coachmen"

Wat? How is Google not relevant or "instructive"??

------
runako
...and these are just the technical limitations of the autonomous car + driver
system. There would appear to be immense potential liability in selling a
product that is explicitly billed as being safer than human drivers, but which
is a) different and b) going to fail, sometimes catastrophically.

I'd be surprised if autonomous cars become widespread before the last human
train conductor is decruited. Driving a train is a simpler problem in a lot of
ways, and yet we still feel the need for people in those jobs.

------
agumonkey
Tangential, I hope that this trend will bring some genericity and open access
to car parts (as much as possible) to avoid the weird scam that is fixing
anything on it right now. Even though I doubt it will be and might end up just
like cellphones: features and look first, "fixability" on a few models.

------
ximeng
How would an automated car deal with this kind of situation:

[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=17a_1382454285](http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=17a_1382454285)

It's probably even harder to handle if your car starts braking unexpectedly.

~~~
artsrc
Eventually, software will handle that situation better than any human.

In the video you show 2 out of 3 affected cars crashed. In an automated car
world eventually 0 out of 3 cars would have crashed.

Compared to any driver, a driverless car will react faster, and knows more
accurately its own speed, and the speed and position of the object moving
across in front of it.

A driverless also knows better than _most_ drivers what is possible, including
braking distance, turn radius etc.

So when the software is written to handle that situation it will always do
better than I would, and sometimes do better than a fully alert Sebastian
Vettel.

------
joe_the_user
_“The first generations [of autonomous cars] are going to require a driver to
intervene at certain points,” Clifford Nass, codirector of Stanford
University’s Center for Automotive Research, told me. “It turns out that may
be the most dangerous moment for autonomous vehicles. We may have this
terrible irony that when the car is driving autonomously it is much safer, but
because of the inability of humans to get back in the loop it may ultimately
be less safe.”_

This reminds of the frame problem in earlier AI[1]. Artificial systems can be
built to deal well with a given frame having given specification but they can
to the boundary of these frames, they fail to gracefully change their
approach.

[1]
[http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Frames/frames.html](http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Frames/frames.html)

Edit: changed link since the Minsky article is more descriptive. Wikipedia
only describes a frame as a data structure but I (and I think Minsky) would
see them as a metaphor for the structure and limitation of AI system.

~~~
Toenex
Yes, it is ironic but whilst human operated vehicles are still using the roads
it actually requires much more sophisticated autonomous vehicles to 'join in'.
Automated vehicles will greatly benefit us be being able communicate their
intentions to each other allowing roads to run more freely as continuous
adjustments to speed and direction make stopping for traffic virtually
obsolete. Now throw an essentially unpredictable human driven vehicle into the
mix and you get problems and the onus will be on automated vehicles to deal
with this.

------
6d0debc071
> [A]chieving even more complete automation will probably mean using more
> advanced, more expensive sensors and computers.

Because? What's your argument that this isn't an algorithm and price reduction
on select parts of the system sort of problem at this point?

------
Theriac25
Good. Please keep them there.

