It seems every automotive company, as well as Uber and Lyft, are touting the imminent arrival of self-driving cars. In an interview with Bloomberg, CEO Travis Kalanick announced Uber would be adding self-driving cars this month, working to modify some Volvo vehicles. Ford’s CEO Mark Fields claims they will be offering self-driving cars soon and Lyft and GM are rolling out a plan as well.
The automotive industry has been notoriously slow in adding innovation, often taking two or three years to make a minor change that could affect drivability, reliability or safety. Yet all of these companies are throwing caution aside and expecting to put thousands of cars on the streets and highways before there’s been sufficient testing.
Rarely does any product or technology come without unintended consequences. A recent fatal crash of a Tesla was attributed to the driver’s recklessness and relying too much on the car’s sensors that apparently were blinded by the sun. Problems like this are to be expected. There are millions of combinations of traffic situations, interactions with objects in the road, bicyclists, pedestrians, the environment, human behavior, and other diversions. It’s impossible for engineers to anticipate every situation. Engineering is imperfect and design is only improved by identifying the issues, the corner cases, and the missing assumptions, fixing them, and then more testing.
Unlike other products where a phone call might not go through or an app crashes, failures of self-driving cars are much different: people will die. It will take the testing of hundreds of vehicles for thousands of hours to refine and prove out the design. Compounding this is there is not one standardized approach, where the industry learns from each participant and sets requirements for performance and testing.
Instead, we have dozens of companies, all taking their own approaches with some relying on subcontractors and all leading to a very confusing environment. Companies that have done their homework, such as Google, are unlikely to share their learning with companies it considers competitors.
And considering we have companies like Uber (who have never developed hardware and likely have little understanding of hardware issues) putting cars on the road, we may have a disaster in the making. Uber in particular has not been a shining example of maximizing the safety of its customers with the failure to do adequate vetting of its drivers, based on charges by the San Francisco District Attorney’s office.
Bringing on self-driving cars prematurely is the best way to kill a technology. Every incident, injury or death will be greatly magnified in the press and, even though the fatality rate might be much lower than conventional cars, it could kill the industry or severely slow it down before it gets started.
Don’t get me wrong. I think self-driving cars will be one of this century’s greatest technical achievements. But I am just astounded at how little work has been done by the companies planning to populate our streets with two-ton vehicles being controlled by software but little testing.
Is that any surprise really ? Companies exist to maximize profits. 30 years ago they were dumping toxic waste with abandon (and still do, wherever it’s not illegal or they think they can get away with it), 20 years ago they started pushing repackaged opiates, oil-drilling companies skimp on safety features, car companies cheat on emission tests, banks abuse their “too big to fail” status, etc…
The issue is not companies. Well, it is but that’s expected behaviour. The issue is the legislative/political system, which is here the protect citizens and care for the greater good. We need norms and laws regarding the technical side, the legal (responsibilities) side, and even the marketing side. Autopilot is an automatic pilot and a pilot is the one who drives. Simply the name implies full functionality: not “assist”, not “co-pilot”…
My observation is that once deep learning was developed, autonomous driving turned out to be fairly easy up to a certain level. The fact that so many companies have autonomous driving technology clearly proves that once the basic principle was discovered by academics, deep learning was relatively easy for any company to learn and implement.
At least at the present level, based simply on how many companies are capable of building a competitive solution, it would seem that autonomous driving is about as difficult as powered-steering, disc-brakes and air-bags.
It is not that automobile manufacturers are suddenly waking up to rapid innovation; it could well be that autonomous driving isn’t exactly as challenging as Silicon Valley thinks.
In Christensen’s definition, autonomous driving is a sustaining innovation that compels incumbents to invest heavily. That’s what makes it “easy”.
Note that “easy” as I use it means [difficulty]/[amount invested].
I think you make a great point, although that probably doesn’t mean a whole lot given my near non-existant knowledge of deep learning. But on a conceptual level what you say makes sense.
The question I have is, at some point is there only so much that can be accomplished in the lab and then it just needs to be released because, like maps, more input is what drives the learning forward?
Kind of you don’t know what you don’t know until you learn what you don’t know. And you can only learn that in application?
Joe
Semi-autonomous systems would probably help accumulate data.
Sure, but don’t they need a target from which to accumulate data, or do they surf the internet, too? And if they are like me, they need at least two cups of coffee to see clearly. (And I haven’t yet finished my second cup at the moment.)
Joe
I’m not sure it’s turning out to be easy: we don’t have it yet, we’ll know when/if we get it (I’m all for it, I hate most driving, then again, I hate cars too). “They” are still not getting the safety and reliability of my wifi router right, and “they” is an IT firm specialized in networking products. Not holding my breath for cars quite yet. And the tech is only part of the issue. You need consumer acceptance and a legal framework.
I’m not sure if it qualifies as sustaining or disruptive:
– it has the potential to move a significant portion of the value-add from car/parts makersto IT firms.
– ditto the branding power. Do I buy a car because it’s GM-made, or because it’s piloted by Apple. Or does Apple take the opportunity to OEM the car and sell their own brand ?
– to the rest of the car ecosystem (driving instructors, car parks, insurance, car rentals…) it is certainly disruptive.
PS it’s kind of funny how “deep learning” is suddenly taking the buzzword crown. “deep” means it’s better right, like in deep fried, and by opposition to… shallow learning I guess ? Or regular learning ? Will Apple invent magical learning ? Do you think it will last longer than AI, pattern recognition, neural networks,… ? Those buzzwords are designer labels for arguments. Just as worthless, too.
Of course we cannot yet discuss how difficult it will ultimately be to get fully autonomous cars to be accepted by the authorities and the public. “Easy” refers to achieving the current technical level that companies are partnering/acquiring each other for.
As for “sustaining innovation”, I’m using Chirstensen’s terminology. Sustaining innovation means that incumbents are motivated to invest heavily and that incumbents are likely to ultimately win. In this case, the incumbents will be the car makers and not the Googles or Ubers. Autonomous driving will be a value add to current cars, just like cruise control, air bags and automatic transmission. Of course it will enable some interesting things, but it won’t drive car companies out of the market.
As for deep learning, it is certainly being over-hyped but that doesn’t mean it is without substance. It is at the very least, a significant improvement on the neural network type methodology of AI.
I’m really not sure about the sustaining:
– as I said, value creation may slip form automakers to their IT components suppliers, or automakers might even get short-circuited.
– the utilization rate of cars is commonly admitted to be 5% (ie, 1hr/day circulating, 23hrs/day parked). Autonomy may up that utilization rate drastically. 100% utilization won’t happen by far, but even a doubling of the utilization rate to 10% (2hrs/day, doesn’t sound drastic) means a halving of sales. Car ownership and use will probably get cheaper, but whether that will create enough new demand to make up for higher utilization is undetermined. Or maybe new uses will appear (kids, elderly, disabled, micro-deliveries,…) and grow the market ?
Hey, combine that with VR and we’ll be able to play Ridge Racer while being driven to work !
Regarding value creation, I consider Porter’s Five Forces to still be the best way to understand which part of the value chain will create the most value. In this case, I would look to the abundance of autonomous driving tech companies. Car manufacturers have their own tech and can also buy tech from a number of startups with comparable technologies. The bargaining power seems to be on the car manufacturer’s side. Since there is also no patent discussion that I am aware of, I am assuming that the barrier to entry is low. Unless the autonomous tech companies consolidate and accumulate IP like Intel and Microsoft did, I don’t see them getting a large pie of the value creation.
Regarding utilisation, by Google’s own account, I think they said that they don’t expect the tech to be ubiquitous until 2030. By then, we are likely to see a lot of changes within the industry related to electric vechicles as well. We might even see decent human-driven public transport in Silicon Valley. It’s hard to see how all these will interact. Additionally, lower car sales just means that the industry as a whole may shrink. It does not mean that autonomous tech companies will “disrupt”. They might just sink together. It’s too complicated to take predictions seriously in my opinion.
Frankly, if Christensen doesn’t consider a market being halved or worse as disruption as long as the pecking order stays the same and there’s no replacement, he needs to update his definition of disruption.
As for the autopilot market being overpopulated, I’d be cautious:
1- a lot of the game these days is helping relieve VC’s clients of their money (as opposed to actually making product and/or building a business). I wouldn’t trust PR and demos too much, I’d wait for a) products b) sales.
2- barriers to entry might be rather higher than for dumb cars: you need a) cars, b) regulatory approval of some kind, c) customer confidence. Exploding hoverboards this christmas will probably have raised a few red flags even among the most oblivious and complacent customers, distributors, regulators.
Time to brush up the old Windows joke ! https://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/crash.htm
I’m cautious as well, but the signs that I consider significant point to a single direction regarding value creation.
As for regulatory approval and customer confidence, I suspect that this is exactly why the barrier of entry to the auto industry is high, and why autonomous tech makers have lower bargaining power.
Hey, side benefit: low comedy.
I want to be there at the first hands-free iCar crash, when Apple tells us we’re not-holding it wrong. The circle will be complete ^^
“Unlike other products where a phone call might not go through or an app
crashes, failures of self-driving cars are much different: people will
die.
…
companies like Uber (who have never developed hardware and likely have
little understanding of hardware issues) putting cars on the road, we
may have a disaster in the making.
”
This comes across as an alarmist Luddite piece.
Stating that people will die, is incomplete.
The reality is that LESS people will die. Worldwide over a MILLION people die from car crashes every year. The majority are human error.
Unless UBER cars trigger a terminator like rise of the machines, they are not a disaster in the making.
Again, back in reality, the first hint of any danger, and the fleet would be grounded.
This is not Techpinions quality writing/thinking.
You have no proof of those claims. What should, and will slow down the stupidity of pushing this technology out too fast is the massive liability claims companies will face if the systems malfunction.
The problem is a bunch of people who view themselves as masters of the universe because they’ve made fortunes in software, but have never had to deal with concrete reality. This kind of technology involves integrating software with physics and mechanical engineering, in the most safety-critical of environments. That’s not Google’s territory.
The way I see it, it is wrong to assume that a logical, scientific discussion will win in the court of public opinion.
Look at the GMO crop situation. That is what self driving cars have to avoid, and given the Silicon Valley tendency to label the other side Luddites, I’m worried that it might follow the same path.
FEWER, not LESS
What did you miss? “Don’t get me wrong. I think self-driving cars will be one of this century’s greatest technical achievements.” Yes, fewer people will die and lives will be saved. But, where’s the testing and thoughtfulness that is required to avoid the perception of a problem?
Agreed. Most objections aren’t against autonomous driving technology but the seemingly rushed, premature and haphazard way in which it is being introduced into public use.
Google has over a million miles in testing, and is already safer than human drivers and it isn’t yet a product.
Just how much testing do you think is needed? How much safer than a human driver must they be?
Defendor, thanks for a sensible view that’s free from gross cynicism or fear, like some others exhibit on this page.
No, this is about the process of product development and the steps required to do it right.
It was a commenter, not you, who showed gross cynicism, and always does.
I realize I’m a cynic. I wish there were fewer examples proving I’m not utterly wrong.
The first hint of any danger and the fleet would be grounded, eh? One of their cars slams into the side of a trailer rig and kills the driver but did Tesla ground their fleet? Perhaps that incident is not really a hint of any danger.
Beta testing autonomous driving systems on public roads should be completely and totally banned. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Cars are required by government to prove their physical crashworthyness before being approved for production and sale. A component as critical as an autonomous driving system should face at least the same strict scrutiny.
GM used to chide Microsoft that if cars crashed as often as PCs did, GM would be out of business. Now we’re seeing this crashes-are-a-normal-part-of-doing-business mentality of the tech industry starting to invade the car business. That trend should be nipped in the bud right now.
“Self driving” cars is the tech industry’s newest and biggest bait and switch scam.
On the one hand, everybody thinks self driving cars means something like those robot taxicabs in “total recall.”
But in practice, the term is being used for all kinds of things that are no more sophisticated than cruise control on steroids. For instance, most car companies that are touting their plans for self driving cars basically are trying to catch up with Tesla’s autopilot. That’s something that combines cruise control with basic steering abilities and crash avoidance so the car stays in its lane and does not allow itself to get too close to the car in front of it, but that’s it, it’s useless off the highway, it can’t navigate and it doesn’t know what to do about obstacles or traffic signs or intersections.
But the biggest offender in the creation of this overhyped bubble is Google, who stared the craze by showing journalists a prototype that had driven the same few hundred miles of city streets around Google HQ a thousand times over and touting it as something that had driven hundreds of thousands of miles. They had achieved a true self-driving, self-navigating car, but only at slow speeds and only for sections of road that had been pre-analyzed and pre-tagged in ridiculous detail. And even Google has realized that that much over-hyped, totally non-scalable solution cannot work well in a living dynamic uncontrolled environment, so they’ve switched to driving their prototype around on closed tracks rather than actual city streets.
Meanwhile actual “total recall” style self driving cars that can drive and navigate on their own and would need to be taught what to do about moral dilemmas like “kill the granny or kill my driver and passengers?” remain a pipe dream.
??? You’re spewing hate at Google (what a surprise) and making up facts (well, lying) in the process.
Google cars are currently being tested on streets in 3 cities at least. Others’ cars too.
Also, at least Google did not contribute to any deaths by mismarketing and overhyping a beta release. But I guess you don’t care about that, because it’s not a issue involving Google…
So was he lying? Didn’t Google just publicly talk down their autonomous driving ambitions?
Self-driving cars refers to autonomous cars, not Tesla Autopilot. Tesla has never said the autopilot feature was a self driving autonomous car.
Autonomous cars are not simply cruise control on steroids. You might consider doing research.
Here’s what I think are the basic views of the situation.
The car makers are seriously afraid of being overrun by Silicon Valley, which is really aggressive about advancing technology and sees failure as acceptable in the process.
Conventional cars DO kill an astonishing number of people each year, and autonomous cars have the potential to reduce that, substantially. Therefore the industry is not going to be “killed” as mentioned twice by a frightened alarmist like Phil Baker.
The situation will work itself out, and we will have a good result.
The industry will kill itself if it rushes the R&D and proving process and is seen as reckless with drivers’, passengers’, and pedestrians’ lives. That’s the main point of the detractors posting here.
I have a feeling that autonomous cars are going to be a lot harder to implement than most proponents believe or hope. The technological problem seems simple, it seems all it needs is more data, more computing power, and we’re there. Robotics people also thought that machines with fine motor skills and sensitivity that matches the human hand were just around the corner. I suppose the corner turned to have the same radius as an average galaxy.
I keep asking this question, if autonomous driving is almost ready for prime time, where are the autonomous trains. How about planes? Cargo vessels?
Another question, how well will all this vaunted deep learning computers perform in a real world where some cars on the roads are driven by unpredictable, unreliable, error prone, thrill seeking, and sysrem-gaming human drivers?
Last question. A pilot told me that a key component of airplane autopilot systems is that the planes’ autopilot computers talk to each other to coordinate their real-time decisions. Seems to me that autonomous cars will be a lot safer if they do the same thing. Even a simple ‘I see you, do you see me?’ query to the other car on the road would make a great difference. I haven’t heard any of the major players talk about this. Is each player’s greed and ambition to own the whole industry stopping them from this type of joint standards and protocols development (and implicitly promising to share the industry?)
These are exactly the issues that no one appears to be considering. It’s astounding how many companies assume you can put these cars on the road and expect them to perform flawlessly.
Applying the “lean startup” model of Silicon Valley to cars is simply not feasible. The government has heavily regulated the auto manufacturers (and the roads) for a long time to increase safety.
What will slow the madness here is that liability for accidents will no longer rest with the driver in a fully automated car. It won’t even rest with the driver if a partially autonomous system malfunctions and veers into the next lane. If they can’t push the liability off onto the individual driver, the costs involved in paying damages to crash victims and/or trying to insure millions of cars will crush any company making them.
The issue with inter-car comms is that only smart cars would have it, ie you can’t rely on it. *All* large planes have broadcast apparatus.
And even if all cars got it, bikes pedestrians kids and pets won’t. Those aren’t an issue for planes.
It’s not so much they didn’t think of it, it’s that you can’t rely on it anyways, not now, not in the future.
I put a Bad Word in my previous answer, apparently that got it banned. I was saying…
There are a lot of issues with inter-car coordination:
1- most cars won’t be smart and won’t have it, so relying on that even a little is weird. On the other hand planes all must have it (at least large commercial planes IIRC)
2- non-cars (pedestrians, kids -they’re their own category ^^, pets, bikes…) won’t have it either, so the car needs to be fully able to autopilot w/o it anyway. Those are not an issue for planes, and there are no-fly zones around airports for the small stuff (drones, kites, deltaplanes…)
3- I’m sure some (insert bad word here) will hack or spoof the thing and broadcast wrong info for the thrill or creating issues. Peer-to-peer motto: don’t trust the other party. Planes are much less accessible to the hoi poloi. We do have people firing lasers at them, which gives us a hint of why coordinating inter-cars is iffy.
Also,
– we do have autonomous metros, even buses
– on regular flights w/ modern planes only the take off is manual (“The Airbus A320’s autopilot is capable of engaging from 100′ above the ground through rollout on landing if desired (and the airport meets certain criteria)”). The A320 is a 30 year old plane.
– I have no info on boats. Google comes up with a few.
I think for mass transport the cost of a driver/captain isn’t that important comparatively hence there’s less motivation to invest in auto-stuff, plus the “captain” has other duties (regulatory, personnel management, handling emergencies…)
Really? Autonomous buses? On public thoroughfares or dedicated, exclusive busways?
Both. google “autonomous shuttle” and “autonomous buses”.
https://mishtalk.com/2016/06/28/autonomous-bus-testing-on-swiss-public-roads/
http://www.greencaltrain.com/2016/05/autonomous-shuttles-are-being-used-now-on-french-power-plant-campus/
etc…
“I keep asking this question, if autonomous driving is almost ready for prime time, where are the autonomous trains? How about planes? Cargo vessels?”
The reason we don’t have autonomous cargo ships or autonomous aircraft is basically because of those 10% or 1% of cases that challenge even the best human pilots to navigate safely, and which the software cant’t handle at all (flying/sailing into a storm, dealing with other kinds of catastrophic problems). On a ship or plane, each of those problems can potentially destroy the entire craft and kill all aboard, so the cost of failure is extremely high, especially when you factor in insurance payouts.
Quite some time ago I read an article about software improvements to flying an airplane. It was either about actual autopilot tech, or it was about tech to automatically compensate for turbulence during regular flying, I forget which. Of course the software could only handle turbulence to a certain point of complexity, beyond which the software gave up and it was up to the human pilot.
The upshot was that this kind of “burden lightening” automation made crashes more likely because, by handling the easy parts of flying, it made the human pilot more unprepared for the hard parts. Making the pilot shift from “i’m just minding the store’ to ‘OMG’ with nothing in between created more accidents than forcing the pilot to deal with the full range of conditions from simple to challenging.
Which is why cargo vessels and airplanes have not gone into automated self sailing or flying vehicles.
There are self driving trains — since they run on rails, the problem space is much more limited and predictable. You still need a human lookout with a hand on the emergency stop. The subway system in Toronto is looking into self driving trains, IIRC.
The problem space for cars is much *more* complex than for airplanes or ships, because you are dealing not just with a hostile environment but with other cars, pedestrians, animals, obstacles on the road, and with baroque rules of the road.
The difference is financial – cars are cheap and the lives lost in a crash are typically few, and we have a century of cultural brainwashing by the automotive industry that has successfully shifted all blame for crashes away from the vehicle or the infrastructure and onto the driver. So the liability for bad software is a lot more limited.
Add a ton of overoptimistic expectations and your standard tech industry vaporware marketing tricks, and you have lots of people who should know better falling over themselves to proclaim that fully autonomous cars are just a few years away.
Changing car utilization from 5% to 10% won’t lessen car sales – thé cars will just last 5 years on average instead of the US average of 11 years today. This accidentally move the car life to where most of today’s new car insurances expire and also may be closer (accidentally) to how long smartphones or tablets last today.
Let’s not forget that the main car use remain for a commute to/from work and where self-driving cars can help is to increase a number of work carpools. Companies may be interested to chip-in in a ride sharing program too. One of the nicest benefits of working for big Corp in the US is that you can take a company shuttle to work and a commute in big hubs such as Silicon Valley may take more than an hour. Microsoft for one has one of the nicest software I have seen for inter-campus taxis. You can call a taxi and the software will match you with other fellow employee riders going a similar route at the time. It would be nice to have for robotaxis! Also high occupancy vehicles may use HOV lanes, which reduces a commute time by far and some work can be done during the commute too if you ride the shuttle. Ironically, electrical cars can also use HOV lanes in California as “clean vehicles”, which I don’t think is fair considering relatively low emissions of modern cars.
Ideally I would like to see the traffic pattern spreads out for the daylight time and people live closer to work or telecommute, and suburbs become more self-contained mini-towns rather than sleeping quarters but it may be hard to achieve for the time being and it requires some additional urban planning.
“it is difficult to predict, especially the future” – Niels Bohr
There’s no question that there will be self driving cars one day. The argument is about “when”. In my mind we are very far off from widespread adoption.
In some limited ways though we have been there for decades…
Autopilots on airplanes and boats exist because there is plenty of room and few moving obstacles.
What is an elevator if not a one dimensional self driving car? Turn it on it’s side and it’s a Airtrain ™ shuttle or a trolley, which would be the two dimensional case. These scenarios control the path as well as the vehicle. Focusing on the self driving cars alone without considering a machine navigable, human independent, path is misplacing the focus.
It’s interesting to me that we require perfection from self driving cars but not human driven cars. Self driving cars already perform way better than humans. Given what I see on my drive to/from work everyday, self driving cars would be hard pressed to do worse.
One thing seems to be consistent on the part of those who inexplicably argue for rushed adoption of this technology – an elitist, misanthropic attitude towards other human beings.
But leaving that aside, this is the key issue – if a human driver makes an error and causes a crash, the driver is at fault. If a self-driving car makes an error and causes a crash, the manufacturer is at fault.
Auto liability insurance, and many lawyers, exist for that reason. If Google, or Tesla, or any other manufacturer of self-driving cars puts something on the road that causes crashes (and they will), that business will very rapidly become unsustainable. They will be on the hook for millions in damages, and constantly paying massive legal fees.
Their only hope is to get the government to waive product liability laws for some reason, because their cars are so special and so needed that people need to be killed by them with no recourse. It’s not going to happen.
That is their incentive to go very slow, and make absolutely sure their systems are bulletproof. The likely result is a more advanced cruise control, that also takes over steering in light traffic highway conditions, but immediately switches off when the driver touches the steering wheel or brake. I think anything beyond that is unlikely to ever see adoption for the reasons I stated above. And even that has major risks, because it will encourage people to become disengaged and take their eyes off the road, unable to react fast enough when needed.
Cars malfunction all the time and cause injuries and even death.
Computers don’t road rage, drive drunk, drive distracted or have elitist misanthropic attitudes towards other human beings.
They don’t have ANY attitude towards other human beings. That is probably what freaks so many people out, ala _I, Robot_. “Save the girl, not me!”.
Joe
I’m really not sure how it will play out.
Half-measures will be fertile grounds for over-use; see the current Tesla Autopilot issues, then again the word “Autopilot” does promise full autonomy. Aside from autoparking, if the car is driving itself, I’m doing something else or bored to death.
One side effect though is that speed becomes less important. I don’t get invested in beating the others, and I don’t mind taking 10 mins longer since I’m occupied or sleeping.
Liability will be an issue. Then again it is for regular cars too. I expect strong regulations, recalls, but I don’t think it can/will be capped. Being killed by a smart car feels a lot worse then killing oneself or even been killed by another person tough.
“Their only hope is to get the government to waive product liability laws for some reason, because their cars are so special and so needed that people need to be killed by them with no recourse. It’s not going to happen.”
You have more faith in the legislative branch than me. This congress kowtowed to Big Pharma and banned Medicare from negotiating directly with drug manufacturers for lower drug prices. Something that all other countries do.
More ominously, this congress completely insulated gun manufacturers from product liability suits.
Just because YOU think it’s untested doesn’t mean it is. YOU seem to forget autonomous cars in some form or another have been around since the 1980s. That’s nearly 30 years of development!!
Recent advances in DNNs and computing have finally make all this work come to fruition.
This is my response: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/24/google_self_driving_car_problems/?mt=1472054776092
see the last line: Google spokesman Johnny Luu has been in touch to say the web giant is “confident” in its autonomous cars’ ability to identify and handle traffic lights, signs, intersections and blinding light from the sun.
Well, what else would a company say of its own product? I want an independent, technically competent body to make that judgement before autonomous cars are deployed, not the folks who stand to profit enormously from them.
Are the basic tenets of spotting conflict of interest unknown to you?
Last time I checked Google doesn’t sell cars…
This article does a god job at supporting this thesis: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/24/google_self_driving_car_problems/?mt=1472054776092
What’s the rush? My dad’s 95.
Thank you for great article. I look forward to the continuation.
There is definately a lot to find out about this subject. I like all the points you made
I gave cbd muscle balm a try payment the first adjust, and I’m amazed! They tasted smashing and provided a sense of calmness and relaxation. My stress melted away, and I slept well-advised too. These gummies are a game-changer an eye to me, and I extremely put forward them to anyone seeking unconstrained emphasis liberation and better sleep.
CBD, or cannabidiol, has been a game changer due to the fact that me. delta 9 thc edibles I’ve struggled with hunger in return years and press tried assorted various medications, but nothing has worked as properly as CBD. It helps me to crave sang-froid and relaxed without any side effects. I also espy that it helps with take and trial management. I’ve tried a variety of brands, but I’ve found that the ones that are lab tested and acquire a genuine noted are the most effective. Overall, I enthusiastically vouch for CBD representing anyone who struggles with foreboding, drop issues, or lasting pain.