back to article It's time to rebuild the world for robots

We redesigned the world for automobiles and now it's time to redesign it for robots. To understand why, consider the sad story of the clothes-folding robot. It turns out that after many years and much research you can get a robot to fold your laundry. But the robot basically sucks at it for pretty much the same reasons that …

  1. frank ly Silver badge

    Theories

    "... and has a ‘tooth’ that’s evolved to engage the whirls of our fingerprints."

    My first reaction was to say that I prefer 'intelligent design' to explain that but on second thoughts then there are strong aspects of 'evolution' in the development of paper making.

  2. Justicesays

    yes

    "Does that mean humans are smart and robots are stupid? "

    Yes it does.

    And we already have autonomous vehicles we redesigned the world around.

    The London DLR for example.

    Avoid collisions with elevated track for its sole use, uses automated switching of prelaid track to ensure it stays on the route, only has limited , but dedicated, stopping places to ensure it doesn't have to worry about parking etc.

    1. tim 13

      Re: yes

      The DLR is automated but not autonomous

    2. Mage Silver badge

      autonomous vehicles we redesigned the world around.

      Trains have their own "roadway". Why don't we automate them first? Then maybe ships and aircraft (first totally automated flight was in 1970s!). Cars seem like the last transport to automate. Though what are Alphabet/Google's motives?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: why don't we automate railways first?

        there are a few reasons: track transport has become sidetracked (sorry), so not much pressure to make it better, and road transport is THE the primary way of transport (if not in volume of this or that raw material moved in bulk, at least in volume of individual vehicles. Which increase, dramatically, a chance of accident). More importantly, I think, it's that the motor car industry is big and kind of... essential in MANY ways (hence money slushing around, a drive (sorry) for progress, slashing costs, insurance, bloodstream of economy, the roads must roll, etc, etc.).

        Another reason is, I suppose, strong unions. For track transport. See London Underground. They could have already - relatively cheaply - automated the tube but then, to make that one leap (and you have to do it in one go, otherwise you'd have London paralysed for months) you'd need to make that decision, stick to it, and do it. It's much, much easier to retain status quo (particularly, as a politician who has no need to go through the experience twice a day for the whole of their working life).

        So yeah, in priciple, if humans were rational, they would start with what' relatively easy - tracked transport. But in real world...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: why don't we automate railways first?

          Because automating cars provides the greatest benefits to the largest number of people.

          Where I am there is a fairly extensive transit system... so 15% of workers travel by transit, walk, or bike to work, while 85% travel by car. In other areas the transit options are fewer or non-existent, and almost everyone drives.

          Freeing 85% of commuters from this chore, while allowing those who cannot, for one or another reason, drive, and allowing those who cannot, for one or another reason, use conventional transit similar transportation capabilities to drivers, seems one of the most socially useful applications of autonomous vehicle technology,

      2. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: autonomous vehicles we redesigned the world around.

        Though what are Alphabet/Google's motives?

        Profit?

        Trains are expensive but low margin, last often 30+ years in service and have longstanding safety boards who searchingly investigate problems with practically infinite resources and eliminate them, often with the full power of government behind them. If the automated train is the problem, it would be eliminated. So, small market with high safety requirements and compliance costs with the impact of problems passed back to the manufacturer makes it hard (and unprofitable) to enter this market.

        Cars meanwhile are a large, profitable market with low safety requirements and low compliance costs as the impact of problems is applied (possibly with lethal force) to the driver who can take the blame while their insurer picks up the costs without the manufacturer bearing any liability, while investigations into accidents are rarely done in any detail beyond stating who was to blame.

  3. Doctor_Wibble
    Boffin

    Minor nitpick, robots can pick up paper

    Robots can definitely pick up bits of paper from a desk - industrial processes use a rod with a row of suction holes in it so the technology does exist.

    To scale it down, one or two holes at the end of an arm (or ends of fingers if you have the fancy one) attached to a bendy pipe with a dustbuster at the other end.

    Anyone who has ever tried to hoover their home office area will be familiar with this principle and how well it works, especially when you get too close to those receipts that are just small and flimsy enough to disappear...

    .

    p.s. handheld hoovers aren't always that good for actual dust, you'll need a coffee tin, a mini paper hoover bag, some tape and a cardboard tube to fix that. Get the right size cardboard tube and you can use regular attachments too.

    1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

      Re: Minor nitpick, robots can pick up paper

      "Robots can definitely pick up bits of paper from a desk "

      Agreed , in my experience its what the printer robot does with it afterwards which is where it falls flat on its arse most of the time , ie bitching that its not the size it thought it should be , and not scaling the image appropriately. putting it in the wrong orientation . Which is all software admittedly , and little to do with robotics. You might also argue its user error but:

      In this country we use A4 99% of the time. Why can a printer not grasp this?

      Why can it not print black when its run out of red?

      Why can it not match the orientation of a rectangular document to a rectangular piece of paper?

      "What the fuck does 'Pc load letter mean?'"

      - Office Space

      1. hughgrection

        Re: Minor nitpick, robots can pick up paper

        PC load letter means "lp0 on fire".

      2. Mage Silver badge

        Re: A4 99% of the time. Why can a printer not grasp this?

        USA and "Letter size" and most SW has USA defaults even though they are < 12% world population. USA doesn't use much metric nor ISO/DIN standards A, B & C series paper system.

        1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

          Re: A4 99% of the time. Why can a printer not grasp this?

          True. its not hard for SW to work out which country its in , especially if it has windows locales stuff to look at . Hell , Windows itself knows where it is when I install it these days , and no longer suggests Seattle time zone , It's be nice if printer drivers followed suite.

          Although the windows installer has yet to work out *when* it is , and will still flash up messages along the lines of "Look at all the flashy new shit this OS has blah blah productivity" , wheres if it checked the calendar it would realise a more appropriate message would be "Sorry you are going through this shit yet again"

  4. TechnicalBen Silver badge

    "For robots, clothing isn’t much easier to handle than paper, because nothing about clothing is regular. Even towels pose huge problems in edge detection, object identification and modeling. It all means that a robot can spend minutes ‘staring’ at a towel, another few minutes trying to grasp it, then - once it’s been successfully grasped, a few moments folding it.

    Does that mean humans are smart and robots are stupid? No. It means we humans have cheated the exam. Clothing is pre-eminently an artifact of human culture. We ‘get’ clothing because it’s an extension of our skin. Robots, in that context, act like aliens dropped in from another universe where there’s no concept of clothing."

    Not quite. Just because it is made for us, does not mean it is even easy for us. Those with visual or neurological processing disabilities will also spend extra time, and take similar less efficient short cuts that robots take.

    One is the extreme speed and knowledge (see Apple/Google training their nets on billions of images), the other is having the right shaped hands. :P

  5. 0laf Silver badge
    Terminator

    Because robots will share this world with us they will need to operate in the ways that suit us.

    It might make sense to adapt roads and houses over time to make the use of robots more efficient but meanwhile they'll need to cope with our world as it is, becasue we still need to use it.

    1. tiggity Silver badge

      Given how unfeasibly long it takes to deal with potholes / road resurfacing in most of the UK, self driving car AI would have improved to deal with the unexpected before most of UK road system upgraded to be robot / AI friendly

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge

        @tiggity

        In my experience, that applies to here in the States as well. I guess we should count ourselves lucky that we have roads as many places in the world don't have them as we know them.

  6. Dave 126 Silver badge

    In warehouses automated pickers and forklift trucks aren't uncommon, often following painted lines or ferrous tracks beneath the floor.

    It reminds me of a scene in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Roger is being chased by some bad guys in a car so he picks up the central white line from the road and points it at a wall. BangCrashWallop!

  7. jake Silver badge

    "And forget a robot lifting a piece of paper off a desk any time soon."

    I guess my sheet-fed printing presses don't work, then.

    Anybody want to buy a used, apparently non-functional, late '60s Heidelberg Windmill OHT 10X13, early '70s KORD, or a nondescript Chief 217?

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: "And forget a robot lifting a piece of paper off a desk any time soon."

      I was just coming on here to point that out. After 6 years technical service at a college of printing, I ought to know what a robot can do with paper. Anyone want to buy a MBO K76 4KTL folding machine? Or a Muller Martini 4 hopper A5 inset, perfect bind and trim machine?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh fuck off ...

    why not start designing the world for humans - particularly those less able ?

    Pauses for apoplectic fit over needless obstacles and cuntish twats abusing adaptaions (e.g blocking dropped kerbs).

    Sorry, it's a bit hurtful to think that robots are getting better treatment that humans (albeit cripples) do. And that offensive word is deliberately there to underscore my offence).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh fuck off ...

      And that offensive word is deliberately there to underscore my offence).

      I wouldn't worry. Some pea-brain will get the wrong end of the stick, flag your post for moderation, and soon it'll be gone forever. Chances are that that pea-brain will be able bodied, busy taking offence on behalf of somebody else (TOOBOSE is a growth industry these days).

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: Oh fuck off ...

        @AC

        Why not both?

        We've seen Segway technology place wheelchair users at head-to-head height with their bipedal peers. If a less mobile human can have their shopping delivered, doesn't that give them more free time to travel to the pub?

        Forgive me if I'm being insensitive, but I haven't grasped why robotics and human accessibility are mutually exclusive. Could you expand upon your point for my benefit?

        Cheers

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: robotics and human accessibility are mutually exclusive.

          I didn't claim they were.

          I was pointing out that it's galling - to say the least - that less able humans have had to struggle to get around. Even in todays "modern age" there are obstacles everywhere.

          But R2D2 has a little step he can't handle,. and its "let's redesign the world, folks".

          Recently, a Costa opened near me. It has a two-level effect, with a nice ramp between the two. Perfect to allow wheelchair users to navigate (and get to the toilets). For various reasons I was there with a local councillor who tried to tell me that the ramp was proof that modern building design caters for the less able.

          Unfortunately for him, the building contractors were there too, They immediately corrected the councillor by pointing out that the *only* reason there was a ramp was because the spec had stated that pallets had to be able to get to the kitchen. And that that requirement was a last minute when the layout changed so there was no back entrance. At no point in the design or build phase did anyone consider a wheelchair user. (Which is confirmed by the layout of the toilets).

    2. David Nash Silver badge

      Re: Oh fuck off ...

      It's not necessarily robots getting "better treatment". The whole point of robots is to make life easier for us, including the less able.

      I do agree with the sentiments about people blocking kerbs etc. But that's a different argument, that's done by thoughtlessness, not design.

      1. Smooth Newt
        Meh

        Re: Oh fuck off ...

        It's not necessarily robots getting "better treatment". The whole point of robots is to make life easier for us, including the less able.

        No, the whole point of robots is to make money for the investors in the technology. Social benefits are neither here nor there in the calculation. In fact, I expect there to be vast numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled workers chucked onto the midden heap with no replacement jobs to go to. Perhaps they can use all that free time to take up some financially rewarding hobby to partly offset their poverty, like begging or crime.

        1. Daniel 18

          Re: Oh fuck off ...

          "It's not necessarily robots getting "better treatment". The whole point of robots is to make life easier for us, including the less able.

          No, the whole point of robots is to make money for the investors in the technology."

          Stop being overly simplistic.

          In most projects, policies, etc., different stakeholders have different goals and expectations that will be met by a well designed result. Anything requiring the participation of more than one group must satisfy more than one agenda. If everyone put the same value hierarchy on things, no one would ever buy or sell anything... but since both sides of a trade see an advantage in trading, both benefit.

  9. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Just who's world is it, anyway?

    > we shouldn’t expect that we can simply drop an autonomous vehicle into a road system that’s been designed around human capacities and expect them to perform like we do

    Uhhh, yes. We should. Because that is what backwards compatibility is all about. Keeping old standard while introducing new ones isn't easy. We know that from the past 60-odd years of IT development. However, if you want your new stuff to be accepted by a population that has a large investment in the old stuff, it is a prime requirement.

    And apart from that, why should all the people on the planet change their world to accommodate a bunch of machines? The example of printer paper is a good one. It was hard for printer mechanisms to do what we do easily - but it wasn't impossible. And with printers now being sold for £30, it doesn't appear to be an overwhelming increase in complexity or cost or loss of reliability. The manufacturers of AVs that get it right will succeed, those that can't will fail. But they should fail before they get a vehicle on the roads.

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: Just who's world is it, anyway?

      > And apart from that, why should all the people on the planet change their world to accommodate a bunch of machines?

      Well, to use the paved road example, it allowed goods to be more easily transported to market, and for people to cycle to the next village to court the landlord's daughter. By changing our environment to suit wheeled vehicles, we saved ourselves labour.

      1. lucki bstard

        Re: Just who's world is it, anyway?

        How save do these examples save labour 'cycle to the next village to court the landlord's daughter' so before that you wouldn't have courted her you would have courted someone else close to hand. You have in fact added to the labour cost because you are now cycling to a distant location rather than before where you would have not needed to cycle but would have gone with the local women'

        ' it allowed goods to be more easily transported to market,' - Hmmm again, macadamization was done before automobiles, it allowed a transfer of transport from ie canals to roads but the labour was the same instead the location of the labour was changed. It could be argued that the cost of labour increased because these new road services had to be built in the first place.

        If the robot needs the world changing to suit it then why aren't humans changed to fit into a robot based world.

        1. Dave 126 Silver badge

          Re: Just who's world is it, anyway?

          I'm not going to defend all aspects of this modern, mechanised, interconnected world. However, infrastructure is an investment in labour - you get more out than you put in. You could walk from the stream to your house everyday carrying water, or you could invest the time in digging a culvert or laying a pipe. The final cost/benefit analysis falls on the side of the latter, else why bother?

          Oh, and when English cobbled roads fell in to a state of disrepair, many farmers emigrated to the new world.

        2. CentralCoasty
          Happy

          Re: Just who's world is it, anyway?

          "How save do these examples save labour 'cycle to the next village to court the landlord's daughter' so before that you wouldn't have courted her you would have courted someone else close to hand."....

          .... just had to reply to this..... watched Deliverance recently? Perfect vindication of the need for ahm... courting away from your own locale......

          As to compatibility - yes the world will change, but it will take decades - and the robots are going to have to deal with what we have for the time-being. Look how it was when cycles & the motor car started. Gravel roads, cart-tracks & cobbles. 140 years on and... yes, we still have unpaved cart-tracks in places, gravel roads - and even cobbles in some places (especially where the road is worn down!).

          So I think its fair to say that robots will be dealing with our crappy infrastructure for some time to come.....

    2. Chris G Silver badge

      Re: Just who's world is it, anyway?

      A fairly important point the writer of the article didn't make is that the changes to the world to accomodate motor vehicles happened gradually alongside and a little behind the advance of them.

      Considering how much greater the population of vehicles is now compared to then, to immediately rebuild the infrastructure to accomodate all the autonomous vehicles that would be needed would be impractical and means there would eed to be an almost overnight change from one to the other. Autonomous vehicles need to take over in stages as driver controlled vehicles are staged out, those AVs coming in should be able to cope with the existing roads, As AVs become the norm then the world can change fully to make AV's little robot brains happy.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Daleks don't like stairs; So the plan is...

    That we spend what will ultimately be billions making the world more convenient for robots, in order to more easily automate trivial tasks (like clothes folding), or in the case of some paid tasks (from shelf stacking to delivery driving and haulage) to put some relatively low wage oik out of a job.

    Where's the economic case here? Initially there might be some additional construction and automation jobs, but AFAICS the obvious solution is to make sure that robots fit the human world, rather than throwing our hands up and saying "Too difficult, not fair! Lets change the whole human world to make Google's job easier".

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Obligitory Matrix Reference

    That’s a mechanical line. It’s impossible, no one can pilot mechanical.

  12. John Robson Silver badge

    Roads were not built for cars...

    http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com

    In many ways I agree that we can easily make life much easier for autonomous systems (RFID in cats eyes seems a particularly easy way of giving lane/speed limit/distance to next junction information)..

    But the cobblestones weren't removed for cars - the removal enabled cars - and look how badly that has turned out for vast swathes of the country.

    There are other transport modes, but we are in the thrall of the car, and everything must bow down before it. eugh.

  13. ZanzibarRastapopulous

    Humans...

    I can't fold clothes either.

    1. Steve the Cynic Silver badge

      Re: Roads were not built for cars...

      "But the cobblestones weren't removed for cars"

      There are still places where the cobblestones weren't removed at all.

      I live near Lille, in northern France, and the northern part of Lille, "Vieux Lille" still has cobblestoned roads.

      The main reason to remove cobblestones is that they are *noisy*. (They're also not the friendliest of things for cyclists.)

      1. Pedigree-Pete
        Coat

        Re: Cobblestones..

        @ Steve the Cynic.

        Thank you, that brought to mind the 2 Nuns on bikes joke I have not though about in years.

        OK. 2 Nuns on their bikes on a cobbled street.

        1st Nun says "I haven't come this way before".

        2nd Nun says" Yes, good isn't it".

        Yeh Yeh. The one with the Bob Monkhouse Joke Book.

      2. John Robson Silver badge

        Re: Roads were not built for cars...

        Cobblestones aren't noisy - the cars driving over them are noisy...

    2. Daniel 18

      Re: Roads were not built for cars...

      "(RFID in cats eyes seems a particularly easy way of giving lane/speed limit/distance to next junction information)"

      Except we don't 'catseyes' because if recessed in winter they fill with snow, and if not recessed tend to fall prey to the snowplows pretty quick.

  14. Mage Silver badge

    No, time to design better robots.

    Robots ARE stupid. They only carry out predefined actions of the designers.

    The whole premise of the article is totally flawed. Ants carrying off leaves, cutting them, farming aphids etc.

    We have laid roads in Northern Euorpe since BEFORE the Romans conquered. Roads predate cars by over 3000 years! We have not reshaped the world for them.

    There are no general purpose robots and no general AI.

    Dishwashing. Not done by imitating humans, but by a special design of machine. The real reasons there is no robot to pickup paper from desks or fold clothes is lack of a viable market at the price point the machines can be made.

    Steam Engine and Steam Turbine needed changes to industry and economics to make them viable to spend time developing, for 1000s of years, horses, wind, water & human power was more economic. Pumping water from ever deeper tin mines in Cornwall was a major impetus. Tin was mined in Cornwall and copper in Ireland for Mediterranean bronze nearly 3000 years ago by hand because it was more accessible and labour was cheaper.

    The writer needs to research robotics, software and socio-economics that influence industrial development. More things depend on a market than on new inventions. Supersonic passenger aircraft, hovercraft, faster ships to bring tea, spices leading to Suez and Panama. Refrigeration.

    Tractors impetus due to loss of labour on land due to Industrial wages and WWI.

    1. CentralCoasty

      Re: No, time to design better robots.

      "Tractors impetus due to loss of labour on land due to Industrial wages and WWI...."

      ..... and the loss of the horses to the army (loss of horses on the Western front was enormous)

  15. find users who cut cat tail

    We redesigned the world for automobiles...

    And it was a colossal mistake. Many places are now becoming automobile-unfriendly and redesigning for humans.

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: We redesigned the world for automobiles...

      Helps in the event of a Dalek attack too.

    2. David Nash Silver badge

      Re: We redesigned the world for automobiles...

      It wasn't a colossal mistake, it was necessary in order to use cars. But it wasn't done in the best way. That is being resolved in some places.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: We redesigned the world for automobiles...

      "And it was a colossal mistake. Many places are now becoming automobile-unfriendly and redesigning for humans."

      Automobile unfriendly is human unfriendly, given how useful automobiles are to most humans.

      There is no good justification for denying people adequate flexible transportation options, which is the great promise of autonomous automobiles.

  16. strum Silver badge

    We need to ask ourselves why we need/want robots. Is it because they're inherently safer or more accurate (both are possible)? If so, I'm right there with you. If we want to make human life/work more useful/pleasant - bring it on.

    But if we want them because we don't want to pay a human to do the job - then we're rather missing the point of all this civilisation malarkey We don't exist to make life easier for machines (or their investors). They exist for us.

    Get that wrong and Mr Robot can expect several sabots up his exhaust pipe.

    1. Daniel 18

      "But if we want them because we don't want to pay a human to do the job - then we're rather missing the point of all this civilisation malarkey"

      On the contrary, we don't want to force humans to do unneeded work. If that was what we wanted we could just bring back telephone and elevator operators, and hand-spinning for all our cloth.

      Increasing productivity is how we can all become wealthier, in real terms. That's why everyone can now have a telephone and more than one or two sets of clothing.

  17. NBCanuck

    Who pays for it all?

    So is this something that car manufacturers want the government to pay for with our taxes? This is not something that will benefit even a small majority for a long time to come (if ever). Everyone paying for the benefit of a small number of people and the auto manufacturers is not something I want to see. Have each region put forth a plebiscite (listing the pros and cons (including details on proposed expenditures and timelines) to see if they want this and I doubt you would see too many takers.

  18. Florida1920 Silver badge
    Alien

    I, for one,

    welcome our new deaf, dumb and blind overlords.

  19. Adrian Harvey

    We did redesign paper

    I remember "computer" paper being incredibly common - you know, the stuff with holes down the side for a tractor feed system to pick it up and pull it through the printer in one continuous stream. And stuff with tear-off holes for printers where you wanted things that looked like sheets of paper afterwards.

    Then we un-redesigned it.

  20. DougS Silver badge

    So instead of taking or decade or two to make self driving cars work on our roads

    We should take a decade or two to make our roads work for self driving cars?

    The reason cars need to operate on our roads with our insufficient and confusing signage, lack of lane markers in many cases, and so forth is because those are the roads we have. Sure, we can modernize expressways to work well for self driving cars, but once you leave them the meatbag in the front seat (that's you) will need to take over if they can only handle dumbed down driving tasks in areas with sensors on the road or QRcodes on the signage.

    If the goal is to have autonomous cars that can drive everywhere - i.e. a car without a steering wheel or pedals - it will have to learn to handle the roads as we have them. And handle places that aren't roads, if for example I want to drive into my backyard to unload something heavy instead of walking it around the house from the driveway.

  21. handleoclast Silver badge

    Chuffing paper

    Yeah, machines can't handle paper. It's nigh-on impossible.

    Strange, that. Because in the early 60s I was given a tour of the works of a jobbing printer. All the machinery was old, probably most of it second-hand. I could hear the constant chuffing of the pneumatics as the Heidelberg and the two Thompsons effortlessly and flawlessy picked up sheets of paper from the feed stack, moved them to the platen for impressing, then moved the paper to the output stack.

    As I dimly recall, the poster machines did it purely mechanically without the aid of pneumatics, but I only saw them operating briefly.

    Whether or not such mechanisms would be economically feasible in a robot, it's not impossible.

  22. bigknob

    Refreshing new perspective, I for one had not thought about it like that before. Why not get AI to tell us what it would like the infrastructure to feel like?

    Peter Whittaker

  23. Ugotta B. Kiddingme

    I disagree with the conclusion of the article

    "That we haven’t even begun to build a robot-friendly world tells me that the race to autonomy reveals more about ourselves than our creations. I wonder if we should feel a bit embarrassed about that."

    I think the author has overlooked the simplest and most obviously practical reasons WHY "we haven't even begun to build a robot-friendly world." COST. In a time when there simply isn't enough tax money available to provide enough properly maintained roadways PLUS all the myriad other responsibilities of government, then something has to give way. Rebuilding a more or less functioning infrastructure to accommodate robots is an unaffordable luxury when we lack sufficient funding to provide education, basic healthcare, assistance to the less fortunate and, on national scales, matters of self defense, etc.

    If you want to build any NEW road to robot-friendly specs, then that's certainly a possibility but, rebuilding an existing and perfectly serviceable roadway to accommodate robots is simply too expensive until we've solved other, higher priorities. I am NOT attempting to inject politics into the discussion. It seems to me to be simple practicality, given the current array of needs vs. the currently available pool of money to pay for them.

    Yes, we need to dream and that dream should be big. However, we must also deal with reality as it currently exists as we find a path to fulfill the dream.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019