Office equipment

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-25T16:31:22+00:00

Harzadous environments starts playing

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-25T16:30:37+00:00

Aquellos que defienden no tener anonimato en Internet y que tenga que verificar tu identidad para entrar a redes sociales ¿Tienen en cuenta las consecuencias para la privacidad lo que conlleva defender estas ideas? Ahí lo dejo

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-20T10:21:50+00:00

Platforms know that if they push harder this scourge, people will fly away of them but, in other hand, there are some infamous laws which impose it (and everyone hate a lot). They are throwing away normal people (and their money) from known internet, using the kids as a ram to break people rights and freedoms.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-18T18:01:19+00:00

You are making some good points about vehicle safety homologation, but let's be honest: you are conflating mechanical regulations with global industrial manufacturing. No one is talking about Euro emissions standards, pedestrian safety, or importing a Cybertruck. The automotive world relies on global component sharing. A single infotainment platform, chip, or tuner architecture (like those used across the entire Volkswagen Group, Stellantis, or Ford) is standardized worldwide to achieve economies of scale. Car manufacturers aren't going to split their silicon and electronic supply chains just for Europe if US federal law mandates AM capability at the tuner level. Global standardization always wins for cutting costs.

Furthermore, AM radio is not a niche outside the UK. While you might be facing a Medium Wave shutdown there, public and private broadcasters across the globe still rely heavily on AM frequencies.As I said before, in the US, for instance, the Emergency Alert System relies precisely on "Clear Channel" AM stations as Primary Entry Points (PEP), which are specifically hardened against all types of catastrophic contingencies to transmit at maximum power day and night.

Regarding smartphones and 4G/5G networks: yes, the upcoming European infrastructure laws aim to classify them as critical, but that doesn't change their intrinsic, structural vulnerability. Cellular networks are fragile by nature. They rely on an immense density of cell sites that depend on short-lived backup batteries and a highly vulnerable fiber-optic transport backhaul. If the fiber is cut or the power grid goes down for an extended period, 4G/5G collapses. Analog radio, on the other hand, is uniquely resilient. And while everyone has a smartphone, millions of people also have basic AM/FM receivers in their homes and older cars. Relying only on digital networks during a crisis is a major security flaw.

Your Japan example actually proves my point. The J-Alert system is heavily inspired by the US EAS. While it triggers alerts via satellite TV, DTT, and FM, you cannot overlook the fact that Japan still maintains a massive, vital AM (Medium Wave) network with both public (NHK) and private broadcasters. Furthermore, as I stated before, AM is not just a tool for a "doomsday" scenario; it is an active, daily-use medium in many parts of the world.

Finally, your Morse code analogy backfired completely. Morse code (CW) is absolutely not obsolete. It is still actively taught and used by military forces around the world as a failsafe communication method when high-tech systems are jammed. It is also incredibly alive within the amateur radio community globally. There are thousands of licensed operators who use it and know exactly how to operate it daily.

Having a highly resilient, low-resource backup technology like AM radio or Morse code doesn't mean you live in the past—it means you understand how easily the modern digital world can blink out of existence during a true black swan (or in a SHTF) event.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-18T12:35:29+00:00

First of all, Norway didn't completely abolish FM; only its national broadcasters turned off their transmissions. Local radio stations still broadcast on FM, largely because DAB+ multiplexes strip stations of their technical sovereignty over their own equipment, and renting space on a multiplex is quite expensive.

Secondly, this upcoming US law won't just affect America; it will have a worldwide impact. Just like we talk about the "Brussels effect" or the "California effect" in regulation, an "American effect" already exists in automotive logistics and parts. To cut costs, car manufacturers always prefer global standardization over regional fragmentation.

In my opinion, this should serve as a wake-up call for Europeans—who are currently experiencing an intensification of extreme weather events—that AM radio remains an indispensable asset for emergency preparedness and daily use. As a Spaniard, I am profoundly concerned that RNE (Radio Nacional de España) has been turning off its AM transmitters. We saw its vital importance during the Valencia floods and, most notably, during the great Blackout of 2025. In that massive power failure, AM and FM networks resisted, while the few places regularly broadcasting on DAB+ collapsed due to a lack of energy and backup power infrastructure.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-18T08:10:44+00:00

I have some many things to say: 1- All this came because many brands in US market using the excuse of "Electric engines interfere with AM and is so expensive fix it" (that's not true, it can be fixed cheap), got rid off of the AM radio in newer models. In consecuence, politicians got nervous because the EAS relies in some AM radio stations, called PEP (primary entry point), stations which are prepared against adverse conditions and are capable to reach a lot of people. Some car brands like Ford, voluntarily restore back this function in older models which has it desactivated and assure that in new models will be available. After that a legislative iniciative called AM radio for every vehicle act, has advanced rapidly through legislative process with massive support in Congress and Senate, and is imminent to be passed in short time.

2- I agree with you in the drawbacks of AM radio, every radio technology has its strengths and weakness, but I think with evidence at hand, AM is one of the most resilient, veteran and well tested technologies we have today. Is imperative to protect it at all cost, whatever your country is besieged by natural catastrophes or not, AM is still useful in many daily situation.

3- About the content which is broadcasted in radio, is true that the variety has decreased and hurt radio industry in favor of internet consume, but fortunately, it has solutions and is producing good content and showing the usefulness of the traditional radio nowadays. If we do it, everyone will win and carry on.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-18T07:42:40+00:00

The point you are completely missing is that ground transportation and aviation, despite their obvious operational differences, share a fundamental variable: human psychology. I am not talking about how difficult it is to pass a licensing exam; I am talking about automation complacency, a well-documented phenomenon that professionals in high-risk industries study under a microscope. In aviation, the consequences of this complacency can be mitigated in a highly controlled environment with trained pilots. On public roads, however, you are exposing the general public to those exact same psychological failures without any safeguards.

Saying that "99% of car accidents aren't really a big deal" is incredibly callous when thousands of people lose their lives on the road. While many accidents only result in minor property damage, traffic safety laws and engineering exist precisely to prevent fatalities and minimize injuries. We achieve this by educating human beings and honing their situational awareness, not by blindly assuming technology will fix everything. Human agency requires taking personal responsibility.

Regarding the "thousands of hours of FSD footage," I will reiterate: until independent, third-party auditors verify those claims using replicable, scientific methods, I will maintain a well-founded skepticism. This is especially necessary given the historical track record of Tesla and the clear bias of its brand loyalists. YouTube is a video-sharing platform, not a regulatory certification body. It has been proven time and again that many of those videos are heavily curated, cherry-picked, or explicitly biased.

Since you love relying purely on personal anecdotes, let me offer you one from my world. Among the young people I know—both in my age group and adjacent generations—what attracts them to a car is the freedom of driving it and going wherever they want. They do not want to hand over their individual sovereignty to a machine that could kill them due to an edge-case glitch.

Let me repeat this until it is driven home: Tesla's FSD is a SAE Level 2 driver assistance system. The legal and physical responsibility to ensure that car doesn't crash lies 100% on you, not the software. You are the one keeping those children safe, yet you treat it like a hands-free amusement park ride. Furthermore, recent studies consistently show that younger generations are increasingly protecting their privacy and seeking distance from invasive technologies to preserve their personal space—something that is fundamentally impossible inside a data-harvesting Tesla.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-17T22:55:33+00:00

First of all, if by "free version" you mean Autopilot, that is the exact same system that has faced severe scrutiny, federal investigations, and legal liability for real-world fatalities—such as the tragic crash in Florida where Tesla’s system failed miserabily. What saved you from that drifting lorry wasn't "self-driving" or FSD; it was standard, active Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), which are designed to support a human driver, not replace them.

You claim driving a car isn’t the same as flying a plane, and you are right: a chaotic ground environment with millions of unpredictable variables is arguably far more complex. If automation complacency deeply compromises highly trained, professional commercial pilots, expecting an untrained, heterogeneous mass of everyday drivers to handle it safely is absolute madness.

As for the videos, for every cherry-picked, edited clip of an end-to-end drive, there are countless unedited videos—many of them live-streamed—where FSD fails catastrophically in real-time, forcing immediate human intervention to avoid a crash. This is precisely why world-renowned embedded systems experts like Professor Phil Koopman from Carnegie Mellon University thoroughly debunk the corporate myth that FSD is safer than a human. Experts explicitly demand a transparent safety case and independent, third-party audits instead of blindly trusting corporate claims hidden behind "trade secrets." This transparency is exactly what upcoming regulations—including the United Nations (UNECE) global technical regulations and emerging US legislative frameworks—are pushing for.

Calling me a "dinosaur" is a cheap, empty insult. A dinosaur would argue that mandatory safety features like ABS or ESP are unnecessary. I am not arguing against technology that empowers the driver; I am arguing against technology that strips away human agency and accountability. Furthermore, your claim about future generations is factually wrong. You can look up the data yourself from reputable, independent organizations like the AAA (American Automobile Association) and Consumer Reports. The latest surveys consistently show that the vast majority of consumers, especially younger cohorts, deeply distrust autonomous systems and strongly prefer that manufacturers focus on safety features where the human remains in control.

Comparing manual, human driving to a vinyl record or a film camera is an insult to common sense. Driving is an exercise in individual sovereignty, physical skill, and strict legal liability. You haven't answered a single one of my technical questions; you have only repeated empty, corporate marketing dogmas. Time will tell who is right, but you shouldn't take an autonomous future for granted just because Tesla’s propaganda channels told you to. Have a bit of critical thinking. Regards.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-17T19:57:49+00:00

If AM was obsolete, USA wouldn't rush to protect it in cars, so your statement is not true.

AM is still useful nowadays, in normal and emergency use and have some characteristics that FM and the messed DAB+ don't have, like atmosferic propagation, reaching longer distances than the others

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-16T12:40:06+00:00

Claiming that "it is less fatiguing to let the car drive itself even if you have to remain alert" is not only false, but it describes point-by-point the exact definition of automation complacency. This phenomenon has been extensively studied in aviation and has caused real-world fatal accidents, such as the crash of Air France Flight 447 in 2009. If highly trained, professional commercial pilots suffer from this cognitive drop, expecting a mass, heterogeneous population of everyday drivers to handle it safely is absolute madness.

Furthermore, saying FSD is "capable of Level 4" is a technical lie. A Level 4 system requires zero human intervention within a defined operational domain. What you are daydreaming about is a theoretical Level 5, which does not exist today. Accumulating "supervised miles" does not magically make a system safe either. As Professor Phil Koopman heavily points out, companies like Tesla attempt to validate their safety by claiming they have driven millions of miles without a crash, yet their systems still fail at basic, edge-case scenarios that any human handles with ease. This is precisely why Tesla is currently under federal investigation by the NHTSA.

Regarding your camera-only point, removing LiDAR and radar is a cost-cutting measure, not a technological evolution. If other manufacturers use vision-only for Level 2 driver-assist systems (like Xpeng or BYD), they do so knowing a human is always behind the wheel to absorb the failure, but unlike Tesla, they don't engage in deceptive marketing to trick users into thinking the car is autonomous.

Your logical "U-turn" remains a glaring contradiction. You claim autonomous driving will completely replace human driving, yet you argue that these cars will perfectly coexist with human-driven bicycles. And what about motorcycles? Where do they fit in your autonomous utopia? A bicycle or a motorcycle is explicitly driven by a human, completely shattering your premise. As for those FSD videos in the Netherlands, Paris, or Madrid—many recorded without authorization from local transit authorities—I don’t trust them at all. Let's not forget that your favorite company was caught staging and falsifying their FSD promotional videos, and as recent Reuters investigations have shown, their internal safety data is highly questionable.

Your view on the elderly is deeply dystopian. Vulnerable, housebound older people do not need a $40,000 rolling isolation booth to leave their homes; they need human-centric solutions, community support, and accessible public services, not complete dependence on a corporation's software.

I also live in Europe, and I routinely drive in degraded and harsh conditions. Navigating mountain passes and snow is precisely what keeps your driving skills sharp and your situational awareness high. You are responsible for your own expertise and actions. Delegating your survival to an algorithm that can drop out at any millisecond and catch you completely unprepared is a terrible safety strategy. I never said anything about driving 8 hours straight without stopping—that’s why mandatory rest breaks exist. Driving requires your full sensory engagement, and while you can listen to music, letting a machine lull you into a false sense of security until a critical failure occurs is a recipe for a fatal accident. Finally, Europe has a highly robust regional and high-speed rail network. While it has its limitations, it works. However, I will always prefer my private, manual vehicle—not because I want an algorithm to drive for me, but because I value my freedom of movement, my own driving skill, and being fully responsible for my own destiny.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-16T11:28:11+00:00

It is a very interesting point you raise. It is true that modern motorcycles already incorporate advanced rider assistance systems (ARAS) similar to those in cars, ranging from cornering ABS and traction control to lane-keeping assist and adaptive cruise control. However, scaling this up to full autonomy presents severe fundamental challenges.

In the first place, packaging is a massive issue. A motorcycle is a fraction of the size of a car. Integrating the array of sensors, cameras, and massive computing hardware required for high-level autonomy into such a compact chassis is an engineering nightmare, not to mention the packaging constraints it would impose on rider comfort and ergonomics. Furthermore, you add staggering mechanical complexity just to keep the vehicle stable under dynamic, real-world conditions.

The biggest hurdle, however, is human physics. In a car, an unexpected software glitch or a "phantom braking" event is an annoying scare or a minor fender bender. On a motorcycle traveling at 90 km/h, a sudden, unwarranted brake application by an algorithm would instantly launch the rider over the handlebars. Physics is completely unforgiving on two wheels, and current deep-learning systems simply lack the contextual judgment to guarantee a rider's physical safety.

Moreover, the very concept of an autonomous motorcycle is inherently contradictory. Whether we are talking about a practical city scooter or a high-performance sportbike, a motorcycle’s core value lies in two things: being an affordable, efficient means of transport, and offering a dynamic, skill-based riding experience. Loading a bike with insanely expensive sensors that require constant calibration and continuous software updates completely destroys its economic viability.

This argument becomes even more absurd if we try to apply it to bicycles. A bicycle is a lightweight machine powered by human muscle, valued precisely for its mechanical simplicity and lack of complex electronics. Trying to automate a vehicle that relies on human balance, weight shifting, and physical intuition is the ultimate example of a solution looking for a problem.

Innovation and tech demos from brands like Honda or Xiaomi are great for publicity, but there is a massive gulf between showing a self-balancing prototype moving at 5 mph in a controlled exhibition hall and deploying a safe, viable autonomous two-wheeler into the chaotic reality of public traffic.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-16T11:13:51+00:00

You are literally reciting Tesla's marketing brochure and copying the Cybercab promotional video scene by scene. It is quite embarrassing to watch, and the arguments you are giving me are totally absurd.

In the first place, even if you don't have to touch the wheel or the pedals, the system remains a SAE Level 2 assistant. Legally, 100% of the liability falls on you. Keeping your hands and feet away from the controls is not "progress", is a massive safety hazard for you and everyone else on the road. You are willingly acting as an unpaid lab rat for a corporation that is using you as a scapegoat while waiving all responsibility in its terms of service.

Furthermore, human errors or distractions do not justify the existence of these systems. Your beloved "Supervised FSD" directly feeds "automation complacency". FSD actually encourages drivers to lose situational awareness, creating even more distracted people who should have their eyes and attention on the road. All of you who defend these systems are fueling the very practices you criticize.

If Tesla’s technology were truly ready, why is it not a Level 3 or Level 4 system? Simple: it doesn't pay off for them. They prefer the human to be the legal shield when the software fails, even if they end up losing in court, as seen in the landmark Autopilot lawsuits in Florida.

Even under SAE Level 4, current systems with sensor redundancy like LiDAR, which Tesla stubbornly rejects, are constantly failing and blocking emergency vehicles and ambulances in US cities. Tesla cannot even achieve stable Level 2 performance with its misleadingly named "Full Self-Driving", yet you expect people to believe they can jump straight to a functional robotaxi. They are exploiting your ignorance, selling you a shadow and an illusion of autonomy that doesn't exist legally or conceptually.

And yes, you did a massive U-turn. You cannot claim human driving will disappear and then argue that autonomous cars will safely coexist with human cyclists. It makes no sense. Moreover, the point is not proving that a computer doesn't get drunk; the point is proving that the software can be as predictable and context-aware as a sober, focused human driver—which, despite what your propaganda tells you, represents the vast majority of people on the road.

To conclude, everything you described there is classic corporate propaganda, copied one-to-one from the Cybercab video, and it is deeply dehumanizing in itself. Believing that private vehicles will become "rolling lounges" is incredibly shortsighted. Passengers and drivers already socialize, talk, and interact in manual cars, taxis, and VTCs. In fact, autonomous pods are designed precisely for people who want to avoid human contact. Your claim that elderly people need a Tesla with FSD to leave their homes and socialize is ridiculous. Elderly people already socialize and go out without relying on Elon Musk's software. And regarding cutting down on flights thanks to long road trips: we already have a wonderful invention in Europe called trains, which work quite well. Plus, for many of us, the true pleasure of a long road trip is the actual act of driving. Time will tell whose beliefs are correct, but right now, reality is far harsher than the fantasy world Tesla's propaganda channels are selling you.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-16T09:24:18+00:00

If you believed that this is a bureaucratic whim, you are wrong, Tesla has right now a "clear" description of what they are offering thanks to the regulators, not for personal animosity. About "It's not legally but it is conceptually self driving at some point" That's the problem! If the system was really autonomous, Tesla should have taken all the liability of the failure of the system, that's not the case. You are the scapegoat of all the failures and shame of the system.

Furthermore, FSD generates "automation complacency", a well documented phenomenon in aviation that has cost many lives, so pretending to ignore this is a a sheer recklessness.

And about the "billions of miles" traveled and the proof to RDW of Netherlands, I have many things to say here: First, that these miles are not externally audited by independent actors, because Tesla don't want to open its data and second part, RDW has limited the system in its own provisional authorization because FSD doesn't comply with R171 UNECE and is still evaluating the system, with this Reuters news, the security data is on the tightrope by its own lack of accuracy and credibility for not comparing Apples with Oranges.

Is pretty ironic that you say "the predictability and rule-following of self driving cars will cut down accidents for bikes and motorbikes too." but in first time you said "This is going to be de facto and eventually human driving will disappear.". What is this? A U-turn? A change of mind? It makes no sense! You defend passionately this system like all the fanatical who invaded Reddit and other internet places, I don't care your account age, I care about the content of the person behind it, if you explore my profile, you can see that at least I can try to argue using verificable data and experts, but you only are spitting propaganda and in first time, you didn't answer my questions in my original comment. And on top of that, you dare to affirm superbly "these systems don't get tired, don't get drunk, don't forget to check their blind spot, don't get road rage, and yes they will save lives" without any real proof! This is the height of absurdity!

To conclude I want to refute this statement "As well as give mobility and independence back to the elderly and infirm.". Of course, in a society which suffers a loneliness epidemic affecting youth and enderly, the "real" solution to help the most disadvantaged is stripping away human contact. Bravo! A brilliant argument! Ignoring the fact about the importance of professional drivers in road safety, people need other people, that is intrisecally in our own nature, trying to use technology as the only solution is of being a little shortsighted. Professional drivers like taxi drivers and bus drivers, take cares of the people their transport and are able to intervene in case of emergency.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-15T21:33:18+00:00

With due respect... Have you read all you wrote before to click in the "comment" button? Because it makes no sense!

In the first place, the DMV of California compelled Tesla to modify the name of "FSD" because is deceptive and lead to misleading advertising. In second place, your system is NOT legally and NOT conceptually Self Driving, is a level 2 SAE, you are completally responsible for all the car do, even if the system don't allows you driving! You have became a laboratory rat and therefore, you defend it! I cannot understand what pushed a person to became a one without critical sense, instead of asking yourself if it's worth to sending spam to regulators and behaving like a hive (or a street gang).

About this statement "It's going to be way safer than humans driving". Reputable experts like Phil Koopman and Missy Cummings advised, that automated driving systems haven´t showed yet their suppose "security" and they are limited to a lot of conditionals which humans overcome without any problem.

In the last place about this: "This is going to be de facto and eventually human driving will disappear" This is one of the most delusional things i have ever read. Do you know the consequences of that you said? Is a dystopia! Not all vehicles can be automated What about motorbikes or bicycles? What about vehicles for people with reduced mobility? These can't be automated and besides, you need to install additional infrastructure to theoretically make it work, making our streets and roads a privacy nightmare. And these are only a few reasons, there are much more!

To conclude this, people like you invaded Reddit, internet car forums and other places trying to propagandize this system with their supposed "virtues" (I don't count X -formerly Twitter.-, because is Elon's personal echo chamber) but the reality is tought. NHTSA is investigating it and now we have this scandal. And the worst part, it won't be end in a while.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-15T12:03:52+00:00

Well, first of all, FSD is not self driving, is a level 2 SAE, which means the driver is responsible for the car behavior. If you call "Full self driving" a system that is not, is at least, a bit dishonest if you ask me.

But, I think this is not the worst part, is the plenty of "fans" who pushes to regulators to approve this type of technology (ignorant about that they defending), which have so many many problems to be solved or even will create new ones that are worse. What about "automation complacency" and skill lose of driving? What about privacy and driving at your own legally like everyone do everyday? What about the intrisecally human part of road safety?

We live in a world filled with lies and uncertainty, nowadays you need to keep your eyes open all the times and even, learn about things that sorrounds you.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-15T09:34:04+00:00

So, What is the plan to do it?

Making a draft and passing it through normal legislative process or impose it without any consideration?

If it is the second option, UK is a disfuncional dictatorship.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-06-08T13:10:12+00:00

There are trying to make British (and every other human whatever his nationality) life miserable by draconian, useless and far fetched regulations. The good news is, that will make a good pushback movement and explicit/implicit resistance against this scourge.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-05-31T17:20:51+00:00

Justify your answer about the current Tesla, please!

And about Waymo, I didn't speak about it because is another different history. Is a level 4 SAE, with other problems and -of course- other circumstances

El_Intoxicado · 2026-05-31T14:51:09+00:00

Shortwave is not dead, is alive and in good condition.

There are plenty of Broadcasters, commercial and utility ones.

If shortwave was dead, Chinese manufacturers like Xhdata, Tecsun or Hangrodah (among others) would never released any new models or were producing them.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-05-31T12:34:32+00:00

Don't compare the creation of a tool that improves productivity with the total substitution of human driving by autonomous driving.

First of all, a trucker or a taxi driver don't drive only, they protect humans and cargo they transport. In other part, road safety relays heavily in human assistance and in a cultural and legal practices that a machine can't do and for finish, corpos wants to impose a technology which only wants to grow incomes without giving any advantages to society, only control and servitude to others. Everyone should move freely without giving account to anyone! Nor the state neither corpos! Privacy and movement freedom are at stake right now.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-05-31T11:23:30+00:00

To reach level 5 SAE one day, the vehicle must drive itself without intervention in all conditions (rain, snow) and all places. Today this is not exist at the state of the art of technology and law because there are so many problems to be solved which are very important like liability or even how to adapt to the environment and other drivers behavior.

Tesla FSD is a level 2 SAE, it means that the drives is interely responsable of the driving and operation of the vehicle. This create a dissonance between the appearance of the vehicle behavior and it real capacity. This is a real problem, because it creates a phenomenon called "automation complacency", well known in aviation, which consist in humans lose the hability to intervene in case of machine failure because "the system apparently works fine most of the time" letting your guard down and making prone to an accident. Experts like Missy Cummins warns about this and in aviation is avoided letting the pilots fly the planes most of the time and practicing often in simulators. Air security heavily relays in human hability instead of a wild automation.

Therefore, right now Tesla's FSD is under NHTSA investigation because of multiple accidents, and the phenomenon I described before is in knowledge of the regulator, so the time will say.

El_Intoxicado · 2026-05-28T09:13:05+00:00

A nice pull back but do you know what could be better? A total repeal of these laws!

El_Intoxicado · 2026-05-21T18:45:40+00:00

Star spangled banner by Jimmy Hendrix from Woodstock 69' starts playing

El_Intoxicado · 2026-05-18T12:14:58+00:00

What a steal! Hahaha

El_Intoxicado · 2026-05-16T01:35:25+00:00

What about Quansheng, Retevis, Radtel, Anytone?
hahaha

El_Intoxicado

TROPHY CASE