• Ludovico (unregistered)

    As a robotic technician, and industrial electrician, I have no doubt in my mind that this story is fictitious. There is really just no possible way this could ever happen, for many of the reasons already stated in the comments, as well as the description of how the robots acted in the story. It just doesn't work that way.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to Ludovico
    Ludovico:
    As a robotic technician, and industrial electrician, I have no doubt in my mind that this story is fictitious. There is really just no possible way this could ever happen, for many of the reasons already stated in the comments, as well as the description of how the robots acted in the story. It just doesn't work that way.
    Perhaps it was a robot that wrote the story in the frist place.
  • (cs) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    hoodaticus:
    EmperorOfCanada:
    At my factory we use quantum entanglement where we put a lump of steel into 1000 cars then we machine out one engine block that had been quantum entangled with the other 1000 and presto we don't have to toss the engine blocks at all.

    Don't call shenanigans just because you don't know how to do multiple quantum entanglement.

    Shenanigans. I know how to do multiple quantum entanglement. I just don't know how you multiply an atom so as to be left with two entangled atoms - nuclear fission maybe?

    Easily done - you just reverse the polarity of the neutron drive flow.

    DWTFY.
  • Paul Renault (unregistered)

    I think that this is the video that might illustrate the process: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-r7z6JFwbk

  • BillG (unregistered) in reply to Anonymouse
    Anonymouse:
    Well, I am not inclined to disbelieve him - because I did something similar once, while I was working part-time in a software company when I was still at the university: I wrote a thousand-something source file from scratch (in VB6, ugh!) that I couldn't even compile while I was still working on it (because I had no access to some of the libraries it was supposed to be linked to, that's a WTF right there); and when I was finished, and had handed it over to a co-worker who was building the final product, he was rather baffled by the fact that it not only compiled without any errors on the first try but also appeared to work bug-free.

    Had a similar experience some years ago but way more lines and mostly C. It also appeared to work bug-free.

  • The Zune Man (unregistered) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    QJo:
    hoodaticus:
    EmperorOfCanada:
    At my house we use quantum entanglement where we put a lump in someone's paints then we machine out one orifice that had been quantum entangled with the other 1000 and presto we don't have to do surgery at all.

    Don't call shenanigans just because you don't know how to do multiple quantum entanglement.

    Shenanigans. I know how to do multiple quantum entanglement. I just don't know how you divide an adam's apple so as to be left with a feminine neck - nuclear fission maybe?
    Easily done - you just reverse the polarity of the genitals and TA-DA! Instant female!

    DWTFY.
    ZTFY

    You're welcome.

  • Bldsquirrel (unregistered) in reply to JRS

    It's not about size, it's about design. Industrial robots are generally designed to lift large weights, but not to move them especially fast (ie, 50+ MPH). Even unloaded, the robot probably couldn't move its arms that fast.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    QJo:
    hoodaticus:
    EmperorOfCanada:
    At my factory we use quantum entanglement where we put a lump of steel into 1000 cars then we machine out one engine block that had been quantum entangled with the other 1000 and presto we don't have to toss the engine blocks at all.

    Don't call shenanigans just because you don't know how to do multiple quantum entanglement.

    Shenanigans. I know how to do multiple quantum entanglement. I just don't know how you multiply an atom so as to be left with two entangled atoms - nuclear fission maybe?

    Easily done - you just reverse the polarity of the neutron drive flow.

    DWTFY.
    D'whoh!
  • kert (unregistered)

    Ok, google for "dlr justin catches ball" you will see a human-sized robot built by German aerospace center catching balls thrown at him.

    Now balls are round, and you only have to account for linear motion, add angular motion to it and problem gets harder. In case of an engine block, you would have to account for angular motion.

    The story is bunk.

  • (cs)

    "as I'm sure you'll come to understand, the submitter wanted both them and their company to remain anonymous."

    Keeping the company anonymous shouldn't be a problem since it is probably as fictitious as the story.

  • (cs) in reply to RMS
    RMS:
    C-Octothorpe:
    Kind of reminds me when people cry about how open-sores projects aren't supported as well as entperprise (read $$$) software packages are...
    That's why I prefer free software.
    It's nicknamed open-sores (source) because of the pain, infection and possibly death these shite libraries inflict upon projects.

    Standard conversion when picking 3rd party library:

    Manager: So did you finish researching products that will generate PDFs for our reporting component? Developer: Yup, I found one from a legitimate company with rock solid reviews which constantly releases updates for their products. A server licence is $400. Manager: Oh, that's not too bad, anything else? Developer: Yeah, I found one created by some guy called Ken_1984 that was last updated in 2004 that is bundled with malware and written in VBS, but it's free... Manager: FREE YOU SAY?!?!?!

    Then after the highly paid developer spends six weeks fighting with the POS API, they abandon the free version and end up buying the $400 licenced version.

  • Paul (unregistered) in reply to hoodaticus
    hoodaticus:
    Paul:
    If this was true (I doubt it, though it would be bloody good fun to try) the testing/debug phase would have been quite something to watch.

    whirrr whoosh CRUNCH SMASH CRUNK Bugger! sounds of forklift starting up

    The real WTF would have been if he'd done this 100% right the first time, everyone knows that for any software more complex than "Hello World" there WILL be bugs.

    Totally untrue. My record is around 1200 lines of untested code turning out bug-free. And that was OOP code reading from and writing to files, databases, and smtp :).

    I wish you'd been responsible for the PHP-spaghetti I inherited a few weeks ago, instead of the person who wrote it. I think even "Hello World" would have stretched their abilities...

  • (cs) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    The message I took from this is: It is always the case that modules less than 1200 lines of code don't need testing. I have taken this up with the QA manager and CTO of our company and they wholeheartedly endorse this approach. We are now going to be so streamlined we will be right at the forefront of the nuclear power station control software industry.
    Yes, that was my point exactly.
  • (cs) in reply to hoodaticus
    hoodaticus:
    Paul:
    If this was true (I doubt it, though it would be bloody good fun to try) the testing/debug phase would have been quite something to watch.

    whirrr whoosh CRUNCH SMASH CRUNK Bugger! sounds of forklift starting up

    The real WTF would have been if he'd done this 100% right the first time, everyone knows that for any software more complex than "Hello World" there WILL be bugs.

    Totally untrue. My record is around 1200 lines of untested code turning out bug-free. And that was OOP code reading from and writing to files, databases, and smtp :).
    BTW, was this throwaway code?

    I'll bet it had static classes in it!!! :P

  • (cs) in reply to BLoshe
    BLoshe:
    hoodaticus:
    Paul:
    If this was true (I doubt it, though it would be bloody good fun to try) the testing/debug phase would have been quite something to watch.

    whirrr whoosh CRUNCH SMASH CRUNK Bugger! sounds of forklift starting up

    The real WTF would have been if he'd done this 100% right the first time, everyone knows that for any software more complex than "Hello World" there WILL be bugs.

    Totally untrue. My record is around 1200 lines of untested code turning out bug-free. And that was OOP code reading from and writing to files, databases, and smtp :).
    Lucky we all saw it, otherwise we wouldn't believe you....

    Oh wait, I forgot you are always 10 times cooler than any story anyone here makes up...

    I have 43 enterprise apps/applets in my projects folder right now, all of which read and write to files, databases, and smtp. The 1200-line one-shot program was around #40. If I hadn't perfected my art by then, I'd be pretty fucking retarded.

    This doesn't count all the other apps I've ever written that are stashed in source control somewhere and are no longer on my HDD.

    But I agree with you partially: I am 10x cooler than you. But if you want way cooler stories than I have, read the sidebar. The regulars there always have something awesome to share.

  • (cs) in reply to C-Octothorpe
    C-Octothorpe:
    hoodaticus:
    Paul:
    If this was true (I doubt it, though it would be bloody good fun to try) the testing/debug phase would have been quite something to watch.

    whirrr whoosh CRUNCH SMASH CRUNK Bugger! sounds of forklift starting up

    The real WTF would have been if he'd done this 100% right the first time, everyone knows that for any software more complex than "Hello World" there WILL be bugs.

    Totally untrue. My record is around 1200 lines of untested code turning out bug-free. And that was OOP code reading from and writing to files, databases, and smtp :).
    BTW, was this throwaway code?

    I'll bet it had static classes in it!!! :P

    LOL! Not a safe bet with me and frits!

  • Anno (unregistered) in reply to Anony2mous
    Anony2mous:
    I know the OP, who swears this is true. Word is that the robots were reused from another production line, and thus much heavier-duty than required.
    In answer to all of you who keep questioning how the inspection robot could be strong enough to throw the engine casing. Because you seem to have missed that comment the first time. I'm not saying the story is definitely true, and that it's not exaggerated if it is true, but you guys at least read all the comments before posting, right?
  • Ol' Bob (unregistered)

    Crazy Eddie - doing all the wrong things for all the right reasons!!!

    But +1 to Amalie for talent-spotting...

  • Anno (unregistered) in reply to Anonymouse
    Anonymouse:
    Anno:
    It's an engine block *casing*. Not an engine.
    Well, if that distinction is so important, then could you please enlighten us ignorant masses as to what the hell an "engine block casing" actually *is*? At least as far as I am concerned, I have never heard that term, and google doesn't provide much in the way of useful clues either.
    An engine casing is exactly what it sounds like: you place an engine inside it. http://www.ehow.com/facts_5824287_engine-casing_.html
  • Neil (unregistered)

    To all the people who can't understand how the second robot can catch a heavy object that the first robot throws:

    We assume that the second robot is at least as strong as the first robot, and that it is at least as high up as the first robot. It is therefore possible for the second robot to throw the object to the first object. By reversing time, you can then show that the second robot can catch the object thrown by the first robot, assuming that the first robot throws it along the trajectory that the second robot is expecting.

  • (cs) in reply to hoodaticus
    hoodaticus:
    C-Octothorpe:
    hoodaticus:
    Paul:
    If this was true (I doubt it, though it would be bloody good fun to try) the testing/debug phase would have been quite something to watch.

    whirrr whoosh CRUNCH SMASH CRUNK Bugger! sounds of forklift starting up

    The real WTF would have been if he'd done this 100% right the first time, everyone knows that for any software more complex than "Hello World" there WILL be bugs.

    Totally untrue. My record is around 1200 lines of untested code turning out bug-free. And that was OOP code reading from and writing to files, databases, and smtp :).
    BTW, was this throwaway code?

    I'll bet it had static classes in it!!! :P

    LOL! Not a safe bet with me and frits!
    Not true. I have some static classes floating around. I just don't endorse the idea of catch-all utility classes. My top-level code that implements very specific "business logic" can be static sometimes.

  • Old Grumpus (unregistered)

    Horsefeathers.

    The story has been "anonymized" because it is BS, not to protect someone's job.

  • (cs)

    I assume that what /actually/ happened was more likely a robot handing off the engine casing to another robot at high speed over a human passageway, or possibly robot A tossing the part towards robot B where it would land on the floor within arm's reach of robot B.

    Both of those would account for clangs, danger and damage.

  • (cs) in reply to Anno
    Anno:
    Anonymouse:
    Anno:
    It's an engine block *casing*. Not an engine.
    Well, if that distinction is so important, then could you please enlighten us ignorant masses as to what the hell an "engine block casing" actually *is*? At least as far as I am concerned, I have never heard that term, and google doesn't provide much in the way of useful clues either.
    An engine casing is exactly what it sounds like: you place an engine inside it. http://www.ehow.com/facts_5824287_engine-casing_.html
    Here are some actual photos of engine cases. Note in particular the following facts, for which reasons I still call shenanigans:

    1- They may not be the engine blocks themselves, but they are still huge big heavy chunks of metal. 2- Owing to having the same shape as an engine, they are equally irregular objects that will tumble unpredictably when thrown through the air. 3- A big heavy piece of aluminium being hurled through the air would get seriously damaged when it lands, aluminium being such a soft metal, even if "caught". Odds of the engine block subsequently fitting inside it, and there not being any distortion causing leaks around all the seals? Tiny.

    It's just not a believable WTF. It is a great story, but it's not a believable WTF.

  • Protogenxl (unregistered)

    First I think the throw was more like 10 or 15 feet. Also I think the item being thrown was part of the anonymizing. The part that best fits the description of the toss is a Valve Cover. They weight 8 to 10 pounds. They are not a precision part. They would reverberate like a bell when caught by a sudden force. There is plenty of flat area to grab. The shape symmetrical.

  • d'Glenn (unregistered) in reply to hoodaticus

    My most impressive was a lot shorter than 1200 lines, but it was Z80 machine-language (in hexadecimal) inserted in an MT-Pascal "inline" statement, pulling the opcodes out of memory with no reference manual handy after not having touched a Z80 for several years (because the compiler's inline-assembly statement would only let me use Intel mnemonics and I only knew the Zilog mnemonics, and I was using some Z80-only opcodes that weren't on an 8080 anyhow). So yeah, first-try bug-free happens.

    Only problem was that it was at a client site, not at my own office, and there was nobody in the room to high-five.

    (I stuck the Zilog assembly-language mnemonics in comments next to the hex machine code, in case anybody else had to maintain the program later. To do otherwise would have been irresponsible.)

  • Nerdfactormax (unregistered)

    Call me sexist, but I smelt a rat when the story started with a female doing preventative maintenance in a factory. Also, "the conveyors were buckled and the motors were exposed"? A conveyor motor should always be exposed. "Greybeard" changing robot code? I struggle to convince anyone to have a go at changing robot code even after plenty of training. Network+Robot+Vision System will never produce anything in under a month. I've enjoyed a few dubious stories on this site, but this one made me cringe. Thats all before you go into laws of physics and feasibility of throwing/catching (changing tool load data mid motion? does any brand of robot do that?). And yes, programming robots IS my day job.

  • kert (unregistered) in reply to Nerdfactormax

    Network+Robot+Vision System will never produce anything in under a month.

    I dont agree to that, and i used to write code for different industrial robot systems, some with vision systems ( the first ABB Flexpicker, i think its branded different now , Adept SCARA arms, a bunch of smaller japanese brand cartesian robots etc. )

    There were decent enough development tools to set up an industrial robotic system to do certain tasks plenty fast, at least from certain vendors. And i got out of that line of work years ago, i assume the tools have only improved.

    There are other reasons why the story as described is bunk, as i posted above. Getting a big enough arm to toss an object is pretty easy, catching is the hard part. I have tossed a few grippers off the arms accidentally, thanking plexiglass safety cages.

    Catching WITH AN ARM though while doing vision tracking, is very much at the bleeding edge of tech ( see DLR Justin, above ) and there is no way any standard industrial system would be able to perform that stunt with anything more than a soft ball and even then you would have to have a ton of bandwidth in the integrated system between vision tracking and servos. But like i said, tracking objects angular pose in in air accurately enough for the gripper to catch it in 3D is quite far in science-fiction-land.

    What may have been the case indeed if the arm would toss the objects to a floor in a gripping area of another robot to pick up. But presumably, that would damage the objects.

    Hence, i call bunk.

  • TK (unregistered) in reply to Anonymouse
    Anonymouse:
    Anno:
    It's an engine block *casing*. Not an engine.
    Well, if that distinction is so important, then could you please enlighten us ignorant masses as to what the hell an "engine block casing" actually *is*? At least as far as I am concerned, I have never heard that term, and google doesn't provide much in the way of useful clues either.
    I just found this link: http://www.ehow.com/facts_5824287_engine-casing_.html
    An engine casing is an important protective part of an engine that helps keep things from getting sucked or tangled in the engine components. Engine casings are widely used to protect and house even the simplest engine.

    An engine casing is the outside cover of an engine, and is usually made of metal. An engine casing can also be called an engine case or a case cover.

    So, really not that heavy. Although air resistance could certainly be a factor.

    Most likely the "catching" robot didn't pick it out of the air, but caught it on some large flat surface (like a pallet). This would explain the loud noise when the casing was "caught."

    Seems plausible to me. Although the distance may have been exaggerated.

  • kert (unregistered)

    ffs, the arms are perfectly capable of good throws, thats not the issue ( see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtdsDTt__s or look up KUKA Titan with max payload of a ton or so )

    Catching is the issue.

  • mfe (unregistered) in reply to TK

    Engine block implies cylinders are included... I also think watercooled.

    Engine case implies cylinders are separate... I think small air-cooled

    what could have been meant is a engine block CASTING (ie no finishing had been done on it, it was only just pored)

    This and the fact that it was going to be sent back to the "Blast furnace" implies iron engine blocks of indeterminate size.

    none of this matters because, as many have pointed out, its not easy to catch something when your a robot. Id like to point out that its not JUST the figuring out where it will be and when its also figuring out how to grab it.

    Industrial robots dont have hands, they have end effectors and they are highly specialized.

  • Roger Wolff (unregistered)

    I reread the article. it says "engine block casing" the first time the term pops up. It says "engine block" the second time.

    Engine casings could be whole lot lighter and flyable than engine blocks themselves.

  • Lost (unregistered) in reply to The Zune Man
    The Zune Man:
    I was waiting for the part where he ties her to the wall and aims the throwing robot at her, and letting the line run again for a while. Not every story can have a happy ending, I suppose.Naturally, he would have achieved release by way of her body - whether you want to image before or after is up to you. Before would be nice because then he could thoroughly violate her before she died and she'd be there to experience it, kind of like raping her soul. But if he did it after, it would be like raping her memory; difficult choice.

    Quoted FTW Now we're having 'commented' comments as well as articles? Nice one :)

  • L. (unregistered)

    Blablabla impossible.

    a) it's totally doable (pay me and I'll do it) b) production kit sucks compared to bleeding edge kit c) story overexagerated but quite fun

    For all the people who think that's impossible ... seriously lol . you're prolly of the kind who think f-22 is high-tech for today or C&C-style ion cannons are impossible to make .

    Tell you what, if Echelon was possible when it was made, the current technology is far beyond anything any of us here know about.

  • The Zune Man (unregistered) in reply to Lost
    Lost:
    The Zune Man:
    I was waiting for the part where he ties her to the wall and aims the throwing robot at her, and letting the line run again for a while. Not every story can have a happy ending, I suppose.Naturally, he would have achieved release by way of her body - whether you want to image before or after is up to you. Before would be nice because then he could thoroughly violate her before she died and she'd be there to experience it, kind of like raping her soul. But if he did it after, it would be like raping her memory; difficult choice.
    Quoted FTW Now we're having 'commented' comments as well as articles? Nice one :)
    I knew people appreciated my comments!!! :) XOXOXOX :)

    Some of the other threads are full of haters, thank you for your support.

  • A Gould (unregistered) in reply to Ol' Bob
    Ol' Bob:
    Crazy Eddie - doing all the wrong things for all the right reasons!!!

    But +1 to Amalie for talent-spotting...

    Agreed on the +1 - however much the story is enhanced, it's still pretty clear the guy is overqualified for what he's doing.

  • (cs)

    after reding all coments, i reach concluson this is toy factory.

  • cynoclast (unregistered) in reply to Ryan

    Pounds are weight, weight is a force, acceleration is also a force.

    Accelerating a 200lb engine block from rest to a speed sufficient to fly 100' through atmo on a parabolic trajectory is probably pushing the limits or exceeding their load capacity, as well as their shock (rapid acceleration) limits.

  • cynoclast (unregistered) in reply to L.

    Echelon wasn't one dude tinkering with a program involving math complex enough to warrant the creation of ENIAC. Not to mention robotics manipulation to exert those forces.

    I remain highly skeptical.

  • Biff Hamhock (unregistered) in reply to Jock McBeefsteak

    Clearly someone is an MST3K fan...

  • Joe (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf

    I thought I was the only one who remembers the vindow viper...

  • L. (unregistered) in reply to cynoclast

    So do I . the story is most likely bullshit/ massively overexagerated, but it's totally doable ;) Speaking of which, a bunch of people have been saying "blablabla craprobot catching ball" : well cool .. you know about ferromagnetism don'tcha ? ^^

  • jiml (unregistered)

    Good one Made me chuckle

  • (cs) in reply to L.
    L.:
    Blablabla impossible.

    a) it's totally doable (pay me and I'll do it)

    You need to read for comprehension. Nobody is saying it's physically impossible; the point is, is it plausible? Of course someone with an unlimited budget, a large team, and access to whatever resources they wanted could build such a system. But do you suppose that the robots installed in that factory were so hugely overspecced that they could be adapted to this purpose from their original use just by reprogramming them a bit? Do you suppose a vision system that is supposed to analyze a cas(t?)ing in a couple of seconds as it moves slowly on the level along a conveyor against a more-or-less blank background could, just by reprogramming, suddenly become able to analyze an entire complex factory scene fifty times a second to identify the position, orientation, and first and second differentials of same of a moving object a hundred feet away? Do you suppose the robot arm that was designed to lift things on and off a conveyor belt would have so much excess power in reserve as to be able to throw them a hundred feet? Do you not think the accountants would ask why this production line was costing so much more to build than all their competitors' ones?
    L.:
    b) production kit sucks compared to bleeding edge kit
    Yes, precisely. And what do you suppose that engine factory was full of: bleeding-edge research lab kit or bog-standard production kit?
  • John_R (unregistered)

    This is made of 100% pristine and infallible WIN!!!!&()^$#%.

  • Mark (unregistered)

    Like a number of stories on dailywtf, I find this one extremely hard to believe. There are many problems with the story, including:

    • timing accuracy
    • mechanical accuracy
    • excessive force leading to following error and robot shutdown
    • destruction of robots due to extreme forces and repetitive shock
    • destruction of factory during testing (one miss, and a conveyor is wiped out)
    • extremely obvious hazard (anyone smart enough to program the robots will be knowledgeable about the kinetic energy and physics involved and will be aware of the risk)

    I'll only cover the first two; the others are similarly formidable problems.

    Timing accuracy: If the robot doesn't close its grippers at the right moment, the block either falls out of open grippers or bounces off of closed grippers. Variation in network congestion is one of many variables that will significantly affect timing. Another two are the air pressure used to operate the gripper, and the temperature and viscosity of the oil that lubricates the pneumatic switch which actuates the grippers.

    Also, robot computers are generally not running a hard real-time operating system. This would be a necessity for any operation requiring sub-millisecond timing.

    Mechanical accuracy: Large, strong robots, such as those needed to pick up engine blocks, are considerably less precise than smaller robots. Consider the acceptable angular error for the throwing robot.

    I'll assume that the catcher's grippers open one inch wider than the block (they almost certainly open less!), and the two robots are 100' (1200") apart. The acceptable angular range for the throwing robot can be computed as atan(1/1200), and is approximately 0.0477 degrees. This means that the robot's angular tolerance must be below +-0.0239 degrees or 66 parts per million. This is a very small tolerance, and if the block and arm weight aren't distributed perfectly symmetrically about the robot's axis of rotation, it will turn to the side a little as it lobs the block. Given this insane tolerance, it will also be necessary to take into account distortions in the robot, its base, and the factory floor, as the temperature rises and falls.

  • Roman (unregistered) in reply to Publius
    Publius:
    Madmanguruman:
    I call 100% BS. Tossing an engine block 100'? No way. Reliably *catching* said engine block? No way. Having a robot strong enough to hurl an engine block 100'? No way. Having a robot strong enough to absorb the kinetic energy of an engine block hurled 100'? No way. Having an unqualified operator figure all this out on the fly as a correction to a broken conveyor belt problem? Not bloody likely. Sheesh.

    All you nay-sayers have obviously not been keeping up with the state of automated ballistics, as this 2006 video clearly shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QStm3ZyzgY0

    Rendered video is all the proof I need.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to rew
    rew:
    Steve The Cynic:
    Going back to first principles of ballistics, assuming a perfect 45 degree launch angle (required to achieve maximum range) and a vacuum in the factory (to remove air resistance from consideration), the minimum launch speed on the Earth's surface is a smidgeon under 39 mph. Dealing with practicalities like the 50'-high arc this implies and the presence of air will significantly increase the necessary speed, and you can quite easily end up with the blocks having to be thrown at around 80 mph.
    The air resistance for a 100' throw of an engine block is negligible. There is a lot of engine block and very little air.

    Suppose we were to throw a human (or something with the density of a human) at 40mph. That's about one third of "terminal velocity" that you reach when falling out of an airplane. Aerodynamic forces go up with the square of the speed, so at 40mph we have about 1 tenth of the weight of the object in aerodynamic forces.

    An engine block is much denser than a human body, so the aerodynamic forces will be much less. Your estimation of 2x higher takeoffspeed is WAY too high.

    Now this sounds like a fun series of experiments: Programming robots to throw human bodies through the air!

    We can reduce the requirements somewhat by using dwarfs. I understand this may soon be legal in Florida. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/florida-legalize-dwarf-tossing-ban-ritch-workman-update

  • Prinny (unregistered)

    What regulations would OSHA impose? That man is the sole operator.

    From the way that i see, the operator is automating a business process, keeping operating costs low and reducing risk by minimizing human error.

    I think amaliee stole the operator's plans and got herself a nice promotion.

  • DeaDPooL (unregistered) in reply to Madmanguruman
    Madmanguruman:
    I call 100% BS. Tossing an engine block 100'? No way. Reliably *catching* said engine block? No way. Having a robot strong enough to hurl an engine block 100'? No way. Having a robot strong enough to absorb the kinetic energy of an engine block hurled 100'? No way. Having an unqualified operator figure all this out on the fly as a correction to a broken conveyor belt problem? Not bloody likely. Sheesh.

    It was a cute story, but madmanguruman is right with all of the above.

Leave a comment on “Caught”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article