Industrial Robot Arm Becomes Giant Catapult

wintersynth brings us a story about a group of enthusiasts who made a catapult out of a 2,800lb industrial robot arm. They used it to launch bowling balls, fireballs, and cans of beer toward a stationary target, and they controlled the catapult's aim with a graphical UI on a laptop. "I wanted to be able to control the rotation of the robot so we could aim the robot from the laptop, but I quickly realized that since the desert is so flat, we could do some basic ranging on the target too. I also wanted the targeting to be overlaid in 3d over a photograph of the target area. The software needed to control the robot like an MMO or RTS game. I suspect that video games, in general, have some of the most optimal control interfaces. I wanted to try a control scheme similar to the area effect spell targeting in World of Warcraft."

Comments

double entendre

[User 956]

wintersynth brings us a story about a group of enthusiasts who made a catapult out of a 2,800lb industrial robot arm.

And it's all thanks to the second amendment.

Re:double entendre

[Scrameustache]

wintersynth brings us a story about a group of enthusiasts who made a catapult out of a 2,800lb industrial robot arm.

And it's all thanks to the second amendment. Cyborg bears can't be far behind...

Re:double entendre

[Walt Dismal]

Well, if they combined this with a RealDoll, they might have something useful.

Re:double entendre

[Grimbleton]

I'm sure with a Class III license you might have a shot at finding one, if you can pony up the cash to buy one (Are they even legal to import? I'm too lazy to look it up.) I'm happy with my 17, however. :D

Re:double entendre

[SnowZero]

The right was granted in the age of muzzle loaders. ...and cannons[1], mortars[2], bombs[3], and landmines[4]. Most people seem to forget that.

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Re:double entendre

[corsec67]

Nope, they are fully-automatic, and manufactured after 1986, so there is no way for a US Citizen to own one legally.

Re:double entendre

[modecx]

It's not even that bad. There's no need to get a license of any sort. Here's what you need to do: #1 The firearm must be registered with the BATF. #2 get a signature from your county Sheriff, or chief of police. #3 pass an extensive background check #4 receive BATF permission to move the device across state lines (getting it to you) pay a $200 transfer tax. Most importantly, you need to live in an area where the weapon you want is not outlawed, and that obviously precludes any of the above. In other words, good luck in Kalifornia... And you need to find someone willing to sell you what you want, and this is the hard/expensive part. NFA registrable Glock 18s are probably pretty rare, for example, unless the important components are manufactured on US soil. Other US auto guns will be much cheaper because of the rarity value of the genuine auto pistol.

The class 3 license of which you speak is a license which is simply needed to sell weapons, as a dealer.

Re:double entendre

[Architect_sasyr]

So she throws you away right before you...

Re:double entendre

[moosesocks]

I don't think you could seriously argue that the second amendment covers cannons, mortars, bombs, and landmines.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms." implies personal firearms.... not the sort that would be solely used in large-scale warfare.

Landmines, on the other hand, would seem to fall into the same category as handguns, as the victim more often than not has no idea that his opponent is armed, or that he's even in danger. I fail to see a reason for those to exist.

Although I do respect the founding fathers' intention of keeping the population armed so that the people have a "last resort" should the government cease to act in the interests of the general populace, I'm just not sure that a ban on concealed weapons would violate that purpose.

Handguns strike me as "murder weapons" and "weapons to be used in self-defense against other handgun-toting criminals". Larger weapons scare me a lot less, since the unpredictability element is mostly gone.

Re:double entendre

[e4g4]

The right to bare arms does not give you the right to have nuclear warheads No, but it does give people the right to wear hideous hawaiian shirts, which is almost as bad.

Re:double entendre

[Crypto Gnome]

.... the founding fathers' intention of keeping the population armed so that the people have a "last resort" should the government cease to act in the interests of the general populace.... It never ceases to amaze me ... Exactly specifically WHAT EXAMPLE OF "government ceasing to act in the interests of the general populace" are you all waiting for?

Does "the president" need to DROP NUKES on The Continental US of A before people WAKE UP and DO SOMETHING?

Or do you all think that "having a vietnam war" in the middle of the desert is in the interests of the general populace?

Re:double entendre

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling handguns "murder weapons" is just plain wrong, quite foolish and rather stupid. The handgun is the best personal defense weapon available, when a larger gun is not. A 250 pound man can easily rape a 130 pound woman. That woman with a handgun and some training has the advantage.

The thought that guns are only useful against other guns is denying a whole lot of physics.

Re:double entendre

[Anonymous Coward]

and at the time the government also only had muzzle loaders. the second amendment was put in there so the people could overthrow the new government if it went bad. just look at the bill of rights and the mind set, at the time, of the people who made it. they had just (give or take a few years) fought a war, and got rid of one government. now this new 'constitution' idea is being discussed, and they want to be sure it doesn't become another england. enter the bill of rights, clearly designed to curtail the government's ability to crush a revolution.

1. the first thing a tyrannical government will do, is shut up the people so they cannot organize into a resistance.
2. obviously a thinly veiled threat of what awaits a tyrannical government.
3. you cant put police in every house to watch everyone all the time. (major obstacle to holding a successful revolution).
4. you cant go through my files to find out if I'm planning a revolution.
5,6,7,8. the whole justice system is placed firmly in the control of the people (no arresting revolutionarys in the middle of the night and making them 'disappear').
9,10. everything else is reserved by the people. (the government, must not grow too big for its britches)

therefore the people must be allowed to have the same class of weapons as the government.

(I'm not saying to just give out fighter jets to every shmo; even in colonial times, you didn't get your dads gun until you first learned how to use it.)

Re:double entendre

[The One and Only]

Landmines by themselves will usually kill only wandering civilians and stray dogs. The enemy is clever enough to figure out that landmines exist and might be planted somewhere, and as soon as they discover a minefield they'll find a way to avoid being killed by it.

Landmines, in conjunction with other defenses, are extremely effective. For example, if the North Korean army were to swarm south across the DMZ, they would come under heavy machinegun fire, and would lack the time and ability to safely go through the minefield. Their only choices would be to retreat or to go recklessly into the mines, doubtlessly incurring heavier casualties than they would against the machineguns alone.

Not far south of those landmines and machine guns is a peaceful liberal democracy that holds a significant place in the world economy. Now do you understand the reason for landmines to exist?

Re:double entendre

[The One and Only]

So far, peaceful methods have yet to prove ineffective in stopping that.

Re:double entendre

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you....

aw, forget it

Re:double entendre

[Provocateur]

I thought you meant this.

Re:double entendre

[ultranova]

Landmines, on the other hand, would seem to fall into the same category as handguns, as the victim more often than not has no idea that his opponent is armed, or that he's even in danger. I fail to see a reason for those to exist.

Try living right next to Stalinist/Soviet/Putinist Russia for a while and the idea of putting booby traps between them and you starts getting a certain appeal.

Re:double entendre

[rohan972]

I don't think you could seriously argue that the second amendment covers cannons, mortars, bombs, and landmines.

I suggest you read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine.

"If premiums were to be given to merchants, to build and employ in their service ships mounted with twenty, thirty, forty or fifty guns, (the premiums to be in proportion to the loss of bulk to the merchants) fifty or sixty of those ships, with a few guardships on constant duty, would keep up a sufficient navy, and that without burdening ourselves with the evil so loudly complained of in England, of suffering their fleet, in time of peace to lie rotting in the docks."

His advice was to have privately owned cannon, on privately owned ships, subsidised by the government to compensate for loss of trading ability, as the basis of the navy.

Handguns strike me as "murder weapons" and "weapons to be used in self-defense against other handgun-toting criminals"

You consider using a pistol for self-defense to be a criminal act?

Larger weapons scare me a lot less...

Weapons scare you? Why do you fear inanimate objects? How strange!

Do you ever consider the Rwandan genocide in which many of the protagonists were armed with machetes? 500,000+ dead.

At my local markets, a man sells ornamental swords. They do not have shrapened edges, because in my country that would mean they had to be registered as weapons, which would make them very difficult to buy or sell. A few steps away, machetes and other edged instruments are available without restriction for a few dollars. It's ludicrous. Most weapons legislation I've seen is ludicrous. It doesn't prevent murder, it doesn't prevent mass murder. It just gives the advantage to the physically strong.

Re:double entendre

[deimtee]

But having nuclear warheads does give you the right to do whatever you damn well please.

Re:double entendre

[Ours]

"Now do you understand the reason for landmines to exist"
As long as kids and farmers will keep loosing limbs or worse in past conflict zones, no I won't understand. It's not because in one case they are used in a well defined DMZ that their existence is justified.

Re:double entendre

[The New Andy]

I don't know much about the American constitution, but I was sure that you had the right to bear arms, not robot arms. And good luck hooking your laptop up to a bear.

Re:double entendre

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

Though I am of the opinion that 'it was a different historical context' is a flawed argument for constitutional interpretation, there are more practical implications in this case. Basically either some weapons can be restricted, or no weapons can be restricted. If no weapons can be restricted then anyone should be able to own nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, shit, whatever you want. Because otherwise the logic breaks down and the argument is no longer internally consistent. Or, some weapons can be restricted, and we are free to legislate on the subject and keep a fluid and everchanging list of death-making devices that we are and are not ok with the general populace having. As I dont want my neighbor packin anthrax and the minigun from an A-10, I'm in the second camp. it just makes more intuitive sense to me that a citizen not in the armed forces should be prevented from owning high-yield and efficiency military weapons. I'm not implying anything about the respect and care w/ which you personally might treat said weaponry, but I really dont trust most of my cohorts to use a fucking stapler safely.

Weapons scare you? Why do you fear inanimate objects? How strange! Do you ever consider the Rwandan genocide in which many of the protagonists were armed with machetes? 500,000+ dead. I dont believe he ever said he wasn't scared of machetes. look how effective this argument is, I'll reverse the language to agree with my position, and it sounds just as silly. You're not afraid of inanimate objects designed specifically to kill people? how strange. You're getting at the 'guns dont kill people, people kill people' thing, and you know what? people using guns kill people with surprisingly more efficiency than people without guns killing people. Both happen. a lot. but guns just make the whole process that much faster and easier. I'm not scared of guns, but it do have a healthy respect for things that will kill a guy, and generally avoid them.

Re:double entendre

[Registered Coward v2]

The right was granted in the age of muzzle loaders.

Uhm, in the US, neither the Constitution nor government "grant" rights; they eixst and are the people's independent of either. The people give the government certain powers; and we can argue what those are and how broad they are, but that's different than teh people's rights.

Re:double entendre

[rohan972]

Personally, I think it was in a different historical context, but the appropriate response is not reinterpretation of the constitution but amendment, for which there is a proper procedure. I think the US constitution (2nd amendment) is fairly clear and in the context of the revolution seems to mean full military armament. Taken in the context of a world in which nuclear weapons etc exist, I do not think this is a good idea. However, if the constitution is reinterpreted according to every change in technology (or other historical context) it ceases to be really usefull as a constitution as I understand it.

Where we draw the line between personal nuclear arms and total weapons bans is not the point as I see it. The point is that the government is supposed to be regulated/limited by the constitution. Where the government is freed to reinterpret the constitution at will this is no longer the case and political liberty is effectively over. Under such a system, you no longer have rights in any real sense, you have priveleges granted or revoked by the government.

I dont believe he ever said he wasn't scared of machetes.

I put the comments about fear of inanimate objects and machetes in separate paragraphs for a reason. It is two separate points being (1) It is silly to fear inanimate objects, and (2) prohibition of firearms does not prevent murder or mass murder. Point (2) is not opinion, it is demonstrable fact. Sure it is easier with more advanced weapons, but that makes people equal, rather than the weak being subject to the violence of the strong.

You're not afraid of inanimate objects designed specifically to kill people? how strange. You're getting at the 'guns dont kill people, people kill people' thing, and you know what? people using guns kill people with surprisingly more efficiency than people without guns killing people.

No, I'm not afraid of objects designed specifically to kill people. I've owned guns in the past and they never struck fear into me. I've known other people, police etc that have guns and they didn't strike fear into me. In any case, firearms regulation where I live has given rise to a thriving illegal gun trade, according to media reports. I don't really see the point of the laws. Any anyone with high school level chemistry and some initiative can make high explosives anyway. For people that don't know how, there are always molotov cocktails. I can see it's possible to prevent people having nukes, but for personal weapons it just seems to be a waste of time to legislate against them.

We are all surrounded by things that can kill, electricity, knives, cars. If we are going to let everyone buy petrol, without restriction and without license, then laws against personal firearms are just a farce.

Re:double entendre

[blackest_k]

Ok how the British army deal in short order with a mine field,
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0066.html#MINE%20CLEARANCE

" The Python has the ability to clear a much longer safe' lane than its predecessor. It is also faster to bring into action and far more accurate. It can clear a path up to 230m long and 7m wide through which vehicles can then safely pass.

The system works by firing a single rocket from a newly designed launcher mounted on a trailer which has been towed to the edge of the mined area.

Attached to the rocket is a coiled 230m long hose packed with one and a half tons of powerful explosive. After the hose lands on the ground it detonates and destroys or clears any mines along its entire length. It is claimed that in a cleared lane, over 90% of anti-tank mines will have been destroyed."

Re:double entendre

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're only 10% dead if you run over one it missed?

Re:double entendre

[Muad'Dave]

The right was granted in the age of muzzle loaders.

Rights are not granted by the constitution or any government, they are supposedly protected by the government.

Re:double entendre

[Chicken04GTO]

pick up a weapon and patrol a border between the koreas then, idealist dipshit.

Re:double entendre

[swillden]

Exactly specifically WHAT EXAMPLE OF "government ceasing to act in the interests of the general populace" are you all waiting for?

Until people see more serious effects in their daily lives, they'll mostly continue to be apathetic. Thanks to deficit spending, the war doesn't really even affect our tax liability, and given the small number of casualties, relatively few people know someone who has died over there.

Thus, most people are too busy living their lives to care enough to even put much time into fighting it, much less risk their lives.

Re:double entendre

[guruevi]

Who says? The government? Isn't the constitution to be used to protect us from such laws by the government?

Of course the scare about nuclear anything is going to be a major problem when argued before certain human judges and you almost can't legally procure the materials (although it is possible) but I don't think you should be held back from making your own nuclear weapons as long as you use them to protect yourself on your own grounds. If your neighbor should be affected then it becomes a problem.

Re:double entendre

[The One and Only]

Well, first you actually have to have such a vehicle, second, even if you have one a minefield forces you to waste resources using it, and third, you're still forced into a 7m wide channel instead of being able to roam widely across the entire field.

Re:double entendre

[The One and Only]

I do think any nation that lays mines has a responsibility to pick them up after they're no longer used. The solution to that problem is not for landmines not to exist, but for them to be used responsibly--any weapon of war can be used irresponsibly.

Re:double entendre

[Arcaeris]

Sure it is easier with more advanced weapons, but that makes people equal, rather than the weak being subject to the violence of the strong. This is the best argument for having a gun. I'm a trained martial artist. I have friends who train using swords and all kinds of "old school" weapons like swords and knives.

In a world without guns, I can come into a home and kill people with impunity. Even with my bare hands it is easy to a) get into a home, b) access every part of a home (have you ever tried kicking down an inside door? it's easy!) c) kill everyone in it.

Sure, the cops may have guns, but by the time they get to a house, I'd have killed everyone. Ever called 911? It takes forever, and sometimes you get a busy signal! It takes even longer if you do it by cell phone. Oh, dropped call? Too bad. Wait while they do a trace on your cell phone.

So which world would you rather live in? The world where criminals who train to fight can break into your home and kill you with no effort if you're not a trained fighter, or the one where everyone has a gun and you have a good chance of both deterring a conflict AND protecting yourself even if you're a fat computer nerd with aspergers?

Re:double entendre

[Lars T.]

I do think any nation that lays mines has a responsibility to pick them up after they're no longer used. The solution to that problem is not for landmines not to exist, but for them to be used responsibly--any weapon of war can be used irresponsibly. Another solution would be not to sell them to people who won't use them responsibly. But that would ruin quarterly results.

Re:double entendre

[arose]

The world where criminals who train to fight can break into your home and kill you with no effort if you're not a trained fighter, or the one where everyone has a gun and you have a good chance of both deterring a conflict AND protecting yourself even if you're a fat computer nerd with aspergers?

The world in which I have a gun and the criminal doesn't. That's what you are describing anyway.

Re:double entendre

[The One and Only]

I don't know much about the landmine market (do you?) but landmines are one of the easiest weapons to manufacture. This is the main reason why banning landmines accomplishes nothing: any rogue state can easily make their own.

Re:double entendre

[sumdumass]

The constitution enumerates rights. It says as much in the 9th amendment I believe. Your right in conceptual context though, but the enumeration extends these rights to people who don't believe they have them. This is significant because if I am educated in a way that I believe the government can limit my speech and then comes along the first amendment, it was given a right I didn't know I had.

This is a big cause of the confusion between the constitution giving rights and you having them with the constitution limiting the government's ability to do anything about it. But in all seriousness, if something is an inherent right, then why is it acceptable to only limit the Government from treading on it? It seems perfectly fine for a private company to fire you for attending a political rally or taking advantage of some other right you hold like owning a firearm. Treating rights like this seems counter intuitive and seems that it could easily fall prey to abuse.

Re:double entendre

[skarphace]

Where we draw the line between personal nuclear arms and total weapons bans is not the point as I see it. The point is that the government is supposed to be regulated/limited by the constitution. Where the government is freed to reinterpret the constitution at will this is no longer the case and political liberty is effectively over. Under such a system, you no longer have rights in any real sense, you have priveleges granted or revoked by the government.

All laws are subject to interpretations, that's why there's a whole branch of the government to do just that(and settle disputes).

Re:double entendre

[WNight]

Are you any more dead from an A-10 minigun than a 22 pistol? If you expect either you can get to safety behind sandbags. If you don't expect trouble, either can kill you in an instant.

However, if the national guard rolled tanks into town because of anti-war protests and started illegally detaining and torturing protesters, that minigun would potentially be a lot more useful.

Look at the DC sniper... They used a .223 rifle, not something big and 'dangerous'. People are soft. Knives kill people. Worrying about how big the hole is seems pointless.

Re:double entendre

[Registered Coward v2]

The constitution enumerates rights. It says as much in the 9th amendment I believe. Your right in conceptual context though, but the enumeration extends these rights to people who don't believe they have them. This is significant because if I am educated in a way that I believe the government can limit my speech and then comes along the first amendment, it was given a right I didn't know I had.

I believe we are in agreement here, my concern was with the parent's "government granting..." statement. Enumerating some of them made them clear and I believe the founders wanted to ensure people we aware of tehm in order to avoid government abuse; but it does not mean other rights are non-existant.

This is a big cause of the confusion between the constitution giving rights and you having them with the constitution limiting the government's ability to do anything about it. But in all seriousness, if something is an inherent right, then why is it acceptable to only limit the Government from treading on it? It seems perfectly fine for a private company to fire you for attending a political rally or taking advantage of some other right you hold like owning a firearm. Treating rights like this seems counter intuitive and seems that it could easily fall prey to abuse.

Primarly because government is a tool of the people to, well, govern and has powers to enforce beyond a company; it embodies the state and its authority.

A private company has a different relationship - a contractual one that you and the company are free to define and end at will; within certain limits. In addition, there are property rights at play as well - a private entity has the right to decide not to allow firearms or limit speech on its property - whether a company or person.

Re:double entendre

[sumdumass]

I don't think we are in disagreement, I was attempting to offer the "this is why people think that way" answer.

A private company has a different relationship - a contractual one that you and the company are free to define and end at will; within certain limits. In addition, there are property rights at play as well - a private entity has the right to decide not to allow firearms or limit speech on its property - whether a company or person.

Yes, but can you give up rights if they are inherent to people? I mean Sure I agree the company can refuse to hire you because your a democrat or brought a gun onto their property. But assuming that didn't happen and you mentioned going and shooting your own gun on your own time at a place away from the job in your free time at the job. It isn't like this hasn't happened in the past.

So i Guess what I was really attempting to say is, if these rights are inalienable, then why is it acceptable to give them up in the pursuit of liberty or happiness. It seems that they shouldn't be able to be negotiated away so easily and at the whim of someone else. It happens too often and plays right into the idea that the constitution gives rights to the people. It is just another disconnect from reality that works against what we know to be true. If nothing else, it is something to think about.

Re:double entendre

[pjabardo]

I don't like this argument very much. It would be valid for high profile crimes where there are very strong interests playing a part. But these guys can easily get guns either way. On the other hand, common thugs usually don't have your kind ability. Sure you find martial arts experts doing time and I've met a couple of them over the years and I can tell you their abilities didn't make much of a difference: they were way to high and desperate to do anything. But I could be wrong: haven't seen any statistics...

Re:double entendre

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

I disagree with your assumption that the 2nd amendment is predicated on arming the populace to resist government tyranny. The in the modern context, the well-regulated militia is the national guard. Whether or not a minigun would be handy to have around if we were suddenly thrust even further in to a police-state, I dont feel its ownership is a constitutional right.

My point was simply that nobody in their right mind would defend ownership of nuclear arms as a constitutional right, so there must be a line in there somewhere past which it is in fact acceptable to restrict other weapons ownership.
*shrug* seems as self-evident to me as your position must seem to you.

Re:double entendre

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

Personally, I think it was in a different historical context, but the appropriate response is not reinterpretation of the constitution but amendment, for which there is a proper procedure. I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that at this point, laws limiting gun ownership being left to stand as constitutionally sound isnt reinterpretation, its the standing interpretation. Thus begins the debate between the Plain Words Doctrine folks and those who favor judicial review and the dominance of precedent. Its a mess, and I find neither the gun-nuts nor the anti-gun-nuts to be entirely logical on the subject.

It is two separate points being (1) It is silly to fear inanimate objects, and (2) prohibition of firearms does not prevent murder or mass murder. Point (2) is not opinion, it is demonstrable fact. Sure it is easier with more advanced weapons, but that makes people equal, rather than the weak being subject to the violence of the strong. Ok, that makes more sense. (1) people fear silly things all the time and are otherwise rational. I can't deal with heights. That fear is neither rational nor unjustified. Falling from great heights would be a lame way to go. Fear of high-powered assault rifles is pretty much the same. Could kill you, probably wont if used properly. doesnt mean that feeling uneasy around guns is somehow unjustified. (2) I think we're actually arguing the same point here content-wise, but are drawing different conclusions. I see no way in which the ability of an individual to arm could have any possible effect on resisting a well-organized 1st-world national army. Go ahead and have that pitol that fires full auto. I'm sure it will make a difference when the napalm comes.

I've owned guns in the past and they never struck fear into me As have I. Holding in my hands an object whose sole purpose is to end life weirds me out in a way that holding an axe, or machete, or any other of the lethal tools i own does.

We are all surrounded by things that can kill, electricity, knives, cars. If we are going to let everyone buy petrol, without restriction and without license, then laws against personal firearms are just a farce.

The existence of potentially lethal objects elsewhere has little bearing on the regulated use of objects whose sole intended purpose is to be lethal. I could beat someone to death with a phone book if I wanted to, but I'm not about to advocate restricting the distribution of phone books.

I think that people should be allowed to have guns, i just don't see it as important an issue as you seem to. shrug

Re:double entendre

[rohan972]

In my opinion, the judiciary ought not be reinventing the law to suit current tastes. "What does this law mean as written", "how does it affect this situation", no problem, that's the purpose of the system. "What do we want it to mean today" is circumventing the system.

Re:double entendre

[rohan972]

The problem is that at this point, laws limiting gun ownership being left to stand as constitutionally sound isnt reinterpretation, its the standing interpretation. Thus begins the debate between the Plain Words Doctrine folks and those who favor judicial review and the dominance of precedent.

Yes indeed. It's a difficult situation to sort out.

people fear silly things all the time and are otherwise rational. I can't deal with heights. That fear is neither rational nor unjustified. Falling from great heights would be a lame way to go. Fear of high-powered assault rifles is pretty much the same.

People knowingly living with irrational fear have no valid case to introduce legislation on the subject of their fear.

I see no way in which the ability of an individual to arm could have any possible effect on resisting a well-organized 1st-world national army.

I know how you feel. I felt the same way. When I checked it out though, this is what I found. Germany didn't invade Switzerland in WW2, a decision most likely influenced by the armed citizenry. If you understand the necessity of having troops on the ground to control territory, it becomes more obvious. It has been said that war is politics by other means. If the goal of the attackers is genocide, they must be met with overwhelming force for which personally armed individuals will almost certainly not suffice. If the goal is occupation and control an armed population can make it next to impossible even for forces with vastly superior armament. Do some reading on the growing role of snipers in warfare and you will see. Also see Vietnam, Iraq. A shooting populace, and particularly a hunting populace, are very dangerous to invaders. In any case, the effectiveness or otherwise of armed civilians in repelling invasion ought to affect the drafting of law, not the interpretation.

Holding in my hands an object whose sole purpose is to end life weirds me out in a way that holding an axe, or machete, or any other of the lethal tools i own does.

Fear of inanimate objects is irrational. Fear of inanimate objects you are controling could be rational if you are not confident of your ability to handle it. Otherwise, not rational. An axe or machete in your hands, competently handled, has no capacity to hurt you and to fear it is simply foolishness.

The existence of potentially lethal objects elsewhere has little bearing on the regulated use of objects whose sole intended purpose is to be lethal.

I was responding to your assertion that you generally avoid lethal objects. It is impossible to avoid lethal objects without someone taking complete care of you.

You seem want everyone controled by legislation based on irrational fears. This does not seem to be a position you would be willing to change based on facts of history or reason. Nevetheless, consider that all the rights of the citizen in the US have their basis in armed resistance to the government, from the Magna Carta (including habeas corpus), through the English Civil War and on to the American revolution and the forming of the USA. If you give up the means by which your rights are secured, you give up your rights. I fail to see how this could be regarded as less important than almost any other political issue.

Re:double entendre

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

People knowingly living with irrational fear have no valid case to introduce legislation on the subject of their fear.

We're not talking about an agoraphobe introducing legislation to ban crowds. I listed several irrational fears of things that one may also rationally be wary of. I should have been more consistent in the second part of my first post. I do not have a fear of guns, that was GP. I have a rational wariness and healthy respect for devices created solely for the purpose of killing. Your statement that this is irrational is an empty statement of opinion. I dont mean to be a dick about this point, really, but I take mild offense at having what i feel to be a fairly rational response to something reduced to 'irrational fear.' This wariness has not prevented me from owning a shotgun when i lived in a sketchy neighborhood. I feel perfectly confident in my ability to competently handle most firearms i might legally purchase. But I treat a gun I'm holding with significantly more caution and respect than a cup of coffee, because one can very easily kill a guy, and the other would take a bit more work.

When I checked it out though, this is what I found. Germany didn't invade Switzerland in WW2, a decision most likely influenced by the armed citizenry

They also benefited in having the banking capitol of europe remain neutral.

Fear of inanimate objects is irrational. Fear of inanimate objects you are controling could be rational if you are not confident of your ability to handle it. Otherwise, not rational. An axe or machete in your hands, competently handled, has no capacity to hurt you and to fear it is simply foolishness.

On the contrary, accidents happen. all the time. not all are caused by negligence. sometimes competency is not sufficient to prevent them. I think if might be helpful if you consider 'worry' instead of 'fear.' I'd be afraid of an unrestrained wild tiger being loose in my apartment. I worry that an accident might occur when handling a dangerous object. Does that make more sense?

I was responding to your assertion that you generally avoid lethal objects. It is impossible to avoid lethal objects without someone taking complete care of you.

clearly. I should have been more specific, or you should have taken me less literally. probably both. There are everyday dangers, to which we are somewhat inured by their very everydayness. Driving a car, crossing the street, etc. All of these are to some extent necessary risks in an everyday life, as you point out. That doesnt make the elimination of unnecessary dangers meaningless. Yes, we disagree on my use of the word unnecessary. I'm going to go ahead and stipulate to us not agreeing on this point.

You seem want everyone controled by legislation based on irrational fears. This does not seem to be a position you would be willing to change based on facts of history or reason.

this is an unreasonable generalization to make on an unwarranted interpretation of my feelings regarding firearms, for the reasons i explained above. I, as a matter of fact, want my country's laws to be promulgated solely based on reasoned and rational concerns.

If you give up the means by which your rights are secured, you give up your rights. I fail to see how this could be regarded as less important than almost any other political issue.

Though I do not deny the role that armed resistance to government has played in the evolution of our current understanding of rights I think its a reach to say that the level of citizen-armament is what secures those rights. I do not receive due process only if armed. I am not able to exercise free speech only when armed. Is owning a mini-gun or a sniper rifle going to prevent W from trampling the freedom of speech of protesters by relegating them to 'free-speech zone' and caging them in? probably not. I owning a semi-automatic magazine fed shotgun (which i've used a couple

Re:double entendre

[rohan972]

I take mild offense at having what i feel to be a fairly rational response to something reduced to 'irrational fear.'

To be fair, you did say that holding a gun weirds you out. I don't think it is unjust of me to interpret that as 'irrational fear.' It doesn't seem to me that someone can credibly claim to be similtaneously weirded out and rational on the same topic.

Regarding the germans benefiting from having the banking capitol of europe remain neutral, they would have been just as willing to invade and appropriate all the wealth of the banks. It's been a long while since I read Mein Kampf, but I'm pretty sure the acquisition of wealth through military force was fairly well intergrated into Germany's politics and strategy at the time. I doubt the presence of banks had any effect in disuading them from invading Switzerland.

On the contrary, accidents happen. all the time. not all are caused by negligence. sometimes competency is not sufficient to prevent them. I think if might be helpful if you consider 'worry' instead of 'fear.' I'd be afraid of an unrestrained wild tiger being loose in my apartment. I worry that an accident might occur when handling a dangerous object. Does that make more sense?

In firearms handling, fatal accidents and competence are mutually exclusive. Among other precautions, simply do not muzzle anything you are not willing to destroy. It takes action on someones part to discharge a firearm. Tigers on the other hand can kill you without any mishandling on your part. There is a huge difference between a wild animal and an inanimate object. If a firearm is dangerous to you, there seem to be three possible causes.
1. The person in possession of it requires futher training in safe gunhandling.
2. The person in possession of it is an enemy. Removing the gun is not sufficient. The enemy must be removed (or changed)
3. The gun is mechanically unsound. This is a reason for removing that gun, but not guns in general.

Firearms can indeed be used to secure the rights of people today. They are supposed to be the last resort though, not that you take a gun to court and force a favourable judgement. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." - Declaration of Independence. However, while I'm sure there are valid complaints against the US government, if we compare (again from the Declaration of Independence):
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

it doesn't seem to me that the US is really at the point where it's time to start shooting. I think that both the founders of the US and sane people now would be prepared to do much more within the system than to start another civil war or revolution. It doesn't seem to me that it's even close to the point that armed revolution causes less harm than continuing with the system in place. Firearms ownership just gives you the power to secure those rights should you need to. The system is designed in the hope that you will not need to (separation of powers etc).

Re:double entendre

[WNight]

You honestly believe that a branch of the government-run armed forces is the intended protection against an abusive government?

Doesn't that sound silly?

As for allowing people to have nuclear weapons, I don't see how making guns illegal has gotten rid of them, or how all the campaigning against nukes has stopped countries from trying. If we make them illegal they'll still make them, but we won't know. Making them will only get easier. Controlling radioactive materials would help prevent it, but ignores the *much* larger threat of bio-weapons. While I don't think we should have personal nukes, I don't think a law about it would help at all.

As for their 2nd amendment coverage, nukes fall under 'arms' (arms race), and thus I do think the constitution covers them. Not all nukes are 100Mt weapons, there are 0.3Kt tactical nukes. Ones intended for infantry warfare. If we authorize our government to have them, aren't we saying we think there are times they are desirable to have? If the idea was to let us rebel, do you think they meant to limit us to non-scary weapons?

Re:double entendre

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

You honestly believe that a branch of the government-run armed forces is the intended protection against an abusive government? Doesn't that sound silly? I'm not saying anything of the kind. Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is any manner of language regarding protection against government tyranny. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state has nothing the fuck to do with armed resistance of the government. Clearly, the national guard is not 'the intended protection' against abusive government, as it is in fact part of the government. The revolution was necessary because of both abusive government *and* the lack of an internal system of recourse for th redressing of wrongs. You know what sounds silly? Thinking that armed resistance to the U.S. Government is a better idea that working within the political and legal structure to ensure that your own interests are protected. Why dont you ask the guys from Ruby Ridge or Waco how that worked out for them? oh, right, they're dead or in jail. Fuck off.

While I don't think we should have personal nukes, I don't think a law about it would help at all. Um... ok. Wait, what? Other nation-states not under the jurisdiction of U.S. law have seen fit to make nuclear weapons , therefore U.S. law preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons into the private sphere wouldn't do any good? that doesnt even make sense. Your example and your conclusion involve non-related legal systems. Saying that other countries are not obeying U.S. law is an inherently useless statement.

If we authorize our government to have them, aren't we saying we think there are times they are desirable to have? If the idea was to let us rebel, do you think they meant to limit us to non-scary weapons? Uh, the differing levels of megadeaths deliverable by the varying size nuclear weapons currently produced has little to nothing to do with whether or not you or i should possess one. wait, nothing to do with it. If you think that owning a nuclear warhead is justified by their presence in the U.S. military arsenal, then I really have nothing more to say to you. Get some perspective and rejoin the discussion when you're capable of something deeper than meaningless polemic.

Re:double entendre

[wazza]

I'm not sure of your point here. You've stated the obvious about the device mentioned, i.e.:

1) you have to have one
2) you need to use it
3) it's not 100% effective

However, compared to the alternative (which is... running a tank brigade straight through an unswept minefield?), again, what is your point?

Re:double entendre

[The One and Only]

My point is that despite the existence of these mine-clearing vehicles, laying mines still holds an advantage for the defender.

Re:double entendre

[WNight]

If you think that owning a nuclear warhead is justified by their presence in the U.S. military arsenal, then I really have nothing more to say to you. Get some perspective and rejoin the discussion when you're capable of something deeper than meaningless polemic.

You lack the ability to turn printed words into the correct ideas - you then project your incorrect ideas onto other people and then attack them. Truly, it is you who should pay more attention to avoid being ignorant. Moreover, your tendency to dismiss people when they appear to disagree with you is childish.

I didn't say that I don't care if nukes get proliferated, just that I don't think passing a law will help. Can you see the type of person or group that wants a nuke stopping because California has a law against it? Not in the slightest. We've already got laws that we could put an attempted terrorist in jail with, conspiracy, intent to use said nuke for extortion, murder, etc.

Would it really help if we could also add another charge, 'deadly weapon using radioactivity'? If there was such a law it'd be used against people who dismantle smoke detectors, etc, and never deter a single terrorist.

Yes, I drew a connection between Pakistan, N. Korea, Iran, all wanting nukes despite knowing what the people around them and the large governments want, and individuals doing their best to hide their weapons. Does the behavior seem different? They are David Koresh, the Unabomber, McVeigh, etc, on a larger scale. People who believe they're above the law (international community), or have an excuse.

As to the existence of nukes at all, by supporting an armed force like ours, we're saying that we agree in the rule of might. We have nukes, as last-ditch reprisals, first-strike weapons, etc. If we have nukes, aren't we saying that as a people we think there are some uses for them? If it's permissible to give them to Bush, why should it be that far out that someone could have a personal tactical nuclear weapon? If they're unthinkable, we shouldn't have them at all. And if they aren't, we need to stop treating them like something magical.

Bio weapons are far scarier than nukes. Smaller, easier to obtain the tools and materials to make, cheaper, easier to deliver, potentially far more deadly... Why should we bother making nukes illegal, and miniguns, etc, etc, when we're facing and endless stream of new technologies which could kill us? There are already a ton of laws Timothy McVeigh broke that we could have used to arrest him. Ditto others. It's not like we needed a law against using truck bombs.

And finally, the second amendment. It says that 'well-regulated militia ... being necessary to the security of a free state'. If militia meant the National Guard, they'd have said army. The NG is just reserves - even if they think otherwise. It certainly isn't 'the people', as there is an application procedure and it's not intended that everyone in the country be able to join. Israel or Switzerland might be able to claim this, as they attempt to make every citizen into a militia member.

IMHO, ideally we'd privately own every weapons - tanks, yup, bombs, yup. I'd rather trust my neighbors with our tank, which we packed up and went to Iraq in only if we agreed with the cause, than I would the government which can compel me to do things I'd find morally repugnant. If I had to pay for the bombs, and be held personally responsible for misuse, I'd think twice - soldiers just press the button.

I'm sure that when they wrote the 2nd amendment they had in mind an invasion by Britain, or other major power, but they fought a rebellion against an occupying force so I think they see the need to fight or defend even against your 'legal' rulers.

I think it's intended to keep the individual people (not just a few professional soldiers stationed in their city) armed and prepared to fight off any threat to their freedom. Not so that we will, but so that we won't have to. A government ruling indivi

Re:double entendre

[SnowZero]

I don't think you could seriously argue that the second amendment covers cannons, mortars, bombs, and landmines. Please don't jump to conclusions that I never stated. I never claimed that people should be able to own landmines or bombs; The GP stated that the 2nd ammendment was from the "age of muzzle loaders" (personal weapons), and then compared that to nuclear warheads (state of the art military weapons). My point was that the founding fathers were aware of a lot more weaponry than he is representing, and thus were more informed than he was representing.

It's fine to argue the policy points of what people should and shouldn't be able to access. However one shouldn't make gross exaggerations and blatant omissions when gathering "evidence".

P.S. In many states you can (with a licence) own and operate civil-war-era or earlier cannons, as well as mortars. Having never heard of any crime being committed with either, that strikes me as just fine.

Re:double entendre

[becklighter]

Our country was founded upon the idea that those with the power to enact change have the responsibility to do so.

That would indicate to me that we should not sit by enjoying our comfortable life styles while people on a continent half way around the world suffer religious persecution.

Should we continue to see our pets in the united states treated more humanely than a person living in another country?

Do you have an interest in the war other than your complaints against it?

I happen to know many soldiers that are committed to what we are doing, because they feel that it is the right thing. One of those soldiers happens to be a member of my family, and in his case getting shot in the leg and the ear didn't change his mind.

Do you believe that your view is of more value than a soldier who nearly lost his life?

I hope not, and I hope that you will respect his opinion.

Re:double entendre

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you believe that your view is of more value than a soldier who nearly lost his life?"

Do you believe that his/her view is of less value?

Hackaday had this

[kcbanner]

Hack a Day had this story yesterday, http://www.hackaday.com/2008/01/16/bowling-industrial-robot-style/. Good to see it make slashdot, though. It's also interesting its on the "mana potion" energy drink site.

It's not a catapult.

[zippthorne]

It's a trebuchet, as can clearly be seen from the sling which holds the bowling balls. It also does not have an optimal sling length, but that just makes the robot itself all the more impressive.

Re:It's not a catapult.

[Psychotria]

You're correct. Except that a trebuchet is still a catapult.

Re:It's not a catapult.

[donscarletti]

It's a trebuchet, as can clearly be seen from the sling which holds the bowling balls. It also does not have an optimal sling length, but that just makes the robot itself all the more impressive.

A trebuchet is powered by a counterweight, this thing is powered by some sort of mechanical actuators meaning that it certainly is not a trebuchet. As for slings, the Roman onager used slings despite being driven by torsion rather than counterweights. Of course back then a catapult was defined as a sinew torsion based crossbow that that fired a spear. A ballista was similar but fired rocks instead, though these days we call an onager a catapult, a catapult a ballista and don't really have a name for a ballista.

Re:It's not a catapult.

[Nefarious Wheel]

A trebuchet is powered by a counterweight, this thing is powered by some sort of mechanical actuators meaning that it certainly is not a trebuchet. As for slings, the Roman onager used slings despite being driven by torsion rather than counterweights. Of course back then a catapult was defined as a sinew torsion based crossbow that that fired a spear. A ballista was similar but fired rocks instead, though these days we call an onager a catapult, a catapult a ballista and don't really have a name for a ballista.

There were non-counterweight trebuchets as well, called "traction" trebuchets. Instead of a counterweight you had a number of people tugging on ropes. I had one based on this model built for me for SCA combat as the result of a siege engine competition (Stormhold) some years ago. 60-90 metre throws with a cargo of softballs was customary with a 6 metre composite rattan arm. One advantage of a traction trebuchet is it's more mobile as you don't need to score or drag a tonne or so of counterweight along to the launch site.

So to stay on topic, I think you could call the robot arm a form of trebuchet. I've not seen onagers with slings in my researches though, will look for that. Onagers btw were so named because of the bucking motion they make, mitigated by curved ends of their foundation rails. Onager = Donkey in Latin. They were also called "rocking donkeys".

And another name for Ballista could be "ZOMG Look at the size of that effing crossbow!". They didn't always use rocks, some of them used mucking great iron bolts.

Re:It's not a catapult.

[JustOK]

aren't ballistas the people who go to college for four years in order to serve drinks at starbucks?

Re:It's not a catapult.

[Ours]

Indeed, source code for the robot states that correctly.

Re:It's not a catapult.

[Mike1024]

this thing is powered by some sort of mechanical actuators meaning that it certainly is not a trebuchet.

Those are AC servo motors. From the colour of the robot and be blurry photos I think it's a KUKA KR 150-2 K or something similar.

Re:It's not a catapult.

[Henry Pate]

Your ideas intrigue me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

P.S. Can I come over to your house and launch a piano from your trebuchet? (I assume you have a few)

Re:It's not a catapult.

[Resident Netizen]

No, it's not a catapult. Quite obviously, it's a Kuka-pult.
Props to the mad robot wielders!

Re:I for one...

[scottrocket]

...and the next time the mongols attack our shitty walls in their motorhomes, we'll be ready!

AWESOME

[427_ci_505]

AWESOME. They do have a good point of the video game interface. Moving maps, with hotkeys...though I doubt they have the complexity for everything.

Let me be the first

[Psychotria]

to offer my services as a target for this thing. Catapult a beer my way every 15 minutes. Thanks.

Re:Let me be the first

[Faylone]

I hope you have a sturdy helmet.

Re:Let me be the first

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hope you prefer light beer.

Re:Let me be the first

[Psychotria]

*burp* I dunno... I suspect they're heavies that are being thrust through the air by the trebuchet.

I can see the future now, and you DON'T want to be

[davidsyes]

on the WRONG arm of the LAW

Graphical UI

[iminplaya]

gorilla.bas?

Re:Graphical UI

[duncan99]

http://www.scorched3d.co.uk/

HD Camera

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this straight... they "Rented" the camera by buying it at Fry's and returning it?

I'm sure some people will defend this tactic, but its stuff like this that causes awesome return policies at stores to be restricted, and prices to go up. (as recently happened at CostCo)

I can't believe they posted that tidbit on the site...

Re:HD Camera

[toadlife]

I bought a reciprocal saw the other day at Home Depot. One of the saws' outside packaging was missing - it was a return, but it as the only DeWalt left. I asked the store clerk to open it (it had anti-theft a lock on the handle) so I could make sure all the parts were there. Upon inspection I found that the instructions, and saw blades were missing and the saw itself was extremely dirty and had a gash on the front hole where the saw blade attaches. Some asshole had bought it, used it on a job and then returned it.

Re:HD Camera

[plover]

Let me get this straight... they "Rented" the camera by buying it at Fry's and returning it?

I'm sure some people will defend this tactic, but its stuff like this that causes awesome return policies at stores to be restricted, and prices to go up. (as recently happened at CostCo)

Yeah, I was pissed at them when I read this too. I hope that when Fry institutes a 20% open-box charge on returns, that everybody look this guy up and send him a thank you note. Wrapped around a bowling ball.

Re:HD Camera

[wintersynth]

Okay, I have to admit, we felt pretty bad about this "renting" tactic until we actually tried the camera. It was hands-down the worst HD camera I have ever used. I mean seriously, it had all sorts of proprietary software with weird codecs so that the footage was extremely difficult to transcode at high resolution.

I felt absolutely no remorse returning that thing. I know, that still doesn't make it right, because we didn't know that going into it. But I hope it is at least a mitigating factor. Plus, I give Fry's tons of (non-"rented") business, and their awesome return policy is a big part of the reason.

Re:HD Camera

[Bongo Bill]

I hope that when Fry institutes a 20% open-box charge on returns, that everybody look this guy up and send him a thank you note. Wrapped around a bowling ball. ...Delivered by catapult, I assume?

Re:HD Camera

[LingNoi]

And this is Fry's fault?

uh, yeah it is. The camera sucked so he took it back.

Re:HD Camera

[Anonymous Coward]

Screen Name? GTFO back to AOL kthxbye

Re:HD Camera

[manamonkey]

Our budget was $1K to get this all done and a great deal of that hinged on the resources we had available between the three of us. Our camera loan fell through last minute (literally) and we did not have time to research the purchase of a new one. If the cam was good we would have kept it, but it really was a piece of crap. We are about as far from trust-fund kids as you can get and that was not my first or last Fry's return for a piece of disappointing hardware.

Re:HD Camera

[errxn]

Sorry, but you intended to return it from the very start. The lame excuse that the camera sucked does nothing to change that fact, and really just makes you seem like that much more of a tool.

Re:HD Camera

[Jeppe Salvesen]

If so - good on ya. You just made a crappy product slightly less profitable! I hope you also sent a mail to Fry's to explain why you returned that camera.

Re:HD Camera

[moosesocks]

And also where did they "borrow" an industrial robot? (and then get permission to use it as a toy?)

You don't exactly see them sitting out on the street every day....

Re:HD Camera

[ChrisA90278]

This is VERY common at Fry. They have a libral return policy that is NOT likely to change. The return policy is the main reason many people put up with shopping there. The place is a mess and staffed with people who don't know anything about the products being sold. But everyone knows that it they don't like whatever they bought they can just bring it back within 30 days no questions asked. My brother worked in IT for some company and they wanted to buy vidio cards for their computers. So he goes to Frys and buys a half dozen cards. Tries them all out and returns all but one. Lots of people shop this way. I bought AV cables and speaker mounts that way. I did not know what I would need for a installation so I just bought a s--t load of parts and next week returned the stuff I did not use They DO have a less libral policy for cameras and big screen TVs. The return period on those is much,shorter. People were "renting" these big TVs for the the "big game" and returning them the day after. Same with people "renting" camera for a vacation. REI, the outdoor equipment reseller is even more better with returns. They do not have a time limit. I've seen completely thrash hiking boots returned because "they wore out sooner then they should have" REI actually took back boots with the soles worn smooth that had seen a year of hard use. These policies do NOT run up the cost for all of us. they serve to increase the sales volume for the store and actually have a net positive effect.

Re:HD Camera

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny. Did you expect him to buy the saw, set it gingerly on his coffee table, and then decide to return it?

You bought a used/open item (at a discount I'm sure), and then are bitching about it having been used?

Did I get that right?

It's the stores fault for not insuring all the parts were with it when it was returned, and then trying to sell it to someone else. Not "some asshole."

Re:HD Camera

[toadlife]

Did I get that right? No. You got it completely wrong. I didn't buy the used saw. I'm not sure why you assumed that I did. I bought a nice Milwaukee instead. I thought about offering $20 for the used one, but the large gash on the front and the put me off.

It's the stores fault for not insuring all the parts were with it when it was returned, and then trying to sell it to someone else. Not "some asshole." Of course it's stores fault for not inspecting the return, but that didn't make what the person who returned it right.

Re:HD Camera

[Anonymous Coward]

No, piss for brains, he never intended on keeping it. Ethically challenged. You must be, too.

It's not a nut launcher.

[Anonymous Coward]

"A ballista was similar but fired rocks instead, though these days we call an onager a catapult, a catapult a ballista and don't really have a name for a ballista."

let's call it...ow!

Re:Does it catapult everything?

[calebt3]

About as well as it would catapult you.
Unless you are a very small shell script.

Calculon proves even robot arms can move up

[4d4m]

As we can see from Calculon, you aren't just stuck as a robot arm. Thespomat, David Duchovny - the sky is the limit.

Omg

[rampant mac]

"The software needed to control the robot [is] like an MMO or RTS game."

Oh I can see it coming... "OMG fsking WALL HAX N00BZ!" ...shouted right before you get shelled by 16 pound bowling balls. :(

No wireless. Less range than a trebuchet. Lame.

[jdschulteis]

Seriously, they threw bowling balls 120 feet. Yawn.

Re:No wireless. Less range than a trebuchet. Lame.

[wirelessbuzzers]

No kidding. A (very strong) human could probably throw a bowling ball half that far. A trebuchet could probably throw objects 10x heavier 10x the distance, and with better incendiaries to boot.

Still, kudos on innovative use of tech.

Re:No wireless. Less range than a trebuchet. Lame.

[hey!]

Yes, but it is a prototype made with off the shelf components. Scale the motors up 20x and give it a hopper capable of holding a couple thousand incendiary bowling balls and it would be a lot more impressive.

Re:No wireless. Less range than a trebuchet. Lame.

[PitaBred]

Naah. World records for hammer throw (~16lb) are in the range of 260ft. A strong human could easily do it. The thing is, this will throw it exactly where you want it to go, software controllable. That's not as easy of a task for a human.

Re:No wireless. Less range than a trebuchet. Lame.

[wirelessbuzzers]

Yeah, I was comparing to shot put, which is also 16lb, but the record is more like 70ft. Not sure if it's more like a shot or more like a hammer... depends if a human can use a sling effectively on something so heavy.

yes but can it fling....

[Brad1138]

a giant wooden badger?

Re:yes but can it fling....

[thatnerdguy]

did someone say badger?

Catapult?

[Teufelsmuhle]

It's not a real catapult unless it's flinging cows or pianos.

Re:Catapult?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fetchez la vache

Re:Catapult?

[dkf]

It's not a real catapult unless it's flinging cows or pianos. Or trojan rabbits. You can't get real-er than that!

Re:Catapult?

[Anonymous Coward]

or cats.

Onagers with slings

[tolomea]

my 5 seconds of researches found several onagers with slings http://images.google.com.au/images?q=onager

Re:It's not a catapult OR a trebuchet

[SilverRayn]

What categorizes a trebuchet as a trebuchet is the counterweight (not the sling). The qualifying factor for the catapult is the stored tension. This has neither. Sling or not, it's a robot, not a trebuchet or catapult.

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

So now we are training robots to kill us even when we aren't inside their arm radius.

Now all we need to do...

[unbug]

...is plug in the monkey!

Why waste beer?

[weharc]

Why waste beer? Oh the humanity!

Re:I can see the future now, and you DON'T want to

[laejoh]

I read and understood your comment as:

Re:I can see the future now, and you DON'T want to be on the WRONG side of my LAWN!

Damn hippy youngsters!

Re:Tall ones?

[datablaster]

how far do you suppose an Anonymous Coward could be thrown by such a device?

Re:ATTENTION MODS

[ricree]

(-1+1: funny flamebait)

Build your own!

[Narmacil]

Because honestly, for what that arm was, it could have fired alot further than they had it going. I built a floating arm trebuchet 2 years back for my high school senior project and it had a least twice the range of that arm.( It could fire a half gallon of water about 250 feet. )I admit, that may have been less weight than their arm was firing, but that was because I only had about 300 pounds of counterweight. Their problem is in the release time, and the sling could stand to be a bit longer. Its still pretty cool that they got ahold of it, but for about $150 worth of wood, screws and some rope and you could build yourself something just as good or better.Oh, and here's a link to a pic of my treb slightly before it was finished (i dont have the arm up on the tracks yet here.) http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r284/risknc/Treb/DSCN0138.jpg I'll upload a video later

Re:Build your own!

[DigitalSorceress]

Nice idea, but there's something just so ... sexy about it being a giant robot arm.

I like the vision-control guidance system too. Some MAJOR geek points in all of that in my book.

Re:Tall ones?

[caferace]

You'd have to talk her into stepping into the sling first. Troublesome.

Get 2 Of These..

[Layth]

That's a recipe for an awesome game of beer pong.

In Russia?

[Mackmannen]

Ok, let me try this... In Russia the catapult flings you - or - In Russia you fling the catapult - ?

Who would win?

[tiluki]

The robot, or Warwolf?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwolf

correct timing of motors

[v1]

They said they had some trouble determining the optimal movement of all the motors for maximum range. iirc, when trying to accelerate something, a 'whiplike" motion is preferred, similar to how a pitcher throws a fastball.

Ah, memories...

[Dr. Manhattan]

I used to work for an industrial robot company. I worked on the big arms that carried spot-welding guns around, mostly for the auto industry. Those arms were strong - there was one case where the gun welded itself to the truck frame it was building (as will happen if you don't clean the tips enough) and the robot kept right on going, and ended up tossing a truck body into the aisle when it returned to rest. Thankfully, no one was hurt.

But that incident, among others, spurred work to develop collision detection. They finally got some software running on the DSPs that'd estimate what the current to the motors should be, and measure what it actually was; too big a difference and the robot would halt. And then comes the fun part...

I got to test it.

For six months, my paid job was to take huge industrial robots and bang them into things.

I'm pure software now, and it's fun and pays better... but I still think about those days with fondness.

Re:Ah, memories...

[psychosmyth]

Haha, Dodged a few castings from a DCpress recently. Rejected a bad cast and the arm just shook it in the air and tossed it across the floor at my feet. The operator had to reset it a few times. I swear it was mocking me.

Not the first robot to fling something.

[karlandtanya]

In the floorpan line of a well-known auto manufacturer, the safety folks wanted to test the OSHA safe stopping distance calculation used to place some light curtains.

The way you protect workers from getting killed by a robot (and these things are way stronger than you think, even after seeing it fling rocks) is to put up light curtains around the robot.
The OSHA safe stopping distance calculation is used to prove that the hazardous motion will stop in the time it takes the person to traverse the light curtain and come into contact with the equipment.

So, the safety folks find the robot with the biggest, fastest moving load on the line--the floorpan skin transfer robot. A floorpan skin is basically a sixty-pound razor blade.
The end effector held onto the floorpan skin with suction cups, which are a cost-effective and reliable method for the process.

The robot guys set up a test, where they got all 6 axes of the robot moving in such a manner that the end effector achieved its maximum possible speed.
Not something you'd normally do, but a worst-case scenario for use as safety systems challenge.
We all wanted to see this robot haul ass, so the safety folks had us all standing back...
Robot dude picked up the TP and initiated the path at 100% speed...
Somebody waited for the arm to get to full extension and speed...and stuck their hand into the light curtain.

The robot stopped almost instantly--well within the expected stopping distance.
No way that person would have been injured by the robot.

The skin (remember the sixty-pound razor blade) stopped a couple bays over.

Hard clamps were added to the end effector and the test was repeated with improved results.

surely, once you've *got* an industrial robot

[RMH101]

...then all you need to do is make it mobile and you can "borrow" any hardware you like. I wouldn't say no to an angry industrial robot arm...

Too late

[Deadstick]

...SCO already went under.

rj

Re: Budget?

[Migraineman]

Watching the videos, they have a rather large generator, a boom forklift, the robot, the robot power controller, a pile of bowling balls, and an RV "target." There's serious money here; planning too. They didn't just boogey out into the desert after drinking a few beers one weekend. I fail to understand how they couldn't "budget" for a camcorder ... maybe borrow one from the neighbor or yell upstairs and ask to borrow mom's?

What, they needed the HD camera to make their YouTube posting look better?

That's a TREBUCHET!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

That's no catapult. It's a TREBUCHET , you insensitive clod!

Tired tags.

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, could we please stop tagging EVERY article with "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" now?

If this is an arms race...

[sneakyimp]

My money is on the pumpkin cannon. The distance record is over a mile and the technological requirements are significantly less.

The Kuka on the other hand...

[Scud]

...probably wasn't worth the $1000 (okay, that was uncalled for :) ).

We had them here at our plant and we went back to Fanuc. Not that I'm a big fan of Fanuc either. And that's a body shop bot that you've got, right?

So how did you manage to keep the robot from pitching over? (Obviously the Kuka isn't placed directly in the sand).

Erm, while I'm at it, where did you find the 480V to run it?

Seen one already.

[skeeto]

The Carnegie Science Center in Pittsburgh currently has a robotic arm that looks just like this, but it plays basketball. It is a basketball catapult.