Industrial Robot Arm Becomes Giant Catapult 149
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."
Re:It's not a catapult. (Score:3, Insightful)
HD Camera (Score:5, Insightful)
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:double entendre (Score:5, Insightful)
[1] [wikipedia.org] [2] [wikipedia.org] [3] [wikipedia.org] [4] [wikipedia.org]
Re:double entendre (Score:2, Insightful)
"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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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:HD Camera (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:double entendre (Score:2, Insightful)
I suggest you read "Common Sense" [gutenberg.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] 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:HD Camera (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:double entendre (Score:3, Insightful)
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.