Submitted by: Unknown
Via: Tumblr
-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous Only at Building Castles Made of Sand | Things are Changing? WHY Next »
» 32 TPS Reports
Leave a Reply
-
The Water Cooler
Chris on I Swear to God… mm on He Prefers DMRs to ACRs Erik on Shut Up and Take My Magnetized… senna on I Was Born Ready for This… Rehcsif on Forever a Drone Rehcsif on No Bulls***! MrSeagull on He Prefers DMRs to ACRs zarchasmpgmr on Nyan BART gloworm on Forever a Drone Drendel on I.E. Needs to Make Like K…
1970′s ?
Maybe. I saw this in a book, but I can’t remember where. Not sure how old it is. On the other hand, it is still relevant to the working world. Especially the part about documentation.
What is this “documentation” you keep talking about?
A salesman gave this to me in the late 1960′s, only it was a black and white cartoon. He was selling air conditioners (a new fangled thing to us all).
This was a very old joke at that time.
Oldie but a goodie.
the customer wanted a tire swing but described it as a 3 rung ladder? makes sense
It certainly does. The customer isn’t always right, you know. In fact in most cases, they’re blithering idiots!
This
Definitely this.
oh how true this is.
Consuming makes people stupid.
Іdіоts with money – take the money and run.
“What the Customer actually paid for” looks remarkably like “What got documented”.
Are you kidding? In the “What the Customer actually paid for” panel there’s actually something there!
No, there is no “what the customer paid for.”
There’s a “what the customer was billed for.”
There’s no proof they ever paid for anything.
The problem is it paints marketing in too good a light. To properly reflect what marketing promised, you need:
* 7.1 THX audio
* 100″ 3D HTDV
* Rocket power
* Integrated toilet that composts waste into gold.
The toilet must have an automatic butt wiping machine on it.
…promised two weeks before the delivery date nine months after the “final” design was approved.
I think most Project Management courses use this. I saw another version that used modes of transportation instead.
The engineer doesn’t know what a swing is. In his version your smack into the tree on every downswing.
You sure you having been using it? because this either a troll or very stupid
Not sure what you said, but if you put up a tire swing like that, unless the limbs stick out a significant distance while being parallel, you will hit the tree every other downswing.
dudes, look at what the engineer designed. Everytime you swung bakcwards, you would indeed slam into the tree trunk. just look, and use your brains.
Sorry, i meant “haven’t”, not “having”. i was implying you’ve been using it, because you were being very silly. using it would cause you to hit your head, which would have side effects, like being silly.
you’re silly
http://www.projectcartoon.com/
They should reverse the drawings for “how manufacturing installed it” and “what the customer finally received”; it’s pretty hard to “uncut” a tree like that. The scenario is then plausible from the standpoint of the installer initially misreading (or disregarding) the drawings, then getting it right but having to make a field repair to address engineering’s mistake.
Panel 4 = Discworld reference = WIN!
Wait — DEATH works in Manufacturing?
If only, as an engineer, I was allowed to talk to the customer!!
Got lost in TRANSIT???? Or “Got lost in Translation?”… I guessed i’m confused now.
Got lost in TRANSIT???? Or “Got lost in Translation?”… I guessed i’m confused now
question, how did they build it inside the tree. I now that’s the point, but…….