Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Robot Serves Up 360 Hamburgers Per Hour

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the om-nom-nom dept.

Robotics 299

kkleiner writes "No longer will they say, 'He's going to end up flipping burgers.' Now, robots are taking even these ignobly esteemed jobs. San Francisco based Momentum Machines makes a robot called the Alpha that can churn out 360 gourmet burgers per hour. The company plans on launching the first ever burger restaurant chain with a cook staff made entirely of robots. You think Americans are obese right now? Just wait."

cancel ×

299 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mmm-mm! (4, Funny)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663029)

That is a tasty burger.

Re:Mmm-mm! (1)

Ruede (824831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663113)

looks tasty ^^

Re:Mmm-mm! (2)

Cryacin (657549) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663265)

And now, enjoy our new Soylent burger. Made from the people, for the people.

Re:Mmm-mm! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663285)

Now, now. Don't be Ruede.

Re:Mmm-mm! (2)

jonnythan (79727) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663213)

You mind if I have some of your tasty beverage to wash this down?

Re:Mmm-mm! (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664063)

You mind if I have some of your tasty beverage to wash this down?

What?

Re:Mmm-mm! (1)

Alien Being (18488) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664621)

Bloomberg says you're allowed one gulp or two swallows. He didn't state his personal preference.

Re:Mmm-mm! (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663697)

"That is a tasty burger."

Is it?

I wonder how well it does with "hold the salt" or "lighten up on the mayo."

Re:Mmm-mm! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42664015)

"That is a tasty burger."

Is it?

I wonder how well it does with "hold the salt" or "lighten up on the mayo."

At least it won't spit on your burger

Couch Potato (3, Interesting)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663045)

With no more entry level positions, maybe we can finally take over the world by using our free time to build death rays.

Re:Couch Potato (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42664397)

Having worked in the burger flipping industry I can assure you this will lay off maybe a handful of jobs. The remaining people will stay on to clean and replace parts (so they can be cleaned) as the day progresses.

FIRST! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663061)

Now we need robots that can feed us!

That's nothing (3, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663079)

I saw SpongeBob SquarePants serve up thousands of Crabby Patties in just a few minutes [youtube.com] !

Re:That's nothing (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663257)

But he left off the pickles

HE LEFT OFF THE PICKLES!

Fatter? (4, Insightful)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663085)

Why would this make us more obese, this won't make more fat food then we already have, just a new way of doing it. It will just put a few low paid cooks out of a job and leaves one job for some guy that fixes the machine.

Re:Fatter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663231)

All the people who would have had to get off their skinny little asses and go to work at burger restaurants can now sit at home on their fat, unemployed asses.

Re:Fatter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663725)

As someone who works between college classes at a fast food place, I can tell you I wouldn't get fat. I'd wind up unemployed and homeless, primarily. But by all means, keep thinking people actually enjoy working for minimum wage.

Re:Fatter? (2)

hermitdev (2792385) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664255)

Don't worry - we'll still need someone to clean the bathrooms. Haven't seen a robot for that, yet.

Re:Fatter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42664581)

Pretty sure they call that a roomba...

Re:Fatter? (5, Insightful)

FunkSoulBrother (140893) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663303)

Why would this make us more obese, this won't make more fat food then we already have, just a new way of doing it. It will just put a few low paid cooks out of a job and leaves one job for some guy that fixes the machine.

Oh sure it will, there is almost certainly some percentage of fatties that are partially kept in check by the shame of ordering multiple day's worth of food from a skinny teenager. Once you're ordering from an nonjudging robot it will be much socially easier to ask for 3 burgers and 2 orders of fries.

It will be like the guys that would never set foot in a physical porn shop, but have no problem purchasing it online.

Re:Fatter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663499)

Why would this make us more obese, this won't make more fat food then we already have, just a new way of doing it.

Because it's always fun to laugh at fat americans.

Re:Fatter? (2)

dj245 (732906) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664125)

Why would this make us more obese, this won't make more fat food then we already have, just a new way of doing it. It will just put a few low paid cooks out of a job and leaves one job for some guy that fixes the machine.

That's the story of the industrial revolution, which started in the late 1800s. Better quality, higher-paying jobs requiring higher skill take the place of unskilled or lightly skilled labor. I don't see this is as screwing the little guy. I see it as creating a better job and eliminating tedious and unpleasant tasks from society.

Of course, with this development, we might start questioning why we need quick-serve restaurants, or quick-serve restaurant managers, or quick-serve cashiers at all. We could probably replace the whole lot with vending machines within 10 years. We could probably replace them all today if we tried.

Re:Fatter? (1)

atomican (2799855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664601)

and leaves one job for some guy that fixes the machine

Nah. Eventually someone will come up with a robot that can perform maintenance on the burger robot, removing the human element completely. As for the maintenance robot, another robot will take care of that robot, and so on.

Eventually humans will be removed entirely from the design and manufacturer of said robots once they are designed with the appropriate skills. Once this happens, we'll all die in a nuclear holocaust as Skynet is born. All because of a simple burger robot.

The Luddite Fallacy (4, Interesting)

mfwitten (1906728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663087)

Read about it [wikipedia.org] and understand it.

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663353)

I don't get it. If there are less consumers how do they benefit from the price decrease associated with the increase in productivity vs cost in making the product?

This Luddite Fallacy that you linked is a fallacy in itself as it assumes that there will always be a limitless wealth of new "entry level" jobs and that people will just "shift to new jobs" that magically won't be replaced by robots?

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663391)

meant to say if there are less consumers how is that an overall "benefit" just because the price went down for the few remaining people that still had jobs in order to be able to consume?

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (2)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663455)

That is not what it assumes. First you assume that there is a decrease in the number of consumers, that is not true, and even if there was a price decrease will still lead to a shift in demand from those that still have jobs, which is vastly more then lost them. That extra revenue will lead to expansion and so forth.. If you had read the wiki it points it out in this paragraph

If a firm's technological innovation results in a reduction of labor inputs, then the firm's cost of production falls, which shifts the firm's supply curve outward and reduces the price of the good (limited by the price elasticity of demand[7]). The widespread adoption of the innovator's technology could lead to market entry by new firms, partially offsetting the displaced labor, but the main benefit to the innovation is the increase in aggregate demand that results from the price decrease. As long as real prices fall (or real incomes rise), the additional purchasing power gives consumers the ability to purchase more products and services. With technological innovation, these are often products and services new to the consumer, such as better health care or wireless communication devices and services. This increase in aggregate demand leads many economists to believe that technological change, although disruptive of individual careers and particular firms, cannot lead to systemic unemployment, but actually increases employment due to its expansionary effect on the economy.[8]

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (1)

Snotnose (212196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663719)

Came to say this, you said it better. 2 more points. The burgers will be more consistent with robots making them. Second, you can have a lot more variety in your menu. Want a fish sandwich with horseradish, bbq sauce, sweet pickles, and hold the tomato? There's an app for that.

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (3, Insightful)

Eskarel (565631) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664629)

The problem which reality is showing us(though no good economist, especially right wing economists ever let pesky things like reality get in the way) is that the automatic relocation of even new workers doesn't work the way that economic theory says it should. People who work in what would be traditionally called Blue Collar roles are not always in those roles because of any lack of education or opportunity. In many cases people who do manual jobs do so because they enjoy them and/or have an affinity for them which they would not have if they were doing some sort of indoor office role, plenty of people seem to feel the same way about the non assembly line areas of food service.

In short, labor is not fungible. Not only is someone who has trained as a machinist for twenty years going to magically transform into someone working in HR overnight, but it appears that a person who if a machinist job was available would have taken that job for twenty years won't successfully become an HR drone simply because that is the job that is available. Everyone has different skills and different personalities, and just because you or I are comfortable working in an office in front of a computer doesn't mean that everyone is, and that's not even taking into account whether someone who would be comfortable doing that kind of job is able to access the education and training necessary to excel in it.

We on Slashdot tend to have a somewhat biased view of the world, we are, for the most part, information workers in a world where information work is expanding and our opportunities are a darned site rosier than many, but imagine for a moment if you were forced to do construction or work in a restaurant(or if you do those things imagine being an IT worker). It's not just about skills it's about what people are good at and can live with doing.

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663439)

It should be revised a bit.

It no longer holds true that when a job is replaced by technology the populace is free to shift to new jobs; as jobs gets more and more specialized, the cost of training (we're speaking years for a degree level training) will no longer be absorbed by the market.

Corporation will only invest on younger people because they cost less, have an open mind and have a longer life ahead so they will return more for the training given.

While it is indeed true that eventually the jobs will shift to new venues, those won't absorb previous worker, will only absorb new one entering the market. On the long term the effect is the same (job shifting) but the difference of the modern approach in the short term is this buffer of unemployed, overspecialized middle aged man that the society doesn't know what to do with.

The fallacy is still a fallacy, but we have to consider the timescale at which it operates because a society can't wait a generation to heal.

most jobs do not need degree level and even then (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663633)

most jobs do not need degree level and even then you have people with the degree level with big skills gaps.

We need more hands on training and need to back of the idea of a 4+ year degree.

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (5, Interesting)

tragedy (27079) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663641)

The thing about that though is the question of what economic activity arises for people to participate in for employment. We're already living in an age where most of the useful labour is done by a relatively small percentage of the population. Most of the rest works in various types of service job. Robots like this can replace human workers in entire large segments of those service industries. Sure there are other service jobs, but there are a lot of them that really are of the replaceable with a simple shell script variety. With a little more machine intelligence, the majority of them probably are replaceable that way. Eventually, there won't be any low or no-skill jobs left. Even the jobs fixing the machines will be done by machines. The simple fact is that most people aren't high-skilled labour and even those who are highly skilled or are very, very good at their jobs often can't compete with a custom designed machine (shades of John Henry). The truth is that the new economy jobs that gradually replace the old ones are worse and worse and the typical labourer is going to have to sell their labour on what is increasingly a buyers market.

The problem is that farming, mining, manufacturing, food service, retail sales, warehouse jobs, delivery, construction, etc. can all conceivably be replaced almost entirely by machines. The owners of the machines, farms, mines, factories, restaurants, stores, warehouses, delivery companies, construction companies, etc. will then be the only people producing the tangible things that the consumers truly need, while the majority of the consumers will be working in service jobs producing intangibles that people don't really need.

In other words, we are in danger of transitioning to post-scarcity technology without transitioning to a post-scarcity economy. That leaves most people, at best, working themselves to death in completely unproductive, pointless jobs.

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (1)

crdotson (224356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664113)

It sounds good, but I have heard this argument many times over the years. Supermarket scanners didn't cause the downfall of western civilization. What's different this time?

I would argue there are plenty of jobs that simply cannot be done by any machine (barring strong AI). Most entertainment jobs, as an example, and that segment of the market keeps growing. Human desires are practically infinite. I don't see getting to post-scarcity any time soon, but let's hope it happens.

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (1)

SillyHamster (538384) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664229)

In other words, we are in danger of transitioning to post-scarcity technology without transitioning to a post-scarcity economy. That leaves most people, at best, working themselves to death in completely unproductive, pointless jobs.

As likely as the grey goo scenario. Your doomsday scenario is likely missing out on some feedback loops that prevent it from happening.

People are more adaptable than machines, and thus have a higher value than them. Machines can be specialized to do some jobs more efficiently than humans, but they aren't good enough to replace humans in every possible role. There will always be work that a human can do more economically than a machine.

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (1)

hermitdev (2792385) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664383)

People are more adaptable than machines, and thus have a higher value than them.

Yet machines are more dependable and predictable than humans. The machine will do exactly what programmed to, reliably, faster and with fewer errors than a human doing the same task. Yes, the machine breaks down from time to time and requires maintenance. But, it doesn't work an 8 hour shift, doesn't take sick days and doesn't go on strike. Automation generally reduces costs and increases reliability and reproducibility. While reduced costs in production doesn't necessarily translate to lower prices to the consumer, it does allow maximizing profits. When a competitor does come along and undercuts your price, you now have wiggle room to lower price and remain competitive and profitable. Personally, I wouldn't lower prices given a lower production cost unless I was either facing competitive pressure or trying to gain market share.

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (2)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664591)

In this case however, there are many running costs skipped by the article. The robot handles food which sponsors the growth of many kinds of bacteria and moulds and would need to be cleaned frequently. Raw meat held in a warm humid environment, even a couple of hours is a problem (think of the supply tubes and streaks left behind). At a minimum the machine would need to be cleaned out and rinsed every four hours. Then of course a worker takes a sicky, you get a replacement, here, well you have to fix the worker and it depends what broke down and how far away your fixer is. Then there is vermin detection and keeping them out of the works, a 'ratburger' might become all to real. Basically when closely looked at, some forms of automation, until far higher technological solutions are available, simply more higher cost labour to implement, than the labour they eliminate.

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42664375)

Combined with two factors: Old Money and China: We're already there. Those of us with jobs should try and support as many people as we can as personal charities at least until childhood starvation has past.

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663683)

So lets say labor costs me $10 per widget, and I sell it for $20. I revamp my tools and eventually get labor costs down to $5. Knowing people were willing to buy it for $20, what incentive would I have to change the sale price to $15? Will I drop the price so more people can afford it? or will I continue selling it for 20 and be happy making higher profit off my current target market? Will dropping the price matter at all for a person with no job and still cant afford it at any price?

Reading the luddite fallacy article, I see the argument that somehow the efficiency will neutralize the effect of less labor because the cost savings will make products more affordable. To a degree I can see that as true, but I don't think it's going to scale perfectly. $5 in labor savings is not going to be $5 in savings to the consumer.

And what happens when companies become large enough that they can set the price no matter the market conditions? What incentive would such a company have to modify prices of goods to evenly balance out problems inflicted by labor shortages?

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663959)

It also doesn't account for when every entry level job is replaced by automation and "magic-hand-waves" in saying:

In some cases, freeing up of the labor force allows more people to enter higher-skilled managerial jobs and technologically-specialized jobs, which are typically higher paying. Therefore, fears of unemployment due to automation are generally dismissed as just another instance of the Luddite premise, which has proven fallacious time and again over many decades.

So "some" cases is enough to clear all fears.. gotcha.. and " management of what exactly? When the robot overlord automation of labor is complete do the robots really need managers and just how many managers will they need?

Where is this magical increase in overall starting education to prepare these people for these other types of positions coming from?

Luddite Fallacy indeed.

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (0)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664073)

So now we are trying to disprove a fallacy with a fallacy?

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (1)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663967)

Several things. If labor costs are 5, and that is the only cost of the widget, as you seem to be suggesting and you are selling it for 20, then more then likely another vendor will start in the industry and sell it for less, forcing you to sell for less to compete. Or you study economics and realize that the highest price you sell your item for is not the price that will generate you the most profit, it is all part of the curve. If you are selling 100 now, making 1500 in profit, but the curve support you selling 200 at 15, making making 2000 profit, what are you going to sell the item for?

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (1)

thaylin (555395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664169)

If you are making a product at a quarter of what you are selling it for that opens the door for competition. In addition selling an item at a higher price does not necessarily generate more profit. If you are selling that item for 20 and selling 100 of said item making 1500 in profit, but lowering the price to 15 will sell 200 at 2000 in profit what are you going to sell it for?

Re:The Luddite Fallacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42664757)

Who is making the argument that these robots are taking away jobs?

The strawman argument, read about it and understand it.

Look at the pictures (5, Funny)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663089)

Nothing says appetizing like a burger popping out flanked by greased chains...

Re:Look at the pictures (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663305)

You should post this near the top matey, it deserves the points...

Prototype? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663551)

They'll have those covered up in production. To me, nothing says "exploit me" like a hamburger making machine that accepts coupons and/or just might have some kind of simple bug in the software. Yeah, I have this coupon and I'd like 32,767 regulars please.

Re:Look at the pictures (4, Interesting)

esldude (1157749) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663729)

Is that worse than wondering where your food preparers hands have been since they were last washed? And though adjacent to the burger, they didn't come into contact with it. Plus there are food grade greases used in such devices that are safe around food preparation like this.

Re:Look at the pictures (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42664453)

Even better if it is bacon grease.

Hamburger vending machines! (1)

bobthesungeek76036 (2697689) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663091)

There is a God!!!

Re:Hamburger vending machines! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663461)

Given that this machine is supposed to ground the meat and have to cook it, it would mean that each burger would take at least a few minutes to produce. That's a very deep pipeline operation with a few minutes of latency. That's not likely to be a vending machine. I would speculate that it is more interesting for say airline (or military?) food catering where you cook up a few hundred of almost identical burgers at a time.

Indoor vending? (1)

UpnAtom (551727) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664419)

Basically like fast food, only with CCTV instead of owners.

Wow: (2)

Hartree (191324) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663109)

That'd even keep Wimpy [wikipedia.org] fed!

I don't see how this would make us fatter. (0)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663111)

I really don't see how this would make us any fatter. If you think the Fastfood joints are going to lower their prices just because they don't have to pay as many or any workers you're mistaken. They know we are use to paying x amount for a burger and they will all collude to make sure that there is only very minor differences in all their pricing schemes

.

The economic issues are more interesting.

Re:I don't see how this would make us fatter. (2)

camperdave (969942) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663491)

It's not about the fast food joints. It's about the burgermaker machine installed in the lobby of my apartment building and late night cravings.

But do they serve horseburgers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663115)

Anyone can serve hamburgers...

Re:But do they serve horseburgers? (0)

Hartree (191324) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663139)

So...

How do you make "gourmet" horseburgers?

Re:But do they serve horseburgers? (2)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663205)

"How do you make "gourmet" horseburgers?"

You don't. Just catch a police horse. Not only will it be tasty, it belongs to the Crown. How can you get any more gourmet than that?

The moment in V for Vendetta when EV realises she's eating REAL butter... stolen from the Chancellor's supply train, of course...

ps Disclaimer: Do not touch police horses. They are your friends! ;-)

Re:But do they serve horseburgers? (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663375)

ps riddle I might know a guy who know a guy who can source "long pork" - well if the gourmet horse is a police horse can you imagine what gourmet long pork comes packaged in? 10 points for the 1st person with a userid shown to post the correct (rather morbid) answer...

Re:But do they serve horseburgers? (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663393)

pps 10 extra points for low userID AND famous troll username :-D

"slow down cowboy!"

Come on, I've earned my "naughty" posts recently, I'm posting at 2, let me submit please /.!!!

Re:But do they serve horseburgers? (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663427)

ppps apk launching distributed crapflood of HOSTS in 5,4,3,2,1...

Re:But do they serve horseburgers? (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663463)

pppps longest thread where I talked to myself EVER... I wonder how many posts it gives you and whether it can be used to create a huge variation on the page-widening troll? Don't worry, I won't try.

Re:But do they serve horseburgers? (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664333)

ps riddle I might know a guy who know a guy who can source "long pork" - well if the gourmet horse is a police horse can you imagine what gourmet long pork comes packaged in? 10 points for the 1st person with a userid shown to post the correct (rather morbid) answer...

Would it come packaged in a limousine? You can't get much more gourmet than that, unless you were thinking chefs' whites.

A robot making hamburgers with an xbox? (4, Funny)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663125)

That can't be right.... Did I misread the headline?

Re:A robot making hamburgers with an xbox? (3, Funny)

mat8913 (2654467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663215)

That's quite possible considering the temperatures the xbox can get up to.

Re:A robot making hamburgers with an xbox? (4, Funny)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664401)

Step1: Eject Disk
Step2: Insert Beef Patty
Step3: Wait for red ring of perfection.

Ok.. but (2)

houbou (1097327) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663127)

Any plans on recycling cooks into their supervisors? gourmet burger? who is the chef? quality control? it's the way of the future, just hope it figures out how to ensure that the human factor/equation isn't on the losing end.

Re:Ok.. but (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663197)

Don't worry, I'm sure the GOP will come up with a plan involving cooks, the machines and recycling, but I'm not so sure supervisors will be involved unlless they vote Democrat...

And yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663159)

we persist in this social model that requires 95%+ "employment", even if said employment consists of moving a piece of paper from one end of a desk to another and back again.

Robot meathooks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663179)

Get em off my food I'm the overlord not you!

I for one... (0)

hedley (8715) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663203)

welcome our robot cooks!

Wouldn't be a bad investment opp for a cardiac surgeon...

It takes EBT right? (2, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663209)

It takes EBT, right? Otherwise how will the humans that used to flip the burgers eat? Hopefully they don't make a robot that stands in the middle of the street, accosts you on Muni, and begs for change. If they do that, then humans really are sunk... except for those of us who know how to fight the robots. That's it. I'm signing up at robot fighting academy tomorrow. (ZZZZZZZZZzeep!) Wait, it's somebody from the futue. uh-huh, uh-huh, really? No. Yeah? OK. well, I guess.

Hey, Slashdot? Disregard the above. You'll understand later.

Re:It takes EBT right? (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663273)

Since we are all bound by the Temporal Prime Directive, I'm sure we will. I'm sure we will.

(turns to TARDIS...) "Doctor? Shall we?" (door slams)

Next Time... On Slashdot...

Zombies! OMG Zombies (fade to black...)

The Automat rises again! (0)

John Hasler (414242) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663229)

n/t

Re:The Automat rises again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663311)

Well, there goes my backup retirement plans.

It's truly the end (4, Insightful)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663269)

.. of employment in America.

at least we have health Care (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663301)

at least we have health Care as long as you don't vote gop as under them no work go to er or go on the jailcare plan.

Re:at least we have health Care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663949)

Were you even trying to make sense?

Re:at least we have health Care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42664055)

what part of Emergency Room or Healthcare provided because you incarcerated was hard to understand?

That's no robot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663355)

That's my shift manager!

Where this is going... (5, Interesting)

Chemisor (97276) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663421)

Time to reread Manna [marshallbrain.com] . The cooks, the manager, the cleaning staff, and finally you, until nobody has any work or any money.

Re:Where this is going... (1)

GRAYS4ND (2814317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663781)

Good. Maybe then we'll have an education, birth control, and government reform that resembles reason.

Re:Where this is going... (1)

SillyHamster (538384) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664167)

Time to reread Manna. The cooks, the manager, the cleaning staff, and finally you, until nobody has any work or any money.

Therefore, ban robots - or we'll end up with no jobs and no hamburgers!

Done before, several times (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663443)

Automatic burger machines date back to the 1950s. Back then, everybody ate the same thing, so assembly-like type systems were useful. American Machine and Foundry built an automated fast-food outlet in the 1960s, but it wasn't cost-effective. McDonalds tried this out back in 2003. [techdirt.com]

It's not that it's technically difficult. It's that the volume required to make it profitable is higher than most fast food outlets can sell.

Re:Done before, several times (1)

ickleberry (864871) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663685)

Sure it could probably be done with 1800's steam technology. Didn't Doc Brown have one for his eggs and toast in the morning?

Re:Done before, several times (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664135)

I'm sure Wallace and Grommit did.

Re:Done before, several times (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664547)

I'm sure Wallace and Grommit did.

Peewee Herman did too, if I remember right. I think his looked like Abraham Lincoln. (Disclaimer...haven't seen that movie since it originally hit the theaters, so my memory may be faulty.)

Re:Done before, several times (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663933)

It could be that the cost of the technology required to do this has dropped, thus making it feasible to do it with a lower volume.

I wonder... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663487)

How sanitary is the process? Who does the cleaning? As a low-level who works in the industry, even I feel some concern regarding the safety of people's health. Sure, obesity isn't healthy, but neither is bacteria from a burger cooked a week ago (unless you don't mind a parasite feeding on your insides).

Also, conveyors need some form of lubrication to continue working, and a single burger's grease isn't even enough to coat a 10-inch cast-iron skillet, let alone an entire conveyor system. That means it will need a way to self-lubricate in a production setting or one robot's job will involve wasting a considerable amount of Crisco to ensure a decent amount of lubrication.

And of course grease will splatter at some point. Who cleans the robot?

Re:I wonder... (1)

aXis100 (690904) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663721)

Just autoclave the whole thing and then use food grade lube on the chains. Easy as.

FINALLY!!! (3, Insightful)

sackofdonuts (2717491) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663503)

Although the food at most fast food restaurants isn't that great sometimes one gets the urge to get a greasy burger. But then you go and see who is working the grill or fryer and your appetite goes away. Robot food service....Yes!!!

haha fat Americans (1)

skitchen8 (1832190) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663515)

That's the funniest joke I've ever heard, how original. What are your feelings on British people's teeth and french people's armpits? Jesus fuck, if you don't know what humor is don't use it. Can we all just collectively agree we get it now, all Americans are fat?

Why not 365? (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663631)

You still need someone to keep filling those tubes up, and clean all the mold and slime out of them before the health dept. shows up.

Oh well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42663805)

Given my track record, I would prefer have motor oil than spit in my burger

Oxymoron (2)

Kaenneth (82978) | about a year and a half ago | (#42663985)

I would consider "Gourmet" and "Mass produced by Machine" to be mutually exclusive; no matter how good the food is.

It's like a "Limited Time Offer" that's always available, "Exclusive Benefits" for anyone with a pulse, etc.

Re:Oxymoron (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664569)

I'm sure they will eventually come up with some system to declare robots as gourmet certified, which will justify a higher price per bot vs. uncertified bots, despite them doing the exact same thing.

Now, would you like to try our BIG ASS FRIES?

combine it with lab meat (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about a year and a half ago | (#42664355)

``premium burgers prepared fresh for you on-demand, from only the finest bio-slurry. our meat is synthesized, interwoven with premium lipids, exercised, and grilled before your eyes without the interference of filthy meatbags. the best burger you've tasted, every time — that's science!"

Spolier alert! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42664693)

McDonalds needs less than a minute to cook your Big Mac. In fact it only takes fourty-five (as long as sixty at slow restaurants) seconds, to make eight patties. That's a heck of a lot faster than 360 hamburgers per hour.

Is this a robot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42664711)

How is an automated factory a robot? The ingredients are fed into a hopper and move along constrained pathways and processed automatically just like in the typical factory. A robot would be some humanoid setup with far less machinery and far more intelligence.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>