The robot arms bartender is a marketing gimmick and it will be successful until the novelty wears off. Then it can be reprogrammed to be a robot fry cook, which might be a good application for a robot, i that few interact with the fry cook, and it is a challenge to get things cooked just right.
Computer bartender machines have been built quite a few times, using various degrees of industrial type hardware, and having a library of hundreds of drinks. Some worked well and most we never heard about after the initial fanfare. The problems are inherent in food and drink handling machinery, tht it must be kept clean, and clean is hard on machines. So they are either dirty or clean and damaged by cleaning, or damaged by the very products that they produce.
Besides all of that, standard industrial robots simply move too fast.
That's a really good point, Nancy. I think sometimes these technologies are developed to prove certain things in theory and to improve upon other technologies. Like I said before, the James robot bartender the German engineers built was meant to test some aspects of human-robot interaction. But this seems to be more gimmicky, and as you suggest, perhaps not the best use of an investment.
Yes, GTOLover, that's what makes inventions like this a bit off-putting. The whole idea of a bartender is the social-interaction factor. Bartenders are often amateur psychologists! So that makes the idea of being served by one a bit less attractive. The German bartender was meant to be a bit more interactive; in fact, that robot was built to test social interaction between humans and robots.
I sadly agree with Nancy, rather than utilizing the resources and funds on more important areas for the benefit of people. They are spending these funds on unnecessary wants.
And somethings are meant to be like they are. Just as we own trimers and all sorts of hair cutting equipment, we still feel the need to go to a barbor. Similarly, bartenders are meant to stay where they are. Its just the order of natural things.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.