Slashdot Mirror


Robots In Amazon's Warehouses Are Already Making a Huge Difference (qz.com)

Amazon acquired Kiva, a robotics company for a sum of $775 million in 2012, and started to use robots in its warehouses in late 2014. At the time, the idea was that it will make inventory management more efficient. It's actually doing an impressive job. The "clip to ship" process used to take around 60-75 minutes when human employees were taking care of things, now the robots are doing the same job in 15 minutes. From a Quartz report: These robots are not only more efficient but they also take up less space than their human counterparts. That means warehouse design can eventually be modified to have more shelf space and less wide aisles. At the end of the third quarter of 2015, Amazon was using 30,000 Kiva robots across 13 warehouses. Each Kiva-equipped warehouse can hold 50% more inventory per square foot than centers without robots. In turn, the company's operating costs have been sliced by 20% -- or almost $22 million -- per warehouse. If Kiva robots are dispatched to the rest of the 110 Amazon warehouses, the tech giant could save almost $2.5 billion, according to Deutsche Bank. However, since it takes $15-$20 million to install robots in each warehouse, the one-time savings is expected to be closer to $800 million.

183 comments

  1. The takeover has started! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny

    We must at all costs keep them from having access to rifle emojis!

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re: The takeover has started! by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      Quick /. Enable unicode so we can defend ourselves.

      ðY"

      http://www.fileformat.info/inf...

    2. Re:The takeover has started! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tabbed browsing in Firefox clips the story title to
      "Robots In Amazon's War..."

    3. Re: The takeover has started! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Too late, they have already moved from IPv4 to IPv6. Our virus can no longer be transmitted to the mother ship!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Amazon sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Discuss.

    1. Re:Amazon sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's funny that although the warehouses are getting quicker and more efficient, it now takes much longer to ship an order - unless you have a prime account, of course.

    2. Re:Amazon sucks by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Yep. My packages used to arrive within two days even without Prime.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Amazon sucks by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Prime doesn't help. Amazon routinely breaks the "Guaranteed Delivery By..." guarantee shown on the checkout page, even for Prime members. The standard compensation if you bother to pester them about it is to extend Prime membership by 1 month.

      However, these count against you, and Amazon will eventually stop giving you free Prime. If you have too many demerits on your account (complaining about slow/delayed shipping, returning defective items, getting a price match, etc.) Amazon will straight ban your account.

    4. Re:Amazon sucks by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      If you have too many demerits on your account (complaining about slow/delayed shipping, returning defective items, getting a price match, etc.) Amazon will straight ban your account.

      So in other words, just like every other vendor. Amazon can ban Kramer, just like Joe did with his fruit shop.

    5. Re:Amazon sucks by cyberzephyr · · Score: 2

      Prime doesn't help. Amazon routinely breaks the "Guaranteed Delivery By..." guarantee shown on the checkout page, even for Prime members. The standard compensation if you bother to pester them about it is to extend Prime membership by 1 month.

      However, these count against you, and Amazon will eventually stop giving you free Prime. If you have too many demerits on your account (complaining about slow/delayed shipping, returning defective items, getting a price match, etc.) Amazon will straight ban your account.

      I am in no way trying to offend you because of bad service to you.

      Every time i have ordered from Amazon, it came earlier than the promised date.

      Just saying.

      --
      I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
    6. Re:Amazon sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I also noticed the difference as well. In 2013 and maybe into 2014 I was bragging to my co-workers about how Amazon's free shipping was so fast it was pointless to use any of the paid shipping options. I live in Toronto and as long as I ordered before the afternoon, I would get my pkg delivered sometimes in 2, always within 3 days.

    7. Re:Amazon sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this has to do with where you live? I live in what's considered a major city center and I get my pkg delivered on time. They used to be delivered much faster than the promised date but as someone else pointed out, that hasn't been the case for some time now.

    8. Re:Amazon sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I expect this would be highly variable based on what items and where you live relative to Amazon's infrstruture.

      I live in a rural area and fulfillment time without prime went from 3-5 days to usually 1-2 days when Amazon built a warehouse of some sort within an hours drive of my home.

      Given the size of the US I expect there are gaps in that coverage still and if you live in one of them you may get much worse service.

    9. Re:Amazon sucks by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It's not an isolated incident. Their shipping has turned to shit for many longtime Prime members.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/amazo...

    10. Re:Amazon sucks by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It's highly variable based on the phase of the moon, as far as I can tell. I typically still get shit in the promised 2 days, but I've never had the "same day pickup" work because shit is delivered to the locker 5 minutes before closing and I don't get a notification, or shit is delivered to the locker but not put in the locker (with an excuse that it didn't fit, though the next morning it's there and clearly fits), or shit is simply not delivered that day. I've also never had the release date delivery for a video game work out. For all other products, I'd say about 10-20% of the time it breaks the guaranteed date even when shipping in state.

    11. Re:Amazon sucks by lgw · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing Amazon is starting to overload the capacity of all of America's combined delivery companies. Whatever they're planning to do about this, they should have done it by now, to avoid this "guaranteed (mostly)" state of affairs.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re: Amazon sucks by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I almost always get items within the promised period, sometimes faster. Once in a while something will have to come from a distant warehouse but that rarely adds time. What bugs me is the claim this will save $x. Just one time, not a year or something?

    13. Re: Amazon sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No soup for you!

    14. Re:Amazon sucks by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You mean like opening their own delivery service?

      http://www.fox13news.com/news/...
      http://arstechnica.com/informa...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    15. Re:Amazon sucks by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      As more people get Prime accounts, Amazon focuses on them more. This should be obvious.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    16. Re:Amazon sucks by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      That may just be in your area. The only time they haven't delivered on time or early for me is when there was severe flooding in the region, which makes sense.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  3. employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many employees can they fire in the process? I assume they're not keeping the same amount of employees as before as some tasks are be relegated to robots.

    1. Re:employees by zlives · · Score: 1

      i am sure thats calculated in the 2.5 billion number.

    2. Re:employees by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How many employees can they fire in the process? I assume they're not keeping the same amount of employees as before as some tasks are be relegated to robots.

      I don't think they fired anyone - the business is still growing, and turnover is high anyhow (it's a shitty job, by all accounts).

      If you don't know about these robots, BTW, they're quite clever. It's a shame among all these overpriced social media startup acquisitions that Kiva wasn't worth a lot more. Rather that getting hung up on the problem no one has solved yet (picking the part from the bin on the shelf reliably and cheaply), they built a robot to move the whole shelf to a central locations where the humans do the rest. They solved a problem that was practical to solve, and it made a real difference to efficiency.

      Eventually someone will solve the "picking problem" end-to-end, and then I'm sure those jobs will be gone.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:employees by no-body · · Score: 1

      I don't think they fired anyone - the business is still growing...

      Seems a one-step thought process.

      Is business Amazon takes on and grows a new market or is it taking away from other, existing markets and what happens to people working there?

      The overall trend to produce/service cheaper, move jobs to other, low wage locations, consolidate businesses into larger and larger entities sure has it's limits at one point, and what will happen then - maybe more angry people?

      Maybe already happening.....

      Corporate social responsibility is a pipe dream!

    4. Re:employees by cyberzephyr · · Score: 1

      How many employees can they fire in the process? I assume they're not keeping the same amount of employees as before as some tasks are be relegated to robots.

      I don't think they fired anyone - the business is still growing, and turnover is high anyhow (it's a shitty job, by all accounts).

      If you don't know about these robots, BTW, they're quite clever. It's a shame among all these overpriced social media startup acquisitions that Kiva wasn't worth a lot more. Rather that getting hung up on the problem no one has solved yet (picking the part from the bin on the shelf reliably and cheaply), they built a robot to move the whole shelf to a central locations where the humans do the rest. They solved a problem that was practical to solve, and it made a real difference to efficiency.

      Eventually someone will solve the "picking problem" end-to-end, and then I'm sure those jobs will be gone.

      This is really hurting my heart. People will be losing their jobs because of this. They would not be working there if, like most of our audience here had more advanced skills

      --
      I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
    5. Re:employees by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the way corporations are structured, this is expected. Corporate ethical responsibility really ends at "don't lie about what you're doing, and be at least a little generous to employees you have to harm" (by laying them off, etc).

      Anything else is the role of government. Government has to do something about this growing problem. Naturally, in conservative states, the strategy is to just ignore the problem even exists, and assume any adult with a functioning body is able to get a job.

    6. Re:employees by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      There is a limit to how many jobs that require "more advanced skills" can exist. And those jobs that call for "more advanced skills" are also under attack. At one point you will be affected.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is really hurting my heart. People will be losing their jobs because of this. They would not be working there if, like most of our audience here had more advanced skills

      Virtue Signalling: The Post

      Coming to forums near you.

    8. Re:employees by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      How many employees can they fire in the process? I assume they're not keeping the same amount of employees as before as some tasks are be relegated to robots.

      Pretty sure everyone displaced found jobs in the robot service field for the net job loss was 0. That's how it works, /. told me so.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    9. Re:employees by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the longer term, is trapping people in a crappy job they get nothing from as an individual, and which they know could be done better and cheaper by a machine, but which they are required to keep doing because some rich executive wants to show how much they pity the poor really a good solution?

      The problem isn't the jobs going away, it's the lack of other options to replace them.

    10. Re:employees by lgw · · Score: 2

      Society has always gained net benefit from efficiency. Making a given product, or delivering a given service, with less labor, less raw materials, and /or less energy has always helped us more than it has hurt us, as a society. We call that "technology", and it's a good thing.

      People are complaining that the rate of this change is a bad, but I've read books making this same claim written 40 years ago, and 8- years ago, and I'm sure people were writing it 120 years ago too.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:employees by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Everybody's worried about fast food places being replaced with customer-facing machines that technology still hasn't caught up with when we're really only now talking about robots in a warehouse moving boxes around.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    12. Re:employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already did:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=iR9SkoueTZ0

    13. Re:employees by lgw · · Score: 1

      Automation: permanently destroying all the jobs, leaving only the factory owners able to eat, for 400 consecutive years now.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:employees by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you don't know about these robots, BTW, they're quite clever. It's a shame among all these overpriced social media startup acquisitions that Kiva wasn't worth a lot more. Rather that getting hung up on the problem no one has solved yet (picking the part from the bin on the shelf reliably and cheaply), they built a robot to move the whole shelf to a central locations where the humans do the rest. They solved a problem that was practical to solve, and it made a real difference to efficiency.

      That problem was actually solved some time ago - for years, Frito-Lay's bigger plants have had automated cranes to grab pallets from the shelves in 10-story warehouses, deposit them into a ground-level circulation conveyor where they're picked up by automated forklifts, then brought to the buffer areas where they're de-palletized and small robots then run the pick boxes to the appropriate place on the picking lines, and the shipping boxes are routed via conveyor automatically to the appropriate loading dock for deadloaded (non-palletized) bulk shipments. For palletized loads, the fork trucks are sent directly to the loading dock. Not all of their plants have the robot forklifts, and in the fully-automated plants they still have man-driven lifts, but even where the manual lifts are still in use they've seen *huge* efficiency gains with the system. The tricky part there is staging the inventory and product flow such that the oldest product always ships first. They're also starting to implement automated loading for the trucks even though an experienced loader is scary-fast.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    15. Re:employees by no-body · · Score: 1

      Anything else is the role of government.....

      Which government - US, right?

      Democratic system, by the people for the people.
      HaHa...

      House representatives, reelected every 2 years and financed by whom, and then obligated to whom?
      As long as this is not a totally isolated self-sustained system, where there is no outside influence to power, it will be abused and bribed.
      Look at gerrymandering, pulling strings, Citizens-United, $ 10 grand plate dinners and what else there is on secretive hush meetings.
      Anyone having enough power to police all this stuff? Nope, serves very well as it happens, just not "for the people".....

    16. Re:employees by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Hubris: fooling the smug and prideful into a blissful state of complacency for 4000 years now.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    17. Re:employees by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand the process. Just because the story is on the front page, don't assume the process is new. I first heard about Amazon's robotized warehouses nearly a decade ago. This is just another step in fine-tuning.

      None of this implies that you can't have a vending machine style fast-food joint that delivers hot food. That needs to be designed, but it doesn't appear to be a major problem. The early designs might need one employee, who would probably sit around doing nothing except when a Bellamy tube jammed. The cooking process would probably be different, but in most fast-food places microwaves wouldn't make the food noticeably worse. (FWIW, some restaurants have used microwave cooking in the kitchen, where it's not seen, without complaints. You've got to pick your dishes properly, though.)

      Now if you want a hamburger, you don't want the bun heated with microwaves, so an infrared heater might be better. Then you've got to invent a way to properly combine the bun, the meat patty, and the lettuce, etc. It doesn't need to be anything general purpose.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    18. Re:employees by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Any time you have 2 separate curves such as efficiency reducing jobs and efficiency creating jobs, there's always the chance that they'll intersect. The question then becomes not IF, but WHEN. Past Performance does not Guarantee Future Results, as they say on Wall Street.

      The difference between the 40-year old books and today is that in the 40-year old books the assertion that increased efficiency could cost jobs was a prediction.

      Today, there are not yet hordes of people on the street, but there's precious little job security and a lot of people are spending their days underemployed, unemployed, and/or working at jobs paying significantly less than they were used to. That last is perhaps the biggest difference between today and 40 years ago. Back then, if you were Bob Cratchitt and you lost your job doing ledgers, you might be able to retrain as a computer programmer and make more money than you ever did keeping books. These days, if you're a computer programmer, you're likely to have to retrain as a pizza delivery person. And the writing is on the wall even there, as eventually it's likely that automated pizza delivery will be widespread.

      This can change of course. All that's required is for some need to arise that requires more/better-paid people to support these new efficiencies the way that computer jobs once did. So far, however, no one seems to have come up with a viable alternative, and in the mean time, even more professions/trades are being eroded. And since repairing robots is itself a largely automatable skill and since designing robots isn't so far demanding the number of people as programming computers did, that particular option isn't looking very encouraging.

    19. Re:employees by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      Now if you want a hamburger, you don't want the bun heated with microwaves, so an infrared heater might be better. Then you've got to invent a way to properly combine the bun, the meat patty, and the lettuce, etc. It doesn't need to be anything general purpose.

      It also needs to be replenished with ingredients, waste from this ingredients shipped away, to be sanitized regularly since it's serving food that could go off and kill people, have a backup so a failure mode doesn't bring the store to a halt, and it needs to be smart enough to know when it hasn't properly prepared the food so it can handle customer complaints.

      Oh, the store still needs to be cleaned, restocked, lightbulbs changed, cigarette butts picked up in the parking lot, etc. Otherwise you haven't removed enough humans from the roster to make it worthwhile.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    20. Re:employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy at Amazon in charge of the shipping automation did a TED talk about it.
      It's actually a pretty well thought out system that has huge advantages over manual picking and it's quite a bit more advanced that what you've described.

    21. Re:employees by lgw · · Score: 2

      People have also been saying "this time it's different" since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

      ll that's required is for some need to arise that requires more/better-paid people to support these new efficiencies

      Not specifically "these new efficiencies", just "some new need to arise". Humans want more it's our nature. Every step along the way of technological advancement has produced a wave of some new sort of job, doing or making something that previously only the rich could afford, but now there's demand for at vastly larger scale.

      Almost no one today in the US has a job as a farmer or manufacturing worker (while we grow more food, and manufacture more stuff than ever) , yet there are plenty of service jobs and the like.

      I wish I could predict what the next wave of jobs would be (my investment portfolio wouldn't look so sad if I could), but I do expect personal services to flourish.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    22. Re:employees by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Depending on how you want to think about it, it was funny or inevitable or symbolic that the robotic takeover did not start at MIT, NASA, Microsoft or Ford. It started at a Burger-G restaurant in Cary, NC on May 17. It seemed like such a simple thing at the time, but May 17 marked a pivotal moment in human history.

      Burger-G was a fast food chain that had come out of nowhere starting with its first restaurant in Cary. The Burger-G chain had an attitude and a style that said "hip" and "fun" to a wide swath of the American middle class. The chain was able to grow with surprising speed based on its popularity and the public persona of the young founder, Joe Garcia. Over time, Burger-G grew to 1,000 outlets in the U.S. and showed no signs of slowing down. If the trend continued, Burger-G would soon be one of the "Top 5" fast food restaurants in the U.S.

      The "robot" installed at this first Burger-G restaurant looked nothing like the robots of popular culture. It was not hominid like C-3PO or futuristic like R2-D2 or industrial like an assembly line robot. Instead it was simply a PC sitting in the back corner of the restaurant running a piece of software. The software was called "Manna", version 1.0*.

      Manna's job was to manage the store, and it did this in a most interesting way. Think about a normal fast food restaurant. A group of employees worked at the store, typically 50 people in a normal restaurant, and they rotated in and out on a weekly schedule. The people did everything from making the burgers to taking the orders to cleaning the tables and taking out the trash. All of these employees reported to the store manager and a couple of assistant managers. The managers hired the employees, scheduled them and told them what to do each day. This was a completely normal arrangement. In the early twenty-first century, there were millions of businesses that operated in this way.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    23. Re:employees by raftpeople · · Score: 1

      It's true that automation of all sorts has been around a long time, including "goods to man" operations like the one you describe and also the Kiva robots. The difference is that the Kiva robots effectively fit the niche where there are a large number of skus and small number of picks per sku per day.

    24. Re:employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone having enough power to police all this stuff?

      Democracy is a toaster with a broken thermostat. You can't just *set it and forget it* every two years.

      The money angle is bogus. Nothing you listed there can compel a person to involuntarily vote for a specific candidate against their will. Scapegoating collective manipulation is thinly disguised evasion of personal responsibility. All choices are personal. Don't blame the "crowd" for the choices each individual makes to follow along.

      Besides, not one bit of this matters. All your religions, philosophies, and constitutions mean absolute squat. We are all at the mercy of the good conscience and personal choices of the people with their finger on the trigger. So all this chatter is pure masturbation.

    25. Re:employees by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      That's the obvious reason we must increase the demand for the basic income. Pretty much settles the issue. But there's still that certain psychopathy in the leadership and their followers that believes in *work or starve* to overcome first.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    26. Re:employees by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

      The difference is that the Kiva robots effectively fit the niche where there are a large number of skus and small number of picks per sku per day.

      True. The situation I have experience with is the other way around, where there are about 10,000 or so SKUs, and a few dozen of them get hundreds of thousands of picks per day. It's also different in that it's integrated with the production line, which offers both advantages and disadvantages.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    27. Re:employees by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say it's more advanced, just different. As another poster pointed out, different systems are called for when dealing with different volumes. Picking a dozen or so of a given item per day isn't the same as when it's a quarter-million of that item and the item is perishable, which requires a thorough design to prevent inventory from ever becoming stale. There are also a lot of other factors to consider, particularly in a mixed man/machine environment. What I discussed is a tiny, tiny part of the overall system.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    28. Re:employees by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Lets see how long they keep saying that when their jobs and income disappear.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    29. Re:employees by tsotha · · Score: 1

      House representatives, reelected every 2 years and financed by whom, and then obligated to whom?

      That's overly cynical. If money mattered that much Jeb Bush would be cruising to the Oval Office right now.

    30. Re:employees by tsotha · · Score: 2

      This time it might actually be different, though, because the addition of cheap computers greatly increases the number of tasks that can be automated. We're already pretty close to the point where people on the left half of the bell curve are completely driven out of the job market, and the service jobs that are growing are high-skill occupations like doctors and software developers.

    31. Re:employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we could look to examples in the real world where they've really tried this. Like Venezuela, right now. You don't have to invoke some made-up anti-capitalist dystopia. We have real, live examples of your vision right here on planet earth. It has been tried dozens of times. It has never, ever, ever worked.

      Not because everyone is stupid and they didn't do it right. There were plenty of brilliant people in leadership in the Soviet Union, or China, or.... You get it. They didn't fail because they didn't try hard enough, or smart enough, or they didn't go to the full monty. They failed because you can't make a square with three sides.

      Anyone who seriously argues for something as stupid as a guaranteed basic income is just mendaciously stupid at this point. This isn't theory any more. We have all the data we need.

    32. Re:employees by lgw · · Score: 2

      There are still hair stylists and manicurists, and they're not going anywhere. There are still the skilled trades, and they're not going anywhere. I expect a boom in jobs like decorator and home theater installer and fashion consultant and everything like that: jobs that are currently for the fairly rich, where both fashion sense and the fiddly bits of getting everything in place to look good can be left to someone who's passionate about that particular sort of thing.

      The more things get cheap, the more taste and arrangement matters for social status, and the more people can on the same money afford to pay someone else to do it for them. And almost everyone is a "hobby expert" on something.

      It's much shallower than doctor or lawyer (both of which are becoming less-than-great jobs, BTW, be a dentist or vet instead). Look to personal services only the 1% can afford today to be far more common tomorrow, since that's the pattern throughout history.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    33. Re:employees by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      We already have the equivalent of one form of a universal basic income - it's called welfare.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    34. Re: employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Smart enough to know when it hasn't properly prepared the food"
      This is the number one problem with humans at a fast food restaurant now. I would expect a robotic restaurant to never have this problem (unless the dipshit minimum wage human loads ketchup in the mayo tube)

    35. Re: employees by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      You expect a robot with no sense of smell, visual appeal, or taste to flawlessly outclass any human being? Heh.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    36. Re:employees by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      While certainly a fair observation, it relies on a flawed assumption. That it's equally effective at all levels. The more visibility of a position, generally the less effective money will be.

      I'd venture the majority of American's couldn't even name their House Rep. That makes money spent on them much more effective since people don't know about it.

      One of my favorite questions is asking people who their 'state' reps/senators are. Very very few people can name them. I know that after moving, when I went to vote in my new district, every single one of my choices was running unopposed.

      That's the biggest problem we face. Apathy to the point that no one even runs because it's so locked up by the incumbent.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    37. Re: employees by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      'properly' means to health code, not taste. A robot is much better suited to checking the internal temp of meat than a human. It's already done by a 'robot' now, i.e. a thermometer. Except in restaurants they use 'process' to not check this on each individual order for time savings. Human's following 'process' are notoriously unreliable.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    38. Re: employees by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that the only reason this conversation has gone on this deep is because we all watch too much TV.

      Um, no, 'properly' means both proper temperature AND well presented. Don't forget that these guys buying these robots want their sales to go UP not stagnate because a robot doesn't care that the bun is sliding off the meat before it gets wrapped or that it merrily sent off a sammich a roach had crawled onto.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    39. Re: employees by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Given how often McDs serves up burgers that are totally misaligned now, the robots don't have that high a bar to clear.

      I was probably referring more to the taste/smell aspect. Visual presentation is also a part but that's my point. The robot will be programmed and engineered to always drop the bun in the same place.

      And quality control is simply a matter of lasers and pattern recognition that already exists, it's not that hard to put together. Hell if someone can take an arduino, a toy squirt gun and video processing to recognize squirrels AND hit them with the stream in real time...that's a pretty significant creation done by a hobbyist.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    40. Re: employees by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      If it really were that simple they'd have done it decades ago. McD's is one of those places that buys those 'consistency' machines wherever it can. There is a huge difference between a tech-demo and a reliable machine that won't make their customers walk away.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    41. Re:employees by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Which government - US, right?

      Democratic system, by the people for the people.

      Government by the temporary embarrassed millionaires for the actual millionaires.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    42. Re:employees by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      There are only a very small number of 1-percenters (Obviously). The bulk of the hair stylers and manicurists presently in the field are among the lowest-paid workers in the economy. And you're seriously expecting that to improve if a bunch up redundant people flood in from extinct trades?

      We are looking to history. And historically, things weren't so great for the merely skilled and talented, much less the 99-percent of less capable people. Bach's Brandenberg Concertoes were written "on spec" in the hopes he'd get a job (he didn't). Mozart was essentially a government employee, paid about what a decent software engineer would make.

      I agree. There's plenty of room for craftsmanship and artistry for those who want furniture that's made of something better than chipboard and paintings that didn't come from a printing press. But dumping a whole lot of unemployed people out there isn't going to single-handedly create a demand,, only a supply. The 99% will be less capable of buying premium when they're unemployed, not more.

      There's nothing wrong with bringing back newspaper vendors, shoe-shiners, chauffeurs and maids, but unlike previous centuries, these would no longer be people performing an essential service. Not when there's online news, self-driving cars, and Roombas for those who don't care about prestige or who care about saving money more (and some of the most dedicated Wal-Mart customers are 1-percenters). So you can expect the elite to hire their lackeys selectively, not in bulk.

      And incidentally, some dentists, vets, pharmacists and other less-glamorous medical trades can make very respectable livings. Whereas a lot of GPs have lower incomes than you think. Especially after liability insurance.

    43. Re:employees by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      If money mattered that much Jeb Bush would be cruising to the Oval Office right now.

      Money matters that much; it's just not the ONLY thing that matters. Sometimes a really pissed off electorate wakes up.

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
    44. Re:employees by lgw · · Score: 1

      You've entirely missed my point. It's not about new jobs doing work for 1%ers, obviously. It's about the fact that for 150 years or so now, every wave of automation has produced a new wave of jobs because stuff that only 1%ers could afford before, everyone can afford now. That's just the way technology works.=: you make X cheap, and now everyone can afford Y.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  4. Next step - robots to buy from Amazon by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Next step should be to design robots to buy stuff online, otherwise with all jobs automated who is going to buy from Amazon?

    1. Re:Next step - robots to buy from Amazon by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Next step should be to design robots to buy stuff online, otherwise with all jobs automated who is going to buy from Amazon?

      They're already buying stuff.
      How do you think they stay in business?

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:Next step - robots to buy from Amazon by zlives · · Score: 1

      i rather look forward to a future without required jobs.

    3. Re:Next step - robots to buy from Amazon by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      "in soviet seattle, dash button presses you!"

      (oblig)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:Next step - robots to buy from Amazon by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 3

      Read "Manna" by Marshall Brain.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    5. Re:Next step - robots to buy from Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what shopping agents are for. This Amazon news made me think of the storage company of the Real Humans, or Äktä Människor, firing the non-adjusting old people for the brave, new world.

    6. Re:Next step - robots to buy from Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i rather look forward to a future without required jobs.

      For some of us, it's already here.

      The problem is what we needed to go with it was a future without required paychecks.

  5. Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The robot also doesn't steal the inventory, spend time babbling to friends, check facebook, twitter, etc, doesn't want a raise in pay when the company is experiencing bad times, doesn't start reproducing with other higher/lower ranking employees, will not steal data, can't be bribed, etc, beg the supervisor for a promotion, etc.

    But don't worry, continue to oppose progress.

    Bury your head in the sand and shout NO CUTBACKS, NO CONCESSIONS, and keep demanding that pay always goes up economic circumstances be damned.

    1. Re:Progress by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      If Amazon wants to keep selling (and not just shipping), then someone's got to buy and for that to happen, the very same people need to be paid.

      The people demanding raises don't just do so because they need more luxury, you know. Some? Sure! But certainly not all and probably not most.

      There's going to be some interesting times ahead.

    2. Re:Progress by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1) progress is in the eye of the beholder. To be a bit flip, if i broke into your house and stole your TV, that's certainly progress... to me. You may feel differently.

      2) Go read about actually working in an Amazon warehouse. There is no time for chitchat. You're tracked. You're timed. It's hot. People pass out. Your back will be hurting. You're lucky if you eat lunch much less checking facebook or twitter. And you do this, puppet on a string, for a small hope of getting a full time job, so you get benefits so you can actually take your kid to see a doctor once in a while. And you want to complain to Bezos? well, technically you're far from an employee. You're a contractor, probably that company working for another contractor, far removed from the "amazon way".

      Don't use strawmen of lazy people sitting on their ass in the warehouse, hoping to get cash as they eat bonbons. No Amazon warehouse is like that. Its a very hard, very demanding job. But, people take it because they'd rather hurt their bodies than not eat. Than their kids not eat.

    3. Re:Progress by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      The robot also doesn't steal the inventory, spend time babbling to friends, check facebook, twitter, etc, doesn't want a raise in pay when the company is experiencing bad times, doesn't start reproducing with other higher/lower ranking employees, will not steal data, can't be bribed, etc, beg the supervisor for a promotion, etc.

      A robot requires at least one expensive backup, you're not bringing in any joe schmoe off the streets to fill in when it's down. A robot requires increasing maintenance as it ages, even moreso when the manufacturer reveals the flashy upgrade. A robot does not increase in value, it only decreases over time. A robot only does what its design permits it to do, and even then it performs its duties extremely literally. A robot will need to be replaced with a different machine when the task changes. A robot, if told to, will sabotage a company. A robot will not suggest an idea that will make or save a company millions.

      Robots handle supply, not growth. You need to understand that before you bitch about people wanting raises.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    4. Re:Progress by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead

    5. Re:Progress by knorthern+knight · · Score: 2

      > A robot requires at least one expensive backup, you're not
      > bringing in any joe schmoe off the streets to fill in when it's down.

      OK, have a backup, or even *TWO* backups. Let's say you're running a 24x7 operation
      * There are 52 weeks in a year, with 5 workdays each
      * Subtract 10 mandatory statutory Holidays, and you're down to 50 working weeks per employee per year
      * Assume a minimum 2 weeks vacation per year per employee, and you're down to 48 working weeks per employee per year
      * At 40 hours per week, that's 1920 working hours per employee per year, assuming no sick time, etc.
      * There 8760 hours in a regular year (8784 in a leap year).
      * To keep the operation running 24x7, you're going to need at least 5 employees

      > A robot requires increasing maintenance as it ages,

      Start with 3 or 4 robots. Cannibalize parts, and you'll have 2 or 3 working robots for a long time.

      > even moreso when the manufacturer reveals the flashy upgrade.

      > A robot will need to be replaced with a different machine when the task changes.

      Upgrade the firmware/software. That's what's often done with routers/PCs.

      > A robot, if told to, will sabotage a company.

      But boss, that email claimed to be from you, and it said to enable macros when opening the document.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    6. Re:Progress by atherophage · · Score: 1

      I prick am waiting damn for the honkey robots damn to bitch run slut amok... shit. Disabling the tourettesmachine. ...waiting for the day when the robots come to my house, take my stuff and put it back into a warehouse. Then I will realize I did not need most of those items - can do just fine without them. This will be evolutionary bitch.

    7. Re: Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice.

    8. Re:Progress by JeffOwl · · Score: 1

      There is no time for chitchat. You're tracked. You're timed. It's hot. People pass out. Your back will be hurting. You're lucky if you eat lunch much less checking facebook or twitter. And you do this, puppet on a string, for a small hope of getting a full time job, so you get benefits so you can actually take your kid to see a doctor once in a while. And you want to complain to Bezos? well, technically you're far from an employee. You're a contractor, probably that company working for another contractor, far removed from the "amazon way".

      You make an excellent point as to why this work is better done by robots.

    9. Re: Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no machine in this world that doesn't require maintenance. In fact, many manufacturers of machinery thrive in more or less substantial way on service and maintenance contracts.
      Sure almost always the total cost of ownership for a machine is lower than paying a human, but it's not zero nor is it the purchase price of the machine.

    10. Re:Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who works at a different company and used to be in the warehouse, I can tell you that Amazon isn't unique. Warehouse work is physically demanding and slackers get shown the door (or usually show themselves the door) quickly. It's no surprise that warehouse work is being automated.

    11. Re: Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My car battery begs to differ.

    12. Re: Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No holiday is "mandatory statuatory". Unless you work for the govt or a bank you're unlikely to get all of them.

    13. Re:Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we need the robots to open Facebook accounts?

    14. Re:Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So would that be considered social logging?

    15. Re:Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard those things, but "Labor Standards" are quite common in distribution centers - and the workers always complain.

      I used to work with labor standards and all it does is figure out how long a job should take and how long it took the employee to do it.

  6. Side benefit by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People complain about inventory pickers' and shippers' jobs being lost instead of complaining that inventory picking and shipping for Amazon are grueling jobs that are too physically demanding and don't pay enough. Who wants to hear the same complaints over and over? Now we have a variety.

    1. Re:Side benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People complain about inventory pickers' and shippers' jobs being lost instead of complaining that inventory picking and shipping for Amazon are grueling jobs that are too physically demanding and don't pay enough. Who wants to hear the same complaints over and over? Now we have a variety.

      A bad job is better than no job. People are more important than robots.

      You and the person that upmodded you should be ashamed in being sociopathic enough that you do not value the well-being of humans.

    2. Re:Side benefit by lorinc · · Score: 1

      People complain about inventory pickers' and shippers' jobs being lost instead of complaining that inventory picking and shipping for Amazon are grueling jobs that are too physically demanding and don't pay enough. Who wants to hear the same complaints over and over? Now we have a variety.

      A bad job is better than no job. People are more important than robots.

      You and the person that upmodded you should be ashamed in being sociopathic enough that you do not value the well-being of humans.

      I think you missed something. It's "some money is better than no money", which shouldn't be equivalent to "a shitty job is better than no job". If we have the means to give everybody what is necessary to live, then why the hell would you want people to kill themselves with shitty jobs. Every time a worker doing a horrendous job is replaced by a robot, the production is increased, not decreased. The company and society in general gain something instead of loosing something. So why aren't these guys being paid anymore? It's not like it couldn't be so, since the production is still being done...

      The guys who are sociopaths are the ones pushing people to kill themselves with shitty jobs whereas we definitely have the means to keep the salaries at their current rates and gradually decrease the work week to 30 hours, 20 hours and so on, until it reaches 0 when full automation finally comes.

    3. Re:Side benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it is not your fucking money. Jeez, how hard is that to understand. "We" don't have any such thing.

      What you think you have is the ability to use the threat of violence to take money from a bunch of people and give it to a bunch of other people. This doesn't make you a good person. In fact, it is something a sociopath would come up with.

    4. Re:Side benefit by Kohath · · Score: 1

      A bad job is better than no job. People are more important than robots.

      Tell the complainers that. I would like governments to stop outlawing entry level jobs based on the idea that the 17-year-olds working those jobs can't support a family of four on $10/hour.

    5. Re:Side benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bad job is better than no job. People are more important than robots.

      This is EXACTLY what the Luddites were all about. They didn't hate technology itself, they just understood that people were more important than machines. That's why they attacked factories and tore apart automated looms.

      Aren't you glad we prevented the Industrial Revolution from happening? Why, if people were able to use machines to vastly increase the efficiency of labor, we might not have to worry about massive ignorance, daily starvation, the constant disease, lack of entertainment, or backbreaking labor in the fields.

    6. Re:Side benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we have the means to give everybody what is necessary to live, then why the hell would you want people to kill themselves with shitty jobs?

      Something something destroys their spirit something something.

    7. Re:Side benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed something. It's "some money is better than no money", which shouldn't be equivalent to "a shitty job is better than no job". If we have the means to give everybody what is necessary to live, then why the hell would you want people to kill themselves with shitty jobs. Every time a worker doing a horrendous job is replaced by a robot, the production is increased, not decreased. The company and society in general gain something instead of loosing something. So why aren't these guys being paid anymore? It's not like it couldn't be so, since the production is still being done...

      The guys who are sociopaths are the ones pushing people to kill themselves with shitty jobs whereas we definitely have the means to keep the salaries at their current rates and gradually decrease the work week to 30 hours, 20 hours and so on, until it reaches 0 when full automation finally comes.

      "Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the "right" to education, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle." - P. J. O'Rourke ~

    8. Re:Side benefit by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If we have the means to give everybody what is necessary to live, then why the hell would you want people to kill themselves with shitty jobs.

      Because that would make them free and your entire life revolves around "getting ahead" in the game of power?

      The more desperate the poor are, the more power the rich derive from their control of resources, after all. For someone who's fondest wish is to gain power over others, there can be no worse nightmare than adequate social security, because that renders economic blackmail impotent, just like a strong state ended outright violence carried out by private armies. That leaves only religion, which explains why Religious Right came to being.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  7. GOOD point from my wife: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how did they teach the robots to ride on segways? Even people haven't learned how to do that.

    1. Re:GOOD point from my wife: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George W Bush hardly qualifies as "people", except in the racist southern sense of "them's good people"

  8. All Your Job Are Belong To Us by zenlessyank · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Rich people own robots to do what the poor man used to do. Feast upon the misery.

    1. Re:All Your Job Are Belong To Us by zlives · · Score: 1

      this is not a long term problem. However i do agree that in the short term it needs addressing.

    2. Re:All Your Job Are Belong To Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rich people own robots to do what the poor man used to do. Feast upon the misery.

      I know. Right? If this was the CEO of McDonald's or Arby's (I forget which one recently came out about this) people's heads would be exploding. "How can they do that? Those inconsiderate rich people! They just want to avoid paying poor people so that they can have more money for themselves!"

      Amazon does the same thing and the same crowd sits around and marvels at the accomplishment. Seriously?

      Personally, I think it is great. While lots of people, especially those whose jobs are affected in the short term, are upset about changes like this, the reality is that just about every major advance in human technology, efficiency, etc., has actually resulted in a net benefit from both an economic and social perspective. Sure, some have had their hiccups and there is certainly no shortage of bad people out there who will take any great new thing and turn it to evil. But that is no reason to slow progress.

    3. Re:All Your Job Are Belong To Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      One solution would be to have the robots be more assertive in taking over a human's job. Instead of firing the person, let the robot kill whoever it displaces.

    4. Re:All Your Job Are Belong To Us by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Funny

      here's your problem, pally. you had the mode switch set to EVIL.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:All Your Job Are Belong To Us by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      As far as the historical "we've seen this kind of thing before" I kind of agree, but this is at a scale and timeframe unprecedented. You'll hear this a billion times, but i think this time really is different.

      How's that go, from Keynes "in the long run we are all dead". If your job, your way of feeding your kids was what was being eliminated, i don't think you'd call it a hiccup. Jobs are being cut on a Moore's law timescale, but you and me are still operating on human timescale. Besides, this is change. Calling it Progress is very much a value judgment.

      There's always been a self inflicted wound instilled into capitalism. It's "we need wages as purchasing power to make the engine go; business will always cut costs where they can, including wages". For decades, we never saw this flaw because of growth. There was ALWAYS places to grow. I don't know where the growth comes from now. The planet just cant have exponential growth forever. My kids are infants. What they do for jobs 15-20 years from now will be radically different from what i dealt with.

    6. Re:All Your Job Are Belong To Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the reality is that just about every major advance in human technology, efficiency, etc., has actually resulted in a net benefit from both an economic and social perspective.

      Wow. Perhaps recent history, last 200 years or so - and only for the western world.

      There have been many advances in human history that required a correction with blood, lots & lots of blood. Revolutions, Coup d'etat, civil wars.
      When civilization advances it is often at the benefit of the rich. The poor or oppressed have risen up and overthrown their oppressors to right the wrongs.

      You don't think it could happen again when the rich further increase their collective coffers at the cost of the poor, when unemployment reaches an unprecedented high and the rich refuse to or only minimally subsidies the poor?

      History shows us that we are greedy and self serving.

  9. 1982, grandpa said "study computers and robotics" by raymorris · · Score: 5, Funny

    In about 1982, when I was seven years old, my grandpa told me to study computers and robotics, because that's where the jobs would be when I grew up. He was not wrong.

    LOL, when my brain tried to type "grew", my fingers, out of habit, typed "grep". It seems I HAVE been working with computers a lot.

  10. Sure...Big Cost savings by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 0

    Might be great cost savings and all...but how many more Hard drives am I going to have to RMA as DOA because the damn robots aren't using any fucking packing materials when shipping a bare drive. Not even a fucking bubble wrap bag around the static bag (at least there's a static bag) and enough space between the drive and shipping box to turn the damn thing into a friggen maraca! ! 4th one this year just arrived today!

    1. Re:Sure...Big Cost savings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None.

      The robots bring entire shelving units to humans who do select the proper part and pack it.

    2. Re:Sure...Big Cost savings by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1
      Maybe you should consider a) a different online vendor, b) buying drives shipped in the manufacturer's packaging (most OEM drives aren't), c) buying SSDs, or d) buying from a local vendor.

      Are these most of these options more expensive? Probably, but it may be worth it for the peace of mind.

    3. Re:Sure...Big Cost savings by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      In response: a) I use several online vendors; Newegg, B&H, Micro Center...among others. Amazon I use now only when I need rush delivery or delivery over the weekend for a part I don't happen to have in house (limited space and no warehouse)...and now because I can't trust the products coming from them I have to use them only as a last resort. b) I undercut Geek Squad so sometimes to get the best price on a decent drive OEMs are it. c) I use SSDs when they work for the job. Large SSD drives aren't cost effective for volume storage. d) Best Buy is the only (other) local vendor. Fry's if I want to drive for 2 hrs for the larger selection of dated parts. Most of the other brick and mortars around here don't even bother with carrying a wide selection for the same reason I don't generally house a large selection myself; if a customer is coming to me for a drive, they want me to install it for them; otherwise the customer has all the same resources I do to do it themselves.

    4. Re:Sure...Big Cost savings by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      nah, the robots can pack as programmed each time. those boxes are packed by disgruntled employees who don't give a fuck. Just the same as the burger making robot won't rub his balls on my burger.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  11. I'm surprised it took so long by jlechem · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've spent many years in the AWS (Automated Warehousing Solutions) industry. I've seen automated warehouses with huge industrial cranes moving 500 pound drums and tiny little pill box pickers. I've seen systems run 24x7 with almost no human intervention unless a robot drops something. How the hell did it take them this long to get some basic pickers running.

    I can only think their warehouses are just a clusterfuck of different items in the same bin or whatever they call it. If so their inventory system was shit to begin with.

    --
    Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
    1. Re:I'm surprised it took so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your observation is probably very close to the truth. Heavy industries tend to be old industries with gray haired cautious wizened heads running them. People with their eyes on the bottom line & on dollars and cents. Different ethos there. Amazon has its roots in the dot-com johnny come lately industry, dominated by the whiz kid and the wet behind the ears MBA theoretician and flim-flam idea man and other assorted grifters with an overarching get rich quick mindset. Not calm mature minds improving on age old (likely heavily regulated) industrial processes like chemical handling or pharmaceuticals. These dot commers re-invent the wheel for a living. Flash & bang. Contrast in mindset between old indusrty vs new industry.

    2. Re:I'm surprised it took so long by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

      Ok I'll bite.

      While I'm sure there is some truth to your assertions, why didn't one of the old industrials with the gray hairs running the show simply take their automated warehouse tech and dominate electronic retail so thoroughly? Were they just not greedy enough? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Amazon warehouses have subtly different requirements that required unique solutions.

    3. Re:I'm surprised it took so long by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      I've seen automated warehouses with huge industrial cranes moving 500 pound drums and tiny little pill box pickers.

      Those cranes are *fast* too. My experience is mostly with with HK (now Dematic) systems - it's cool as hell watching one of those 110-foot tall monsters running up and down the aisles.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    4. Re:I'm surprised it took so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flexibility is the answer. And yes, the result looks like "a clusterfuck of different items in the same bin".

      Amazon's system is perfectly content when suddenly millions people are buying orange plastic hats and then a week later nobody wants the hats, everyone wants a USB stick the size of a pencil. Because it doesn't care about trying to store things neatly sorted by what they are, it knows what they are, it just wants the pick & pack teams to pull the right things out of the bins.

      I see idiots like you in port operations too. They want to put all the containers tidily in order to satisfy their OCD. That's because they're crazy. The computer knows where the containers are, stop pretending they are kiddie building blocks and let the people who need to get their work done, get it done.

    5. Re:I'm surprised it took so long by raftpeople · · Score: 2

      I don't think you're being very fair to Amazon, their warehouses have had lots of automation prior to Kiva, conveyor, sorters, put walls, etc. I think the thing you aren't considering is that an Amazon warehouse has many many skus with few picks per sku per day. As you should know, this kind of sparse picking is a challenge to automate cost effectively. Sure they could have put in other goods to man solutions, but they would have spent more than paying humans, Kiva is a better fit for their problem space.

    6. Re:I'm surprised it took so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you answered your own question. nothing for me to respond to.

    7. Re:I'm surprised it took so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I can only think their warehouses are just a clusterfuck of different items in the same bin or whatever they call it. If so their inventory system was shit to begin with.

      I suspect the issue is that Amazon cannot really exercise any control over the size and shape of their inventory. And since they directly sell so many items made by others, there is no real hope of standardizing anything.

    8. Re:I'm surprised it took so long by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.

      Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.

      I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the TannhÃuser Gate.

      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

      Time to die.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    9. Re:I'm surprised it took so long by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      ROTFL, I found your dream port!
      http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/08EF/production/_84878220_028551249.jpg
      Because of course, pulling containers tidily is OCD, nothing to do with storage and access efficiency ;)

      Fecking Moron.

    10. Re:I'm surprised it took so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pick robots will need items in special packaging to BE picked, as well as special containers to hold them. Most vendors do not ship in automated 'pick friendly' containers so humans will still be needed to case the items properly. With a high flow item I bet they simply hand pick and leave robots to the 'low flow' remote picks on the 6-7-8th tier of racking.

      I agree that picking work is best done by robots... but tradespeople will still need to maintain/repair them. So instead of dozens of pickers, you might need maintenance/service personnel.. and receiving/shipping is still done by humans.

    11. Re:I'm surprised it took so long by jwwjr · · Score: 1

      Amazon uses an inventory storage procedure known as 'random stow.' To summarize at a high level, random stow saves resources when stocking Amazon's many DCs which have decentralized inventory frameworks, DCs located around the world in which Amazon has invested billions of cap ex. A phone/PDA with picking software is given to each human, to guide them to each inventory picking job in the DC in the most optimized way. With random stow, which went against the industry orthodoxy when it was rolled out, NO ONE has better-designed and efficient pick/pack/ship retail warehouse processes than Amazon, even in its current human-staffed state. Long ago, they figured out in addition to random stow, in general they did not want picking shelves which required employees to climb ladders. They spent extra cap ex for more low, flat DCs, but saved huge amounts in operating costs afterward. So they are well-positioned for Kiva robots to be integrated into the pick/pack/ship process, and they will no doubt lead the industry here as well. The human costs past/present/and future are not part of the calculus, nor a particular issue for them.

    12. Re:I'm surprised it took so long by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      I used to work in a warehouse that shipped medical supplies to hospitals. Crushed boxes were everywhere, to the point where box edges were folded over on themselves and you often had to yank them apart with all your might. Damages were the norm, and they got shipped. The attitude there was, if the customer didn't like the condition of the supplies they received, they could send them back. Yes, it was indeed a clusterfuck of busted items, and filthy to boot.

      To be fair, many of the manufacturers packaged items in flimsy cardstock rather than real boxes. It was very, very easy to damage items, no matter how careful you were, as just the humidity of the summer air was enough to warp the boxes and cause them to soften. To me, it seemed like everything in the industry from the ground up was built for failure. Maybe it was just the medical supply business, but QA all around was wretched.

      Plus, this had to be done while maintaining at least 84% of your productivity goal or you were sacked, which wouldn't have been bad if the 100% was unattainable and we weren't working 12-14 hour days (my record was 15.5 hours). There was no incentive to be careful when putting away or picking. There was no time, and no chance to fix someone else's screw-ups. I was eventually warned that my numbers were below 84% and I had two weeks to get my productivity to 100% or I would get the sack. I elected to quit, instead. I couldn't bring myself to literally throw boxes around to meet my quota.

      It's not a job that should be done by people. The time pressure alone guarantees that the job won't be done properly and damages will be astronomical.

    13. Re:I'm surprised it took so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The attitude there was, if the customer didn't like the condition of the supplies they received, they could send them back. Yes, it was indeed a clusterfuck of busted items, and filthy to boot.

      Sounds like a management problem. Things would have been different if every customer return would have reflected to the manager's productivity quota.

    14. Re:I'm surprised it took so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The job is a crappy job because of management. Management dictates the time pressures, working policies, hours, pay, staffing, etc... It could be a normal job if management weren't so greedy at almost every level.

  12. remember everything that savings mean by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Savings" also means "less money for workers to spend in their local economy".

    We're making radical changes to the whole cycle of "wages => purchases => revenues => wages => ..." cycle. Yes, it has happened before, but never at this speed, never at this timescale, never at this scale of number of jobs. This may not end well.

    1. Re:remember everything that savings mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Savings also means "everything costs less, so workers can afford more."

      Don't worry bro, capitalism's got your back, no matter how much you'd like to malign it.

    2. Re:remember everything that savings mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism doesn't have anyone's back. That's one of it's main features.

    3. Re:remember everything that savings mean by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I think everyone gets it, but don't you think you're being a bit overly dramatic about Amazon warehouse pickers? Think of all the paper shufflers personal computers put out to pasture 30 years ago. That had a much bigger impact than the few thousand seasonal warehouse pickers that will be impacted by this. Society will survive.

    4. Re:remember everything that savings mean by kaatochacha · · Score: 2

      But Amazon is just part of a larger movement.
      If you can't see that in,say, thirty years a majority of work done by people will be automated, you're not thinking clearly.
      He's correct in that this is a drastic paradigm shift. I see it as follows:

      Horse to car: Guy making buggy whips retrains to make car stuff: 1 to 1 tradeoff, using retraining, net zero change
      Computer introduced: Guy doing paperwork retrains, maybe fifteen guys replaced by one guy, but fourteen more jobs opened in various fields by the computer: 14 jobs lost, 14 jobs gained, using retraining, net zero change
      Current: massive automation: jobs of 100 people now done by robots, all 100 lose jobs. Any task they may be retrained for can ALSO be done by a robot. 1 of them becomes a robot repairman. net -99 change even with retraining.

      Unless society figures out how to deal with this, we'll have a lot of unemployed. And people with no jobs, no purpose, and lots of time are very bad.

    5. Re:remember everything that savings mean by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Imagine what it will do to countries that are heavily invested in manufacturing, like China?
      I know they are already doing a lot of automation over there now, but it is just getting started.
      As the tech gets more mature and becomes a commodity, automation via robots and computers will put lots of people out of work.

      I bet the Chinese are planning on this eventuality.
      I know the Japanese are planning on it...

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    6. Re:remember everything that savings mean by evilviper · · Score: 1

      "Savings" also means "less money for workers to spend in their local economy".

      It also means increased value of the existing workers, and more money available to spend on their salaries. Where do you think all the comfy, high-paying IT jobs come from? You're getting a six-figure salary only because of all the people doing menial tasks have been replaced by the computers you are able to keep up-and-running.

      This may not end well.

      Eventually, maybe not. But right now unemployment is at historical lows. The recession we've been climbing out of was due to banking, not excessive automation. Every doom and gloom prediction so far has proven, not just wrong, but in-fact in direct opposition of reality.

      As long as there's one job humans can do slightly better than machines, a capitalist economy will continue to work just fine.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:remember everything that savings mean by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      everything costs less, so workers can afford more

      These are things capitalism says. Capitalism also says wealth will trickle down. These are both lies. The latter based on the fact that the wealthy don't spend money they save it and use it to create more wealth. The former because it presumes that the savings will be passed on to workers rather than being used to eliminate workers. Doesn't matter how cheap everything is if you have no job.

      --
      Just another second banana
    8. Re:remember everything that savings mean by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      It's just one industry. I chose amazon because that's this thread. Want to talk about doctors losing to robotic surgeons? or lawyers, who need years of expensive school AND accreditation, are already losing jobs, and Watson is rearing his head? Or service industry, where tablets at tables lower the number of people needed (you have maybe 8 servers instead of 10-12 waiters). Or transportation? Apple, google, delphi, Uber, every car manufacturer, all are going for self driving cars. Self driving Semis are just a year or two away (tech's already there, just regulations). Transportation is c. 5,000,000 workers. Do you think the economy can just shrug off 5million new unemployed? We're ecstatic when 250,000 people get new jobs, how about 5,000,000 fewer?

      Lets pretend all i care about (now) is Amazon. Then the store next to it can't compete because of drones/robots, etc. They go out of business. Or they need to cut wages. Even if we isolate Amazon, there are still spillover effects.

      I just watched the Big Short. I feel like im the canary whistling in the coal mine. GO check the rising number of people applying for disability benefits. Sometimes all the jobs move away and there's just nothing you're qualified for. This has been happening for years. Just under peoples' radar.

    9. Re:remember everything that savings mean by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Isn't modern US shareholder capitalism "fuck everyone but the shareholders". How's that got my back?

      Capitalism is just a tool. I am neither religiously for it, nor religiously against it. It works, at least it has for years, and the flaws that Lenin thought he saw didn't kill it. But capitalism is not an idea, it's a mechanism. we're putting a wrench/spanner in the gears of capitalism and hoping it works out ok. I'm not so sure.

    10. Re:remember everything that savings mean by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      Maybe that story is still being written, and we don't yet know where all the workers displaced by robots went. I imagine many will go into management, because they know their industry and were on their way up anyway. Some will keep their jobs because robots are stupid and will need help solving their stupid mistakes. Some will go back to school and retrain for something else, perhaps something about robots. Some will retire because they were going to soon anyway. And the next generation will mostly avoid this line of work and any other job being replaced by robots, making this a non-issue to all but the old folks going nostalgic over better days - when you could make a decent living and not have to use your brain.

    11. Re: remember everything that savings mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't all work in warehouses or flipping burgers.

    12. Re:remember everything that savings mean by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Think of all the paper shufflers personal computers put out to pasture 30 years ago. That had a much bigger impact than the few thousand seasonal warehouse pickers that will be impacted by this. Society will survive.

      Will it? We seem to be having ever worse economic meltdowns, and "recovery" after each is simply a stock market bubble inflating for a while before popping again. Social security has kept outright bread riots from happening so far, but is running out of money, is actively opposed by a lot of people, and is apparently insufficient to provide long-term stability when more and more people find themselves in permanent basis with no hope for anything better.

      For good or ill, the Age of Industrial Revolution is ending - and with it, all the structures which grew up to support it, which include our notion of employment. Time will tell what Information Revolution will bring, but in their current forms our societies can't survive.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    13. Re:remember everything that savings mean by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is just a tool. I am neither religiously for it, nor religiously against it.

      Capitalism is a tool for arranging society. As such, for someone living under Capitalism, it determines their day to day reality, and because it's composed by interactions between humans, inevitably takes on some level of seeming agency and purpose. The traditional term for something like that is god.

      So "religious" is absolutely the correct term to use here, and is why I have very little hope for our society adapting to changes brought by technology without a disaster like the two World Wars and Red October. And even then the more likely outcome is collapse and disintegration, just like has happened many times in the past.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:remember everything that savings mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually interesting to see the Chinese manufacturing. I expected to see that they were doing "a lot of automation over there", but in reality the population is so large and the wages so low that many jobs which we automated in the US without even thinking about using a person, at any scale, they just line up 50 people to handle.
      In fact the Chinese are pretty careful about what automation they encourage/allow in the factories. They are well aware of the need to keep employment numbers up.

  13. Re:1982, grandpa said "study computers and robotic by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    in 1981, when I was in high school, several of my friends and I took the typing class because we believed computer were going to be a huge thing

    that was the first time teacher ever had more than one male student

    we also had a computer club where we shared a TRS-80

    I'm glad for the typing class & the Z80 assembly I did in computer club, still useful!

  14. This is Great! by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    Who's going to buy the stuff made and shipped by the robots? Oh, wait - I'm a Luddite, I forgot.

  15. Wrong approach? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Those robotic systems are made to upgrade warehouses that were designed for people. Yes they're faster but they should be much faster than that if the warehouses were designed for the machines.

    What if you really designed the warehouse from the ground up for totally automated systems? Why have robots at all? Wouldn't it be faster to put all the products on conveyor belts like a giant "vending machine"?

    1. Re:Wrong approach? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Things that are too specialized don't adapt well to a change in what they need to deal with. Vending machines only handle certain ranges of shape, size, etc. The system mentioned should be more flexible, at, as you indicate, the cost of some efficiency.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Wrong approach? by raftpeople · · Score: 1

      Conveyor is expensive. You're idea would cost multiple orders of magnitude more than the robots.

  16. I'm done with Amazon by WaffleMonster · · Score: 0

    They keep fucking up and acting like a bunch of pricks. Arbitrary minimum orders, intentionally sitting on orders for days before eventually shipping them so they don't to quote a CSR "go out too soon". Insane power trips designed to cow people into submitting to prime subscriptions ... Try ordering Star Wars of all things FFS without a Prime subscription from Amazon.

    When you finally do order something they will completely hide your order from the order history, not bother to ship when they say and not provide any explanation as to why.

    But hey at least they are cutting labor costs with robots... I get infinitely better service ordering from humans on eBay and will never waste my time with Amazon again.

    1. Re: I'm done with Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cry for us, faggot.

    2. Re: I'm done with Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cry for us, faggot.

      UR mom cried after I pulled out. She wanted moar and couldn't wait for the next dude in line.

    3. Re:I'm done with Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon among other vendors are notorious for "sitting on an order" for days even weeks before shipping despite the product being available at the moment of purchase. If I have to pay USD99.00 a year for Amazon Prime that means I have to buy on average 20 times during the year to break even.

  17. Next by mangamuscle · · Score: 1

    They will fill the warehouses with nitrogen to prevent fire hazards and theft from cockroaches, rats and those pesky humans.

    1. Re:Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're 78% there all ready!

  18. Capitalism's cycle is broken now by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know no one really dreams of working in a warehouse filling boxes, or in a factory making steel or whatever. But, society here in the first world has been based for decades on the idea of wealth transfer and stable lifetime employment. Some examples:
    - 30 year fixed mortgages are designed to be painful in the beginning but manageable over time because of increasing income.
    - Manufacturers give auto loans with the assumption that people have the monthly income stream needed to pay them off over an extended time.
    - Retirement under the pension system is dead for most, but for the lucky few, pension based retirement's payoff is dependent on years of service.
    - Retirement under the DIY 401(k)/IRA system requires lifetime, increasing contributions commensurate with your income to ensure stable retirement income later.
    - Car and other heavy goods manufacturers assume people will be able to purchase replacement heavy goods throughout their lives, and maybe someone who's worked a long time will buy a Cadillac instead of a Chevrolet for example.
    - Basically every consumer business relies on people being able to purchase more and better things over time, again due to increasing income.

    I really wonder what Amazon, home builders, supermarkets, car manufacturers, etc. will do when almost everyone cannot depend on a reasonably stable work life anymore. Personally, the reason why I buy things is because I'm somewhat confident that I will have a job for the near term. If I didn't have that confidence, I'd close my wallet as any other rational actor would do. Now, combine this fact with the slow creep of unemployment both from the low and the high end. Examples:
    - Robots replacing fast food workers, warehouse workers, factory workers
    - Cloud and automation replacing IT workers
    - Offshoring replacing IT and software developers

    Since socialism will never take hold in the US until things are at the French Revolution level, what are we going to do with all the unemployable people? It's not nice to say, but there are a group of people who are absolutely incapable of doing anything beyond warehouse work or factory work. Heck, there are corporate employees who are incapable of doing anything outside a narrow processing-type job description. For these people, I do kind of wish for a return to the pre-automation days when you had 10,000+ people working in a steel mill, or another 10,000+ just churning out paperwork at a corporate job. Those people earned a decent middle class salary, and had a good life. I doubt anyone growing up now is going to have it so good.

    1. Re:Capitalism's cycle is broken now by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Yep, the good old days for income equality peaked 30-60 years ago.
      What we are seeing now is a slow and deliberately controlled downward spiral.

      Wealth transfers in the past 20-30 years are enormous, and are one way, to a very small percentage of people(you know who I'm talking about)

      Do yourself a favor and read some of the stuff Marshall Brain has written about this subject, its pretty interesting.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:Capitalism's cycle is broken now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good comment, I wish I had mod points. Regarding socialism not talking over in the USA until the situation is catastrophic, I disagree. See how much the USA changed since 9/11 with the death (tragic and unwarrented, of course) of a few thousand people. It won't take something that physically affects millions for the public mood to change. Some say Sanders is "socialist", but in most of the world he would not stand out for his radical ideas. Roosevelt was as radical as Sanders, and certainly changed the USA deeply! And he was loved for it, 4 elections... Trump is not the answer, but see how far he's come, singing a radical (but stupid) tune...
      USA stood out over other nations in post-WWII for many good reasons, but parts of it are rapidly becoming third-worldish, including the quality of its politicians.

    3. Re:Capitalism's cycle is broken now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This was the focus of Murray & Herrnstein's book _The Bell Curve_. One of the main themes of the book was that society was rapidly becoming unstable and unsustainable because demographic and technological changes were going to render many people (lower IQ) essentially unemployable as the jobs they were qualified for were automated out of existence. Further, as technology became ever more important the divide between "unemployable" and "employable" was moving farther and farther to the right, and once it started getting into the "fat" section of the bell curve all hell was going to break loose in a hurry. The other (related) focus of the book was that in the last 40-50 years the high-IQ individuals had begun marrying at a *much* higher rate than in the past, and since IQ is mostly inherited the implication of this is that we were separating into high-IQ and low-IQ hereditary castes, with the technological progress driven by the high-IQ caste and the destruction borne by the low-IQ caste, with concomitant unequal distribution of the wealth. The book caught a huge amount of shit when it was published because this second section (IQ heritability & social segregation by IQ) also broached the politically unpalatable issue of the differences in IQ between the various races (blacks, caucasians, non-european hispanics, asians, and ashkenazi & sephardic jews). But the issues it raised were real, and the 25 years since its publication have shown it to be depressingly prescient.

    4. Re:Capitalism's cycle is broken now by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      but there are a group of people who are absolutely incapable of doing anything beyond warehouse work or factory work

      I don't consider it unkind. Some people don't seek more than that. For some of us a job is just a job. For those people life is what happens when you're not at the job. It's why silicon valley's "Everyone should just become an entrepreneur misses the point. a) We can't ALL be job creators and b) we don't all WANT to become job creators.

      --
      Just another second banana
    5. Re:Capitalism's cycle is broken now by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      You feed them, or kill them.

    6. Re:Capitalism's cycle is broken now by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      Quite possibly because there is very little evidence of IQ being hereditary?
      Of course you are obviously sold that it is, I have my suspicions why..

      However, IQ is almost certainly TRANSFERABLE to a reasonable extend, and smarter parents tend to *train* smarter children, however
      that has exactly zero to do with being hereditary.

      Oh, and just to drive another nail in, if you think its high IQ people who are the ones leading success wave, then you have swallowed far far
      to much of someones fantasy.. success at present appears to mostly come from a combination of family power, mental acceptance that
      all rules are flexible if (and only if) you gain from them being so, and a view that others have basically zero value.
      In other words the wealthy narcissistic.

      But you keep voting for them... good luck with that.

    7. Re:Capitalism's cycle is broken now by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Capitalism is not broken, it is collectivism and central planning that is broken. Free market capitalism clears supply and demand (including that of labour) at the correct price points.

    8. Re: Capitalism's cycle is broken now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People need to shape up and start using their brains. The times where just showing up at 8am and doing what you are being told until 5pm are over. Those people were lazy letting others doing the thinking - it's a bad habit in the long run.
      If you want to be part of this society you need to contribute. More and more it's not going to be enough to just show up and do simple manual jobs. You absolutely need to start using your brain too.

    9. Re:Capitalism's cycle is broken now by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      Since socialism will never take hold in the US until things are at the French Revolution level, what are we going to do with all the unemployable people? It's not nice to say, but there are a group of people who are absolutely incapable of doing anything beyond warehouse work or factory work. Heck, there are corporate employees who are incapable of doing anything outside a narrow processing-type job description. For these people, I do kind of wish for a return to the pre-automation days when you had 10,000+ people working in a steel mill, or another 10,000+ just churning out paperwork at a corporate job. Those people earned a decent middle class salary, and had a good life. I doubt anyone growing up now is going to have it so good.

      As technology takes care of your basic needs, you need to find ways to fill your time. Build healthy hobbies; be creative, meditate, become spiritual. You need to be a creator even if no one cares to see your creation (let alone pay money to buy your stuff or watch you perform). In the short term, most will end up drug addicts. A few that don't get killed will wake up, take up meditation and find inner peace.

    10. Re:Capitalism's cycle is broken now by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Capitolism isn't broken, socialism is. It was never viable in the first place. Looks good on paper, however.
      I think we're a lot closer than you do. We could be just 6 months from a total collapse. It's likely it'll be bloody the way the left has us whipped up in a froth right now.

    11. Re:Capitalism's cycle is broken now by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      What we'll do is put them in prison, it's what this idiotic country has always done. It's a good thing there are so many guns though, that should help out a great deal down the road, when things get really bad.

    12. Re:Capitalism's cycle is broken now by ultranova · · Score: 1

      As technology takes care of your basic needs, you need to find ways to fill your time.

      That's fine advice for the owning class, but what does it have to do with the post you quoted? Because, for those who used to make their living through working until technology made them redundant, technology is not only not taking care of their basic needs, but actively hindering their ability to do so themselves.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    13. Re:Capitalism's cycle is broken now by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      It's kind of an answer to this question in the quoted text "what are we going to do with all the unemployable people? ". The point is society can't take care of an individual by telling him/her how he should spend the waking hours. We do assume that tech takes care of basic needs [thur' say a society UBI/universal basic income/ food stamps/housing etc]. Even today if you apply for a loan (govt sponsored) or go for govt assistance, you will get it. If you are sober, you can follow the steps I had listed.

      Basically humans have reached that point in evolution where they don't need to work for survival; they need to find higher purpose (don't wanna bring in any religious mumbo-jumbo). This higher purpose I alluded thru' the use of the word 'creative/creation'. Just like we used to take for granted free-oxygen, we need to take for granted free food/shelter/clothing/basic-entertainment. The greatest challenge then is what to do with all the free time. [btw health care is not really an issue, if you stop doing all the non-sense capitalism has made a man to do -- all unnatural sleep/work/eating patterns]

    14. Re:Capitalism's cycle is broken now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, some of us could actually look things up and reply with actual data...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  19. robot revolt portrayed in 1960s Mad Magazine by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    Not sure how this fits into this discussion but I was thinking about a satire Mad Magazine had of the movie Camelot. This story is called Can-A-Lot about a canning company, its CEO was Arthur, president emeritus was Melvin. Artists drew characters like those in the movie, re-wrote lyrics to fit this story of the canning company (Camelot I believe it was called) that takes place in modern times. Of course Arthur's adversary was the union leader (Lancelot I think). Then to deal with this, Arthur replaced all the workers with robots (drawn typical mechanical men with lightbulb noses). Eventually pushed to robots to work longer hours and they begin breaking down. One of Arthur's board members suggested it's cheaper to simply replace instead of repair a broken robot. Arthur: "This is the best idea I have!" His board member, "your idea?" Arthur, "glad you like it."

    Later in story the overworked robots revolt and burn down the factory, Arthur is left with nothing like in the movie.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  20. Losing the Space Race by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    For decades, we never saw this flaw because of growth. There was ALWAYS places to grow. I don't know where the growth comes from now. The planet just cant have exponential growth forever.

    The answer should have been space, but after we "won" the space race, we stopped and sat on our thumbs for thirty years.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. Robotics... one step closer to replicators. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Isn't that supposed to be a Good Thing?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  22. Where are the benefits? by evilviper · · Score: 1

    In turn, the company's operating costs have been sliced by 20% -- or almost $22 million -- per warehouse.

    The list of benefits are a lot of back-end numbers we don't see and can't verify. If these Kiva robots are saving Amazon so much money, why aren't item prices dropping? Why does Walmart still often beat Amazon's prices? Why did Amazon suddenly and silently increase the free shipping minimum threshold from any $35 order, to $49 of only merchandise shipped via Amazon? This price jump even coincides with the biggest DEcrease in oil prices in decades.

    In short, I'm HIGHLY skeptical they're actually getting the huge benefits they claim.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:Where are the benefits? by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      In turn, the company's operating costs have been sliced by 20% -- or almost $22 million -- per warehouse.

      The list of benefits are a lot of back-end numbers we don't see and can't verify. If these Kiva robots are saving Amazon so much money, why aren't item prices dropping? Why does Walmart still often beat Amazon's prices? Why did Amazon suddenly and silently increase the free shipping minimum threshold from any $35 order, to $49 of only merchandise shipped via Amazon? This price jump even coincides with the biggest DEcrease in oil prices in decades.

      In short, I'm HIGHLY skeptical they're actually getting the huge benefits they claim.

      all those benefits will be pass on to prime people only and the rest of us will have to have larger orders to subsidize them more and more.

      --
      Just another second banana
    2. Re:Where are the benefits? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      all those benefits will be pass on to prime people only

      Okay then. Show me the price of Amazon Prime decreasing, which preferably coincides with this increasing automation, then...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Where are the benefits? by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      prices decreasing? I'm not sure that's the way it works. I'd expect prices to say the same but the product to increase. And again this is only assuming they DO pass the savings down. I wasn't trying to say they would just that they could pass down the savings and if so it would go to prime first (in the form of more prime features)

      --
      Just another second banana
  23. It gets even better by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

    they work for peanuts people.. peanuts!!!!

    --
    Just another second banana
  24. Interesting. by mha · · Score: 1

    You say "them" - like everybody else who is about to find out they are "them" or will be shortly. Unless you are a capitalist *you are "them"*. I'm a 6-figure making IT specialist with broad knowledge - and I feel concerned. Ones abilities are secondary to "the market" - as well as to biases. Above 40 you can easily fall through the cracks no matter your qualification (unless it's really extraordinary AND happens to be in demand too). There are lots of factors beyond your control.

    Plenty of high-paid people who were laid off in their fifties who ranted about the lazy people unwilling to work found out that "them" is them when they were laid off and job application after application was rejected, often without even getting a response.

  25. Re:1982, grandpa said "study computers and robotic by antdude · · Score: 1

    You have been assimilated to join the collectives.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  26. Yet... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Sure, who wouldn't want to save even $800,000,000! If Amazon had any real human compasion, they funnel that savings into programs for the now unemployed folks that these robots created! WTF?!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  27. "trades" still safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My job training in HVAC service/installation and property management is safe. My job in an HVAC manufacturer's warehouse, not so much. I'm okay with that as I transition from latter to former.

    If you like working with your hands, train in HVAC, plumbing, carpentry or electrical service and installation. Those jobs are never, ever going away. The skills required will evolve as major building systems evolve but pulling wires, replacing pipes, brazing in refrigerant lines will not.

  28. 3D printing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's all robots and warehouses and picking and packing and smug Jeff B raking in the zillions . . . . . until everyone has a 3Dprinter or other Star Trek-style replication device. THEN what?