Forget Godzilla. Beginning Thursday, Burger King fans in Japan can get a mega-sized Whopper.

Microsoft is teaming up with Burger King to release the Windows 7 Whopper, our sister site Engadget reports. The burger features lucky-number-seven stacked beef patties and stands 5-inches tall.

Keeping with the seven theme, the sandwich will sell at 777 yen (or approximately $8.50) to the first 30 customers and will be available for seven days. For customer No. 31 and beyond, the tower-o-meat will sell for 1,450 yen -- almost double the promotional cost.

[Via Engadget]

Well, it's a great name for a burger, regardless. In the case of Burger King's new variation, "angry" stands for spicy. Spicy means a whopper topped with pepper jack cheese, spicy fried onions, jalapenos, bacon, the usual lettucetomatomayonnaise and something called "angry sauce."

How spicy is it? Well, depends on where you are in the angry whopper. While eating mine, I found the edges to be only mildly peevish but when I got toward the center of the sandwich, where all the jalapenos lay in wait, it became rather furious. While I wish the Angry Whopper has more variety in texture (like most fast-food burgers), the spicy additions do create something tastier than what you usually pull out of a Burger King bag.

I was really planning to try that KFC Famous Bowl, but not after seeing these pics.

It's a funny experiment from The West Virginia Surf Report. They take several ads from fast food companies such as McDonald's, KFC, Arby's, Subway, Burger King, and Wendy's and compare the pics to the actual food they went and bought. The results are, while not exactly surprising, certainly interesting.

Most of the foods look really smushed and look like they were put together very quickly. But back to that KFC Famous Bowl. In the ad you can see all the individual items in there, the chicken, the cheese, the corn, the gravy. The actual product (above) looks like dog food sold on the planet Krypton. Gah!

Unless you've been off the grid for the past few years, you know that fast food has been taken to task for it's being, gasp, horrible for one's health. Those laying the blame have included most notably writer Eric Schlosser in his scathing book that indicts Mickey D's et. al. and filmmaker Morgan Spurlock.

Now a lawsuit in California against Burger King Holdings and CKE Restaurants, which operates more than 1,000 Carl's Junior Restaurants, may spell trouble for operators that flame-broil their burgers.

The suit alleges that the companies violated the state's Proposition 65 by not alerting their customers that charbroiled hamburgers could contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which have been implicated as potential carcinogens. The plaintiff says that if the court rules in its favor it may sue other restaurants. If the case succeeds, the restaurants will either post warnings or install cooking devices designed to remove PAHs from food.

PAHs are created by incompletely burning organic substances. Long-term exposure to PAHs has been linked to cancer in humans. Not to make light of cancer but I'm not terribly worried about this carcinogen. Here's why: PAHs are created whenever any meat is grilled. How could something as good as a strip steak possibly be bad for you?

 

Whoppers are candies with a chocolate coating over a malted milk center. They are almost identical to Maltesers, though fans of one will argue that it is better than the other. Maltesers are made by Mars, while Whoppers are made by Hershey. Around Easter, Whoppers adds a brightly colored candy coating to the balls and calls them Robin Eggs. Personally, I am a huge fan of the candy coating and look forward to picking up a bag of these around Easter. The extra crunch that comes before reaching the chocolate layer and melt-in-your-mouth malted center is great.

A California couple was recently charged $4,334.33 for four Burger King hamburgers, the AP reported. Apparently the slip-up came when the cashier rung up a charge of $4.33 on customer George Beane's debit card and then, thinking the transaction had not gone through, entered the amount again again, resulting in the $4,334.33 charge. The charge was unable to be reversed for several days because of the way the Beane's bank places holds on large transactions. Their money was eventually refunded and they actually got the original four burgers—two Whoppers Jr. and two Rodeo Cheeseburgers—for free.

As far as I understand it, the purpose of advertising is to sell more products, not to frighten the customers. Unfortunately, Burger King's advertising department does not seem to have gotten this message. During the Super Bowl yesterday, Burger King unveiled a new, multi-million dollar ad featuring its skin-crawlingly creepy, plastic-headed mascot, the King. As though his mere presence was not enough, the commercial consisted of women dressed as the salad toppings on a hamburger - lettuce, onion, tomato, etc. - dancing around before being rather unceremoniously tossed into a pile which, coincidentally, managed to resemble a hamburger. The "tasty and eye popping" women/toppings are ogled by the king during and after the formation of the "burger."

Creepy, sexist and, no doubt, offensive to more than a few people, does Burger King really see an increase in sales after airing ads like this? I would prefer to see a commercial that showed the actual food product, not a strange Whopperette version of it.

You can view the whole ad, if you are so inclined, at Adjab.

[Image from Adjab]