Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I'm not sure how common it is... (Score 1) 293

by ShakaUVM (#46797651) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Hungry Students, How Common?

>But it sounds like an absurd example of a false economy: Even at relatively cheap schools, the cost of running a student through is nontrivial. It seems like complete insanity to waste expensive instructional time on somebody who can't concentrate properly for want of a few dollars worth of calories. Nobody's interests are well served by that.

The cost is to the student, not to the institution. It doesn't cost the institution more to educate a hungry student, even if they can't think as well.

I see it as part of the challenge of going to college. I made $18k a year in grad school working as a TA, while living in San Diego. From that, I had to pay for books, car/gas/insurance/registration fees, rent, food, and everything else. Which wasn't easy. But I did it, and graduated from college with only about four thousand dollars in student loans, and that I had to take out because my car's engine and transmission went out within three weeks of each other and I had to put them on my credit card.

It was like a game to me. I had a budget of $10 or less per day for food. Two $1 bacon cheeseburgers and a $1 frosty for lunch, a $4 bowl of rice and orange chicken for dinner, and I still had enough left over for a snack at night or in the afternoon. The next day I'd get a $5 footlong for lunch, and four tacos for $2 for dinner, and so forth.

People who are just eating Top Ramen are just doing it wrong, in my opinion.

Comment: Re:Well considering that.. (Score 1) 293

by ShakaUVM (#46797627) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Hungry Students, How Common?

>... 80% of you in the US are competing over 5% of the money in the economy, you guys have no idea how unequal your society has become and you keep voting for more of getting screwed.

Anyone who talks about income inequality as if it is a problem in and of itself is automatically labelled an idiot in my mind. Especially when they post (two out of three) references that don't work, and the one that does is just more of the same idiocy that you always hear when it comes to income inequality.

What matters is median wealth to the health of a society, not income inequality. You could have a perfectly equal society where everyone made 10 bucks a year. Or you could have a society where the median income was 100,000, but you had a handful of plutocrats running around. Which one would you prefer to live in? The second of course. Having a rich person floating around cause harm to you, in and of itself.

Comment: Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (Score 2) 317

by ShakaUVM (#46797613) Attached to: Beer Price Crisis On the Horizon

>So the entire industry is completely taxpayer supported bullshit. We're carrying an industry that has no use. And this in an era where water table is decreasing (corn is unbelievably thirsty), food prices and meat rising astronomically, etc.

Yes. Scientists and economists have known that corn ethanol is complete bullshit for a very long time now.

If you're interested in a good analysis of the subject, read the Economics of Food by Westhoff, which is mainly about the effects of biofuels on food prices. While ethanol is only a small fraction of demand for corn, due to the way the markets worked, it drive huge spikes in corn prices, which had downstream effects on corn mash (which the OP is referring to here), it altered the balance between white and yellow corn which caused food exports to Mexico to drop, leading to massive price spikes in tortillas there, leading to riots, various issues with trade protectionism, and so forth.

Given that there's absolutely no reason to use corn ethanol, the only reason that we still have it (and both major parties support it) is because corn farmers get first crack at choosing who our next president is.

If they implement feeding restrictions on corn mash, this will have very serious consequences on our food supply and will send price shocks throughout the world. It's a very bad idea.

Comment: Re:how many of these people don't want to retire? (Score 1) 244

by ShakaUVM (#46793019) Attached to: I expect to retire ...

>When I see ages like 75 and never, I wonder if these are people who don't want to stop working, or people who financially can't stop working. My grandfather is 92 and still working...by choice.

I said never.

That said, I took off a year or so from work after my kid was born. Or, as much as I could as I run a small business.

So maybe I've already retired and am rejoining the workforce. Who knows?

It's boring just sitting around doing nothing all day.

Comment: Re:It's California (Score 1) 722

by ShakaUVM (#46718683) Attached to: Can the ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers Be Believed?

>I operate my own company and have previously only had access to insurance through my wife's employer

As do I (in both cases).

However, I was able to get small business insurance relatively cheaply ($200ish a month) prior to marrying my wife and getting on her plan.

Bog standard Kaiser HMO insurance, not one of those scammy plans that you're talking about.

Comment: Re:New? (Score 2) 181

by ShakaUVM (#46711695) Attached to: Do Free-To-Play Games Get a Fair Shake?

Exactly. The second I hear a game is freer to play, I immediately assume all of these things about it, and it's up to the game designer to try to convince me to "buy" it anyway. The only one in recent memory that has done that for me is Path to Exile. The entire game is free to play, and all of the purchases are for cosmetic stuff, with, arguably, only additional stash space being something that might give you an advantage in the game.

Comment: Re:Gee, so only a year of screaming (Score 2) 387

>So it only took about a year of screaming from the users and slashdotters before Microsquishy paid attention and brought back the MENU instead of that god damned useless start screen.

It came out in October 2012, but people have been screaming about it since the pre-release in 2011.

So about the same amount of time it took Blizzard to fix the clusterfuck called Diablo 3, and with the same amounts of fucks given by the general population.

Comment: Re:Oculus is the real deal, the others are hype (Score 1) 202

by ShakaUVM (#46637079) Attached to: How interested are you in Virtual Reality tech?

> Without the headset meeting all of these criteria VR sucks. The reason it isn't out yet is because the technology isn't there yet, and they are working on getting it there.

As someone who worked for a military supplier of VR equipment in the mid 90s, I can say you're missing one key component - a consumer friendly price point.

We (Kaiser VR) had headsets that sold for $100k that we'd sell to the military for use in aircraft and flight simulators, and they were really good. 180 degree field of view, 60 fps refresh rate, input lag that was low enough to not cause people to get violently sick, etc. Part of that was due to good motion prediction algorithms (I passed on some tips to Abrash when he started working on VR), but a lot just had to due with being able to throw a lot of money at a solution.

Being able to get all those specs into something cheap enough for a consumer to buy would be a miracle, but who knows? With $2B in the bank, they might just be able to do it.

Comment: Re:Won't do any good. (Score 1) 264

by ShakaUVM (#46488567) Attached to: Cameras On Cops: Coming To a Town Near You

>It will never happen, but if a law was passed that when the video is unavailable, the citizen's report is presumed to be true and complete, I'll bet those cameras would suddenly get a lot more reliable.

Indeed. This is the missing key ingredient.

I once got pulled over for speeding while driving doing the speed limit. I saw the cop coming down the road toward me, and had slowed down by the time he'd u-turned and pulled up behind me to tail me. I'd been speeding before, but this wasn't what he claimed in court - he said I was doing 78 (written statement) 87 (oral statement) while tailing me on the I-5.

I'd requested the camera footage of the event, but it mysteriously wasn't available to me.

So it was just the cop's word against mine, and the court will side with a cop every time, even though there was a serious discrepancy between his written and oral statement, and his video footage wasn't provided to me.

If the law stated that the presumption would go the other way (favoring the citizen over the cop) when video evidence disappears, it would eliminate the easiest source of police abuse of these tools.

Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.

Working...