If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   USDA spends $150,000 to study food shopping patterns through GPS. Come on, if you can be spotted shopping by global positioning satellites, perhaps it's time to start buying a little less food   (cnsnews.com) divider line 69
    More: Asinine, USDA, GPS, food shopping, food systems, political convention  
•       •       •

456 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jul 2013 at 11:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-20 09:13:50 AM
$150,000 to get a better understanding of how people shop for food, hopefully to encourage better choices and improve availability of more nutritional choices? The cost of, what, a professor and two grad students? I'm sorry, am I supposed to be outraged?
 
2013-07-20 10:57:39 AM
Now that is a weak headline.

Fess up, subby.
 
2013-07-20 11:28:34 AM
And how much did we spend in Afghanistan yesterday?
How much was given to churches yesterday?

But better nutrition?  AN OUTRAGE!!!!
 
2013-07-20 11:29:50 AM

Bloody William: $150,000 to get a better understanding of how people shop for food, hopefully to encourage better choices and improve availability of more nutritional choices? The cost of, what, a professor and two grad students? I'm sorry, am I supposed to be outraged?


Yeah, this sounds line a really valuable study, and 150k is freaking cheap considering the possible positive impact. They're leveraging existing technologies very efficiently, and it sounds like good "bang for the buck" science.
 
2013-07-20 11:30:44 AM
GPS doesn't track large objects, Subby.
 
2013-07-20 11:31:39 AM

Bloody William: $150,000 to get a better understanding of how people shop for food, hopefully to encourage better choices and improve availability of more nutritional choices? The cost of, what, a professor and two grad students? I'm sorry, am I supposed to be outraged?


the GPS part hit the INFOWARSOMGTHEYRETRACKING buttonthe low cost should appeal to your conservative republican sensibilitieswhile the fark part makes it funnyin conclusion the combination of these three elements have simply illustrated the point that i need better punctuation in my sentences so that they dont run on and on
 
2013-07-20 11:31:44 AM

Bloody William: $150,000 to get a better understanding of how people shop for food, hopefully to encourage better choices and improve availability of more nutritional choices? The cost of, what, a professor and two grad students? I'm sorry, am I supposed to be outraged?


the GPS part hit the INFOWARSOMGTHEYRETRACKING button the low cost should appeal to your conservative republican sensibilitieswhile the fark part makes it funnyin conclusion the combination of these three elements have simply illustrated the point that i need better punctuation in my sentences so that they dont run on and on
 
2013-07-20 11:32:59 AM
HMS_Blinkin:

Yeah, this sounds line a really valuable study, and 150k is freaking cheap considering the possible positive impact. They're leveraging existing technologies very efficiently, and it sounds like good "bang for the buck" science.

Yeah, that's actually one of the cheapest studies I think I've ever seen.  This is pretty impressive actually.  Though you know somebody at the USDA is probably selling that info now to companies and making a mint off of it.
 
2013-07-20 11:36:26 AM

Bloody William: $150,000 to get a better understanding of how people shop for food, hopefully to encourage better choices and improve availability of more nutritional choices? The cost of, what, a professor and two grad students? I'm sorry, am I supposed to be outraged?


But that's 8 times the salary of a GOP voter, THE WASTED MONEY OMG.
 
2013-07-20 11:38:09 AM
Yo mama so fat, atomic clocks slow down when she walks by.
 
2013-07-20 11:39:57 AM
Remind me, isn't the USA a country which has literal 'food deserts,' where there are no supermarkets providing a range of foods, and only the food that stores and lasts the best is sold? Doesn't that indicate there might be some major, institutional transport problems, as might be well-befitted by a cheap study done through trackable means?
 
2013-07-20 11:42:47 AM

TalenLee: Remind me, isn't the USA a country which has literal 'food deserts,' where there are no supermarkets providing a range of foods, and only the food that stores and lasts the best is sold? Doesn't that indicate there might be some major, institutional transport problems, as might be well-befitted by a cheap study done through trackable means?


Nope. What it means is first it's $150,000 to study shopping habits, next we'll be forced to pay for abortions for gay-married turtles. Study it out.
 
2013-07-20 11:45:06 AM
You know, Sen. William Proxmire did the nation a great disservice with his "Golden Fleece Awards." There are certainly any number of government programs that are wasteful and absurd, but by focusing so much on small sums of money spent on research which sounds silly when boiled down to a soundbite description but which, upon further examination, gather valuable information, he created the misimpression that all government funded research is per se wasteful. It was attention whoring of the highest order, and it fed the cynicism so rampant today. And yes, I'm well aware that he was a Democrat - unfortunately.
 
2013-07-20 11:47:03 AM

Bloody William: $150,000 to get a better understanding of how people shop for food, hopefully to encourage better choices and improve availability of more nutritional choices? The cost of, what, a professor and two grad students? I'm sorry, am I supposed to be outraged?


I think the "Asinine" is for Americans' asses that are so fat, they can be tracked from space.
 
2013-07-20 11:56:13 AM
I'm going to put myself in the mind of subby for a moment...

"HURP DE DURP well 150,000 is more than I"ll hurp and durp in 20 years, so it must be stupid and wasteful just like me!"

No you farking idiot. Don't you see the value in the US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE paying attention to eating trends? The USDA, the people that make sure your meat isn't all prion infested, and that food is actually, you know, what's listed on the label.

Look, we get it, you are a farking moron, who thinks your big tuff objectivist boner is going to protect you from tainted food and agribusiness malfeasance. Pretty much all of the rest of us like our food to be safe and untainted.
 
2013-07-20 12:10:07 PM
Another study?  I've been using data from studies done years ago.  Guess what, people like to enter, turn right and then it becomes all fusterclucked
 
2013-07-20 12:12:10 PM

Ivo Shandor: Yo mama so fat, atomic clocks slow down when she walks by.


I can't tell if this is a high-brow relativity joke, or just a low-brow "yo mama" joke.  I'm not sure the answer is either or even neither.
 
2013-07-20 12:12:18 PM

Bloody William: $150,000 to get a better understanding of how people shop for food, hopefully to encourage better choices and improve availability of more nutritional choices? The cost of, what, a professor and two grad students? I'm sorry, am I supposed to be outraged?


I'm going to assume "Subby": is a brain dead Teabagging  moron along the lines of "gubbiment spending Bad! Gimme mah medicare!"
 
2013-07-20 12:21:21 PM

neongoats: I'm going to put myself in the mind of subby for a moment...

"HURP DE DURP well 150,000 is more than I"ll hurp and durp in 20 years, so it must be stupid and wasteful just like me!"

No you farking idiot. Don't you see the value in the US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE paying attention to eating trends? The USDA, the people that make sure your meat isn't all prion infested, and that food is actually, you know, what's listed on the label.

Look, we get it, you are a farking moron, who thinks your big tuff objectivist boner is going to protect you from tainted food and agribusiness malfeasance. Pretty much all of the rest of us like our food to be safe and untainted.


What I love; the people to get all idignant and derpy over this are the same that won't question 400 billion being spent on tanks/ships/air craft engines that the Pentagon doesn't want because they're useless.
 
2013-07-20 12:34:29 PM

SN1987a goes boom: Ivo Shandor: Yo mama so fat, atomic clocks slow down when she walks by.

I can't tell if this is a high-brow relativity joke, or just a low-brow "yo mama" joke.  I'm not sure the answer is either or even neither.


It's in a quantum superposition of high and low brow.
 
2013-07-20 12:35:41 PM

TalenLee: Remind me, isn't the USA a country which has literal 'food deserts,' where there are no supermarkets providing a range of foods, and only the food that stores and lasts the best is sold? Doesn't that indicate there might be some major, institutional transport problems, as might be well-befitted by a cheap study done through trackable means?


They only exist in the cities.  No great loss if they fail.  Right Detroit?
 
2013-07-20 12:38:38 PM

Luneward: HMS_Blinkin:

Yeah, this sounds line a really valuable study, and 150k is freaking cheap considering the possible positive impact. They're leveraging existing technologies very efficiently, and it sounds like good "bang for the buck" science.

Yeah, that's actually one of the cheapest studies I think I've ever seen.  This is pretty impressive actually.  Though you know somebody at the USDA is probably selling that info now to companies and making a mint off of it.


I was thinking this should have worked better in the other direction.  Have the USDA write the cheque to whichever consumer tracking/retailer group has the best data on shopping habits.  I suspect (a lack of research on my part) that the quality of information available on the open market is better than they got at that price.  It might end up costing a bit more, but seriously, even a few hundred thousand is less than a rounding error at the Federal Dept level.

Cheers.
 
2013-07-20 12:38:38 PM

Smeggy Smurf: TalenLee: Remind me, isn't the USA a country which has literal 'food deserts,' where there are no supermarkets providing a range of foods, and only the food that stores and lasts the best is sold? Doesn't that indicate there might be some major, institutional transport problems, as might be well-befitted by a cheap study done through trackable means?

They only exist in the cities.  No great loss if they fail.  Right Detroit?


Something tells me that Republicans look at what the Khmer Rouge did and think it was a good idea.  I mean, clearing out the cities and sending all educated people to work in the fields?  Wet dream territory there.
 
2013-07-20 12:44:53 PM

Ivo Shandor: Yo mama so fat, atomic clocks slow down when she walks by.


Not only is yo mama fat, but she is getting fatter so quickly that she has a measurable Doppler effect.
 
2013-07-20 12:46:31 PM

SN1987a goes boom: Ivo Shandor: Yo mama so fat, atomic clocks slow down when she walks by.

I can't tell if this is a high-brow relativity joke, or just a low-brow "yo mama" joke.  I'm not sure the answer is either or even neither.


That would make it a quantum mechanics joke.
 
2013-07-20 12:50:31 PM

SoupJohnB: SN1987a goes boom: Ivo Shandor: Yo mama so fat, atomic clocks slow down when she walks by.

I can't tell if this is a high-brow relativity joke, or just a low-brow "yo mama" joke.  I'm not sure the answer is either or even neither.

That would make it a quantum mechanics joke.


Beat you to it.
 
2013-07-20 12:52:22 PM

jack21221: SN1987a goes boom: Ivo Shandor: Yo mama so fat, atomic clocks slow down when she walks by.

I can't tell if this is a high-brow relativity joke, or just a low-brow "yo mama" joke.  I'm not sure the answer is either or even neither.

It's in a quantum superposition of high and low brow.


So its both, like a zombie cat in a radioactive box.
 
2013-07-20 12:55:40 PM

Bloody William: $150,000 to get a better understanding of how people shop for food, hopefully to encourage better choices and improve availability of more nutritional choices? The cost of, what, a professor and two grad students? I'm sorry, am I supposed to be outraged?


Information that is worth millions to McDonalds.
 
2013-07-20 12:57:56 PM

Bloody William: $150,000 to get a better understanding of how people shop for food, hopefully to encourage better choices and improve availability of more nutritional choices? The cost of, what, a professor and two grad students? I'm sorry, am I supposed to be outraged?


I came here to say exactly this. 

Think about it this way :
A grad student usually costs about 20k, for something that usually would cost 100k (60 hours of work per week by a highly qualified professional in the top 1% of their undergraduate class)

A research professor can be 'bribed' to work for you for 50 to 90k (this means he's doing research in the area, not that he's working under your direction). Senior Research professors can make up to 200k, but most actually make 70-120k, and most of the grant money goes to the schools that they are affiliated with, for resources, computing time, and other outlays.

University research is dirt cheap in this country, especially considering that one mid-level banker in a too big to fail bank gets paid well over $150,000 to do nothing but push around papers, give people a hard time and occasionally crash the entire farking economy. Researchers, on the other hand, provide the slow, steady, necessary expansion of the realm of human knowledge, creating certainty upon which real growth takes place.

/yes, even studying duck penises.
 
2013-07-20 12:58:13 PM
Can't we have drones target the fatties?
 
2013-07-20 12:59:29 PM

rubi_con_man: A grad student usually costs about 20k 100 bucks, for something that usually would cost 100k

300 bucks.

Or so I hear...
 
2013-07-20 01:04:49 PM
Just for comparison:

The average food inspector wage in the USDA is $36,000
A battle-ready tank costs $120,000,000

Which means cutting one tank from the DOD budget would pay for over 3,000 food inspectors.
 
2013-07-20 01:07:24 PM
It's almost like this article is aimed at angering people who don't understand the value of money.
 
2013-07-20 01:07:58 PM

mediablitz: rubi_con_man: A grad student usually costs about 20k 100 bucks, for something that usually would cost 100k 300 bucks.

Or so I hear...

 While you are right, that there is a lot of variability in graduate student salaries between fields (you would not believe what the Particle Physics research assistants were making) I was going by my last year of earnings at a top-20 CS program.
 
2013-07-20 01:17:53 PM
Guys, WTF?  We all know that money would have been better used to drone bomb some brown people.  Jeesh.
 
2013-07-20 01:18:08 PM

rubi_con_man: mediablitz: rubi_con_man: A grad student usually costs about 20k 100 bucks, for something that usually would cost 100k 300 bucks.

Or so I hear...
 While you are right, that there is a lot of variability in graduate student salaries between fields (you would not believe what the Particle Physics research assistants were making) I was going by my last year of earnings at a top-20 CS program.


I was making a prostitute joke.
 
2013-07-20 01:19:05 PM
Can't the same thing be done by checking over the inventory that grocery stores move?
 
2013-07-20 01:21:10 PM

utah dude: Bloody William: $150,000 to get a better understanding of how people shop for food, hopefully to encourage better choices and improve availability of more nutritional choices? The cost of, what, a professor and two grad students? I'm sorry, am I supposed to be outraged?

the GPS part hit the INFOWARSOMGTHEYRETRACKING buttonthe low cost should appeal to your conservative republican sensibilitieswhile the fark part makes it funnyin conclusion the combination of these three elements have simply illustrated the point that i need better punctuation in my sentences so that they dont run on and on


Hey, maybe that'll rope in the grammar nazis as well.
 
2013-07-20 01:23:20 PM
This. Is. An. OUTAGE! Our brave, brilliant, heroic, and fiscally responsible Tea Party members of Congress will repeal this Dimmirat waste and rescue this money for the taxpayer and reallocate it to the justified billions it understandably costs to enforce the new anti-abortion laws so that the unborn may be protected.
 
2013-07-20 01:23:35 PM

ArcadianRefugee: utah dude: Bloody William: $150,000 to get a better understanding of how people shop for food, hopefully to encourage better choices and improve availability of more nutritional choices? The cost of, what, a professor and two grad students? I'm sorry, am I supposed to be outraged?

the GPS part hit the INFOWARSOMGTHEYRETRACKING buttonthe low cost should appeal to your conservative republican sensibilitieswhile the fark part makes it funnyin conclusion the combination of these three elements have simply illustrated the point that i need better punctuation in my sentences so that they dont run on and on

Hey, maybe that'll rope in the grammar nazis as well.


xactly wat i'msayin bro.
 
2013-07-20 01:27:21 PM

rabidarmadillo24: Can't the same thing be done by checking over the inventory that grocery stores move?


Um. No. That only tells you what was sold, not who bought it and how often they bought it.
 
2013-07-20 01:28:43 PM

TalenLee: Remind me, isn't the USA a country which has literal 'food deserts,' where there are no supermarkets providing a range of foods, and only the food that stores and lasts the best is sold? Doesn't that indicate there might be some major, institutional transport problems, as might be well-befitted by a cheap study done through trackable means?


I'm not sure it's 'transport issues' so much as 'those are areas where people can't afford real food in the first place'. Real food is  farking expensive--out here in Nevada, for example, you pretty much cannot eat anything not pre-processed unless you're above the poverty level. That sounds reasonable until you realize most people out here are  below said poverty level. Businesses won't sell real food unless someone buys it.

/America's roads are pretty good, our trucks are fine...transport probably isn't the issue so much as America's rampant poverty\refusal to help poor people.
//Which is probably the root of 90% of America's problems.
 
2013-07-20 01:53:20 PM

utah dude: ArcadianRefugee: utah dude: Bloody William: $150,000 to get a better understanding of how people shop for food, hopefully to encourage better choices and improve availability of more nutritional choices? The cost of, what, a professor and two grad students? I'm sorry, am I supposed to be outraged?

the GPS part hit the INFOWARSOMGTHEYRETRACKING buttonthe low cost should appeal to your conservative republican sensibilitieswhile the fark part makes it funnyin conclusion the combination of these three elements have simply illustrated the point that i need better punctuation in my sentences so that they dont run on and on

Hey, maybe that'll rope in the grammar nazis as well.

xactly wat i'msayin bro.


Well, it is on purpose, so while I, as a grammar nazi, am annoyed and have a headache, I'll let this slide.
 
2013-07-20 02:27:38 PM
Oh look, a CNSNews link I won't be clicking on
 
2013-07-20 02:50:38 PM

Satanic_Hamster: neongoats: I'm going to put myself in the mind of subby for a moment...

"HURP DE DURP well 150,000 is more than I"ll hurp and durp in 20 years, so it must be stupid and wasteful just like me!"

No you farking idiot. Don't you see the value in the US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE paying attention to eating trends? The USDA, the people that make sure your meat isn't all prion infested, and that food is actually, you know, what's listed on the label.

Look, we get it, you are a farking moron, who thinks your big tuff objectivist boner is going to protect you from tainted food and agribusiness malfeasance. Pretty much all of the rest of us like our food to be safe and untainted.

What I love; the people to get all idignant and derpy over this are the same that won't question 400 billion being spent on tanks/ships/air craft engines that the Pentagon doesn't want because they're useless.


Yeah we need 15 more planes that cost 500 million each to keep up with these stone age guys living in caves and making explosives out of fertilizer.
 
2013-07-20 02:52:22 PM
I highly support using this data to subsidize healthy 'farmers markets' strategically placed throughout urban areas.
Many of these areas use 'food stamps' anyway. So the government will basically be passing out free veggies.
By increasing the nutrition to poor people we can improve their health and ability of their children to study.
Perhaps we can distribute some of the food we are subsidizing big agriculture to not grow.
Dairy farmer subsidies are why the government has so much cheese to distribute.

In TenPoundBlocks.
 
2013-07-20 03:03:18 PM

lacrossestar83: Oh look, a CNSNews link I won't be clicking on


Why haven't you accepted CNS as your true Lord and Savior?
 
2013-07-20 03:51:37 PM

neongoats: The USDA, the people that make sure your meat isn't all prion infested,


yes, the same group that puts a big fat seal of approval on pink slime and all the other crap that gets fed in school cafeterias.

Fun fact: food did not exist before the USDA was created.
 
2013-07-20 04:09:47 PM

PsiChick: I'm not sure it's 'transport issues' so much as 'those are areas where people can't afford real food in the first place'. Real food is  farking expensive--out here in Nevada, for example, you pretty much cannot eat anything not pre-processed unless you're above the poverty level. That sounds reasonable until you realize most people out here are  below said poverty level. Businesses won't sell real food unless someone buys it.



There are almost always cheap food alternatives (Pizza, fried chicken, taco bell) near by that offer the amount of calories you need to survive at under 5$ per day. Assuming that you have a Minimum wage job for 7$/hr, and Pay the usual tax burden, you clear about 600$ a month. You can't probably afford much more than 5$/day - and that assumes that you walk to work.

It's not that the 'real' food is expensive, but rather that the pre-processed, shelf-stable .01% lost, 0% breakage, long-shelf-life, centralized production food is SO MUCH CHEAPER. Additionally, The transport cost for the poor (here in NY, 5$ round trip) means that they buy shelf-stable food and maybe go once a week. Even 5 blocks (~1/2 a mile) is a long way to walk every day with fresh food.

If you're buying a fruit or vegetable to eat in three days, there is a 30% chance you won't eat it and it will spoil in your house.
 
2013-07-20 04:12:46 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Another study?  I've been using data from studies done years ago.  Guess what, people like to enter, turn right and then it becomes all fusterclucked


and I don't like the stupid people who stop as soon as they enter the store - as though they have Alzheimers and can't remember if they've ever been in the store before.
 
Displayed 50 of 69 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report