[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]……

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……

[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……

[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……

[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……

[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]……

as in conformance to applicable laws and such

Indeed, this is inescapably the case, as an effort utilizing available mobile technology would be subject to a host of FCC rules, and GPS software is subject to export control regulations.

Khyris wrote:

“Also, this nonsense about salary versus project funding is a difference without a distinction. This research project (or “effort” as the article refers to it) is not just a capital expenditure. This is not 3 professors taking a cheque from the art fair and buying ready-made TIT phones from Best Buy. Professors can not just do whatever research project they feel like; they are presented to their department heads as research proposals which have to be approved as a valid use of their time (read PAID time). So yes, the continued pay of their salary is contingent upon the explicit approval of the use of their salary towards that end.”

Indeed. And, in addition to that, I would offer a humble reminder that in nearly every university in the US, the typical formal process requires contracts/grants to go through a review process by a “Grants and Contracts Office” or “Office of Sponsored Programs” or similar such entity.

There should have been some internal screening process (within UCSD) by an experienced administrator to ensure each project had correct formal contract language in place — not to mention a review for even more basic things, as in conformance to applicable laws and such. Even if these people didn’t outright drop the ball in this case, they are pushing the envelope in a manner that might be very hard to defend later, not to mention expose the university to an array of liability claims, etc. I would be very surprised that such an office would knowingly allow such a grant to proceed.

Let me explain how U of C grants work:
The U of C system receives taxpayer funds and private donations which pool into a general fund. The board of regents delegates these funds as “line items” to departments based on spending projections which explicitly include their research proposals. A grant which is provided by a private source for an explicit purpose would be noted as such, and not called a “University Grant.” Case in point, the “art festival award” is listed seperately.

If you and I each put $50 into an account, and we decide to give out 10 $10 grants, are only half the grants funded by each of us? Or do both of us fund all of them? It doesn’t matter what % of the grant came from which source, and frankly, the supposition that the U of C segregated government funds OUT of this and only this project would be absurd; an absurdity which would be prerequisite to any assertion that any U of C grant is NOT taxpayer funded.

Also, this nonsense about salary versus project funding is a difference without a distinction. This research project (or “effort” as the article refers to it) is not just a capital expenditure. This is not 3 professors taking a cheque from the art fair and buying ready-made TIT phones from Best Buy. Professors can not just do whatever research project they feel like; they are presented to their department heads as research proposals which have to be approved as a valid use of their time (read PAID time). So yes, the continued pay of their salary is contingent upon the explicit approval of the use of their salary towards that end.

Next time you’re at work, tell your boss you’d like to spend an hour of your salaried day using work computers for researching internet porn and see how that goes for you. Salaried professors have work contracts just like everyone else, and as such have expected and approved duties for which they may be paid, and for which they may use university resources. If they used a University resource such as a computer, lab, intern, or assistant even ONCE, then it is taxpayer funded, end of discussion.

That’s right, project budgets include capital and LABOR. That’s why even salaried employees are often required to fill out time cards for how much they worked on a given project or for a given client. Because their pay IS part of the project’s expenditure.

For all these reasons, you can only deny this is “taxpayer funded” by being intentionally obtuse.

http://bang.calit2.net/xborderblog/?p=173&cpage=1#comment-76

The insanity that spews forth from the bleeding red state of California is getting worse ever day.  Now, our tax dollars are being used to develop GPS phones to help illegal aliens navigate their way to the US.
SAN DIEGO Faculty at University of Califo…

On December 30th, 2009 at 4:26 pm, nail49 said:

Note to self: “Never wrestle with a pig, you’ll both get dirty but the pig will enjoy it.”

Never argue with an idiot. They’ll take you down to their level and beat you with experience.

On December 30th, 2009 at 3:17 pm, zyzzyg said:

The phrase ‘on the Government dime’ refers to the salaries. Read that paragraph again and tell me where it refers to phones.

You’ve lost this and you know it.

You know that phone cost is probably tiny compared to the development and management of this project.

One month of one person’s salary can purchase quite a few phones.

since you are relying on others to address direct questions to you

zyzzg: I just chose not to continue wrestling with you on this as JD had answered your earlier post and I would merely be repeating it. You seem to enjoy arguing for argument’s sake.

it will be fair to ignore you on this thread

I’ll return the favor. TTFN

Note to self: “Never wrestle with a pig, you’ll both get dirty but the pig will enjoy it.”

On December 30th, 2009 at 3:43 pm, nail49 said: #76

zyzzyg: If I responded, I would merely be repeating what JD does so well in post # 74.

Why are you relying on others to address questions asked of you? Are you afraid of using your own words? Using your own thoughts?

Believe me, I understand your fear.

And, I responded to what John Deaux said in post # 78.

That being said, since you are relying on others to address direct questions to you it will be fair to ignore you on this thread.