OT Is anyone really surprised?

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in
:

"William Asher" wrote in message
...

Nobody pays an institution like MIT the money *after* they've done
the work.

Thanks for demonstrating that you haven't a clue what you're talking
about.

I was just laid off from a job in which I just about completed the
work that a grant would have funded. They reported what the results
they WOULD get and usually that would obtain the grant. Instead, in
this case, they didn't have the funds and gave it somewhere else.

I am pretty sure that if I could get something resembling an accurate
story from you on this I would find out that you were being paid by
internal development funds in the hope the work would pan out and lead to
a marketable proposal for follow-on funding. But it didn't and so you
got laid off when the IRD funds were spent. That happens all the time.
What doesn't happen is DARPA, for instance, comes to an institution and
says: "Work for a year on this and then bill us at the end of the year.
We promise we will pay you." That doesn't even happen at national labs,
where there is as tight a relationship between the funding agency (DOE)
and the lab as can be.

I am sorry you got laid off. Contract research is a cut-throat business.

--
Bill Asher

William Asher wrote:
It's been so long since I've had a free thought I don't really
remember who controls me anymore.

MI5

On Jan 14, 5:17 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

Getting much riding in? What did Santa -- er I mean I -- bring you
for christmas? For my part, I thought you were a bit too naughty and
wanted to give you coal, just cuz of the CO2 it makes and knowing
global warming will render Earth a nice warm cozy planet for all of us
to live on.

A study funded by MIT (on spec, for George Schwartz Soros)
has shown that 99% of all coal left in children's stockings
is never burnt for fuel. There is speculation that Santa
Claus is acting as an agent of the Green Conspiracy,
administering overly harsh "People's Justice" so he can
use otherwise-only-mildly-naughty children's stockings to
sequester carbon and drive up the demand for and price of
coal on the energy markets, to make it less attractive
(financially) than ethnic peace windmills.

In a sign of rifts within the Green Con (aka the Fifth
Enviro International), Greenpeace has accused Santa of
mis-stating the contribution to climate forcing of
reindeer farts in the upper stratosphere.

Ben
Fair wages for Elves now!

Tom Kunich wrote:
Let's be clear of this - Chung believes himself to be upper class

rechungREMOVETHIS wrote:
No, no, you're mistaken. What I believe is that you have no class.

Ah, you mean this bot was written in the old fashioned way using
a non object-oriented or functional language. Perhaps even
assembler.

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

And when we pull everyone, for all practical purposes, out like we did
in SE Asia who's gonna put a damper on the sectarian war we allowed to
get started, and enabled?
That is the plan of Obama and the far left from everything I've seen.
There is NO sign of a plan to help stabilise Iraq. I don't consider
leaving 30,000 troops scattered in desert outposts a useful plan.
The Liberal view will be the same as for SE Asia, I'm sure. "Millions
died", but hey we got our troops out of their so it's not our fault.
Then when pressed blame the prior administrations which is accurate,
but is accurate like the kid who threw buckets of gas on the burning
house saying I didn't start the fire.

It's so nice that you have the punching bag / scapegoat called "the Left," Bill.
Think about this (and I'll focus on Iraq because it's so recent): Who helped put
Saddam in power in Iraq (knowing full well what kind of leader he'd be) and watched
while he created the oppressive regime he did? Who shrugged off the regime built
around secular divides that have been in some degree of turmoil for hundreds of
years, quite apparently because they were unaware of how deep and bitter those
divisions were? Who supplied him with weapons and logistics that they knew were
being used against Iraqi citizens? Then who was it that decided that he needed to be
smashed because those very same people who'd been supporting him decided that he was
a danger (or so they liked to imply)? Who cherry picked intel to get the public to
believe that he was a danger to the US? Who actually invaded and didn't plan ahead
for the chaos that inevitably resulted?

So when it turned to **** (as people on the left predicted it would), who do you
blame? You'll excuse Saddam's behavior and that of the people who enabled him because
for many years he seemed to be working in ways that benefitted our national interests.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Jan 15, 2:46*am, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
*Bill C wrote:

And when we pull everyone, for all practical purposes, out like we did
in SE Asia who's gonna put a damper on the sectarian war we allowed to
get started, and enabled?
*That is the plan of Obama and the far left from everything I've seen.
There is NO sign of a plan to help stabilise Iraq. I don't consider
leaving 30,000 troops scattered in desert outposts a useful plan.
*The Liberal view will be the same as for SE Asia, I'm sure. "Millions
died", but hey we got our troops out of their so it's not our fault.
Then when pressed blame the prior administrations which is accurate,
but is accurate like the kid who threw buckets of gas on the burning
house saying I didn't start the fire.

* *It's so nice that you have the punching bag / scapegoat called "the Left," Bill.
Think about this (and I'll focus on Iraq because it's so recent): Who helped put
Saddam in power in Iraq (knowing full well what kind of leader he'd be) and watched
while he created the oppressive regime he did? Who shrugged off the regime built
around secular divides that have been in some degree of turmoil for hundreds of
years, quite apparently because they were unaware of how deep and bitter those
divisions were? *Who supplied him with weapons and logistics that they knew were
being used against Iraqi citizens? Then who was it that decided that he needed to be
smashed because those very same people who'd been supporting him decided that he was
a danger (or so they liked to imply)? Who cherry picked intel to get the public to
believe that he was a danger to the US? Who actually invaded and didn't plan ahead
for the chaos that inevitably resulted?

* *So when it turned to **** (as people on the left predicted it would), who do you
blame? You'll excuse Saddam's behavior and that of the people who enabled him because
for many years he seemed to be working in ways that benefitted our national interests.

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * *Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
* * * * * * * * * * *But I've already got a pitchfork...

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard please cite when I excused our previous dealing with Hussein,
or most any of the other tyrants I've pointed out that the right, and
the US have supported?
We used Hussein as a counterweight to Soviet influence in the region
originally, and then Iran. In retrospect probably not a smart play,
but we were looking for one reliable friend with oil. Same reason
Churchill turned the Grand Mufti loose.
We're back to I criticise everyone publicly, of all stripes. You only
go after one side. I'm not a big fan of the Columbian govt., but I'd
rather have them in power than FARC. We'd both like to see reasonable
governments everywhere, but, you'd rather see the US stand by and
allow the anti-US scum take power while they're being supported by the
left here, Chavez, Castro, the Soviets in the past, the Iranians and
chinese currently, etc...
I wouldn't. I'm honest. When it's a choice between two scumbags, and
strategic concerns are involved then I'll take the one that supports
the US, and try and coerce,cajole them to act in a more humanitarian
and reasonable way.
As far as most of the places around the world we've got our noses in,
including Columbia we don't need to be there, but neither do the other
sides supporters. That doesn't bother you though.
If people ask us to provide a counterweight to pressure from someone
else then I think we have to consider it though.
Bill C

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:25:53 -0800, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html

"A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a
result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by
the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros is a billionaire - I've got no idea why you say he is anti-war. Soros is
anti-war or pro-war, it just depends on the war and whether he can make money
from it. This man IS an evil mother****er who will destabilize entire countries
just to make it easier to steal from them.

But Soros is ANTI-GOVERNMENT to the point where he would blindly destroy ANY
government with the belief that he could build a better one. Of course he's
never done anything himself but spent money to destroy those things he
cannot himself build.

He doesn't propose to build a better government, just profit from the chaos and
disruption. That's the bottom line. Anarchy and chaos suit the man who owns his
own army.

You will remember that those who had the resources to weather the great
depression were able to become even wealthier and more stable from being able to
buy up distressed stocks and property. That is what Soros does around the world,
all the time and if there isn't a depression to exploit, he will create one.

Yes, he really is a real-life version of a James Bond villian.

William Asher wrote:
snip
What doesn't happen is DARPA, for instance, comes to an institution and
says: "Work for a year on this and then bill us at the end of the year.
We promise we will pay you."

Of course it's never spelled out like that in a contract. But that doesn't
mean it doesn't happen--plenty of DARPA PMs realize how desperate
contractors are to get a spot at the trough, and so they exploit it. By that
I mean, they realize contractors use some lattitude in how they shuffle
dollars around between various projects and so they expect contractors to
start working (at risk) while the contract paper work slowly makes its way
through the system. Often DARPA is in such a hurry that they need the early
work done before the last i is dotted and t crossed. That's just how it is.

That doesn't even happen at national labs,
where there is as tight a relationship between the funding agency (DOE)
and the lab as can be.

It's true that the labs wield more power than the lowly contractors. And it
doesn't hurt that there's often a revolving door between the labs and
funding agencies.

I am sorry you got laid off. Contract research is a cut-throat business.

Sorry, but gotta disagree again. Research business funded by the gov is not
as tough as the private sector. IMHO.

Mark
http://marcofanelli.blogspot.com

Mark Fennell wrote:
Sorry, but gotta disagree again. Research business funded by the gov is
not as tough as the private sector. IMHO.

And research business funded by greg is downright tender.

Donald Munro wrote:

And research business funded by greg is downright tender.


Not tender today... I'm out the door for a set of VO2Max (vomit) intervals
with Chris Walker. But despite how painful it will be, I suppose I should
say "Thanks Greg!" for funding today's training and subsequent nap.

Mark
http://marcofanelli.blogspot.com