Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 11, 2019

October 24 should have been a great day for John M. Shea and Tan F. Wong, professors of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Florida.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The Darpa rules don't require that the money go to the institution. They state that the money will be paid to the bank account specified by the leader of the winning team. If there's more than one person on the team, it's the responsibility of the team leader to determine the division of the prize money. There are no directives about how the money is to be used.

The agency's intent with its awards is twofold: "1) As both incentive and reward to the winners for the hard work and long hours it takes to successfully compete in a Darpa prize competition," wrote Jared B. Adams, an agency spokesman, in an email, "and 2) to provide a source of funding for maturation and future research to take place beyond the conclusion of the competition with the hope of accelerating the adoption of the technologies created."

- fta

#1 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-11 03:28 PM | Reply

Thanks Socialism!

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-11 03:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Administrators in "higher" education are worse than the faculty and the students. Nothing but parasites in bloated bureaucracies. We should make federal spending contingent on reducing administrative bloat.

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-11 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is a great way to make sure folks don't work too hard.

#4 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-11 03:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is a great way to make sure folks don't work too hard.
#4 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Agreed, tell that to the socialist! Or those that want to tax wealth ...

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-11 04:02 PM | Reply

"This is a great way to make sure folks don't work too hard."

If we'd ever seen that after rate increases, you'd have a point.

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-11 04:06 PM | Reply

"after rate increases"

Pardon?

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-11 04:11 PM | Reply

What rate? Seen what?

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-11 04:11 PM | Reply

Scientists are motivated by money, which is why they went into science over finance or business; therefore, if we tax wealth, we won't have scientists.

#9 | Posted by hamburglar at 2019-11-11 06:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

The University needs to give the money back. They changed the rules after the fact. That's --------.

#10 | Posted by hamburglar at 2019-11-11 06:50 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Thanks Socialism!

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris

No, it's actually universities being turned into businesses as opposed to institutions of higher learning that's the problem.

They take everything they can from everybody they can while paying obscene salaries to upper upper deans and presidents and sports coaches.

Thanks boomers!

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-11 10:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No, it's actually universities being turned into businesses as opposed to institutions of higher learning that's the problem."

This, very much this. My personal experience matches this. Learning is happening, but the competition for students, to grow larger than other schools, to get more grants, and the tuition race is gross to see in person.

The incentive structure of the student body seems different too. Many seem to not care about what they are doing. They have to do it for a career. I can't blame them really, they are watching a middle class life slip through their fingers.

#12 | Posted by dibblda at 2019-11-11 10:54 PM | Reply

Make your own website

#13 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-12 12:42 AM | Reply

Wrong thread for #13

#14 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-12 12:43 AM | Reply

but the competition for students, to grow larger than other schools, to get more grants, and the tuition race is gross to see in person.

The incessant "fund raising" is what gets me.

I've watched universities with billions in an endowment pay a president millions of dollars a year because they're a good fundraiser, initiate a multi-year fundraising campaign (which included solicitations for donations to the underpaid employees, of course) that ended up raising several billion dollars then turn around and brag about how great they are because they spend a few hundred million on scholarships and endowed professorships.

All while consistently raising their fees and tuition 3-4% a year despite costing a medical degrees worth of cash for an undergraduate degree.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-12 12:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If the students and participants used the resources of the university to compete and win, the proceeds belong to the university. Had the participants lost, were they going to reimburse the university the value of the resources spent to compete for the prize?

Now... should the university give them some of the prize money? Sure.

The problem is the same as that faced by student athletes that participate in big time collegiate sports. Should the athletes get all of the proceeds from the games they participate in? No. However, they should get some of those proceeds in the form of a stipend while they are a student athlete? Yes

#16 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2019-11-12 06:07 AM | Reply

#16 I get what you're saying, but you're missing the real value of having that winning team stay at that university.

#17 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-12 08:50 AM | Reply

UF didn't steal their money. They reallocated it. Someone has to pay for all those sensitivity courses, LGBTBBQ centers, and safe spaces. Looks like UF just taxed the millionaires at 100%.

#18 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-12 09:45 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

UF didn't steal their money. They reallocated it. Someone has to pay for all those sensitivity courses, LGBTBBQ centers, and safe spaces. Looks like UF just taxed the millionaires at 100%.

POSTED BY MUSTANG AT 2019-11-12 09:45 AM | REPLY | FLAGGED FUNNY BY JEFFJ

Says it all right here.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-11-12 01:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yep. Saying: "UF didn't steal their money. They reallocated it" made me chuckle.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-12 01:32 PM | Reply

Sue the university...it's the American Way...

#21 | Posted by earthmuse at 2019-11-12 02:50 PM | Reply

How much money did the university invest in getting this project completed?

#22 | Posted by TheRef65 at 2019-11-12 04:01 PM | Reply

The profs did their jobs of teaching, research, and service. Winning a prize isn't what the university paid them to do. They did that on their own.

#23 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-12 05:16 PM | Reply

You didn't earn that...

#24 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-11-12 06:10 PM | Reply

"If the students and participants used the resources of the university to compete and win, the proceeds belong to the university. Had the participants lost, were they going to reimburse the university the value of the resources spent to compete for the prize?
Now... should the university give them some of the prize money? Sure."

The professor likely funded the research with his grants. The university takes a huge chunk, upwards of 50% of each grant, to pay for university resources, called overheard. Basically the university already taxed the lab.

#25 | Posted by dibblda at 2019-11-13 11:07 AM | Reply

"No, it's actually universities being turned into businesses as opposed to institutions of higher learning that's the problem.

They take everything they can from everybody they can while paying obscene salaries to upper upper deans and presidents and sports coaches.

Thanks boomers!"

So, you realize the truth in the sarcasm though, right? You do realize that what the university has done is exactly how Socialism works, right? Just because there are multiple ways to spin the coin doesn't mean how it lands isn't valid. If a dime drops to heads, it's heads regardless if you argue the fact that it's only heads because of blah blah blah. Technically, the faculty involved will be rewarded by their work because it adds prestige to their name. Socialism accounts for that and applies a value, thus reducing what you get financially if you benefit in another manner.

So, while you are also right in that it can be seen as a Capitalistic tendency, it can ALSO be a very real example of Socialism. Just because you like or dislike it doesn't change that fact.

#26 | Posted by humtake at 2019-11-13 02:17 PM | Reply

Anyone other than me struck by the irony in these comments, that it's the most liberal of the DR crying the loudest when people who created a thing are not receiving fiduciary reward for their efforts because Big Ed took it to provide them with communal working facilities, free access to bandwidth and computers, discount meals, etc....?

#27 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-13 03:02 PM | Reply

"Big Ed took it to provide them with communal working facilities, free access to bandwidth and computers"

So did the facility with the award? Did the bandwidth? The computers? Would the University have spent the same amount with or without the prize? And finally, would the University have won the award without the researchers?

If the University had additional expenses just for this, I understand getting reimbursed. But if someone writes a bestseller using my computer, I have no claim to the royalties.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 03:09 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort