Slashdot Mirror

Just because it doesn't show up on your Facebook page doesn't mean it it is hidden in bureaucracy. If you have an idea for NASA, here you go:

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/pub...

If you are just looking for money, here you go:

http://www.grants.gov/

Yeah, it helps to know the system but they bend over backward to make it transparent.

Whoa. I had no idea grants.gov existed before today. I would have bet money that wasn't a real thing.

Still, just because an organization accepts online submissions from the general public, that doesn't mean that anybody is even reading the things, much less that they'll be given serious consideration, much less that they have a hope of competing with the customary incumbents. I have my doubts that the big-time players are even using these channels.

Secure funding from NASA, how do I learn about the opportunity to secure funding, I am sure they advertise it somewhere, and have all sorts of guidelines, but it seems as if they send out invitations only, because it's only the same companies who ever get funding. I think the process to secure government money needs to be more accessible, and not hidden in bureaucracy only a select few can navigate to.

Just because it doesn't show up on your Facebook page doesn't mean it it is hidden in bureaucracy. If you have an idea for NASA, here you go:

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/pub...

If you are just looking for money, here you go:

http://www.grants.gov/

The same companies seem to get chosen over and over is because they usually have some expertise in that particular area and can show a good reason why NASA should spend the money with them. Yeah, it helps to know the system but they bend over backward to make it transparent.

challenge accepted:

Rare Earth Alternatives in Critical Technologies (REACT)
National Lab Developing Alternatives to Rare Earth Materials
Idaho may provide rare earth alternative
Semiconductor nanocrystals as rare-earth alternatives
Rare Earths Fall as Toyota Develops Alternatives: Commodities

Nope. Step 1: 501(c)(3). Step 2:Time for some sweet, sweet grants. Step 3: STEP 2 WAS PROFIT, DON'T BE GREEDY.

I agree. I run an educational business that teaches how to learn Chinese. Advancing to fluency myself and now engaging with students day after day who are struggling to learn has convinced me that the major obstacle to student progress in most places outside China is institutional torpidity, and the fact that the structures that have emerged to organize and cheapen learning (classrooms, textbooks, etc.) don't allow students to learn at their own pace, or - in some cases - to learn at all.

People are frustrated and they are looking for alternatives. There are an increasing number of them available and I share the sense with you that a lot of these are happening outside existing academic channels. Given that systems to issue educational grants are already online, so it is unclear what this organization adds that the existing system doesn't.

Where do I go to get funding to do stupid stuff like this?

Grants.gov.

I have an MR machine, I have 3-months to kick back and travel the world giving 10 minute seminars while my research subjects regulate themselves. Please, someone tell me what I must do.

Usually a PHS 398 Research Plan. Careful, it can't be more than 25 pages for Items 2-5.

Two small issues as well:

The creation date for this bid is after the posting date:
http://www.grants.gov/search/search.do?mode=VIEW&oppId=48091

And really... In a bid description we need to say this?
"It is envisioned that the facility will include sufficient office space for permanent staff and visiting users as well as conference rooms, lunch room, restrooms, computer stations, etc."

If that's not enough, check out a post that has the intentionally long and obtuse title, A Primer on False Notes, Close Reading, and The Economic Development Administration's (EDA) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Program, or, How to Seize the Money in 42 Easy Steps, which explains recent EDA announcements and why some are merely announcements of announcements, as if one is inviting someone to receive an invitation.

These kinds of shenanigans and incompetence aren't unusual, but most people don't notice them most of the time. More occur throughout Grant Writing Confidential, which you can find at the links. The stimulus hoopla just makes these kinds of issues more prominent than they usually are, because who's going to read the Federal Register and use Grants.gov often enough to understand the problems and publicize them? No one, unless you're getting paid to do it.

Low transparency is the norm, not the exception.

The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand make up the "UKUSA Community", which has been sharing information and intelligence in cooperative programs since World War II.

There are three categories of individuals proposed for this initiative:

- internationally recognised terrorists and felons
- major felons and suspected terrorists
- subjects of terrorist investigations or criminals with international links

Categorization makes sense, and information sharing between allies for individuals suspected to travel internationally and who may want to actively target Western nations makes sense.

Every new database or mechanism for tracking or identifying individuals has privacy implications. Those implications must be managed by the laws of each respective nation. But increased information sharing will, by nature, almost always decrease "privacy".

As a DNI official recently noted, "We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"

Keep in mind, though, that this data is data that the respective nations already gather via law enforcement and investigative means. It is in databases that are already maintained. The proposal is to collectively share the information in these databases. Any argument that there might be privacy implications to voluntarily sharing data between allies, or that simply building the infrastructure and capability to do so creates an opportunity for abuse (with the implication that it should therefore not be done) are very weak arguments. The merits or drawbacks of the proposed program itself are what is at issue; not the technology. Arguing that technology shouldn't be used for the purpose is the same as arguing that law enforcement shouldn't be able to use, say, computers, databases, telephones, cameras, or vehicles because they "enhance" their abilities, and "could be abused". So, when arguing for or against this initiative, please concentrate on the actual initiative itself, not the unsurprising fact that long-time allies are cooperating with one another electronically.

If Northrop Grumman did as well with IDENT1 as it did on Grants.gov in the early stages, we can expect it to not be very functional. ;-) (General Dynamics now holds the Grants.gov contract.)

The government has recognized this problem and is switching their e-forms client from PureEdge (now owned by IBM and called Workplace Forms) to Adobe Reader. They awarded a new contract to General Dynamics IT late last year (switching from the original integrator, Northrop Grumman) and will be rebuilding the whole thing while maintaining the existing form sets and whatnot. The new Adobe forms are scheduled to be available in early April; see this FAQ for more information.

I wrote about this whole thing on my own site and on my company's blog. It's been a major problem for some research universities in particular, who have a loyal Mac community. But I think Grants.gov's on the road to fixing it.

(Full disclosure: Our company was part of a bid to win the contract that was awarded to General Dynamics. Our team proposed a different approach that would have yielded the same outcomes but we're not part of the GDIT team.)

No, the "funny part" is that people were aware of it, but later, executive management viewed it as too much of a liability/exposure - this is probably so, from certain perspectives. You can read her thoughts on it here. I routinely do interviews for the press, and have been involved with projects that have received national exposure that aren't strictly UW-related, such as Grants.gov for Mac OS X, a package which Grants.gov and Northrop Grumman now officially distribute themselves.

And appleintelfaq.com and ipodbatteryfaq.com just picked up the default contact information I use on DirectNIC, where other domains I administer for UW are registered. Since they're hosted off campus, have nothing to do with the university, and don't use university DNS, there was never any issue with either domain. I've changed the contact information appropriately.

If you really are affiliated with the university and have something to say to me, why don't you stop by my office or email me instead of anonymously trolling me on slashdot? Thanks!

I never said there was no one providing funding for research that opposes global warming theory, only that it was easier to get funding if you are pro global warming. I was thinking in terms of government funding, where the pro gets vastly more funding than the con.

While there are private funds available for the con, there are also private funds available for the pro, so they probably cancel out.

Ultimately my point had nothing to do with the validity, or lack thereof, of current global warming theory arguements pro or con. My point was that the source of the funding and the motivations of those providing the funds greatly influence the direction the "research" is going to take.

The actual address is support@grants.gov

I do not have a Windows computer. I do not have access to a Windows computer. I would be willing to start a group to port your PureEdge Viewer application to Linux and/or other operating systems such as Solaris (Sun).

I object to the government requiring the use of specific and costly COTS software in order to access and use a public function.

I heartily agree with the suggestion that /. readers should email the govt en masse and see if it makes any difference. A marvelous site on which to find the email addresses of your representative and your senators is http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/.

As for emailing my Congressional representatives, I will, but I'm in PA - the Santorum state.

They do point you towards WINE. They're not the bad guys you think they are.

http://grants.gov/DownloadViewer

Take a look for yourselves, call customer support. They gave me a tutorial even on installing WINE!

Sent the following email to support@grants.gov, as well as my local representative. We'll see what happens:

Hello,

I'm writing to protest that the website Grants.Gov requires Microsoft Windows to apply for a federal grant, effectively placing a sort of "Microsoft Tax" on all grant applications.

Interestingly enough, there is link on the website entitled, "PureEdge Support for Macintosh" which opens up the following PDF: http://grants.gov/GrantsGov_UST_Grantee/!SSL!/WebH elp/MacSupportforPureEdge.pdf

This PDF states that you can use VirtualPC on your Macintosh to apply for a grant.

VirtualPC is also a Microsoft Program, which requires you to buy VirtualPC ($129 base price) in addition to Microsoft Windows! It's downright ridiculous, especially since Apple users are basically being charged twice to apply for a grant.

VirtualPC Link: http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/virtualpc/vi rtualpc.aspx

I hope something can be done about this situation. Thank you.

http://grants.gov/GSIAbout

I think there was a period for taking comments (end of the plan document), but no one mentioned ability to be cross-platform.

http://grants.gov/ContactUs

Let 'em have it.