Now, we're talking. Thank you for the increased clarity.
Okay, what if it were true that McRobbie really didn't accept any compensation whatsoever from ChaCha? Would that change the color of the situation? And I really do mean NO COMPENSATION. If it were absolutely TRUE, would it factor into your thinking? BTW, public representations from both IU and ChaCha are that there has been no compensation to McRobbie ever.
And IF this really were a research-oriented "strategic alliance" in the truest sense, where university and company-with-a-fresh-idea were genuinely trying to sort out the future of human-mediated search, would it be relevant that there was a mutual interest in forming a relationship that might expand the opportunities of both the university and said company? (It appears that such a model has worked quite well for MIT, Stanford, CMU, Rice, Caltech, etc etc) Might university, company, and constituents of Indiana ALL benefit from such an alliance? Think about jobs, learning opportunities for students, interesting collaborations for faculty, etc....
Also, does it factor into your opinion that IU is not restricting any student or faculty member from using whatever general search engine is desired. Therefore, there is complete freedom for all IU constituents to use the search engine of their choice. And, yes, there is a default of an Indiana-based product as opposed to default of a California-based product. Who picked Google in that role before they were the clear market leader? Why? It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a local university collaborated with a local business for mutual best interests. This also maps into the Governor's "Buy Indiana" emphasis. Seems like a pretty worthy concept intended to provide a better future for Indiana constituents.
For local site search (i.e. local IU content), IU is clearly adding librarian-mediated functionality that cannot be provided by Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, or any other current search engine on the market today. This functionality involves IU-paid employees who are offered ONLY to IU-affiliated users. Perhaps there has been confusion about that point. Assuming it were completely true, would it make the situation palatable?
If (and understandably it is a big "if" for you) these things were true, would you find the relationship more acceptable?
Very unfortunate that your vocabulary doesn't translate into useful intelligence. But excellent that you memorized your dictionary. Two gold stars for you! It probably allows you to dispatch more than one condescending comment every single day. How else could you look in the mirror without feeling just a little better than the other guy? How nice that you can spew your negativity in so many different flavors!
Too bad that society doesn't reward your particular skills better. If they did, you likely wouldn't be throwing so many (ill-informed) stones from the sidelines. It's people like you that waste everyone's time with unsupported innuendo, as if you could possibly know something legitimate. You're on the outside, powerless, hence the screaming. You have not an ounce of evidence. Not even a shred. Why? Because it simply doesn't exist. Rather, libel and slander are your lazy shortcuts to some other agenda--perhaps to simply prop up your self-esteem or to malign those that make you envious. Or perhaps you are simply paranoid and you subscribe to various other conspiracy theories too? Oh, you're protecting the little guy? Doubt it.
Leaders like Jones, McRobbie and Irsay work hard to make the world a better place. And they prove it day in and day out.
I would be ever so happy to place a (LARGE) monetary wager with you about "opinion" #1. (We could resolve the dispute via factual documents made available by ChaCha and, btw, it is in the absence of any substantive proof from you whatsoever that he was compensated in any way. Further, both ChaCha and IU have factually stated that he was definitively not compensated) And re #2, you really must be a dimwit if you don't know the difference between "taking office" (with full authority) and having an "inauguration ceremony". And the rest of your comments are simply dribble, especially given that you are so far off base on the main points.
Tepid ethics are the domain of those who ignore the facts.
1) McRobbie was NEVER compensated with cash or equity from ChaCha. EVER.
2) McRobbie was NEVER on ChaCha's board when he was simultaneously IU's President.
3) Even if McRobbie had been on ChaCha's board, how is it any different than Stanford's President, John Hennessy, sitting on Google's board (and other boards) and profiting wildly? http://www.signallake.com/innovation/Hennessy022407.pdf For those who are hot and bothered about McRobbie/IU/ChaCha, you might notice significantly more rampant corruption involving real facts related to Google/Stanford/Hennessy, etc....
4) IU students and faculty do not have ANY restriction from using Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, ChaCha, or any other search engine of their choosing. There is no blocking whatsoever.
5) IU appears to be leveraging ChaCha as a new technology of connecting its knowledge workers, who are paid by IU anyway, to their users/customers so that their users get more value out of the IU staff (librarians and IT support staff) for which they are already paying. Many posters here seem to have missed the point or ignored the facts.
6) IU announced a strategic alliance to determine, with ChaCha, if there just *might* be something interesting about combining human intelligence with the best that the Web and university resources offer. Isn't that why we have universities? i.e. to research new and different approaches that may or may not work.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, we're talking. Thank you for the increased clarity.
Okay, what if it were true that McRobbie really didn't accept any compensation whatsoever from ChaCha? Would that change the color of the situation? And I really do mean NO COMPENSATION. If it were absolutely TRUE, would it factor into your thinking? BTW, public representations from both IU and ChaCha are that there has been no compensation to McRobbie ever.
And IF this really were a research-oriented "strategic alliance" in the truest sense, where university and company-with-a-fresh-idea were genuinely trying to sort out the future of human-mediated search, would it be relevant that there was a mutual interest in forming a relationship that might expand the opportunities of both the university and said company? (It appears that such a model has worked quite well for MIT, Stanford, CMU, Rice, Caltech, etc etc) Might university, company, and constituents of Indiana ALL benefit from such an alliance? Think about jobs, learning opportunities for students, interesting collaborations for faculty, etc....
Also, does it factor into your opinion that IU is not restricting any student or faculty member from using whatever general search engine is desired. Therefore, there is complete freedom for all IU constituents to use the search engine of their choice. And, yes, there is a default of an Indiana-based product as opposed to default of a California-based product. Who picked Google in that role before they were the clear market leader? Why? It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a local university collaborated with a local business for mutual best interests. This also maps into the Governor's "Buy Indiana" emphasis. Seems like a pretty worthy concept intended to provide a better future for Indiana constituents.
For local site search (i.e. local IU content), IU is clearly adding librarian-mediated functionality that cannot be provided by Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, or any other current search engine on the market today. This functionality involves IU-paid employees who are offered ONLY to IU-affiliated users. Perhaps there has been confusion about that point. Assuming it were completely true, would it make the situation palatable?
If (and understandably it is a big "if" for you) these things were true, would you find the relationship more acceptable?
Very unfortunate that your vocabulary doesn't translate into useful intelligence. But excellent that you memorized your dictionary. Two gold stars for you! It probably allows you to dispatch more than one condescending comment every single day. How else could you look in the mirror without feeling just a little better than the other guy? How nice that you can spew your negativity in so many different flavors!
Too bad that society doesn't reward your particular skills better. If they did, you likely wouldn't be throwing so many (ill-informed) stones from the sidelines. It's people like you that waste everyone's time with unsupported innuendo, as if you could possibly know something legitimate. You're on the outside, powerless, hence the screaming. You have not an ounce of evidence. Not even a shred. Why? Because it simply doesn't exist. Rather, libel and slander are your lazy shortcuts to some other agenda--perhaps to simply prop up your self-esteem or to malign those that make you envious. Or perhaps you are simply paranoid and you subscribe to various other conspiracy theories too? Oh, you're protecting the little guy? Doubt it.
Leaders like Jones, McRobbie and Irsay work hard to make the world a better place. And they prove it day in and day out.
Get a life.
I would be ever so happy to place a (LARGE) monetary wager with you about "opinion" #1. (We could resolve the dispute via factual documents made available by ChaCha and, btw, it is in the absence of any substantive proof from you whatsoever that he was compensated in any way. Further, both ChaCha and IU have factually stated that he was definitively not compensated) And re #2, you really must be a dimwit if you don't know the difference between "taking office" (with full authority) and having an "inauguration ceremony". And the rest of your comments are simply dribble, especially given that you are so far off base on the main points.
Tepid ethics are the domain of those who ignore the facts. 1) McRobbie was NEVER compensated with cash or equity from ChaCha. EVER. 2) McRobbie was NEVER on ChaCha's board when he was simultaneously IU's President. 3) Even if McRobbie had been on ChaCha's board, how is it any different than Stanford's President, John Hennessy, sitting on Google's board (and other boards) and profiting wildly? http://www.signallake.com/innovation/Hennessy022407.pdf For those who are hot and bothered about McRobbie/IU/ChaCha, you might notice significantly more rampant corruption involving real facts related to Google/Stanford/Hennessy, etc.... 4) IU students and faculty do not have ANY restriction from using Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, ChaCha, or any other search engine of their choosing. There is no blocking whatsoever. 5) IU appears to be leveraging ChaCha as a new technology of connecting its knowledge workers, who are paid by IU anyway, to their users/customers so that their users get more value out of the IU staff (librarians and IT support staff) for which they are already paying. Many posters here seem to have missed the point or ignored the facts. 6) IU announced a strategic alliance to determine, with ChaCha, if there just *might* be something interesting about combining human intelligence with the best that the Web and university resources offer. Isn't that why we have universities? i.e. to research new and different approaches that may or may not work.