BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Trump is to gut the labs.



The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will 
have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like 
a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

79 comments:

Anonymous said...

NNSA-funded work is going to do fine, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-would-increase-energy-department-funds-to-manage-nuclear-stockpile/2017/03/15/2c2c784a-0998-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html If you're supported by Office of Science, you might be worried, but how many people at the national labs are funded by Office of Science? A small number that arguably should be zero.

Anonymous said...

The Office of Science is the steward of 10 of the 17 DOE laboratories, including Argonne, Brookhaven, Fermilab, Lawrence Berkeley, SLAC and JLab. These are cream of the crop and have a stellar track record of Nobel-prize-winning research. You think it's a good idea to cut them by 20%? Or maybe eliminate them altogether? Are you serious?

Basic research is all about tough international competition. It's all about who leads the world in science and technology. These self-inflicted cuts basically amount to capitulating to the Europeans and the Chinese. I guess you will then be justified in saying "We don't win anymore".

Anonymous said...

The SC labs get anywhere from a quarter to most of their funding directly from SC, https://science.energy.gov/laboratories/ Change the funding stream, so users of these facilities pay for them. That might be private industry, it might still be .gov but through grants to universities, instead of block entitlement funding to labs and lab staff from SC regardless of whether or not they are doing nationally critical work. The rest of the country does not care about Nobel Prizes, they care about jobs, taxes, quality of life, and an unobtrusive government that is under control. Holding up the basic science torch might seem noble, but few are following the light.

Anonymous said...

You can all stop hyperventilating. We all know that presidents' budgets are always DOA in congress. Presidents don't fund or de-fund anything - all funding bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Nothing new here, it is an opening offer from the author of "The Art of the Deal."

Anonymous said...

The Office of Science is the steward of 10 of the 17 DOE laboratories, including Argonne, Brookhaven, Fermilab, Lawrence Berkeley, SLAC and JLab.

I am confused, the cowboy science labs is at LANL and hence LLNL and Sandia not these
other labs that you mention. Should we not cut the NNSA labs? What is done their that cannot be done better and cheaper at at any other lab? Every year there is another scandal about out of control cowboy scientists. If you do not believe me than why did they just changes he contract at Sandia and will soon change the contract at LANL? These labs have deep rooted problems going back many many decades. We need to cut these labs and DRAIN THE SWAMP!

Anonymous said...

That's right! Let's defund the Office of Science National Labs: they are the prime examples of obtrusive government that is out of control. Look at the enormous fraction of the federal budget that goes to sustain those lazy scientists that do little for the Nation and yet feel entitled to their salaries. All those Nobel Prizes are just for the nerds to amuse themselves; "the rest of the country" doesn't care. The US will continue to be a magnet for the best and the brightest students from around the world in any case. And if we end up ceding the intellectual leadership to the Chinese, so what? After all, the US jobs, taxes and quality of life never had any connection to its being a science and technology superpower, right?

This type of short-sighted, misguided rhetoric has always been present to some extent. There have always been people who failed to see the causal connection between the US leadership in science and its economic competitiveness. But these days, the spouting and the regurgitation is really at dangerous levels.

Anonymous said...

I and many others have wanted (for years) the gov't out of NPR (Liberal), PBS (Liberal) and also PP and UN.
I acknowledge the country is split then that means 50% wants those cuts and have been asking for those a long time.

Anonymous said...

Amusing to read the diatribes by Chinese and/or Russian agents.

Anonymous said...

Of every single Government program you have to ask if it's needed badly enough to borrow money to pay for it. The US is 20 TRILLION in debt, and it costs about $440 billion dollars annually to pay the interest on that debt. That $440B is already the second largest component of the Federal discretionary budget. As interest rates climb, and they are climbing now, the interest on the debt will grow exponentially unless we can eliminate the budget deficit.

It's going to take ruthless cutting of all spending to keep the debt from running away.

Anonymous said...

The US is 20 TRILLION in debt...

March 19, 2017 at 6:20 AM

Yes, and most don't realize that the US was 10 trillion in debt before Obama - he, and the Democrats in Congress, doubled the national debt in only 8 years. It is also true however, that in first order the debt does not matter. What matters is the GDP to debt ratio. Still favorable, but just barely. (You can afford a very large mortgage if you have a very high income.) What is needed is economic growth, not mindless cuts without any thought to unintended consequences.

Anonymous said...

Debt to GDP is NOT FAVORABLE. Not by any stretch. It now stands at 1.07, the WORST it has EVER been except right after World War II. And it's getting worse, not better.

Owebama not only doubled the debt in 8 years, he added almost as much to the debt as EVERY President before him, all combined together. This isn't like buying a mortgage, it's mortgaging the ENTIRE country.

Your mortgage analogy isn't accurate. You might be able to afford a large mortgage if you have a high income but, eventually, if you keep buying more and more stuff on credit - new fancy cars, bling, flashy tattoos, and you keep throwing your money around to buy "friends", your rapidly increasing debt will eventually bankrupt you, no matter how much you make. That's precisely what our Government has been doing, the US borrows more money EVERY year to buy more and more stuff and "friends" (foreign aid). We're not paying ANYTHING off, we can barely make the minimum payments.

No cut is "mindless", cuts are absolutely necessary. When the interest rate increases to even 1/2 of the historical average, probably less than 8 years away, we will be paying more to service the debt than we pay for ANY other line item, discretionary or not. More to pay off the debt than we pay out in Social Security, more to pay off the debt than we pay out in Medicare, more than Defense, and it will only get worse. We will have to cut EVERYTHING to the bone to dig out of that hole.

Anonymous said...

The problem with waiting for the economy to grow us out of significant debt is, it does not happen. For 45 years, with a brief period of exception in the 1990's, we have spent far more than we had available to spend, and our debt has gotten out of control. This is President after President, Congress after Congress, Democrats and Republicans, because compromise has come to mean, everyone gets to spend as much as they want for political reasons. There is no solution any more, other than to make massive cuts in spending, and shrink the size and reach of the federal government. This will be painful to some, but there is no other way. Even the socialist approach of jacking up taxes won't solve the problem, because history shows clearly that the result will simply be even bigger government, more spending, and more mouths to feed permanently.

This means Office of Science, too. Every branch of the huge tree will have supporters who say, don't cut this branch, it is too IMPORTANT to cut, but we just have to keep trimming. Do we need 10 Office of Science funded National Laboratories? If we step back and look at things objectively, probably not. If they are all that important, then private money should be available to fund the difference.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you actually look at where the federal spending goes?

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

Study those pie charts, especially the fourth one. You will see that there are three elephants in the room: social security, Medicare and military spending. Add the interest on the debt and this is where all the money goes. See "science" on that chart? You can close all of the national labs and it won't make a dent in the budget imbalance. While you are at it, you can also stop spending any money environment, energy, transportation, housing and international affairs and it won't make any material difference. You will live in the country that is uneducated, poluted and has no roads, and still running budget deficits.

If you are really serious about the budget, tackle the imbalances in the main slices.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of mortgage analogies. Imagine a guy who takes out a $10M mortgage on a mansion he cannot afford. When he realizes his monthly budget doesn't balance, he decides to cut down on fresh fruit and vegetables in his diet, then stops brushing his teeth and taking showers to save on his water bill, toothpaste and shampoo. And then it still doesn't make an iota of difference in his deficit. Cutting science is actually a lot like that.

Anonymous said...


I think the debt argument needs some preservative. I would argue that we should not worry about the debt growing since we will not need to pay it back. There is a good chance that there will be some kind of human-machine merger coming by 2030-2040 which is less than 25 years away. At this point we will need very few jobs at all and things will be mostly automated. When this starts to happen the idea of debt or even money will become irrelevant. One could argue that we should spend away now so that the sooner that human-machine merger will arise. You can laugh at me all you want but many people including governments believe in just this scenario and is one of the reasons we will never see interests rates go up or spending decrease.

Anonymous said...

The Trump budget released so far does not deal with entitlements, it is just discretionary spending, roughly a third of the pie. Social Security and Medicare need to be reduced too, and that part of the budget is supposed to be released later in Spring. SS and Medicare are harder to cut, and spending needs to ramp down slowly over a longer period of time as new ways of dealing with these entitlements are developed. Otherwise, the Republicans in Congress will slit their own throats for 2018, and I'm certain they will not be willing to do this.

Anonymous said...

10:39 gives a phony analogy. Here's a much better one.

The guy is in an average household that takes in the National average $52K after taxes per year. A few years ago, right before Owebama, his family was taking in $60K but now his family has to make do with less. He takes a mortgage out on a condo, one he can afford, for $100K. But he then goes all bat-shit crazy with his credit cards. He buys a fancy new car he can't really afford for $40K. Then he buys some bling for $5K, he tattoos his arms and one butt cheek, and he throws a huge party for his "friends" to show off his tattoos, all on credit. He now owes $155K that he can barely pay off, but only just barely.

So what should he do? The first thing he has to do is STOP BUYING NEW STUFF ON CREDIT. He has to cut back on EVERYTHING that isn't really needed, especially if it doesn't help to pay the bills. The key word is EVERYTHING. No more fancy new cars, no new bling, not even a new tattoo to cover his barren butt cheek. He has to live within his means.

So why did I choose these numbers? $155K is the amount every taxpayer owes on the National debt.

Science, is just one thing, like a new butt cheek tattoo, that has to be cut back if it isn't really needed or doesn't help to pay the bills.

Now the real debate can start. Does all of the "science" we are buying help to pay the bills or should some of it be cut?

I submit there's a lot of "science" that buys nothing. Think hard and you can name "science" projects that have no possibility of helping with anything. How about that project that determined if there are gender differences in how we perceive glaciers?

Anonymous said...

You're right 11:03. We are all laughing at you.

Anonymous said...

Nonsense, 11:36 am, utter nonsense. The analogy used by 10:39 am is accurate and you are either not using your noggin or are purposefully trying to mislead. The US did not get in debt by overfunding its science, education, national parks, environmental protection, or transportation, but by spending more on its entitlements and defense than it collects in taxes. The things you are proposing to cut comprise a minuscule fraction of the budget, yet are essential for and civilized country to remain one. I know numbers are not your thing, but please look at the pie chart.

But we have no chance of persuading you. That you think science is a "new butt cheek tattoo" says it all. You can continue living in your Alternative facts universe, raving about "Owebama".

Anonymous said...

The US did not get in debt by overfunding its science, education, national parks, environmental protection, or transportation, but by spending more on its entitlements and defense than it collects in taxes. The things you are proposing to cut comprise a minuscule fraction of the budget, yet are essential for and civilized country to remain one.....
March 19, 2017 at 1:31 PM

In fact the US did get into debt by overfunding all these things, along with everything else. The rest of the country doesn't care what does or does not happen at Argonne, or SLAC, but it does care about social security and other entitlements, as well as a strong military defense. So guess what gets the axe first? The things that are perceived as luxuries we cannot afford right now. This also makes it easier to make the bigger more-painful cuts later, when you've already cut back as much as you can on the luxuries, and now it's time to move to a smaller house or get a second job.

Anonymous said...

1:31 PM. Sheesh. For the hard of thinking (you), the analogy used by 10:39 is NOT accurate because it doesn't reflect the actual magnitude of the debt. It does NOT represent the debt owed by the average taxpayer and how hard it will be to for the middle class to pay off that debt. 10:39 (probably the same person as you, 1:31) came up with a COMPLETELY ARBITRARY analogy. A phony analogy. A STUPID analogy. And you can't figure that out????

God Almighty, it is NOT essential to continue to fund phony science projects, e.g. gender differences in the perception of glaciers. That, you ignoranus, IS equivalent to getting a new butt cheek tattoo.

Your claims are just parroted liberal bullshit.

Anonymous said...

"gender differences in the perception of glaciers."

I was thinking, what the hell is this guy talking about and than I found this was
in fact an NSF funded project.

Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research

Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/academic-gibberish-watch-we-have-another-winner.php

Anonymous said...

Over $10 trillion in current US government debt with the Baby Boomers retiring and wanting their Social Security and Medicare payments. But the two items of SS and Medicare make up the bulk (> 60%) of the budget. If cuts for these two are off limits then it's time to use the meat cleaver on everything else except defense and national security which will grow by 10% in Trump's budget.

Of course, in the long run this is unsustainable. Eventually there will have to be deep cuts in SS and Medicare but right now no politician wants to be truthful to the American public. The game of "pretend and extend" will go on for a little longer. We'll probably be looking at over $20 trillion in US government debt before the next 8 years is over. This is not the type of situation that you can grow yourself out of by increasing GDP. As many people suspect, it will not end well. Enjoy the bread & circuses until then. If you are still young and are smart you will save and invest wisely with as much money as you can sock away to be ready for what's coming in less than 10 years time. Many pensions are also going to go bust, particularly those of state and local governments. The weapon lab pensions look to be in good shape right now but that might change rapidly if things begin to unwind in the investment markets and we revisit another major crash. The next major crash is coming but it's still a few years away. When it hits, it should be even bigger than the crash of 2008. If you have cash at that time you'll be able to pick up some great assets at very cheap prices so prepare for it. Rockefeller and JP Morgan along with others made out very well during the Great Depression by having plenty of cash on hand to buy up good assets at dirt cheap prices. You can too.

Anonymous said...

We are already at 20 trillion, but you're right. If the adults who took over from the borrow and spend liberals don't make deep cuts soon then fasten your seatbelt because all hell is going to break loose

Anonymous said...

I've been voting republican since the late 1980s and I am deeply embarrassed by the raving dimwits claiming to speak for my party here. Ignorant morons for whom science is nothing but a butt cheek tattoo. True, most people don't realize just how many fundamental discoveries underly the technology inside their iPhones, or that corrections for General Relativistic effects are required for their GPS to work properly. They don't know about the role SLAC played in the development of the early internet, or that the World Wide Web was created at CERN. But the solution should be to get educated and not to proudly boast of your ignorance.

I argue often with my liberal friends who say that the GOP has become The Stupid Party. It is absolutely shocking for me to read these ignorant, arrogant, dimwitted ravings here, which confirm the worst stereotypes about the Republican Party of today. Yes, you are unable to understand the connection between scientific and technological leadership and the economic competitiveness of this country. But just accept that there is such a connection and that once lost it will be very difficult to regain the scientific and economic edge.

Anonymous said...

Trump has flown to this resort in Florida basically every weekend since taking office, and his wife is living in New York city - how much is this costing the tax payers? About $3 million for each trip to Florida and protecting the first family in New York City is $1 million each day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/17/how-much-is-donald-trumps-travel-and-protection-costing-anyway/?utm_term=.1483b7ad6704

Anonymous said...

11:04 is arguing some other irrelevant point, that science is important. OK. I doubt many would argue with that. The relevant point that he should be addressing is, should the federal government directly fund 10 "science" laboratories at 100% of their wishes, in perpetuity and without question, or is it acceptable to cut 20% from that budget in a time of national crisis, with the difference possibly made up by private money (e.g. Stanford or University of Chicago) or even state money (UC Berkeley). Arguing to fund them without limit in perpetuity is what brought us our national crisis, because every corner of the federal government has supporters like that, and if everything is off-limits, then nothing gets cut and our crisis deepens. This has been going on for decades, and it cannot be sustained.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the fake news, 5:51 AM.

Anonymous said...

11:04 is CLEARLY a brain-dead liberal posing as a Republican. How do we know?

He misses the point that SOME "science" is phony and shoudn't be paid for. No one EVER said that ALL science is like a butt cheek tattoo. He pulled that statement right out of a place near his own butt cheek tattoos. He can't see past his seething liberal hatred to actually read what was written, and he can't wait to falsely slander Republicans, and I'm not even a Republican, I'm a Libertarian.

He gives phony examples in support of science when he could have come up with real examples if he knew anything about science. The fact is that the internet came out of the Defense Department, NOT SLAC. DARPA, starting in the early 1960's to be exact. The Stanford Research Institute was ONE of many early partners but, of course SRI isn' SLAC. By the time SLAC hosted the first web page in the US, the internet had already existed in Europe for over 5 years. A Brit working at CERN did write the first web browser, but that has little to do with the commercially written web browsers we use today.

GPS came out of the military, it was not funded out of a science pot. The underlying relativity corrections were developed by Einstein about 100 years ago, in Switzerland, funded by Einstein's professorship.

Anonymous said...

5:51 is lying. Trump has not traveled to Florida "basically every weekend", Trump has traveled there 4 times this year.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks that the debt problem can be solved by spending cuts or raising taxes is kidding themselves, ignoring economic, technological, demographic, political, and moral realities that will not change. Those ideas will destroy the country, one way or another.

1. No one who depends on voters to get elected can cut Social Security or Medicare.

2. Technical advances that increase productivity and cost jobs cannot be stopped.

3. No amount of "throwing money at" education has succeeded in reversing the decline of outcomes, producing generations of unemployable young people.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that nothing gets better, ever.

The only "solution" that does not destroy the country, one way or another, is long-term, sustained, incremental economic growth. Solve that, and everything else is fixed.

Anonymous said...

Stupid comment, 5:54 PM. Sustained incremental growth won't solve the debt problem if the Government runs a sustained deficit that increases debt faster than growth can pay for it. Running a sustained deficit WILL lead to EXPONENTIAL debt growth which CANNOT be solved with mere incremental economic growth. Anyone who has experienced ballooning credit card debt knows that debt can easily increase faster than your pay raise.

Sustained deficits are what has been happening, so it is imperative that the deficit be brought under control. The only way to do this is to a)cut spending or b) raise taxes (or both). Raising taxes has other detrimental economic consequences. It was seriously STUPID to make the false claim that you did.

Your point #1 is probably true, at least in the near term, but the rest of your post is pure bunk.

2. Technological advances also create jobs. Think of auto mechanics, airplane pilots, air conditioning repair staff, computer programmers, cell phone tower installers, MRI technicians, gene sequencers..... The list goes on and on. Since we're now approaching full employment despite all the technological advances since the horse and buggy days your gloom and doom prophesy is clearly completely false.

3) "Generations of unemployable young people"???? HUGE, HUGE exaggeration. 87% of young people between 20 and 24 years old are employed. 92% of people between 25 and 35 are employed. Education seems to work well enough to employ ~90 percent of young people and that's only a few percent less than it is for older people.

The Second Law does NOT say that "nothing gets better, ever." Only a complete science illiterate would claim that pure nonsense. The Second Law refers to entropy increasing, not things getting better. My case of the flu got better because medicine got better. My new car gets better gas mileage than my old car, internet speeds got faster, my new TV is way better than my old TV. THINGS can and do get better even though the entropy of the universe is increasing.

Anonymous said...

The solution to America's growing debt problem can be solved with Bozo Bonds. These are bonds issued by the Treasury that have no final payment date for the borrowed principle. The period of the bonds is not 5 years, not 10 years, not 30 years, not even 100 years.... but forever. When the payment for the interest on existing Bozo Bonds becomes too much to handle you simple issue even more Bozo Bonds to pay the interest due. With Bozo Bonds, the amount of debt the government takes on can go to gazillions of dollars with no problem. Just keep issuing more and more Bozo Bonds that never have to honor their principle payments.

See, when the government decides to engage in a Ponzi scheme it isn't a crime! Better yet, if foreign investors decide not to buy our endless growing stash of perpetuity Bozo Bonds then the government can force pensions and other institutions to buy them. If this is not enough, then the government can issue tax rebates as Bozo Bonds and even require employers to pay their workers using Bozo Bonds. Better yet, the government can buy up their own issued Bozo Bonds by simply printing up IOUs to themselves and using these IOUs as collateral to buy more newly issued Bozo Bonds. The possibilities are endless! What could possible go wrong? Besides, America loves a clown.

Anonymous said...

The only "solution" that does not destroy the country, one way or another, is long-term, sustained, incremental economic growth. Solve that, and everything else is fixed.

March 20, 2017 at 5:54 PM


Indeed, merge with the machines and the problem will be solved. We are reaching a point in the United States in which we would really only need about 5-10% of the population in the workforce and the rest can spend and enjoy the world. In order to protect the environment these people can spend most of their time in a VR world which will be more real than real life. The idea of money is coming to an end, it may be 20 or 30 years but it will most certainly be gone in 50 and in 100 years humanity will no longer exist in its current form. There is simply no need to pay of the debt and the elites know this. Crazy sounding? Maybe but maybe not.

Anonymous said...

Oh, so Mr Angry Dimwit is actually a Libertarian. Makes total sense. These are folks who at their convention last year booed their candidate, Gary Johnson, twice. First, when he said that he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Second, when he spoke in favor of having drivers licenses. No way "gubmint" is gonna tell them where and how to drive, or that they had to share drinking fountains with Colored People! Not everyone in that party is a loon of course, but a large faction of diehards are.

So of course he wants to cut the government labs. Doesn't matter what they do. Novel Prize discoveries? "No one cares." Showing than nucleons are made of quarks? "So what?!" Discovering numerous elementary particles that make up the Standard Model? "No one cares!" Demonstrating that the expansion of the universe is accelerating? "Why, if it was important then private companies would pay for this!" And I think we can safely predict his view on climate change. "Owebama and Liberals made those phony things up!"

For the record: I'm a republican who believes in free markets, but that certainly doesn't prevent me from accepting basic atmospheric physics. I also think the government should support national parks, science and education, environmental protection and infrastructure development. To Mr A. B., I'm "a Phoney" and "a Liberal"!

It must be particularly painful for him to admit that the World Wide Web was created at CERN, a large European government lab where the US is an active participant. The Web was expressly invented to facilitate collaboration between scientists doing fundamental research (that no company would pay for). The very first web page in the US was created at SLAC, a DOE Office of Science lab, by a physicist named Tony Johnson. All of this history is readily available to anyone who can google. The web was then popularized by the browser named Mosaic, which was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA). According to Wikipedia, "in December 1991, the Gore Bill created and introduced by then Senator and future Vice President Al Gore was passed, which provided the funding for the Mosaic project". (My apologies to Mr A. D. here, this historical fact must particularly hurt!) Eventually, Marc Andreessen and several others left NCSA and evolved Mosaic into Netscape. Countless companies since figured out countless ways to monetize the Web. Which is of course how it ought to be: fundamental research lays foundations for technological progress and the resulting commercial success.

There are endless examples of this throughout history. Think of Faraday and Maxwell in the 19th century. I'm glad Mr A. D. here mentioned Einstein. Had Mr A. D. been around when GR was created, he would have almost certainly found it useless, as no company would sponsor that work.

What's also important here is that GR was developed in Germany. This is not a coincidence: Germany at the time was the world leader in science. The German science supremacy ended when that country was taken over by Angry Dimwits. (The damage was of course incalculable and went far beyond lost scientific supremacy.)

English has been the language of science ever since. By now people like Mr A. D. take American leadership in science and technology for granted. According to them, we can severely cut basic science funding and even eliminate all office of science labs -- that leadership will continue. All I can say here is: beware of Angry Dimwits, with their "solutions".

Anonymous said...

Does the DOE really need 17 National Laboratories?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does the DOE really need 17 National Laboratories?

March 21, 2017 at 4:31 AM


Being generous and rounding up to the next whole integer would give the DOE 4 National Laboratories if 20% of the current 17 were retained. Various paths could be identified to off-load the other 13, and the resulting competition should result in higher quality work overall.

Anonymous said...

Why do some people on this forum sit around late at night and type books, that no one even reads because they are too long? Goes with bloated egos, I suppose.

Anonymous said...

@4:31 AM
The DOE really needs more than this in order to save the planet from global warming. Some estimates put the number of needed labs at closer to 71 than 17. No idea is too far out to explore when the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Secretary Chu understood this and treated the Office of Science labs as they deserved by approving each new request for more money.

Anonymous said...

Insane rant, 12:01. By the way, if you had any reading comprehension at all you would know from my post that General Relativity was NOT developed in Germany, it was developed durung Einstein's time in Switzerland.

The rest of your post is so crazy it doesn't deserve a response. Here's a bit of friendly advice, slow down. You are hunting and pecking faster than your brain can keep up.

Anonymous said...


Blah blah blah....look at my immense IQ level argument and the way I use high falooting words to craft my ego satisfying position! All these useless positions are nothing compared to the revenge of the C+ students!! That's right, plant management will take all you suckahs to the bank! Look at me utilizing my West Point engineering background where I can theorize all this crap but then need a real expert to put my experiment together.....pack a lunch and take your blue ribbon, brain dead, boobie staring, BBQ arses to a more relative on line site to relay your useless rants and self stroking. Adios!

Anonymous said...

March 21, 2017 at 2:45 PM

I think you have been sniffing too much glue, but it is your life. This whole post is
crazy and nuts. Do we need to pay for idiots to play in a sandbox and go on and on about how smart they? It is time to cut from the losers and give to the makers. I am dropping the mic on that!

Anonymous said...

March 21, 2017 at 7:52 AM

That is how it was done under Chu, but Perry is a different Secretary.

Anonymous said...

That is how it was done under Chu, but Perry is a different Secretary.

March 22, 2017 at 1:42 PM

Perry may know that Texas is a state but does he even know where N Korea is?, Does Trump? Obama was a brilliant intellectual who know geo-poltics, economics, engineering, science, spirituality, warfare, and justice. Trump knows how to hustle a bad deal. Good God what has happened to us?

Anonymous said...

That's funny, Obama as a brilliant intellectual. I hope you were joking, if not then your gross spelling and grammar errors give you away as someone who would think a squirrel is a brilliant intellectual.

Anonymous said...

The comments here are for the most part amazingly short-sighted. Our only way out of the current economic situation is revolutionary technological innovation. Guess who doesn't pay for revolutionary innovation? The commercial sector. Industry (aside from a few companies with huge resources, like Google) would never invest large amounts of money in technology that is 10+ years off. That's why the government does it. So, the government pays for this science, and industry gets a hand-off almost for free.

Bad investment? Only if you honestly think that coal and gasoline are the way of the future. Spoiler alert: they aren't, and we had better damn well be all over and on top of whatever IS next.

Those that are ticked off at the labs because of losing a job - yes, we get it and we understand it. But don't amputate your foot because you stubbed your toe.

Anonymous said...

Every time somebody gets tasked with coming up with a list of where big government money has funded real technological innovation that has a major commercial impact, the list winds up very short, or not very exciting while struggling to redefine "major". It is close to blank within what is now NNSA. Think big stuff - semiconductor circuits, transistors, airplanes, cars, communications, lasers. All of those big things, and just about every other big thing you can think of, started with private money. Military needs can drive development that has big commercial spinoffs, like rockets or radar or drones, but the national labs focus on the R and not so much the D in R&D, and the DoD contractors do most of the D with things that come through the military.

So it's simply historically false that revolutionary innovation comes from government money, especially the national labs. I'm sure someone can come up with anecdotal counter-examples, but meanwhile look at all the revolutionary innovation that has come from private money.

Anonymous said...

semiconductor circuits, transistors, airplanes, cars, communications, lasers

Most of these are from Bell Labs, however Bell Labs was never private as it was hugely subsidized by the government and was a essentially a government lab. When the government stopped funding it Bell essentially dumped the lab. By the way you missed "computer" which was at least partially developed at national lab.

Anonymous said...

We can skip airplanes, cars and communications, so you must mean that lasers, transistors and ICs came from government money. Lasers and transistors were developed partly by Bell Labs, a private company lab funded entirely by private money that was spent under a monopoly-keeping deal with the US government, so you're right that there was a government hand involved, but no government money or oversight. The IC was developed at Texas Instruments, another private company. The history of computers long pre-dates US national labs, and even Eniac was designed at a University, albeit with military money for a military mission.

I'm hard-pressed to think of anything really major, other than nuclear bombs, that has come out of national labs and changed our lives.

Anonymous said...

10:19 is correct, few research projects in the labs have ever changed anyone's life. Most who follow the progress of R&D in the labs know of "The Valley of Death" between lab R&D and commercialization.

It's very telling that those opposed to cutting funding for ANY science project, no matter how stupid, are struggling to come up with concrete examples of government funded science successes while examples of government failures proliferate; NIF, MFTF-B, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, Solyndra, carbon sequestration, ...

Anonymous said...

"Lasers and transistors were developed partly by Bell Labs, a private company lab funded entirely by private money"

Not true, look into it and you will see that there was actually a huge amount of government money put into the Bell Labs. It was hardly private.

Anonymous said...

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development did a study in 2003 that found private research efforts stimulated economic development but government funded research stimulated NO economic development. NONE. The results of this study have not been challenged since.

By the way, Bell Labs were almost entirely funded by ATT and ATT's sister organization Western Electric. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

Anonymous said...

Well "no economic development" isn't quite right, just look at all the road and infrastructure improvements in Los Alamos. Federal money floods into national lab towns through employee pay, contracts, etc., and that money flows down to other people too - cost of living, contracts, taxes. But the same thing could be said for, say, a government-funded coal mine, so the real issue is, what technology invention and development goes on in national labs, or is driven by them. There are small-scale, incestuous kinds of commercial impacts, for example high-speed detectors and oscilloscopes, but those remain incestuous as long as the labs are the main customers.

The nuclear bomb is one clear major invention that came from a national lab. Are there others?

Anonymous said...

By the way, Bell Labs were almost entirely funded by ATT and ATT's sister organization Western Electric. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

False, this is simple to check

Also I you serious about citing the OECD? These guys are utterly biased and not taken seriously. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about, none.

http://www.21stcentech.com/money-spent-nasa-not-waste/

Anonymous said...

This is an interesting view on (privately funded) Bell Labs, https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Bell-Labs-in-New-Jersey-able-to-do-so-many-cool-things-before-they-split-up

Anyone who claims Bell Labs was funded by the feds needs to show some evidence.

Anonymous said...

March 25, 2017 at 12:54 PM

Simply type in Bell Labs government funded and you will get everything you need to know and than some.

"The nuclear bomb is one clear major invention that came from a national lab. Are there others?"

Presumably if you have enough brains to post on this blog than you can type into google the words inventions from New Mexico or Los Alamos or Sandia or Livermore which gives you several lists. Computers, cell sorting, clean room, Monte Carlo, micro nuclear reactors, digital timing systems, heat pipe exchanger, dopler radar, solar wind detectors, areogels and so on. Just look at the list of R and D awards. Why do you need us to do this for you, Google is your friend us it.

You seem like you have some kind of agenda and of course the word that you live by is "bitter". Look after all these years of
hating the labs for firing you maybe you should get the hint that it is you not them. Just saying. One thing we know that the labs have produced are very bitter ex-employees who cannot let it go. I would not say that the lab invented this phenomena but the blog certainly provides evidence for it.

Anonymous said...

Radar and jet engines come to mind. You wouldn't want to travel by air without them. They have enabled the incredible mobility of this century.

Anonymous said...

Oooo, Mr. Bitter is back! Everyone he doesn't agree with must be a bitter fired ex-employee. So sad.

Anonymous said...

Oooo, Mr. Bitter is back! So sad

You do see the utter irony in your posting? You where the same idiot who was going on about how Stanford published 100 times more papers that LLNL and now that there has never been an invention and any national other than the bomb. Your lack of self-awareness is incredible and so so sad. You sure get upset whenever someone calls you out as bitter.

Anonymous said...

So Mr. Prove it will not provide evidence, and he dismissively sends people to google instead. How far have the labs descended?

Anonymous said...

The descent isn't of the labs, it is of Mr. Prove it. He has no actual knowledge except what he gets from Google searches. He thinks that makes him an expert since he has no idea what actual expertise is.

Anonymous said...



I am confused, is the bitter ex-empolyee Mr Prove it or is the Stanford published 100 times more papers than LLNL idiot Mr Prove it? It is hard to keep track which troll you are referring to. Google is not expertise but you might want to try it before you ask this blog if the moon is made out of cheese if there has ever been a single technolgy to come out of the labs.

Anonymous said...

I think he was referring to you, 6:28 AM.

Anonymous said...

You are never going to influnce opinion by lying. Bell Labs WAS NOT funded in any significant way by the feds. In fact, during the heyday of Bell, the Feds had very little science funding at all. Right now your credibility is zero. Let's agree that you have been lying, 2:33, and then we can all move on.

Oh, the list you came up with has a number of things that were not invented at the labs. Let's see if YOU can use your Google skills and figure out which ones they are.

Anonymous said...

Computers, cell sorting, clean room, Monte Carlo, micro nuclear reactors, digital timing systems, heat pipe exchanger, dopler radar, solar wind detectors, areogels...

March 25, 2017 at 2:33 PM

Not a single one of those items, some of which you even mis-spelled, were invented at a National Laboratory.

Anonymous said...

Stunningly stupid comment 11:44. The roads and infrastructure in Los Alamos DID NOT result from economic development in the area. They were paid for by (non-Science) Government funding. Likewise, the trickle-down in the area did not arise from economic development, that's just DOE/NNSA (mostly) non-science funding trickling down.

The Government doesn't create wealth by funding Government projects, it just takes wealth from some people and gives it to others. The trickle-down stuff you see near Los Alamos is counteracted by a reduction in the same stuff in the areas where the Government net took money away.

So what would be an example of creating economic development? The creation of private companies that employ lots of people making and selling products or services that arise from a synergy with the lab, goods or services that would not exist if the lab was not there. You see very little of this in Los Alamos and the surrounding areas.

Anonymous said...

Not a single one of those items, some of which you even mis-spelled, were invented at a National Laboratory.

March 26, 2017 at 9:15 AM

What???? You might want to back track on this as all these things where in fact invented at the National Labs. What the hell is wrong with you? These are trivial to check so you it is on you to prove it wrong.

Anonymous said...

"Los Alamos is counteracted by a reduction in the same stuff in the areas where the Government net took money away."

Yes for example we could have given a few more billion to Iraqi warlords instead. Good point on that.

Anonymous said...

Was there really any expectation that Mr Rabid Libertarian would objectively acknowledge the contributions of the National Labs? Of DOE-funded research? Of R&D dollars spent by other agencies? It's all "gubmint" and as such is evil by definition and has to be cut. End of story.

Clean air and water? Liberal conspiracy! Fundamental research? Nobody cares! Education? We don't need no education and certainly no government in education! Government produces nothing: those teachers, firefighters, USDA, CDC, are all parasites and leaches. Just compare them to the titans of the financial industry: Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, Indymac and you will see who's moving the country forward!

It's a simple and predictable world where all information is processed and all answers are given according to a miniature mental flowchart. I could write a short Python script that would readily imitate his responses. Just need to put in a bunch of keywords that would trigger the signature Yosemite-Sam-like outbursts of rage and cursing: "Owebama, liberals, you lie, phony," etc, etc.

Anonymous said...

Liberal conspiracy?

It is not just a conspiracy it is that I have a very personal agenda against the labs. My whole identity is tied to this. You see I am brilliant, hard working and creative, yet these things could not be recognized in academics or at the Labs, therefore the labs, universities and government funded institutes are worthless. The only thing worthwhile is the private sector since no one at the labs or a university could ever cut it in the real world. The only problem I have to figure out is that I could not hack it in the private sector however I can just say that having worked at the labs has given me a tainted look that no private company would want. It all works expect for all those people that left the lab and got jobs in the private sector but will just say those people don't exist.

Anonymous said...

Computers, cell sorting, clean room, Monte Carlo, micro nuclear reactors, digital timing systems, heat pipe exchanger, dopler radar, solar wind detectors, areogels...

March 25, 2017 at 2:33 PM

Not a single one of those items, some of which you even mis-spelled, were invented at a National Laboratory."

Not true if you look at this. I know it is the internet but does have some useful information. See was it that hard to use
Google?


https://www.newscastic.com/news/20-best-inventions-to-hail-from-the-land-of-enchantment-965404/

https://energy.gov/articles/top-10-things-you-didnt-know-about-lawrence-livermore-national-laboratory

Anonymous said...

March 27, 2017 at 9:49 AM

Mr I can prove with google is back. Pathetic just pathetic that you will believe anything google says. Again not one of these things ever came from LLNL, Sandia or LANL even if google says they do. You people are sad.

Anonymous said...

Computers, cell sorting, clean room, Monte Carlo, micro nuclear reactors, digital timing systems, heat pipe exchanger, dopler radar, solar wind detectors, areogels...


Hey idiot Monte Carlo was invited in Monaco not a national lab. It is laughable to think that Sandia could have invited the clean room.

Anonymous said...

The insane ignoranus is back repeating the same lies. Here's a start on debunking his lies:

Computers were not invented in the National Labs. That's a lie. The earliest known mechanical analog computer existed 2000 years before the labs (Antikythera mechanism). The first mechanical programmable digital computer existed over 100 years before the labs (Babbage analytical engine). The German Zuse Z3 built in 1941 was a programmable electro-mechanical computer, and it was even Turing-complete - before the labs also.

The first all-electronic computers were built in Great Britain in the mid-late 1930s for the phone company, followed by a computer built at Iowa State, both before the Labs existed. The Colossus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, was built in Great Britain for decoding encrypted German messages. Colossus existed before Los Alamos had any computer (except the human "computers").

Even ENIAC, the computer that first calculated thermonuclear fusion problems at Los Alamos wasn't developed at the Labs, it was developed at the University of Pennsylvania.

Hey, insane ignoranus, want to hear the history of the other items you falsely claimed were invented at the labs, or do you want to look them up yourself and confess that you've been lying?

Anonymous said...

Insane rant, 7:03 AM. Who are you pretending to be now?

Anonymous said...

Hey Ladies, we don't really give a rat's ass who you believe invented what.

Anonymous said...

Well, the chickens have flown the coop, we need the big nets.

The list some crazy person put up earlier, aerogels, computers, etc., is just wildly wrong. Does anyone who isn't drinking JD have a real list of significant inventions that came from the labs?

Anonymous said...

Oh Jeez, why keep this crap going? Let go, please. Is this your major concern in your life? In the world? How about a retreat to reality. Doesn't your wife want you to fix something? Isn't that more important? Oh, wait, all the posters here are unmarried misogynist jerks. How could I have forgotten that? Sorry.

Anonymous said...


9.49 AM gave some links that you simply like to ignore.

Blog Archive