Skip to main content

Why is your boss white, middle-class and a show-off

Image
By scooby
Anonymously contributed:

Saw this article:
It was so right on somany points I had to chuckle at the image of ULM being a bunch of GEICO representative rejects. FYI - GEICO = Government Employees Insurance Company.

Read it

Comments

Anonymous said…
Its funny...I had a friend with a NIH proposal that was reviewed and the major problem was they were using the labs population for a study and the comments pretty made the point about race, age and class of the lab does not represent US population and many work environments.
10/05/2008 10:03 AM
Anonymous said…
Yeah. There are way to many foreign nationals than there are white people at LLNL.
10/05/2008 2:06 PM
Anonymous said…
Eh???

Most of the foreign nationals are white - would whatever - why does that matter other than to show that there aren't enough Americans graduating with science degrees/phds at the moment.

This thread has a danger of becoming racist and xenophobic.

The first comment is odd - I don't think NIH really pay attention to this that much. It might be something that a reviewer might make an observation about but frankly the reason LLNL doesn't get NIH money is our cost versus our competitors for that money (universities and private industry).
10/06/2008 9:32 AM
Anonymous said…
in your dreams! the lab is dominated by white males and a large number of them are over 50 years old. You're obviously not from the lab, so move along.
10/06/2008 10:29 PM
Anonymous said…
When you pick a group of people for study NIH pays special attention to the age, race and sex. Of course this also depends on what you want to scientifically study regarding the population. If its white males, med-high economic background and prostate cancer the lab population would be ideal.
10/09/2008 7:19 PM
Anonymous said…
LLNL is kind of like going to Europe every day. A heintz 57 to the max.
10/11/2008 5:43 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
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.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more