Skip to main content

Request to separate LASL and LLL topics into separate sections?

Image
By scooby
I there a way that you can separate LASL and LLL topics into separate sections?

Each has limited interest in the others instumentalities. Kinda like your spouse leaving open the bathroom door.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Since 99% of the LANL (LASL) postings are complaints of past Livermore managers that now have positions at LANL, you might as well keep just the Livermore blog.
1/05/2013 11:54 AM
Anonymous said…
Since 99% of the LANL (LASL) postings are complaints of past Livermore managers that now have positions at LANL, you might as well keep just the Livermore blog.

January 5, 2013 11:54 AM

Agreed. You know, Anastasio, McMillan, and Knapp, the "Three Kings".
1/05/2013 2:54 PM
Anonymous said…
All in favor of favor of a split, or better yet kicking the "guests" off of this blog. They've had plenty of time to find a new home.

Where LANL's managers come from is irrelevant - they are Bechtel lackies doing their master's bidding.

Hearing the "guests" constantly blaming LLNL for their woes is more than tiresome. Likewise LLNL folks blaming LANL for their situation. All one is doing is whining and taking cheap pot-shots at the other to no useful end.

If you wish to change your environment then man up and fight back properly. Otherwise be a good sheep and stop the blame game.
1/06/2013 2:29 AM
Anonymous said…
Mismanagement and associated problems at LANL started long, long before any LLNL managers arrived, and long before LANS even existed. In fact, it can be argued that LANL issues are the reason NNSA and the Bechtel takeover (with the resulting imported Livermore managers) even exist.
1/06/2013 5:10 AM
Anonymous said…
Mismanagement and associated problems at LANL started long, long before any LLNL managers arrived, and long before LANS even existed. In fact, it can be argued that LANL issues are the reason NNSA and the Bechtel takeover (with the resulting imported Livermore managers) even exist.

January 6, 2013 5:10 AM

Yup, and don't forget these problems at LANL have continued under LLNL leadership that came in with grandiose plans to fix the place. Come Livermore, were still waiting, fix the damn place!
1/06/2013 6:32 AM
Anonymous said…
Yup, and don't forget these problems at LANL have continued under LLNL leadership that came in with grandiose plans to fix the place. Come Livermore, were still waiting, fix the damn place!

January 6, 2013 6:32 AM

The only leadership that LLNL has brought to LANL is coming to LANL meetings saying, "at Livermore, at Livermore,...".
1/06/2013 6:37 AM
Anonymous said…
Unenforceable unless Scooby wants to spend all his time policing. For now I'll just await the day the mesa feels it is led by one of its own and watch the nirvana that will surely unfold.
1/06/2013 7:52 PM
Anonymous said…
The only leadership that LLNL has brought to LANL is coming to LANL meetings saying, "at Livermore, at Livermore,...".

January 6, 2013 6:37 AM

If it's so great "at Livermore" they should go back. Their only benefit in coming to LANL was to personally profit and will leave as soon as their bank accounts are substantial enough. They have no vested interest in the success of LANL or the community. These guys (Anastasio, McMillan, Knapp) are worthless!
1/07/2013 4:57 PM
Anonymous said…
Knapp is worse than worthless. He is openly hostile to anyone with an IQ higher than his (ie almost everyone). He destroys programs like a firestorm. He has zero personal integrity, loyalty, or ability to manage. He never should have become a manager of any sort.
1/07/2013 5:54 PM
Anonymous said…
We're making progress. It was not an attack on Knapp involving his automobile or his preferred vacation state, but a comment on his ability as a manager.
1/08/2013 2:25 AM
Anonymous said…
Did Knapp engage in outrageous behavior comparable to Tomas at SC2011? I think that is hard to beat. But I don't know anything about Knapp or his behavior. Maybe he's done even worse than Tomas@SC2011?
1/08/2013 6:53 AM
Anonymous said…
The biggest offense of all is when managers don't live on Bathtub row. Oh the LANL people will raise a fuss and furor over that kind of outrage when an outsider joins the LANL ranks but then chooses to live in Santa Fe. Such an assault on the Los Alamos sensibilities. Oh the humanity!
1/08/2013 7:16 AM
Anonymous said…
Yeah, we want those managers to live in the same retail wasteland and geezer paradise as we do! No decent restaurants allowed! Long lines at the Post Office every day so the geezers can "buy a stamp" - the highlight of their day!
1/08/2013 1:33 PM
Anonymous said…
Anonymous said...
Yeah, we want those managers to live in the same retail wasteland and geezer paradise as we do! No decent restaurants allowed! Long lines at the Post Office every day so the geezers can "buy a stamp" - the highlight of their day!

January 8, 2013 1:33 PM

Be careful what you say, sonny-boy, you whippersnappers are seriously outnumbered!
1/09/2013 8:31 PM
Anonymous said…
Ever work for Knapp, old dude? I didn't think so. Scooby likes him too for the same reason.
1/12/2013 2:44 AM
Anonymous said…
Did the guy do enethical stuff? Or he just has poor manners and treats people like shit? Tomas did both. Knapp is the same? Or just the latter?
1/15/2013 8:20 AM
Anonymous said…
These managers like Tomas and Knapp provide important material for this blog. Tomas "stepping down" to head his one man corporation called YDSConsulting was a huge boon for him and an even greater loss for the lab and the blogosphere. Tomas you will be missed, shielded from Our FOIA requests as a private citizen. Just hope that we don't lose Knapp too. Give him an occasional hug when you do your daily kick-to-his-groin.
1/15/2013 2:17 PM
Anonymous said…
What could beat Tomas@Supercomputing2011? Tomas@Supercomputing2013 baybee!!!! Yeah!!!! Hoooyeahhhh!!!! Yeah baybeeee yeahhhhhh! The man knows how to take care of his stakeholders!
1/16/2013 2:36 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