Rules
Let the Greek mess be a lesson to those who think that rules, transparency, and laws are fungible by emotion based arguments.
Example: Livermore hires the best and the brightest, but not really
Example: Livermore promotes the best candidate regardless of gender, but not really
Example: LDRD projects are chosen based on merit, but not really
Example: Crossing borders is illegal, but not really
Example: Greek taxes need to be paid along with austerity, but not really
Example: Do what cops say, but not really (and we're surprised when you don't , bad things happen)
Get Educated.
18 comments:
Thank you poster!
Yes, we definitely are doing nothing to keep the brightest from leaving and nothing to attract new people. By the end of the decade, there will be severe shortage of qualified people as
many qualified people would have retired.
What does qualified mean? Who are you to decide?
What does qualified mean? Who are you to decide?
July 10, 2015 at 10:44 PM
If your first question is serious, it explains the inanity of your second question.
If your first question is serious, it explains the inanity of your second question.
July 11, 2015 at 8:49 AM
You can have all the highest "quality" people you want but will they be capable of doing anything that is relevant?
You can have all the highest "quality" people you want but will they be capable of doing anything that is relevant?
July 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM
Relevant to whom?
There are no "brightest and best" at the Labs. They quit or retired years ago, just after the "transition".
There are no "brightest and best" at the Labs. They quit or retired years ago, just after the "transition".
July 12, 2015 at 11:34 AM
The problems that lead to the transition was the arrogance of the scientists and engineers at the labs who thought they where above it all.
The concept of "brightest and best", "excellence", and "outstanding" are all just relative terms that have no meaning. Who is to say that the best and brightest have left the labs? who is to define who is the best and brightest in the first place? These words are meaningless blather spoken by someone with ax to grind. In the end it is the customer who gets to decide what is relevant and if the the service provider
is worthy of payment. We at the laboratory do not get to decide who is the best or brightest it is not our job.
Quite simply,
best and brightest are those that have publications in the top journals and the talent to bring in new money.
Take any tech or science field that the lab engages. How many are we the leader in?
The lab now lags and not leads in many fields.
What does qualified mean? Who are you to decide?
July 10, 2015 at 10:44 PM
Exactly. You make the point. So it's about experience and accomplishments. Just being part of the time and voting present, is not the same as leading.
Quite simply,
best and brightest are those that have publications in the top journals and the talent to bring in new money.
Take any tech or science field that the lab engages. How many are we the leader in?
The lab now lags and not leads in many fields.
July 13, 2015 at 7:44 AM
"Publications in top journals" and "bring in new money"?? Sounds like someone who is doing unclassified WFO work and somehow believes that he is in the right business for a nuclear weapons laboratory, but can't quite understand why no one at NNSA or LLNS/LANS agrees with him. You don't need "new money" you need a new job. Somewhere else where someone cares about "top journals." Get on the national security bus or get out, professor.
Good response.
In the same vain, bring back the old Engineering AD over the current one.
"Publications in top journals" and "bring in new money"?? Sounds like someone who is doing unclassified WFO work and somehow believes that he is in the right business for a nuclear weapons laboratory, but can't quite understand why no one at NNSA or LLNS/LANS agrees with him. You don't need "new money" you need a new job. Somewhere else where someone cares about "top journals." Get on the national security bus or get out, professor.
Blathered July 13, 2015 at 1:43 PM
You should check out the publication records of the nuclear weapon scientists who built your laboratory and made it great. You sound like one of the mediocre crowd who hides their pathetically bad ni-science behind the curtain of classification. Ugh!
"You should check out the publication records of the nuclear weapon scientists who built your laboratory and made it great. You sound like one of the mediocre crowd who hides their pathetically bad ni-science behind the curtain of classification. Ugh!
July 13, 2015 at 3:32 PM"
Hey dimwit the labs are already built, we do not need that kind of scientist at the labs anymore. It is about being relevant to the programs. If you want to do science than there are plenty of other places for you to go.
Hey dimwit the labs are already built, we do not need that kind of scientist at the labs anymore. It is about being relevant to the programs. If you want to do science than there are plenty of other places for you to go.
July 13, 2015 at 5:51 PM
Nice try. Take a look at a mission statement of the lab.
"Sustain and ensure that we are at the cutting edge in the science, engineering and technology capabilities our sponsors need."
This means top scientists and engineers.
"Sustain and ensure that we are at the cutting edge in the science, engineering and technology capabilities our sponsors need."
This means top scientists and engineers.
July 13, 2015 at 6:28 PM
Except that the primary sponsor, NNSA, doesn't need any of that.
Yes they do.
"Yes, we definitely are doing nothing to keep the brightest from leaving and nothing to attract new people. By the end of the decade, there will be severe shortage of qualified people as many qualified people would have retired."
Yes, the old will (or should) retire. New ones will be hired. With different experiences and abilities. No, they are NOT the pioneers in computing, physics, engineering, or laser science that we are ! Not even close !
I just hope that they can compete with the Chinese, who are shoving Ph.d's out of their Gov't run universities and tech centers as fast as they can. They have extorted $1B's from US Tech giants (Intel, Cisco, ...) to invest in Chinese tech centers and students. Why is this money not being spent here ? Trump asks this question. He gets no answer.
Post a Comment