Skip to main content

Privatization and punishment

Image
By scooby
Well as we approach WWIII we can be rest assured that privatization and punishment of the labs has left us less prepared to deal with whatever may arise. Did anyone ever think that our enemies might be really interested in how we treat our own labs?
November 24, 2015 at 11:45 PM

Comments:
 
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Fortunately 5,000 people had their computers disabled last week in the midst of a terrorist crisis to facilitate the installation of new (unclassified) passwords. Go LANS! Way to keep America safe.
November 25, 2015 at 3:49 AM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Fortunately 5,000 people had their computers disabled last week in the midst of a terrorist crisis to facilitate the installation of new (unclassified) passwords. Go LANS! Way to keep America safe.

November 25, 2015 at 3:49 AM

Another example of LANS just driving the lab and workers (and other facilities) to complete standstill (e.g. WIPP, PF-4, WCRRF, RANT, Area G, WETF, etc.). LANS - Working Hard to do Nothing.

Comments

Anonymous said…
5000 computers shut down during a crisis , and no media reporting. This can only mean one thing: The work the lab is doing is mostly meaningless busy work. Let us continue the experiment: shut LLNL down for a week , and see if anyone notices.
12/03/2015 11:16 PM
Anonymous said…
Nanos shut down LANL for almost a year and nobody noticed.
12/04/2015 4:05 PM
Anonymous said…
Unfortunately, the NNSA is responsible for the success (failure) of LANS. They have succeeded in making Los Alamos a work free safe zone, just like the rest of DOE. For almost 30 years I would come to work at TA55 and thought I was safe and happy, wanting to do my job. And now I have these idiots telling me that my crit paperwork is not safe, that my knowledge and skills keep me from doing my job in a safe way, and that I must come to work every day and be inefficient and have zero risk when the riskiest thing that I do us drive to work.
12/05/2015 8:33 AM
Anonymous said…
8:33am agree. One caveat, the congress and administration made these pieces of paper, laws. They complain about the cost as they write regulation that drives this behavior. IT is throughout the complex, not just the labs.
12/05/2015 9:54 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