Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it. Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
Comments
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".
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!
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.
I acknowledge the country is split then that means 50% wants those cuts and have been asking for those a long time.
It's going to take ruthless cutting of all spending to keep the debt from running away.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/17/how-much-is-donald-trumps-travel-and-protection-costing-anyway/?utm_term=.1483b7ad6704
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, ...
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.
By the way, Bell Labs were almost entirely funded by ATT and ATT's sister organization Western Electric. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
The nuclear bomb is one clear major invention that came from a national lab. Are there others?
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/
Anyone who claims Bell Labs was funded by the feds needs to show some evidence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes for example we could have given a few more billion to Iraqi warlords instead. Good point on that.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
9.49 AM gave some links that you simply like to ignore.
The guy is spitting out random trivia he found online without understanding. Yeah, right, computers were invented 2,000 years ago. How would you like to use one of those computers now? Come to think of it, this wouldn't be so bad actually: we would be spared the torture of having to read your usual pearls of wisdom.
Mr Yosemite Sam is getting desperate. All because of some obsessive bitterness against the Labs.
In fact, almost EVERY item on your phony list was not invented at the labs. You can look them up, but you won't. Why? Is it because liberals like you are militant about remaining ignorant? You know, you don't have to continue to be dishonest. You CAN look them up one by one, find out the truth, admit that you were wrong, STOP LYING, and move on.
Let's summarize. The topic was cutting spending on the fraction of science projects that are assuredly useless. You tried to defend continuing to spend, even on those clearly wasteful "science" projects, by pointing out how many useful things have come out of science spending. So far, you're batting very close to zero. You have randomly identified ONE thing. ONE, but you don't even know which one it is.
March 28, 2017 at 11:23 AM
How nice that you falsely restate the topic of the thread to match your (obsessive and borderline-insane) meme.
"In fact, almost EVERY item on your phony list was not invented at the labs. You can look them up, but you won't. Why"
The links to the multiple item list show that you cleary are wrong. You can check this your self, but you will not. As for the computers the labs certainly played a role their development and testing.
I would say you are more of modern day snowflake liberal who has their view of the world and cannot and will not let go. In your case it is personal. You got fired from one of the labs or where not appreciated or could never get a job in the first pace and your ego cannot take this now the labs are all you ever think about. After 10 years of posting vile hatred to all things lab and you still will not let it go. The labs are still hear, you are still without a job and filled with self loathing and denial. Guess what in 10 years the labs will still exist and you will either be dead or still a worthless self-hating person who wasted their life. Please move on as it is sad to see what has happened to you.
ANYONE can look this up, but you won't, so I'll do it for you.
Here's the second item on your list, cell sorting.
Cell sorting is done by three main methods; flow cytometry, magnetic sorting, and microchip array sorting.
Flow cytometry was patented in 1953 by Wallace H. Coulter (of the Coulter effect). It was developed by the Coulter Corporation. The Coulter Corporation (like Bell Labs) was privately funded. One variant, fluorescence cytometry, was invented in 1968 by Wolfgang Göhde of the University of Munster and first sold in 1968/69 by the German manufacturer Partec. It might be necessary to point out to the insane ignoranus that the Labs had nothing to do with this.
Magnetic sorting was invented by Miltenyi Biotech, another German Company, in 1989. The MACS technology has been sold commercially since 1990. Again, for the insane ignoranus, the Labs had NOTHING to do with this.
The principle behind microchip cell sorting arrays was developed in 2000 at the University of Texas. Further development took place at the University of California, San Francisco, Baylor University, University of California, Irvine, and more recently at the University of North Carolina leading to full microchip sorting technology. Again, NOT INVENTED AT THE LABS.
Insane Ignoranus, are you ready to admit that you've been lying, or do you want me to continue with the rest of your phony list?
Oh, and your writing skills are beyond abysmal too; "where not appreciated", "cleary are wrong", "a role their development", "the labs are still hear" ....
Here's a tip for you, no one is going to take you seriously with your obvious inability to write, your clear case of attention deficit disorder, your constant defense of pure lies, and, quite possibly, your (putative) case of schizophrenia. Work on fixing your own problems before you try to convince anyone that you have anything worthwhile to say. Seriously.
In the early-mid 1960s, Los Alamos physicist Mack Fulwyler invented a device to isolate different types of cells. His invention, still a vital aspect of flow cytometry (cell measurement) in biological laboratories today, operates in a fashion similar to an ink-jet printer, redirecting a flow of tiny cell-containing droplets. With a laser and fluorescent tagging capabilities, its modern incarnation provides insight into the biochemistry underlying many diseases, including cancer and AIDS.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/cyto.a.20176/asset/20176_ftp.pdf;jsessionid=38120D5AAA72A07F7D2154D21C161726.f01t03?v=1&t=j0unhk8p&s=8ffdd616b280571db6171ee28d8
The development of Cytometry comes together with early advances in microscopy. The first investigations were the UV light source on samples. However, it was in 1934 that the first technique for counting cells flowing through a capillary tube was described, and then flow cytometry was born. In 1880 fluorochromes were used for the first time; but it was not until 1960-70 that they were applied to cytometry to measure DNA cell content immunophenotyping. Over time, cell separation was firstly associated with cytometry. Los Alamos National Laboratories (USA) developed the first cell counter able to measure the presence of cells and to separate them into droplets and charge them. Cell sorters have the same performances and possibilities than flow cytometers; however, cell sorters present the additional capacity to separate (sorting) and recuperate particles selectively from the liquid suspension according to their characteristics.
http://www.genyo.es/en/content/flow-cytometry-and-cell-sorting-unit
http://www.genyo.es/en/content/flow-cytometry-and-cell-sorting-unit
Ok, next on the list: Clean room
https://share-ng.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/cleanroom_50th/#.WNtjzRQwjzI
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — When Willis Whitfield invented the modern-day cleanroom 50 years ago, researchers and industrialists didn’t believe it at first. But within a few short years, $50 billion worth of laminar-flow cleanrooms were being built worldwide and the invention is used in hospitals, laboratories and manufacturing plants today.
The retired Sandia National Laboratories physicist, who passed away this month at age 92, was dubbed “Mr. Clean” by TIME Magazine at the time, but the travel, scientific presentations and accolades didn’t change the unassuming scientist, who was always modest about the invention that revolutionized manufacturing in electronics and pharmaceuticals, made hospital operating rooms safer and helped further space exploration.
Heat pipe exchanger:
http://www.lanl.gov/science/NSS/issue1_2011/story6full.shtml
In 1963, Los Alamos physicist George Grover successfully demonstrated his invention of the heat pipe. Grover's inspiration for the heat pipe came from rudimentary heat-conducting pipes used by British bakers more than 170 years ago. The development of such pipes began in 1839, when American inventor Jacob Perkins patented the hermetic tube boiler. Angier March Perkins (Jacob's son) modified the tube boiler, and in 1936 he patented what he called the Perkins Tube, which saw widespread use in locomotive boilers and working ovens (including a mobile oven for the British Army). The Perkins Tube served as a "jumping off point" for Grover's development of modern heat pipes, which depending on their application can be as short as a hypodermic needle, or up to 24 feet long.
Micronuclear reactorThis micro nuclear power reactor promises to provide 27 megawatts, enough for 20,000 average houses, for seven to 10 years before needing to refuel. Invented in LANL, it produces clean and affordable energy that can be easily transported to remote locations or disaster areashttps://www.newscastic.com/news/20-best-inventions-to-hail-from-the-land-of-enchantment-965404/
William A. Higinbotham and Boyce B. McDaniel invented the Counter Chronograph, one of the first digital timing systems, in Los Alamos in 1945.
Solar wind detectorsDeveloped at the LANL and carried aboard NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) mission, are solar wind sensors designed to examine energetic particles in the solar system.
Monte Carlo: Named after the famous casino, the Monte Carlo method is a way of doing integrals by using random numbers. The modern version of the Monte Carlo method was invented in the late 1940s by Stanislaw Ulam, while he was working on nuclear weapon projects at LANL.
Aergel
http://www.aerogel.org/?p=71
Not long after RF aerogels were developed, Livermore scientists discovered that by heating them to temperatures of several hundred degrees Celsius in an inert atmosphere (such as nitrogen or argon), the polymer which makes up the aerogel can be dehydrated (or “pyrolyzed”) to leave behind an aerogel made of carbon!
Ok, now crawl back in your hole, until the next time you want to spew your bs hatred and bitterness at the labs.
You and your so called facts can go to HELL, there is a reason people hate arrogant scientists and it is because you have to prove you are right. No one cares about what was developed in the labs anyway.
Ok
In statistics and in statistical physics, the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm is a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC
The algorithm was named after Nicholas Metropolis, who was an author along with Arianna W. Rosenbluth, Marshall N. Rosenbluth, Augusta H. Teller, and Edward Teller of the 1953 paper Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines which first proposed the algorithm for the case of symmetrical proposal distributions, and W. K. Hastings who extended it to the more general case in 1970.[1] There is controversy over the credit for discovery of the algorithm. Edward Teller states in his memoirs that the five authors of the 1953 paper worked together for "days (and nights)".[2] M. Rosenbluth, in an oral history recorded shortly before his death[3] credits E. Teller with posing the original problem, himself with solving it, and A.W. Rosenbluth (his wife) with programming the computer. According to M. Rosenbluth, neither Metropolis nor A.H. Teller participated in any way. Rosenbluth's account of events is supported by other contemporary recollections.[4] Accordi
ng to Roy Glauber and Emilio Segrè, the original algorithm was invented by Enrico Fermi and reinvented by Stan Ulam.
The modern version of the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method was invented in the late 1940s by Stanislaw Ulam, while he was working on nuclear weapons projects at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Immediately after Ulam's breakthrough, John von Neumann understood its importance and programmed the ENIAC computer to carry out Monte Carlo calculations. In 1946, physicists at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory were investigating radiation shielding and the distance that neutrons would likely travel through various materials. Despite having most of the necessary data, such as the average distance a neutron would travel in a substance before it collided with an atomic nucleus, and how much energy the neutron was likely to give off following a collision, the Los Alamos physicists were unable to solve the problem using conventional, deterministic mathematical methods. Stanislaw Ulam had the idea of using random experiments. He recounts his inspiration as follows.
"Lab's aerogel sets world record". LLNL Science & Technology Review. October 2003.
Min Nuke reactodz
Invented at the famed Los Alamos National Laboratory, Hyperion small modular power reactors make all the benefits of safe, clean nuclear power available for remote locations. For both industrial and community applications, Hyperion offers reliable energy with no greenhouse gas emissions.
Even if the labs did something like this you would complain that they are too narrow and horrible. You are going to complain about the labs no matter what because this is a very very personal issue on your part related to you being fired, rifftired, or not being recognized for the genius that you think you are. Your lack of even some of the most basic knowlegde about the labs or science shows argues that lack of success at the labs was due to your ablities not due some conspiracy at the labs. Again the labs are going to be around long after you are gone, do something else with what is left of your life.
However, YOUR OWN WORDS prove that the heat pipe heat exchanger was patented BEFORE Los Alamos existed. Strike three for you (the first two strikes are Computers and Cell Sorters). DO YOU EVEN READ THE SHIT YOU CUT AND PASTE?
The counter chronograph? Your own words say that the Los Alamos design was ONE of the first digital timing systems. NOT the first. The first was the Cook Interval timer, from General Electric (a private company like Bell Labs). The patent on the GE device was filed 4 years before Higinbotham started working on his. Moreover, Higinbotham was aware of Cook's timer as evidenced in his own patent application in 1951. Strike 4. You're really looking dishonest now.
You were being VERY dishonest about the micro nuclear reactor. You cut and pasted an item about ONE design, the Gen4 Energy reactor, the design of which was INITIALLY developed at Los Alamos. That reactor has NEVER been licensed and has NEVER been built. There are over 34 designs for small or "micro" nuclear reactors and many predate the Los Alamos design. Only two have been licensed to date, a Korean design and a Russian design. The Russian Reactor, EGP-6, is the world's smallest nuclear reactor and it has been operating since 1974.
This is a particularly egregious case of your dishonesty. You couldn't have found the stuff you cut and pasted without also finding that your claim is totally false. The truth is that LANL did not invent the "micro" reactor - LANL was actually more than 30 years behind the Russians. Strike 5.
Solar wind detector? The NASA Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) mission you referenced was flown in August of 1997. Sorry, insane ignoranus, the Russians flew the very first solar wind detector on Luna 1 in January 1959. Strike 6. But hey, you were only off by 38 years with your reference and there were much earlier US solar wind detectors also not developed at Los Alamos.
Monte Carlo method? Nicholas Metropolis acknowledged in 1987 that Enrico Fermi worked with the Monte Carlo method in the 1930s, well before he or Ulam did. Oh, and well before Los Alamos existed. Look up "Monte Carlo Simulation, a Brief History". See Fermi listed on top? Moreover, since Fermi was associated with the Manhattan Project, it seems unlikely that he wouldn't have described his invention to Ulam and Metropolis. Strike 7.
I don't know anything about aerogels, so I'll have to look that up. Given your HORRIBLE record, I'm betting that you are wrong about that one too.
Why don't you just give it up? You've been proven to be a liar over and over again. You have NOTHING to gain by continuing to lie.
The crap you are posting does not jive with the facts and can all be checked very easily. Again this is about you and you alone. You hate the labs because of some precived slight but it will not change the fact the labs are not going anywhere or that you failed in your career.
We can go over this again and get more data and documents to show that you are wrong yet again. Shall we? You have been spewing crap about the labs for 10 years now and have not been right once.
Aerogels were invented by Samuel Stephens Kistler in 1929/1930. Insane Ignoranus, that too is well before Los Alamos existed. Not only that, but Aerogels have been commercially available since 1950 and have undergone almost continuous development by a number of non-lab researchers since then. Your reference for the stuff made at Los Alamos is dated 2003. Strike 8, NOT invented at the Labs, but your reference is only off by 73 years.
Insane, you should spend a whole lot more time reading and a whole lot less time writing. When you read, try to read the entire article, even the big words. If you do, trust me, you won't be such an ignorant asshole. Well, you'll still be an asshole, but you won't be as ignorant.
Fuck-off, asshole. You're done.
published so the result is clearly a work from Los Almaos as that is where the first papers come from,
An early variant of the Monte Carlo method can be seen in the Buffon's needle experiment, in which π can be estimated by dropping needles on a floor made of parallel and equidistant strips. In the 1930s, Enrico Fermi first experimented with the Monte Carlo method while studying neutron diffusion, but did not publish anything on it.[12]
The modern version of the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method was invented in the late 1940s by Stanislaw Ulam, while he was working on nuclear weapons projects at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Immediately after Ulam's breakthrough, John von Neumann understood its importance and programmed the ENIAC computer to carry out Monte Carlo calculations
Being secret, the work of von Neumann and Ulam required a code name.[citation needed] A colleague of von Neumann and Ulam, Nicholas Metropolis, suggested using the name Monte Carlo, which refers to the Monte Carlo Casino in Monaco where Ulam's uncle would borrow money from relatives to gamble.[12] Using lists of "truly random" random numbers was extremely slow, but von Neumann developed a way to calculate pseudorandom numbers, using the middle-square method. Though this method has been criticized as crude, von Neumann was aware of this: he justified it as being faster than any other method at his disposal, and also noted that when it went awry it did so obviously, unlike methods that could be subtly incorrect.
Monte Carlo methods were central to the simulations required for the Manhattan Project, though severely limited by the computational tools at the time. In the 1950s they were used at Los Alamos for early work relating to the development of the hydrogen bomb, and became popularized in the fields of physics, physical chemistry, and operations research. The Rand Corporation and the U.S. Air Force were two of the major organizations responsible for funding and disseminating information on Monte Carlo methods during this time, and they began to find a wide application in many different fields.
Yet a another variation of this is.
The algorithm was named after Nicholas Metropolis, who was an author along with Arianna W. Rosenbluth, Marshall N. Rosenbluth, Augusta H. Teller, and Edward Teller of the 1953 paper Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines which first proposed the algorithm for the case of symmetrical proposal distributions, and W. K. Hastings who extended it to the more general case in 1970.[1] There is controversy over the credit for discovery of the algorithm. Edward Teller states in his memoirs that the five authors of the 1953 paper worked together for "days (and nights)".[2] M. Rosenbluth, in an oral history recorded shortly before his death[3] credits E. Teller with posing the original problem, himself with solving it, and A.W. Rosenbluth (his wife) with programming the computer. According to M. Rosenbluth, neither Metropolis nor A.H. Teller participated in any way. Rosenbluth's account of events is supported by other contemporary recollections.[4] According to Roy Glauber and Emilio Segrè, the original algorithm was invented by Enrico Fermi and reinvented by Stan Ulam.
Your hated for the labs has made you insane and immune to all facts and reasoning. You are one sad little bitter person.
What you have given up on saying cell sorters where not developed at the labs? I thought you proved that was wrong but you have no reply to the new set of facts that prove unequally that you are wrong.
What about the heat pipe exchanger? You have not gone about why that is wrong
By they way you are very confused about what what the Russians did with small nuclear reactors and was developed at the labs these are two very different things if you look into it. The same is true of the solar wind detectors.
The counter chronograph was invented at Los Alamos. here is the patent. http://www.google.ch/patents/US2575759
By the way it is organic aerogels. This is from http://www.aerogel.org/?p=71
Although organic aerogels have been around since the first aerogels were prepared, they were, for the most part, overlooked until the 1980’s when Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists began producing organic aerogels made of phenolic resins. The bulk of this work was done by scientists Dr. Rick Pekala and Dr. Joe Satcher, who synthesized the first resorcinol-formaldehyde polymer aerogels (or RF aerogels for short).-essentially, aerogels composed of the same material as the plastic “Bakelite”. Depending on their density, RF aerogels range from light orange to deep red to black in color and range from translucent to opaque. Low density organic aerogels (<0.020 g cm-3) are generally irreversibly squishy, similar in feel to green floral potting foam. High density organic aerogels (>0.5 g cm-3) can be extremely robust and very hard to squeeze, almost like a car seat cushion.
Fuck-off, asshole. You're done.
March 29, 2017 at 1:07 PM
March 29, 2017 at 4:31 PM
What I see is that you're doing all the work, and he's just making stuff up that you think you have to respond to. And I guess you think profanity makes it ok for you. Yeah, insanity. Not much daylight between you guys.
Lets recap: In the last year the troll has stated that (1) There are no good scientists at the lab, (shown to be false). (2) All the good
scientists leave before they are 40. (again false also 1 and 2 cannot both be right at the same time). (3) The weapons science is horrible (false). (4) Stanford published 100 times more publications than LLNL ( proven false). (4) No one in the labs can ever get a job in the private sector (False we all know people have have left for the private sector). (5) No one at the labs can get an
academic job, (False every year people at the labs get academic jobs) (6) Anyone who could get an academic jobs left years ago,
(False by definition). (7) People at the labs only have degrees from Fresno State, (False, there people with Phds from all over including UCB, MIT, Harvard, Princeton and son on). (8) Nothing other than the bomb has been created at the labs (False this was just shown).
March 30, 2017 at 7:36 AM
Nope, there is only one deal and true "I HATE THE LABS" Troll.
Oh, labs, hark, villains! I will grind your bones to dust. Vengeance is in my heart, death in my hand, Blood and revenge are hammering in my head. O, why should wrath be mute, and fury dumb? I am no baby, I, that with base prayers I should repent the evils I have done: Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did. Would I perform, if I might have my will; If one good deed in all my life I did, I do repent it from my very soul. Bitter am I not but full of zeal to destroy that which mocks my existence and honor, which I have none.
OK, so let's hear your learned explanation of why the global average temperature hasn't budged in 20 years, when the atmospheric CO2 level has increased dramatically? And why temperature increase predictions are constantly having to be revised downward by the IPCC and others?
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
It's pretty unequivocal. And don't tell us that this is another gubmint conspiracy and you have Alternative Facts. How gets their science facts from Rush anyways?
March 30, 2017 at 9:44 PM
Ok we now have item (9) to add to the list of the troll nonsense. One thing we do know is that when the labs fired the troll it was a good start. You seem really jealous of people with jobs or who are earning money. Odd just why its that?
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
March 31, 2017 at 11:01 AM
Sorry, but the NASA graph has nothing to do with average global temperature (satellite data, for example). Nice try though. Fake news.
March 31, 2017 at 11:01 AM
It is all total lies to get more money into the labs or universities. You have already shown that you are liars when it comes to the labs producing anything other than the bomb and now you are lying about climate. There is a reason people hate arrogant scientists. I am not bitter but I am sick of unworthy people being treated like they know what they are talking about. If their is any issue with the climate than private industry could handle it much better.
April 1, 2017 at 9:30 AM
The attitude of an arrogant scientist. This is the reason we need to cutt the labs in at least half.
April 1, 2017 at 9:30 AM
I bet you're a liberal who believes in tolerance, acceptance, and diversity.