So they want a for-profit model. This has been a disaster for the last 10 year for LANL, NNSA and the United States. The lab does exist to give money to the county or to the state. Can the county name one thing that has been a benefit to LANL under the "for profit scheme", all it can claim is that it has given the county money but it has harmed LANL. One could argue that it might be better to close LANL than to continue LANL as a for profit. How would the county fair if they closed LANL?
How about this, can someone from the council please provide one thing that the for profit model has done to improve LANL? Just one. This questions has been asked on this blog and in many other forums yet there has never been a single answer to the question.
It is pretty clear the real issue the council is concerned about is the cash and not LANL.
They could at least be honest about this.
43 comments:
Perhaps I am missing something, the request isn't to prevent a for-profit model but to make the fee/reward greater. Either way, this still requires the NM tax be levied on most of the LANL budget. The cash flow to the county should be similar if not identical as long as it remains a for-profit model.
I completely agree though, that a for-profit model creates a less desirable workplace compared with the prior UC contract.
Perhaps I am missing something, the request isn't to prevent a for-profit model but to make the fee/reward greater. Either way, this still requires the NM tax be levied on most of the LANL budget. The cash flow to the county should be similar if not identical as long as it remains a for-profit model
I am bit confused by this as well. The for profit model would bring in the same taxes revenue regardless of the fee amount. I think they want to push for higher fee so that it will attract more for-profit entities to apply. The thinking goes that if more for profits apply than the odds that LANL will stay for profit is higher which is really what they want.
It seems like they are being dishonest with why they want increase the fee in that it is not to attract the best possible bidder but to increase the odds of a for profit. I doubt they care who runs the lab as long as it stays for profit and brings in the money. Ask yourself this question, if the county had to choose between a hypothetical Battelle/UTexas (nonprofit) or North Korea/Yakuza (for profit) to get the contract which one do you think they would pick?
You are missing something: the last item in the county's letter.
"8.0 The contractor should be a for-profit operator."
You are missing something: the last item in the county's letter.
"8.0 The contractor should be a for-profit operator."
July 30, 2017 at 12:13 PM
Okay fair enough, but I didn't realize NNSA was considering a non-profit model. Yes, I haven't read the draft RFP. Lets not confuse the point of raising the cap on fee and the desire for for-profit model. One gets potentially more bidders and the other drives tax revenue. If the non-profit model was used, I suspect the LA county would ask for the DOE handout that they used to get to support the police, fire, schools, etc.
It's been going on for 17 years for the NNSA, and over 21 years for the United States.
The 2006 RFP set an exceptionally high fee of 3% or 75M. Still, the bidders were Los Alamos National Security (UC-Bechtel), Los Alamos Alliance (UT-Lockeed), and possibly a third less credible entity. That experiment shows that a higher management fee may not attract more bidders.
"possibly a third less credible entity. "
It was Northrup Grumman but they pulled out before they put in an official bid. What I have heard is that the county actually wants Bechtel to stay in one form or another.
Despite what the county may want many in DOE see problems with the for-profit model.
http://www.independentnews.com/news/lab-decline-is-reflected-in-discussion-of-lower-fees/article_ca4c02fe-c0f1-11e3-965d-001a4bcf887a.html
Lab Decline Is Reflected In Discussion of Lower Fees
By Jeff Garberson
Nearly a decade after Congress forced the U.S. Department of Energy to drop the University of California as sole manager of Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories, there is widespread recognition that the new corporate system returns less to the nation than the University one it replaced.
In a word, the new system costs more to perform less science.
Today, high management fees and corporate taxes generate annual bills of hundreds of millions of dollars that the laboratories didn’t have to pay when UC was in charge. These bills are covered by funds from the laboratories’ budgets, leaving that much less for science and technology.
The problem was underscored last month at a Senate subcommittee meeting in Washington, D.C., when it was confirmed that the federal government has entered into negotiations to reduce the fees, now as much as 3 percent, that the corporate contractors make for running the two labs.
Absent penalties that may be imposed, annual management fees at Los Alamos are reportedly about $75 million; at Livermore, about $50 million.
The negotiations were acknowledged by Bruce Held, the acting administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration, the semi-autonomous arm of the U.S. Department of Energy for which the laboratories do their nuclear defense work.
Acknowledgement came a month after Held told an industrial conference that national laboratories ought to be run as “strategic partners” on a “public service” model rather than as “profit maximizing contractors.” He decried the “creeping privatization” of the laboratories as “unwise.
“The laboratories exist to serve the public interest, not to make profits,” he told the conference.
For many, including senior managers who worked at the laboratories and at the University prior to the management changes, the call for emphasis on public service rather than profit was read with a bitter sense of irony.
“Public service” was precisely the reason that a patriotic Ernest Lawrence diverted the pioneering scientific work of his famous Radiation Lab in Berkeley for the national good as the U.S. entered World War II. It was the basis for the University of California’s willingness to operate Los Alamos, even though the mere existence of the New Mexico site was a closely held national secret at the time.
Lawrence Livermore director George Miller told an investigating committee of the National Academy of Sciences that the Laboratory’s overhead costs had risen by about $140 million.
The cost was reflected beyond the balance sheet in potential damage to the Laboratory’s scientific programs. The quality of science at the Laboratory remained high, he told the committee, “but it's not as broad as five years ago, and it's not as resilient. It's more easily disrupted than five years ago."
Two years ago, near the end of testimony submitted to the House Armed Services Committee, Miller regretted the tendency to treat the laboratories as job shops, “engaging in excessive oversight and treating the workforce as replaceable employees rather than exceptional people dedicated to public service.”
Under the management of the University of California, with its tradition of academic freedom and public service, Laboratory managers could and did insist on a significant level of scientific and operational independence.
With the move to for-profit management several years ago, that position has been difficult to maintain.
More evidence that DOE is not in agreement with the county on the for profit
model. I strongly urge the NNSA and DOE not to by swayed by theshort sighted and highly self-serving points made by the Los Alamos county.
http://www.ladailypost.com/content/review-annual-report-doe-national-laboratories
Munoz was also asked how his efforts to improve the relationship between DOE and the laboratories might impact the nature of the new contract at LANL when it is put out for bid in the next year or so.
While unable to speak for the next administration, Moniz said that DOE currently places “a much stronger emphasis on a fixed fee as opposed to a performance fee.” The question goes to a conflict between for-profit and non-profit management. The revised policy tends to reduce that dichotomy. “The idea isto capturemuch more of the public service model of laboratory operations.”
A few years back, former Associate Deputy Energy Secretary Bruce Held explained the rationale behind such a change, when he recommended modest fixed fees with smaller performance incentives for the contractor.
"What motivates the people at the national laboratories is excellence in science and bringing excellence in science to the interest of the nation,” Held said in an article in Global Security Newswire, May 14, 2014. “They're not motivated by profit incentives."
"So if I have a choice between a dollar of fee for the … contractor that runs it, or a dollar in lab-directed research and development and I want to motivate scientific excellence, I'd go with the dollar in lab-directed research and development,” he said.
More
http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/PT.3.3103
Robert Kuckuck, who was the last director of LANL under the previous not-for-profit contract run by UC, says the interests of the private sector and the university were not aligned in LANS. “What I saw at Los Alamos was that industry did not send its A team in to the lab. Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, was the culture difference. None of the industry people I watched come in had any career visions in their mind with respect to the laboratory. They were coming in to fix this terrible problem; they knew how to do it and they were going to do it.”
Yesterday some people talking about the town said it is clear that the county now has so much money they really don't even know how to spend it. Los Alamos has the lowest crime rate in the the state which was true before the contract change when it was non-profit but after the contract change with the extra tax money the town now has one of the largest and nicest jails in any county in the state. You can guess that almost every cell is empty and the accommodations are nicer than the Holiday Inn. I suppose this improves the quality of life for the very small number of criminals in the town but other than that it seems like a colossal waste of money.
The Los Alamos detention center is NOWHERE near the largest in the state. It can house 26 adult inmates. In comparison, Rio Arriba's detention center houses 140. Bernalillo houses 2,236. The Los Alamos jail is actually one of the smallest in the state. In fact, of all the counties in NM, only Catron has a smaller jail.
There are 7 cities in NM with a lower crime rate than Los Alamos.
Accuracy matters. Spend 5 minutes on a Web search to make sure you actually know what you're talking about.
Leave it to someone on the LA council to try to make up a justification for such massive public waste of funds as 26 inmates housed at a construction cost of how much, 26 million??
There are 7 cities in NM with a lower crime rate than Los Alamos.
You need to factor in the size of these "cities" in terms of populations. Once you do that than
Los Alamos is far below everyone else. By the way thanks for pointing out that it has houses
only 26 inmates from looking at Justice center and police building from the outside it seems like it could house 500. So what you are saying is that the jail portion is far far smaller than the rest of the justice/police complex? So what the hell is in that thing that it needs to be so darn large for such a small town with so little crime. Its looks like it must be 50000 square feet for gods sake.
For comparison Rio Arriba has a population of 40k, Los Alamos has 17k. The crime rate is just how should I say it, a tad bit higher in Rio Arriba, remember that 5 person murder spree back in June?
Here a question for you, how many jail cells did Los Alamos have before 2006? What was the crime rate before 2006 and after 2006. This may give you some hint that the extra tax money is not really needed. You are indeed right accuracy matters.
"There are 7 cities in NM with a lower crime rate than Los Alamos."
Do you actually think these are cities? Really?
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/nm/crime
So here is that list of those 7 "CITIES" that poster said are safer than Los Alamos. Ya sure these are cities.
Reserve
Reserve is a tiny village located in the state of New Mexico. With a population of 272 people and
Virden
Virden is a tiny village located in the state of New Mexico. With a population of 137 people and just one neighborhood,
Ribera
Ribera is a small unincorporated community, 399 peeple
Pecos
Pecos is a very small village located in the state of New Mexico. With a population of 1,324
Questa
Questa is a very small village located in the state of New Mexico. With a population of 1,753 pe
Jemez Springs
With a population of 253 people and just one neighborhood,
Texico
With a population of 1,119 people
Los Alamos
With a population of 11,840 people
Considering the population of Los Alamos almost four times larger than these 7 other "cities" combined I think it is ok to say that Los Alamos is the safest town in New Mexico.
Do you even know what "rate" means? Yeah, didn't think so.
Hint, rate is independent of population, it is the number of crimes DIVIDED by population.
The Los Alamos jail has never been disproportionately large and it still isn't. Sorry, but you lied when you said it is one of the state's largest.
You're trying to climb out of the hole you've dug for yourself by spewing more shit and attempting to stand on it. You're just sinking in more and more but you're too crazy to recognize it.
The building is too large and too expensive, no matter how many cells are in it or if the county is dead last or nearly dead last in the state in crime. The county was forced to seek creative projects to spend the windfall of money from the lab contract change and most of that money was squandered on items that were neither needed nor contributed in any meaningful way to the quality of the average county resident.
Happy now?
but you're too crazy to recognize it.
Not crazy enough to say a "city" has 170 people in it.
"Hint, rate is independent of population, it is the number of crimes DIVIDED by population."
When the population is that small the "rate" or any other number related to crime becomes almost meaningless and that is why your point that there are 7 "cities" with lower crime rates than
Los Alamos is utterly ridiculous. If you had any knowledge of math you would know this, which either means you are not that bright or just dishonest or course both cases could be true. The amount of crime in Los Alamos simply does not justify the money that has been spent and argues that the extra tax money the county has been getting is simply not needed so the county should not be asking for the lab to stay "for profit" nor should it be asking for "extra payments" if it becomes non profit. If people like you are on the city counsel it is now wonder the money is spent so badly as math does not appear to be your thing.
Again I will ask this question, what was the crime rate before 2006, lets say between 1995-2005, compared to say 2006-2016. If these numbers are the same which I am sure they are than that would argue that the huge amount of money spent on the justice center was not needed.
Ok, now you will reply that this is all blather so you cannot respond. Come on give it shot, you tried with the 7 cities and I admit I was wrong about the number of jail cells being only 26. How about this question: how many cells are ever in use by Los Alamos, I have heard it is only 5 which seems like we could have saved some money with less cells. How many cells did we have before 2006.
Ok and how about the new county building nicknamed the Taj Mahal by the town residents. The thing is just crazy for the size of Los Alamos. It has got to be biggest county office building in the state for any county in NM or even the United States with less the 60-50000 residents. What is the value added in having such a thing? It is clear the county has to think of increasingly crazy ways to spend this much money. Maybe we have second Olympic sized swimming pool or the worlds largest
liquid mercury reflecting pool? In short the the county should have minimal influence on contract change and DOE should not take what they say seriously.
Who are YOU to claim I don't know math? YOU didn't even know what a rate is, witnessed by your first nonsense-filled post.
Listen up, having a smaller population than Los Alamos doesn't render crime statistics meaningless. That's a flat lie. You need to look at long-term data to see if the statistic is reliable. That holds even for a city with the population of Los Alamos.
You obviously didn't know that. You have just exposed yourself as a pretender.
I'm not going to look up ANYTHING for you, you pretender. Like ever. If you want to make an argument, YOU have to look up the data yourself. Otherwise, you're just blathering. You didn't even know that asking someone to look up data that you are speculating about is pure blather, did you?
You were caught in a pants-on-fire lie when you claimed the Los Alamos jail to be one of the state's largest. Why should we believe you when you say
"It has got to be biggest county office building in the state for any county in NM or even the United States with less the 60-50000 residents (sic)."
Do you know why I added "(sic)"?
August 1, 2017 at 9:00 PM
You sound like you getting a bit desperate. Just try and reply to the points
rather than deflect.
"Listen up, having a smaller population than Los Alamos doesn't render crime statistics meaningless. That's a flat lie. You need to look at long-term data to see if the statistic is reliable. That holds even for a city with the population of Los Alamos."
Ah, no. In a "town" with 200-300 people you you would need 600-400 years just to compare to a 10 year period in Los Alamos, which is just absurd on the face of it since you do not have that kind of data and even if you did you would run into all sorts of issues with stationarity. These small numbers are also going to be dominated by rare events so comparing Los Alamos to these much smaller towns is practically meaningless unless you have long times or very large populations however you have neither. We wont even mention that at 200 people the social dynamics can actually be very different since you are approaching the size in which most people know each very well which can lower the amount of crime. The bottom line is that saying Los Alamos has a higher crime rate than 7 other tiny towns is utterly meaningless. The point that Los Alamos has an extremely low crime rate and could be considered the town with lowest crime rate in NM if one reasonably considers anything that actually constitutes a town as having a population over 3000 people.
"You obviously didn't know that. You have just exposed yourself as a pretender."
Just out of curiosity what does that mean and how would it be relevant to the points that have been raised.
"having a smaller population than Los Alamos doesn't render crime statistics meaningless. That's a flat lie." Actually if anyone is a likely pretender it is you since you just used very odd term that is simply not used anyone with knowledge of statistics or who is practicing statistics which is "that's a flat lie" or more precisely the word "lie". Lie is not a word statisticians ever use which is for obvious reasons ;)
I am still sticking to the claim that you don't know any math.
"The county also complained that the draft RFP made no mention of a statutory requirement that the Los Alamos prime contractor provide millions of dollars in financial aid to the Los Alamos Public Schools."
I am tired of the government paying for Los Alamos Public Schools. Property taxes fund most other schools. Why does this place gave to be any different?
August 2, 2017 4:13 AM
"Property taxes fund most other schools. Why does this place gave to be any different?"
In New Mexico, the state government funds public schools. Property taxes can not be used for operating budget, including in particular, teacher salaries. Does that answer your question?
You didn't use 10 years of data for Los Alamos. Strike three, you're out.
So why did you choose a population of 200 when there are cities larger than that with a lower crime rate than Los Alamos? Did you look up the long term data? Yeah, didn't think so.
Trying to mislead much, crazy person?
"You didn't use 10 years of data for Los Alamos. Strike three, you're out.
So why did you choose a population of 200 when there are cities larger than that with a lower crime rate than Los Alamos? Did you look up the long term data? Yeah, didn't think so.
Trying to mislead much, crazy person?"
What? What are talking about? 10 years is a reasonable time frame to get an idea of the crime rate for a town 20k as it is long enough to get reasonable statistics yet short enough to avoid extraneous societal changes. I chose 300 because 4 of the 7
"cities" you listed have around 200-300 people including the #1 ranked, so how is that misleading. The largest "city" you mentioned has around 1000 people, which means you need about 130 years of statistics to compare to Los Alamos for a 10 year period New Mexico was not even a state that long ago and this is a hint for you so just think about ok, (there is kind of problem with long term data as things "change"). Now please think about this and you just might understand it. If you do not understand that wait a bit longer and think some more, repeat until you get it.
Now lest us return the to main point which is the amount of crime is low enough in Los Alamos that the extraneous money spent such large facilities is not well spent
and will have little impact. The even bigger picture is that Los Almaos county simply does not need the large amount of extra tax money or additional perks from LANL and everyone knows this including the county and city counsel members.
This heated debate is fun to follow, but the discussion here gets off track way too easily. It's not really that important whether there is a village somewhere in New Mexico which had fewer crimes per inhabitant in the last ten years, is it? What is important is this: should the county be getting some money from DOE in one form or another (via GRT or otherwise)? If yes, precisely how much? And has it used the windfall of the last 12 years wisely?
I recall that 15 years ago the town was full of old, dilapidated structures. I remember having to visit the utilities department on Trinity, it was quite depressing. Today, the town looks neater and more modern. The buses are great, my kids have relied on them to go to their afterschool programs for years. The school buildings used to be absolutely awful, and now they are better; I understand that some money for the renovations came from the County. So I think there's definitely been some positive impact of the LANL GRT tax on the quality of life in Los Alamos.
Now, did we really need such a grand Taj Mahal? I doubt it. What about the judicial complex? I understand they are so empty that they "invite" to house suspects from adjacent counties. Did we really need that in town?
To make a credible and impactful statement, the county should've made an earnest effort to assess how much money they actually needed. The aim should be to keep the town livable and the infrastructure in good shape and working order. But no palaces please.
LISTEN UP, crazy person. You DID NOT use 10 years of data from Los Alamos to make your unsupported statement that Los Alamos has the lowest crime rate in the state. STOP CLAIMING THAT YOU DID BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST LYING.
Now, a math lesson for the crazy pretender. What is the BEST estimate for the crime rate for these two cases?
1) A city of 10,000 with 100 crimes in a year.
2) A city of 1000 with 10 crimes in a year.
I know you are incapable of doing this because, well... because you're crazy, so here is the answer;
both have the exact same best estimate, .01 per capita. The only difference is that the confidence interval is tighter for the larger city. How much tighter? HINT, it's not a factor of 10. It's nowhere near a factor of 10.
You know what this means, don't you, you pretender? It means if the smaller city has a lower crime rate, like 0.05, YOU WON'T NEED A FACTOR OF 10 MORE YEARS OF DATA BEFORE YOU CAN BE QUITE CONFIDENT THAT THE SMALLER CITY HAS A LOWER CRIME RATE.
You don't know anything about statistics because your post was pure bullshit. You're not fooling anybody.
Meant .005, not .05
Now, a math lesson for the crazy pretender. What is the BEST estimate for the crime rate for these two cases?
1) A city of 10,000 with 100 crimes in a year.
2) A city of 1000 with 10 crimes in a year.
Pal, statistics is not your strong suit. Certainly the city with 10,000 is better but in either case 1 year of data in any town less than 100,000 is probably not trust worthy. As for the whole confidence level stuff are you assuming Gaussian statistics? It is not clear that such distributions are valid and
in towns with either 200 or 1000 people could well be dominated by rare events, so again the saying the crime rate in the cities with 300 people compared to Los Alamos is meaningless.
"0.05, YOU WON'T NEED A FACTOR OF 10 MORE YEARS OF DATA BEFORE YOU CAN BE QUITE CONFIDENT THAT THE SMALLER CITY HAS A LOWER CRIME RATE."
Bullshit, you are making some pretty big assumptions about the underlying distributions for this to be true. To be fair this is why so many predictions using even much larger data sets get it wrong and also why many "3-sigma" events end up
be nothing more than noise. Even LTCM got into hot water for this.
You also seem to be missing another problem which is related to the large number
small tows. Now we know that Los Alamos has a low crime rate, now imagine we have hundreds of smaller towns all which have a slightly higher crime rates than Los Alamos provided you waited long enough to get a true convergence on you distribution. Now in any one year just by fluctuations a large number of these towns will have a lower crime rate than Los Alamos even though the long time crime rate average is higher for all the smaller towns. Now suppose you average for even longer for say 10-20 years well even in that case you if you have a large enough number of small towns you are still going to get a number that give lower crime rate than Los Almaos. So saying 7 towns which are 10-50 times smaller than Los Alamos have lower crime rates is simply not meaningful for the time scale that these statics are taken.
"You don't know anything about statistics because your post was pure bullshit. You're not fooling anybody."
Just out of curiosity I am still trying to figure out what you mean by a "pretender". What am I pretending to be? I will give you that my writing is not the best, but why do you say I am crazy? You cannot claim I am crazy because I have bad grammar since totally insane people could have perfect grammar while completely sane people could have bad grammar.
"LISTEN UP, crazy person. You DID NOT use 10 years of data from Los Alamos to make your unsupported statement that Los Alamos has the lowest crime rate in the state. STOP CLAIMING THAT YOU DID BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST LYING. "
I don't recall lying. Could you please tell how many years of data I did mean? Heck I am not even sure 10 years is good enough since if the number crimes is so low even a 10 year interval may by not a good number. Again a one year crime average is not going to give you much of anything for a small town with a low crime. This is rather problematic for certain things like violent crimes. Suppose you have a murder every 12.5 years how on earth would you be even able to get such a statistics unless you have 50 years of data. Even than you will have population fluctuations, change in demographics, economic downturns and so on which come into play when you use longer time averages.
By the way you come across as a bit unhinged when you use all caps to call someone crazy and liar.
August 2, 2017 at 6:48 PM
You have made some very good points that you feel that there has been improvements
to the town during the last 12 years due to the money. Let me ask you this, if the town continued to keep getting the same amount of money do you think that they would double the number improvements during the next 12 years or have they already done everything they can reasonably do. Would the same amount of money be necessary to maintain what they have already improved or would a much lower amount.
Now somewhat related, has the quality of working conditions at LANL improved in the last 12 years, has the lab moral increased or dropped, has the ability to get work done improved, can the lab still attract the best people and so on. There is a strong consensus that all these things have declined including the ability of LANL to do its job and as pointed out in previous posts many people at LANL, NNSA and DOE believe this is due to the current for profit nature of LANL.
LANL serves the entire nation of 300 million people and ultimately DOE needs to base the decision for the next contract on what will be best for LANL and people of the United States not just what might add a few more improvements for town of 15k that already has way more than most towns of a comparable size.
As I mentioned, the County failed to present a serious analysis of their fiscal needs. They should be asking themselves precisely your question: suppose you got X number of dollars over the next dozen years, what would you do with it?
There is indeed agreement that the quality of working conditions at LANL declined significantly over the last dozen years. The "profit nature" may be a contributing factor to this. However, you need to dissect this deeper. It does not appear that paying GRT to the county and the state per se was the reason for the deterioration of LANL. Nor was paying a larger fee to UC, which was reinvested in collaborative science projects. But the overall terms of the contract were very harmful. For example, Bechtel was allowed to use the lab for parking their C- and D- level managers, in between assignments. Instead of bringing "best practices", they brought incompetence, neglect, or worse. Simultaneously, a number of very bad actors from pre-LANS days were allowed to advance into high management positions and reigned unchecked, destroying a lot of the science base in the process. The way the contract had been written and the way performance was evaluated allowed this to fester for 12 years.
Can the new contract curtail these negative trends? I don't know, I can only hope. But one can probably have a good management team and give adequate support to the local and state governments. Again, what constitutes "adequate" here, the County hasn't told us.
Simultaneously, a number of very bad actors from pre-LANS days were allowed to advance into high management positions and reigned unchecked, destroying a lot of the science base in the process.
August 3, 2017 at 12:06 AM
And that is, by far, the most damaging long-term consequence of LANS. While other items can be recovered from, given enough time, the destruction reigned upon the science base by the UC era holdovers in high management is permanent.
Crazy person, you're just making stupid shit up. By claiming that "1 year of data in any town less than 100,000 is probably not trust worthy(sic)" you just argued against your own conclusion about Los Alamos having the lowest crime rate in New Mexico. STUPID!
Why? Because if you need that many people to get trustworthy results, Los Alamos' crime rate would fluctuate wildly from one year to the next. Wouldn't it? Some years your claim might be right and others not. If your phony 100,000 number was correct, you wouldn't know if your claim is "trustworty" until you examined 10 years of data, WHICH YOU DID NOT DO."
As for the rest of your posts - too nutty, stopped reading.
12:06 AM is spot-on; paying GRT was a minor factor in the decline of LANL. A few-percent factor, as the total GRT paid was just a few percent of LANL's budget, something like 4%.
Only a crazy person would fixate on few percent factors to explain a 100% problem.
Crazy person, you're just making stupid shit up. By claiming that "1 year of data in any town less than 100,000 is probably not trust worthy(sic)" you just argued against your own conclusion about Los Alamos having the lowest crime rate in New Mexico. STUPID!
To be clear I always assumed 10 years of data. That seems like pretty reasonable number that one would use particularly for such a small town. The crime rate does not have to fluctuate from one year to the next, it could be low for five year period and than be high for one year and if population is small these kind of fluctuations will be very important.
Dear 8:34 AM overall I simply cannot make sense of what you are saying. Have is it ever occurred to you that you might be the one that sounds a bit "nutty"?
You Can't make sense because you at mentally ill. Get help.
You ASSUMED data? ASSUMED?????
You aren't fooling anyone.
You Can't make sense because you at mentally ill. Get help.
August 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM
Dude, seriously, you are the only one coming across as a bit off. I am guessing that you are also the "I hate LANL and UC" and "I hate scientists" troll so calling someone else mentally is rather rich coming from you.
You ASSUMED data? ASSUMED?????
You aren't fooling anyone.
August 3, 2017 at 11:43 AM
What are talking about?
I simply assumed that any crime rate data that one could obtain would probably be for a 10 year period. Again this is a reasonable assumption particularly for small towns.
Why would I try to be fooling anyone? What the heck is your point anyway with all caps?
SHUT IT DOWN, EVIL!
It always dissolves into this.....
I seem to recall that the county has also spent sizable amounts of money on various studies on... you guessed how to the spend money. I think they also spent 200k or more to come with a new town logo. I forgot what the logo was but it was so bad they scrapped it. Was it something like "live exponentially" or "live like a logarithm"? If you have enough money to do endless studies it might be saying that you have too much money.
Post a Comment