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...
Comments
I wish they would explain some of this stuff in their papers.
You can argue about whether it has been cost effective (although where else was some of that incremental knowledge to be gleaned?)
You can argue about whether the facility and its mission have been hyped (like that never happens elsewhere).
But I for one am weary of the “meaningless” label. Seriously...if you aren’t a fan, fine, but unless you also happen to work there, I think “meaningless” is not your call to make.
Tell me how is it fair for that some people get to play in a sandbox for tiny incremental results while others have to do real work that is not fun that they do not want to do but actually needs to be done. Tell me that will you. Your argument about incremental progress is weak, if it does no pay off down the road than it was just incremental progress to nowhere. Even if it does partially pay off it is still unfair to all the other workers who do get to play in sandboxes. The other issue is that the sandboxes think they deserve to play in a sandbox and that it is valuable, this is in general the issue with all of scientists. The reality is only 1/100 scientists contribute anything of value to the world, ask yourself how percentage of scientists get a Noble prize, very few. Even in that case it sometimes for something useless like the universe accelerating very fast or that gravity waves exists. Ya gravity waves will lead to a better smart phone or maintaining the stockpile. Science is like art, you have a small number of De Vincis, Picassoes but the rest are useless but act like they De Vinci or Picassoe.
On the other hand 1/1 real workers create actual value to the world everyday without Nobel prizes. Perhaps I am being a bit harsh but consider that UC just won the LANL contract again, from what I can tell the only thing of value they added was science to the lab, yet LANL is full of problems. We have let sandboxes win again. Why should Bechtel be punished by sandboxes? Bechtel actually did something real for the world, it built dams, rebuilt Iraq, made highways, built whole cities from the ground up, compare that to UC and you will see why so many people are so angry. How did it come to this how did society bless the idea of sandboxing as a great thing?
Unless you are a taxpayer
June 22, 2018 at 7:47 PM
7:47 brings up an interesting point; the Phys Rev Lett announcing this achievement is NOT open access and is NOT freely available to the American public. This is in direct opposition to the established principle that publicly funded research results must be available without charge to the American taxpayers who are footing the bills. All reputable institutions support open access, and gladly provide the small surcharge for it. Under US Law, this surcharge is an allowable expense. That the NIF researchers were too lazy to take the few minutes to take this step to make their results freely available the Americans supporting their work speaks loads about their professionalism.
The anti-scientist guy is back, who identifies himself exclusively by use of "Ya" when everyone else in the country uses "yeah." No need to read his long and mostly incoherent post; he hasn't changed. Still the bitter passed-over loser who thinks if you can't win a Nobel Prize you are worthless as a scientist.
There is no argument. It has not been cost effective.
“You can argue about whether the facility and its mission have been hyped (like that never happens elsewhere).”
There is no argument. It has obviously been hyped.
“But I for one am weary of the ‘meaningless’ label. Seriously...if you aren’t a fan, fine, but unless you also happen to work there, I think ‘meaningless’ is not your call to make.”
It depends on what is meant by “meaningless.” Meaningful to the general taxpayer? Meaningful to sponsoring programs? Meaningful to the understanding of HEP? To the taxpayer, not obviously. But then again, to the taxpayer, neither is LIGO. To sponsoring programs, I think it is highly questionable but they keep paying for it. To the HEP field? Time will tell as to the depth of meaning of the accomplishments. It’s a bit too early to call.
However, because of the first two issues above - and particularly the hype one - the meaningfulness of any accomplishments are clouded.
And as for the anti-science troll, he is best ignored. He does not make reasoned arguments, but emotional ones tied to his narcissistic desire for some sort of revenge. He’s obviously also the same guy that was screeching “BECHTEL IS GOING TO WIN!” He needs a good therapist to help him move on with his life.
UC was originally the sole manager of LANL, but UC did a such a poor job in their last ~10 years that UC got fired.
Then UC was rehired as the lead of LANS, a two party LLC with Bechtel. UC lost a small amount of scope but retained control. LANS did an absolutely terrible job and was fired. DOE/NNSA must have thought that Bechtel could help UC improve their inept management, but DOE/NNSA was completely wrong.
Now UC is a member of a three party LLC, with Battelle in charge.
DOE/NNSA has demoted UC to a support role. Maybe UC can now concentrate on the things they actually do well leaving the things they do poorly at to other, more capable managers. Of course, things won't be a bit better at LANL if Battelle leaves the incompetent UC management in place.
DOE/NNSA has demoted UC to a support role. Maybe UC can now concentrate on the things they actually do well leaving the things they do poorly at to other, more capable managers. Of course, things won't be a bit better at LANL if Battelle leaves the incompetent UC management in place.
June 24, 2018 at 10:41 AM
Bitter much? Look UC did a great job that is why DOE wants them back. I don't know your what your personal issue is with UC but you are not very rational about it. Also Battelle is not in charge it is three equal teams, this has been stated very very clearly. I would guess that UC will now have much more input in running LANL than it did with LANS. By the way I have a bit of inside baseball on this and what happed in the last 10 years. Look UC won, get over it and move on with your life. Have a nice day ;)
1. LANL was changing contractors, as evidenced by DOE/NNSA putting out a bid.
2. UC wanted to retain its affiliation with LANL, as demonstrated by its membership in a bidding team.
3. The team of which UC was a part won the bid, thereby retaining UC's affiliation with LANL.
Within the parameters of the problem statement, it thus seems fair to say that UC won.
Or even more simply, Triad won, so each of its constituent team members won something, which was the point of their bidding.
UC was part of bid that won, so UC won. Clear now?