This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Sunday, July 7, 2019
Does Battelle need UC?
The Triad partnership. Does Battelle need UC?
37 comments:
Anonymous
said...
No, but apparently UC needs Battelle. UC has been an extraordinarily weak participant since Dynes put Nanos in charge of the ship. We may never fully recover.
No, but apparently UC needs Battelle. UC has been an extraordinarily weak participant since Dynes put Nanos in charge of the ship. We may never fully recover.
7/07/2019 10:01 AM
I agree that Battelle may not need UC, however Nanos was never a UC pick, DOE wanted Nanos and said that they better put him in or they would throw out UC on the spot. The inside information was that UC hated Nanos which makes sense. DOE however was in love with him because they wanted to punish LANL just because they are sick and sadistic
DOE however was in love with him because they wanted to punish LANL just because they are sick and sadistic
7/07/2019 4:13 PM
Wrong, DOE was put in a very bad light by LANL and UC in Congress, such that they lost control (to NNSA) of the labs, which shamed UC deeply (not many people understand how deeply for some UC faculty and regents). DOE was acting in their own best administrative interests in order to keep control of the non-NWC labs.
Wrong, DOE was put in a very bad light by LANL and UC in Congress, such that they lost control (to NNSA) of the labs, which shamed UC deeply (not many people understand how deeply for some UC faculty and regents). DOE was acting in their own best administrative interests in order to keep control of the non-NWC labs.
7/07/2019 6:09 PM
I am pretty sure that you have completely wrong. The whole thing was driven by the DOE, if you recall Bill Richardson was the head of DOE at the time off WHL. For obvious political reasons Richardson was a prime candidate for president after Bill Clinton and even after, the idea was that he would win the hispanic vote. When WHL hit it everyone wanted a piece of it, the republicans to get rid of Richardson as well as the Gore who wanted to be the number one guy. Richardson himself threw LANL under the bus as fast as he could to promote himself and being the head of DOE he set the tone. UC did nothing wrong and everybody knew it but the political powers at the time saw blood in the water. After Bush got it there was a huge push to privatize everything for a buck and LANL was perfect. As for UC most faculty and the regents felt so insulted that they could be treated like this that they wanted to just dump LANL but several people in Congress told them to stay on and that it would be the right thing to do. In there end UC was never shamed nor should be, Richardson on the other hand went down in flames, his DOE scum buddies also went down and NNSA came in. UC never did anything wrong, in fact DOE was so utterly shamed by this that they insisted on keeping UC up to this point.
You have some real issues with UC. The big mistake with UC is that they did not play hardball with DOE and call them on their BS during the WHL and culture of theft allegations. Of course DOE might have used that as an excuse to shove UC out. Rumor was that there was some rational people at DOE that told UC to hang in there. UC should have also stood behind Brown more and said no to Nanos but again DOE would have just used that against them.
No I don't. UC provides me with a 6 figure pension that I am living very comfortably with. I love UC; I just think they caved to DOE and to Domenici when they didn't have to. So I had to suffer a final year with LANS before I pulled the plug. Oh well.
" love UC; I just think they caved to DOE and to Domenici when they didn't have to."
That has always been my question, did they need to cave or not. I think UC should have just said this is how it is going be or they walk. UC does not need LANL or LLNL.
UC always thought they needed LANL and LLNL, since the late 1940's (even before LLNL), and for good reason. They were proud of their national service. And should still be.
"Either way I believe UC is in a weak position if Battelle does well under Triad.
7/09/2019 9:07 PM"
So let me get this straight. If TRIAD does well it will make UC look bad, ok so if TRIAD does badly than UC will still look bad. Dude your issues with UC have made you a bit unhinged. UC won, get over it.
I have no personal issue with UC. I’m pragmatically looking at this based on the topic of the blog. How does UC differentiate itself from Battelle in the value it brings to the government. Battelle doesn’t need UC now that it is a Prime contract partner for LANL. Many have asked over the years, even before the for profit model, what value does UC provide to LANL. I don’t see many post grads from the UC system anymore. I have rarely ever seen any management, direction, or vision coming from UC in the past 30 years.
My question to you is why do you have a knee jerk reaction to defend UC?
"Many have asked over the years, even before the for profit model, what value does UC provide to LANL. I don’t see many post grads from the UC system anymore. I have rarely ever seen any management, direction, or vision coming from UC in the past 30 years."
It is true that LANL gets very few postdocs from UC anymore as opposed to the old days. You could make an argument that this was an asset to the lab. 20 years ago 25-30% of the postdocs came from the top 15-25 Universities in the US, now this is down to 2-3%. Even at the mid-teir the quality of the schools where the postdocs come from is way down from what it once was so so few people from a UC school would be going to LANL anyway. As LANL has moved away from a science based lab to whatever it is today you can make argument that any kind of university is no longer needed in management. After all was the University of Colorado running Rocky Flats?
Given the high standards of the UC schools and the difficulty in getting in, I would not expect a Ph.D from there to take a job at the labs. There are just too many other options out there, including startups with exciting work. Also, a young ambitious person is not going to want to work for a 60-70 year old baby boomer when he can work with people of his own age group with similar ambitions and background.
"Hey Dude, there are plenty of PhDs from Podunk U. out there who can qualify as lube-gun designers at Jiffy Lube National Laboratory.
7/17/2019 3:58 PM"
Sadly you are right about this. There is a report at LANL that showed the distribution of the new hires in terms of where they got their Phd's from and there is a clear shift away from top and even middle tier schools. In 1995 something like 20% came form the top 10 schools, not it is like 2-3%, there is almost no one coming from UCB, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Harvard, Princeton, Chicago, Yale, Cornell, Columbia ect. Even at the next levels the numbers are dwindling. Ah who cares anyway.
I better question is does UC need Battelle? Since UC ran the labs well for 60 years, survived the 2000s nonsense I would say that UC is very capable of going it alone. Sure it is nice to have Battelle around but UC due to its legacy is the driver.
The poster 7/17/2019 10:47 PM who always uses the lame "Phd" instead of he proper "Ph.D." has lost all credibility on any issue relating to scientists' credentials. He has no credentials and despises anyone who does. His latest trope says "There is a report that.." but no reference, no citation, no link. He just generates garbage to support his hatred of people who achieved more scholastically and professionally than he was able to do.
The data is clear. UC believes they need Battelle. Why would they partner with them when they perform the same function. It wasn't to take them off the table. Nobody was reaching out to Batelle.
LANL science is in its death throes. Everyone who isn't at LANL can see it. Why would talent come to LANL? What is the draw? Sexy nuclear weapons? The wonderful countryside? The numerous things to do and freedom to travel? The friendly and accepting workforce? Furthermore the decadence is clear. EVERYONE got rich off the new contract. The city, the state, the employees. You can say otherwise and then compare your salaries to people in Silicon Valley but hopefully you can see the logical fallacy. Hopefully...
"The poster 7/17/2019 10:47 PM who always uses the lame "Phd" instead of he proper "Ph.D." has lost all credibility on any issue relating to scientists' credentials. He has no credentials and despises anyone who does. His latest trope says "There is a report that.." but no reference, no citation, no link. He just generates garbage to support his hatred of people who achieved more scholastically and professionally than he was able to do.
7/18/2019 5:32 PM"
I think the 10:47 poster is implying the exact opposite of what you are saying. I think the poster is concerned that quality of scientific workforce is decreasing, which is sorta against your argument that the poster would hate people who achieved more scholastically and professionally.
"The poster 7/17/2019 10:47 PM who always uses the lame "Phd" instead of he proper "Ph.D." has lost all credibility on any issue relating to scientists' credentials. He has no credentials and despises anyone who does."
I am just curious how would the poster or any poster on an anonymous blog could prove credibility on a issue relating to scientists? Perhaps the poster has no credibility but neither do you.
Your point about Ph.D versus Phd in my experience carries no weight as I have never heard a Phd ever care about or even mention this. Yes it is the proper use formal written things like a CV or grant proposal, but for everything else it is just fine Phd PHD, or PhD and I cannot imagine any credible scientist would care about the proper using on a blog. This is a very odd point to bring up and If anything makes you look less credible as I am sure I know more...way more...way way more Phd's than you, and not one of them would care about this. Are you one of those people that has to put Ph.D in their sig file? Hint it is not a good sign if you do.
By the way are you the same guy who went on about being the top student in your graduate school? Again this is very odd since I have never heard of any university having a formal ranking of their graduate students, at least not in science.
I know this is all a bunch of frivolous points but you started it, but hey it is a blog so have fun. You could try and address the actual points rather than just insult the other posters.
I believe the 5:32 PM poster is a guy who always presumes to know the background and thinking of any poster he disagrees with. This is anonymous, he just can’t know. Sorry. Oh, I guess his response to me would be “you’re a bitter, laid of LANL employee who worked there 12 years ago and has out of date Information. You’re just bitter because you never measured up academically...” None of this would be true in my case (I’m not a LANL person at all) but go ahead.
"The 10:47 poster is not "concerned that quality of scientific workforce is decreasing," he is trying to convince everyone that it is true. It isn't.
7/19/2019 5:51 PM"
Seriously? This is very easy to check and yes it has been decreasing for the last 15 years at least.
"you’re a bitter, laid of LANL employee who worked there 12 years ago and has out of date Information." Perhaps that is the case but who knows however it is pretty clear that you really have no idea what has been going at LANL for some time. Do we really need to go through all the numbers yet again? All this has been posted on the blog over and over again, and you simply ignore it or forget it. Ok just for once why don't you provide some information to back up your positions for a change?
"The poster 7/17/2019 10:47 PM who always uses the lame "Phd" instead of he proper "Ph.D." has lost all credibility on any issue relating to scientists' credentials. He has no credentials and despises anyone who does. 7/18/2019 5:32 PM"
There are only two types of Doctoral degreed Engineers and Scientists at LLNL and LANL; those who sign their emails with Ph.D., and those who don't.
Those who don't are the real ones. The others are poseurs who can't do any real work. However the people who refer to "Phds" are non-credentialed, unaccomplished, passed-over bitter people.
You know who else insist on being called a Ph.d...Glenn Walp. PhD Walden University. I cannot seem to find any publications or citations from this scholar, not to mention that I have never heard of Walden University, but he appears to be very uptight about being called a Ph.D. Does anyone know what on earth is Walden University? I have looked it up online and the descriptions are not kind to say the least.
No one I know who was contemporary and familiar with Walp and Duran will be speaking up in support of them. They were way over their heads in the UC/LANL environment and considered themselves tough cops (their former selves), instead of Security Inquiry professionals, which they were hired as but had no clue about.
37 comments:
No, but apparently UC needs Battelle. UC has been an extraordinarily weak participant since Dynes put Nanos in charge of the ship. We may never fully recover.
No, but apparently UC needs Battelle. UC has been an extraordinarily weak participant since Dynes put Nanos in charge of the ship. We may never fully recover.
7/07/2019 10:01 AM
I agree that Battelle may not need UC, however Nanos was never a UC pick, DOE wanted Nanos and said that they better put him in or they would throw out UC on the spot. The inside information was that UC hated Nanos which makes sense. DOE however was in love with him because they wanted to punish LANL just because they are sick and sadistic
DOE however was in love with him because they wanted to punish LANL just because they are sick and sadistic
7/07/2019 4:13 PM
Wrong, DOE was put in a very bad light by LANL and UC in Congress, such that they lost control (to NNSA) of the labs, which shamed UC deeply (not many people understand how deeply for some UC faculty and regents). DOE was acting in their own best administrative interests in order to keep control of the non-NWC labs.
Wrong, DOE was put in a very bad light by LANL and UC in Congress, such that they lost control (to NNSA) of the labs, which shamed UC deeply (not many people understand how deeply for some UC faculty and regents). DOE was acting in their own best administrative interests in order to keep control of the non-NWC labs.
7/07/2019 6:09 PM
I am pretty sure that you have completely wrong. The whole thing was driven by the DOE, if you recall Bill Richardson was the head of DOE at the time off WHL. For obvious political reasons Richardson was a prime candidate for president after Bill Clinton and even after, the idea was that he would win the hispanic vote. When WHL hit it everyone wanted a piece of it, the republicans to get rid of Richardson as well as the Gore who wanted to be the number one guy. Richardson himself threw LANL under the bus as fast as he could to promote himself and being the head of DOE he set the tone. UC did nothing wrong and everybody knew it but the political powers at the time saw blood in the water. After Bush got it there was a huge push to privatize everything for a buck and LANL was perfect. As for UC most faculty and the regents felt so insulted that they could be treated like this that they wanted to just dump LANL but several people in Congress told them to stay on and that it would be the right thing to do. In there end UC was never shamed nor should be, Richardson on the other hand went down in flames, his DOE scum buddies also went down and NNSA came in. UC never did anything wrong, in fact DOE was so utterly shamed by this that they insisted on keeping UC up to this point.
Well, it is certainly true that on their worst day, UC looks far better than the DOE bureaucrats in Washington.
7/07/2019 6:09 PM
You have some real issues with UC. The big mistake with UC is that they did not play hardball with DOE and call them on their BS during the WHL and culture of theft allegations. Of course DOE might have used that as an excuse to shove UC out. Rumor was that there was some rational people at DOE that told UC to hang in there. UC should have also stood behind Brown more and said no to Nanos but again DOE would have just used that against them.
You have some real issues with UC.
7/09/2019 2:10 AM
No I don't. UC provides me with a 6 figure pension that I am living very comfortably with. I love UC; I just think they caved to DOE and to Domenici when they didn't have to. So I had to suffer a final year with LANS before I pulled the plug. Oh well.
" love UC; I just think they caved to DOE and to Domenici when they didn't have to."
That has always been my question, did they need to cave or not. I think UC should have just said this is how it is going be or they walk. UC does not need LANL or LLNL.
Either way I believe UC is in a weak position if Battelle does well under Triad.
UC does not need LANL or LLNL.
7/09/2019 6:56 PM
UC always thought they needed LANL and LLNL, since the late 1940's (even before LLNL), and for good reason. They were proud of their national service. And should still be.
"Either way I believe UC is in a weak position if Battelle does well under Triad.
7/09/2019 9:07 PM"
So let me get this straight. If TRIAD does well it will make UC look bad, ok so if TRIAD does badly than UC will still look bad. Dude your issues with UC have made you a bit unhinged. UC won, get over it.
I have no personal issue with UC. I’m pragmatically looking at this based on the topic of the blog. How does UC differentiate itself from Battelle in the value it brings to the government. Battelle doesn’t need UC now that it is a Prime contract partner for LANL. Many have asked over the years, even before the for profit model, what value does UC provide to LANL. I don’t see many post grads from the UC system anymore. I have rarely ever seen any management, direction, or vision coming from UC in the past 30 years.
My question to you is why do you have a knee jerk reaction to defend UC?
"Many have asked over the years, even before the for profit model, what value does UC provide to LANL. I don’t see many post grads from the UC system anymore. I have rarely ever seen any management, direction, or vision coming from UC in the past 30 years."
It is true that LANL gets very few postdocs from UC anymore as opposed to the old days. You could make an argument that this was an asset to the lab. 20 years ago 25-30% of the postdocs came from the top 15-25 Universities in the US, now this is down to 2-3%. Even at the mid-teir the quality of the schools where the postdocs come from is way down from what it once was so so few people from a UC school would be going to LANL anyway. As LANL has moved away from a science based lab to whatever it is today you can make argument that any kind of university is no longer needed in management. After all was the University of Colorado running Rocky Flats?
If NNSA wants the Jiffey Lube approach to the labs than why would anyone with a Phd from a UC want to go to LANL?
Given the high standards of the UC schools and the difficulty in getting in, I would not expect a Ph.D from there to take a job at the labs. There are just too many other options out there, including startups with exciting work. Also, a young ambitious person is not going to want to work for a 60-70 year old baby boomer when he can work with people of his own age group with similar ambitions and background.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
If NNSA wants the Jiffey Lube approach to the labs than why would anyone with a Phd from a UC want to go to LANL?
7/15/2019 7:12 AM
Hey Dude, there are plenty of PhDs from Podunk U. out there who can qualify as lube-gun designers at Jiffy Lube National Laboratory.
Answer to the original topic of the thread: No.
"Hey Dude, there are plenty of PhDs from Podunk U. out there who can qualify as lube-gun designers at Jiffy Lube National Laboratory.
7/17/2019 3:58 PM"
Sadly you are right about this. There is a report at LANL that showed the distribution of the new hires in terms of where they got their Phd's from and there is a clear shift away from top and even middle tier schools. In 1995 something like 20% came form the top 10 schools, not it is like 2-3%, there is almost no one coming from UCB, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Harvard, Princeton, Chicago, Yale, Cornell, Columbia ect. Even at the next levels the numbers are dwindling. Ah who cares anyway.
I better question is does UC need Battelle? Since UC ran the labs well for 60 years, survived the 2000s nonsense I would say that UC is
very capable of going it alone. Sure it is nice to have Battelle around but UC due to its legacy is the driver.
The poster 7/17/2019 10:47 PM who always uses the lame "Phd" instead of he proper "Ph.D." has lost all credibility on any issue relating to scientists' credentials. He has no credentials and despises anyone who does. His latest trope says "There is a report that.." but no reference, no citation, no link. He just generates garbage to support his hatred of people who achieved more scholastically and professionally than he was able to do.
The data is clear. UC believes they need Battelle. Why would they partner with them when they perform the same function. It wasn't to take them off the table. Nobody was reaching out to Batelle.
LANL science is in its death throes. Everyone who isn't at LANL can see it. Why would talent come to LANL? What is the draw? Sexy nuclear weapons? The wonderful countryside? The numerous things to do and freedom to travel? The friendly and accepting workforce? Furthermore the decadence is clear. EVERYONE got rich off the new contract. The city, the state, the employees. You can say otherwise and then compare your salaries to people in Silicon Valley but hopefully you can see the logical fallacy. Hopefully...
"The poster 7/17/2019 10:47 PM who always uses the lame "Phd" instead of he proper "Ph.D." has lost all credibility on any issue relating to scientists' credentials. He has no credentials and despises anyone who does. His latest trope says "There is a report that.." but no reference, no citation, no link. He just generates garbage to support his hatred of people who achieved more scholastically and professionally than he was able to do.
7/18/2019 5:32 PM"
I think the 10:47 poster is implying the exact opposite of what you are saying. I think the poster is concerned that quality of scientific workforce is decreasing, which is sorta against your argument that the poster would hate people who achieved more scholastically and professionally.
"The poster 7/17/2019 10:47 PM who always uses the lame "Phd" instead of he proper "Ph.D." has lost all credibility on any issue relating to scientists' credentials. He has no credentials and despises anyone who does."
I am just curious how would the poster or any poster on an anonymous blog could prove credibility on a issue relating to scientists? Perhaps the poster has no credibility but neither do you.
Your point about Ph.D versus Phd in my experience carries no weight as I have never heard a Phd ever care about or even mention this. Yes it is the proper use formal written things like a CV or grant proposal, but for everything else it is just fine Phd PHD, or PhD and I cannot imagine any credible scientist would care about the proper using on a blog. This is a very odd point to bring up and If anything makes you look less credible as I am sure I know more...way more...way way more Phd's than you, and not one of them would care about this. Are you one of those people that has to put Ph.D in their sig file? Hint it is not a good sign if you do.
By the way are you the same guy who went on about being the top student in your graduate school? Again this is very odd since I have never heard of any university having a formal ranking of their graduate students, at least not in science.
I know this is all a bunch of frivolous points but you started it, but hey it is a blog so have fun. You could try and address the actual points rather than just insult the other posters.
I believe the 5:32 PM poster is a guy who always presumes to know the background and thinking of any poster he disagrees with. This is anonymous, he just can’t know. Sorry. Oh, I guess his response to me would be “you’re a bitter, laid of LANL employee who worked there 12 years ago and has out of date Information. You’re just bitter because you never measured up academically...” None of this would be true in my case (I’m not a LANL person at all) but go ahead.
The 10:47 poster is not "concerned that quality of scientific workforce is decreasing," he is trying to convince everyone that it is true. It isn't.
"The 10:47 poster is not "concerned that quality of scientific workforce is decreasing," he is trying to convince everyone that it is true. It isn't.
7/19/2019 5:51 PM"
Seriously? This is very easy to check and yes it has been decreasing for the last 15 years at least.
"you’re a bitter, laid of LANL employee who worked there 12 years ago and has out of date Information." Perhaps that is the case but who knows however it is pretty clear that you really have no idea what has been going at LANL for some time. Do we really need to go through all the numbers yet again? All this has been posted on the blog over and over again, and you simply ignore it or forget it. Ok just for once why don't you provide some information to back up your positions for a change?
10:52 PM just responded to two different posters, assuming they were the same person!
Luckily the trivial, nonsensical, ignorant posts on this thread have absolutely no effect of real LANL scientists.
"Luckily the trivial, nonsensical, ignorant posts on this thread have absolutely no effect of real LANL scientists.
7/20/2019 5:36 PM"
Deflect much?
"The poster 7/17/2019 10:47 PM who always uses the lame "Phd" instead of he proper "Ph.D." has lost all credibility on any issue relating to scientists' credentials. He has no credentials and despises anyone who does.
7/18/2019 5:32 PM"
There are only two types of Doctoral degreed Engineers and Scientists at LLNL and LANL; those who sign their emails with Ph.D., and those who don't.
I would say “those that sign with Ph.D. and those that don’t feel they need to to get a point across.”
Those who don't are the real ones. The others are poseurs who can't do any real work. However the people who refer to "Phds" are non-credentialed, unaccomplished, passed-over bitter people.
"There are only two types of Doctoral degreed Engineers and Scientists at LLNL and LANL; those who sign their emails with Ph.D., and those who don't.
7/21/2019 9:54 AM"
Interesting, that is interesting. Ask your self how many professors have sign Ph.D ? Just saying.
"However the people who refer to "Phds" are non-credentialed, unaccomplished, passed-over bitter people."
How would you know?
You know who else insist on being called a Ph.d...Glenn Walp. PhD Walden University. I cannot seem to find any publications
or citations from this scholar, not to mention that I have never heard of Walden University, but he appears to be very uptight about being called a Ph.D. Does anyone know what on earth is Walden University? I have looked it up online and the descriptions are not kind to say the least.
No one I know who was contemporary and familiar with Walp and Duran will be speaking up in support of them. They were way over their heads in the UC/LANL environment and considered themselves tough cops (their former selves), instead of Security Inquiry professionals, which they were hired as but had no clue about.
Post a Comment