End of a Scientific Legend? 243
pacopico writes to mention the sorry state of the well-known Los Alamos National Laboratory. Sixty years ago, it was at the forefront of the race for the Atomic bomb. Nowadays, "smugness can breed complacency, and complacency carelessness. In recent years the laboratory has been in the news not for its successes but its failures.The result is a change of management, which the story goes on to discuss in great detail. It begs the question - can Los Alamos hang on as a prestigious place or is it too late for the supercomputing powerhouse and weapons lab?"
and... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:and... (Score:2, Informative)
Nothing? (Score:4, Funny)
It's nice to see that their secrecy is still in effect.
It didn't jump; it was pushed (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the problem isn't new -- she points out in the interview that the Clinton administration was just as quick as anyone else to slam the door on global warming results that didn't match their polices. And in fact, the first two-thirds of the interview are studiously neutral in tone. But by the end, after host Terri Gross and Weinberger have laid the factual foundation, the Bush administration comes out looking pretty pathetic. With the current administration's secrecy, paranoia (the Wen Ho Lee [wikipedia.org] fiasco at Los Alamos gets particular attention), and general disregard for the scientific method, it's pretty clear that if Los Alamos falls, it didn't jump -- it was pushed.
Re:It didn't jump; it was pushed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It didn't jump; it was pushed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It didn't jump; it was pushed (Score:2, Interesting)
It is the same with military spending. B
Re:It didn't jump; it was pushed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It didn't jump; it was pushed (Score:5, Informative)
Los Alamos did an excellent job with LAMPI (their high-performance, highly reliable MPI implementation) and are doing OK with OpenMPI (the multi-vendor replacement), but let's face it, MPI is hardly on the same level as other products they've worked on. I was fairly impressed by their demo of high-performance collective operations at SC|05, but again this is where the LOW-END of an organization like Los Alamos needs to be. The high-end should be solving stuff the rest of humanity hasn't even realized IS a problem.
Re:It didn't jump; it was pushed (Score:5, Interesting)
"administration-pleasing junk science and "imaginary weapons""
Unfortunately this is what you get out of governments whose top priority is delivering pork to contractors who happen to be big political supporters of the people in power (like Bechtel and Lockheed Martin). This is a disease that predates the Bush administration by a long ways, but the current administration has just taken it to new and breathtaking levels. Not sure the Bush administration really cares if it gets anything for the money, they are just delivering large quantities of our tax dollars or borrowed dollars(our deficit) in to the pockets of their friends. It has an important added political benefit of creating artificial stimulus in the economy and jobs by pumping large amounts of money and profit in to the private sector, and it makes the U.S. economy look a lot better than it is. The U.S. economy is becoming massively dependent on government spending since its one of the few parts of the U.S. economy that isn't being crated up and shipped to China and India. This massive government intervention in the economy used to be referred to as either Socialism (under FDR) or more like Fascism today. Its sad to see how the Republican's have tarnished the name Conservative. There is nothing conservative about them any more unless you qualify it with Social Conservative. Political and fiscal conservatives are for limiting government power, size and spending and that is the antithesis of today's Republican party so they are aghast at today's Republican party. Someone should make them, Limbaugh and Colter stop claiming the title, Fascist is a lot more accurate term its just a taboo term since World War II. Conservative != Fascist so stop claiming to be conservatives, you aren't.
The national labs, DOD weapons programs and satellite manufacturing are GREAT places to pump money in to the pockets of your friends because you can use the high security clearance, and "state secret privilege" to crush any oversight that might catch some of the fraud, waste, abuse and incompetence. A subset of Congress is the only body that can provide oversight but.....
There is an intereting article on the Christian Science Monitor today about Congress's feeble efforts to restore legal and financial oversight [csmonitor.com] on the Bush administration and the DOD. I didn't realize it till this article but when the Republican's gained power in 1995 one of the first things they did in the House Armed Services Committee was disband the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. This subcommittee's role was to reign in the fraud, waste and abuse in the Pentagon. It was like they fired the last cop in town, and created open season for thieves. It is now quite clear why there is such rampant corruption in the DOD now. There is NO real Congressional oversight to stop it.
Harry Truman rose to prominence with the "Truman Committee" which basically performed this role during World War II and saved the country billions in fraud, waste and abuse.
Its a basic problem in the current government that the Bush administration and DOD is running amuck using 9/11 as an excuse and since they have control of all branches of the government there is NO oversight of anything going on. Congress has abdicated so much power to the Executive branch we really are teetering on the edge of a term limited dictatorship.
As a result we get Duke Cunningham, satellite programs billions
Re:It didn't jump; it was pushed (Score:2, Interesting)
This means that UC's administration of the labs must be made to appear incompetent.
Re:It didn't jump; it was pushed (Score:2)
Still prestigious... (Score:5, Informative)
begs the question? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:begs the question? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:begs the question? (Score:2)
Re:begs the question? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:begs the question? (Score:3, Funny)
Your post begs a couple of question-marks..
Re:begs the question? (Score:2, Insightful)
My guess would be that unlike programming languages, you don't usually get an error when you have a minor grammar or spelling mistake.
Moreover, if you can correct someones bad usage of language then it means you actually understood the message they were trying to convey, therefore the medium served it's purpose and any attempt to correct mistakes is purely academic.
Re:begs the question? (Score:2)
Now it also means raising the question, because meaning follows useage i
Re:begs the question? (Score:2)
Re:begs the question? (Score:5, Informative)
See, we speak English. It's a rapidly evolving living language. Word usage has changed enormously over the centuries. If you want to use words that don't change their meaning, try latin. Here's a phrase for you in particular: "Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare" [slashdot.org]
Unless you aren't 100% that you know exactly what you are talking about you should probably never speak.
Then again, there is a side to every issue. As a one-time Phil major, I don't like the new usage. I just dont try to clobber my linquistic preferences over the heads of others. Your comment to the GP was way out of line.
Re:begs the question? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are, of course, incorrect. "Begs the question" used to refer to a specific kind of logical fallacy. But the usage of this idiom has changed, and it is now a synonym for "raises the question", which can also in some (very rare) contexts refer to a specific kind of logical fallacy.
Arguing that you are right and common usage is wrong is like arguing that LASER, RADAR, and SCUBA should be written in all caps (they're acronyms, after all!), "e-mail" should be hyphenated, and a "computer" is a person who performs calculations by hand. The usage of these words, along with the phrase "begs the question", have changed, and it's time to accept that and move on. You might as well argue that we should all go back to speaking Old English -- it's simply not going to happen.
Is all common usage ok? (Score:2)
Re:Is all common usage ok? (Score:2)
Loose/Lose? Spelling mistakes. Again, a different class of animal -- and they take longer to change/evolve.
So is it OK? Certainly not.
"above" used to mean "better".
"sad" used to mean "serious".
"anon" used to mean "NOW".
"male" used to be a "bag".
"heed" used to mean "head".
"toon" used to mean "toes".
"wood" used to mean "crazy".
"moot
Re:Is all common usage ok? (Score:2)
Re:begs the question? (Score:2)
Well, I guess that
Re:begs the question? (Score:2)
I realize you meant this as a joke, but there's quite a bit of truth here. The distinction between "it's" and "its" is indeed being erased, and quite probably in another few decades we will settle on just one form. We used to distinguish between "you"
Re:begs the question? (Score:3, Interesting)
I always find it funny when people try to insist that they're right, and everyone else is wrong.
Like it or not, languages DO evolve. Not always in a rational way, and not always to your liking. In fact, more often than not languages evolve trough misuse rather than through a logical progression. You could argue that this sort of change is not "evolution" but rather a degradation
Re:begs the question? (Score:2)
Yeah, they do evolve. But saying "I'm not wrong I'm just using a more evolved form of language" is laughably pretentious and stupid. In current idiom, "begging the question" still retains its original meaning. If language had evolved away from it, we wouldn't be having this argument. Nobody complains about using "gay" to refer to homosexuals rather than happiness. That is an example of an evolution in language - it has become common parlance.
People using "begging the
Re: begs the question? (Score:3, Funny)
I notice that you didn't write your response in Middle English.
Re: begs the question? (Score:2)
Re: begs the question? (Score:2)
Are you literate in Middle English?
Re: begs the question? (Score:2)
Re: begs the question? (Score:2)
> > > > I notice that you didn't write your response in Middle English.
> > > I didn't say language doesn't evolve, I said that using it as an excuse for illiteracy is moronic.
> > Are you literate in Middle English?
> Am I speaking Middle English?
You're using language change as an excuse for illiteracy.
Re: begs the question? (Score:2)
The submitter purports to write in Modern English, and yet their writings don't follow Modern English definitions.
Re: begs the question? (Score:2)
No, they're just using a more modern version of English than you are.
Languages change; learn to deal with it.
Re: begs the question? (Score:2)
Sorry, didn't you understand that? I was just using a more modern form of English. Language exists to facilitate communication. The point of a language is that it's a standard. It's just like a software protocol or API. It only works if all parties adhere to the standard. When you start to ignore the standard, you introduce misunderstandings and vagaries. English is somewhat redundant; when you have a few such ambiguities, they can be over
Re: begs the question? (Score:2)
> Sorry, didn't you understand that? I was just using a more modern form of English. Language exists to facilitate communication. The point of a language is that it's a standard. It's just like a software protocol or API.
It's good that you understand that language is a matter of convention.
You also need to understand that folk who adopt a convention slightly different from the one you hold to are not thereby either lazy nor illiterate
Re: begs the question? (Score:2)
Take note of the last example especially. I as someone raised in Texas w
Re:begs the question? (Score:2)
laser surgery, radar array, scuba gear
What?
SB
Re:begs the question? (Score:2)
Oh great, another one of you "name calling" morons, who try to blame changes in language on illiteracy and general laziness. Just because a handful of linquistic purist idiots don't want
Re:begs the question? (Score:3, Insightful)
But it makes you sound smarter when you say "begs the question," right? Don't lawyers use them words? Lawyers are purty smart fellers.
Re:begs the question? (Score:2)
Re:begs the question? (Score:2)
*ad* yeast? (Score:2)
Yoda sez (Score:5, Funny)
Los Alamos misses Feynman (Score:2)
Excuse me? (Score:3, Informative)
Currently they are building a whole new generation of supercomputing. based on plan 9.
And its not meant to be funny.. Its the truth. When some in the community questioned v9fx support in the linux kernel as not justified due to few users the folks at Los Alamos told them as much.
Next generation folks. LANL. ORNL, it doesn't matter..
Stuff gets done. :)
Re:Excuse me? (Score:2)
It should be Plan9, and v9fs.
*corrected*
Re:Excuse me? (Score:3, Informative)
That sounds exceptionally interesting (Score:2)
Yes, a control node reduces to O(n), but you suffer from having a potential hot-spot and from the risks involved in having a single point of failure. Given the cost of supercomputer time (even on pile-of-pc cluste
Argonne and Fermilab (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Argonne and Fermilab (Score:2)
Re:Argonne and Fermilab (Score:2)
The management contracts are up for renewal.
Fermilab is doing great, at the momement, but nothing is scheduled past 2010.
It's more Management /Researcher IQ divide (Score:5, Interesting)
The college I went to many of the professors were famous in their fields and the admins were all just typical people. The things the profs would do to them (and while some were funny, some were pretty darn cruel) were often amazing. Yeah you might be a brilliant admin with an IQ of 110 or 120. But that 180 IQ professor is going dazzle you like you've never seen in your life and high end research is not a pursuit for the faint of heart! They're not just smart, they're often tough too!
I've heard some rather shocking stories from friends who work at two of the National labs that seems to bear this theory out.
Re:It's more Management /Researcher IQ divide (Score:2)
Re:It's more Management /Researcher IQ divide (Score:3, Funny)
Would -you- want a genius pissed at -you-?
Re:It's more Management /Researcher IQ divide (Score:5, Interesting)
LANL and LLNL are run by the University of California, but our buddies at Lockheed MArtin have been eyeing their TIAA/CREF funds for a while (corporate spinoff runs the thing, goes bankrupt, raids the pension fund as the US Govt. takes it over).
The real problem isn't Academic Management vs. Scientific Researcher, it's the fact that the labs are funded by the Department of Energy. And the Secretary of Energy is a Cabinet-level appointment. Since about the mid-80s, the Secretary of Energy has been open season for the opposition party. The National Labs are big, and mission-critical to the US.
So the Democrats hit them for environmental issues -- even though, environmentally, the labs are not only excellent (LLNL was a Superfund site because of the paint remover used when it was a Naval Training Base), they're doing some of the most important research on the future of our planet.
Then, when Slick Willy is in power, the Republicans hit them for "security" breaches -- even though, security wise, the place is locked down, and foreign intelligence agencies (as well as the relevant congressional committees) already know that "industry partners" are the weak link.
What destroys agencies like this is politics and over-regulation. Incidentally, that's the same recipe to destroy Microsoft.
Re:It's more Management /Researcher IQ divide (Score:2)
Double standard? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Double standard? (Score:2, Insightful)
Developing nuclear wapons was the discovery of new information.
So you're suggesting that a company which limits the availability of information, and an organization which creates new information, are somehow moraly equivalent? That they should have the same level of prestiege?
Nonsense. The discovery of nuclear fission was a huge step in our understanding of the world around us. Any organizations which helped further the research into it deffinitely deserve
Wierd Place (Score:2, Insightful)
I dunno... (Score:2)
Nowadays... (Score:4, Funny)
>Sixty years ago, it was at the forefront of the race for the Atomic bomb. Nowadays,
Anyone can build that kind of stuff in their garage.
Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
America scrapped its supercollider while the Europeans built their LHC at CERN, so Europe will lead nuclear research for at least the next 20 years. Europe and Japan are doing advanced medical research while the US cuts funding and asks if its ethical to use stem cells.
The US has decided to abandon the Hubble telescope and allow it to burn up in the atmosphere, virtually abandon manned space travel, and divert most of the space research budget to militarizing space. Meanwhile the ESA is doing most of the space research and even China is launching manned missions.
Los Alamos losing its shine is such a minor thing compared to the rest of the US scientific community, it's barely worth noticing. The sad thing is by the time enough people notice the US is falling behind, it will be too late.
Re:Nothing new (Score:2)
Maybe not. The Republican's "government-is-the-boogeyman" philosophy seems to be slowly falling out of favor. People are starting to realize that we actually do need a functioning government. It may not be too late to invest in infrastructure again. Have hope - the elections are only months away.
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)
You must not be aware of JWST or CEV, both of which are going at a surprisingly rapid clip. Your comments about the shuttle program and Hubble are amazingly misleading - there's lots of internal support at NASA for dropping the shuttles, and moving to CEV, and a similar sentiment for Hubble and JWST. In fact, the administration has been reasonably friendly to NASA in this time of budget cuts - compared to most other agencies, they took far less of a cut in the last budget. How do I know? I was working there until I left for my own personal reasons, none of which had jack to do with the administration.
Or, let me summarize: you have no idea what you're talking about in terms of NASA, and that makes me suspect your other comments are equally misinformed. Way behind? Right.
-Erwos
Re:Nothing new (Score:3, Informative)
You must not be aware that there are different wavelengths in the spectrum of EM radiation.
It makes a difference if you have an infrared telescope (JWST) or a telescope for near IR / visible / UV (HST).
k2r
Re:Nothing new (Score:2)
By your logic, why do we have so many terrestrial telescopes? As each new and bigger one is built we should dismantle the previous ones because they cost money to run. Besides they can cover different spectra. By your logic, why build optical te
Re:Nothing new (Score:2)
Yes, because all of the other countries with giant orbiting space telescopes are going to leapfrog ahead of us once Hubble de-orbits.
Re:Nothing new (Score:2)
Re:Nothing new (Score:2)
Ugly Step Sister Deserves the Slapdown (Score:3, Interesting)
The other laboratories in the DOE complex have for years fought against the "Ugly Step Sisters" (as they are called complex wide) to get funding for real work within the scope of research assigned to them in their DOE mandates. Whenever research was to be done in a particular area that is the focus of a particular lab, (ie INL-Civilian Nuclear power and safety, NREL-electric/hybrid vehicles, etc etc), the step sisters would approach the customer of the smaller labs using their holier than thou smooze and steal the funding at a DOE headquarters level, and not deliver a comparable product in the end. LANL, LLNL, and Sandia are capable of this because of congressional backing; California has a huge and powerful amount of congressional representation. And, when the prior Clinton Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson became Governor of New Mexico, it only empowered these labs to hog funding and mission further having both the Californian interests from the University of California, and Campuses in California, as well as New Mexico in some cases, as well as the previous secretary of energy.
The slapdown of the "scientific legends" is a breath of fresh air for real science funding at smaller labs doing real science with real accountability because the smaller labs are too small to screw up without loosing funding catastrophically.
I am not sorry for the "ugly step sisters". If one of them is getting a whooping, and it is traceable to significant screwups (lets see, LANL had faked elements 116, 117, and 118 on the periodic table, mustangs purchased on company credit cards, significant breaches of computer and cyber security that went unfixed for years. etc . etc. ). Then let them learn and clean up their act so they can be a contributing and honest member of our DOE's scientific complex.
The Department of Energy's Scientific Budget should be for accountable science, not a government welfare program that funds bad scientists and the managers who employ them.
Re:Ugly Step Sister Deserves the Slapdown (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ugly Step Sister Deserves the Slapdown (Score:2)
I had not heard that the mustang was a case of credit card fraud, I do remember the sudden tightening of purchase controls, threatened crucifixions, and a couple convictions on similar cases of purchase card use at the same time. That was an example I was using to po
Re:Ugly Step Sister Deserves the Slapdown (Score:2)
Dr: "We are working on string theory"
Manager: "What's are ROI?"
Dr: "What?"
Manager: *sigh* "how much can we sell it for? How much are consumers willing to pay for these strings?"
Dr: "It's theoretical, It's not something we can sell!"
Manager: "Then cut the project."
Many "failures" were overblown (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-12/p60.html [aip.org]
While Los Alamos has certainly had its share of fiascos, I think a lot of bad press they received was because 1) They are the most visible government lab, and 2) Many politicians hoped that if they could humiliate the lab management enough, someone from their state could end up with the (now extremely lucrative) management contract.
(Posted anonymously out of fear of DOE muckety-mucks)
Re:Many "failures" were overblown (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, many people had lots to gain by being allowed a chance to do their jobs with funding that really should have been sent to them in the first place.
If DOE cannot accept truth, candor, and real science, then they don't deserve to keep real scientists. If they fire a real scientist or engineer for calling a spade a spade, then they deserve the lab full of monkeys they created!
I am now laughing at the Fact that LANL is being managed by Rechtel (Bechtel) and Washington Group, the two prime contractors who have no honest clue how to run a lab, can never seem to make budget or schedule, and have superhuman abilities to tank workplace moral.
DOE does not deserve you if you are an honest person. My recommendation to you is to move on to private industry or another lab before Bechtel sets you up for a train wreck and blames you for it.
Los Alamos folks are definitely... odd... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's much more drama at these national labs than the general public might think...
Re:Los Alamos folks are definitely... odd... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Los Alamos folks are definitely... odd... (Score:2)
I mean, flipper babies or not, these people sound...special...to me.
Poplars Science (Score:2)
Science, War, and Profit (Score:5, Informative)
Management by the University of California is possibly the best thing that ever happened to LANL. Whatever the mission given to LANL by DOE, it would be carried out in an academic culture. People were rewarded professionally and looked up to informally for doing good science and good research. Ok, it wasn't all utopia, there was also the petty politicking that goes along with academia and grant groveling. I still think it was good and a lot of good work was done there.
When I moved to California I discovered that some people here objected to the UC management of LANL. They didn't want to be associated with a nuclear weapons lab. I think that's wrong and that they were foolish if they thought that the UC disowning LANL would make it go away. LANL needs the UC because the alternative is too horrible. That has come to pass and now LANL is under joint management of UC and defense contractors. I've heard rumors that the mission changed from far out theoretical, pure and semi-pure research and shifted towards more immediate engineering of new weapons. The new regime is pushing security and secrecy to the point of paranoia and counterproductivity. For many scientists, it isn't fun anymore.
I don't expect LANL to evaporate within the next 5 years. There is still plenty there that doesn't suck. I do expect they'll have trouble replacing talent in some areas. I think it's not yet too late to restore the soul of the place and bring it back and do some world class science.
Re:Science, War, and Profit (Score:2)
It's Reagan's fault (Score:4, Informative)
pardon my smugness (Score:2)
VTK Anyone? (Score:2, Informative)
Well, that's kinda interesting. (Score:4, Interesting)
It turns out that, for government labs, any PR really isn't always good PR.
How many Los Alamos and area 51's are there? (Score:2)
I'm going to assume a few things as given
1 - Many very secure R&D facilities have been constructed since the dawn of the Cold War era up until as recently as the Clinton Administration. I say Clinton because he left office with a surplus, and really watched the budget which brings me to #2 which is
2 - 3/4 of the US government doesn't know what 1/4 of the defense and security spending
Re:Pet peeve: "Beg the question" (Score:5, Funny)
Both statements are true. I don't know where you're going with this...
Re:Pet peeve: "Beg the question" (Score:2, Funny)
I'll show myself out.
ob Futurama (Score:2)
Prescriptive/Descriptive, yes I know (Score:3, Insightful)
But it is one thing to violate the "don't end sentences with a prepostion" rule, and another thing entirely to take a word or phrase which has a very specific and nuanced meaning and try to make it apply to another situation through simple ignorance.
The best example I can come up with in the computer field is how most knowledgeable people will cringe when someone calls the comp
Re:Prescriptive/Descriptive, yes I know (Score:2)
Re:Beg your pardon? (Score:2)
Re:Beg your pardon? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Beg your pardon? (Score:2)
Re:Raison d'etre (Score:2)
Re:illustration with the story (Score:3, Funny)
or look at the pictures.