Sunday, August 28, 2005

How outrageous are these latest claims?

A comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/08/lanl-assails-tv-news-report-on-laptop.html

post:
_______________________________________
The fact is that we should, of course, defend ourselves against outrageous journalistic charges. The question is: how outrageous are these latest claims? I'm told that the Macintosh computer in question did in fact have material on the disk that was marked as classified. If so, how were the KOB reporters to know that it was "simulated" classified material? We should wait until all of the facts are known before jumping to judge the parties involved.


Comments:
If, it fact it was "simulated" classified material. We only have LANL's word that this is the case.

One thing has been made clear as a result of this latest fiasco, though. UC has demonstrated its incompetence once again through having implemented a set of poorly-coordinated, conflicting rules, this time on the subject of excessing computer equipment. No wonder screw-ups continue to happen.
 
I just looked up the UC org chart. It seems that our friend Bob Foley, as the Vice President of Laboratory Management "owns" this particular problem. How about if we start asking why he hasn't taken the responsibilty of ownership?
 
8/28/2005 10:57:14 AM said:
"If, it fact it was "simulated" classified material. We only have LANL's word that this is the case."

Isn't "simulated" classified material marked in some way, such as "example" or "sample"?

And 10:57:14 AM went on to say:

"One thing has been made clear as a result of this latest fiasco, though. UC has demonstrated its incompetence once again through having implemented a set of poorly-coordinated, conflicting rules, this time on the subject of excessing computer equipment. No wonder screw-ups continue to happen."

It is clear from comments to other posts on this subject that there is no official document that describes how to handle computer equipment for release to the public. This problem should be cleared up as soon as possible.

I think the Lab should reconsider selling surplus computers when the computers could be properly cleansed and given to non-profit organizations, such as schools.

Larry Creamer, DX-1 Retired
 
This thread is ridiculous -- there is NO classified materials on the disk, and there is NO simulated classifed except WITHIN training manuals. However, this does not matter to the posters of the blog. Guilty!!! LANL always lies!!! Long live KOB and LM.

Kill UC -- they have terrible policies (oh, did anyone
mention that the computer in question also had a Sandia sticker on it, and that Sandia had the same thing happen last year?).

I have checked the blog on and off for the last couple of months, but these posts are the last straw. Please remain the blog -- LANL: The hate story.
 
Remain the blog?

Somebody has been into the liquor pantry again.
 
Has anybody noticed that the Sandia problems (last years' computer, last week's radiation leak) never get into the media?
 
Unfortunately, bloggers like 4:15 are more and more right about their accusations. Many of you became blinded by hatred to UC and do a lot of harm to LANL. Sandia is not any better than LANL and LM is not better than UC. It is just politics that causes current craziness in the media, working actually against local interest. How it is possible that local NM station blows up some non-story and tries to make harm to one of the most important for state economy institution? Why they are not outraged by so many real stories? Wake up, folks.
 
Hatred of UC is a very real thing. UC hired the worst director in the history of Los Alamos without even doing a national search. Then they supported him as he ruined the lab, driving off customers and staff alike.

This fight won't be over until UC has lost the contract.
 
6:17,

No, you are mistaken. In NNSA and Washington, Sandia is better than LANL, by definition, since it is not run by a University or one of the original GOGOs that operated such enterprises for no cost or some ridiculous amount like $1/year. As soon as LANL is purified by turning over operations to a fee-for-service entity, everything will work much better. It could not be otherwise.

For all of you physics types out there, that was sarcasm.
 
When UC brings forth steller examples like Nanos, and his support group of Foley and Dynes what's not to hate?

I mean aside from Cobb, of course.

And Seestrom. Marquez. Fallin. Devaurs. Mah. Bowles.

Sure will be happy to see most of them leaving in the December-ish time frame.
 
6:17 has got the right point. Other labs do have the same sort of safety and security problems we have, but they just handle them better. The difference isn't in the problem rate, it's in the competence of management to handle them well. Stonewalling, lying, or shutting down the whole place aren't very useful tactics, and maybe someday UC will learn this.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?