The Nobel prizes

Remove all ads!

This week they are awarding the Nobel prizes. Yesterday two Australians got the Nobel in Medicine (for discovering a bacteria responsible for ulcers, apparently) -yay Aussies . Today two Americans and a German got the Physics Nobel for some quantum optics work.

Any thoughts?

Update: the Peace prize goes to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its boss, ElBaradey.

[ October 07, 2005, 15:43: Message edited by: khaavern ]

 

Okay then, how about the Ig Nobel Prizes!? These are given for `outre' research topics, that "first make people laugh, and then make them think" web site

This year's winners include:

and my favorite

 

I received a ton of those emails from the literature one. Does this mean it wasn't just exploitative spam?

 

It's Karma in action.

Anyone duped by the Nigerian scam is a victim of their own greed.

 

Personally, I think they should do away with the peace prize as it is a joke. They once gave one to Yasser Arafat and this year's winner is the head of a U.N. bureaucracy that I'm not sure has ever accomplished anything.

 

Ah! You mean that one:

In this cases, might there be some hidden pattern?

Hint: The inscription on Nixon's grave.

 

Finally, after all these years Tal is starting to make sense. While true, GWB is probably more deserving of the award, he is far to humble of a man to let such things bother him. Although, I'm sure it wouldn't have been politically acceptable for him to win, after all we are at war. It raises a good question, does going to war for peace count?

It is refreshing to see you agree that the U.N. are a bunch of wimps and losers. I've been saying that for years.

Your link was invaluable in showing how that department is a failure. During its watch instead of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons the exact opposite has happened (North Korea and Iran anyone?).

I consider this a desperation winner as nobody obvious comes to mind as to who should win. My wife thinks Bono should have won, but he is really nothing but a blowhard. Is there not another Mother Theresa out there?

 

I will say that it takes quite an "exceptional" individual to take a perfectly good country, like America, and make such a mess of it. And his humility is understandable, since he has accomplished very little with every postion of power that has been so generously handed to him on a silver platter. Anyone who believes that he should be given this award for his "mighty accomplishements," feel free to list them while the rest of us wait, with extreme suspense.

 

LOL, I never said he was deserving, I said, he was "more deserving". I am actually at a loss, as I can't think of anyone who deserves the prize.

 

The peace prize is not worth a thing. It only means something to the lefties who give it to losers like Jimmy Carter who never actually do anything.

 

TGS - Now that you mention it, I can't either.

Just who are these "lefties" anyway? I think I'd like to meet one...

[ October 11, 2005, 03:57: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Although I don't think that Carter is deserving of a Nobel honor for his time in the Presidency, I couldn't disagree with the notion of honoring him for his tireless work with the homelesss and Habitat for Humanity in the years since he left the White House.

Although George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton have been very visible raising aid for tsunami and hurricane victims, there's something about their efforts that seems a bit self-serving...a bit of a photo op. Jimmy Carter just quietly goes out and builds a house.


...did I just say something nice about a Democrat???

 

Not only that, but you dissed a Republican.

And so, fire and ashes rained upon the earth.

 

Actually I think is quite remarcable that only a handful of countries achieved nuclear weapons since the 60s (India, Pakistan and probably Israel). I would say this shows the IAEA has been somewhat of a success. (There must be a lot of countries, in the Mid East and Africa especially, whou would have loved to get their hands on nukes; and without strict controls, how hard could that be?)

As to the successes of the Bush administration... what they (and anti-UN folks) don't seem to understand, is that while UN is not perfect, it is the only forum available to deal with certain issues. Otherwise, how would US propose to influence other countries? Economic sanctions is one way (but they don't seem to really work, see Cuba) war is the other (well, we saw how well that worked). Current US attitude is typical cowboy mentality; we'll go do it alone. While this might work for some things, invading other countries without international support is not really a good ideea (no matter how good your reason you think are). I maintain that if US would have gone into Iraq with UN support, they would have been mostly out by now. (possibly replaced by UN peacekeepers a la former Yugoslavia).

 

Don't forget NK.

 

North Korea... did they actually test a nuclear weapon? That's not to say they are not close; they probably have enough uranium to build several, but will they work?

[ October 12, 2005, 15:41: Message edited by: khaavern ]

 

Then is even more remarkable What you are saying is that no country who has signed the Nonproliferation Treaty has broken it and build nuclear weapons.

What happened to the prize for Literature? I did not see it announced yet.