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 (http://www.improbable.com/ig/ig-top.html)

This year's winners include:
PEACE: Claire Rind and Peter Simmons of Newcastle University, in the U.K., for electrically monitoring the activity of a brain cell in a locust while that locust was watching selected highlights from the movie "Star Wars." ECONOMICS: Gauri Nanda of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for inventing an alarm clock that runs away and hides, repeatedly, thus ensuring that people DO get out of bed, and thus theoretically adding many productive hours to the workday. and my favorite LITERATURE: The Internet entrepreneurs of Nigeria, for creating and then using e-mail to distribute a bold series of short stories, thus introducing millions of readers to a cast of rich characters -- General Sani Abacha, Mrs. Mariam Sanni Abacha, Barrister Jon A Mbeki Esq., and others -- each of whom requires just a small amount of expense money so as to obtain access to the great wealth to which they are entitled and which they would like to share with the kind person who assists them. :lol:

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.

Damn true. Everyone knows they should have given the award to George W. Bush instead for all his peace-making efforts. But those wimpy trigger-shy U.N. losers just keep stealing his well-deserved glory. :rolleyes:

Anyway, here's a press release (http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2005/press.html) concering the shared winners of the prize, for all those who might want to know what "the head of a U.N. bureaucracy" :rolleyes: did to deserve his half of the prize.

Personally, I think they should do away with the peace prize as it is a joke. They once gave one to Yasser Arafat ... Ah! You mean that one:

1994 Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin In this cases, might there be some hidden pattern?

1978 Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin
1973 Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho 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?

While true, GWB is probably more deserving of the award, he is far to humble of a man to let such things bother him. 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.

It only means something to the lefties who give it to losers like Jimmy Carter who never actually do anything. 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???

..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.

During its watch instead of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons the exact opposite has happened (North Korea and Iran anyone?).Interestingly enough, we're not seeing the US do anything about them either... except a lot of sweet talking when it comes to North Korea, and (idle) threats of invasion when it comes to Iran. And that's achieved heaps more than the UN that's at least trying with Iran, right?

You can't really blame countries for wanting to get their hands on nuclear weapons as soon as possible... it's the only guarantee that the US won't invade them. As soon as they have a nuke, anything coming from the US is either honey-coated wheedling or idle threats. Saddam must really be cursing his bad luck that he didn't actually have any nukes...

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).

Actually I think is quite remarcable that only a handful of countries achieved nuclear weapons since the 60s (India, Pakistan and probably Israel).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 ]

It's not really that remarkable since it is those countries (Israel, Pakistan and India) that did not sign up to the NPT.

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.