2016 Nobel Prize Count (for betiko & Lootifer)

[saxitoxin]

- United States - 4 (Chemistry, Literature, Physics, Economics)
- UK - 3 (Chemistry, Physics, Economics)
- Colombia - 1 (Peace)
- Finland - 1 (Economics)
- France - 1 (Chemistry)
- Netherlands - 1 (Chemistry)
- Japan - 1 (Medicine)
- Afghanistan - 0
- Albania- 0
- Algeria- 0
- American Samoa- 0
- Andorra- 0
- Angola- 0
- Anguilla- 0
- Antigua and Barbuda- 0
- Argentina- 0
- Armenia- 0
- Australia- 0
- Austria- 0
- Azerbajan- 0
- Bahamas- 0
- Bahrain- 0
- Bangladesh- 0
- Barbados- 0
- Belarus- 0
- Belgium- 0
- Belize- 0
- Benin- 0
- Bermuda- 0
- Bhutan- 0
- Bolivia- 0
- Bosnia and Herzegovina- 0
- Botswana- 0
- Brazil- 0
- Brunei Darussalam- 0
- Bulgaria- 0
- Burkina Faso- 0
- Burundi- 0
- Cambodia- 0
- Cameroon- 0
- Canada- 0
- Chile- 0
- China- 0
- Costa Rica- 0
- Cuba- 0
- Cyprus- 0
- Czech Republic- 0
- Democratic Republic Congo- 0
- Denmark- 0
- Djibouti- 0
- Dominican Republic- 0
- East Timor- 0
- Ecuador- 0
- Egypt- 0
- El Salvador- 0
- England- 0
- Eritrea- 0
- Estonia- 0
- Ethiopia- 0
- Faroe Islands- 0
- Fiji- 0
- French Polynesia- 0
- Gambia- 0
- Georgia (Sakartvelo)- 0
- Germany- 0
- Gabon- 0
- Ghana- 0
- Greece- 0
- Greenland - Kalaallit Nunaat- 0
- Grenada- 0
- Gouadeloupe- 0
- Guam- 0
- Guatemala- 0
- Guernsey- 0
- Guyana- 0
- Guyane- 0
- Haiti- 0
- Honduras- 0
- Hong Kong- 0
- Hrvatska (Croatia)- 0
- Hungary- 0
- Iceland- 0
- India- 0
- Indonesia- 0
- Iran- 0
- Iraq- 0
- Ireland- 0
- Israel- 0
- Italy- 0
- Jamaica- 0
- Jordan- 0
- Kazakhstan- 0
- Kenya- 0
- Korea Republic- 0
- Kosovo- 0
- Kurdistan- 0
- Kuwait- 0
- Kyrgyzstan- 0
- Laos- 0
- Latvia- 0
- Lebanon- 0
- Lesotho- 0
- Liberia- 0
- Libya- 0
- Liechtenstein- 0
- Lithuania- 0
- Luxembourg- 0
- Macau- 0
- Macedonia- 0
- Malawi- 0
- Malaysia- 0
- Mali- 0
- Malta- 0
- Marshall Islands- 0
- Mauritania- 0
- Martinique- 0
- Mauritius- 0
- Mexico- 0
- Micronesia- 0
- Moldova- 0
- Monaco- 0
- Mongolia- 0
- Morocco- 0
- Mozambique- 0
- Namibia- 0
- Nepal- 0
- New Caledonia- 0
- New Zealand - 0
- Nicaragua- 0
- Nigeria- 0
- Niue- 0
- Norfolk Island- 0
- Northern Ireland- 0
- Northern Mariana Islands- 0
- Norway- 0
- Oman- 0
- Pakistan- 0
- Palau- 0
- Palestina- 0
- Panama- 0
- Papua New Guinea- 0
- Paraguay- 0
- Peru- 0
- Philippines- 0
- Portugal- 0
- Puerto Rico- 0
- Qatar- 0
- Reunion- 0
- Romania- 0
- Russian Federation - 0
- Rwanda- 0
- Saint Kitts and Nevis- 0
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines- 0
- Samoa (Western Samoa)- 0
- San Marino- 0
- Saudi Arabia- 0
- Senegal- 0
- Seychelles- 0
- Sierra Leone- 0
- Singapore- 0
- Slovakia- 0
- Slovenia- 0
- Solomon Islands- 0
- Somalia- 0
- South Africa- 0
- Spain- 0
- Sri Lanka- 0
- Sudan- 0
- Suriname- 0
- Swaziland- 0
- Sweden- 0
- Switzerland- 0
- Syrian Arab Republic- 0
- Taiwan- 0
- Tanzania- 0
- Thailand- 0
- Tibet- 0
- Togo- 0
- Tonga- 0
- Trinidad and Tobago- 0
- Tunisia- 0
- Turkey- 0
- Turkmenistan- 0
- Turks and Caicos Islands- 0
- Uganda- 0
- Ukraine- 0
- United Arab Emirates- 0
- Uruguay- 0
- Uzbekistan- 0
- Vatican City State - Holy See- 0
- Venezuela- 0
- Viet Nam- 0
- Yemen- 0
- Yugoslavia- 0
- Zambia- 0
- Zimbabwe- 0

[BoganGod]

Oui sleepy. Madagascar has been left off the list of nations. Pretty sloppy work kiddo

[mrswdk]

And Taiwan and Tibet included. Sloppy work, from sloppy saxi.

[riskllama]

leave my friend alone, mrs...

[mrswdk]

I found him first, you big poo.

[saxitoxin]

And Taiwan and Tibet included. Sloppy work, from sloppy saxi.

ur gonna get sloppy saxis if you don't shut it

leave my friend alone, mrs...

thank you, friend!

[riskllama]

llama gots yer back...

[waauw]

The nobel prize for ecomomics is not a real nobel prize. I vote it should be removed from the list.

Sweden’s Central Bank quietly snuck it in with all the other Nobel Prizes to give retrograde free-market economics credibility and the appearance of scientific rigor. One of the Federal Reserve banks explained it succinctly, “Few realize, especially outside of economists, that the prize in economics is not an “official” Nobel. . . . The award for economics came almost 70 years later—bootstrapped to the Nobel in 1968 as a bit of a marketing ploy to celebrate the Bank of Sweden’s 300th anniversary.” Yes, you read that right: “a marketing ploy.”

Here’s a Nobel family member describing it: “The Economics Prize has nestled itself in and is awarded as if it were a Nobel Prize. But it’s a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation,” Nobel’s great great nephew Peter Nobel told AFP in 2005, adding that “It’s most often awarded to stock market speculators. . . . There is nothing to indicate that [Alfred Nobel] would have wanted such a prize.”

http://exiledonline.com/the-nobel-prize-in-economics-there-is-no-nobel-prize-in-economics/

[mrswdk]

Somewhere out there BBS just woke up from a restless sleep.

[Dukasaur]

The nobel prize for ecomomics is not a real nobel prize. I vote it should be removed from the list.

Sweden’s Central Bank quietly snuck it in with all the other Nobel Prizes to give retrograde free-market economics credibility and the appearance of scientific rigor. One of the Federal Reserve banks explained it succinctly, “Few realize, especially outside of economists, that the prize in economics is not an “official” Nobel. . . . The award for economics came almost 70 years later—bootstrapped to the Nobel in 1968 as a bit of a marketing ploy to celebrate the Bank of Sweden’s 300th anniversary.” Yes, you read that right: “a marketing ploy.”

Here’s a Nobel family member describing it: “The Economics Prize has nestled itself in and is awarded as if it were a Nobel Prize. But it’s a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation,” Nobel’s great great nephew Peter Nobel told AFP in 2005, adding that “It’s most often awarded to stock market speculators. . . . There is nothing to indicate that [Alfred Nobel] would have wanted such a prize.”

http://exiledonline.com/the-nobel-prize-in-economics-there-is-no-nobel-prize-in-economics/

I beg to differ with Alfred's great-great-nephew.

Alfred Nobel laid down his prizes according to the fields that, from his point of view, would result in the greatest gains for the benefit of Mankind. And, for his time, they were good choices, but limited by what he could see. Today, there is nothing that could improve Mankind's condition more than improved knowledge of economics.

The Nobel Prize that I think is no longer meaningful is Chemistry. In Alfred's time, chemistry was king. It was growing by leaps and bounds and changing the world. Today, it's reached more-or-less the end of its road. There really isn't anything significant that we don't know about how chemicals behave or why. The few mysteries that remain, theoretical stuff like whether the 137 boundary can be breached, are more in the realm of physics than chemistry. For 30 years now the Nobel committees have struggled to find, among a list of ever-more-trivial discoveries in catalysis and synthesis, something important enough to deserve a Nobel.

[betiko]

only the peace one counts; so it's 1 for colombia and boo for the rest. special metion to JAPAN-NIHON for not sharing their prize, unlike all the other dorkies who just tagged along to get a prize too.

[mrswdk]

The Nobel Prize that I think is no longer meaningful is Chemistry. In Alfred's time, chemistry was king. It was growing by leaps and bounds and changing the world. Today, it's reached more-or-less the end of its road. There really isn't anything significant that we don't know about how chemicals behave or why.

What makes you say stuff like this? This year's chemistry Nobel prize went to the people who constructed the first mechanical nanomachine, a creation which has huge implications for cancer treatment.

If you want to blast dubious Nobel prizes then this year they gave one to Bon Dylan for writing folk songs. Why not take a pop at that?

[Dukasaur]

The Nobel Prize that I think is no longer meaningful is Chemistry. In Alfred's time, chemistry was king. It was growing by leaps and bounds and changing the world. Today, it's reached more-or-less the end of its road. There really isn't anything significant that we don't know about how chemicals behave or why.

What makes you say stuff like this? This year's chemistry Nobel prize went to the people who constructed the first mechanical nanomachine, a creation which has huge implications for cancer treatment.

Not knocking it, but it should get the prize for Medicine, or Engineering if there was one. It doesn't really increase our understanding of how chemicals behave, or why.

I stand by my statement. There are no major discoveries left to make in chemistry. Useful applications, sure, but no discoveries. It means no disrespect whatsoever to Sauvage et al and their groundbreaking work in biomedical engineering.

[waauw]

The nobel prize for ecomomics is not a real nobel prize. I vote it should be removed from the list.

Sweden’s Central Bank quietly snuck it in with all the other Nobel Prizes to give retrograde free-market economics credibility and the appearance of scientific rigor. One of the Federal Reserve banks explained it succinctly, “Few realize, especially outside of economists, that the prize in economics is not an “official” Nobel. . . . The award for economics came almost 70 years later—bootstrapped to the Nobel in 1968 as a bit of a marketing ploy to celebrate the Bank of Sweden’s 300th anniversary.” Yes, you read that right: “a marketing ploy.”

Here’s a Nobel family member describing it: “The Economics Prize has nestled itself in and is awarded as if it were a Nobel Prize. But it’s a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation,” Nobel’s great great nephew Peter Nobel told AFP in 2005, adding that “It’s most often awarded to stock market speculators. . . . There is nothing to indicate that [Alfred Nobel] would have wanted such a prize.”

http://exiledonline.com/the-nobel-prize-in-economics-there-is-no-nobel-prize-in-economics/

I beg to differ with Alfred's great-great-nephew.

Alfred Nobel laid down his prizes according to the fields that, from his point of view, would result in the greatest gains for the benefit of Mankind. And, for his time, they were good choices, but limited by what he could see. Today, there is nothing that could improve Mankind's condition more than improved knowledge of economics.

The Nobel Prize that I think is no longer meaningful is Chemistry. In Alfred's time, chemistry was king. It was growing by leaps and bounds and changing the world. Today, it's reached more-or-less the end of its road. There really isn't anything significant that we don't know about how chemicals behave or why. The few mysteries that remain, theoretical stuff like whether the 137 boundary can be breached, are more in the realm of physics than chemistry. For 30 years now the Nobel committees have struggled to find, among a list of ever-more-trivial discoveries in catalysis and synthesis, something important enough to deserve a Nobel.

The problem is economics is not like the exact sciences. All findings and theories are more relative and circumstantial than they could ever be in the exact sciences. There is a much larger exposure to biases than in the other fields. Of course as I'm myself not by any means an economist I shall offer you a quote from a former Nobel prize winner in economics, Friedrich Von Hayek:

Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones. While in the physical sciences it is generally assumed, probably with good reason, that any important factor which determines the observed events will itself be directly observable and measurable, in the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process, for reasons which I shall explain later, will hardly ever be fully known or measurable. And while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes.

It can hardly be denied that such a demand quite arbitrarily limits the facts which are to be admitted as possible causes of the events which occur in the real world. This view, which is often quite naively accepted as required by scientific procedure, has some rather paradoxical consequences. We know: of course, with regard to the market and similar social structures, a great many facts which we cannot measure and on which indeed we have only some very imprecise and general information. And because the effects of these facts in any particular instance cannot be confirmed by quantitative evidence, they are simply disregarded by those sworn to admit only what they regard as scientific evidence: they thereupon happily proceed on the fiction that the factors which they can measure are the only ones that are relevant.

source and full lecture: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html

[Dukasaur]

The nobel prize for ecomomics is not a real nobel prize. I vote it should be removed from the list.

Sweden’s Central Bank quietly snuck it in with all the other Nobel Prizes to give retrograde free-market economics credibility and the appearance of scientific rigor. One of the Federal Reserve banks explained it succinctly, “Few realize, especially outside of economists, that the prize in economics is not an “official” Nobel. . . . The award for economics came almost 70 years later—bootstrapped to the Nobel in 1968 as a bit of a marketing ploy to celebrate the Bank of Sweden’s 300th anniversary.” Yes, you read that right: “a marketing ploy.”

Here’s a Nobel family member describing it: “The Economics Prize has nestled itself in and is awarded as if it were a Nobel Prize. But it’s a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation,” Nobel’s great great nephew Peter Nobel told AFP in 2005, adding that “It’s most often awarded to stock market speculators. . . . There is nothing to indicate that [Alfred Nobel] would have wanted such a prize.”

http://exiledonline.com/the-nobel-prize-in-economics-there-is-no-nobel-prize-in-economics/

I beg to differ with Alfred's great-great-nephew.

Alfred Nobel laid down his prizes according to the fields that, from his point of view, would result in the greatest gains for the benefit of Mankind. And, for his time, they were good choices, but limited by what he could see. Today, there is nothing that could improve Mankind's condition more than improved knowledge of economics.

The Nobel Prize that I think is no longer meaningful is Chemistry. In Alfred's time, chemistry was king. It was growing by leaps and bounds and changing the world. Today, it's reached more-or-less the end of its road. There really isn't anything significant that we don't know about how chemicals behave or why. The few mysteries that remain, theoretical stuff like whether the 137 boundary can be breached, are more in the realm of physics than chemistry. For 30 years now the Nobel committees have struggled to find, among a list of ever-more-trivial discoveries in catalysis and synthesis, something important enough to deserve a Nobel.

The problem is economics is not like the exact sciences. All findings and theories are more relative and circumstantial than they could ever be in the exact sciences. There is a much larger exposure to biases than in the other fields. Of course as I'm myself not by any means an economist I shall offer you a quote from a former Nobel prize winner in economics, Friedrich Von Hayek:

Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones. While in the physical sciences it is generally assumed, probably with good reason, that any important factor which determines the observed events will itself be directly observable and measurable, in the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process, for reasons which I shall explain later, will hardly ever be fully known or measurable. And while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes.

It can hardly be denied that such a demand quite arbitrarily limits the facts which are to be admitted as possible causes of the events which occur in the real world. This view, which is often quite naively accepted as required by scientific procedure, has some rather paradoxical consequences. We know: of course, with regard to the market and similar social structures, a great many facts which we cannot measure and on which indeed we have only some very imprecise and general information. And because the effects of these facts in any particular instance cannot be confirmed by quantitative evidence, they are simply disregarded by those sworn to admit only what they regard as scientific evidence: they thereupon happily proceed on the fiction that the factors which they can measure are the only ones that are relevant.

source and full lecture: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html

I love Hayek!

However, he was writing at a time when numbers were still crunched by hand.

With the advent of computers, statistical science has been growing by leaps and bounds. It is possible now to do multivariable regression on enormous data sets that would never have been possible 50 years ago. For that matter, even 20 years ago.

It is now possible to test theories in economics with the same level of certainty that one can test theories in physics.

[Lootifer]

I agree with Duka.

But I would, being an evil anti-traditionalist and all...

[mrswdk]

The Nobel Prize that I think is no longer meaningful is Chemistry. In Alfred's time, chemistry was king. It was growing by leaps and bounds and changing the world. Today, it's reached more-or-less the end of its road. There really isn't anything significant that we don't know about how chemicals behave or why.

What makes you say stuff like this? This year's chemistry Nobel prize went to the people who constructed the first mechanical nanomachine, a creation which has huge implications for cancer treatment.

Not knocking it, but it should get the prize for Medicine, or Engineering if there was one. It doesn't really increase our understanding of how chemicals behave, or why.

I stand by my statement. There are no major discoveries left to make in chemistry. Useful applications, sure, but no discoveries. It means no disrespect whatsoever to Sauvage et al and their groundbreaking work in biomedical engineering.

Chemistry is the study of matter, not the study of chemicals.

[mrswdk]

So howse about that Nobel peace prize for Obama, huh???

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Duk fails and mrs hits nothing but net. There's still tons left to discover in chemistry, with game-changing implications.

Anyway, if any of the prizes are useless, it'd be the Peace prize. After all, they awarded it to the baby-killing terrorist Mandela.

-TG

[BoganGod]

llama gots yer back...

So he can spit on it....... Faker