io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 3:30 PM
Sat Nov 21
18 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/13/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/13/09
Or, they didn't fail economics like you did, and realized that printing money and running up debt during an economic downturn is a really, really bad idea. But hey, if the only "conservative" you can think of is Glenn Beck, I could see where your confusion might come from.
10/15/09
The only point that I was trying to make was that many research scientists and the millions of under and uninsured people in the country have something in common: They both have to deal with a government that thinks that they are too expensive. #nobelprize
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
@disatess - have you read the Nobel committee's statement at all?
Basically, he gets the award for encouraging dialogue with rogue states; engaging with the UN; reducing the number of nuclear weapons (or how else can you expect aspiring nuclear nations to stop?) and not being an isolationist/neo-imperialist stooge like Bush.
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
There have been entire years where no one was awarded. (Everyone apparently sucked in 1972). There have been years where people like Arafat won for what they attempting to do, and not what they did. Same for Kissinger.
There have been American Presidents who've won the award in office after going to war. See Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson. There have even been years where the U.N. Peacekeeping forces, or just the U.N. have won.
This is completely normal for the Nobel Peace Prize. The only reason it feels different to you is because you can't remember any other winners besides Al Gore & the Dali Lama, and assume someone needs Mother Teressa levels of awesome to win.
I really wish people would do some fucking research before going off on this.
10/11/09
10/11/09
Arafat was a terrorist and Kissinger a war criminal.
10/11/09
10/11/09
And by the way, you pompous ass, TR got his for working to resolve a war and Wilson for founding the league of nations. So maybe you should do some research yourself.
So get off you high fucking horse and admit that people can have a different opinion then you about something without being uninformed morons.
(I also don't think Gore should have won, as he is just the highly paid mouthpiece for people who are doing real work)
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
Just shows how retarded the swiss are. Give the peace award to someone that doesn't even PRODUCE PEACE.
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
But thanks for playing.
10/12/09
The Peace Prize has been idiotic in conception and execution from the beginning.
-Kle.
10/12/09
10/11/09
Bring on the stem cell research in full!
09/11/09
#@!
09/11/09
09/11/09
A giant beetle, on the other hand...
09/11/09
Of course, the only known human test subject was female, so the results are considered apocryphal by the scientific community at large- similar to the reported effectiveness of monkey glands, according to some.
[/obscure bad movie trivia]
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/29/09
Oh, fine - you rich kids got Plutonium every day, while we had to walk ten miles, just to get a scrap of depleted Uranium for dinner...
-Kle.
08/28/09
08/28/09
More accurately, it always has been, but now someone is pointing it out.
" A study published today in Science proves it is the leading cause of ozone layer destruction in the twenty-first century."
That would be because we have reduced the levels of the former leading causes to the point where NO is now prominent.
There will always be a leading cause; it would be more useful to talk about the magnitude of the effect than about what is the biggest effector.
-Kle.
08/28/09
08/29/09
A major problem in medicine, too - just because something doubles your risk of (cancer, heart disease, whatever) doesn't necessarily mean it's a big deal. It might be doubling it from infinitesimal to... infinitesimal.
-Kle.
08/30/09
And I did my frantic best to make it #3.
08/27/09
Needs more Devo
08/27/09
So I guess going green would consist of . . . starting to shoot up heroin instead?