or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › US judge says Samsung tablets unlikely to attract Apple's customers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US judge says Samsung tablets unlikely to attract Apple's customers - Page 3

post #81 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

So you claim that Koreans won't shop at a foreign retailer like Costco. Then why does Costco keep opening another store in Daegu and Busan? Very strange.

And I've never seen a StarPreya coffee shop anywhere in Apkujeong, Gangnam or anywhere in the country for that matter. That Korean company might have won in the courts but their business went to the dumps.

No, what I wrote was they made sure that Wal-Mart and Carrefour were bought out by Korean companies. Costco is simply an exception (to date anyway) that proves the rule.

The example of StarPreya is not so much about StarPreya as it is about the Korean courts siding with a Korean company against a foreign company in a blatant example of trademark or IP infringement. It's also about a HUGE tendency of Koreans (no, of course not every single individual, but a national tendency)-from retailers to technology companies to fast food chains to jeans lines (Revi's anyone?) to the the very 'music' and films Korea produces - to blatantly copy western or Japanese products and styles rather than try to come up with something equally as good themselves, which judging by K-pop alone they seem incapable of doing. Korea has some good things it can be proud (soju, Bong Jun-Hoo, some cool, generous and relaxed people who aren't rabid nationalists, for example) but in general ORIGINALITY doesn't seem to fit well with its Confucian 'copy the master' mindset. With that history of suppression of originality (a history which carries into 2011) it's no surprise that companies like SamDung continue to mostly imitate western styles or companies like Apple. DO you see that?
post #82 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

It's funny that you take Nokia as an example because you really don't know your facts. Nokia had a factory making cell phones in South Korea back in the 80s but they didn't see much potential in the nascent South Korean mobile phone market. So they just exported the phones and didn't try to sell their phones here. Nokia's CEO admitted that they should have taken South Korean manufacturers seriously but the Finnish execs thought they were better than some scrappy South Korean maker that nobody in the world had ever heard of. When Nokia finally woke up and tried to sell their cheap bar phones in South Korea they sold them at the retail price of $800. You think a South Korean consumer would be willing to pay $800 for a bar phone in the early 90s? Back in the 90s, that's more than half the monthly salary of a typical South Korean worker.

Nokia eventually pulled out of South Korea because their $800 bar phone wasn't selling well. And years later, Nokia's CEO admitted they committed a big blunder by pulling out. If Nokia had stayed and taken the competition seriously, he said Nokia wouldn't be where it was at the time. Don't blame the shop owner, please. Blame the execs in Finland who pulled the plug around the time you were shopping for a Nokia.

(Btw, the Nokia bar phone might have been priced at upwards of $1200 in Korea. I vaguely recall my mom saying she couldn't afford the Nokia phone because it was over $1000. So she ended up buying a phone from Nokia's inferior competitor. And of course, it broke down often. So their CEO had a fit over the phone's poor quality and burned a pile of them to show what a disgraceful product it was to his employees.)

To start, in terms of standard phones Nokia IS better than 'some South Korean startup' (I take it you mean SamDung?) and has the number one all-time sales records to prove it. In terms of smartphones, Samsung can't even design its own software and desperately tries to copy the iPhone. They're well behind Blackberry too.

Actually I DO blame the shop owners, the Korean chaebol, their media (Korea Herald for example which consistently runs 'articles' about how Korean products are superior to western ones) and millions of the people themselves for keeping companies like Noika out of Korea. It's exactly the same type of domestic protectionism and tariffs that's kept foreign cars out the Korean market.

But what goes around comes around and China is now doing to Korean companies what Koreans have done to western companies for decades. Long after SamDung and Lucky Goldstar have been bought up by Chinese companies, Apple will be around and either sourcing components from Japanese companies like Sharp or making the components themselves. Imitators like SamDung don't usually last in the long run, true innovators like Apple often do. I know where my purchase money will be going.
post #83 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

Imitators like SamDung don't usually last in the long run, true innovators like Apple often do. I know where my purchase money will be going.

If you read Steve Job's biography and watch some of his interviews, Jobs makes the admission that he stole the GUI from Xerox. Which is the lesser evil? Stealing or copying? I don't know. You decide.
post #84 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

Actually I DO blame the shop owners, the Korean chaebol, their media (Korea Herald for example which consistently runs 'articles' about how Korean products are superior to western ones) and millions of the people themselves for keeping companies like Noika out of Korea. It's exactly the same type of domestic protectionism and tariffs that's kept foreign cars out the Korean market.

Do you realize how out of touch the Korean media and chaebol are with the general South Korean population? Have you heard of the 1 percenters who rule at the top? Alright, judge South Koreans based on what mouthpieces say on Korean television. Maybe the rest of the world will judge Americans based on what talking heads on Fox News say.


Is Apple having a tough time cracking the South Korean market? Really? After making $2 billion in iPhone, Macbook and iPad sales in South Korea last year? Come on.

So BMW made nearly $1 billion in annual profits in Korea. What kind of protectionism allows that to happen.
post #85 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

Do you realize how out of touch the Korean media and chaebol are with the general South Korean population? Have you heard of the 1 percenters who rule at the top? Alright, judge South Koreans based on what mouthpieces say on Korean television. Maybe the rest of the world will judge Americans based on what talking heads on Fox News say.


Is Apple having a tough time cracking the South Korean market? Really? After making $2 billion in iPhone, Macbook and iPad sales in South Korea last year? Come on.

So BMW made nearly $1 billion in annual profits in Korea. What kind of protectionism allows that to happen.


Oh, the 'logic' of Korean nationalism. Look, man, you can't just cite some exceptions to the rule hoping it will disprove the rule. Are some things changing a bit for some foreign auto companies in Korea? Yes, but hardly at a pace that threatens Korean companies' domestic market share.

Every foreigner I met in Korea and the vast majority of Koreans themselves observed—like the sky is blue—that it is an extremely protectionist culture. The former usually thought it was a bad thing, the latter often thought it necessary for keeping jobs; fair enough. But you seem to be in total denial that it's there at all which is very strange indeed. You're Korean but have you lived or worked there in the past ten years?

You contrast Korea Now with Korea Then and see a little bit of change. What I'm doing is comparing Korea Now with Most of the Rest of the World Now and seeing a Korea that continues to be hostile to most foreigners who try to do business there and make a return on their investment. In that regard Korea probably has more in common with the Bait-Imitate-Devour tactics of China than with any other nation.

Furthermore, your figures are extremely misleading. You throw out a distractor like "BMW made nearly $1 billion in annual profits in Korea" (source?) without providing any comparative context, crucial when we're debating something like domestic vs. import auto sales. So let me help you there. BMW sold about 20,000 units in Korea last year. Ok, that's nice for BMW who are seeing similar sales increases globally, and nice for Korean parts suppliers too. But contrast that with TOTAL auto sales in Korea of well over 1 MILLION units this year
( http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...e-sales-table- ). ...You can do the math.

In addition, you mention a niche market luxury car company like BMW—which doesn't even make the top ten in overall Korean market share— as proof of the nosediving of the Korean nationalist mindset (?!) Even GM Korea (itself a third-owned by the Korea Development Bank) has a market share in Korea of less than 10%, despite having the factories right on the ground. You also previously cited the percentage increase of foreign car manufacturers' sales in Korea without mentioning that Korean auto manufacturers are showing even greater percentage increases in their foreign market inroads (e.g. to the US).

Moreover, and these are the only big-picture numbers that really matter, let's compare the 2011 percentage of foreign autos sold in the US (approximately 50%) vs. the 2011 percentage of foreign cars sold in Korea (only around 9%). With figures like those I have to ask you exactly how those 'non-nationalistic' Koreans who make up the remaining 89% of car purchasers are so distinct from those 'out-of-touch' chaebol bosses you mention?

And YES I do call that protectionism and so would most other people. But you seem to have your own definition.
post #86 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post


Oh, the 'logic' of Korean nationalism. Look, man, you can't just cite some exceptions to the rule hoping it will disprove the rule.

Every foreigner I met in Korea and about every Korean too observed—like the sky is blue—that it is an extremely protectionist culture.

I'm baffled that you're saying I'm giving examples that are exceptions to the rule. So all these foreign companies, and mind you most of them are American corporations, are making no money at all in South Korea? Is that what you're trying to tell me? So those Boeing planes in the Korean Air and Asiana fleet never translated into profits? They were given to Korea as gifts? All those military purchases were not profitable at all to the U.S. defense contractors? Btw, South Korea is the world's third largest arms importer. (I'm not proud of that) Every profit from a cup of Starbuck coffee that is sold in 338 stores around Korea go to the local Korean partner, too? I didn't know that Howard Schultz was that gullible. He seemed to be very smart based on the book he wrote. I said that Lone Star Funds made $4 billion in a year here but that has to be an exception too I guess. And the success of Domino's Pizza in Korea is another exception. And Citibank, and The North Face and Nike... All of these companies are having such a hard time due to Korea's protectionist policies that they wish to go home after staying here for 10-plus years? Do you need an article link to believe this or else it didn't happen? Is your Google search engine not functioning, sir?

And you keep saying that Koreans won't buy American cars. So tell me this. Do Japanese people buy American cars? Do German consumers buy American cars? You blame Korea's protectionist policies as the number one reason why American cars have a miniscule market share here. But Japan and German play by the rules, right? Their people are not nationalistic. They just have a non-nationalistic tendency to buy domestic brands, right? Uh-huh.
post #87 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

And YES I do call that protectionism and so would most other people. But you seem to have your own definition.

Protectionism is a situation where a country makes it impossible for a foreign company to come into the domestic market and do business. Have you heard of India preventing Wal-Mart from entering its market? That's protectionism.

Your definition of protectionism goes like this. If you don't see an American car in country A, then that's blatant protectionism. You betcha. And it proves that the people in country A are nationalistic and xenophobic to the hilt. It doesn't matter that a Chevy Tahoe or F-150 truck is a gas guzzler and too wide for the streets in country A. If the people there are not buying and driving them, then they are anti-American. So as long as you eliminate NTBs, the consumers in country A will flock and buy them. To hell with $8-a-gallon gas, which is the price in most European countries as well as in Korea. To hell with the $23,000 MSRP or $30,000 for that F-150 model. It's America's bestselling truck so it should sell well anywhere. People in the world should be able to afford them like Americans despite the fact that a billion people live below the poverty line and 3 billion live on less than $2.50 a day. Just break down the protectionist barriers and GM and Ford will be able to sell millions of trucks to the world.
post #88 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

Protectionism is a situation where a country makes it impossible for a foreign company to come into the domestic market and do business. Have you heard of India preventing Wal-Mart from entering its market? That's protectionism.

Your definition of protectionism goes like this. If you don't see an American car in country A, then that's blatant protectionism. You betcha. And it proves that the people in country A are nationalistic and xenophobic to the hilt. It doesn't matter that a Chevy Tahoe or F-150 truck is a gas guzzler and too wide for the streets in country A. If the people there are not buying and driving them, then they are anti-American. So as long as you eliminate NTBs, the consumers in country A will flock and buy them. To hell with $8-a-gallon gas, which is the price in most European countries as well as in Korea. To hell with the $23,000 MSRP or $30,000 for that F-150 model. It's America's bestselling truck so it should sell well anywhere. People in the world should be able to afford them like Americans despite the fact that a billion people live below the poverty line and 3 billion live on less than $2.50 a day. Just break down the protectionist barriers and GM and Ford will be able to sell millions of trucks to the world.


First of all, in reference to your previous post, we're talking about the foreign share of the Korean domestic auto market, not the foreign share of the German domestic auto market. But ok, I'll play that game if you insist. Can you provide me with those figures? I'd be very surprised to find that Germans buy a lower percentage of foreign cars than Koreans do and will concede this argument if you can show me that they do. ...Nevermind, I've looked at the numbers and they show that even the protectionist Germans are not nearly so nationalistic as Koreans. Foreign auto sales in Korea have yet to reach 10% of the total market share while in Germany that figure is around 35-40%. ( http://henk-bekker.suite101.com/list...n-2010-a328223 ).

No offense but you keep returning to an avoidance of my basic argument here. Yes the Japanese are also very protectionist but just because they are doesn't mean Koreans are not. Why the continuous diversions? As for protectionism, it's rarely an all-or-nothing entity; rather it's usually a death of a thousand cuts approach rather than outright bans onALL things foreign (even Dear Leader Kim Jung-Il recognizes this definition every time he thwarts his own juche ideology by importing tons of Johnny Walker, Hennessey Cognac and porn. Or did you make up that definition yourself?

By the way many of the examples you listed as being profitable for western companies are legitimate, but these aren't the kinds of businesses we're talking about. Why not? The difference with the examples you just provided is that these are areas in which Korea has no real expertise or experience and currently no hope of matching the west. Viz. Korea simply doesn't know how to make them and would be in violation of more than copying Apple's iPad if they ever tried to do so. For example, Korea can manufacture a lot of shiny things but it simply can't come close to the west in fields like aeronautical engineering, armaments, aerospace, biotech, or many other of the most cutting edge scientific fields in the world today, at least not at this time. In the future, who knows? But anyway, with the political path Korea has chosen/or had forced on it, it has had 'no choice' but to purchase these things from outside Korea, be they fighter planes or financial services. I'll agree with you on this, I also think that the maintenance of US bases in Korea and those massive arms contracts are a huge waste of resources for both countries. Obscene really.

Anyway, I don't know where you went to school but it's frankly quite amazing that now you're saying that Koreans buy 90% Korean cars because *drum roll* "American vehicles are too wide for Korean roads"???? If so, then why haven't Koreans bought smaller German, Russian or French models instead? The last time I checked, Korean highways and city streets were in pretty good shape and plenty wide enough to accommodate all manner of buses and 18-wheel trucks. And you're now trying to tell me that Koreans are too poor to afford an imported car??!? What?!?? Well they sure have money for all kinds of other stuff! But maybe the price of those foreign car imports could change if the Korean government dropped the tariffs. BMW prices there are the highest in the world.

Again I have to ask you if you've even lived in Korea over the past ten years? I have and it's not at all the same Korea you're obviously dreaming of. Maybe you were there in 1954 when the highways were cowpaths and people actually were poor? Trust me, they have much better roads now and no-one is even close to starving (actually obesity is becoming a 'huge' problem there, too).

Korean nationalism... ya just gotta love it folks!!!
post #89 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post


By the way many of the examples you listed as being profitable for western companies are legitimate, but these aren't the kinds of businesses we're talking about. Why not? The difference with the examples you just provided is that these are areas in which Korea has no real expertise or experience and currently no hope of matching the west. Viz. Korea simply doesn't know how to make them and would be in violation of more than copying Apple's iPad if they ever tried to do so. For example, Korea can manufacture a lot of shiny things but it simply can't come close to the west in fields like aeronautical engineering, armaments, aerospace, biotech, or many other of the most cutting edge scientific fields in the world today, at least not at this time. In the future, who knows? But anyway, with the political path Korea has chosen/or had forced on it, it has had 'no choice' but to purchase these things from outside Korea, be they fighter planes or financial services.

This is how trade works. Let's say Country A only grows lemons while Country B only grows apples. So Country A trades its lemons for Country B's apples. And vice versa.
post #90 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

Maybe the price of imports could change if the Korean government dropped the tariffs on imports. BMW prices there are the highest in the world.

BMWs cost more in Germany than they do in South Korea. That's misinformation. I know that for a fact because I drive one.
post #91 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

This is how trade works. Let's say Country A only grows lemons while Country B only grows apples. So Country A trades its lemons for Country B's apples. And vice versa.


Wow, thank you for that illuminating lesson. Very informative.
post #92 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

I don't know where you went to school but it's frankly quite amazing that now you're saying that Koreans buy 90% Korean cars because *drum roll* "American vehicles are too wide for Korean roads"???? If so, then why haven't Koreans bought smaller German, Russian or French models instead? The last time I checked Korean highways and city streets were in pretty good shape and plenty wide enough to accommodate all manner of buses and 18-wheel trucks.

The roads here are not as wide as American roads. And gas is $8 a gallon so it's obvious why Koreans won't be enticed to buy a Chevy or Ford truck. And those big city buses have their own bus lanes.
post #93 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

Wow, thank you for that illuminating lesson. Very informative.

Yes, yes, yes. You're welcome.
post #94 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

BMWs cost more in Germany than they do in South Korea. That's misinformation. I know that for a fact because I drive one.

Got a source for that fact mister? Or did you buy a BMW in Korea and then buy another in Germany recently?

You know, that's great for you. Since I lost my job at the Ford plant all I can afford is a Hyundai Pony.


...
post #95 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

Yes, yes, yes. You're welcome.


Cool. Now that I know that stuff I'm sure I'll be able to get into a top Korean university.
post #96 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

The roads here are not as wide as American roads. And gas is $8 a gallon so it's obvious why Koreans won't be enticed to buy a Chevy or Ford truck. And those big city buses have their own bus lanes.


Again you simply refused to answer the question and provide any logical refutation. Reminder: Why then don't Koreans buy smaller French or Italian cars, etc. if "the roads are too narrow" Why don't you name some of those "too narrow" roads, or have you even been there?

I've dealt with many a Korean nationalist before and predictably, like you, they just keep running around in the same old circles.

Tell you what, I'm going for a beer but while I'm away you try again and maybe I'll get to you later.

You keep stacking' 'em, I'll keep knocking' 'em down. Do me a favor and try to get some more juicy ones like "Korean roads are too narrow" will you? I really loved that one!

Gotta run now, later dude.
post #97 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

The roads here are not as wide as American roads. And gas is $8 a gallon so it's obvious why Koreans won't be enticed to buy a Chevy or Ford truck. And those big city buses have their own bus lanes.


That's only on the inter-city highways, not IN the cities themselves. If so what you'd be implying is that the bus lanes on those highways are wider than the car lanes? Which is both absurd engineering and a false statement. You've obviously never even been there during your adult life. Your arguments are quickly atomizing my man, just as they always do with Korean nationalists. (Tip: get some new material but fast!)


We're all having a great laugh at this thread in my office. Please keep the good stuff coming. It's comedy gold.
post #98 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

Again you simply refused to answer the question and provide any logical refutation. Reminder: Why then don't Koreans buy smaller French or Italian cars, etc. if "the roads are too narrow" Why don't you name some of those "too narrow" roads, or have you even been there?

I've dealt with many a Korean nationalist before and predictably, like you, they just keep running around in the same old circles.

You keep stacking' 'em, I'll keep knocking' 'em down. Do me a favor and try to get some more juicy ones like "Korean roads are too narrow" will you? I really loved that one!

I've dealt with people who don't accept the facts especially when the facts contradict what they believe. I never once said that Koreans are not nationalistic. What I've been saying again and again like a broken record is that multinationals are doing very well in South Korea. So your constant spiel that these are flukes and exceptions to the rule are well, flat wrong. I concede that there is protectionism in Korea but the U.S. has no protectionism, right? Uh-huh. Don't mind the U.S. farm subsidies. That's sacred. You can't go there, right? And those no-bid contracts awarded to Boeing. That's not a subsidy (a form of NTBs). Even if the EU courts say it is, to hell with them.
post #99 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

That's only on the inter-city highways, not IN the cities themselves. If so what you'd be implying is that the bus lanes on those highways are wider than the car lanes? Which is both absurd engineering and a false statement. You've obviously never even been there during your adult life. Your arguments are quickly atomizing my man, just as they always do with Korean nationalists. (Tip: get some new material but fast!)


We're all having a great laugh at this thread in my office. Please keep the good stuff coming. It's comedy gold.

There are bus lanes in the city. President Lee Myung-bak got elected on the platform of beautifying Seoul with the Cheonggyecheon stream and creating separate city bus lanes to alleviate traffic congestion. I got ticketed for driving in the city bus lane once. So tell me, how much do you know about Korea again?
post #100 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

Again you simply refused to answer the question and provide any logical refutation. Reminder: Why then don't Koreans buy smaller French or Italian cars, etc. if "the roads are too narrow" Why don't you name some of those "too narrow" roads, or have you even been there?

Peugeot sells subcompact cars in Korea for over $30,000. Enough said.

Have you ever driven a car in Seoul? Obviously, you haven't. Try driving through a paved side road (golmokgil) in Gangbuk and even Gangnam for that matter. You'll get into some tight places where you can get jammed all by yourself without any incoming traffic. So you won't see a Mercedes S-Class limousine or a Bentley or a Rolls driving through a side road in Korea. Don't even think about making a P-turn in a Chevy Suburban in Gangbuk. You'll be stuck forever.

Again, I keep wondering if your Google search engine isn't working right. You could save yourself from passing along misinformation disgused as facts. Let me help you. Type "city bus lanes seoul" in your preferred search engine. You're welcome.
post #101 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

Your arguments are quickly atomizing my man, just as they always do with Korean nationalists. (Tip: get some new material but fast!)


We're all having a great laugh at this thread in my office. Please keep the good stuff coming. It's comedy gold.

I presume everyone in your office gets informative news from Fox News. They're fair and balanced.

I give you some facts that can easily be Googled (thought you might need to be able to read Korean to check some facts) and you call me a Korean nationalist. So now we're playing the name game. Sorry but I don't want my IQ to drop that low.
post #102 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post


What I'm doing is comparing Korea Now with Most of the Rest of the World Now and seeing a Korea that continues to be hostile to most foreigners who try to do business there and make a return on their investment.

Yes the Japanese are also very protectionist but just because they are doesn't mean Koreans are not. Why the continuous diversions?

When I try to compare Korea to Germany or Japan or the rest of the world you accuse me of making "continous diversions." But when you give examples comparing Korea Now with Most of the Rest of the World Now you're just making a fair and balanced point.

Do you know how to debate? Which news channel do you watch religiously? I think I know.

Again, I've debated people who like to say, "you're continually making diversions," or "that's off topic" when the counterargument thrown at them doesn't jibe with their prepared response.
post #103 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

Even GM Korea (itself a third-owned by the Korea Development Bank) has a market share in Korea of less than 10%, despite having the factories right on the ground.

Did it ever occur to you that GM Korea under GM management could have been been badly mismanaged? Do you truly know the whole story behind their poor performance in Korea? You believe GM has able and talented managers who would never need, god forbid, a U.S. government bailout?

I won't go into too much detail because you have a tendency of discrediting any facts I state if they don't have those cute web links right below them. But GM Korea closed down all their dealerships in Korea. That's right. They shredded the dealership contracts with Koreans and said they would start with a fresh clean slate and recruit new dealers. What a great way to run a business. Slash and burn.
post #104 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

Have you ever driven a car in Seoul? Obviously, you haven't. Try driving through a paved side road (golmokgil) in Gangbuk and even Gangnam for that matter. You'll get into some tight places where you can get jammed all by yourself without any incoming traffic. So you won't see a Mercedes S-Class limousine or a Bentley or a Rolls driving through a side road in Korea. Don't even think about making a P-turn in a Chevy Suburban in Gangbuk. You'll be stuck forever.

HAHAHA, it got even better while I was out. Thanks man. So NOW you're saying that the majority of Koreans live on side streets that are inaccessible by pretty much any foreign vehicle, but are magically accessible by any Korean car!? What happened to all those 20 story apartment buildings and how are furniture deliveries, etc. made, by ox-cart?

But that's not all folks, according to eric475, westerners tend to mostly drive Rolls Royces and Bentleys! What exactly is the width difference between all Korean cars and all foreign cars? Feel free to ignore that question too.

You remind me of the doctor I once saw in Seoul who said that Koreans can't contract HIV because they eat kimchee, or Koreans who insist that you can't put the fan on at night in your room because it'll kill you, or Koreans saying their country is unique because "Korea has four distinct seasons", blah blah blah. But I never heard the "Koreans buy mostly Korean cars because our roads are narrower than all other roads in the world" I do love these tales...

KEEP 'EM COMING, THIS IS GREAT STUFF!
post #105 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

Again, I've debated people who like to say, "you're continually making diversions," or "that's off topic" when the counterargument thrown at them doesn't jibe with their prepared response.

Uh-huh, and that's obviously done wonders for your sense of logic. Seems like my remarks about Korean universities hit a raw nerve. Sorry, but there are reasons why they rank so low and why Koreans will save everything to try to get a real education in some other country. I'll leave you to figure out what some of those reasons might be.
post #106 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

Uh-huh, and that's obviously done wonders for your sense of logic. Seems like my remarks about Korean universities hit a raw nerve. Sorry, but there are reasons why they rank so low and why Koreans will save everything to try to get a real education in some other country. I'll leave you to figure out what some of those reasons might be.

I'm glad you mentioned Korean universities because at last, we agree on one thing, which is, the abysmal state of higher education in Korea. How lamentable. Korea could do so much better by hiring Harvard MBA grads and other grads from the top MBA schools in the US. Yes, they might run the economy to the ground with "innovative" financial instruments like derivatives, credit default swaps, and CDOs every now and then but that's alright. They're smart. The government will bail them out anyway. Those 99 percenters occupying Wall Street can go piss in their pants.

And Harvard Law School should be a model for all Korean law schools. Forget tort reform. Yes, America has the best legal system in the world bar none. It should be a model for every Asian country. You sue me, I sue you. That's the way to do it. You betcha!
post #107 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

HAHAHA, it got even better while I was out. Thanks man. So NOW you're saying that the majority of Koreans live on side streets that are inaccessible by pretty much any foreign vehicle, but are magically accessible by any Korean car!? What happened to all those 20 story apartment buildings and how are furniture deliveries, etc. made, by ox-cart?

But that's not all folks, according to eric475, westerners tend to mostly drive Rolls Royces and Bentleys! What exactly is the width difference between all Korean cars and all foreign cars? Feel free to ignore that question too.

You remind me of the doctor I once saw in Seoul who said that Koreans can't contract HIV because they eat kimchee, or Koreans who insist that you can't put the fan on at night in your room because it'll kill you, or Koreans saying their country is unique because "Korea has four distinct seasons", blah blah blah. But I never heard the "Koreans buy mostly Korean cars because our roads are narrower than all other roads in the world" I do love these tales...

KEEP 'EM COMING, THIS IS GREAT STUFF!


You remind me of Sarah Palin whom I watched doing an interview with Katie Couric.

You can't get a car as big as a Mercedes limo or a Chevy Suburban or a Rolls though quite a few side roads in Seoul. I stand by my statement. I wish you'd just look up the street view on map.daum.net and see for yourself. Is your Google search engine working now?
post #108 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

Uh-huh, and that's obviously done wonders for your sense of logic. Seems like my remarks about Korean universities hit a raw nerve. Sorry, but there are reasons why they rank so low and why Koreans will save everything to try to get a real education in some other country. I'll leave you to figure out what some of those reasons might be.

You say things that are pretty dated. You think an MBA degree from a top US school will get you a good-paying job here or even in America these days? Do you realize how times have changed so fast in just a year or two? And Korea is no slouch in keeping pace with the world.
post #109 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

You say things that are pretty dated. You think an MBA degree from a top US school will get you a good-paying job here or even in America these days? Do you realize how times have changed so fast in just a year or two? And Korea is no slouch in keeping pace with the world.

And an MBA from a Korean university will get you....?

Sorry to shatter your illusions but the rest of the world either doesn't agree (or simply doesn't know enough to care). Here's another "cute" link from some "misinformed source" about Korea and how it "keeps pace with the world" http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...2/top-400.html It's "dated" too, and that date is 2011-2012. Enjoy.

In a similar and somewhat related vein we can predict that whatever comes out of Apple's R&D labs will continue to be copied by Samsung in the foreseeable future.
post #110 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

And an MBA from a Korean university will get you....?

Sorry to shatter your illusions but the rest of the world either doesn't agree (or simply doesn't know enough to care). Here's another "cute" link from some "misinformed source" about Korea and how it "keeps pace with the world" http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...2/top-400.html It's "dated" too, and that date is 2011-2012. Enjoy.

In a similar and somewhat related vein we can predict that whatever comes out of Apple's R&D labs will continue to be copied by Samsung in the foreseeable future.

This Wikipedia entry sums up your debating style until now.
"Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

In the span of one page, you label me as one of the nationalistic and xenophobic people of South Korea.

I try to point to data that can be found in a simple Google search albeit with some Korean language skills required but you "blatantly" ignore counter evidence. You make no admission that you had wrong facts or interpreted the situation incorrectly.

You can go ahead and make fun of a doctor who said kimchi can protect you from HIV. At least he didn't directly kill someone with that belief. The same can't be said for Bush and his cohorts who "believed" there were WMDs in Iraq. 100,000+ Iraqi civilians died because of that nonexistent threat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

And you also like to cherrypick data to answer a question. I asked you if Germans buy American cars and you pull up a link that shows 1.Volkswagen 2. Mercedes-Benz. 3. BMW/Mini 4. Opel. 5. Audi. So the top five automakers in Germany are German-made cars. What was your answer again? I didn't ask you what the share of total foreign car imports in the German market are either. Do 10% of German consumers buy American-made cars? There. I made it into a simple Yes or No question.

I asked you if you have driven a car in South Korea. Again, you don't answer. So if I were to presume that you have never driven a car in Korea then I find it hard to consider your description of Korean roads credible.
post #111 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post


You remind me of the doctor I once saw in Seoul who said that Koreans can't contract HIV because they eat kimchee, or Koreans who insist that you can't put the fan on at night in your room because it'll kill you, or Koreans saying their country is unique because "Korea has four distinct seasons", blah blah blah. But I never heard the "Koreans buy mostly Korean cars because our roads are narrower than all other roads in the world" I do love these tales...

KEEP 'EM COMING, THIS IS GREAT STUFF!

Tom Cruise telling Matt Lauer that anti-depressants can't treat depression is probably "great stuff" according to you. According to you Koreans have to be the dumbest people in the world. Oh, ignore those math level comparisons by country because they don't mean anything when America is number 1.

I took the liberty of cherrypicking this data.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...cience-reading

So how is the K-12 public education system doing in your country (America)? You can ignore this question if it doesn't jibe with your prepared response.
post #112 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

Tom Cruise telling Matt Lauer that anti-depressants can't treat depression is probably "great stuff" according to you. According to you Koreans have to be the dumbest people in the world. Oh, ignore those math level comparisons by country because they don't mean anything when America is number 1.

I took the liberty of cherrypicking this data.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...cience-reading

So how is the K-12 public education system doing in your country (America)? You can ignore this question if it doesn't jibe with your prepared response.


No I don't believe any people are "the dumbest in the world", but I would say that the Korean education system can be accurately assessed as sub-standard and a huge waste of time. I'd never let one of my kids go through it, and despite all the problems in the American system, I would vastly prefer an American education over a Korean one. Here's why.

In the US, high school is often a pathetic joke and we have all the problems with violence and drugs, which in my view often stem from our 'government' not really giving a damn about its own citizens, especially in poorer districts. They let many of our schools literally fall apart at the seams or classify ketchup as a vegetable (thanks, Bush senior ). It's a disgrace actually. But even so many American students who refuse to study will fail or quit and get a job or whatever.

In my view the Korean education system is better in terms of the Korean government putting money into it, of the students themselves respecting the teachers, and in terms of a general absence of drugs and extreme violence in the schools. But unfortunately in terms of education itself, Korea loses to the west big time, primarily because the system itself is a holdover from Confucian times.

Did you ever notice how Koreans never seem to fail high school and all students 'miraculously' pass with all those stellar grades? Well, in general this is because the schools are obsessed with their domestic rankings and are in competition with each other. In Korean terms, it would be a huge loss of face to the school if any of their students failed, so they don't allow even the class idiot to fail and they boost the grades of mediocre students. In addition, it's up to the schools and the Korean education ministries themselves to submit performance levels to those international bodies that conduct the high school international rankings. (Contrast this with the international university rankings which are independently- and peer-assessed.)

Anyway, back to the school stuff. Korean parents are so obsessed with their kids getting into the most prestigious universities (by prestigious I mean prestigious Korean universities like SNU or Postech) that they routinely give envelopes of cash to the teachers to 'look after' their sons or daughters, hence the incredibly high 'pass rates' with all those A's. Many teachers have doubled or tripled their salaries this way. Some Korean students are as good as western students, but in general the Korean schools fixate on rote memory 'learning' and grade inflation, and so do a massive disservice to their students, and their country.

A great tragedy of Korean 'education' is that many Korean high school students waste countless hours in haqwans learning how to memorize a bunch of useless facts any fool could look up in a book in 20 seconds. Independent thought and critical thinking do not rank highly as priorities, which is exactly what Confucianism has stressed in parts of the Far East for centuries. These students regurgitate those same facts for the exams and hopefully get into the Korean university of their choice. Once they do, it's joy and bliss and days of soju, but also, sadly, the END of their education because Korean universities are notorious for being something you simply sail through, even the best ones. It's a given that once you're in, you pretty much graduate even if you do nothing at all. However in western countries true education is thought to BEGIN upon entering university and if you refuse to work your booty off or can't think independently, you'll soon fail or drop out.

It's as simple as that and the international rankings show the end product of both systems. There's not a single Korean university in the top 50. And the very few Korean universities like Postech or Kaist that do crack the top 200 only recently did this after they woke up and started massive recruitment drives for western professors or western-educated Koreans (this was all within the past ten years). That's a good thing for Korea, but the old guard is still mostly calling the shots (e.g. remember American Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin, fired as the Dean of Kaist for daring to say that most of its Korean-educated professors weren't up to scratch?). But hopefully we'll see more internationalization of those universities because Korea really needs these foreigners to stay competitive.

As for maths and sciences in the real world, do I really have to compare Korea and America? There's simply no competition.

In MATHS they have this thing called a Fields Medal, kinda like the Nobel Prize of mathematics except it's only awarded every four years. Let's see...the US has 12, England 6, Japan and Germany, Finland, Russia (5), France, Australia, Spain, a few others, but I don't see Korea represented there at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal

In SCIENCE and MEDICINE, let's see, hundreds have been awarded in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine over the past century, but not a single Korean among them. Whatever happened to that *cough* 'great' Korean K-12 system? Here's the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tes_by_country.

So yeah, I guess you could say that in terms of high school 'performance' Korean numbers 'look' great (though not as great as Finland’s, which does have the best K-12 education system in the world,) but in the real world the western countries (especially the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy), Japan, Russia, India and a whole lot of other places simply trounce Korea in math and science. You brought it up and I hope that answers your question.
post #113 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post


In SCIENCE and MEDICINE, let's see, hundreds have been awarded in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine over the past century, but not a single Korean among them. Whatever happened to that 'great' Korean K-12 system? Here's the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tes_by_country.

So yeah, I guess you could say that in terms of high school 'performance' Korean numbers 'look' great (though not as great as Finland’s, which does have the best K-12 education system in the world,) but in the real world the western countries (especially the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy), Japan, Russia, India and a whole lot of other places simply trounce Korea in math and science. You brought it up and I hope that answers your question.

I skimmed through the wikipedia page you cited. I noticed that European scientist dominated the list early on and it was only until the 1930s that the U.S. started winning in the sciences. Before that most U.S. winners were awarded token Peace prizes. And I also looked at Japan's Nobel prizes. It took them until the 1980s to win some Nobels that, again, weren't token Peace prizes or Nobels for literature. So South Korea received one token Peace Prize so they're getting there. Give them some time.

But why do Asians have to validate their scientific achievement through an institution that is grossly biased towards the achievements of the West?

There are a billion people living in India and another billion in China but each country only gets a handful of Nobels? Out of 2 billion people only several were worthy of a Nobel Prize. Uh-huh. Great selection process. Disregard a billion here and a billion there and you've got a great pool of candidates for the Nobel Prize. How enriching to global equality.
post #114 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

I skimmed through the wikipedia page you cited. I noticed that European scientist dominated the rankings early on and it was only until the 1940s that the U.S. started winning in the sciences. Before that most U.S. winners were awarded token Peace prizes. And I also looked at Japan's Nobel prizes. It took them until the year 2000 to win some Nobels that, again, weren't token Peace prizes. So South Korea received one token Peace Prize so they're getting there. Give them some time.

A Peace Prize is NOT a Science Nobel or a Fields Medal. Getting there? What's taking you so long?

Your comments about the US and Nobel Prizes are clearly indicative of sleep deprivation (at best) your part. And I would never argue that Europe does not have world-leading science. But here are the US prizes from that same page. Read 'em and weep.

United States Nobel Laureates

Christopher A. Sims, Economics, 2011
Thomas J. Sargent, Economics, 2011
Saul Perlmutter, Physics, 2011
Brian P. Schmidt, Physics, 2011
Adam G. Riess, Physics, 2011
Ralph M. Steinman, born in Canada, Physiology or Medicine, 2011
Bruce Beutler, Physiology or Medicine, 2011
Peter A. Diamond, Economics, 2010
Dale T. Mortensen, Economics, 2010
Richard F. Heck, Chemistry, 2010
Ei-ichi Negishi, born in Japan, Chemistry, 2010
Elinor Ostrom, Economics, 2009
Oliver Eaton Williamson, Economics, 2009
Barack H. Obama, Peace, 2009
Thomas A. Steitz, Chemistry, 2009
Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, born in India, Chemistry, 2009
Willard S. Boyle, born in Canada, Physics, 2009
Charles K. Kao, born in China, Physics, 2009
George E. Smith, Physics, 2009
Elizabeth Blackburn, born in Australia, Physiology or Medicine, 2009
Carol W. Greider, Physiology or Medicine, 2009
Jack W. Szostak, born in United Kingdom, Physiology or Medicine, 2009
Paul Krugman, Economics, 2008
Roger Yonchien Tsien, Chemistry, 2008
Martin Chalfie, Chemistry, 2008
Osamu Shimomura, born in Japan, Chemistry, 2008
Yoichiro Nambu, born in Japan, Physics, 2008
Leonid Hurwicz, born in Russia, Economics, 2007
Eric S. Maskin, Economics, 2007
Roger B. Myerson, Economics, 2007
Al Gore, Peace, 2007
Mario R. Capecchi, born in Italy, Physiology or Medicine, 2007
Oliver Smithies, born in United Kingdom, Physiology or Medicine, 2007
Roger D. Kornberg, Chemistry, 2006
John C. Mather, Physics, 2006
Edmund S. Phelps, Economics, 2006
George F. Smoot, Physics, 2006
Andrew Z. Fire, Physiology or Medicine, 2006
Craig C. Mello, Physiology or Medicine, 2006
Robert Aumann, born in Germany, Economics, 2005
Robert H. Grubbs, Chemistry, 2005
Richard R. Schrock, Chemistry, 2005
Thomas Schelling, Economics, 2005
John L. Hall, Physics, 2005
Roy J. Glauber, Physics, 2005
Irwin Rose, Chemistry, 2004
Edward C. Prescott, Economics, 2004
David J. Gross, Physics, 2004
H. David Politzer, Physics, 2004
Frank Wilczek, Physics, 2004
Richard Axel, Physiology or Medicine, 2004
Linda B. Buck, Physiology or Medicine, 2004
Peter Agre, Chemistry, 2003
Roderick MacKinnon, Chemistry, 2003
Robert F. Engle, Economics, 2003
Anthony J. Leggett, born in United Kingdom, Physics, 2003
Paul C. Lauterbur, Physiology or Medicine, 2003
Alexei A. Abrikosov, born in Russia, Physics, 2003
Daniel Kahneman, born in Israel, Economics, 2002
Vernon L. Smith, Economics, 2002
Jimmy Carter, Peace, 2002
Raymond Davis Jr., Physics, 2002
Riccardo Giacconi, born in Italy, Physics, 2002
Sydney Brenner, born in South Africa, Physiology or Medicine, 2002
H. Robert Horvitz, Physiology or Medicine, 2002
William S. Knowles, Chemistry, 2001
K. Barry Sharpless, Chemistry, 2001
Joseph E. Stiglitz, Economics, 2001
George A. Akerlof, Economics, 2001
A. Michael Spence, Economics, 2001
Eric A. Cornell, Physics, 2001
Carl E. Wieman, Physics, 2001
Leland H. Hartwell, Physiology or Medicine, 2001
Alan Heeger, Chemistry, 2000
Alan MacDiarmid, born in New Zealand, Chemistry, 2000
James J. Heckman, Economics, 2000
Daniel L. McFadden, Economics, 2000
Jack Kilby, Physics, 2000
Paul Greengard, Physiology or Medicine, 2000
Eric R. Kandel, born in Austria, Physiology or Medicine, 2000
Ahmed H. Zewail, born in Egypt, Chemistry, 1999
Günter Blobel, born in then Germany, now Poland, Physiology or Medicine, 1999
Walter Kohn, born in Austria, Chemistry, 1998
Robert B. Laughlin, Physics, 1998
Daniel C. Tsui, born in China, Physics, 1998
Robert F. Furchgott, Physiology or Medicine, 1998
Louis J. Ignarro, Physiology or Medicine, 1998
Ferid Murad, of Albanian heritage, Physiology or Medicine, 1998
Paul D. Boyer, Chemistry, 1997
Robert C. Merton, Economics, 1997
Myron Scholes, born in Canada, Economics, 1997
Jody Williams, Peace, 1997
Steven Chu, Physics, 1997
William D. Phillips, Physics, 1997
Stanley B. Prusiner, Physiology or Medicine, 1997
Richard E. Smalley, Chemistry, 1996
Robert F. Curl Jr., Chemistry, 1996
William Vickrey, born in Canada, Economics, 1996
David M. Lee, Physics, 1996
Douglas D. Osheroff, Physics, 1996
Robert C. Richardson, Physics, 1996
Mario J. Molina, born in Mexico, Chemistry, 1995
F. Sherwood Rowland, Chemistry, 1995
Robert Lucas, Jr., Economics, 1995
Martin L. Perl, Physics, 1995
Frederick Reines, Physics, 1995
Edward B. Lewis, Physiology or Medicine, 1995
Eric F. Wieschaus, Physiology or Medicine, 1995
George Andrew Olah, born in Hungary, Chemistry, 1994
John Charles Harsanyi, born in Hungary, Economics, 1994
John Forbes Nash, Economics, 1994
Clifford G. Shull, Physics, 1994
Alfred G. Gilman, Physiology or Medicine, 1994
Martin Rodbell, Physiology or Medicine, 1994
Kary B. Mullis, Chemistry, 1993
Robert W. Fogel, Economics, 1993
Douglass C. North, Economics, 1993
Toni Morrison, Literature, 1993
Russell A. Hulse, Physics, 1993
Joseph H. Taylor Jr., Physics, 1993
Phillip A. Sharp, Physiology or Medicine, 1993
Rudolph A. Marcus, born in Canada, Chemistry, 1992
Gary S. Becker, Economics, 1992
Edmond H. Fischer, born in China, Physiology or Medicine, 1992
Edwin G. Krebs, Physiology or Medicine, 1992
Elias James Corey, Chemistry, 1990
Merton H. Miller, Economics, 1990
William F. Sharpe, Economics, 1990
Harry M. Markowitz, Economics, 1990
Jerome I. Friedman, Physics, 1990
Henry W. Kendall, Physics, 1990
Joseph E. Murray, Physiology or Medicine, 1990
E. Donnall Thomas, Physiology or Medicine, 1990
Sidney Altman, born in Canada, Chemistry, 1989
Thomas R. Cech, Chemistry, 1989
Hans G. Dehmelt, born in Germany, Physics, 1989
Norman F. Ramsey, Physics, 1989
J. Michael Bishop, Physiology or Medicine, 1989
Harold E. Varmus, Physiology or Medicine, 1989
Leon M. Lederman, Physics, 1988
Melvin Schwartz, Physics, 1988
Jack Steinberger, born in Germany, Physics, 1988
Gertrude B. Elion, Physiology or Medicine, 1988
George H. Hitchings, Physiology or Medicine, 1988
Charles J. Pedersen, born in Korea, Chemistry, 1987
Donald J. Cram, Chemistry, 1987
Robert M. Solow, Economics, 1987
Joseph Brodsky, born in Russia, Literature, 1987
Dudley R. Herschbach, Chemistry, 1986
Yuan T. Lee, born in Taiwan, Chemistry, 1986
James M. Buchanan, Economics, 1986
Elie Wiesel, born in Romania, Peace, 1986
Stanley Cohen, Physiology or Medicine, 1986
Rita Levi-Montalcini, born in Italy, Physiology or Medicine, 1986
Jerome Karle, Chemistry, 1985
Herbert A. Hauptman, Chemistry, 1985
Franco Modigliani, born in Italy, Economics, 1985
Michael S. Brown, Physiology or Medicine, 1985
Joseph L. Goldstein, Physiology or Medicine, 1985
Bruce Merrifield, Chemistry, 1984
Henry Taube, born in Canada, Chemistry, 1983
Gerard Debreu, born in France, Economics, 1983
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, born in India, Physics, 1983
William A. Fowler, Physics, 1983
Barbara McClintock, Physiology or Medicine, 1983
George J. Stigler, Economics, 1982
Kenneth G. Wilson, Physics, 1982
Roald Hoffmann, born in then Poland, now Ukraine, Chemistry, 1981
James Tobin, Economics, 1981
Nicolaas Bloembergen, born in the Netherlands, Physics, 1981
Arthur L. Schawlow, Physics, 1981
David H. Hubel, born in Canada, Physiology or Medicine, 1981
Roger W. Sperry, Physiology or Medicine, 1981
Walter Gilbert, Chemistry, 1980
Paul Berg, Chemistry, 1980
Lawrence R. Klein, Economics, 1980
Czesław Miłosz, born in then Russian Empire, now Lithuania, Literature, 1980
James Cronin, Physics, 1980
Val Fitch, Physics, 1980
Baruj Benacerraf, born in Venezuela, Physiology or Medicine, 1980
George D. Snell, Physiology or Medicine, 1980
Herbert C. Brown, Chemistry, 1979
Theodore Schultz, Economics, 1979
Steven Weinberg, Physics, 1979
Sheldon Glashow, Physics, 1979
Allan M. Cormack, born in South Africa, Physiology or Medicine, 1979
Herbert A. Simon, Economics, 1978
Isaac Bashevis Singer, born in then Russian Empire, now Poland, Literature, 1978
Robert Woodrow Wilson, Physics, 1978
Arno Penzias, born in Germany, Physics, 1978
Hamilton O. Smith, Physiology or Medicine, 1978
Daniel Nathans, Physiology or Medicine, 1978
Philip Anderson, Physics, 1977
John H. van Vleck, Physics, 1977
Roger Guillemin, born in France, Physiology or Medicine, 1977
Andrzej W. Schally, born in then Poland, now Lithuania, Physiology or Medicine, 1977
Rosalyn Yalow, Physiology or Medicine, 1977
William Lipscomb, Chemistry, 1976
Milton Friedman, Economics, 1976
Saul Bellow, born in Canada, Literature, 1976
Burton Richter, Physics, 1976
Samuel C. C. Ting, Physics, 1976
Baruch S. Blumberg, Physiology or Medicine, 1976
Daniel Carleton Gajdusek, Physiology or Medicine, 1976
Tjalling C. Koopmans, born in the Netherlands, Economics, 1975
Ben R. Mottelson*, Physics, 1975
James Rainwater, Physics, 1975
David Baltimore, Physiology or Medicine, 1975
Renato Dulbecco, born in Italy, Physiology or Medicine, 1975
Howard Martin Temin, Physiology or Medicine, 1975
Paul J. Flory, Chemistry, 1974
George E. Palade, born in Romania, Physiology or Medicine, 1974
Wassily Leontief, born in Germany, Economics, 1973
Henry Kissinger, born in Germany, Peace, 1973
Ivar Giaever, Norway, Physics, 1973
Christian Anfinsen, Chemistry, 1972
Stanford Moore, Chemistry, 1972
William H. Stein, Chemistry, 1972
Kenneth J. Arrow, Economics, 1972
John Bardeen, Physics 1972
Leon N. Cooper, Physics 1972
Robert Schrieffer, Physics 1972
Gerald Edelman, Physiology or Medicine, 1972
Simon Kuznets, born in then Russia, now Belarus, Economics, 1971
Earl W. Sutherland Jr., Physiology or Medicine, 1971
Paul A. Samuelson, Economics, 1970
Norman Borlaug, Peace, 1970
Julius Axelrod, Physiology or Medicine, 1970
Murray Gell-Mann, Physics, 1969
Max Delbrück, born in Germany, Physiology or Medicine, 1969
Alfred Hershey, Physiology or Medicine, 1969
Salvador Luria, born in Italy, Physiology or Medicine, 1969
Lars Onsager, born in Norway, Chemistry, 1968
Luis Alvarez, Physics, 1968
Robert W. Holley, Physiology or Medicine, 1968
Har Gobind Khorana, born in India, Physiology or Medicine, 1968
Marshall Warren Nirenberg, Physiology or Medicine, 1968
Hans Bethe, born in then Germany, now France, Physics, 1967
Haldan Keffer Hartline, Physiology or Medicine, 1967
George Wald, Physiology or Medicine, 1967
Robert S. Mulliken, Chemistry, 1966
Charles B. Huggins, born in Canada, Physiology or Medicine, 1966
Francis Peyton Rous, Physiology or Medicine, 1966
Robert B. Woodward, Chemistry, 1965
Richard P. Feynman, Physics, 1965
Julian Schwinger, Physics, 1965
Martin Luther King, Jr., Peace, 1964
Charles H. Townes, Physics, 1964
Konrad Bloch, born in then Germany, now Poland, Physiology or Medicine, 1964
Maria Goeppert-Mayer, born in then Germany, now Poland, Physics, 1963
Eugene Wigner, born in Hungary, Physics, 1963
John Steinbeck, Literature, 1962
Linus C. Pauling, Peace, 1962
James D. Watson, Physiology or Medicine, 1962
Melvin Calvin, Chemistry, 1961
Robert Hofstadter, Physics, 1961
Georg von Békésy, born in Hungary, Physiology or Medicine, 1961
Willard F. Libby, Chemistry, 1960
Donald A. Glaser, Physics, 1960
Owen Chamberlain, Physics, 1959
Emilio Segrè, born in Italy, Physics, 1959
Arthur Kornberg, Physiology or Medicine, 1959
Severo Ochoa, born in Spain, Physiology or Medicine, 1959
George Beadle, Physiology or Medicine, 1958
Joshua Lederberg, Physiology or Medicine, 1958
Edward Tatum, Physiology or Medicine, 1958
Chen Ning Yang, born in China, Physics, 1957
Tsung-Dao Lee, born in China, Physics, 1957
William B. Shockley, Physics, 1956
John Bardeen, Physics, 1956
Walter H. Brattain, Physics, 1956
Dickinson W. Richards, Physiology or Medicine, 1956
André F. Cournand, France, Physiology or Medicine, 1956
Vincent du Vigneaud, Chemistry, 1955
Willis E. Lamb, Physics, 1955
Polykarp Kusch, born in Germany, Physics, 1955
Linus C. Pauling, Chemistry, 1954
Ernest Hemingway, Literature, 1954
John F. Enders, Physiology or Medicine, 1954
Frederick C. Robbins, Physiology or Medicine, 1954
Thomas H. Weller, Physiology or Medicine, 1954
George C. Marshall, Peace, 1953
Fritz Lipmann, born in then Germany, now Russia, Physiology or Medicine, 1953
E. M. Purcell, Physics, 1952
Felix Bloch, born in Switzerland, Physics, 1952
Selman A. Waksman, born in then Russian Empire, now Ukraine, Physiology or Medicine, 1952
Edwin M. McMillan, Chemistry, 1951
Glenn Theodore Seaborg, Chemistry, 1951
Ralph J. Bunche, Peace, 1950
Philip S. Hench, Physiology or Medicine, 1950
Edward C. Kendall, Physiology or Medicine, 1950
William Giauque, born in Canada, Chemistry, 1949
William Faulkner, Literature, 1949
T. S. Eliot*, Literature, 1948
American Friends Service Committee (The Quakers), Peace, 1947
Carl Cori, born in Austria, Physiology or Medicine, 1947
Gerty Cori, born in Austria, Physiology or Medicine, 1947
Wendell M. Stanley, Chemistry, 1946
James B. Sumner, Chemistry, 1946
John H. Northrop, Chemistry, 1946
Emily G. Balch, Peace, 1946
John R. Mott, Peace, 1946
Percy W. Bridgman, Physics, 1946
Hermann J. Muller, Physiology or Medicine, 1946
Cordell Hull, Peace, 1945
Isidor Isaac Rabi, born in Austria, Physics, 1944
Joseph Erlanger, Physiology or Medicine, 1944
Herbert S. Gasser, Physiology or Medicine, 1944
Otto Stern, born in then Germany, now Poland, Physics, 1943
Edward A. Doisy, Physiology or Medicine, 1943
Ernest Lawrence, Physics, 1939
Pearl S. Buck, Literature, 1938
Clinton Davisson, Physics, 1937
Eugene O'Neill, Literature, 1936
Carl Anderson, Physics, 1936
Harold C. Urey, Chemistry, 1934
George R. Minot, Physiology or Medicine, 1934
William P. Murphy, Physiology or Medicine, 1934
George H. Whipple, Physiology or Medicine, 1934
Thomas H. Morgan, Physiology or Medicine, 1933
Irving Langmuir, Chemistry, 1932
Jane Addams, Peace, 1931
Nicholas M. Butler, Peace, 1931
Sinclair Lewis, Literature, 1930
Frank B. Kellogg, Peace, 1929
Arthur H. Compton, Physics, 1927
Charles G. Dawes, Peace, 1925
Robert A. Millikan, Physics, 1923
Woodrow Wilson, Peace, 1919
Theodore W. Richards, Chemistry, 1914
Elihu Root, Peace, 1912
Albert A. Michelson, born in then Germany, now Poland, Physics, 1907
Theodore Roosevelt, Peace, 1906
[edit]
post #115 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post


No I don't believe any people are "the dumbest in the world", but I would say that the Korean education system can be accurately assessed as sub-standard and a huge waste of time. I'd never let one of my kids go through it, and despite all the problems in the American system, I would vastly prefer an American education over a Korean one.

To each his own.

You're a smart guy (this is a compliment) and you sure did a good analysis of public education in South Korea. But you're takeaway from your overseas experience shows me that you can't tolerate what's different in your culture from another culture. And the South Korean moral system seems to irk you a lot. Yes, South Korea should adopt the American moral system. But some critics in your country say that it's bankrupt.

This may sound self-serving but I don't consider myself as being either South Korean or American. And I like an intellectual debate so try to tone down the shrill chest thumping over Nobel Prize achievement. It's err... Embarrassing.
post #116 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

I asked you if you have driven a car in South Korea. Again, you don't answer. So if I were to presume that you have never driven a car in Korea then I find it hard to consider your description of Korean roads credible.

You're straying but correct on one point, I did not answer about driving a car in Korea. Yes, I have done that, many times.
post #117 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post


There's not a single Korean university in the top 50.

I do not take issue with the rankings.

But I do take issue with some American morals applied to higher education in America. Have you heard of "legacies?" Do you know the percentage they make up in Harvard, Yale and the top universities in your country? Can you say with a straight face that this is a merit-based system?
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...gacy-legacies/

What about the affirmative action program? Just tick the box that says you're a minority. But be careful not to say you're Asian. If you tick Asian, you'll need a perfect score on the SAT.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/educati...ons/51620236/1

One of Yale's legacies made his father proud by becoming a U.S. president. He must have done a real good job.
post #118 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

You're straying but correct on one point, I did not answer about driving a car in Korea. Yes, I have done that, many times.

So you've driven on Korean roads but never encountered a side road (golmokgil)? Now i'm even more baffled at your insistence that Korean roads are wide like they are in America. I've driven on state highways and 16-lane superhighways in LA. And the back roads and side roads. But I've never found it as tight as a golmokgil in Korea. I'm bewildered.
post #119 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

But why do Asians have to validate their scientific achievement through an institution that is grossly biased towards the achievements of the West?

There are a billion people living in India and another billion in China but each country only gets a handful of Nobels? Out of 2 billion people only several were worthy of a Nobel Prize. Uh-huh. Great selection process. Disregard a billion here and a billion there and you've got a great pool of candidates for the Nobel Prize. How enriching to global equality.

HUH??? "Asians" (I think you actually mean "Korea", Asia was a pretty big and varied place the last time I checked) don't have to "validate" anything. Who cares?

Soooo, according to your logic Korea has never won a FIFA World Cup, topped the Olympics medal tables, etc. etc. because "western" organizations like FIFA and the International Olympic Committee have a bias against "Asian" athletes??? I seeee....

With the exception of the Peace Prize (I rate the Literature Nobel highly), the Nobels is what the Nobels is, THE recognition of ground-breaking scientific research. The fact that Koreans themselves recognize this is evident in their fixation on winning one and you can bet the Korean media will go absolutely ape when a Korean finally wins one one of these days.
post #120 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

I'm bewildered.

Yes, you are.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • US judge says Samsung tablets unlikely to attract Apple's customers
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › US judge says Samsung tablets unlikely to attract Apple's customers