<p>“High-K, Metal Gate.” - BCEagle91</p>
<p>Jebus! I know what HK/MG means! I want you to tell me why you think a good engineer is not able to invent such methods/devices and a physicist is.</p>
<p>Be careful what you say. I’m ready to pounce on you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh really?</p>
<p>Robert Noyce’s inquiries began at Grinnell College from which he graduated in 1949 with [undergrad] degrees in Physics and Mathematics</p>
<p>[Robert</a> N. Noyce '49](<a href=“http://www.grinnell.edu/academic/noycevisit/aboutrnnoyce49/]Robert”>http://www.grinnell.edu/academic/noycevisit/aboutrnnoyce49/)</p>
<p>I grant you that Gordon Moore wasn’t a physics undergrad major. Instead, he was a chemistry major. I don’t think that supports your point that you need to be an engineer. </p>
<p>Gordon Moore (B.S. 1950, Chemistry),</p>
<p>More importantly, Noyce and Moore did proceed to earn PhD’s…in physics and chemistry respectively. Therefore neither of them are engineers. </p>
<p><a href=“http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/publications/newsletter/2001/vol9n1_april2001.pdf[/url]”>http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/publications/newsletter/2001/vol9n1_april2001.pdf</a> </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you don’t necessarily need a PhD in engineering, which is my point exactly. Some Physics and Chemistry PhD’s, such as Noyce and Moore, do indeed design chips. </p>
<p>The irony is that thousands of engineers in the semiconductor industry work feverishly to keep apace with the rate of innovation dictated by Moore’s Law, which was named for a man who himself never earned a single engineering degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. Some do, some don’t. The girl that I know had only a master’s in chemistry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Au contraire. Believe me, there are hordes of consultants crawling around China, India, and other rapidly developing (but still 3rd world) nations, purportedly to rapidly professionalize and modernize their economies. One great appeal of working as a consultant (for a major house) while working in the Third World is that the cost of living is cheap, yet you’re still being paid Western wages. </p>
<p>For example, I know a guy who works in the Shanghai office of McKinsey, and his wife enjoys a luxurious lifestyle because they can easily afford to hire platoons of cheap maidservants for all their housekeeping and childcare needs.</p>
<p>
Sorry, when I say “3rd world” I mean countries that will continue to stay 3rd world. Latin America/Africa/Significant parts of Asia.</p>
<p>I like how 1 to 2 pages out of the 7 were about the topic of this thread. bahaha</p>
<p>when you guys say “third world”, are you referring to it’s actual (and now outdated) definition as it pertains to the cold war, or it’s commonly misused and colloquial meaning of being of a less developed country (LDC)?</p>
<p>it hasn’t quite been made clear given the context</p>
<p>
When people say 3rd world they almost always mean LDC…</p>
<p>Well, in the cold war era definition nigher India nor China are 3rd world countries, so it seems clear to me they meant a less developed country.</p>
<p>mr payne, educated people wont do that</p>
<p>
That is completely and totally false. Educated people will do that.</p>
<p>^ Right. It’s smart people who won’t do it. You can educate cottage cheese, but that doesn’t mean you should listen to its opinion.</p>
<p>
Haven’t you read the news? Unemployment is at 20% and these people don’t have anything to do except going to CC typing long useless bs posts… bwahahaha!</p>
<p>“Haven’t you read the news? Unemployment is at 20% and these people don’t have anything to do except going to CC typing long useless bs posts… bwahahaha!” </p>
<p>Where are you getting your news? Fox?</p>
<p>The number is closer to 10.5% right now.</p>
<p>Mr Payne, it is neither completely nor totally false.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess smart doesn’t encompass common sense… it was completely obvious what he meant</p>
<p>^ that’s exactly the point…to educated people, it ISN’T obvious. to LAYPEOPLE, more often then not, “third world” simply implies less developed country. to educated people (people who have taken any history courses in higher education or even just high school AP history courses), it is not obvious.</p>
<p>To QwertyKey - the cold war definition inherently implies that all countries fall within a certain world. the paradigm i am specifically referring to is that which declares first world countries as all capitalist/US+its allies countries, second world = socialist/Soviet Union+its allies, and third world = everything else. So India would be third world, and communist China would be second world.</p>
<p>To be fair, I fully acknowledge that I’m being egregiously critical with this entire topic, and that this topic is nearly a complete waste of time.</p>
<p>The Cold War has been over for over 20 years; did you honestly expect the context of third world to be its Cold War era definition?</p>
<p>Seriously. Use some common sense.</p>
<p>again, you miss the point. to more educated or sophisticated people, it is not an issue of “common sense”. only laypeople will make the common mistake of equating third world to lesser developed countries.</p>
<p>Again, (and perhaps this is futile because apparently my previous acknowledgement of the absurdity of my stance was utterly ignored), I wholly admit I should never have brought this up in the first place. To be honest, my original post was simply serving as a dig at Mr Payne, for I do dislike him and his adamant support of his alma mater Cal Poly SLO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, coined the term ‘Third World’, and included India within it.</p>
<p>Mao himself included China in the Third World. </p>
<p>Mao: …We are the Third World.</p>
<p>[Mao</a> Zedong: On the Question of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds](<a href=“http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv10n1/mao.htm]Mao”>http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv10n1/mao.htm)</p>
<p>But even to use the definition of a ‘less developed country’, the fact is, China and India, for all their recent economic success, are still extraordinarily poor and undeveloped nations. The population of each of China and India living in abject rural poverty easily exceeds that of the population of the entire United States, perhaps by a factor of 2x or, in the case of China, 3x.</p>