brucec@orca.TEK.COM (Bruce Cohen) (03/09/88)
In article <368@wpg.UUCP> russ@wpg.UUCP (Russell Lawrence) writes: > > > >Most of us read Scientific American FOR THE ARTICLE CONTENT. If the >advertising is "stupid", as claimed by one reader, or if they promote >subscriptions through Publisher's Clearinghouse techniques as pointed out >by another, so what??? Hear, hear! I have had a continuous subscription to Scientific American since 1972. I estimate that I read thoroughly an average of two to three articles in each issue, and skim through about half the rest. The result is that I have a passing acquaintance with the current state of many fields which I otherwise wouldn't know a thing about. I've read occasional issues of the other popular science magazines, and rate them terrible (Omni - no factual content to speak of, and a horrible tendency to National Enquirism) to mediocre (Discover - not enough technical sophistication). I too am unhappy about the recent decline in S.A. I just hope that the other magazines go out of business soon, and let S.A. get back to doing what it does well. And while we're at it, do you think they could lure Martin Gardner out of retirement again? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The authorities are excellent at amassing facts, though they do not always use them to advantage." Sherlock Holmes, "The Naval Treaty" My opinions are my own; no-one else seems to want them. Bruce Cohen bang-syntax: {the real world}...!tektronix!ruby!brucec at-syntax: brucec@ruby.TEK.COM overland: Tektronix Inc., M/S 61-028, P.O. Box 1000, Wilsonville, OR 97070
rob@amadeus.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) (03/09/88)
In article <2495@orca.TEK.COM> brucec@orca.UUCP (Bruce Cohen) writes: > I've read occasional >issues of the other popular science magazines, and rate them terrible >(Omni - no factual content to speak of, and a horrible tendency to >National Enquirism) to mediocre (Discover - not enough technical >sophistication). Perhaps it's not considered "popular", but I consider Science News to be the best general science magazine around. Of course, it has a slightly different purpose than Scientific American, so subscribing to both SN and SA would not be a bad idea. --- Dan Tilque -- dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM
kers@otter.hple.hp.com (Christopher Dollin) (03/10/88)
I too would like to see Martin Gardener (or Douglas Hofstadter) back at SA. I feel that the current _Computer Recreations_ column is too shallow and undemanding. But on the subject of science magazines ... my regular (weekly) is _New Scientist_. Does it appear in the States or is it peculiar to Britain/Europe? Regards, Kers | "Why Lisp if you can talk Poperly?"
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (03/11/88)
In article <2730001@otter.hple.hp.com> kers@otter.hple.hp.com (Christopher Dollin) writes: >I too would like to see Martin Gardener (or Douglas Hofstadter) back at SA. I >feel that the current _Computer Recreations_ column is too shallow and >undemanding. Hofstadter would be a great asset if he were to come back. He's been a big influence on me. (His articles gave me the insight to solve the Cube in 40 seconds too.) > >But on the subject of science magazines ... my regular (weekly) is _New >Scientist_. Does it appear in the States or is it peculiar to Britain/Europe? On that note, what about the National Academy of Sciences monthly? Is the distributed to people outside the NAS? Or are we the lucky few? >Kers | "Why Lisp if you can talk Poperly?" ^^^^ ML will help a great deal ... not many paren.'s
ekwok@cadev4.intel.com (Edward C. Kwok) (03/12/88)
In article <2495@orca.TEK.COM> brucec@orca.UUCP (Bruce Cohen) writes: > >And while we're at it, do you think they could lure Martin Gardner out of >retirement again? Yeah, I miss the Mathematical Games too. Is Scientific American on the net? Is the Courant Institute on the net? Is Prof. Garner on the net?
res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) (03/13/88)
In article <3229@zeus.TEK.COM>, rob@amadeus.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: > In article <2495@orca.TEK.COM> brucec@orca.UUCP (Bruce Cohen) writes: > > I've read occasional > >issues of the other popular science magazines, and rate them terrible > > Perhaps it's not considered "popular", but I consider Science News to be > the best general science magazine around. Of course, it has a slightly > different purpose than Scientific American, so subscribing to both SN and > SA would not be a bad idea. I agree. I have been subscribing to both for a while now, and I always read SN soon after receiving it, while it may take me a few weeks to get around to an issue of SA. Science news has good brief writeups of important news in science which are very timely and seem to be quite accurate. I also see the same news items in the popular press sometime later in garbled form. Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4![iwsl6|ihlpe|ihaxa]!res
karl@sugar.UUCP (Karl Lehenbauer) (03/15/88)
In article <2495@orca.TEK.COM>, brucec@orca.TEK.COM (Bruce Cohen) writes: >... > And while we're at it, do you think they could lure Martin Gardner out of > retirement again? He's hardly in retirement; he just hasn't been writing for Scientific American these days. He is a founding Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and usually has at least one article in each issue of their quarterly magazine, "The Skeptical Inquirer." He usually has an article in the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism's quarterly publication, "Free Inquiry." (Immediately at hand is the Winter 87 issue. He wrote "Psychic Astronomy", incidentally a superb article, page 26) I believe he still writes occasional articles for the New York Times, the New York Review of Books, Discover magazine and others. Finally, he has a new book coming out in April, "The New Age: Notes of a Fringe-Watcher" -- "Weekends were made for programming." -me ..!uunet!nuchat!sugar!karl, Unix BBS (713) 438-5018