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