Thread View: sci.misc
5 messages
5 total messages
Started by Chrzanowski
Fri, 08 Apr 1988 21:10
Omni, & where have the quality general science 'zines gone
Author: Chrzanowski
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 1988 21:10
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 1988 21:10
10 lines
762 bytes
762 bytes
1. Slick paper magazines cost a lot to produce: much more than
the cover price.
2. A skeptical approach to assertions is a part of scientific method.
3. Most advertising is not made to stand up to a rigorous analysis of
its factual content (Use new, improved Pepsodent ! It contains GL-86
(tm) ). (Ah'm a BIG MAN ! Ah drive a BIG TRUCK ! Mah truck is a
Re: Omni, & where have the quality general science 'zines gone
Author: Robert C. White
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1988 02:20
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1988 02:20
11 lines
771 bytes
771 bytes
Is it my imagination, or has Omni deteriorated from a magazine with questionable scientific content to outright tripe? Is it my imagination, or has Scientific American deteriorated from a fine magazine with good information for laymen to a magazine with questionable scientific content? Inquiring minds want to know, Robert White ihnp4!upba!qetzal!rcw
Re: Omni, & where have the quality general science 'zines gone
Author: SIEMON
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1988 14:50
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1988 14:50
17 lines
1083 bytes
1083 bytes
In article <1590@qetzal.UUCP>, rcw@qetzal.UUCP (Robert C. White) writes: > > Is it my imagination, or has Scientific American deteriorated from > a fine magazine with good information for laymen to a magazine > with questionable scientific content? > Yes, under the new owners Sci.Am. is degenerating, particularly in the book reviews and "Science and the Citizen" columns. And of course there is no new Martin Gardner (or Hofstader, for that matter). Article content doesn't yet seem (IMHO) to be greatly affected, though I fear it will be eventually. Sigh! -- Michael L. Siemon contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!mhuxu!mls standard disclaimer
Re: Omni, & where have the quality general science 'zines gone
Author: Gordon Fitch
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1988 14:18
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1988 14:18
17 lines
1304 bytes
1304 bytes
In article <1590@qetzal.UUCP> rcw@qetzal.UUCP (0000-Robert C. White) writes:
} Is it my imagination, or has Omni deteriorated from a magazine with
} questionable scientific content to outright tripe?
}
} Is it my imagination, or has Scientific American deteriorated from
} a fine magazine with good information for laymen to a magazine
} with questionable scientific content?
The epigrammatic mode aside, what have you seen in SA whose content
was "questionable"? I concede that the verb tenses and disclaimers
in the article on superstrings were not all they should have been, and that
black holes are spoken of with an unjustified complacency, but careful
reading of the articles in question and others like them always shows
that the authors know and admit that their conclusions are somewhat
far-fetched. I assume that SA's editors are keeping watch.
....uunet!actnyc!gcf
Re: Omni, & where have the quality general science 'zines gone
Author: Peter da Silva
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1988 20:17
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1988 20:17
11 lines
960 bytes
960 bytes
Is it my imagination, or have Byte, Dr Dobbs, and Microsystems become effectively PC-World parts 2, 3, and 4? With an occasional tidbit for Mac users? Is there any connection? Is there some sort of general entropic function in the magazine business. Oh well, at least real SF magazines seem to be holding their own. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads