Subject:
|
Re: Doing the Discover Mag Rag (Was: At last, a Federal program we can all support.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:08:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
313 times
|
| |
 | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
>
> > So, fellow Experts... Which science magazine do you think I should get?
> > I'm thinking of something that dumbs things down a tiny bit so as to aim for
> > the general population (so Nature and Science are, sadly, out), without
> > getting too silly (adios, Discover). I'm really leaning towards Scientific
> > American, New Scientist, or Science News... Any critiques? suggestions?
> > flames?
>
> I would favor Scientific American but that's just because I've never read
> the other two. I find SA to be a very absorbing read. But it's not a read
> while watching TV sort of rag, you need to give it your full attention to
> get what the articles are conveying. Kind of spendy compared to less meaty
> magazines. But you get what you pay for.
We get New Scientist, it tends to be a bit "current" but it is a good read.
The range of articles in it means one can spend and afternoon with it, or
just a cup of coffee. It does not have the depth of Scientific American, but
the detail is sufficient. Its bad point is its passion for large naff (&
often irrelevant?) graphics.
Must read : Feedback
Never read : Jobs... around 1/3 of the mag (beware!)
Scott A
> PS I thought the recent article on Russia in NG quite fascinating. But 3
> generations??? that's depressing.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
18 Messages in This Thread:                 
        
            
    
     
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|