30 years ago....
 

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:00:46 +0000, geoff wrote:

I think anyone who tries to explain science to non-specialists has
a
very difficult job on their hands.

Is the readership of NS non-specialist, as in Sun Reader? I doubt
it, the majority I would expect to have a decent brain in their head
and be able to use it. It's still a difficult job to explain
something without making it too Janet & John though.

Breakfast TV the other day "Ooh far too technical"

Err what , really it wasn't, no wonder we are breeding a generation of
hairdressers

Telephone Sanitisers, you must have Telephone Sanitisers. Do you know
how many disease you could catch from a telephone?

--
Cheers
Dave.

30 years ago....
 

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:00:46 +0000, geoff wrote:

I think anyone who tries to explain science to non-specialists has
a
very difficult job on their hands.

Is the readership of NS non-specialist, as in Sun Reader? I doubt
it, the majority I would expect to have a decent brain in their head
and be able to use it. It's still a difficult job to explain
something without making it too Janet & John though.

Breakfast TV the other day "Ooh far too technical"

Err what , really it wasn't, no wonder we are breeding a generation of
hairdressers

Telephone Sanitisers, you must have Telephone Sanitisers. Do you know
how many disease you could catch from a telephone?

42 ?

--
geoff

30 years ago....
 

On 12 Jan, 12:23, Bruce wrote:

There are science magazines that aim slightly higher up the
intellectual scale, the best known being "New Scientist". *It isn't
highly rated by scientists,

Yes it is, it's where the job ads are!

30 years ago....
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:59:34 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:
Err what , really it wasn't, no wonder we are breeding a generation of
hairdressers

Telephone Sanitisers, you must have Telephone Sanitisers. Do you know
how many disease you could catch from a telephone?

Particularly if you keep your phone in the toilet.
(http://www.tlb.org/telsan.html)

30 years ago....
 

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:38:50 -0000, "John"
wrote:

Ah the days when technology was understandable. when one felt that if there
was a major catastrophe and only a few survivors we could get things up and
running again using general engineering and electrical skills.

Anyone able to make an integrated circuit?

No, but I know someone who can.


--

30 years ago....
 

Mike wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:38:50 -0000, "John"
wrote:

Ah the days when technology was understandable. when one felt that if there
was a major catastrophe and only a few survivors we could get things up and
running again using general engineering and electrical skills.

Anyone able to make an integrated circuit?

No, but I know someone who can.


not that hard to blow valves and make an AM radio.

Its all a question of how far the infrastructure falls.

I reckon, given enough scrap metal around, I could make a forge and
start making basic tools, and in time, build something like a sailing
boat. and a reasonable working compass. Clocks would be a lot harder tho.

30 years ago....
 

In message , Clot
writes

I've subscribed to NS for 40 years and consider myself to be a scientist. NS
is not what it was, though never considered as a "peer reviewed" type of
magazine.

I agree. I've also read New Scientist on and off for nearly as long,
and indeed have been a subscriber for a good many years. In the earlier
years most of the articles were written by scientists themselves, and
tended to be accurate and authoritative. No doubt some editorial action
was needed to remove jargon and improve the explanation, but most good
scientists (and even quite a lot of bad ones) are only too happy to try
to explain their work at the level that an intelligent layman can
understand. Scientific American gets on fine using mostly scientists as
writers.

It is such a pity that NS editors in recent years seem to have decided
that it is only journalists who can be trusted to explain things. As a
result articles are dumbed down, and by no means as good as they could
be.

The owners of NS are lucky that so far there isn't a competing weekly in
the UK with the editorial standards of Scientific American.

--
Clive Page

30 years ago....
 

Clive Page wrote:
In message , Clot
writes

I've subscribed to NS for 40 years and consider myself to be a
scientist. NS is not what it was, though never considered as a "peer
reviewed" type of magazine.

I agree. I've also read New Scientist on and off for nearly as long,
and indeed have been a subscriber for a good many years. In the
earlier years most of the articles were written by scientists
themselves, and tended to be accurate and authoritative. No doubt
some editorial action was needed to remove jargon and improve the
explanation, but most good scientists (and even quite a lot of bad
ones) are only too happy to try to explain their work at the level
that an intelligent layman can understand. Scientific American gets
on fine using mostly scientists as writers.

It is such a pity that NS editors in recent years seem to have decided
that it is only journalists who can be trusted to explain things. As
a result articles are dumbed down, and by no means as good as they
could be.

You make an interesting point. Is it that recent editors have chosen to use
journalists or that scientists are not prepared to provide the text?

The owners of NS are lucky that so far there isn't a competing weekly
in the UK with the editorial standards of Scientific American.

I agree.

30 years ago....
 

On 17 Jan, 02:21, "Clot" wrote:
Clive Page wrote:
In message , Clot
writes

I've subscribed to NS for 40 years and consider myself to be a
scientist. NS is not what it was, though never considered as a "peer
reviewed" type of magazine.

I agree. *I've also read New Scientist on and off for nearly as long,
and indeed have been a subscriber for a good many years. *In the
earlier years most of the articles were written by scientists
themselves, and tended to be accurate and authoritative. *No doubt
some editorial action was needed to remove jargon and improve the
explanation, but most good scientists (and even quite a lot of bad
ones) are only too happy to try to explain their work at the level
that an intelligent layman can understand. *Scientific American gets
on fine using mostly scientists as writers.

It is such a pity that NS editors in recent years seem to have decided
that it is only journalists who can be trusted to explain things. *As
a result articles are dumbed down, and by no means as good as they
could be.

You make an interesting point. Is it that recent editors have chosen to use
journalists or that scientists are not prepared to provide the text?



The owners of NS are lucky that so far there isn't a competing weekly
in the UK with the editorial standards of Scientific American.

I agree.

Hmm, not sure I do. I stopped taking Scientific American when it had
dumbed down too much for me. One of my simple pleasures was to read
back copies of the SciAm in the library at Uni. This was before the
Internet. I got rid of my own collection of many year's worth in a
house move.

Sid.

30 years ago....
 

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:58:13 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

not that hard to blow valves and make an AM radio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl-QMuUQhVM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S5OwqOXen8

Pure engineering pron :)


--