Nuclear power stations were experiencing huge cost overruns......
Tomorrows World before it became What We Want You to Think World ;-)

TW`s review of the 1970`s

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/tomorro...?all=2&id=8019

Cheers
Adam

"Adam Aglionby" wrote in message
...
Nuclear power stations were experiencing huge cost overruns......
Tomorrows World before it became What We Want You to Think World ;-)

TW`s review of the 1970`s

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/tomorro...?all=2&id=8019

Cheers
Adam

I love TW, i wish they would bring it back like they did Dr.Who.

Steve

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:09:15 +0100, "Mr Sandman"
wrote:


"Adam Aglionby" wrote in message
...
Nuclear power stations were experiencing huge cost overruns......
Tomorrows World before it became What We Want You to Think World ;-)

TW`s review of the 1970`s

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/tomorro...?all=2&id=8019

Cheers
Adam

I love TW, i wish they would bring it back like they did Dr.Who.


Forget it. It was always banal and condescending - not a winning
combination.

There's an equally lightweight BBC Radio 4 programme with similar
subject matter called "Science Now". If you really must learn about
science from a lowbrow source, that is probably the one to listen to.

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, but appeals to people who like to follow
science but aren't personally involved in it.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce
saying something like:

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, but appeals to people who like to follow
science but aren't personally involved in it.

Even NS is a bit dumbed-down compared to what it used to be.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce
saying something like:

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, but appeals to people who like to follow
science but aren't personally involved in it.

Even NS is a bit dumbed-down compared to what it used to be.

New scientist is the guardian with slightly bigger words.

Totally biassed politically, almost anti-science, and only bearable when
the so called journalist has written verbatim down something they were
given but didn't understand.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:37:24 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce
saying something like:

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, but appeals to people who like to follow
science but aren't personally involved in it.

Even NS is a bit dumbed-down compared to what it used to be.

New scientist is the guardian with slightly bigger words.

Totally biassed politically, almost anti-science, and only bearable when
the so called journalist has written verbatim down something they were
given but didn't understand.


That's true of most periodicals, not just New Scientist.

I think anyone who tries to explain science to non-specialists has a
very difficult job on their hands. That's not to say that New
Scientist could not do better, just that it is a difficult job. By
the time you have removed most of the jargon to make it accessible to
non-specialists, most of the content has also disappeared.

Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:09:15 +0100, "Mr Sandman"
wrote:


"Adam Aglionby" wrote in message
...
Nuclear power stations were experiencing huge cost overruns......
Tomorrows World before it became What We Want You to Think World ;-)

TW`s review of the 1970`s

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/tomorro...?all=2&id=8019

Cheers
Adam

I love TW, i wish they would bring it back like they did Dr.Who.


Forget it. It was always banal and condescending - not a winning
combination.

There's an equally lightweight BBC Radio 4 programme with similar
subject matter called "Science Now". If you really must learn about
science from a lowbrow source, that is probably the one to listen to.

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, but appeals to people who like to follow
science but aren't personally involved in it.

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.

My view was confirmed about it's use and worth many years ago when they
reported on some research that I (in a commercial organisation) and
researchers at a(n) University were undertaking. The text was wrong.

We were trying to find out whether bugs could be transferred from one medium
to another and whether this posed a risk. We were struggling to find any
risk and loaded the medium excessively with bugs to test the hypothesis.
Still we could not find a transfer and hence possibly no risk.

The reporter spoke to both the University researcher and myself, produced
the draft upon which we commented advising the person that the conclusion
was the complete opposite of what we had found and gave the individual the
opportunity to revise the text accordingly.

The individual did not and the title to the article was "Daily Stun"
headlines. In those days, I managed to get a letter into the next edition
commenting upon the validity of the article. My name was mud within the
industry for a while.

Today, at least there is an Errata section at the right hand bottom of the
Letters page.

The magazine has changed significantly in recent years in order to be global
and whilst it has been doing that I have been irratated but they are
probably right in doing so, (I could be staid in my ways).

Currently, in my view, it should be viewed as a vehicle to find out what is
going on but should never be relied upon regarding facts.

There are one or two reporters who can be depended upon to give a reasonable
report but I think most reports should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a story!

In message , Clot
writes
Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:09:15 +0100, "Mr Sandman"
wrote:


"Adam Aglionby" wrote in message
...
Nuclear power stations were experiencing huge cost overruns......
Tomorrows World before it became What We Want You to Think World ;-)

TW`s review of the 1970`s

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/tomorro...?all=2&id=8019

Cheers
Adam

I love TW, i wish they would bring it back like they did Dr.Who.


Forget it. It was always banal and condescending - not a winning
combination.

There's an equally lightweight BBC Radio 4 programme with similar
subject matter called "Science Now". If you really must learn about
science from a lowbrow source, that is probably the one to listen to.

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, but appeals to people who like to follow
science but aren't personally involved in it.

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 can't remember how many years I have been subscribed to NS

However ...

I'm just not going to renew my subscription

Its become too americanised, and you could hardly call some of the
articles "science" or even engineering


Bad Haiku

New Scientist
Once you were good
now ****e


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , Clot
writes
Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:09:15 +0100, "Mr Sandman"
wrote:


"Adam Aglionby" wrote in message
...
Nuclear power stations were experiencing huge cost overruns......
Tomorrows World before it became What We Want You to Think World
;-) TW`s review of the 1970`s

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/tomorro...?all=2&id=8019

Cheers
Adam

I love TW, i wish they would bring it back like they did Dr.Who.


Forget it. It was always banal and condescending - not a winning
combination.

There's an equally lightweight BBC Radio 4 programme with similar
subject matter called "Science Now". If you really must learn
about science from a lowbrow source, that is probably the one to
listen to. 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, but appeals to people who like to follow
science but aren't personally involved in it.

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 can't remember how many years I have been subscribed to NS

However ...

I'm just not going to renew my subscription

Its become too americanised, and you could hardly call some of the
articles "science" or even engineering

I readily appreciate your comment.

In the last two to three years, the balance has been far too US and Oz for
me. Having said that, there was a period when there was an excessive amount
from Europe mainland.

It could be me but I think that there is insufficient news from the East.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:16:16 +0000, geoff wrote:

I can't remember how many years I have been subscribed to NS

However ...

I'm just not going to renew my subscription

Its become too americanised, and you could hardly call some of the
articles "science" or even engineering

The most useful thing in the science/engineering field these days, for
me, is the IET's regular magazine. A bit expensive if that's all one pays
the subscription for, mind!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 13 Jan, 01:16, geoff wrote:
In message , Clot
writes





Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:09:15 +0100, "Mr Sandman"
wrote:

"Adam Aglionby" wrote in message
....
Nuclear power stations were experiencing huge cost overruns......
Tomorrows World before it became What We Want You to Think World ;-)

TW`s review of the 1970`s

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/tomorro...?all=2&id=8019

Cheers
Adam

I love TW, i wish they would bring it back like they did Dr.Who.

Forget it. *It was always banal and condescending - not a winning
combination.

There's an equally lightweight BBC Radio 4 programme with similar
subject matter called "Science Now". * If you really must learn about
science from a lowbrow source, that is probably the one to listen to.

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, but appeals to people who like to follow
science but aren't personally involved in it.

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 can't remember how many years I have been subscribed to NS

However ...

I'm just not going to renew my subscription

Its become too americanised, and you could hardly call some of the
articles "science" or even engineering

Bad Haiku

New Scientist
Once you were good
now ****e

--
geoff

I've bought every issue for the last 30 years and only last week
noticed the cover price and jeez! it's getting expensive. This coupled
with the increasing amounts of 'soft' non-science arty articles and
fillers and the time has come to pack it in. (Won't then have to
spoil the family's Christmas, grizzling and bitching over being duped
into paying for the double price issue .

In article ,
geoff writes:
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 can't remember how many years I have been subscribed to NS

However ...

I'm just not going to renew my subscription

Its become too americanised, and you could hardly call some of the
articles "science" or even engineering


Bad Haiku

New Scientist
Once you were good
now ****e

I was subscribed to NS when I was at school - they ran a school deal
at the time where if there were at least 20 subscriptions, they were
10p each. I carried on with it through university. I had a research
job and at the time and thought I would continue in research (until I
realised how badly it payed); NS that was the journal which advertised
such jobs then.

Between about 1980 and 1985, it seemed to move away from Physics (my
area) and more into Biology (not my area), so I dropped at at that
point.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:27:12 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
There's an equally lightweight BBC Radio 4 programme with similar
subject matter called "Science Now". If you really must learn about
science from a lowbrow source, that is probably the one to listen to.

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, but appeals to people who like to follow
science but aren't personally involved in it.

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.

My view was confirmed about it's use and worth many years ago when they
reported on some research that I (in a commercial organisation) and
researchers at a(n) University were undertaking. The text was wrong.

We were trying to find out whether bugs could be transferred from one medium
to another and whether this posed a risk. We were struggling to find any
risk and loaded the medium excessively with bugs to test the hypothesis.
Still we could not find a transfer and hence possibly no risk.

The reporter spoke to both the University researcher and myself, produced
the draft upon which we commented advising the person that the conclusion
was the complete opposite of what we had found and gave the individual the
opportunity to revise the text accordingly.

The individual did not and the title to the article was "Daily Stun"
headlines. In those days, I managed to get a letter into the next edition
commenting upon the validity of the article. My name was mud within the
industry for a while.

Today, at least there is an Errata section at the right hand bottom of the
Letters page.

The magazine has changed significantly in recent years in order to be global
and whilst it has been doing that I have been irratated but they are
probably right in doing so, (I could be staid in my ways).

Currently, in my view, it should be viewed as a vehicle to find out what is
going on but should never be relied upon regarding facts.

There are one or two reporters who can be depended upon to give a reasonable
report but I think most reports should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a story!


I have had similar experiences with journalists working for newspapers
and non-specialist magazines. Friends in unrelated careers have had
similar experiences.

Journalists are the problem, and journalists and specialist subjects
(including science) just don't mix.

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

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.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:23:25 +0000, 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, but appeals to people who like to follow
science but aren't personally involved in it.

I picked one up in a waiting room the other week - it seemed to be almost
entirely glossy pictures and very little in the way of actual science.
Like so much else these days, it seemed dumbed down for the masses and
relied on dazzling people with pretty graphics to gloss over how little
real effort the writers had put into the content.

Maybe that's where these magazines fall down, because they're designed to
be time-wasters, not to actually inform and educate.

cheers

Jules

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!

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:09:15 +0100, Mr Sandman wrote:
I love TW, i wish they would bring it back like they did Dr.Who.

.... or the Great Egg Race - I think that was at least in part responsible
for my love of all things DIY :-)

"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:09:15 +0100, Mr Sandman wrote:
I love TW, i wish they would bring it back like they did Dr.Who.

... or the Great Egg Race - I think that was at least in part responsible
for my love of all things DIY :-)


I was on the first series: great fun!

On Jan 12, 12:09*pm, "Mr Sandman" wrote:

I love TW, i wish they would bring it back like they did Dr.Who.

Emotionally incontinent, totally incoherent and fronted by a gurning
idiot?

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:05:04 -0800 (PST), mike
wrote:

On Jan 12, 12:09*pm, "Mr Sandman" wrote:

I love TW, i wish they would bring it back like they did Dr.Who.

Emotionally incontinent, totally incoherent and fronted by a gurning
idiot?


It wasn't that good. :-(

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:05:04 -0800 (PST), mike
wrote:

On Jan 12, 12:09 pm, "Mr Sandman" wrote:

I love TW, i wish they would bring it back like they did Dr.Who.

Emotionally incontinent, totally incoherent and fronted by a gurning
idiot?


It wasn't that good. :-(


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?

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:38:50 -0000, "John"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:05:04 -0800 (PST), mike
wrote:

On Jan 12, 12:09 pm, "Mr Sandman" wrote:

I love TW, i wish they would bring it back like they did Dr.Who.

Emotionally incontinent, totally incoherent and fronted by a gurning
idiot?


It wasn't that good. :-(


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.


Yes, I can remember those days. ;-)


Anyone able to make an integrated circuit?


Wozzat?

John
wibbled on Wednesday 13 January 2010 16:38


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?

If we were starting from scratch minus 1 (ie it's all broken but one can go
scavaging parts and hacking stuff together) we could in principle still do
that. We don't need computers to make and run some sort of electricity
system or phone systems. We could go back to hacking relays and stuff
together. Those components can still be made by hand with basic machine
tools.

What would be perhaps less readily available are the people who can use
their hands. In the old days (whatever) there were undoubtedly many more
people who could smith and others with fabrication skills, who could make
amazing things with basic tools and simple lathes.

However, even at my last company (tiny) there was a basic combi
lathe/milling machine and a bloke who could use it.. Assuming there are a
lot of cases like that lurking around the country, I don't think it's all
doom and gloom.

I suspect we could reboot to the 1950's *relatively* quickly.

I suspect the bigger problem might be the fact the remaining population at
large are going to rather less useful with anything practical like rearing
sheep, clothes making , cooking and stuff like that compared to even 30
years ago.

Heck, you'd have to make getting TV on air after electricity a priority just
to broadcast enough EastEnders to keep them from roaming the streets.

--
Tim Watts

Icicles - nature's way of pinpointing all the leaks in your guttering...

John wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:05:04 -0800 (PST), mike
wrote:
On Jan 12, 12:09 pm, "Mr Sandman" wrote:

I love TW, i wish they would bring it back like they did Dr.Who.
Emotionally incontinent, totally incoherent and fronted by a gurning
idiot?

It wasn't that good. :-(


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?


nope, but I can make a coherer and a cats whisker if someone has the cat..

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.


--

Adam Aglionby wrote:
Nuclear power stations were experiencing huge cost overruns......
Tomorrows World before it became What We Want You to Think World ;-)

TW`s review of the 1970`s

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/tomorro...?all=2&id=8019

Cheers
Adam
Any new technology always runs into the unexpected.
Unless you are doing what you already did last year using the staff who
did it, its very hard to predict the cost of anything 'brand new and
radical'

Who'd a thought we'd all be sittin' here drinking Chateau de Chassilier
wine?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk