Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Community' started by Les Kern, Nov 22, 2004.
Dead link.... sorry.
Posted before several weeks ago.
It's also a known fake, so I don't know if Pop Science would publish this.
Crap. Not like me to post without checking it out.....
ive been getting popsci for about 5 years, and i love it. yes, it dosent have the intelectual fortitude of "Nature" or "Scientific American", but all of the stories in it are good quality.
Don't worry Les Kern, you are just human everyone makes mistakes.
My father used to get Popular Science, its a great source of science information. Information for the average person.
I consider SciAm to be probably the best layman's scientific magazine (definitely better than PopSci, from what I recall about PopSci--although that article about the worst jobs was very interesting). Nature has the more technical material (i.e., formal papers, with actual discussion of methods, etc.) and all of the people in my lab have...err...to put it crudely...wet dreams about publishing in it.
Popular Science in my humble opinion is nothing mre than doctor's office fluff. I subscribe to SciAm, but on occasion baffles me with its complexity on certain subjects. I'd put in the catagory "WAY better than PopSci, but not IMPOSSIBLE to read like my wife's "Laboratory Science" or other high-end specific mags.
Back in the 1960s and 70s Popular Science was a terrific magazine with a broad range of articles. It was much better than that creepy magazine- Popular Mechanics.
PopSci has been suffering the fate of Mac magazines of late. It is getting thinner and thinner as competition erodes its core market base. With so many print and cable subsitutes for "layman science" available it makes it difficult to compete.
I wonder how PopSci compares to Discovery Channel magazine in readership and advert sales?
I like PopSci's "Best of What's New", which always shows some cool stuff. However, as mentioned, the "Science" part of the title is pretty lacking.
SciAm is good. Rarely all that "deep" but consistently interesting. I'm a big fan of Science Magazine myself.
That's probably a fair assessment. I think that for the most part, SciAm does a good job of providing thoughtful, comprehensive, but broad and digestable reviews of subjects. The big difference, besides less complexity overall, is a focus on the relatively broad as opposed to Nature and Science's very, very specific.