I read a copy of the New Scientist for the first time in years. I didn't renew a
subscription 25 or so years ago, because there were often issues where I
couldn't understand most articles. If the current copy is typical NS is utterly
dumbed down. Is it typical?
-- 

Martin

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:53:39 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
<news:of8ge5huefhil0mpfk1squfcri23infqq7@4ax.com> :

> I read a copy of the New Scientist for the first time in years. I didn't renew a
> subscription 25 or so years ago, because there were often issues where I
> couldn't understand most articles. If the current copy is typical NS is utterly
> dumbed down. Is it typical?

I stopped subscribing a year ago, but I do think it's been down quite a
bit. The articles, although interesting aren't as in depth or detailed as
they used to be. I can understand most articles without hardly having to
think about it. More journalism than science. 

Either that or you and me are getting cleverer.
-- 
Tim C.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:01:42 +0100, Tim C. wrote in post :
<news:vat2hz8dx55y$.5tuspkdpfkhf$.dlg@40tude.net> :

> but I do think it's been * down quite a bit.

*dumbed*

-- 
Tim C.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:01:42 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:53:39 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
><news:of8ge5huefhil0mpfk1squfcri23infqq7@4ax.com> :
>
>> I read a copy of the New Scientist for the first time in years. I didn't renew a
>> subscription 25 or so years ago, because there were often issues where I
>> couldn't understand most articles. If the current copy is typical NS is utterly
>> dumbed down. Is it typical?
>
>I stopped subscribing a year ago, but I do think it's been down quite a
>bit. The articles, although interesting aren't as in depth or detailed as
>they used to be. I can understand most articles without hardly having to
>think about it. More journalism than science. 
>
>Either that or you and me are getting cleverer.

I read the current magazine in less than 45 minutes.
-- 

Martin

Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
> I read a copy of the New Scientist for the first time in years. I didn't renew
> a subscription 25 or so years ago, because there were often issues where I
> couldn't understand most articles. If the current copy is typical NS is utterly
> dumbed down. Is it typical?

I picked up a copy at work a week or two back and thought exactly the
same thing!  Although if you think that is dumbed down, try looking at a
copy of BBC Focus some time.  It's like a slightly sciencey based copy
of The Beano.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:13:34 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
<news:badge5p1nkaco23ksbt21lsrjhd8j08a2u@4ax.com> :

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:01:42 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:53:39 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
>><news:of8ge5huefhil0mpfk1squfcri23infqq7@4ax.com> :
>>
>>> I read a copy of the New Scientist for the first time in years. I didn't renew a
>>> subscription 25 or so years ago, because there were often issues where I
>>> couldn't understand most articles. If the current copy is typical NS is utterly
>>> dumbed down. Is it typical?
>>
>>I stopped subscribing a year ago, but I do think it's been down quite a
>>bit. The articles, although interesting aren't as in depth or detailed as
>>they used to be. I can understand most articles without hardly having to
>>think about it. More journalism than science. 
>>
>>Either that or you and me are getting cleverer.
> 
> I read the current magazine in less than 45 minutes.

I read pretty slowly so I need about an hour, but that sounds about right. 

-- 
Tim C.

On 28 Oct 2009 12:14:47 GMT, vicky@dinky.vm.bytemark.co.uk wrote in post :
<news:7kqqtnF37m3mjU3@mid.individual.net> :

> Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>> I read a copy of the New Scientist for the first time in years. I didn't renew
>> a subscription 25 or so years ago, because there were often issues where I
>> couldn't understand most articles. If the current copy is typical NS is utterly
>> dumbed down. Is it typical?
> 
> I picked up a copy at work a week or two back and thought exactly the
> same thing!  Although if you think that is dumbed down, try looking at a
> copy of BBC Focus some time.  It's like a slightly sciencey based copy
> of The Beano.

Scientific American and Nature are a bit too involved for me -  I want the
old NS back. A stimulating article that makes you concentrate to understand
it, but where you don't need a recent degree in the topic.

-- 
Tim C.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:45:10 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:13:34 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
><news:badge5p1nkaco23ksbt21lsrjhd8j08a2u@4ax.com> :
>
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:01:42 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:
>> 
>>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:53:39 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
>>><news:of8ge5huefhil0mpfk1squfcri23infqq7@4ax.com> :
>>>
>>>> I read a copy of the New Scientist for the first time in years. I didn't renew a
>>>> subscription 25 or so years ago, because there were often issues where I
>>>> couldn't understand most articles. If the current copy is typical NS is utterly
>>>> dumbed down. Is it typical?
>>>
>>>I stopped subscribing a year ago, but I do think it's been down quite a
>>>bit. The articles, although interesting aren't as in depth or detailed as
>>>they used to be. I can understand most articles without hardly having to
>>>think about it. More journalism than science. 
>>>
>>>Either that or you and me are getting cleverer.
>> 
>> I read the current magazine in less than 45 minutes.
>
>I read pretty slowly so I need about an hour, but that sounds about right. 

including the download? :)
-- 

Martin

On 28 Oct 2009 12:14:47 GMT,  wrote:

>Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>> I read a copy of the New Scientist for the first time in years. I didn't renew
>> a subscription 25 or so years ago, because there were often issues where I
>> couldn't understand most articles. If the current copy is typical NS is utterly
>> dumbed down. Is it typical?
>
>I picked up a copy at work a week or two back and thought exactly the
>same thing!  Although if you think that is dumbed down, try looking at a
>copy of BBC Focus some time.  It's like a slightly sciencey based copy
>of The Beano.

With or without the Bash Street gang? LOL
-- 

Martin

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:49:07 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:

>On 28 Oct 2009 12:14:47 GMT, vicky@dinky.vm.bytemark.co.uk wrote in post :
><news:7kqqtnF37m3mjU3@mid.individual.net> :
>
>> Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>> I read a copy of the New Scientist for the first time in years. I didn't renew
>>> a subscription 25 or so years ago, because there were often issues where I
>>> couldn't understand most articles. If the current copy is typical NS is utterly
>>> dumbed down. Is it typical?
>> 
>> I picked up a copy at work a week or two back and thought exactly the
>> same thing!  Although if you think that is dumbed down, try looking at a
>> copy of BBC Focus some time.  It's like a slightly sciencey based copy
>> of The Beano.
>
>Scientific American

Scientific American is more difficult for me than it was when I had a
subscription 30 years ago. I don't think anybody ever understood every article
in Nature.

> and Nature are a bit too involved for me -  I want the
>old NS back. A stimulating article that makes you concentrate to understand
>it, but where you don't need a recent degree in the topic.

Exactly.
-- 

Martin

Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>I picked up a copy at work a week or two back and thought exactly the
>>same thing!  Although if you think that is dumbed down, try looking at a
>>copy of BBC Focus some time.  It's like a slightly sciencey based copy
>>of The Beano.
> With or without the Bash Street gang? LOL

I figured that must have been the people answering the slightly bizarre
letters page.

On 28 Oct 2009 14:52:17 GMT, vicky@dinky.vm.bytemark.co.uk wrote in post :
<news:7kr451F3b4agkU1@mid.individual.net> :

> Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>I picked up a copy at work a week or two back and thought exactly the
>>>same thing!  Although if you think that is dumbed down, try looking at a
>>>copy of BBC Focus some time.  It's like a slightly sciencey based copy
>>>of The Beano.
>> With or without the Bash Street gang? LOL
> 
> I figured that must have been the people answering the slightly bizarre
> letters page.

I like the letters page. Some thought-provoking opinions at least. Even if
some were a bit dotty.

-- 
Tim C.

On 28 Oct 2009 14:52:17 GMT,  wrote:

>Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>I picked up a copy at work a week or two back and thought exactly the
>>>same thing!  Although if you think that is dumbed down, try looking at a
>>>copy of BBC Focus some time.  It's like a slightly sciencey based copy
>>>of The Beano.
>> With or without the Bash Street gang? LOL
>
>I figured that must have been the people answering the slightly bizarre
>letters page.

I blame O :o)
-- 

Martin

"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:1pbhe5d0vttluk0sd6hkj4sk28r3h2r1ml@4ax.com...
> On 28 Oct 2009 14:52:17 GMT,  wrote:
>
>>Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>>I picked up a copy at work a week or two back and thought exactly the
>>>>same thing!  Although if you think that is dumbed down, try looking at a
>>>>copy of BBC Focus some time.  It's like a slightly sciencey based copy
>>>>of The Beano.
>>> With or without the Bash Street gang? LOL
>>
>>I figured that must have been the people answering the slightly bizarre
>>letters page.
>
> I blame O :o)

*sigh* why not:)