US science magazines.

[Beest]

We have subscrined to New Scientist for years, but each year it gts harder to justify, they increase the subscription price 30+% each year ( they are now asking $130+ a year or $99 for a new subscriber), it's an in depth weekly science round upm which is great excpet that delivery is unreliable, and we are generally too busy to keep up with them every week.

So I am shopping for alternatives, I see Popular Science and Scientific American, both monthly and $12 - $20 for year !

Are there other Science magazines to consider, anybody any with experience to compare and contrast these two?

We are looking for pretty hard science content, Popular Sciences web page has articles on Graphene and 3D printing, both topics of interest in the house so that's probably winning.

I see 'Science' but can't even find the subscription price and it seems focussed on Libraries so I'm guessing not.

[glatt]

My only exposure to Popular Science and Scientific American was when I was a teen. My dad got both. Popular Science back then was more interesting to me than SciAm because the articles were smaller and more numerous and fit my short attention span. SciAm had longer articles that went into more detail.

You should swing by a bookstore or library and look at both. I haven't read either in many years.

[BigV]

I like Popular Science, it's the movie popcorn of science magazines, light, quick, and easy, but not really a complex meal.

I've read Scientific American for many years, like glatt, since junior high school. Back in the day, I would pick up an issue, start an article and be able to understand the opening paragraphs and as the subject was covered in greater depth, I found myself over my head, dog-paddling through the middle parts of the article until I could touch bottom again at the conclusion. This happened a lot, and I was exposed to a lot, and I reckon I even learned some from my brief voyages away from my intellectual shores. Nowadays, I can read through almost all of the articles and recognize the material, though some of the technical details I take at face value. I don't often feel as though I'm in over my head through the course of an article. I'm not a current subscriber, though I've been one as recently as a couple years ago. It is my go-to airport bookseller purchase to read on the plane. The format has changed over the years and when it switched from dry-just-the-facts-ma'am to something with color full page diagrams I kinda felt like they were selling out to a lower standard. I don't feel that way now, I think their format/layout is fine, it's attractive. The price is right, I don't think there's much downside for you. It's just monthly, so you'll find you have much more month than you have material... unfortunate. The subscription probably gives you access to some subscriber-only web content, that's probably cool too. I like the magazine.

[ZenGum]

*Most* of New Scientist is available for free on line if you do a free subscription/sign-up.

[regular.joe]

I don't like most science rags these days. I miss the Scientific American of my youth. It used to be a journal of science, now it's a magazine competing with Discover, Popular Science, and DC Comics. Pschaw.

[DanaC]

I used to love Focus magazine, years ago. It was an excellent science and tech/gadget magazine. Just enough of a balance between bite size chunks of zingy tech and pop science stories and more in depth coverage of one or two key topics.

Then they suddenly changed their strapline from 'blah blah science and technology magazine' to 'blah blah Men's Interests Magazine'. Stopped subscribing then and there. It's back to a science magazine now but last I looked it wasn't as good as it used to be. Far too slight. Not bad though...worth a glance, like.

http://sciencefocus.com/

[tw]

The concept must be learned in school. And was demonstrated in a movie called "Paper Chase". To pass Prof Kingfield's class, one had to grasp this concept.

If something is read once and understood, then its information already known. It taught little. Reading something new and useful typically requires at least three rereads. The current April 2013 issue of Scientific American demonstrates that concept.

The topic is neutrinos. Among other things, how a neutrino would explain so much matter and so little anti-matter. A problem from quantum physics that continues to vex researchers who are the source of our children's new jobs (if American is to remain number one).

Everything in that article is laymanized simple. No complex math. Nothing difficult. However many nouns are new. Therefore it is impossible to understand it in a first reading. Those new nouns (ie leptons) are simple but new.

A first read of anything useful only creates 'dots' in your head. Ie the 'dots' are those new nouns. A second read collects more 'dots' and establishes a map of where those 'dots' lay. A third reread starts connecting 'dots' so that one grasps what the author is trying to say.

That 'at least three rereads' is essential for anything useful and informative. The TV show "Numb3rs" foolishly says a genius will see an equation and immediately understand it. Bull full of shit. A genius will take hours first learning what the variable means (the equivalent of nouns). And maybe days to grasp what the equation really says (connect the dots).

Many are told the author is at fault if it requires multiple rereads. Those who say so then become English majors. People who only see what is in one reading. Who also knew Paul had no shoes. So Paul was dead. They knew (without doubt) only what they saw the first time. Never understood what is necessary to learn something new.

Good science magazines contain at least one good article. That's the article that, when first read, only the first and last paragraphs make sense.

Years ago, we discussed a book from Thomas Barnett entitled "Pentagon's New Map". It describes Core and Gap nations. And what must happen to ensure world peace. If read superficially, then one saw it as a confirmation of the lies promoted by "Project for a New American Century". And justification for Mission Accomplished. So wackos in George Jr's administration hired Barnett. One here also praised his book.

Well, that one here never got beyond Chapter 2. What Barnett was saying required careful rereading. Instead, extremists only read what they wanted to see. Only read it once. Never did what is required to grasp superior articles, papers, or materials.

Barnett was quietly dismissed from a George Jr administration that eventually began hearing why they would massacre almost 5000 American servicemen for no good reason. They only read the 'dots' in a first reading. And never grasped basic concepts Barnett had defined essential to win a war. Such as "America DOES do nation building". Wackos only read what they wanted to see. Some never got past Chapter 2 because Barnett was truly defining what we now call Mission Accomplished. The useless massacre of American servicemen.

Not just science magazines that are hard to read. It applies to all reality including Military Strategy. We massacred 5000 servicemen because our leaders and so many American citizens do not learn how to read. Ignored the articles and reports that required revisiting to grasp what was (to them) completely new concepts (even though much of it ws defined 2500 years ago). If it is (as George Jr said) ha-a-a-a-rd, then it is probably about something simple that you have not yet learned.

Students first read a textbook to have 'dots'. Had little idea what they read. Only learned about the 'dots'. Then went to class to connect those 'dots'. Then did homework to better grasp and complete those 'dot' connections. Another example. To understand something that is new (and layman simple) typically requires three rereads. Or read the book, relearn it in class, and finally grasp it with homework.

If an article in that science magazine is too difficult, then it is probably some of the best information. And requires more rereads (and a yellow highlighter).

Electronic tablets create a problem. No yellow highlighter. That April article in Scientific American had some yellow highlights in my first read. And more in a second reading. A highlighter is essential to identify key nouns - the 'dots'. Grasping what they were really saying - connecting those 'dots' - made easier by going back to the noun's definition when a paragraph does not yet make sense.

That article on neutrinos is layman simple. Since the author is describing concepts that must become common knowledge in 30 years (if he is correct), then today it required multiple rereads. Because it describes new knowledge.

Now watch "Paper Chase" only once to grasp this concept. Because underlying principles (the 'dots') were learned in the two readings of this post.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh horseshit, it's a magazine not a textbook.
If you're interested in reading an article, it's most likely because you're interested in the subject and already know something about it. So you read the article to see if it contains anything new, or just a rehash of old news.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If you're interested in reading an article, it's most likely because you're interested in the subject and already know something about it.

And therefore read it multiple times to learn something new. The naive (ie wacko extremists) only read once. Because articles that waste time are only telling one how to think. Telling them what they already 'knew'. Or to make one feel good while learning nothing useful. Articles that 'preach to the choir' don't need rereading because it was already known.

Does not matter how much you know about any topic. Articles that actually teach something can rarely be understood in the first reading - no matter how expert you are on the subject.

Either one wants to feel good by being told the same boring things. Or one thrives on learning new things every day. That means rereading.

Everything for George Jr was ha-a-a-a-rd because he hated learning. While the office kept demanding he learn. George Jr is known for reading his memos only once ... if he read them at all. His ignorance is obvious to everyone here. Knowledge requires rereading. That is ha-a-a-a-rd.

And yes, I sometimes reread an "Idea for Design" because I did not grasp it the first time. Sometimes, that article was wasting my time. Because in looking for the 'new trick', instead, I discover nothing useful. I read "Idea for Design" because that 'waste may time' rarely happens. The editors are usually good about filtering out uninformative submissions. I can never say that about anything reported by Fox News.

[DanaC]

There's a big difference between having to read something multiple times in order to make sense of the more difficult concepts, and having to reread it multiple times for it to make sense as written word.

There is a skill in writing about a highly specialised subject in a way that makes it intelligible for a non-specialist reader. That reader may still need to go back and reread it for all the ideas to settle in their mind, but they should get a sense of it on the first read. If they don't, then I'm sorry, but they're either reading something intended for a specialised readership, or the author has failed in their task.

You rattle off 'English Major' like it is an insult. As if concentrating on ideas and how we communicate them is a worthless endeavour. At the risk of being personal, this attitude explains a good deal about your own particular posting style. You have so many worthwhile ideas, but I so often skim them at a shallow read because your communication of those ideas is challenging to say the least.

[sexobon]

You're just not a connoisseur of good twenglish and I bet if he had chosen a cool username like twklyde, you wouldn't be so picky.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

There is a skill in writing about a highly specialized subject in a way that makes it intelligible for a non-specialist reader. That reader may still need to go back and reread it for all the ideas to settle in their mind, but they should get a sense of it on the first read.

Which is what I wrote. Described was how that works - the always required important details. Also recommended rereading the post to sufficiently understand it.

An example of better written science was cited: The Economist.

Scientific American is also good. Basic principles apply (that English majors often do not grasp). For example, a well written article defines important nouns. And always defines mnemonics with an English phrase when first used. Two reasons why that neutrino article is laymanized science.

A difficult to read book was Thomas Barnetts. He laymanizing advanced military concepts that also required rereading. George Jr's administration clearly did not do what was necessary to understand. But then some are only English majors.

The term English major is not an insult. A phrase that, well, you probably do not listen to Prairie Home Companion. An amusing radio show that describes English majors. Because Garrison Keillor apparently was an English major.

My statistics book was a disaster. The professor agreed. But he had no choice. It was dictated by the department’s 'central committee'. Richard Feynman details the problem. Many who approve of badly written material typically do not read/comprehend it. Keillor uses the term English major.

Feynman’s “Lectures on Physics” is superbly written science. Why does a genius write so clearly? He had a superior grasp of the topic.

An expression that is uncomprehendable because its terms are so subjective and undefined: “your communication of those ideas is challenging to say the least.” If saying something useful, well, executive summaries are also useless. Too short. No details. No examples. No matter how many times I read that sentence, it still makes no sense. Not a personal insult. A perfect example of why some material is so hard to follow.

[toranokaze]

The two that jump to mind are:
http://cen.acs.org/index.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html

but they are more geared towards professionals.

[Flint]

Omni.

Oh wait, Scientific American.

[glatt]

Omni! I forgot all about that one. I actually bought an issue once, I think. I had one in my possession anyway.

I remember an article saying that scientists were working on the idea that men could get pregnant if you implanted an embryo next to their small intestine. The embryo would get enough nutrients through the intestinal wall to let the baby grow, and then they could deliver by Cesarian when the baby matured.