30 years ago....

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

formatting link

Reply to
Adam Aglionby
Loading thread data ...

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

Steve

Reply to
Mr Sandman

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.

Reply to
Bruce

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'

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

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

Reply to
Jules

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

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

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

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

Reply to
Grimly Curmudgeon

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.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

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.

Reply to
Bruce

Bruce wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 19:08

We need someone who can do what Johnny Ball did to numbers to children.

I always liked James Burke personally.

Reply to
Tim W

Not many people did. But he had an undeniable gift for getting a technical message across with great enthusiasm in an accessible, non-technical way.

As did Raymond Baxter, who was the voice of (among many other things) Formula 1 motor racing (before Murray Walker), the Farnborough Air Show, the first flight of Concorde as well as being the main presenter on Tomorrow's World for 12 years, from 1965 to 1977. He was an RAF fighter pilot in WW2.

Reply to
Bruce

I was on the first series: great fun!

Reply to
Newshound

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!

Reply to
Clot

In message , Bruce writes

Breakfast TV the other day "Ooh far too technical"

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

Reply to
geoff

In message , Tim W writes

What we really need is someone to tell people that thinking and "having a clue" is not a bad thing

to stop treating the great unwashed as stupid, ignorant people who need the most basic thing spelt out to them

but then, ... we might start thinking for ourselves

Reply to
geoff

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 s**te

Reply to
geoff

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.

Reply to
Clot

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!

Reply to
Bob Eager

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.

Reply to
Bruce

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

Reply to
mike

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.