'New Scientist' magazine

J

John Woodgate

Guest
The magazine has a new web site, with much more information available
without having to subscribe. http://www.newscientist.com
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
 
John Woodgate wrote:
The magazine has a new web site, with much more information available
without having to subscribe. http://www.newscientist.com
Click to expand...
Crashed already!
 
John Woodgate wrote:

The magazine has a new web site, with much more information available
without having to subscribe. http://www.newscientist.com
Click to expand...
I prefer the old format.
At least they updated it on a Wed.
Today's is still not updated.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
 
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:28:33 +0000, Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com>
wrote:

John Woodgate wrote:
The magazine has a new web site, with much more information available
without having to subscribe. http://www.newscientist.com

Crashed already!
Click to expand...
Do you mean it's already crashed, or are you Jewish? ;-)

--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:54:57 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

The magazine has a new web site, with much more information available
without having to subscribe. http://www.newscientist.com
Click to expand...

I subscribe to the print version, but won't renew. They've become too
political and have started filling the mag with stupid "artistic"
collages and lots of whitespace, like "Discover." Too many cuddly
animals and dinosaurs, too.

Science mags run by journalism majors just don't work.

John
 
John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:54:57 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:


The magazine has a new web site, with much more information available
without having to subscribe. http://www.newscientist.com



I subscribe to the print version, but won't renew. They've become too
political and have started filling the mag with stupid "artistic"
collages and lots of whitespace, like "Discover." Too many cuddly
animals and dinosaurs, too.

Science mags run by journalism majors just don't work.
Click to expand...
Just go to the WHS library.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
 
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:36:25 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
<dirk@neopax.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:54:57 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:


The magazine has a new web site, with much more information available
without having to subscribe. http://www.newscientist.com



I subscribe to the print version, but won't renew. They've become too
political and have started filling the mag with stupid "artistic"
collages and lots of whitespace, like "Discover." Too many cuddly
animals and dinosaurs, too.

Science mags run by journalism majors just don't work.

Just go to the WHS library.
Click to expand...

Wamego High School?

John
 
John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:36:25 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:


On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:54:57 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:



The magazine has a new web site, with much more information available
without having to subscribe. http://www.newscientist.com



I subscribe to the print version, but won't renew. They've become too
political and have started filling the mag with stupid "artistic"
collages and lots of whitespace, like "Discover." Too many cuddly
animals and dinosaurs, too.

Science mags run by journalism majors just don't work.

Just go to the WHS library.



Wamego High School?
Click to expand...
W H Smith

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
 
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:29:56 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <gfc3s0d86a7bqpbr3n8prmhr6f8vu8idko@
4ax.com>) about ''New Scientist' magazine', on Thu, 16 Dec 2004:

I subscribe to the print version, but won't renew. They've become too
political

Matter of opinion, I think. You mean their editorials disagree with your
opinions.
Click to expand...
Science magazines shouldn't run political editorials of any
orientation; they should talk about science, and would if they knew
enough about it. There are plenty of other mags to read if you're
interested in politics.

and have started filling the mag with stupid "artistic"
collages

That's been going on for a long time. I agree, it's annoying.

and lots of whitespace, like "Discover." Too many cuddly
animals and dinosaurs, too.

I like cuddly animals.
Click to expand...
Ooh, that reminds me: I'm supposed to pick up a couple of pounds of
ground sirloin on the way home.

John
 
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:00:14 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:39:28 -0500, Mark Jones <abuse@127.0.0.1
wrote:

[snip]

Now grapes may be good or bad for you, and wine might be as well.
The argument is not wether this particular claim is true or not, but
the way in which the media manipulates the "scientific facts" into a
selling tool.

If you can't trust scientists, who can you trust?

-M

Wine IS good for you! I had some with my Chinese lunch. Bu-u-u-urp
;-)

Seriously, My rule is DON'T eat anything that scientists recommend, or
my grandmother couldn't spell ;-)

Butter and olive oil, and wine, are good for you. Margarine and
bi-sulfite preservatives are not.

...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...

Don't forget chocolate. That's good for you too.

John
 
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:53:32 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

Don't forget chocolate. That's good for you too.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but chocolate & red wine's for girls.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:14:48 +0000, Paul Burridge
<pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:53:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

Don't forget chocolate. That's good for you too.

Yeah, but chocolate & red wine's for girls.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, I seem to have been OutMachoed by the fearsome Burridge
Beast, who lives entirely on red meat and beer.

John

full of pasta and Pauillac, and ashamed.
 
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:08:56 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:14:48 +0000, Paul Burridge
pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:53:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

Don't forget chocolate. That's good for you too.

Yeah, but chocolate & red wine's for girls.


Oh dear, I seem to have been OutMachoed by the fearsome Burridge
Beast, who lives entirely on red meat and beer.
Click to expand...
If only! Sadly, dietary restrictions forbid me such a sumptuous
repast. :(
Anyway, it's not any old chocolate that's reputedly good for you; only
the real, dark stuff high in cocoa (like 70%+) and you won't find that
in a Mars Bar!
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
In article <o694s0p4l2sbtf2mb4kq849etlu5q2gis7@4ax.com>,
pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk says...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:53:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

Don't forget chocolate. That's good for you too.

Yeah, but chocolate & red wine's for girls.

Sure. ...and what's wrong with girls? As JimT says above;
Click to expand...
"...chocolate has about the same chemical effect on the body as sex".
One is useful for the other.

--
Keith
 
Jim Thompson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:53:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:


Don't forget chocolate. That's good for you too.

John


Yep. From what I understand, chocolate has about the same chemical
effect on the body as sex.

...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...
Yeah, it gives my wife headaches but she won't let me buy it for myself.

--
Joe Legris
 
What with the 'obesity' scare, all food cartons should be legally marked
"Guaranteed to contain no food value whatever."
 
In article <pan.2004.12.17.15.51.19.378389@example.net>,
rich@example.net says...
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:44:00 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:21:28 -0500, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:

In article <o694s0p4l2sbtf2mb4kq849etlu5q2gis7@4ax.com>,
pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk says...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:53:32 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

Don't forget chocolate. That's good for you too.

Yeah, but chocolate & red wine's for girls.

Sure. ...and what's wrong with girls? As JimT says above;
"...chocolate has about the same chemical effect on the body as sex".
One is useful for the other.

But, as Ogden Nash says, "Candy is Dandy but Liquor is Quicker" ;-)

Candy is dandy, but sex won't rot your teeth! ;-)
Click to expand...
I dunno! From what I hear of the stuff Burridge hangs out with... ;-)

--
Keith
 
A gorrila escaped from his cage at the zoo and began hugging a woman.

She shouted "What shall I do".

Her husband, standing nearby, said "Tell him you have a headache."

===================================

Yeah, it gives my wife headaches but she won't let me buy it for myself.
--
Joe Legris
Click to expand...
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <3s06s015e5kdoqe2vhnc57bjhdcu707bu3@
4ax.com>) about ''Scientists'', on Fri, 17 Dec 2004:

Most American "chocolate" is mostly sugar and vegetable oil and
emulifiers. The Joseph Schmitt truffles are excellent, as are a few
newish boutique chocolate shops. For everyday munching, the Lundt and
Tobler and Drosit things are great. A Hershey almond bar is about as
close to chocolate as any of the US stuff gets. The British stuff,
Cadbury and such, isn't much better.
Click to expand...
You need to go to Belgium for chocolate. That and the beer are the only
good reasons to go there. It rains all the time. (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
 
John Larkin wrote:

Most American "chocolate" is mostly sugar and vegetable oil and
emulifiers. The Joseph Schmitt truffles are excellent, as are a few
newish boutique chocolate shops. For everyday munching, the Lundt and
Tobler and Drosit things are great. A Hershey almond bar is about as
close to chocolate as any of the US stuff gets. The British stuff,
Cadbury and such, isn't much better.

John


Except of course that it lacks Hershey's fine aftertaste of lark's vomit.
Click to expand...

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top