Is New Scientist worth a sub?

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

Posts: 358
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 4:22 pm UTC
Location: 3 decades west of the teenage wasteland

Is New Scientist worth a sub?

Postby Aelfyre » Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:07 am UTC

So yeah, was just browsin around random science headlines and ran across this crazy ass piece about the Laws of The Universe might not be the same everywhere in the universe. Something about the "Fine Constant" Alpha being different in different regions of the universe. Apparently they don't have enough data to tack some sigmas on their result but from their measurements it seems that not only does it actually vary, but that it does so along a preferred direction being slightly higher in one direction and slightly lower in the other.

Most people they just don't have enough data to clear up the noise but anyway thats when I ran into a Paywall.

So I thought I'd get a general consensus as to whether this site is worth a sub or is it mainly Reality Fanfiction?
Xanthir wrote:To be fair, even perfectly friendly antimatter wildebeests are pretty deadly.

Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:36 pm UTC

Re: Is New Scientist worth a sub?

Postby mercutio_stencil » Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:02 am UTC

In general I find it amusing to read, but maybe a bit sensationalist. It's pretty much the British version of Discover. I like it, but I won't take it as gospel.

User avatar
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4756
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: Is New Scientist worth a sub?

Postby poxic » Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:37 am UTC

The real deal (if you aren't up to reading the original research) is probably Scientific American. Contains as little bullshit as is realistic, assumes a generic college education of sorts, arguably leftist in the editorialising*, and jumping all over heck's half-acre in terms of subject matter. It's not a cheap mag, but the subscription rates are pretty good for the quality.

* If "science education is really important" and "legislators should listen to scientists" are considered leftist, positions, that is.
The Supreme Ethical Rule: Act so as to elicit the best in others and thereby in thyself.
- Felix Adler, professor, lecturer, and reformer (13 Aug 1851-1933)

Posts: 319
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 3:22 am UTC

Re: Is New Scientist worth a sub?

Postby ikrase » Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:46 pm UTC

I've been reading Sci Am for many years, ever since I was in early-mid elementary school. It is really, really good. I credit it for all of my geekyness. Unfortuantely it's not as good as it used to be, and they took out The Amateur Scientist.
New Scientist seems to glom over everything sensational. They seem to do so in an accurate way, but still not quite as good.

User avatar
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:30 pm UTC
Location: England, near Bournemouth

Re: Is New Scientist worth a sub?

Postby BobTheElder » Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:20 pm UTC

I really enjoy new scientist. Of course you have to read it with a critical mind, not every scientist's claim about ground breaking research is 100% realistic, but in general I find it good.
It's more of a 'keeping up to date on science' rather than giving you a ton of hard scientific fact, so would be too basic for anyone with university level science education, i guess.

Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 8 guests