3 ms·
This is the kind of article for which I used to subscribe to New Scientist. If only I had the time to read them every week... fascinating stuff.
by swombat 17y ago
This is the kind of article for which I used to subscribe to New Scientist. If only I had the time to read them every week... fascinating stuff.
- CamperBob 17y agoIndeed... if they still published stuff like this on a regular basis, I'd still be a subscriber.
- swombat 17y agoI think they do still publish stuff like that regularly, I just never find the time to read it.
- CamperBob 17y agoAs of a few years ago, they'd descended into cheap sensationalism -- not quite to the "Is your pet psychic?" level but they seemed to be headed in that direction, with no visible connection between an article's fluff factor and its scientific relevance. That's when I bailed on my print subscription.
- rflrob 17y agoI just want to give them points for having the answer to the question in the title be "Yeah, could be". It seems like with so much other science reporting out there, when it ends in a question mark, the answer is more like, "No, not likely. But the article isn't even really about [title], except in some tangential way!"
- donaq 17y agoI subscribed for a while some time back, but I couldn't find an option for an online-only subscription and I started running out of space to put the dead tree versions, so I stopped. Do they have an online-only option?
- eru 17y agoHow about giving the paper version away? (Just leave it in the commuter train or so, if you do not know someone who wants it.)