Scientific American's Top 50 75
dptalia writes "It's that time of year again, where everyone is putting out their best of 2006 lists. Last week, Popular Science did it, and today, Scientific American has released their top 50 list. Of note are improvements in RFID technology, discoveries in nantechnology, and net neutrality."
Re:Summaries (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, if you wish to read the whole shebang online, it's there. I don't think it is the natural meat & potatoes of typical slashdot fare.
Maybe there are newsworthy items in the list, but many compilations of "things achieved" necessarily have that Yesterday's News feeling. And no, you aren't asking for too much; you don't want the camel's nose in the tent, though.
"Scientific American" missed one. (Score:1, Interesting)
By the way, has anyone noticed that "Scientific American" (SA) changed radically over the last 16 years. SA once rather appealed to the technical elite, and you can discern the elitism from the nature of the advertisements and the article format. They included ads about advanced microscopes for tumor analysis, the latest minicomputers, chemical spectro-analysis instruments, etc. As well, the titles of the articles were set in a modest font, and the pictures were dull and conservative.
SA now resembles "Omni" [wikipedia.org]. The ads include sun-tan lotion, motorbikes, STP oil, etc. The titles of the articles are set in a flashy font, and the pictures are gaudy. What happened to this journal? It degenerated from a journal into a banal magazine -- a sort of "National Enquirer" for the sciences.
The last article that I read in SA was written by the Dr. Ronald Bracewell, the god-father of 3-dimensional fourier analysis. That article is dated almost 16 years ago.
Much more fun... (Score:5, Interesting)
is policy/advocacy really worthy enough? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm kinda borderline on this whole thing.