Searching \ for '[OT]: Free New Scientist weekly email newsletter' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=free+new+scientist
Search entire site for: 'Free New Scientist weekly email newsletter'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Free New Scientist weekly email newsletter'
2002\08\10@174338 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
[OT]: Free New Scientist magazine weekly email newsletter

            http://www.newscientist.com/signup/signup.jsp

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\08\10@201151 by Jim

flavicon
face
Gak! Cough! Hak!

Here's an article from one of their pages, with my comments added:

 "E-bomb" may see first combat use in Iraq
 http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992654

 17:45 08 August 02

 NewScientist.com news service

 Weapons designed to attack electronic systems and not people
 could see their first combat use in any military attack on Iraq.

Note the use of the weasel words "could see" in the above sentence,
for *what* type of advanced systems are in use in Iraq?

  It is widely believed that the US is planning for an attack
  that could overthrow Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, who it
  believes is developing weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi
  president responded publicly for the first time on Thursday,
  exhorting Iraqis to be prepared "with all the force you can
  to face your enemies".

This "it is widely believed" part is due to leaks and perhaps
planned leaks by our State Department for purpose of drawing
off attention from our *true* under-takings. The first rule
of war being NEVER to disclose your true plans.

To this end the PRESS has been totally duped by these planned
and planted 'leaks'.


I didn't read anymore for fear of losing brain matter in the
process (a fear of a "net loss of intelligence" kind of thing) ...

RF Jim

{Original Message removed}

2002\08\10@212018 by Jinx

face picon face
> The Iraqi president responded publicly for the first time on Thursday,
>    exhorting Iraqis to be prepared "with all the force you can to face
> your enemies"

As would any "responsible" (in the loosest sense of the word) head
of state say

OTOH, it was reported today that SH had promised a British MP
unfettered access of Iraq by inspectors

So who to believe ?

To quote Winston Churchill (twice)

"In wartime, the truth is so precious that she should always be
attended by a bodyguard of lies" (Churchill to Stalin)

"The first casualty of war is truth" (Churchill memoirs)

And one from across the pond, which you could apply to
either side to sum up their positions

"Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the
pursuit of justice is no virtue" (Senator Barry Goldwater)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\08\11@101343 by Morgan Olsson

picon face
>  http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992654

..

>I didn't read anymore for fear of losing brain matter in the
>process (a fear of a "net loss of intelligence" kind of thing) ...

Agree.  They can´t even differ between energy and power!  In a contect where it is obvious they would mean peak power (wats), they state "peak energies of tens of millions of Joules"

Bah. Who would believe the rest they write?

Interesting way to make a "sweeping resonator" thugh, by crushing the inductor in the LC cirquit with dynamite...!

I really doubt a th eenergy in a bunch of capacitors can destroy anyting on a distance though, as 99.9999999999 something of the released energy will go to internal loss and all surrounding earth/water/space...

Unless the target set up a very huge antenna...

It will only make a noise peak.

/Morgan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\11@191457 by Tom Handley

picon face
   Jim, those are referred to as High Power Microwave (HPM) weapons.
Aviation Week & Space Technology has been running some articles on
them. Apparently both the US and the UK are ready to deploy them
on unmanned platforms. Not sure about the other publication but
AW&ST is highly regarded in the aerospace world. I've been a
subscriber for `decades'...

   - Tom

At 17:10 10-08-02, Jim wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\11@192114 by Sergio Masci

picon face
----- Original Message -----
From: Morgan Olsson <spam_OUTmorgans.rtTakeThisOuTspamTELIA.COM>
To: <.....PICLISTKILLspamspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Free New Scientist weekly email newsletter


{Quote hidden}

on
> a distance though, as 99.9999999999 something of the released energy
> will go to internal loss and all surrounding earth/water/space...
>
> Unless the target set up a very huge antenna...
>
> It will only make a noise peak.
>
> /Morgan

I think the high energy for the EMP is actually comming from the explosive
charge not the capacitors. The caps are just setting up a strong magnetic
field, the explosive is doing the work against the field.

Regards
Sergio

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\11@193407 by Jim

flavicon
face
I view the NS as a 'mind-candy' publication.

As to the subject of HPM weapons - I highly doubt their
effectiveness and utility for a variety of reasons ... having
worked on some higher-power gear myself (including Ku band
RADAR) in the defence sector.

We, as a people in the *real* world encounter so much more
trouble from nature what nature 'throws' out in the way of
lightning strikes to computer and telecom facilities as
well as large magnetic fluctuations across power grids due
to electron emanations from the sun -

- that anything some piddly airborne platform can hurl at
an enmemy will be pale by comparison - excluding, of course,
EMP from an atmospheric atom bomb detonation - but even then
the damage there will be somewhat 'localized'.

So much of what appears in the NS seems to be more 'political'
science than 'real' science. When they start loading in the
weasel words such as 'may be possble' and "it's possible" -
those are your leading indices that you're being "snowed"
and NS is venturing into speculation-land ...

Signed:

  "RF" (as in "Radio Frequency" both high and low power) Jim


{Original Message removed}

2002\08\11@234215 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> When they start loading in the
> weasel words such as 'may be possble' and "it's possible" -
> those are your leading indices that you're being "snowed"

May well be true here BUT this is of course also the terminology of true
Science. The actual words used in some cases may be slightly more erudite
but Science is about saying "has not been able to be disproved so far" and
is never about saying "it's a fact that".

It's when Scientific journals start making hard statements of fact that you
should most be on the lookout for weasels :-)


           R :-) M

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\12@094716 by Jim

flavicon
face
Scientific Journals - you're putting New (political)
Scientist in the same category as bona-fide "science
journals"?

Shame shame ...

Perhaps they should change their name to "The Possibility
Journal", "Hypothesis Weekly", "Guess Daily", "We're-Taking-
a-Stab-In-The-Dark-On-This-One-Monthly" or "Dartboard Daily"?

RF Jim

{Original Message removed}

2002\08\12@100646 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Scientific Journals - you're putting New (political)
> Scientist in the same category as bona-fide "science
> journals"?
>
> Shame shame ...

1.    No. I wasn't. That is a different issue that I'll deal with in 2.
below.

Take the statement at face value.
What I was saying is that Science is about NOT making hard statements of
fact. (Even, about NOT making hard statements of fact). When you get hard
statements is usually when the trouble begins. All too often the place where
Science goes off the rail is when theories become "received facts" & attain
almost God-like reverence.

No examples from current "Science" will be provied of course :-)

2.    Yes & no. I consider that New Scientist is a good source of Scientific
knowledge, but that is entirely independent of my comments. Like ALL current
publications the mind set, world-view and general perspective need to be
kept in mind. NS is of course much more populist than the proceedings of
learned societies and the like but also generally much more wide ranging (as
one would reasonably expect).

3.    Which of New Scientists proclamations or positions do you find
politically (presumably) unacceptable.
Maybe their ongoing warnings about the dangers of Genetic Engineering ? :-)




       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\12@102138 by Jim

flavicon
face
I guess I have read too much literature that places value
on honest, fact-based 'reporting' as opposed to out-right
conjecture and the "Jerry Springer Show" approach to
science that N(p)S publishes .. the likes of the BSTJ,
the IRE proceedings - oh, but wait!

Some of these pubs I've been reading are over fourty years
old - so, maybe it's just this "new" generation of populist
science that I'm objecting too. Maybe it's the fact that
the pubs I've been reading are *applied science* as opposed
to bleeding edge 'guesswork' science that shoots off in every
direction hoping to hit a target on a galactic dartboard
somewhere ...

RF Jim


{Original Message removed}

2002\08\12@193536 by John Brown

picon face
>2.    Yes & no. I consider that New Scientist is a good source of Scientific
>knowledge

Recent articles in New Scientist about my research field have been wildly
inaccurate and misleading to the extent that I seriously doubt that the
person who wrote the articles had any real knowledge of the field.

For this reason I regard it as being more a tabloid than a source
scientific knowledge.

John


_______________________________________________________________________
John Brown
PhD (Clinical Psychology) candidate
                                      Email:  john.brownspamKILLspamanu.edu.au
School of Psychology                  Phone:  (02) 6125-3827
Room 124, Building 39, Psychology     Fax:    (02) 6125-0499
The Australian National University    Mobile: 0429 455 504
ACTON ACT 0200   Web: http://www.anu.edu.au/psychology/staff/BrownJ.htm

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\12@210942 by Reginald Neale

picon face
>I guess I have read too much literature that places value
>on honest, fact-based 'reporting' as opposed to out-right
>conjecture and the "Jerry Springer Show" approach to
>science that N(p)S publishes .. the likes of the BSTJ,
>the IRE proceedings - oh, but wait!

For something completely different, try the Journal of Irreproducible
Results at http://www.jir.com/

Reg

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\12@223112 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> >2.    Yes & no. I consider that New Scientist is a good source of
Scientific
> >knowledge
>
> Recent articles in New Scientist about my research field have been wildly
> inaccurate and misleading to the extent that I seriously doubt that the
> person who wrote the articles had any real knowledge of the field.
> For this reason I regard it as being more a tabloid than a source
> scientific knowledge.

Sad to hear.
What is your field of research?
What was the general nature of the inaccuracies?



       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2002 , 2003 only
- Today
- New search...