|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
June 1st 05, 05:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I'd like to be able to review it myself but I don't seem to be able to
get hold of a copy :-( John http://physics.open.ac.uk/~jdtanner Finally I managed to get hold of a copy of the magazine. My comments are as follows: 1. Price Quite high for an astronomy magazine. 2. Cover CD All the content could be on the website. Most (I accept not all) of us have broadband these days, and the additional cost of distributing a cover cd could be cut by having online content. Maybe there could be two versions of the magazine, with and without the cd (computer magazines used to do this eons ago). 3. Good old PM There are a lot of pictures of PM, and I get the impression that he might have written an autobiography ;-) I like the man, and I'm quite happy to see him in the magazine...although I'd prefer somebody slightly more female and blonde ;-) I do agree with the comments about PM's name appearing everywhere, but I guess that is how the BBC wanted it done. 4. Telescope Reviews Nice...enough said 6. My PhD Topic What a supprise to see some of the work that I'm *indirectly* involved with appear in the magazine (the bit about the star with the least amount of Iron in it). This was a nice touch ;-) I'll probably buy it again, but it doesn't offer a great deal more to me that AN (which is cheaper). All the best, John http://physics.open.ac.uk/~jdtanner 
|
|
#42
June 1st 05, 06:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A bloody good first attempt! Interesting and informative and hope it keeps up the good start. I for one will be subscribing as soon as I see the second issue! Dave
|
|
#43
June 1st 05, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#44
June 2nd 05, 10:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... PM passing of other people's discoveries as his own; Got any evidence of that? A mate of my grandad's discovered a minor planet in the 30's, and asked PM to verify it. Apparently, he passed it off as his own discovery! This sounds like yet another unsubstantiated rumour. PM was only 16 years old in 1939! Regards, Roger
|
|
#45
June 2nd 05, 02:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with my namesake. A terrible accusation if true. Can the
anonymous accuser give us details? What's the asteroid number? Why ask a teenager to verify your discovery? Should be dead easy to check, but I bet there won't be any evidence forthcoming! Roger
|
|
#46
June 2nd 05, 08:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roger Steer wrote:
...This is not blind defence, but what I fail to understand is the vilification of someone using words like 'obsenity' when a simple "I don't think that this is very good" would do. You seem to have formed the impression that I was instigating some sort of personal attack in my OP. I wasn't. I was specifically disputing Ian's attribution, 'This comes from having the best all round knowledge of astronomy of anyone living' - nothing more. PM himself never entered into it. My subsequent remarks concerned the catalogue *not* the man. The anonymity of 'nicknames' and the fact that insults can be made safe in the knowledge that one will never have to defend them in person... ...However, reasoned comment by identified writers is always worth reading. I'll rise to the bait... Your point on nicknames is interesting. For starters, there's nothing in the Charter (http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.sci.astronomy.html) that refers to the use or otherwise of nicknames. There's actually very little mention of nicknames in any docs I could find regarding Usenet posts in general (see http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html); what you do find in fact is advice which specifically warns about the dangers of using your real name. And of course, there are many reasons for users to adopt nicknames rather than using their real names (see http://www.unix.com/archive/index.php/t-14694.html, very few having anything at all to do with keeping anonymous in order to diss some unfortunate 3rd party. 'identified writers' sounds reasonable at first but unfortunately this cuts both ways, there's no guarantee that you are actually who you say you are either. To be honest, I don't really care, neither can I bothered tracking you down to confirm it. The point being that I am far more attentive to *what* you write. Seeing as how neither of us can definitively prove we are who we say we are, all we need do is review the archives for previous posts and then come to a view as to whether the other has a genuine interest in UK astronomy, or not. Regards Chef!
|
|
#47
June 2nd 05, 10:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:03:30 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Chef!"
wrote: Your point on nicknames is interesting. For starters, there's nothing in the Charter (http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.sci.astronomy.html) that refers to the use or otherwise of nicknames. While thats true, its also worth considering that common sense indicates that if you want to be trusted, posting with a real name is more likely to engender it. And of course, there are many reasons for users to adopt nicknames rather than using their real names (see http://www.unix.com/archive/index.php/t-14694.html, very few having anything at all to do with the last phrase seems also to describe the relevance of this link to the question! 'identified writers' sounds reasonable at first but unfortunately this cuts both ways, there's no guarantee that you are actually who you say you are either. This is true, but I refer you to my first point. Chef! And of course, there's nothing to stop you posting with a nic as your from and reply-to address, but posting a real name in your sig. -- Mark McIntyre CLC FAQ http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html CLC readme: http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
|
#49
June 4th 05, 09:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... Dear all, Am I the only one disappointed in the new Sky at Night magazine? For me, the one word that sums it up is: CLUTTERED! 1 - The article about nebulae.... PERFECT! Nice stunning photos of nebulae that dominate the page - why not do the entire magazine like that, then? S@N has about 5 photos per page average. Look at the Sky & Telescope - 2 large photos per page. Astronomy IS big fantastic photo's - not clutter. This particularly annoyed me on the readers gallery pages, where the photo's were not done any justice at all (again, compare with S&T). 2 - It may suprise you to learn that research astronomy is done in the UK! To me, the British magazine should be SHOUTING at what wonderful science is done in the uk, not leaving them as footnotes half way through a story. Sorry, but I find it annoying when I see NASA getting credit where you could equally credit European & UK astronomers, if not moreso. e.g. I'd title the story about La Palma + WHT something like "Big British 'scopes"! (Or something like that!) 3 - Telescope tests - excellent. Nice and clear, no clutter. I look forward to the bigger toys in up and coming reviews. 4 - It started badly - 12 photos of Patric Moore in the first 5 pages. I'm not a fan! reasons include PM passing of other people's discoveries as his own; people writing books & articles for him and PM passes them off as his (what does he know about TouCams?! Since I know PM didn't write that sentance, I don't believe he wrote a word in the entire magazine, which is possibly unfair. But he does "cry wolf" too much, and so is doing himself an injustice); and the general public think that all astronomers are old men;... I know people will totally disagree with me, and fair enough, as long as you understand my PoV on PM! 5 - Sky@Night episode bit. I'm sure they could find nice photos of PeteL et al, without taking an excessive number of stills from the video of people in mid sentance - Chris looks like he's just about eat a fly, and Pete has his eyes closed! Could/should do better! 6 - I've not seen the CD-Rom myself... but I've been told not to bother, since it pops up in a tiny sub-screen! I could go on, but life is short. Basically, I'll continue to be buying Sky & Telescope, mainly because it is much better designed - clear & without clutter. (e.g. 2 columns per page, not 4 column per page and columns that last for just 1 inch before going to another column - that *is* dumb!) I'm just glad I looked at someone elses and didn't buy it! The only advantage in the S@N is that you get UK prices - although a quick comparison between S&T & S@N confirms John's suspicions... Just swap the dollar sign for a pound sign! These may sound like an unnessesary rant - but I'm just hoping that the magazine read this and so improve. I sooooo wanted to buy a good british magazine, but I feel I've been let down. The content may be good - but good content must be presented well, or I will just find an equally good content on a better designed web page. Infact, a good astro mag should be "pretty-pictures" driven, since the content can all be found on the web, but hard copy glossy images cannot. Any thoughts, comments? I hope the S@N team take on board some of these critisms. Das Finally got hold of a copy today. Print quality and photos excellent, some interesting articles. I was a bit disappointed with the equipment reviews though, the DSI 'in-depth' look wasn't exactly that, more a list of features I could have got off the meade site, most of the article taken up by a photo of it, not a picture produced by it in sight. The Group test of the beginners telescopes was a bit light on technical details, not too much explaining the scores achieved. Maybe I expect too much as I find a lot of magazines these days tend to lack full tests. Overall worth buying again to see how it goes.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
