That was a cool magazine. Martin Gardner’s maths column was how most
people discovered Conway’s “Game Of Life”, back in the day.

Back when computers were scarce and expensive, MIT, I think it was, was
able to devote a lot of computing time to messing around with cellular
automata (purely in aid of research, of course), and discovering lots of
remarkable things like “spaceships” and “glider guns”. And conjecturing
about “Garden of Eden” patterns (board configurations which could not be
produced as the immediate descendant of any possible prior configuration).

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 03:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> That was a cool magazine. Martin Gardner’s maths column was how most
> people discovered Conway’s “Game Of Life”, back in the day.

The important word is 'was'. 'National Geographic' is another 'was'.

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 03:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> That was a cool magazine. Martin Gardner’s maths column was how most
>> people discovered Conway’s “Game Of Life”, back in the day.
>
> The important word is 'was'. 'National Geographic' is another 'was'.

What changed? The magazines, or you?

--
Give me chastity and continence, but not just now.
-- St. Augustine

On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:38:25 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 03:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> That was a cool magazine. Martin Gardner’s maths column was how most
>>> people discovered Conway’s “Game Of Life”, back in the day.
>>
>> The important word is 'was'. 'National Geographic' is another 'was'.
>
> What changed? The magazines, or you?

The magazines. 'Scientific American' never endorsed a political candidate
until Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024. That's not science. 'National
Geographic' was dumbed down over the years and now doesn't even exist as a
print magazine afaik. The editors and staff writers were fired and it's
now a freelance effort ultimately owned by Disney.

rbowman wrote this post; take it under advisement:

> On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:38:25 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 03:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> That was a cool magazine. Martin Gardner’s maths column was how most
>>>> people discovered Conway’s “Game Of Life”, back in the day.
>>>
>>> The important word is 'was'. 'National Geographic' is another 'was'.
>>
>> What changed? The magazines, or you?
>
> The magazines. 'Scientific American' never endorsed a political candidate
> until Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024. That's not science. 'National
> Geographic' was dumbed down over the years and now doesn't even exist as a
> print magazine afaik. The editors and staff writers were fired and it's
> now a freelance effort ultimately owned by Disney.

Hmmm. Haven't look at either for awhile.

Though endorsing candidates who aren't k00ks seems good to me.

Did you look at the old NatGeo magazine to see the topless natives? :-)

--
"Well, if you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what *can*
you believe?!"
-- Bullwinkle J. Moose [Jay Ward]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:30:50 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Though endorsing candidates who aren't k00ks seems good to me.

Dealing with science and leaving politics out of it would be even better.

> Did you look at the old NatGeo magazine to see the topless natives?

The ones who had enlarged their lower lips with what appeared to be dinner
plates? Now if they'd done articles on topless beaches in Scandinavia,,,

The only cover photo I remember is the Afghan Girl:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl

There is one article where I remember the supporting photos. It was a
grain warehouse on India. The rats were clustered around saucers of milk
that were put out for them. I think the author was appalled that the milk
wasn't laced with rodenticide and so little attention was being paid to
hygiene.

On 2024-10-10, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 03:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> That was a cool magazine. Martin Gardner’s maths column was how most
>>> people discovered Conway’s “Game Of Life”, back in the day.
>>
>> The important word is 'was'. 'National Geographic' is another 'was'.
>
> What changed? The magazines, or you?

Obviously the magazines. They used to deal with science, now they champion
the moron Woke Cult agenda.

Men can have babies, right?

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-10-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:38:25 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 03:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> That was a cool magazine. Martin Gardner’s maths column was how most
>>>> people discovered Conway’s “Game Of Life”, back in the day.
>>>
>>> The important word is 'was'. 'National Geographic' is another 'was'.
>>
>> What changed? The magazines, or you?
>
> The magazines. 'Scientific American' never endorsed a political candidate
> until Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024. That's not science. 'National
> Geographic' was dumbed down over the years and now doesn't even exist as a
> print magazine afaik. The editors and staff writers were fired and it's
> now a freelance effort ultimately owned by Disney.

I didn't know National Geographic no longer existed as a magazine. My great
aunt bought us kids a subscription for a few years in the 60s. I used to
look forward to the maps. I don't think they've been what they once were for
a quite a while now.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-10-10, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> rbowman wrote this post; take it under advisement:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:38:25 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 03:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That was a cool magazine. Martin Gardner’s maths column was how most
>>>>> people discovered Conway’s “Game Of Life”, back in the day.
>>>>
>>>> The important word is 'was'. 'National Geographic' is another 'was'.
>>>
>>> What changed? The magazines, or you?
>>
>> The magazines. 'Scientific American' never endorsed a political candidate
>> until Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024. That's not science. 'National
>> Geographic' was dumbed down over the years and now doesn't even exist as a
>> print magazine afaik. The editors and staff writers were fired and it's
>> now a freelance effort ultimately owned by Disney.
>
> Hmmm. Haven't look at either for awhile.
>
> Though endorsing candidates who aren't k00ks seems good to me.

Scientific magazines have no business being political magazines. It's
immediately going to alienate half of their potential subscribers. Even a
modern "scientist" should be able to figure that out. But most modern
"scientists" are progagandists, pushing Big Pharma crap or moron Woke cult
culture — usually both.

Men can "have babies," don't you know?

> Did you look at the old NatGeo magazine to see the topless natives? :-)

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:04:56 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> I didn't know National Geographic no longer existed as a magazine. My
> great aunt bought us kids a subscription for a few years in the 60s. I
> used to look forward to the maps. I don't think they've been what they
> once were for a quite a while now.

https://ngmdomsubs.nationalgeographic.com/pubs/NG/NGM/
NGM_Print_MultiTitle_Premium_Imp.jsp?
cds_page_id=272759&cds_mag_code=NGM&id=1728672180699&lsid=42851343006070669&vid=1

Apparently it still exists but is not on the newsstands. The subscription
model has its benefits since the publisher has a handle on how many copies
are needed for the month. Digital is even better since the marginal cost
approaches zero.

There is a downside. I used to subscribe to Dr. Dobbs but they started
doing a theme every month and all the articles would be about the same
topic. There might be three months a year when I was interested in the
topic and the rest were something I had no interest in so I dropped the
subscription and bought the ones of interest off the newstand.

I haven't bought a magazine from a display in ages but I pass by a
selection in the supermarkets so they still exist.

On 10 Oct 2024 18:36:11 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> 'Scientific American' never endorsed a political
> candidate until Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024. That's not science.

What is a fact, though is that such a large proportion of one particular
political side are anti-science -- often rabidly so. And science deals in
facts.

So the fact is, you can’t expect scientists to stay out of politics, when
science itself is under attack from a worryingly large proportion of those
very politicians.