What Science Sites Do YOU Visit - Page 2

yanman · 16th October 2006, 9:35 AM

newscientist, scientificamerican, popular science, various nasa and JPL sites for space photos and there's the fringe ones:

Kuzweil AI.net home of my favourite futurist and commentator on future technologies. Really interesting stuff

Oosh · 16th October 2006, 10:08 AM

Roland Piquepaille's Technology Trends.

swamp rat · 16th October 2006, 10:47 AM

I still despise the circumstances that allowed the magazine Newton to fail and the tripe that is Cosmos take its place

Pirki · 16th October 2006, 2:32 PM

As mentioed before,

www.sciencealert.com.au

crazyeyes · 16th October 2006, 4:37 PM

ocau - science

Dropbear · 18th October 2006, 8:22 AM

Dr Karl's Self Service Science Forum

http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/

lethoso · 19th October 2006, 1:20 AM

nature.com/nature is where I do most of my casual science reading.

yanman · 19th October 2006, 9:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bismar

So, since we have a nice new spanking forum section, i'll start of with a meager list of science sites i visit often and it would be cool if everyone could contribute some sites you frequent often as well.

http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/
http://www.economist.com/science/

Bismar could you edit your original post and include all the links?

I spose we could always make a wiki tho

Dropbear · 19th October 2006, 4:51 PM

Quote:

So, since we have a nice new spanking forum

Huzzah! I'm all for that

yanman · 19th October 2006, 6:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dropbear

Huzzah! I'm all for that

haha

science ftw!

Kermalius · 19th October 2006, 11:51 PM

IEEE explore, ACM digital library, Citeseer, Eleviser, Pubmed, Mathworld, Nature, Science, Wikipedia (but check refs.), Google. Occasionally slashdot/digg/the reg.

never know when you'll come up with a chuckle for the day, like:

edit. Removed link. Apparently having a dirty word as part of someones name gets things censored.

Honestly, most of the pop-sci writters just shit me. They seldom know what they're talking about and fail to accurately convey perspective on their topics. But, IMHO. meh.

robbie mcdowall · 22nd October 2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yanman

Bismar could you edit your original post and include all the links?

I spose we could always make a wiki tho

Umm.....Yes, we could do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbie mcdowall

Added to wiki .

Varuna · 26th October 2006, 2:04 AM

All of the above with the exception of New Scientist. I haven't wasted my time with their crap for years.

I also visit http://www.nasaspaceflight.com for updates on ISS missions and recent/planned launches.

Varuna · 26th October 2006, 2:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ring wraith

www.sciam.com
they had a 10 page writeup on string theory (as an example)

Yeah, but in those ten pages they couldnt even manage to fit a single testable hypothesis. Go figure.

hellgrf · 26th October 2006, 11:11 AM

correct me if im wrong, but isnt that because we currently have no way of testing string theory?

18th October 2006, 8:22 AM	#21
Dropbear Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Brisbane Posts: 8,942	Dr Karl's Self Service Science Forum http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/ __________________ 500Px \| Model Mayhem \| Flickr \| DeviantArt

19th October 2006, 11:51 PM	#26
Kermalius Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 873	IEEE explore, ACM digital library, Citeseer, Eleviser, Pubmed, Mathworld, Nature, Science, Wikipedia (but check refs.), Google. Occasionally slashdot/digg/the reg. never know when you'll come up with a chuckle for the day, like: edit. Removed link. Apparently having a dirty word as part of someones name gets things censored. Honestly, most of the pop-sci writters just shit me. They seldom know what they're talking about and fail to accurately convey perspective on their topics. But, IMHO. meh. Last edited by Kermalius; 19th October 2006 at 11:55 PM.

26th October 2006, 2:04 AM	#28
Varuna Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sydneys Northern Beaches. Posts: 1,050	All of the above with the exception of New Scientist. I haven't wasted my time with their crap for years. I also visit http://www.nasaspaceflight.com for updates on ISS missions and recent/planned launches. __________________ If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.

26th October 2006, 11:11 AM	#30
hellgrf Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: SE Melbourne Posts: 51	correct me if im wrong, but isnt that because we currently have no way of testing string theory? __________________ Trades with: Thraxeh, Mad 4 Air, CraZy, bubble777, lazyboy1984.

16th October 2006, 9:35 AM	#16
yanman Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hobart Posts: 5,747	newscientist, scientificamerican, popular science, various nasa and JPL sites for space photos and there's the fringe ones: Kuzweil AI.net home of my favourite futurist and commentator on future technologies. Really interesting stuff

16th October 2006, 10:47 AM	#18
swamp rat Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The intertubes Posts: 440	I still despise the circumstances that allowed the magazine Newton to fail and the tripe that is Cosmos take its place

16th October 2006, 2:32 PM	#19
Pirki Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Sydney Posts: 936	As mentioed before, www.sciencealert.com.au

16th October 2006, 4:37 PM	#20
crazyeyes Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 220	ocau - science

19th October 2006, 1:20 AM	#22
lethoso Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Brisbane Posts: 3,152	nature.com/nature is where I do most of my casual science reading.