Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

How Do You Keep Up With Science Developments? 337

Posted by samzenpus
from the update-please dept.
malraid writes "As a nerd who used to love science back in high school (specially physics), I now find myself completely disconnected from any and all scientific developments and news. How do you try to stay up to date with scientific developments? Science journals? Whatever makes it into Slashdot's front page? Books? Magazines? I'm looking for something engaging and informative, for not something that will require me to go and get a PhD just to be able to comprehend."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Do You Keep Up With Science Developments?

Comments Filter:
  • by BWJones (18351) * on Thursday July 28, 2011 @02:49AM (#36904958) Homepage Journal

    Seriously though, the Internet is actually where just about everybody goes in academia to stay on top of the latest research and most areas of focus have their own resources like PubMed for biomedical research.

    Also, a good way to make sure you keep up with the absolute torrent of work out there (slowing due to budget cuts) is by keeping a blog generated around the area of science interest you have. Webvision http://webvision.med.utah.edu/ [utah.edu] is such an effort to keep up with the latest and greatest in vision research. While this one is tuned to be slightly more accessible to the general public, it has not been uncommon for other lay individuals to rapidly become "experts" in their fields through their blogs. This high school kid, Sawyer has established a blog http://www.talkingspaceonline.com/ [talkingspaceonline.com] that already has him winning awards and getting international accolades from folks like Xeni Jardin and Miles O'Brien.

  • by Garridan (597129) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @02:49AM (#36904960)
    Just read slashdot.
    • by LyndonL (2309894)
      I just use an RSS reader (Google works for me since it syncs over all my PCs and Mobile) and then I have feeds for: Popular Science (Popsci) Gizmodo Gizmag Slashdot obviously The RSS tells me when I have and haven't read an article so I can keep up with where I'm at.
    • by Nasajin (967925) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @03:12AM (#36905092)
      I just come here and hit F5 as fast as I can, just in case I miss something.
    • by xTantrum (919048)
      ahh yeah. how about don't do that. start here [eurekalert.org]. Then just browse and follow your interests, wherever it may take you.
    • Re:Keep it simple (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tloh (451585) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @04:03AM (#36905338)

      Slashdot is a great community for smart people. But, with respect, a person can be smart in one area but be embarrassingly ignorant in almost everything else. Slashdot is strong in technology and select physical sciences - perhaps to a fault. But those of us who've participated here for a while can relate a few cringe worthy episodes involving context in the biological sciences, history/geography, social/cultural awareness, etc. There is a fanatically liberal, pro-western slant to topics and opinions to the point where innovations, tech, or ideas originating in "the enemy camp" (Chinese, GOP, etc.) is regarded with derision.

      Don't get me wrong - on most subjects, my personal views align more often than not with what I see on slashdot. But I experience intolerance/extremism and narrow-minded ignorance here more often than I would like from my own camp, and I am embarrassed by it. Slashdot is enjoyable as thought provoking entertainment that at times can be delightfully silly. But I would not trust Slashdot as a serious way to keep up with science developments.

      • Re:Keep it simple (Score:5, Insightful)

        by serviscope_minor (664417) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @05:16AM (#36905612) Journal

        There is a fanatically liberal, pro-western slant to topics and opinions to the point where innovations, tech, or ideas originating in "the enemy camp" (Chinese, GOP, etc.) is regarded with derision.

        True to a point but your own post goes some way towards proving you wrong. Yes, slashdot does have biases. However, it is a much more open discussion forum than any other website I have visited and there are usually people either playing devils odvocate for the hell of it, or who simply hold different views. There are enough moderators that these views can and do become visible, too.

        This is the reason I keep coming back here. I have actually had my opinions changed by slashdot discussions before.

        As for keeping on top of science without ploughing through all new research by hand, it's probably worth using a mix of things like New Scientist, SciAm and yes, slashdot (for physics, engineering and tech).

      • There is a fanatically liberal, pro-western slant to topics and opinions to the point where innovations, tech, or ideas originating in "the enemy camp" (Chinese, GOP, etc.) is regarded with derision.

        I am not a USian and so tremendous explosive pressure threatens to alter my cranial structure when I read the above sentence.

        Fanaticism itself is a bad thing by definition. But what is a "fanatical liberal"? I infer that it is someone who favours the "West" and fears both the Chinese and the US Republican Party (GOP).

      • Re:Keep it simple (Score:4, Insightful)

        by fredrated (639554) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @09:16AM (#36907052) Journal

        "ideas originating in "the enemy camp" (Chinese, GOP, etc.) is regarded with derision."

        Are you seriously proposing that the GOP has something siginficant to say about science, as in contributions? After all, that is the topic of this thread. Please link to a serious contribution to science made by the GOP, and how it was attacked on Slashdot with "a fanatically liberal, pro-western slant".

    • by Ihmhi (1206036)

      Slashdot is bad with current stories, especially with their bias towards advertising. Had it been a magazine, it would have had one story in 1666 [wikipedia.org] and then a few hundred years of dead space.

  • by Nikker (749551) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @02:50AM (#36904964)
    Where ever you can get it. Sciencedaily.com is one and a subscription to Science (AAAS) is another.
    • by tick-tock-atona (1145909) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @03:02AM (#36905042)
      Sciencedaily is good, but the sheer volume of content is very difficult to keep up with.

      I personally like arstechnica's science coverage. Their articles are *always* well researched and written and usually very interesting. http://arstechnica.com/science/ [arstechnica.com]
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        They have a link for RSS feeds (too bad they don't just incorporate them into pages like RSS was meant to be used, so people would see them) so you can just integrate them into your reader. They only gave me headlines and a sentence but that's enough to pique my interest, or not.

    • by jmcbain (1233044) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @03:27AM (#36905194)

      As a CS PhD myself, I also feel the need to keep up with the general sciences. My favourite sources of science news are two magazines: MIT Technology Review and the technology section of The Economist. Both are extremely well-written and distill recent cutting-edge science down into laymen's terms. Both have great websites and great iPad applications. The Economist additionally has a Technology Quarterly issue once every 3 months (duh) that should definitely not be missed.

      For Computer Science-related technology articles from research labs and academia that's written for laymen, IEEE Computer Society's Computer magazine and the ACM's Communications of the ACM are great.

      If you want something a bit more dumbified, then Wired magazine is very good. I've been subscribing for over 10 years and just recently switched over to an iPad subscription.

      • by gilleain (1310105)

        the technology section of The Economist. The Economist additionally has a Technology Quarterly issue once every 3 months (duh) that should definitely not be missed.

        Agree with this; Economist does a good review (possibly with a free-market slant, but hey :) and can be balanced with the New Scientist. I don't really like the american one ("Science"?) but that might be a cultural thing.

    • Blaaaah to Science. They can't separate their organization's goals (political correctness overkill) from the science reporting. Try nature [nature.com] instead.

  • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @02:50AM (#36904966) Homepage Journal

    sciencenews.org

    Slim weekly, decent reporters.

  • by Riktov (632) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @02:53AM (#36904980) Journal

    Here are some great science sites that I, and many of my fellow countrymen, can recommend.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/ [answersingenesis.org]
    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php [globalwarminghoax.com]

    • No I think he was actually looking for real science, not pull-it-out-of-your-ass bullshit science.
    • by H0p313ss (811249)

      Well played Riktov, well played indeed.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cbarcus (600114)
      Science is a relatively recent human development, and our mentality is still very much in transition from one that is religious and superstitious, to one that is rational, impartial, contemplative, curious, humble, and never satisfied. The above post is a good example of what is currently seen as a cognitive disease of ignorance, which unfortunately has likely propagated due to our failure to reduce the cost of energy.

      I hate to have to repeat what is indisputable fact, but Evolution and Global Warming ar
    • Troll comments and +5 funny rating aside, many scientists would agree (either publicly or anonymously due to fear) that human caused global warming IS a hoax.

      Especially after the emails were released exposing the hoax. Remember?

      I for one would like to keep up on REAL science, not pseudoscience fraud.

      As for the answersingenesis site ... I know what I believe.
  • Ted (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Neil Boekend (1854906) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @02:57AM (#36905008)
    I'd advise Ted [ted.com]. The short films are quite comprehensible.
    • by syousef (465911)

      I'd advise Ted [ted.com]. The short films are quite comprehensible.

      TED was great but it's not what it use to be. Nor are most of the podcasts I use to listen to like Astronomy Cast and Radiolab.

      • Yeah, I used to watch every TED video in Miro, but I started having to wade through too much crap and now I've fallen so far behind it would take me a few weeks of watching videos and nothing else to catch up.

  • I recommend online studies.
    No, not those online degree spams. But for example on www.studyastronomy.com I found that being able to choose the courses I'm really interested in (mostly cosmology/astronomy) while taking just a single course a year instead of four if I want to, puts the fun right back into studying the subject I'm interested in.
    Just my 2 EUR cents.
  • new scientist (Score:5, Informative)

    by thephydes (727739) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @02:59AM (#36905024)
    is amongst the most accessible (easiest to understand) general coverage science magazines. Scientific American is amongst the least accessible of this type imo. The zinio http://zinio.com/ [zinio.com] subscription to New Scientist is less than half the shelf price, and can be read on your computer or an ipad (don't know about other e-readers)
    • by dadioflex (854298)
      Beat me to it. Of course there's also the New Scientist website [newscientist.com].
    • Re:new scientist (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dcmeserve (615081) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @03:15AM (#36905116) Homepage Journal

      Scientific American is amongst the least accessible of this type imo.

      Not sure what you mean by "accessible", because I find it very readable in every subject area -- physics, biology, geology, what have you -- even though I have little or no training in any of those beyond some basic high school or college classes. (my degree is in C.S.)

      And I still find new ideas and concepts in there that just knock my socks off -- the small-molecule theory of the origin of life, for example. This even though I've been reading it and Science News for nearly 30 years now.

      • > Not sure what you mean by "accessible"...

        Usually that means dumbed down to the point of being content-free and consisting mostly of science reporter speculation about the wonderful consumer products that will ensue. And photographs, of course. Every article must have at least one photo no matter how irrelevant.

  • Science podcasts (Score:4, Informative)

    by emurphy42 (631808) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @03:03AM (#36905048) Homepage

    TED [ted.com] has already been mentioned. There are some others out there, I'm sure.

    • Also, have a look at The BBC Science and Nature Podcast Directory [bbc.co.uk].

      I particularly like "Material World" and "Science In Action". "The Inifinite Monkey Cage" is a science-based comedy show; not much good for education, but definitely worth a listen.

      The Nature Podcast [nature.com] is an excellent guide to the week's science news. Because of the bredth of subjects that Nature covers, the podcast is aimed at an intelligent general audience and so assumes very little prior knowledge. Similarly, the Front pages of Nature [nature.com]
  • TED [ted.com] has already been mentioned. There are some others out there, I'm sure.

  • Sorry to say that, but just reading sensationalist headlines, or even more "in-depth" explanations from knowledgeable scientists won't allow you to "keep up with science developments". Sure, you may learn (for example) that the Higgs boson has been found (or not), but you won't know:

    - How.
    - Nor which role it plays in the standard model, besides that "it allows to explain why some particles have a mass".

    I fail to see what differentiates such knowledge from the belief our ancestors had that earth was flat, he

    • In which case those of us in active research have failed.

      How would you prefer this to be addressed? We normally try and be open about how we research, why we research, the techniques that are used, the conclusions that can be drawn, flaws with the model, alternative explanations, and our level of certainty that we're right. We also try very hard to make sure that that last is quantifiable and not just some subjective feeling.

      (In reference to the Higg's boson discoveries, for example, the last I knew (and it

      • Actually, I'm not saying that you failed. I'm just saying that believing in science is no better than believing in anything else. For us mere mortals, it's not possible to "keep up with science" as we'll never understand the scientific background of these new discoveries, nor what they fully mean.

        I /do/ believe in the scientific process, and I'm sure you guys are much more rigorous than mediaeval scientists were :) I'm just saying that for many people, geeks included, science is just a new religion. Keeping

        • Hmm OK. Thanks for the response, I don't know if I came across as over-defensive while I'm actually interested in knowing whether we're communicating properly with the people who pay our wages.... Then would you say that things are open enough that someone wanting to understand how the conclusions are drawn can find that out?

          I know in my field that to do that in full would be *extremely* tough -- the example of redoing the WMAP CMB angular power spectrum is a real one. There's a Chinese team, just two peopl

          • Oh, hang on, my CMB angular power spectrum response was to someone else. (And I think I *was* being a bit over-defensive there. All he was suggesting is that it's not real science if you can't get the data and reproduce it... at least in principle. And I totally agree with that.)

            http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2352470&cid=36905322 [slashdot.org]

          • Well, I'd say it is possible (it surely is, as some people actually do it !), but is indeed extremely hard.

            Attaining the level of a master degree in any field seems possible to anyone with the required intelligence and power of will. The real gap might lie somewhere between master degree and PhD. At this level, the resources are pretty rare and sparse, and there is no easy entry point. It's quite understandable, as there are much fewer PhDs than BSc's, so few books are written for this audience. Also, I bel

            • To be honest, I'd say even at PhD level, anyone with reasonable intelligence and dedication can get a PhD. Not in every field (I'd never be able to get a PhD in pure maths or computer science, let alone in comparitive theology), but in *some* field that fits their interests. As you say, though, resources are very scarce in anything other than some areas of the sciences, and competition can be fierce. It doesn't get better down the line, either. There are too many PhDs being produced for the number of post-d

        • Re:Not possible (Score:5, Insightful)

          by serviscope_minor (664417) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @05:37AM (#36905694) Journal

          I'm just saying that believing in science is no better than believing in anything else.

          Science demonstrably works. The world around you has been built by scientific advancements. None of the "anything else" can claim that.

          science is just a new religion

          No, it isn't. You can use science to find out stuff. It may not be new or interesting to other people, but you can still use science to go and find it out.

          but it doesn't make you really understand modern science.

          Some science is more accessible than other science. My maths isn't good enough to understand the standard model, but that's one small part.

          Not having time, skill or inclination to prove everything form first principles myself is not the same as blindly adhereing to religion.

  • by bhcompy (1877290)
    Been fairly happy with Discover Magazine.. cheap to get with regular deals and has some good stuff. There are all sorts of others too
  • Discover magazine serves my science news needs admirably. I see a lot of people recommending online sources, but really, reading things online sucks.

  • Science News is good if you like printed material. It's bi-weekly and gives moderate detail. http://www.sciencenews.org/ [sciencenews.org]
  • You can keep up on a superficial level with the links people provided. But it's all basic science via "cause I said so!" It's not really science if you can't get full access to, well, the experimental data that makes it science. And the majority are still locked up, with high fees if you're not getting access from some paying service. It's true that a lot are free through various means, but for the most part it's a safe assumption that they won't be.

    • Jesus. He said that he wants to keep up to date with developments, not reanalyse the fucking data himself. What do *you* do when we release a new CMB angular power spectrum? Do you run off to NASA and download the entire WMAP raw data stream and then sit there and go through the entire analysis, from pipeline and beam correction through to foreground removal and then the full analysis of the cleaned sky? That's a two- or three-year job, on top of about 7 years training.

      Christ almighty.

      • Sorry, I'm being way over-defensive here. If I understand your point properly I totally agree - science means someone should be able (in principle) to take the data and reproduce the results, or to *re-take* the data and reproduce the results. In practice that's basically impossible, but in principle, I totally agree with you.

        http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2352470&cid=36905508 [slashdot.org]

  • More specifically: www.reddit.com/r/science

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ [discovermagazine.com]
    http://www.physorg.com/physics-news/ [physorg.com]
    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/ [scienceblogs.com]

    Startswithabang especially goes into some very nice details about astrophysics topics and has some smart people commenting.

  • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @03:20AM (#36905144)
    I am a PhD student, so my specific topic I have a very high interest level in obviously. I have a google alert and an alert from pubmed (digital database of biomedical research) for certain key words on that very narrow topic. Partially so I my knowledge of that area is up to date, and partially because I'm worried someone else will publish similar conclusions to the ones I'm coming to.

    If you have a broader, but still specific field you're interested in (like cell biology, or astrophysics), you might just skim through a relevant journal. There are several free online ones, like Plos one. Some other journals have highlights pages, with brief summaries of some of the most interesting research. They have very dense research articles in them written for experts in those particular fields, but the first parts of the printed journals are written for a general science audience. They'll have the highlights of the most interesting research and explain the significance, some interesting editorials. Some of that content is available for free on their websites. I don't see much use in getting a printed version delivered to you, but maybe a local library gets a copy. But if you know you're more interested in one general area that just "any science" then maybe work on regularly skimming the relevant journals.

    Science at large, mostly slashdot. I seem to recall seeing some real fluff pieces, or fairly inaccurate posts on general science blogs like new scientist, but the real reason I don't frequent such websites is because I don't have much interest in such a wide scope of science. In high school I liked reading some introductory books about physics or ecology, but now if it's not cell science I feel like a fish out of water, I just don't have the background. Maybe I'm getting more closed minded. I hope not.
  • I read "Science" (Score:5, Informative)

    by hey hey hey (659173) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @03:21AM (#36905152)
    I subscribe to the journal Science [sciencemag.org]. While I admit the actual research articles might as well be written in Linear B, the news articles, and the in-depth sections in front are written assuming the reader is intelligent and educated, but just not an expert in the particular field. It is such a joy to read articles that aren't aimed at the lowest common denominator!

    I'm sure Nature, or other similar quality journals, would work as well (I choose Science, mostly because I found a subscription card for them).

    • by zrbyte (1666979)
      Since my workplace has a subscription, I usually read Nature. But Nature News is also highly recommended and free: http://www.nature.com/news/index.html [nature.com]
    • Cannot second this enthusiatically enough, and ditto for Nature. If you really want to be a science geek, these are the places to go. I'm no PhD - not even an MS - but I've subscribed for over 25 years and still spend about 5 or 6 hours a week reading it. I also recommend stretching yourself a little by reading some of the research papers in areas that interest you especially; over the long haul it will pay off to get beyond the baby-talk.

      No knock on SciAm, New Scientist, and some of the other popular mags;

  • by wisebabo (638845) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @03:22AM (#36905160) Journal

    so keeping up with science developments is really just restricted to what I can get over the Internet.

    That said, I've found the best site for news is sciencedaily.com. I found it because it was rated one of the top 100 web sites on the Internet I think by PCMag. It's really good at giving a very comprehensive (they must have several dozens of articles a day) run down on what's going on in a fashion that's accessible to the intelligent technical professional.

    If technology is your thing then I'd recommend MIT's technologyreview.com. It's articles are a little more in depth and focus also on societal implications of the technology being discussed.

    Finally, if you're a space nut like me, I'd recommend spacedaily.com (published by the same people who do science daily). Again it's a "just the facts ma'am" web site that is clear and to the point.

    There are many other good sites but these give me what I want in the least amount of TIME (which is to me a very precious resource!).

  • by Sarusa (104047) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @03:31AM (#36905212)

    This is the best website for science news for reasonably educated but not specialized people: http://www.sciencedaily.com/ [sciencedaily.com]

    Science News has a website - http://www.sciencenews.org/ [sciencenews.org] and a weekly magazine which are always good, if overly sober, though the magazine doesn't have near enough content to cover everything that happened that week.

    New Scientist is a weekly mag that has drifted towards Omni or PopSci lately ('IS SENSATIONAL THING TRUE? (...no)'), but will still keep you up to date on most happenings including things you might miss online. http://www.newscientist.com/ [newscientist.com]

    Scientific American is a monthly mag that's a bit too political but has some good articles: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ [scientificamerican.com]

    Then there's Discover Magazine, which is a step down from either but has some good blogs: http://discovermagazine.com/ [discovermagazine.com]

    Live Science is a further step down, a good site for training wheel science: http://www.livescience.com/ [livescience.com]

    I won't recommend the mag Science, because even though it's The Magazine, it's not suited for the dabbler.

    My balanced suggestion is add the news feeds for all of these to your RSS reader (like Google Reader), click on what looks interesting, and subscribe to New Scientist in print or on Zinio and read it every week.

  • by Max Romantschuk (132276) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Thursday July 28, 2011 @03:32AM (#36905216) Homepage

    Reading both feeds me with enough scientific articles for my limited appetite... Ars has some surprisingly in depth stuff at times.

  • Quirks & Quarks (Score:4, Informative)

    by psychonaut (65759) <psychonaut@nothingisreal.com> on Thursday July 28, 2011 @03:32AM (#36905218) Homepage
    For the last thirty years I've been getting my weekly dose of science news from Quirks & Quarks [www.cbc.ca] on CBC radio. Shows are available for download or streaming online as soon as they air, and their online archive of episodes goes back to 2000.
  • Science news delivered periodically to your inbox. Some of them are customizable, so you can receive updates only on topics of interest to you.

    Highly recommended:
    American Scientist [americanscientist.org]
    Physorg [physorg.com]

    Also interesting:
    Spaceweather [spaceweather.com]
    Nasa Science News [nasa.gov]
    Nasa Earth Observatory [nasa.gov]
    Discover Magazine [discovermagazine.com]

    I imagine there are RSS feeds for most of these as well if you prefer that format.
  • The nice part (which definitely is NOT the price for a personal subscription) is that the front has readily-accessible news articles, the middle has the "some math helps for the physics" research papers and inside the back cover are "speculative fiction" short stories ranging from good enough to AWESOME.

    I wish they'd publish the short story wherein a reindeer-drawn sleigh makes a forced landing on an RAF base, which IMO, is the best Christmas story ever.

  • I love the mathematical physicist John Baez's stuff. (He's the singer Joan Baez's cousin.) He has a blog [wordpress.com] and a bunch of stuff [ucr.edu] on his web page including several hundred issues of This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics [ucr.edu] (be warned: it's incredibly mathy, and high-level). There's tons more on his web page that's just plain interesting. I love that you can tell from his horrible site design that it was made by someone who's interested in content rather than fluff.
  • by NtwoO (517588) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @04:03AM (#36905336) Homepage
    Two mags with nice info.
  • by amn108 (1231606)

    Slowly but surely make yourself familar with publications (websites) on Internet that you think you like. Find their RSS feeds and subscribe to them using your favorite RSS aggregattor application. That way you'll always have a list of what's going on, from (mostly) independent sources and without having to manually walk through a set of websites, although you can always do that too.

    So, in short: websites of your liking / relevance + RSS = answer to your enquiry

  • Net: scitechdaily.com Mag: scientific american (dumbed down these days, but still a good read), the magazine "science", the magazine "nature" (both hard reads, but if you bull through, you'll be rewarded) podcast: Science Friday, RadioLab (sometimes science-y, always fun). I like working my way through the web of associations on amazon between books I've enjoyed (say "parasite rex") and books I might like ("Fever" (about the history of malaria)). Ask a friend what his/her cool ref's are ... start a salon wh
  • Seriously.

    Create twitter and facebook accounts

    Use these as "rss feed" of people/agencies you follow that post to them.

    ???????

    Profit.

    --
    BMO

  • Errrm, ... Nature magazine [nature.com]? Just get a subscription.
    Sorry, but this seems so much like a blatantly obivious no-brainer to me.

    • Absolutely. It avoids the political correctness of Science, and you read it as a website, not that awful zinio software you have to install on your computer. But things may have changed since I last tried Science.

  • The old fashioned way: scan through the abstracts for about a dozen journals in molecular biology, genetics, and comp bio (most journals have handy feeds for new articles), and, at least theoretically, read the papers relevant to my work.

    It's sometimes informative, less often engaging, but (apparently) doesn't require a PhD.

    For non work-related stuff I enjoy the Discover blogs [discovermagazine.com].
  • As odd as it might seem, the Geek tab on Fark actually tends to get a lot of very interesting science articles. Half of them make it to the front page too it seems. Buncha nerds over there.

  • The BBC Science in Action podcasts are good listening. Find them on iTunes.

  • ScienceNews (Score:4, Informative)

    by cyberfringe (641163) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @07:07AM (#36906028) Journal
    I've been getting the print version of ScienceNews (bi-weekly) for 40 years. The online version http://www.sciencenews.org/ [sciencenews.org] is just as good. There are many other good sites out there of course. This is one I can vouch for as a scientist without hesitation.
  • I count on Slashdot to let me know about all the new solar technologies that will never see the light of day.

  • by argStyopa (232550) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @07:17AM (#36906074) Journal

    http://www.sciencenews.org/ [sciencenews.org]

    26 issues a year, maybe 12-14 pages each. Extremely good information across all the fields of science, essentially synopses of all the cutting-edge stuff because if it's interesting you're going to dig into it on the web anyway. Serious coverage, not simplified for 'popular consumption'. Usually one or two focus articles on something of particular significance, these run a couple of pages.

    Read it at online - I think pretty much everything in print is there.

  • Technical: Most of the good journals have excellent RSS feeds, with the full abstract and the ToC graphic, so follow the feeds for the journals in your area and make sure you go through them completely at least once a week. I get about 1000 new abstracts in that time, including a shedload of PNAS, Science and Nature stuff that's totally irrelevant but it only takes about 30 minutes to skim for relevant stuff. Even if I'm away from my institutional access, I can mark the abstract in my aggregator for future

  • by Sir_Kurt (92864) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @07:44AM (#36906220)

    I suggest you get either an online or dead tree subscription to the NYT. Excellent general science coverage. The NYT does the heavy work of gathering together the stories and sources. If you want to know more in depth about the story, use the internet.

    Kurt

  • by QuietLagoon (813062) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @07:50AM (#36906286)
    Slashdot is far too filtered.

    .
    Some sites that are helpful:

    Science News [sciencenews.org]

    Science Daily [sciencedaily.com]

    New Scientist [newscientist.com]

  • As websites, I browse for science:

    http://www.newscientist.com/
    http://www.boingboing.net/
    http://science.slashdot.org/
    http://www.nature.com/
    http://www.sciam.com/
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/
    http://discovermagazine.com/

    and I include those in my newsfeeds along with the NIH RSS. Also in my feeds are

    Flipboard Tech
    Flipboard Wired Magazine
    Flipboard Make Magazine
    Hacker News
    ProPublica
    Gamification
    Science Magazine

    In Zite, I use

    Science News
    Gadgets
    Technology
    Alternative Medicine
    Bioinformatics
  • How did a such a patently obvious, dumb-ass marketing question like this get posted?

    If you have to ask the question, you are not, nor ever were, a 'nerd'.

  • use a site called slashdot that...

    ...oh wait, nevermind.
  • by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @08:36AM (#36906666) Homepage Journal

    I have a subscription to the New Scientist. The magazine is easy to read and keeps me updated on what us happening in general. Beyond that I turn to the Internet or the odd specialised journal once in a while.

  • A "here's what's happening in science" weekly published in England. Look at a few issues in your local library, you'll like it. I've subscribed for over 20 years.

Live within your income, even if you have to borrow to do so. -- Josh Billings

Working...