Okay. Not only has Scientific American been under continuous publication since 1845, it is in fact the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States. If you haven't heard of them, it's not because they need publicity, it's because you've not been paying attention.
Scientific American is a much different publication than it has been in the past. It's more of a slick consumer rag than it used to be. I remember when I was young and the 'Mathematical Games' column was something to take serious. I remember when a column was published about public key cryptosystems. Rivest offered a copy of the RSA paper to anybody who wrote in for it. When it came about a year later, the cover letter mentioned that there was 'question of the legality' of distributing it that he hadn'
You're right, it's different now. In fact, in 175 years of publication, it has changed pretty fundamentally more than once. Its current incarnation may not be the best, but it also reflects the reality of print periodicals today. Martin Gardner's Mathematical Games was a great period, but he's dead now. You can't run a magazine for as long as they have and have it be at the top of its game the whole time. There are ebbs and flows. I get that it's not as good as it was, say, 20 years ago, but I think that's a reason to advocate for support and constructive change to the magazine, not to discount it.
Never heard of them (Score:0, Troll)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific American is a much different publication than it has been in the past. It's more of a slick consumer rag than it used to be. I remember when I was young and the 'Mathematical Games' column was something to take serious. I remember when a column was published about public key cryptosystems. Rivest offered a copy of the RSA paper to anybody who wrote in for it. When it came about a year later, the cover letter mentioned that there was 'question of the legality' of distributing it that he hadn'
Re:Never heard of them (Score:3)