Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!lindsay
From: lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: sci.misc
Subject: Re: Omni-Americans
Message-ID: <1018@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 3 Mar 88 04:13:26 GMT
References: <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 17


>Read Omni instead of Scientific American.  It's much better because it has 
>all things Futuristic in it, be they science fact or science fiction (i.e.
>science yet-to-be-fact).

Don't read Omni. On the science side, it's for people who want to think they
are thinking.  It doesn't want to confuse the issues with mere facts.  On
the science fiction side, it can be good, but I find paperbacks a better
buy.

Do buy Scientific American. A Harvard Lampoon editor once said:  "The secret
of a good lampoon is to have better writing than the original.  That's why
we never did a Scientific American."

One reason it <<looks>> smaller is because they switched to thinner paper.
-- 
	Don		lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu    CMU Computer Science