Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Popular Science Frees Its 137-Year Archives

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the whole-lotta-rocket-ships dept.

The Media 135

DesScorp writes "Popular Science magazine has scanned every issue they've ever produced, and posted the archives at their website, at no charge. 'We've partnered with Google to offer our entire 137-year archive for free browsing. Each issue appears just as it did at its original time of publication, complete with period advertisements. It's an amazing resource that beautifully encapsulates our ongoing fascination with the future, and science and technology's incredible potential to improve our lives. We hope you enjoy it as much as we do.'" First search: the history of the flying car.

cancel ×

135 comments

Kudos to them (4, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#31383796)

This makes me seriously consider getting a subscription to their dead tree version again.

Re:Kudos to them (2, Insightful)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31383864)

If we had sane copyright laws, most of the issues would already be in the public domain. However, I still see this is a major gesture of support for free culture.

I only buy books and music from authors who publish for free online.

Maybe I should extend the same policy towards zines?

Re:Kudos to them (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31383898)

If we had sane copyright laws, most of the issues would already be in the public domain.

Even if they were, that doesn't necessarily mean they'd be easily available. It's not much use being legally allowed to do whatever you like with the material if you can't get hold of it in the first place.

Re:Kudos to them (1)

ppc_digger (961188) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384680)

If it were in the public domain, someone would have collected it and put it online. Google Books comes to mind.

Re:Kudos to them (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385770)

They are a company. That limits their copyrights not to 'lifetime' but to 50 years.

Re:Kudos to them (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31386482)

They are a company. That limits their copyrights not to 'lifetime' but to 50 years.

Ninety-five years in the USA.

Re:Kudos to them (3, Interesting)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384516)

I only buy books and music from authors who publish for free online.

Maybe I should extend the same policy towards zines?

How much do you pay for that free stuff?

Foresight (3, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31383868)

This shows good sense on the part of the publications' editors and executives. There isn't much market for 130 past years of Popular Science. Bandwidth is cheap. Certainly making this move will get them brownie points. Brownie points mean good press. Brownie points mean more hits on their site... as does the actual archive. More hits on their website + good public image = guaranteed increase in subscriptions. Everyone wins.

Re:Foresight (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384090)

The opening of the documents is welcome but not unprecidented. For example, there is a classic text called the negronomicon which was released into the wild, but reading it is not recommended because it causes insatiable urges to ingest fried chicken and malt liquor while shufflin' your feets and grabbing your crotch.

Re:Foresight (3, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384198)

Not much market? Hell, if you want to see what popular culture is like in certain times, magazines like this one is a treasure! Check out the magazines of the 30s (depression era), 40s (war era), 50s (cold war introduction)... you just have to read between the lines and you see a wealth of information. The ads alone are a rich source of the mindset of the time.

Re:Foresight (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384288)

Market != value. Not much market means very few people would want to buy one (and most of those who do want one that's 50 years old, not a modern reprint). That doesn't mean there's no value to it, as you point out there's high value to historians and sociologists.

Re:Foresight (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385182)

I first discovered this archive a few days ago when I was reading about prohibition [slashdot.org] . A bit dry for my taste.

Re:Foresight (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385716)

One of my grandparents got me a set of Weekly Readers [wikipedia.org] from the years covering WWII. It was fascinating reading the kind of stuff they gave kids back then. The ads were hilarious, both for pricing and their writing compared to modern ads, and the articles ranged from funny to scary in their datedness and propaganda.

Re:Foresight (3, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384336)

Bandwidth is cheap.

Especially if Google provides it, as in this case.

Re:Foresight (1)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384992)

But the solution is ridiculous.

I did some searches and found it returned hits which when clicked showed the front page of the issue the search word was found in and then you have to wade through to the correct page and use a crappy magnifying glass to read with. What a waste of time and energy gone into this nonsense.

I can truly say I will never use this feature.

Re:Foresight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31386646)

Ctrl-Mouse Scroll Up...?

Re:Kudos to them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384742)

Consider getting a subscription?

This is the reason I just did get a subscription.

I'm honestly impressed with their company right now, and will support them with my measly $14 a year for this move.

Re:Kudos to them (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384920)

You probably won't though, will you?

Sudden outbreak of common sense (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31383824)

This should be tagged as sudden outbreak of common sense. The entire point of organized science is to let anyone read, comment and improve upon various theories and publications in science.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (5, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31383884)

It is popular media, not organized science.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384044)

Yes, but as history tells us, many important inventions and many important scientists didn't have a formal education with science journals and the like, but rather with the "popular" side of scientists. Look at the aristocrat scientists who simply purchased the "new thing" at the time, and used it to find important discoveries.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (3, Informative)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31383912)

"The entire point of organized science is to let anyone read"

Ya, but Popular Science, is about the popularization of existing research, not the nitty gritty of the research itself. Real science--peer review journals--are even more closed off than commercial magazines. Given science's reputation for free inquiry and openness, it's ironic that scientific publications are the last vestige of closed media in an increasingly open society. [counterpunch.com]

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

lucian1900 (1698922) | more than 4 years ago | (#31383974)

There's a reason for that, keeping the uninitiated and/or stupid out of the debate. Spam filtering. While I don't entirely agree with that, it's a fair point to make.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

mhelander (1307061) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384436)

Same reason, in other words, that the bible used to be read in Latin to the uneducated spammers...

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384042)

This should be tagged as sudden outbreak of common sense. The entire point of organized science is to let anyone read, comment and improve upon various theories and publications in science.

Unless of course you have an alternative scientific theory. Then it won't matter that it's based on evidence, that it doesn't need to postulate exotic new forms of matter that have never been directly observed or studied in a laboratory, or that it makes successful predictions months/years in advance where mainstream theorists scratch their heads. Those scientific merits won't matter because you'll be denied funding, denied access to shared resources like large and/or space-based telescopes, and you'll experience scientific censorship in the form of the refusal to publish your papers. Y'know, because the mainstream theorists have no faith in their own ability to point out any errors/flaws in alternative scientific theories or their methodology.

See: electric universe. As in, try actually studying it and coming to your own conclusions rather than be impressed with the personalities who scoff at it. It's a bit hard to argue with predictions that were made well in advance and later came true.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384056)

It should be labeled "Sudden outbreak of common scans"...

yeah, cause there is nothing like 137yo science of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384660)

hammering

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384734)

If people keep this up we might have to start referring to the internet as the Information Superhighway again.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31385398)

This should be tagged as sudden outbreak of common sense.

Gotta love that late 19th century English and the poignant observations on sociological fallacies of the time. I can almost feel the structures of my brain altering and the flow of blood increasing as the language is sinking in through my eyes deprived of stimulating reading for such a long time (no offence, /.). I'd bet just reading the articles increases the readers intelligence.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31385606)

Setting up a torrent would have been a sudden outbreak of common sense.

Desire (1)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31383842)

I now have a desire to subscribe to Popular Science. I may do so in the coming months.

Re:Desire (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31383990)

Yeah, but you won't. I can guarantee it. People are much more apt to bitch and moan, and less apt to actually act.

Re:Desire (1)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384012)

Seeing as how I already have subscriptions to several other magazines, I likely will. I didn't know we were acquainted, Mr. AC. How can you make guarantees without even knowing me?

Re:Desire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384192)

Pics or it didn't happen.

Re:Desire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31385126)

Because you already got the benefit by announcing your intention to do good, and there is no external reward for actually go ahead and *doing* the good deed which would require outlay of non-virtual $$.

Of course it makes zero difference whether you actually subscribe or not, but it was worth pointing out (by a different AC) because these intentions get announced all the fucking time in the context of stories about artists and publishers making songs and movies available for free download. And often, their posts get modded up. "I have half a mind to buy this artist's albums." Sure you do. It's nauseating.

Re:Desire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31385610)

Because you already got the benefit by announcing your intention to do good, and there is no external reward for actually go ahead and *doing* the good deed which would require outlay of non-virtual $$.

There's no external reward that you personally are aware of, and even that doesn't imply that he's not going to do it.

Of course it makes zero difference whether you actually subscribe or not

It does matter, because the first AC specifically claimed that he wouldn't, and could "guarantee" it as if he knew the guy and wasn't just talking out of his ass. If he subscribes, that proves beyond all possible doubt (whether he comes here with proof of his subscription or not) that the other AC's assumptions were 100% unwarranted. You know this, of course. You're simply uncomfortably aware that while you cannot possibly be proven right in this matter, there is a significant chance that you will be proven utterly wrong, and you're trying to create an escape hatch by downplaying that possibility.

but it was worth pointing out (by a different AC) because these intentions get announced all the fucking time in the context of stories about artists and publishers making songs and movies available for free download. And often, their posts get modded up. "I have half a mind to buy this artist's albums." Sure you do. It's nauseating.

In every single one of those posts that you have seen, your inference that the poster is somehow being disingenuous is based entirely on "facts" that are assumed by you, but not actually in evidence.

Re:Desire (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31386052)

It does matter, because the first AC specifically claimed that he wouldn't, and could "guarantee" it as if he knew the guy and wasn't just talking out of his ass. If he subscribes, that proves beyond all possible doubt (whether he comes here with proof of his subscription or not) that the other AC's assumptions were 100% unwarranted. You know this, of course.

LOL, have you picked up Pop Science on the newsstand recently, even to browse? It's a rag, there is no way it's worth $5 or even $1.20 (or whatever it works out to). I keep picturing that /. poster thinking, I'll show them, I can easily afford this, and as he picks up his checkbook he thinks... wait a minute, everyone who sees this in my mailbox will think I'm a sucker! All year long people think I'm clueless for paying money for a worthless rag that's posted online anyway! Like the losers who pay money to subscribe to eWeek, ComputerWorld, and the local weekly arts papers...

Re:Desire (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385300)

Your guarantee has just been nullfied as of 8 minutes ago when I ordered two subscribtions to myself and my brother.

Yes. We will and your cynicism has just be broken.

Re:Desire (1)

jonnat (1168035) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384814)

I now have a desire to subscribe to Popular Science. I may do so in the coming months.

That's right, wait a few months. No one should make the life-changing decision of spending $12 for the one-year subscription in the heat of the moment.

Download version? (2, Interesting)

iampiti (1059688) | more than 4 years ago | (#31383852)

I've taken a look and while it's very nice they put the issues online It'd be nice if you could download them. I haven't found an obvious way to do it. I guess that's the way the google displayed books work

Re:Download version? (2, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384062)

First, click the link to go to the books.google.com view of the article. Then click the "full screen" button. Then use a utility like ScrapBook Plus (for Firefox... there are others around for other browsers) to save the whole thing.

Re:Download version? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384114)

Oops! No, that didn't work after all. I will try a few other things.

Re:Download version? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384170)

Yes, I did find a way but I don't want to advertise it here. If you are a bit clever you can find the images the browser is showing.

You already have downloaded them. (3, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385122)

> It'd be nice if you could download them.

If you are viewing them you already have downloaded them: they're right there on your computer. You just haven't figured out how to save them to disk.

Im trying to find a make your own submarine (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31383894)

article that was on the cover of one of my father's Pop Sci's from the 60s - can't find it.

It sucks! I need those plans for my do-it-yourself-on-a-budget-evil-genius-lair-secret-submarines type of stuff. Pop Sci had GREAT articles on James Bond gadgets and things! BUT nothing on hiring henchmen and getting really hot chicks who are willing to walk around half naked and sleep with you until the English secret agent sweeps them off their feet - which isn't a problem because it saves me the time of dumping them and having to creatively kill them when I'm bored with them.

Re:Im trying to find a make your own submarine (3, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31383988)

Maybe it was Popular Mechanics in which you remember the roll-your-own sub. I've mixed up memories that I thought were ironclad from several decades ago.

Re:Im trying to find a make your own submarine (1)

KuNgFo0 (519426) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384928)

Could this be it? [google.com]

By the way, looks like all of the Popular Mechanics issues are on Google Books, too. I had no idea, looks like I'll be killing a few weekends digging through all this great stuff :)

LIFE Magazine Also? (3, Interesting)

hduff (570443) | more than 4 years ago | (#31383900)

I remember reading through all the bound volumes of Life Magazine in-between classes as an undergrad. That gave me a better sense of 20th century American history than anything I ever read in grade school. It would be wonderful for Time-Life to do the same as Popular Science.

Re:LIFE Magazine Also? (1)

allan_q (561224) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384378)

It would be wonderful for Time-Life to do the same as Popular Science.

LIFE did it through Google Books [google.com] also. They have it from 1936 to 1972. Check out the one they did on Apollo 11 [google.com] .

Re:LIFE Magazine Also? (3, Insightful)

spydabyte (1032538) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384456)

LIFE already did: http://books.google.com/books/serial/7FQEAAAAMBAJ?rview=1 [google.com]

Oh and here's the best view for all the Popular Science "Books": http://books.google.com/books/serial/CzwEAAAAMBAJ?rview=1 [google.com]

Re:LIFE Magazine Also? (1)

voodoowizard (1557839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384758)

Thank you very much!! I was wondering how to search em out that way. Just never spent the time to figure it out.

Re:LIFE Magazine Also? (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 4 years ago | (#31386326)

Coolness, thanks... now how do I get it to display from oldest to newest??

Flying cars are coming soon! (1)

madirad (163824) | more than 4 years ago | (#31383982)

The 1933 article on flying cars is wonderful. The article describes the general plan for a flying car infrastructure - using a lot of rubber - for flying cars - which use steam power. I would love to know what ever happened to these plans because it sounds like a sure thing from the tone of the article.

Re:Flying cars are coming soon! (2, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384026)

The articles tend to hype stuff and leave out or fail to check for a lot of impracticalities. Few would buy the mag if they were quick to dent dreams. Current IT magazines do the same, and PHB's believe it and force their staff to adopt Agile Goat-Assisted Blindfolded Underwater Programming, etc. After 137 years, nothing's changed.

Re:Flying cars are coming soon! (3, Funny)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384302)

NOOOOOOOO!! My manager walked by when I was reading your comment. He's putting in a request for a dozen goats as we speak.

Re:Flying cars are coming soon! (2, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384598)

Have him contact my company. We don't sell goats, but we do sell scapes, a very important accessory for the rising manager.

Re:Flying cars are coming soon! (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385698)

See it like this: At least you will have milk when the world comes to an end. ;)

Re:Flying cars are coming soon! (1)

red456 (1760250) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384366)

i searched for 'atom' and the first article was from the early 50s envisaging the first atomic planes (which will be ready by 1960 - and atomic jets by 1980). they'll transmit power by pumping liquid metal to the propellors - and thus will have to be drained at the end of flight. flying wings as well. simply incredible

The pirate bay had already freed it (0)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31383998)

....at least for more recent issues, and in a less clunky downloadable form. Of course there is that small issue of legality but when are people going to learn that horrible searchable online interfaces really don't give you any advantage (EXCEPT the ability to pull access).

Sorry but I'm just not so easily impressed.

Allergic to EM (1)

SolidAltar (1268608) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384068)

I lost absolutely any remaining respect for Pop Sci when they posted "The Man Who Was Allergic to Radio Waves" on their front page.
Absolutely no testing, research, or proof about this man's fantastic story wasn't just all in his head (which it is).

Shame on you Pop Sci. I used to subscribe to this crap.

Re:Allergic to EM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384518)

That's why it's called "Popular Science" and not just "Science"

It's the Britney Spears to Science's Mozart. They may be out to titillate and make a buck, but they're still talking about science. My take on that article (I am a scientist) is that they're exploring this aspect of popular culture and point out specific (real) research areas that are being worked on. They don't quote scientists out of context, they don't demonize scientists, they're not skeptical of the "true intentions" of scientists. I would much rather have a magazine like that looking at popular science.

Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384088)

BSD

The period ads (4, Informative)

istartedi (132515) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384134)

I bet the period advertisements alone will be priceless.

As much as we hate advertising on the web, there is definitely something to be said for ads as a window into history.

With so much content being dynamicly generated, we won't have period ads like we did with print.

Embedded advertising could solve this, and it wouldn't be a problem if it were done as still images and text analagous to a printed ad. Of course, online advertisers seem to have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot in this regard--the temptation to introduce obtrusive ads just ups the ante in the arms race.

Reading ads from pop sci might tell you that Ford has been in business for over 100 years. Reading web pages archived from today will tell you nothing of the sort. The ad will either be fetched and dynamicly generated (and thus be non-period) or it will be edited out by the archiver.

National Geographic (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384442)

5 years ago I scored 100's of NG magazine from CL for free dating back to the 60's. I love going through them (still am) and finding out about electronics/cars I never knew existed.

Re:National Geographic (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385216)

You can get every single issue [britannicastore.com] on DVD for about $80. If I'd had that set when I was a kid...

As for the Popular Science archive: the mind simply boggles. Geek heaven!

Re:National Geographic (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 4 years ago | (#31386128)

Interesting... did you buy it? Am wondering about the format used, if it's searchable or indexed by issue/year, and whether it insists on installing DRM or some such nonsense. Doesn't seem like a bad deal otherwise, and certainly more space-effective than all that paper... tho not as handy for portable reading, obviously.

Re:The period ads (1)

allan_q (561224) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384510)

As much as we hate advertising on the web, there is definitely something to be said for ads as a window into history.

It's definitely a window into history. 10 years ago you could use ordinary batteries [google.com] in your cell phones. You don't see these ads anymore.

The article you were looking for... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384148)

was a 1974 cover of... Popular *Mechanics*, with an illustration of a Moller M400 taking off from someone's driveway.

A nice start (2, Informative)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384156)

But all you can do now is do a search. Only then you can select something you found and browse the magazine. It would be nice to be able to go to a certain issue and start browsing.
And all they need to do is index the IDs.

Re:A nice start (4, Informative)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384236)

Seems there is a way and much better interface to use http://books.google.com/books?id=qR8DAAAAMBAJ [google.com] which will point to the first issue. Great using the full-screen ability of your browser and see two pages next to each other.

Format? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384176)

So, is it a collection of JPEGs? Single PDF document for each issue? What format is it!?

(No I didn't RTFA - this is Slashdot)

Re:Format? (2, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384382)

Google Books. No download link at sight.

July 1873 ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384234)

... contains a wonderful description of nebulae, including some fantastic drawings of "spiral nebulae." Pre-Hubble astronomy for the win!

137 (0)

physburn (1095481) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384308)

A good ammount for scientists to celebrate, its the inverse of the fine structure constant, the strength of the electromagnetism. History of Science [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

Breakthroughs (5, Informative)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384330)

Relativity: June, 1914, page 434 [popsci.com]
Quantum mechanics: February 1927, page 22 [popsci.com]
Atomic bomb: October 1945, page 80 [popsci.com]
Integrated circuits: September 1966, page 96 [popsci.com]

Re:Breakthroughs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384538)

Atomic bomb: October 1945, page 80 [popsci.com]

"On August 5th 1945, an atomic explosion occurred within an annihilation bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Popular Science Monthly has looked forward to such a scientific triumph for many years..."

Anyone else appalled by the lack of humanity in this article?

Re:Breakthroughs (4, Interesting)

slashqwerty (1099091) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385146)

Atomic bomb: October 1945, page 80 [popsci.com]

"On August 5th 1945, an atomic explosion occurred within an annihilation bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Popular Science Monthly has looked forward to such a scientific triumph for many years..."

Anyone else appalled by the lack of humanity in this article?

That is a sign of the times. We had just ended the war with Germany and Italy. The atomic bombings were meant to end the war with Japan--the nation that launched the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and brought the United States into the war. An estimated 60 million people [wikipedia.org] died because of World War II. Two-thirds of those 60 million were civilians. Japan was responsible for the Nanking Massacre [wikipedia.org] which did not endear them any sympathy.

Entire cities were firebombed during the war. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were less destructive than many firebombings that had occurred in the preceding years. The effects of radiation were not yet well-known to the general public. More powerful nuclear weapons had not yet been developed and the ramifications of nuclear war had not yet set in.

I also doubt it was the weapon they looked forward to, so much as the ability to use nuclear energy.

Re:Breakthroughs (2, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385056)

A breakthrough would be the ability to download the whole thing and flick through them at my leisure, rather than this bizarre `search for a keyword` nonsense.

Re:Breakthroughs (1)

elistan (578864) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385466)

This link from Google won't allow you to download the entire thing, but it'll allow you to browse through individual issues.

http://books.google.com/books?id=qR8DAAAAMBAJ [google.com]

Re:Breakthroughs (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385410)

The article on Relativity describes the ether as an 'imaginary medium' on page 2. I didn't know that the reality of ether was suspect at the time. My education in the history of science up until this point was misleading :)

Re:Breakthroughs (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385988)

The author attacks Einstein for

abandon[ing] the hypothesis of an ether without furnishing a satisfactory substitute for this hypothesis. As has been previously stated, the very experiment which the relativity theory seeks to explain depends on interference phenomena which are only satisfactorily accounted for on the the hypothesis of an ether

source [popsci.com]

For a different perspective, try Ether and the Theory of Relativity [st-and.ac.uk]

Re:Breakthroughs (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31386324)

Maybe it's just my browser, but I tried a few of those links and they don't go to articles about what is mentioned. One was about preventing your car from rusting, and another about cars too. Oh well.

137 years, and now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384478)

... 137 i7 B€ r33 !

Are they including the naked girl in the sauna? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384488)

That's the issue I remember most.

Re:Are they including the naked girl in the sauna? (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31386068)

seems tasteful enough [popsci.com] Perhaps the archive was retouched.

Excellent service! (2, Insightful)

froogger (695841) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384564)

I particularly like that they hyperlinked the split articles for ease of reading. Remember when magazines used to have a "(Continued on page 80)" at the end? Well, they've thought of that, and kudos for the extra effort!

Popular Electronics? (1)

butlerm (3112) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384668)

As nice as this is, I would be so much more excited if the owners of rights to Popular Electronics [wikipedia.org] did this.

Re:Popular Electronics? (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385552)

I'll second your wish for Popular Electronics, although I think that Radio-Electronics was a better magazine.

Well, there goes that collection. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31384708)

I have every issue since 1971, in boxes.

Was thinking of selling it, since it's taking up a lot of space... but now, I guess, whatever value it might have had, just went out the window.

*shrug*

Recycle time.

"Can We Harness Nuclear Fusion in the '70s?" (1)

ewg (158266) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384756)

Forget flying cars, where's my fusion reactor?: Can We Harness Nuclear Fusion in the '70s? [popsci.com]

How about the 10s? (1)

Yergle143 (848772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385050)

That ad for a pair of super advanced Gremlins intermingled with Teller's bold prediction kind of says it all.

Bring on National Geographic! (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384802)

Ah but to see those topless primitives again...

Great Move! (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31384978)

Lets hope other magazines follow suit with their 'archives'. Now i can finally get rid of my 10 boxes of old PS paper copies.

DVD version. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31385382)

This is a nice move from a former subscriber. I'd like them to do what National Geographic did with theirs and put it on DVD.

Paul Moller - total crackpot (1, Troll)

H0NGK0NGPH00EY (210370) | more than 4 years ago | (#31385566)

More specifically, search for Paul Moller [popsci.com] .

July 1967 [google.com]

If you have the urge to make like a Martian, you may get your wish. This is the goal of Paul S. Moller, assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the University of California, who wants to develop low-cost ($4,000 and up) flying saucers for personal transportation. After installing new engines in his first machine [PS, July '66], Moller recently made a series of successful test flights a few feet off the ground. With a second, eight-foot-diameter, single-engine craft, demonstrated a few weeks ago, he hopes to acheive real flying-saucer altitudes.

March 1987 [google.com] (advertisement)

For the past three decades, Moller International has been studying VTOL aircraft from every angle, in an effort to engineer the first VTOL aircraft that is safe to operate, inexpensive to manufacture, and economical to maintain. This advanced technology has finally been developed and will soon be available, in the form of the two-passenger Merlin 200.

January 2005 [google.com]

Last August one of the longest-anticipated feats of flight since the moon landing took place in a grassy field in Davis, California. As a small crowd looked on, a red Batmobile-like vehicle shuddered, lurched, and rose a few feet into the air, its eight 50hp rotary engines screaming like hornets. After a few minutes, the craft settled into the ground.

The event might not have seemed like much—it could hardly even be called a flight—but it represented a milestone that inventor Paul Moller, a 67-year-old Canadian, had been promising journalists and investors for more than a decade.

Yeah, a little bit more than a decade, all right. What a crackpot.

Garbage! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31385886)

I don't want to search, I want to download them all as PDFs, where is that option, nowhere?

You need javascript and/or plugins enabled? GARBAGE! I want them in a format I can download and share, since they are free, right?

Why do people insist upon over complicating every little thing! Just make them available for download and worry about searching through them later. Or is this about AD revenue?

You will not suck my e-tits for revenue, forget you!

Nuclear Powered Airplane (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 4 years ago | (#31386050)

I've got to go back and hunt down the issue about the Russians having a Nuclear Powered Airplane, and that we were going to have our own in 18 months.

browsing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31386600)

Too bad you can't actually BROWSE them...only search for keywords

nothing short of awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31386714)

Great magazine. As a faded mid-40 year-older they provided me with great stuff pre-computer and continue to be a great resource.

I am so glad they are being cool about sharing their past for free. THANK YOU!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...