Popular Mechanics is a lame alternative to Pop Sci.

Somehow in the chaotic Universe that can somehow be described the orderliness of numbers, I began getting Popular Mechanics in the mail. Actually its much simpler than that. My brother couldn't get a free subscription to Rolling Stone through some service so he gave me the reigns where I was fucked over by their limited selection of "good stuff" (AM-PM says you can't get enough). They had no Pop Sci, no Wired, no nuttin'. They did however have Popular Mechanics, the only good male orientated magazine available. I hadn't glanced in their pages for quite a long while. Since about 6th to 7th grade to be exact. Which was a whole decade ago. I remember them being a little over simplified a very all of the map. Discussing how to build the perfect book shelf to talking about the latest computers. At the time the seemed adequate and I yearned for more than just a cool car picture. I needed a magazine that challenged me to know what was coming up.Popular Science fit that need. By 8th grade I made a lengthy report discussing the limitations of star travel due to an accelerating and equal decelerating action being required in the vast vacuum of space.

Ten years later though I return to Popular Mechanics and find myself not even wanting to continue beyond the 15th page. At some times I consider that its not even close to costing me nothing to get in the mail. All in all, I am going to drop off my years collection of Pop Mech at the local library's swap spot ASAP. My Pop Sci collection on the other hand spans at most 3 years before I begin sending them to the swap spot. How can Popular Mechanics be that bad, and Pop Sci so good? Is it just me being overly judgmental of a magazine that doesn't fit me?

Popular Mechanics is a waste of paper as a whole because although Jay Leno's car collection reviews are well written, concise and very interesting, having what seems like a couple Shop teachers and some lowly interns write a "professionally" produced magazine is ludicrous. At times an article can be false which then makes the idea ridiculous. Or could it just be a reason to not subscribe to any magazines and just use the Internet as your guide? If you follow and research more beyond just a couple of forums yes, the Internet is better.

But I don't have time to wander through lengthy descriptions of subjects on Wikipedia and not hear that the Mars rover found evidence of water on Mars or other scientifically important news pieces. So far all I've gotten from Popular Mechanics is what I'd like to call the Readers Digest for people who people who want to learn what the best advertised product is. The problems of their simplification results in some pretty lame attempts to explain any thing that is up to date. If you follow their words you may end up becoming what can be defined harshly as a moron reading a "science and technology" magazine.

Being the retired Middle School Shop Teachers that (listen only to conservative talk to get news) they are, the writers, editors or whatever you want to call them are a very badly compiled bunch of hear and repeat technology news couriers. (except Leno and a few other dedicated article writers) And to that extend Windows Vista, and as result of the horrible explanation, all versions of Windows Vista has an easilt obtainable RAM limit! ( That is currently reachable?!) [And the Moon really is made out of Cheese!] This "answer" was a response by a writer in their FAQ section. Enough disgruntled readers of the magazine wrote to those in charge of answering questions fully about Vista that they decided that it'd be great to have a collection of these Q's and A's. I don't have the specific magazine (will have it soon) with me so going by memory: A user asks why can my Vista computer only recognize 3.5 GB of RAM when I have 4GB installed? Being the computer or at least research professional that this writer is paid to be you expect a better answer than, "Because", right? Wrong! In summary the writer goes about saying that Vista just isn't supposed to access the full 4 GB or go any higher than that. Just cause it has a built in limit. Just Cause. Apparently seeing that there is too many different versions of Vista out right now and that some of them have a 64-Bit subtext on them means nothing to the fact that maybe not all Vistas are alike. The real answer is actually shorter than his long explaination of nothing that leaves the questioner exactly where they started. We are simply reaching the end of 32-Bit computing is really all that needed to be said: This means that the numerical resolution of 32 Ones & Ohs maxes out just at 4GB, the drop from 4GB to 3.5 usuable Gigabytes is due to system usage. With a 64-bit OS such as a 64bit edition of Vista 4GB is no longer the limit. Beleive it or not, 16 Exabytes, close to one million times larger than 16 Terabytes is the limit of addressable RAM. Vista however has a limit of 128GB of RAM in its 64bit Home and Professional Editons. So to finish off and leave the questioner with something to grab on to, a mention that he currently has the 32bit edition of Vista is a good conclusion to a good not-too-hard to grasp answer. But does Popular Mechanics operate that way? No.

I'm so overwhelmed by half the crap in Popular Mechanics that I'm very willing to go out and buy myself a webcam just so I can post a YouTube rant and rave video for each issue. I don't have a world of time on my hands but I have enough to do what I first wanted to do when I began getting these magazines again. This time worse than I remember.

And don't worry dear reader, I will add, correct, and cite this blog when I get the chance as well as provide a list of links to my YouTube videos regarding the subject when they arrive.

So a heart attack at 57 is a wakeup call?

In the latest of the "tell your doctor" ads for who knows what medicine most likely not thoroughly approved by the FDA. I've spotted this gem for the past 2 weeks. In fact they may have already canceled it due to the old-people (yes, Alzheimers) logic.

One of the first Lipitor ads to include a "real person" according to the ads makers,MMM starts off with the man mentioning...

“Talk about a wake-up call. I had a heart attack at 57. I should have been doing more for my high cholesterol. I learned the hard way.”

The things I find down right stupid, if not furthermore retarded about this ad is its hidden did you know factor. A heart attack at 57? Isn't that kinda of usual for someone of that age group who grew up on a standard America diet? The way I see it, its close to just saying, "Talk about a wake up call. I had explosive diarrhea after eating all the nachos at the gas station!"

So I guess eating Nachos will result in Explosive Diarrhea. And a high cholesterol diet will result in...oh yeah, what did the doctors say? A heart attack? Well don't worry its totally Kosh, my doctor can give me Meds before the event of a heart attack happens to me.

All I have to do is tell my doctor. Tell him/her about Lipitor now! Because the commercial told me to! And in some alternate universe, that makes it all better.