Slashdot Mirror
What Magazines Do You Read?
Osgyth asks: "Everyone is quick to complain about a magazine when the author makes a mistake or a stupid comment. Wired and PC Magazine are only some that have fallen to this attack. Which 'PC related' magazines does the Slashdot crowd read? Are they informative and accurate? Or merely read for their entertainment value?" Why limit the topic to just PC Magazines? What other periodicals do you all read that you find interesting?
CIO Insight, eWeek, CRM, PC Week, PC World, Dr. Dobbs Journal, Information Week, Info World, Maxim, FHM, Stuff, Golf World, Seventeen, Glamour, InStyle, Wired, EGM, Outdoor Life, Something Music Retailer, Something about Embedded Electronics, American Baby, Parenting, Home Channel New, plus a few others that I probably missed. Of course those are all the free ones I've found. The only sub I pay for is Playboy of course. :)
Computer Power User - it's what Byte tried to be, before they were forced to have 3 pages of adverts for every page of content, and renamed themselves "MaximumPC"
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
Linux Magazine (UK), Wired, SI, and 2600
I'm a hamker. Hams, hackers, same ethos, different medium. == 73 de KB0STG
The best magazine around. It's not PC related, but I got tired of reading PC rags right about the time they all started sucking up to the manufacturers 7 years ago.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
dead tree edition... then see the articles posted here after they hit the wired website a few days later =)
*shrug*
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
I read wired cover to cover every month. It's the only paper publication I read. It's as pretty as it is poignant.
--What, you ain't know about them country fried sessions?
The Economist. By far the most thorough, witty and unabashedly opinionated source of news and analysis in the English-speaking world. Politics, technology, business, arts and literature--it's all there.
Newsweek, Wired, 2600, and Maxim
The New Yorker because it has funny cartoons to get you going, fiction and non-fiction. They had a really good articles about google a while back. Lot of interesting off beat stuff. Good short stories.
The economist is more on world events the economy (although it includes that too). They have interesting perspective on things.
Both are unfortunetly fairly $$ as magazines go.
The best part of Maxim is that my gf enjoys reading it as well and doesn't complain about the half-naked hotties that dot its pages.
So, the best thing about the magazine is that someone else can read it, and then not complain about it. Wow! - are you *sure* you don't work for Maxim?!?
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Subscription is $21/year. and comes with heaps of bias! It's a great name they use, FAIR, since they are admittedly a fairly left wing org and a quick visit to their web site will show you that and more.
Then again, many of you think that there is some shreds of truth in Michael Moore's latest fiction. Really, there isn't. Please look it up for yourself.
The BS in the beginning about the Bush/Gore election. Bzzzt... false (CNN, NY Times found otherwise). The BS about the Taliban visiting Texas with the approval of Bush. Bzzt... false - visit was allowed/approved by Clinton. They were there to visit an oil company. 43% of the time on vacation... bzzt false. Real numbers are 12-13% (that includes weekends). And on and on and on and on... nothing is true. The part where he interviews congressmen about having their children go to war... what happens when one actually said "I have two nephews in Afghanistan and Iraq" and that he'd be glad to help Moore hand out his literature? He cuts that part out. Oh... and the part about him not being a registered democrat... bzzt... he is. Oh well...
C't. IMHO the best computer magazine out there, covering Windows, Linux and Mac. I also like their fair and balanced (no joke intended here) product tests.
What on earth is up with this? I'm looking through this comment thread, and every other magazine people are listing is porn. Geez, if that's not a statement about slashdot's typical posting audience, I don't know what is...
Isn't there anything better you all could be reading?
I'm an owl exterminator!
I love and always will love Maximum PC. Its the best magazine out there for PC enthusiasts. They got some good PC game reviews, Good hardware reviews. The best thing is the experiments they do like see which thumb drive lasts the best through very harsh conditions such as running it over with a car. They also have great articles on keeping up to date on the new technology like pci express and the new line of processors comming out. The magazine is extremely entertaining as well as being informative.
I used to love reading computer related magazines. There's just something great about laying on a couch while you read. However, the net destroyed all of that fun. I'd read stories online and then read the same "news" a few weeks later in the magazine. Rather than pay for deja vu, I stopped subscribing. News stops being news when it turns old.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Interesting how FAIR always seems to find lots of Conservative bias but never any Liberal bias. I wonder why that is. Of course it must be because all the media is very conservative (even though they are mostly registered democrats).
There is an inverse relationship between how hard a news agency claims to be fair and how fair it really is. FAIR and Fox News' Fair and Balanced are good examples from each side of the spectrum. You want fair? Use Google News and read as many articles as there are on a subject (including those from other countries).
actually... that's not funny at all
As if anyone is ashamed of reading playboy these days
Casual Games/Downloads
The only "truth" about Michael Moore is that he is a liar.
Oh yeah he also fat...forgot about that.
And you know what they say about statstics. With the right pickings you can make them look like whatever you want them to (or do they actually have some completely random and automated process to gather the data or is it some guy going hey this article seems biased lets throw it in).
To me it seems a group made to try to get an audience who wants to swear that the entire media is conservative based and have "evidence" to show there is no liberal bias in the majority of the media. Seems as exciting as the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, or tons of other crazy right and left nuts :-P
If you really want to make up your mind on the bias of the media, then you don't need to be trying to use a source that has a very evident bias in themselves and who seek to profit by this bias.
I actually have read some of Cosmo's crap and I find it racier than Maxim. The stories seriously sound like Penthouse's reader's letters and the "sex discussions" are more like alt.sex.stories.moderated than anything.
Sex does sell and it sells well. I don't see what the big surprise is. So what? Are we all supposed to subscribe to boring publications like the New Yorker?
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
The best "PC Related" Magazine that I know of is c't.
Very insightful, good know-how articles, writers that know their stuff and even an occasional homebrew hardware project (like a USB / RS232 Interface in the latest issue)
What other PC tabloid these day still has detailed architectural comparisons between the latest AMD and Intel creations. Or will devote pages to the advantages vs. disadvantages of the current RAM technologies.
I would compare c't to Byte Magazine in the mid-80s, before Byte went "mainstream".
Thomas
X IMPRIMITE "SALVE TERRA!"
XX ITE AD X
The way that I try to look at it is more of one of perspective. Is the glass half empty or half full? One person sees one thing, while another sees it a completely different way. Who is right? They both are!
;) Just kidding. This is not intended to be a troll.
It is impossible to be completely impartial! I like to look at thing as the media is mostle liberal with a liberal, while conservative news is closer to the truth. But I would be a fool to say that conservative news is always right and without bias.
A liberal may think that liberal media is right, and conservative news is biased. Of course, this could be because the liberal is an idiot, but I did not say this
The point is, EVRYBODY is biased. Everybody has opinions, beliefs, and life experiences, and filters all knowledge through what they have already learned.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
I stopepd buying magazines after i got hooked with interesting Internet content. Yes *even* slashdot
You want pr0n? you've got it.
You want funny stuff? Clicks way.
you want information? Not only do you have the kind you are looking for but you can get it much less 'filtered' than you otherwise would.
My point is that the Internet is killing the newpaper/magazine industry. It's only us, the geeks, for now, but it is surely going to spread.
The big problem for them is that i can get the same stuff (usually better) from the Internet *for free*. Which means that they can just say: "Hey, let's make an on-line edition of our magazine" and save themselves. They have to provide content that i can't get elsewere.
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
Yikes, I just checked out the FAIR website and, while I only looked at a few stories, the article where they state they found no proof that NPR has a left leaning bias, shocked me. They used the frequency of appearance to try and prove their point. This is clearly a slight of hand and a clever spin. Sure George Bush has appeared more than most other US pols, but what really matters, is what spin did they put on it. I am going to continue to review the site, but my first impression is that FAIR is as fair as Michael Moore.
Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
Not really, every month I get a couple of magazines but none of them are computer related anymore. I simply got sick and tired of the lies, damed lies I read. Every time a new whatcamacall it came out every magazine review called it the best thing since sliced bread. Only rarely did the thing they were touting do much better than it's predicessor. It was so obvious that all that they were doing was pandering to the advertisers. So, I quit reading them - in a sense, I discovered more honest reviews on the internet.
I do read Pop-sci every month and I have to say that when I read about a product that they may advertise, I will take their review with a grain of salt too.
Maxim (Stuff to) is the male equivalent of reading Cosmo: it just makes you feel inadequate. You're not going to wear their fashion, you're never gonna throw those kinds of parties, sex... well, you get my point. And if you are one of the few select males that does live that lifestyle, you don't read Maxim.
Nowadays, there are a good number of conservative Democrats. Hell, Kerry was courting McCain. There's a reason why Wellstone's line "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party" plays so well with some Democrats. The Blue Dog Democrats have been formed as 'pro-business Democrats' because the Democratic party realized they weren't going to win at the federal level unless they could match the Republican ability to secure legalized bribes (i.e. campaign donations). They've done a pretty good job of it, too. Now we've got two bought-and-paid-for parties working at the national level.
Generally speaking, the mass media's reporting tends to be liberal on social issues, but conservative on economic issues. The economic left has been mostly marginalized in the US.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Basically if you give a damn about computer hardware, you should have a subscription. Very highly recommended.
I skim it once a month at the library but to be quite honest, I've not read much there that is worth paying money for. The quality is drowned under the noise of 30-something geeks coping the attitude of 13-year-old walking gonads. Mostly though it seems to be built around the assumption of dropping 3K into a custom rig every other year.
Computer Power User is both more readable and less of an insult to its readership, but even it is rarely worth paying for.
No one is ever going to believe this, but! Many moons ago, before I could afford a computer. I did read Playboy for the articles. Honestly I don't get into that air-brushed, too much make-up, plastic girl crap. However the articles were the best source of news I could find on a regular basis. Then I finally stepped up to the real world, got a computer and a connection, I never looked back, but when you have the choice of TV/Newspapers or playboy, playboy servers as a better information source hands down.
If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank
As others have mentioned, The Atlantic is a bright spot on the American media landscape. It's impressive in that it shows a lot of the deeper trends, and it isn't afraid to explore ideas. Instead of focusing on controversy, the articles tend to be more about getting past the shrill argument and down to the real matter at hand. William Langeweische and James Fallows write brilliantly. It's worth noting that the Atlantic has offered perhaps the best overall coverage of 9/11 and its aftermath of any American magazine.
For those who complain about supporting advertising, check out The New Republic. It gets right down to business. The pages don't have much advertising. Excellent coverage of a wide variety of topics make it a worthy suppliment to the Economist, and proof that not all American publishers underestimate the average American's brain power.
It can be very worthwhile to read The New Republic and then read The National Review. Also not aimed at children, the National Review is solidly right-wing Catholic. The experience of reading both magazines one after another can be incredibly jarring. But for me it reveals a lot about why American politics is dominated by polarization and controversy. It also forces me to confront a world-view that overlaps with my own only infrequently.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
As others have said, in the average Playboy you're lucky to find 10 pages of nudie pics. If you spend your $3-$5 on a magazine for 10 pages' worth of pictures, you're an idiot.
Juggs, Hustler, etc... provide much more picture for your dollar. (Let alone websites.)
Incidentally, I agree that the Playboy chicks generally aren't that attractive. The pictures are so perfectly smooth, blemish-free, and artificial it looks like someone just posed the toys from realdoll.com. No thanks.
Incidentally, I agree that the Playboy chicks generally aren't that attractive. The pictures are so perfectly smooth, blemish-free, and artificial it looks like someone just posed the toys from realdoll.com. No thanks.
I agree. If you happen to like the "tastefulness" of Playboy but would prefer more real-looking women, my advice would be to procure issues from the late 70's to mid 80's off of Ebay. Maybe I'm biased because of my age (39), but I find the women portrayed back then were very nice to look at.
Not that that should be viewed as a substitute for online pr0n, though....
Um, hello, where were you in 1998? The US pulled the inspectors out in advance of Desert Fox. Iraq refused to allow them in afterwards - not surprising, since many inspectors had already gone public with the fact that the US had spies in the teams. Here, turning to FAIR! (thank you for the concice collection!), we can watch how different news agencies became suddenly forgetful (like you!):
What A Difference Four Years Makes
I'm an owl exterminator!
The sad thing is that SciAm was incredible a couple of decades ago -- and now it's glossy garbage now. Pity.
Personally, I read a local newspaper -- and nytimes.com/news.google.com for news to double check the local news source.
Web sites (check /. extra boxes) and books for technical/science info.
I don't really have time for more.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
The moment you asked a one-sided question "Is there a conservative bias in media?" is the moment that demarcates fair.org as unfair. I've read through many articles on fair and I cannot see what editorial methodologies they use to maintain a balanced critic of the media.
We all know that both far left and far right lambast the media for being too conservative or too liberal, respectively. I think fair.org is just another website that ensures that the left is represented, not that the right is represented nor--more importantly--that even the truth is represented. Remember, statistics and numbers are easily molded to be used in any ideological stand.
One problem is that their communication medium does not allow fairness to occur. Having an email hole doesn't count for feedback. Maybe fair, to be fair, should consider a blog format with comments, etc. For example, I've enjoyed a balanced viewing of some blogs like Fahrenheit Fact to keep things in perspective. They allow comments and they're very willing to make corrections to their fact items.
For now, I'll link fair.org under "Liberal Propaganda Hijacking Words They Are Not".
Thanks for the link.
Scientific American has become a shallow, dumbed-down, replacement of what it was for many, many years; a collection of serious and in-depth articles covering scientific discoveries of the time.
My Dad kept every issue back in the 60's, frequently referring back to them during his many forays in the world of physics, math, & chemistry. They were twice as thick as the current issues, with almost zero advertisements. The magazine today is only a small step above Popular Science, probably closer to Omni magazine.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Have to agree. I never read magazines anymore, except for online versions and the odd comic book... but I go through about 4-5 books from the various public libraries around here a week. Tons of information, and all for free.
One informative thing about magazines is the ads - not necessarily for product information. You can find out a lot about a field from the ads in the appropriate trade and special interest mags by looking at the types of products advertised, the styles of pitches used etcetera.
Who is this "we" you speak of? I myself hate any and all advertising and would rather just be left alone to decide on what *I* need and want without other people "informing" me.
Until just recently, I didn't have a television and I don't listen to the radio. Now I'm married to a wife likes to watch TV. Some sacrifices are necessary in any relationship
I am reminded of a comment I saw earlier on slashdot, though:
Nathan's blog
Wired seems overly pleased with itself and if others seem to appricate it I suppose that's fine. However if they are kidding themselves that they are still an IT mag I have some news for them...
I recall Wired when it first came out, gloss and glam ala Spin or Entertainment Weekly. But they caught the market just in time. It was a time of transition from when Joe Steelworker went from thinking that home computing was either too geeky or lacked any practicality to a time when Joe now spends more time online than he does in front of the tube.
Wired's popularity was a matter of circumstance. If Wired were the new kid today it wouldn't last. It's only through the years that naive "n00bs" have respected wired for giving a more social aspect to an otherwise geekfest persuit.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Why do we despise ads on the web but not in a magazine that we paid for?
Because in magazines the ads don't blink, bounce around, or make really fucking irritating noises. I do hate it when they smell, though. Fortunately, the magazines I read generally don't have perfume ads.
The problem with consumer reports is if you know anything at all about the subject at hand you know that a different product is better. Makes one wonder about the products you know nothing about.
For cars their bias against American manufactures is legendary.
Though I will admit that the better product might not be worth the cost, they seem to take low price too far.
My point is that the Internet is killing the newpaper/magazine industry. It's only us, the geeks, for now, but it is surely going to spread.
Yeah well video killed the radio star..
In fact you are wrong.
The Economist is not 'conservative' - that'd be the Tory version you are referring too. They most certainly are not a Tory magazine.
Nor are they left wing - in fact they are very opinionated about socialists, Social Democrats and all of that ilk. State control is anathema to them.
To describe the Economist in the traditional way you would refer to them as Liberals. The original Liberals that is.
Now in the US you refer to Michael Moore as a Liberal - WTF? Go figure - he's a socialist dude! Make that Socialist with a capital S.
Liberal in the original British meaning basically means Liberty and freedom for all people to pursue happiness and self-fulfillment. Usually this is exercised in an economic sense by way of markets, where individuals and groups of individuals agree to exchange goods and services to mutual benefit.
Liberals espouse low taxes, self help and community participation. Liberals also believe that the role of government is only to provide and enforce the legal framework to ensure this freedom.
Bush is not a Liberal in this sense - Steel Tarrifs and his intervention in markets show him up as pandering to special interests.
Moore is not a Liberal in this sense as a close reading of his works shows that he favours favours for special interests as well. Affirmative Action and State intervention and a desctruction of incentives for self help are all through his writings.... but he does provide a useful tonic. And a bit of Bush-whacking never goes unappreciated.
The Economist is Liberal in the social realm too. Years ago they had a cover story stating "Let them Wed" with a wedding cake decorated with two grooms. The Economist is pro gay marriage, pro-choice (but anti-abortion) - anti-prohibition (alcohol and drugs) and all for the decriminalisation and legalisation of the sex industry. It basically sees the choice to make these decisions as the concern of individuals - not for the state to get involved.
There is a clear parallel between this social liberalism and economic liberalism. The Economist believes that given the opportunity people will make decisions that are best for themselves, and in doing so will make decisions in the interest of everyone. We are all members of society and when individuals thrive so does society.
So in what way does this make them look like "raving Marxists" ? - especially when it views George Bush as being dangerously ready to make state interventions in the economy.
I think that the mistake you are making is assuming that social liberalism is the province of "trendy lefties" (Socialists) when in fact it is a more rational set of ideas focussed on the notion of individual freedom.
Now that is something that most Americans should be able to agree with - especially as the Economist is one of the most Pro-American publications on the planet... even if has huge doubts about Bush. It will be interesting to see who they plump for in the US Election. They've been right (as in correct) in the last few elections... Clinton x2 and Bush x1.
But I think the US view of the world of left and right will prevail - and in such a black and white world the Economist can't be described - and I admit - Liberal is too confused a meaning.
So I propose that we refer to the Economist as Pragmatic. Whatever works is good.
20 something years ago they had the Economist in my school library. I was prigish and right wing. I was pretty appalled by what I thought was a cynical, left-wing, agit-prop kind of magazine.
Boy was I mistaken.
Sure, they have articles about how greedy bankers are lending too much money backed by too little capital and will cause a disaster. They have articles about corrupt businessmen buying corrupt politicians to stop the accounting standards body from forbidding auditors to do non-audit work for audit clients. They helpfully explain that auditors get bribed with lucrative 'consulting' contracts to overlook dodgy accounting practises. And they do this pre-Enron.
But it is the magazine of the establishment, grumbling about its members, and how they are letting the side down. Now I love reading it. There is a real feeling of "Ah that's how the world really works"