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?
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" ----------
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, &
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.
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!
actually... that's not funny at all
As if anyone is ashamed of reading playboy these days
Casual Games/Downloads
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
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.
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.
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
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....
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.
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.