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?
I *read* Playboy. No, really...it's for the articles!!
T...The Magazine for the Slashdotter who missed the story the third time around!
Extra!, the paper magazine of the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).
FAIR analyzes how the media reports, what they report, what they don't report, and calls out their biases.
They've done a lot of work around telecommunications policy , looking at what the governement is saying, what business is saying, and how it will affect you and me.
They don't speculate--I love them because they are so analytical. They are data heads who use the LexisNexis database to stastistically evaluate how the media does. Is there a conservative bias in media? They'll give you the numbers and let you decide.
Subscription is $21/year.
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
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" ----------
Wired and PC Magazine are only some that have fallen to this attack.
While Wired can still be interesting (I read it since I started getting a free subscription somehow) it has steadily turned into the "shiny things" computer magazine. Anything stupidly expensive instantly gets coverage. PC Magazine went from being a reasonable source of information to a huge glut of advertisements with worthless content sprinkled in here an there.
2600 is entertaining still and I buy it regularly (don't want to be on that subscription list though *GASP*!) although some of the articles list tech information that's just nowhere near correct. A little too heavy on the lame windows exploits/security information too.
Non tech: Maxim and Stuff really do have pretty interesting/funny articles (and other things too)
Casual Games/Downloads
I gave up buying consumer PC mags as they didn't tell me anything that I hadn't already found out at least 6 weeks before. I still read some of the weekly trade magazines though, mainly because I get them free at work.
Other than that, the only ones I buy are related to mountain bikes, or occasionally hi-fi kit.
yeah, that's right, the one where ol'Dicky is supposedly a robot.
Why? Because if I want to read lies, I might as well know I'm reading them.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Only magazine I buy periodically is the Reader's Digest - usually at airports.
And yes, ACM CrossRoads too, though I find it has very little useful content nowadays - they need volunteers btw.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Smithsonian, the official mag of the Smithsonian Institution. I always tell people, if you can't find at least one article of interest in any given issue, than you are a very boring person.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
Hey, I know its not "cool" but I got the best kick ass vaccum cleaner they make for $150 dollars and its more quiet then my fridge.
;)
Oh, and PC Mag occasionally, although the writting has gone down hill.
Wired has great articles, but who has time to read them.
"Club" - if you don't know what this mag is, don't ask.
Informative and Funny. How can you go wrong? Seriously, this is the more entertaining than I thought a computer magazine could be. The writers are brilliant.
I also read whatever magazines the previous occupants of our house subscribed to. This usually amounts to Latina and Stuff. I wouldn't recommend Stuff. It's like Playboy without the softcore porn and competent writers.
My dingo ate your honor student.
A densely packed periodical with a ton of well thought out opinion pieces that cover the whole world. Their articles contain a lot of fact but are - ultimately - opinion pieces. I don't always agree with them, but when I don't I have to sit down and think about my reasons.
Although, if you read their technology quarterly you realise that they aren't delving that deep into each issue they research.
IMHO, as per.
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
I stopped reading magazines all together years and years ago. Too little content for too much money (seriously, why pay for advertising?)
Reminds me of the Fight Club quote:
We're consumers. We are by-products of a lifestyle obsession. Murder, crime, poverty, these things don't concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines, television with 500 channels, some guy's name on my underwear.
The trick is to wait around on FatWallet or Anandtech forums until one of the free subscriptions comes around for Stuff/Maxim/FHM. My Suff and Maxim subscriptions have been paid for until 2009 with nothing more then me filling in my name on a form.
Major Topics
steal this sig
...but, as if anyone were interested, I regularly read:
:-)
The Economist - intelligent political and economic coverage with a distinct UK/European background. Smart enough to make you think even if you disagree with its editorial slant, as I often do.
The New Yorker - good writing, often thought provoking and cartoons.
Atlantic Monthly - more intelligent current affairs writing.
Granta - excellent if sometimes inconsistent modern fiction.
GQ - decent men's magazine, although the US edition is noticebly dumbed down in comparison with the UK edition.
Premiere - movie reviews and in-depth articles on the entertainment industry; think Entertainment Weekly with brains and a staff of almost journalists
Of the computer-related magazines, I used to subscribe to Wired, but it has descended into mediocrity in the last few years. At least it had verve during the dotcom years. I also enjoyed Byte and have issues going back to the early 80's. It was beginning to head towards just another PC review magazine before it folded, but in its heyday it really was a hobbyist's delight.
Sailing over the event horizon
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!
Notably, Wired took the #1 spot:
Myself, I read Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker, The New Republic, Aperture, Harpers and Scientific American. I'm thinking of picking up Reason, Foreign Affairs, The Economist and The Weekly Standard.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
I don't remember when, where, who or how, but I once received a piece of advice I've never forgotten, which seemed wise at the time, and which I've since found invaluable.
There are magazines devoted to everything -- sports cars, handguns, knitting, ferrets, Italian cooking, Civil War reenactments, log cabins, etc. Magazines are a terrific (and cheap) way to expand your horizons.
crib
Please don't read my journal
Is this room 215?
Yes, can I help you?
Hi, I'm here for the flamewar?
Yes, please do come in. Won't you have some tea? we're discussing Star Wars.
Ah, good. I was looking for some potential converts to the world of Gene Roddenberry. Phasers can shoot through light-sabers, you know.
Careful, the tea's hot. And everyone knows that Imperial Shields can stop any energy/ballistic attack as long as the Shield Generators remain undamaged. Then Darth Vader would force-choke Captain Kirk into submission.
Mmm, good tea. May I have a scone?
Oh, please do.
Thank you. But that's absurd, if Geordi modulated the phasars on a plasma-variance intercorrelation loop, the meso-barions surrounding the ---
*knock knock* Is this the Paris Hilton vs. Natalie Portman thread?
(all) next thread, by the water cooler
Ah, much obliged. *leaves*
--look, Kirk was a ninny, anyway.
Hey, Kirk could kick Picard's pseudo-French hiney any day of the week!
Oh yeah, well Picard favorably impressed the Q continuum, so in them he has the friendship of a literal race of Gods, I think I've made my point.
See here, let's not have this bickering and whining about who killed who..
Hey, that's Monty Python! GET HIM!!!!!
Can't we all just get along?
Apparently not, but we can argue about why next week.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I used to read Playboy, but now I am blind!
The reviewers in the New York Book Review usually bring up challenges to the argument/methodology used in the books reviewed. Most of the reviews also cover 2 or 3 books on the same topic, comparing the strengths/weaknesses of each.
Just a warning though, there is an obvious liberal bias to the review. It isn't of the Michael Moore/Al Franken variety that "all republicans suck" but is more reasoned and researched arguments against specific policies. And even though I'm liberal it would be nice to have some intalligent consevative views printed more often just for variety's sake.
About the only critcism I have of the magazine is that nearly every issue for over a year now has had an article (usually an editorial as opposed to an actual book review) on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (almost uniformily critical of the Israelis). Which is fine, Israel is certainly open to some criticism, but after ten articles it becomes a little tiresome.
I used to subscribe to Men's Health and found the health and fitness articles informative and well written, but after 2 years the articles became a bit repetitive. Other than medical updates there is only so much you can really write about doing arm curls.
Maxim? Wired? gee, maybe I should check them out next time I pick up my new American Idol CD at the walmart.
Here's what I like, when I can find them:
These pretzels are making me thirsty.
I agree with you about the New Yorker - it's currently the only magazine to which I subscribe, but the cost isn't too expensive, since they publish close to 50 issues per year. Plus, its proper grammar counter-balances Slashdot. :)
My favorite columnist is Peter Schjeldahl, the art critic. I learn - or at least am exposed to - at least one new word in every article he writes and he has amazing density. Take this example, from a recent issue (June 7): "The god of the plains is an orthodox minimalist, specializing in brute coups of uninflected space and light."
I mean, 300 comments and nobody mentioned it yet? Maybe I have a grossly inflated opinion of them, and someone can clue me in as to if they suck, and why.
The magazine is short, to the point, has a truckload of awesome tips and tricks sections (most of which would be of interest to even advanced computer users), has phenomenally accurate hardware and software reviews (to the point where I'm almost inclined to take their reviews as gospel) and it has a good geeky attitude that makes it an entertaining read. I've been a subscriber since they were called Boot magazine in the mid-1990s, and to this day I've never seen anything to make me doubt their integrity or make me want to cancel my subscription. It's also a damn cheap mag, renewals are usually $12 for the year.
Basically if you give a damn about computer hardware, you should have a subscription. Very highly recommended.
Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
I'm surprised so many Slashdot readers like Maxim. I'll read one if I find it somewhere, but I wouldn't pay for it. To me, Maxim represents everything that people on here usually hate, except for the hot chicks of course. Maxim's sole purpose is to sell products. Every article in there seems to be an advertisement in disguise (Men's Health does this too). This is in addition to the fact that the magazine is half ads anyway, and you pay about $7 for a newsstand copy. Why do we despise ads on the web but not in a magazine that we paid for?
Come on, guys, there are subtler ways of collecting demographic info.
Linux Journal is a great magazine too. Their articles are incredibly rich in technical details - and the coverage isn't just linux kernel focused. They also have great articles about system administration tools, embedded systems, new hardware and general open source software development. They do accept advertising, but the ads are actually useful and relevant -- embedded h/w suppliers, cluster computing manufacturers, hosting providers, etc. I'm sure this is all preaching to the choir, though.
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
FAIR reports that Halliburton has made US$4,508,231,125 trillion dollars mining stem-cell futures in Gadzookistan in the past forty-five minutes alone.
Jesus, who was a liberal, said that abortion is wrong. Since only aborted harp seals can operate the machinery used to mine stem-cells in the giant redwoods of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, this practice is clearly in opposition to the will of God, and also against the will of God's boss (Noam Chomsky).
You are, therefore, a fascist, an atheist, a corporatist bourgeois swine, a damned foreigner, a sexist pig, a child-molester, and a jerk. I hate you. The whole world hates you. FAIR has demonstrated that the New York Times has run NOT ONE STORY in the past year reporting that the whole world hates you and the God-fearing, Bible-believing multicultural harp seal fetus that you rode in on, you evil freak. This is stark media bias at its most reprehensible.
You can get Jesus out of the schools, but you can't get him out of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge! He hates you too, by the way. Because you hate fags, you damned fag. And because you don't use Linux. BSD is, after all, dying. Where will YOU be on Judgement Day? Installing XP Service Pack Twelve, you pathetic deluded sheep?
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
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.