What Magazines Do You Read? 1165
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?
Lets see... (Score:3, Insightful)
CPU (Score:5, Insightful)
My coffee table has (Score:2, Insightful)
MENTAL FLOSS (Score:4, Insightful)
I read wired (Score:4, Insightful)
*shrug*
e.
WIRED (Score:2, Insightful)
The Economist (Score:2, Insightful)
The Economist. [economist.com] 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.
Me (Score:3, Insightful)
Economist and the New Yorker (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Maxim! (Score:3, Insightful)
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?!?
Re:EXTRA! The magazine of FAIR (Score:0, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hot Girls (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't there anything better you all could be reading?
Re:I read wired (Score:2, Insightful)
Maximum PC (Score:2, Insightful)
Magazines?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EXTRA! The magazine of FAIR (Score:1, Insightful)
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).
Re:I "Read"... (Score:5, Insightful)
As if anyone is ashamed of reading playboy these days
Re:EXTRA! The magazine of FAIR (Score:0, Insightful)
Oh yeah he also fat...forgot about that.
Re:EXTRA! The magazine of FAIR (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hot Girls (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Maxim! (Score:5, Insightful)
c't is the best (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:EXTRA! The magazine of FAIR (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Stopped reading paper magazines (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:EXTRA! The magazine of FAIR (Score:1, Insightful)
Paper is dead... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:PC Magazine = shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:EXTRA! The magazine of FAIR (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:No Maximum PC? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I "Read"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Economist + (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have mentioned, The Atlantic [theatlantic.com] 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 [tnr.com]. 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 [nationalreview.com]. 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.
Re:I "Read"... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I "Read"... (Score:3, Insightful)
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....
Re:Right, it was the 1990s... (Score:3, Insightful)
What A Difference Four Years Makes [fair.org]
Re:Scientific American (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:EXTRA! The magazine of FAIR (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [blogspot.com] 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.
Re:Scientific American (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Read Something Different Every Month. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Read Something Different Every Month. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hot Girls (Score:3, Insightful)
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:
Re:Wired == Tired (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hot Girls (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Consumer Reports (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Stopped reading paper magazines (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah well video killed the radio star..
Re:unabashedly opinionated (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Economist (Score:2, Insightful)
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"