On 6/25/2012 11:56 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:40:15 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 6/24/2012 8:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> The absurdity of not having heard of Mythbusters ranks up there with
>>> someone who works in the technology business not knowing what Wired
>>> magazine is or what an RSS feed is or how it might be beneficial.
>>>
>>>
>> Don't know. Wired went a bit south for a while, and I cancelled my
>> subscription. Had I never had one, I probably would be going, "Never
>> heard of them, but have you seen the one called Make:?" Yeah, haven't
>> read Wired in years...
>
> I had a subscription that I didn't ask for for Wired, actually.  I had
> subscribed to "Maximum Linux" and when the magazine was canceled, instead
> of refunding the undelivered portion of the subscription or providing the
> inconvenienced subscribers with a choice, they just automatically decided
> that filling with any subscription would be fine, so why not Wired?
>
> It was OK.  Not great, but it was OK.
>
> Jim
It was actually pretty good, for the first year or so. Tended to be 
edgy, didn't necessarily pull punches. Tried to actually tell you what 
the next up an coming tech was. Had articles by actually interesting 
people. Then... it started to become more and more like a version of PC 
Magazine, with slightly better paper. I.e., all corporatized, shallow, 
low information, talking about the latest thing from their advertisers, 
etc. The shift really pissed a lot of people off, but, sort of like half 
the "science" channels on TV today, when the morons outnumber the smart 
people 10:1, you can afford to lose 50% of the people that actually care 
if the information is at all useful, or interesting, or even 
not-gibberish, while gaining 4-5 from the clueless masses, in the 
process of dumbing it all down.

Post a reply to this message