Dr. Dobb's Journal Going Web-Only 233
paleshadows writes "The first issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal (DDJ) was published in January 1976. A few days ago, Herb Sutter (the chair of the ISO C++ committee and a long-time DDJ columnist) announced through his latest blog post that, 'as of January 2009, Dr. Dobb's Journal is permanently suspending print publication and going web-only.' This follows an earlier announcement that PC Magazine is to become digital-only, too, as of February 2009. To those of us who enjoy reading such stuff away from the computer these are bad news, as there seems to be no other major technical programmers' magazines left standing."
Well then (Score:5, Informative)
just print it out.
c't has always been wonderful (Score:3, Informative)
If you can't read German yet, then maybe it's time to learn. This has always been one of the best computer magazines in print. It's in-depth and hands-on. I built one of their hardware projects once (an SBC). Possibly still have it. http://www.heise.de/ct/ [heise.de]
Re:I was a Byte subscriber (Score:3, Informative)
I swear Byte magazine was 70% ads, 30% content. You had 5-6 pages of ads in the middle of articles. I wouldn't be surprised if they just forgot the last part of the article, and continued on with the ads. At least with "Computer Shopper" you were expecting ads. Sadly, PC Magazine was useless to the common user unless you were looking to upgrade. Buy Buy buy buy buy. I miss the magazines that had type-in programs.
Re:The iPoo (Score:4, Informative)
The thing about all the readers is that I simply would not use one in the bathroom for a lot of sound reasons I'm sure you can imagine.
I actually can't. I have a friend that's always in the can with his laptop. a reader should be a no brainer.
Re:2600 (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed. There's always at least one article in 2600 that makes me happy I picked it up.
PC Magazine turned into a big ad years ago. At least Computer Shopper is straight forward about it.
Re:Journalists (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Missing Options (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure where you got the 50-year number, but there is a break-even point. Although that point is very different depending on species. Basically the tree is absorbing carbon and converting it to wood. Large trees grow slowly (produce little wood) while young trees grow quickly (produce a lot of wood). More wood production -> More carbon absorption.
Re:I'm Sorry, but Good Riddance (Score:3, Informative)
I used to have a Palm Tungsten too. I bought a lot of ebooks at the time and I still have access to them on my WM5 powered HTC phone. Have you tried eReader software ? It is free, and I believe you can re-download any books you have already paid for. If it won't run on the crackberry, then maybe you should have considered a different device rather than throw away $1000 of ebooks. But whatever happens, you can still read them on Windows, Mac, iPhone, Symbian.
Re:Missing Options (Score:3, Informative)
> Does somebody more eco-wise want to set me straight and
> explain why an e-reader is so much "greener" than dead trees?
The paper-making process is very non-green. Really, it should be called the waste-making process, with paper as a minor byproduct. OTOH, I doubt that most e-readers are all that perfect in their manufacturing processes, either.
Of course, the high-quality magazine paper (like DDJ is printed upon) is ecologically worse than book paper, or pulp (ala WWII SF mags), too. The high clay content make it much harder to recycle higher-quality (printing) magazines.
Still, claiming eco-friendliness for either is rather silly. When e-readers can last a century, like at least SOME magazine copies have, they might have a point, unless the owner only uses them for a few things, in which case "dead trees" wins. Unless e-readers include magically recycling old units, rather than letting owners just bury it in the trash, they will have the problem of old units piling up, Wall-E style.
Re:Missing Options (Score:3, Informative)
Replanting is great, but does that newly planted tree use as much CO2 as the 100 year old one cut down? Trees take a while to regrow... so saying they're being replanting is a bit disingenuous.
Actually, a forest is most productive in terms of its ability to feed and sustain an arboreal environment just a few years after it has been cleared and replanted. Old-growth forests with huge trees and a dense upper canopies are not nearly as productive in consuming CO2 or providing a habitat for a diverse group of different species of both plants and animals as do much younger forests.
An excellent example of this is the region around Mount St. Helens, where the destruction of the old forest that surrounded this volcano has lead to a huge increase in both the diversity and productivity of the wildlife in the area, now that several years have passed since the eruption in 1980.
This said, I do agree that some "old growth" forests that are cleared and then replanted with substantially different tree species are destructive to the environments they are found in. Removing old growth Redwood species from the American Pacific Northwest and replanting with Douglas Fir is not a sustainable or productive use of that land. But don't take a few exceptions out of context and claim that all lumber harvesting is a horrible thing or even purely destructive when in fact the opposite conclusion can be made.
As to how long between forest clearings should take place, that can be debated. I've seen numbers ranging from 25 to 100 years, and it should be noted that some National Forest lands that have been put into a 100 year cycle are on their second "crop" after being previously harvested more than 100 years ago under USDA regulations. There is no reason why such a harvest couldn't be indefinitely sustained and in fact serve not just the forest lands but the general public in a very productive manner that helps both people and wildlife.