Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: GPLv3, Firefly, iTunes

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including Stallman's comments on GPLv3, Firefly fans clinging to hope, sentence handed down in student felony webpage refresh case, GP2X GPL issues resolved, Korean cloning scientist may get to keep his patents, Apple changes their tune for iTunes ministore, and much more -- Read on for details.

Richard Stallman speaks on GPLv3 and patents. Elton J. Won writes "A public forum on the updated GPL was held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Although Stallman solicited comments from forum attendees. he made clear that the GPL version 3 will not alter the license's basic stance on software patents. From the article: 'the GPL version 3 is explicitly meant to discourage litigation based on software patents. "This is not a placeholder. This is the text we currently plan to go with unless we're surprised by seeing a better idea," Stallman said.'" Relatedly RMS also recently expounded on some of these thoughts in an interview with PCPro.

Firefly fans refuse to go quietly into the night. CMGaretJax writes "The Browncoats, a fan group based around the hit cult TV show Firefly, and the more recent movie, Serenity, have set up a website for donations from people who want to see another season of Firefly. So far they have raised $840 dollars against an estimated cost of 1 million per episode. An admirable attempt, and one that will hopefully pick up steam, the show really is too pretty to die."

Student receives sentence for felony web-page charge. EMB Numbers writes to tell us that Michael Stone, the student who was recently charged with a felony for encouraging others to bog down a school server with web page refreshes, has cut a deal with the prosecutor for a lesser misdemeanor offense -- criminal mischief. Stone was given a suspended sentence of 60 days in jail along with 20 hours of community service. Although he declined to comment on camera Stone's mother stated that she appreciate all the support he received from the online community.

GP2X GPL issues resolved. gizmateer writes to tell us that after quite a bit of noise from the online community it appears that Gamepark has bowed to the pressure and will be releasing the source for the most recent version of the GP2X firmware. From the article: "Please stop posting to this board about GPL. Dignsys will post up the sources to the new firmware version 1.3.0 next week on http://source.gp2x.de. They intend to release it once the binaries to said firmware have been released."

Korean cloning scientist may get to keep his patents. Billosaur writes "According to an article on the New Scientist web site, disgraced Korean cloning researcher Hwang Woo-Suk may get to keep his patents for the process of creating embryonic stem cells via cloning human embryos. Already the UK patent office is looking into the validity of the patents in Europe. From the article: 'As long as an invention is not clearly contrary to scientific laws - like time travel - research has no bearing on the grant of a patent.'"

Apple changes their tune for iTunes mini store. jjbelsky writes "Apple has modified the iTunes MiniStore in response to the anger caused by its release of personal information. All users of iTunes, whether or not the music store is enabled, are now presented with a page informing them that when a song is selected 'information about that item is sent to Apple.' Users who do not click on the 'Turn on MiniStore' button will not have their privacy invaded."

Targets of RIAA lawsuit turn on i2hub operator. Doros writes "After being forced to fork over thousands of dollars to the RIAA, students want i2hub operator Wayne Chang to cover their losses. From the article: 'At least 42 students have been named as defendants in John Doe lawsuits filed by the recording industry. The industry trade group has offered to settle each case for $3,750, lawyers for the students said Tuesday. "Had the students known that they were exposing themselves to copyright infringement liability by using the i2hub service, they likely would not have used the service," the legal group wrote.'"

Adults exempt from Chinese online limits. Dotnaught writes "The Chinese government has yielded to pressure from adult online gamers and exempted them from its online gaming addiction policy. The rules, which went into effect last October, require that after five hours of consecutive play, players cease earning any virtual rewards such as experience points or beneficial items. To avail themselves of the exemption, some 26 million gamers will have to register their real names and identity card numbers with the authorities. The system hasn't proven particularly effective -- minors reportedly skirt the limits by logging onto different accounts or switching to another game after reaching the time limit."

Bill Thompson follows up Mac security remarks. Bralkein writes to tell us that in response to the overwhelming amount of feedback Bill Thompson received on his recent Mac security article, he has penned a response to his critics. In his reply, he admits that there were a few flaws in his article, and he acknowledges the high level of security provided by OS X's UNIX foundations. However, he stands by his assertion that the Mac cannot boast complete immunity to all security problems. As a Mac user himself, he still believes that the Mac community needs to remember that security is still an issue for them, too.

275 comments

  1. Except they're not.. by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 4, Informative

    Firefly fans refuse to go quietly into the night. CMGaretJax writes "The Browncoats, a fan group based around the hit cult TV show Firefly, and the more recent movie, Serenity, have set up a website for donations from people who want to see another season of Firefly. So far they have raised $840 dollars against an estimated cost of 1 million per episode. An admirable attempt, and one that will hopefully pick up steam, the show really is too pretty to die."

    From the site: We are in the process of returning all donations received. We came up against insurmountable odds and legal issues launching our fund-raising drive

    A nice idea, and god I'd love a second series, but it was admitedly reaching for the stars, literally!

    --
    The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    1. Re:Except they're not.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seems to me a way around the legal issues on this sort of thing would be to go to the network that owns the rights from the start- and say "When our website earns enough money, we will buy 20 minutes of advertising on your network for each episode you are able to produce". Then all the commercials could be stories about the donation process, with the web address to donate at...bet it would pay for itself after the first episode went on the air.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Except they're not.. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      They're doing it all wrong. What they need is commitment from the advertisers to support a new show. To get commitment from the advertisers, they need commitment from the fans to watch the show in the given time slot. To get commitment from the fans, they need to ink a deal with Fox that would guarantee a non-preemtable timeslot so that fans can make their decision. To sweeten the pot for advertisers, they might even set something up so that the fans will receive a mailing or two from the advertisers.

      Basically, you need to make the network and advertisers smell money. There's no way you'll get that much money out of the fans directly, but you can certainly do it via the advertisers.

    3. Re:Except they're not.. by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      I doubt the people involved with Firefly (actors, Joss Whedon(sp?), producers) are all that thrilled about doing another TV series. The Firefly episodes were, IMHO, very well produced, with excellent CGI. I'm not surprised by the $1e6/episode pricetag. Since they've established themselves in the movie-going public's mind, they probably have a better chance of profitability in the movie arena. I get the feeling that they are really focused on making a sequel to the movie. I'd be happy to see either. At any rate, I'm not surprised the fund raiser approach failed. There just aren't that many people who are that enthused about it to give away money.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    4. Re:Except they're not.. by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      When our website earns enough money, we will buy 20 minutes of advertising on your network for each episode you are able to produce.

      And if those 20 minutes were used during the episode(s) in question, it's guaranteed that 20 minutes of informercials about the show's fans would drive any new viewers away real quickly. I love the show and thought the movie was pretty good, too, but this idea just doesn't sit too well with me.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    5. Re:Except they're not.. by dR.fuZZo · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're returning the money? That's too bad. Sounds like they nearly had enough to get Shepherd Book to do a direct-to-internet 10 second PSA.

      --
      -- dR.fuZZo
    6. Re:Except they're not.. by andrew_mike · · Score: 3, Informative

      Serenity didn't make any money. In fact, including international box office sales, they just barely broke even. Most studio producers, therefore, would not agree that the best place to profit is making another movie. For the same price as Serenity, they could get almost 2 seasons of Firefly. This means more ad revenue, and more money when the show gets syndicated.

      Problem is, Fox still owns the TV rights (as I recall). For some unexplained reason, Fox loves sticking it to innovative shows. I don't think they'll give up the rights for cheap.

      However, according to the Browncoats website, the main reason the donation campaign was stopped was because they were afraid of possibly giving the producers NIH Syndrome by donating money to the cause.

      --
      Being a smartass is a much better thing than being the alternative.
    7. Re:Except they're not.. by HardCase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm no rabid Firefly fan (honest!), but I did like the show and the movie. The movie looks like it broke even at the box office, but if you add DVD sales in, it surely must have done reasonably well - the DVD has been in the top 5 at Amazon since it was released. For that matter, the Firefly box set has been up there, too, which ought to make Fox happy.

      I'm not surprised that Fox stuck it to the show. It's not so much that the axe innovative shows as it is that they are locked into the short-term TV on the cheap program. Reality shows cost next to nothing and make a metric buttload of money. They're easy to promote. Firefly was an expensive show that didn't fit the Fox mold. It was easy to preempt because it was virtually unmarketable from Fox's point of view. But at some point, somebody at Fox is going to realize that having four or five shows to syndicate is a pretty slim library - I don't think that American Idol will do all that well in reruns.

      Firefly was here and gone before I ever heard about it. My first exposure was the movie, then I bought the TV DVDs. I vaguely remember hearing something about the show, but I always thought that it was a SciFi Network program - and I'm not that out of touch with my TV.

      -h-

    8. Re:Except they're not.. by Animats · · Score: 3, Funny
      was admitedly reaching for the stars, literally!

      That's what I told Carol Lynn in 1971, when she headed the campaign to bring back Star Trek. "It's over. Give it up. Let it go".

    9. Re:Except they're not.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      And if those 20 minutes were used during the episode(s) in question, it's guaranteed that 20 minutes of informercials about the show's fans would drive any new viewers away real quickly. I love the show and thought the movie was pretty good, too, but this idea just doesn't sit too well with me.

      You already sit through 20 minutes of infomercials about the show's fans for any given show on network TV- the only difference is that those "fans" are helping to pay their way by selling you unrelated goods.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    10. Re:Except they're not.. by Robert+The+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Has a box office movie every made any money. Granted at 25 Mil. it wasn't a big money maker but it wasn't a bomb either. It made a profit Hollywood has been cooking the books for years so that all movies either make no money or very little money. They move money around increasing cost to make zero profit on all most all movies.

      Robert

  2. The Browncoats by Tx · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The Browncoats effort is already over by the looks of things, lasting a mere 36hrs, so that item is already out of date. Shame, I still hope someone will find a way to bring Firefly back. From the site:


    No more donations are being taken at this time!
    We are in the process of returning all donations received. We came up against insurmountable odds and legal issues launching our fund-raising drive. firefly@browncoatsriseagain.com

    If the money is buring a hole in your pocket, please buy a DVD. Firely and Serenity sales at this time will further our cause. We will continue the fight to re-light Firefly using other methods. Thank you for you support in our first 36 hours of activity.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  3. Show Opportunity Costs by Noksagt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So far they have raised $840 dollars against an estimated cost of 1 million per episode.
    $1M is relatively cheap for a network. They are more concerned about the opportunity costs. That is, they can get a lot more ad revenue from shows that people actually watch. Not to make any judgements of the show itself--I paid for my Serenity ticket on opening night--but no network is going to put on a show that is a ratings disaster just because it is free.

    Recall, also, the attempt to "Save Enterprise" the same way. The money was raised (much more than $840!) & it was still axed.
    1. Re:Show Opportunity Costs by starwed · · Score: 1

      If they were given the show for "free" it wouldn't matter what ratings it would get. They could still release it to DVD (or maybe even to iTunes first) and rake in the cash...

    2. Re:Show Opportunity Costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Come on... Enterprise sucked. If it wasn't "Trek", it wouldn't even have had a second season... But I guess people watched it as some sort of "Trek fix", and hoping that it would eventually get somewhere (me included).

      As for Firefly, it was original and interesting, and it didn't even had a full season. So, if there ever was a show that deserved to be picked up for another run, that show is Firefly.

    3. Re:Show Opportunity Costs by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Funny
      Couldn't we just threaten to blow a new crater in their little network?

      Oh wait, transport ship ain't got no guns on it...

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:Show Opportunity Costs by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      You sound like Serenity never had MAJOR success in the box office. I'm absolutely shocked that networks aren't fighting each other to pick up the series since it is obviously a money maker and will be doubly so now (especially series DVDs). I'd love to see some figures if anybody has them on sales numbers on the series DVDs before and after Serenity came out.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    5. Re:Show Opportunity Costs by willjohnson · · Score: 1

      Serenity was fairly well reviewed but it was not a major box office success. In fact, it lost plenty of money in the box office. The total worldwide gross was less than the production budget (I don't believe those numbers include marketing). See this link (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=serenity. htm). Not to mention the fact that the studio only gets about 50% of the box office. They split the rest with the theaters. I think the studio usually gets like 80% of the first week and it declines after that.

      So, it was not a major box office success. They'll probably sell enough DVDs to break even though. Those are insanely profitable for them and the audience proved to that they will purchase them based on the sales of the TV show's DVD set.

    6. Re:Show Opportunity Costs by br0ck · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure that you can map Amazon DVD sales rankings to any actual dollar amount, but Fireflyfans.net has tracked daily chart positions for the Firefly box-set and Serenity and both have been selling very well compared to movies with much better box office earnings.

    7. Re:Show Opportunity Costs by c_forq · · Score: 1

      I think the studio usually gets like 80% of the first week and it declines after that.

      I think it is an even higher percentage then that. From my friend who works as an assistent manager at a local muliplex the theater only gets about 5 cents of every ticket opening week, but they make a killing of soda and popcorn (still a bit but not nearly as much profit from candybars and nachos and such). By the third week the theater is getting 80% of the ticket though. (Maybe it is differant theater to theater, I don't really know how it works).

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    8. Re:Show Opportunity Costs by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Truth always hurts.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    9. Re:Show Opportunity Costs by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      You sound like Serenity never had MAJOR success in the box office.

      I know man, it crazy. That movie made $10 million on it's opening weekend alone. Yes, that's right folks, 10 *MILLION* smackaroos! Do you have any idea how much money that is?!? Even in $20 bills, thats got to be one or two suitcases worth.

      I'll bet some big-shot Hollowyood producer became a very rich man that weekend!

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  4. Firefly fans clinging to hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Turns out that what they thought was hope was just a candle flame and they all died.

    1. Re:Firefly fans clinging to hope by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Funny
      > Firefly fans clinging to hope
      >
      > Turns out that what they thought was hope was just a candle flame and they all died.

      Not a candle flame. More like a leaf on the wind. *CHUNK*

    2. Re:Firefly fans clinging to hope by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1
      Not a candle flame. More like a leaf on the wind. *CHUNK*

      Awww, this was a happy thread until you reminded me of that.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:Firefly fans clinging to hope by draxbear · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they won't resort to lighting "incense" to get what they want :)

      --
      --- I've completed diagnosis of your problem and can classify it as a YOYO...You're On Your Own
  5. Think this... by shawnce · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think the following site sums up my opinion of iTunes mini store "issue"....

    iTunes MiniStore Is Now Opt-In

    1. Re:Think this... by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      I think I might enjoy it if I could customize it to track particular labels, genres, and artists.

      I find it pretty damn worthless in it's current state. All it does is recommend crappy music that I don't care about.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    2. Re:Think this... by shawnce · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Think this... by shawnce · · Score: 1

      Weird the change the software feedback page for iTunes from what I last recall...

    4. Re:Think this... by tm2b · · Score: 1

      Figures, this shows Slashdot's anti-Apple bias. Put the article describing the problem on the front page, bury the correction of the problem in a slashback.

      For the non-USians: There are those in the US who like to say that the media has a liberal bias because it puts Bush administration screwups on the front pages and corrects erronious details in lower profile places.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    5. Re:Think this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are those in the US who like to say that the media has a liberal bias

      And those people would be correct.

      Example:

      When the Clinton Administration eavesdropped on telephone and electronic communications via the Echelon program, no one seemed to care - there were a few articles (in big papers, like the NYT) with experts saying they would not be surprised if the majority of telephone calls were monitored in one way or another.

      Fast forward 5 years, suddenly a similar program under Republican rule and now it is an act of treason.

    6. Re:Think this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-apple bias? The fuck are you smoking? Slashdot is 80% Linux fanboys, 60% Apple fanboys (they can overlap), and 10% Windows apologists (there's also the small contingent of "best tool for the job" logical folks). You upset they don't have the majority or something?

      (From the Faux Statistics Association of America)

  6. Firefly - Get Pay Cable To Pick It Up by gbulmash · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Simple, pledge not money, but to subscribe to the pay cable service (Showtime, HBO) that picks up the series. If they can get 200,000 new subscribers, between the subscriber fees and the post-season DVD sales, that justifies a 13-episode order.

    - Greg

    1. Re:Firefly - Get Pay Cable To Pick It Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sadly, it doesn't. You could raise enough money to actually pay for the whole season and the network would still be liable to say no. Why? Networks look not at "Will we make our money back?", but at "How can we make the most money?" They only have so many hours a day they can broadcast, and they want to fill each hour with the highest revenue show they can. That's why we see all the great shows cancelled for low budget craptacular "reality" schlock... even when a reality show has lower ratings than a quality show, the difference between ad revenue and cost to produce is larger with the crap.

      Which is why we really need to get to a "subscriber" model of paying for shows, independent of television studios. You only need as many million subscribers paying a dollar an episode as it costs you, in millions of dollars, to produce and distribute the show. 22 bucks for a whole season of Firefly? I'd pay that in a heartbeat. If your cable bill is $60 a month, you could subscribe to 15 million dollar an episode shows for the same price. Cripes, imagine if you had 5, hour long, $3 million shows to watch each week! Sounds like enough TV to ME.

    2. Re:Firefly - Get Pay Cable To Pick It Up by Keeper · · Score: 1

      Fox owns the rights to the TV show, and can outright refused to license the rights to any other station. They own it, and even though they aren't making any money off of it, they don't want anyone else to make any money off of it either.

  7. So you can't patent a time machine in the UK by SIGFPE · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's a pity. If there's no money to be made from inventing a time machine I don't think I'll bother working on mine any more. I'll just get back to my perpetual moction machine then.

    --
    -- SIGFPE
    1. Re:So you can't patent a time machine in the UK by markana · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tell me about it. Got the patent in 2035, but it was later reversed on prior art. *Now* I've got to muck around in *this* era trying to establish prior-prior art.

      The system's seriously screwed up, I tell ya...

    2. Re:So you can't patent a time machine in the UK by Ugly+American · · Score: 1

      Even if you could patent one, it wouldn't matter. Someone else would just go back in time, file first, and steal the fruits of your labor.

      --
      For sale: one sig space, gently used. Inquire for details.
    3. Re:So you can't patent a time machine in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then it would have been invented already, so you wouldn't have bothered to invest your time and energy in inventing it. The thief would have to remember to go back in time and file, but how would he notify his former future self that he had to do that? The post won't hold onto a letter for 100 years and then deliver it to a random location actually, whatever BTTF3 showed.

    4. Re:So you can't patent a time machine in the UK by rixkix · · Score: 1

      It was Western Union that delivered the letter.

    5. Re:So you can't patent a time machine in the UK by kadathseeker · · Score: 0

      I'll just get back to my perpetual moction machine then. Two nymphomanical lesbians tied to a bed?

      --
      The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
    6. Re:So you can't patent a time machine in the UK by SIGFPE · · Score: 1

      Down boy, down!

      --
      -- SIGFPE
    7. Re:So you can't patent a time machine in the UK by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "I'll just get back to my perpetual moction machine then."

      your inventing a machine that mocks people forever? cool.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:So you can't patent a time machine in the UK by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      No wonder you always get "first post".

    9. Re:So you can't patent a time machine in the UK by frogstar_robot · · Score: 1

      Thing is, time travel into the future is nothing more than a severe engineering problem. Simply accellerate away from the Earth to a significant fraction of the speed of light and return. The clocks on board your ship (as well as any other process in time) will run slow relative to the ones back on Earth. When you return, you will have travelled "into the future" according to how close to lightspeed you got, how long it took to attain that speed, and the amount of time you spent at it.

      There is nothing scientifically wrong with it.

      Time travel into the past on the other hand......well just forget it.

  8. Felony - misdemeanor - makes more sense by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good deal. This should never have been charged as a felony to begin with, but I agree he needed a reality slap. I haven't looked far enough into the case to have a strong opinion on the sentence, but 60 days, even suspended, sounds a little heavy. Then again, if there's more to it than I've caught from the news, maybe it's fine.

    1. Re:Felony - misdemeanor - makes more sense by marshallh · · Score: 1

      60 days? I thought my school was crazy, my friend got a week OSS for doing a simple "Hi All" netsend.

      It seems most of the public that has little or no knowledge about technology, either by apathy or igorance, has a great tendency to fear what they do not know about... in this case giving this kid 60 days for something most admins would shrug at.

      Educating the public is hard... but the worst enemy is apathy.

    2. Re:Felony - misdemeanor - makes more sense by porneL · · Score: 4, Funny

      refresh, refresh, refresh! (there's a counter on each page. Pity it's such a small number...)

      Are they going to hunt me down now?

    3. Re:Felony - misdemeanor - makes more sense by jmcharry · · Score: 1

      Even a misdemeanor sounds over the top to me. That goes in his record and will show up on job applications, security clearance applications, etc. for the rest of his life. Sure, scare the kid half to death, but don't mess up his future over what appears to me to be a prank. You need to quiet them down and to make them aware they are becoming responsible for their actions, but possibly keeping a kid out of university for a high school prank strikes me as counter productive.

      It was a long time ago, but I think I did worse when I was that age.

    4. Re:Felony - misdemeanor - makes more sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah right. If you're going to punish people for incitement, then you damn well better be ready to admit that humans don't really have freedom of choice. Only the actual "perpetrators" should be punished. NOT the advocate.

    5. Re:Felony - misdemeanor - makes more sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    6. Re:Felony - misdemeanor - makes more sense by froschmann · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, guys, I suggest you check out the student handbook hosted on the school site. If this kid gets a felony for refreshing, what happens when they get slashdotted? Here.

    7. Re:Felony - misdemeanor - makes more sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      If he had done anything worthy of criminal punishment, they would have hit him with something. A suspended sentence means the prosecutor doesn't want to lose his high conviction rating and admit to the press that he did something stupid.

      Trust me on this one, I know from personal experience.

    8. Re:Felony - misdemeanor - makes more sense by rhook · · Score: 1
      If he had done anything worthy of criminal punishment, they would have hit him with something. A suspended sentence means the prosecutor doesn't want to lose his high conviction rating and admit to the press that he did something stupid.
      Yep, he never should have taken the deal. You cannot convict someone for the actions of others.
    9. Re:Felony - misdemeanor - makes more sense by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Wow, I hope reality never comes to bite you in the ass.

      People are convicted because of the actions of others all the time. Courts and Juries (and even Lawyers) are human and make human mistakes.

      A good friend of mine was in a protracted legal battle over the course of several years. His high priced attorney told him that at least 10% of law is random chance. Given two parties one clearly right, one clearly wrong and equal lawyers, the wrong guy will win about 10% of the time. Sometimes when you analyze the cost of going to court plus the risk of losing, you are better to take the plea. It's not right, but it is reality.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  9. Firefly - let it die in peace by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I loved the series, but was a bit disappointed with the movie. (Well done, but tried to wrap up / kill off too much stuff that should have been used to tittilate us for a couple of years.) In principle it could go on, but I can't see the magic ever being recaptured at this date.

    I wish Joss would give up on the dead horse and turn his attention to something new - on a different network.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Firefly - let it die in peace by sameeer · · Score: 3, Funny

      completely agreed.. the movie seemed to be made as a clean way to end off the series, and midway through the story they decided, no, we shouldn't end the movie/series this way, what if people will start paying for the series and we get $840 to continue the series.. I liked the series, but after the dissapointment of the movie, only reason I'd like to see more episodes is if they conclude the story (by killing of the rest of them would be a suggestion).. the magic, as u said, cannot be recaptured...

    2. Re:Firefly - let it die in peace by MindStalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wish Joss would give up on the dead horse and turn his attention to something new - on a different network.

      From what I understand Joss explicily stated there WON'T be another season after the movie (though there was a small hint at a miniseries).

    3. Re:Firefly - let it die in peace by geekoid · · Score: 1

      there is a time gap between the last episode, and the movie. Plenty of room for more.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Firefly - let it die in peace by pavon · · Score: 2, Informative

      there is a time gap between the last episode, and the movie. Plenty of room for more.

      Only six months, and the comic books already covered some of that.

    5. Re:Firefly - let it die in peace by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      Dead horse? River was just getting interesting. Or rather, more interesting. Who would have thought that she'd be a Kung Fu-type master? Her character, as well as that of Simon and Mal left so many questions unanswered. And then there's Shepherd Book's history. There's so much left to explore in this universe, it's hard for me to just write the whole thing off as a failure. What will happen to the Alliance assasin who promised to be a good guy? Will Jayne ever sell out the crew for real? What will happen between Mal and Inara? The world may never know. And I'll be damned if I'll get the answers to these questions from fan fic...

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    6. Re:Firefly - let it die in peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What will happen to the Alliance assasin who promised to be a good guy?

      Who, the operative from the movie? Going by his character, and his statement to Mal that he'd not see him again, I assumed he'd gone off and fallen on his sword... that's what you'd expect him to do after failing in his mission.

    7. Re:Firefly - let it die in peace by iainl · · Score: 1

      I'm watching the movie tomorrow night, after devouring the entire series in the last couple of weeks. The whole Mal/Inara thing still being left hanging is going to be painful, frankly.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    8. Re:Firefly - let it die in peace by kria · · Score: 1

      I realized that most of my complaints boiled down to "it would have been so much better as the entire second season instead of a movie".

      I guess I'll just have to live with watching Battlestar Galactica instead.

    9. Re: Firefly - let it die in peace by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > I'm watching the movie tomorrow night, after devouring the entire series in the last couple of weeks. The whole Mal/Inara thing still being left hanging is going to be painful, frankly.

      I wanted to learn Book's back story. Also, I was hoping there would be more to River's story than that she was just a Spacebuffy.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    10. Re: Firefly - let it die in peace by iainl · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm not sure I want to know all the details there, myself. Book kicks arse for the Lord, and clearly did so for someone else (someone Alliance) before. The vague knowledge that there's Something Afoot is far more scary than whatever answer Joss might eventually have decided to give us.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    11. Re:Firefly - let it die in peace by Kelson · · Score: 1

      That was my assumption, too. I was actually surprised they didn't show him pulling his sword out as he walked away.

      (Other speculation I've heard is that he ran off to join a monastery, based on the suspicion that Book may have been an operative or something similar who also had a crisis of faith.)

  10. The term is "Shiny" not "Pretty" by Dasein · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gorram it.

    --
    You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
    1. Re:The term is "Shiny" not "Pretty" by YowzaTheYuzzum · · Score: 5, Informative

      "We're not gonna die. We can't die, Bendis. You know why? Because we are so very pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

    2. Re:The term is "Shiny" not "Pretty" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but didn't Bendis die right after that?

    3. Re:The term is "Shiny" not "Pretty" by gpw213 · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. This is a reference to the pilot, where during the battle of Serenity Valley, Mal explains to one of his men that they are not going to die, because they are all too pretty. Go watch it again.

      --
      However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. -- Winston Churchill
    4. Re:The term is "Shiny" not "Pretty" by hawks5999 · · Score: 1

      "We are just too pretty for God to let us die"

      Mal Reynolds - Firefly Episode 1 - Serenity

    5. Re:The term is "Shiny" not "Pretty" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, and Mal didn't much like god after that... it was all part of explaining why Mal was like he was.

    6. Re:The term is "Shiny" not "Pretty" by Koushiro · · Score: 1

      You missed the reference: "We're not going to die. We can't die, Bendis. You know why? Because we are so very pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

      As for TFA, I would personally love to see a continuation of Firefly in some form or another, but another TV series doesn't look like it's in the cards. I've heard suggestions that direct-to-video (DVD) movies would be one way to continue the series, due to the great DVD sales of both Firefly and Serenity on DVD...

      --
      Karma: Oldschool
    7. Re:The term is "Shiny" not "Pretty" by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yup! No faster way to kill off a non-key character short of slapping a red shirt on him and beaming him down with four regulars.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    8. Re:The term is "Shiny" not "Pretty" by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "We're not gonna die. We can't die, Bendis. You know why? Because we are so very pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

      Erm... and you guys want me to watch this show?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    9. Re:The term is "Shiny" not "Pretty" by Cervantes · · Score: 1

      "We're not gonna die. We can't die, Bendis. You know why? Because we are so very pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

      Erm... and you guys want me to watch this show?


      You're missing a little bit there... see, its' not just what he says, it's how he says it... Bendis is going nuts, convinced they're doomed, and Captain Tightpants says the above in such a way that is both humourous and uplifting... and on one hand, you believe in him and his warped little reasoning, but then you look around and see the carnage, and think that perhaps he's just comforting the damned.

      Of course, then we get to see Bendis headshotted in the background as Mal watches waves of enemy ships start to land, and the look on his face conveys that yes, he did believe what he said, and no, maybe he doesn't any more.

      I thought it was a great setup for the characters, a well done little 5-minute backstory... made double-plus-shiny by the fact that I didn't see the entire pilot (the proper pilot, not the Train Job) until just a few weeks ago... and it filled in a lot. Yes, they use very...."interesting"... dialogue on the show, but it works because of the way it's delivered. It falls flat when written out, in the same way that an opera would if you just read the lyrics.

      The show appeals to me because of the little things... the long, unbroken through-the-ship shot of Mal at the beginning of the movie... I didn't sit there and think "boy, that dialogue is kind of lame", I thought "wow, that's a pretty shot, and hey, that's some shiny acting" as he had his interactions with the various crew members, the looks on their faces... that's what it was all about. Me typing out how Mal told Jayne not to take the grenades isn't that interesting... watching the two of them interact, hearing Zoe as the captain leaves ("Are those grenades?")...

      I think I've had an epiphany. Firefly isn't about the dialogue. Firefly isn't about watching people say stuff. Firefly is about being part of it all, empathizing, connecting with the people in that little 'verse, and being part of it all. And it sounds hokey, and looks lame, until you're actually part of that 'verse... and then there ain't no gettin' back.

      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  11. Why I like Apple by TimmyDee · · Score: 2

    Apple has modified the iTunes MiniStore in response to the anger caused by its release of personal information.

    This is why I like Apple. And it's also the difference between Apple and MS. Users matter.

    --
    Per Square Mile, a blog about density
    1. Re:Why I like Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh...OK, so Apple collects personal info for quite awhile, gets caught, sits on their hands until it becomes apparent that they are doing themselves no favor and finally addresses the issue - not by actually stopping the practice just by letting you know that they are doing it. Sounds just like MS to me.

    2. Re:Why I like Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one really complained about XBOX Live broadcasting what you're doing to all your friends and god knows who else or Amazon gives product recommendations based on past purchases and search query. But when iTunes recommends what songs to buy based on what songs you listen to, everyone's acting like they've been violated.

    3. Re:Why I like Apple by Kuciwalker · · Score: 1
      * Kuciwalker blinks

      Huh?

    4. Re:Why I like Apple by rocketpig · · Score: 1

      They never collected the information. It was sent to the iTunes store and immediately discarded. And turning it around in a matter of less than a week is good customer service no matter what you say. MS would never do an about face that quickly... Now if only we could get Apple to release a laptop with more than one trackpad button, we'd all be in heaven.

    5. Re:Why I like Apple by m50d · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, because no other company would ever remove something privacy-invading under immense user outcry. Get real.

      --
      I am trolling
    6. Re:Why I like Apple by glebfrank · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah, because no other company would ever remove something privacy-invading under immense user outcry. Get real.
      Half a dozen geeks whining on Slashdot does not constitute immense user outcry.
    7. Re:Why I like Apple by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 0

      What user outcry? I think Slashdot and Boing Boing were the only sites that cared.

      I think most iTunes users are annoyed that they now have to opt-in to something that just worked when it was enabled. It's just doing a Music Store search. What is privacy-invading about that? Better go after Google then, whose special cookie tracks everything you do.

      Oh, I forgot, this is Slashdot. It's hip to hate Apple but give Google a total pass.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    8. Re:Why I like Apple by cab15625 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just as long as there are not griswalds involved apples are fine by me.

    9. Re:Why I like Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      about the one-button trackpad:

      there is a program that lets you assign areas on your trackpad to virtual 'buttons' and 'scroll-bars'. Sorry I cannot remember the name anymore, but I am sure one of the slashdotters will let you. Or go to a Mac chat server, they will tell ya. I am really just letting you know, you should look into this, and not be upset about the one-butt mouse.

      I last used my iBook 3 years ago, and the proggie worked great on 10.2. What I had assigned was: lower left to LMB, lower middle to 'Space' key (for web surfing, like PageDown), lower right to RMB, right edge to vertical scroll, top edge to horizontal scroll. But as I recall, you could pretty much assign the whole keyboard to the trackpad, lol. Also, horizontal scrollbar was really not that useful for me, but that control-click thing worked like magic!

      Right now on linux, SuSe assigned for me the same scrollbars, and page up/down, and dragscroll on my PC's trackpad, but I have no idea how to add functions to trackpad areas. Also, if I touch the scrollbar in KDE just the right (wrong?) way, it kicks me back through all the brouser history... very damn annoying. Anybody knows how to get rid of that please?

    10. Re:Why I like Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They never collected the information

      Oh yes they did. They at least logged how many impressions every album would get. Or do you think Apple turn of logging on the webservers?

      Why are personal information sent over the internet if they just discard it?

    11. Re:Why I like Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a synaptics pad. Get the driver source from wherever, build it and install the module. You will by default just get the bottom and left scrollbar areas. The README file shows how to change the config file to allow more complex matters.

      I get the KDE thing too. I use a mouse for this reason.

  12. Who gets the money?? by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They may be able to raise 1 million, but if nothing eventuates out of it who gets the money??

    As much as I would love to see more firefly, I really don't want to put my money into reviving a tv show when I don't know where the money is going, i'd much prefer to increase my current donations to more needy causes like Oxfam.

    1. Re:Who gets the money?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Star Trek - they could use the money too.

    2. Re:Who gets the money?? by SEWilco · · Score: 3, Funny
      Star Trek - they could use the money too.

      Yeah, I hear that was a good show. Too bad it got canceled. Maybe we should write to Paramount or something.

    3. Re:Who gets the money?? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hear [Star Trek: Enterprise] was a good show.

      You're being sarcastic, right? Please tell me you're being sarcastic. The only good part about it was the First TV Drama website. Too bad he started slacking.

      Oh, and the last episode sucked. Someone tell me again why Trip had to die a senseless death?

    4. Re:Who gets the money?? by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Funny

      Someone tell me again why Trip had to die a senseless death?

      Ask Wash. </bitter>

    5. Re:Who gets the money?? by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      I said nothing about "Star Trek:Enterprise". I was being silly over a period of decades.

    6. Re:Who gets the money?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone tell me again why Trip had to die a senseless death?

      I wouldn't worry about it. He was actually a Wraith!

    7. Re:Who gets the money?? by buhatkj · · Score: 1

      Enterprise WAS a good show dude. Even I'll admit that seasons 2&3 were not exactly TV gold, but season 4 was shaping up to be damn good. It's a shame they killed it just when it was at its best.

      --
      sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
    8. Re:Who gets the money?? by $1uck · · Score: 1

      I saw the movie before catching the series, really pissed me off after watching the whole series that wash died =( (book too). I would love to see a second season as long as it included those two, (ah hell even if it didn't, but damn it wash was so funny).

    9. Re:Who gets the money?? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Well, no accounting for poor taste. :-P

      Season 4 was defintiely "better", but not "OH WOW!" better. Better as in, "Gee, maybe they should have tried this in the first season?" By Season 4 of TNG, the show had already written television history with some of the best Sci-Fi ever aired. (Best of Both Worlds, anyone?) Even DS9 and Voyager had managed to find grooves at that point. But Enterprise? It was just barely getting started.

      Even then, the better scripts couldn't make up for the bad acting, bad plot, and bad continuity. B&B tried to make a Star Trek that wasn't Star Trek (because they wanted to do something "different", but were too lazy to make their own show) and we the fans paid for it.

      Worst. Hour. Of. Television.

      Ever.

    10. Re:Who gets the money?? by jeko · · Score: 1

      Sheperd Book and Wash had to die to set up River vs. the Reavers. You had to know that Joss was perfectly willing to kill anybody. When River jumped through that door, you had to absolutely believe she wasn't coming back -- that's the only way to get the emotional charge from the "Now it's my turn to take care of you" line to Simon and the shock of seeing River alive and gory when the doors opened.

      --
      He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    11. Re:Who gets the money?? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Translation:

      Bugger up the whole dynamic of the crew for a few minutes of cheap thrill.

      We really need to just fan-wank that movie out of existance.

  13. WoW? by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The Chinese government has yielded to pressure from adult online gamers and exempted them from its online gaming addiction policy. The rules, which went into effect last October, require that after five hours of consecutive play, players cease earning any virtual rewards such as experience points or beneficial items. To avail themselves of the exemption, some 26 million gamers will have to register their real names and identity card numbers with the authorities. The system hasn't proven particularly effective -- minors reportedly skirt the limits by logging onto different accounts or switching to another game after reaching the time limit."

    And people were wondering why Chinese players prefer not to frequent Chinese servers. There were the recent (slashdot story) accusations of gold farming, which is possible. Or, the Chinese players of WoW perhaps want to circumvent this limit by playing on an outside server...

    Note, I don't know anything about WoW servers within China, and whether they acutally conform to this 5 hour limit or not, but then again, I don't play WoW on Chinese servers either.

    --
    Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    1. Re:WoW? by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And people were wondering why Chinese players prefer not to frequent Chinese servers. There were the recent (slashdot story) accusations of gold farming, which is possible. Or, the Chinese players of WoW perhaps want to circumvent this limit by playing on an outside server...

      This makes me wonder if the Chinese government didn't have another motive in enforcing this limit. After all, it would interfere with "gold farming" businesses. Maybe they didn't like the idea and manufacutred this "gaming addiction" excuse as a cover-up.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
  14. modified the iTunes Ministore ? by deshkanna · · Score: 1

    Link doesnt make any sense

  15. Re:Yay Showtime by Psykechan · · Score: 2, Funny

    If they ressurect both Firefly and Arrested Development then my subscription is pretty much a done deal.

    Well, as long as they keep them two seperate shows, that is...

  16. Woops by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 1

    I RTFA & then corrected myself, how embarassing.

    1. Re:Woops by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I think saying "eventuates" was even more embarassing.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:Woops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I avoid embarassing eventuation by merely closing the door. If very concerned, one my run the water tap in conjunction.

  17. i2Hub? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hoping to see some discussion on the whole i2 thing?

  18. In this slashback... -3- Categories by layer3switch · · Score: 1

    1) Patent
    2) Lawyer
    3) Apple
    4) Stupidity

    You figure out what the 4th item is.

    ---
    w00t!

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
  19. Re:Yay Showtime by bill_kress · · Score: 1

    ...as long as they keep them two seperate shows...

    Great, now I'm going to be writing scripts in my head all day about FireflyAD!

  20. What's the deal with Firefly? by Milton+Waddams · · Score: 1, Interesting

    One of my mates showed me an episode or two of this. He was enthusing about it, saying how amzing it was. I thought it was pretty shit. Maybe it's because I generally don't like Sci-Fi but the show really was bad. The dialog was, for want of a better word, shallow and tacky. That 'western style' guitar music was really fucking annoying too. There wasn't even that much action in it!

    It might sound like I'm trolling here but I honestly am not. I'd like someone to tell me what's good about that show. Maybe I'm missing the show's point or something?

    1. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by maelstrom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's a show that grows on you over time. I found the concept and the first episode pretty lame. Then I kept watching and fell in love with all the characters. I think this is probably why it had such a hard time picking up viewers. If you just randomly tuned in and saw one episode, it wouldn't be very interesting.

      --
      The more you know, the less you understand.
    2. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not wrong to dislike something just because the groupthink says you should like it (prepare to be moderated into oblivion though, as this post probably will be).

      I thought it was pretty damn awful too.... but then I'm not American (it was clearly in the 'Western' style to appeal to am american audience).

      OTOH the TV execs seemed to agree with us as it was canned pretty quickly...
      can't have been getting any decent viewing figures.

    3. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by Dragoonmac · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, its because it was created by the same d00d who did Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and Angel. And if you know how that particular rabid fanbase works...

      --
      Shots: A Populist Parable
    4. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by r_cerq · · Score: 1

      Don't think of it as Sci-Fi, think of it as "Western in a future that happens to have space travel" :)

      Jokes aside, I had the same reaction to the first few episodes. Like most other shows, it starts out slowly with a bit of storybuilding, and only starts to get interesting a few episodes later. Sit down, watch a few more eps, and your opinion will probably change.

    5. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by Vindaloo · · Score: 1

      Well, if you don't like it, you don't like it. If you like Sci-Fi, Westerns, and if you think the 'western style' music is cool rather than annoying (what do you think of Enio Morricone? Or even "Train Round the Bend" by Lou Reed (yeah, I looked at your web site...but I think the "True Believers" version of this is better)?), then you'd probably like it.

    6. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "It's not wrong to dislike something just because the groupthink says you should like it"

      Wrong or not, it's pretty silly. Why let groupthink shape your opinion at all? Judge for yourself. You don't like the show...fine! No skin off my nose. You probably like all kinds of things I don't. Who cares?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    7. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not that you're "missing" anything - you are not part of the target audience :)

      I love Firefly, but I recognise that different people have wildly different tastes. I for one can't stand soaps, or law shows like Boston Legal. I hate modern art. I dislike rap music and hip hop.

      But I realise that a great many people enjoy those things, it is just that tastes differ.

      My advice? Don't worry that you are "missing something". Sometimes you are, sometimes it is an acquired taste (most things can be appreciated after time), and sometimes you are never going to appreciate what someone else does, just as they will not value something you treasure :) Try to expand your horizons as often as you can, but don't worry if you find it isn't worth it in some cases. Often, just the attempt will pay off elsewhere.

    8. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by lionheart1327 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the characters.

      After a while, you don't even care what they're doing or where they are, you care about them.

    9. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not alone.. while I've never seen an episode of Firefly, I did see the film "Serenity", after much hyping-up by a friend who was in love with it.

      It was really awful, as in painfully so. The acting was fairly decent (except for the guy who wanted to be Kurt Russel), the FX were acceptable, but the dialogue and screenwriting were real face-stabbing stuff. I got up and walked away from the TV about 45 minutes before the ending. I just needed it to stop.

      I can't suffer five minutes of Buffy either, so that might tell you something. I can deal with comedies with a sci-fi / horror premise, but if our future is full of annoying characters spouting off one snappy one-liner / throaway gag after another, I sincerely hope that this future remains in the realm of fiction.

    10. Re: What's the deal with Firefly? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > I'd like someone to tell me what's good about that show. Maybe I'm missing the show's point or something?

      "Good" is just a matter of opinion. If it doesn't push your buttons, don't worry about it.

      As Misty Beethoven said, "some like it and some don't".

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    11. Re: What's the deal with Firefly? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny

      > It's the characters. After a while, you don't even care what they're doing or where they are, you care about them.

      And their guns, which also have names!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    12. Re: What's the deal with Firefly? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > As far as I can tell, its because it was created by the same d00d who did Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and Angel. And if you know how that particular rabid fanbase works...

      I never watched those before I got hooked on Firefly. Then I started tuning in the re-runs to see what they were all about.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    13. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by WhiteWolf · · Score: 1

      "Maybe it's because I generally don't like silly musicals, but Gilbert's & Sulivan's 'HMS Pinnafore' was really bad." :)

      Sure, the dialog wasn't 'Othello', but it was sufficient to the genre, and didn't serve to impede my enjoyment of the series. I found the interactions between the characters interesting, certainly more human than other shows that will remain nameless. I also enjoyed the milieu Mr. Whedon created - the parallels of the Firefly universe to the Post Civil War era United States created a fascinating (IMOO) world for the characters.

      --
      Eye kneed eh Grammer chicken.
    14. Re: What's the deal with Firefly? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > The acting was fairly decent (except for the guy who wanted to be Kurt Russel)

      If you're talking about Jayne, you really missed the point.

      Probably not your fault though; the movie just didn't have time to introduce the characters properly. There were 5-6 scenes in the series that you had to see in order to understand Jayne, the most lovable moronic asshole of a villan who ever graced the screen.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    15. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by swilver · · Score: 1

      Yup, I second that... I saw the first 2 episodes, then stopped viewing. A year later I saw Serenity, and a few months after that I decided to see the other episodes. Now I'm wondering what nutcase cancelled this show...

    16. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 3, Informative

      Vivid characterization, snappy, quotable, and witty dialog, a more human scale than many other shows, and a plausibly complex society as a background to the stories. If you're genuinely curious, try the TV episodes "Out of Gas" and "Serenity" and see whether it's more to your taste after you've been properly introduced to the crew. If you still don't like it, the answer to your question is "It's a matter of taste".

      If what you're after in sf tv is good old fashioned sense of wonder, well, this is a dry period for that.

    17. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Step in shit, you'll want to wipe your shoes. Bathe in it and you'll start believing it's milk chocolate.

      (n.b. I've never seen Firefly)

    18. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by freeweed · · Score: 1

      It's not wrong to dislike something just because the groupthink says you should like it ...
      can't have been getting any decent viewing figures.


      So was it a largely popular show or not? Make up your damn mind.

      Oh wait, you didn't actually have a coherent point - you were just aiming for the free "post used the word groupthink" karma.

      For the record, folks, it's not exactly a stunning revelation that not everyone shares the same opinions on everything. Some people liked Firefly, some hated it, some were only lukewarm about it. Wow, just like everything else in the world.

      How Insightful.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    19. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there was anything to re-vive that would definitely be Dark Angel ! Now, Firefly? Come on...
      I guess FOX is only in for the money, and will keep trying until a new X-Files comes up or something

      Cheers

    20. Re: What's the deal with Firefly? by wed128 · · Score: 1

      I call this one Vera...

    21. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by wed128 · · Score: 1

      I am a huge fan of the show, and i think "Out of gas" is not such a great episode to get started on. It's all charecter development. watch them in order, they actually do fit that way

      (By the way, my favorites are "Ariel" and "War Stories")

    22. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er... I think what he meant is that [groupthink says Firefly is good] does not imply [I must like Firefly]. To put it another way, sure, everyone on Slashdot likes [Linux/Apple/WoW/Duke Nukem Forever], but that doesn't mean you have to too.

      So, in other words, you agree. Be careful before jumping on someone. :P

    23. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by slick_rick · · Score: 1

      You must hang out with some really fun people. My present is just (sometimes semi-)annoying characters spouting off one (often not so) snappy one-liner/throwaway gag after another. Why should the future be any different? I guess I liked the show because I could see the my friends in the characters (the rebel, the "tough" chick, the rich kid, the psycho babe, the big dumb ape, the earthy chick, the comedian, the hot intellectual chick, the do-gooder) in situations I've seen them in before (naked in front of everyone, way out of their league and about to get their asses kicked, unexpectedly put on a pedestal, etc) and you hated it because you couldn't (come to think of it, all it was missing was the "nice guy's" hot wife with the Russian accent :-)

      Who really gives a shit? If you don't like the show, don't watch it. I saw the movie after hearing a good review, and I liked it. I bought the series on DVD, and I liked it too. Now it has grown on my wife who tried her best not to like it (she can't stand Sci-Fi or westerns, but she loves Firefly now).

      Like the comedian sais... "If you don't get it, it's probably because you don't get it."

      --
      apt-get install redhat please god - Me (take it easy, I love Debian)
    24. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      How was the dialog shallow? I can't think of *any* TV show that had better written or more clever dialog. Having a tinge of humor in the background does not make the dialog shallow--on the contrary, it actually adds emotional depth to the characters. "Tacky"... fine, that's an opinion I can't argue with, but SHALLOW? Have you *seen* the drivel that's on American TV these days? In comparison to virtually every sitcom out there, Firefly looks like Shakespere.

      For me, the characters, the dialog, and the humor made the show awesome. Some of the sci-fi elements were cool and interesting, some I didn't care so much for, but it had a fairly believable universe (as far as TV sci-fi goes... certainly a hell of a lot more believable than Star Trek) and really that's all it needed. The characters and dialog made the show, plain and simple, and it's sad to say but I'm very inclined to think that most Americans were just too dense to even notice the depth.

    25. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by Milton+Waddams · · Score: 1

      To be honest I hated the 'slick talk' element. You know, when they're doing something like docking the ship, they'd shout out all these stupid things like "Boo ya!". I mean, if this is meant to be the future then things like docking a spaceship would be the most hum drum of tasks. Especially to a flight crew. Could you imagine the crew of a freight ship today acting like this?

      Plus I thought that the characters were all pretty one dimensional. After a few minutes of seeing each character, you can sum up all the different little cliches that make them up.

    26. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Could you imagine the crew of a freight ship today acting like this?

      In *any* medium I think it's customary to skip over the truly humdrum stuff. Would you rather they all sat around and read books 90% of the time? That would be more realistic, after all. That aside, I think it's realistic to expect a certain level of humor and outbursts in an attempt to liven up the place. But no, they're not supposed be normal, humdrum people. Very few stories are. If you hated the slick talk that's fine (and it certainly explains why you didn't like the series as a whole), but don't call it shallow. I don't see how clever dialog equates to shallow (and it was a hell of a lot more than "Boo ya!")

      Again, I take issue with the one-dimensional characters comment. Considering that there were NINE characters and only 14 episodes, I think that they were fleshed out fairly well. Mal was by far the most complex, dealing with various demons and pet peeves and goals and fears. There were several episodes in which we learned more about him than we learned about Picard or Kirk in the entire Star Trek franchise.

      Zoe and Wash weren't incredibly interesting as *individuals*, but it was interesting to see how they got together and the marital troubles they went through. In particular, there was one very nice episode about Wash's jealousy of Mal...

      Kaylee was your typical out-of-place character, oh look a cutesy grease monkey, but she definitely was running from something (or towards something.) It was quite shocking to see how she got her job as ship engineer, and I'm sure her past would've held a few more interesting surprises if the show hadn't been cancelled.

      Inarah herself didn't pique my interest much, but her relationship with Mal and her role in society (as a sacred prostitute, a role found in many cultures throughout history yet rarely, if ever, explored) were intriguing enough.

      Shepherd Book was a bit of a whiskey priest, but we only got a few hints about his shady past. There was still plenty of character development in store for him...

      Simon was a pretty boy trying to get used to getting his hands dirty. To be honest, I thought he was miscast--the actor who played him had a chiseled jaw and large muscles, so playing the pretty boy wuss was a bit of a stretch. If nothing else, it was amusing to watch him be abused by the rest of the crew, and watch him react to said abuse. He had at least a few surprises up his sleeve, especially when his sister's life was on the line.

      River, Simon's sister, was... eh, tolerable. I'll give ya that on; I was not fond of her at all. To me the archetype of the poor boy/girl with incredible powers experimented on by the government has been run into the ground (Firestarter, Minority Report, the comic Exploitation Now, etc.) and River just didn't bring anything new to the table. But she did have some funny scenes, and at the end of the movie she shows signs of turning into an actual three-dimensional human being (now that her demons are apparently exorcised, at least mostly.)

      Jayne is *the man*! He is the thuggish outlaw experimenting with the concept of morality. Time and time again we saw him walking a fine line, not fully understanding this whole friendship and trust thing, not understanding why he risks his neck so often. Jaynestown and Ariel were my favorite episodes because it concentrated on him, the antihero. His inner conflicts were both dramatic and funny as hell. Mal is an antihero as well, but he is the fallen hero, whereas Jayne is the uplifted villain. The tension between them rivaled even Mal and Inara's.

      So, does the show deserve to be mentioned alongside such profound character studies like Citizen Kane, Memento, and Fight Club? Absolutely not. But does it beat out Friends and Everybody Loves Raymond and Star Trek: TNG/DS9/Voyagerand even ER? Absolutely.

    27. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      One of my mates showed me an episode or two of this. He was enthusing about it, saying how amzing it was. I thought it was pretty shit. Maybe it's because I generally don't like Sci-Fi but the show really was bad. The dialog was, for want of a better word, shallow and tacky.

      It's interesting that you mention the dialogue. Everyone has different tastes, of course, but I found the dialogue to be some of the best I have ever heard in a television show. It is the only example of characters misunderstanding one another's speech that I can recall that was well done and not dumbed down, ever. Usually everyone hears what everyone else says perfectly on TV, unlike in real life. Occasionally, they mistake something but to avoid losing the audience they always belabor the point so much that is is just stupid, e.g. "Oh you said pop, oh I thought you said pot and that is why I brought the pot. I must not have heard you right."

      In any case, I enjoyed the series immensely and a lot of people seem to agree with me. It has been the number one selling TV show on DVD for quite a while now.

    28. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by Vindaloo · · Score: 1
      I for one can't stand soaps, or law shows like Boston Legal.

      Boston Legal is a law show? Oh wait, maybe you mean law shows like Boston Legal. So do you like law shows like Perry Mason? Or People's Court?

    29. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I saw a 10-minute preview of it at a convention before it aired, and had no interest in watching it when it launched. Later on, I got talked into watching the first DVD, and said, "Hey, this is actually pretty good!"

      It certainly helps to be able to watch it in order. The story arc is faint, since it's essentially the first half of a first season, but the character arcs are a big part of what makes it work.

    30. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      If you just randomly tuned in and saw one episode, it wouldn't be very interesting.

      OMG.. they invented the serial.

    31. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I thought it was pretty damn awful too.... but then I'm not American (it was clearly in the 'Western' style to appeal to am american audience).

      Right, because Westerns are at the peak of their popularity in the states. Hollywood's pumping them out like candy. Also it's a big hit with the Asians because they use Chinese from time to time.

      With stereotypes that bad, you should be living here.

    32. Re:What's the deal with Firefly? by Milton+Waddams · · Score: 1

      But does it beat out Friends and Everybody Loves Raymond and Star Trek: TNG/DS9/Voyagerand even ER? Absolutely.


      Well Friends was an ok comedy series that ran too long but the rest of those shows are a pocks on the face of humanity! If Aliens ever try to destroy Earth, it will because they saw the awful atrocities that we humans watch on TV. Please don't try and sell a show on the basis that it's not as bad as the reason why we should all be annihilated...

      BTW, you're probably right about the slick talking stuff. I generally don't like that. Unless it's a piss take and even then I find it a bit too much. Maybe that's why the only Sci Fi TV programme I ever liked was Red Dwarf which was decidedly not slick :)
  21. Free CDs! by VGPowerlord · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "Had the students known that they were exposing themselves to copyright infringement liability by using the i2hub service, they likely would not have used the service," the legal group wrote.'

    This isn't a hard concept to understand. Really, it isn't. If you're downloading music that you see on CDs in stores, for free, it's illegal.

    Blaming the i2hub's operators is a diversionary tactic. It's pretty obvious that they chose to connect to a file sharing network, and IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that shows intent on their part.

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    1. Re:Free CDs! by MaXiMiUS · · Score: 0

      It actually is possible for people to be that stupid, sadly.. but shifting the blame? That's just evil.

      --
      It's never just a game when you're winning. - George Carlin
    2. Re:Free CDs! by pndmnm · · Score: 1

      Unless the artist put it online, or their label put it online, or a review (or other) site received permission and put it online, or it's being streamed by a properly licensed web radio station, or... Nothing is as cut-and-dry as the RIAA would have (and has made) you believe.

    3. Re:Free CDs! by NickFortune · · Score: 1
      Would make for a pretty shrewd tactic for the RIAA though. Get them to sign an NDA as part of the settlement, and then underwrite their legal costs if they decide to sue the download site. A bit like the deal with the lokitorrent guy to poison the well against any future fundraising for a community challenge.

      Not that I'm saying that's what happened, but I'd be surprised if they haven't at least considered it.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    4. Re:Free CDs! by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Founded by Wayne Chang in 2003 while he was a student at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, the i2hub network linked students and others over the super-fast Internet2 network. In a letter to Chang dated Monday, attorneys with the Student Legal Services Office claimed i2hub placed ads on campus to deceive UMass students into believing the software was approved by the university. It's one of several reasons that the student-funded legal group says led its clients to believe they were authorized to use the software to trade copyrighted music and other files.

      Universities subsidize things. It isn't unreasonable from the perspective of someone familar with University sponsored events that a university could pay for the rights to do this, and then pay the fees associated with the music for you. I mean, colleges give free admittance to sports games, and subsidize concerts. It's all paid for by an "activities fee". So it is theoretically possible that they could legitimately fall for it. Obviously I'd have asked some one for more info as it sounds fishy, but the idea of colleges paying for your music through a fee you paid with your tuition isn't entirely left-field, just third base or so.

    5. Re:Free CDs! by m50d · · Score: 1
      This isn't a hard concept to understand. Really, it isn't. If you're downloading music that you see on CDs in stores, for free, it's illegal.

      Nonsense. There are more than enough bands that sell CDs and make their music available free, and many more will freely release a few sample tracks from the album they're selling.

      --
      I am trolling
    6. Re:Free CDs! by OneSeventeen · · Score: 1

      Yes, but with 42 Students involved, how could they not win?!

      --
      "Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed." -C.S. Lewis
    7. Re:Free CDs! by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      Just because something is illegal does not neccesarily mean that you are exposing yourself to liability. If you speed on an empty highway, you are not exposing yourself to punishment because nobody's gonna catch you.

      Of course, that doesn't mean that their argument has any legal validity (it probably doesn't) but it's still an important clarification to make.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    8. Re:Free CDs! by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1
      Just because something is illegal does not neccesarily mean that you are exposing yourself to liability. If you speed on an empty highway, you are not exposing yourself to punishment because nobody's gonna catch you.

      Exactly... but in this case, the students are trying to hold the road responsible because they were speeding.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    9. Re:Free CDs! by jim3e8 · · Score: 1

      Third base? That's an entirely different kind of media file.

    10. Re:Free CDs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you know for sure there are no spped cameras or cops waiting in a layby. There is always the possibility of being caught even when it looks like you won't.

    11. Re:Free CDs! by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      Obviously I'd have asked some one for more info as it sounds fishy, but the idea of colleges paying for your music through a fee you paid with your tuition isn't entirely left-field, just third base or so. Not even that, as at least a few universities now have agreements with Napster/etc. to do just that. They pay them so much per student (out of the activities fees) and students can use those sites to get music from "free" without breaking any laws. Granted most of them have it setup so when you leave the school your entire music library expires but the idea isn't anywhere near left-field, not even third base, at least not anymore.

      Granted the time frame when this was happening may have been before any universities did this so maybe it was a bit out there then.

  22. Profiting from a crime - Patents by PornMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In thinking about patents resulting from illegal behavior (I don't know if what the Korean guy did was illegal -- possibly fraud if nothing else), it would be interesting for a gov't to issue the patent, but assign it to the public domain.

    That'd keep people from profiting from the illegal behavior, and also not allow someone else to come in and profit from it just because they're "clean".

  23. Sounds like the USPTO... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

    'As long as an invention is not clearly contrary to scientific laws - like time travel - research has no bearing on the grant of a patent.'"

    So I guess they're saying there's no need to prove you've invented anything... it just has to pass the laugh test.

    Of course, time travel is perfectly possible... and with relativistic travel, arbitrary time travel into the future is not only possible, but a proven fact.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    1. Re:Sounds like the USPTO... by nsayer · · Score: 1
      Of course, time travel is perfectly possible... and with relativistic travel, arbitrary time travel into the future is not only possible, but a proven fact.

      Even without it, it's still a proven fact. Of course one's temporal velocity is, for all reasonable human experiences currently fixed, but we are all, indeed, time travelers in a sense.

    2. Re:Sounds like the USPTO... by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      Well, if you could get on/in a vehichle that traveled at a decent portion of the speed of light, it would slow time down compared to the rest of the universe (or if you wanna involve even more relativity, maybe the rest of the universe is speeding up???). Though it wouldnt really be traveling anywhere (except wherever the vehicle goes when its moving so fast, but the time travel part would be the waiting), more like just waiting in a pod or whatever for however long, and when you figure out how to pull the brakes, everything else is 5 years later when for you its been 2 years (if you can hold out for 2 years in a vehicle).

      and BTW: Einstein proved that, yes it is PERFECTLY reasonable to be able to travel BACK in time, because if say, you met an older version of yourself today that used a time machine to come visit you, and he inspired you to make a timemachine and come back and visit yourself - you would have to make the time machine to go visit yourself

    3. Re:Sounds like the USPTO... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      I'm constantly travelling into the future.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:Sounds like the USPTO... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      t, yes it is PERFECTLY reasonable to be able to travel BACK in time,

      I'm not sure if you're saying it's reasonable because physics allows it or because you suggesting that paradoxes aren't a problem. Based on my understanding, it is possible, but not reasonable, to use an Einstein-Rosen "bridge" to travel through space and/or time, but doing so would require an astronomical amount of energy and a form of matter that, as far as I know, hasn't been proved to exist.

      Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if someone's already got a patent for it.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    5. Re:Sounds like the USPTO... by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      I was talking more about how paradoxes wouldnt be a problem because as I said, they cant be.

      Aside from that, the biggist thing you would need is what you said, an incomprehendibly large amount of energy, and say, a virtually emtpy solar system in which to make the wormhole so the energies involved dont destroy a planet, most worriedly Earth...

    6. Re:Sounds like the USPTO... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Well, if you take the Many Worlds approach, paradoxes aren't a problem. Otherwise, there's the whole kill your own grandfather thing. Or the Futurama version of that: become your own grandfather.

      To me, reality would make it work, somehow, but the result might be something inelegant (which to me is the Many Worlds approach... makes a lot of sense but doesn't satisfy Occam's Razor).

      Of course, I don't think it will be an issue in our lifetimes.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  24. Firefly is good sci-fi, but... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    I generally don't like Sci-Fi but the show really was bad.

    If (allSciFi == Bad) then sciFi.firefly = bad;

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Firefly is good sci-fi, but... by 6*7 · · Score: 1

      So what is in the else?

      I like SF in general, but the only thing firefly did for me was make me sleepy. I can't remember seeing a compelete episode on TV without falling asleep (being aired around 2100). I watched the first 3 episodes on DVD and then simply gave up (never bothered to watch Serenity)

      For me the '"the hit cult TV show" Firefly' is just a plain TV show that failed to grab the attention of (enough) viewers.

  25. iTunes by CMiYC · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For what it is worth, I don't care if Apple is tracking what I am listening to. If it helps iTunes to recommend new music that I didn't know about, great (which it already has)! Should they have done things differently? Could they have? Sure. Whatever. I don't care! Its a fucking song.

    I'm amazed at how outranged people will get over one thing, but let another go into the night.

    1. Re:iTunes by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
      I'm amazed at how outranged[sic] people will get over one thing, but let another go into the night.

      Indeed. I'm amazed that you don't mind Apple snooping on you, no matter how benign(or not - suppose you listen to neo-nazi music when noone else is around - you'd probably be embarrassed/ashamed/have your cover blown/etc., when iTunes starts recommending white supremacist music while other people are around).

      Like you, I don't mind certain trackings of my personal preferences, but only with my permission.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    2. Re:iTunes by CMiYC · · Score: 1

      Like you, I don't mind certain trackings of my personal preferences, but only with my permission.
       
      It must be pretty annoying to click "accept cookie" all the time.

    3. Re:iTunes by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
      Wow, you're a moron.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  26. What was that link again? by irrealitySquink · · Score: 2, Insightful
  27. Fuck Off by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >Users who do not click on the 'Turn on MiniStore' button will not have their privacy invaded.

    how the fuck is it an invasion of privacy?

    no personal data is collected or sent, or ever was. it's a feature that turns your library into iTMS links, basically just a tabbed version of the little arrows that have been there for ages. oh noes! hyperlinks and tabbed browsing! teh interweb is stealing my identity!

    and even though it was blown way out of proportion, Apple still responded quickly and as desired.

    1. Re:Fuck Off by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "no personal data is collected or sent, or ever was."

      Yay! Pat yourself on the back! You were right.

      The issue, though, was not about what evil things Apple might be doing. The issue was that you had no idea what Apple was doing. There was speculation--perhaps even informed speculation--but no actual word from Apple about this. Not even buried deep in the bowels of the license agreement.

      "how the fuck is it an invasion of privacy?"

      Remember that if the information had been stored--we now know it wasn't--information can always be subpoenaed.

      Here's an entertaining scenario: Several years ago, I remember reading about some kid who committed suicide. The parents attempted to sue the record companies and artists, I believe, for driving their kids to suicide. Imagine if there was a database somewhere that showed exactly what the kid had been listening to...

    2. Re:Fuck Off by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      The issue was that you had no idea what Apple was doing. There was speculation--perhaps even informed speculation--but no actual word from Apple about this. Not even buried deep in the bowels of the license agreement.

      It was stated right on the Apple iTunes page that the Mini-Store connects to the Music Store and provides info on the music you're currently listening to.

      Of course, in the zeal to scream "ITUNES IS MALWARE LOLZ," nobody bothered to check out the page.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    3. Re:Fuck Off by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      The issue, though, was not about what evil things Apple might be doing. The issue was that you had no idea what Apple was doing. There was speculation--perhaps even informed speculation--but no actual word from Apple about this. Not even buried deep in the bowels of the license agreement.

      Actually, this is wrong. They did make it clear. The knowledge base article, available the day iTunes 6.0.2 was release, specifically said:
       
        iTunes sends data about the song selected in your library to the iTunes Music Store to provide relevant recommendations. When the MiniStore is hidden, this data is not sent to the iTunes Music Store.
       
      In addition, the day iTunes 6.0.2 was released, http://www.apple.com/itunes/ said:
       
        Discover Music
       
      Discover new music as you enjoy your collection or import new CDs -- with MiniStore.

       
      and http://www.apple.com/itunes/playlists/ said:
       
        Discover New Music
       
      Looking for some new tunes? Tap into the 2-million-song treasure chest of the iTunes Music Store through the new MiniStore. While you're browsing your own library or importing a new CD, MiniStore appears at the bottom of the iTunes window and shows you other albums from your favorite artists and artists like them. You can even see reviews of these albums plus what other listeners who like this artist purchased -- so you'll never be at a loss for new music to discover. When you're ready to go back to full-screen mode, click an icon and MiniStore tucks away, ready to pop up again later when you want to explore some more.

       
      and
       
        MiniStore
       
      Discover new music as you enjoy your collection or import new CDs with MiniStore -- right from your iTunes library.

       
      Further, the MiniStore actively changing as you click different tracks in iTunes might give a small hint that something is happening.
       
      Now, if you're saying that Apple should have had some kind of a dialog box come up when you first upgraded to and launched iTunes 6.0.2 explaining this and giving a clear option to simply opt to not use the new MiniStore in the first place, sure, I'll agree that would have likely been better. And now they're doing just that.

      From my earlier (rejected) submission on this topic this morning:

      Apple changes iTunes MiniStore to "opt-in"

      In response to the iTunes "spying" allegations, covered previously, Apple has now changed the iTunes MiniStore behavior to "opt-in". Upon launch of iTunes 6.0.2, the following message is presented: "The iTunes MiniStore allows you to discover new music and videos right from your iTunes Library. As you select items in your Library, information about that item is sent to Apple and the MiniStore will show you related songs or videos. Apple does not keep any information related to the contents of your music Library. Would you like to turn on the MiniStore now?" This message is presented in the MiniStore pane, before it is activated, along with a further message noting "You can always turn the MiniStore off (or on) by clicking here," with an arrow pointing at the MiniStore show/hide button. Though Apple explained the behavior of the MiniStore in a knowledge base article and advertised the feature on the iTunes home page the day iTunes 6.0.2 was released, this new "opt-in" default functionality, as well as the explanation of what is happening, should be a welcome change for those who were initially concerned.

    4. Re:Fuck Off by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Imagine if there was a database somewhere that showed exactly what the kid had been listening to...

      Richard a capella darn near did it for me, and I wasn't even particularly depressed when I hit "play".

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    5. Re:Fuck Off by ls+-la · · Score: 1

      Imagine if there was a database somewhere that showed exactly what the kid had been listening to

      So the RIAA is preventing Apple from tracking people's music selections?

    6. Re:Fuck Off by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      That's not a page you'd see if you updated iTunes the usual way, eg. via Software Update. Software Update pointedly did not report anything about this new feature, and the description made it look like a minor update (which is what most of us would have guessed from the version number change too):
      With iTunes 6, you can preview, buy, and download over 2,000 music videos and hit TV shows on the iTunes Music Store and sync your music and purchased videos with iPod to enjoy on the go. To watch purchased videos, you must have QuickTime 7.0.3 or later and Mac OS X 10.3.9 or later.

      iTunes 6.0.2 includes stability and performance improvements over iTunes 6.0.1.

      Note: After purchasing music from the iTunes Music Store with iTunes 6 or later, you will also need to upgrade your other computers that purchase music from the iTunes Music Store to the latest version of iTunes.

      I'm not sure how on earth anyone can read the above and say "Ah! iTunes 6.0.2 also sends data to a remote server about each and every song you listen to, regardless of where you got it."

      It's unreasonable to expect people to check product pages and search knowledge bases every time a minor (as in 6.0.1 to 6.0.2) update occurs, especially if Apple is claiming to tell you what the "improvements" are in the update. For myself, this is one of the reasons I don't automatically hit the Update button until a few days after the fix has been released (which is why I was able to copy and paste the above), but you know, I do that because I don't trust Apple, I've had enough experience now to know they are not greater than Microsoft and Dell in reliability and honesty, despite the knee-jerk Macnut response to each and every criticism, and so, yes, I don't necessarily believe them. The funny thing is though that I still didn't expect them to actually try to pull the wool over my eyes, as in this particular stunt.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Fuck Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

      Love,
      Overly Critical Guy (aka bonch, etc)

    8. Re:Fuck Off by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      "The knowledge base article [...] specifically said: iTunes sends data about the song selected in your library to the iTunes Music Store to provide relevant recommendations."

      Fair enough. But, as I said, "What data?" It never told me that. What does Apple do with this mysterious data once they get it? It never told me that. It's just sending "data."

      Does the "data" have anything to do with whether or not a song was ripped from a CD via iTunes or did it come onto my computer through "some other means"? Because, if I bought the CD and ripped it, iTunes doesn't need to tell me about other tracks on the same CD because I already own it.

      That's all I ask: I want to know what the data is and how it's being used.

      (As an aside, this may be part of Apple's legal definition. The iTunes Music Store doesn't sell music--it sells data. So the Beatles can't sue Apple because they're not selling music. Just data.)

      "Further, the MiniStore actively changing as you click different tracks in iTunes might give a small hint that something is happening."

      Well, I'd expect that from Apple's marketing blurbs, most of which you quoted. The marketing blurbs tell me what it does. It doesn't tell me how it using whatever data I'm giving it to come up with the results. That's the important part!

      "Now, if you're saying that Apple should have had some kind of a dialog box come up when you first upgraded to and launched iTunes 6.0.2 explaining this and giving a clear option to simply opt to not use the new MiniStore in the first place, sure, I'll agree that would have likely been better. And now they're doing just that."

      They've also stated that the data is not stored, which is important to me. But, yes, Apple listened to people's concerns and changed the behavior of the program. This is a good thing and it's good that Apple did this.

      Hopefully, they also learned a lesson and won't give us reason to question again.

    9. Re:Fuck Off by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Once again, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. It's completely obvious in every way that the MiniStore is doing web searches of the Music Store, so the people like you claiming this is some sort of deceptive practice Apple isn't telling you about are 100% wrong. It's right there in front of your face. Click the cute little button to make it go away. Ahhh, no more whining. Problem solved. Move on. Next.

      I'm not sure how on earth anyone can read the above and say "Ah! iTunes 6.0.2 also sends data to a remote server about each and every song you listen to, regardless of where you got it."

      Well, they should have gleamed it from the big giant MiniStore right there giving them related albums. iTunes isn't psychic or anything; it's obvious the MiniStore is searching the Music Store, and to do that--you guessed it--requires the use of this thing called the Internet.

      It's unreasonable to expect people to check product pages and search knowledge bases every time a minor (as in 6.0.1 to 6.0.2) update occurs, especially if Apple is claiming to tell you what the "improvements" are in the update.

      Nobody's saying they need to. The MiniStore is such a complete non-issue that Apple didn't feel the need to put it in Software Update. Regardless, it's on the public webpage so the point still stands. www.apple.com/itunes if you're interested. You know, the place the majority of iTunes users got the update, since most of them are Windows users and DON'T HAVE A SOFTWARE UPDATE.

      For myself, this is one of the reasons I don't automatically hit the Update button until a few days after the fix has been released (which is why I was able to copy and paste the above), but you know, I do that because I don't trust Apple, I've had enough experience now to know they are not greater than Microsoft and Dell in reliability and honesty, despite the knee-jerk Macnut response to each and every criticism, and so, yes, I don't necessarily believe them. The funny thing is though that I still didn't expect them to actually try to pull the wool over my eyes, as in this particular stunt.

      With the "Macnut" comment, you reveal that you're biased anyway, so of course a simple web search is going to be a privacy issue for you. Have a nice day...and don't forget to clear that Google cookie.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    10. Re:Fuck Off by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      You mean like WMP has been doing for years without anyone batting an eye? This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet, and I'm pretty anti-spyware. I realize there are some folks out there who are concerned that people will find out they listen to Air Supply, but really.. nobody cares.*

      Furthermore, your hypothetical example of "what could go wrong," is flawed. First and foremost, children have no expectation of privacy from their parents, at least not with respect to what they listen to, or basically anything else that doesn't violate some criminal/natural law. I'm not saying it's good to give children no privacy, but it's a parent's perrogative. The point is: it wouldn't be an abuse of such information for a parent to find out. But regardless, the fact that such a suit has already occurred means there's precident, and the case would be tossed anyway.

      Second, they already know what you're listening to because you bought it from them. (At least, I hope you did since there's little other reason to open iTunes.) The sales data itself is certainly much more sensitive.

      I can't even begin to imagine the level of paranioa required to feel threatened by iTunes displaying information relevant to the current song. It's crap like this that distracts from legitimate privacy issues, and makes everyone who's pro-privacy look a little more nuts.

      *Just kidding, and if I find out you listen to that crap, you're never going to hear the end of it. You know who you are!

  28. a black sheep is still a sheep by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not wrong to dislike something just because the groupthink says you should like it

    No, it just mean you're sooooooo much better than everyone! Since you don't like something because others like it, by rejecting something popular, you set yourself appart! You're special!

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:a black sheep is still a sheep by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well screw you both - I'm going to do what everyone else does, whatever's popular, just to set myself apart from those who are constantly trying to set themselves apart!

    2. Re:a black sheep is still a sheep by tm2b · · Score: 1
      No, it just mean you're sooooooo much better than everyone!
      Well, everyone but the Fox TV programming executives. He's only every bit as good as they are.
      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    3. Re:a black sheep is still a sheep by Babbster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A and men. Slashdotters use phrases like "groupthink," "Joe Six-Pack" and the like, usually pretending that they aren't insulting people. Using the word "groupthink" in this context implies that people who like Firefly only feel that way because "everyone" on the Interweb says it's super cool.

      Me, I'm one of those oddities who liked the show from the first episode aired despite Fox showing episodes out of order. Then again, I also liked Friends which it seemed like every tool on the Interweb hammered constantly. So, I wonder where I would fit in with the supposed "groupthink" regarding television?

      It's all part of what has become a generally accepted mode of thinking by many who talk about entertainment on ye olden Interweb: "I thought [insert videogame/movie/music/etc. here] sucked, and anyone who liked it sucks."

    4. Re:a black sheep is still a sheep by Wannabe+Code+Monkey · · Score: 1

      A and men. Slashdotters use phrases like "groupthink," "Joe Six-Pack" and the like, usually pretending that they aren't insulting people. Using the word "groupthink" in this context implies that people who like Firefly only feel that way because "everyone" on the Interweb says it's super cool.

      I feel the exact same way, it's time people stopped criticising things based on how many people like it. Judge it based on its own qualities.

      Me, I'm one of those oddities who liked the show from the first episode aired despite Fox showing episodes out of order.

      I was just the opposite, I had never watched an episode of Firefly during its original run. I never saw Serenity in the theatre. I caught the end of one episode and two others when they were being replayed on SciFi, and I was immediately hooked. I was just starting to get into the hype when the movie came out because there seemed to be so many people around me who liked this show. I just recently rented and watched the first 3 episodes on DVD, and within a week bought the entire box set. I have not been disappointed with a single episode. I know a purchase of Serenity is in my future.

      I'll admin that I'm a huge geek, but even my brother watched and liked Firefly. Even his girlfriend (who was glued to the tv during the golden globes, reads 'People' and other celebrity gossip magazines constantly, and hates computers) really likes Firefly. The characters are just written so well, that you really believe that the actors are their characters.

      Well, enough gushing from me, just my opinion after all. If you haven't seen any Firefly or Serenity, just do yourself a favor and watch the first three episodes. You can rent them for cheap at a video store.

      --
      We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
    5. Re:a black sheep is still a sheep by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Agreed.. "Joe Sixpack" is the worst euphamism I see commonly used. As if half of /. doesn't pound a 6 pack every night just to fend off the lonliness.

    6. Re:a black sheep is still a sheep by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Fox TV programming executives. He's only every bit as good as they are.

      Ouch! That's just mean! ;-)

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  29. iTunes updates quicker than Windows? by jsx92 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one noticing here that iTunes was updated faster than a major Windows flaw without me even noticing or installing anything new??

    1. Re:iTunes updates quicker than Windows? by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 4, Funny

      yeah, I've already seen posts along the lines of "omg Apple updated iTunes without me knowing! spyware! hax! internet content changing without downloading an installer? that's unpossible!"

      I wish Apple had tried to patent the ministore, because then we'd have had a million posts about how it's the simplest and most obvious feature ever instead of the insane FUD.

    2. Re:iTunes updates quicker than Windows? by vague+disclaimer · · Score: 1
      I wish Apple had tried to patent the ministore, because then we'd have had a million posts about how it's the simplest and most obvious feature ever instead of the insane FUD.

      Damn, and I've just used up my mod points. *Doffs cap*

    3. Re:iTunes updates quicker than Windows? by wootest · · Score: 1

      With all respect to Apple's turn-around time... They inserted an intermediary page and a cookie requirement (presumably) on a cluster of servers they control. Microsoft had to try to test every Windows version/language/service pack combo with a large array of software that could be affected and then push it out through a number of channels. As far as scope and danger goes, you're comparing a somewhat bemused amoeba (never an actual flaw, but a badly documented feature) to a pissed off avian flu here. :)

    4. Re:iTunes updates quicker than Windows? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      WTF???? That's no different than a M$ fanboy bragging about how fast MSN Music updated ^^security hole^^^^feature and how slow OSX was updated. Get real- your comparing an ONLINE MUSIC STORE to an OPERATING SYSTEM.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    5. Re:iTunes updates quicker than Windows? by jsx92 · · Score: 1

      http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/11/153 9226 An OPERATING SYSTEM? All the more reason to fix then, no?

  30. Firefly - I just don't get it... by no_pets · · Score: 0

    I just don't get it why some other network doesn't just pick it up and start making new episodes. Okay, I do realize that Fox owns the TV rights to the show but, heck, I'm sure they'd sell for the right price. Besides, there is a rabid group of fans practially demanding more episodes.

    Why can't some network like Sci-Fi, FX, USA, or something make a mini-season of 6-12 episodes then run them over and over again. Sure, Firefly doesn't have as many viewers as, say, CSI but the fans watch the hell out of it over and over again. Surely that has to help with ads.

    Heck, cut production costs down from $1Million. Just have Mal keep the boat flying on the outer edge of the 'verse for a while and center most episodes on the boat and in the desert or something. Keep the special effects down for a few episodes.

    Then again, what do I know?

    --
    "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
  31. No by geekoid · · Score: 1

    The consumer should never be put into the situation where they are reponsible for how a company behaves.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  32. Another Linux GPL violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been trying to get this company to release their sources for about a year now: Infrant. They make a middling network storage appliance. I'd like to poke around in there to see why their performance is so bad. I've tried contacting GNU, but there doesn't seem to be a good point of contact for GPL violations (I sent a message to the email addresses they publish, but they seem to go unserviced). Infrant claims I'm the only one asking for source, even though I know that not to be the truth. Note that they are hostile towards anyone who asks about this in their forums and downright abusive in email on the topic.

    1. Re:Another Linux GPL violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is missing from this page: http://www.infrant.com/gpl

    2. Re:Another Linux GPL violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow -- I guess my bothering them finally had some effect. Wish they had notified me, though.

  33. Note by geekoid · · Score: 1

    I hate buffy.
    I liked firefly.
    Becasue of firefly I watched angle, which I liked.

    so don't stereotype

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  34. General Public Lisence? by burndive · · Score: 1

    "CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation, debated proposed changes to the General Public License at a public forum but made it clear that provisions to protect users from patent litigations will remain intact."

    --
    ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
    1. Re:General Public Lisence? by m50d · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the name of the license.

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:General Public Lisence? by burndive · · Score: 3, Informative

      Really? Wow. I thought it was the Gnu Public Lisence.

      [goes to look it up on Wikipedia...]

      Well, this might explain it:

      "GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or simply GPL)"

      --
      ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
  35. Time Travel...? by dartarrow · · Score: 2, Informative

    'As long as an invention is not clearly contrary to scientific laws - like time travel - research has no bearing on the grant of a patent.'

    I think Einstein would say otherwise. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/think.html and http://www.iit.edu/~bosabri/time.html

    --
    I love humanity, it is people I hate
    1. Re:Time Travel...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a THEORY. Not proven. In fact just like evolution. Evolution however seems more plausible than perhaps an omnipotent creator ala religion or Aliens (or GOD) ala Intelligent Design. However until we send a man back into time ala Terminator or forward ala Back to the Future.... It remains that. A theory. As an earlier post mentioned; as long as you pass the laugh test.

    2. Re:Time Travel...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a THEORY. Not proven.

      You fail at life.

    3. Re:Time Travel...? by Keeper · · Score: 1

      Who cares if you can patent time travel. The first person to actually invent a time machine will just travel back in time and patent it first.

    4. Re:Time Travel...? by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1
      Who cares if you can patent time travel. The first person to actually invent a time machine will just travel back in time and patent it first.

      Mr. A invents a time machine. He travels back 10 years in time to patent the key technology. His patents get accepted. Unfortunately, Microsoft feels his patents are in conflict with theirs, and sends in an army of lawyers. Mr. A is tied up in court for the next decade, and cannot get around to actually creating the time machine. The timeline collapses and the time machine will never be invented. Mr. A, still in court, gets desperate and commits suicide (he would have preferred to go back in time and kill his own grandfather, but without time machine that option is moot).

  36. please DOS server = sedition ?? by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stone was given a suspended sentence of 60 days in jail along with 20 hours of community service. Although he declined to comment on camera Stone's mother stated that she appreciate all the support he received from the online community.

    oh ya, only 60 days in jail... that makes about as much sense as throwing a person 5 years in federal prison for growing their own marijuana. This country is done for, whoever has to mop up this mess has their work cut out for them.

    1. Re:please DOS server = sedition ?? by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

      A suspended sentence means he doesn't actually go to prison. Unless he really screws up in the meantime.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    2. Re:please DOS server = sedition ?? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      This country is done for, whoever has to mop up this mess has their work cut out for them.

      I'll give you a hint: Grab a mop.

  37. Firefly Redux - The Dangers of Business Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Okay, I'm gonna go off an a rant here. I'd love to hear more about why the effort to solicit donations for another season of Firefly was cut off after a mere 36 hours. However, sans details, it sounds suspiciously like the face of the powers that be (RIAA or MPAA, take your pick). These guys are deathly afraid that their business model is going to die on them before they've had a chance to corner the market in a new medium (i.e., the Internet).

    Think about this a moment. What would happen if this donation idea ACTUALLY WORKED? What if we could figure out a way to stick it to the money grubbing industries by CUTTING OUT THE MIDDLEMEN (i.e., the Distributors)? This would also, coincidentally, make for efficiencies in production (less costly) and theoretically increase the salaries of those involved, because they wouldn't have to take care of the PIMP (sorry, I mean the distributors.)

    Still, I'd love to hear the details of this item. One of the earlier posters suggested a group concentrate on buying ADVERTISING for the show and then put up potential advertising revenue as capital for a renewal of the series. That sounds like a promising idea. I just know I'm sick of letting these corporate assholes call the shots on stuff when there is clearly a market for a given item. (And don't start ranting about how the 'free market' determined Firefly should die when the box office returns were disappointing. Let's see how the DVD sales and rentals stack up against the competition. . . . (Currently #4 top seller at Amazon, behind 'Wedding Crashers', 'Biggest Loser Workout', and 'The Constant Gardener', with the Firefly boxed set in the #6 slot.)

  38. To patent a time machine by portwojc · · Score: 1

    To patent a time machine you must have Patent #1.

  39. Oh, please by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Users who do not click on the 'Turn on MiniStore' button will not have their privacy invaded

    It's just doing a WebObjects query for related albums. Jesus Christ, my privacy isn't being invaded over that. There's more information stored via the Google cookie, and where is the Slashdot outrage over that? That information has been confirmed to be stored indefinitely, along with your email in Gmail. Oh no, Slashdot is storing your IP in its weblogs! In fact, every server does!

    Non-issue, in my opinion.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
    1. Re:Oh, please by labratuk · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's just doing a WebObjects query for related albums.
      And in the process, telling them what you're listening to.
      There's more information stored via the Google cookie, and where is the Slashdot outrage over that? That information has been confirmed to be stored indefinitely, along with your email in Gmail. Oh no, Slashdot is storing your IP in its weblogs! In fact, every server does!
      That's completely different, because people expect that to happen. They're using the internet. People don't expect a music playing application to be internet connected (unless they explicitly choose to use the store).

      It becomes subversive (and annoying) when something which doesn't have a particular obvious need to connect to the internet does so and doesn't make the user aware of it or doesn't give them the choice to prevent it.
      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    2. Re:Oh, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, no! Apple knows I listened to two Sixpence None the Richer albums today! MY PRIVACY! MY PRECIOUS PRIIIIVACY!!!

      What ever happened to "stuff that matters"?

    3. Re:Oh, please by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      >And in the process, telling them what you're listening to.

      umm, dont they already know that, what with you having bought it through itunes in the first place?

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    4. Re:Oh, please by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      So is your privacy invaded when your nextdoor neighbour or a passerby can hear what you are playing?

    5. Re:Oh, please by dreamer-of-rules · · Score: 1

      That's completely different, because people expect that to happen. They're using the internet. People don't expect a music playing application to be internet connected (unless they explicitly choose to use the store).

      It becomes subversive (and annoying) when something which doesn't have a particular obvious need to connect to the internet does so and doesn't make the user aware of it or doesn't give them the choice to prevent it.


      But you are missing the point that the Apple mini-store in iTunes is not secret and is trivially closable. When the mini-store is open, it shows "related" songs and albums to whatever you most recently clicked in your playlist. When closed, it does not send any requests to Apple-- as expected.

      You can't really miss the mini-store. And the button to close the mini-store frame looks the same as for closing the album artwork frame.

      I'm not defending the mini-store -- I think all ads are crap, and I'm very mistrustful of privacy abuse (think supermarkets), and I worry sometimes about all of the cross-marketing that Apple is doing -- BUT, THIS IS NOT A PRIVACY ISSUE.

      Wiretapping, cell phone records, keyloggers, spyware, Real Player, Microsoft Activation, Mozilla "quality" reports, supermarket datamining, census mining, gerrymandering, insurance/political profiling, phone surveys, unencrypted wireless, doubleclick.net... can we have a real story?

      --
      Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
    6. Re:Oh, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS IS NOT A PRIVACY ISSUE.

      Harversting data on my computer and use it in order to sell me something is a privacy issue for me.

      It may not be for you.

    7. Re:Oh, please by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      And in the process, telling them what you're listening to.

      Oh my god, they know I listen to Danny Elfman!

      Again, it's just sending a search query. It has to send the currently playing song information to grab related albums to that song. It's nothing nefarious.

      I think you've pretty much invalidated your argument by claiming people don't expect iTunes to be Internet-connected:

      1.) It DOES make the user aware of its behavior--it said on the iTunes page that the Mini-Store grabs related albums. But more importantly...

      2.) ...it doesn't even need to advertise this fact because it's blindingly obvious it's connecting to the Music Store to give related albums, unless you believe iTunes is now a psychic entity that magically knows related albums and their ratings without connecting to the Internet.

      You didn't really address the Google issue. Are you saying it's reasonable to expect that Google is tracking all your searches in a cookie that expires decades from now? Or does Google get a pass for storing all your email and searches, while Apple gets scourged for daring do a web search?

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    8. Re:Oh, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except nobody is "harvesting data on your computer." IT'S JUST A DAMN WEB SEARCH, MY GOD.

      Take off the foil hat.

  40. Slashdot that school website again by Deviant+Q · · Score: 1

    Here's the target: http://lake.stark.k12.oh.us/hs/

    And here's the weapon: http://reloadevery.mozdev.org/

    --
    "May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
    1. Re:Slashdot that school website again by rhook · · Score: 1

      Watch out, they might throw you in prison.

    2. Re:Slashdot that school website again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2779 hits on the home page so far......

  41. Most Convictions are Measured in Years by leoPetr · · Score: 1

    60 days is 0.16 years. Sounds like a lot less that way, does it not? Well, that sort of perception is how we get the pointlessly long incarcerations for the slightly more serious crimes. Maybe it's just me, but very few crimes merit more than 365 days behind bars, and yet most seem to result in more than that.

    --
    My other body is also not wearing any.
    1. Re:Most Convictions are Measured in Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ugh, you're both illiterate. please learn what a suspended sentence is before you start babbling on sentence length next time.

  42. Re:Yay Showtime by Browncoat · · Score: 5, Funny
    On the next..Arrested Development:

    GOB finds it difficult to gain re-entry in the Alliance when he performs his illusions in front of River, who immediately knows all of the tricks.

    Michael is mistaken for Mal, and has to fight a duel to defend Inara, who is being stalked by Carl Weathers.

    Tobias is jealous of Lindsay's attraction to a "real doctor" like Simon, and hatches a plan to win back his wife by going to Boston to renew his medical license. He gets on the wrong bus, heading toward Canada.

    Mal, mistaken for Michael, is arrested for another George Sr. crime, and escapes prison with the help of Jayne, using GOB's Segway as a getaway vehicle. They hit an inordinately fortified sand castle on the beach, and break it.

    GOB, devestated at the loss of his Segway, and no company funds to buy another, begins to drink heavily with Jayne. They visit George Sr. in prison, and the three sing "The Hero of Canton" and the two are escorted out by guards.

    Kaylee finds it difficult to fight off the affections of GOB after she fixes his Segway.

    River is arrested after the Bluth Company's Mr. BananaGrabber commercial triggers another "incident," this time in Klimpy's Family Style Restaurant.

    Wash buys the Bluth company jet back, and before GOB can take it to South America, he and Zoe fly off for a vacation. Unfortunately, Maeby is hiding in the bathroom, and is left there while the couple goes to their resort.

    Simon, misunderstanding Kaylee's behavior with GOB as flirting, embarks to seduce Lindsay to get revenge. He later realizes that Lindsay is the type of woman that his father would have wanted him to marry, and breaks up with her by saying, "I've made a huge mistake."

    George Michael is infatuated with River, but is slightly frightened of her after she looks at Ann and "fixes" her Bible in front of her parents.

    Pastor Veal, on a flight back to California from a conference, is mistaken for Wash, and is left in the cockpit to land a plane safely after both the pilot and co-pilot have panic attacks.

    Buster thinks Kaylee is the most beautiful woman he has ever seen, and tries to fight GOB and Simon for her affections. He looks online for doctorate programs, believing Kaylee is attracted to doctors, and mistakenly signs up to be a guest on the show of popular television counselor, Dr. Phil, after he submits what he believes to be an admissions essay answering the question "Do you have a family member you believe is living a double life?"

    Mr. Universe becomes a public relations agent for the Bluths, holding press conferences from his ion cloud (now relocated to the smog air of California), and using Lenore as a spokeswoman, launches a pro-Bluth campaign, with great success. When an interrupted video feed reveals Mr. Universe to be the real public relations agent, and Lenore revealed to be fake, the Jewish community celebrates, and they all hire Mr. Universe to be their consultant. Women across the country, relieved to see that Lenore has perfect makeup because the makeup is permanently on her skin, also hire Mr. Universe.

    George Sr. and Book discuss religion, and Book finds insight in George Sr.'s "Caged Wisdom" tapes.

    --
    "Curse your sudden, but inevitable betrayal!"
  43. Re:Stallman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    More like Mr linix gayrag

    That's Mr. GNU Linux Gayrag to you, dickwad.

  44. Firefly economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget $1 million per hour episode. That's laughable. It costs shooting in Vancouver Canada with tax breaks $3 million per hour for those crummy Lifetime movies with ZERO:

    *Special effects
    *Special sets
    *Special "creature" makeup etc.

    You're likely talking about $4 million per shooting in Vancouver, with lots of cheap ass Linux render farms or whatever Jackson used for LoTR.

    Bottom line something with VERY minimal mass appeal and sub-culture audience like Firefly will only fly if/when the cost of production gets appreciably lower than competing product price-points.

    1. Re:Firefly economics by Aliandro · · Score: 1

      People seem to forget, production costs are only tangentially involved in the decision to continue a show. It's how much a given time slot can make that's important. Not many people watched or 'got' Firefly. It's all about how much advertising they can sell and how much they can charge for it.

    2. Re:Firefly economics by Zey · · Score: 1
      Not many people watched or 'got' Firefly.

      Not too surprising: "Lets combine three genres and have a Dawson's Creek cast in the American Wild West in Space. That'll sell!"

      Cute concept, except that it alienates a significant number of fans of both Science Fiction and Westerns and seriously stretches the boundaries of the audience's ability to suspend disbelief when trying to tie the conventions of each genre together.

  45. Perhaps it would help by theCSapprentice · · Score: 1
    if the case against the Chang succeeded. IANAL, but his comment
    "If this case goes to court and wins in their favor, it basically invalidates all the EULAs in the world," Chang said. "It doesn't make any sense. We spelled it out for them."
    is interesting. Would this mean that those EULAs that say you can't copy software are invalid? Or that if Windows wrecked all of your data they have to pay you damages? If any of these are reasonable, Chang's losses may be worth it in the long run.
    1. Re:Perhaps it would help by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Would this mean that those EULAs that say you can't copy software are invalid?

      The existing legal protections for copyrighted info would apply. So you could make a backup as per law, but you couldn't legally make copies for friends, etc.

      Note that while many EULAs shouldn't be valid as they attempt to modify a contract after the fact, i2hub's EULA is more acceptable because it covered free software, and thus there's no prior contract. Regardless, an EULA should be irrelevant to the issue here; an EULA cannot absolve a person of copyright violations, only the copyright license holder can do that.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  46. Re:Yay Showtime by Pope · · Score: 1

    Now THAT is a show I'd watch!

    "You best to be watching that claw, Buster. You may be part machine but you're still human where all the sticky parts live." -Mal.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  47. Re:Yay Showtime by Browncoat · · Score: 1

    It's actually a crossover that was suggested a while ago when someone from another message board commented that Nathan Fillion and Jason Bateman look a lot alike. I'm going to write the complete "episode" and post it on my blog.

    --
    "Curse your sudden, but inevitable betrayal!"
  48. Fundraising for episodes won't help Firefly by rfunches · · Score: 1

    Fundraising for episodes won't help bring Firefly back...20th Century Fox (or whatever Fox company owns the television rights to Firefly) has shown no interest in selling future production rights to the series. I see three requirements for the show to be brought back, and I don't see anyone other than Fox bringing it back:

    1. The ability to bring production costs down. Way down. Why did Fox bring Family Guy back? I'm sure the production costs for two episodes (the equivalent to one full Firefly episode) are far below the $1 million price tag for a single episode of Firefly.

    2. Firefly must attract a wider audience to get a better timeslot. Advertising rates for TV will vary based on the show, day of the week, and time slot. The show needs support from ad revenue, and the better the timeslot, the better the ad rates.

    3. Willingness to admit (internally, between Fox execs) that they [Fox] made a mistake. It's fairly obvious that there is a lot of support for the show -- they thought it was fair to sell movie rights to a Firefly derivative; huge DVD sales of the series; rebroadcast rights to SciFi for the original series -- and they chose to ignore it. Bite the bullet, Fox, and it won't be all that bad. In time, you might even be forgiven.

    1. Re:Fundraising for episodes won't help Firefly by damsa · · Score: 1

      Family Guy costs a reported $1.1 million per episode. Which makes it 2.2 million per hour of television which is quite a bit more than Firefly. Fox was never good at showing respect to its shows. With the cancelation of Arsenio, the argument over the rights to the Simpsons, the cancelation of Married with Children and it goes on and on.

  49. Star Trek by typical · · Score: 1

    It might sound like I'm trolling here but I honestly am not. I'd like someone to tell me what's good about that show. Maybe I'm missing the show's point or something?

    I think it's kind of like Babylon 5.

    Take a bunch of Star Trek fans. Take their beloved franchise and brutally drive it into the ground. They need something else sci-fi to latch onto...

    Also, if you don't watch much TV (and you watched it particularly because a friend was talking about this), you may simply be complaining about TV in general. TV plots are, in general, pretty simplistic and bad. They're designed for the least-common-denominator, and they have a small fixed timeblock to set up, tell a story, and wrap up. They have to allow Average Joe to relate to them, they have to not be offensive, and they have to conform to a ton of other requirements.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    1. Re:Star Trek by Sage+Gaspar · · Score: 1

      I think it's kind of like Babylon 5.

      Take a bunch of Star Trek fans. Take their beloved franchise and brutally drive it into the ground. They need something else sci-fi to latch onto...

      Also, if you don't watch much TV (and you watched it particularly because a friend was talking about this), you may simply be complaining about TV in general. TV plots are, in general, pretty simplistic and bad. They're designed for the least-common-denominator, and they have a small fixed timeblock to set up, tell a story, and wrap up. They have to allow Average Joe to relate to them, they have to not be offensive, and they have to conform to a ton of other requirements.


      I honestly don't think this is a case of Star Trek fans looking for something to latch onto. If anything, Firefly is a home for disgruntled Star Wars fans. The people that were irate when Lucas castrated Solo's character in the cantina remake, and always were more interested in his smuggling days than any amount of Jedi mumbo jumbo.

      But in reality, Firefly appeals to a large number of people who enjoy witty dialogue, great characterization, and mature plot lines. It's funny you mention offensiveness, because Firefly has some of the most provocative content I've seen in a long time. I can't imagine how some of this stuff was shown on FOX. I mean, you have brutal torture, pretty savage fight scenes, one of the crew members is a prostitute-for-hire, the reavers leave huge piles of twisted bodies wrapped around each other...

      The storylines (barring just... two episodes) were some of the best I've seen on any medium, let alone television. Most were self-contained, but there were recurring characters and arcs that carried across episodes. Characters made reference to events that we saw previously. They also behave realistically. The cold-blooded mercenary does not have a heart of gold -- he says, right from the outset, if the money's better somewhere else, he'll sell out the ship. It takes a good deal of time and a couple life-shattering events before he even considers a selfless action, and even then it's doubtful. The captain is fiercely protective of his ship and crew, and sticks to his honor code. But his attitude towards protecting his crew is borderline neurotic, and it leads him to make decisions that are certainly not in the best interest of most parties involved. The chronically immature pilot has problems with his normally-overbearing wife acting subservient to the captain, who was her officer in the army. The borderline psychotic girl actually behaves in borderline psychotic ways -- for every cute little one-liner she spurts out, there's a moment where she does something that's actually violent or frightening.

      And for every saccharine kitschy scene, there's at least one more with real impact. One of my personal favorites was with the psychotic girl flipping through the preacher's bible, marking it up and ripping out pages because "it's broken." She mentions that they'll have to attribute Noah's Ark to early quantum-state phenomena to get all the animals onto the ark. This is the basis for an ongoing discussion of faith, which easily could have descended into drivel.

      If anything, you can complain that some of the coincidences in the plotlines were a bit contrived. Some of the dialogue was cringe-worthy. But despite occasional problems, the first season DVD is one of the best things I've had the pleasure of watching in a very long time, and not just in comparison to other television shows.

  50. Uh huh. by leoPetr · · Score: 1
    --
    My other body is also not wearing any.
    1. Re:Uh huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok then, what have we learned? that he's not going to spend a single day in jail if he acts like every other law abiding citizen for the next two months - big deal.

  51. Podcast the damn thing. by crovira · · Score: 1

    WE the interested parties WANT to watch FireFly.

    Would we pay $9.95 to see it?

    Would we pay $4.95 to see it?

    Would we pay $2.95 to see it?

    How many of us are there?

    I'm NOT in favour of then taking a chance on us. I want to make sure that the economic situation is in response to reality (for a change.)

    How long can a podcast episode be available, realistically? (I know that its just taking up a few gigs on a server, and that the cost of storage is dropping and so is the cost of transmission but still.)

    How many downloads can we expect? (iPod DRMed style, you own the content and you can watch it as often as you want and whenever you want.)

    How long can we drum up interest in these shows?

    Once we can answer these questions and back the answers with some statistics, we can get the shows produced.

    This is the beginning of a viewer led revolution.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:Podcast the damn thing. by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny
      How many of us are there?

      If the box office numbers for Serinity are any indication, not many.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  52. You're not the only one by Captain+Tripps · · Score: 1

    My sister's a big Buffy fan, but when she heard that line (it's in the first few minutes), she told me, "This sounds like it's the worst TV show ever!" In Joss' defense, though, the whole beginning of the pilot was rewritten to satisfy the Fox execs.

    1. Re:You're not the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pilot was not rewritten, they had to write another episode that was used as a pilot (the train job).

  53. Sorry, but did I hear you right? by sabat · · Score: 1

    Did I read that right -- they've raised $840? Total?

    HA HAHAH AHHAHAHA HHAHAHAH

    Hahaha hahahahaha hahaha haha hahah ahahah

    hahah ahahaha hahah ah

    ahem.

    Sorry. I'm sure $840 will completely convince the necessary assholes that Firefly must stay on the air.

    --
    I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
    1. Re:Sorry, but did I hear you right? by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1

      What they need to do is get one person to cough up the whole million. That is what Monty Python did when they wanted to produce Life of Brian. Would there be a filthy rich person interested in sponsoring the show? Perhaps a popstar? Britney Spears? Nah, Firefly too intellensual. Michael Jackson? Nah, Firefly too adult. Someone else then? Bill Gates? Nah, Firefly not republican enough. Come on, there should be somebody...

  54. Wrong. Maybe all wrong. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
    There are millions of bands out there that allow you to download full songs that are also available on CD. Try GarageBand for one place. Hell, even iTunes allows you to do it.

    Distributing music on the web for free, and selling it at stores? Both of my old bands did it, my new band will do it. My old bandmate is doing it. A pal who just got signed is doing it.

    I'm sure the RIAA and the many companies it represents are gleefully rubbing their hands together at your total generalization, and hoping that the 'free music online = illegal' meme takes hold. Musicians who have to distribute their own music hate it, and those who would love to lobby those independents out of existence love that doublespeak. As far as intent, I've met alot of people who have no clue what exactly copyright is, so it wouldn't surprise me that they didn't indend to infringe. Then again, who are we all kidding? What college student hasn't heard the word 'Napster'?

    It also wouldn't surprise me if the RIAA claimed infringement on works that weren't theirs, as the've done in the past.

    All that said, words are important - use them carefully.

    1. Re: Wrong. Maybe all wrong. by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1
      Yes, it was a generalization. I'm well aware that there are exceptions to the rule. However, they are in the minority, and since those particular ones are already free, you probably won't be using a general p2p client like DirectConnect to find them.

      Having said that, I'm going to point out that DirectConnect has no special music searching capabilities. This means that you can't search for anything that isn't in the file or directory name, such as genre. Maybe the i2hub version did, but I doubt it.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  55. Lead-in blurb is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ... its release of personal information...
    No "personal infotmation" was "released" - the blurb makes it sound like Apple made public your listening habits.
    ...will not have their privacy invaded...
    Bah humbug. So the iTunes server knows the music I listen to. Never mind the Amazon server that knows I buy ribbed cherry flavored condoms, and the Gmail server that knows all the salacious things I write to my SO when we have email-sex, and the /. server that know I was wanking off on cheatinghousewifesonyourstreet.com just before I came to over to read this crap.

    Either the submitter is a cluless moron intent on brewing a tempest in a tea pot, or he is a spiteful troll intent on promoting "teh Apple sux".

    Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get to the front door - the cheatinghousewifeonmystreet is ringing my bell.

  56. Encrypted Filesharing. by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Seriously FreeNet does not work. Somebody fix this, or provide an encryption system for Shareaza or something!

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  57. Good on Apple! by Onan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm very fond of Apple, but I was incensed by the disregard for privacy that itunes 6.0.2 seemed to indicate. I used their feedback web form to convey my alarm, made some grumpy posts to their discussion forum, and generally tried to express to them that this was a serious transgression.

    Apparently they heard and reacted to me and the presumed lots of other people saying the same thing, and reacted in precisely the right way. I never much cared about the mini-store one way or the other, I was only bothered by the transmission of personal data without my very explicit knowledge and consent. Defaulting to off with a prominent opt-in dialog is a perfectly good solution to this.

    So it appears that it was just an oversight on their part, a concern that never crossed their minds, and that they were willing to make corrections as soon as the issue was brought to their attention. That seems quite forgivable, and indeed I'm proud of Apple for reacting so quickly and correctly.

    1. Re:Good on Apple! by burnetd · · Score: 1

      So you totally ignored that Apple said that they do not store the data, it is used to display the mini store then deleted. That's how these 'suggested listening/reading' things work you know.

    2. Re:Good on Apple! by Onan · · Score: 1


      I didn't ignore it, but I don't think it comes anywhere near exonerating Apple.

      The problem was that itunes was sending some personal data outside my machine without my explicit knowledge and consent. Even if Apple only uses that data transiently and then destroys it, it was still published against my will.

      To make matters worse, they were sending it in plaintext. So my personal information was exposed not just to Apple, but to any part of the net that's logically between me and them. Even if you consider Apple's lack of permanent storage of data to let them off the hook, they were still exposing my information to many other entities who may not be so kind.

      All of that's fine... if I explicitly chose for it to happen. I'm actually a big fan of recommendation services, and might even choose to use this function at some time in the future. But the important disctinction is whether *I* chose that exposing my personal information was a worthwhile price for the service I was getting.

  58. Is it an addiction? by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 1

    I'm a nerd/geek/etc. I know about, but never saw, the Firefly TV series. After all the hype, I would love to see it, but I feel that it'd be setting myself up for some emotional trauma. I'd probably get hooked to the 'substance' and then it'll be suddenly cut off. I couldn't handle the withdrawal.

    1. Re:Is it an addiction? by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1

      I don't know about addiction--it's just a damned good show which never got the chance it should have. It's well worth watching, and serves as an excellent example that sometimes the market doesn't do the right thing (Wonderfalls is another).

  59. Copyright harming authors/artists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if Fox aren't willing to spend money to make money on Firefly, why not let the rights go?

  60. Re:Sounds like the USPTO... so what? by drhamad · · Score: 1

    'As long as an invention is not clearly contrary to scientific laws - like time travel - research has no bearing on the grant of a patent.'"

    So I guess they're saying there's no need to prove you've invented anything... it just has to pass the laugh test.


    You actually aren't far off. So what? The USPTO's function, contrary to what I often see people seem to think, is not to exhaustively investigate each option. They'll approve anything that's nominally new. It's then the function of the courts to see if the patents are actually new. To fully investigate every patent, even those that will never be used or that are irrellevant to anyone, would be far to huge a waste of resources.

    --
    -Daniel
  61. Re:Sounds like the USPTO... so what? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

    Did you at least have to demonstrate a working model of your invention at one time?

    Rubber stamping everything then relying on the courts is far more of a waste of resources, IMO. We're talking real businesses spending real money and losing real producivity because so many people are gaming the system to make a quick buck.

    The "laugh test" I'm speaking about should also apply when the "invention" is laughably obvious, as so many of them are.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  62. Die with some dignity, for crying out loud! by elrous0 · · Score: 1
    Firefly Fans: "We'll buy 20 minutes of advertising on your network for each episode"

    Fox: "Okay...let's see here...that's 40 30-second spots...that'll run you about $6 million a week...and let's assume a short 13 episode season...that will be $78 million please."

    Firefly fans: "We've raised $900"

    Fox: "Security, could you come in here please?"

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Die with some dignity, for crying out loud! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      The best bet is "We've raised $900 and have pledge letters from these 78 companies to support us"- then they won't call security.

      Either that- or grab another example from science fiction and insert pictures of dry corn cobs into the signal of their test market with a competing illegal broadcast tower every time a toilet paper commercial comes on- until they start choosing the type of programming you want :-).

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  63. Re:Yay Showtime by Psykechan · · Score: 1

    Thanks for sharing that. I had a good chuckle.

    BTW, I think you meant Lucille instead of Lenore.

  64. Korean cloning scientist may keep patents.. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Because, as it turns out, your patented concept doesn't have to be possible.

  65. Re:Yay Showtime by Browncoat · · Score: 1

    No, I meant Lenore. Lenore is the name of Mr. Universe's lovebot.

    --
    "Curse your sudden, but inevitable betrayal!"
  66. Elton J. Won by Asgaard · · Score: 1

    anyone else read "Elton John" from a first glance?