The best parodies start with a laugh before leaving us with the hollowness of their truth. Sorry, Google Buzz. Sorry, under-lived life. Sorry, sweet butterfly.

$1 TV shows, down from $2: sounds like a great plan, but is it real? The FT seems to think so, claiming that the changes will hit the iTunes store at the end of April, corresponding with the iPad launch.

Apple's current pricing scheme puts most SD TV content at $2 an episode, with HD content coming at a $1 premium. The new plan would likely just move the pricing levels down by a dollar and be done with it. (It would also go a long way to expanding Apple's vision of a digital media dysutopia: In the future, man will feed iTunes one (1) dollar, for which he will be granted a single unit of Apple-Approved Digital entertainment. </scifi>)

But the FT doesn't stop there: They also claim that Apple is still actively pursuing a $30 "best of TV" subscription service, which would roll selected content into a bundle, for which users would pay a monthly fee, and that Apple is being careful to avoid linking the Apple TV to discussions about either proposal, because the prospect of people watching downloaded TV on their actual televisions is apparently terrifying to content providers, for some reason. Ha, could Apple care any less about that poor box?

So, how would this actually go down? I'd wager that a limited first wave of $1 shows will serve as a sort of pilot program. Once, or if, these shows make up their price decrease with larger download volume, it'll be much easier to convince the rest of the content providers to go along with the new scheme. Got a better theory? Throw it in the comments. [Financial Times]

There was a power outage earlier and I sat in the dark. Not because I don't have flashlights, but because I couldn't find the right batteries. Oh, if only I had a dog and one of Fido Fashion's power-generating leashes.

Fido Fashion really thought this leash through. There's a little compartment for poop bags on the device. But the key feature is that power is generated as your pup runs off forcing the leash to coil and uncoil. All that energy is then used to light up a built in LED. Should be great for early or late walks in the dark or mornings when you're sitting in the dark.

There aren't any details on pricing yet, but the leash should be out later this year. [Fido Fashions via Coolest Gadgets via Wired]

Between Twitter-holic dates, Facebook relationship status changes, sexting, gadget mishaps, and that time you emailed nude pictures to your ex, there are plenty of ways for tech to affect relationships. What we want are your Valentine's Day romance horror stories.

Did you creep someone out by following her on Twitter too soon after meeting? Or did your date text message you that it's over after you accidentally sent a dirty message to his brother? Maybe that first attempt at a sexy video chat went oh-so-very wrong. Oh, and what about the time your iPhone wound up getting dunked in a beer glass?

Whatever the details, we want to hear about how gadgets, technology, or social networking interfered with your love life. So send your stories to me with the subject of "Bad Valentine Tales" and we can share the horror.

Picture by Kevin McShane

When you join Google Buzz, it automatically provides you with followers and followees based on prior communication. These people are then listed on your Google profile, which can be seen by all your friends. So, affair havers: maybe hold off.

A lot of the Giz staff was alarmed by the suggested/automatic follower lists, not because they were automatic, but because it was hard to tell how exactly they were chosen. Obvious additions, like girlfriends or coworkers, seem to make the cut. Other entries were people that were rarely—and sometimes never—emailed from the associated account.

Anyway, point is, it's an odd concept, made odder by the fact that, as the Silicon Alley Insider noticed, other people can see you're following, including the auto-adds. To put this in real terms:

• A girl you slept with in college sends you a message on Gchat, to tell you she has five beautiful children now, and that she doesn't ever think about you, ever. Ok!
• You exchange some messages and a couple emails to be polite. You defuse the situation. You don't mention it to your current girlfriend, because that would be weird.
• Coincidentally, you enable Google Buzz, which adds both your current girlfriend and this lady who you politely deflected.
• Your girlfriend checks out your Google profile, sees your friends list, and asks you who that lady is.
• You clumsily try to explain, "Oh, it just adds people you talk to automatically," which only makes things worse.
• Fight!
• ...
• You break up, which was probably a good thing anyway, because your relationship sounded really unhealthy. But you get the point, right?

Since fixing this is as simple as toggling a privacy switch in your profile, it's less of a disastrous bug than it is an unfortunate default behavior, and despite their early insistence that this is a feature, not a flaw, Google will probably adjust accordingly. Still though, Buzz hasn't gotten off to the greatest start, has it? [Silicon Alley Insider]

A skeptic might see the Doom II RPG ($4, iPhone/iPod touch) as a lame reboot of the Wolfenstein 3D RPG which was a lame reboot of the original Doom RPG. And...wait...that's kinda true. How absolutely soul-crushing. [iTunes via Kotaku]

In today's Remainders: Snow! Stay in and watch the video podcast infinite recursion on YouTube or go outside and toss the new Panasonic Toughbook tablet in a snowbank (it can handle it). Crowdsourced snow shoveling in DC and more!

Tough Tablet
Yeah, the iPad is pretty, but you better be careful how you treat it lest that beautiful 9" screen shatter into a million little pieces. For people who are looking for something a little tougher—okay, a lot tougher—Panasonic's Toughbook H1 Field looks about as rugged as they come. Admittedly, the H1 probably won't be of much use to regular old consumers who are interested in regular old tablet computing, but with WiFi, a 10" touch screen, a 2MP camera, a reinforced 64GB SSD and the ability to protect all those guts after a six foot fall, this tablet is the one to covet for anyone whose line of work could be found on Dirty Jobs and requires a computer. [Engadget]

ohmygodOHMYGOD
Apparently this is pretty popular on the old internets, so my apologies if you're already familiar with this incrediblie video podcast infinite feedback loop. But ohmygodOHMYGOD ohmygodOHMYGOD is it funny.
[BoingBoing]

Snowgedden, Crowdsourced
Snowmageddon. Snowpocalype. The Blizzard of 2010. Whatever you call it and no matter where you live, you've probably heard that the East Coast is currently getting walloped with a massive snow storm. Here in New York it is definitely snowin', but it's nothing that some mittens and a hot chocolate can't get us through. In the Washington D.C. area, from what I gather, things are a little bit crazier. But in this day and age, where there's a problem, you can be sure that there's a potentially useful crowd-sourced solution. Enter Snowmageddon: The Clean Up. Using Google Maps, D.C.-area residents can post snow "problems" (My driveway is snowed in) as well as snow "solutions" (I'm a big burly man and I would like to dig someone out of a snow bank). Right now, as you can imagine, there are more problems posted than solutions, but it's good to know that even in these chilliest of predicaments, technology is there with an answer. []

EeePad
Asus says it's got a "killer" product in the pipeline for Computex in June, and it looks like it's most likely going to be an Eee tablet of some sort. That would be pretty exciting, but we were already excited-out over this report, from a few weeks ago, that said that Asus had a killer Eee tablet coming out in June. Asus has suggested how they'd like to work with Google on their tablet, but while the prospect of a Chrome OS EeePad is a nice one, it's hard to get too worked up over anything so flimsy. [CrunchGear]

Brain chemistry questionnaires, genetic testing: online dating sites are going to pretty extreme lengths to prove that their methodology is the most advanced. Because hey, then they can justify higher rates! But does any of it actually work?

The NY Times gives a rundown of a few sites that embrace Cupid's geekier side. For a $2000 lifetime membership, for example, ScientificMatch.com uses a DNA sample—from a cheek swab, sicko—to test for genetic markers in your immune system that may indicate compatibility. Chemistry.com employs a questionnaire developed by a biological anthropologist to match up temperaments for $50/month. And eHarmony, the granddaddy of them all, uses sociological variables to filter and sort its members for up to $46/month.

Online dating is a $976 million a year industry, so it's either working for some people or singles are very persistent/wealthy these days. But success rates are hard to measure, even for dating sites with a scientific slant. And whatever successes are found may not stem from fancy questionnaires as much as the self-selecting, pre-screened pool of people ready to find that special someone:

The sites attract cohorts of people interested in slowing down the online dating and mating process, in finding out more information about potential partners - or in ruling out unlikely suitors - before they graduate to the meet-and-greet stage.

And while $50 a month might sound expensive for meeting someone, the Times also points out that it's a heck of a lot less than a monthly tab at a single's bar. [NY Times]

Warner Music, one of the four largest record labels, is upset with just how free their music is online, and they're not talking about piracy: They're worried about legit, ad-supported services like Last.fm, Spotify and Pandora. Uh oh.

Warner execs, who were just yesterday lamenting the (shocking!) correlation between raised iTunes prices and decrease sales, are just as uncomfortable with above-ground free services. Says Warner's Edgar Bronfman Jr, via the BBC:

Free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry and as far as Warner Music is concerned will not be licensed.

"The 'get all your music you want for free, and then maybe with a few bells and whistles we can move you to a premium price' strategy is not the kind of approach to business that we will be supporting in the future.

The free services he's referring to are only free in the sense that you don't have to pay upfront for music streaming; they're not free in that you're generally being subjected to ads in exchange for listening.

Their problem with services like this seems to be twofold. The first and most obvious problem with a service like Pandora is that their advertising is probably bring in much, much less revenue that a simple digital or physical purchase. The second issue, subtle as it may be, is even more pernicious: to allow services to exist to appear to give away your music at no real cost is to devalue your product, making customers less likely to pay for it in the future. At least, that's the thinking.

Whether Warner will sever existing agreements or just refuse to enter into new ones remains to be seen, but one thing's for certain—the music industry is no happier to dismantle their decades-old business model than the the media is. It's just a shame they're figuring that out now, just as ad-supported music sites are coming of age, in no small part due to major label support. Business!

Update: Though the original BBC article makes reference to Pandora, the company tells reader Ryan Murphy that their service shouldn't be affected:

Edgar Bronfman's comment on the Warner conference call was addressing free on-demand services such as Spotify that are directly licensed. Pandora operates under a different licensing structure and won't be impacted by Warner's apparent decision with respect to free, on-demand services.

[BBC]

According to an FCC filing confidentiality request, it seems likely that the Pre could arrive on AT&T this May. Neat, but why would anyone choose AT&T over Sprint or Verizon? (That's an earnest question, in case you're of that misunderstood camp and care to enlighten the group.) [FCC and PreCentral via Engadget]

Occasionally I cover my ears and sing "Lalalala, I'm not listening to your concept description." Today I'm covering them and begging "No! Don't punch holes into my poor earlobes and make me use this hearing aid when I'm old! Please!"

I understand that it's a gradual process to stretch out one's earlobes and wear jewelry that looks like the PLUG hearing aid concept—heck, it's even trendy to some—but that doesn't mean that I could imagine a lot of people actually using this hearing aid if it ever turns into a real product. [Design Affairs]

TechCrunch is reporting that an iPad-friendly version of Hulu is in the works, and may be ready in time for the tablet's launch. Oh, sweet mercy, let it be true.

The bad news is that the rumor gets pretty vague "industry insider" sourcing. The good news is that the move would make perfect sense for Hulu, especially given that they've reportedly already had an iPhone app in the works for some time.

The barriers to entry for Hulu on the iPad aren't as insurmountable as they may seem. All of Hulu's videos are already encoded in H.264, which is supported by Quicktime and Safari. So Hulu could simply have its videos open in Quicktime (since the iPad and iPhone don't support Flash). Or, more likely, they could build a custom app with its own player. Of course, since Hulu.com is built on Flash, the result might not look or act quite the way the site does, but as long as the content is there, I'm fine with that.

As with all rumors, time will tell. But this one's got a shorter time horizon than most. The iPad launches in March, and having Hulu along for the ride would be a pretty sweet selling point. [TechCrunch]

Nielsen stats put the average teen's texting rate at about ten per hour during the day. This, and basic math, leads to some terrifying conclusions!

For example: Nielsen says that this rate of texting results in somewhere over 3000 text per month, per teen, on average. This means that nearly half of every day is texting time for these people, which, assuming they sleep at all, means that they're either texting steadily all day, or a ton during after-school hours. And let's say these texts average out to about 80 characters, which is half the maximum length for a text message: Even if the average word length is very generous five characters (that's six, including a space), these kids are tapping out about 40,000 words of ephemeral nothingness every month, or roughly one Catcher in the Rye's worth of "WILL UR BRTHR BUY US SUM BEER?" and "R U REDDY 2 DO IT YET?" every two months.

What happens when these people get old? Nielsen, for what it's worth, says they'll just keep texting. [Marketing Vox via Textually via Twitter]

For this week's Shooting Challenge, we're playing with the human mind. How do you know something in a picture is really that large or small? Or put differently, why the hell did no one tell me I was a giant??

The Challenge

Trick our sense of scale using forced perspective. In other words, I ask that no one goes the tilt-shift or macro route. We're not creating miniatures through lens distortion as much as we're abusing the basic laws of perspective for our adolescent giggles.

The Method

We're all familiar with crushing friends' heads with our fingers, but for a bit more on the techniques behind forced perspective, Environmental Graffiti's tutorial is loaded with examples and tips. But the best advice? The simpler the landscape, the more fake-able the effect.

The Rules

1. Submissions need to be your own.
2. Photos need to be taken the week of the contest. (No portfolio linking or it spoils the "challenge" part.)
3. Explain, briefly, the equipment, settings and technique used to snag the shot.
4. Email submissions to contests@gizmodo.com.
5. Include 800px wide image AND 2560x1600 sized in email. (The 800px image is the one judged, so feel free to crop/alter the image for wallpaper-sized dimensions.)

Send your best entries by Sunday, February 14th at 6PM Eastern to contests@gizmodo.com with "Forced Perspective" in the subject line. Save your files as JPGs or GIFs, and use a FirstnameLastname.jpg (800px) and FirstnameLastnameWALLPAPER.jpg (2560px) naming conventions. Include your shooting summary (camera, lens, ISO, etc) in the body of the email.

I can't wait to see what you come up with! (Just don't squish my head again, it's surprisingly painful.) [Image source]