TheReelTodd.com

Lonely Empty Beer Bottle

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:49:34 -0500

There sat the lonely empty beer bottle. His beer had been consumed. What more was there for this little empty beer bottle to do? He was but a hollow version of his former self. No more fresh, delicious beer inside.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars... In Toon Town

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:48:53 -0500

Star Wars: The Clone Wars hits theaters this weekend. This fully animated new feature film is set in the heart of the Clone Wars and... audiences will be treated to... there's a... ** yaaaawn ** .

I'm sorry, am I the only Star Wars fan who just doesn't have any interest in this new Star Wars film? Seriously, are there many Star Wars fans out there, over the age of 10, that are actually excited about seeing this? I can understand a child's excitement about it, but I can't see many adults being interested.

Google Search Index Hiccup

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:03:52 -0500

Ever had your new [website] content show up great in Google's search results only to disappear a couple of days later? You may have tried resubmitting your sitemap repeatedly and making changes in how you publish your content, fearing the possibility your site isn't up to spec with Google's Webmaster Guidelines. A couple days later, you find your content has magically reappeared in Google's search results.

Sneezing "Achoo"

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:50:10 -0500

Ahh sneezing. There are only a few things in life more gratifying than a good, old fashioned sneeze.

This may just be an American (or English-speaking) thing, but why do people say "achoo" when they sneeze? Sometimes I do it, kind of as a gag, but otherwise I don't actually say "achoo" when I sneeze. I know "achoo" is described as the sound of a human sneeze, but why does one feel the need to actually say it during a sneeze-in-progress?

Blacklisted by Google... Again

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:08:13 -0500

Before getting in to it, I should probably make it clear for anyone who hasn't read my previous Google-blacklisting article, only my most recent content ended up blacklisted, not my entire website.

My recent Lode Runner tutorial was removed from Google's index three days after it's publication on my site. If you're not familiar with early 80's home computer gaming, that's the Lode Runner character in the slashed-G image. This time the blacklisted content wasn't as popular as the previous, so not much traffic was lost as a result. It still seems pretty senseless to me as to why this happens.

The good news is that I think I've figured out the pattern. I ping Google with updates, so it usually doesn't take more than an hour or two for my latest content to show up in search results. It seems like Google checks back again later, reevaluates my site's content in greater depth, and identifies what it perceives as duplicate content. Google warns about about duplicate content in their Webmaster Guidelines. I personally don't think an entry that appears on a site's home page and also on the permalink page (simultaneously) qualifies as a "substantial" amount of duplicate content, as Google spells out in their guide, but that might be why my content ends up temporarily removed from their index.

I use Movable Type 4 as my CMS. Its default template scheme (as with most blogging/CMS platforms) publishes the latest entry on both the home page as well as on the permalink page. I've modified my templates from the default, but my latest entry is still present on both the home page and on its own permalink page when published.

My recently published tutorial page was showing up on the first page of results (or first few pages of depending on search criteria), but it is currently completely missing from Google's search results. No combination of words from the page itself results in it being listed on Google. It's showing up just fine on Yahoo!, and even at the top of the list. Yahoo doesn't have a problem with my latest content appearing both on the home page and permalink at the same time. The permalink page is returned in the search results, as it used to be the case in Google's results prior to today. Yahoo's indexing process seems to be a little better engineered than Google's. Not because Yahoo is still displaying my latest content whereas Google has removed it and therefore I like Yahoo better. It's because Yahoo's process seems to be more webmaster-friendly and works, whereas Google's process needlessly dumps completely legitimate content. Google didn't even choose one page or the other - it removed both. What other legitimate content is Google removing from their search index and why? I'm very curious about this.

As a result of my previous page getting unindexed by Google (the TR2N article), I made some changes to my sitemap. I lowered home page's priority value and gave the permalink page a higher priority. When Google reads the sitemap, it should see that the permalink page has a higher value than the home page, and therefore it should ignore the home page's (redundant) content and index the permalink page, right? It didn't work. The logic made sense to me but what do I know? I'm still trying to figure out exactly why my content initially shows up well on Google, then goes away, then shows up again after I've posted newer content.

I'm guessing that once I publish this entry, my currently blacklisted (as of writing this) page will once again show up in Google's search results after a day or so, but at a lower rank. In the day or two following that, it will probably crawl its way back up to where it was in the results previously. That's how it went with my previous Google-blacklisted page.

If the "duplicate" content is what's causing my pages to be temporarily removed from Google's index, do all blogs and websites get the same treatment? My site is one of millions that regularly display the most recent content on the home page and on the permalink page at the same time. Because this is such a widely used publishing format, I don't understand how Google could be in the practice of punishing webmasters who present their content in this way. If that is what's really going on. (see update)

Although I think I have discovered why Google is removing my content from their index, I'm not really certain how to prevent it from happening each time I publish new content. One thing I can try is to publish content more frequently - as in before Google reevaluates it and punishes me for "duplicate" material. I'd love to add new content more frequently. Unfortunately, there just aren't enough hours in the day. For now, my site is just a hobby and I can't devote as much time to creating new content as I'd like.

Another approach that might work is to display a shortened version of my latest content on my home page. This should effectively prevent Google's system from labeling it as duplicate content and punishing me by completely removing both pages of it from their search index. There are a couple problems with that idea though. The main problem is that I'm not currently proficient enough in Movable Type 4 to alter my home page template to do so in the way that I want to. I'll have to invest more time and experiment to figure it out.

Today I inserted "robots-nocontent" tags around the most recent post area of my home page. Yahoo introduced this tag in 2007, allowing webmasters to indicate to search-bots areas on pages that are less relevant - such as text found on every page of a site like navigation links, etc. As far as I know, Google's system is not recognizing this tag, but I'm hoping it is at least taking note of it somehow. I'm trying, G - work with me.

Even though I think I've figured out why Google keeps blacklisting (unindexing) my most recent content, I still have no hard evidence indicating such. Like I said, many websites also publish new content on their home page and permalink page simultaneously without punishment from the big G. What is it that other webmasters are doing right that I'm not? Hopefully, I'll figure it out in time. If you know the secret, please take a moment to share. I'd appreciate it.

There are so many rules webmasters have to follow to be included in Google's index. We all want a high page rank. We all want to be seen in the mighty search giant's results. I've been poking around the enormous amount of information in Google's webmaster knowledge base, but can't seem to find the specific rules for this issue logically spelled out. There are general guides and suggestions, but nothing that spells out "this [occurrence] will result in content being removed from the search index because of [whatever]."

I understand that some people were finding ways to trick Google's system into getting a higher page rank. This is bad for everyone - especially those who've worked hard on their content, investing their time and money to get seen legitimately. I invest good time and work hard on my own content - from the serious to the silly. I'm not playing any tricks, but I keep getting penalized by Google, presumably because of the checks and balances they put in place to prevent people from tricking the system.

At least I've managed to get seen on Yahoo and remain seen there. Although not as widely used as Google, it still points millions of people daily to the information they seek. Since previously discovering my content blacklisted by Google, I've been working on making my site more visible on Yahoo - in case it happened again. I wish it were as easy to stay listed in Google's index as it is with Yahoo. It would be nice if I could spend my time creating new content rather having to spend it researching how to keep it listed on Google without it getting blacklisted after a few days. Of course, in the grander scheme of life - what does it really matter anyway, right? Perhaps I should just forget about how Google plays the game and simply have fun with my website. People will still find their way to my content. It will just take a little longer for it to show up on the radar for Google users.

Update: August 14, 2008

It is unlikely that my small amount of duplicate content was resulting in my recent pages disappearing from Google's index. See this follow up post for my latest findings on the subject.

Lode Runner Level Editor Tutorial

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:59:08 -0500

In 1983, a groundbreaking new platform game was released: Lode Runner. Developed by programmer Douglas E. Smith and published by Brøderbund, this highly addictive game offered players an amazing 150 unique levels of game play.

About This Tutorial

Lode Runner was originally released on the Apple ][ computer, which is how I enjoyed the game back in the day, however this tutorial is based on the Commodore 64 cartridge version of the game. Although much of this tutorial will be applicable to the Apple ][ disc, C64 disc, and C64 cartridge versions, there may be some commands and/or procedures unique to the C64 cartridge version. Please keep that in mind if using a version other than the Commodore 64 with Lode Runner cartridge (or emulated version there of). This is not intended to be a complete guide to Lode Runner, but rather a basic tutorial about custom level design.

Playing the Game

Retrieve all of the gold chests and then reach the top of the screen. Watch out for enemy robots - they have the dreaded touch of death. Enemies sometimes pick up a (single) gold chest and carry it for a while. Use your "laser drill" (fire button) to dig holes as necessary. Drilled holes automatically fill back in after a short time. Enemies will fall into holes they pass over, drop their gold chest (if carrying one) and become stuck for a short time before crawling back out. The player will fall right through holes, only becoming stuck if the passage below is not empty. If a hole fills in while an enemy is in it, the enemy will respawn at the top of the screen. If the player is in a hole when it fills back in, the player will loose a life and have to restart the level. Employ strategy to clear levels and try not to end up trapped along the way. Press CTRL+A to abort (reset) the level should you become trapped and unable to continue. Doing so will cost a life. Above all - exercise self-control over the game. For a game that was made in 1983, many people still playing Lode Runner a highly addictive experience.

Ahead of Its Time

What made this game truly groundbreaking for its time was the fact that it came with a built-in, easy to use, level editor. Level editors are common place in today's games, but in 1983 that was an almost unheard of concept that extended this game's replay value infinitely.

Screen Breakdown

The play field is laid out in a grid of 28 x 16 blocks. There are a lot of possibilities for unique, custom levels in this seemingly small space, as demonstrated by the game's included 150 of them (the cart version had significantly fewer).

Level Editor

To enter Lode Runner's level editor, press CTRL+E while the game is in demo mode. If you're using an emulator on a PC, the Commodore 64 CTRL key is usually the mapped to the TAB key, so you may need to press TAB+E instead.

Once you're on the level editor screen, you'll need to need to start out by initializing to prepare the workspace for user created levels. After that, enter the edit option and choose your level:

Building Blocks

There are 10 basic building blocks used in Lode Runner levels. The different blocks are chosen by using the number keys. Because the Commodore 64 didn't have a numeric keypad, use the number keys at the top of the keyboard. Some emulators do not have the numeric keypad mapped to the C64 number characters.

Move the cursor around using the following keys:
I = up
M - down
J = left
K - right

Level Construction

To lay a brick so to say, press the corresponding number for it as shown in the building block key illustration. Even though the trap door and level cleared ladders appear different than a regular brick or ladder in the level editor, they will look like normal bricks and ladders when the game is in play. The different appearance is so the game level author can tell them apart while editing.

Some of the building blocks have limits to how many of each can be utilized in a level. There is a limit of 5 enemies per level, even though it is possible to add more than that in the level editing screen. The game will simply ignore the extra enemies and only 5 will show up during play. The same goes for escape ladders, although I'm uncertain of the maximum number allowed. If too many are added to a level, the game will ignore the excess.

Remember to include the Lode Runner player character and at least one enemy in a level before attempting to play it. Failure to do so may result in suspension of your internet account with your ISP, and in some cases seizure of your personal computer(s), mobile devices, and tooth brush by the authorities. Don't say I didn't warn you. :-P

Good Level Design

Keep in mind the mechanics of the game while you are editing your custom levels. Don't forget to include an escape ladder(s) reaching all the way to the top of the screen upon level completion. If the player cannot reach the top of the screen after all the gold chests have been gathered, then the current level will continue endlessly and the next level cannot be reached.

It's not a good idea to leave an area of the board in which the player might get stuck without any way to get out. It's one thing if the player makes poor choices in the game and gets stuck as a result. It is another thing when the level itself has areas in which the player will get stuck once entered, regardless. Intentional "traps" in the game (that prevent completion of a level) will probably result in a negative reaction from the player, therefore I advise against that kind of level design. Work on making levels challenging, but not impossible. Try to make the player think a little and use strategy in order to clear levels. Clever placement of trap doors and gold chests will add to the challenge and enjoyment factor for the player. Lode Runner isn't just a platformer, it's also a great puzzle game, depending on level design.

There are two main types of Lode Runner level designs:

Standard levels: designed for interesting and challenging game play.
Themed levels: designed to resemble a recognizable object or theme. These videos demonstrate some of my custom themed Lode Runner levels in action.

No matter what kind of level is being designed, it is important to remember the rules of good level design. In other words, make sure the level is solvable, that the player won't get stuck because of design flaws, and that it is challenging, but not excessively difficult or near impossible.

Saving Custom Levels

To save custom levels, press CTRL+S while in the screen editor. Again, you might need to use TAB in place of CTRL depending on emulator. To exit the level editing screen and return to the editor command screen, press CTRL+Q. To clear (erase) a level, press CTRL+C and then enter the number for the level to be cleared. To play a particular level, press CTRL+P and choose your level.

Be sure to test your levels thoroughly before inviting a friend to try them. If you've ever played a poorly designed game before, you know how frustrating it can be. It ruins the experience. Remember that you're trying to offer people a fun and challenging experience, not irritate them with a poorly designed level that wasn't properly tested.

In terms of saving your custom levels made in an emulator so that they can be loaded up again and/or made available online for others to enjoy, create a disc image of your Lode Runner data disc. The disc image should work fine with any C64 emulator that properly emulates discs. If you're not sure how to create a disc image, there should be instructions how to do so on the website that your emulator was downloaded from. Because this varies from emulator to emulator, I'm not going to get in to it here. One quick and easy way to save your custom Lode Runner levels is to simply use the save state feature of the emulator. I believe all widely used C64 emulators offer a save state option.

Questions, Comments, Feedback

If you've got questions, comments, or (gasp) mistakes to report or about this tutorial, e-mail me or leave a comment below.

Let me know if you come up with an interesting custom Lode Runner level you feel is noteworthy. E-mail me a screen cap of your creation or send me a link to a video of your custom level in play. Depending on how many I receive, I may end up creating a Lode Runner custom level gallery to showcase user submitted custom levels.

Blacklisted by Google - Why?

Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:03:20 -0500

Just over a week ago, news of a TRON sequel (TR2N) generated quite a buzz among the nerd and geek communities of the internet. As the news spread, every self-respecting TRON nerd wrote about it in their blogs, personal websites, and in many commercial sites. Being a big TRON fan myself, I felt the need to geek-out about the news on my own site as well.

My website doesn't get the high volumes of traffic that the better known sites do, but I enjoy a steady, though modest stream of visitors daily. There was a big increase in my traffic as a result of my TR2N news article. Fellow TRON fans and people of similar interest were finding their way to my website to read my write-up about the news. According to my site stats, many of them took the time to browse my other content afterword. Traffic to my TR2N article, most of it coming from Google searches, continued to increase until about 4 days later when it completely disappeared from Google's search results. No combination of search words, with or without quotes, resulted in my TR2N article being displayed on Google. It was entirely removed from Google's search index.

As a result of Google unindexing my page, traffic to it took a big hit. The number of visitors to my website in general dropped back down to before. TRON fans were no longer finding their way to my website - at least not through Google. Google has the most widely used search engine currently in existence. It is where most people turn for search results, including me. If it ain't found on Google, it almost may as well not exist.

Why was my TR2N write-up unceremoniously erased from the internet search engine giant? The rest of my site's content remained in Google's search index, but my latest, and most popular entry was removed. I didn't break any rules or violate any copyright laws in my TR2N write-up. There were (and still are) a zillion other websites reporting the news of a TRON sequel - all of which, as far as I could tell, remained in Google's search results without issue. What made my own personal take on things any different? Why did my most popular page get the cold shoulder from Google?

My initial thoughts focused on a seemingly harmless comment someone left on my now stealthy TR2N page. It included, two links to a bootleg copy of the TR2N video shown at Comic-Con. Literally dozens of other websites had embedded copies and/or links to the video without penalization from Google. Why would this be a problem on my site? One of the links was to a YouTube copy of the video. Disney issued copyright take-down notices to YouTube about the video, so as quickly as people were posting them there, they were in fact disappearing. Google owns YouTube. Could it be that Google blacklisted my TR2N page because of a simple link a that a commenter left on that page? Is Google unindexing pages for simply containing links to off-site content? (see update below)

I removed both video links in said comment the very next morning, just after realizing my page was now off the Google radar screen. For the record, the videos had already been removed by their video host sites prior to my removing the links to them in the comment.

One of Google's many free services is Webmaster Tools. In a nutshell, it offers webmasters some basic diagnostic tools to make sites more Google-friendly, and improve their visibility. I've been using it for almost two months. Reviewing the current status of my site in Google's Webmaster Tools revealed no problems. Everything checked out just fine. I regenerated and resubmitted my sitemap in an effort to get my page recognized by Google once again.

The following day, my TR2N story was reindexed and showing up in Google's search results, but not as well. Previously, it was showing up in the first few pages of results (depending on search criteria). As of writing this, a search on "tron sequel" (without the quotes) returns my home page (not direct URL to the story) on page 12 of results. The same search previously placed the exact URL (permalink) to the story on page 4 of results. So although my once decently-ranked page has returned to Google's search results, it's not as highly-ranked and not nearly as likely to get discovered as before.

Although my current page-templates might benefit from a little tweaking to minimize the potential for redundant words appearing (in side-bar comment links), they are otherwise search-engine friendly. None of my site's content, including my TR2N article, is in contrast with what is laid out in Google's Webmaster Guidelines.

Some may wonder why this is a big deal. After all, I'm just barking about my personal take on an upcoming film being dropped from Google's listings, right? Aww - poor baby me. I don't make a living from my website and my content isn't exactly hottest-topic-of the-day stuff. If that is how you are looking at my concern over Google's removal of my page from their index, than you you've missed the point.

The bigger picture is that if I did rely on my website as a means of primary income, as a growing number of small business owners do, this "little" issue could have been catastrophic. Regardless of the purpose of my website, my voice was effectively silenced. My content was out there but invisible on Google - the search engine that the majority of internet users rely on to find what they're looking for.

Even though it may have been just an entertainment related article, this experience was rather surreal to me. I put a lot of time and effort in to the content on my website: creative videos, product reviews, random photographs, personal thoughts - everything I publish. There are people interested in what I have to present... when they can find it. Having my content do well one day and be all but invisible the next was an ugly experience. Although I'm not the first person this has happened to and won't be the last, the experience was a real eye-opener for me. As far as I can tell, I did everything right, and yet my content was still removed from Google for a time. When it returned, it had a much lower rank and noticeably weaker reach.

Google doesn't owe me anything. As far as I know, it is completely within their right to index or not index whatever they see fit based on whatever they feel relevant. Because they are so widely relied upon - I see a danger in this. I'm not sure if the danger is in Google's ability to decide what people can and cannot find through their service with little explanation, or the fact that most people simply don't feel the need to look anywhere else.

In an effort to minimize the potential for this kind of thing happening again, I've removed the ability for people to create links in their comments. I don't get comment-spam frequently, so I had hoped I wouldn't have to remove that feature just yet. When people take the time to offer their input on my site, I'd prefer to allow them as much freedom in their comments as possible.

Right now, what bothers me the most is that there is no way to know if or when content will end up getting blacklisted. Although I speculate that Google knocked my page out of their index because of links a visitor posted in a comment, I have no way of verifying or dispelling it. Unfortunately, I haven't really learned anything from this experience in terms of maintaining a search-friendly website.

How about a content-checker, Google? With your vast resources, this should be quite an easy feature to make. I'm using your Webmaster Tools. Where's that warning message that tells me why my most popular page just got yanked from your index and what I need to do to resolve the problem? Why all the secrecy? Shouldn't webmasters be warned when we're in danger of having our content unindexed? A little automated alert to us small guys would really help out a lot. I'm ready and willing to play by your rules... what are they?

In light of this rather frustrating experience, I'm still a believer in Google. They're still my home page at home and at work. I do a lot of research at my day-job, and Google is usually my most effective tool. I just wish the G-machine was a little friendlier to my website. I'd be lying right now to say that I am not concerned about this page ending up missing from Google searches, or at least very low ranked because of its subject matter. I think Google is bigger than doing something like that, but I guess time will tell.

If you feel that my concerns are relevant and should be addressed by Google, please post a link to this page on your website or blog (use the permalink at the top) and be sure to include your own thoughts on the matter. Perhaps if enough webmasters raise their voice about this, we'll see some positive changes take place. In the meantime, I'll continue researching to figure out exactly what went wrong.

Update: August 8

I've been able to put to rest the theory of Google temporarily removing my page from their index because of off-site video links. Another one of my recent entires was showing up in Google searches only to completely disappear two days after publishing it. Because the newly unindexed page has no video links and because several other websites contained links to the same videos without Google penalization, it is unlikely the video links had anything to do with it.

I have a new theory as to why the page mentioned in this article and a more recent page ended up blacklisted by Google (although it remained available in Yahoo). You can follow my latest adventures in Google-blacklisting here: Blacklisted by Google... Again

A TRON Sequel Coming and I'm Geeking Out!

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:30:24 -0500

Hell has frozen over. Dogs and cats are living together. The TRON-hating suits over at Disney must be out of their usual TRON-hating minds. A TRON sequel has been officially green-lighted. Not just talked about. Not just a possibility. Not just another potential screenplay in the works. This time, all sources seem to agree that it's a done deal, in production, and will be rezzing in at a theater near you in 2011.

"TR2N" is what they're calling it for now, or more accurately put: how they're spelling it. It seems in line with today's ever-so-clever film naming tradition. It works for me. How do you pronounce that now? Tra-TOO-nnn? :-P

There's been rumor of a TRON sequel and/or remake for years now, but this time there seems to be a lot more merit to it. Proof-of-concept footage for "TR2N" was shown at the recent Comic-Con in San Diego. This wasn't footage of the actual film-in-progress, mind you, just a TRON-based action short from director Joseph Kosinski made to sell the concept of a TRON sequel to the suits at Disney. The reaction at Comic-Con was nothing less than total extreme excitement. According to reports I read, it caught the convention-goers completely by surprise and generated quite a buzz. If it went over half as well with the Disney suits (who usually seem to hate anything TRON related), than it is indeed going to be a reality.

I'm very excited - so much so that I'm getting chills just thinking about how cool it might be. Actor Jeff Bridges will be reprising his role as Kevin Flynn. That is a definite, major plus to the sequel. He also happens to be one of my favorite actors. Unfortunately, none of the other original cast members have been confirmed as returning (at least not yet). I hope to see more of them return and reprise their roles as well.

TRON is my absolute FAVORITE film of all time. In addition to my excitement over the news of a (real this time) TRON sequel, I am worried that it might not be done right. We've all seen sequels gone wrong in the past. I loved the original film more than other, but it was a box office failure in 1982 and something that most people either don't know about, don't remember, or just make fun of. In light of that, exactly what direction will they take this sequel in? Will it barely resemble what I loved about the first? Will it just be another cookie-cutter action flick with cheesy one-liners, young people acting cool and trendy, and visual effects eye candy loaded with big explosions and outrageous action sequences? Sure, the kiddies today all love that stuff, but it doesn't do much for me. Been there, done that, blah.

What about the cool visual style of the original TRON? Although many of today's youth refer to the original TRON as "that old movie with bad graphics", it was cutting edge stuff in 1982 that audiences had never seen before. Hell, it still looks futuristic to me today. I love the simplicity of the digital world visuals. I hope they don't go overboard with fancy crap and a billion intricate parts to every little digital item. I also loved the look of the "programs" in the original film. What - actors in tights? No - that's not how I ever looked at it. Programs perceived as people in the digital world - their circuitry patterns glowing brightly with energy. I loved that look. I'd also love to see it updated, but not thrown away. What I've read made it sound like the digital world is 100% CGI this time around - no real actors at all. I have not yet seen a 100% computer generated character of human form look quite right. I've never seen digital gravity or center of motion replicated in a way that didn't stand out like a sore thumb to me. In the original TRON, I loved how the recognizers, light cycles, and tanks moved. There was a strange digital gravity that almost mimicked the motion of two magnets repelling each other at times. I loved that effect, but that's a whole different thing. Programs of human form, fully realized via CGI - I'm a little leery of that for now.

TRON employed some groundbreaking visual effects back in 1982. My eyes damn nearly popped out of my head when I first saw that film - it was that amazing at the time (granted, I was already quite a nerd and intrigued by computers). I'm hopeful that TR2N will follow in that regard, with amazing visuals that have not yet been realized on the big screen. For now I am hopeful about the new film. Reports of it being released in 3D sound great to me. I LOVE 3D. I wish EVERY form of entertainment was available in true 3D. I'm excited about TR2N. I hope they do it right. I hope it has an interesting, well thought-out story that works well. I hope the visuals retain that old TRON feeling while still reflecting the technology advancements of the two and a half decades since the original story.

I'm cautiously looking forward to TR2N. Let's hope it doesn't suck. I know some TRON fans will be happy with anything TRON-related. As for me, I need a little more than that. I want to see the miraculous happen - old school TRON fans like me AND new younger audiences BOTH be blown away by a new groundbreaking film. And this time, let's see you promote it juuuuuust a little better than in 1982, k Disney? :-)

Ahh - geeking out always feels good. I know I don't talk about theatrical movies often - mainly because today's films don't do much for me (with some exceptions). But a TRON sequel that sounds like it just might kick some digital ass? I'm a TRON loving geek. I HAD to geek out a little. I could have easily kept going, but I have to go mow the lawn now. 'Think I'll wear a helmet and attach a frisbee to my back when I do.

"Hey - who's that guy?"

"That's TODD. He mows lawns for the Users"

. . .

Update: July 27, 1:42 PM
It turns out that the TRON sequel being green-lighted (or is that green-lit?) isn't quite official just yet. I think it's safe to say that there's more than a 68.71% chance that it will be. In fact, I'm pretty certain of that. Once the suits at Disney get wind of the incredible buzz generated by the news, they'll see the great opportunity to make lots and lots of money. I just hope they do the film right. After having seen a couple bootleg copies proof-of-concept footage, all I can say is that it gave me chills and a feeling of excitement that seems just a little too high for the simple announcing of a new film. But then again, this isn't just any new film, it's TRON and I'm a geek. 'Nuff said.

Update: July 30, 7:14 PM
I found out early this morning that Google has black-listed this particular entry on my website. I don't have a CLU as to why, either. Sorry - a little TRON-nerd humor there. Seriously, there is nothing on or in my write up about the new TRON sequel that violates anything in any way. I have not violated Google's rules. I have not violated Disney's copyrights. I've checked my code over and over. There is absolutely nothing on my little TR2N geek-out session that doesn't appear in a zillion other website accounts of the news - except for the fact that it's written in my own words and from my own feelings on the matter. Seriously - try searching anything about this article on Google, and you'll come up empty - my site will not be in the results at all. It was showing up on Google yesterday, but completely gone today. All my other content is still indexed on Google (thank God), but this has been erased from the internet... or it may as well be if Google black-lists it. I was getting a lot of Google traffic to this article until they decided to unindex it for whatever mysterious reason I cannot figure out. I've been researching it but keep coming up empty. I hope it was just a glitch and it will show up again soon. For now, I'm at a total loss. Ideas, anyone?

Update: August 1, 5:48 AM
This TRON sequel write-up is back on Google's radar screen. I don't know what caused it to get wiped out initially, but it's back now and I hope fellow TRON fans continue to find their way here. I use Google's webmaster tools to help keep my site in good, search-friendly order. It would be really nice if Google chose to let us know if/when something might cause our websites, or a portion there of, to get knocked out of their index or lowered in rank. I suspected the cause may have been two video links that were posted in a comment, but I haven't been able to verify anything. For now, it remains a mystery to me. Perhaps the MCP was just messing with me from beyond the digital grave.

Speeder Bike Todd

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:52:35 -0500

In early 2000 I made this simple animated GIF of me wizzing along on a speeder bike through the forest moon of Endor. Well, not through the forest moon, just through the forest, on the forest moon of Endor. You get the idea.

This quickly thrown together animation isn't quite an example of my finer work, but it was a fun creative exercise at the time. I added my dot-com tag just before publishing it here. My website domain didn't exist at the time it was originally made.

Just before the release of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace in 1999, I learned of a local Star Wars fan club. It was made up of fellow Star Wars geeks with whom I shared similar interests. I attended gatherings with them on and off for a year or two. It was during this time that I felt inspired to play with Star Wars imagery and simple visual effects.

With the help of an old computer on loan, my Hi8 video camera, a low-end analog parallel port video capture device, Photoshop 4.0, a freeware AVI video frame compiler/decompiler, and a freeware animated GIF utility, I generated the simple animated GIF you see above.

The morning after hunting down the archive CD that contained the original source files for this, I was struck with a... or should that be "stricken" (?) with a rather strange short video idea. An old, random song was playing in my head and I found myself singing my own lyrics to it - about my speeder bike. The idea cracked me up as sang it repeatedly while getting ready for work yesterday. I just thought I'd include that little tidbit of information in the rare event that I actually followed through with producing it. This is where the idea was born.

I doubt I'm the only one to slap together a personal speeder bike GIF animation. If you made one too, point me to it. I'm brave enough to share my geeky stuff with the world. Are you? :-)

Attack of the 50 Foot Omnibot

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:04:17 -0500

In the early 80's, there were few toys cooler than the remote controlled electronic wonder known as the Omnibot. These days robot toys are a dime a dozen and can do everything from wrestle to play soccer. More than 20 years ago, the Omnibot reigned as the ultimate robotic tech-toy and was on every nerdy kid's Christmas list.

For the time, this 14" tall distant cousin of R2-D2 was an amazingly cool remote control robot. It had a built-in tape deck, fully functional alarm clock, and LCD window that displayed the time, day of the week, and quarter-minutes (instead of seconds). The quarter-minute display wasn't very useful, but it looked cool as it flashed in one of 4 directions for 15 seconds at a time.

Omnibot was controlled with a remote that allowed the user to move it forward, turn right (in-place), turn left (in-place), and move backward. There was a button to start and stop the audio cassette tape playback. Two other buttons activated one of two different Omnibot computing noises. The user could hold the button on the side while talking in to the remote and have his/her voice heard through Omnibot's built-in speaker. The eyes would light up brighter in sync with the sounds it made, including electronic beeps, audio cassette playback, and the user's voice. It may not seem like much by today's standards, but in the 80's, that was some seriously cool stuff. There simply were no other self-propelled remote controlled toys that offered so many cool features back then.

This little guy could get around quite well. There were 4 thick, rubber-traction wheels underneath that drove the Omnibot at a slow, but decent pace. Bare floors and sidewalks were no problem, of course. It could easily crawl over most carpets and even grass (at a reduced pace). Moving like an unstoppable robotic mini-tank, there were few surfaces this electronic mass of plastic coolness could not make its way over. Snow, mud, and molten lava come to mind.

Omnibot's arms could be posed up and down in different positions. The "hands" were self-leveling, so they would always be parallel to the ground, and they could be rotated at the wrist joint. The left arm sported a cool claw that could be opened up to grip things. The arms and hands (or claw) were not mechanized because it would have made the toy too expensive for most consumers. Even without motorized articulated appendages, there were some cool tricks it could do under the control of a skilled nerd.

When the claw was set in the open position, it could automatically be snapped shut again when an object came in contact with a small release trigger located between the grips. Therefore, it was possible to have Omnibot fetch beverages or another small objects by maneuvering it so that the claw-release came in contact with the item just right, thus gripping it with a spring-loaded clamp-action. I used to love setting things across the room and having Omnibot bring them back to me. It's a geek thing.

The right "hand" was basically a cup holder. One of many fun things to do with Ombibot was to serve drinks to people. A can of soda, or beverage in a glass, fit nicely in the cup-holder hand. If more carrying space was needed, the supplied serving tray could be placed securely in the robots hands. I remember always wanting to use Omnibot to serve drinks to our extended family when they came to visit. This event was usually short lived as I would be scolded for getting the robot in the way of the adults. For some reason, most grownups just didn't understand the nerdy cool factor of serving drinks with a remote controlled robot.

There was a "base" to put Omnibot on when it was at rest or being charged. It was nothing more than a thin piece of black, semi-glossy cardboard with cross-hairs and a red border printed on it. I used to use it to give the neighborhood kids some pretty nasty paper cuts when they pissed me off. I mean, I drew some serious blood with that thing. Uh... ok, I never did anything like that. It just popped in my head and made me laugh so I thought I'd share.

The vintage Omnibot you see in the photo above wasn't originally mine. It belonged to my younger brother. Even so, I'm pretty sure I spent more time playing with it. I was the family nerd. Not much has changed in that respect. I remember wondering why he ended up getting the robot as a present instead of me, but that's how it worked out. Perhaps because I was already into my teens and it seemed like a better fit for my brother's age than mine. I received plenty of cool nerd-toys over the years though. I'll discuss some of them another time.

I came in possession of this Omnibot when my parents sold the house I grew up in, in 1996. It was rescued from a pile of abandon things that were pretty much going to be thrown or given away. That was also around the last time this baby was fired up and saw any action. The rechargeable lead acid battery didn't hold much of a charge anymore and the poor guy didn't quite move as fast as it once did because of that. I pondered the idea of getting a replacement battery but as of writing this, I have not. I'm not sure if it is still in working condition now. Somehow, even drained of power and collecting dust, it still looks cool to me.

Before taking the photo you see above, I originally planned to give it a good clean-up. I decided not to though, so that the image might reflect the fact that this a robot is more than 20 years old (about 24). Because of the lighting I chose for the picture, only the dirt on the base of the robot is visible. Sadly, the power light, eyes, and liquid crystal display are all simulated. The original photo didn't have much life to it, so I created the illusion of an Omnibot glowing with power to spare. The image kind of morphed in to an action shot in the process.

FYI - I experienced a vivid deja-vu moments ago while re-wording the last two sentences and looking at the simulated LCD in the retouched photo. What the hell causes that? What a strange feeling.

I could go on and on about all the fun I had with this awesome robotic pal back in the day, but I think that's enough for now. If you'd like to learn more about this amazing electronic toy of the 80's, check out the Wikipedia entry about it. For a more in-depth look at the Omnibot, there are dozens of detailed pictures, technical specs, and scans of the entire user manual at TheOldRobots.com.

A Real Space Invader (Atari VCS Version)

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:50:44 -0500

Perhaps the title should read: "This is a Space Invader" or, "Behold: the Space Invader". I had trouble settling on the right one. What's in a title though?

The photo you see here is of a real Space Invader, or at least the Atari VCS (2600) version there of. A true real Space Invader would be generated on the the original arcade machine. In the realm of home gaming in 1980, this is a close-up image of one in the armada of 36 invading aliens that marched their way down from the skies in the Atari VCS (2600) ported home console hit: Space Invaders.

So why do I call this the image of a "real" Space Invader? What exactly makes it real? Space Invaders aren't real, they're just blocky little graphics in an old classic video game, right? Well yes, but that's not what I'm talking about.

The original arcade Space Invaders and its Atari 2600 port are still enjoyed every day by millions of classic gaming enthusiasts and curious newcomers. The majority of people experience this classic game with the help of game emulators. No quarters are needed to play the arcade original, and no Atari VCS is needed to play the first home console port of it. Everyone can enjoy Space Invaders right on their computer or emulation device of choice. But is this really Space Invaders?

In 1980, we played Space Invaders on a TV that had an Atari Video Computer System (VCS) hooked up to it. Inserted into the Atari console was the game cartridge "Space Invaders*". The asterisk represented that the game was licensed to Atari by Taito, the company that invented the game. The game's play-screen was generated via scan lines on the TV's CRT. Thousands of tiny red, green, and blue rectangles blended together to give the illusion of colorful shapes on the screen. Faint electronic humming noises could often be heard through the TV speaker even when the game itself was not generating any sounds.

Playing Space Invaders via an Atari 2600 emulator is a whole different experience. Many computer monitors do not use scan lines, or even have a CRT these days. In the ones that still have a CRT, the scan lines are almost undetectable unless one looks really hard for them. The red, green, and blue elements are so small, they are pretty much invisible to the naked eye. This allows modern computer monitors to display colorful images of great complexity in beautiful high definition resolutions. Modern games look outstanding on them. Emulating Space Invaders on these screens however, seems a little stale to me. Somehow the game doesn't seem to be so alive, as it felt back on the old TV sets when played using real Atari 2600 hardware.

Emulated Space Invaders are a perfect looking set of blocks. Because today's monitors offer such high graphic resolutions, each Atari-pixel is represented by at least 4 (often 16 or more) pixels. The color is perfectly consistent. There are no electronic humming noises to be heard in the background, not including noises the computer itself makes regardless (fan, hard drive, etc.). This perfect looking series of emulated blocks doesn't feel nearly as much like Space Invaders to me, a guy who grew up playing it on an an Atari VCS more than 25 years ago. That old technology seemed to come to life in a way that is lost in modern emulation.

Don't misunderstand my position on game emulation. I love the fact that the games of yester-year can still be enjoyed today with the help of emulation software and game ROM. Not only does it allow games to be preserved seemingly forever, it also allows a whole new generation access to the games that us older folks, the first generation of gamers, grew up on. Emulation provides very convenient access to the games I played, loved and grew up with. Although I still have my original Atari 2600 and it is still fully functional, not everyone's Atari has survived as well over the years. They break down, wear out, have things spilled on them, get lost or stolen, sold in garage sales, etc. If I want a quick fix of an old game I used to play, I'm more likely to spend a few minutes with it in an emulator than on the original hardware. It's just easier that way for those of us who don't have unlimited space for our classic gaming systems to remain hooked up all the time.

When I have a craving for some quality time in the game, I must hook up my vintage Atari 2600 and play it the way it was intended to be played - on a tube-TV, using joysticks, not a game-pad or keyboard. The images are not pixel-perfect and contain old school electronic artifacts. The Atari's TV video signal spills through the R/F modulator (causes interference) and can be heard as a faint electronic hum through the TV speaker(s). The game looks, sounds, and feels exactly like it did when it was originally designed and released. You cannot emulate that experience on today's computers. Perhaps on a holodeck or similar device when they become available, but until then you need a tube-TV, Atari VCS, Space Invaders game cart, and a joystick. THAT is how the Atari port of Space Invaders is meant to be experienced. It was designed to be played that way, and in my opinion, is best enjoyed in that form - its true form.

That is why I say the image above is that of a real Space Invader. The image is displayed on a 20" TV screen with my vintage Atari 2600 hooked up to it. The game-screen is drawn via scan lines that refresh at a rate of 60Hz. Take a close look at that image up there. Look at those beautiful little red, green, and blue rectangles working together to create the illusion of colorful objects when viewed at a normal distance. That Space Invader seems more alive than its emulated facsimile - it's old school digital and analog veins pulsing with electricity. Everything about playing this game on the original hardware hooked up to a tube-TV makes the experience far more rich. Those are real Space Invaders, or at least the Atari 2600 version there of, and that is what I'm talking about.

If you own a functional Atari 2600 and Space Invaders cart CX2632, plug it in and fire it up. Enjoy the thrill of blasting wave after wave of the invading aliens out of the sky. Enjoy the fart-noise death sound that the Atari 2600 version plays when your gun-ship is destroyed. Maybe even try playing in "fat-momma" mode - that's what I used to call it when playing under difficulty setting "A", which makes the gun-ship double in width. Most of all, just enjoy playing Space Invaders on the original hardware hooked up to a tube-TV. Total classic home-gaming magic.

Mr. Tissue Box and the Mighty Twisty-Tie Man

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:03:04 -0500

It was a day like any other. The sun was shining bright. Birds were chirping ever so cheerfully. The old folks at the local square dance were dosie-doing while dressed in cloths that most people would be too embarrassed to leave the house in. Yes, it was a day just like any other...

Until something almost interesting happened. The Mighty Twisty-Tie Man, craving action and excitement, climbed atop our old friend Mr. Tissue Box. No longer happy being the world's first and only Twisty-Tie man employed as a mere conversation piece for yours truly, he planned to jump. The Mighty Twisty-Tie Man would not have the comfort of a parachute or any type of cushioning to break his fall, yet he did not break a single bead of sweat... mainly because he had no sweat glands, but still.

Mr. Tissue Box feared for the safety of the Mighty Twistie-Tie Man. The madness of attempting such a stunt without any protection seemed too much to bear for our tissue dispensing cardboard friend. He tried to scream, but Michael Jackson took the sound before he made it.

And then, in the blink of an eye, the Mighty Twistie-Tie Man...

Ooo - look at the time. Sorry to leave you hangin' folks, but I've run out of time to tell you what happened on that day - that day that was like any other.

Wendy's Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger Review

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:39:33 -0500

I had a craving for a couple of Jr. Bacon Cheeseburgers. It's been a good two years or more since I've had one. I drove to a nearby Wendy's, ordered two of the burgers and a Strawberry Frosty Shake for my wife. The Jr. Bacon Cheeseburgers were priced at $.99. Good to know there is still a dollar menu available.

I wasn't expecting much. I mean it's fast food, prepared by teenagers making minimum wage, and not exactly served "fresh". As I was waiting for my burgers at the drive-thru, images of the commercial burgers played through my head, though I've rarely seen fast food burgers in person that looked as good as the ones on TV. Came close at a few McDonald's before. About two minutes after ordering, my burgers were handed to me in an open-top bag that was not folded closed, and I headed home.

I decided to take pictures of my burgers and compare them to the official Wendy's photos of the "same" burgers as seen on their website. As you can see, the real burgers don't look quite as appetizing as their commercial and website counter parts.

My burgers didn't look much like the advertised images, and they weren't served hot. "A hot 'n juicy, made to order Old Fashioned Hamburger." That's what it advertises on their website. I felt the burgers (still wrapped up) in the bag before driving home. They did not feel hot, or even noticeably warm. After the 5-minute drive home and 2 minutes of pictures, they were room temperature - not even lukewarm.

Now what does one expect, right? These burgers cost $.99 each, plus tax. Most people don't expect to get good food from a fast food joint - especially not from the $.99 menu. I generally don't, personally. Some places are better than others about that kind of thing. Wendy's scores very poorly in that area in my opinion. Why the false advertising though? Why is it allowed? Regardless of price, a "hot 'n juicy Old Fashioned Hamburger" is advertised. My burger was neither hot or juicy and didn't look much like the advertised image of the same burger. Look at the difference in size of the beef patty alone... or perhaps the bun sizes are different?

The point is, this is false advertising - widely accepted false advertising. Comedians joke about this kind of thing, as do many fast food goers in general. Isn't it odd that this kind of false advertising is just so accepted? It's probably due to the low cost of fast food and the fact that most people already know that what's served is rarely like what's advertised. Still, I've been to fast food chains where the food was actually pretty good and did resemble (or come close) the advertised images. Like I said, I think Wendy's is the worst offender in this department - at least the one's I've visited. It didn't used to be this bad - it's gotten worse over the last 15 years or so.

It will probably be some time before I crave a Wendy's burger again. Seems like every time I eat a burger there, I remember why I haven't wanted to in such a long time. Yet memories of not-as-crappy food from many years ago linger for some reason. For the record - I ate both burgers. They weren't great, but I was hungry and it was food.

The Strawberry Frosty Shake was pretty good according to my wife. She rather enjoyed it. The shake wasn't served "hot 'n juicy" either though. :-P

Where's George?

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:42:25 -0500

I stopped to pick up a couple of lottery tickets and received a few dollars back in change. One of them had a website stamped on it: www.wheresgeorge.com. I've seen this a couple of times over the past few years, but can't remember if I've ever taken the time to enter my dollar's whereabouts. I decided to go to the website and log "George's" location. For anyone not familiar with the U.S. dollar, a picture of George Washington is on the face of it, hence the name of the dollar's location tracking website.

In addition to logging my dollar's location on the map (done via zip code), I decided to add my initials in red ink to the lower left corner on the back side of the bill as you can see in the image above. I'm pretty sure I broke some kind of federal law prohibiting defacing or drawing on currency in doing so, but sometimes I just gotta be bad. I'm pretty sure the feds have their hands full with bigger-badder bad guys, so I'm not expecting to be hauled away in cuffs any time soon.

In order to track the dollar via the website, one must enter the dollar's serial number, which is only present on the face of the dollar. My dollar was last tracked on the site about 70 days ago (forget the exact number), from about 15 miles or so north of where I acquired it. I'll be re-inserting it back in to circulation soon. I wonder how long it will be before the next person will take the time to track the dollar bill on www.wheresgeorge.com.

I didn't think to include my website URL in the comment I left when entering the dollar's serial number and location. I wish I had. Maybe the next guy or gal would have found their way to this write up about it and say, "Wow! Look at that groovy image of a dollar. That's the very dollar I'm holding in my hand! Its picture is all over the internet and now I'm holding it. I'll never wash this hand again." But alas, I didn't think to include my URL. Oh well. I'm not writing it on the dollar. Perhaps someone reading this will end up with my dollar, identifiable by my initials in the corner and more accurately by my entry in the dollar-tracking website. You can only see my entry, along with the one 70 days before it, if you know the dollar's serial and enter it there.

Wow - who knew I'd ever spend so much of my time on a single little dollar that crossed my path? I entered it on www.wheresgeorge.com, initialed it, took a picture of it, wrote this blurb about it... and soon I'll spend it, sending it on its journey to who knows where. Who's pocket will it end up in? Will it be folded neatly in a wallet or purse, or end up crumpled up in someone's sweaty sock? What will it be spent on next? Oh the possibilities.

Liquid-Plumr Review

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:02:59 -0500

Over a period of time, our bathroom sink was draining slower and slower until it got to the point where it would barely drain at all. I carefully removed the p-trap portion of the drain pipe. It was clogged up with a lot of slimy hair and gritty mystery goo. After removing all the clog-slime I reassembled it but it was still draining as slow as before. The drain blockage continued deeper in to the pipes behind the walls where I could not reach. Could Liquid-Plumr do the trick?

Pros: Affordable. Easy to use. Easy to find - pretty much every department store carries it. Safe for all piping - metal, plastic, etc.

Cons: Contains potentially dangerous chemicals (if used improperly). Leaves a slight chemical smell for a while after use.

Ease of use: Very easy to use. The directions are simple and easy to follow.

Effectiveness: Very effective, at least in my case.

Use it again: Yes.

Recommend it: Yes.

General thoughts:

I was a little surprised that Liquid-Plumr worked on our clog since it was deeper than just under the sink. Previously I thought that chemical clog cleaners only worked on clogs that were within a foot or two just below the drain. I'm wondering if it would have worked as well if I hadn't manually cleaned out the p-trap prior to using. If there is a next time, I'll reach for the Liquid-Plumr before pulling the pipes apart because I'm pretty convinced that it would been as effective all on its own.

The directions say to pour 1/5 of the contents in to the clog, wait for 15 minutes, then flush with warm water. When I used it, I poured about 1/3 in by accident. I also waited a little longer than the recommended 15 minutes because I lost track of time. It worked very well though, and without the need to go pulling more pipes apart or call a professional plumber.

If you've got a slow drain, or a drain that went from slow to stop, I'd give Liquid-Plumr a try. Make sure to follow the directions and keep in mind that the contents of this product can be dangerous if spilled or misused. It won't work on all clogs, but it sure did the trick for me.