When you think of science fiction what immediately comes to your mind? Is it a world where zombies eat the flesh of healthy men and women? No, that’s horror. Is it a world where a deadly virus infects people and turns them into vampires? No, that is also horror (with a marginal Sci-Fi premise). How about a world where there are witches and wizards and magic? No, that is fantasy.

So why does the Sci-Fi channel insist on putting these things into our face on the premise that they’re Sci-Fi? That’s my first grievance. Science fiction is about fiction that revolves around science and, as any true Sci-Fi aficionado will tell you, it should be more about the people and their reaction to and handling of the mythical (whatever) on the basis of science than on the actual science, itself.

For example, look at Star Trek or Star Wars – these are “what if” scenarios that are constructed around plausible scientific principles in a world that we can imagine. What if there was a world where we could easily travel from planet to planet. What if there was a world where we had the computer technology to create tangible new worlds? What if there was a world where we could have robots to do our bidding? What if there was a world with a galactic empire or a world with a benevolent interstellar federation?

But what if there was a world where it was possible to travel between these worlds. A world where, as the introduction states, it’s the same year, the same Earth, but a different dimension? I hypothesized about this in my youth after reading a short story where two time travelers realized that they weren’t, in fact, traveling through time but passing from one possible branch of time to another, all the while being at the same actual time – just on different variations of how the paths could have changed in an alternate dimension (not entirely implausible – under string theory there are potentially multiple dimensions, only the four we know of being observable).

And then the TV show Sliders came out. To be honest I was totally unaware of the show (or, at least, its premise) until many years later – until the show was singing its swan song (and, by all accounts I’ve read so far, it’s not a pretty song). I saw one episode and my first reaction was something along the lines of “I thought of that years ago!” My second was an admiration of how well it was done. The show itself has, however, come into some harsh criticism – most of it retrospectively.

But what am I to expect going forward? According to most critics, professional and amateur alike, the series began to die in its third season when it changed networks. Possibly. I don’t know as I am currently, a little more than halfway through the second season. But I remember that I thought that the one or two episodes that I had seen when the show was still on the air were quite excellent and that was nearing the show’s demise, so perhaps that is not the entire truth.

There’s no doubt that what I have seen so far is quite remarkable – the characters are believable, their reactions to situations are appropriate, the acting is beyond acceptable and the writing and execution are far from inferior. But one criticism that I read sticks out in my mind – that they had debased themselves to “ripping off” plots from movies of the time. One such criticism pertained to the episode I had watched tonight.

Entitled “In Dino Veritas” (a play on the Latin term “in vino veritas” – in wine there is truth) the show depicts the characters entering (or “sliding”) into a world where dinosaurs never faced extinction. Critics of the show have accused the episode of being a “rip off” of the 1993 film Jurassic Park. It is this accusation, in particular, that I would like to challenge.

Now, I will freely admit that the episode does, in fact, feature dinosaurs in a park, just like Jurassic Park. But that’s where the similarity ends.

In Jurassic Park the dinosaurs were created from DNA stored in the proboscises of mosquitoes that had fed on dinosaurs and had been entombed in amber (petrified tree sap). In the Sliders episode dinosaurs had never died out and, as was suggested by the dialog in the show, were hunted by the more intelligent man almost to the point of extinction, thus requiring a wildlife preservation sanctuary. Of course, whether the rodentia that was to become man could have ever survived such a situation is up to debate, but even so, this is not even wildly and remotely close to the premise of Jurassic Park. It is a totally different circumstance.

Also consider that Jurassic Park was intended to be an amusement park or, rather, a zoo whereas the Sliders episode portrayed it as a wildlife sanctuary – there alone is a big difference. And to accuse the show of “ripping off” the premise is a malicious and ignorant indictment. Perhaps the episode was inspired by Jurassic Park, perhaps not. Perhaps Tracy Torme already had the thought before Jurassic Park was ever release but never got a chance to execute it until later. I certainly know this feeling as I had come up with the idea of “designer computers” ten years before the imac was ever announced (I had, however, abandoned it under the well-meaning, if not short-sighted advice of my brother who suggested that only geeks cared about computers and it wouldn’t be marketable. I was naive enough to listen to him).

Furthermore, if you are going to make a television show about people traveling from one alternate history to another (“alternate history” being the buzz term for such “what if” scenarios) then is it entirely out of the stretch of the imagination, while one considers “what if [Soviet] Russia ruled America?” or “what if your dreams of being a rock star came true?” or “what if San Francisco was a maximum security prison?” to bend the imagination to ask “what if the dinosaurs never faced extinction?”

Jurassic Park was still fresh in the minds of the critics who watched this particular episode of Sliders at the time that it was originally aired in 1996 (Jurassic Park was released in 1993). Thus, it’s easy to make this baseless allegation. The only similarities are that they both have dinosaurs and they’re both parks. Perhaps, then, we should make the accusation that Jurassic Park is a “rip off” of The Flintstones – they also have parks and dinosaurs. So shame on you for doing such an “obvious rip off”, Mr Crichton.

I don’t know what kind of a world it is that would give this show the full credit it deserves, but like so many other Sliders fans, I would love to slide over to that world and find out.

A Day at the Mall

This year Rex and I thought we’d do something a little different (especially since we can’t do the usual anymore):

I’m writing this down so that I don’t forget it – Rex and I have been through this learning curve a couple of times and keep forgetting how to do it.

If you google “drawing an outline of a bitmap in Flash” you’ll come across lots of posts that simply say “trace your bitmap and then …”

Well it’s the tracing the bitmap bit that is the problem – using “modify->bitmap->trace bitmap” gets you part of the way, but isn’t the whole story. I’ve seen people describe the problem as have an outline draw on the screen and then a picture fill in. The response: “trace your bitmap and then …” but “trace bitmap” gives you a vector image with each color as a separate object. So putting a stroke around it will put a stroke around each color, not the whole image.

Instead, try this:

1 – Copy your bitmap. Put it on a different layer using “paste in place” (hide the layer to keep it out of the way if you do it this way) or keep a copy on the clipboard – we’ll use this later).

2 – Trace your bitmap. Hey, I’m not trying to be funny, here. Seriously, use (for CS4) “modify->bitmap->trace bitmap” – set the options to a high color threshold (the default 100 works – doesn’t really matter, this is just a template) but set the minimum area to 1 pixel so that the edges match up (I may be wrong on this, but it worked for me). Leave Curve Fit and Corner Threshold to normal – this is close enough.

3 – Before you do anything! While the new traced object is still fully selected, go to “Modify->Combine Objects->Union” – this will make your lots of little objects one big object.

4 – Now create another layer on top of the one you were just working with (if you put your copy of the original image on a layer make sure it’s still hidden) and draw a rectangle over your image so that the image is fully covered. I find it’s best to use a rectangle with no stroke (transparent stroke?) and a good, garish masking color, like bright green.

5 – Select your rectangle and select “Modify->Combine Objects->Union.”

6 – Using the select tool (the black arrow) select everything. Then select “Modify->Combine Objects->Intersect” – if you did this correctly then you’ll be left with a silhouette of your original image – beefy – now we’re getting somewhere!

7 – Select this new silhouette object (it should already be selected, though) – your original layer is now empty, you can get rid of that – and you can now apply a stroke.

8 – Make the layer with the copy of your original image (that you created in Step 1) visible and, bingo – your image has an outline! To make it the one image select the original image (copy), cut and “paste in place” it to the layer with the silhouette object. Then select everything and “Modify->Group” (or Ctrl-G).

9 (or 8ish) – Before you group them, you can do all sorts of sexy things. With the silhouette you can remove the fill and, using a mask, animate the outlining, and then have the image fade in, animate the outlining changing colors or, whatever!

Like I said, this was to help me, but if it helps you too, then whacko!

Imagine my surprise this morning when I opened Rex’s email and found six comments on six different posts here at rexthestrange.com. You would think that I would experience jubilation and excitement – someone is reading this (I, of course, feel sorry for them) and they’re commenting on what Rex and I have said.

But of course that’s not the case. Instead, I looked at these posts and immediately hit the “spam” button (notice that your comments are moderated here at rexthestrange – we don’t just allow any doofus to post whatever they like). So what are these people thinking? Clearly, they’re not thinking. They’re stupid. They think that we’re just going to happily approve every comment that says “Good post. Keep up the good work.” when that same comment comes from six different people all with links to the same porn website.

I’ve got news for you: you’re morons! You’re wasting your time – Rex the Strange never publishes any comment with a link! And it’s obvious it’s spam when you get a comment saying “Great post – I totally agree with you!” when it’s a reference to “Low Suds Mold.”

Idiots.

Welcome to the new look Rex the Strange! Be sure to check in regularly because more things might change! Who knows, maybe one day you’ll check in only to find that the site no longer exists (not likely, though).

We’ve had some comments on some of our posts (some of the really old stuff) since we’ve gone to this new WordPress format which seems to imply that there are actually people who read this tripe. I guess it just goes to show that some people have nothing better to do with their lives than read this random gibberish.

So feel free to throw us a comment or two for consideration, after all, we don’t really have anything better to do, either. We’re open to anything – questions (that probably won’t be answered, but what the hell, go ahead and give it a shot, anyway) – comments and abuse (but please be creative). Spammers can go to hell (and probably will) but everyone else is welcome.

So enjoy!

rts

Rex and I went into the theatre to see “Avatar” with very low expectations. And we weren’t disappointed. On the Strange scale (1-9) it rates a 2. Really, don’t waste your money. I know some people are coming out of it saying that it’s the best movie they’ve ever seen, but we’re not hearing from those who leave lamenting that they’ll never get their eight dollars and two and a half hours of their lives back.

The best description we’ve heard is it is “Dancing with Wolves” with blue people. And “Dancing with Wolves” is a much better movie.

To be fair, we missed the opening but through the grapevine it is told that there is little explanation of the scenario. We don’t know how they found this planet, how they discovered the coveted “unobtainium” (which, I mean, really guys. Is this not the stupidest name for an unknown element?)

There is debate on the subject, but Rex and I are convinced that many of the ideas are ripped off directly from “World of Warcraft”: the “floating mountains” look exactly like the floating mountains in the zone of Nagrand in WoW, the blue people (who are Night Elves?) ride their flying mounts, there are large mushroom growths very similar to those found in Zangermarsh and everything is phosphorescent just like Zanger.

Plus, add to that that the real focus of the movie is to show off future munitions – as humanity advances we’re still dependent on weapons of mass destruction, that public opinion doesn’t seem to count for squat and there never was any mention of a government keeping control.

News travelled slowly when the American West was being colonized, so the portrayal of the Native American as savage blight on the land was more believable (in “Dances with Wolves” and in American history) than the people in “Avatar” who, not only have instant communications but, get this: actually infiltrate the natives and have first hand knowledge of them and their ways (and, one would assume, more empathy).

But they’re still portrayed as, what did the mad Colonel call them? Cockroaches? Puh-leeze! And speaking of the mad Colonel, you have to have the token asshole military man. Or do you? Nope, the entire ending war sequence was clearly put in to attract the testosterone laden 13 year old male. It was totally unnecessary.

Rex’s associate suggested that it is the result of American guilt over the Iraq war and there’s probably something to be said for that. But even with our hatred of the decision to go into Iraq, this movie does, in subtle ways, glorify war with the characters that it puts on screen the “awesome” military effects blah blah blah.

And that’s how we characterize the movie generally: blah. We know that the critics are raving about the film which is further evidence of why critics should not be listened to, although usually the critics slam movies which Rex and I think do not think deserve the slamming that they get. In this case this film does not warrant the attention that it is getting.

It’s crap. Forget it. Rent “Dances with Wolves” and play “World of Warcraft.” It will be a much more fulfilling experience.

A friend of Rex’s saw that we post “Walking ’round in Women’s Underwear” every year and suggested that Rex might like to delve a little deeper into the comedian who created this little gem.

And, so we present another item from Bob Rivers (audio only – no video. Sorry, we know it sucks but is still, no less amusing).

Enjoy.

Rex and I have searched the web trying to find a way to compile user controls into a library in Visual Studio, much the same way that one can compile web controls into a library using a class library. What we found was, in our opinions, unsatisfactory.

Originally using the techniques highlighted here we have, we think, come up with a pretty cool solution. This is for VS 2005 and higher – if you’re using an older version then this might work or it might not. We simply don’t know.

To Create:

Step 1: Create a new web site (not a web application, although we toyed with that for a while). Delete everything in the site that can be deleted (we’re going to be starting from scratch) or select “Empty Web Site” from the project screen.

Step 2: Import any user controls you want in your library (any file with a .ascx extension) or create new ones.

Step 3: Give each control a namespace (this is necessary for calling it up later). You can do this in the ascx file (rather than the codefile which one would do if one were making a class library). In the control registration block, add:

classname=’[your namespace and class name]‘

For example:

<%@
control language=’vb’
codefile=’rexscontrol.ascx.vb’
classname=’rexthestrange.rexscontrol’
inherits=’rexscontrol’
%>

Your namespaces, of course, can vary – they’re just for reference on the other end.

Step 4: Publish. On the publish dialog screen uncheck all options. The exception is that you might want to publish each control as a separate assembly, in which case check “use fixed naming and single page assemblies.” At any rate, it is imperative to uncheck “allow this precompiled site to be updatable” as this will put the XML code in a separate file and we don’t want this. We want it all to be in one nice neat little package.

Step 5: Open a DOS window (yes, a DOS window – or a console window if you want to call it that) and navigate to where you published the site. Go to the “bin” directory and get a listing. If you selected “use fixed naming and single page assemblies” then you will find a listing of one dll per control that you made. If you didn’t there should just be one dll – for the whole site (or, soon to be, library).

Step 6: Now here’s the cool part. When you publish a .net web site the dlls are named not, as one would expect, to the name of the project (or site) – that would be too easy and, besides, as the guy in the article I mentioned earlier pointed out, if you have two controls with the same name then confusion will ensue. So Visual Studio prefixes the name with “app_web_” and affixes the name with a hash that is created from the directory path. If you don’t select “use fixed naming and single page assemblies” then you get one dll with the “app_web_” prefix and the hash code affix (with no name in between).

Either way that’s really messy and not good for our library as that will cause confusion. This was causing us many headaches. Rex tried renaming the file, but this renders it useless (Visual Studio doesn’t like that).

And then we stumbled on a post where someone mentioned ILMerge. ILMerge is a tool that takes several assemblies (dlls) and merges them into one. What is really cool about this is that it can take a single assembly and create a replica of it with a new name. You can download ILMerge here.

Once you have downloaded it (and added the location of the exe to your windows path) then, from your console (you are still in the console window, aren’t you? and still in the web site’s bin folder?) you simply type:

ilmerge /out:newdllname.dll olddllname.dll

And hit enter. Bingo. A new user control library has been born.

Step 7: In your project where you intend to use the controls simply add a reference to the dll and add the control as you would a web control (ie: add a “reference” directive to the page or add it to your web.config).

Step 6 – Revisited: But wait, there’s more. If you did create multiple assemblies then you can still merge them all by using ILMerge, like so:

ilmerge /out:newdllname.dll firstolddll.dll secondolddll.dll thirdolddll.dll …

It’s probably a good idea to create a batch file for this and keep it somewhere away from the publishing directory (remember that directory gets emptied on each publish) and make file references by full path names. Then, whenever you want to make a change to your library you can simply republish the site, run the batch file and you’re done.

Step 7 – Revisited: Whenever you make a change to your library, any applications that you have that reference it will also need to be updated (because when you add a reference to a dll Visual Studio makes a copy of it. We’ve updated the original in Step 6 – Revisited, but not the copy.

But this is so simple. Open the “bin” branch of the tree in the Solution Explorer, right-click the dll in question and hit “Update Reference.” A new copy of the dll will be copied over and you’re back in business.

Pretty cool, huh?

Rex and I have tested this using Visual Basic and it works like a dream. It probably works in other languages like C# but we wouldn’t know because C languages are, of course, for idiots.