<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <title>A Cup of Joe</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://joe.siegler.net/atom.xml" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2007-08-10:/1</id>
    <updated>2010-07-24T18:51:59Z</updated>
    <subtitle>Personal observations, rants, and musings by Joe Siegler.</subtitle>
    <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Pro 4.34-en</generator>

<entry>
    <title>My Personal Testimony</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2010/07/my_personal_testimony.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2010://1.3822</id>

    <published>2010-07-24T18:46:50Z</published>
    <updated>2010-07-24T18:51:59Z</updated>

    <summary>...or &quot;How I Came to love Jesus&quot; by Joseph Michael Siegler NOTE: This document was originally written as part of an assignment in a discipleship course my church offers regularly. I wrote it back in late March of 2007 when...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Religion" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<p>...or "How I Came to love Jesus" <br />
by Joseph Michael Siegler</p>

<p>NOTE: This document was originally written as part of an assignment in a discipleship course my church offers regularly.  I wrote it back in late March of 2007 when I was taking the course.  I expanded it in July of 2010, picking up where the discipleship course part of this ended, and talked about what's happened in my life since then.  I hope you enjoy reading this, as it's been a joy to live it, thanks be to God!</p>

<hr><br>

<p>Jesus has always been a part of my life.  My problem is that I never always acknowledged it, or even when I did, didn't give him the attention he deserved. That's the crux of my story.  I've never really let him in the door until very recently in my life. </p>

<p>When I was child, I was raised and taught Sunday School lessons from an early age.  I knew all the things you were taught, I even believed them, as much as a young child could believe things in the same way an adult can.  I had several years of Sunday School perfect attendance when I was around the ages of 5-7.  I could say the Lord's Prayer at an early age, and I was very much the proper young Christian boy.  As time went on, my parents divorced (at 12yrs), and while I don't have a conscious recollection of that causing a problem at the time, it likely did, as it did upset many portions of my life.  Not long after that I started to rebel in school, lost focus, and quite a lot of things didn't have the same flavor anymore.  I used to sneak into my mom's bedroom on Sunday mornings, and turn off the alarm clock so we wouldn't have to go to church.  I considered church an imposition on my Sunday morning sleep. At this point in my life, Jesus was never really an active thought.  Not that I actively campaigned against him, or anything along those lines, it just was never an upfront thought in my mind.  Somewhere during this time, I stopped going to church completely, as I didn't feel connected anymore.  </p>

<p>There were a few other moments after that where I had the chance to reconnect, but did not.  Looking back, this was probably Jesus knocking on the door, but i didn't really answer.  There was a person who ministered to me in a church and asked me if I was saved, and told me that all it would take would be for me to accept Jesus as my Lord and savior and let him into my heart.  I said the lines, and the person said I was saved, but I didn't "feel it" in my heart.  I also attended a Billy Graham Crusade and came forward at the end to receive Jesus.  That was an opportunity and I didn't follow through on that, either.</p>

<p>Some years later, my family happened upon another Episcopal church led by a Father Edd Schultz.  Father Edd was the first building block in my return to church in that he was young, and hey - he had Cable TV!  A priest who had MTV was something cool to this teenager, so I bought into it.  I enjoyed attending church there, and continued there until Father Edd left the church to move elsewhere in the country.  At that point I more or less stopped going again.  When I moved to Texas in 1992, and all of that was lost - I never went to church after I moved to Texas for awhile.</p>

<p>I got married in 1996; after that my wife and I attended a service at Holy Trinity Episcopal Church in Garland.  We felt the church was nice, but due to my general laziness and desire for Sunday morning sleep, we did not return.  At this point in my life, I had pigeonholed my thoughts on religion into this.  If I believed Jesus was savior and my Lord, I would be saved.  I didn't need to attend a church, and I didn't need all that other stuff.  I believed, so I was good to go.  It was my daughter who ended up leading me back to church - and she hadn't been born yet.</p>

<p>Late in 2004, my wife and I decided that since we were having a baby, that we needed to attend a church.  As our families are about 1500 miles away, we needed a support system.  After a couple of attempts elsewhere, we returned to HTEC, as that was the religion I was raised in.  After attending several services, we felt very welcomed and comfortable; so we stayed.  This was a seriously important decision, as it's here that I found Jesus for good, and let him into my life in a way that had NEVER happened before.  In looking back, I always sort of paid lip service to Jesus.  I believed, or thought I did, but it wasn't until after my daughter was born that I started noticing that I was feeling more filled, and more excited at attending church.  That had never happened to me before.  I prayed to God a lot during my wife's pregnancy, and those prayers were answered in the form of a very happy, and very healthy young daughter.  Up until this point in my life, Jesus was mostly an afterthought, and he still blessed me with the best daughter I could have imagined.  It was that realization that started me back without looking for a "way out" like I used to.</p>

<p>The big moment came when I was standing on the front lawn of my rector's house one evening.  I had been there to fix a problem on his computer, and afterwards we were talking about a discipleship course he was going to soon be embarking on.  I was not planning on doing it, mostly because I was (or thought I was) unprepared for the course.  After hearing my reasons, the rector rather strongly told me I was wrong, and that I was more than ready to take the course.  One wouldn't think that the turning point in one's religious life would be standing on the front lawn of the pastor's house, but it was for me. God gives you what you need, and that's what I needed - a surprise from an unexpected location like that to get my attention.  On the drive home that night, I changed my mind and decided to take the course.  It was a giant leap of faith on my part, as I really had NO idea what I was getting myself into.</p>

<p>As the weeks went along in the course, I found myself believing and reading scripture more than any other time in my life.  I started being able to recite parts of it, and I found the course was nowhere as difficult as I anticipated it would be.  I found that some of the things we were taught and learned about weren't the hollow things I thought they were when I was younger - these disciplines like fasting and prayer had real life meaning!  As I let these things into my life more and more, I found that I had a deeper peace about various issues in my life that were never peaceful.  I found that I did not stress internally about things as much as I used to.  Now that's not to say I can't still run off the end of the stress meter, and I do from time to time.  But overall, I've found great relief in simply allowing problems in my life to be turned over to Jesus.  To a non believer, that might sound hollow, but the Holy Spirit has worked miracles in my heart.</p>

<p>The biggest changes during the discipleship course came in the latter months after I started taking scripture to heart.  Oh sure, I could spend more time with the living word; and I still sin like everyone else, but I have an avenue out.  The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.  An example is that I was lifted of my fear of praying in public.  I used to dread that with a crippling fear that would stop me from any public prayer.  In one of the discipleship class sessions, we had a big prayer group session, and I felt that something happened to me, but I did not know what.  That was answered the next day when I had to take my wife to the hospital, and while driving there, I said a prayer for her healing with my hand on her head.  Shortly after that, she told me that after I had taken my hand off her head, it felt like my hand was still there.  This was a powerful moment for me, because it showed me what God had done in my heart, which was remove my fear of prayer.  And as I've learned in James 5:16, "the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effect".  I've felt no problems with praying for people any longer, and that is a blessing my life.  I wanted to cry when I realized what had happened to me.  </p>

<p>This discipleship course has given me so much more strength and peace than I could have ever believed I was capable of.  Praise God for getting to me through it, as I credit THAT as the reason I now am stronger than I ever believed I could be in Jesus.  My wife has told me that the course has changed me externally too, which is nice to hear, since I cannot see that. </p>

<p>After the discipleship course ended, I found that since I had a stronger belief in God, and the ability to believe in what our culture generally refers to loosely as "an invisible person", that I've had a greater peace about a great number of things.   One of the things that told my wife an I that God was with us was when our church was starting a building fund for a new church we intend on building.  There was a meeting at the Rector's house to talk about the program, and go over details and whatnot.  My wife and I were there, and we both had decided on a number we were going to contribute ahead of time.  During the speeches by our Senior Warden, the Rector, and the fellow from the fund raising firm, we both had decided to increase our amount the we would commit.  I had decided at that time to give up my weekly bowling league, which I had been in for about 34 consecutive years at that point.  I tallied the fees and whatnot, and it worked out to be a number that was within just a couple of dollars of what my wife on her own decided we should increase our commitment by.  We were both instantly convinced that this was from God, as we both decided this on our own with no discussion amongst each other (and after prayer).  So we were joyous at our being able to donate to the building fund with what we knew was a prayerfully considered dollar amount.</p>

<p>Our newfound prayer and joy was put to the test in early 2008 when my wife and I were expecting our second child, who we had lost to miscarriage.  It was a painful thing to go through, as anyone who has experienced that can tell you, but through a lot of prayer, we were able to get through it.  In fact, the thing that helped us most was being able to name the child (whom we named Vanessa Grace), and turn the whole situation over to God.  Through that act, we were given much peace about the situation.  Oh, it still hurt, but I wasn't as devastated once we made the choice to give the child back to God.  This was borne out when during the last night of a healing ministries conference at our church my wife went up for prayer, and was given a vision of what our lost daughter looked like.  Obviously this was more powerful for her than for me, but I too took this to heart, and was able to rejoice in that someday we'd get to meet our lost daughter.  This act also caused some friction with some who thought we were "weird" or "nuts" for doing something like naming a child that we lost to miscarriage.  This was mostly people not from our church, as we received lots of support from our Church family over this issue. However, both of us strongly felt we were being led by God to do this, so we honored that call and were obedient in this matter.  </p>

<p>After a lot of prayer and support from friends at our church, we were able to get through it and get pregnant again during the late summer of 2008.  Thus began the biggest part of our life with God.  Given we had lost a baby recently, this third pregnancy for us was somewhat more fraught with concern for obvious reasons.  We wanted it to work, and yet we had the loss of Vanessa in our minds, too.  The pregnancy went fairly well, and we were set to deliver our second child, our son David (who was named after King David in the bible) on May 28th.   However, on May 6th, we got a bombshell dropped on us, as I found out that my job of 16.5 years was going away.  I had lost my job after being there for the better part of two decades, and we had a kid on the way.  My last day of work ended up being six days before my son was born, and I have to say, it made that week a complete whirlwind of emotion.   It is said God's timing is perfect, and I think that's why I lost my job when I did, because I was able to spend time with my newborn son, and be with my family.  The lack of work was hard (and continues to be), but we think it was a test from God to rely on him, and rely hardly did we ever!</p>

<p>You see, late in 2008, I had decided that we were going to start properly tithing.  My wife grew up in a Ukrainian Orthodox church who doesn't have the concept of tithing in their church.  This was an alien concept to her when we started attending church.  As everyone knows, money can be a major source of friction between married couples, so I decided not to go nuclear and start tithing fully when we went back to church, but kind of eased into it, building up until we got to a proper tithe in late 2008.  At that time, we had just short of $10,000 in credit card debt to our name, not to mention the usual "real life" things like a car payment and a mortgage, etc..  Our money wasn't unmanageable, but the credit card debt was a concern somewhat.  Still, I felt it was the right time to tithe.  So we did.  I went and figured out exactly what 10% of our income was, and started (rather happily, mind you) giving that to the church.  When I lost my job, I went and figured out what a tithe would be out of my unemployment money, and continued to tithe.  It felt good, it felt like the right thing to do.  God honored this by keeping us not only solvent through unemployment, but with the means to rid our debt.  When I walked out the door at my old job, I still had about 3/4 of that credit card debt on the books.  You do not expect to be able to get on top of credit card debt when you lose your job, you expect to tread water, or at best hope not to slide backwards.  But we believe our being obedient to the tithe, especially after losing my job gave us the ability to COMPLETELY PAY OFF ALL OF OUR DEBT (save for the mortgage).   Our car was paid off within a month of losing my job, and all of our credit card debt was erased during the summer of 2009.  More evidence of God's timing was in play when it came to hospital bills.  We received bills for both my wife and my son.  Both times when we got the bill in the mail, in the mailbox AT THE SAME TIME was a check (or checks) to cover the bill.  It was as if God was saying "I'll take care of it" with his timing.  To make it a better story, I've been able to KEEP the credit card debt at zero - praise be to God.  It's July of 2010, and I can say I still have no credit card debt, 14 months into unemployment.   We've never gone without, and still have been able to live a life we enjoy.  Oh, there were cutbacks for sure, and the people who have helped us (both financially and physically) have been a blessing.  We thank God for them too for listening to his call to help us as they have.  We couldn't have done it without them.   </p>

<p>My time of unemployment has taught me several things.  To be reliant on God for everything, and not just "pay attention" to him during Sundays and that's it.  It's taught me that obedience brings blessings, as this has been borne out by our ability to remain worry free about money during all this time.   I think that astounds people somewhat, as I took a trip back in March of 2010 to visit my family back home to visit my grandparents in the hospital.  I drove to Philadelphia from Dallas, renting a car, staying in hotel rooms, etc.  Sitting in the hospital room with my mom and my Grandmother we got to talking about money and all that, and they showed concern that I wasn't going to be able to pay for the trip.  When I told them it was covered already, they were pleased, but what they probably weren't pleased with was when I said "..and even if I wasn't, I'm not worried about it, it's just money".  To someone as detail oriented as my mother I think the lack of concern about something that is SUPER detailed as money was a shock to her.   But I really was not concerned at all about money - I really wasn't.  As I was trusting in God to take care of me and my family, the fact that there was a new round of bills to deal with in regards to my trip did not concern me in the least.  On this trip, I was able to pray for several family members (plus some people I did not know), and in a way I found myself surprised at being able to do.  I think I was able to show some people in my family firsthand how much I've grown.  At minimum, I was able to show them a side of me they'd never seen before.</p>

<p>I've learned to trust in God, and it's benefited my family so richly, I can't tell all of it in this short document.  There's so much more to this story, but I don't want to write a 20,000 word mini novel here, so I'll end it with this..</p>

<p>I cannot wait for what else will come on this path I have chosen.  It can be your path too.  It doesn't take much to get started on the path either, if you have any questions on how, just ask me.  May God bless you, as he has me.</p>

<p>Joe Siegler<br />
July 2010</p>

<p><strong>Malachi 3:10:</strong>  <em>"Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house; and thereby put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing." </em></p>

<p><strong>Ephesians 6:18:</strong>  <em>"Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints."</em></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>New Xbox 360 Hardware Questions</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2010/06/new_xbox_360_hardware_qa.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2010://1.3820</id>

    <published>2010-06-15T01:14:46Z</published>
    <updated>2010-06-15T02:12:43Z</updated>

    <summary>After watching the Microsoft Press Conference today I was impressed with the hardware refresh, and had some questions about it knowing what I know about Xbox 360 hardware. Reading a bunch of places about it, and found out some information...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Games" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<p>After watching the Microsoft Press Conference today I was impressed with the hardware refresh, and had some questions about it knowing what I know about Xbox 360 hardware.  Reading a bunch of places about it, and found out some information that's useful.  The screen captures I have below are taken from the Engadget Xbox 360 S unboxing video, which you should check out <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/14/xbox-360-250gb-first-unboxing/">here</a>.</p>

<ol>
<li><b>What is this thing called?</b>
<blockquote>A: Seemingly, just "Xbox 360", although the unboxing videos show the sticker on the back, which says "Xbox 360 S Console".<br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="/images/xbox360s_01.jpg"></div></blockquote>
<li><b>Is the Arcade SKU getting this kind of stylish upgrade, too?</b>
<blockquote>A: Officially unknown, but there will still be an arcade unit going forward, so one has to assume that will eventually get the same new design, too.</blockquote>
<li><b>Is the Arcade SKU going away, leaving this new one as the only unit?</b>
<blockquote>A: No, Arcade will still be sold.</blockquote>
<li><b>What is the chipset/hardware footprint inside here called?</b>
<blockquote>A: I'm not entirely sure, but I think the new hardware design has a new nickname to followup on the old Zenon/Zephyr, Falcon/Opus, & Jasper footprints.</blockquote>
<li><b>Have the slots for the old memory cards been deleted from the hardware footprint?</b>
<blockquote>A: Yes</blockquote>
<li><b>What is under that slot in the lower right hand corner of the front?</b>
<blockquote>A: That cover is where the USB slots on the front are now. They're hidden by default like in the old hardware footprint.  Also right next to that is the new controller sync button.<br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="/images/xbox360s_02.jpg"></div></blockquote>
<li><b>Is the 802.11n a full 5Ghz, or a 2.4Ghz (lame) implementation?</b>
<blockquote>A: It's 2.4Ghz.  Fail.  That means my 360 (and most people's I take it) will be stuck at Wireless G, as my router only operates 802.11n at 5Ghz.  It CAN operate at 2.4Ghz, but then I'd have other problems.  This is particularly annoying as <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B002RS7NB2/73407921" target="_blank">the separate wireless-N adapter that Microsoft sells</a> operates at 5Ghz.</blockquote>
<li><b>Are there still going to be detachable faceplates? Obviously the old ones are incompatible, but has that feature been done away with?</b>
<blockquote>A: Read online tonight from someone at the show that they were done away with, and you can't personalize like that anymore.</blockquote>
<li><b>Is the hard drive built in?</b>
<blockquote>A: Yes (sort of), but you will be able to swap it out for another larger capacity one. Old style external HD's are not compatible. Additionally, the new 360 swappable drives are a proprietary format, so you can't stick your own 2TB drive in there.<br><br>
<div align="center"><img src="/images/xbox360s_03.jpg"><br><br><img src="/images/xbox360s_04.jpg"></div></blockquote>
<li><b>Will you be able to transfer stuff from your current 360 hard drive to the new one?</b>
<blockquote>A: Yes. $19.99 data transfer cable will be sold around same time as new units go on sale. I still have a data transfer cable from when I upgraded from the original 20Gb HD to a 120Gb HD. Whether I can still use that one or not is unclear.  Failing the data transfer cable option, you can also use up to 16GB at a time with a flash drive, as part of the new console featureset.  You can also use Xbox LIVE itself to redownload everything, although that won't preserve save games.</blockquote>
<li><b>They claim it's "whisper quiet". What's changed regarding that? Most of the noise came from the DVD drive, what is the DVD drive in use now?</b>
<blockquote>A: Unknown what hardware is in use for the drive, but they've gone from two internal fans to one large one, which should make things quieter.  Hands on reports from right after the MS press conference all indicate it's massively quieter than the old stuff.</blockquote>
<li><b>How will the reliability issue be regarding red rings? They seemed to have solved that with the last hardware footprint (Jasper).</b>
<blockquote>A: Unknown. There's a rumor the "red rings" will be "green rings" errors, but that's a minor interface issue. One would hope it would get better, as this is now the fourth hardware footprint, and the third one seemingly solved the problem for the most part.  However, this is a new hardware footprint, and it could bring it's own new problems to the party.  Time will tell, but one has to assume it's at least as reliable as the last footprint, which proved to be the best of the original "white" console's run of hardware.</blockquote>
<li><b>Will this new unit also come with the "built in memory card" like the last models did (had an on board 512Mb memory card that looked like an external memory unit to the OS)?</b>
<blockquote>Unknown, this may not be an option in the "Elite" unit, it could only be in the new revision of the Arcade machine, whenever that shows up.</blockquote>
<li><b>Will this be able to support 3D games?</b>
<blockquote>A: Unknown, I read a rumor where it's not possible due to power demands past what the unit can produce, but sounds like total BS.</blockquote>
<li><b>What's new in the new dash? The Joystiq.com unboxing video makes mention of a "new dash" in their unboxing video.</b>
<blockquote>A: Unknown. Didn't know there was a new dash coming. Have heard squat about that.</blockquote>
<li><b>What's special about this new console and "Kinect Ready"? I thought all 360 consoles are compatible with the Kinect device?</b>
<blockquote>A: While all 360's can use Kinect, if you have anything other than the "360 S" Console, you'll have to have a separate dongle and a power supply. The "360 S" has a port just for Kinect, and you'll be able to just plug it in and go.</blockquote>
<li><b>What's this Kinect thing supposed to cost?</b>
<blockquote>A: <strike>While Microsoft hasn't announced that formally, Gamestop has pricing for three options. The Kinect by itself is $149, an Arcade machine with a Connect is $299, and an Elite (the new model) with a Kinect is $399.</strike> Comes out November 4.  Microsoft later issued a statement saying that pricing listed today is still a "rumour", and official pricing and bundling has not been finalized.  <a href="http://twitter.com/aarongreenberg/status/16188929221">Linkage</a>.</blockquote>
<li><b>When will this be available?</b>
<blockquote>MS said that they were shipping it to retailers today, and it should be available by the weekend.  <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B003O6JJKY/73407921">Amazon.com is taking pre-orders</a>, although they don't have pricing on it listed yet.
</ol>

<p>I will continue to update with both updates to the above and with new questions.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>The Siskel / Ebert / Roeper Movie Review Show Story [ UPDATED x2 ]</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2010/03/the_siskel_ebert_roeper_story.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2009://1.3785</id>

    <published>2010-03-25T16:32:17Z</published>
    <updated>2010-03-25T16:39:51Z</updated>

    <summary> I&apos;ve long been a fan of the old &quot;Siskel &amp; Ebert&quot; movie review shows that I recall watching as far back as the late 70&apos;s. Back then it was the only way to get reviews of that nature. However,...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Movies" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="TV" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<div align="center"><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/siskelandebert.jpg"></div>

<p><br />
I've long been a fan of the old "Siskel & Ebert" movie review shows that I recall watching as far back as the late 70's.  Back then it was the only way to get reviews of that nature.  However, as the years have gone by, there's been a lot of politics, and changing of technical shows.   Not to mention the death of Gene Siskel, and the departure of Roger Ebert too due to severe health problems.</p>

<p>I looked up the show's lineage, and have pieced together bits of it.   The title graphics were nicked from Wikipedia, no way could I come up with those on my own.  :)</p>

<div style="text-align: center;"><b><big><em><big>IN THE EARLY DAYS....</big></em></big></b></div>

<p><br />
<img align="right" src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/sneakpreviews.jpg" hspace="5" vspace="5"></p>

<p><b><big>SNEAK PREVIEWS</big></b></p>

<p>Originally known as "Opening Soon.. ..at a Theatre Near You" (1975-1977), this original incarnation was produced locally (truly, it was local only) in Chicago.  It was a monthly movie review show with Gene Siskel & Roger Ebert.  After a couple of successful years in local programming, it was decided to take the show national.  So, in 1977, it underwent something which is a recurring theme over the entire legacy of the show, a formal name change.  The "Opening Soon" name was dropped, and it was renamed to "Sneak Previews".  It was first distributed through PBS in 1977, and ran for five years with Siskel & Ebert at the helm of the show.</p>

<div align="center"><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vGIQ31AVLNk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vGIQ31AVLNk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div>

<p><br />
They left in 1982 over what appears to be contract disputes (I have no memory of this, I was 17 at the time).   The show continued on for quite awhile after Siskel & Ebert left.  The final episode aired in 1996, 14 years later.  Siskel & Ebert left the show in 1982.  The show continued on with other hosts (Jeffrey Lyons, Neal Gabler, & Michael Medved) from that point.  Gabler lasted from 1982-1985, being replaced by Medved, who ran through till the end.  Jeffrey Lyons was the longest tenured person on the show, lasting 14 years.</p>

<p>I sort of remember this tenure.  I was more interested at this point in Siskel & Ebert, so I followed them to the new show, and sort of not watched the other guys who were with the old show.  I remember Medved fairly well, the other guys not so much - so I did watch it, but really, I was more interested in Siskel & Ebert.</p>

<p><img align="right" src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/atthemovies.jpg" hspace="5" vspace="5"></p>

<p><b><big>AT THE MOVIES WITH SISKEL & EBERT</big></b></p>

<p>Siskel & Ebert founded this show after departing from the original incarnation.  Technically (and legally) this was a separate show.  The original was produced by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTTW">WTTW</a> in Chicago, and this show was produced by Tribune Entertainment, again out of Chicago.  </p>

<p>While I don't have any specific recollections about Show 2 over Show 1, I do have a vague recollection of thinking around that time that "Hey, this is really Sneak Previews, just called something else because some people got pissy over money", so I was more intersted in this for the nebulous concept of "this is the same spiritual show, even if legally it is not".  Anyway, this show carried on until 1986, when again apparently Siskel  & Ebert left over contractual reasons.</p>

<p>And again, it carried on without them, only not nearly as successfully as Sneak Previews.  This version of the show only lasted four more years (until 1990), with hosts Rex Reed, Bill Harris, and later on, Dixie Whatley.   What's amusing about that is that both Harris & Whatley also had tenures on Entertainment Tonight, and from what I recall, the show under their direction was less about movie reviews in the way Siskel & Ebert had done it, but more of a general entertainment thing, still with a lean towards movies.</p>

<p><img align="right" src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/show3.png" hspace="5" vspace="5"></p>

<p><b><big>SISKEL & EBERT AT THE MOVIES</big></b></p>

<p>This gets somewhat confusing.  Technically this show is still going (until Aug 2010 when it goes off the air), but it started in 1986 with Siskel & Ebert.  The original title of the show bears this, going under the name "Siskel & Ebert and the Movies" from 1986 through 1999.  The last episode with the two of them together was Jan 23, 1999.   So it ran quite a long time with Siskel & Ebert as hosts.  That is the bulk of the time.  However, in 1999 it starts getting confusing.</p>

<div align="center"><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qetF--02hOE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qetF--02hOE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div>

<p><br />
<b>SISKEL & EBERT AT THE MOVIES</b></p>

<p>Gene Siskel announced in February of 1999 that he was taking some time off to deal with a brain tumor, and less than three weeks later, he died of that.   There was the tribue to Siskel by Ebert immediately after that, and then Siskel's chair was filled with a series of co-hosts.   </p>

<div align="center"><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/heaventhumb.gif"></div>

<p><br />
<b>ROGER EBERT AND THE MOVIES</b></p>

<p>Ebert kept going with guest hosts - some were serious attempts at getting a new host (AO Scott, Michael Phillips), some were not (Harry Knowles, Martin Scorsese).  The original title was kept until Sep 4, 1999, when it was renamed to "Roger Ebert and the Movies".  </p>

<p><img align="right" src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/ebertandroeper.jpg" hspace="5" vspace="5"><b>EBERT & ROEPER AT THE MOVIES</b></p>

<p>The guest host thing continued until Ebert picked Richard Roeper as the permanent replacement for Gene Siskel, and the show was renamed again on Sep 10, 2000 to "Ebert & Roeper At the Movies".  I grew to really like Richard Roeper, some did not.  Here's what I have to say about that...  With Gene Siskel gone, that is NOT coming back, so you have to move on.  Roger Ebert was still there, and this was still the same program, so you have to accept change.  You have to accept SOMEONE.  Granted, Richard did a better job than just "being someone", I'm speaking to those who say he will never be Gene Siskel.  No he won't.  But that's not the point.  Ebert & Roeper were NOT going to be Siskel & Ebert.   What made that show great from 1975 through 1999 died with Gene Siskel.   Given that, I was really behind the selection of Richard Roeper.  As you watched the guest stars, you got the feeling more and more they were leaning towards either Richard Roeper or AO Scott, guys who were guesting way more than anyone else at that point.</p>

<div align="center"><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/ebertroeper.jpg"></div>

<p><br />
<b>EBERT & ROEPER</b></p>

<p>The title was yet changed again in the name of length to "Ebert & Roeper" in September of 2001.   The show stabilized under this format and lasted for about five years this way.  </p>

<p>This went on until 2006, when Roger Ebert had his thyroid problems, and was knocked off air for those reasons. The 2006-2007 season was completed with guest hosts for Roger.</p>

<p><b>AT THE MOVIES WITH EBERT & ROEPER</b></p>

<p><img align="right" src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/atthemovies_roeper.jpg">For the return of the 2007-2008 season, the show's formal name was changed again to "At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper".   On April 13, 2008 Michael Phillips was named the permanent on air replacement for Roger Ebert, although the name remained "ATM with Ebert & Roeper".</p>

<p>It was short lived, though as Richard Roeper and Roger Ebert said on July 21, 2008 that they would both be leaving the show over contractual and format reasons.  Roger Ebert took the "Thumbs Up" with him, as it was a copyright owned by Siskel's widow and Roger themselves, that did not lie with the producers of the show.  It probably had something to do with the fact that the thumbs up/down had disappeared from the show some time before they formally checked out.  That's probably part of what contributed to the "artistic direction" remarks we saw around the separation.</p>

<p>Although, in researching this article I ran across <a href="http://www.stopbenlyons.com/2009/04/roeper-didnt-want-to-work-with-stupid.html">an article</a> where Richard Roeper clearly calls out Ben Lyons as being "stupid" and being the reason he left the show.  Wow.</p>

<p>And so it ends..</p>

<div align="center"><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/qCi7QChW1G0&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/qCi7QChW1G0&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object></div>

<p><br />
<img align="right" src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/atthemovies_bens.jpg" hspace="5" vspace="5"><b>AT THE MOVIES</b> (goes into the toilet)</p>

<p>On July 22nd, 2008 it was announced that the new hosts would be Ben Lyons & Ben Mankiewicz.  This was widely disparaged by long time fans of the show (some going so far as to create a Stop Ben Lyons website), and it proved to be true, as their incarnation of the show was generally regarded as completely awful.  The show's format was changed, expanded, and bore little in common with the Siskel & Ebert lineage it held (legally).  Mankiewicz wasn't all that bad, really.  However, Ben Lyons was SO awful, it just drug the whole thing down.  Had Mankiewicz been paired with someone else, he might still be there.</p>

<p>One interesting note - Ben Lyons was the son of Jeffrey Lyons, who was one of the replacements for the original Siskel & Ebert show Sneak Previews.  That doesn't justify anything, Ben Lyons was still damn awful, despite that quirk to the show's past.  </p>

<div align="center"><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5DKBkJEFAJk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5DKBkJEFAJk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div>

<p><br />
I actually had recorded the final Two Bens episode the same weekend the new hosts came on (see next bit).  The final Two Bens episode had gotten better then the absolute crap it was when they started, it had elevated itself to "pretty bad" from the spot it was in earlier in the season.</p>

<p><b>AT THE MOVIES</b> (gets some cred back)</p>

<p><img align="right" src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/atthemovies2009.jpg" hspace="5" vspace="5">The two Bens experiment was fortunately realized as bad by the producers, and on Aug 5, 2009 it was announced that the two Bens would not be returning for the 2009/2010 season, which started on Sep 5, 2009.  They were replaced by A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips.  Both were guest hosts for Roger Ebert during his health problem period; Phillips being named the brief permanent replacement for Ebert in 2008.  Much was made in the press for the change in hosts about going back to "serious reviews", and "serious writers".  If that was the case, then why did they just not bring back Richard Roeper with Phillips, and restore it to the way it was before the Two Bens came onboard?  Probably too many bridges burnt there.  Anyway, Scott/Phillips are a welcome return to form, will definitely be watchable.  Some of the post Ebert changes remain, but it's mostly back to the way it was (if not with the same hosts).</p>

<p>As I write this, the first two episodes have aired with Scott/Phillips.  It's definitely good again.  Given they legally can't use thumbs up/down, the "See it, Skip it, Rent it" sort of works.  I've seen some backlash against that, but I find my wife and I saying a lot that we will wait for a DVD release to watch a movie, won't spend the boatload it now costs to see a movie in the theatres.  They have kept the "chair" motif from the two Bens era of the show, the old movie theatre / balcony idea is gone.   Shame, as I always felt that added to the aura of the show.   Below is a promo video for AO Scott & Michael Phillips, which is worth checking out.  Also there's <a href="http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1757643537?bclid=1774292933&bctid=37362288001">this video</a>, which is Scott & Phillips talking about movies from their past.</p>

<div align="center">
<embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1691028013" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=35811759001&playerId=1691028013&viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://console.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&domain=embed&autoStart=false&" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="322" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed>
</div>

<p><br />
Another thing I found out in researching this article is that the official site for the "At the Movies" show has a huge archive of video reviews of movies they've reviewed over the years.  I'm unclear if it's every single movie they've reviewed, but wow.  That's a massive past video archive, and it's a blast to run through and look at movies I liked in the past to see what they said.  It's also a good tool to find out how different the various eras of the show were.  Check out the review of <a href="http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=1&subsec=1157">Dragnet</a> from 1987 with Siskel & Ebert, <a href="http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=1&subsec=3872">Batman Begins</a> in 2005 with Ebert & Roeper, <a href="http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=1&subsec=5153">Casino Royale</a> in 2006 with Roeper & AO Scott, <a href="http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=1&subsec=5355">Ratatouille</a> in 2007 with Roeper & Katherine Tulich, <a href="http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=1&subsec=5759">Indy IV</a> in 2008 with Roeper & Phillips, <a href="http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=1&subsec=5943">Twilight</a> in 2008 with the two Bens, and finally Scott & Phillips' <a href="http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid35271136001?bclid=35218860001&bctid=39591053001">entire show</a> from the weekend before I wrote this story (The Informant, The Other Man, September Issue, Whiteout).</p>

<p>So the original show started by Gene Siskel & Roger Ebert in 1986 is still going now under the name "At the Movies" with rather respectable hosts going forward.  This bodes well for the (legal) legacy of the program.   However...</p>

<p><b>AT THE MOVIES</b> (gets canceled)</p>

<p>I wrote this article back in September, and at that time, the new incarnation of the old show had just started with Phillips & Scott.  I watched several, the quality was quite good.  While it wasn't Siskel & Ebert, it was the legal show they started, and I felt good about the future with these guys.</p>

<p>So it came as quite a shock on the morning of Mar 25, 2010 when I learned that this will be the final season for "At the Movies".  It started many a year ago, and <a href="http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/towerticker/2010/03/disneyabc-to-cancel-at-the-movies-siskel-and-eberts-old-show.html">the article i read today</a> said that this season (the 24th year) will be the last.  That's pretty sad, and a lot is being written today about how much the legacy was good, and it was.   I've had a season pass for the show on my TiVo for a few years now.  Going back into the old show, through the two Bens (although I almost never watched it), and this now final season.  The reasons given for the show being canceled are probably valid, as they're business reasons.  Not the hosts, and not the idea.  There's virtually no syndicated shows like this left that aren't infomercials.  That's part of the problem, I think.  Here in Dallas, the show is on at like 1AM on Monday morning (Sun night), and leads off a block of overnight infomercials.  The show was never treated well (and this was even before the two Bens year) in syndication.  If it was on at a "real" time, I bet you the show would still be around.</p>

<p>My brother and I used to watch it back in the 70's, so it's pretty sad that it's finally finishing.  I'll definitely miss the show, but as one of the articles I read today said..  At least having AO Scott & Michael Phillips there at the end means the show can die with some dignity.   Had it been the two Bens at the end, it would have a different feel.   </p>

<p>The show ends in August, I wonder if they could get Roger Ebert there on the last episode to make an appearance.  I think that would be a great touch, and a nice bookend for the show he started ages ago with Gene Siskel.</p>

<p>I'll update this again probably when the show finally does go off the air.</p>

<p><b><big>TRYING TO GET OFF THE GROUND AGAIN</big></b></p>

<p>The time after Ebert & Roeper walked away from the show was spent with a few attempts to get the "old show" off the ground again.  Here's what I know about those, which I label "Show 4" (I wrote this section in the fall of 2009, so some of the text could be a little off when it talks about Show 4 still happening)...</p>

<div align="center"><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/show4.png"></div>

<p><br />
<b>EBERT & ROEPER PRESENT "TALKING MOVIES", NO WAIT.. "TWO THUMBS UP".. NO WAIT...</b></p>

<p>It was stated at the same time when Ebert & Roeper left At the Movies that they would have some new show.  That announcement was made on July 21, 2008.   They said something like it would be announced "soon", and would restore the legacy of the original Siskel & Ebert show:  </p>

<p><b>TALKING MOVIES</b></p>

<p>Right when Roeper & Ebert departed, I set up a Google News Alert for "Richard Roeper".  I wanted to be told when their new show was talked about.  Nothing happened with it after that.  It was a dark time, as the old show was only on with the two Bens.   Then on June 12, 2009, my alert sent me the following text:</p>

<blockquote>The Thumbs will be returning to television in a new program named Talking Movies, with Richard Roeper, Michael Phillips and Christy Lemire. ...</blockquote>

<p>The alert stopped there, as they don't email you the whole thing, just the first line or so.  So I clicked on over immediately and found <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/eberts_recent_two_thumbs_up_re.html">the link</a> was a 404 Not Found.   It had been taken away.  What I suspect happened was someone was prepping an article about that, and it got published to the RSS feed, and then deleted before anyone (well, almost anyone saw it).  This happens to me a lot when you use RSS feeds as your primary source of access to websites.  Anyway, the link was gone, and I could not find anything online about this story other than this link, so I wasn't sure what happened here, exactly.   Whatever this "Talking Movies" was, it never got off the ground.  I don't know Christy Lemire, but Richard Roeper & Michael Phillips were the hosts who held the spiritual line of sucession going back to the Sneak Previews days of the 70's, so it felt right to have them together.  Both were hand picked replacements for Siskel & Ebert (by Ebert themselves), so I'll buy them as the carriers of the flame.</p>

<p><b>EBERT & ROEPER PRESENT "TWO THUMBS UP"</b></p>

<p>But again, nothing happened.  It just sat there.  On September 7th, 2009 I had discovered that Roger Ebert & Richard Roeper had been working on a website project called "Two Thumbs Up".  It had the URL of <a href="http://www.twothumbsup.tv" target="_blank">http://www.twothumbsup.tv</a>.   It appeared from what I could tell to be an internet based version of the old TV show.   However..</p>

<p>When I saw it in Sep of 2009, it was stale, and had been abandoned more or less, there was nothing current when I saw it.  I don't know when it went online, either.  This snuck out there with little fanfare, or I would have heard about it, since I was looking for info on them.  Either I totally botched it, or this really was a small time thing.  Either way, not much appeared to be going on with it, although Christy Lemire's name was still attached to it.</p>

<p>On the day I wrote this section of the article (Sep 15, 2009), I went to grab a screen capture of the site for use here, and discovered it had gone.  I have no idea what happened now.  If you go there, you get a "Forbidden" error, which generally tells me one of two things.  Either the site's server has a serious configuration error preventing you from seeing anything, or someone just nuked the entire content off the server, and there's nothing for it to show.   Either way, whatever this experiment was, it appears to be gone.</p>

<p>The trademark is still in use, though.  If you look at Roger Ebert's <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2thumbs.html">current reviews</a>, they're called "Two Thumbs Up® reviews".   So it's still out there.  But how it will manifest itself on TV?</p>

<p>What's going on, guys?   What happened to the "coming soon" (In the summer of 2008) show that was going to restore the legacy of Siskel & Ebert?   Some of us are still waiting, and as you can see by this article are still paying attention.   While the old show is in capable hands with Scott & Phillips, I want the Richard Roeper and Roger Ebert show to return.  It was said that it would be Richard Roeper & Michael Phillips with Christy Lemire on screen.   Well, Phillips has another gig now, so he's out.   No matter who is picked as the other host, what the heck is going on with THAT?  </p>

<p><b>UPDATE NOVEMBER 29 2009: ROEPER GOES IT ALONE</b> </p>

<p>It appears that the attempt at Show #4 has failed, and will not be happening.  The why of that I'll get into in a minute, but we do have some solid new stuff.</p>

<p><img align="right" hspace="6" vspace="6" src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/roeper2009.jpg">First off, on Nov 24th, I found <a href="http://blogs.vocalo.org/feder/2009/11/rich-gets-richer-roeper-to-review-movies-again/9405">an article</a> saying that Richard Roeper was going to be getting back to the movie review thing.  He isn't on a new show (like we expected), but he's going to be doing movie reviews <a href="http://www.richardroeper.com/">from his website</a>, and via some unspecified "deal" with the Starz cable network.   The reviews will appear weekly on his website, they will then be on Starz.  I wonder if they'll be sandwiched in between movies akin to what is shown by Leonard Maltin on DirecTV.  Anyway, it appears from what I read that he'll be doing this by himself.  While I'm eager to hear what he has to say again, part of what made him work I think was being with someone else.  We'll have to see how they go.  Here's a quote from Richard about the "new venture"...</p>

<blockquote>"I'm so excited about this new project," Roeper said Monday. "As much as I loved doing 'Ebert & Roeper,' this will have much more of an unfiltered, uncut, viral feel. As someone at Starz put it, they wanted 'Roeper uncut.' If a film is a piece of shit, I'll say it's a piece of shit. I love the idea of seeing the movie and turning around immediately and telling you what I think about it in a conversational manner. In some cases I'll be recording reviews right there on the street as I'm exiting the theater or the screening room."</blockquote>

<p>There was a minor stink about it the next day from Roger Ebert thinking that Roeper thought he was censored on Ebert & Roeper, and I could see that, but Richard <a href="http://blog.richardroeper.com/?p=1409">came out with a retraction</a> saying that was not the case.  Still, it made for an interesting bit of back and forth for a day there around Thanksgiving.  :)   One final amusing thing, Richard's website says "Richard Roeper & the Movies" - nice throwback name.   Richard had an intro video initially posted on his website (but was later removed - I don't know why).  It parodies the recent movie, Paranormal Activities.  It's here:</p>

<div align="center"><object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NauDELQI88c&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NauDELQI88c&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object></div>

<p><br />
So Richard will be doing movie reviews.  That likely brings an end to the hope that the old phoenix will rise from the ashes, as he's now gone off on his own without Roger Ebert.  Or does it?  Ebert can never be on TV again (not regularly anyway), so he'll need a "friend" to be on camera, which I assumed would be Roeper.  However, in Roeper's article he does leave the door open a bit for a return to syndication, which I'd realy like to see.  Hopefully it's with Roger Ebert and the thumbs.   That needs to come back.</p>

<p>Which brings us to the other part of the update.  Roger Ebert finally spoke out about all of this stuff, the old show, Richard Roeper, the two Bens, etc..  There was a really great journal update by him <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/11/post.html">here</a> detailing a ton of stuff.  If you've read this far, you need to read that article too.  Roger goes into issues of his own health, what happened behind the scenes after his boot off the air from thyroid cancer, and talks about other names (Philips, Scott, others) that could have been permanent replacements (some of that is covered above).  </p>

<p>But the sad part is how Roger talks about the end of his incarnation of the show - the point where the "producers" decided on destroying the old classic balcony stage instead of donating it to something like the Smithsonian.  I didn't realize that kind of stuff happened.</p>

<p>But the final nail was when the studio hired AO Scott and brought back Michael Phillips to host the show, Phillips went to Roger Ebert's house personally to tell him.  I thought that was classy.  Apparently Roger offered to the producers the legal return of the thumbs and his own endorsement of the show (which would have brought a nice closure to all this), but he was rebuffed, saying "the show has moved on".  That's sad.  That's really sad.</p>

<p>Roger also goes into far more detail on "Show 4" (my term, not his) than I knew of.  The reason THAT didn't happen is due to the economy according to Roger.  But he says the show can probably still happen, and from what Roger said, it seems to be more than a "glimmer", but not exactly a raging inferno waiting to break out either.  But I remain hopeful that the original show's lineage (if not the legal version of it) will rise from the ashes. </p>

<p>Whatever Roger Ebert ends up doing, whether it be with Christy Lemire or Richard Roeper, or someone else, I think there's enough room for their show, and Roger's old show still going on with Scott & Phillips.  I'd watch both for sure.</p>

<div align="center"><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/show4b.jpg"></div>

<p><br />
<b><big>IT'S 2010: NOW WHAT?</big></b></p>

<p>Well, it's now late March 2010 as I write this, and it was just announced that the old Siskel & Ebert show (now manned by Scott & Philips and called "At the Movies") will be gone come August.  Is that truly the end?   Apparently not.</p>

<p><img align="right" src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/ebert_oprah.jpg" hspace="5" vspace="5">First off, before I get into that, I wanted to mention the appearance by Roger Ebert on the Oprah Winfrey show.  I am most definitely NOT a fan of Oprah Winfrey, but I brought myself to watch the show (or at least this part of it) that Roger Ebert was on.  To my knowledge, it was the first appearance by him on TV since he was knocked off the air at his old show with Richard Roeper.  I had seen pictures of him since, and was aware of his condition.  But seeing him can be hard if you're not used to that kind of thing.   I was glad I tuned in, as his story is seriously cool that he's been able to fight past all that's happened to him, is cancer free, and all that.   The bit where his voice was recreated by a company using tons of his old commentary DVD's and whatnot was really quite awesome.  This appearance was like a big step back for me, as he got to announce his own Oscar picks in his own voice for the first time in ages.  The Oprah Winfrey website has videos of all this stuff online (for now, anyway).  I suggest you <a href="http://www.oprah.com/showinfo/Roger-Ebert-Speaks-for-the-First-Time-Plus-Morgan-Freeman-and-Colin">go check them out here</a>.</p>

<p>I mention all that, because I think it ties in somewhat to something he announced today that the old show he was talking about awhile ago is still going to be happening.   I found that as quite a surprise.</p>

<p><b><big>THE TRUE "SHOW 4" - ROGER EBERT PRESENTS 'AT THE MOVIES'</big></b></p>

<p>Today (Mar 25, 2010) <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/03/see_you_at_the_movies.html">Roger Ebert had another blog post</a> (man, this guy can write well), this time about the cancellation of "At the Movies".  He talks about the past with Siskel again, why the show was gone, it's (as usual) a fantastic read.  But for someone like me, the real gold here was the announcement that he is still going to be doing a new show.</p>

<p>Roger talks about how he didn't think it would work if they were just doing the same show as it always was.  Which is kind of why I think the old show finally was canceled.  It effectively was the same show from all those years ago, just a different tone and flavor, but the format was the same.   Roger's new show according to him will cover <i>"New Media: Television, net streaming, cell phone apps, Facebook, Twitter, iPad, the whole enchilada."</i>.   That's good to see.  I think if Roger just brought back the old format with new hosts, then it probably too would fail.  </p>

<p>I also liked this text which Roger wrote..  <i>""At the Movies" was one of the last survivors of half-hour syndication. It didn't fail so much as have its format shot out from beneath it."</i>   He even goes on to mention everyone who has hosted the show (which is Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel, Richard Roeper, Michael Phillips, AO Scott, Ben Mankowicz, & Ben Lyons).  </p>

<p>The show will be produced by him and his wife.  He wants to make appearances, and says his computer voice can be used to keep him "on" the show, even if he can't physically appear.   He mentions they know who they'll cast as face talent (Christy Lemire perhaps?  Her name has been attached to his for awhile now).  He's not giving details, but this is the most forward I've seen Roger Ebert be with a replacement show since he left the air.</p>

<p>So something is coming.  I hope it's soon, and I hope it's got a balcony again!  :)</p>

<p><b>IN CLOSING</b></p>

<p>So there we are.  A twisted history of the Siskel & Ebert movie review show.  Many names, many incarnations, I believe I've covered it all.  Roger, I know you're online, and do the blog thing, so if you see this, I wanted to say thank you.  Have had fun all these years watching, and Richard?   I thank you for sitting in the seat all those years for Gene.  I even liked the Scott & Philips team, even if they were a bit too much like each other and there was no Siskel & Ebert arguments.  At least they weren't "dumb", there was a level of intelligence to them which I enjoyed seeing.</p>

<p>I'll leave you with some amusing videos I saw on Youtube of various funny bits from episodes over the years.  These show that Richard Roeper & Roger Ebert could still complain at each other like Siskel & Ebert did, they weren't the bland pair that I've read about over the years.  Enjoy.</p>

<p>God bless Gene Siskel.</p>

<div align="center">
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/-iZ9suJXJTk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/-iZ9suJXJTk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<p><br />
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/GTYj2POWd9w&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/GTYj2POWd9w&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object></p>

<p><br />
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/Z1L36trN6kA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/Z1L36trN6kA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object></p>

<p><br />
<img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/siskelandebert_thumbs.jpg"><br />
</div></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Dallas Stars</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2009/10/dallas_stars.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2009://1.3789</id>

    <published>2009-10-07T23:59:58Z</published>
    <updated>2009-10-08T00:00:45Z</updated>

    <summary></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Sports" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<div align="center"><iframe width="480" height="289" frameborder="0" src="http://stars.nhl.tv/team/embed.jsp?catid=709&id=48121"></iframe></div>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>My Xbox 360 Died Part III</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2009/08/my_xbox_360_died_part_iii.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2009://1.3782</id>

    <published>2009-08-05T22:55:42Z</published>
    <updated>2009-09-12T17:15:33Z</updated>

    <summary>If you&apos;ve followed my blog at all, you may remember that my second Xbox 360 died in March of 2008. I talked about it here. This after my original 360 died back in Feb of 2007. Well, my third unit...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Games" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Rants" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<p>If you've followed my blog at all, you may remember that my second Xbox 360 died in March of 2008. <a href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2008/03/my_xbox_360_died_part_ii.html">I talked about it here</a>. This after my original 360 died <a href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2007/02/my_xbox_360_died.html">back in Feb of 2007</a>.  Well, my third unit has now died, too.  I posted about it on a private forum I belong to when it first happened on July 25th, and I'm posting it here on Aug 5th, and then I have a new update for this blog. </p>

<hr>

<p><br />
<b>Fri Jul 25th:</b> My second 360 was the same as the original footprint (the bad one). Turns out they were still manufacturing the original footprint from 2005 in 2008, which was NUTS to me, considering how many of them died. There was some attempts to alleviate the heat problems, but apparently, they were still suspectible. Why on earth MS was still making the original bad hardware footprint in 2008 as a REPLACEMENT for the same footprint is insane to me. I just don't understand that.</p>

<p>So anyway, I started playing 1 vs 100 last night, and right as it started I heard a rather obnoxious sound - kind of like a loud click coming from the 360, and then it locked hard. My initial thought was "Uh-oh". While it didn't sound like a sound I heard from my previous two dead 360's, it didn't sound good at all. So I hit the power button for off, then back on again, and there it was. The stupid red rings of death. AGAIN. Xbox 360 #3 has died. MS talked about the failure rate being "acceptable", but for me, my failure rate is 100% so far. I don't believe that's acceptable.</p>

<p>The annoying thing now is that I'm out of warranty. My original 360 had a three year warranty. It was bought on Jan 1, 2006, so I've expired that now. My third 360 (this one) was a warranty replacement for the second one, and the warranty for "in warranty replacements" is not another three years, it's one year (according to the website), and that too has expired. So I'm out of warranty for all three of my 360's. I suppose I could fight it on the grounds that my current 360 is still the original footprint, and should be warranted for three years, but then I'd get another one.</p>

<p>So I'm stuck now with paying $99 for a warranty repair. To add insult to that, the warranty repair place is about 10 miles from my house (was 8.2 from 3D Realms HQ), and because the facility is in Texas, I'd have to pay sales tax on that. So my replacement cost would be about $110. From what I know of the repair procedure from going through it, they'd likely send me another one of that kind. Since my original purchase was technically a core unit, that's what they'd send me back. Great. I don't really want to pay them that much money to get a FOURTH box with the original mostly problematic hardware footprint.</p>

<p>My original 360 was a gift from 3D Realms for Christmas back in 2005 (well, Jan 2006, but you get the point). My second one was technically a core purchase. I got so mad at repair that I went and bought a new core unit - my total out of pocket expense for that was about $80 after I sold my original unit broken on ebay (Got about $125 for that, surprisingly). The second one went back to MS and I got the third one for free under the warranty repair program, so my total expenditure for the three 360's was about $80, which isn't too bad all things considered.</p>

<hr>

<p><br />
<b>NEW STUFF AUG 5:</b>  The night my third 360 broke a couple of weeks ago, I was getting mad about it, and after I had researched the hardware footprint situation, I was reasonably confident I could walk into a store, and buy the newest hardware footprint (codenamed Jasper) that would solve all the heat problems.  There's a really REALLY good article <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3472&p=1">here</a> about how to tell the difference between all the various hardware footprints there have been.   My wife listened to me go on about it, and suggested that since my birthday was coming up in a few weeks (Aug 20th) that I use birthday money to go get the new hardware footprint and solve the problem.   She also suggested this because my initial research showed that my third 360 was out of warranty.  Which it was, but I initially missed the fact that I could have it repaired for free (more on that later).   </p>

<p>So on Sat July 26th, I went to Worst Buy to buy a 360 Arcade.  At $199, it's much cheaper than what it was when originally available, and with information gleaned from the article above, I was confident I was going to get a Jasper machine.  Surprisingly Worst Buy was sold out of them.  That surprised me a bit.  I did notice while I was there, that their 360 Pro units were Jaspers.  I wasn't buying that, but I checked 'em out.  So I headed over to Toys R Us, which had one 360 Arcade, and the guy I asked to look at it had some knowledge of the situation, as he said "Oh, you're looking for the new chipset".  He didn't think it would be that one, since he said "that has been sitting there for awhile now".   But I confirmed it was a Jasper with the info from the article.  Bought it, brought it home.   </p>

<p>Good news on the unit.   Once I got it out of the box, there was no doubt about it.  Jasper unit.  It was manufactured on March 30, 2009.   The Arcade machines are a bit better now than this thing was when it was called a Core at the start of the console's lifecycle.   The new one I got came with a wireless controller vs a wired controller.   It also has 512Mb of memory ON BOARD, and not via an external memory card (it ends up being about 400Mb of usable space, which is nice for a throwin).  The overall sound of the unit is way quieter, the power adapter is much smaller, and also has much less output.   It's 12.1w now vs the 16.5 of the old units.  So all of those should hopefully.  FINALLY.  Figure out the RROD problem, which was heat related.  I plugged in my old cables, and the 120Gb hard drive I had, and I was up and running pretty quickly once I got home.   There's a lot to like about this new model vs the older ones I had.</p>

<p>So a few days after I bought the new model, I discovered that I could get my dead unit repaired for free.  While technically out of warranty, that "three year" extension talked about for awhile applies to RROD, and this unit qualified for that repair.   So I sent it over to them, and let them repair my third 360.  I wasn't sure what they'd do.  I mean, they couldn't send me the original 2005 hardware footprint AGAIN in August of 2009, could they?</p>

<p>On Sunday the 2nd, I noticed that my info had changed in the repair area of the Xbox website.  I had a new Xbox 360 in my list of "owned consoles", the new one they were sending me back.  I could see what the serial number was, so I looked online, and <a href="http://xbox360glitches.com/2009/04/working-out-the-xbox-360-manufacturing-date-and-serial-number/">found this link</a> telling me how to decipher the serial number of an Xbox 360 to find out information about it.   So from what I found, this unit was made between June 7th and 13th, 2009.   (Not that it matters, but it was the 2,791st 360 they made that week in lot 9).   So for a unit made in June of 2009, SURELY it would be the Jasper footprint, right?   They would send out the corrected hardware - they wouldn't mess with any of the old stuff, right?</p>

<p><b>WRONG!</b></p>

<p>The UPS guy showed up at my door today, and gave me back the coffin.  He commented "Oh, an Xbox, eh?"  I said yeah, and we got into talking about it.  Anyway, he told me that the repair facility in Mesquite TX is actually ON the giant UPS distribution grounds.  He said that Microsoft has leased space on the actual UPS grounds so that they can ship these things out and save on shipping costs.  Wow.   I knew both the UPS plant and the Xbox repair place were close to each other, but I didn't realize they were in the same actual place!   Anyway, as I was walking in, I looked at the stickers on the outside of the box, and my heart sank, as I saw the word "Zephyr", which is one of the code names for the original 2005 hardware footprint.  Great.   Just great.   </p>

<p>It's just mind bogglingly amazing that in August of 2009, they're shipping the same hardware footprint from 2005 that had all the heat problems, and is the one most likely to RROD.  I plugged the thing in, and it works OK, but then they all work for awhile.  </p>

<p>Something else I found really bizarre about this unit was on the back where the manufacture date normally appears on a 360 was the phrase "Service Date".  The date on the back of this unit is Aug 2, 2009, which was when they packaged it up to ship out to me.  So this tells me that they just make a bunch of the original hardware footprint, have them sit there waiting for someone to send in a RROD'ed Arcade or Core unit, and send back one of these.   That's just bloody amazing.  I don't intend on regularly using this unit.  I've had enough of the 2005 footprint.  I'm quite happy with the Jasper I bought, and will be using that.   This will go in the closet as a backup.   Had I had to actually send them $99 to repair this, I'd be hopping mad about it.  </p>

<p><b>SUMMARY:</b></p>

<p>So to summarize, here's the life of me and Xbox 360 units dying and needing replacement.</p>

<p>Unit 1 (Core): Bought new on Jan 1, 2006.  Died Feb 3, 2007.   Sold dead on Ebay for about $120 or so, helped fund purchase of unit 2.</p>

<p>Unit 2 (Core): Bought new on Feb 5, 2007.   Died Mar 8, 2008.  Sent in for warranty repair.</p>

<p>Unit 3 (Core): Received from repair Mar 28, 2008.  Died Jul 24, 2009.   Sent in for warranty repair.</p>

<p>Unit 4 (Arcade): Bought new on Jul 25, 2009.  Current active machine.  Finally have HDMI jack.  Best of the bunch.</p>

<p>Unit 5 (Arcade): Received from repair Aug 5, 2009.   Is bad original hardware again, put in closet as backup.</p>

<p>What a fiasco.  If the Xbox 720 or whatever it's called has this same kind of nightmare, wow, will they have shot themselves in both feet, but probably through several other appendages, too.</p>

<p>If this wasn't the best console out there this generation, I would have walked awhile ago.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Goodbye Compuserve</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2009/07/goodbye_compuserve.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2009://1.3777</id>

    <published>2009-07-02T12:57:23Z</published>
    <updated>2009-07-02T13:07:59Z</updated>

    <summary>Just read this morning that as of yesterday, Compuserve Classic ceased to be. That&apos;s a major milestone for a service that had been around for a very long time. Now I didn&apos;t realize the old Compuserve still was operational, that...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Computers" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Just read this morning that as of yesterday, <a href="http://paperpc.blogspot.com/2009/06/compuserve-classic-so-long-old-friend.html">Compuserve Classic ceased to be</a>.  That's a major milestone for a service that had been around for a very long time.  Now I didn't realize the old <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compuserve">Compuserve</a> still was operational, that was a surprise.</p>

<p>Anyway, Compuserve and I go way back.  When I got my first modem in 1986 (a 1200 bps card for my Apple //e computer), the first place I dialed was Compuserve.  As I recall, I ran up quite the bill that first month - something like $400.  I was addicted to online stuff immediately.   As time went on, I was a member of the Sci-Fi forums, and when I got hired a few years later by Apogee, the gaming forums, too.  I was all over the place there.</p>

<p>And yeah, if you're a Compuserve old timer, you pronounce the name of the GIF file format like the peanut butter name.  That's the right way, not the other way (sounding like 'gift').  </p>

<p>Anyway, I lasted there for quite a long time, way past when it was commonly used by people.  Basically until the point where the guy at my company who paid the bills asked why I still had that account going.  :)    My old account of 71540,306 is no longer needed, sadly.  I read where you can still use your old email addresses if you wanted, but you probably had to sign up to keep it active.  I didn't do that, so I'm guessing mine doesn't work anymore.</p>

<p>So goodbye Compuserve, you were my first.</p>

<div align="center"><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/compuserve.jpg"></div>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Pixar References &amp; &quot;Up!&quot;</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2009/04/pixar_references_up.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2009://1.3776</id>

    <published>2009-04-01T19:06:50Z</published>
    <updated>2009-04-01T11:01:15Z</updated>

    <summary>The Pixar guys are quite awesome - I&apos;ve said for years they have totally harnased the spirit of what used to be good about old school Disney films. They&apos;re also big fans of self references. They are constantly putting in...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Movies" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<p>The Pixar guys are quite awesome - I've said for years they have totally harnased the spirit of what used to be good about old school Disney films.   They're also big fans of self references.  They are constantly putting in references to their other films, and not always backwards - they go forwards sometimes, too.  Like the time in Monsters Inc where Boo gave Sulley a Nemo toy - Finding Nemo had not yet come out at that point.</p>

<div align="center">
<img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/monstersnemo.jpg">
</div>

<p><br />
There is a really good article showing off where several of these references are in various Pixar films.  <a href="http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2007/12/09/a-special-where-s-wall-e-edition-of-why-for.aspx">Go check that out here</a>.  If you like this kind of thing, you will love this page, I guarantee it.</p>

<p>Anyway, this year Pixar is coming out with their annual new film, this one is called "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_(2009_film)">Up!</a>"  As with all the others, I expect a gaggle of injokes, like "Find the Pizza Planet Truck", and "Where's the Luxo Ball?" (the latter can be seen in one of the earlier movie trailers, actually).    Anyway, in watching the third (and I think final) trailer (shown below), there's a rather large bird in the middle of it, which appears to accompany the main characters in the movie plot.   I'm looking at this thing, and it immediately reminded me of one of the older Pixar shorts.</p>

<p>There was one from 2000 called "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Birds_(film)">For the Birds</a>".  It had a bunch of small, mostly annoyed birds sitting on a wire.   A larger, stupid bird came up and sat on the line with them.</p>

<div align="center">
<img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/forthebirds.jpg">
</div>

<p><br />
Anyway, in the new trailer, the "Up bird" looks to be influenced by the "For the Birds bird".  It doesn't look EXACTLY the same, but given Pixar's penchant for self-referential characters, it wouldn't surprise me if this is the same bird model they were working from.  Take a look, let me know what you think.</p>

<div align="center">
<img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/upbird1.jpg">

<p><br />
<img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/upbird2.jpg"></p>

<p><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/upbird3.jpg"><br />
</div></p>

<p></p>

<div align="center">
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/pkqzFUhGPJg&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/pkqzFUhGPJg&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
</div>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Riding the Trains</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2009/02/riding_the_trains.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2009://1.3775</id>

    <published>2009-02-15T17:21:33Z</published>
    <updated>2009-02-15T16:18:27Z</updated>

    <summary>Yesterday was a day where Mommy was at work, and Samantha and Daddy were at home. We went out to storytime at our local library, hit the bakery for some stuff Mommy wanted, then came home. We sat there for...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Samantha Stuff" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Yesterday was a day where Mommy was at work, and Samantha and Daddy were at home.   We went out to storytime at our local library, hit the bakery for some stuff Mommy wanted, then came home.   We sat there for awhile, and an idea popped into my head.  We had talked about having Samantha ride the <a href="http://www.dart.org/">Dart</a> High Speed Rail Trains.  Trains are something I recall from my own youth with my father and brother.  As you can see of this pic of my brother and I from the 70's..  :)</p>

<div align="center">
<a href="http://joe.siegler.net/images/train17.jpg"><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/train17_small.jpg" border="0"></a>
</div>

<p><br />
So anyway, Samantha & I were sitting at home yesterday, and I just thought - you know, why not right now?   We weren't doing anything special at the time, we had talked about doing it "sometime", and we had a few hours to kill before we had to go pick up Mommy from work.  So I suggested it to Samantha.   She got rather excited about it, but when she said "Are we going to go TODAY?", I said yes, and she got massively wide eyes, and and started jumping up and down going "TRAIN! TRAIN! TRAIN! TRAIN!".  It was quite intense.  From the moment I suggested it until the moment we were in the car driving to the train station was about 10 minutes, most of which was taken up going to the potty.  :)</p>

<p>So off we drove to the train station, and I talked to Samantha a lot about how she needed to hold my hand, and not walk away anywhere.   She was asking a ton of questions about what color the train was, whether the driver was a boy or girl, how fast the train would go, etc, etc, etc..   I answered all her questions but went on a lot about how she must hold Daddy's hand.  Which she did well with; if we weren't sitting in our seats on the train, she was holding my hand.  While I wasn't really concerned, taking my three year old downtown into Dallas was something new, and I didn't know how she'd react.  Or how people would react to her, to be honest.  But we got to the train station, and went to buy our tickets.  Even that was exciting to her.  I printed out the tickets from the machine, and said here are our tickets, and she went off again, "TICKET!  TICKET!  TICKET!".   But it was not lost on me the moment we walked over the train tracks and onto the station - this was something that I loved as a child and a family event, and then on my own when I was older riding the mass transit system of Philadelphia (<a href="http://www.septa.org/">Septa</a>).   Samantha got up onto the train without much difficulty, and found a seat.   </p>

<div align="center">
<a href="http://joe.siegler.net/images/train6.jpg"><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/train6_small.jpg" border="0"></a>
</div>

<p><br />
We waited just a minute or so (our timing was good), and the train took off.  Samantha got up on her knees and looked out the window.  I spent most of my time making sure she didn't fall out of her seat.  As this was her first train ride, she didn't have any knowledge of how to balance her body weight when the train took off, or sped up or anything like that.  So that's what Daddy did.  But I also was enjoying her just watching things.   She would look out the window, look at the signs in the train, the other people.  I asked her once what she was looking at, and she said "Everything!".   On the first leg of our ride, there was an older gentleman sitting right behind her, he looked to be around 70 or so.  He would smile at her, and ask her her name, and would talk to her somewhat, he was a nice joy.  I know my child can be bubbly, and that's good in my opinion.  But I also know not everyone likes bubbly, so it was nice she ran into someone who didn't mind a three year old looking at him.  :)   </p>

<p>She got all excited when I told her that the train went under the ground.  Not a lot of the rail line goes underground, but there's a part where it does as it approaches the downtown area.  She really enjoyed that part - I don't know why as there was nothing to look at out the window - was just black, save for the one lone underground station they have on the line.  But she loved it, which is odd, as it is Mommy's LEAST favorite part.  So we got out of the tunnel and called Mommy, who at this point was on her lunch break.  She was quite surprised to realize that her husband and daughter were in downtown Dallas on a train.  But Samantha obviously conveyed how much fun and happy she was, so that was good.  By now, I think Samantha wanted to see something else, so we got off the train at the West End Station which is a big transfer station, actually.   We walked around a little bit, and posed for a picture that came out QUITE well, it's shown here.</p>

<div align="center">
<a href="http://joe.siegler.net/images/train1.jpg"><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/train1_small.jpg" border="0"></a>
</div>

<p><br />
The train in the picture was the same one that we rode down in, and as we were waiting at a light to cross the train tracks, we waved at the conductor, who waved back.  Samantha loved that too, and started jumping up and down next to me, which the conductor had to have seen.   As we crossed the tracks, I pointed down and said look - what is that (pointing directly at the tracks).  She said she didn't know, and I explained train tracks to her, which she seemed intent on listening to me about.  Someone else apparently saw this exchange, and appeared to be chuckling in approval behind us, which I rather liked, too.   We did briefly walk into a store that sold fruit, I thought about getting her a fruit smoothie, but she didn't seem interested, so we walked back out and sat down to wait for the return train.</p>

<div align="center">
<a href="http://joe.siegler.net/images/train2.jpg"><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/train2_small.jpg" border="0"></a>
</div>

<p><br />
We sat on the bench by the curb, and Samantha in the picture above showed what my wife said was "your look - Wow does that look like you".  Apparently the furrowed brow look is something I do a lot.   But something fun while sitting there.   Some kids a couple of benches over were throwing some sort of food onto the train tracks, which attracted a ton of pigeons, something like 30 or 40 of them.   When the train showed up going the other way, all the pigeons scattered, and flew everywhere.  Samanatha thought it was funny and asked why the pigeons all flew away like that.  I told her the other train scared them by making a loud noise, so they flew away.  When they came back again after the train left, Samantha kept trying to get it to happen again.  She'd sit there screaming "<strong>PIGEON! - PIGEON!</strong>".   When I asked her what she was doing, she said she was trying to scare them because it was funny when they all flew away.  I enjoyed that exchange.  PIGEON!  While we were down there and I had three people make some sort of variant of the same comment, which was "I see you have your valentine with you", or "What a beautiful little girl", or something like that.  It never occurred to me that we'd get noticed by people, I just saw the entire exercise as "Daddy wanting to spend some time with his Daughter".</p>

<div align="center">
<a href="http://joe.siegler.net/images/train3.jpg"><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/train3_small.jpg" border="0"></a>
</div>

<p><br />
So we got back on the train, and made our way out of downtown.   There was a younger woman about 20-23ish who sat behind us, and Samantha waved to her, and they talked briefly.  Said woman used the idiom, "How are you doing baby?" to which Samantha replied (somewhat sternly, too) "I'm not a baby!"  The woman chuckled and said "I'm sorry!"  Was actually a sweet exchange.   She seems pretty at ease with talking to random people, which is both good and bad.  As we start to venture out into the world, I'll have to teach her limits and who to look out for, and all that.  But for now, it's quite good.  We had talked about Valentine's Day, and that we needed to get home and make a card for Mommy, but somewhere in here Samantha said we needed to go to a store - she wanted to go to a store on the train.  So I got off at a stop about halfway between downtown and back home, as I remembered that the place was supposed to have a bunch of shops.  Well, it did, but they were the snooty ritzy kind of things, places we didn't want to (well, I didn't) spend time looking around in.  Especially with my leg acting up a bit lately, I wanted to reduce the walking, not increase it.  The place did have a a very nice fountain system at the top of a stairwell we went down.   Fortunately I had a few pennies in my pocket which she threw into the water.  She enjoyed that.  She's always liked throwing pennies into a fountain.</p>

<div align="center">
<a href="http://joe.siegler.net/images/train4.jpg"><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/train4_small.jpg" border="0"></a>
</div>

<p><br />
We made it back onto the train, which involved a very long escalator going up from the platform initially, and then an elevator back down (as the down escalator wasn't working).  By this point, I think the lack of a nap coupled with all the excitement was starting to wear, because she started getting mildly cranky, as the train had to stop at one point.  There were construction workers on the tracks we were on, and our train had to wait to be diverted to the track on the other side.  At this point there were four stops left till we got back to the end of the line where we had parked.   With two and a half left, she told me she wanted to go home.   This was borne out by the fact that when we did get to the end of the line, we waved goodbye to the train, and then got in the car.  Samantha was asleep within 3 minutes of getting the car moving.   She had a blast, but it definitely tired her out.</p>

<div align="center">
<a href="http://joe.siegler.net/images/train5.jpg"><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/train5_small.jpg" border="0"></a>
</div>

<p><br />
I suppose the greatest moment of this day beyond the obvious joy my kid was experiencing was the fact that what we were doing was something I recall from my youth at a time when my mother and father were still together.   Doing something with my daughter that I too experienced as a kid, and loved on my own (as a kid, teen, and an adult) was great.   She's now at the age where she will probably pick up a few things that will stay with her the rest of her life, so to be responsible for putting some of those memories in her head was by far the best Valentine's Day present she could have given me.</p>

<p>I love my daughter.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>MacGruber</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2009/02/macgruber.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2009://1.3774</id>

    <published>2009-02-02T16:12:11Z</published>
    <updated>2009-02-02T18:53:19Z</updated>

    <summary> This was on Saturday Night Live this past weekend. MacGruber is a recent vintage SNL recurring bit, and for some reason I laughed really hard at this (especially the third one). My wife witnessed it, and it&apos;s really short,...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="TV" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<p><object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/aol/http%3A%2F%2Fvideo%2Eaol%2Ecom/embed/sKlOu5C4CC-eoj-L32nUSw"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/aol/http%3A%2F%2Fvideo%2Eaol%2Ecom/embed/sKlOu5C4CC-eoj-L32nUSw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true"  width="512" height="296"></embed></object></p>

<p><br></p>

<p><object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/aol/http%3A%2F%2Fvideo%2Eaol%2Ecom/embed/3co4-vJiWWnfRU48nu0nZQ"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/aol/http%3A%2F%2Fvideo%2Eaol%2Ecom/embed/3co4-vJiWWnfRU48nu0nZQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true"  width="512" height="296"></embed></object></p>

<p><br></p>

<p><object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/aol/http%3A%2F%2Fvideo%2Eaol%2Ecom/embed/R6FQDl-_ZLRQwh_OttU99Q"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/aol/http%3A%2F%2Fvideo%2Eaol%2Ecom/embed/R6FQDl-_ZLRQwh_OttU99Q" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true"  width="512" height="296"></embed></object></p>

<p>This was on Saturday Night Live this past weekend.  MacGruber is a recent vintage SNL recurring bit, and for some reason I laughed really hard at this (especially the third one).  My wife witnessed it, and it's really short, dumb, and it always blows up at the end.  For some reason, I really enjoy the MacGruber bits.  :)</p>

<p>There's more of them available <a href="http://www.hulu.com/videos/search?query=MacGruber">here</a>.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>A question about the Digital Switchover</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2009/01/a_question_about_the_digi.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2009://1.3773</id>

    <published>2009-02-01T05:29:38Z</published>
    <updated>2009-02-01T05:32:27Z</updated>

    <summary>First off, I hope it goes over in February, and not June. Folks have been saying it&apos;s coming for years, the February date has been known for quite a long time now. What are you waiting for, people? If you...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="TV" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<p>First off, I hope it goes over in February, and not June.   Folks have been saying it's coming for years, the February date has been known for quite a long time now.  What are you waiting for, people?   If you didn't notice by now, go dark.  Meh.</p>

<p>Anyway, the question I have is this.  In all the talk we see about the big digital switchover, the talk is that the air wave space that is currently allocated for over the air analog television signals is going to be reassigned for other use.  What is going to happen at some point down the road if I plug in rabbit ears to one of my old television sets without a digital converter box?   Will my TV set pick up whatever is using that old spectrum space?</p>

<p>I'm sure if it's data, it'll be encrypted, but what if it's used for voice or something?  Will my old TV set become the new police scanner radio of the next decade?   :)</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Eagles Game</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2009/01/eagles_game.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2009://1.3772</id>

    <published>2009-01-17T14:58:27Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-17T14:58:54Z</updated>

    <summary></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Sports" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="eaglescardinals.jpg" src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/eaglescardinals.jpg" width="461" height="401" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto 20px;" /></span></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>I Want to Work with Daddy</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2009/01/i_want_to_work_with_daddy.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2009://1.3770</id>

    <published>2009-01-13T18:52:23Z</published>
    <updated>2009-01-13T18:58:12Z</updated>

    <summary>I got a phone call from my wife today, who decided to give me a report on what Samantha told her. Samantha said that when she grows up and is an adult, she wanted to come work with &quot;Daddy &amp;...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Samantha Stuff" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<p>I got a phone call from my wife today, who decided to give me a report on what Samantha told her.</p>

<p>Samantha said that when she grows up and is an adult, she wanted to come work with "Daddy & Mr. Bryan".  (Bryan is a friend and co-worker)   When Lynn asked her what she wanted to do, Samantha said..</p>

<p>"Daddy has a second computer in his office, I will work with him!"   </p>

<p>"But what will you do there, Samantha?"</p>

<p>"I can type and I will do email, and I can help him play Duke Nukem".</p>

<p>So basically Samantha thinks Daddy's work is a cool place to be.   She's never played Duke Nukem, as it's not appropriate for a three year old.  But it was quite heartwarming to know my kid apparently idolizes me, as she wants to work with Daddy when she "becomes an adult".</p>

<p>Gotta love that.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Breaking the Money System in Animal Crossing Wii</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2009/01/animal_crossing_wii_unlimited_money.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2009://1.3769</id>

    <published>2009-01-10T21:54:15Z</published>
    <updated>2009-07-22T14:24:59Z</updated>

    <summary>I&apos;ve been playing a lot of Animal Crossing: City Folk lately. I was hooked on this game in the last iteration on game consoles (that being the Gamecube version). This new one is mostly the same, and that&apos;s a disappointment,...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Games" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001CM0PR8/73407921" target="_blank"><img align="right" src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/animalcrossingwii.jpg" hspace="6" vspace="6" border="0"></a>I've been playing a lot of Animal Crossing: City Folk lately.  I was hooked on this game in the last iteration on game consoles (that being the Gamecube version).   This new one is mostly the same, and that's a disappointment, but there's enough small stuff changed that it doesn't feel 100% like the old version.   Anyway, I've been visiting a lot of people's towns now.  That's one of the new things, you can visit people's towns via WiFi and play on their consoles.  </p>

<p>That's cool, as it helps ratchet up one's stock of foreign fruit.   The town you play in comes with its own "native fruit".  That's the kind that grows wild in your town.  For me, that's Apples.  There's about half a dozen different fruits the game can have.  The others are oranges, pears, cherries, coconuts, and one or two others I can't recall right now.  There is a lesser known feature in the game, called a "money tree".  Anyway, I mentioned to a few people whose towns I was visiting about the concept of money trees.  I wrote this big email to one of them, and decided to post it here in case anyone else wants to know about this.</p>

<p>In Animal Crossing, you dig things up from the ground (or bury) with a shovel you get at the local game merchant's store (that would be Tom Nook).   Anyway, as you progress in the game, the various objects have "gold" versions, which are snazzier than the standard ones.  They look somewhat cooler, but they have better functions.  For example, the gold slingshot will shoot three pellets instead of the one the standard one does.   </p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<p>First off, you have to have a golden shovel to do this. If you try it with a regular or silver shovel, it won't work. You get one of those by burying a regular shovel in the ground, and after four days, dig it up and it will be gold. If you dig it up too soon, it will get the timer restarted, and have to do it again.  So keep it buried until the time is ready.</p>

<p>Anyway, you plant bags of money like you would any other fruit. After a few days, the tree will bear bags of money as opposed to fruit. Then you get it off the tree like any other fruit.</p>

<p>The catch here is this. And this goes for any kind of tree, not just money. If you want to GUARANTEE the tree will grow, you need to cut down an existing tree and replant in the same spot, but BEFORE closing over the hole once you've dug up the stump. If you do that, it resets the hole, and you've lost that. This is particularly annoying if you try planting in a new spot with money, and the tree withers, you've then lost that money. Your best best for planting money trees is to cut down an existing tree, and plant in that same spot.   Additionally, a money tree doesn't regrow money once you've harvested it.  After that, you need to cut it down and replant with fruit, as a single spot will grow money just once.</p>

<p>I only experiment with new tree locations with my town's native fruit, since there's a bunch of it, and you're not out a lot of it fails.</p>

<p>The max money tree you can plant is between 99,000 and 100,000 bells. That's because you can't hold more money than that at once, and you can only plant one bag at a time, so the max output for a single tree in one harvest is between 270,000 and 300,000 bells depending on the size of the bag buried. The tree will continue to bear fruit after you harvest it, so once you get a lot of these in your town, it's best to harvest them before letting others in via your open door. Otherwise they can swipe your money. I haven't timed it, but money trees usually take a little longer to grow than standard fruit tree (or just a plain sapling).</p>

<p>The money for the tree can come from anywhere, it doesn't matter what - I just sell off tons of stuff until I'm carrying 100k in bells, then bury it. It helps to raid other towns for their non native fruit. This whole thing goes faster once you have a town full of non native fruit yourself.</p>

<p>This effectively breaks the money system and lets you pay off all the mortgages in pretty quick fashion once you get a couple of 300,000 bell trees going. Plus you can buy all the expensive crap in the city. :)</p>

<p>In fact, that's the whole reason I did this, as my three year old plays with me, and I wanted to outfit my room with the entire princess line of stuff that the game will start selling in the ritzy town store in April.   A bed there costs 300,000 bells, it'll take a few million to get everything, so I will need a boatload of cash for all that.  :)</p>

<div align="center">
<b>Me and my golden shovel standing in front of a money tree after it ripens (takes about a week after planting).  That's 90,000 bells you're looking at.  I planted a bag of 30,000 bells.</b><br><br>
<a href="http://joe.siegler.net/images/moneytree.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/moneytree_small.jpg" border="0"></a></div>]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>MLB Network, Time Warner Cable, &amp; TiVo [UPDATE 2]</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2009/01/mlb_network_time_warner_tivo.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2009://1.3768</id>

    <published>2009-01-05T21:02:35Z</published>
    <updated>2009-02-27T15:17:26Z</updated>

    <summary>Anyone who knows me knows I&apos;ve been a big fan of major league baseball for ages. So it was with great joy that I got ready for January 1st, 2009. That was launch day for the MLB Network, a new...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="TV" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img align="right" src="http://joe.siegler.net/images/mlbnetwork_timewarner.png" hspace="5" vspace="5">Anyone who knows me knows I've been a big fan of major league baseball for ages.  So it was with great joy that I got ready for January 1st, 2009.  That was launch day for the <a href="http://www.mlbnetwork.com" target="_blank">MLB Network</a>, a new 24 hour baseball channel.   So I was rather excited to see that launch.  Especially given one of the lead guys is Victor Rojas, who left my Texas Rangers broadcast booth to take a job there.  </p>

<p><b><big>Some (important) background</big></b></p>

<p>A little background info first.  A couple of months ago I bought a nice 46 inch HDTV.  Not necessarily in anticipation of this channel, but this was going to be a benefit.  This TV has a TiVoHD hooked up to it - this is a CableCARD device, so the cable goes from the TiVo just to the TV, there's no "cable box" as such.  My bedroom has an older SDTV, and a Series 2 TiVo.  This TiVo uses a Motorola Cable box provided to me from Time Warner in addition to the TiVo device.</p>

<p><b><big>January 1st Rolls Around</big></b></p>

<p>So January 1st rolls around, and I find out I have some big tech problems getting the channel (which persist to today).   I found I could not tune to the channel.  This is Channel 198 here in Dallas.  On a TiVo box, you can tune to a channel two ways.  Either through the guide, or "manually".   On the TiVoHD/HDTV one, if I try tuning to 198 through the guide, it's impossible, as Channel 198 is not listed as a channel that exists.  If I try tuning to Channel 198 manually from LiveTV, the screen is still black, and I get one of two error messages saying something like "Channel not Available, CableCARD device may be needed, please contact your cable company".   I've been reading online about the problem since, and <a href="http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2741:some-mlb-network-subscribers-find-blank-screens-on-first-day&catid=48:ei-mlb-network&Itemid=82">some information I found on the bizofbaseball website</a> says this:</p>

<blockquote><em>Reports have also filtered into the Business of Sports Network that some using TiVo players with cable cards are unable to access the channels listed. In the cases reported, subscribers had premium packages. Others, however, have reported that the systems are working properly. MLB Network is looking into the issue at this time. A technical issue has been reported in the past with premium channels and TiVos with cable cards, most notably those looking to watch NHL's Center Ice.</em></blockquote>

<p>Great.  Sigh.  So on January 2nd, I went through all the options I know of on my local TiVo unit to reset the channel lineups.  No luck.   Any TiVo has a screen in the setup options that lists every single channel known to the TiVo service that is on your specified cable provider.  In theory, it should match the list of channels available from Time Warner Cable.  Guess what?  Channel 198 isn't there.  There's a 197, and then it goes to 200.  Sometimes when a channel is new, TiVo won't have guide information available for said channel, but it will be on the list of available channels as "To be announced".  198 isn't like that - it isn't even a selectable channel, which is why I get a blank.  As far as my TiVoHD is concerned, Time Warner Cable doesn't have this channel at all.</p>

<p><b><big>The Real Hell - Calling Customer Service</big></b></p>

<p>So I pick up the phone and called TiVo Customer service.  Got a nice CS rep on the other end, which as good, since we were on the phone for about an hour.  She had me walk through some options I didn't know about, she looked up things on her end, but the end result of that hour on the phone with TiVo was that "This is a Time Warner problem".  The CS rep told me that TiVo has filed an official problem report with Time Warner over this specific issue I raised.  So as far as TiVo was concerned, this wasn't their problem, and lodged a complaint with TWC over it.  They told me it can take up to a week for TWC to deal with their lodged complaint, which would be January 9th (this coming Friday).   Those who know me know patience is not one of my strong points, so I couldn't just "sit" and wait that long.</p>

<p>So I fumed for a bit, and contacted TWC's online support later in the evening (via their online live chat).  I basically talked to the customer support rep.  I knew this would be bad, since TWC is not known for their good customer service, and my problem is definitely not your garden variety "can be fixed by a customer service script problem".   I was right.  The CS rep I spoke with issed a box reset from her end, and it didn't make a difference, I still could not access 198 on my TiVoHD.   After talking with her some more, she kept wanting to send out a tech to "fix" my CableCARD issue.  I asked her what the point in that was because TWC doesn't officially support TiVo.  She said they didn't, and after my rather useless CableCARD installer originally, I said "I do not want a tech to come out at this time", since I couldn't see what they'd do - except make things worse.   So Time Warner's response was that it was a TiVo problem.   </p>

<p>Great.  They both blame each other.  That doesn't help me.  My TiVoHD/HDTV setup is stuck, I can't get the channel at all.</p>

<p><b><big>My Bedroom TV</big></b></p>

<p>Now all that above is about my primary TV, the one I want to watch this on.  What's interesting about this whole situation is that my bedroom TV CAN get the channel.  Further reading on the bizofbaseball site says that there are plenty of providers around the country who have MLBN on incorrect "tiers" or programming packages.  My first thought was perhaps my account was not setup right to get the channel.  So I check my bedroom TV.  Guess what?  I can get it.  If I bypass the TiVo here and directly change the channel on the cable box, I can get 198 - MLB Network is there.  So I know it's not my account not having access, it's some tech problem with my living room TV/TiVo.   The bedroom TiVo does have 198 listed in the list of available channels, so I am able to set up recordings on my Bedroom TiVo.   </p>

<p><b><big>TiVo & Tribune Media</big></b></p>

<p>I cannot do it "properly", though since the TiVo service does not know about Channel 198 on Time Warner Cable in Garland, TX for my zip code.  Zap2it is run by Tribune Media - the backend company that provides the guide information that TiVos use in their service.   So I went through zap2it's feedback mechanism, and told them "Hey, 198 is missing, where's the lineup"?   I sent the same kind of request to TiVo as well.  What I was hoping for is for TiVo's service to recognize 198 in my Garland, TX zipcode.  My thinking was that if it showed up as a channel in the TiVo service, it might kickstart my TiVo into thinking the channel is there, and allow me to select it.   However, as of January 5th, the channel is not there on either of my TiVo units.  Likewise it is not on the guide info at tivo.com nor at zap2it.com.  So TiVo (the service) doesn't "know" about the channel, despite the TiVo CS rep's statement that they did.</p>

<p><b><big>Summing up - what to do now?</big></b></p>

<p>So that brings me to now.  It would appear that the statement over on bizofbaseball about TiVo/CableCARD devices and these kinds of channels is true.  While my TiVo service doesn't know about the channel, I was able to tune to it via the Motorola cable box in my bedroom, so it is not an issue with my level of account access.   I spent some time talking in <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16660665~start=1680">a thread on dslreports.com</a> about this issue, and others have confirmed that it is available in my area, it's something local with me.  I hate those kinds of problems, since it's harder to get a CS rep that cares enough to learn your problem and really deal with it - most CS people just want to "script" you off the phone.</p>

<p>One curious thing, though.  If you look at the listing of channels for TWC in Garland, TX, Channel 198 shows up as uncategorized.  I wonder if perhaps the channel is mis-categorised at TWC's end, and if so could be contributing to my inability to see the channel on the TiVoHD device.</p>

<p>I'm at a loss.  I'd be far more mad if I couldn't get it in the bedroom.  Since I can get it there, I am manually recording things in there, and then transferring them to the TiVoHD and watching them out in the living room.  It's certainly not optimal, since the programs have things like "Ch 198 - 6PM" as program names, but at least I can see the channel.</p>

<p>The final little turn of the knife in all this is that Time Warner is not even OFFERING the HD feed for MLB Network.  According to MLBN, any carrier that carries MLB has the option to offer the HD version of MLBN - but TWC in the Dallas area is not even making it an option.  That's lovely.</p>

<p><b>UPDATE FRI JAN 9:</b> When I came home from work, my wife said that at some time in the middle of the afternoon, MLB 198 came on the TiVoHD unit. In addition, Channel 96 came back on, too.  Whatever was going on at the headend appears to have been fixed. So, w00t!   Whether it was my multiple calls to TiVo, or my complaint to TWC, I have no idea, because it just "came on", no tech ever visited my house (fortunately).</p>

<p>Now if TiVo would get some guide info in there... </p>

<p><b>UPDATE THU JAN 15:</b> There's finally guide information in here now about the channel, so all is well.  I'm just annoyed it took so long to get it all working.  Not annoyed enough to get truly angry about it, after all it is just a TV channel.   </p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Something cool</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://joe.siegler.net/archives/2008/12/something_cool.html" />
    <id>tag:joe.siegler.net,2008://1.3767</id>

    <published>2008-12-30T10:43:49Z</published>
    <updated>2008-12-30T10:47:46Z</updated>

    <summary>Yesterday, something really cool happened with Samantha. My wife took her out to see a movie yesterday, and out in front of the movie theater is a rather large fountain. Samantha has always loved throwing pennies in there, and making...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Siegler</name>
        <uri>http://joe.siegler.net</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Samantha Stuff" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://joe.siegler.net/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Yesterday, something really cool happened with Samantha.</p>

<p>My wife took her out to see a movie yesterday, and out in front of the movie theater is a rather large fountain.  Samantha has always loved throwing pennies in there, and making wishes. </p>

<p>The cool part is that Lynn said that Samantha was washing for things like "Daddy's leg to feel better", "For a healthy new baby", for "A baby sister", "for mommy not to feel sick", things along that line.   No toys, and NOTHING for herself.    That's really quite amazing that a kid won't ask for anything for herself.</p>

<p>Wow.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

</feed>
