text:
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Doctor Who, "The Beast Below": Thar she blows!
Even more than last week's "The Eleventh Hour," "The Beast Below" was a clear sign Moffat isn't throwing out most of what Russell T. Davies did. As Davies so often did around this point in the season, we travel to a far future version of Earth (or, here, a temporarily nomadic Earth civilization traveling the galaxy while waiting for their planet to stop burning).
But "The Beast Below" was also reminiscent of many Moffat-scripted episodes from the Davies era, not just with the "Everybody lives!"-style ending in which both the star whale and the ship were saved, but in the way it was overflowing with creative ideas: Starship UK itself, the Smilers and the weird martial law they practiced, Liz 10 and her hooded guards, the memory-erasing vote, etc. Some became strong parts of the climax, while others (mainly the martial law and the depressed, frightened populace) were largely forgotten. (Though an argument could be made that the horrible practice of torturing the whale led to all of society's problems, and that people would be happier now that the whale was free and a volunteer.)
This was a good Amy episode, establishing some limits in her relationship with The Doctor and also letting her save the day instead of him. And it moved along the season's continuing threads (Amy as runaway bride, the cracks in the universe appearing on the side of Starship UK).
Very solid second effort. "The Eleventh Hour" was no fluke.
Keeping in mind that we will not discuss anything that happens in episodes that have yet to air in the US, what did everybody else think?
46 comments:
I liked the episode a lot.
One nitpick: Shouldn't the Doctor have recognized the Star Whale early on? - 10:12 PM, April 24, 2010
- Tom Dickinson said...
This episode had a lot of strengths, but didn't it also have a LOT of logical flaws to it?
Why would the Doctor not have seen the whale at the beginning of the episode (if not visually, then through the scanner)? Why were the Doc and Amy not spewn into space when the whale vomited them, as the end of the episode clearly shows that the whale's mouth hangs out into space? What exactly WERE the Smilers and the Winders, and what purpose were they meant to serve? If they knew that the whale wouldn't eat kids, then why did they keep feeding kids to the whale? If the whale was benevolent, why didn't it spare EVERYONE who was fed to it?
The list just goes on and on.
Overall, I thought it was a bit of a disappointment, and it lacked the visual flair of The Eleventh Hour. But strong performances manage to carry it. - 10:20 PM, April 24, 2010
- David J. Loehr said...
I did very much like this one. I assume the depressed public was a result of their subconscious not being able to forget; now, that's not a problem. Moffat could have cut something for time, but he's also a smart enough writer to let the audience make its own connections sometimes. (Is one reason I'm so happy he's running the Doctor now.) - 10:23 PM, April 24, 2010
- crone51 said...
Is it my imagination or is BBCA running many more commercials during Dr. Who than they used to? And therefore, are they cutting vast chunks of what was broadcast in the UK?
- 10:34 PM, April 24, 2010
- Boricua in Texas said...
My DVR settings were messed up fpr some reason; it only recorded the second half of the episode, so I missed quite a bit. But I liked what I saw, and I think I may revise my negative opinion of Amy. I liked how she saved the day.
- 10:44 PM, April 24, 2010
Why would the Doctor not have seen the whale at the beginning of the episode (if not visually, then through the scanner)?
Um, they were above the ship? Admittedly not a wonderful explanation, but they can't give The Doctor/TARDIS too much omniscience or the stories would just be dull.
Why were the Doc and Amy not spewn into space when the whale vomited them, as the end of the episode clearly shows that the whale's mouth hangs out into space?
This one was explained better: the mouth was sealed up and they ended up in an overflow pipe.
Your other questions are good, and I have no answers for them. I don't think anyone could argue that the plot of this one was watertight (though apparently the whale's closed mouth was!) - 10:48 PM, April 24, 2010
- News on Shuffle said...
I totally didn't notice the crack in the ship until you mentioned it! *hits forehead* And to answer your question, crone51, I thought the same thing but according to BBC America they are showing it uncut. Guess the episodes are just shorter than they used to be maybe? Or I didn't time the commercials so maybe even though there are lots they are shorter than they seem. Anyway, another great episode of Doctor Who. Lots of gold stars for the writers!
- 10:51 PM, April 24, 2010
I loved the episode. It reminded me of the Torchwood episode in which a giant alien was being cut up while alive for its meat. That poor creature did not end up as happily as this one, I'm afraid. Anyway, one of the things I love about both shows is the compassion that they feel for the alien races. More thoughts on my blog, if anyone's interested.
- 11:04 PM, April 24, 2010
- Nicole said...
I liked how Eleven was just plain angry at the humans for doing what they did to the whale. I don't think Nine or Ten ever got that pissed at the human race even when they did do cruel things. It was definitely a Time Lord moment, which caused him to miss the whale's connection with the children. I do hope this is a theme continued in this series because every once in a while humans do bad things and should be called on them. Amy was certainly fearless in exploring the ship, and it was an interesting take for Moffat to have her make the "wrong" choice and to forget the horrible torture of the whale, which I don't think that RTD would have allowed Rose or Martha to do.
There was also definite creepy moments in this episode, especially at the beginning with the smilers, and this is definitely a Moffat touch that I appreciate. It makes the stakes a little higher at least for the temporary problem to be solved, but it doesn't resort to constant explosions. It also reinforces Moffat's comments that he thinks Doctor Who is a fairytale, and the creepiness adds to that feeling. - 11:28 PM, April 24, 2010
- Kensington said...
I don't think this counts as a spoiler, but so far the running time for the episodes since The Eleventh Hour have all been about 41-42 minutes, and I do suspect this is partially to make it easier on networks like BBC America to air the show without having to make drastic cuts.
Still, BBC America has said that the premiere broadcasts would be uncut regardless, even if it means the show will need a longer timeslot.
The on demand versions are uncut as well. - 12:25 AM, April 25, 2010
I really hope they signed Karen Gillan to more than a one-year contract. She's wonderful.
- 12:32 AM, April 25, 2010
I am really liking it so far! There were some questions still left over but I do like that they are continuing themes like the crack in the Universe.
I'm excited to see where the series goes! - 12:49 AM, April 25, 2010
- J said...
This one was a big honking mess, a sort of uncontrolled slop of ideas wrapped up with a bizarre no-conflict happy ending. If the heavy heavy heavy handed parallels between the helpful Doctor and the OMGshinyunicornsandrainbowsStarWhale! weren't bad enough, what's the real-life cultural parallel? The abused underclasses that would have just been thrilled to carry society's advance on their backs had they been spared the lash? Or is it a livestock happy meal parable? This was basically a regressive version of the Ood stories, and as such, Ptttph.
- 1:05 AM, April 25, 2010
- Sara Ann said...
I for one hope we can continue to look forward to more Moffat reworkings of classic, flawed Star Trek: TNG episodes. Now we've seen what "Encounter at Farpoint" could have been (with a dash of "Voyage Home" and a nod to the Death Star's trash compactor), I eagerly look forward to his upgrades of that one where Lwaxana Troy shows up with a husband for Deanna, and the mandatory episode where everyone catches Spring Break fever, loses their inhibitions, and runs around fencing and/or making sweet love with the nearest anatomically correct android. Mr. Moffat, if you're reading, your assignment is to find a way to fit in an alien that gestates inside and then erupts out of human chests, an android hunter who may be an android himself, and an episode where the Doctor goes back in time and has to get his mother to go to the prom with his dad, even though she has the hots for the Doctor. Bonus points if you can do it all in one episode. Go.
;) - 2:22 AM, April 25, 2010
@Nicole, Ten was also critical and dismissive of humans--in Rise of the Cybermen and Planet of the Ood for example (The Ood episode also had similar themes as Beast Below.).
I enjoyed Matt Smith showing us flashes of a dark Doctor, but i'm still not sold on the new series yet, particularly the companion. I found Amy Pond quite annoying in this episode. I do like Smith, was a bit worried I'd have trouble since Tennant is far and away my fave, but he's doing a good job. Still, only 2 eps in so I'll keep on, and watch for Moffat's stories at least even if the 2 leads never quite gel for me. - 3:43 AM, April 25, 2010
I didn't like this episode as much if only because I was much more interested in the big brother state - and if people always chose to forget why it was so important to be THAT vigilant with the little boy (who only failed a test, then had to 'take the stairs' and didn't) at the beginning - and the smileys that I was a bit let down by the Star Whale explanation. I still enjoy Moffat's tendency to make use of things we're afraid of as children (and his tendency to not have a lot of fatalities), but I think this episode suffered from too many ideas - good ideas - but it felt a little bit like a cheat.
The comparison between the Star Whale and the Doctor was too much on the nose as well, and I think while it was a really nice showcase for Amy, I think that it might be too early in the companion-doctor relationship for her to get the doctor so quickly. It seems also too big of a leap, no matter how bright Amy is.
I am interested to see the theme of this season (or so it seems) - the cracks. What else other than Prisoner X is trying to get through? - 4:25 AM, April 25, 2010
I agree with anon. above. I think people mistake Ten's love of humans for a complete state of delusion about them. Ten could and did call out humans on their BS. There were also episodes in which he seemed contemptuous of them (his remarks about being clever in Midnight and about little people in Waters of Mars). Also, there's this mistaken notion that he couldn't be angered, which of course, is also false. In his first episode, Ten faced a similar situation to the Eleventh Hour, except Ten concluded by killing one of the aliens, then turning on the Prime Minister.
Back to this one. As I said earlier, I love Matt smith in this, and I think Amy has gotten off to a promising start. It was interesting to see the companion make the wrong choice, which Martha or Rose wound not have done. - 6:29 AM, April 25, 2010
- Matthew said...
I really liked the episode, although I thought it did need an extra five or so minutes just to flesh out the world and the various plot points. But my main disappointment was with the ending - for a moment, it looked like it was going somewhere phenomenally brave (with the Doctor lobotomising the whale as a best-of-the-bad-options choice), and so I was a little disappointed that it had such an easy resolution. Still, an enjoyable and creepy episode.
- 7:10 AM, April 25, 2010
Would have liked to see a bit more of the Smilers. I am baffled at how they can have 3 expressions (happy, sad, angry) yet only have 2 half-heads especially if they were machines. Liz 10 guns a-blazing was really sweet. The hooded dude turning from the half-human to the half-Smiler was pretty cool.
So was the opening scene which I imagine would have been scary enough to little children. Though I did chuckle at it a bit, also too when the children were petting the tentacle.
I liked that Matt Smith got to show a bit more emotion & anger. Biggest plus of the episode was that Amy Pond has brains as well as a pretty face. - 8:55 AM, April 25, 2010
Enjoyed the second episode a lot. Smith and Gillan are so much more watchable to me than the previous Who and companions.
If they are ever going to make a Dr Who movie franchise, now is probably the time and this is probably the team. - 9:15 AM, April 25, 2010
- Mapeel said...
Very distinctly Moffat. The Smilers and Liz 10's mask reminded me of the Clockmen from Girl in the Fireplace (with an echo of V for Vendetta). And the companion saving the day her first time out is not business as usual.
- 10:05 AM, April 25, 2010
@Jeff W: It has been announced that both Smith and Gillan have been signed for a second series in 2011. Yay!
- 10:58 AM, April 25, 2010
I'm kind of surprised by how much I like the series right off the bat. I think part of that is that they're giving Karen Gillan such a strong presence. I always liked the Doctor's other companions, but they tended to be more followers along for the ride trying to figure things out. Amy has her own initiative and confidence leading her to make her own decisions.
- 11:26 AM, April 25, 2010
- Karen said...
I agree with @belinda: the parallels between the star whale and the Doctor was made a little more anvillicious than I thought it needed to be. It was more than clear by the time Amy got around to saying, "Remind you of anyone?" OK, OK, we get it!
That being said, this was a wonderfully Moffat-y episode. The Smilers were as terrifying as the clockmen from Girl in the Fireplace or the weeping angels. He really knows how to scare our inner child, doesn't he?
Amy goes from strength to strength and Eleven is starting to grow on me. I'm really looking forward to the rest of the season. - 11:28 AM, April 25, 2010
@ingrid, my DVR also messed up. The Fios schedule had last week's Doctor Who from 8:30-9:30, then this week's new episode from 9:30-10:00.
I realized this at about 9:05 so I only missed the first few minutes.
Did this happen to anyone else? - 11:48 AM, April 25, 2010
Can't decide if Sara Ann Stinsons' comments are more serious or sarcastic. Do you like Moffats' writing or not,Sara?
In any case,I saw more similarity with TNG " TIN MAN " episode. As a fan of Moffat, ( Jekyll, Blink, & Coupling in particular ),this was,to me, below par.
Look forward to efforts of writers hired by SM, much as he was by RTD. - 12:47 PM, April 25, 2010
- Sara Ann said...
@tique107, both serious and sarcastic. I do enjoy Moffat's writing and admire his originality, I was just startled by a strong sense of deja vu last night. I suppose, too, I was startled by the American-ness of the sources. Doctor Who is so very British (and under the previous administration, at least, its overt references to America have always been rather awkward and at least a touch defensive). It was weird to see an episode that, apparently absolute monarchy aside, felt so American at its core. Is that a coincidence, a tribute to the pervasiveness of American pop culture (did everyone else notice the commercials for Star Trek: TNG on BBCA during the breaks?), or is Moffat's Who going to take on a more American flavor underneath all the yay-rah UK nationalism?
And yeah, now that you mention it, I can totally see the Tin Man parallel. - 1:29 PM, April 25, 2010
- Nicole said...
Ten got mad at what humans did, but Eleven was including Amy in his anger, which is not something he did with other companions. Ten ranted about the treatment of the Ood to Donna, but wasn't blaming her as well. What Eleven isn't putting Amy on a pedestal as separate from the other humans.
- 1:31 PM, April 25, 2010
@Sara Ann Stinson:
Could you explain a bit more what you mean by this American flavour? I have to say, watching it here in the UK, I didn't pick up the connection at all. But then, I've been more preoccupied by the growing Scottish presence in these episodes, including the nice bit about Scotland having their own ship.(Not surprising, of course, what with Moffat being Scottish.) - 3:38 PM, April 25, 2010
As someone who just started watching "Doctor Who" last season, I have to say that I still don't really get it.
The special effects seem incredibly cheap (the "Smilers" looked like something out of the original "Twilight Zone" from half a century ago, and the "new UK" looked tiny and seemed to have about 40 people in it) -- and this can't just be an issue of money, since "Torchwood" got a lot more realism from what I'm assuming was a similar budget.
And what's the deal with the story lines - the Doctor just picks a random time and place to visit each week, hangs out a while, and discovers he has to save the day yet again? (And in this episode, wouldn't it have made sense, once he found out the British government had been torturing that space whale for decades, for him to go back in time a little more and stop it before it started?)
I dunno... I've liked everything else Steven Moffat has done, but here it seems like he's trying harder to carry on the traditions of a show that started in 1963 than to write one that holds up today. - 3:57 PM, April 25, 2010
As far as run times go....I'm two weeks ahead and watching the BBC versions and those run in the 41:00 minute range so I doubt if they are cutting much if anything at all.
Amy Pond is easily the best of the companions of the revived series and is already in my top five of all time companions. Matt Smith simply owns the role. You see more and more Patrick Troughton with each week...and that is a good thing. - 5:02 PM, April 25, 2010
@Nicole: I loved that Eleven included Amy in his rage, but it is wrong to assume that Ten would not have done so. He had no reason to blame Donna for the Ood, or any of his former companions. Amy is the first to allow something to awful to continue and to keep vital info from the Doctor. If Amy had done it to Ten, I think he would have yelled at her just as hard. I also wonder whether Donna would have chosen to forget- I don't think she would.
If I have any disappointment about the episode, it's about how the Doctor was willing to allow the continued torture of a being that was the last of its kind. I would have liked the episode much more if the Doctor, Amy or the Queen had made the decision to let the UK die rather than let them continue at such an expense. - 5:37 PM, April 25, 2010
- Unknown said...
And what's the deal with the story lines - the Doctor just picks a random time and place to visit each week, hangs out a while, and discovers he has to save the day yet again?
Pretty much yeah. we don't see every trip the tardis makes, just the more memorable ones.
Also the common theory is that the Tardis tends to take him to times and locales where something important is happening, it sense fluctuations or something.
(And in this episode, wouldn't it have made sense, once he found out the British government had been torturing that space whale for decades, for him to go back in time a little more and stop it before it started?)
That's something show at least in new incarnation has explained once he's appeared at a moment in time he becomes part of the events and cannot alter them. Think about it if he went back further to stop it from happening in the first place, there's no ship for him find at this later point. Paradox.
Also it would make for a very boring show.
I dunno... I've liked everything else Steven Moffat has done, but here it seems like he's trying harder to carry on the traditions of a show that started in 1963 than to write one that holds up today.
Doctor Who is one of the top 3 shows in Britain. Currently getting about 1 in 10 of the population watching. It is incredibly popular - 7:21 PM, April 25, 2010
- Matthew said...
The special effects seem incredibly cheap (the "Smilers" looked like something out of the original "Twilight Zone" from half a century ago, and the "new UK" looked tiny and seemed to have about 40 people in it) -- and this can't just be an issue of money, since "Torchwood" got a lot more realism from what I'm assuming was a similar budget.
I'm not sure a comparison to Torchwood is exactly fair - Torchwood doesn't need too much work to create modern-day Wales, so can focus its budget on those few moments that require effects. Doctor Who needs to create an entire futuristic city/country flying through space on the back of a giant space whale. And that's for one episode. Every one or two shows, the show goes to an entirely new world that needs to be created from scratch. (Don't forget, the only standing reuseable set on the show is the TARDIS set - a set that gets used for maybe a couple of minutes each episode.) I'm not sure what the comparable budgets of Torchwood and Doctor Who are, but Doctor Who has far and away the higher budgetary demands. Frankly, I'm always amazed at what Who manages to achieve with such budgetary constraints. - 8:38 PM, April 25, 2010
- Hugh Jee From Jersey said...
"Doctor Who is one of the top 3 shows in Britain. Currently getting about 1 in 10 of the population watching. It is incredibly popular"
That in itself is amazing. The show began in 1963, with the long hiatus in the '90's into the new century. and at a time when scripted shows on American TV dwindling, some of the best stuff is still coming out of the UK.
I liked the episode quite a bit, and have been an on again off again Dr. Who viewer since the Tom Baker days.
Amy really should have remembered to take an overnight bag with her...its going to get cold running around in other galaxies in only a nightgown. - 8:48 PM, April 25, 2010
- Sara Ann said...
@Hunterwali: I don't mean necessarily that the episode felt American so much as that the references all seemed American, like Moffat was drawing overwhelmingly on American pop culture experiences. It may all have been a confluence of coincidences--I have no idea how popular TNG is in Britain, much less whether Moffat specifically watched any particular episode--but the parallels struck me. Too early to declare it a pattern or anything.
Meanwhile, not only does Scotland apparently have far superior resources in the distant future, but they stone-cold left England to burn. That's what I call holding onto a grudge. - 11:05 PM, April 25, 2010
I'm sure a more hardcore "Who" fan can correct me if I'm wrong but after the events of "The Key To Time" arc during the Tom Baker years the TARDIS was equipped with a randomizer to make it's destinations almost impossible to predict. That function may well be disabled now but the show does have a history of the TARDIS going where ever it wants to.
- 11:12 PM, April 25, 2010
If the whale was benevolent, why didn't it spare EVERYONE who was fed to it?
It was being tortured by the humans so it had little reason to feel charitable towards them in general - indeed it only saved them in the first place because it liked kids. (It can't have known that some of the ones being fed to it were the ones who voted no.)
What exactly WERE the Smilers and the Winders, and what purpose were they meant to serve?
Mechanical guards to watch society, keep order and dispatch poor performers to the beast. Primarily there to ensure the collective conspiracy ran smoothly. You could give them a long origin story but I'm not sure that it would have been terribly interesting.
If they knew that the whale wouldn't eat kids, then why did they keep feeding kids to the whale?
To keep everyone in line. To make sure that people behaved and studied for their exams.
Admittedly none of these (aside from the winders) were directly stated in the episode and the last one is probably pure fanwank but my policy with Doctor Who is pretty lenient: Just go with the flow so long as it doesn't really stand out. Even before Moffat ran the show it was a fairy tale with copious amounts of magic and sometimes you've just got to tap the red shoes three times to go home. Why? Because those are just the rules.
If it was hard SF or claiming to be set in the real world than I'd be a little stricter - which might explain why I was bothered that the electoral role hadn't been updated to include Amy's death. Either that or I'm just horribly inconsistent. - 12:57 AM, April 26, 2010
HATED this episode. Everything about it rang false, from Amy's exploration of the ship (what was her motivation to leave the child -- and her assignment -- and go behind the road block, exactly?) to the easy solution at the end. The child being "taken below" at the beginning didn't connect well to the story, as this episode's backstory seemed to be split between the people of the ship (choosing FORGET) and the torture of the star-whale. This episode was all over the map!
I'm enjoying the Eleventh Doctor, though his behavior seems erratic -- and due to odd timing/editing and not the character itself -- but I am not sold at all on Amy. She annoys the crap out of me. - 1:26 AM, April 26, 2010
I thought it was better than the first ep, but still kinda crap. It started off okay, but then proceeded to fall apart. First thing that was irritating, and what RTD was rightly criticised for, was shameless stealing from well known films and pop culture, in this case from Star Wars. We had the princes Lea like plea - you're our only hope, the garbage compactor scene which morphed into the giant asteroid worm scene, teeth and all. But the biggest problem was the use of the ridiculous forget button contrivance. What's the point? In fact, what was the point of the silly dummies?
There's only one thing I can think of and that is Moffat's insistence of picking the mundane and trying to make it scary/sinister. He did it previously with a crack in the wall and seeing things from the corner of your eye. Now we have amusement park dummies making scary faces. And in the RTD era he did it with blinking and shadows and little boys in gas masks. I'm afraid it's getting a little old.
Another mistake was to have the cute sidekick figure out the final solution while the doctor was quite happy to take the least bad of the obvious options. It should have been he to have thought outside the box and reach a novel solution. Of course, having the stupid buttons just sitting there where anyone can push them with potentially disastrous results also beggars belief.
I won't even mention the silliness of space whales, why they should care about aliens (humans) or their apparent means of propulsion through EMPTY space by swaying their tails!
At this rate, RTD must be having a laugh! And the next ep is even worse! - 1:32 AM, April 26, 2010
@Sara Ann Stinson:
Thank you for your answer. I'll admit, I still don't follow. Passing similarity to an episode of Star Trek: The New Generation is only one reference-- if a reference at all. Science Fiction over the years and across borders has shared themes and interests. Preoccupations with empire and responsibility have been those of Britain for some time. Could you maybe explain in more detail?
As for Scotland 'holding a grudge'? Not quite. That is a misreading and an interesting one at that. All of the world was in disarray, and all 'nations' separated. The separation of Scotland from the UK here was a reference to Scotland finally achieving independence. The ongoing desire for home rule was met in part through devolution and an establishment of a Scottish Parliament in 1999 but discussions of independence persist. Not leaving to burn any more than one could claim England and Wales (and Northern Ireland?) left Scotland to burn.
I wonder if perhaps the American flavour noted is a matter of projection. - 1:45 AM, April 26, 2010
But the biggest problem was the use of the ridiculous forget button contrivance. What's the point?
For me this was far and away the best part of the episode. It's Britain and its populated by Britons and they'll be damned if they give up the precious center of western civilization: Democracy. So everyone must be able to vote on this no matter what the cost. But what a cost! They are made complicit in an extraordinary act of continual torture. The solution for reconciling the two? The forget button; the power to make an unbearable choice and then shed all responsibility.
Amy tried to use this out: she directly asked the Doctor how he could condemn her for doing something that she doesn't even remember doing. - 2:22 AM, April 26, 2010
From Jan:
I'm with Rose: I like it. I thought Donna was the best companion of the last Doctor seasons, but I'm really liking this team so far. - 8:06 AM, April 26, 2010
- Craig Ranapia said...
-I have no idea how popular TNG is in Britain, much less whether Moffat specifically watched any particular episode--but the parallels struck me.
I'm probably going to get spat on for saying this, but Star Trek cheerfully plundered every SF trope and cliche that wasn't nailed down -- and so it goes. Oddly enough, Moffat's said more than once that he didn't like what little TNG he's seen and watches much less television than you might think. - 9:23 AM, April 26, 2010
- Sara Ann said...
@Craig Ranapia: No, you're right, in 40 years, 727 episodes and a dozen or so movies I imagine Star Trek has managed to hit every cliche on the circuit and lap around again. Please don't think I'm implying Moffat or Who is cribbing its ideas from American SF or anything terrible like that. In fact, the more I think on it, the more I feel my original comment is a tribute to how much Who has stood apart from Hollywood in its ideas and inspirations. I was struck so forcibly by the (perceived) similarities between "Beast" and these bits of American SF chiefly because Who usually seems so very distinctly not-American. Its stories and its voice are distinctly, defiantly British, and that's part of its beauty. It was the strange sense of familiarity that bumped me.
FWIW, I'm apparently not the only American to notice the similarity: http://bit.ly/bjIDjj (see the third-to-last paragraph).
@Hunterwali: I get the Scottish home-rule wink (to the degree that an outsider only passingly familiar with the issue can get it). I just meant that, whether intended or no, the episode seemed to imply that Britain alone had trouble getting offworld and had to resort to this terrible moral compromise to survive, and then subsequently informed us that Scotland had left on its own ship. The only conclusion I could draw was that, for whatever reason, Scotland had the resources to evacuate, and it did so without assisting the English. I mean, if you want to really start chewing on it, I suppose that means the Americans (such as America exists in the 29th century) left their cross-the-pond cousins to burn as well--but nobody specifically drew attention to that fact in-episode.
And of course you're right, Americans will be quicker to spot America than anyone else. - 6:08 PM, April 26, 2010
I thought Moffat was making a point of showing how Doctor Who is different than Star Trek in that there's no prime directive. The Doctor goes and gets involved whenever he wants -- drastically changing events.
I thought that was quite clever to show the difference.
And yes, there was a Star Wars riff as well -- with the save us, you're the only one. And the garbage disposal. But while Star Wars stayed the archetypes (the princess is good and needs help, the garbage monster is dangerous and must be stopped) on Doctor Who the princess (well, queen) is evil in her way, and the monster is heroic.
I liked the reversals quite a lot.
(And my DVR also messed up so I had to wait for it to get one of the many re-airings later in the week.) - 4:08 AM, April 30, 2010


text:
Your profile homepage displays the most recent events in your account.
- You can navigate quickly to your Matches list and Profile visitors list.
- It gives you a convenient view of your most recent Messages.
- You have a quick link to your latest Have you met? members.
NEW indicates which profiles you have not yet viewed.
If you navigate away from this page, you can always return by clicking/tapping on our logo.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
First of all you need a laser copy. So select your image and if there is text, be sure to reverse your image (mirror image). I stop at the Office Depot or Fed Ex office store and do it on their copy machine. You can enlarge it if you need to, and my Fed Ex office store let's me Email them my image and if I need to stretch it out, etc., they will use Photoshop and do it for me at no extra charge.
So now your image is copied. Cut it close to your image and paint mod podge on the image itself. Now place it face down on your piece like I did in the following photo.
Now that that is dry, I am returning to find this dry paper that has been rubbed back for the first time. See how the paper dries and your image is no longer revealed?
Now repeat the wet washcloth and the rubbing procedure. The next photo is the paper after I have re-wet it but have not rubbed it again.
Now I have rubbed the paper and it is still wet. See how much more of the image you can see?
I just went around the project and although I took different angles for my photos, this is illustrating how each step looks. So now that I let the last step dry, I am returning to what looks like this. You can see the whole image but there is lots of paper remaining. So re-wet the image and start massaging again.
See how each process of doing the same step reveals more and more of the image and there is less and less paper? You can still see plenty of paper bits on the image, but notice how the cracks are being revealed to give this a perfectly aged look?
Let it dry again and then repeat. As the paper layer gets thinner and thinner it dries very fast. The following photo is my fingers placed on the image and I move them around in a circle to massage gently.
Here is the final step of the wetting process. I wet it again and then massage the final bits of paper off. You can see in the following photo how little paper is left. I do this wetting process five times.
After that last step has dried, this is what is left. A totally smooth, totally transferred image. If you feel any little paper particles at this point, you can go over it with really fine sand paper. Do this gently and it will not remove the image. At this point spray it with a clear coat of your choice or whatever you like to seal your projects with.
I am not done with this caddy yet. I want to go back in and do some borders and some printing When it is finished, I will show you the whole thing. My suggestion to you, if you want to try this, is to practice on some inexpensive flower pots like my Paris pots you can see here. You'll get the hang of it in no time. Happy crafting everyone and thanks for enduring this long drawn out tutorial, but as it's always been said a picture is worth a thousand words.
I'm partying at...
Mondays Le Chateau des Fleurs The Graphics Fairy
Between Naps on the Porch Metamorphosis Monday
Tuesdays Knick of Time Coastal Charm
Boogie Board Cottage A Stroll Thru Life
Cozy Little House Tweak it Tuesday
Wednesdays Savvy Southern Style
Thursdays The Shabby Creek Cottage No Minimalist Here
Between Naps on the Porch Tablescape Thursday
Rustic Restorations Homespun Happenings
Fridays French Country Cottage My Romantic Home Miss Mustard Seed
Potpourri Friday Common Ground
The Charm of Home Rooted in Thyme
Saturdays Funky Junk Interiors
Sundays My 1928 Charmer Sunday's Best


text:
A real good networking calendaring application, with knowledge of not only when, but also who and where, should be able to handle the following use cases:
- PathCross — Suppose I'm travelling to Boston and San Francisco in the next couple months. I'd like my machine to let me know I have a FriendOfaFriend who also lives there or plans to be there
- My calendar
- My network of friends (and thus implicitly their calendars and their friends' calendars)
- A list of coming events, where I will be co-located with at least one of my friends or a friend of theirs
Bonus: Be fuzzy and suggest rearranging travel plans or make new to maximize pathcrossings.
- Meeting planner — Suppose a group of otherwise independent people frequenting an IRC channel wish to plan for a ScheduledTopicChat
- A group of people (and thus their calendars, possibly only with free/busy information)
- A list of possible future dates/times for a meeting involving the entire group
Bonus: Accept a fixed location as well, for meetings at a PathCross.
- Maximal schedule — Suppose the Natfilm Festival (or its successor CPH:PIX) is coming up, and I'd like to invite a number of friends to join me for as many showings as possible
- My calendar (possibly only with free/busy information)
- A list of showings (with location)
- A group of people (and thus their calendars, possibly only with free/busy information)
- A non-overlapping list of possible showings, that leaves enough time for transportation
Bonus: Based on the original input, a selected subset of the showings, and the non-overlapping list, provide a new non-overlapping list, that includes the selected subset.
Dopplr does parts of the first use case quite well, with added bonuses, but doesn't quite meet the goals entirely.
Can I have this now — or do I need to build it myself?


text:
Pre-Show Talk Dec 13 at 6pm
Originally created and performed in 1992 at Performance Space 122 and reconstructed in 1995 at P.S.1 Contemporary Art Center, The Shining is a dance-installation work full of thrill and fearful anxiety. It speaks of experiences at once sought and avoided – how do we hide from fear, play with thrills and terrors? How do those emotions excluded from consciousness play with us? This second reconstruction features original cast members Scott Heron, Annie Iobst, and Mike Iveson with new cast members Yve Laris Cohen, Jen Rosenblit, Aki Sasamoto, Osmani Tellez, Arturo Vidich, and Emily Wexler, and special guest appearances from Hapi Phace, Stinkmetal and Gina Varla Vetro.
The reconstruction of The Shining is supported by New York Live Arts' "DTW Commissioning Fund" and is made possible by the National Endowment for the Arts as part of American Masterpieces: Three Centuries of Artistic Genius.


text:
Concurrent UI Patterns (Experimental)
This page describes experimental features that are not yet available in a stable release. Don't rely on experimental builds of React in production apps. These features may change significantly and without a warning before they become a part of React.
This documentation is aimed at early adopters and people who are curious. If you're new to React, don't worry about these features — you don't need to learn them right now. For example, if you're looking for a data fetching tutorial that works today, read this article instead.
Usually, when we update the state, we expect to see changes on the screen immediately. This makes sense because we want to keep our app responsive to user input. However, there are cases where we might prefer to defer an update from appearing on the screen.
For example, if we switch from one page to another, and none of the code or data for the next screen has loaded yet, it might be frustrating to immediately see a blank page with a loading indicator. We might prefer to stay longer on the previous screen. Implementing this pattern has historically been difficult in React. Concurrent Mode offers a new set of tools to do that.
Let's revisit this demo from the previous page about Suspense for Data Fetching.
When we click the "Next" button to switch the active profile, the existing page data immediately disappears, and we see the loading indicator for the whole page again. We can call this an "undesirable" loading state. It would be nice if we could "skip" it and wait for some content to load before transitioning to the new screen.
React offers a new built-in useTransition()
Hook to help with this.
We can use it in three steps.
First, we'll make sure that we're actually using Concurrent Mode. We'll talk more about adopting Concurrent Mode later, but for now it's sufficient to know that we need to use ReactDOM.createRoot()
rather than ReactDOM.render()
for this feature to work:
const rootElement = document.getElementById("root");
// Opt into Concurrent Mode
ReactDOM.createRoot(rootElement).render(<App />);
Next, we'll add an import for the useTransition
Hook from React:
import React, { useState, useTransition, Suspense } from "react";
Finally, we'll use it inside the App
function App() {
const [resource, setResource] = useState(initialResource);
const [startTransition, isPending] = useTransition({ timeoutMs: 3000 }); // ...
By itself, this code doesn't do anything yet. We will need to use this Hook's return values to set up our state transition. There are two values returned from useTransition
is a function. We'll use it to tell React which state update we want to defer.isPending
is a boolean. It's React telling us whether that transition is ongoing at the moment.
We will use them right below.
Note we passed a configuration object to useTransition
. Its timeoutMs
property specifies how long we're willing to wait for the transition to finish. By passing {timeoutMs: 3000}
, we say "If the next profile takes more than 3 seconds to load, show the big spinner — but before that timeout it's okay to keep showing the previous screen".
Wrapping setState in a Transition
Our "Next" button click handler sets the state that switches the current profile in the state:
onClick={() => {
const nextUserId = getNextId(resource.userId);
setResource(fetchProfileData(nextUserId)); }}
We'll wrap that state update into startTransition
. That's how we tell React we don't mind React delaying that state update if it leads to an undesirable loading state:
onClick={() => {
startTransition(() => { const nextUserId = getNextId(resource.userId);
}); }}
Press "Next" a few times. Notice it already feels very different. Instead of immediately seeing an empty screen on click, we now keep seeing the previous page for a while. When the data has loaded, React transitions us to the new screen.
If we make our API responses take 5 seconds, we can confirm that now React "gives up" and transitions anyway to the next screen after 3 seconds. This is because we passed {timeoutMs: 3000}
to useTransition()
. For example, if we passed {timeoutMs: 60000}
instead, it would wait a whole minute.
Adding a Pending Indicator
There's still something that feels broken about our last example. Sure, it's nice not to see a "bad" loading state. But having no indication of progress at all feels even worse! When we click "Next", nothing happens and it feels like the app is broken.
Our useTransition()
call returns two values: startTransition
and isPending
const [startTransition, isPending] = useTransition({ timeoutMs: 3000 });
We've already used startTransition
to wrap the state update. Now we're going to use isPending
too. React gives this boolean to us so we can tell whether we're currently waiting for this transition to finish. We'll use it to indicate that something is happening:
return (
disabled={isPending} onClick={() => {
startTransition(() => {
const nextUserId = getNextId(resource.userId);
{isPending ? " Loading..." : null} <ProfilePage resource={resource} />
Now, this feels a lot better! When we click Next, it gets disabled because clicking it multiple times doesn't make sense. And the new "Loading…" tells the user that the app didn't freeze.
Reviewing the Changes
Let's take another look at all the changes we've made since the original example:
function App() {
const [resource, setResource] = useState(initialResource);
const [startTransition, isPending] = useTransition({ timeoutMs: 3000 }); return (
disabled={isPending} onClick={() => {
startTransition(() => { const nextUserId = getNextId(resource.userId);
}); }}
{isPending ? " Loading..." : null} <ProfilePage resource={resource} />
It took us only seven lines of code to add this transition:
- We've imported the
Hook and used it the component that updates the state. - We've passed
{timeoutMs: 3000}
to stay on the previous screen for at most 3 seconds. - We've wrapped our state update into
to tell React it's okay to delay it. - We're using
to communicate the state transition progress to the user and to disable the button.
As a result, clicking "Next" doesn't perform an immediate state transition to an "undesirable" loading state, but instead stays on the previous screen and communicates progress there.
Where Does the Update Happen?
This wasn't very difficult to implement. However, if you start thinking about how this could possibly work, it might become a little mindbending. If we set the state, how come we don't see the result right away? Where is the next <ProfilePage>
Clearly, both "versions" of <ProfilePage>
exist at the same time. We know the old one exists because we see it on the screen and even display a progress indicator on it. And we know the new version also exists somewhere, because it's the one that we're waiting for!
But how can two versions of the same component exist at the same time?
This gets at the root of what Concurrent Mode is. We've previously said it's a bit like React working on state update on a "branch". Another way we can conceptualize is that wrapping a state update in startTransition
begins rendering it "in a different universe", much like in science fiction movies. We don't "see" that universe directly — but we can get a signal from it that tells us something is happening (isPending
). When the update is ready, our "universes" merge back together, and we see the result on the screen!
Play a bit more with the demo, and try to imagine it happening.
Of course, two versions of the tree rendering at the same time is an illusion, just like the idea that all programs run on your computer at the same time is an illusion. An operating system switches between different applications very fast. Similarly, React can switch between the version of the tree you see on the screen and the version that it's "preparing" to show next.
An API like useTransition
lets you focus on the desired user experience, and not think about the mechanics of how it's implemented. Still, it can be a helpful metaphor to imagine that updates wrapped in startTransition
happen "on a branch" or "in a different world".
Transitions Are Everywhere
As we learned from the Suspense walkthrough, any component can "suspend" any time if some data it needs is not ready yet. We can strategically place <Suspense>
boundaries in different parts of the tree to handle this, but it won't always be enough.
Let's get back to our first Suspense demo where there was just one profile. Currently, it fetches the data only once. We'll add a "Refresh" button to check for server updates.
Our first attempt might look like this:
const initialResource = fetchUserAndPosts();
function ProfilePage() {
const [resource, setResource] = useState(initialResource);
function handleRefreshClick() { setResource(fetchUserAndPosts()); }
return (
<Suspense fallback={
Loading profile...
}>
<ProfileDetails resource={resource} />
<button onClick={handleRefreshClick}> Refresh </button> <Suspense fallback={
Loading posts...
}>
<ProfileTimeline resource={resource} />
In this example, we start data fetching at the load and every time you press "Refresh". We put the result of calling fetchUserAndPosts()
into state so that components below can start reading the new data from the request we just kicked off.
We can see in this example that pressing "Refresh" works. The <ProfileDetails>
and <ProfileTimeline>
components receive a new resource
prop that represents the fresh data, they "suspend" because we don't have a response yet, and we see the fallbacks. When the response loads, we can see the updated posts (our fake API adds them every 3 seconds).
However, the experience feels really jarring. We were browsing a page, but it got replaced by a loading state right as we were interacting with it. It's disorienting. Just like before, to avoid showing an undesirable loading state, we can wrap the state update in a transition:
function ProfilePage() {
const [startTransition, isPending] = useTransition({ // Wait 10 seconds before fallback timeoutMs: 10000 }); const [resource, setResource] = useState(initialResource);
function handleRefreshClick() {
startTransition(() => { setResource(fetchProfileData()); }); }
return (
<Suspense fallback={
Loading profile...
}>
<ProfileDetails resource={resource} />
{isPending ? "Refreshing..." : "Refresh"} </button>
<Suspense fallback={
Loading posts...
}>
<ProfileTimeline resource={resource} />
This feels a lot better! Clicking "Refresh" doesn't pull us away from the page we're browsing anymore. We see something is loading "inline", and when the data is ready, it's displayed.
Baking Transitions Into the Design System
We can now see that the need for useTransition
is very common. Pretty much any button click or interaction that can lead to a component suspending needs to be wrapped in useTransition
to avoid accidentally hiding something the user is interacting with.
This can lead to a lot of repetitive code across components. This is why we generally recommend to bake useTransition
into the design system components of your app. For example, we can extract the transition logic into our own <Button>
function Button({ children, onClick }) {
const [startTransition, isPending] = useTransition({
timeoutMs: 10000
function handleClick() {
startTransition(() => { onClick(); }); }
const spinner = (
// ...
return (
disabled={isPending} >
{isPending ? spinner : null} </>
Note that the button doesn't care what state we're updating. It's wrapping any state updates that happen during its onClick
handler into a transition. Now that our <Button>
takes care of setting up the transition, the <ProfilePage>
component doesn't need to set up its own:
function ProfilePage() {
const [resource, setResource] = useState(initialResource);
function handleRefreshClick() { setResource(fetchProfileData()); }
return (
<Suspense fallback={
Loading profile...
}>
<ProfileDetails resource={resource} />
<Button onClick={handleRefreshClick}> Refresh </Button> <Suspense fallback={
Loading posts...
}>
<ProfileTimeline resource={resource} />
When a button gets clicked, it starts a transition and calls props.onClick()
inside of it — which triggers handleRefreshClick
in the <ProfilePage>
component. We start fetching the fresh data, but it doesn't trigger a fallback because we're inside a transition, and the 10 second timeout specified in the useTransition
call hasn't passed yet. While a transition is pending, the button displays an inline loading indicator.
We can see now how Concurrent Mode helps us achieve a good user experience without sacrificing isolation and modularity of components. React coordinates the transition.
The Three Steps
By now we have discussed all of the different visual states that an update may go through. In this section, we will give them names and talk about the progression between them.
At the very end, we have the Complete state. That's where we want to eventually get to. It represents the moment when the next screen is fully rendered and isn't loading more data.
But before our screen can be Complete, we might need to load some data or code. When we're on the next screen, but some parts of it are still loading, we call that a Skeleton state.
Finally, there are two primary ways that lead us to the Skeleton state. We will illustrate the difference between them with a concrete example.
Default: Receded → Skeleton → Complete
Open this example and click "Open Profile". You will see several visual states one by one:
- Receded: For a second, you will see the

Loading the app...

fallback. - Skeleton: You will see the
component with
Loading posts...

inside. - Complete: You will see the
component with no fallbacks inside. Everything was fetched.
How do we separate the Receded and the Skeleton states? The difference between them is that the Receded state feels like "taking a step back" to the user, while the Skeleton state feels like "taking a step forward" in our progress to show more content.
In this example, we started our journey on the <HomePage>
<Suspense fallback={...}>
{/* previous screen */}
<HomePage />
After the click, React started rendering the next screen:
<Suspense fallback={...}>
{/* next screen */}
<ProfileDetails />
<Suspense fallback={...}>
<ProfileTimeline />
Both <ProfileDetails>
and <ProfileTimeline>
need data to render, so they suspend:
<Suspense fallback={...}>
{/* next screen */}
<ProfileDetails /> {/* suspends! */} <Suspense fallback={
Loading posts...
}>
<ProfileTimeline /> {/* suspends! */} </Suspense>
When a component suspends, React needs to show the closest fallback. But the closest fallback to <ProfileDetails>
is at the top level:
<Suspense fallback={
// We see this fallback now because of <ProfileDetails>
Loading the app...
}>
{/* next screen */}
<ProfileDetails /> {/* suspends! */} <Suspense fallback={...}>
<ProfileTimeline />
This is why when we click the button, it feels like we've "taken a step back". The <Suspense>
boundary which was previously showing useful content (<HomePage />
) had to "recede" to showing the fallback (
Loading the app...

). We call that a Receded state.
As we load more data, React will retry rendering, and <ProfileDetails>
can render successfully. Finally, we're in the Skeleton state. We see the new page with missing parts:
<Suspense fallback={...}>
{/* next screen */}
<ProfileDetails />
<Suspense fallback={
// We see this fallback now because of <ProfileTimeline>
Loading posts...
 }>
<ProfileTimeline /> {/* suspends! */} </Suspense>
Eventually, they load too, and we get to the Complete state.
This scenario (Receded → Skeleton → Complete) is the default one. However, the Receded state is not very pleasant because it "hides" existing information. This is why React lets us opt into a different sequence (Pending → Skeleton → Complete) with useTransition
Preferred: Pending → Skeleton → Complete
When we useTransition
, React will let us "stay" on the previous screen — and show a progress indicator there. We call that a Pending state. It feels much better than the Receded state because none of our existing content disappears, and the page stays interactive.
You can compare these two examples to feel the difference:
- Default: Receded → Skeleton → Complete
- Preferred: Pending → Skeleton → Complete
The only difference between these two examples is that the first uses regular <button>
s, but the second one uses our custom <Button>
component with useTransition
Wrap Lazy Features in <Suspense>
Open this example. When you press a button, you'll see the Pending state for a second before moving on. This transition feels nice and fluid.
We will now add a brand new feature to the profile page — a list of fun facts about a person:
function ProfilePage({ resource }) {
return (
<ProfileDetails resource={resource} />
<Suspense fallback={
Loading posts...
}>
<ProfileTimeline resource={resource} />
<ProfileTrivia resource={resource} /> </>
function ProfileTrivia({ resource }) { const trivia = resource.trivia.read(); return ( <>
Fun Facts

 {trivia.map(fact => (
{fact.text}
 ))}
 </> );}
If you press "Open Profile" now, you can tell something is wrong. It takes a whole seven seconds to make the transition now! This is because our trivia API is too slow. Let's say we can't make the API faster. How can we improve the user experience with this constraint?
If we don't want to stay in the Pending state for too long, our first instinct might be to set timeoutMs
in useTransition
to something smaller, like 3000
. You can try this here. This lets us escape the prolonged Pending state, but we still don't have anything useful to show!
There is a simpler way to solve this. Instead of making the transition shorter, we can "disconnect" the slow component from the transition by wrapping it into <Suspense>
function ProfilePage({ resource }) {
return (
<ProfileDetails resource={resource} />
<Suspense fallback={
Loading posts...
}>
<ProfileTimeline resource={resource} />
<Suspense fallback={
Loading fun facts...
}> <ProfileTrivia resource={resource} />
</Suspense> </>
This reveals an important insight. React always prefers to go to the Skeleton state as soon as possible. Even if we use transitions with long timeouts everywhere, React will not stay in the Pending state for longer than necessary to avoid the Receded state.
If some feature isn't a vital part of the next screen, wrap it in <Suspense>
and let it load lazily. This ensures we can show the rest of the content as soon as possible. Conversely, if a screen is not worth showing without some component, such as <ProfileDetails>
in our example, do not wrap it in <Suspense>
. Then the transitions will "wait" for it to be ready.
Suspense Reveal "Train"
When we're already on the next screen, sometimes the data needed to "unlock" different <Suspense>
boundaries arrives in quick succession. For example, two different responses might arrive after 1000ms and 1050ms, respectively. If you've already waited for a second, waiting another 50ms is not going to be perceptible. This is why React reveals <Suspense>
boundaries on a schedule, like a "train" that arrives periodically. This trades a small delay for reducing the layout thrashing and the number of visual changes presented to the user.
You can see a demo of this here. The "posts" and "fun facts" responses come within 100ms of each other. But React coalesces them and "reveals" their Suspense boundaries together.
Delaying a Pending Indicator
Our Button
component will immediately show the Pending state indicator on click:
function Button({ children, onClick }) {
const [startTransition, isPending] = useTransition({ timeoutMs: 10000
// ...
return (
<button onClick={handleClick} disabled={isPending}>
{isPending ? spinner : null} </>
This signals to the user that some work is happening. However, if the transition is relatively short (less than 500ms), it might be too distracting and make the transition itself feel slower.
One possible solution to this is to delay the spinner itself from displaying:
.DelayedSpinner {
animation: 0s linear 0.5s forwards makeVisible;
visibility: hidden;
@keyframes makeVisible {
to {
visibility: visible;
const spinner = (
 {/* ... */} );
return (
<button onClick={handleClick}>{children}</button>
{isPending ? spinner : null} </>
With this change, even though we're in the Pending state, we don't display any indication to the user until 500ms has passed. This may not seem like much of an improvement when the API responses are slow. But compare how it feels before and after when the API call is fast. Even though the rest of the code hasn't changed, suppressing a "too fast" loading state improves the perceived performance by not calling attention to the delay.
The most important things we learned so far are:
- By default, our loading sequence is Receded → Skeleton → Complete.
- The Receded state doesn't feel very nice because it hides existing content.
- With
, we can opt into showing a Pending state first instead. This will keep us on the previous screen while the next screen is being prepared. - If we don't want some component to delay the transition, we can wrap it in its own
boundary. - Instead of doing
in every other component, we can build it into our design system.
Other Patterns
Transitions are probably the most common Concurrent Mode pattern you'll encounter, but there are a few more patterns you might find useful.
Splitting High and Low Priority State
When you design React components, it is usually best to find the "minimal representation" of state. For example, instead of keeping firstName
, lastName
, and fullName
in state, it's usually better keep only firstName
and lastName
, and then calculate fullName
during rendering. This lets us avoid mistakes where we update one state but forget the other state.
However, in Concurrent Mode there are cases where you might want to "duplicate" some data in different state variables. Consider this tiny translation app:
const initialQuery = "Hello, world";
const initialResource = fetchTranslation(initialQuery);
function App() {
const [query, setQuery] = useState(initialQuery);
const [resource, setResource] = useState(initialResource);
function handleChange(e) {
const value = e.target.value;
return (
<Suspense fallback={
Loading...
}>
<Translation resource={resource} />
function Translation({ resource }) {
return (
Notice how when you type into the input, the <Translation>
component suspends, and we see the
Loading...

fallback until we get fresh results. This is not ideal. It would be better if we could see the previous translation for a bit while we're fetching the next one.
In fact, if we open the console, we'll see a warning:
Warning: App triggered a user-blocking update that suspended.
The fix is to split the update into multiple parts: a user-blocking update to provide immediate feedback, and another update that triggers the bulk of the changes.
Refer to the documentation for useTransition to learn how to implement this pattern.
As we mentioned earlier, if some state update causes a component to suspend, that state update should be wrapped in a transition. Let's add useTransition
to our component:
function App() {
const [query, setQuery] = useState(initialQuery);
const [resource, setResource] = useState(initialResource);
const [startTransition, isPending] = useTransition({ timeoutMs: 5000 });
function handleChange(e) {
const value = e.target.value;
startTransition(() => { setQuery(value);
}); }
// ...
Try typing into the input now. Something's wrong! The input is updating very slowly.
We've fixed the first problem (suspending outside of a transition). But now because of the transition, our state doesn't update immediately, and it can't "drive" a controlled input!
The answer to this problem is to split the state in two parts: a "high priority" part that updates immediately, and a "low priority" part that may wait for a transition.
In our example, we already have two state variables. The input text is in query
, and we read the translation from resource
. We want changes to the query
state to happen immediately, but changes to the resource
(i.e. fetching a new translation) should trigger a transition.
So the correct fix is to put setQuery
(which doesn't suspend) outside the transition, but setResource
(which will suspend) inside of it.
function handleChange(e) {
const value = e.target.value;
// Outside the transition (urgent) setQuery(value);
startTransition(() => {
// Inside the transition (may be delayed)
With this change, it works as expected. We can type into the input immediately, and the translation later "catches up" to what we have typed.
Deferring a Value
By default, React always renders a consistent UI. Consider code like this:
<ProfileDetails user={user} />
<ProfileTimeline user={user} />
React guarantees that whenever we look at these components on the screen, they will reflect data from the same user
. If a different user
is passed down because of a state update, you would see them changing together. You can't ever record a screen and find a frame where they would show values from different user
s. (If you ever run into a case like this, file a bug!)
This makes sense in the vast majority of situations. Inconsistent UI is confusing and can mislead users. (For example, it would be terrible if a messenger's Send button and the conversation picker pane "disagreed" about which thread is currently selected.)
However, sometimes it might be helpful to intentionally introduce an inconsistency. We could do it manually by "splitting" the state like above, but React also offers a built-in Hook for this:
import { useDeferredValue } from 'react';
const deferredValue = useDeferredValue(value, {
timeoutMs: 5000
To demonstrate this feature, we'll use the profile switcher example. Click the "Next" button and notice how it takes 1 second to do a transition.
Let's say that fetching the user details is very fast and only takes 300 milliseconds. Currently, we're waiting a whole second because we need both user details and posts to display a consistent profile page. But what if we want to show the details faster?
If we're willing to sacrifice consistency, we could pass potentially stale data to the components that delay our transition. That's what useDeferredValue()
lets us do:
function ProfilePage({ resource }) {
const deferredResource = useDeferredValue(resource, { timeoutMs: 1000 }); return (
<Suspense fallback={
Loading profile...
}>
<ProfileDetails resource={resource} />
<Suspense fallback={
Loading posts...
}>
resource={deferredResource} isStale={deferredResource !== resource} />
function ProfileTimeline({ isStale, resource }) {
const posts = resource.posts.read();
return (

 {posts.map(post => (

{post.text}

The tradeoff we're making here is that <ProfileTimeline>
will be inconsistent with other components and potentially show an older item. Click "Next" a few times, and you'll notice it. But thanks to that, we were able to cut down the transition time from 1000ms to 300ms.
Whether or not it's an appropriate tradeoff depends on the situation. But it's a handy tool, especially when the content doesn't change noticeably between items, and the user might not even realize they were looking at a stale version for a second.
It's worth noting that useDeferredValue
is not only useful for data fetching. It also helps when an expensive component tree causes an interaction (e.g. typing in an input) to be sluggish. Just like we can "defer" a value that takes too long to fetch (and show its old value despite other components updating), we can do this with trees that take too long to render.
For example, consider a filterable list like this:
function App() {
const [text, setText] = useState("hello");
function handleChange(e) {
return (

Type into the input:{" "}
<input value={text} onChange={handleChange} />
<MySlowList text={text} />
In this example, every item in <MySlowList>
has an artificial slowdown — each of them blocks the thread for a few milliseconds. We'd never do this in a real app, but this helps us simulate what can happen in a deep component tree with no single obvious place to optimize.
We can see how typing in the input causes stutter. Now let's add useDeferredValue
function App() {
const [text, setText] = useState("hello");
const deferredText = useDeferredValue(text, { timeoutMs: 5000 });
function handleChange(e) {
return (

Type into the input:{" "}
<input value={text} onChange={handleChange} />
<MySlowList text={deferredText} />

Now typing has a lot less stutter — although we pay for this by showing the results with a lag.
How is this different from debouncing? Our example has a fixed artificial delay (3ms for every one of 80 items), so there is always a delay, no matter how fast our computer is. However, the useDeferredValue
value only "lags behind" if the rendering takes a while. There is no minimal lag imposed by React. With a more realistic workload, you can expect the lag to adjust to the user's device. On fast machines, the lag would be smaller or non-existent, and on slow machines, it would be more noticeable. In both cases, the app would remain responsive. That's the advantage of this mechanism over debouncing or throttling, which always impose a minimal delay and can't avoid blocking the thread while rendering.
Even though there is an improvement in responsiveness, this example isn't as compelling yet because Concurrent Mode is missing some crucial optimizations for this use case. Still, it is interesting to see that features like useDeferredValue
(or useTransition
) are useful regardless of whether we're waiting for network or for computational work to finish.
is the last pattern that's related to orchestrating loading states.
Consider this example:
function ProfilePage({ resource }) {
return (
<ProfileDetails resource={resource} />
<Suspense fallback={
Loading posts...
}> <ProfileTimeline resource={resource} /> </Suspense> <Suspense fallback={
Loading fun facts...
}> <ProfileTrivia resource={resource} /> </Suspense> </>
The API call duration in this example is randomized. If you keep refreshing it, you will notice that sometimes the posts arrive first, and sometimes the "fun facts" arrive first.
This presents a problem. If the response for fun facts arrives first, we'll see the fun facts below the
Loading posts...

fallback for posts. We might start reading them, but then the posts response will come back, and shift all the facts down. This is jarring.
One way we could fix it is by putting them both in a single boundary:
<Suspense fallback={
Loading posts and fun facts...
}>
<ProfileTimeline resource={resource} />
<ProfileTrivia resource={resource} />
The problem with this is that now we always wait for both of them to be fetched. However, if it's the posts that came back first, there's no reason to delay showing them. When fun facts load later, they won't shift the layout because they're already below the posts.
Other approaches to this, such as composing Promises in a special way, are increasingly difficult to pull off when the loading states are located in different components down the tree.
To solve this, we will import SuspenseList
import { SuspenseList } from 'react';
coordinates the "reveal order" of the closest <Suspense>
nodes below it:
function ProfilePage({ resource }) {
return (
<SuspenseList revealOrder="forwards"> <ProfileDetails resource={resource} />
<Suspense fallback={
Loading posts...
}>
<ProfileTimeline resource={resource} />
<Suspense fallback={
Loading fun facts...
}>
<ProfileTrivia resource={resource} />
</SuspenseList> );
The revealOrder="forwards"
option means that the closest <Suspense>
nodes inside this list will only "reveal" their content in the order they appear in the tree — even if the data for them arrives in a different order. <SuspenseList>
has other interesting modes: try changing "forwards"
to "backwards"
or "together"
and see what happens.
You can control how many loading states are visible at once with the tail
prop. If we specify tail="collapsed"
, we'll see at most one fallback at a time. You can play with it here.
Keep in mind that <SuspenseList>
is composable, like anything in React. For example, you can create a grid by putting several <SuspenseList>
rows inside a <SuspenseList>
Next Steps
Concurrent Mode offers a powerful UI programming model and a set of new composable primitives to help you orchestrate delightful user experiences.
It's a result of several years of research and development, but it's not finished. In the section on adopting Concurrent Mode, we'll describe how you can try it and what you can expect.


text:
Keeping Halloween Fun (and Not Scary or Dangerous) for Your Pets: Safety Tips
Halloween is in just a few days, which means frightening family fun—from costume contests to trick-or-treating—is right around the corner. Although Halloween is filled with light-hearted tricks and treats, it's important to keep safety in mind for every member of the family—including your pets. Halloween can pose a number of potential safety hazards for pets, who tend to experience high levels of stress due to the hustle and bustle of the holiday.
Here are a few tips from American Humane to keep you and your four-legged family members safe and happy this Halloween:
- Costumes, while cute, can be dangerous for pets. Costume contests are popular around Halloween, and it's tempting to want to dress up your four-legged friend in their own costume. After all, who can resist dressing up a pet in a cute witch's cape or antlers? But if you do choose to dress your pet up in costume, make sure they can move in it comfortably and most importantly, safely. Avoid costumes that require tying anything around your pet's neck that can choke them, or costumes that hang to the ground that they may stumble over. Let your pet be the judge. If they struggle and are uncomfortable, then maybe it's best to let them stay dressed as a Corgi rather than a ghost!
- Keep your pet away from harmful Halloween candy and food. Before you give in to your pet's pleading eyes and feed them that Halloween candy bar, be aware of the harmful consequences of feeding human food to any animal. Chocolate—especially baking chocolate—can be deadly to a dog, so keep all such goodies well out of reach. The other lurking danger during Halloween is a substance called Xylitol. This is a low-calorie sweetener found most commonly in gum and candy. It can be potentially lethal when consumed, even in small quantities. To reduce temptation, feed your pet before any guests arrive so they will be less likely to beg and steal food. Tell your guests of any house rules regarding your pet, such as not feeding them scraps from the table.
- If nicotine and alcohol will be consumed in your home this Halloween, be extra vigilant to keep these items out of your pet's reach. These substances can be highly toxic—even deadly—to animals.
- Keep your home a safe space for your pet. Animals can get stressed with the hustle and bustle of guests and trick-or-treaters. It's best to keep your pets indoors and provide them with a safe, quiet, escape-proof room where they can be removed from the energy and excitement of the holiday. Remember to provide plenty of food and water, and let your pet catch up on some Zs!
- As trick-or-treaters come to your door, there will be many opportunities for your pets to slip out unnoticed. Make sure that your pets always wear current identification tags, consider having your pets microchipped if you haven't already—and watch the door!
Halloween, and all the spooky fun that accompanies the holiday, is best enjoyed when the entire family is safe and happy. Follow these tips, and your pet will have just as much fun as you and your kids this Halloween!


text:
About GG.GG
GG.gg is the fastest and easy way to share, save, track your links. You can use GG.gg via our website or you can download GG.gg browser extentions. You can create also custom short url if You wanna get easy to remember url. GG.gg uses powerful webservers so all Your links works extremly fast.
Our pros
- No ads
- 301 Redirect ( Better for Your SEO )
- Ability to choose a custom shortened URL
- Quick "share" links for Twitter, Facebook, and FriendFeed
- Ability to track visitors
- URL shortener chrome extension
- URL shortener firefox extension
- Extensions for Opera
If You'll have any questions or suggestions You can contact us via contact form.
We do not allow spam, scam, child porn and all illegal links


text:
All you need, all in one price.
When you join Spaces, you'll get everything you need to work - all in one place, on the same bill.
Everything's ready, from super-fast wifi to stylish furniture. Not to mention a community of creative entrepreneurs who'd love to meet you. We'll take care of the dull stuff like utilities and cleaning – all included in one simple price. Then when you want to hold a meeting, fire on some photocopies, or refuel with a cup of coffee, you simply pay as you go. So you always know where you stand. The only surprise is who you're standing next to.


text:
We're delighted to annouce that our esteemed colleague and Singing Wells partner Prof James Isabirye has been featured in an article in Uganda's Daily Monitor about his work to revive the Entenga Royal Drums. Read now.
You can watch the full documentary of our initiative to save the Royal Drums here.


text:
America's religious landscape is changing, and the contours of that change will determine the shape of the church's challenge for decades to come. An important study recently released by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life points to several developments worthy of our attention -- and some of these deserve rather urgent analysis.
The continued rise of the nones
The Pew report reveals an increasing number of Americans who identify with no church or religious commitment. At present, one of five Americans is now "unaffiliated" and disconnected from any church or organized faith. More shocking is the fact that fully one in three Americans under age 30 report themselves as unaffiliated. "In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15 percent to just under 20 percent of all U.S. adults," the report reveals.
Of the unaffiliated, about 13 million Americans (about 6 percent) identify as atheists or agnostics, with another 33 million (14 percent) simply claiming no affiliation. The unaffiliated are not church shopping, according to the researchers. Instead, these Americans say they are very comfortable being disconnected from any church or organized faith.
The unaffiliated are not openly hostile to churches or religious institutions, but they are not planning to join one. Most are not atheists or agnostics, and many follow some religious practice such as meditation, but they do not see themselves as meaningfully connected to any faith commitment.
The unaffiliated tend to be young, and "generational replacement" now explains the rise in the percentage of Americans who are unaffiliated -- those also known as the "nones," who identify themselves by choosing "none" when asked for religious affiliation. As older Americans pass from the scene, they are replaced by a generation that is markedly less likely to affiliate with a church or religious tradition. One in three young adults (those under 30) have no religious affiliation, while only one in ten adults age 65 and older identify themselves that way.
The end of America's Protestant majority
The Pew study also confirms that Protestants are now a religious minority in America -- a development that reverses the nation's entire history until the present. According to the Pew data, only 48 percent of Americans identify as members of Protestant churches or claim a Protestant identity. The nation was overwhelmingly Protestant until waves of immigration altered that picture in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Those decades saw millions of immigrants arrive on American shores, and many of these new Americans were Roman Catholic. By the middle of the twentieth century, Will Herberg would famously describe the American religious landscape in the title of one of his most influential books, "Protestant, Catholic, Jew."
Now, Protestants no longer constitute a majority, and this fact represents a seismic shift in America's pattern of religious identity. Interestingly, the rise of the "nones" partly explains this shift, as fewer Americans now claim Protestant identity and more shift into the ranks of the unaffiliated. According to the Pew study, both the liberal and evangelical and conservative wings of American Protestantism share in the losses, especially among white Americans. The fact that the Catholic share of the population has remained steady is attributed to recent patterns of immigration from Latin America.
Worldview implications among the unaffiliated
Among the most striking revelations in the Pew report has to do with the political views of the unaffiliated as compared to Americans with a clearly defined religious identity. "The religiously unaffiliated are heavily Democratic in their partisanship and liberal in their political ideology," the report states. More than 60 percent of the unaffiliated identify with the Democratic Party and twice as many identify as liberal as compared to those who consider themselves conservatives.
This pattern confirms research conducted by Robert D. Putnam and David E, Campbell, who found that church attendance was the single most effective indicator of voting choice in the recent U.S. presidential elections.
The worldview liberalism of the unaffiliated is evident in the fact that 72 percent say abortion should be legal "in most or all cases" and 73 percent voice support for same-sex marriage. On questions of the role and size of government, there is less consensus among the unaffiliated, perhaps revealing a libertarian influence. In the 2008 election, 75 percent of the unaffiliated voted for Barack Obama, while only 23 percent voted for John McCain.
The growth of the religiously unaffiliated within the ranks of the Democratic Party means that this group is now larger than many of the religious constituencies traditionally associated with that party, including white mainline Protestants, black Protestants, and white Catholics. As the Pew researchers suggest, the unaffiliated may soon constitute the largest single "religious" group within the Democratic Party.
Moving Out, Not Moving In
The most significant finding in this research may be the documentation of the fact that the rise of the unaffiliated means that the "nones" are moving out of a loose religious affiliation into none at all.
In other words, those Americans who had previously reported a loose or tenuous identification with a religious body now feel free to identity with no faith at all. A casual faith is one that points to an individual moving out of any faith at all, rather than moving in. This strongly suggests that cultural Christianity, for example, is simply disappearing.
As David Voas, a professor at the University of Essex in Great Britain told The Wall Street Journal, "It is starting to become socially acceptable to say, 'I don't have religion.'" Voas noted that this pattern appeared in Great Britain and Europe before it was apparent in the United States.
Just a generation ago, sociologist John Murray Cuddihy noted that Americans tended to feel the need to identify with some church or religious tradition. Those with a looser affiliation often signaled this fact, Murray noted, by stating that that "happened to be" whatever identity they revealed. "I happen to be Baptist," was a shorthand for "I identify as a Baptist, but this identity has more to do with family history than anything else." Now, millions of Americans just "happen to be" nothing at all when it comes to religious identity.
Thus, the increased secularization of America is revealed by the readiness of so many Americans to identify as "nones."
Convictional faith vs. fuzzy fidelity
The patterns revealed in the Pew report are striking and informative, but this does not mean that Americans are abandoning conviction and embracing secularism. To the contrary, the report indicates it is primarily those who previously held some loose religious affiliation who are now more likely to report no affiliation at all.
The data point to a falling away of the loosely affiliated, not a departure of the faithful. As Professor Voas suggests, the unaffiliated are moving out of what he helpfully calls "fuzzy fidelity." Those marked by fuzzy fidelity usually remain loosely attached to a church or denomination, he reports, until the number of self-identified unbelievers reaches some sort of a tipping point, and then the pattern of identifying as unaffiliated grows in popularity.
The Pew report would indicate that this tipping point may well have been reached in the United States.
Beyond this, Christians should note that "fuzzy fidelity" is not a doorway into deeper convictional commitments. Instead, it marks the exit ramp of religious identity.
The Great Clarification
Christians should receive the new Pew report as a sober confirmation of patterns most believers have already detected. Many Americans who had been claiming Christian identity in some loose form now feel free to drop that identity altogether, without fear of social stigma or loss.
In a Gospel perspective, this is a healthy development. It is good that non-believers know that they are, in fact, not believers. Cultural Christianity is not Christianity, and no one will find salvation through merely identifying as Christian. The disappearance of cultural Christianity will weaken the culture, but it should strengthen the church.
The church, after all, had better know the difference between authentic Christian faith and "fuzzy fidelity." This new report should awaken America's Christians and our churches to the reality of the challenge we now face and the mission field we now serve.
R. Albert Mohler is president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. This column first appeared at his website, AlbertMohler.com. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress ) and in your email ( baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp).
Copyright (c) 2012 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press www.BPNews.net


text:
Membership questions? Log in issues? Email firstname.lastname@example.com
Advanced BJCP Judge training all day Saturday . . .
Quote from: tschmidlin on December 02, 2010, 04:11:58 pmAdvanced BJCP Judge training all day Saturday . . . Say hi to Ted for me. I was going to go to that, but I'll be retaking the tasting part of the exam, going for Master.
Actually looking for ideas.I have a new years party with lots of old friends. Mixed crowd, some BMC drinkers, some Craft Brew guys, and some who are in between. I want to bring a keg or two of homebrew. Need to make something that will be done in time and that will appear to the masses (without selling out!) I generally do either an irish red or northern english brown for events like this since I find they appeal to a wide assortment of folks. I keg and sometimes filter so no need to be concerned with bottle carbonation or conditioning times.Any thoughts.... Frankly I am in a funk and having some "writers block" so any motivation would help!


text:
It's almost hard to remember how dominant an issue the death penalty was a generation ago.
Crime and drugs were the top issues for voters in 1994. Not coincidentally, support for the death penalty peaked that year, at 80 percent, according to Gallup polling.
Opposition to the death penalty once cost prominent politicians their jobs, from New York Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo to California Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird.
The safest stance was clear: support for capital punishment.
But all that has changed. Contemporary politicians appear to have paid very little price, if any, for supporting recent moratoriums on capital punishment, or for voting to abolish it altogether.
"It just hasn't been a salient issue here, despite the governor declaring a moratorium on the death penalty," says Travis Ridout, a professor of government and public policy at Washington State University, referring to Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee's announcement earlier this year.
Once A Major Issue
The death penalty was a centerpiece of the 1988 presidential campaign. Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis was widely criticized that fall for not reacting emotionally when a debate moderator asked him if he would favor execution if his wife were raped and murdered.
Four years later, Democratic front-runner and eventual winner Bill Clinton burnished his credibility on the crime issue by returning from the campaign trail to Arkansas and presiding as governor over the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a cop killer who was brain damaged.
But crime has declined steadily and dramatically since the 1990s, when the death penalty peaked both in popularity and in practice. A majority of Americans still favor the death penalty, but its support reached a 40-year low in a Gallup poll conducted last fall.
As violent crime and murder rates have dropped over the past couple of decades, so has political support for capital punishment.
California voters in 2012 rejected a ballot measure that would have ended the death penalty in that state. It lost by only a 4-percentage-point margin, however — a big change from the 71 percent to 29 percent result when a similar vote took place back in 1978.
"We are at a point today where the number of people in strong support of the death penalty has declined," says Elizabeth Theiss Smith, a death penalty expert at the University of South Dakota.
Problems With The Death Penalty
Meanwhile, the death penalty itself has come to seem more problematic. DNA evidence and other methods have helped exonerate 144 individuals who had been sentenced to death row, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
A study released Monday by a team of legal scholars and statisticians found that more than 4 percent of all those condemned to death over the past 40 years had likely been wrongfully convicted.
The Supreme Court, with a series of recent decisions, has pretty much limited the death penalty to cases involving murders committed by mentally sound adults. Although many people would like to see the most heinous criminals "get what they deserve," says Smith, statistics show that death sentences have more to do with race, class and the quality of the defense attorneys involved than with the crime itself.
Where a life sentence might once have meant a criminal would spend only 15 years behind bars, jurors now know that life without the possibility of parole is a sentence that will stick. They've increasingly embraced it as an option.
Issues Of Cost
As the death penalty has declined in use, some politicians are less convinced of its value as a deterrent. Instead, as states seek to trim their corrections costs, the sheer amount of money spent on death penalty cases has become a concern.
"We have a responsibility to stop doing the things that are wasteful and ineffective," Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley said last year as he signed a bill abolishing the practice in Maryland.
Concerns about this week's botched execution in Oklahoma will fit with the pragmatic line of argument politicians are now using to oppose the death penalty, says Frank Baumgartner, co-author of The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence.
"There is a new way a politician can move away from it," he says. "No matter how angry you might be about the horrific crime that occurred, we can't trust the government to handle it appropriately."
An Emerging Democratic Issue
Maryland was the sixth state to abolish the death penalty in as many years. Inslee's moratorium in February followed a similar move taken in 2011 by Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber and a de facto moratorium imposed last year by Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.
All these politicians are Democrats. The states that are getting rid of the death penalty are blue, while the practice continues most regularly in Republican-dominated states such as Texas, Florida, Ohio and Missouri.
It's no wonder. Opinions about the death penalty, as with so many issues, are split along partisan lines. According to Gallup, 80 percent of Republicans support capital punishment, compared with 47 percent of Democrats.
Some Republican politicians have sought to make the death penalty an issue when running against abolitionist Democrats. It's not a strategy that meets with great success anymore.
"The people who primarily support the death penalty are Republicans — men, whites and the wealthy," says Matt Manweller, a political scientist and GOP state legislator in Washington. "Those are not groups that vote for Jay Inslee anyway."
Those political dynamics could change, if the murder rate spikes upward and crime becomes more of a concern. Political support for the death penalty has undergone a long decline, but such trends can often reverse themselves.
Copyright 2016 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.


text:
Sade Serena – All Natural. Soulful, sultry singing sensation Sade Serena is poised to take the pop world by storm. Birthed on September 27 to Jamaican immigrant parents, the Miami-born and bred starlet's foray into music is inevitable, as she exhibits sheer unbridled talent framed with gorgeous looks, destined to make her a force to be reckoned with in pop music. Sade Serena fatefully entered the rhythmic realm at the tender age of 12, recording a demo with a family friend named Rhovan, after receiving much encouragement to sing for years. "Lo Tienes (You Got What I Want)" was the name of the faithful track, and although the song was never officially released as a single, it granted Sade Serena invaluable recording experience, along with her first taste of lyrical liberation. "We performed that song for summertime jams and open-call talent shows, and received a lot of love from audiences," reveals Sade Serena.
"We were like the mini Ja Rule and Ashanti." At the impressionable age of 14, Sade signed up for choral classes and the rest is history. Starting out as a soprano was first challenging for her but with regular practice and performances, she began to develop into the songbird she is today. "I began performing at school concerts for Christmas, Black History Month and Valentines's Day, all for fundraising," she discloses. "The concerts allowed us to compete in state and regional competitions, and gave me taste of what I dreamed of doing for the rest of my life." By age 17, Sade Serena was earning her stripes as a background singer, performing in renowned Miami music venues like the House of Blues and the American Airlines Arena. "As my hunger grew for my own spotlight, I started singing lead vocals for local bands at lounges such as Mangos in South Beach, and even in hotel lobbies like The Ritz Carlton."
Sade Serena – All Natural
Maturing over the years into a seasoned singer and songwriter, Sade Serena makes music that flows from her soul. Her lyrics showcase her exuberance, intelligence and charm, as she shares a relatable narrative of pursuing her dreams, along with her everyday life experiences. "My music captures those moments in your mind that make you feel happy and confident in the real you. I want to be a storyteller and spread love with my music. I also want to be teacher and share my lessons with my listeners." Her musical styling is a fusion of Pop and R&B, and she is greatly influenced by her father, who was himself an aspiring artist, and mother, who Sade says never fails to let the world know her daughter is a star. Her other inspirations include musical luminaries Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, Gwen Stefani, Beyonce and Lady Gaga, all of whom captured the ears of this auspicious artist and contribute to her melodious pop sound. "I want to be currently retro, in that, I like incorporating my love for old school music, which I grew up listening to, with music that I listen to today."
Sade Serena – All Natural Lyrics:


text:
Nanjing Clover Medical Technology Co.,Ltd. local in Nanjing city, China which is near to Shanghai port.
We are Waste Incinerator Manufacturer in China. We produce medical waste incinerators, pet animal cremation equipment and othe solid waste incinerators. The burning rate from 10kgs,20kgs,30kgs,50kgs,100kgs,150kgs,200kgs,300kgs,500kgs,600kgs per hour, the daily treatment capacity up to 6ton per day.
Clover Incinerators made all double combustion chamber, Italy original oil or gas burners. We use stainless steel chimney for our incinerator with long lifetime. For clean emission, we supply dry or wet scrubber with advantage technology.
Incinerator market and customers are all over the world and have local dealer supply direct service.
Nanjing Clover Medical Technology Co., Ltd. is a leading waste incinerator manufacturer in China. All series included burning capacity 10kgs per hour, 30kgs per hour,50kgs per hour,100kgs per hour,150kgs per hour,300kgs per hour,500kgs per hour. Up to now, all models sale to all over the world and have good feedback from end-customer. The YD Model medical incinerator have multi-combustion chamber and basic dry scrubber (smoke filter chamber) with reasonable project budget. For the cleaner emission require, we accept custom made wet scrubber for incinerator and this will be also our next working by focusing on emission technical.
Regular model incinerator for market with burning rate from 10kgs to 500kgs per hour and we always proposal customer send us their require details, like waste material, local site fuel and power supply, incinerator operation time, etc, so we can proposal right model or custom made with different structure or dimensions.
Incinerator Model YD-100 is a middle scale incineration machine for many different usage: for a middle hospital sickbed below 500 units, for all small or big size family pets (like Alaskan Malamute Dog), for community Municipal Solid Waste Incineration, etc. The primary combustion chamber volume is 1200Liters (1.2m3) and use diesel oil or natural gas fuel burner original from Italy.
All our incinerator use stainless steel chimney, not steel.All our incinerator have two combustion chamber at least, not single chamber. All fuel burner from Italy made with famous brand, best quality.
300kgs per hour burning rate incinerator is well liked by market because this model can be medical waste incineration equipment for big hospital and also very good for other solid waste treatment with lowest cost, even if big size animals also can be feed into the combustion chamber. The primary combustion chamber volume is 2.4m3, big enough for common size animals. For shipping transport, YD-300 can be loaded into 40'feet full high container.
Big size combustion chamber up to 4.0m3 and Internal Dimensions is 257 x 147 x 108cm with feeding door opening 108 x 128cm. This model can be a small waste incineration factory with little amount of budget funds. If end customer use this for farm to burn animals like cow, horse or camel, contact with us now.
Contact with us by email or phone now!
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Phone: +86-25-84610201


text:
Kachi means winner
which is a part of our dojo philosophy. "Everyone can become a winner!" Our goal is to help every student build self confidence and improve every aspect of their life and not only in competition.
Goju-Ryu Karate in Hawaii
(KKH) we teach the style of Goju-Ryu, which is one of the four major styles of traditional Japanese karate. Our school welcomes students from the age of four to adults of all levels and abilities.
Our classes are taught in a fun yet challenging atmosphere. Whether you join KKH for health, fitness, competition or for fun we are sure that we will take you to another level.
Many of our students have trained to compete amongst the top competitors and have gained national, international and world titles.