text:
The following is an excerpt from Build Your Own Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle by Seth Leitman. (McGraw-Hill, 2009). Written by clean energy guru and electric vehicle expert Leitman, this hands-on guide gives you the latest technical information and easy-to-follow instructions for building a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). This excerpt is from Chapter 1, "Why Plug-In Hybrid Electric Cars Can Happen Now," and Chapter 2, "PHEVs Save the Environment and Energy."
What is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle? Why should I take a hybrid electric car and convert it to a plug-in hybrid?
The best way I can put it is to say that a plug-in hybrid is cleaner and more energy-efficient than a hybrid electric car. A plug-in hybrid can be a gas car with electric batteries that have a range of 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 miles, or it can be a hybrid electric car that has a purely zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) range of 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 miles.
Why Should You Convert Your Car to a Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle?
If you use your car for commuting to work or driving around town, a plug-in hybrid acts as an electric car all the time you are driving. How important is that? Well, let's put it this way: I am an electric vehicle purist at heart, and to transform the automobile market, we need more electric and fewer gasoline-powered cars.
You should convert your car simply because a plug-in hybrid electric car is one of the cleanest, most efficient, and most cost-effective forms of transportation around — and it is really fun to drive.
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) combine the benefits of pure electric vehicles and those of hybrid electric vehicles. Like pure electric vehicles, they plug in to the electric grid and can be powered by the stored electricity alone. Like hybrid electric vehicles, they have engines that enable them to have a greater driving range and that can recharge the battery.
The cost of the electricity needed to power plug-in hybrids for all-electric operation has been estimated at less than one-quarter of the cost of gasoline. Compared with conventional vehicles, PHEVs can reduce air pollution, dependence on petroleum, and the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. Plug-in hybrids use no fossil fuel during their all-electric range if their batteries are charged from nuclear and renewable energy sources. Other benefits include improved national energy security, fewer fill-ups at the filling station, the convenience of recharging at home, opportunities to provide emergency backup power to the home, and vehicle-to-grid applications.
I remember when I worked for the State of New York at the New York Power Authority and my boss at the time, Bart Chezar, retired. Before leaving, he told me that the next step toward full electric vehicles would be the plug-in hybrid and that I should never lose sight of that. I never did, and that is the message of this book.
But wait, there's more:
- If your driving is mostly local, you'll almost never need to gas up.
- Lifetime service costs are lower for a vehicle that is mainly electric.
- A PHEV can provide power to an entire home in the event of an outage; a fleet of PHEVs could power critical systems during emergencies.
Reduce Our Reliance on Oil and Clean the Environment at the Same Time!
July 2007 EPRI-NRDC Definitive Study: PHEVs Will Reduce Emissions If Broadly Adopted
In July 2007, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) did one report that included multiple studies on plug-in hybrids. The report stated that scientists have confirmed that, unlike gasoline cars, plug-ins will get cleaner as they get older — because our power grid is getting cleaner.
For people who are looking for the most effective way to end our addiction to oil, PHEVs make sense because carmakers can build them now, with today's technology and using today's infrastructure. The study showed that with the increase in the number of PHEVs on the road and the evolving characteristics of the power grid (in terms of capacity and carbon intensity), PHEVs will vastly reduce greenhouse gases over the next 40 years. The second study showed that increased PHEV use will reduce greenhouse gases over the next 20 years; even if, in the worst-case scenario, we still use lots of coal, nationwide air quality in terms of other emissions will also improve.
Three more points: Both reports match up well with previous studies. They reinforce the Pacific National Lab's January 2007 findings that we won't have to build new power plants for cars that charge at night. And we're gratified that General Motors recognizes this study as validation of its decision to evolve toward the electrification of transportation.
California Air Resource Board/ZEV States Report
California, New York, Massachusetts and some other states have had zero-emission-vehicle programs since the early 1990s, because battery electric vehicles in those states, taking into account power plants, are far cleaner than gasoline cars in reducing urban air pollution and smog. The issue keeps being raised, although studies are conclusive.
The "well-to-wheel" emissions of electric cars are lower than those from gasoline internal combustion vehicles. A California Air Resources Board (CARB) study showed that battery electric vehicles emit at least 67 percent less greenhouse gases than gasoline cars — even more assuming the power is generated with renewable energy sources. A PHEV with only a 20-mile all-electric range emits 62 percent less.
U.S. Department of Energy Argonne National Lab
Two government studies have found that PHEVs would result in large reductions even on the national grid (which is 50 percent coal). The GREET 1.6 emission models done in 2001 by the DOE's Argonne National Lab estimates that hybrids reduce greenhouse gases by 22 percent and plug-in hybrids by 36 percent. An Argonne researcher reached consensus with researchers from other national labs, universities, the Air Resources Board, automakers, utilities and Arthur D. Little to estimate in July 2002 that PHEVs using nighttime power reduce greenhouse gases by 46 to 61 percent.
PHEVs Are Cheaper to Run and Maintain
A 2006 research estimate in California found that the operating costs of plug-ins charged at night were equivalent to 75 cents per U.S. gallon (3.8 L) of gasoline.
The EPRI-NRDC report further concluded that the cost of electricity for a Prius PHEV would be about $0.03 per mile ($0.019 per kilometer), based on 0.26 kWh/mi (129 mpg) and a cost of electricity of 10 cents per kilowatt hour.
During 2008, many government and industry researchers have been focusing on determining what range for all-electric operation is economically optimum for the design.
20 to 25 Cents per Gallon?!
Using the average U.S. electricity rate of 9 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), 30 miles of electric driving will cost 81 cents. If we optimistically assume that the average fuel economy in the United States is 25 miles per gallon, at $3 a gasoline, this equates to 75 cents a gallon for the equivalent electricity. Compared with a regular hybrid's real-world 45 miles per gallon, it's effectively $1.20 a gallon.
PHEVs are meant to be plugged in at night. In many areas of the country, overnight power is available at a lower cost. As PHEVs start to enter the marketplace, we'll see increasing support from electric utilities; they'll offer reduced nighttime rates to provide incentives for off-peak charging. In some areas where wind and hydropower are wasted at night, the rate can be as low as 2 to 3 cents per kWh. That's 20 to 25 cents a gallon.
Purchase Costs
Calcars and others are charging $15,000 for a conversion. However, a conversion by building your own will cost much less and will increase the payback.
People routinely pay more for such options as sunroofs, automatic transmissions, V8 engines and leather seats. These are "features" — and no one asks about the payback. A J.D. Power survey shows that buyers will pay more for cars with the "environmental feature." How much more? The high demand for the Honda Civic Hybrid tells us that it's at least $3,000.
The Bottom Line
A 2003 EPRI battery study shows that mass-produced PHEVs have already reached life-cycle cost parity with gas-powered vehicles — using gas prices from three years ago!
This means that the more maintenance-free electrical systems of PHEVs offset the initial higher cost of batteries.
The costs and benefits of cars extend far beyond an individual driver to society as a whole. But when people talk about payback, they refer only to the net dollars to the driver. Because this question never comes up when people pay a premium for features like leather seats, we point out that millions of people want the "environmental feature" (see J.D. Power and Associates' 2004 report). Car and Driver's Patrick Bedard writes amusingly but tellingly about this issue.
Despite this, a 2003 EPRI study — assuming only $2 a gallon gas, zero buying incentives, and a PHEV premium of $3,000 to $5,000 more than standard hybrids —shows that the total lifetime cost of ownership for a PHEV will be lower than that for any other vehicle type — so the payback will be there.
Safety First
On another safety issue, while electric vehicles do not emit noise pollution, there has been concern about hybrid vehicles being unsafe for visually impaired pedestrians because the vehicles' engines don't make noise.
The Baltimore-based National Federation of the Blind presented written testimony to the U.S. Congress asking that a minimum sound standard for hybrids be included in the emissions regulations. The president of the group, Marc Maurer, stated that he's not interested in returning to gas-guzzling vehicles; the group just wants fuel-efficient hybrids to have some type of warning noise. "I don't want to pick that way of going, but I don't want to get run over by a quiet car, either," Maurer said.
Manufacturers are aware of the problem but have made no pledges yet. Toyota is studying the issue internally, said Bill Kwong, a spokesman for Toyota Motor Sales USA.
"One of the many benefits of the Prius, besides excellent fuel economy and low emissions, is quiet performance. Not only does it not pollute the air, it doesn't create noise pollution," Kwong said. "We are studying the issue and trying to find that delicate balance."
The Association of International Auto Manufacturers Inc., a trade group, is also studying the problem, along with a committee established by the Society of Automotive Engineers. The groups are considering "the possibility of setting a minimum noise level standard for hybrid vehicles," said Mike Camissa, the safety director for the manufacturers' association.
You Can Do It!
What is happening with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles is merely the beginning. As battery technology improves, PHEVs will get faster, have a longer range, and be even more efficient. All the available technology has just about been squeezed out of internal combustion engine vehicles, and they are going to be even more environmentally squeezed in the future. This will hit each buyer right in the pocketbook — incremental gains will not come inexpensively. Internal combustion engines are nearly at the end of their technological lifetime.
Electric vehicles have also been around for more than 100 years, so making a hybrid car and PHEV will greatly improve their range and performance. When you do it yourself, any choice you wish to make for more speed, acceleration or range is readily accommodated. Just do it.
To learn much more about plug-in hybrid conversions, read Build Your Own Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle, and visit the California Cars Initiative.
Electric Utilities Love PHEVs
Even the most wildly optimistic projections for electric vehicles show only a few million PHEVs in use by early in the 21st century. At somewhere around that level, EVs will begin making a dent in the strategic oil, greenhouse gas and air quality problems. But until you have 10 to 20 million or more electric vehicles, you're not going to require additional electric generating capacity. This is because of the magic of load leveling. Load leveling means that if PHEVs are used during the day and recharged at night, they perform a great service for their local electric utility.
How electricity is generated varies widely from one geographic region to another, and even from city to city in a U.S. region. In 1991, the net fuel mix used by electric utilities was 54.87 percent coal, 21.73 percent nuclear fission, 9.75 percent hydroelectric, 9.36 percent natural gas, 3.93 percent oil and 0.35 percent geothermal and other. Those electric utility plants that produce electricity at the lowest cost (i.e., those fueled by coal and hydro) are used to supply base-load demands, while peak demands are met by less economical generation facilities (i.e., gas and oil).
When owners recharge their PHEVs in the evening hours (valley periods), they receive the benefit of an off-peak (typically lower) electric rate. Because recharging PHEVs raises the valleys and brings up its base-load demand, the electric utility is able to utilize its existing plant capacity more efficiently. This is a tremendous near-term economic benefit to our electric utilities because it represents a new market for electricity sales with no additional associated capital asset expense.
Reprinted with permission from Build Your Own Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle , published by McGraw-Hill, 2009.


text:
Feds charge woman in adoption scam of Kansas couple
Federal prosecutors have indicted a California woman accused of pretending to be pregnant with twins to scam prospective adoptive parents in Kansas.
An indictment filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Kansas charges Chrystal M. Rippey with wire fraud and mail fraud.
Prosecutors say a Shawnee couple wired $22,225 to an escrow account in Temecula, Calif., set up by an adoption agency for Rippey's living expenses. The mail fraud count stems from the mailing of a birth mother packet sent from an Overland Park adoption agency to the woman.
Court records do not name a defense attorney.
Prosecutors say Rippey gave the Kansas couple sonogram images of a twin pregnancy she falsely claimed were her unborn children.
Rippey is also accused of similar schemes in Delaware, California, Georgia and Texas.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
U.S. Gas & Electric and its family of companies have been going green in the work place. Each month we purchase Renewable Energy Certificates to offset our electricity usage in each of our offices. Click Here to read the Green Energy Renewable Attestation From Wholesale Provider of Electricity or Recs.
We also:


text: At 07:10 AM 11/10/2005 -0500, Robert G. Brown wrote: >On Sat, 5 Nov 2005, oxylabtech at gmail.com wrote: > >> Hello > >> It would like to know if is possible to make a cluster of >> motherboards? I don't speaking in a cluster of PC's, but of >> motherboards. Somebody already saw? If it is possible, Could someone >> help me? > >Yes, it is possible and it has been done a number of times. Several of >them are documented, more or less, in the list archives -- GIYF here. > >If I recall, most of them just attach the mobos directly to shelving and >use a special wiring harness to drive them off of oversized power >supplies. All pretty much OTC parts, although the counter in question >is that of Home Depot for a lot of it. Fans are often mounted to blow >over the shelves. Somebody posted a whole series of pictures on at >least one such effort. > >With micro ATX boards with integrated network and maybe video, you could >probably work out a vertical mounting that gave you near-blade >densitites. > >Two minor pieces of advice: Try to stay safe -- electrical devices >start fires, so watch the connections to e.g. wooden shelving. Try to >stay within codes (include FCC codes for EM emissions) both to stay safe >and because if you pack things too close together without shielding you >could conceivably get some electrical oddities that destabilize things. Isn't shielding 50Hz fields pretty expensive, or do we speak of other type of shielding here, so not getting rid of the electro magnetic field? I tend to remember mu-metal is one of the metals that gets used, as it completely eliminates 50Hz fields. One of problems is it that not much of it gets made, so a square meter thin mu-metal is already a couple of hundreds of euro. What other ways are there to get rid of the EMF? I mean *solutions where with a tesla meter i can measure there is not much of the radiation left*, i do not mean methods where one must believe on the blue eyes of the salesman that it shields; i was threatened once by a courtcase when i concluded in the commission (high voltage power) publicly that a certain device wouldn't shield against EMF fields when a tesla meter still would measure the same amount of radiation after bringing the device to work under high voltage power cables (which have the tendency that more cancer underneath it happens, which doesn't necessarily mean it is the power cables themselves causing it, could be some other effect of course, just the increase in cancer is there). In our search to shield off against such fields we only found mu-metal, but perhaps we missed some obvious solution that's getting used in electronics, or the prices quote we got were simply far too high (which happens a lot of course). I would really appreciate comments there, as i'm sure in mass market electronics such as clusters with huge fields and a lot of electric power, you really need to shield of equipment, so there must be many experts here. Please note that general agreement seems to be that it is wise to avoid new situations where persons must nonstop live in a field above 0.4 microtesla. How is this with electronic components? Also note governments accept that peoples working conditions may be a lot worse than 0.4 microtesla. Those building regulations are far newer than the outdated regulations from public healthcare. Some governments still use norms like 100 microtesla, a field you have basically when you put your head against a 400000 volt wire. In general many electric devices have problems, or show disturbance regurarly with fields above 1-2 microtesla. That was however observed with amateuristic methods. Vincent >Jim Lux, IIRC, had a bunch to say on these latter points in previous >discussions to this point. He's the list's EE guru as much as anybody >and builds all sorts of "interesting" microclusters. > > rgb > >> Thankx³ >> >> -- >> >> Fernando. > >-- >Robert G. Brown http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/ >Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305 >Durham, N.C. 27708-0305 >Phone: 1-919-660-2567 Fax: 919-660-2525 email:rgb at phy.duke.edu > >_______________________________________________ >Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org >To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf >


text:
Your Price:
Checking inventory..
Prove that your intense Notre Dame Fighting Irish fervor is unrivaled when you don this classic Airvent Structured flex hat from Under Armour!
Stay updated on sales, new items and more:
©2019 Fanatics, Inc., All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site may be reproduced or duplicated without the express permission of Fanatics, Inc.


text:
|System: Wii
|Dev: Nintendo
|Pub: Nintendo
|Release: March 11, 2012
|Players: 1-4
|Screen Resolution: 480p
by Angelo M. D'Argenio
When you get to the ninth iteration of any video game franchise, it's bound to be a little boring unless the developers change things up. Nintendo knows this, and they've designed Mario Party 9 to be unlike anything you have seen in the Mario Party series before. Coins and stars are gone, boards have a defined beginning and end, and minigames are far less common, instead letting the board game itself take center stage. Nintendo has essentially made an entirely new game and just put the Mario Party title on it. While this is a refreshing change of pace from the "get coins/buy stars" formula of the past, it brings with it a whole new set of problems that may frustrate Mario Party purists.
As I said before, coins and stars are gone. Instead, you are battling to see who can earn the most "mini-stars" before the end of the game. Mini-stars can be picked up by finding them on the board or winning them in minigames. Similarly, there are spaces on the board that make you lose mini-stars, and minigames where you will have to wager your mini-stars against your opponents.
You would think this means that the person who is best at minigames simply wins, but that's not true here. Unlike previous Mario Party titles, Mario Party 9 doesn't force you to play a minigame every four turns. Instead, minigames are only triggered when you land on a minigame space. There are varieties of different minigame types such as Free-For-All, 1vAll, Battle, and even Bower Jr. minigames, and, unlike past Mario Party titles, the games aren't chosen randomly. Instead, the player who triggers the game gets to pick, allowing some degree of advantage.
Most of your time will be spent traversing the board itself. Instead of moving around the board individually, all the players hop into a vehicle of some sort and move around the board together. You take turns being captain of this vehicle, and while the captain is able to roll the dice and collect mini-stars, he or she also suffers all the positive or negative consequences of spaces landed on. Of course, there are also event spaces that effect passengers in the vehicle as well. Your ultimate goal is to gather as many mini-stars as you can while indirectly screwing over everyone else.
This turn-by-turn play continues until you reach the end of the board. Yes, boards are now created with a beginning and an end, though you may take many different paths to get there. In the middle and the end of each board is a "boss" which you fight by playing a boss minigame. All players work together to defeat the boss, but the player who performs the best gets the most mini-stars. After the final boss of the map is defeated, everyone's mini-star total is tallied up and the player with the most stars wins.
There are about eighty minigames in Mario Party 9, and they are all fairly decent. Like previous Mario Party titles, they are simple and easy to learn, though the boss minigames generally have multiple parts to them. Most of these minigames don't allow you to interact with the other players though, instead asking you to perform better than your opponents without giving you any direct way to screw them over. Unfortunately, this makes some of the games quite boring. You'll probably soon find yourself longing for the games that actually let you interact with other players.
For example, there are plenty of variations of "shoot at the target" style minigames. Most of the time this takes place in four-player splitscreen, so everyone has an equal chance to succeed. Everyone gets the exact same targets every time, and after you all play the game once or twice you will end up getting tie after tie because you can't affect your opponents in any way. Having everyone shoot at the same target with the quickest shot scoring points would have been much more interesting.
Since you don't play minigames every four turns, you'll see a lot less of them over the course of a game. While it was common to play around twenty of these over the course of a short Mario Party 8 game, it's normal to see less than ten in a game of Mario Party 9. As a result, it will take longer to play every minigame available, which does give the game some much-needed replay value.
All of these gameplay changes address problems of past Mario Party titles. For example, since minigames are played less often, turns move much more quickly. Since there are no more coins to spend, you won't find people taking forever in shops or randomly bursting ahead because they bought several triple-die blocks. Since you move along the board together, you never really feel like you are missing your chance to land on a good space. Since you are always heading toward the end, you won't catch yourself traveling in loops without knowing where to go. Since you are just trying to gather mini-stars, you no longer face the frustration of getting only a few spaces away from the star before having some random board event move it. The game just feels like it progresses in a smoother fashion, which keeps people interested in seeing the game through to the end. Also, there are no more 2v2 minigames, so you can play a game with any number of players without having to deal with A.I. opponents. That's a nice touch.


text:
Dear visitor, welcome to SPRINKLER TALK FORUM - You Got Questions, We've Got Answers. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains how this page works. You must be registered before you can use all the page's features. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Thursday, June 6th 2002, 12:54pm
Monday, May 12th 2003, 11:49am
Supreme Member
Location: USA
Monday, May 12th 2003, 3:52pm
Monday, May 26th 2003, 6:34am
Wednesday, July 2nd 2003, 12:27am
Wednesday, July 2nd 2003, 8:47am
Tuesday, April 3rd 2007, 8:07am
Supreme Member
Location: USA
Tuesday, April 3rd 2007, 9:47am
Supreme Member
Tuesday, April 3rd 2007, 2:27pm


text:
Browsing French translation
|1 → 10 of 44 results
|First • Previous • Next • Last
This translation is managed by Ubuntu French Translators, assigned by Ubuntu Translators.
You are not logged in. Please log in to work on translations.
Contributors to this translation: Adolfo Jayme, Bruno Patri, Gnewbee, Laurent Bonnaud, Mario Gervais, Pierre Slamich, Tux, YannUbuntu, YoBoY, Yves MATHIEU, electroluth, gisele perreault, jean-bernard marcon, michel_95, seb.


text:
Feature Your Art For Sale on this Category Page.
Browse Art For Sale By Owner by category.
Featured Category Art For Sale
Click Art Photo For Large View
Art Classifieds - Matching Listings
Why pay a brokerage commission to buy or sell works of art? Our Art For Sale By Owner services can save buyers and sellers of art, rare books, and other collectibles thousands of dollars and allow world wide exposure for a small fraction of the cost normally associated with selling fine works of art.
Live For Sale By Owner Support
FSBO Advertising Service, Inc., In
Business Since 1984
Copyright © 1984 - 2015 FSBOAdvertising , All
rights reserved.
Terms Of Use | Home Loans | Search For Foreclosures
| Privacy Policy
National For Sale By Owner Real Estate
Classifieds, sell home or
land FSBO and Save!
Home Selling | Buying a Home | Buy Owner | MLS Listings
Cars For Sale | Homes For Sale | Horses For Sale
Site Index | For Sale By Owner Real
Estate Classifieds | Real
Estate Yard Signs


text:
You'll Never Get Rich
Released: 1941
There are no soundtrack albums in our database for this title. If this is incorrect, please contact us.
Fred Astaire: At the Movies, Vol. 2
Released: November 19, 2012
Format: Digital (73 min)
Enter your e-mail address to receive weekly soundtrack and film score news:
If any information appears to be missing from this page, contact us and let us know!


text:
For the first time in the reality series' history, a live finale for The Ultimate Fighter will take place in an arena rather than a traditional/smaller concert venue.
The UFC has contacted the Nevada State Athletic Commission with its intent to host The Ultimate Fighter 17 Finale at Mandalay Bay Events Center in Las Vegas on April 17.
NSAC Executive Director Keith Kizer today emailed confirmation to MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com).
The UFC initially planned to host the event at Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas. However, a Def Leppard concert tied up the concert venue, The Joint, and forced the UFC to look elsewhere.
The Ultimate Fighter 17 Finale concludes the latest season of the UFC's long-running reality series, on which UFC light-heavyweight champion Jon Jones and Chael Sonnen serve as coaches. The TUF 17 Finale main card airs on FX following prelims on FUEL TV and Facebook.
While the finale cards are usually among the UFC's smaller events, the organization is rolling out some big names for the April 17 event. In addition to the "TUF 17" tournament final, UFC flyweight champion Demetrious Johnson (17-2-1 MMA, 5-1-1 UFC) faces John Moraga (12-1 MMA, 2-0 UFC) in the headliner. Additionally, heavyweights Gabriel Gonzaga (14-6 MMA, 9-5 UFC) vs. Travis Browne (13-1-1 MMA, 4-1-1 UFC) and female bantamweights Miesha Tate (13-3 MMA, 0-0 UFC) vs. Cat Zingano (7-0 MMA, 0-0 UFC) are booked for the card.
Prior to "TUF 17," 16 U.S editions of the reality show aired. The finales have taken place at Hard Rock (four events), Palms Casino Resort (11) and Cox Pavilion (one). All are Las Vegas venues.
For more on The Ultimate Fighter 17 Finale, stay tuned to the UFC Rumors section of the site.
(Pictured: Demetrious Johnson)


text:
|A (hopefully) growing collection of themes for decorated layouts.
This module stores some user contributed themes which can be used with decorated layouts (such as Tabbed). (Note that these themes only apply to decorated layouts, such as those found in XMonad.Layout.Tabbed and XMonad.Layout.DecorationMadness; they do not apply to xmonad as a whole.)
If you want to use one of them with one of your decorated layouts, you need to substitute defaultTheme with, for instance, (theme smallClean).
Here is an example:
import XMonad import XMonad.Util.Themes import XMonad.Layout.Tabbed myLayout = tabbed shrinkText (theme smallClean) main = xmonad defaultConfig {layoutHook = myLayout}
If you have a theme you would like to share, adding it to this module is very easy.
You can use xmonadTheme or smallClean as a template.
At the present time only the themeName field is used. But please provide all the other information, which will be used at a later time.
Please, remember to add your theme to the list of exported functions, and to the listOfThemes.
Thanks for your contribution!
|The default xmonad theme, by David Roundy.
|Small decorations with a Ion3 remembrance, by Andrea Rossato.
|Ffrom Robert Manea's prompt theme.
|deifl's Theme, by deifl.
|oxymor00n's theme, by Tom Rauchenwald.
|Don's prefered colors - from DynamicLog...;)
|Produced by Haddock version 2.3.0


text:
Avalon/XAML First LookApril 14, 2005
Familar with Microsoft's new XAML? I wasn't, until recently.
During the first day of the recent FITC conference, Karsten Januszewski (a Microsoft tech evangelist) gave a talk on the forthcoming Avalon. The relevance to the audience was that advanced media and UI features made possible by Avalon will eventually require creators, many of whom Microsoft hoped to reach here. Developers, developers, developers…
My familiarity with the technology up to that point was limited; I had basically thought of it as Quartz (OS X's advanced screen rendering system) for Windows. I'm still not convinced the technology itself is much more than that, actually. Avalon composites many different types of media — text, images, video, and vector shapes. I'm somewhat unclear how detailed the native 3D rendering support is. There was a demo of multiple video sources being mapped to rotating spheres, so there's at least a few basic shapes and textures. My confusion is partially the result of the 'special guests' pulled on stage — a software company that created a 3D -> Flash convertor, which it had adapted for Avalon. Given Flash's lack of native 3D object support, hence the need for this tool, I'm left wondering what that means for Avalon's 3D support.
Quartz vs. Avalon
Without getting too carried away with the specifics though, what seems to be the main difference between Quartz and Avalon is the openness and flexibility. Avalon goes hand-in-hand with XAML, Microsoft's upcoming eXtensible Application Markup Language, which is XML in name if not in spirit. The upshot of which is that controlling the display is as simple as editing a human-readable text file. (Although the Microsoft rep was quick to point out that by no means will this be the only way to do it as current and upcoming design tools adapt to generate XAML automatically.)
That everything in Avalon runs on text files is actually pretty slick. I'll give Microsoft substantial credit for that, it's going to ensure a lot of adoption. Put anything in text and it's pretty much an open format to some degree. But there are two things that detract from what otherwise might have been full points.
The Code
The code itself looks like (well-formed) tag soup from 1997. Whereas the web has seen a shift from presentational markup (in the form of tables, embedded attributes like
bgcolor, and the dreaded
font tag) to structural markup with a separated presentation layer (CSS), XAML is purely a presentational language. I couldn't see evidence of attention toward semantics, and all the presentational attributes are embedded right in the markup. Januszewski referenced 'a CSS-like syntax', but there's nothing CSS-like about it. It's ugly presentational HTML all over again. A sample snippet:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
Width="500" Height="500" Background="White">
<LinearGradientBrush def:Name="RedGrad"
StartPoint="0,0" EndPoint="1,1">
<GradientStop Color="#FFFFFF"
Offset="0" />
<GradientStop Color="#FF0000"
Offset="0.5" />
<GradientStop Color="#000000"
Offset="1" />
RectangleLeft="0" RectangleTop="0"
RectangleWidth="500" RectangleHeight="5000"
<SimpleText Margin="5" FontSize="14">
An h3, this is not.
It appears to me this is single-purpose code, rather than the layered approached of HTML/CSS/DOM. Can it degrade? How much thinking has Microsoft done about accessibility? What will this code do on a PocketPC or PalmOS cell phone?
Maybe this code makes sense from a desktop computer application development context, but it does not work in today's web development context. The separation of structure and presentation is now a no-brainer, so I'm left wondering why it has been completely ignored here. It's like the past few years of undoing the markup sins of the late 90's haven't happened. Or, they haven't happened at Microsoft. (Other divisions [MSN] seem to get it, to be fair.)
XAML on the Web
Which brings us to the second problem — XAML on the web. Yes, XAML is designed to run inside a browser. It appears a special XAML plug-in or player or something equivalent is necessary, as it was demonstrated running inside of a stock version of IE6 under Windows XP. But Microsoft 'loves the browser' according to Januszewski, and wants it to be painless to select a link on a web page and open a XAML app as a result. Longhorn will presumably feature tight integration of the two.
The past couple of years of IE security problems have raised a lot of awareness about browser lock-in, and the problems that tying your application into a specific browser/operating system can later cause. Like ActiveX, in-browser XAML/Avalon appears to be a method of continuing that trend. Something tells me we won't be seeing an Avalon player for Linux any time soon.
I'd be a whole lot more comfortable with XAML if it were strictly meant as a Windows OS rendering language. Proprietary markup on a proprietary platform is nothing to get worked up over. But the obvious web cross-over leads me to hope we're not going to see a whole new generation of browser/OS-specific web apps. I wonder if Microsoft might be hoping for something different.
If anyone who understands XAML better than I would like to come in and tell me how backwards I have it, I'd love to hear from you, comments are open. I'd rather my first look is all wrong and my worries unfounded (even though I'd like to think I understood the presentation properly).
(Sorry about the long comment…)
I'm instantly reminded of Apple's Dashboard, which also uses a (couple of) web-standard(s) and adding direct hooks to OS-specific API's.
(Let me preface: the technical difference being that Dashboard API's aren't meant for actual applications, outside of widgets, whereas XAML is. And the fact that XAML doesn't seem to be made with web browsers as a primary playground anyway. But bear with me.)
The philosophical difference between Apple and Microsoft in this case (as far as 'web-like coding' is concerned) seems to be that Apple is leveraging the know-how of web-developers by using techniques they already know, and applying them *outside* the browser. (Apple explicitly limits the use of system API-hooks in WebCore to Dashboard. Widgets will be viewable, but non-functional in Safari)
Microsoft seems to want to do something similar ("You guys (kinda) know XML/SVG/XUL! Use it to develop cool things on our platform!") but aren't really leaving the browser behind. Nor are they using standards in a way most developers are used to (compared to Apple's Dashboard).
Although XAML certainly has legitimate uses outside the browser; I can't help but think that OS-specific API-hooks *inside* the browser is a bad decision and the foreshadowing second coming of Active X. (Although with a different set of functions and intentions).
> Hmm, the takeaway I get here is that "the
> extended HTML model is the only model; the
> WWW document browser is the only
> network access."
No, definitely not my intent. I'd assume the browser is only one of many network delivery methods, and probably the least appropriate. I'm mainly making the comparison because my frame of reference is the browser right now. For page/app layout languages, I'm most familiar with HTML/CSS, so it's easiest for me to view it in those terms.
Also influencing my comparison – SVG and XUL strike me as perhaps more relevant comparisons, but neither of them strike me as particularly formidable competitors to something Microsoft's weight is behind.
"XAML isn't for the web. It's for designing windows applications that run on the Avalon technology."
Yet Microsoft is selling it as something that can run inside a browser. Of course, I realize there's a difference between something that can be natively delivered in a browser and something that requires an interpreting plug-in, but if you dissect it to that level then Flash isn't for the web either, right?
XAML appears to function primarily as an operating system language for the rendering subsystem, which just so happens to have hooks into a web browser, granted.
It also just so happens to enable a subtle shift in mindset, from "I'm developing this application for the browser" to "Sure, it could run in the browser, but why would you want it to?" to "Who uses browsers anymore?" Get people to adopt XAML in-browser, then get them to move it out of the browser, and you have effectively put the (cross-platform) browser to bed in favour of a proprietary new technology. Not that it will happen, not that it CAN happen, but it's hard to ignore that something like this is at least made possible by this browser/OS synergy.
Hang on, it sounds to me like XAML is a badly implemented version of Mozilla's XUL, which does in fact have good separation of structure, behaviour and presentation. And was used to develop Firefox.
Are they planning to use this to write the new IE 7 I wonder? :-)
I, too, mostly view XAML as a MS-proprietary, slightly extended and thoroughly messed up XUL. Basically, the strength of XUL lies, IMHO, in that its current primary platform, Gecko, also supports XHTML, MathML, XForms, SVG soon, and most importantly, CSS and XBL. The combination of CSS, XBL and SVG, specifically, allows astounding styling abilities while keeping the primary markup clean. Every XUL app that's developed with a reasonable amount of care has skinning completely built-in.
Looking at the XAML code, I can't see it having any of these advantages.
The people who write the GNUe have a similar open method for handling their interfaces, quite awesome actually.
The idea is, you write a single file (theirs happens to be xml as well I believe) to describe your user interface. However, this is where their implementation gets funky. They have parsers for this file that will generate your interface in a window (through gtk from memory), in a web interface, through a shell interface and so forth; yet all controlled by a single plain text file.
The idea of multiple interfaces like that, to me, is dead sexy.
With that said, I can see how their XAML might be useful in other areas. Yes the markup looks dirty, however have you considered that it isn't meant to be 'rendered' like HTML is in a browser?
>> XAML, Microsoft's upcoming eXtensible Application Markup Language, which is XML in name if not in spirit.
XAML *is* an XML format. How is it not XML "in spirit"? It isn't based on the religion of web standards, but that's got nothing to do with the spirit of XML. XML = set of rules for data markup. XAML is following those rules.
* I don't claim to like XAML, not that I've spent much time looking at it, but it irks me a little when the misunderstandings fly.
Yes, XAML is an application of XML, but I think the "in spirit" refers to the idea that content & style in XML should be seperate.
If the data content of XAML is the canvas and it's resources, the look & style should be, in the "spirit" of XML, be kept seperately and independantly.
As far as I understand it, Avalon will use XAML to describe how it should look - if so, then there should be nothing wrong with having it presentational, especialy if it will only ever appear on *your* desktop.
However, having said that, how far is the latter point true? I don't quite understand how this is meant to be synched with the web, given that it seems to be describing how the window looks. I suppose we'll have to see.
Recent mezzo reader, never replied before.
I noticed you did not mention XAML's similarity to SVG. In many ways, its an inferior rip of SVG.
XAML is nothing more than what you stated about lock-in. Instead of following an open standard ( SVG ), Microsoft can't give up its nasty old ways of going their own way and trying to use its ponderous inertia of users as a fulcrum against the rest of us.
Welcome to the new "browser wars" except the fate of the web itself is now at stake as it moves toward a truly dynamic medium.
It's the same old sad, stupid story of greed and conquest.
The problem with XAML on the web is that its not really presentational semantic markup. Its just a serialization of an object graph. Basically, its the simplest, most quick and dirty way possible to take an interface and convert it to XML. No semantics were taken into account in any way, and you are right that its just like the "old days" of HTML.
I am not entirely sure that they want you to use XAML in a web browser anyway though. I think its really designed as just a "better" way of saving an interface to disk, since its human readable and easier to parse.
I find it really amusing when .NET people wax poetic about how great XAML is going to be. Its serialization folks, this is precisely how its been working forever, just with XML instead of a binary format. Really not all that exciting since the tools produce it for you anyway.
If you really want a revolution for designing desktop interfaces — think Mac OS X's Interface Builder and NIB files. I am totally convinced that "freeze dried" objects are the way to go for interfaces instead of generating massive amounts of code and or markup.
Linkiness relating to comment #2: http://inkscape.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SVG_Competitors_Plan
I really do not like the direction XAML is going. On a deep level, I find XAML slightly insulting. No one will ever write such verbose markup, especially considering that it is the worst kind of tag soup. I escaped that nightmare in the 90s. Having Microsoft trying to cram it back on me is frightening. Just wait until automated form designers start pumping out truly tangled xaml. Then comes the optimizers, and the eventual promise of something better on the horizon. Soup begets soup.
I've been making applications for a long time on various Microsoft platforms (.NET, MFC, VB, etc) and as far as I know there is still no decent declarative semantic window layout engine/compiler. If you want a dialog, you design it by the pixel/point. Xaml addresses only the pixels problem (scalable), but it is still forcing a single presentation, etc.
What I was hoping XAML would turn out to be (before cold reality smacked me upside &c.) is a two-tier layout manager where I could specify what a window does (in terms of input/output), and then link this (*loosely*; with stylesheet-style including) to various presentations (PDA, 72dpi, 300dpi, stdout, etc).
The input/output definitions could be used to hook with code, and the designer would hook on the other side for presentation.
Xaml has almost none of this. Code is separate from design (just like resource files), but input/output contracts (the semantics of dialog design, if you will) are completely fuddled. If a designer mistypes an ID or something, no warnings occur until integration. With a contract, the designers work would be tool-validated out of the gate by default, and vice versa with the programmers work.
Such a contract would ideally hold/encode much of the knowledge which must be transfered between programmer and designer when building complex interfaces.
What does XAML give us? XML comments as far as i can tell, and that comes from the parser for free.
I've tried using XSLT to convert semantics to XAML, but XAML uses a lot of opaque strings, making the process somewhat harder than I was expecting. And the fit is poor.
I've been doing some Cocoa development recently. I like interface builder for smallish projects, but it suffers from a lot of the same problems as dialog resource files and xaml. You place things. Explicitly. There is only a strong linking of contract between code and window. So 90s.
Weak contracts like the CSS XHTML binding, web services, and Indigo are definately the future of development as projects get large.
Bah, In the last couple of years I've really lost any faith whatsoever in Microsoft.
Reading the IEBlog, you'll quickly see that they've pretty much discounted any standard that isn't inline with their market dominance strategy.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with MS moving to maximize its business opportunities, but it's getting to the point where they're developing their own closed, incompatible standards just for the sake of doing so.
What's more, many times said standards or structures are actually holding any true internet revolution back.
It'll be interesting to see if anyone even bothers to upgrade to Longhorn, considering a lot of folk are still refusing to move to XP.
You have nailed all of the high-points. It's perfectly understandable to look at a new technology with doubts, as you should.
The CSS point is well taken, and it has already been answered to a degree in an earlier comment with the fact that XAML is a plain and simple object graph. Essentially this enables someone to store all of their styling in a separate file (It might be the same extension, but that's why it's extensible).
So, in essense, you *should* store your styles in a separate file. I always start out with a file called styles.xaml, and that is where I add them.
Believe me, there are answers for these things, it's just the fact that the word hasn't got out, yet.
Hmm, the takeaway I get here is that "the extended HTML model is the only model; the WWW document browser is the only network access."
From what I've seen, XAML promises to be a nice way to specify a network-aware interactive interface via XML. It's more about applications than WWW document browsers.
Many of the materials on the Microsoft site are difficult for me to read (because they focus on implementation details without necessarily providing context of what the project is attempting to do or why), but some of these introductory articles are quite readable:
For comparisons, I'd see it as closer to XUL than to HTML, although the size of the renderer is much, much larger. XAML does include ways to specify scalable vector graphics, but that doesn't mean its scope is similar to SVG.
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support
XAML isn't for the web. It's for designing windows applications that run on the Avalon technology. It is true that one can connect your application to the web using a technology such as Indigo but it is in no way a markup language for web browsers.
This is a common misconception.
Here's something that explains it very well :-)
http://ubersoft.net/d/20040309.html onward
http://ubersoft.net/d/20030331.html onward
Comparing XUL and XAML really doesn't make sense - they're built for different reasons and have different capabilities (show me how to put a 3d object in XUL and overlay it with a 2d list box and animate both together).
Also, lots of Microsoft folks have made it clear that no one will have to type XAML code manually. You'll have tool support - the beginning of which you're already seeing from companies like Adobe and various ISVs. MS itself is working on something called Sparle.
Also - you shouldn't compare XAML to HTML - you should compare it more to CSS than HTML. XAML provides the presentation for the .NET (C#, VB.NET, J#, IronPython,whatever) code. And this is a model that works - just see the huge number of ASP.NET sites. XAML + .NET is very similar to the ASP.NET codebehind model of today.
As for the web integration, MS is pushing the 'smart client' idea a lot. The ability to run an application of the net just by pointing to a URL. This has already been done by Java (applets,etc,etc). Since they run inside the .NET sandbox, they're a lot different from ActiveX.
And before anyone cracks a joke about how long it'll be before people find security holes in .NET, take a look at Secunia or any other security site and look at .NET's track record over the past 4-5 years.
"show me how to put a 3d object in XUL and overlay it with a 2d list box and animate both together"
The question that pops up in my mind is why would you want to do that in the first place? Your average user doesn't fully understand what a listbox is anyway, why slap it on to something they have to chase round the screen to use? Talk about a usability nightmare!
What I like about XUL is that is can be used on any platform, and can be styled accordingley. If I create an application I probably won't want to limit it to a single platform, especially with the increase of Linux and Mac users in the past few years. True, I might not be able to do all the uber-cool things that XAML can offer, but then again I don't want 2D listboxes on 3D objects in my simple personal accounting package.
> Also influencing my comparison - SVG and XUL strike me as perhaps more relevant comparisons, but neither of them strike me as particularly formidable competitors to something Microsoft's weight is behind.
Unless Google really does develop a Mozilla/Gecko-based browser….!
RE: XAML sparking another proprietary markup war in browserville…
What with the momentum of Firefox and the growing weariness toward IE in the browser market, I think MS will be hard pressed to regain market share by introducing proprietary code.
They stand a better chance of winning people back by properly supporting existing web standards.
Alistair: Indeed, the GTK toolkit has had this for years. There's an application called Glade which generates XML-based interface description files (think something similar to the NIB files produced for XCode in Mac OS X). These Glade files are then parsed by a library (libglade) and an application writer can either pull individual widgets and treat them just like code that had been hand-written or connect callbacks defined within Glade.
Glade itself is a bit clunky, but the files it produces and the model behind it is extremely useful and makes it very easy to do RAD with GTK and have an application work across platforms with no code changes. If that's all XAML is, fine.
However, if someone tries to shoehorn XAML into making IE-only browser apps, it's going to be just another way of Microsoft trying to shut out Firefox/Opera/Safari. My suspicion is that it will very likely be the latter.
DysFunctional - See http://www.microsoft.com/winme/0504/24295/avalon_interview_and_demo_MBR.asx (around 35 mins in) for an example of how 3d and 2d working together improves usability a *lot*. Also, check out the Longhorn concept videos up on MSDN for how stuff like accounting packages can benefit from Avalon and XAML
Wow - reading a lot of the comments here makes me realize just how much of a better job MS needs to do to communicate the XAML/Avalon message, and how many people (wrongly) think that MS is just out to push some new proprietary standard. That's not the mission of Avalon at all - MS is clearly positioning Avalon as the future of the Windows client presentation layer.
I would expect designers to be really excited about this - it means that you can essentially use all of your existing vector and animation skills to create not just Illustrator drawings and Flash titles, but entire front-ends for Windows apps. The market for your skills is about to become a lot larger and include places where designers have not traditionally had a lot of opportunities to make money.
But, for those who are not convinced:
1. XAML is not "just a XUL ripoff." XUL is entirely about presentation structure. Yes, XAML contains presentation information, but it goes WAY beyond that and provides a way of specifying not just physical appearance but interactive behavior and abstract object instantiation. It goes a long way toward declarative programming, and provides some very nifty ways of making sure the two stay separate. In fact, I've built entire examples of XAML-only functionality that would require a lot of script programming in the past (you can see them on my site).
2. Microsoft is not "ignoring standards like CSS and SVG." CSS was in fact deeply investigated, and doesn't have the necessary power or extensibility to accomplish what you can do in XAML. Neither does SVG, which was built and pushed by its creators primarily to be an animation engine. That's not XAML's primary mission.
(By the way, I find it highly interesting that Macromedia's Flash format is closed and propietary and yet nobody complains about that, yet MS went out of its way to make XAML easily extensible via third parties and gets no kudos for it. And please don't tell me how Macromedia "opened" SWF - they just documented the bytecode. They still control the language and its implementation, and you can't extend it like you can XAML).
3. XAML is not MS just making another IE-proprietary language to shut out other browsers. Many of you may find this hard to believe, but the ratio of intranet applications to internet apps is somewhere around 10 to 1. For scenarios where you can control the runtime environment, web delivery of Avalon apps makes a lot of sense.
Look at it this way: XAML/Avalon is another tool for your toolbox. There will be times when it is the right one to use, and we hope that you will choose to use it for those times.
You Linux and Mac faithful are funny.
How about this? Wait until it comes out to make your (pre-)judgements. Hmmm…wonder if they'll change? :)
Joe Marini, you said it all, man. And I for one am excited to see what this will do with One Click deployment and the blurring of the lines between web-based and Windows apps.
Nay-sayers, it's called innovation, and it shouldn't just make you teary-eyed when Apple does it. Stop hating Microsoft because they're Microsoft.
Allow me to highlight my XAML slide deck from my BC .NET User Group meeting talk titled "XAML: Turn .NET into a Browser" online @ http://xaml.sourceforge.net/talk/dotnet-dec-2004/slides.html
Well, XMAL looks like something users shouldn't really be hearing about. The fact that we are (my parents are still running Windows which means I still have to save their computer from near-death every two weaks…) hearing about it isn't the best of things. It does generate pre-conceptions, like it or not, based on Microsoft's past track-record which, I'm sorry to all you Microsoft folks, is less than admirable.
I'd like to cite my wonderful run-on sentence above as an example of what XAML looks like to me, something that simplifies by ugly-fying. Yes it makes things quicker and easier for the developper. No it doesn't look nice, it isn't easy to maintain since it's hard to read and not intuitive. Half XML tag soup does not cut it, especially if the person coding actually knows proper XML.
Now, one last point: I haven't told you what OS I'm running apart that it isn't Windows. Does it make a difference to you what I run? Well, the fact is, I don't care to tell anyone considering it's just munitions to getting called some kind of zealot. So let it be known, I am not promoting any particular OS, I'm just saying that Microsoft has been a terrible failure in the past and this does not seem to be an exception.
The interesting thing that I can deduce from the comments above is that people seem to think that Avalon/XAML is misunderstood. Okay, so it's not XUL, it's far more than that. It attempts to integrate presentation and functionality all in one layer. But from all this I get the distinct impression that the architects of XAML have entirely missed the point behind separation of data, functionality and presentation that technologies like the modern DOM/CSS/Javascript or XUL/CSS/Javascript provide.
Not only are these three tangibly separate concepts, but if Microsoft is serious about the technology being the basis for future application development, then it follows that different team members would be involved in the three different elements. Having all three in the same place means that developers need to at least understand all three parts in order to work with XAML. Comparing this to the XUL model, an individual interface developer can create the structure of the application by creating a raw XUL document, a designer can create a stylesheet which gives the interface whatever non-native aesthetic is necessary, and another developer can create application behaviour through javascript. There's even the other layer of XPCOM being called by the JS.
Now some of the comments above talk about how we wouldn't need to create XAML manually, since it could be automatically generated by code or developer tools. This strikes me as undercutting the entire point behind using an XML-based interface language in the first place. If the language is so unwieldy as to necessitate such tools, then what does it say about the language? I'm inclined to believe that using XML is merely paying lip service to openness and interoperability (as Bill Gates himself recently did); Microsoft still want people to buy their next iteration of Visual Studio, and you can guarantee that the "tag soup" of XAML will be far easier to edit and create using the in-house IDE.
The biggest thing that concerns me with XAML is the one that several people (Microsoft groupies or employees, I wonder?) seem to be denying; that it will form a new web-based technology. Of this I have no doubt. If any MS executive saw a XUL application being loaded in-browser (i.e. you type a URL in Firefox and it loads a fully native UI application with all the richness of interface of a native application), you can guarantee they'd see the value in such a technology. The potential for shopping sites, customer service or database management applications which can be accessed via any browser without the need for a client install is a dead cert killer app. To deny that this is one of Avalon/XAML's purposes is at best ignorant, at worst disingenuous in the extreme.
>> "show me how to put a 3d object in XUL
>> and overlay it with a 2d list box and
>> animate both together"
>> The question that pops up in my mind is
>> why would you want to do that in the
>> first place? Your average user doesn't
>> fully understand what a listbox is
>> anyway, why slap it on to something they
>> have to chase round the screen to use?
>> Talk about a usability nightmare!
Even worse in this scenario. Although the 'average computer user' might not understand the terms, as this technique comes availble to them to play with they might not even care. As a reference: ever worked with some noob friend, or a client that made like say a design that was just no good, but loved it because 'they' created it?
This might be exactly what microsoft hopes for to katalyse XAML.
Scary indeed!
On the other hand i do remember something like activeX. And although it is still a bother every now and then, what real good did it do for the redmond boys?
The number of quality developpers has grown largely. So there will be a lot of watchfull eyes outthere, as proven on the comments here. If this turns out to be a new model to grow dominance without adding real value i am sure it just won't work.
If i had to put a compliment of some sort to the guys in Redmond, it would be the dare of being all stubborn and ignorant again, as they do best. *sigh*
Chris Anderson, an Architect on Avalon, has replied: http://simplegeek.com/
"3. XAML is not MS just making another IE-proprietary language to shut out other browsers. Many of you may find this hard to believe, but the ratio of intranet applications to internet apps is somewhere around 10 to 1. For scenarios where you can control the runtime environment, web delivery of Avalon apps makes a lot of sense."
Yes, and that's exactly why XAML is all about lock-in. All those wonderful intranet applications built with XAML/Avalon will require you to run IE on Windows. And since you're locked into running IE/Win to use your intranet applications, you're not going to switch to another platform for external browsing.
If all XAML will be a presentation layer for Windows desktop applications - something like Windows.Forms in .NET, that's one thing. But another technology that locks users into one browser and one platform isn't going to get many fans in the design community, most of whom have to suffer through the fact that their platform of choice is systematically locked out.
XAML provides for very clear and distinct separation of data, functionality, and presentation via explicit parts of the language.
And nobody is "denying" that XAML/Avalon will be deilverable via the web - having something work both via client and web delivery has its advantages.
Like I said before - Avalon is a tool for your toolbox. There will be times when it is appropriate to use, and initially that's going to be for rich client-side application development.
"XAML provides for very clear and distinct separation of data, functionality, and presentation via explicit parts of the language."
Explicit parts of the *same* language. Distinctly separate concepts being presented and specified via the same mechanism. XML is, naturally, very flexible. But this flexibility is the same thing that people moan about Perl or Regular Expressions or Sendmail or mod_rewrite; give people too much flexibility and you run the risk that people will use a tool inappropriately. I can't think for the life of me why combining all these heterogenous concepts into a single language was preferable to separation of data/presentation/behaviour as per XUL/CSS/JS.
Perhaps I was picking up the wrong end of the stick in implying people were denying that this technology would have a web-based side, too, but it's certainly true that many individuals are denying that it'll lead to browser lock-in; that is the biggie, for me. I may use Longhorn on the desktop in the future, but I'm far less inclined to use IE7 - I'm quite happy with Firefox thank you. Where will that leave me (and the millions of others who've downloaded Firefox since November last year) when the likes of Amazon start making XAML-based versions of their store (or perhaps even Microsoft will themselves, if the tech demo shown in the movie interview linked above is to be believed)?
>I can't think for the life of me why combining all these
>heterogenous concepts into a single language was
>preferable to separation of data/presentation/behaviour
>as per XUL/CSS/JS.
Well, let's start with the fact that they're all different syntaxes with very little commonality between them. I mean, don't you find it irksome that CSS syntax looks NOTHING like tags, even though you're using it to style a tag-like language?
As for the JS part, you can code your application logic in C# or VB as much as you want. However, it makes much more sense to use declarative syntax to say "this element fades out when the mouse moves out of it and fades up when the mouse moves over it" than to do the same thing in back-end script logic. For one, the WHOLE STYLE is now a unit, appearance and interactive behavior and all, that can be applied to anything else that you want to fade up or down when the mouse moves in or out of it. That is a pure extension of the CSS metaphor of creating styles to encapsulate presentation - we're just expanding what "presentation" is. Now, what *happens* when you click on the button is NOT part of the style - that's back-end logic, and you use a programming language for that.
What exactly are you saying is the *advantage* of using different language syntaxes to achieve this? I think one syntax makes it easier to learn (and extend - CSS can't be extended to achieve effects that the browser doesn't already understand. XAML doesn't have that problem, because YOU compose the style out of base primitives).
I can understand your comments about browser lock-in, and other people's comments about Microsoft's past track record and how they feel about us (as evidenced by Mstyle's post about us being "stubborn" and "ignorant").
Let me state this as clearly as I can for everyone here reading these comments:
I am relatively new here to MS (less than 2 years). Beforehand, I worked at Quark (but not customer service!), mFactory (on mTropolis), my own design software company, and then Macromedia (where I was one of the original Dreamweaver engineers). I've spent my whole career in the designer software space, and learning what designers need and how to give it to them.
Many of the people that I work with here at MS are also from the same space, and are most are also newer to Microsoft.
I can ABSOLUTELY ASSURE all of you that I would not be here if I didn't think we were trying to build the best possible software for designers. The people I work with and I all care very deeply about "doing the right thing", and this is leading to conversations that many of you would probably be shocked to hear if you could listen in on them. We all routinely talk about supporting standards (for all the crap that MS gets for standards, the fact is that an MS representative has sat or currently sits on almost every W3C committee of substance), understanding the Designer customer, and making sure that we don't stray from the accepted industry best practices unless it's because we have a chance to really innovate and make things better (which is why we didn't go with CSS or SVG for our XAML styling mechanism - we have what we think is a much better way).
All you designers out there have a choice to make, and we realize that. I'm asking you to help us make our software better. I can't do anything about what your past experience with MS might have been. But I and my colleagues are working to make sure you have as wonderful an experience as possible in the future.
By the way, I don't expect *any* of you to just take my word for any of this. All of us here understand that we're going to have to prove ourselves to you. That's exactly what we plan to do. All I'm asking from all of you is to just give us a fair chance.
The depth of frustration towards MS implementations, and our collective commitment to cross-browser, multi-vendor, publicly accessible systems has inspired MS to create a new commercial, proprietary paradigm?
That's just sick.
W3C standards, if they are wrong or incomplete, will become right, given our support and time.
Intolerably multiplying (polluting) our workspace with proprietary technologies, vendor lock-in and other questionable strategies can only be bad for designer/developers in the long term. Period.
You see, wool don't blind many of us any more.
I choose W3C, Mozilla XUL, CSS, JS, XML; it is these, and the act of volition of holding to them that makes my working life hopeful and tolerable. MS offers me the opposite.
Sorry. I'm sure it's pretty, but if it's not got W3C support and branding you can shove it, you could have used the time more wisely.
Developers ownership, their future, and the publics heritage, should not be supplanted by vendor-specific tech, however good you 'think' it is: it's not.
MS owes an act of self-mortification to the community, a sign of devotion to developers interests at the W3C. We demand it. But yet again MS draws outside the bounds.
Don't want MS stuff any more, it's morally barren.
Hi Morph,
>… has inspired MS to create a new commercial,
>proprietary paradigm?
>That's just sick.
How is it any more "sick" than Flash, which is closed and proprietary and controlled by one company? How about PDF, which is also closed and proprietary and controlled by one company? It always puzzles me how much slack people are willing to cut for companies like Macromedia and Adobe despite their efforts to create as much lock-in for their platforms as anyone ever has.
XAML is an OPEN LANGUAGE. It is XML COMPLIANT. How many times do I have to say it?
>I choose W3C, Mozilla XUL, CSS, JS, XML
Morph, I've been in this business for FIFTEEN years. Let me tell you a secret: most of your "open standards" today started out as somebody's attempt to create a proprietary technology that failed.
Mozilla XUL started out as Netscape XUL, which was a PROPRIETARY invention intended originally only to run inside the Netscape browser and thus create Navigator lock-in. I know this because, see, I actually TALKED with Netscape AT LENGTH about this way back when I was on Dreamweaver and they wanted us to provide support for it.
JavaScript ALSO started out as a PROPRIETARY Netscape invention, and was in fact called LiveScript originally until they decided to try and piggy-back off of Java's momentum and renamed it JavaScript.
Both of these technologies only became "open" when the business cases for keeping them closed collapsed, not because of any altruism on the part of the developers.
CSS is nice for web pages, but the fact is that from an architectural viewpoint, it has so many structural problems that need addressing. You can't extend it. It's not compositional. I could go on and on.
XAML is XML. PERIOD. We could have used a format that wasn't an open W3C spec-compliant one, but we didn't. It was important to us that we base it on an open W3C standard.
>You see, wool don't blind many of us any more.
Oh, I think you've been blinded just fine there, morph.
See, the problem with people like you is that you're so busy fighting your little war that you've lost your objectivity. I suspect that there's probably nothing we could do to win you over, because all you know is hate. Go back and read over your post - it's filled not with reason and logic, but with venom and vitriol based on personal opinion. I fully realize that it's all hip and fashionable to jump on the MS Bashing Bandwagon these days, but I'm just thankful that there are more open-minded designers out there who base their opinions on merits and not on the fact that their favorite horse didn't win the race and got put to pasture.
Technologies aren't "morally barren," morph. They're just tools. You can choose to use them or to not use them. But believing that companies that make platforms, whether it's us, or Adobe or Macromedia, or Nokia or Sony or Nintendo, that they aren't trying to find ways to keep developers inside their fold is just plain naive.
If you'd rather not take your skillset and go address the huge new market that's about to be opened up for designers, then that's up to you. But it's ultimately self-defeating.
See, I used to be just like you. A LONG time ago I was a huge Amiga bigot (yeah, remember them?). Everything else was crap, I used to say. Amiga was king and if you didn't develop for Amiga then you were just an imbecile, I used to say. Then one day I had to scramble to update my skills because it turned out that Commodore's horse lost the race, and I realized that attaching so much emotion to such trivial things made little business sense.
I really do hope that you'll give us a chance. I want very much to make designers' lives better. Go ahead and be skeptical. I know it will take time to change minds. I also know that some minds will never change, and I can't do anything about that.
What I can do is try to make the best design tools out there. Anyone who wants to come along for the ride is free to contact me.
I don't think you'll find so many around here cutting companies like Macromedia and Adobe slack.
XAML is to be served by modern MS systems and in the future it will be competing for attention with the inevitable and far more fundamentally open alternative.
There is no question then which is the best tool for a developer. Choose MS XAML brand now unmeshed with the public standard later; or full attention to the current standards now and the inevitable son of svg standard later.
Can MS guarantee overnight consolidation with the standard when it comes? I doubt it.
XAML complicates developers lives, and for you to consider it 'just a great tool' is wishful thinking.
Because in fact, no matter "how good a tool" you believe it to be (it's probably really sexy wool), it can only become a tool that developers will regret ever existed.
The issue of morality, comes from the fact that the MS entity, rather than really listening to its customers, is more than willing to force pain upon us.
"See, the problem with people like you is that you're so busy fighting your little war that you've lost your objectivity. […]"
And you think you're being objective?
Allow me to chime in on something Joe said:
"XAML provides for very clear and distinct separation of data, functionality, and presentation via explicit parts of the language" and
that XAML "…goes a long way toward declarative programming, and provides some very nifty ways of making sure the two stay separate", I find this a bit difficult to swallow.
I personally find quite the opposite to be true. A XAML-only application is an entangled mess of UI state management via property triggers, data binding, and UI definition via xml element/attributes to object graph class/property mapping. Look at a typical example and you'll see the entanglement of binding (data), property triggers (functionality), and presentation (object graph). I don't think this helps the concept of declarative programming.
I think there's a lot of great things that can be done with xml and object graph mapping, but to entangle property triggers and data binding along with the object graph representation is not good architecture. And frankly, as I gain experience with MyXaml applications, I'm also concerned with DIRECT xml element/attribute to class/property mapping. The resulting xml is too dependent on the underlying class/property definition. While you can do cool things with it (and it is a tool, after all), there's a lot to be said for defining a schema that is INDEPENDENT from the underlying class definition. I'd love to see what happens to XAML applications build with Avalon 1.0 running under Avalon 2.0. If there are changes to class names, properties, or even their functionality, XAML code will break just like imperative code. However, if Microsoft had chosen to abstract XAML and actually create a schema that can be nailed down, then there would be good decoupling.
But then you'd have SVG. :)
Filip and Marc,
XAML does in fact achieve this kind of separation, but just like in HTML, *you* have to do it. Like HTML, there's no automatic way to have it done for you (without using a tool, I mean), and bad coders will always be able to create bad code. I can tell you horror stories about people who *thought* they knew what they were doing with HTML/CSS/JS, and the kinds of nightmares of code they produced. That's not the fault of the architecture - that's a coder who doesn't know what he's doing.
This is a very important distinction you have to make, and not everyone "gets it" right away: you have to distinguish between the concepts of "Documents" and "Applications".
HTML is for Documents.
XAML is for Documents, AND Applications.
HTML is not XAML (and please don't anybody write me saying what great HTML apps you make using DHTML - HTML IS A DOCUMENT FORMAT).
Right now, you guys are comparing Apples to Oranges.
The concept of separating CSS styles from HTML tags is an approach that makes sense for documents because you want to be able to extract the information from the document in a way that does not include the presentation.
Although XAML certainly allows for this in the case of documents using a well-defined structure for pages and styles (none of which you've seen so far), in Applications this requirement changes dramatically.
You want to be able to design controls that are functional units unto themselves and then re-use them across projects or even different windows in the same application. In this scenario, things like interactivity (how a button behaves when the mouse moves over it, for example, but not the logic that happens when it is clicked) become just another style selector.
So, claiming that Property Triggers inside Styles somehow "breaks" the separation model just completely misses the point. You have to remember what it is that you're separating. In this case the model of what a Style is has simply been expanded to include not just physical appearance but behavior, and in fact this is how modern component systems work.
Instead of looking at individual trees in the woods and claiming that the ecosystem is screwed, you need to take a higher-level view of the whole forest.
Marc, your comment
"I'd love to see what happens to XAML applications build with Avalon 1.0 running under Avalon 2.0"
is a complete red herring statement. EVERY component system, HTML included, would suffer the same consequences if you were to change the underlying runtime without providing backward compatibility. But given that even the original VisiCalc DOS application circa 1979 still runs on WindowsXP (go to Dan Bricklin's site and try it!), I'm not too worried.
Look, I understand everyone's attempts here on this list to want to take something they know well (HTML) and compare it to something new (XAML) to see how it works, but there are some important conceptual jumps you need to make, and this difference between Documents and Apps is a big one. You really need to expand your thinking on what constitutes a "Style" (and in fact, we prefer to use the term "Template", since it is much more accurate).
Let me just say one more thing on this: YOU ARE ALL LOOKING AT PRE-ALPHA SOFTWARE. Things are going to change dramatically between now and shipping. If you want to have input into this process, you are welcome to! All of your feedback is truly appreciated!
Marc, your comment
"I'd love to see what happens to XAML applications build with Avalon 1.0 running under Avalon 2.0"
is a complete red herring statement. EVERY component system, HTML included, would suffer the same consequences if you were to change the underlying runtime without providing backward compatibility. But given that even the original VisiCalc DOS application circa 1979 still runs on WindowsXP (go to Dan Bricklin's site and try it!), I'm not too worried.
Look, I understand everyone's attempts here on this list to want to take something they know well (HTML) and compare it to something new (XAML) to see how it works, but there are some important conceptual jumps you need to make, and this difference between Documents and Apps is a big one. You really need to expand your thinking on what constitutes a "Style" (and in fact, we prefer to use the term "Template", since it is much more accurate).
Let me just say one more thing on this: YOU ARE ALL LOOKING AT PRE-ALPHA SOFTWARE. Things are going to change dramatically between now and shipping. If you want to have input into this process, you are welcome to! All of your feedback is truly appreciated!
To continue the discussion about all things XAML before this comment page gets out of hand I invite you to join the XAML Developers Group @ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xaml-talk
To Joe Marini: If you are interested in continuing the discussion about XAML offline I invite you to present at an upcoming VanX (Vancouver XML Developer Association) meeting. See http://vanx.org for details. We will, of course also invite Dave Shea.
(* sigh *) I really don't understand why people think that open standards somehow AUTOMATICALLY result in better technologies.
In fact, history teaches us just the *opposite*. Great technology does not typically come out of standards committees. Neither Flash nor PDF are open, yet both are ubiquitous and are very good solutions for their intended purposes. PalmOS almost single-handedly broke open the handheld computing market. Is it open? No. Was the MacOS, which launched the GUI revolution in 1984, open? No (and it STILL ISN'T today - being "based" on BSD doesn't make you "open"). Even venerable JavaScript wasn't originally open.
But please, go right ahead and fight your little jihad, morph. Go ahead and refuse to learn from history.
I do have to say I respect the strength of your convictions; it's always somewhat inspiring to see someone so idealistic. I just wish it were based more on pragmatism and open mindedness than on hate.
As a matter of fact, Aankhen, I'm probably one of the most objective people you'll ever meet.
Having been one of the first people on the planet to make a web page, having sat on the W3C, having worked on Design software since before college, having used almost every programming and markup language of substance at one time or another, having created software for no fewer than 10 OS platforms, yes, I can say that I'm being objective when I say that Avalon is a technology that deserves serious consideration and enables some very rich design possibilities.
I'm sure that XAML was designed to help developers design their user interface, but I do think that design is designer's job.
That's why application logic/input-output/presentation/behaviour layer separation is invented in first place.
If MS follow this simple method, they will be on the right road, even if they use their own standards, and XAML does look as web in 90's.
Hi Joe,
Well, it sounds like you're frustrated, and I do understand your frustration. XAML is a cool technology, there's been a lot of work and investment (personal, not just money) that's gone into it and people are undoubtedly proud of what they're working on.
I would like to say though, that from my perspective, I find XAML frustrating. It has odd syntactical elements, I disagree with many of the choices made with regards to functional vs. readable, I think it's a bad thing that styles entangle physical appearance with behavior, I think the binding syntax is terrible, and I don't think XAML is a good example of declarative programming.
I've written a lot about declarative programming with examples on containers, state and event handling, etc. That to me is part of declarative programming, because I'm discussing architecture and practices and how the underlying imperative code has to be written, not just the xml syntax.
I'm frustrated because Microsoft could really do some great things in promoting the benefits of declarative programming, not just XAML. It has the resources to create not just the underlying technology like Avalon and the XAML parsers, but the tools, designers, etc., to make declarative programming usable. I don't see this happening. Maybe it is, and you guys are just keeping a lid on it, but I really doubt it.
Also, I don't see that there is a dialog (not just feedback, but real dialog) between Microsoft and the people doing work in the things that XAML touches—declarative programming, vector graphics, thin rich clients, browser-client unification, etc.
Like Joe said, bigotry and emotional attachement to a software platform is a complete waste of time. In fact, it's plain silly.
I would LOVE to the faces of the thousands of Macromedia fanboys who spent the past 4 years spamming usenet with 'Adobe is crap' comments. Now they will probably convinced themselves the merger was in the best interest of their favorite product, then become Adobe-fanboy… ad nauseum.
Okay, too many trolls showing up now, so I'm shutting this thread down. If anyone reasonable wishes to continue it elsewhere, email me a URL and I'll append it to this comment.


text:
0 Members and 1 Lonely Barbarian are spying on this topic.
I've recently developed an idea of for some type of plague which affects amphibious beings. It takes the form of a virus which infects aquatic animals and then alters their D.N.A to transform them into monstrous beings that work in unsion to help the virus further propagate. Is this something that anyone would care to read? Also, are there any cliches that I need to avoid? Thanks a lot for taking the time to read this.
Yes, I love me some science and experiments are much easier to design when the whole verse is controlled. I recently worked idea into a campaign regarding parasitic crystals which infect warm blood animals and the infected animals then work in unison to spread the crystals. I'd love to hear more about and if you write it up I can promise you an ethusiastic audience of at least one.
Page created in 0.327 seconds with 29 queries.


text:
|Home | Stories | News | Theaters | Drive-Ins | Profiles | The Authors | Other Books | Links
|Majestic - Charleston, SC
Left: Majestic Theatre - Above: Interior of Majestic Theatre
The Majestic Theatre was built as a Vaudeville house. George Brantley, who opened the first movie theater in Charleston, the Theatorium, in 1907, believed the moving picture business was just a fad that was fading in popularity. There was no Vaudeville circuit serving Charleston at the time so he booked acts as best he could. In an interview in the News and Courier in 1958, Florence Brantley said, "We ran first rate vaudeville shows."
There was a general attitude that actors in general, and Vaudeville actors in particular were likely to be tasteless and crude. George spent considerable effort to advertise his shows so that everyone knew they would not be tasteless or dirty. In one such advertisement he stated, "It is the intention of the management not to allow a remark that can possibly offend the most refined taste."
Vaudeville acts at the Majestic ranged from jugglers and trained animal acts, and novelty acts, to some of the top Vaudeville headliners of the day. The dazzling Dolly Sisters, Rosie and Jenny, performed frequently at the Majestic and always stayed at the Brantley's home when they were in Charleston
When Pastime Amusement Company was formed in late summer of 1908, George Brantly received 40% of the stock and bacame General Manager. In 1909, the Vaudeville Circuit of Wilmer and Vincent leased the Academy of Music. The Academy of Music, at the corner of King and Market Streets, had a seating capacity of twelve hundred seats. The Majestic, which had a capacity of about 350 seats could not compete successfully. Pastime Amusement Company converted the second floor of the German Artillery Hall (later Kerrison's parking lot on King Street) into an 800 seat theatre and moved Vaudeville from the Majestic.
From then on, the Majestic showed motion pictures.
When the Warner Brothers' film "Lucretia Lombard" was released in 1923, it did poorly. It was re-released with the title "Flaming Passion" and was a smash hit. The Majestic Theatre promoted it with a "True Talk on Sex Facts" by Dr. W.H. Belmont, and an appearance by Miss Texas with her living models. A phrase in the newspaper advertisement read, "The new picture that exposes the evils of the modern Jazz Age! Bold! Frank! True!" No one under the age of 16 was admtted. Men and women were not seated on the same evenings. Ticket sales were very brisk.
By the 1930's the Majestic was following the popular schedules at other movie houses by showing Westerns on Saturdays.
Class B Westerns
If I live a thousand
J.G. Braddock, Sr., worked as an usher for Pastime Amusement Company as a teenager in the mid-1940's. He ushered at all the several theaters around Charleston that were owned by Pastime. In a letter to the Editor, he described the Gloria Theatre as "splendidly decorated," and "Pastime's crown jewel. His description of the Majestic was quite a contrast.
The Post and Courier
June 8, 2004
Letters to the Editor
"The Majestic, in the same block on King, easily was the most unattractive theater in Pastime's chain. It was narrow, had wood floors, and uncushioned seats. Rat fights in the aisles over popcorn were usually more interesting than what was happening on the screen.
Nonetheless, on Saturdays, the Majestic became the center of the universe for any boy who could finagle 11 cents from his parents. That would buy his ticket to a couple of cartoons, a short subject, a chapter picture, and the main feature, almost always a cowboy movie. And he could watch them as many times as he wanted. They didn't turn on the lights and run everyone out back then. The films went on continuously."
J.G. Braddock, Sr
The Cameo Theatre, formerly the Majestic, opened on January 30, 1950. Pastime Amusement Company promoted the opening stating, the Cameo "will bring back great American pictures of the last decade and offer the best of foreign productions."
The first film shown at the Cameo was "Hamlet" with Laurence Olivier and Eileen Herlie. Even the reduced student ticket price of sixty cents didn't help fill the seats.
In December, 1950, there was a fire at the Cameo that damaged the stage area and part of the roof. The fire started around 3:45 in the morning, so no one was in the theatre at the time. Four engine companies fought the blaze. After the fire, it was decided that repairing the old theatre would be too costly. By late September, 1951, the Cameo had been torn down.
An article "Passing of the Majestic" appearing the News and Courier on September 14, 1951 read:
"The dismantling of the old Majestic Theater at 343 King St. to make room for a new store marks a milestone of motion pictures in Charleston. It is the first theater built here expressly for showing motion picture films. (Editor's note: It was actually built as a vaudeville house but later showed movies exclusively) There were earlier movie houses but they were converted from other purposes, as in the cast of the Academy of Music, a gem of an opera house, subsequently torn down to make room for the Riviera.
There used to be the Theatorium (both the old one and the new one); the Lyric, the Edisonia, the Wonderland, the Uno and others whose names long since have been forgotten. They were stores or halls fitted with a screen, a projection booth, some seats and a piano to give sound effects in the days before the sound track.
For a time during the 1900s, the Majestic was the queen of the movie houses. It was built in 1905 by George S. Brantley, a pioneer in the motion picture field here, on a vacant lot. (Editor's note: This date is incorrect. It was built in 1908 after Mr. Brantley returned to Charleston from Wilmington, North Carolina where he had operated a movie theater for a short time) Since 1908 it has been operated by the Pastime Amusement Co. The theater seated 400 persons, and there was a small balcony.
As other theaters came along - the Victory, which was torn down a few years ago; the Princess, also out of existence; the Garden and the Gloria - the Majestic began to look small and somewhat dinky.
The Majestic's heyday was the heyday of the Westerns and also of the cliff-hanger serials, so named because the hero of the heroine (or maybe both) was left in an awful predicament at the end of each episode. "Come back next Tuesday", the trailer would cajole, "and see for yourself how beautiful Esmeralda Siddonfield, played by Pearl White, escapes from the Spider's acid chamber."
And as the patron groped through the gloom toward the exit, his feet would crunch over an inch-deep carpet of peanut shells and the pianist up front would hammer out a stirring recessional.
Corny? Yes, those were corny
days, and the price of admission was five and ten cents. They were the
"good old days" as well. Many a romance blossomed in the darkness
of the Majestic. Many a small boy and girl learned bug-eyed about adventure
from the dramas on its screen. In recent years, the name was changed
to the Cameo, and several notable foreign pictures of musical and artistic
merit were shown there. But, the Majestic had seen its best days, and
the Italian tenors seemed out of place on the screen where Ruth Roland,
William S. Hart, Wally Reid, Dustin Farnum, Theda Bara and the other
greats had performed. As the rubble falls before the workmen's sledges,
the ghosts of those performers and patrons will be groping up the aisle,
and the sound of plaster under the wreckers' heels will be much like
the squashing of the peanut hulls."
|Home | Stories | News | Theaters | Drive-Ins | Profiles | The Authors | Other Books | Links


text:
LAKE FOREST — When Rosemary Hines began writing her first novel, she thought it would be pretty straightforward.
Sitting in her Lake Forest living room Thursday afternoon, Hines recalled how she pictured herself as the dictator, the one who would set the novel's agenda.
She was wrong.
"I was really surprised when the characters started taking over and telling me the story," she said.
For Hines, the writing process was one in which she watched a movie in her mind. It pushed her to try and type fast enough to keep up with the plot.
Making her mind's movie come to fruition — from idea to self-publishing — took the former Ensign Intermediate School teacher 17 years.
"Out of a Dream," the first in a three-part series, blends romance, suspense and Christian spirituality to tell the story of a young woman's fall into New Age beliefs, only to find those ideas leaving her wanting in her time of need. The series chronicles the woman's eventual journey to Christianity.
At first glance, the novel appears very similar to Hines' own life, but while she admits there were a lot of similarities, she said she found her protagonist, Michelle, making decisions she would never make.
The book, though, delves into suicide — a subject Hines is familiar with.
Mirroring Hines' own life, the father of Michelle attempts to take his life. Michelle's father, though, got the second chance at life that Hines' father didn't.
Hines said the subject matter was painful, yet also cathartic. It was important to her to show the turmoil, questioning and confusion a family goes through afterward.
"Suicide doesn't always end the way a person expects, or the way people think it will," she said, adding "it could actually create another nightmare."
The novel's journey from New Age beliefs to Christianity also comes from Hines' experiences.
A self-proclaimed former mocker of Christianity, Hines got into New Age beliefs, but after her father's death, she was left wanting more.
"When you need God, all you can turn to is the god you created yourself," she said about her former New Age beliefs.
It was after Hines turned to Christianity that she got the idea for the book as an offering to God.
It was also a chance to share her faith — even with former students. While she taught English at the Newport Beach public school, it wasn't an aspect of her life she could share.
"I'm excited that my kids will be able … to really get to know who their teacher was," she said, "and understand that journey of getting there."
Check it out
Book: "Out of a Dream"
Price: $32.95 for hardcover