The positives:
This book covers pretty much all of the important, basic neuropsychology issues for the main neurological disorders.
It has well thought out tables of pertinent information and good, clear diagrams.
It is written in an easy to read, relatively jargon-free way and thus is available to neuropsychology-interested people at all levels.
This book contains illustrative case examples, which really help to clarify some of the complexities of neuropsychology.

There is, however, a huge drawback for anyone wanting to use this book as anything other than a basic introduction to neuropsychology, and that is the age of the book.

I bought this book misreading "third printing December 2000" as "revised December 2000". This was silly of me and was entirely my mistake. However, the fact remains that now, in April 2003, some of the information given is out of date, with the majority the research and papers cited in the book being from the late 80s and early 90s. It does not take into account any (and there has been a great deal) of the relevant neuropsychology literature published in the last 8 years.

I probably would not have bought this book if I had realised how old it was, given the number of other, more recent neuropsychology texts available.

However, if the editors brought out a revised and updated edition I would gladly pay double, or more, for it.

The lift-the-flap aspect of the book nicely keeps toddlers involved in reading. The rhyming text flows nicely as well. The book does start a bit oddly and jerks you into the story, but that's more of an adult complaint: the kids don't seem to mind.

"On the Altar of Freedom" was an interesting book in that it compiled the letters sent to a newspaper by Corporal James Gooding of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry (the "Glory" outfit). By reading the letters (ie the book), one can get a view of Civil War life from the view of a black Union soldier. The major drawback to the work is that Gooding was sending the letters to the newspaper for the express purpose of them being published. What would have been more interesting would have been to see his private (if any) correspondence. That way the reader would have been able to see the private man. This book is also an interesting read because of the mention of unapolgetic black CSA sharpshooters being captured by Union forces outside Fort Wagner.

The idea behind this book is a good one: Moynihan attempts to bring light to the ethnic troubles that plagued the world at the time of publication in the early 1990s (which seem to have become even more acute now) by delving into some of the origins of this problem. He essentially focuses on two themes: ethnicity, ethnic identity and the persistence and predominance of ethnic loyalties (as opposed to class loyalties); and national self-determination, particularly how to define this term and the international legal conundrums this concept has caused since it first became a part of mainstream political parlance about a century ago. In its initial sections, the book does succeed in shedding some light on the role of ethnicity and self-determination in the political history of the last hundred or so years, and how essential they have been to international relations, even if often ingored by mainstream scholarship-especially during the cold war-which tended to focus almost exclusively on ideology and political "realism" a la Henry Kissenger (which, as Moynihan points out, was far from realistic). Perhaps the best thing about this book is that is offers a good introduction to the problems of ethnicity in international politics, and provides an excellent reference list of sources for further reading on the subject. As an introduction, however, it suffers from being superficial at times. At times it seems as though Moynihan implicitly accepts the "primordial" thesis on ethnicity and nationalism, for he cites without critical commentary the all-too-common lament of many journalists and other armchair experts who bewail the "ancient ethnic hatreds" burning in some remote corners of the world. He doesn't really look into the fact that ethnicity politics and the ensuing nationalism tend to be the product of contemporary political agitation which often have little to do with historical fact. Although he mentions the general multiethnic harmony of certain pre-nationalist communities, e.g. in Central Europe, he doesn't really go anywhere with this. This the general fault of this book: its disjointed approach. At times Moynihan goes into excessive detail on certain examples while skimming over other cases. In addition, the text is riddled with extensive quotations (some as long as two to three pages) of other works or his own previous works on this subject. Since the book was based on a lecture delivered at Oxford in 1991, I can only assume that he rather hurriedly adapted the text for publication. This is unfortunate, for this could have been a really top-notch work on a very important subject.

"Adam Smith", author of the engrossing and witty book "The Money Game" and the entertaining, if not enthralling "Supermoney", returns to the scene to write this rather dull treatise on the 1970's.
While he retains a bit of the wit and sparkle of his earlier books, "Smith" becomes quickly bogged down by OPEC, a force he can understand but not comprehend. His understanding comes from the historical perspective - he writes an informative and enlightening, though not entertaining, history of the organization. However, he tends to focus on the purchasing power of the OPEC countries, rather than realizing that OPEC had reached a peak in it's power by the time his book was published. Granted, we cannot expect Mr. Smith to have predicted what would happen to OPEC. On the other hand, he surely cannot have thought that the US would be reduced to supplying military equipment to the new Arabic superpowers (this, he implies, is essentially the only way we can attain anything approaching an import/export balance with Saudi Arabia).
A few chapters are spent on real estate, the market for which Mr. Smith thinks is now controlled by speculators and people attempting to hedge against inflation. He decides that the long bull market in housing has finally ended. Alas for Mr. Smith's reputation, it has yet to do so, with the median price for a home increasing every year since his book was written (as it had done every year before).
Mr. Smith, however, manages to redeem himself near the end of the book, when he makes his stock market prediction. At the time he wrote the book, the Dow was at 900. He predicted that within ten years, it would rise to 2700, an amazingly accurate guess. However, in reading his reasons for a prediction, we can see that his bullishness has almost nothing to do with what actually moved the market. Overall, this book is worthwhile only to the true Adam Smith fanatic or to someone trying to thouroughly research the economic situation of the 1970's.

This is a look at the life of lawyer Mead Dixon. His early work with gaming properties of Nevada is interesting, but his counsel to Bill Harrah's properties make the best reading. Some good tid-bits here that may not be know to the readers. More life history than gaming history, but R.T.King and Ken Adams present an enjoyable book.

I found this book to be very helpful, but the chapters were shorter than I would have liked. Also, most of this information can be found on the web. Probably easier and no doubt cheaper to just surf around for a while.

As I know, this paperback is the first publication about Post Soeharto period which written by foreign (non-Indonesian) authors.

Probably because of I am not a politician, I'd never heard about all authors. But my hunch tell that mostly come from Murdoch University - Western Australia, which have several specialist researches about Indonesia instead of have some well-known Indonesian experts there. So the authors could ask something, consult or gather feedbacks, opinions, and advices from them directly.

So this book is good enough to learn how Indonesia could be look from overseas

For the youth market with many pictures and several famous stories. About the haunting at Borley Rectory it incorrectly states, "the hauntings ended" once the bones in the cellar were properly buried. In fact, they continue to this day, even though the rectory burned down in 1939. Good for children.

There have been two instances of a father and son both achieving the presidency of the United States and there is a common characteristic. In each case one of the two had a distinguished history of public service that would indicate excellent preparation for the rigors of being president. However, both of those men served only one term, voted down amid lackluster support even among those who were their natural political allies.
George Bush senior was a combat aviator in world war two, served in congress, was head of the CIA and was vice president for eight years. And yet, his presidency is generally considered to have been more of a caretaker administration than anything else. He came dangerously close to coming in third in the election where he was defeated by Bill Clinton. John Quincy Adams served his nation well as an ambassador to Europe during some of the most troubling early years of the nation. A distinguished public figure in many other ways, it certainly appeared that he was well prepared for the presidency. However, his administration was also rather lackluster and it too has the appearance of a caretaker government.
Despite the relative lack of major events during the four years of the John Quincy Adams administration, Hargreaves manages to fill 323 pages. This attention to excruciating detail makes the book difficult to read and it is by far the least interesting of the eight books in the American presidency series that I have read. To put this into perspective, the eight years of the Andrew Jackson presidency are summarized in 277 pages and the four years of the Van Buren administration in 211. Detailed explanations of minor legislative debates and the personal relationships between the principles are presented to the point that they just become tedious.
All of this in unfortunate, because John Quincy Adams was a very interesting man who tried to uphold the principles of democracy as he saw them. The problem of course was that the nation was changing. He was the last president with roots to the old statesman/gentleman mold of men that created the nation and the constitution. Adams was constantly fighting the populist movement of Andrew Jackson, with the appeal to the masses that was so different from the presidential politics that had come before. This point is mentioned in the book, but unfortunately all the detail tends to bury it.
The presidency of John Quincy Adams marks a turning point in the history of the United States. After him, presidents were elected by political campaigns with mass appeal rather than the collective will of a relatively small number of people. Furthermore, they were no longer chosen from a group of aristocratic gentleman, as rough hewn self-made men were now viable candidates. This point is made in the book, but not as well as it should and certainly not as precisely as it could have been.