Did Josh Sims do this book?
There are tons of other designers you might want their oppinion on rock n roll instead of all american tommy. He hasn't designed for Rockers in my eyes..

dear readers and viewers
just a quick note to say that I had nothing to do with this Hilfiger product. Mine ('Rock fashion') is a different book.
I like to get the record straight....
Happy reading
Josh Sims

dear readers and reviewers
just a quick note to say that this Hilfiger product is nothing to do with me! Mine ('Rock Fashion') is a different book altogether. I like to get the record straight...
Happy reading.
josh sims

this text is required for my course on introductory topology. Not only does it omit entire branches of the subject, for example only giving cursory treatments of vector field topology, metric topolgy, and combinatorial techniques; but, the presentation is mostly unexplained. The author has concentrated on following a very dry quick example-theorem-proof technique instead of theorem-proof interspersed with discussion and example technique. I have yet to find a superb text, though for algebraic things i like massey

This is the book we used in my first undergraduate course in topology. I remember it as being one of the worst textbooks I ever came across in my undergraduate math studies. The explanations were too short and many definitions were buried into the text. I remember constantly having to flip through the pages of this book to find something I was looking for. Stay away from this book!

I'm surprised that several previous reviewers have given this book low ratings. This book is far superior to the standard introductions.

As someone who has studied topology for several years now, I have found that the greatest failing of many introductory texts is the inability to give a real 'feel' for the subject. By 'feel' I mean not only familiarity with the necessary tools and ways of thought needed to progress to higher levels of understanding but also experience with the kinds of problems that plague(excite?) topologists on a daily basis.

Several texts proceed in the logical progression from point set topology to algebraic topology. Munkres is among the best of this style. But the logical order is not always pedagogically best, especially in topology. To start one's topology career by spending one or more semesters on point set topology is utterly ridiculous, given that such point set subtleties are to a large degree not used to study the beginnings of geometric or algebraic topology. This is how these texts fail to give students the 'feel' for topology; the student has no idea what it is that most topologists do, and in fact will not get a good idea until much later.

Armstrong tries (and succeeds for the most part) in grounding concepts in real applications, the way the tools are actually used by research mathematicians. Perhaps this is part of why it may be confusing to the novice; introducing topological groups and group actions on spaces right after the section on quotient spaces may appear a bit much, but those concepts are a big part of *why* quotient spaces are so important! Incidentally, the material on quotient spaces is the most complete I've ever seen in an introductory book; Armstrong covers cones and also gluing/attaching maps.

The book is certainly fun. Imagine learning about space-filling curves right after the section on continuous functions. Armstrong keeps things spiced up throughout the book. He also goes at some length into triangulations, simplicial approximation, and simplicial homology. Then he *applies* this stuff to get results like Borsuk-Ulam, Lefschetz fixed-pt thm, and of course dimension invariance. Throw in less standard material like Seifert surfaces, and you have quite an interesting mix.

The exercises can be quite varied and hard, but are designed to give the reader a realistic view of the difficulties of the subject. The reader will get considerable insight from them, and loads of fun too. I say this, because as someone who already knows the stuff, I find more than a few of the problems enjoyable even now.

Having wrote all that, I should add that I did *not* learn out of this book! But I wish greatly that I had! I would have known sooner whether topology was the right subject for me to pursue and had some 'lead time' to absorb some very fundamental concepts early on. If you pass over this book, be warned that you are shorting yourself in the long run.

I'm disappointed that this book does not describe in more depth Charles' role as a MODERN king-to-be. Britain was once one of the greatest empires the world had ever seen; in fact, most of its colonies have only been relinquished post-World War II. Yet, there is no sense of Charles as a truly modern man of the late 20th Century. He could be much more than a mere figurehead for England, and yet he has chosen to do no more than his mother does in terms of being a compass for England's winds of change. Charles seems to have absolutely no political, social or economic advisers surrounding him. Could this be because he is, as so many accounts have suggested over the years, a rather dim bulb? After all, the Windsors have never been known for being bright. Tellingly, Charles NEVER has any people of color as friends, or in his entourage. No one from Hong Kong or China or India or Kenya or Nigeria or Barbados or a couple dozen other former colonies of color is ever seen anywhere near the Prince, whether as a friend, confidant, or consultant. And yet there are hundreds of thousands of well-educated men and women of color from the former colonies, who've been educated at Oxbridge (Oxford and/or Cambridge) or the London School of Economics or Britain's other elite learning institutions, who are of an age with the Prince and could certainly fit into the Prince's circle. What an example he could set for an England still going through the pains of post-colonialism! But no. The King-to-be is as stuffy, conventional, and ultimately, as out of touch with the new England as his mother and father. This is the side of the Prince that warrants full examination . . . . . .

respect for his counrty's monarchy than he does.

I enjoyed reading parts of this biography, however, it does not put His Royal Highness in a good light. That is truely a shame since the PoW has no real peers. How can Mr. Holden judge Prince Charles so harshly, when the closest peer he has is HRH Prince Felipe Of Spain or some other heir to a throne? Besides that, he is heir to the throne by divine right, not public opinion. He should be shown respect at all times. On the other hand, I was LOL at some parts of it because it seems that the PoW does not have any common sense.

The chapter(s) on Charles' love for achitecture is downright BORING! And Poundbury? What was that? That chapter went over my head.

One more thing, does the author know how to write about BOTH sides of the story?

Although some may find fault with the author for criticizing Charles more than Diana, frankly Charles is more 'accident prone' so it's beyond me how any even-handed author could write anything about the Charles/Diana events without sounding too pro-Diana.

Though well intentioned at heart, Charles is a product of his breeding--not just the man warped by being surrounded by sycophants but a man who has inherited the Hanover/Windsor genetic faults. First among these is the fact that Charles, like his great-grandfather George V, is not too bright. Unlike George V, he wants to be seen as bright and this is what leads him into trouble. Charles's lack of focus and desire to meddle in politics is a fault he shares with Edward VIII--along with an overly long, dissolute bachelorhood and a penchant for choosing the wrong woman.

Diana has her faults too, but to paraphrase Jane Austen's comment about George IV, "She was bad, but she would not have become as bad as she was if he had not been infinitely worse."

All the author had to do was write from record and let the actions of the man damn him. This is what he did. Charles is his own worst enemy.

Charles will be king in due time, but for the sake of the monarchy, may Elizabeth II live a long time, may Charles gain a better sense of what a British monarch should do before he becomes king and may his reign be a short one.

I get this book in college. I am student of CNC studies and machining. This book did not have the knowledge we need and teacher did not like useing it because mistakes in it.
The CD does not work for almost half our class.

Vic

I take exception to the previous reviewer's statement that the average machinist reads at a grade 7 level. He must not confuse his own reading skills with those of others working in the trade.

CNC Workshop is a big disappointment. As the other person pointed out, you can get far better simulators (freeware) from the web. There is very little of use to anyone but highschool kids in this book.

Buy Smid's or Mike Lynch's book for REAL cnc knowledge.

I am a CNC machinist and also conduct CNC training for my company. No book or CNC simulation program I have ever come across is perfect(the world is not perfect). This book and multimedia CD package is no exception, it has a few flaws. I can live with the flaws because the quality and value of the material is super! Nowhere will you find a CNC training package this good at this ridiculously low price!!!

This is not college level text and it shouldn't be. The average machinist reads on a 7th grade reading level. I've used training material costing thousands of dollars and the trainees were so intimidated that half of them struggled. The CNC Workshop package gets rave reviews from the trainees and there is a significant performance increase on the shop floor.

One of the best bargains you will ever find!!

This man doesn't seem to understand how to identify a cult. A cult is not identified by the fact that they're proud of what they believe, or that they are spreading their religion everywhere, or that they have a sense of urgency! Any true Christian should feel this way as well! A cult is really identified by how well they follow the Bible and God. Test people by the Bible, and not by their actions!

Another thing that I noticed as I was looking through the index was that it referred to the Great Disappointment. That's something that's usually tacked onto Seventh-day Adventists, to prove that they specified a date when Jesus would come back. Perhaps that's because anyone believing that Jesus would come back at that time was labeled an Adventist. However, most of those people were Methodists, and there were a few other religions as well, but there were no Seventh-day Adventists! The Seventh-day Adventist church would not be around for another couple decades, so anyone that says that Seventh-day Adventists set dates can't necessarily be trusted to know other things about them!

And one more thing, Seventh-day Adventists are actually not a separate religion, but they are a Christian denomination. Even the Catholic Church admits that Seventh-day Adventists follow the Bible more closely than anyone else! The best way to learn what someone believes is to go right to the source, rather than to learn the information second-hand. This man is obviously misinformed about Seventh-day Adventists, and so I have no idea how accurate the rest of his information is! I strongly discourage the reading of this book, unless one merely wants to read the opposition.

Since the publication of this book, Anthony A Hoekema has since recinded his comments about one or more of the denominations mentioned.

This is a book that everyone should read who is likely to come across these groups (and who doesn't?).

It is unusual in that it takes an unaggressive and fair-minded look at the teachings of each group in turn, together with an indication of where they differ from Christianity.

There are also chapters on the general nature of cults and how to approach cult members.

It is the first book I turn to when I wish to read up on these groups.

It seems that Anthony M. Alioto tryed to write a text about the history of scince, and yet it turns out to be a man whinning and complaining about past events he can not confirm for his readers. It seems groups in the past treated science not the way Mr. Alioto seems fit. Groups in the past that have really done for the advancements of the sciences are referred to in dark lights, subject to Mr. Alioto's unsubstantiated biases.

The positive: This is a reasonably (but obviously not completely) comprehensive work. Most of the expected names and ideas, along with lesser lights, are covered.

The negatives:
(1) Poorly written: Frankly, I found the author's style infantile. Too many devices are used far too often. For example, the ellipsis (. . .) is used, on average, about once a page. Too many sentences beginning with "And" or "But". Far too many rhetorical questions. Too many sentences ending in an exclamation point, parenthetical, italicized, and otherwise emphasized remarks. A couple of examples:

"And, if we are theologically inclined, this absolute something that is also nothing, and contains infinite power and infinite organization and infinte spacetime (omniprescence) and...if infinite energy, well, then, according to the thermodynamic laws the potential of infinite organization...and if knowledge, mind, intelligence, and so on, are organization, then omniscience...which is God!" (p. 398,Italics and all ellipses in original.)

"Thus, two different theories adequately represented the facts! Could they be united?" (p. 388)

Each of these devices, if used sparingly, can be effective. But the text is littered with them.

(2) Other reviewers have praised the book for making connections between science and religion, philosophy, etc. For the most part, I found the explanations for these connections quite thin. In 443 pages, it is not possible to offer a comprehensive history of (western) science along with wide-ranging connections.

(3) A banal, undue conclusion: science is merely a "game", "a form of play". Standard, postmodernist claptrap: "Science is a cultural artifact that belongs to one branch of humanity, the West. It is no more; it is no less." (p. 441)

Conclusion: The author has attempted an ambitious work that, in my opinion, largely fails, in terms of both content and style. It is unclear who is the intended audience - Undergraduates? (science majors or not?) The Informed Lay reader? I'm not sure that this volume is particularly enlightening for any such subpopulation.

Alioto's history of Western Science is simply a fantastic book. Not only is it extremely well-written, but it manages to cover in a most lucid manner erudite subjects from the ancient world to the present.

It is a tragic (and perhaps true) indictment of the educational system of the USA that this book is considered (by many) too intellectually advanced for the general reader.

What more can be said? If you are looking for a simple read which will suffice for an afternoon's entertainment then this book is not for you. If, however, one is interested in a book of the history and philosophy of science that will challange the reader, then this is a book to be read and re-read periodically as one's intellectual capacity grows.

By all means, however, avoid the first edition of this book which is certainly inferior. The first edition reflects to a great degree the views of the publisher rather than the writer.

If you have big bucks and can join a gymn, then perhaps this book is for you. Plus, as more and more people are considering exercising at home, it would appear that this book would be a must for them, also. After all its subtitle is: EASY ROUTINES FOR YOUR HOME WORKOUT. However, there are no such routines in this publication. Of course, the authors could claim that the home work out buff must be willing to spend the big bucks a gymn spends on highly sophisticated equipement if they really want an authentic home workout experience. But, who can afford such accessories for the home. Consequently, it must be concluded that the subtitle of this book was a calculated fraud intended to snare the unwary exerciser. The book does contain a fairly interesting and practical section nutrition. Unfortunately, with only a single captivating chapter out of ten, the book falls far short of its promise to provide body shaping with free weights through home workout routines that are easy to construct and execute.

For those who want easy-to-follow instructions for weight training from beginner to intermediate, this is a fine book. The title is a bit misleading--while there are many exercises that you can do at home, there are some that are only doable at a gym--and with machines instead of free weights.

That said, even a beginner can create a personal weight training routine that is simple but effective. The book includes "training plans" for a variety of levels and schedules, which is a plus. It's also not "over the top" in any way--almost all of the exercises are practical and easy to accomplish; you don't have to be a body builder!

Having a pretty well stocked home gym (formerly belonged to a gym), I found it a good substitute for a personal trainer on weight exercise techniques. It described how to do about 30 weight training exercises, most with dumbells or barbells, but a few with a basic indespensible bench machine. It showed exercise cautions on improper tehnique. It showed barbell vs. dumbell variations on these exercises and different lifting techniques. It has large well illustrated photos, not illustrations. It had a good introductory section on general weight training program advice. The narrative on nutrition and hydration was pretty basic and a bit dated though. Weight training relatred information was non-existant (cardio, etc.). So far, it is a foundation book in my home gym. The subtitle is a bit midleading - it's not for the beginner without any equipment.

I found Volk very disappointing. The book is poorly written and full of trite cliches. Mr. Anthony is certainly capable of better. He seems to have an ideological axe to grind but should have checked his facts more closely. The historical 'facts' presented in his last chapter are untrue and have been negated by reputable historians including John Keegan and Steven Ambrose. Spend your money on a different book. I wish I had.
Barnes & Noble refused to show this review.

This book is written so poorly. Anthony should have spent a month or more actually reading through the book and questioning things, instead of writing it and leaving it at that. Is it even remotely believable that after Quality falls in love with Ernst that she tells his former fiance, "Oh, I know a perfect guy for you, (who just happens to be my former fiance) if only you could meet ..." And of course, they do meet, oh-so coincidently. That is just one example of things working out too neatly to be satisfying. Half the book reads like poor journalism, the other half like an adolescent attempt at literature. I hate to be harsh on Piers, but dang it, I want to see him go back to writing REAL novels, with real characters, real conflict, and a real plot.

Piers Anthony bills Volk as a politically incorrect novel of the forbidden love between a Nazi officer and the Quaker fiancee of his pre-war American friend. Volk nicely brings out some of the ironies of WWII: that not all Nazis subsribed to their party's ideology, and that the Allies also engaged in practices as barbarous as the Nazis did.

Unfortunately, the novel does little more than play around with some of these ideas or the characters themselves. The storyline covers a six- or seven-year period, but little in the novel reflects that. Nor is it particularly unsettling when the Quaker woman is captured by Nazis for smuggling Jews; nor can the reader really feel that woman's anguish at the compromises wartime forces on her.

Additionally, the book is rather poorly edited; while Xlibris allows authors to circumvent the big publishing houses to get their books into print, it apparently doesn't provide editing services. In the case of Volk, Piers Anthony would have been better off hiring a freelance editor or giving the book a closer second read himself.

Volk is readable, but disappointing. Unless you're a tremendous fan of Anthony's writing, you're unlikely to finish Volk after you put it down.

Apparently convinced that his too-frequent appearances in other media (ie., television and radio) are not enough, America's number one professional protester has produced a book which is nothing less than an exercise in pure narcissism. Making it abundantly clear that he is his own greatest admirer, Al tries to portray himself as a great man and a great leader, and fails miserably on both counts. Instead, the reader is bombarded by the usual self-serving, bombastic, racist drivel which has become Al's trademark. It is thrilling to learn that Al began preaching at the age of four; unfortunately, however, he has not shut his mouth since then. The only thing which has changed is that this self-appointed "leader" has become a devoted anti-Semite and, despite his claim to the title "Reverend", has proven clearly that he worships himself above all others. Indeed, Al has thus far achieved nothing positive for African-Americans; in fact, he has done more to exacerbate racial disharmony than David Duke could have ever imagined, and that's quite an accomplishment. This book is a waste of the reader's time.

As the title of this book suggests, Alvin Sharpton, the self-anointed messiah, would like to be perceived as a modern-day Moses; however, his self-serving "autobiography" abjectly fails to promote that image. Instead, he merely reinforces the ever-growing perception that he is nothing more than a pompous, arrogant loudmouth who has thus far accomplished nothing for the African-American community. Rather, he has damaged race relations through his inability to distinguish between reasoned argument and bombastic posturing. His disgraceful conduct during the Brawley hoax proved that his commitment to "justice" is a sham. Mr. Sharpton has shown himself to be no more than a cheap hoodlum and professional race baiter, who has made a career of rabble-rousing. In fact, he seems to have the same agenda as David Duke, Louis Farrakhan, and Tom Metzger, which is to spread hatred for profit and fame; if America ever realizes the goal of true racial harmony, these fellows will have to find real jobs. This book is a dreadful waste of ink, paper, money, and time - avoid it! Al should be quite ashamed but, alas, he is as incapable of shame as he is of truthfulness. Get a job, Al!

For several years now I've watched references in various newspapers to see how Al Sharpton is portrayed. In general, the references are negative. He is called a racist, a demagogue, a hate-monger, a rabble-rouser, a charlatan, and opportunist...I never saw any column or article that spoke well of him, so I was pleased to find he had this book out, which tells his side of the story.

It seems to me he's gotten a bad rap. His fame comes mainly out of the Howard Beach and Bensonhurst murders and the Tawana Brawley affair. In the Brawley affair he apparently was duped. In Howard Beach and Bensonhurst his actions were, in my view, exemplary and necessary.

Compare the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict in LA to the aftermath of Howard Beach. In LA they had a massive riot. In Howard Beach Reverend Sharpton led a series of peaceful protest marches. It's not farfetched to suggest that a riot could have occurred after Howard Beach. Instead, Sharpton organized marches in the best tradition of nonviolent protest.

Even if Michael Griffith had not been chased out onto the Belt Parkway and struck by a car and killed, the protest marches would have been justified. The reason he was chased was that his car broke down in a neighborhood where the inhabitants had the peculiar idea that they were entitled to decide who could come into their neighborhood, and who could not. It was "their turf ". The same was true of Bensonhurst. The people of Bensonhurst had the idea, supported by years of official acquiescence, that they were entitled to keep blacks out of their neighborhood.

In the South forty years ago that was known as segregation, and people deliberately marched and rode in the front of busses and drank from water fountains to put a stop to it. In New York in the eighties it didn't go by the name of segregation and it wasn't written into the city charter, but it was by and large the same thing. Sharpton could have incited a riot, or given his tacit blessing to the people who are always ready to go that route. Instead, and to his credit, he chose the tactics of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Sharpton rightly points out that New York liberal Democrats don't like to be compared to Dixiecrats, but none of the Democrats in power at the time helped him break down the racial barriers: not Mayor Koch; not Governor Cuomo. They could have helped him take the first steps in the desegregation of Howard Beach and Bensonhurst, but they chose not to, preferring instead a comfortable (for them) status quo.

On the other hand, Rev. Sharpton is completely inaccurate in suggesting the "rage" of the Howard Beach racists was built up by Ronald Reagan and George Bush. In an otherwise well-written and thoughtful book, he claims that Republicans have been "telling white folks that the reason the country doesn't work is blacks..."Why are your taxes so high? Blacks. They're all on welfare and their bankrupting us. Why is there so much unemployment in Howard Beach? Why can't the young people get meaningful work? Blacks."" In a single paragraph he unjustly smears his political enemies in the same way the media smears him. Neither Reagan nor Bush ever blamed the woes of the country on blacks nor advocated violence or hatred, just as Rev. Sharpton never advocated violence or hatred. Nothing useful can come of any of these hyperbolic accusations. In fact, there are more than a few similarities in the way Reagan and Sharpton got into the face of the liberal establishment to force change.

In addition to all the political wrangling, Go and Tell Pharaoh is a story of an interesting man. One can't help but admire a child who began preaching Christianity at the age of four, at a time when so many other four-year-olds were content to watch Captain Kangaroo. Perhaps more remarkable is that he kept at it five years later when a great tragedy struck his family. Like his unusual hair, and the touching story behind it, there is more to Al Sharpton than meets the eye. This book is a closer look.

The author, Anthony Bimba, was a well known Communist "intellectual" and agitator who wrote this book in the 1930s to gain sympathy for the radical left labor movement. It's interesting to see a glimpse here of historical collaboration between radical Irish nationalists and Marxists. During the past year we've seen the IRA get caught sending "consultants" to Columbia to help train Marxist rebels build bombs there; in this book, we see an instance of the self-serving support that Communists in the U.S. have given to Irish immigrants engaged in terrorism for political ends. Most Irish-Americans today are completely oblivious to this symbiosis. This book is propaganda with the gloss of "history."

This book presents the Molly Maguires in a left-wing fairy tale. You won't often see such biased, one-sided fantasy passing itself off as history. This book perpetuates the myth that the Molly Maguire terror squad were just well-meaning choir boys trying to build support for a union. Somehow, in Bimba's version, all the murders and mayhem get left out.

This book was written over 75 years ago when the anarchists and Communists still thought they had a chance to get a foot in the door through American labor unions. Times have changed and this kind of propaganda doesn't work any more. It's time to put this book out of its misery and let it go out of print.

A short but concise history of the militant coal miners dubbed the "Molly Maguires". Robber barrons continually starved, framed, and just plain murdered militant miners in order to crush strikes. The chief agent of the mine operators is Pinkertons number one labor spy McParland. Famous for his quickly obtained and case clinching confessions. He pops up from time to time in labor history. Most notably he shows up in 1908 to help kidnap, imprison, and frame Haywood and Moyer leaders of the Western Federation of Miners. Unlike the "Mollies" these men had the support of workers across the globe and they we're vindicated. Yes Bimba was was a member of the Communist Party (this was written in the 1930's heyday of the commies), but his conclusions are extraordinarly non-dogmatic. He analyzes newspaper accounts and examines court documents and procedures to come to a fairly objective conclusion.