I've completed the MSCE NT4.0 exams using Sybex and did well in all my exams. I've come to expect high standards from Sybex in their study guides but this one doesn't meet them. Don't get me wrong, all of the information needed is covered but it makes to many assumptions as to what you currently know about W2k by not going into depth on many things. I've found my self refering to other books to fill in the blanks.

This book will help you to pass the Accelerated Exam but I don't believe it will do it by itself. You will need to augment your studies with other materials. I'd recommend using Mastering Windows 2000 Server and Mastering Active Directory. Both of these books have been extremely usefull in filling in the blanks.

On a positive note, there are MANY hands on excersises to follow.

Just passed This exam yesterday. I used this guide for study and the Exam Notes to refresh my efforts prior to the exam. This book is recommended for anyone who is current in their NT4 MCSE skill sets. Troubleshooting issues like DNS, permissions, IP, etc. all have their roots in NT4 so the book may not offer indepth troubleshooting sections. Having passed the exam, I can tell for your sure...Your NT4 troubleshooting skills will get you through. What is most important is applying those skills to the new features of Win2K DDNS, RIS, NAT, RRAS, GPO, Active Directory and other new features. They Sybex guide covers them well and the included exercises in the PDF on CD really bring home the points even for those of us who have been working with Win2k from its beta release but haven't yet implemented all of its various features sets yet. Microsoft does not waste your time with trick questions on this exam about obscure corners of the OS not covered in study guides or used in the field as we may have seen in NT4 exam. The Window2000 Accelerated exam will definitely test your attention to detail (clever scenarios but no tricks) however the exam fairly tests your knowledge in areas you should know about to implement Win2K effective and prove your real world experience with this OS. Take nothing for granted, take your NT4 experience, your Win2K hands-on, and THIS Sybex guide and go pass this exam. I highly recommend the companion Exam Notes as it takes all the objectives covered in the Study Guide and neatly organizes them by individual exams: Win2k Pro, Win2k Server, Win2k AD Admin, and Win2K Net Infrastructure Admin. I'm proof the exam can be successfully passed. The exams are not as overwhelming as first thought but they are definitely not a peace a cake. Sybex will get you there.

T

Just passed the 70-240. I used this book to study for the whole thing and it was the best of all the books I saw. If you want a concise guide (most of them are just too long) that will give you all the essentials then this is it. You have to know every little bit that is in here because it doesn't repeat things but the text, exercises (on CD-ROM) and Exams (also on CD-ROM) are all spot on - very clearly explained and not riddled with mistakes like some others. I did also use a 4 day Wave bootcamp to reinforce the material and fill in a few gaps before passing the exam.

In order to save readers from spending money on this shoddily written novel (yes, novel, since it's completely fictional), I will repeat what I said about the forgery ("the diary") itself, since this book is essentially one expanded comment section of the original Maybrick hoax.

In 1992 a junk dealer from London, Michael Barrett, presented what would become known as "the Maybrick diary", attempting to ping the guilt of being Jack the Ripper on James Maybrick. The "diary" became a media event, and people interested in making money and gain of it have attempted to "prove" its "authenticity"; needless to say, they were unable to, for one simple reason - it is a crude forgery, which was in fact quickly and shoddily updated as new Ripper facts came to light (e.g. when it was revealed that Mary Kelly's heart was missing,
the forger was in process of creating the "diary" - and he quickly added an awkward note "No heart, no heart..." to the "Kelly section", but forgot to use the same ink to write it!)

It would take too much space to list literally hundreds of errors and inconsistencies in the "diary", as well as dozens of proofs for its inauthenticity. Instead, a good summary is simply the fact that on 5 January 1995, Barrett admitted to the forgery. To quote his sworn affidavit: "Since December 1993 I have been trying, through the press, the Publishers, the Author of the Book, Mrs Harrison, and my Agent Doreen Montgomery to expose the fraud of ' The Diary of Jack the Ripper ' ("the diary") (...) The facts of this matter are outlined as follows: I Michael Barrett was the author of the original diary of 'Jack the Ripper' and my wife, Anne Barrett, hand wrote it from my typed notes and on occasions at my dictation, the details of which I will explain in due course. The idea of the Diary came from discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself, there came I time when I believed such a hoax was a distinct possibility. We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter. I felt Maybrick was an ideal candidate for Jack the Ripper. Most important of all, he could not defend himself. He was not 'Jack the Ripper' of that I am certain, but, times, places, visits to London and all that fitted. It was too easy. I told my wife Anne Barrett, I said, "Anne I'll write a best seller here, we can't fail". Once I realised we could do it. We had to find the necessary materials, paper, pens and ink. I gave this serious consideration. Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book (...) Sworn at Liverpool in the County of Merseyside, this 5th day of January 1995"

Stay away from this crude forgery and don't support people who try to peddle it as "the real thing". The same kind of people would try to sell you "splinters from Christ's cross" in the Middle Ages...

Having read several recent ripper books, I found this to be as close to the answer, than any of the others, although, further research needs to be done to prove that the diary is genuine. Mr Feldman puts his points across very well, however I am still not convinced re the watch.

It would also have been helpful if the diary was also published within the book for those who have not had the benefit of reading it in detail.

Having said that, I for one am sure that it will be hard to distinguish anyone else, other than James Maybrick of being Jack the Ripper.

For what it's worth, I think that the Diary is real and that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. History will owe those who brought the Diary to the public's attention a debt of gratitude. However, there is a lot of contentiousness in the field of "Ripper Studies", and a flaw in the book is that Feldman can't quite bring himself to rise above responding to the abuse that he has received from professional Ripperologists. He would have been better off simply allowing his research and the research of those on his team to speak for itself. But it's a very impressive job which does show how many of the KNOWN elements of Maybrick's life dovetail nicely with the theory that he wrote the Diary and was indeed the Ripper. The Diary itself is a very impressive document that largely stands on its own, and I've never quite understood how, in the absence of any real proof of forgery, it could be flatly disregarded by so many. The book is worth the price simply for the photographs in front of page 147 that show a "match" between James Maybrick and the Daily Telegraph picture of "Jack" published on October 6, 1888. Also, the geneological research of the Feldman team shows links between Maybrick and the Ripper as well as their/his present-day descendants. Some meat is added to the existing bones of the Diary's provenance, though the provenance of the Watch, while just as tantalizing in its implications, becomes somewhat murkier. The biggest problem is handwriting. Feldman produces no known sample of Maybrick's handwriting that matches with that of the diary or of the "Dear Boss" letters that Maybrick takes credit for in the diary. He finds one ancient Maybrick correspondence that resembles one questionable Ripper letter. Otherwise, he is reduced to arguing that an individual'shandwriting can vary from sample to sample and that Maybrick's own handwriting varied greatly, particularly when under the influence of arsenic. He is also reduced to relying on the opinion of a graphologist who performed a character analysis based on the handwriting in the diary. Graphology is a suspect science, which was used to incorrectly identify Anna Anderson as Russian princess Anastasia. Set against this though is the enormity of the task that Diary critics have. The contents of the Diary FORCE them to argue that the Diary and the Watch are modern forgeries -- post 1989 -- rather than ancient ones and so they are reduced to impugning the character of those own the Diary and the Watch and who brought them to the public's attention. By introducing his readers to these people through interviews and biographies, Feldman shows them to be of sound moral character. Their story that the Diary was first discovered in the mid 1940's and rediscovered in 1968 or 1969 is buttressed by their character. More research needs to be done by independent analysts of the Diary, of the watch, of James Maybrick, and generally in the field of handwriting analysis. My prediction is that history will point its finger at Maybrick and say, "He's the one" and this will be due in no small part to Feldman, Shirley Harrison (who first produced an edited version of the Diary, with commentary), Feldman's team, and those who assisted and cooperated with them. But that debt of gratitude will not be paid in our lifetime because of what still remains unknown or questionable and because of the contentiousness that surrounds "Ripper Studies" today.

I have just arrived halfway into this book and decided to check it out on the net, and found out its a load of fiction its a pity i was starting to enjoy it. I was a bit suspicious when on page 96 he states he was issued with a SMG which is the STERLING L2A3 9MM so taking 2 magazines of 7.62mm rounds would be pointless.I now have read that Paul Bruce has since been arrested by the RUC and charged with wasting police time and they cant find any truth in his story.I also believe that if the British Gov intended to assasinate terrorists they would use the sercurity services and not the high profile SAS.I will continue to read on and just enjoy it as a piece of fiction.

Bruce was arrested by N. Ireland police and charged with "obstructing police" after they investigated his claims and found
absolutly no evidence to support them. But give him credit, he wrote a great yarn. Shame on all you left wing, anti gov. types that fell for it.

For those of you loyalists to the british crown, I say remember the "Guildford Four" and the fraudulent quack investigation that widgery used to force troopers to lie about the Bloody Sunday terrorist attack by british soldiers on unarmed Catholic protestors. These soldiers now say they never came under gunfire on January 30, 1972. If you keep those blatant miscarriages of justice in mind you will enjoy this book and believe it is quite possibly true.

Steve Martini serves up more of his intriguing courtroom drama in _Prime Witness_. Martini specializes in taking his plot in and out of the courtroom, with all of the events intimately linking up to a surprise conclusion. Prime Witness is no exception, opening with a mysterious event, and building through turns and twists until all of the seemingly random events connect. In addition, Martini's protagonist, Paul Madriani, receives extensive characterization due to this novel's backdrop of marital difficulties, which adds depth the the problems Paul faces. Martini does an excellent job of keeping the book active and avoiding the legal dryness rampant in others in this genre, but does keep the legal issues believable. His practice of describing facial expressions also adds a believeable aspect to the conversations, since it communicates the unspoken aspects of discourse. For me, another interesting facet is the book's apparent setting around Sacramento, California (Martini's stomping grounds), but the author's strange practice of renaming some cities and places, yet leaving other names intact keeps one guessing from the descriptions about where things really are. For example, Sacramento seems to be renamed Capitol City.

I am a bit puzzled at the negative reviews of this book. This is the one that started me on the path to becoming a Steve Martini fan. Granted this isn't his best courtroom thriller, but it is STILL above just about anything written by the incredibly over-rated John Grisham. But let's not judge this book based on other authors. The storyline is well-plotted, and very engrossing. The forensics used to trace the evidence to the so-called perp's is not only interesting, but very entertaining and informative as well. It has been many years since I picked up this novel, and I STILL have very fond memories of how much I enjoyed it. I think one of the best things about this book is how it kept you in the dark as to whether or not the 3rd murder was a copycat or not. Give it a shot, it's not literature, but it IS a fun read.

Martini's Prime Witness is an excellent book. The character's are well developed--with the exception of Nikki who I wanted to know more about. It seemed that her character was lost somehow in the story. In many ways the book reminded me of a Tom Clancy novel in that there were times when I had to go back and re-read a section to understand what was going on in a later section of the book--to me this type of writing makes the book more intriguing and more of a challenge to read. I thoroughly enjoyed the book from cover to cover!

Reincarnation is the belief that at some point after death we return to this world as a different person in another body. There are many variations on the theme. Some theories include animal life, even inanimate objects. So, if you are bad this time around, you might come back as a dog, or somebody's coffee pot. (On the other hand, if you are good, the possibilities are endless.) Some, like the philosopher Nietzsche, believed that the same events happen, over and over. In that case, I will have written this review, and you will have read it, countless times already - a wearying prospect at best. For millennia, belief in reincarnation, and its attendant notion of karma - the idea that our actions now will affect our future lives - has been a mainstay of Hindu thought. The idea has attracted many major league figures in western thought as well: Pythagoras, Plato, Swedenborg, Emerson, Goethe and Schopenhauer, to name a few. And it has, of course, received a great deal of attention from occultists, metaphysicians and students of what used to be called parapsychology.

Philosopher Paul Edwards, however, has taken stock of this situation and, out of the kindness of his heart, and what I can only surmise is a selfless devotion to rationality, has decided to disabuse anyone who will listen to him of this dangerous notion. The result is a tedious essay in pedantic nit-picking.

I am not a believer in, nor an apologist for, reincarnation. I am, I imagine, a sympathetic agnostic. When we get down to it, no one really knows what happens after death - no one, that is, who has yet to enjoy the experience. And those who have, ain't talking. So my displeasure in Edwards' grating text is not that of an adherent defending a sacred creed. What bothers me about this annoying book is the smug, complacent know-it-all manner in which he treats his subject. (Its tiresome attempts at what I can only assume is wit are bothersome too.)

The original edition appeared in 1996, and at that time, many of the characters and topics he addresses may have loomed larger in the public consciousness. (His initial knock-out punch was, evidently, not successful, and his publishers apparently feel a second dose is needed.) Kubler-Ross, Raymond Moody, Ian Stevenson and the psychedelic investigator Stanislav Grof come in for especially detailed dissection. It goes without saying that most, if not all, of the 'new age' advocates of reincarnation are out to lunch, and their ideas on the subject sport more holes than a bag of Hoola Hoops.

But the 'new age' has lost some of its blissful appeal by now, and after reading Edwards's 'devastating' critique of its mystic flapdoodle, I found myself cheering for the underdog. What is wrong with this book is that Edwards sets up his targets like clay pigeons and knocks them down, one by one. Or, mixing my metaphors, he gives himself high marks for shooting fish in a barrel. No one, I think, who takes the notion of reincarnation at all seriously believes Shirley MacLaine is a quotable authority on the subject. But by taking her down a peg Edwards, an unflappable devotee of strict scientific rationality, believes he has scored major points. Maybe he uses a flame thrower to rid himself of mosquitoes too.

Another annoying thing is Edwards' frequent remarks about the mental capacity of people who are interested in reincarnation, or other 'occult' ideas. They are, he tells us: "insane" or "semi-insane"; "under-educated"; "credulous"; "semi-literate"; "lunatics"; and, perhaps least offensive, "very average, middle-class Americans". They are also devoted readers of mind-numbing tabloids like the National Enquirer, The Midnight Globe, and the Star - all of which print columns of occult clap-trap that no "critically trained person" - like, we must imagine, himself - would be caught dead absorbing. Yet Edwards makes it clear that he too is among those many "under-educated" Americans who read this drivel, admitting that "for many years I have been an avid reader of assorted tabloids."

Research, of course. But I for one suspect that Edwards has a morbid love-hate relationship with the 'occult', a neurotic attachment to a collection of beliefs he finds infuriatingly and self-evidently absurd. If only we all just listened to the scientists and, we must assume, philosophers like himself. Then muddled questions about life, death and everything else would just evaporate. My own money, however, is on the muddlers. Yet, as I'm a semi-insane, credulous under-educated reader of occult drivel, what do you expect?
If you are interested in an objective, informative and engaging book on reincarnation, this isn't it. But if you think the whole idea is as barking as the dog next door and enjoy playing CSICOPS and robbers, be my guest.

Having read the favorable reviews to Edwards book,I would like to present the skeptical view of his book. The book is well written, but it offers poor arguments in refuting reincarnation. Edwards argues that reincarnation must be false, since where do all new souls come from? He fails to realize that reality is infinite, and hence the number of souls could also be infinite. He then writes that people have no memory of other lives,thus having no memory they have no identity. Are we to say then that since very few of us had memories as children that we were never children? Obviously not. All claims should be scrutinized from a skeptical viewpoint. This is also true of those of skeptics such as Kurtz. Far from presenting an irrefutable case against reincarnation, this book presents a very poor one. All of his arguments can be refuted. I do recommend the reading of this book to see how some skeptics think, but it does not mean that all skeptics agree with Kurtz, or that his book represents the views of all skeptics. It certainly does not. I am a skeptic but I don't agree with his arguments.

I am rather surprised at the quantity and inanity of bad reviews for this book. It is rather inexplicable to me - perhaps they read something else.

To me, this book is a very rigorous and entertaining voyage into the arguments, concepts and proponents of reincarnation. Paul Edwards dissects the reincarnation idea and discusses the idea of personal identity, the period that is supposed to lie "between lives", and various other problems of reincarnation. In Chapter 14, he notably discusses five powerful scientific arguments against reincarnation : Tertullian's Objection, Reincarnation and evolution, The recency of life, The population problem and the Absence of memories. He also argues against many aspects of reincationation, such as the idea of "karma" or of an "astral body", the Modus Operandi problem, the idea of conservation of mental energy which underpins the idea of reincarnation, and many others besides.

His book is written in a very intelligent and humorous way. It is also obvious that Edwards' knowledge on the various positions and arguments related to the subject is nothing less than breathtaking. His extensive lampooning of the "research" of the main proponents of reincarnation is entertaining as well as shocking.

No one should be without this book. I say this honestly and not lightly, since I think the question of death should concern everyone and this book is definitively a great reference on the subject of the doctrines of reincarnation.

If you are looking for something practical with Visual C++ 6, it is the one of candidates. The structure of this book is well defined. You will experience a lot of new features of Visual C++ 6 though the straightforward sample applications. This book covers some topics, like ADO data binding, which you properly just see a brief instruction on many C++ books, in detail. It also explores Internet development hands-on experience and tools. In the last chapter it talks about how to package your application in most developers' interest. The main drawback for this book is that the code is not well-tested. For instance, the code on P210 will encounter runtime error. Another problem is that it has little explanation for window programming architecture and you don't expect you can ask "whys" in therory.

I opened this book with no experience in Visual C++ and was instantly disappointed--so much so that I wrote the author an email about it. He provided me with a nice long response and helped out in every way possible. The title for this book is incorrect--it should be Visual C++ 6 for Intermediate Developers. The "from the Ground Up" portion of the title made me think this book is for novices. So, after I got some background information, I tried the book again.

The theory, online sites, tips, and notes in this book are rock solid. I found that I learned many new tricks by reading it and that I was able to develop more complex applications faster and with less effort after reading it. This is the reason for my book rating (along with the author's participation in email). So, if you're going to buy this book, buy it because you want to write better applications, faster.

The example code in this book is flawed. Even the author admits that there are problems with it. If you want to see what the code should look like, check out the author's Web site. I found several FAQs for this book and the author promises to provide more. To the author's credit, he will accept input from readers and even make this input available to the public in general. I just wish he had done a better job with the code in the first place.

The title of this book is definitely incorrect. If you're looking for something to hold your hand and lead you through each step of the application creation process, look for a Dummies book. This book has it all: ActiveX, the Internet, and database management, along with a healthy dose of basic applications. There were even sections that showed how to package my applications. I did find a few minor glitches in the code, but the author provided help with the problems the same day that I wrote him. I was also a little disappointed that this book is a bit out of date with the release of Windows 2000. Hopefully the author will take time to update it.

This is not Delphi 6 book. There's almost nothing on new features of Delphi 6 (CLX, DBExpress etc); this is not Delphi reference book, it doesn't cover everything in VCL. Basically, book is covering much of Object Pascal and VCL but not deeply and teaching good programming practices with Delphi. It could be useful for beginners and only somehow interesting for experienced programmers. If price is more reasonable and title isn't misleading, I would give 4 stars.

First the bad news. like they said: this book does not have much on the new features specific to Delphi 6. When it comes to the point, it doesn't have much on Delphi 5 features either: it has nothing on the ADO data connections in Delphi 5 and 6, and only a short (but to someone new to it concise and useful) introduction to the Microsoft office automation features. If you want a comprehensive overview of the new features and how to use them, go to Mastering Delphi 6 or the Delphi 6 Developers Guide.

Having said that, don't discount this book. It has a respectable and solid niche. For someone new to Delphi, or a programmer from another language who wants an orientation to Delphi, this book has achieved what no other Delphi book has to date. It provides a succinct, friendly introduction to Delphi and object pascal, and gets you up to date with features such as working with databases and the web to about the level of Delphi 4 functionality. He provides a lot of the material and background that books such as Mastering Delphi and the Delphi Developers guide tend to skip over to fit other stuff in. He doesn't really stop to teach you Pascal itself though (he pretty much assumes you know looping and conditional statements and that sort of stuff, which is often a fair assumption), so if you are really a beginning beginner you might want to find a tutorial on the web or an introduction to Pascal book.

If you are a beginner to RAD or object oriented programming and want to pick up the power of Delphi, this book and then afterwards the Delphi Developers guide is an excellent choice. If you are in this situation and want to buy just one Delphi book however, I'd suggest Mastering Delphi 6.

If you are using Delphi 5 or 6, this book will not cover all its features. Don't expect it to. But if you want to get the basics of object oriented programming in Delphi and a good grounding in its basics, this is a great place to start.

Difficulty ratings:

Building Delphi 6 applications: Beginner - Intermediate
Mastering Delphi 6: Intelligent/Experienced beginner - advanced
Delphi Developers Guide 6: Intermediate -advanced

Pricing . . . this book is probably priced a bit high for what it is. It is competing by title, price and marketing with 1500 page tomes that cover everything. The publisher would be better of rebranding it into a new niche of making Delphi easy to learn, at which I think this book excels.

Potential . . . this book has a lot of potential to position itself as a great learning object pascal and Delphi book. I think it would gain greatly from adding more of the absolute basics like learning plain Pascal so it could be a one-stop learn from scratch resource, and it obviously needs to get up to date with Delphi 5 and 6, particularly with regard to databases (ADO/dbGo, dbExpress, Interbase express) but also CLX, datasnap, XML, and so on. I think if the next edition builds on the basics but adds a concise section on up to date and new features, and changes or reflects its title more, it can be a winner.

A note to Paul Kimmel (the author): you sure hit a lot of flack with the title! I can see where you're coming from - if you call it Building Delphi 5 applications and release it after Delphi 6 is released, you're not going to be on the best-seller list. I suggest renaming it "object-oriented RAD application development with Delphi versions 2-6". It gets the gist across of what the book is about.

Learning delphi is not very easy. If you are a beginner, buy this book along with "Programming & problem solving with delphi" and "Delphi in a nutshell" (a MUST language reference). Later you should buy "Mastering delphi X" and "Delphi X developers guide" (where X is the latest delphi version number).

THIS BOOK IS MOSTLY [not true]....IF YOU ARE GAY THAN DREAM AND IMAGINE ,BUT NOT EVERYONE IN THE BOOK IS GAY NAMELY CARY GRANT
.I AM SURE ALOT OF GAY MEN WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THIS FANTASY ,HOWEVER READ //IN HIS OWN WORDS//OR SOMEOTHER GREAT BOOKS OF THE REAL DEAL"MR CARY GRANT".HE WAS NOT GAY....SORRY
TO SPOIL THE FUN...OH WELL

Books like The Celluloid Closet and Hollywood Babylon abound with rumors about the sexual appetites of Hollywood stars. Boze Hadleigh's Gays in Hollywood, however, seeks to provide first-hand reports. An entertainment journalist since the 1960's, Hadleigh conducted volumes of off-the-record interviews with celebrities reputed to be gay or bisexual such as Cary Grant, Paul Lynde and Anthony Perkins, as well as less well-remembered actors like Randolph Scott and William Haines. In these interviews, often given only with the understanding that they would not be published during the star's life, Hadleigh attempts to get normally secretive actors to speak about their guarded sexual lives. The results vary widely, but even the "unsuccessful" interviews can be fascinating. Some stars like Paul Lynde, James Coco and Cesar Romero, speak freely and provide valuable accounts of what it was like to be gay in an industry filled with double lives and convenience marriages. Others like Cary Grant and Anthony Perkins are more elusive, but not without revelations about co-workers and peers. And one in particular is not so kind: at the end of his interview, an exceptionally ruffled Liberace expels Hadleigh from his mansion with imperial fury. Like his earlier volumes Conversations With My Elders and Lesbians in Hollywood, Hadleigh's work is somewhat journalistically suspect. He claims that for most of these interviews, he was not allowed to tape record or take notes, and frequently the questions seems stiltedly reconstructed and retroactively self-righteous. Still, the interviews are highly entertaining and provide an important alternative view of the film industry's social history. Recommended for both general readers and scholars of gay history / film studies.

Many reviewers seem quite upset by Grant's "out-ing," but if he wasn't at least bisexual, then PLEASE let me know why he lived with Randolph Scott--rather than his wives--throughout all five of his marriages (Only one of which lasted more than 5 years). He shared a house with his (male) lover fom 1933, a year before his first marriage, until his death in 1986--most straight pairings don't last that long--his didn't! And, while you're at it, explain photos of the two topless men hanging all over each other by their swimming pool. Being gay was as much of a career-booster as being communist in his Hollywood. There's a reason the man has two Oscars....

This book is awful. From both personal and second-hand experiences, I can say that this book will make your life miserable. The authors attempt to give the readers a deeper understanding of calculus concepts, but go about it an an obtuse and incredibly disorienting fashion. The book is chock-full of obscure references, half-hearted derivations, dizzying metaphors and incredibly bad jokes. Trying to follow this text is like trying to follow the wing movements of a hummingbird on steroids.

Also, the authors of this book are devious in their methods. They are constantly re-issuing new editions, and because they have a vice grip on their school's math department, students are forced to buy new editions every semester. This means after suffering our way through an entire semester of this dreadful text, we can't even get a decent deal when we try to sell back our books, because it is a new edition has been released. Math professors, this book is not worth your time. Do not supoprt this machine. It is a bad, bad thing. Liberate us!!!

I used this book for my calc class and while it is an interesting and noble approach at changing the way calculus is being taught today, it lacks the ability to explain things on the student's level. It is a great text if someone already knows calculus, to get at the concepts in an alternative light. However, for students with little or no calculus experience - prepare to be lost and pray for a hepful professor.

If you read it through and through, you will find how wonderful it is to approach calculus in a graphical, numerical and symbolic way. If you want to challenge your mind in this way, this book is probably the most suitable for you. I am using it in my calculus calss, and I found the concepts are very clearly explained. The thing that I love most of this book is that it helps students develop a good understanding of calculus through observing and studying the graphs of the functions. This only imperfection of the book, if any, is that there lack of some theoretical exercises. But any book can not be perfect. The most important thing is how you enjoy it. For me, it is a new and fresh guide of the study of calculus.

Just an example which proved that Sarnoff didn't know his topic a thing before he commented on it. Regarding "The Livermore Key" in Livermore's book "How to trade in stocks", the numbers in the price table, Sarnoff said "He (Livermore) used blue ink for the upward movements, and red ink for the downward". In fact, Livermore use BLACK ink for upward trend, and red ink for downward trend. Blue ink (pencil) was used for Rally or Reaction which can be upward or downward. I don't think Sarnoff understood the formula Livermore talked about.

Sarnoff's book is pure tripe. The anger & spite seethes throughout. It's hard to take the author serious when it's so appearant he has some ax to grind.

Sarnoff comes across as a Wall Street sucker who's swallowed alot of hooks. His anger & resentment towards Livermore seems more like a loser with a vendetta, than an author with a biography to tell.

Life's short - There's better books to read than this.

"Markets are never wrong; opinions are." ...Jesse L. Livermore.

Described as a 'Master Market Manipulator', 'Boy Plunger' and 'the Great Bear'.

Jesse L. Livermore's true story is re-created in this book by Paul Sarnoff, an excellent starting point for traders in their 'journey' to find the Truth.

Although lacking in technical analysis, or mathematical tools, this book provides a rare insight into the thoughts of a professional trader.

Have pencil ready to underline some classic ideas from Jesse Livermore, like one of his rules, "Don't make the same error twice." One of Aristotle's doctrines is that learning "comes from suffering"......Livermore was certainly Aristotelian.

Although not as informative as Edwin Lefevre's fictionalized biography of Jesse Livermore, this book is still mandatory reading for traders starting out.

Livermore firmly espouses the maxim "If there is any easy money lying around in Wall Street, no one is going to put it into your pocket".

Included is a basic chart of a Livermore rally and trend with price levels of U.S.Steel and Bethlehem Steel from 1938, and some pictures in the back.

Worth a read. END