My daugther loves Arthur and Birthdays, so I bought the book. We were reading along and came to the end where Francine gives Arthurs his gift and asks that he "use it right away". On the last page you see the opened gift -- a bottle with "Francine's Spin the Bottle Game" written on it. I thought this completely inappropriate for the age of reader. So,unless you're not bothered by the sexual reference in your child's reading materials, buy it.

I am a student teacher and think this book can be used as part of a K-2nd grade reading lesson. Children can relate to the topic and make predictions throughout the story. The colorful illustrations will keep children attentive. Arthur is having a birthday party and a conflict arises between him and Muffy. Arthur comes up with a great solution to the problem. The only part of the story that I thought was inappropriate for children was the gift that Francine bought for Arthur and wanted to play with right away at the end.

This is the same story as on the TV series, wherein Arthur's birthday is on the same day as Muffy's and both want to have their parties at the same time. The fact that it's the same as on the TV show can work to your advantage in that kids know the story, whether you read it aloud or they read it to you. It gives them confidence in knowing some of what's going to happen. The colorful illustrations are fun to follow along with. The Arthur doll is soft and huggable with "glasses" that are sewn onto the washable body. The doll makes a nice prop if you're reading out loud to a small group.

This book started out very good, although it doesn't explain alot of the widgets and getting data from the widgets very well, for example i had search for around 2 hours for ways to get data from the OptionMenu widget that was not explained at all in the book. The book also lacks good discription for what each function does in the GTK+ reference.

This book is informative, well designed and, in general, a good book.

The only thing I did not like about this book is the errors that it contains and the fact that the publisher doesn't publish a list of errors. Sometimes the explanation says one thing and the code that goes with it says another. (ex: Take a look at page 27 (the code) and take a look at the explanation on page 28. It claims that if eventDelete returns TRUE, the window closes. The code says otherwise)

Please put pressure on the publisher so that he corects the book.

This book is a fast and easy intro to gtk and gnome programming. It contains large, complete examples which are good if you want to do what everyone else is doing. However, I'm trying to draw data and I need something better than calling gdk_gc_set_foreground(); gdk_draw_point(); 256 times for every data set.

He uses a large number of gdk routines without providing any overview. The routines are explained where they are used but it's very haphazard. Most of the routines I need seem to be missing.

The references for Gtk and Gnome widgets list functions, enums and signals for each but doesn't explain anything about them. Parameters and return values are only discussed in the text if they are actually used.

Aristotle's "Metaphysics" is superb, no question about it. But this edition ("Prometheus Books" edition, translated by John McMahon--I am NOT referring to the "Penguin Books" edition, translated by Hugh Lawson) is greatly deficient. The translation is horrible, using expressions that are not used in today's English, e.g. "superficies" where other translations have "surface," etc. This edition has no index, no glossary, no notes or commentaries. It's really worthless. Again, Aristotle's work itself is great, but this edition and translation is not worth your money. Get a different one. The best translation is said to be W.D. Ross's, but Lawson's is said to be alright, too.

I love Aristotle and his Metaphysics is absolutely amazing. But the Prometheus Books translation, translated by John McMahon, is not exactly great. The translation itself is fine, but it's obvious that minimal effort was put into the book as a whole.... ie: there's no index of terms or people. If at all possible, I would recomend getting a different (and hopefully more useful) translation.

This book doesn't touch the quality of Jonathan Barnes or Richard McKeon, but it has an admirable and enamoring quality to it. Those of us familiar with reading lots and lots of Aristotle, recognize in the Stagirite a personality that "philosophy" isn't always interested in.

This translation attempts to bring out more of this personality. I wouldn't recommend this book to a beginner in Aristotle. However, those of us old friends of A's will find this a bit amusing and lovable. Resist the urge to be offended by the liberal translation, and look instead with a bemused eye.

I've read the first three chapters, I enjoyed them and plan to buy the book to read the rest, BUT I should say that the author, trying to sound very knowledgeable, committed a basic mistake.

He's talking about pseudo-prime numbers, even has a web page warning us about Feb/29th/2000. However, in chapter 2, Susan, the scienfific girl, is studying tapes with recorded data between 25th and 29th of February, 1987.

I can't remember that date, Feb/29th/1987. There has never been such date in calendar, so I guess I should read the book in a very forgiving mood; because if the rest is written with that care, I will find more basic mistakes like that.

Perhaps if this novel had appeared before Carl Sagan's "Contact", it would have been a hit.

In the other hand, I enjoyed the basic idea; identifying an ET contact thru mathematics using number sequences not found in nature.

I guess we should watch the next books from the author, I hope he learns to concentrate to avoid these basic mistakes

Upon picking up the book, it looks like it was either self-published or that the publishers don't have the vaguest idea of what entails publishing a book. The back cover blurb is headed by the word "Synopsis", which is in the field of writing what a writer presents to the editor in summarising their book. The front cover is also somewhat off-putting; it appears to be a computer printout of a planet image. A poor resolution one at that. I could not believe the cover price of US$19.95 -- especially not for a book this thin. However, all of this does not tell us about the quality of what is written on the pages within.

The best part of this book is that I learnt what pseudo-prime (or Carmichael) numbers are. I had never heard of them prior to this. The book itself was not altogether original -- anyone who has read Sagan's _Contact_ will see this. Pseudo-primes = prime numbers. Details for creating a machine = details for creating a wormhole device. And so on. I must admit though, that the idea of having a computer program totally change the _insides_ of a computer to be a new one. I would not know if this would be possible -- you'd have to ask a computer engineer that -- but I must say that I found it entertaining.

The plot was well done, and engrossing to a point, but the characters are leaden and it destroys the effect that the plot created. The characters are little more than pawns twisted and turned to lead the plot on, but could never sustain their own ground. The only character whose viewpoint I thought was strong did not last very long. The main characters though, or what I think were supposed to be the main characters! -- were weak and did nothing for the story.

One thing that was somewhat annoying what D'Alembert's constant explanations of common acronyms. There were explanations of CIA and NSA, which any person who reads this type of book should already know from previous encounters. There were a number of typos that I gritted my teeth over -- but then, I'm pedantic and get into a snit whenever a typo breaks my concentration of a story.

Something that he should not have done was begin chapter five in the way he did. It appears like he had a long spell where he did not write anything and then came back to the manuscript without reading what he had done previously. Going over the characters again when he had introduced them well - one could say almost too well - in the previous chapters is overkill.

I believe that perhaps his editor should have gone over the manuscript a little more carefully and picked up on the things I have mentioned. His writing does have some promise, but this book should have been published much later, when D'Alembert had the time to look upon it cold and work with it until the obvious flaws had been ironed out.

The Song of the Swan by Arthur D'Alembert

This is one of those books that grabs your attention from the first page and that's actually hard to put down. In 1987 a supernova explodes and five years later Susan Kimmerly Horrowitz decides to analyze some of the data that was collected from the explosion. That's when she sees it, the data set includes pseudo prime numbers that doesn't have any normal reason for being there. She cross checks with a data set obtained in Japan, and the results are the same. The race is on to figure out what this is all about, and Susan might not be the only one that knows. One question remains though, are the human race really ready for what they might find? The story is definitely one that sets your mind thinking, what if? The worst thing is that everything seems so realistic and possible... Could this really happen?

Scientific facts is the foundation for the story and it really seems that the author knows what he talks about, this is not just make believe, it's based on mathematical and astronomical facts. This is actually what I really like about this novel. A fast pacing story based on real science that is just under 200 pages long. I would highly recommend this story to everybody that likes to be a bit shocked by the possibilities and the simple question, WHAT IF?

I'm sorry, but this isn't down-to-Earth Judaism, or any form of Judaism at all. It is about justifying the author's lifestyle, and that's about it. Its promotes the uninhibited excess that rabbinic Judaism has always fought against.

In his chapter on "The Meaning of Marriage", Waskow proposes that 3 (or more) men and women can have sex with each other in "poly-fidelity" marriages, and that we should regard these pagan activities as "Jewish".

This book isn't about liberal Jewish ethics; in this chapter it is about anti-Jewish ethics. I hope that no gentiles read this book and mistake the author for being a mainstream Jew. Better to get books by Michael Gold or Shmuel Boteach than this.

If you've ever watched _Dharma & Greg_ and chuckled at Larry Finkelstein, then you've already caught the flavor of 'Rabbi' Arthur Waskow. Waskow's 'loyalty' to Torah is entirely self-serving and his 'interpretations' are convincing only to thoroughly credulous leftists with out-of-focus minds. Moses Maimonides would have had him for lunch.

For balance, read David Horowitz's _The Politics of Bad Faith_. (Horowitz has an air of zealotry himself, but he's much nearer right about the nature of leftist politics than Waskow will ever be.) Then check out some Jewish thinkers who aren't trapped in the Woodstock Era.

In this title, Waskow explores important basic issues through a variety of lenses, and his insights are wide-ranging. Judaism has changed significantly, he points out, over the ages; Biblical Judaism differed from Rabbinic Judaism, and it's possible that we're approaching a new turn of the spiral, a "post-Rabbinic" age in which Judaism may grow into new forms. Those forms, whatever they may be, will be shaped by how Jews of today and tomorrow address food (eating, kashrut, and also other kinds of "consumption"), money (cash, class, tzedakah/righteous giving), sex (the whole matrix of sexual and erotic relationships, between and among the genders), and rest (work, play, and Shabbat) .Waskow's trademark warmth, scholarship, and wry humor are apparent throughout "Down-to-Earth Judaism." I recommend this book highly.

My wife and I have been great fans of Frommer's books on our travels. However, we found the Spain Frommer's guide only average. While the book was excellent in terms of highlighting what to see and do, it was way off base when it came not only to restaurant recommendations, but also in terms of the existence of actual restaurants. Many of the restaurants didn't even exist, or had different names altogether. I can understand if this were an old edition. However, we used the 2002 edition, and it wasn't up to usual Frommer standards.

We also used Frommer's for Portugal. That was a bigger disappointment as the ratings of things to do and places to see were way off from what they really were.

I prefer the Frommer Guides to most others, and this is no exception. While a bit short in background, it provided a lot of useful, practical information for my recent trip to Northern Spain. As with most standard guides, however, it falls short in breadth of coverage, emphasizing the well-known sites and omitting lots of fascinating smaller towns and areas. But then, that's why I travel, to discover the real country, not the postcard one. If you're going with a group, or sticking mostly to the main roads, this is a good book to bring.

My wife and I have recently returned from a six-week trip to Spain. Thanks to Frommer's guide, we had the most memorable trip of our lives. The book is helpful, opinionated, personalized, like a good friend talking to you and leading you out of the traps and into the oasis. We were directed to friendly people, affordable meals, great beds, and lovely moments that will live long in our memory. We have used Frommer's guides to America before but never one to a country in Europe. From now on, we're dedicated fans. We won't leave home without it!

The problem with a discussion of this book is that anyone who goes outside its parameters risks court action. Any bdiscussion while pricipal actors are still alive, which might seriously challenge Yallop's assertions must therefore await untill the hand of God permits a more open discussion of what did, and did not, what might, and what might not, have taken place.

certainly, to dismiss the "dead cartridge in the magazine" theory out of hand as the one person Royal Commission did (and he was a person not without controversy in his own right) is hardly fair to anyone involved.

"Who fed the baby?" is the question on the lips of most of the people who know of this case. I feel that there will be no closure to this story as some people involved in this case are either dead or are keeping quiet for ever. I have seen the house that these shootings took place as it seems to have become a bit of a tourist attraction for those in New Zealand who know and wonder about this case. I even have a family member that lived in the area and knew Arthur Alan Thomas when the shootings occured. It has become a public fascination and one of lifes' mysteries.David Yallop has taken chances when writing this book as the case is still mentioned from time to time and the question of who fed nany Rochelle is still asked. I found this book fairly hard to read as the scientific evidence is hard to sift through.You read about more than one trial here and it can be hard going although to really understand why AA Thomas was convicted,you must first read the 'evidence'. I don't know who shot and killed Harvey and Jeanette Crew or who fed the baby but I feel that it was NOT Arthur Thomas.Maybe it was the dad (Len Demler) and maybe the sister Heather is involved and that's who fed the child but I just don't know for sure.Nobody does.It's why this case is still popular. David Yallop claims that he has evidence that a 'certain' woman was involved and he 'knows for sure' that she was in the country.Heather right?I think so but he cannot come out and say it for legal reasons I suppose. The book does show you that stuff ups were made in the trials.All the evidence about all the guns in the area not being tested is true.I know,as one of the few rifles not tested belongs to a family member of mine and he told me that it was offered for testing but the police couldn't be bothered to come and get it.We still have that gun,I have used it myself. Everyone who reads about this case will form their own opinion and everyones will be different. This case is fascinating but I don't know as you will get the full impact by reading this account.The book is long and heavy going but you can still catch enough of the details to see where David Yallop is heading. My advice is that if you start to read it and you get confused with all the details,then put it away for a couple of days and then try again.

I read this book some years ago after finding a mention of it in an old Readers Digest article. (Nov.'79) David Yallop's examination of all the evidence quite clearly portrays Arthur Thomas'es innocence and tears to shreds the police investigation and evidence of some of the wittnesses. Makes me wonder what did go on and it seems that Leonard Delmer had something to do with it... But one feels sorry for Rochelle Crewe, (the baby found in her cot) now in her thirties, and apparently living in America.
The whole book is one which makes me feel for the living victims of this tragedy.

The most biased anti-insurance book I have ever read. Insurance is a complex tool which can be great when used properly, and harmful if not.

Keep It Simple, Silly!
That's what this book does - it simlifies the life insurance debate. Along with "What's Wrong With Your Life Insurance" by Norman Dacey, this is one of the best books written about the subject.

Life insurance has been made hopelessly complex by the companies and agents selling cash-value insurance. Keep it simple...buy Term and do your investing elsewhere. Why would you investment money into a product that when you die your family doesn't get it???

Milton cuts to the chase and makes two very important points:
1) there is only one reasons agents sell cash-value life insurance: COMMISSIONS.
2) Cash-value life insurance IS term insurance - it just has a savings element attached to it that performs very poorly and has too many "gotchas".

Life insurance isn't complex and this book explains why.

... The information in Arthur Milton's book is required reading for anyone who wants to prevent the deception of the insurance industry from wrecking their lives financially, and the lives of their descendants. ...

This books is clearly nothing less than pseudo-scientific claptrap. It is however certainly worth the read. Of interest only in light of its place in history and its influence on the Nazis, Wagner, etc. Gobineau makes the same foolish errors common to those who THINK they are applying the scientific method and his errors simply multiply; he stops only when he is convinced he has proved a premise he already believed true. This is like a text book of phrenology or animal magnetism. What amazes and saddens me is (looking at the other reviews) how many modern readers are considering this as worthy of serious consideration. I'm assuming they have appointments to get the bumps on their heads read by a phrenologist soon too!!

I bought this book as an historical curiosity, but I quickly admit it wasn't a good deal. The author try to establish a scientific foundation for racism - and he thinks he was very successful in doing so. But I did not find neither a single serious or, at least, rational reason for paying heed to the preposterous deliria of such an ignorant, sometimes liar, disguised in scientist. Some examples? One reason for the superiority of white races: their "unrivaled" beauty. What a keystone! The qualities of some superior races of the past? The Romans were more skilled in practical disciplines and sciences than Greeks. But not a single Roman in early times was a scientist, although dozens of the bests mathematicians, physicians and scientists were GREEKS. I could continue, but this book isn't worth enough. Its only usefulness could be in exercising your critical sense, if you accept to bear its boring, unending strip of historical mistakes and forgeries.

I bought this book for historical purposes and curiosity only. Because of my background and education, I was highly skeptical of the racist premise. After reading the book, I have come to respect the highly prophetic observations of De Gobineau. Although he did not have the benefit of modern genetic and sociological research, and made several scientific mistakes, De Gobineau accurately foresaw the scientific future. De Gobineau's views were out of favor for many years, but modern research confirms his theories and scientific genius. Genetics and race are directly related to individual intelligence and the advancement of a society. De Gobineau is the "Einstein" of sociology and genetics. A great historical book.