For anyone whose life has been touched by polio, whether through direct experience with the disease, caring for those who were affected by it or the fear of those epidemic summers , 3Polio1s Legacy2 will evoke powerful memories. For some, the book might even help piece together crucial aspects of a buried past that shaped their lives. Or they might remember the horror of hearing that their spinal tap did indeed indicate polio, and of being told they would never walk again. And few of us will forget the struggle back into the mainstream. We all fought hard not to be 3crippled2, even though we were! Cripples in the first half of this century were frequently looked upon with disdain. Feared or thought to be cursed by God, whatever the reason, some physically disabled children were even barred from attending public schools. President F. D. Roosevelt, however, personally overcame the prejudices of that era through a 3cheerful striving toward normalization2, and that is in effect what we all did. Edmund Sass begins with a layman1s description of polio in both the acute phase and the later effects which are commonly referred to as the post-polio syndrome. He then introduces us to 35 U.S. polio survivors who present their shared experiences in their own words. They tell us about the initial illness, lumbar punctures, hospitalization, separation from family and friends, iron lungs, wheelchairs, surgery, scoliosis, braces, crutches, canes and much more. Dr. Richard Owen, a doctor who had polio and who edited 3Polio1s Legacy2 for medical accuracy, wrote the following in his preface: 3The memories jarred loose by reading this book. . . .help to define ourselves by understanding better the way we were and by becoming more sensitive to the experiences of others. The stories contain instances of grimness and humor, of courage and fear, of opinion and sadness, of coping and denial. This carefully- put-together book is a service to society as a history of a time and of a disease with broad ramifications and implications.2 3How can I live within my limitations and still be the same person I was?2 asks one of the polio survivors who finally acknowledged that she needed help in coping with new weaknesses many years after the original polio. Many who had polio probably have asked or will ask themselves the same question because post-polio syndrome is a reality for people aging with polio. Why some people have late effects and others don1t has yet to be determined. There are, however, some predictive factors. The following reflection by someone who is experiencing new difficulty with his old polio speaks for many: 3Some days when I have more than my usual number of aches and pains or when my energy level is particularly low, I feel like I have a ticking time-bomb inside my body that is about to go off. I1ve come to the conclusion that polio is a particularly cruel disease. It steals your childhood, gives you 20 or 30 years to adjust to the disabilities with which you were left, and then threatens to return to complicate your life once again.2 Despite all this, most of those interviewed have lead full and enriched lives. Their stories celebrate life and the resiliency of the human spirit and might even inspire parents of handicapped children today. 3To individuals with polio residuals and/or post-polio syndrome and their families, the book serves as a collective memoir. To those health workers, scientists, and volunteers who participated in the battles against this frightening and often devastating disease, the book can function as recognition for a job well done.2 (Dr. Owen1s preface) But for me, the highlight of 3Polio1s Legacy2 is Sass1s dedication of his book to the parents (or caregivers) of polio survivors: 3Though we went through hell2, says the author, 3we took our parents along for the ride....and they never complained.2 To all parents and families, and mine in particular, this is an opportunity to offer a delayed but profound thank you. Sally Aitken.

this is the one book that you really need to read to make you dream reality.

When I saw the page I recognized the cover of the book, but I could not believe what people were actually writing about it.

First I want to say that I am an undergraduate biotechnology student. I have a very strong background in biochemistry, cell biology, molecular biology, tissue culture techniques, and immunology; but I have not had any classes dealing with anatomy or physiology since Bio 101 way back when. I have read and am quite comfortable with Alberts Molecular Biology of the Cell and Stryers Biochemistry, and even a handful of primary journal articles, so I do know how to read a textbook.

Now with that out of the way, let me say that this book is completely incomprehensible. It is so full of anatomy and Latin derived words (which it does a poor job at explaining BTW) that I can only assume that it was meant for medical students, and to have physiology an a prerequisite for it, but it doesn't even have an introduction describing the recommended background or whom it is supposed to be for. In fact, most of the book is devoted to the physiology of sensation and movement, not neurobiology. Now if you have the background for it and thats what you are looking for then it is a very thorough text that goes into a lot of depth.

If you are looking to understand the biochemistry or molecular aspects of neurobiology, find another book!

As an undergraduate Psychobiology student, this text served me well in my Neuroscience course. In all honesty I never went. I just read this book. I got excellent marks in the class. As a serious slacker and bibliophile, I recommend this textbook for any like-minded student.

As an undergraduate Neuroscience major I found this textbook to be highly informative and well-written. It was used to a Freshman-level course, and was easy to understand, yet thorough and interesting. The graphics are well done, and the format is better than most textbooks I'm used to. Anyone, even with minimal science experience could dive right in and learn a great deal. It may not be advanced enough, however, for grad or medical students. As a reference it does okay, but there are more-advanced texts which would probably do better. All-in-all it is an excellent book. In-fact, I liked it so much that I didn't sell it back at the end of the semester and keep it on my bookshelf for future reference (and future classes!)

Speaking as an average math student, I found Dr. Simmons' book to be the best "read" of any text out there. The book's writing style was excellent, the example problems were quite helpful, and the appendicies were terrific-- especially the biographical sketches of history's mathematical greats. Those made for a pleasant break when the rigors of infinite series or double integrals took their toll!

On a technical level, the book is as solid as any out there, and does a fine job of covering two semesters' worth of calculus. From derivatives to gradients, it's all in there.

While it is true that Simmons advocates leaving off the absolute value sign when integrating 1/x dx, and even assuming he got one problem wrong involving this, to dismiss the entire book as "rubbish" and to recommend "avoiding [it] like the plague" is completely unfair and totally out of proportion. Furthermore, claiming that it's "confusing" to even introduce the idea of the derivative before a formal definition of a limit is given is also unfair. There's absolutely nothing wrong with providing students with this kind of motivation, and you really don't need a formal definition of a limit to understand the concept. Having a correct and intuitive understanding with a minimum of prerequisites is helpful and an admirable pedagogical goal. [In fact, a classic calculus text (the two-volume set by Tom Apostol) even treats integration before differentiation (and limits), and it's completely correct and clear.] I trust that the fact that every other reviewer gave this book extremely high praise will give students the confidence to read and use this text to learn Calculus in an ideal way.

Speaking as an average math student, I found Dr. Simmons' book to be the best "read" of any text out there. The book's writing style was excellent, the example problems were quite helpful, and the appendicies were terrific-- especially the biographical sketches of history's mathematical greats. Those made for a pleasant break when the rigors of infinite series or double integrals took their toll!

On a technical level, the book is as solid as any out there, and does a fine job of covering two semesters' worth of calculus. From derivatives to gradients, it's all in there.

Thanks to the many requests of Star Wars fans and radio enthusiasts alike, the team that brought us the radio adaptations of A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back, reunited to conclude the original saga. Made exclusively by Highbridge, Return Of The Jedi, once again uses the film's score by John Williams and sound effects by Ben Burtt, to make for a top notch production. By using the actual soundtrack from the film, it gives the audio production crediability, as opposed to being made without it.

Once again, directed by John Madden, Jedi reunites most of the actors from the previous adaptions, with a couple of notable exceptions. Mark Hamill, who reprised his role as Luke Skywalker, for the first 2 productions, is replaced by Joshua Fardon. While, Billy Dee Williams, as rogue Lando Calrissian, is replaced by Arye Gross. As hard as these gentlemen try, because of the original actors previous involvment with the other two radio dramas, its difficult to imagine anyone else in those parts. Fardon's portrayal lacks the maturity of Hamill's character in the film version, Gross comes off, not quite as smooth, in playing Lando. The rest of the main radio cast, from the other two adaptations is thankfully intact. Actors Anthony Daniels, once again as C-3PO, (who has appeard in all 3 radio dramas as well as all of the films in the series) Brock Peters as Vader, Perry King, as Han Solo, Anne Sachs as Princess Leia, all complete their character arcs in the seies with style. Actor Edward Asner as the gangster Jabba The Hutt and John Lithgow as Master Yoda, (as he did in the Empire radio drama) use vocal talent, like no others, to bring these 2 unique characters to life.

Sci-fi author, Brian Daley, once again. wrote the radioplay for Jedi. As before, there are a few additional "scenes" presented, not in the film version. The end result is very good, but thanks to its shorter length, and the casting changes, I mentioned, Jedi doesn't seem quite as epic, as the other radio dramas in the series. Sadly, Daley passed away soon after the dialogue was recorded, and the production is dedicated to his memory. His script is very faithful to the film and the added scenes remain true to the characters and story.

If you own the other two radio dramas in the series, Jedi is a must have, minor problems and all. The story has six episodes, presented on three compact discs with a total running time of nearly 3 hours. Recommended

Return of the Jedi has always been my favorite Star Wars movie, both because I like how all the characters matured, (especially Luke) and because it finally delt face to face with the dark side, possibly the best force of evil ever thought of in the realms of fiction. This book exheeded not only my expectations for the book itself (which were very high) but even surpassed the movie in some ways. The author has a deep, highly emotional writing syle which apealed to me greatly, and was so profound that all through the book I truly felt as if was there, a part of the story. Every Star Wars fan should read this at some point, especially those who didn't like Return of the Jedi because they thought it was weaker than the others. I could almost garantee this book would change their minds. Also, the author did a tremendous job on the characters. Just they way they were presented made me truly feel for them, even characters who were previously not my favorites. At times this book had me sitting on the edge of my seat actually wondering if maybe this time it would turn out differently, and the part where Anakin Skywalker dies almost had me in tears. Anyway, I don't think think this book belongs in any particular age range, though probably some of it (in fact a lot of it) would most likely go over the heads of people younger then twelve or so.

You'll never see me cite one Star Wars movie being better than all the others (at least until Episode III comes out, which I'm convinced has the potential to be the best movie of all time), but as far as the novelizations go, Return of the Jedi is by far my favorite.

If you didn't already know it, there are a handful of important details included within this book that didn't make it into the movie. These details alone are reason enough for all Star Wars fans to read this book. When Episode III finally comes around, you will be able to appreciate it much more having read this book.

However, the true strength of this book is the wonderful portrayal of the characters. So much depth was given to them that it just strengthened all of the reasons why I love Star Wars. And the reason I do love Star Wars is because of the characters. While all the sci-fi stuff is really great, it is the story of these characters that has drawn me into this universe. Reading about Luke flaunting with the Dark Side as he faces against Vader and the Emperor is gut wrenchingly incredible.

This is the third part of a three part story. I recommend reading the first two parts first respectively - the third part is a treat you won't regret.

"The Prince" is one of the view books from college that I've actually kept. It is splendid reading on several levels. First, one appreciates Machiavelli as a problem solver. Italy is divided; what is the most practical and efficient means for a wise prince to consolidate his power and unify it? But one also appreciates Machiavelli as a person. A florentine intellectual banished to the countryside--it wouldn't be a bad life for some of us, but to him it must have been torture.

I was once asked whether Machiavelli was a cynic, a realist, or a patriot, and I believe the correct answer is all three. Much of Machiavelli's advice contains an under current of cynicism and ruthlessness, and this has undoubtedly come to be the dominant portion of his reputation. One of the terms for devil, "Old Nick" is derived from Machiavelli. When one speaks of destroying an enemy or performing a ruthless, sneaky act, that person is likely to be called "machiavellian". But Machiavelli's advice was as realistic as one could get in those times. This was an era when despots and mercenaries ruled by force and assasination. It was a time when popes fathered children and carved out little principalities for themselves. One was not going to remain in power, much less get ahead of one's enemies by being virtuous. It isn't that Machiavelli despised virtue so much as he realized how useless it was in the political context of the times. But in the end Machiavelli was also an idealist. He dreamed of a united Italy under a strong (and practical) prince. When he dedicated his treatise to Rodorigo Borgia, he did so in the hopes that he might be the man to perform such a task.

This book provides timeless practical advice for anyone who wishes to succeed in a hostile, divisive environment. It also illuminates the peculiar political circumstances of Renaissance Italy.

Based upon Michiavelli's first hand experience as an emissary of the Florentine Republic to the courts of Europe The Prince analyzes the often violent means by which political power is seized and retained, and the circumstance in which it is lost. Because The Prince is a political commentary, and not a work of fiction, Michiavelli does not use "characters" in the sense of a novel or a short story. Instead he draws his examples from the current political and social events, as well as from history. His characters are the political leaders of his time. The book is a declaration in plain language the conduct of great men and the principles of princely governments. The book can be divided into four sections.

1. The types of principalities. Michiavelli lists four types of principalities.

* Hereditary principalities, which are inherited by the ruler.

* Mixed principalities, territories that are annexed to the rulers existing territories.

* New principalities which may be acquired by several methods: by own power, by the power of others by criminal acts or extreme cruelty, or by the will of the people

* Ecclesiastical principalities, namely the papal states belonging to the catholic churches.

2. The character and behavior of the prince. Michiavelli recommends the following character and behavior for princes:

* It is better to be miserly than generous.

* It is better to be cruel than merciful.

* It is better to break promises if keeping than would be against ones interest.

* Princes must avoid making them hated and despised; the goodwill of the people is a better defense than any fortress.

* Princes should undertake great projects to enhance their reputation.

* Princes should choose wise advisors to confide and consult with

3. The types of armies A prince must always pay close attention to military affairs if he wants to remain in power. A prince must lay good foundation and those foundations include good laws and good armies. There cannot be good laws without good armies, and where there are good laws there must be good armies. The study of war should be a prince's main goal, for war is a rulers only art.If princes become too refined to study this art they loose their state. The types of armies are:

* Mercenaries or Auxiliaries (loaned to you by another ruler) are both dangerous and unreliable, as they will maintain their interests preceding yours.

* Native troops composed of ones own citizens or subjects are by far the most desirable kind.

4. Italy's political situation Michiavelli outlines and recommends the following

* The rulers of Italy have lost their states by ignoring the political and military principles.

* Fortune controls half of human affairs, but free will controls the rest, leaving the prince free to act. However, the few princes can adopt their actions to times

The Prince by Machiavelli is not about a "prince" but about principles that a ruler, a king, a president, a prince should follow or manipulate to maintain and keep his kingdom or country. Machiavelli's famous treatise is one of the central texts in the history of political thought and a basic foundation to all principles dealing with "How to rule an acquired or inherited kingdom/country," how to be an effective ruler, and government politics. This book is a response to the florentine politics of Machiavelli's time and to the genre of advice-books for princes. Underneath the generalities of his principles, Machiavelli leaves a sense of admonishment to the ruler and the reader alike.
This treatise was written based on his experience as second Chancery and secretary to the main foreign relations committee of the republic, the so-called Ten of War. His writing style lacks verbosity and florid eloquence; Instead, there is a lucid string of concise words in a coherent and cogent order. The brevity and understatements of his general statements makes it very easy for the reader to follow. In every chapter, he states his thesis for a certain principle and gives examples to prove his point. The principles address important issues such as how to win over people, nobles, and soldiers; accomplish political ambitions and necessities by force or fraud, how to be loved and feared by the people, eliminate those with and without power who can possibly harm the ruler, how to make the government agree with the ruler, when to be austere or munificient, how to establish and maintain loyalty, when to build fortresses and how to build alliances and friendships with other kings and kingdoms. This book will not only instruct the ruler how to be a prince and a good one, but also how to maintain oneself as a ruler over people whose hearts can quickly shift contrary to the ruler.

I've been catching up on Wells' work lately, and up to this point, I've been fairly impressed. His best work, written at the turn of the century, holds up fairly well: it's entertaining and thought-provoking (The Time Machine, War of the Worlds).

I wasn't very impressed with this book, however. It doesn't read like his other works. The story probably could have been told in 20 or so pages, definitely a short-story candidate. I was amazed that Wells stretched this out to its present length, as the middle 40-odd pages were quite dull and really didn't go anywhere.

The science behind the story (while iffy, of course), is fascinating. Griffin is a great character, but more could have been done with him, besides his spending so much time having to convince people that he IS, in fact, invisible ("I am invisible. I really am an invisible man", etc, etc). It gets mind-numbing after a while. I guess the biggest let-down of the book is the fact that the title gives everything away. Once you've seen the cover, you pretty much have it; no real surprises. Yep, he's invisible, and there ya go.

What a great idea to assemble scifi icons from Star Trek to perform various H.G. Wells's classics! Of the works they've performed are: The Invisible Man, The Time Machine, The First Men in the Moon, and Journey to the Center of the Earth.

This audio recording of The Invisible Man was easy listening, and fun too. It's definitely worth a listen. I'm going to have to check out the others!

One side note, obviously the original work was abridged and adapted for audio drama. You'll still want to read the classic.

Okay, so Wells didn't load the book with the violence seen in the recent movie Hollow Man. Consider when the book was written, and what was comparable at the time. I, for one, was engrossed in the book and read it in about three sittings.

Wells excellently portrayed Griffin (Invisible Man) as a man crossing back and forth from sanity to madness. You may catch yourself considering how you would overcome his difficulties, or how you might abuse his power.

What really stood out for me was the tongue-in-cheek undertones Wells incorporated into the story, such as the cockney dialect and rustic behavior of the people of Iping. Also, consider Wells' narration during intense moments, such as the fight between Griffin and the people of Iping...
"...[Huxter's] shin was caught in some mysterious fashion, and he was no longer running, but flying with inconceivable rapidity through the air. He saw the ground suddenly close to his face. The world seemed to splash into a million whirling specks of light, and subsequent proceedings interested him no more."
Later elaboration of the events included the terrifying realization that Griffin was "smiting and overthrowing, for the mere satisfaction of hurting."

If you find the book difficult to follow, try the version adapted by Malvina Vogel, complete with illustrations by Pablo Marcos. It's not as powerful, but easier to understand.

i quite enjoyed burgess dissing of the faults and quirks of '1984'.

the only fault with 1985 is that it tells a unprobable story in a totally un-living fashion. his misinterpretations of syndicalism and anarchism also disturbs me. a good idea, but poorly executed.

Burgess' 1985 is really two works combined. The first is a series of essays and self-interviews that discuss Orwell's 1984. These are a great group of essays that really throw some light on Orwell's novel. Anyone who likes 1984 should read these essays. The second half is a novella of Burgess titled 1985. The dust jacket gives the impression that it is supposed to be a sequel of sorts. It isn't. It is a dystopia that takes place in 1985 (written in 1978) and is supposed to be a (more) possible scenario at the time. It isn't very entertaining, and a lot of ideas, characters, themes, etc aren't fleshed out the way they should be. But I suppose that could do with the shortness of the story. And Burgess should have been more careful with his title. Burgess's 1985 isn't a frightening or as well written as Orwell's 1984, and Burgess drawing the reader to make a comparison only hurts his story. After the novella is a short chapter on Worker's English (WE) which is Burgess' version of Newspeak. The problem is that WE isn't used much in the story, is really nothing more than a little slang, and I understand that Burgess only has the chapter/essay because of Orwell's explanation of Newspeak, but it is dull and unnecessary. Then Burgess finishes out the volume with another self-interview which discusses the possibility of his future. All this in only 270 pages. Still, the discussion of Orwell's 1984 that the first half is comprised of is excellent and the book is worth finding, if only for that.

A stunning book which I stumbled across completely by chance - and one which throws new light on two of the last century's most important novels: Orwell's 1984 and Burgess' own A Clockwork Orange. I have long been an admirer of both books, but this book is fascinating in that it goes some way towards clarifying the moral stances which have long remained open to interpretation in the two previous books. Unusually for a popular work, the book combines a devastating critique of 1984, with it's own fictional riposte (the 1985 of the title). The latter part being particularly interesting as a reminder of just how pertinent the issue of syndicalism was in the days just before the resurgence of rampant lassez faire.

First book was good. well.....Now they (or Mayne himself) is/are not moving foward. repetitious schemes with minimal ideas. Graphics drowned in mindless Form-z models and renderings. Mighty Thom Mayne has lost his creativity.

One of the few architecture books at the brick and mortor bookstore that isn't sealed shut with shrink wrap. After I flipped through it I immediately bought it through amazon. It is designed by Cranbrook design superstar Lorraine Wild, the design perfectly represents what Morphosis is about. I take it from the other reviewers that they only looked at the images and did not read anything at all because they did not "get it". Their work is delivered as a cyberpunk novel outtake, the setting an industrial dance club with torture devices. There is a wonderful surreal short story that acts as a sort of guide to viewing the work as well. I am not an architect but this is inspirational enough for me to spend half a decade in school to become one. Reminds me of the Jean Tinguely book published in the early 70's (with sketch overlays) and a similar design philosophy as Low/Tek

Being an architecture student, I constantly refer to many books, and Morphosis is one of my favourite contemporary architecture firm. This is really a thick and quite a heavy book. Its a compilation of many of Morphosis' work. Their "Best Of.." volume. This marvelous edition is divided into 2 parts. The first part consist of many colourful computer generated views, elevations, plans and 3D computer models etc of their buildings. The 3D models give a good visual understanding of their complicated but exciting buildings. The second part consist of essays by Thom Mayne. The thing about Morphosis is Mayne's writing is clear. He states his intention and theories clearly without getting out of the subject of architecture much. He talks about the difference between a project and a building which is a very good way of looking at architecture today. The graphics and writing provide a very clear understanding of their buildings. The bottom line is, if you like Morphosis, you'll love this book among your collection.

This history of Rock and Roll comes from Rolling Stone, one of the biggest and longest-lasting names in Rock reporting and coverage. It is truly a mixed bag, ranging anywhere from great historical content to outright howlers.

First, the book does an excellent job of covering the entirety of rock history and drawing out its influences and evolutions. It does a wonderful job of covering the different local scenes and how they were integrated in with the whole of rock music. Whole chapters are generally rewarded to the most influential bands, and not just those that sold more album.

However, the book suffers a number of strong drawbacks. First, as many pointed out, the book is clearly slanted toward the Rolling Stone perspective. Artists such as Billy Joel, who have not had good relations with the magazine, have been omitted. Several others, such as Bob Seger, were also given no treatment. There is also a bit of redundent content, such as giving the Beatles two whole chapters and then devoting a third (British Invasion) to a primarily Beatles-related topic. Also, there are separate chapters on Motown and Stevie Wonder.

Secondly, the book is often skewed toward the "pop" scene when it comments on more current acts. Rolling Stone has been getting even worse about this in its magazine. One particular example that stands out is in the heavy metal section. My edition was published in 1991 and the writer heaps load and loads of praise upon such hair-metal acts as Motley Crue, Poison, Ratt and Warrant. Other, more talented but less popular metal acts, such as Metallica, are put down and summarily dismissed. However, we all know that if this were to have been written 5 years later, Rolling Stone would be worshipping Metallica and praising them for destroying such hair-bands. RS makes the mistake of "going with the flow" one too many times.

Overall - nice book, but with some obvious problems.

Rolling Stone has been around reporting on rock music for nearly 35 years. That longevity only earns them stripes, but not exactly the monker of expert.

RS editors - in all fairness like most journalists - have an agenda, and accuracy and fairness in rock isn't exactly one of them. One writer (below) asked why Billy Joel was snubbed. Simple; RS and Joel have publically feuded for years so as far as RS is concerned, one of rock's greatest acts (and an inductee to the Rock Hall of Fame) doesn't exist. In the rock world according to Jann Wenner, there is no greater act in rock history than the Rolling Stones. They're certainly a bellweather act in rock history, but not "the greatest"...but that's how RS sees it, and apparently so should history.

So take what they say with a grain of salt, enjoy it for what it is (their fave-raves, as valid as the Listmania right here on Amazon) - cuz after all, it's only rock and roll.

I am fond of The Rolling Stone series. This is history of Most important artists, and for me every important for the rock&roll music can be found in this book. (And much more than I expected at this low price). I am big music fan and this is real thing for my library. Strongly recommended.