This is a useful weather field guide because it spends most time illustrating regular weather phenomena. By that, I mean it spends most time on the various types of clouds, "garden-variety" thunderstorms, and ordinary optical phenomena like rainbows, irridescence, halo(e)s, and the like - the kind of stuff you're most likely to see if you glance out your bedroom window of a morning, or . . . whatever. (It's hard not to sound corny there!)Also, the text goes into how such phenomena comes about, which is useful.

There are also useful appendices like the Beaufort scale, and tornado safety rules in the back.

The only drawbacks are, the fact that this isn't a full-color guide - the color plates have been segregated to an insert around the middle of the book (although it still makes up about a fifth of the book); also, the illustration of severe weather is rather limited. We don't see features of a severe thunderstorm, or satellite images of a hurricane at its various stages of intensity, or the forms a tornado can take, or where one can form - we only have photos of distant, non-severe looking cumulonimbus (thunderstorm) clouds, a view of clouds around a hurricane taken from a plane (which isn't the perspective either a satellite or someone on the groud is going to have), and one photo of a tornado chosen for its historical merit only (it being the "first photo taken of a tornado," near Howard, SD on 8/28/1884 - an older photo, taken near either Garnett or Westphalia, KS on 4/26/1884, has since been found).
[Regarding the thunderstorm/tornado images, I realize this isn't supposed to be a NOAA spotter's guide, therefore gospel, but a variety of images helps.]

But if a lack of color doesn't bother you, and you know your severe storms (or they don't bother you, either), this is a good field guide to have.

This book addresses the eternal quest by Americans to learn their beginnings, to reflect on the past, and dream of good times when life was simple. I enjoyed the book even though I was born in the 60's. I look forward to volume II.

Problems with book:

1) Book should've mentioned up front they were focussing on COM/DCOM with MFC support. Focuses heavily on the MFC side of COM/DCOM, which we do not use.

2) Treatment of ATL does not exploit all the work VC6 can do for you.

3) Book spends two chapters covering C++ and OOD, which they expect you to already know at anyways. Why not omit those chapters and spend more time talking about what the book truly is about.

However, this book did give me a good overview of COM/DCOM. Having read Inside COM and looked at a few others, this book left out a great deal. A good intro book but be sure to have Inside COM side by side with this one.

The examples had too much MFC/GUI code. Should focus on COM rather than explaining how MFC works. They also omit how to set up your projects in VC6. VC6 can do a lot of the prework ahead for you and they consistently failed to utilize it.

this book is probably the most understandable that i've read about COM. Chris Corry writes about this subject so well that anybody could understand and comprehend COM.

Not as good as "Inside COM" which I also rate as a 5 star book but is simpler to understand and can be used very effectively in conjunction with the above named book. Very reasuring to the reader.

...Primarily, the Map is wrong. Azad Kashmir is such a beautiful part of Pakistan, and they cokmpletely miss it. They go on to show that Entire Kashmir is a part of india.
The book is also missing insiders scoop. Perhaps just using this book aas a reference, and Using other guide would be better. The authors also give a fake image of Pakistans politics, and its intolerance, as a matter of fact its very tolerant...As long as you aren't calling for trouble, you're all right!

The book is written very well. Gives all the information a traveller could possibly use. The only thing wrong with is the map of Pakistan and Kashmir. Kashmir is shown to be a part of India which is totally wrong. One part of Kashmir - Azad Kashmir is independant whereas the other half is occupied by India. The map of Kashmir should be corrected to earn the fifth star.

Without bringing my political affiliations and leanings into this review (...), I can safely vouch for this travel guide to Pakistan. Informative, thorough, honest and highly enjoyable, Lonely Planet has come through again! I utilized their travel books throughout my recent trip to India and Pakistan and was never led wrong (infact they have saved my behind a few times, especially in Pak), but overall enhanced my experience as they encouraged me to try new and different things while there and also gave me some pointers on how to interact with the locals. One negative point to mention: Lonely Planet Pakistan doesn't stress and/or inform about the heckling, whistling, and unwanted male attention foreign girls (even those who are of Indian origin) have to suffer through, enough.

I have hardcover editions of every one of John Grisham's novels. He, Michael Connolly and Stephen Hunter are my three favorite novelists. However, with The Brethren, Mr. Grisham has really let me down. The book isn't about anything. Yes, there's a plot about three boring judges and their homophobic scam, and yes, there's a secondary plot about an obsessed government bureaucrat and a presidential candidate, but the story goes absolutely nowhere. The novel is badly in need of a strong protagonist. There's no true main character in the book, no person around whom the action centers. Mr. Grisham needs to remember that he's writing FICTION, so the sky's the limit. He is capable of creating interesting characters and solid plotlines, but The Brethren is boring and it seems to be a lonely book, sort of like being in jail. Call me greatly disappointed. Mr. Grisham needs to stop cranking them out and needs to really sit and think out his next story. When the next book arrives, I will think long and hard about buying it, and I will not buy it until I've read a lot of reviews of it, something I've never had to do in the past when it comes to Mr. Grisham's work.

Grisham took a great idea for a plot but failed to research key specifics. Further, he regrettably chose not to flesh out his characters and breathe life into them. This results in a fair, entertaining, story, but better research with greater sensitivity to the individuality of many characters would have helped me better suspend my disbelief.

Okay, just what do I mean?

Well, if one supposes that CIA or some shadow government is really in charge of American politics and policy, then it is not difficult to imagine such a group would assassinate a president (read John F. Kennedy) or would create sufficient chaos to destroy a sitting president's re-election chances (read Jimmy Carter). That seems to be Grisham's premise and it is worthy of a great novel.

HOWEVER, when you place a key scene in a locale as well known as Cairo, don't make Grisham's error of claiming you have a key character in a room at a lower floor of a hotel that is a significant distance from the American embassy and that he can see the top as the building suffers a catastrophic detonation.

Further, don't depend on simplistic stereotyping of major characters. I can, to a degree, excuse this fault because it also is a mistake too often comitted by Tom Clancy.

Still, I do recommend the book. I only with it had been as believable as several of his others.

The book is well written., looks like two story lines that are tied together extremely well. The two premises are very interesting. Three imprisoned judges pulling off for them what appears to be a safe blackmail scheme. And the CIA buying the Next predident of The USA. A book with no romance in it, and thank God. For this book is funny and easy to read. But it; you will not be sorry. Much better than his last couple.

Let me get this straight...Mr. Bugliosi believes in Magic Bullets? OKEY DOKEY Alice, if you want to vacation in Wonderland, by all means believe the magic bullet theory.
If you want to know REALITY, then Bugliosi isnt the one to ask, when it comes to the JFK Aassassination. So, if you want the truth about the Assassination of President Kennedy, read a book that has it, and in my opinion, this one doesnt have anything other than ignorant, fictional views.
Lets put it this way, the theory that Colombian drug lords killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson is more plausible than the Magic bullet theory.
Perhaps Bugliosi should talk to people who are educated about the facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy, before he spreads the misinformation about the Kennedy murder....an ignorance which is already an epidemic that is responsible for brainwashing Americans.
Books like Peter Dale Scott's "Deep Politics", Jim Marr's "Crossfire" and James Fetzer's "Assassination Science", and James Hepburn's "Farewell America", are books that actually contain pieces of the truth concerning the Kennedy case.
I dont believe in telling people what to read, and what not to read, so if you want to read this book, go right ahead...enjoy it. I also believe that our Freedom of speech is precious, and Bugliosi was simply using his freedom of speech to write the book.
Well, I am using mine when i say that this book is a fairy tale and has zero value if you are interested in learning the truth about the conspiracy to Kill President Kennedy.
In my view, Bugliosi simply doesnt understand the case.
It has been revealed that the CIA has hired "reputable" people to sell their cover story (Lie) that Oswald killed Kennedy.
I cant say that Bugliosi is one of those people, because I have no proof of that, but one has to wonder how an otherwise smart man, would believe in such obvious lies, as the Warren Report.

I have been a huge fan of Mr. Bugliosi for over 25 years. I have read most of your work and have read some titles three and four times. But the advance publicity of this new work is changing my opinion of your work. I have read the warren report, I also have read over 30 books about the assassination. Too much of the warren report has been PROVEN to be false. There is a reason why Nixon said " the warren report is the greatest hoax ever" because it is fiction...the perponderance of evidence points to a conspiricy and the last official investigation by the House of representitives also published their view that there was a conspiricy. I don't get it...to me this is just a smoke screen to take advantage of the 40TH anniversery...I would rethink your stratagy because I won't be the only fan that questions your motives on this work.

Vincent Bugliosi's approach to the death of JFK has been telegraphed
in his BETRAYAL OF AMERICA, which makes a devastating case
against The Supreme Court for its abuse of power. But along the way,
its author, whom I greatly admire commits a colossal blunder that may take many Americans
by surprise. In particular, on pp. 32-33, this remarkable man asserts his
"conclusion" that THE WARREN REPORT was correct, that Lee Harvey Oswald
killed JFK, and that he acted alone. As he has confirmed for THE NATIONAL
ENQUIRER (21 January 2003), this is the position he elaborates and defends
in his new book, FINAL VERDICT.

He claims
most otherwise intelligent citizens have not thought intelligently
about this case, elaborating a "one minute" proof he
advanced to a group of 600 trial lawyers. He first asked them if they
had read criticism of the REPORT or seen the film, JFK. Many hands
rose. He was sure they would all agree that, before making up their
minds, they should hear both sides. With that in mind, he asked,
"How many have read THE WARREN REPORT?" Very few raised
their hands. Thus, most members of this audience had rejected the
commission's findings without bothering to actually read its
report.

But Bugliosi's argument founders on a subtle
fallacy. Suppose you were asked your opinion about astrology. Would it
be a mistake on your part if you had arrived at that opinion without
reading books by astrologers and "hearing both sides"?
Suppose you heard that a political leader advocated a program of
Ayrian supremacy, Jewish eradication, and territorial aggression.
Would it be a mistake on your part if you had concluded that those
views were corrupt and unworthy without bothering to actually read
MEIN KAMPF?

The situation with THE WARREN REPORT is highly
comparable. Its principal conclusions--that Jack was hit by a bullet
that allegedly passed through his neck and injured John Connally,
while remaining virtually unscathed; that another shot hit him in the
head and killed him; and that these shots were fired from a nearby
building by Oswald--are matters of common knowledge. Moreover, if they
are known to be false on independent grounds, then there is surely no
obligation to read the flawed report that supports them, any more than
you would want to take seriously a book claiming it never rains in
California when you are there in the midst of a storm!

These
conclusions have been proven false by studies published in many books,
including, most recently, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) and MURDER IN
DEALEY PLAZA (2000). The "magic bullet" theory, as it has
come to be known, which was the brainchild of Arlen Specter, for
example, not only depends upon shifting the point of entry from
several inches below the collar to the base of the back of the neck
(which was arranged by commission member Gerald Ford, who had the
wound redescribed for publication) but has in fact been proven
anatomically impossible! Cervical verteba intervene to make the
proposed trajectory purely hypothetical.

Other discoveries reported
there include that autopsy X-rays have been altered to conceal a
massive blow-out to the back of the head caused by a shot that entered
his right temple (in the case of the right lateral X-ray) and by
adding a 6.5 mm metallic object in an evident effort to implicate a
6.5 mm weapon (in the case of the front-to-rear X-ray). And a world
authority on the human brain has concluded that the brain shown in
diagrams and photographs at the National Archives cannot be the brain
of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Bugliosi knows these things because I
am the editor of these books and have made sure that he has them. It
is ridiculous to ask citizens interested in the case to draw
conclusions from a report prepared in 1964 when so much new evidence
and many alternative hypotheses have since become available. One of
the very first studies of the government's investigation, ACCESSORIES
AFTER THE FACT (1967), for example, proved that the Warren
Commission's conclusions are contradicted by the testimony and
documents published in its 26 "supporting" volumes!

So
why is Bugliosi indicting Americans for not reading THE WARREN REPORT?
The only hypothesis the commission considered seriously is that Oswald
committed the crime. The only evidence presented to the commission was
filtered by the FBI. We now know that the government's own inquiries
(including the reinvestigation by the House Select Committee in
1977-78) were based upon fabricated evidence. And thanks to the
Assassination Records Review Board, we now have 60,000 documents and
records that were not even made available to the members of the
commission!

It would be a waste of time, under these conditions,
for most of us to read an outdated report that has long since been
superceded. Bugliosi tells us he is completing a two-volume study that
supports his views. But it is crucial to consider his
methodology. Those with whom I have collaborated adopted the approach
of going back to the most basic evidence in this case--the autopsy
X-rays, the autopsy report, the Zapruder film--in an effort to
ascertain which among them is authentic and which is not. We have had
stunning success.

This research has been carried out by physicans,
scientists, and scholars. Bugliosi, however, is none of the above. So
I have asked him how he intended to proceed. "Since there are
authors and evidence on every side", I asked, "how are you
deciding which to accept and which to reject? What are your principles
of acceptance?" He has advised me that he is simply too busy to
reply to my questions now. But they suggest why, in spite of his
brilliance in other instances, his work on JFK should not be taken
seriously.

I have not read the book, but I am interested in reading it and reviewing it. I lived and working in Africa for five years, during which time I did a lot of AIDS education and awareness programs for the people.

I would be happy to review the book if you would please send me a complimentary copy. Dr. Georgia Christensen, FSPA Viterbo University 815 South 9th Street La Crosse, WI 54601

Sincerely,

Georgia Christensen, FSPA