Geostatistics is a fatally flawed variant of applied statistics because it violates the requirement of functional independence and ignores the concept of degrees of freedom. Without degrees of freedom, unbiased statistical inferences are impossible to obtain.

This is the best treatment of this subject that I've seen. It covers just about everything that you need to know on geostatistics.

Practical Geostatistics 2000 is an excellent volume for both teacher and learner written by world authorities in the field of statistics and geostaticstics. It combines theory with examples and exercises from various 'real world' applications of the techniques presented. With the software and data sets being free with the book, both teacher and learner can enforce and revisit the principles presented.

The importance of this book cannot be ignored by any learner in this field, with the nature of the practical approach and use of data from actual applications making it a necessary companion to every user in whatever field of application (be it mining, ecology, agriculture, fishing or any other known or unknown application).

Williams' romp through the U.N. will make those knowledgeable of the U.N. smile, but therein lies the problem with the book. It is so skimpy on explaination, in fact disjointed in places, that it takes a familiarity with the U.N. to fill in the gaps.The book may indeed be misnamed. As an example of the book's disjointed and even confusing presentation is Williams' explanation of the World Court. No mention is made of its structure or its function. Instead, Williams talks about America's withdrawl from the ICJ without telling us why this happened. His subsequent example of a 1992 Security Council meeting makes no sense and one would have to be familiar with the events himself to make the connections. I think that before one can appreciate the details of examples one needs a little explaination of the ICJ's consent and cumpulsory jurisdictions and the ICJ statute which the Court is based on. Williams' explanations of the General Assembly and the Security Council are straightforward and clear, and here the examples and stories support his general points. One looking for a book on the basic workings of the U.N. would do better looking elsewhere.

I agree with unambiguo's assessment of this book, although I think unambiguo might have graded it a little harshly. If you are even somewhat knowledgable about the UN, you will find errors of ommission or oversimplification in this book. As a result, I wouldn't recommend it for someone who is really interested in learning about the UN. However, for someone who is familiar with the UN, I found the book pretty humorous. I would suggest an alternative title of this book be, "The Lighter Side of the UN," because I am afraid a beginner reading this book to really learn about the UN might be misled.

This book details the inner workings of the United Nations from an insider's perspective. I learned a lot, and I had thought I knew enough about the UN.

Kenneth William wrote a series of five books on Ulysses S. Grant in the 1950's. He died before he could complete his supposedly "definitive treatment" of Grant the general. Williams' books are well-researched and you will find few factual gaffes. However, his writing style is often torturous and his passion for meaningless minutiae will probably drive you crazy. He excels in listing every detail of a battle until you're shaking your head or holding it as you reach for the aspirin bottle.

Williams' reverence for Grant is evident throughout. He is also peculiarly defensive about the issue of Grant's occasional over-indulgence in whiskey and in his footnotes he becomes almost hysterical on this topic. This type of hagiography is misplaced in a serious work and seriously undermines the credibility of the work. William's five volumes have been pretty much forgotten in the modern era and for good reason. He tells the reader almost nothing about Grant as a human being, his private life (pivotal in Grant's story) is regally ignored throughout.

If you are interested in examining Grant as a general, opt for the much superior books by J.F.C. Fuller, available on Amazon. This is a lifeless and boring treatment of a highly complex and fascinating man.

I think the book is better than the other review gave it credit for. I will agree that he does go out of his way to discredit Grant's drinking. But on the whole these are pretty informative books not as dry as the other review says they are. The two new editions by the University of Nebraska Press have great introductions by Grimsley and Simpson. Simpson gives more credit to Williams than the review here gives. These introductions are excellent. But the volumes are not always about Grant. The Kentucky Invasion is covered in the second volume as is the battle of Murfreesboro. I recommend these books to anyone interested in Grant and/or the Western Theater of the Civil War.

Geostatistics is a fatally flawed variant of applied statistics because it violates the requirement of functional independence and ignores the concept of degrees of freedom. Without degrees of freedom unbiased statistical inferences are impossible to obtain.

Having first encountered geostatistics in a rather round about way, Isobel's first book was of great use, her second book has out done this. The 2000 version takes one from basics with non mathematical explanations of key concepts, through to the end result (linear kriging). The examples are relevant and applicable in real life situations (As I work on a South African gold mine and am involved in geostatistical training this is the type of manual that I wished I had had a while back). The only short comming that I have is the use of a demo package of Isobel's software for the worked examples. I have found that one of the major stumbling blocks when doing geostatistics is the software, thus the reader would need to familiarise themselves with the software used by the company/ institution and then apply this to the examples or vica versa. This is , as Isobel points out, an introductory book and not for advanced users. I would recommend this to anyone that has a limited exposure to geostatistics and is in a situation where they must teach themselves. Along with several other geostatistical practitioners I await her next book in anticipation)

Mark Burnett

ORM

South Africa

This book is a good source of history about the Kentucky River but is very difficult to read. The writing is awful, as Mr Ellis often changes topics in the middle of a paragraph and punctuates erratically. This book is heavy on recollections of old-timers on the river, but light on photos, maps, and illustrations that would help to make the book a lot clearer.

Only buy this book if you have a deep interest in the history of Kentucky or America's rivers. If you don't have a driving interest in one of those subjects this book will put you to sleep.

This book is the work of five authors who set forth a version of theism known as Open Theism, the defining (though not necessarily central) characteristic of which is the proposition that God's omniscience does not include everything that will be actualised in the future.

Richard Rice opens with an exegetical case for the notion that God's immutability is restricted only to His character and ultimate plans; He experiences change in His actions, experiences and knowledge. Both the Old and New Testament are briefly (but carefully) mined to bring out both the pathos and openness of God to His people and the future respectively. Already in Rice's chapter, the pioneering Scriptural defense of open theism, we see a reasonable refutation of the only TWO verses in the OT - 1Sam 15:29 and Num 23:19 - which states that "God does not change His mind" (which Rice convincingly argues when taken in context is synonymous with "God does not LIE"). He contrasts this with the more than THIRTY which make the opposite point (e.g. Jer18, Isa, Hosea, etc.). Rice then discusses the life of Jesus and shows how the intense pathos of God is revealed through the Incarnate Son's ministry, tears, and ultimately His death on the Cross. How the doctrine of immutability can claim to be Scripturally derived in the light of the life of Christ is truly a mystery. Rice's work is passionate, meticulous and unassuming; the very first chapter of the first major work on the movement lays down the arguments in the Scriptural arena, within which the debate needs to take place. I heartily recommend him.

Next, I don't like saying this but I'm afraid I found John Sanders' contribution a little on the boring side at the time. His chapter is a very comprehensive look at what theologians throughout history believed about divine immutability, relationality, etc. Sanders shows the undeniable continuity between Platonic ideals and early Christian thought, and makes a strong case for the non-ability of much theological thinking to break free from the unBiblical notions left by this early influence. A very text-book-like chapter consisting less of an argument than a survey of a remarkably persistent trend to equate 'Perfection' in terms of 'Unchangeability'. Hopefully more people will find it more interesting than I did, but if not, Sanders' chapter of a similar nature in his "God Who Risks" will more than compensate for any disappointment with his work this time around.

Clark Pinnock then whips the storm back up again with his powerful and systematic proposal for a RELATIONAL view of God as the foundation of everything else we understand about Him. His experiences, actions and - most saliently for the book - His knowledge is dynamic and undergoes progress and change by the very nature of the Person He is and the Creation He's brought into existence. Like Sanders' piece, this chapter doesn't so much argue a case for open-theism as much as it elaborates a particular understanding of God, given the authors' assumptions. I've found this approach to be characteristic of Pinnock's work in which, in effect, he seems to be saying, "I'm not going to try hard to prove you wrong and I right; I'm just going to show you the theological beauty and benefits of my view of God and its congruity with Scripture, and you tell me if you prefer this to traditional (mainly Reformed) theology".

William Hasker's philosophical perspective (my favourite, next to Rice's) begins by highlighting problems with the notion of divine timelessness and scrutinizing the traditional equation of divine 'perfection' with divine immutability. His essay begs us to reconsider, "What is 'perfection' in a Personal Being, anyway? And why have we traditionally associated it with 'changelessness'?" He, like Sanders, pinpoints Neo-Platonic philosophy as the major influence on classical theologians for their bias against change. He then briefly discusses the major theistic viewpoints of divine providence and omniscience: Calvinism (which makes God logically responsible for all evil), Molinism (which, though removing many problems associated with Calvinistic divine sovereignity, still eventually makes God the 'Arch Manipulator'), Simple Foreknowledge (which sorta 'imprisons' God in His foreknowledge, making Him helpless to intervene), Process Theology (which is panentheism in Biblical packaging), and Open Theism (which Hasker sets forth as showing God to be a loving risk-taker who desires creatures who voluntarily love and befriend Him and has thus actualised a universe with incredible contigencies, beauty and surprise - but also terrible potential).

Finally, we come to David Basinger's spelling out of the explanatory and experiential superiority of open-theism as compared to Calvinism and Process Theology on the following aspects: petitionary prayer, divine guidance, suffering, social responsibility and evangelistic responsibility. Like Hasker, he presents open-theism as the redeeming 'middle ground' between the divine helplessness of process theology and the all-determining Control Deity of Calvinism. Only with open-theism can there be a meaningful notion of human responsibility (contra Calvinism, which leaves one wondering what the point is resisting evil/sin since everything's been foreordained) without the need to state that God has already done 'all that He can' (contra process theology, which gives us a powerless God). Though insightful and honest with regard to existing non-resolved issues, I wouldn't recommend this chapter to anyone not at least open to the possibility that the Bible teaches the openness of God.

Although the book, being a pioneering 'ground-breaker' for open theism, certainly needs more elaboration and work, I'd have to say that I agree with its overall thesis. Critics often fail to note that open theists employ solid Biblical epistemology and evidence to derive the back-bone of the view, particularly the non-exhaustive understanding of God's omniscience (the Sriptural evidence for immutability is pitifully scant; the number of 'divine repentance' passages itself, like I've mentioned, is a staggering 30-plus which was the major factor forcing me to rethink my theology. I can't help but wonder why God would say so often in His very own Word that He experiences genuine changes of mind and thus knowledge, if this is a completely false ontological notion). Unfortunately, academic backlash is usually focused on the philosophical and experiential implications of open theism, all the whilst seemingly ignorant or dismissive of the powerful Scriptural case in favour of it.

With that said, I would propose that this book be read only AFTER one absorbs either John Sanders' "God Who Risks" or Gregory Boyd's more accessible "God of the Possible". All in all, the book IMO represents an inspiring work and a necessary provocation to the Christian (especially the Reformed) community to relook at its Biblical foundations and traditional presuppositions about the nature of God. And in closing, allow me to quote from Pinnock's chapter, which eloquently sums up the picture of God the book puts forth:

"...God is so transcendant that he creates room for others to exist and maintains a relationship with them...God is so powerful as to be able to stoop down and humble Himself...(and) God is so stable and secure as to be able to risk suffering and change."

The Openness of God attends closely both to the broad biblical text and Christian piety when offering a much-needed "open" alternative to deterministic Calvinism. Through an easy reading, multi-dimensional, textual format, Rice, Sanders, Pinnock, Hasker and Basinger offer a more or less comprehensive evangelical, "free-will" theism that corresponds closely with the theology of many scholars in the Arminian, Wesleyan, and Charismatic traditions. This should be a required text for seminarians of all stripes. Perhaps the book's only drawback is that its authors sometimes misrepresent process theology and thus fail to adequately consider more of the theological alternatives offered by process thought. Otherwise, this is the kind of book you will want to give a friend who has been exposed to just enough classical theology to want to write off theology altogether. This is good medicine for former evangelical intellectuals who may have left the fold disillusioned by the Calvinistic brand of evangelical theology. Take, eat, digest, and flourish!

After reading and studying The Open View of God I cannot say much, except that it was refreshing! How unfortunate it is that Sproul has sprawled so far and Reformed philosophy is so pervasive in the populist theology world today. Thank God He still is enlightening beyond the Reformation!

The Open View challenges the classical-Philosophical view of God preached and taught by so many in a systematic and decisive way. Our traditional understandings of immutablity, providence, sovereignity, and immpassiblity need to truly be re-examined in the light of our practice/experience and, as the authors so argue, in the light of the Biblical text. Aristotle is put in his place, sorry, but the un-moved mover is not the God of the Holy Writ. To be ever changing and relational is to be Divine. I Give this Book a strong 10!!

This book is awful! I know the fundamentals of programming in Flash and ASP.NET so regardless, if you are advanced or know the basics this book is still AWFUL!!! Trust me do not buy it! The Poll in the first chapter does not even work. I went to peachpress to find the updates for the book and the Poll sill will not work. The book constantly points to the CD and the CD is missing the files the chapter is pointing to. The Poll.XML on the CD does not match that in the book, I mean come on! This was all before I even got through the 1st chapter! ...

... I am sure that some of these examples worked, but only in the head of the author who authored the chapter. I am so upset about this one; ...

I couldn't agree more with the reviews that have already been posted. This book assumes WAY too much knowledge and leaves large chunks unexplained (like the #include .as files that don't even get a mention...)

The layout is sloppy and poorly thought out - eg they have 2 pages of code and THEN they describe what is happening in the previous 2 pages, requiring you to be costantly flicking back and forth. Simply repeating each line of code with its explanation would have made it so much easier to read (authors should check out "OOP with Actionscript" to see how it SHOULD be done).

The code that is included is full of stuff like

gotoAndPlay("whatever");//used to be gotoAndStop

making it obvious that the author hasn't even bothered to clean up their code before slapping it in the book. When covering a complicated topic like this, having comments that reveal the "mistakes" that the author made along the way is confusing, annoying and inexcusable (not to mention very revealing about the amount of effort [or lack thereof] that went into this book).

Save your money

cheers

I came into reading this book with very little Flash experience. All I'd done was simple timeline based flash movies. I chose to read this book to help get an understanding of Flash's capabilities and how to further the skills I had, enabling me to create dynamic content in my Flash movies.

I thought this book was unique in that it didn't get into the hows and whats of Flash, but straight into some very interesting example code. It also doesn't focus purely on Flash, but integrating flash with web application server products like ColdFusion and ASP.

While I'd never be able to create any of these examples on my own, it was quite cool being able to walk through each code example and see how everything works. Some of the Flash code was a bit hairy to follow, but they did attempt to explain it. Rather than learning what the code meant, I just read the comments stating what the code does and moved on. Unless you're experienced in flash, you won't be able to follow the code line for line. However, wading in example apps above your capabilities is a great place to learn.

Each chapter is a different example application, focusing on a dynamic backend. Some use ASP, some use ColdFusion, etc. So you can pick your middleware of choice and they'll be an example here for you where you can view both the Flash code, as well as the code it interfaces with to achieve dynamic content.

I wouldn't recommend this book as your soul source of Flash instruction, but it is a unique book rich with very usable example code. I didn't learn much Flash actionscript from this book, but I did come out of it with a good understanding of how Flash can be dynamic, using XML to communicate back and forth to your scripting language of choice. If that's what you're after, this might be a good book for you.

Why a professional historian was needed to write this book is not clear to me. It reads like a genealogical tome and adds nothing to our understanding of southern history. A lot of research for little purpose.

I really hate to say it , but this book is just not worth 1/20th of any other major respiratory care book (for example Egan's fundamentals of RC or Dean Hess et al, RC: principles and practice) I feel bad saying it since I know how much hard work it takes to get a book to be printed. The whole design, bad fonts,cheap paper, and organization of the book is really bad. You could gather 2 or 3 chapters that are decent, but we all know that for the book to be successful it must have at least 3/4 of its material acceptable to read and enjoy. I doubt this book will make it into 2nd ed.

This bio of four big stars from Hollywood's golden age is fairly fun, but strictly lightweight; there is no annotation, for instance, and consequently the facts don't seem as unassailable as they should. It is the kind of thing that would be an enjoyable beach read for the casual movie (or gossip) fan--but not something for serious fans.