This is an excellent book with an extremely insightful and fascinating chapter written by Mark I. Gruhin. He is a very skilled writer and lawyer, and I look forward to his future writings.

Being a lawyer in NYC, I was very impressed with some Inside the Minds: Interne Lawyers. Although it is impossible to cover every Internet related topic, the book does a good job at covering some very interesting topics. In addition, the individuals portrayed in the book represent a good cross sampling of different talents related to Internet law. I particularly enjoyed the interview with Mark Fischer at Palmer & Dodge. If you are a woman, make sure to also check out Inside the Minds: Leading Women.

I was deeply involved in the creation of this edition, and I can say from experience that the authors have crafted a masterpiece. So much work, diligence, research, and love went into this revision. It is a great resource for family members of someone with Alzheimer's and related disorders, physician's and other practitioners, and even people who have been recently diagnosed. It can be used to educate someone who knows little about dementia or offer a new perspective to the experienced clinician. I highly recommend this book!

This is a book caregivers can hand to relatives and friends to read in order to enrich their understanding of how the disease affects both the victim and their caregiver. It is not only informative in a very practical and easy to read manner but it is sensitive and to the point about the stages of Alzheimer's Disease and the human needs of the people who face this illness. The personal stories highlighted are described in ways that aren't merely words on paper written by someone safely detached from the impact this illness has on living people. This book stands out in my mind for that reason. It also speaks to the loss of relationships as the illness progresses. I refer to over and over and its one of the first I read after I realized my husband Tom and I were facing Alzheimer's Disease.

Used as an introduction to philosophy and logical thinking, this book better serves as a debater's handbook. It well covers Aristotilian and syllogistic logic. The book's strongest point, however, is it's list of informal fallacies. With the help of this book, almost anyone can win nearly any argument, even those about unfamiliar subjects. Copi's grad students did a good job on this one, except for their refusal to put Aristotilian syllogisms in standard form. It lost points with me because of it's old textbook writing style making it an uneasy read

All I can do is echo the many enthusiastic reviews this book has already received. Copi covers a wide array of logics, formal and informal, classical and modern, and demonstrates their applications using real-life examples drawn from science, political journalism, and the law. He is lucid, nuanced, and insightful. Reading this remarkable textbook is the equivalent of taking introductory courses in symbolic logic, rhetoric, philosophy of science, and legal reasoning. I learned more from this one book than from an entire year at UC Berkeley. It's a keeper!

I never saw the previous editions of this book (picked up the 9th ed.) and I believe that originally Copi was the only author, so I don't know whether Cohen raised or merely maintained the standard, but it is a very high standard indeed. I have another of Copi's older books (Symbolic logic) and it too is excellent, but this one is more generally useful and of course, broader in scope. Most unusually for a respectable size of textbook, this one permits one to read and work all the way through it for entertainment, as I did while commuting by rail a few years ago.

The coverage is good, the style is easy and clear, the material is sound and as an introduction to the field the book is excellent. The only hazard is that tyros working their way through may be fooled into thinking that now they "know logic" (No, this is NOT a hypothetical problem; I have encountered it in practice.)

But one can't allow for every kind of idiot, not even the predominant kinds.

If I were to propose any improvement to the copy I bought, it would be the addition (possibly in an appendix?) of a broader discussion of less conventional fields such as paraconsistent logic.

Overall I recommend the book highly and I am not lending out my copy.

In this book Tom Regan does a wonderful job explaining his view of animal rights in a clear and logical way. He examines in detail a variety of issues, from food and clothes to entertainment and science. Carl Cohen, on the other hand, does not focus on the whole issue. His view is much smaller. He goes in detail of why he believes animals are needed in science, but ignores the other issues. He at some points even admits that there is no excuse or justification for the treament of animals in some situations, such as factory farms. If this book were more of a debate, it would be much more interesting. But I feel that Carl Cohen falls short. It is a shame, this book had real potential. At least Tom Regan's part makes it worth reading.

I began reading The Animal Rights Debate with the expectation that debate between two philosophy professors might truly illuminate the issues at hand in the continuing, in fact, increasing, discussion regarding the relationship between humans and other animals.

Tom Regan is well known for his sharp and careful analysis, and I expected anyone paired with him in a book of this nature to be similarly prepared for the discussion. Mr. Cohen did write as if he knew what he was writing about, but unfortunately for the reader, he did not.

From the first pages of Mr. Cohen's article, errors of fact are rife. He says, "The Department of Agriculture recently estimated the number of animals used in medical and pharmaceutical research to be about 1.6 million, of which the vast majority, approximately 90%, were rats, mice, and other rodents." (p 14)

In fact, mice, rats, and birds are specifically excluded from the statistics Mr. Cohen cites; the Department of Agriculture (USDA) figures do not include mice, rats, or birds because the Animal Welfare Act excludes these animals from coverage under the act. This is very well known by all observers. Industry estimates suggest that at least 30 million mice and rats are used annually.

He also claims that "every" lab using animals is subject to "frequent" inspection by the Department of Agriculture to insure the humane use of the animals in those labs. The USDA, in fact, estimates that at least 2000 labs in the US are not inspected because they use only mice, rats, or birds, and these animals are not counted as animals under U.S. law. Humane use is not at issue even during the inspections of the labs that do fall within the purview of the agency.

I was shocked by Mr. Cohen's lack of command of the basic facts regarding animals used in U.S. laboratories, and more so by his claim that he was presenting the facts.

As far as Mr. Cohen's philosophical arguments are concerned, aside from his factual errors, I found his claims to be a mix of circular reasoning: only humans have rights, animals aren't human, so animals can't have rights; bait and switch: he makes the correct claim that most animals used in labs are rodents, and then calls attention to polio, the investigation of which almost eliminated rhesus monkeys from India; demonizing: he goes out of his way to paint rats as the ugliest and meanest creatures imaginable, and other similarly suspect techniques used commonly to confuse an audience.

But, this book thrilled me nevertheless. The arguments put forth by Mr. Regan are straightforward, fact driven, and polite. His logic is impeccable and his conclusions inescapable.

It is at once gladdening to see the best that each side in the debate can muster clearly displays the fact that animals do have inherent rights. Indeed, based on the arguments presented in this book, the debate is over. It remains painful to realize that the essentially failed attempt by Mr. Cohen is nevertheless the weak excuse for the continuing daily massive exploitation of other animals by us. If you have an interest in seeing an opponent of animal rights get thoroughly trounced, then I think you will like this book. If you are looking for reasoned debate, unfortunately, the defenders of the status quo have yet to muster a meaningful and cogent argument.

Regan's contribution is impressive. Regan's section is where to begin. He argues that whether a being has rights (and which rights it has) depends on its psychological capacities, not its biological species per se. Since babies and mentally challenged humans (who aren't rational or autonomous) have the right not to be eaten, worn, experimented on, chased down and shot and their heads hung on the wall, etc., so do non-human animals, since their psychologies are of comparable, if not often greater, levels. QED.

Objections to Regan concern his general theory of rights, NOT whether animals have them, if anyone does (many plausible moralities deny "rights" in the sense Regan defends).

According to Cohen, animals do not have rights because they animals cannot engage in moral deliberation, act on principles, and be moral agents.

Many humans cannot cannot engage in moral deliberation, act on principles, and be moral agents and hvae the capacities that Cohen seems to think are necessary for having rights. But, most of us think it would be wrong to experiment on them and kill them, even if doing so would greatly advance our interests. Cohen agrees. But since some humans lack these capacities yet have rights, this shows that these capacities are not necessary for rights. Cohen's denying rights to animals is arbitrary, a case of not treating beings with equal psychological capacities as equals: it is discrimination on the basis of species alone.

Cohen replies that objections like this "miss the point badly" because human infants, the senile, and the severely mentally disabled "have rights because they are human." He says that, "The critical distinction is one of kind." Earlier Cohen said that the "kind" needed for rights possession was a moral and psychological kind; now he says that the relevant kind is the biological kind Homo sapiens. No justification is given for this switch and why humans who (even permanently) lack moral capacities have rights yet animals do not.

Cohen's reply to this objection--the so called "argument from marginal cases"--is unsuccessful and his main argument that animals do not have rights fails. Appeals to thinkers ranging from Aquinas and Augustine to Marx and Lenin, as well as appeals to "immediate" and "certain" intuitions, do little to defend his view either. His repeated ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him do not help either.

Cohen also argues that animals don't have rights because it's in our interest to use them. It's scientificaly dubious that using animals for food and research is in our best interest (both vegetarian diets and human-based research are superior for meeting our needs), but questions about morality shouldn't be decided by appeal to self-interest anyway. Cohen's case that animals do not have rights is a disappointment.

Not a bad book considering what a horrible edge the house has in this game, and how slim your chances are of winning. It concentrates mainly clocking the wheel to improve your chances for winning, but also discusses the game and the odds so the beginner will not be lost. If you play the wheel often, this is not a bad book for you.

Very few books that suggest ways to beat the casinos actually deliver on their promise. Well this one really does! The information provided by R. Carl Cohen is easily understood, and includes many very valuable tips on how to tilt the odds in your favor. I have used his strategies and seen the results for myself. I wouldn't consider a trip to the casinos without this valuable information.

I think the book was good.I think that you will like the book alot if you belive in alot of things. The book has a good name.It fits it well.Earths Hidden Mysteries is about things like UFOs, hidden treasures and unknowen thigs that has happend on earth. I think that the author did a good job and if I see another book by him I would read and Im not the kind of person that just reads a book. He did a good job on this one he probably would do the same thing on a another one. It is not a vary long book but it was a good one. I think that the stories in the book are good.I didnt belive in all the stories but some of them cant be a joke. I would reed it if I were you I would read the book. If I could read it, so could you.So go get a book and read.