I have always used this book as a textbook of the gas turbine course for mechanical engineers and I find it perfect for its clarity and completeness.

This is one of the best books available in the market today covering both the theory and applications of gas turbines. It is unique in that the treatment contains both theoretical and practical aspects of gas turbine engineering. As an engineer who has spent over 23 years working with gas turbines I have used earlier editions of this book and it has helped me immensely in getting a clear understanding of gas turbine operations and specifically of the components and matching of turbine and compressors. It is a well-written and organized book that has clearly stood the test of time- this being the 50th year of its publication. Unlike many other traditional gas turbine textbooks, Prof. Saravanamuttoo brings his vast practical and industrial experience into the text -a feature that many operating engineers will appreciate. This edition is noteworthy as it incorporates latest technologies relating to gas turbines (advanced gas turbine, low NOx combustors, new cycles etc.) while retaining it classic lucid writing style. Every engineer who operates a gas turbine can benefit from this book as it will provide a deeper understanding of different components and their interactions. I highly recommend this book!

This is the classic undergraduate textbook on gas turbines. Not much more needs to be said than that. Future editions need to be updated to include computer examples and more on cogeneration and combined cycles

A big, passionate book by the New York Times correspondent, who has tried to pack everything into it: the Bosnian experience of the war (told through several family histories), the Western response and UN policy, and the historical background. Cohen argues well against the 'ethnic hatreds' doctrine, but tends to substitute World War II hatreds instead. However, his analysis of UN failure, including evidence drawn from minutes of a high-level meeting held before the fall of Srebrenica, will be of lasting importance

this is the book to read. Its absolutely fantastic. Roger Cohen has a very sharp pen. For me its not just enough to read the book myself, I want to buy other copies and give to friends.

The destruction of Yugoslavia is not the easiest of subjects to fully comprehend. Cohen's informative and excellently written narrative is the best place to start. Cohen does more than just describe the events, he attempts to get beneath the surface to understand the psychology behind the unspeakable atrocities committed during the various wars. The trajedy of Yugoslavia cannot be understood without a recounting of the atrocities committed there during World War II, atrocities that largely went unpunished. All of this and more are recounted by Cohen in his very readable account. It is must reading for anyone interested in recent European history.

This book is 'required reading' for anyone who gives serious thought to and is deeply concerned by the crisis facing our country in the form of our corrupting system of financing political campaigns. The authors have been 'in the trenches' for some time in the battle to restore sense and balance to our country's political arena. The format in which the authors outline their proposal, then solicit replies from different perspectives, then finally retort and rebuke most other potential solutions, provides the reader with a blueprint for debate. Since there is no longer any meaningful argument in favor of the current political financing system, this book proceeds in the logical direction of focusing the debate on the most likely remedies. Now if only the general public would realize that, until campaign finance reform is a reality, the other great issues of our time cannot be solved. My only reservation regarding the author's work is the lack of specific examples which the more casual reader may need to understand the gravity of the issue. Nonetheless, the book is highly reccomended.

An excellent little pamphlet summarizing a number of interesting solutions to our current highly flawed campaign system. Not only do Fine, Miller and Donnelly offer a compelling solution that has already proven effective at the state level, they also allow their critics to rebut their arguments in the book, this is rare indeed, and welcome. Rarely do you see a volume so evenly discuss and represent contrary and conflicting viewpoints so well. It is certainly food for thought, and will provide even those opposed to the Fine/Miller/Donnelly solution with interesting reading. Highly recommended for anyone with an interest in contemporary politics, but especially those who feel that money has distorted or destroyed the American system. Highly recommended.

We all know that there is money in politics, but we don't know how to get it out. This book provides an excellent debate on the various options, ranging from full public financing to vouchers to a constitutional amendment to allow limits on campaign contribution levels. In spite of the good arguments made by the debaters, the authors are right on target.

Of the two ways to fund elections, public vs. private money, full public funding presents the most reasonable. Perhaps a more detailed discussion about the incredibly low cost to taxpayers ($10 per year per taxpayer at the federal level, and $5 at the state level), would have better satisfied the debaters. Contrasting that with the $500 to $1500 per year taxpayers are now paying through the hidden-tax system, taxpayer funded elections are a real bargain.

This is a must-read for all campaign reformers, term limiters, anti-taxers and government reducers. Too few Americans realize that by getting private money out of politics, we'll reduce the unnecessary government spending that causes high taxes, reduce the size of government, and eliminate the need for term limits. This book shows how to accomplish this goal.

This is a great book for people who are frustrated with the state of American politics. After watching campaign finance reform fail again and again, I was immediately won over to the authors' ideas. Proportional Representation is the only way to go!

Good book - concise and with varying viewpoints. Mirkarimi comments that you don't focus enough on the mechanics of the change, but in a sense, a book like this does, since it isn't an intimidating tome. I plan to buy a stack to pass out to skeptical friends.

This book is extremely interesting, I highly recommend it. Richie and Hill make a strong case for Proportional Representation, then a number of other high level type folks respond. Then Richie and Hill respond. A fascinating dialogue.

I'm sure if you take a look at the other reviewers, you'll wonder why I am such the dissenter of opinion, however, my opinion is unwaivering on this read. I am currently an MBA student and therefore read more than my share (I think I'm getting crosseyed from all of the reading!)

Anyway, my point is that there are numerous texts on negotiation skills, creating and relaying value, cross-cultural issues in negotiations and any number of personal and environmental factors involved in any given negotiation.

However, I believe the author does a very poor job in this book in providing [cost of book] worth of substance. Points that are made early on in the book are drudgingly rehashed over and over again, as if the author is trying to fill pages like I admittedly used to do with 7th grade class reports. Except that I used to paraphrase the Encyclopedia...which had some interesting points. This author has a knack for the obvious and fails to point out any valuable case studies. Most of the "grey-window box" cases presented, sparse as they may be, relate parochial stories of how a husband and wife "negotiated" the picking up of clothing on the floor by understanding the underlying wife's concern...not to trip on the pile of clothes. Again, a fairly weak example to use in business dealings. I mean, c'mon, the name of the book is "Negotiating Skills for Managers" I can understand an occasional side-bar on ways to apply these (skills?) to other aspects of your life, but the ratio of little stories to actual examples of business dealings or cross-cultural negotiations is about 100:0. The author NEVER cites a substanial business negotiating example.

One grey-box cites this scenario;

"More recently, my wife and I had dinner (without reservations) at a Japanese restaurant in our town. We patiently waited for a table. Once seated, the food came very slowly; obviously the kitchen was overburdened. Our waitress did not wait for us to ask; she brought us an extra carafe of hot sake on the house." (Page 160)

It's a nice story about a restaurant aware of their poor service and attempt to make up for it with some free sake. Good for that restaurant...that IS smart service. BUT, where was the negotiating? negotiated in this scenario?

Another grey-box:

"One of the tricks negotiators sometimes try to use is the good cop/bad routine in which one of your counterparts purposefully plays the tough guy while his teammate utilizes charm on you..." It continues, "Be careful not to accuse the other team of bad manners. Instead, say something like, 'I feel as if I am being good cop/bad copped in this negotiation and it is not bringing me any closer to agreement"

What kind of negotiations are we referring to here? Used car sales? You MUST be joking. In all of my professional business dealings either domestic or abroad, I have never run into such juvenile tactics, except for one teenager selling used Ford cars. (if you stretch to call this a professional business dealing)

To be fair, there are some real points in this book, albeit mostly common sense. (for example, keeping emotions in check when negotiating and approaching it from a win/win situation, not a war or competition to see who can come out ahead.) However, these points could be covered in a five-page document, double-spaced, minus the little grey-boxes, and turned in to the 7th-grade teacher, who would probably give it a 'B.'

Please! If you REALLY still want to read this book, save your money and send me an email. I'll be happy to send you my copy for free!

Negotiating Skills for Managers is a practical book that doesn't talk down to the reader ­ or bore her with dense language.
... The organization of the book makes it easy to go back and forth to examine how concepts it presents relate to each other.
... The book's examples from real life give someone with real-world negotiating experience Œhooks' for relating their own war stories to a clearly-described philosophy and set of techniques.
... Unlike other negotiation books, this one has an index that makes it easy to review concepts after one's initial reading.
... Until I read the book, I had never understood the concept of BATNA; now this fundamental part of negotiation is much clearer to me.
... Perhaps the most valuable element Negotiating Skills for Managers presents is the Interest Map ­ a preparation tool that has already saved me considerable time in complex negotiations.

While the book contains a lot of deep philosophical ideas, it is useful for someone whose negotiating experience is limited or whose confidence needs boosting. I recommend it highly.

Negotiating Skills for Managers is a down-to-earth book, written in an engaging and clear way, which brings the complex issues associated with negotiation down to a handful of commonsensical ideas. I highly recommend Negotiating Skills for Managers by Steven P. Cohen for people in all professions, and on all rungs of the corporate ladder, who seek to improve their interactions with others, thus enhancing their effectiveness and efficiency at work, and even at home!

From explaining the difference between positional and interest-based negotiations, to highlighting the benefits and detriments of human emotions in the negotiation process, to advising how to recognize and disarm "bullies" and other unreasonable colleagues, Negotiating Skills for Managers is a thorough book packed with information that is easy to comprehend and entertaining to read.

The book is chock full of antic dotes and experiences gleaned from the author's professional and personal life. This is the best part! Cohen shares situations as explained by his clients and students that helped me understand how and when to apply the clearly detailed tactics he outlines.

Courteous mannerisms, like: "don't hog the credit," "let others present their ideas first," and "best not to eat an onion sandwich before entering the negotiation room" lead into explanations of important negotiation tactics. Among the most significant insights offered in the book is that negotiating parties are not competitors but people who seek to reach an agreed upon solution to their shared problem that will be followed through to completion.

This theme of respecting others for their interests, opinions and professional and/or cultural difference runs throughout Negotiating Skills for Managers, helping readers stay focused on the importance of understanding others' needs and values before engraving their own into stone. "Listen to yourself and to others, searching all the time for seeds that can germinate into ideas that work," Cohen advises. Later in the book, he drives this point home in a more familiar way. "God gave us two ears and one mouth. Use them proportionately."

Within the first pages of Negotiating Skills for Managers I was challenged to seek self-awareness through thoughtful introspection before and during the negotiation process. I got the sense that Eastern philosophy has influenced Cohen's approach to business ethics and thus negotiation, as he urges readers to understand the emotions that drive their desires and think of their own interests in terms of the greater whole.

"Negotiation is not rocket science," Cohen concludes. Husbands and wives, parents and children, and CEOs and secretaries all negotiate with each other everyday, according to Cohen. The key is to remember tactics learned by reading this book in my daily life.

I think that most people would answer the question of do Americans shop too much with a simple "yes." And the truth of the matter is that Americans would all shop even more if there were more money in the old wallet. I enjoy shopping myself, and thought that the book on the topic by Juliet Schor would make an interesting read.
For the most part, I agree with Ms. Schor's arguments. Her idea that Americans are strongly motivated to acquire things in order to keep up with those around them seems to make sense. I do think, however, that most people who buy things for this reason are not totally aware of this as a motivating factor. It is just normal to want to be up to par with those considered to be at your own level or even slightly above.
Schor also makes a good point in saying that consumers are not totally rational and are definitely subject to impulsive purchasing behavior. There is a reason why candy is located at the checkout line. Storeowners know where to put things in order to create a better chance of selling an item that isn't a necessity. Milk, eggs, and bread are usually located in the farthest department from the entrance of the grocery store. Of course, this is because store operators hope that the consumer will have other items catch his/her eye while on the way towards one of those commonly purchased items. We buy things that we were not planning on buying, and if anyone thinks otherwise, they are crazy.
When reading Schor's seven basic elements on the politics of consumption, I couldn't help but think that she is in a dream world. Americans are never going to only purchase things that they "need." And if you were to ask someone if they really needed to buy shoes they would say yes, even if those shoes were a $150 pair of Nike basketball shoes. The line between needs and wants is blurred and will always be that way. Her arguments in this section are far too idealistic. There is no way that the American government would only tax high-end "status" versions of products and leave low-end models tax free. Government officials most likely only buy the high-end stuff to begin with, and you can't tax someone's taste. Schor's ideas sound lovely, but just aren't realistic to the majority of Americans. It would be wonderful to think only of quality of life rather that quality of stuff, but too many people think that stuff can make their life better.
As far as the rest of the book is concerned, I enjoyed reading the thoughts of the critics of Schor's essay. It is hard to say exactly which point of view I can say I totally agree with. I guess there isn't just one. For the most part, Schor was right on in her thoughts. It is just too bad that we live in a society where most people don't even bother to think about what and why they shop.

Juliet Schor brings to light many new questions about how we as a society are conducting are lives. In her book she asks the question why Americans have such a fascination with quanity, or the concept that bigger is better. She believes that the main reason we as a society have drive to consume is the idea of competitive consumption. This where average middle class citizens are no longer trying to keep up with their neighbors down the street, but the rich and famous that are so publicized throughout the media.

She believes the rise in consumption started when married women entered the work force. This caused women to be more exposed to wealth at higher levels. This in turn led to the decline of close nit neighborhoods. People are spending less time with their neighbors and friends and more time watching television. Where consumption is promoted constantly. These messages that are heard and seen on a regular basis instill in us the idea that we should be able to buy whatever we want whenever we want.

Schor's main focus is to reveal to us how we as a society are destroying our planet and our quality of life. Sport utility vechiles, air conditioning, and foreign travel use lots of energy and are contributing to global warming. Larger homes are destroying open spaces and leading to deforestation worldwide. Daily newspaper, monthly magazines, and other paper products are also leading to the loss of forest. She points out that consumers have little or no idea of the environmental impacts of their consumption habits. She feels the solution lies in corporate and government practices. But people who are concerned about making a difference should be getting involved with environmentalist who are trying to educate and change practices at state and local levels.

This book really opened my eyes to the problems we as a society face with consumption. I was caught off guard by some interesting facts that were listed by Betsy Taylor( a colleague of Schor's). For example how the U.S. with only 5% of the worlds population consumes 30% of the worlds resources, or how the typical American disgards nearly a ton of trash a year. I agree with Schor that something needs to be done about these problems. I think the best solution is informing the public of ways to reduce consumption at a local level. This is where people are the most ignorant on these issues, and thus this is where the most progress can be made.

In Do Americans Shop Too Much?, Harvard economist Juliet Schor (with the assistance of Robert Frank, Michele Lamont, Lawrence Mishel and others) traces the current over consumption trends of American consumers influenced by media presentations of affluence. Calling for Americans to see private consumption in the light of public costs and consequences (including debt burdens, interest rate erosions on disposable income, etc.) Schor suggests a consumer movement in which people re-evaluate their basic needs versus media and advertising induced desires, placing instead, new, more financially conservative and budget-friendly values on family, leisure and community time. Enhanced with an informative Foreword by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, Do Americans Shop Too Much? is clearly written and highly accessible reading recommended for the non-specialist general reader with an interest in financial management, the impact of culture on spending habits, and the influence of media on personal and family financial behavior.

An essay by Philippe Van Parijs begins this book, in which he proposes that all citizens above the age of 16 be given a Universal Basic Income unconditionally. I must say that I've found this idea very fascinating for the past few years, but never thought seriously about it. The fifteen replies to Van Parijs' essay provide various perspectives on the political and economic feasibility of the plan, as well as on issues of justice and fairness.

The problem of this book lies in its very virtue of being a short, easy read that introduces the reader to what is considered a radical policy proposal. And this is that it doesn't provide much in the way of analysis beyond what one might read in a newspaper. Of course, there is a problem in being too academic: few people might read it, and the idea may not spread (though I doubt it will spread far anyway). Still, it's a fun concept to think about.

Philippe Van Parij's deceptively simple but powerful proposal is to establish a Universal Basic Income (UBI) for all citizens of the U.S. Throughout the book's 130-odd pages, readers are challenged by Van Parij and 15 prominent respondents to critique the idea and to examine related core values and beliefs. The result is a book that has the rare virtue of being thought provoking; over time, it may prove to be widely influential as well.

What I found interesting is that the boldness of Van Parij's proposal succeeds in exposing the fact that much of what passes as conventional wisdom may be surprisingly vulnerable to radical critique. As the global economy continues to dramatically change labor's relationship to capital, it is clear that existing social welfare programs have been based on an imagined world that no longer exists. But while the neoliberal assault to dismantle the social safety net may not be just, it is widely acknowledged. Van Parij courageously demonstrates that change provides an opportunity for the Left to plausibly propose an agenda that moves in the opposite direction.

Ultimately, what at first glance might appear to be pie-in-the-sky thinking rapidly gains currency. On the whole, Van Parijs and his critics show that the UBI (or like policies) can provide a reasonable and humane solution for people adapting to life within today's hyper-competitive global market economy.

In short, I highly recommend this book for students or anyone else who may be interested in contemplating how a better society might come to pass.

"What's Wrong With a Free Lunch" by Philippe Van Parijs proposes that every person be given an above-subsistence-level Universal Basic Income with no strings attached. The book includes responses from 15 thinkers, mostly sympathetic to the idea. A couple oppose the idea of letting anyone have anything for nothing (as if that were not already the case), and several suggest what they see as similar but better ideas. The majority of these are based on the idea that enacting a UBI in the United States is unlikely, not that it is undesirable.

This may be right, but even an unreasonable goal serves a very important purpose. Many of the right-wing ideas openly discussed in the media are, I dearly hope, unreasonable goals. But they serve the purpose of making somewhat-less-destructive ideas pass for "centrist." As long as the right wing proposes what it dreams of and the left wing proposes only what it thinks it can get in the foreseeable future, the "center" will be commonly placed further and further from what the left thought it could get. Van Parijis's book is exactly the sort of thing needed to break this defeatist pattern. We need to direct our energies to the achievable, yes, but we also have to dream -- or the achievable won't be.

I'm not convinced that some of the alternatives offered, such as a Negative Income Tax, are either more desirable or more feasible. And concentrating on how best to convince Americans to pay more income taxes is the wrong thing to be worried about.

Our first project should be to free up the tax dollars we are wasting. We should cut military spending, cut prison spending, cancel the wars on victimless crimes, cut highway spending, cut trash-removal spending, eliminate corporate welfare, tax pollution, tax the use of natural resources, tax corporations, tax the extremely rich, tax wealth, tax union busting, tax estates, eliminate the cap on payroll taxes, eliminate offshore banking, etc., etc. The idea that we need to devise a means of doing good that will most readily persuade a large segment of society to pay higher income taxes is hopelessly misguided. (And the idea that people won't want others to have free money while they "have to work for it" misses the whole point of the UBI: everybody gets it!)

What I find most attractive about a UBI is the hope that it would eliminate the most unattractive and lowest paying jobs. The response from certain parties will inevitably be that this will "hurt the very people it is intended to help," that certain people will be stuck with the UBI and nothing more because there are no jobs for them. But this same argument is made against raising minimum wages in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A UBI would doubtless result in higher pay and better treatment for low-skilled workers, but it would also do something that a higher minimum wage does not: allow people to refuse fulltime work and pursue the acquisition of skills.

Here's an idea for a handout that does not stigmatize and actually boosts wages. Surely that's a more valuable trick than a "missile defense system" with a test record that would get it thrown out of the third grade.

The title of this book is deceptive; the book is not about whether standards will "save" public education, but rather a poorly-reasoned case against the use of standardized tests. Now it is perfectly true that standardized tests can be misused and misinterpreted, but that is hardly the only way they can be used. In my experience, the New York State Regents examinations have served all three of the following purposes:
1. Provide a statewide minimum standard of academic achievement which means that those students who receive a Regents diploma have a more meaningful credential than a mere school diploma. Prospective employers know what a Regents diploma signifies, whereas they seldom know how much a school diploma means.
2. Protects students against that small minority of teachers who would fail students they don't like. Granted, good teachers far outnumber bad teachers, but this is small consolation to victims of bad teachers. I know whereof I speak. My eighth grade English teacher would have failed me, but for the Regents exam. State law said anyone who passed the Regents passed the course.
3. Alerts state authorities to schools in which students consistently exceed or fall short of the expected level of academic achievement. The high-performing schools can be studied so that other schools can benefit from their methods, and low-performing schools can be helped to improve.
It seems to be this third "benefit" which has Meier up in arms. If the state authorities use the tests as an excuse to punish schools and teachers for below-average performance instead of aiding them to improve, then they are misusing the information from the tests, and this, beyond question, is bad. And it is true that politicians often prefer to withhold state aid from underperforming schools rather than give them the extra help they need to improve. After all, it "saves the taxpayer money" to give the schools less instead of more. It may be great political grandstanding, and it may get votes from the selfish and foolish, but it is a betrayal of the children the state is supposed to be serving. Meier is quite rightly offended by this.
But Meier ignores the baby in her zeal to throw out the bath water. It is not the tests that are at fault, but the politicians that misinterpret and misuse them.
Meier's essay is followed by seven critiques by seven other authors, all of which, in one way or another, miss the point. They all would do well to read John Stanford's book "Victory in Our Schools," which presents a program that, in addition to tests to evaluate student achievement and teacher performance, provides help to those teachers and students who are underperforming. Stanford correctly, I believe, assumes that nearly all teachers want to do right by their students, and he stood ready to provide those teachers with leadership, encouragement, and assistance in bettering their performance. Nearly all of them did!
2.

This is one of the few books that relly looks at various sides of the debate about standards and standardization. Meier begins with a well resoned reivew of what the arguments for standardization are, and then why she believes that these actually get in the way of achieving high standards. Her article is then followed up with 5 other viewpoints on this debate.

A convincing and thorough manifesto offering plausible legislative policies or regulations that might effectively address the "sweatshop problem" in the garment industry, but lean on data for the personal consumer. It presents a theory on what those in power "could do," and not much about what we consumers *should* do.