The ideas of Isac Newton, John Locke, David Hume and Adam Smith have their roots in this book.

IM AN ASSISTANT IN THE FACULATY OF ARTS IN CAIRO UNIVERSITY . STAFF MEMBER IN THE DEBRTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND I WANT BUY THIS BOOK(ON THE GOVERNMENT OF RULERS)

For the bulk of the novel, Fennimore Cooper seems to spin his literary wheels attempting to develop depth into his characters. Failing miserably, the plot quickens and the novel becomes more entertaining, although hardly believable. The ultimate reason for the danger in the book becomes rather silly, but still there is some redeaming quality to the novel. This was basically Fennimore Cooper's first attempt at an American novel and so some tolerance is warrented. I shall try the next book, The Pioneers, in time.

The plot of this book is based on a real spy story. Therefore, although some do consider it unbelievable, the basis of it is entirely true. The way that the author slowly brings out the character of Harvey Birch is wonderful. He creates numerous sub plots that make the story very interesting. The only weakness is the fact that the author was rushed into stopping the story abruptly. As a result, one hears no more about many important characters until the very end when some are fleetingly mentioned. The ending is so strong, however, that this fault isn't as glaring as it would have been.

The author took a wonderful idea (Geography as a factor in growth) and extensive research, and combined them into a book that would have done better as individual articles. The data was extensive, but the structure of the book did not make for a comprehensive read, and left me (as a reader) without a clean understanding of the authors point. A wonderful idea, but a bit hard to trudge through.

Lots of family names are listed, but unfortunately only for one County, namely Prince Georges County. Also, the front cover states this book is "Volume II". Where are the other Volumes and what do they contain?. This book was not properly described snd had it been, I would not have ordered it. It will serve some well, but I'm sending it back.

Mark David Hall has tried to fill a void in the historiography. A biography of James Wilson was certainly overdue by 1997. Hall does shed light on Wilson's unique epistomology and how he integrated it into the liberal and republican ideology of the time. Indeed, Hall demonstrates how Wilson's belief in a "moral sense" that existed in all human beings necessitated an optimism toward popular rule, an optimism that surpassed that of many of the other Founders by the late 1780s.
Nonetheless, this work has numerous unforgivable mistakes. Hall over-emphasizes Wilson's democratic tendencies, going so far as to actually call him a democrat -- a title that Wilson would have abhored as much as aristocrat. Hall notes Wilson's belief that majoritarian government had to have its power checked, but this aspect of Wilson's ideology he gives slight attention to. He makes a disengenuous argument that Wilson believed that balance of power was needed to check corruption rather than the democracy. This distinction is hollow. To believe that democratic government needs to be limited is equivalent to believing that democratic rule needs to be checked. The truth is that though Wilson did believe that the people could be trusted more than did the other Founders, he also believed in limiting popular power. Wilson disagreed at many points how these checks ought to be achieved and to what degree they were to be implimented. But the same can be said for most of the Founders. Wilson is better classified along with the majority of the other Founders as a republican and a liberal -- a republican willing to allow the people a slightly greater role in authority, but a republican nonetheless, not a democrat.
Hall also over-emphasizes Wilson's role in developing the governmental ideology of the new republic. Likewise he often underestimates the activity of others. This work also fails to place Wilson's ideas in the context of broader, external, intellectual activity, therefore giving the reader the impression that he originated more than he did. Finally, this author fails to chart Wilson's intellectual development. There seems to be an assumption that what Wilson believed in 1789 was what he believed in 1768 soon after he arrived in America.
This is a book that I wanted to like and it does have some redeeming value, but ultimately it is too flawed to allow any more than a single star. I will be looking for a new biography of Wilson, soon.

This is the early transcendentals version of Stewart's calculus. The title of the book is quite appropriate, in that to learn calculus well, one must transcend the Stewart approach early and often. I found my self reading another text (Simmon's Calculus and Analytic Geometry) as an antidote to this dry, disjointed, lifeless tome.

Stewart takes an inconsistent (sometimes rigorous, sometimes intuitive) approach toward teaching the calculus. It seems as if he has attempted to be all things to all people. Though he may have attempted to present the subject in both an intuitive (to motivate the typical student) and rigorous (to satisfy the professor) manner, he failed to deliver on either.

The text is replete with pretty diagrams and some historical diversions, which read as canned, trivial snippets. In spite of this eye candy, the mathematical exposition is poor. Most proofs read as shorthand notes to one who already understands the subject. Is it analysis or basic calculus? Stewart seems to have a schizophrenic writing manner. On the one hand, he presents examples in "workbook" (i.e. Schaum's outline) form, so that if one wishes to solve a particular sort of problem, one might find it here. On the other hand, he does not seem able to meld problem solving with rigor in a coherent manner. So an abbreviated proof is done, with several relevant steps (relevant, that is, to the beginner) omitted. What function does this serve for a pre-analysis student? A proof that might take 10 steps is presented in 4. What is the point of this approach? Perhaps so as to ward off accusations that a particular subject was not touched upon.

The book is expensive and bloated. Though the "official" rendering of the page numbers is 781, there are approximately 130 other pages devoted to appendices (some as advertisements for other, i.e. ancillary, materials). Note, this text is intended for a 2 semester Calculus sequence. It seems inappropriate, perhaps fraudulent, that Stewart devoted 900+ expensive pages for his task, and yet failed to present the material in an interesting and efficient manner. Given his insistence upon this secondary material, I ask Stewart - did you ever intend for this book to be relatively self-contained for the serious first year scholar, or did you expect the professor or CD-ROM to fill in the gaps in your exposition? Some alternative texts: Simmons, Anton, Stein, Thomas/Finney.

This book was by far the most horrid attempt at historical academic work I've ever read. Not to mention the fact that the author is one of the coldest, most mean-hearted men alive, historical ignorance and remedial writing ability permeate this mind-numbing tome. Definitely not a good read!