While the book was helpful in learning basic geography of eastern Europe and had many humorous comments, I had a hard time getting past the blatant sympathy for communism. The section on the Soviet Union, for example, described the "widespread discontent" brought about by Stalin's collectivization of agriculture. A cartoon showed a sad farmer wearing a barrel with little straps. There was no mention of the tens of millions who died as a result of the intentional destruction of their seed grain, nor any mention of the purges or slave labor camps. The authors implied that while communism was "unpopular", capitalism produces "unemployment, homelessness and destitution".

America was described as an empire exactly analagous to the Soviet Union and it's puppet states.

The authors did concede that Joe Stalin had corrupted the idealistic dream of Marx and Lenin.

The history of eastern Europe is extremely confusing. Some pieces of land have changed hands more times than anyone can remember, and the whole Yugoslavia thing sends most people reeling in confusion. This book gives a broad, *basic* introduction to eastern Europe: who lives there, how they got there, how various empires have played Monopoly with them, and where they're going now.

This is not a comprehensive text -- it is a summary guide! Some have tried to read more into it than appears on the surface, but I'm stumped as to how one can do that given the very basic information presented.

My biggest complaints are: 1) the authors left vast gaps in some very important periods (such as World War II), which leave one wondering how the story got from "A" to "B"; and 2) Russia gets the lion's share of attention, where the remaining eastern European countries have only a few pages (or less) devoted to them. I understand that the small size of the book made it necessary to save space, but perhaps a bit more balance could have been achieved.

Overall, a good *basic* introduction to how things got the way they did in eastern Europe. If you're like me, though, and love to have details about things, you will probably be happier with a more "scholarly" history book on the subject.

OK, I know this isn't the most in-depth and accurate book on Eastern Europe (nobody claimed it was textbook level), but it is a good overview for someone who is interested in the basics. I was given a copy due to my job (all I can say is I work for the government), and I found many interesting tidbits in it that I didn't know. I have traveled and lived throughout the region, and wish I had found this book years ago as it would be helpful for those not familiar with its history. And please don't criticize any events or issues that may have been left out, all written history has its shortcomings and inaccuracies! Overall, this book does a grand job and showing how Eastern Europe got to its present state!

Like the title suggests, the book is fast paced. It quickly goes through basic principles and then gets into heavier data structures. Inadequate time is spent on the harder material, and there are no exercises anywhere. It is not possible to gain a working knowledge of C from this book.

I've used this book in preparing a three day "crash course" in C. I found the reference material invaluable when creating my presentation. The easy access to information and the clear, concise descriptions were just what I needed when preparing slides. I would recommend this book to any moderately experienced C programmer who has to teach C to others. I have also encountered one of my peers who used this book to learn C and he found it extremely helpful in learning C from the ground up.

"Political correctness" has made it difficult to challenge even that part of the thesis of the Fullbrooks' book, Simone De Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre: The Remaking of a Twentieth-Century Legend, which relates strictly to the history of philosophy. Nevertheless, challenged it must be, and has been, contrary to the claims of Sharon Wright in her online review. What she calls their "impressive scholarship" has come under serious and precise attack from a number of quarters. What follows is simply the lead-in to an article that I myself published as early as 1995 ("Sartre and Beauvoir: Refining rather than 'Remaking' the Legend", Simone de Beauvoir Studies, vol. 12, 1995, pp. 91-99); the rest of that article goes on to justify my claims in detail.

"The crux of their argument is the assertion that Sartre's reading of the draft of L'Invitée during his leave in Paris between 4 and 16 February 1940 was what provided him with all or most of the crucial ideas that were to form the substance of L'Etre et le Néant. [...] Now, there are least four MAJOR flaws in this line of argument: (i) we do not know with certainty exactly what was in the parts of L'Invitée that Sartre read in February 1940; (ii) the argument ignores completely Beauvoir's acquaintance with drafts of Sartre's L'Age de raison, and also seriously underplays the philosophical content of those of Sartre's Carnets de la drôle de guerre that Beauvoir had read before February 1940; (iii) we DO know that Sartre had been working since the mid-1930s on the ideas that were to be central to L'Etre et le Néant; (iv) the momentous philosophical system that the Fullbrooks ascribe to Beauvoir is simply not to be found in even the final version of L'Invitée."

Since, as Sharon Wright points out, the Fullbrooks were far from the first to argue for the philosophical originality of Beauvoir, those of their claims that are demonstrably false have done nothing to promote this case. Rather, they have tended to obscure, and direct attention away from, many of the complex and fascinating questions concerning the relationship between the thought of Beauvoir and that of Sartre. What is more, some of the sensationalist, journalistic features of the style of the book have served to inflame sensitive issues that require particularly cool, rational treatment.

No book on Beauvoir or Sartre has led to so much discussion, provoked such consternation or so changed the way we see these cultural icons as has Kate and Edward Fullbrook's "Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre: The Remaking of a Twentieth-Century Legend". The basis of this recently republished book (which I had the pleasure of rereading last week) is disarmingly simple. The Fullbrooks checked out Beauvoir's and Sartre's newly-available letters and diaries and found that the traditional story that says the Beauvoir constructed her first novel "She Cme to Stay" on the basis of philosophical ideas she took from Sartre's essay "Being and Nothingness" is the exact opposite of the truth. Sartre only began, the Fullbrooks carefully document, to compile notes hor his philosophical treatise after studying the second draft of Beauvoir's novel. The Fullbrooks also, and again drawing on the letters, make the case that it was Beauvoir's sexual promiscuity, rather than Sartre's that initially dictated the famous open terms of their 50-year relationship. All this radical post-patriarchal revisionism, which the Fullbrooks refused to play down, was too much for many critcs when this book appeared in 1994. Some reviewers were apoplectic, others deeply sceptical, and the "New Yorl Times" twice ran long reviews warning their readers against this "feminist claptrap". But in fact the Fullbrooks, in claiming philosophical originality for Beauvoir, were themselves not so original as perhaps they and certainly their critics imagined. Margaret Simons, Linda Singer and Sonia Kruks had previously argued the case for Beauvoir as an innovative philosopher and the source of some of Sartre's later ideas. The Fullbrooks' discoveries gave new significance to this prior scholarship and inspired Simons to go off in search of Beauvoir's student diaries. (See Simons 1999) Simons's subsequent discoveries and the slow but continuing cultural shift away from presuming that women are never the source of original ideas has taken away some of the shock value of the Fullbrooks' first book. Indeed, seven years on and their impressive scholarship has never been seriously challanged. By now scores of Sartre scholars much have checked out the letters and diaries and found, to their dismay, that the Fullbrooks did not make any of it up. But although "Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre: The Remaking of a Twentieth-Century Legend" through its success no longer enjoys the controversy it once did, it remains, with its compelling narrative and writerly qualities, one of the best books evr written about either Beauvoir or Sartre. Even the "New York Times" had to admit that it was good read. For capturing the spirit of these twentieth-century giants and their extraordinary relationship, this book is yet to be beaten.

This is a two disc set; one for Greek authors, another for Latin. It contains selections from Homer, Sappho, Anacreon, Eurpides, Theocritus, Moschus, Bion, Anacreontea, Palatine Anthology, Lucretius, Catullus, Virgil, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius, Ovid, Martial, Juvenal, and Petronius. This disc is NOT in Greek or Latin but in English, rendering quite useless to anyone wishing to use it to study the languages.

I liked the book Kazaam it made me think of what I would do if I had a genie of my own. It was also very neat how almost all of the book took place at a club called the music box. If I had a genie I would have wished for something better than a master CD of his dads concert. I would have wished for a lot of money or a really nice house. I liked how the book was written. The author put alot of action into the story and it was never boring. I also dont like books that are very long. This book was about the right length for me to read. I have read other books by this author and I like how he writes. One other thing that I liked about this book was that it had a famous athlete in it. Shaquille O'neal has the main role of Kazaam the genie. I think that this is a good book for anyone to read. I really liked this book and I think that you will too but you have to read it first.

I've always been pretty interested in serial killers, and naturally came across Ed Gein's name in a few "collections" of serial killer biographies. Wandering through the bookstore oneday, I picked up "Ed Gein: Psycho." That's what it says on the cover. Inside, it's called "Ed Gein: Psycho!" The exclamation mark tells you all you probably need to know about the mentality of Paul Anthony Woods, the "author" of this self-loving piece of garbage.

Many, many reviewers already have pointed out the things that turn one's stomach about this book. The writing is sophomoric and ridiculous, and way, way, WAY too much liberty is taken with the story, which, ideally, is non-fiction. The imagined conversations, thoughts, and feelings of Ed that the author relays are ridiculous, and the tone of the book is really grating. I mean, Ed Gein was a really odd duck who did some really creepy and bad things, but he's a person of some note. To read Woods refer to him as "our boy" in certain passages makes me angry. The cavalier style with which it is written is really smarmy, and one can imagine Woods sitting at his typewriter, smiling at his own wit, patting himself on the back.

Beyond the incredibly obnoxious way in which the book is written (and trust me folks, the author's skills are far below that of the average writer who gets published) and the silly "conversations" between Ed and his fellow Wisconsonians (who, in the book, have a kind of...gulp...southern drawl?), there is the fact that no new information is presented, and I didn't learn anything I didn't already know from reading 10 or 15 pages in another book. And the last part, where the author "examines" the pop-culture that has been created around the Gein legend only confirmed my suspicions throughout the rest of the book...he's just a silly, pseudo-psychologist fan with no respect for his elders.

Pass!

I recently saw a movie about Ed Gein on cable - the film was actually a pretty decent and somewhat engrossing account of Ed Gein, especially if you are unfamiliar with him. I was surprised by how little I new of the man and his atrocious proclivities. When I was a teen, I went through a period of intense interest in serial killers and I read several biographies about the most famous -- many of these books and many other novels made mention of the man, but I had no idea he was so off the charts in terms of his psychosis. After seeing the movie, I wanted to learn more -- I had no recommendations but I was able to find this book in the local bookstore, so I picked it up even though my hands-on examination hinted at its weaknesses. Even though my expectations were low, I found it to be even less than I expected - It was too short and too...what's the word...dramaticized. I was unable to differentiate the author's creative license from reality. Many of the conversations are unquoted and un-referenced, so I assume the author used his creative license judiciously, which is not what I was looking for. I was looking for a more in-depth analysis of the man, his behavior, and I was hoping for a real glimpse into his mind. What I found felt to me to be too speculative and way too thin. I agree with another reviewer that the book was sensationalistic and far from authoritative. The final chapters belong in a history of horror movies book, not in a book about a man and his crimes. I gave it a 2 only because it was at least somewhat informative -- it confirmed many aspects of the movie I saw (I'd recommend it if I remembered the title) -- in fact, it was so close to the film, even in its pacing, I wouldn't be surprised if the author or the book were involved in the movie's production. If you are looking for a fast read to introduce you to a dramatic version of Ed Gein, this book is a decent choice, but if you want more substance and depth, look elsewhere...

I bought this book because I thought it would give me more details about weirdo serial killer Ed Gein, after I had read Deviant by Harold Schector. I was sorely disappointed. Psycho doesn't really go extensively into more facts about this interesting man and I firmly believe that Deviant does. This book is too short. The final chapters rave on about the movies,songs and comics they made about him and even though that has some indirect relationship to the man, I mean really... what does it have to do with Ed Gein? Ed Gein was probably unaware that any movies were being made about him while he was in the institution and he certainly wasn't like the Zodiac Killer; he didn't care.
The story is that Ed Gein was raised by a strictly religious mother, Augusta Gein and an apathetic father who took to drinking heavily to escape his mundane existence. Ed Gein idolized his mother, like his brother too but Edward Theodore Gein was more of a momma's boy.
Ed's brother Henry dies in a fire and there is suspicion that Ed had something to do with it but there is no proof.
Later, when Ed's mother dies, after his father, Ed takes to grave-robbing and wearing human faces as masks over his face.Not to mention he makes furniture out of human skin. Ed denies that he has sexual intercourse with these corpses because they smell too bad but who knows?
After Ed dies in 1984 of respiratory illness, he becomes a hero.Maybe we are living in a sick society where a murderer of two, possibly three women is considered a hero.
I recommend Deviant by Harold Schector. Avoid this one.

you do not need a book to play mario party. trust me. very useless item. this guide shouldnt even exist. if your that dumb and dont know how to play, read the instruction booklet that comes with the game.

The cover looks "Wow! This guide must be really good!" but the game is already simple enough. This guide is like a blank peice of paper. But the game gets
Levels: B-
Graphics: A
Sound: A-
Fun Factor: F- and beyond

The Mario Party 4 guide is filled with descriptions and tips for winning the many mini games. Having it definitely makes playing the game more enjoyable, especially if you have limited time to play.

Strategy guides are a great idea for parents with kids who like to play video games but don't like to read -- definitely helps with reading...... and spelling. :)

Reincarnation is the belief that at some point after death we return to this world as a different person in another body. There are many variations on the theme. Some theories include animal life, even inanimate objects. So, if you are bad this time around, you might come back as a dog, or somebody's coffee pot. (On the other hand, if you are good, the possibilities are endless.) Some, like the philosopher Nietzsche, believed that the same events happen, over and over. In that case, I will have written this review, and you will have read it, countless times already - a wearying prospect at best. For millennia, belief in reincarnation, and its attendant notion of karma - the idea that our actions now will affect our future lives - has been a mainstay of Hindu thought. The idea has attracted many major league figures in western thought as well: Pythagoras, Plato, Swedenborg, Emerson, Goethe and Schopenhauer, to name a few. And it has, of course, received a great deal of attention from occultists, metaphysicians and students of what used to be called parapsychology.

Philosopher Paul Edwards, however, has taken stock of this situation and, out of the kindness of his heart, and what I can only surmise is a selfless devotion to rationality, has decided to disabuse anyone who will listen to him of this dangerous notion. The result is a tedious essay in pedantic nit-picking.

I am not a believer in, nor an apologist for, reincarnation. I am, I imagine, a sympathetic agnostic. When we get down to it, no one really knows what happens after death - no one, that is, who has yet to enjoy the experience. And those who have, ain't talking. So my displeasure in Edwards' grating text is not that of an adherent defending a sacred creed. What bothers me about this annoying book is the smug, complacent know-it-all manner in which he treats his subject. (Its tiresome attempts at what I can only assume is wit are bothersome too.)

The original edition appeared in 1996, and at that time, many of the characters and topics he addresses may have loomed larger in the public consciousness. (His initial knock-out punch was, evidently, not successful, and his publishers apparently feel a second dose is needed.) Kubler-Ross, Raymond Moody, Ian Stevenson and the psychedelic investigator Stanislav Grof come in for especially detailed dissection. It goes without saying that most, if not all, of the 'new age' advocates of reincarnation are out to lunch, and their ideas on the subject sport more holes than a bag of Hoola Hoops.

But the 'new age' has lost some of its blissful appeal by now, and after reading Edwards's 'devastating' critique of its mystic flapdoodle, I found myself cheering for the underdog. What is wrong with this book is that Edwards sets up his targets like clay pigeons and knocks them down, one by one. Or, mixing my metaphors, he gives himself high marks for shooting fish in a barrel. No one, I think, who takes the notion of reincarnation at all seriously believes Shirley MacLaine is a quotable authority on the subject. But by taking her down a peg Edwards, an unflappable devotee of strict scientific rationality, believes he has scored major points. Maybe he uses a flame thrower to rid himself of mosquitoes too.

Another annoying thing is Edwards' frequent remarks about the mental capacity of people who are interested in reincarnation, or other 'occult' ideas. They are, he tells us: "insane" or "semi-insane"; "under-educated"; "credulous"; "semi-literate"; "lunatics"; and, perhaps least offensive, "very average, middle-class Americans". They are also devoted readers of mind-numbing tabloids like the National Enquirer, The Midnight Globe, and the Star - all of which print columns of occult clap-trap that no "critically trained person" - like, we must imagine, himself - would be caught dead absorbing. Yet Edwards makes it clear that he too is among those many "under-educated" Americans who read this drivel, admitting that "for many years I have been an avid reader of assorted tabloids."

Research, of course. But I for one suspect that Edwards has a morbid love-hate relationship with the 'occult', a neurotic attachment to a collection of beliefs he finds infuriatingly and self-evidently absurd. If only we all just listened to the scientists and, we must assume, philosophers like himself. Then muddled questions about life, death and everything else would just evaporate. My own money, however, is on the muddlers. Yet, as I'm a semi-insane, credulous under-educated reader of occult drivel, what do you expect?
If you are interested in an objective, informative and engaging book on reincarnation, this isn't it. But if you think the whole idea is as barking as the dog next door and enjoy playing CSICOPS and robbers, be my guest.

Having read the favorable reviews to Edwards book,I would like to present the skeptical view of his book. The book is well written, but it offers poor arguments in refuting reincarnation. Edwards argues that reincarnation must be false, since where do all new souls come from? He fails to realize that reality is infinite, and hence the number of souls could also be infinite. He then writes that people have no memory of other lives,thus having no memory they have no identity. Are we to say then that since very few of us had memories as children that we were never children? Obviously not. All claims should be scrutinized from a skeptical viewpoint. This is also true of those of skeptics such as Kurtz. Far from presenting an irrefutable case against reincarnation, this book presents a very poor one. All of his arguments can be refuted. I do recommend the reading of this book to see how some skeptics think, but it does not mean that all skeptics agree with Kurtz, or that his book represents the views of all skeptics. It certainly does not. I am a skeptic but I don't agree with his arguments.

I am rather surprised at the quantity and inanity of bad reviews for this book. It is rather inexplicable to me - perhaps they read something else.

To me, this book is a very rigorous and entertaining voyage into the arguments, concepts and proponents of reincarnation. Paul Edwards dissects the reincarnation idea and discusses the idea of personal identity, the period that is supposed to lie "between lives", and various other problems of reincarnation. In Chapter 14, he notably discusses five powerful scientific arguments against reincarnation : Tertullian's Objection, Reincarnation and evolution, The recency of life, The population problem and the Absence of memories. He also argues against many aspects of reincationation, such as the idea of "karma" or of an "astral body", the Modus Operandi problem, the idea of conservation of mental energy which underpins the idea of reincarnation, and many others besides.

His book is written in a very intelligent and humorous way. It is also obvious that Edwards' knowledge on the various positions and arguments related to the subject is nothing less than breathtaking. His extensive lampooning of the "research" of the main proponents of reincarnation is entertaining as well as shocking.

No one should be without this book. I say this honestly and not lightly, since I think the question of death should concern everyone and this book is definitively a great reference on the subject of the doctrines of reincarnation.

I bought this book before I looked at the print date. This book is mostly a compilation of information from other books. This book is only useful as an index to those books. Anyone who is interested in starting a business will find this book otherwise useless and outdated.

I purchased this book over seven months ago and didn't have much time to read it then. I work for a software company and was looking for a way to use what I have went to school for, for 5 years to recieve my BS/MS in Computer Science and again another year for a PH.D to make money of my own. When I read the book I was really upset by the fact that it did not provide alot of help for a beginner who was just starting their own business. I also gathered from the book that it was catering to a certain class of people. ie educated, money, and alot of time to spend. The resources that they provided half of them were not any good. And those that were they had no idea of what you were talking about. As far as I was concerned the book was O.K. but it could have been better. Ebony

This plot (I use the word loosely here) had more holes in it then the cheese from the same country. Ok so the details are correct, the only reason I kept plodding through this one, and it is just that he did not use the details to any great effect. The writing here was very forced and not fresh, almost like a bad high school history book. I have heard some good things about this author but I either picked up the wrong book or there are some people that have some explaining to do to me. Where do I go to get a refund?

I'm a big fan of Erdman and recently got all the books I have not read yet by Erdman. This is the worst book I have read by Erdman. I guess if you are fascinated by WWII history and like reading a history book versus a novel, then this book may be for you. Erdman usually mixes in the appropriate amount of historical detail in his books, but he mixed in too much in this book.

Erdman is a man of many talents. But it seems like his fictional writing talents were diluted in order to make room for some pinches of historical data. It's not a ponderous read nor a fact-o-rama. In fact, he does do a good job keeping everything fairly easy and balanced for the reader. It's just that he usually does better.