Trinity is set in the future after the the aberrants(super heroes gone haywire) came back. This RPG combines the white wolf system with a future setting with some of the most unique in rpg player accessable technology and psychic abilitys that make for a very intersting gaming session. I would reccomend this to any white-wolf fan looking for something other than grim dark supernatural of the world of darkness.

The Trinity Players Guide is, IMO, the best Trinity sourcebook relesed so far. It lacks the color section previous Trinity books had, but its contesnt make up for this loss. Among other things, here you'll find: lots of info about the Aeon Trinity, on par with the Order info found in the Order/Region books; additional stuff about the Orders, which is especially useful if you don't own an Order's book or it hasn't been relesed yet; additional character creation material (merits and flaws, new abilities and backgrounds etc.); detailed information on Psi and Psi-related stuff; and a new, alternate Psi system, more flexible and complex than the one found in the main Trinity book (kinda similar to Mage).

Resuming, this book is fantastic: it isn't as pretty-looking as previous Trinity stuff, but it's essential to any serious Trinity player.

Bravo!! "The Letter" concludes the love story of David and Maryanne Parkin. You must read "The Christmas Box" and "Timepiece", to capture the entire story. Set in the 1930's, Evans did a wonderful job portraying this era. The events, the characters, the places, all well written. This series is one of the best I have ever read. David Parkin is a incredible man. Maryanne is a wonderful, understanding, loving person. Together through their loss of their daughter, Andrea, their lives go in different directions. David sets off on a journey to find answers. As he was abandoned by his mother at six years old, his feelings always haunted him. When Andrea dies, he virtually relives the same feelings, even worse, only this time shutting out Maryanne from his heart. Maryanne makes a major decision that will break your heart. Their love for each is so strong and real, you can feel it just by reading this love story. I can't leave out the characters of Catherine and Lawrence as well. Their part through-out the series is very touching and two very dedicated friends to the Parkins. The ending was incredible. I won't say how it ends but only that I wasn't expecting it and I had to have a box of tissues. As Evans bids farewell to the lives of David and Maryanne, so do I. It was an incredible love story. Don't pass this series up.

This is one of the best books ever written. It was an upliftment & encouragement. David Parkin is a good example (of a husband, father, man, friend, employer, & person) that more people need to follow. We could use more people like him. I hope heaven is filled with people like him, rather than churchy, selfish, judgmental people. Don't get me wrong - church is good & essential. But I'd rather have people like him in heaven with me. I love David Parkin. The only thing that saddens me is that he is only fictional. But perhaps Richard Paul Evans is the same type of man that David Parkin is - and Richard's real! This is truly one of the most beautiful books I have ever read. I have read all three books in the series in the correct order, and this final book is the best. I just cannot say how beautiful & lovely it is. God must have been holding Richard's hand as he wrote it.

The Letter is a great conclusion to a wonderful series of books. If you read "Timepiece" and "The Christmas Box", you must read "The Letter". This book was a little slow in the middle, but keep with it. However, the ending packed a powerful punch. Again, I cried. I fell in love with David and Mary Ann Parkin all over again.

Richard Paul Evans is a gifted writer. I hope he writes more books like this one.

Richard Paul Evans is a gifted and talented author of inspirational and insightful tales. This book fulfills those goals. This is a story of two people in need of trust, faith, hope and love. A man who has lost so much in his life discovers a young woman who never had much to loose. Hunter is a preacher turned gambler. He has turned his back on God due to the death of his wife and child. Hunter is accused of a murder that he didn't commit. Quaye is a young girl from a starving Irish family, whose father "sold" her to a man, Jack, on his way to America. The husband turns out to be an extremely abusive man interested only in gold and money. Quaye accepts her life as the only possibility, no matter how horrible. hunter and Quaye are thrown together in a blizzard. They learn and discover things about themselves when viewed through the others eyes. The story was well written. The details of place and time were wonderful. The only disappointment was... this was the first novel of Richard Paul Evans that did not move me tears with it's lessons on life.

This love story is one of the most poignant and satisfying I have ever read! Quaye and Hunter's relationship broke my heart and then made me feel whole again! Touche, Mr. Evans! Another wonderful book.

This is the first book I have read by Richard Paul Evans and can not wait to get my hands on his other books. You can feel deep down in your heart the agony and then love between Quaye and Hunter as described by R.P.Evans. I would love to see this come out as a movie and plan on buying the audio version of this book!

This was my first book by Richard Paul Evans. I have always loved Nicholas Sparks and was recommended this because the writing is supposed to be similar. If you like Mr. Sparks, you will love Mr. Evans as well!

It is a story of a young American woman who marries an Italian man, moves to Italy, has his child and lives a very lonely life in a loveless marriage. She meets an American man and they become fast friends and soon fall in love.

The story is wonderful and you will find when you finish the book you wish it was not over. I fell in love with the characters. Well at least the main characters, Eliana and Ross. Eliana's husband left a little to be desired.

Mr. Evans is a superb story teller and I will definetly read more of his books. Marvelous!!!!!

I bought the unabridged version which can sometimes be too long, but I enjoyed every minute of the tapes. I really did not want the tapes to end. Excellent story and characters. It is truly a story of love and hope. Loved it, loved it, and loved it!!

From beginning to end the author keeps you interested and longing for more. I was caught up in the lives of Eliana and Ross and was disappointed that the story had to end. Evans has a way of making the entire book come alive; the setting, the characters, the emotions. I highly recommend this book and look forward to a sequel!

Shakespeare portrays King Richard III as a hunchbacked thoroughly evil man. While based upon the historical Richard III, the play is a dramatization. Although classed as a history, remember that Shakespeare's histories aren't historically accurate biographies. Richard is a power-hungry brother of a king who murders, schemes, marries, and plots to usurp the throne from rightful heirs. Richard gets his due when he meets Henry Tudor on the field of battle and the reign of the Yorkist kings comes to an end. Written under the rule of a Tudor monarch (Elizabeth I), the play paints the brutal Richard in an especially unfavorable light. After all, the rise of the Tudors depended upon the death of Richard III. The treatment of women in the play has been criticized, especially the speed under which Anne accepts Richard III -- with her dead father in law in the scene, no less. The play compresses 14 years or so of real history into 5 acts. It is hard to go wrong with Shakespeare. A good but dark read.

Let's get one thing clear from the start: when I rate Shakespeare, I rate it against other Shakespeare; otherwise, the consistently high ratings would not be very informative. If I was rating this against the general run of literature available, it would unquestionably rate 5 stars.

So what brings it down to 4, as compared to other Shakespeare? Primarily a few places where it demands a bit too much suspension of disbelief; the language is some of Shakespeare's best, and is comparatively easy for a modern reader (I found most of the footnotes to be sufficiently unnecessary to be actually more distraction than help). But for one thing, if Richard is withered, hunchbacked, and deformed, how is it that he has been able to kill so many of his victims in battle? For another thing, is it REALLY plausible that Princess Anne would be persuaded as she was by someone with nothing more going for him than Richard? To paraphrase the scene,

Anne: You killed my husband and his father! I hate you I hate you I hate you!

Richard: But I only did it 'cause I'm hot for you, babe! Wanna marry me?

Anne: Welll...maybe. Let me think about it.

(And, in fact, she marries him. Just like that.)

Also, there are virtually NO characters in this play that are sympathetic, save perhaps for the two murdered children and Richmond, and we really don't see enough of them to feel much connection; it dilutes the effectiveness of the portrayal of Richard's evil when almost all of the other characters are, if not just as bad, certainly bad enough.

Richard III is the most well crafted satanic character in all of Shakespeare's writing. What can get frightening is that you see his evil, and yet you like him. The play is dramatically frightening from one scene to the next. To this day, I never could forget the scene where Hastings is sentenced to death or when Richard is haunted by the 11 ghosts. But the virtuous Henry VII also offers captivating passages (especially his passage that announces the end of the War of the Roses.) It is also interesting to see how carefully Shakespeare had to handle Henry VII, seing his granddaughter Elizabeth was in the audience. To be sure, Richard III is blamed for several things he did not do. The dramatic irony is that whatever he was innocent of, all the circumstancial evidence says he murdered his nephews.(Rumors that he killed them continued to spread like fire. Not only did he start losing England's loyalty, but many of his own followers in a rage abandoned him and joined Henry VII. France began to humiliate Richard by broadcasting official accusations and Richard never so much as denied having done it. If he could have produced the princes, his troubles would have been over.)This one vile deed made it possible for Shakespeare to make Richard this monster from hell and convincingly pile a slew of vile deeds upon him of which he was innocent. But all that aside, women such as Richard's furious mother and the raging former Queen Margaret add to the drama and chills. The gradual unfolding of Margaret's curses adds a charming orginizational bonus to this masterpiece. If you want to enjoy this play all the more, make sure you read "3 Henry VI" first. Richard's demonic nature is heavily prepared in this preceeding play.

I certainly want my dollars invested to yield ME the most. The authors clearly show that managed funds do not put the investor first nor do they match or beat the index funds.

One word why most financial advisors and mutual fund company advertising do not trumpet index funds - greed - from the the money they skim off the top of your investment dollars in the managed funds.

What is an index mutual fund? It is simply any mutual fund that simply mimics a stock index (such as the Standard & Poor's 500, the Mid Cap 400, or an international index). Many people equate these funds with the Vanguard Index 500 Fund, which John Bogle popularized, but many others offer the Standard & Poor's 500 as an index fund . . . and there are many other indexes you can buy mutual funds for. If you want to know more about this subject, this book has excellent explanations in chapter 14.

Let me begin by saying that this book has many flaws. An outstanding book on how to be a very successful index fund investor has yet to be written. But this book goes much further in that direction than any other book I have read on the subject. If you also read Stocks for the Long Run and Common Sense on Mutual Funds, I think these will clear up the missing elements in this book. Some embarrassing typos still remain, but they are annoying rather than fatal.

The book has two parts. The first part compares indexed mutual funds to nonindexed (or actively managed) mutual funds. The second part looks at 5 steps to creating greater wealth using indexed mutual funds.

The arguments in part one basically document that indexed mutual fund returns after taxes and after expenses have been higher than almost all managed (nonindexed) mutual funds over long time period. The reasons mostly relate to higher expenses due to management fees, marketing costs, and commissions caused by more turnover of stocks for the managed funds, disadvantages of a large portfolio for buying and selling, and inefficient tax effects of high turnover in taxable accounts. The authors also look at the effects of perfect information, and how much return you get for how much risk. These arguments are well done and accurate. Two elements that were new in this book included looking at the arguments that Peter Lynch and other active managers have made against indexed mutual funds, and looking at risk versus reward.

The five step process in the second part of the book is:

(1) Get a personal financial plan (with goals stated in dollar terms)

(2) Get a personal investment plan (a strategy to meet your goals)

(3) Invest with a diversified portfolio of index funds, tailored to fit your needs

(4) Get maximum benefits from the tax laws to delay and reduce taxes

(5) Buy and hold your portfolio, after starting as soon as possible.

Each of these points is somewhat detailed with descriptions of various ways to go about it, alternative sources of advice and information, and ways to make contacts with the advice and information. More could have been done on the first category, but the latter two were well done. The reasons for these factors are better explained in most cases in Stocks for the Long Run than here.

I particularly liked the advice to create a worldwide portfolio of indexed funds. Most books on indexing miss that point. The argument is flawed here, however, in only looking backward at what would have worked best in the past. If the rest of the world continues to grow its economies faster than the United States, the best returns will probably be from being overweighted into international indexed funds to reflect the future balance of market values rather than the current one.

The main weakness of the second part is that it lacks much quantification. But if you read the Bogle and Siegel books that I suggested above, those will more than fill in the gaps for you.

You should also be aware that recent evidence suggests that Malkiel's insistence on totally efficient equity markets is coming more and more into question. Our own research at Mitchell and Company supports the growing skepticism. However, active managers have been slow to adapt to the new information about where the markets are inefficient. Eventually, new indexed products should develop to take advantage of these inefficiencies. The main weakness seems to be a preference for basing indices on the financial data that active managers prefer. That's simply our old friend the disbelief stall in action. If the measures that active managers use do not beat the averages, why should indices based on those same measures be the best way to construct an index?

Like all books on index-based investing, this one is long on the arithmetic and short on the psychology needed to be successful. Most people know how to make more money than they do in stock market investing, but do the wrong thing anyway. Until someone makes a more psychologically appealing case for indexed mutual funds, most people will continue to favor the lower-performing nonindexed funds.

Here is a book on investing that is clear, practical and downright interesting. I've always been afraid of the market, but here, at last, is a book in simple English that makes things understandable. And it's not just information. It really is a guide for an investment strategy that has proven itself not just in this bull market but over the long haul.

Richard Evans is a British historian. In this book he sets out a considered course for the practice of history, one that aims to pursue a course between the twin evils of overly conservative, objective positivism and a left-leaning, liberal postmodernism. The book has been billed as a defence of history against its more postmodernist abusers but I don't think this is true. Evans attacks the sterility of fellow British historians Sir Geoffrey Elton and E.H. Carr (and American historian Gertrude Himmelfarb) as much as he attacks a Hayden White, Keith Jenkins or Frank Ankersmit (all devils in disguise to conservative historians).

For all this I don't think that Evans says much for all the ink he has spilt. What perseveres through Evans' prose is nothing more (but perhaps nothing more is needed) than Evans' belief that we can do history, we can get at what happened in the past and we can deal critically, and beneficially, with the materials at our disposal. Evans writes what amounts to a defence of "doing history" as oppsed to theorising about history. Indeed, Evans is not hot on theory (he should perhaps steer clear of it in future) and his less than ample interaction with his opponents of the postmodernist persuasion in this book suggests to this reader that he is more of a distant acquaitance of their work than an intimate. A historian's rule of thumb comes into play here: if they mention something but don't interact with it to any great degree then assume they don't really know much about it.

Evans is largely an irenic and uncontroversial supporter of a broadly conservative historical approach. He is in defence of all the traditional (that is, post-Enlightenment) things such as "facts", "objectivity" and "truth" whilst espousing a weak acceptance of some postmodernist proposals. Evans' usual trick here is to claim that actually the benefits of a lightly-worn postmodernism (such as accepting that historians affect and colour their own historical researches) are actually things that all real historians knew all along anyway. This is a neat, if obvious, trick and sometimes he almost gets away with it.

I have one major complaint. Evans repeatedly refers to "postmodernist hyper-relativism" but he never tells us what this is either briefly or, which would be more satisfactory, in detail. Once again, Evans might be proffering a phantom menace. At the very least it allows us, story-like, to conjure up our own historical demon to fight against as we read. In the end one is left with the conviction that theorists should theorise and historians like Evans should get on with DOING history. Personally I think that Evans' history books are a better defence of "history" (whatever that is, again he never defines) than this book turns out to be.

Evans sets out to defend to "history" from its deconstructionist, post-modern critics, and, simultaneously, aspires to replace the English historiographic standards, written by Edward H. Carr and Geoffrey Elton. Evans, repeatedly and insistently, dismisses the deconstructionist critique as a form of "extreme relativism." This is unfortunate, because they have important points to make, regarding what, in olden days, might have been called, the epistemology of history. The deconstructionists are, typically, glibly provocative, superficial, prone to introducing opaque jargon and unjustifiably arrogant. One can certainly understand why Evans might be angry with them, and impatient.

The deconstructionist critique of history, however, has important insights to offer, however. "History" in its classic form, is a dramatic, interpretative narrative. A simple-minded claim to "objectivity" in history is unsupportable; the "objects" of real events are incredibly numerous, long-gone and did not really occur within a context of future events. "History" is always highly selective in retelling events, and always looking for meaning, drawn from subsequent events. ("The historian remembers the future and imagines the past.") Evans will not or cannot let loose or revise his belief in "objectivity" as a standard of value, however, and rails against the deconstructionists as "extreme relativists" for trying to make him consider it.

Without fully crediting the deconstructionists, he adopts their methods to demolish the pretentious historiography of a previous generation, represented (on the left) by Edward H. Carr and (on the right) by Geoffrey Elton. Although it is clear that he aspires to provide a replacement for the classic works of Carr and Elton, for use in graduate seminars everywhere, the book he provides leaves much to be desired.

Comfortable with the methods of the professional interpreter and processor of historical source material, and defensive of the value of those methods, he seems to be at a bit of loss, when it comes to the methods of composing a narrative. (It is, of course, at this higher level of abstraction, where the deconstructionists have aimed their missiles.) Rather lamely, he ends his book, with the defiant assertion, ". . . I will look humbly at the past and say, despite them all: it really happened, and we really can, if we are very scrupulous and careful and self-critical, find out how it did and reach some tenable conclusions about what it all meant."

I cannot help, feeling great disappointment. Mistaking the deconstructionist criticism as "relativism," he has foregone the opportunity to really come to grips with the fundamental nature of the historical enterprise. What is the nature of "historical truth"? It is certainly not "objective" in any simple-minded sense. No historian can be without a point of view, nor should any be allowed to pretend to be. The meaningful interconnections created by a dramatic narrative have no correspondence with any observable "event" in the past -- they could not possibly have such a correspondence, for a variety of reasons, literary and scientific. (Hume established that the operation of cause and effect are never directly observable in the 18th century! You don't have to be a post-modernist to see that the "truth" of history can be problematic.)

Evidently too frightened by these challenges to think, Evans brands the deconstructionists as extreme relativists, and proceeds to demolish the value of extreme relativism. Evans spends a lot of time shooting fish in the barrel of "extreme relativism," without realizing that the postmodernists and deconstructionists are not swimming in that barrel. He delights in turning the methods of deconstructionist critique on the critics, demonstrating to his own satisfaction, if no one else's, that the deconstructionists are hypocrits at best, for denying "any" value, and then turning around and asserting the value of their own frameworks. It never seems to occur to him that the deconstructionists, despite their glib provocations, are not hypocrits, because they are not, in fact, extreme relativists.

Failing to tackle the epistemological challenges, Evans misses the opportunity to begin laying a solid foundation for historiography. It is terribly unfortunate, because he has intelligence, wit and the great advantage of professional competence and experience, all of which are evident throughout this book.

He offers some useful insights and comments along the way, and his passion is evident. I still wish that,instead of the courage of his convictions, he had shown more courage to question his convictions.

There has been an ongoing and vigorous debate in the philosophy of history for the last thirty or so years concerning the ways in which postmodernism should or should not impact the writing of history.
In this delightfully polemical book, Richard Evans does not try to engage the writings of the major postmodernists. Do not expect to find counterarguments to the writings of Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard or de Certeau. It is in the writings of thinkers like Hayden White, Frank Ankersmit, Dominick LaCapra, Keith Jenkins, Elizabeth Ermath, Joan Scott, etc. that the major claims of the postmodernists have been made for history in the English speaking world. It is with their writings that Evans engages in debate. This does not, however, put him in the camp of conservatives like Gertrude Himmelfarb, John Vincent, David Harlan and Keith Windschuttle.
Evans is arguing for a middle position- one that emphasizes the recalcitrance of the "facts", i.e., the historical records. Evans denies that all of history is interpretation and that no one interpretation is better than any other. He believes that careful and honest shifting of the historical record will show some or one interpretations to be better grounded in that record than others. On the other hand, he is excited by some of the possibilities for history that have been opened up by those working historians whose work he admires and who are identified with the postmodern camp, e.g., Simon Schama, Theodore Zeldin and Orlando Figes.
One of the main points of his critique is that Evans feels that postmodernism removes the possibility of any sort of critical perspective- he reiterates the old point that if there is no grounds to prefer one interpretation over another, if there is no such thing as a fact than there is no reason to prefer the views of the standard histories of the Holocaust over those of a denier, e.g., David Irving.
This is not the best of the books I have read recently on historiography. Berkhofer's Beyond the Great Story retains that distinction. It does have the advantage of being very well written, very clear in it's presentation and quite enjoyably feisty. Evans' style is like that of a good lightweight- constantly circling, jabbing his opponents, sensing a weakness and then throwing the combination.
If you think my pugilistic metaphor to be inappropriate, ... for a series of short essays Evans wrote in reply to his many and equally nasty critics. This site is probably the best way to figure out if this book is for you.
As for me, I have come to realize that this is a debate without end. Evans did not really settle anything for me. Neither has anyone else I have read lately. He does give you a lot to think about and he points the reader in the direction of a lot of interesting work done by other people.

The authors both are long-time consultants for Visa and it is very apparent in this book. The discussion of MasterCard, Discover, and American Express is limited. The treatment of various legal actions (Nabanco, US DOJ, WalMart, duality) is one sided. There is minimal study of the economics of the business from vantage points (consumer, merchant, acquirer, Issuer, co-branding partner, etc.) other than the card association.

It's clear from some of the statistical material prsented that Visa particpated in the book.

Ever see JAG? It's about a real portrayl of the Navy & Marine Corp as this is of the card industry.

I picked up this book because I have always been interested in the history of money and the power of gold as currency. If you are fascinated by the concept of money and how it makes the world go round, Paying With Plastic will whet your appetite.

To many a layperson, paper money has intrinsic value ostensibly because it is backed by gold. That, is furthest from the centre of gravity. Since Bretton Woods, paper money has not been backed by gold and has absolutely no value. The "value" of paper money is perceived and has "value" only because governments say so and because we believe in it. In fact, paper money forms only a very small portion of the money that is in circulation. These days, money is in the form of digits, bits and bytes - expressed as numbers in some computer harddisk.

Paying With Plastic explores a new form of money and how credit cards are the latest form of money - evolving from metal coins, bills of exchange, and paper money. The book traces the early and painful development of what was initially a clumsy mode of payment to what is today one of the most effecient, organised and widespread form of payment.

Paying With Plastic is the leading book of its kind - thorough, yet readable. If you are interested in the concept of money and how the credit card system works, then this book is for you.

The authors bring disciplined methodology to the study of "industrial development," using credit cards as a case study. The book is useful not just for its anecdotal review of how credit cards got started & how they are used; and not just for the wealth of statistics it provides on how card & other payment usage has changed over the years; but most importantly, by putting some structure around all that material so that we can understand it coherently. So many books on banking & on industrial development (like things by guru Tom Peters) are just so many anecdotes strung together for 100s of pages, with no "system" for understanding what's being talked about. This book's strength is that it provides the reader with a way of interpreting not only what's in the book but with a way of understanding the incessant new developments in the industry that we read about in the trade press every day. I recommend this book highly to anyone in banking or interested in what's going on in the payments system.

Sheridan's phrase "school for scandal" is a grand metaphor for the gossipy London society of the late 1770's, and the longevity of the play that bears it as its title attests to its relevance in any place and time. Sheridan captures the inherent drama and humor in the truism that people are always talking about other people behind their backs and uses it as a foundation on which to devise a plot of intrigue.

The school's "principals" are Lady Sneerwell and a man named Snake, who like to collect gossip about their neighbors and others in London society; one of their cohorts is the brilliantly ironic character Mrs. Candour, who openly reprehends idle gossip but blithely participates in it anyway. One of their favorite subjects of gossip is the Surface brothers, Joseph and Charles. The popular perception is that Joseph is responsible and respectable, while Charles is a wastrel and a miscreant.

The Surface brothers' uncle, Sir Oliver Surface, returns to London after spending many years in India, hears the rumors about his nephews, and decides to verify them for the purpose of choosing an heir between the two. Since he has been gone so long that his nephews would not recognize him, he visits them incognito. Posing as a moneylender to Charles, and as a poor relative to Joseph, he discovers that his nephews are not quite of the natures he has been led to believe.

Sheridan employs some typical comedic devices like love triangles and hiding characters, but for the most part this is an inventive play that picks its targets well and hits the bullseye every time. Considering it was written at such a turbulent time in England's history, it's interesting that social satire still managed to break through greater national concerns and be successful and appreciated.

This book made it fun and delightful to follow how rumors and scandals are started. Anyone who wants a ligth hearted read in the style of a Shakespearean comedy, "School for Scandal" by Richard Sheridan is for you. It has the most entertaining characters, who anyone could recognize as being people they know and are friends with, and it pokes fun at soap-opera-like dramas that have forbidden loves and misleading coincidences. The situations that arise seem so unthinkable and impossible, and then you realize that you or someone you know has been there right down to the last detail. "School for Scandal" is a entertaining read for anyone who has ever passed on a rumor.

The aptly named Sir Oliver Surface would like to know which of his nephews is the more worthy, and, well, nothing is ever simple. This comedy of manners is one of the best ever written, and it rings true 225 years after its first performance thanks to its snide comments on English aristocrats and one-liners such as "I'm called away by particular business. But I leave my character behind me."

The Dover Thrift edition has no introduction or analysis. Intoduction and analysis are of course not necessary, but in some situations they are nice things to have.

This book is an excellent reference source for any programmer/developer working on any server that is powered by the ALPHA processor, desiring to know what really goes on under the hood.

The only negative point that I can make is the information on Windows NT platform is outdated since Microsoft doesn't support NT on Alpha anymore.

The examples are well done in C and ALPHA assembler. The author covers both the VMS & Unix platforms.

I highly recommend the use of this book. It stays close by on my bookshelf.