This is one of the few good book you can find, you can't find one like that easily. It is the best thing you can get that tells you all what you need to know on that topic, if you want a good book, buy this one.

This text provides a quick, concise review of the pimary topics covered on emergency medicine exams. I found it to be a good way to prepare for inservice exams and the written boards.

This book is one of the best of the whole West Point series. The authors have found a way to describe an analyse historical events in detail and in a very serious way, yet the book is never boring nor exceedingly academic. The readers feels like a junior officer in a staff HQ and witnesses key decisions being made. A brilliant and innovative book, maybe a little too centered on the role of the United States. The Atlas is a useful complement, and reading the two in parallel is invaluable. Probably one of the best tools to understand WWII ever designed.

This June, I was diagnosed with havining a social phobia/anxiety disorder. Although my therapist helped and tried to explain things to me, I never quite *got* what he was saying.

In an effort to better understand the workings of my brain, I began reading every book about shyness and social phobia that I could get my hands on - and I have to say, so far, this is one of the best I've come across.

With its easy to understand explainations, and many personable literal illustrations that get right to the point, this work helped me to understand a little bit more about the *why's* of my irrational fears, as well as the *how's* of coping with them. I've always been one to gleen more from the text before my eyes than a neatly dictated lecture, and lots of medical jargon and cryptic phrasing turns me off - and I was relived to find none of that here!

I would say that anyone suffering from social phobia should take a look through this book. It will be most helpful for those who want a clear-cut explanation of *why* they're reacting to things the way they are or for those who need a little comfort to know that they're most deinatly *not* crazy!

Social phobia is a pain to live with, and it helps to know that we who suffer from it are not crazy, and also not alone.

This introductory textbook of strategic studies covers four main themes: the enduring issues of strategy, the evolution of joint warfare, twentieth-century theories, and contemporary issues of grand strategy. The book is written from the perspective of 'Western security interests', but even so, studying strategy helps us to think clearly about the ways in which states and others use organised force for political ends.
The writers all refute technological determinism: new weapons - artillery in World War One, tanks in World War Two, guided missiles in the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, precision bombing and superior ground force technology in the Gulf War - were none of them unbeatable. They show that the basic principles of conducting land warfare have hardly changed in the last hundred years. Armies need to combine their arms, defend in depth, keep large reserves, use cover and concealment, and integrate movement and suppressive fire. In particular, Stephen Biddle shows that, contrary to many claims, the USAF air war in the Gulf did not destroy all the Iraqi armour. Possibly 4,100 armoured vehicles later fought the US ground forces, but they did not fight according to the basic principles, so they were beaten.
However, the editors err in dividing what they call '20th-century theories' - deterrence, arms control, terrorism and 'irregular warfare' (national liberation struggles) - from the 'contemporary issues' of technology, weapons of mass destruction, and humanitarian intervention. These are all still live issues. Further, the editors could have presented them in the livelier form of debates.
As with any collection of pieces by many hands, the quality is uneven, but generally the better essays are more grounded in the realities of 20th-century military history. The worse ones try to discuss, for instance, the causes of war in terms of biology or psychology. As a rule, strikingly individual expressions of one person's views, like Colin Gray's Modern Strategy, or Bernard Brodie's War and Politics, provoke more thought than compilation textbooks

Dark Ages Mage, or DAMage, is not a game for everyone. And before I get started, I want to make sure everyone knows: you need to have the Dark Ages Vampire core book to play it.

DAMage is not for me. Why? I'm a fan of the Mage: The Ascension game line, and my thoughts start from there. Your mileage may vary.

The game defines magic separately for each group. It defines four "pillars" for each group, each with five ranks. These serve (supposedly) to measure what a Mage can and cannot do. Like any good game mechanic?

A lot of people didn't like the ambiguity inherent in M:tA's description of spheres. If that's you, avoid DAMage like the plague-- DAMage mechanics for Magic are described totally from the in-character point-of-view of the individual paradigm. As a way to understand what each kind of magic can really do, or settle disputes about whether a given Mage has the right knowledge to attempt a casting, they're completely unplayable.

They are, however, creative, even sometimes inspiring. If they were presented as magical theory, rather than a game mechanic, they'd be alright.

They'll also be good for selling supplements. The pillars demand exhaustive lists of "rotes," concrete definitions of individual powers, to be playable, and STs and players will find themselves obliged to go buy the "tradition book" for all the groups they intend to portray.

Another thing that bugged people about Mage: The Ascension, was that the sphere system seems "homogenous." That is, the progression in various abilities is pretty arbitrary, and if it's seen as universal among all kinds of will-workers, it intrudes on the in-character integrity of that paradigm.

I think that's a reasonable objection-- the Mage line's approach to Magic is it's own scenario, and though people claim you can do "any kind" of magic with it, that's not entirely true.

And, I think this helps us see why DAMage was developed along these lines. People wanted each paradigm to make sense "unto itself." Unfortunately, they chose to carry baggage from M:tA over. (Why? In an attempt to sell copy to Mage players.)

Wary of alienating Mage players, they retained an analog to a "sphere system," and gave lip-service to the "dynamic" quality of magic as found in Mage. And the result is something that is a glorified freestyle role-playing of magic, based on flavor text, or, with the eventual publication of massive rote lists, will really boil down to spell lists.

What people don't realize is that M:tA's sphere system was *born* out of a desire for a playable compromise between the reliable klunkiness of spell-lists, and the flexibility, but potential twinkery, of free-form role-play. It's imperfect, but, taken as what it is, it's also superb.

DAMage could have used M:tA's finely-tuned compromise. Instead it tried to reinvent the wheel, moving in both directions, failing to do either justice. DAMage could have been Mage: the Ascension with really cool, useful material on RPing in the Dark Ages setting.

And by the way. The presentation of the setting is rather lackluster, in DAMage. Possibly this is because they expect you go out and pay more money for Dark Ages Vampire. But if you're an Order of Hermes fan, for example, prepare to be disappointed. (Moreover, personally, my mind boggles at the authors' encouragement to send Muslim sorcerers off with their Christian cabalmates to kill Muslims in the Crusades.)

Alternatives better than DAMage include Mage: the Sorcerer's Crusade, Mage: the Ascension, or Sorcerer, each already in White Wolf mechanics, and adaptable to the Dark Ages setting (DAMage expects you to have other books too!) If you're a vampire player, particularly, I would think Sorcerer would be the way to go. There're also Ars Magica and D&D. And GURPS puts out great supplements, including on the Middle Ages. Which, if you want setting and flavor, are far superior.

As a fan of mage the ascension, i bought this book hoping to get some more insight into the DA magical societies. This, of course, was in the book, but it also flips everything on its head. while the magic system is similar, the 9 spheres have been done away with in favor of a 4 pillar system which is more taylored to each society. THis, i actually like for the setting. On the othe hand they trampled all over one of the most interesting groups off the age, The Order of Hermes. While they are still depicted as powerful, and organized, their house system is nearly ignored. (check out Ars magica for more Order of Hermes data) ALso, the book tries to promote interfellowship cabals, which is absolutely absurd in an era where most mages would sooner kill a rival mage than work with him for the most part. Mage: The Sorcerer's Crusade makes it very clear that such cabals almost NEVER happened until the uniting of the Traditions, and the writers expect us to believe they already worked together happy and together 2-300 years previous? Please...

Not to say the book is bad, because for the most part it is rather good. For Storytelling material it is bad, but as setting information and rules it is excellent.

Oh, on a final note, i only gave it 3 stars because White wolf decided not to put any rules in it outside of magic rules simply to sell more copies of Dark Ages: Vampire. It desserves 4 in its own right.

I must admit, I was waiting impatiently for this book more than even the new Dark Ages: Vampire that preceded it (and is necessary in order to make full use of Dark Ages: Mage). I love Mage: The Ascension, especially it's new incarnation in the Revised Edition of that game. This game however is not Mage: The Ascension.

The similarities are obvious and yes, it is the World of Darkness set back into the Dark Medieval, but the truth of the matter is that this is not the same game as it's predecessors, Mage: The Ascension or Mage: The Sorcerer's Crusade. There is no War for Reality, there is no competition. There is only magic. The opening chapter on medieval superstition gives a blanket feel of ambiguity to everything in the age and I think this is where the real strength of this game shines.

This book is not intended for first-time roleplayers. This book is advanced in every respect of the word. As a Storyteller for Dark Ages, having the rules to create and use Mage NPC's in my chronicles is outstanding and the rules for their creation, advancement, societies, everything... is right here. However, I was disappointed by the fact that although this game (and although it requires the use of Dark Ages: Vampire to use it, it -is- a separate and dinstinct game unto itself if allowed) has rules to actually play Mages, I can't say it's that easy. But then again, it obviously isn't supposed to be simple, after all these are willworkers, people whose expectations charge reality and force it to change. It's just not cut and dry.

The character creation is easy. The rules for advancement, simple enough. Unfortunately, it's the ambiguity of each of the pillars that catches me off guard, because, although we are playing these mages and their mindset is critical to their play, having the levels of power measured by interpretation is asking for complications. However, I believe now, after having re-read this book two times + since purchasing it, that it is SUPPOSED to be ambiguous and inexact, facilitating the person to person interpretation that was the rule of the day. After all, if someone easily adhere to exacting rules in the Dark Medieval, they were not Mages. Mages break the rules in every way, shape, and fashion and don't apologize for it; rather they take their success to mean that are due even more power. Enter hubris.

All in all, this is a great book and more visually stunning that I first imagined it would be. The spine, once again, is not attached to the book itself, but I'm beginning to suspect it's not supposed to. I gave this game 4 stars (instead of 3) because of the innate potential of such a game and the Dark Ages line. However, if you're are die hard fan of the Sphere system, I heartily recommend The Sorcerer's Crusade instead. This game is darker, more brutal, and more ambigious. These can be good things in the hands of the right people, but not for everyone.

I read a review of the book in a industry magazine and it described it as useful for a professional financial advisor, as the title also implies. It turned out to be a pretty basic educational book with general but basic financial information. A good book for a beginner or someone who is just beginning to break into the financial services industry, but not necessarily for a seasoned professional.

World of Chemistry is a good introduction for those who've never taken a chemistry class before. It goes into great detail on how to successfully do everything there is in chemistry: identify compounds, determine atomic mass, and atomic weight, etc. It should be noted, however, that the last few chapteris in the book, starting with Chapter 12 are very confusing and hard to understand. At this point, you'd probably be better off listening to the teacher's lectures, or searching for another similar book. Beyond this point (Chapter 12), the book is worthless. If you want to buy this book, I suggest that you buy it used, or wait for it to go on sale.

This book, written in the height of the Crockett hysteria in the 1950's, attempts to present an objective view of the real David Crockett. Most of the book deals with Crockett the senator, not Crockett the backwoodsman or Crockett of the Alamo. In this, at least, the book is valuable, because it portrays a David Crockett far different from the Davy Crockett of Walt Disney or John Wayne.

The book is valuable in this respect, but it is poorly written. The author skips from one subject to another, making obscure references to events which are never explained and about which the reader is apparently supposed to be familiar. The argument is not well organized, and bounces around so much it is very difficult to follow, and the narrative is just as fragmentary. Inappropriate euphemisms and ill-fitting metaphors further clot this work and inhibit the flow of the narrative. Shackford, who was a professor of English and should have been a more capable writer, makes this account of Crockett's life very, very difficult to read.