A very good illustrated book, plenty of informations about all the signs you could find in a wood, a beach, a street.. Just open the book and you'll be able to find out which species of bird flown on your garden, which one eat your loved flowers... Very nice and veru useful!

This books is not designed for developers. Information is presented as a high-level overview of Notes' and Domino's capabilities. The book is over 1100 pages long, but the first 400 should be scrapped. I'm looking for a reference that contains clear, detailed examples of code and development processes. I also want to know why (if) Domino is superior to standard web servers by Netscape, Apache, and Microsoft.

A comprehensive guide to the new version of Lotus Notes (4.5). Full of lots of information, but I would have liked a little more guidance on steps to setup up the initial server. Definitely worth owning - especially seeing there is a CD ROM with the whole book in HTML format. The ultimate reference!

The previous reviewer is correct that the previous published work did cover a lot of the Notes basics. However after you look at what is on the CD and the text you will see the value of this book. This book definitely has assisted me in developing many of the applications that I have written for my clients. The text is written so that you don't have to read a whole chapter in the book. You can read the sections that need. This is really a great reference book for building quality Notes applications

Although in some parts it follows the movie closely in others it goes totally off the rails. The author changes Gerard's classic "I don't care" line to "not my problem" and then he twice repeats the original line from the movie, as if he didn't change it at all! It gives some insight into Gerard's team but it has lost the feel the movie has. If you loved the movie, forget the book.

There seems to be a bias against novels which are tie-ins to blockbuster movies, and "The Fugitive" is no exception. J.M. Dillard's novel has been largely ignored despite its merits.

The novel's plot follows the screenplay closely. Dr. Richard Kimble is an escaped prisoner who is trying to clear himself by finding the real killer while eluding Deputy U.S. Marshal Sam Gerard and his team.

Dillard departs from the movie in some of the characterizations. Her Gerard is more of a hardnose, especially in his dealings with the rookie Noah Newman ( the Gerard/Newman relationship is a key subplot ). All of the major characters are sensibly sketched, with strengths and weaknesses. Dillard spends much time with Gerard and his people, and this gives the book much of its appeal.

Evidently fans of the movie enjoyed Gerard's team, because they'll be back (played by the same actors who worked together in 1993) in "U.S. Marshals". Hopefully, this film will also be novelized by Ms. Dillard.

The articles in this book are great reading. They provide thoughtful insite on many different topics. The cases, however, are completely useless without the instructors' manual. As best I can tell, the instructors' manual is not available for purchase unless you are using this book for a class. Therefore, in my opinion, this book is a poor value outside the academic world.

This falls between the average "how to" and academic journal type articles. Great for classroom use, or for enterprising individuals who want to teach themselves about negotiation. Nearly all the authorities in organizational behavior and negotiation are included here. Nice variety of approaches to the subject. Exercises cover the range and include material on natural environment and on international negotiation. International material needs more, but gives good beginning frameworks. Exercises need teacher's manual (forthcoming?).

There is much to learn from Presence of the Past but notnecessarily what the authors have in mind. Rosenzweig and Thelenpurport to give us good news about the historical consciousness of the American people, finding that most Americans are, in some way, "connected to the past." They do this by defining down the definition of history to mean things like talking with relatives, keeping a diary, collecting antique motorcycles, and even attending Bible classes. History teachers become the heavies because they insist that students regurgitate historical facts about which average Americans express a profound lack of interest (although paradoxically they also say that they would like their children to have the same experience).

It's as if those who bemoaned the mathematical illiteracy of the American public were suddenly challenged by a survey noting that virtually all Americans could read house numbers, tell the time, and make change while using a calculator. These hypothetical respondents would probably also criticize their teachers for burdening them with irrelevant information.

Because the majority of the Americans surveyed for Presence of the Past have little sense of history outside their family or group, their knowledge of broader history is both sketchy and distorted. Rosenzweig and Thelen celebrate the fact that Americans put more trust in museums than in books for their knowledge of history, but such a faith only demonstrates naivete about museums. (In the wake of the Enola Gay fiasco at the Smithsonian and a subsequent symposium of articles in the Journal of American History, one JAH reader noted that the "true tragedy" was that "both sides believed that the people who saw the exhibit would be swayed, unquestioningly, by the 'facts' presented to them and that the visitors would not stop, even briefly, to think of possible biases in the exhibition itself, let alone about WWII-i.e. that they would think critically. Unfortunately, because of the state of education in this country, I agree with them.")

Using such a low common denominator to define history also reveals that those with the most congruent view of the past are "evangelicals" (defined by Rosenzweig and Thelen as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as well as Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals). Thelen notes that the appeal of evangelical religion is so powerful "that it seems the most likely common ground on which some respondents from different cultures can recognize each other." "What," asks Rosenzweig, "does a largely secular group like historians have to say to them?"

The authors' greatest fear is that the "privatized and parochial past" of their informants will not support history as "a vehicle for social justice" or inspire people "to work for social change in the present." Not to worry. Ignorance, parochialism, and naivete are a fertile soil for those who wish to use "history" as a tool to promote social and political agendas. "Black Athena" and its kin are only a recent example.

Awareness of one's own past is helpful (we often call it maturity), and extending understanding of the past to the lives of one's relatives is even better. But without an appreciation of the broader past, democracy is in danger. Much of what passes for present truth is, in the words of C. S. Lewis, "merely temporary fashion. A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village: the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age."ÿ

In recent years it has been popular to lambaste the American as unlettered in history; gullible and vulnerable to the whims of the popular media. Rosenzwieg and Thelen take issue with this assertion through the results of their survey of popular American attitudes and perceptions toward history. In deference to the positive, they crafted their survey to discover what Americans do know about their past, and which aspects therein possess special meaning to the individual. Through their findings they hoped to locate a common ground that would engage both scholar and layman in the search for understanding in history.

Rosenzweig and Thelen found that many Americans regard the past as a well-spring for moral guidance and personal identity. In contrast to the professional historian, it is less the specific event (e.g. World War II) than the familial tie (e.g. grandpa going off to war) that determines relevance and interpretation for the layman. For many Americans history is alive and ever-present: through keepsakes, family lore, and observations. It is subject to an unending reinterpretation and definition, and, most importantly, it is what defines aspiration and identity.

Rosenzweig and Thelen also found little to suggest homogeneity among Americans in historical interpretation. In areas such as ethnicity and religion the variance was profound. Their findings suggested that such identifications influence meaning and interpretation, and speak of divisions within American society. This was particularly true in comparisons between the reminisces of European Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans. In some areas of history (e.g. slavery and the westward movement), there appeared little ground for a broad and unifying consensus.

Is there a paradigm that would unite scholar and layman? Rosenzweig and Thelen suggest it may exist in popular history, a form of historical presentation steeped in relevance to the individual. This 'democratization' of history would spring forth from a productive dialogue between the layman and the scholar. In the view of Rosenzweig and Thelen, the professional historian is wont to wallow in esoterica and narrow specialization. While impressive, such research does not engage the layman; instead, it perpetuates the popular perception of history as a dry compendium of dates and facts. Rather a productive dialogue could draw both layman and scholar in a common pursuit.

Does this mean that history is alive and well in the United States? Unfortunately, the optimism effused from Rosenzweig and Thelen's study provides little room for comfort. Despite their stated intention to survey a cross section of Americans, the design of their survey provides evidence they fell short of this goal. Asian Ameicans were under-represented, as were people living in multi-ethnic neighborhoods. Also, socio-economic status did not receive the attention it merited; previous studies have found correlation between socio-economic status and knowledge in many fields, including history. Yet, Rosenzweig and Thelen have provided both scholars and laymen with food for thought as to what direction history should be taken.

In "The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life," Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen approach the subject of what history means to Americans in the course of their everyday lives. Through a nationwide survey, funded by the NEH among others, the authors seek a fundamental set of common references across race, gender, age, income, and education. Their findings indicate that Americans, across these aforementioned demographic characteristics, see history in light of a personal relationship. Rosenzweig and Thelen propose that a participatory historical culture exists and can co-exist with the traditional in this fundamentally historical culture. Recognition and empathy, resulting from "active participation with history as a process of inquiry and exploration," (p. 182), are vital elements in connecting people with themselves and others, as well as their past, present, and future. The "Presence of the Past" asks not only what purpose does history serve, but who will best record it in order to make it approachable. Americans responded to questions regarding trustworthiness of sources by consistently rating highest those willing to consider various points of view in presenting history. Museums, personal accounts, and college professors rated far higher than sources viewed as influenced by economic gain such as books, movies, and television programs. Oral histories played a significant role in giving history a personal connection as many respondents named not only family members but those who experienced situations first-hand as highly realiable sources while recognizing the limitations of time, memory, and bias. Rosenzweig and Thelen suggest that Americans themselves are, in fact, very comfortable recording and personalizing history in a variety of ways. This book encourages readers to redefine and expand their interpretation of not only what history is, but what it is good for. The standard of the traditional view of history out of a high school text is challenged by the inclusion of seemingly unconventional and unorthodox applications such as the use of inherited recipes at family gatherings, photography, hobbies, collections, gathering of genealogies, visits to museums and historical sites, reminiscing at reunions, re-enactments, and other escapist jaunts. Americans dispute the assumption that history is an ethereal manifestation that is to be beheld rather than experienced. Thus, this is a subject field that should be used and not just studied. According to the observations of the authors, content lacks connection without participation. To Americans, history is that which affirms a sense of self. The pursuit for roots, identity, and immortality emerge as the ultimate focus for the study of history. A need for a sense of placement within a framework of self, family, community, time, and therefore, immortality, seemed to be at the core of Americans' interpretation of what history is and should be. Personal, family, community, cultural, ethnic, religious, and national identities determine singularity as well as mutuality as barriers fade and blend with a changing society. Yet, "choice and invention," (p. 57), reflect not only standard history written by scholars and scoffed at by interest groups, but that personal history validated by individuals. Unsurprisingly, there were inconsistencies in certain voices. Evangelical Christians, noted for their dedication to the teachings of the Bible as an historical document, accepted such histories as authoritative, yet refuted others, such as the evolution of dinosaurs. A Virginia lawyer insisted the "most reliable is eyewitness testimony," (p. 94), when in her own court of law such testimony is not enough to insure a conviction. To individuals, choices as to what is most credible and acceptable to their own view of the world determine their personal identification with history. Thelen mentions that, "Hobbyists chose the arenas and terms of participation with the past," (p. 196). Perhaps this serves as an autobiographical comment for the authors as not only Americans, but historians also chose particular paths. The relevant questions asked in the survey reflect fresh directions historians seem to be following in their pursuit of knowledge and understanding. It is encouraging to find scholars such as Rosenzweig and Thelen willing to cross into and encompass other fields of study such as anthropology, psychology, and sociology in the clarification of man's relationship to and use of history. In separating cultural,ethnic, and racial characteristics for such a study, certain generalizations and extrapolations are inevitable. While Mexican Americans have a special position the history of the United States, they are not necessarily representative of all Hispanics, as was similarly noted in the study of the Oglala Sioux in respect to other Native Americans. And, unfortunately, the blatant lack of inclusion of Asian Americans ignores another large part of the population. However, in the realms of historical research, it is an eye-opening and encouraging study. Moreover, the fact that its findings promote further subsidy of public and non-profit association projects reflects well on the NEH's choice of funding. Regardless of the occasional typographical error, this work is reader-friendly, successfully bringing the allegedly dull subject of textbook history out of the classroom and placing it firmly in the hands of everyday Americans. With refreshing perpectives, Rosenzweig and Thelen present the consciousness of individuals and groups in such a manner that enables the reader to identify with this personalization of history and entice him or her with the ordinaryness of the observations and conclusions.

This Bio was written with an honest look at Roy Porter's Life as one of the many orginators of this truly American Art Form "Be-Bop". It is a must read! He was just as honest in person...His canor was quite refreshing, He's my daughter's grandpa...We will miss him dearly, He recently departed this place..To the Greatest Jam Session Ever in the Heavens! We'll miss you G'pa Roy!

It is amazing that a supposed authority on accents, Dr. Stern, would be associated with this book (and especially the cassette that goes with it.). He is - allegedly - a dialect coach to the Stars. It may explain some of the atempts at foreign accents that have recently come out of Hollywood. The accents on the cassette are nothing short of embarrassing - A cringe a minute. I asked a fellow actor to listen to the French accent and guess what it was: He guessed Spanish! If you want a first rate book on accents, buy Robert Blumenfeld's "Accents - A Manual for Actors". Now where do I go to get my money back?...

I recently bought the CD version of this, and I am compelled to warn people who are thinking of buying this. If you are at a;; serious about learning dialects, do NOT buy this CD. ... A high school drama student would have done a superior job. You would be better off learning dialects from the Simpsons or Saturday Night Live. This is not an exaggeration, this is a flat out warning. Don't waste your money. ... Pygmalion is old school cockney. Not modern. You want authentic Cockney? Try "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Love, Honor and Obey." They're the best. "Scum" and "The Krays" are also pretty good. And that's on the authority of a real cockney girl (my girlfriend).

I own nearly all of Dr. Stern's Accent/Dialog books and tapes, including "Dialolect Monologues" I and II and over 20 of his individual accent/dialect tapes (example: Acting With an Accent/Norwegian & Swedish). While I do feel that it is worthwhile to own Dr. Stern's tapes in order to complete one's libary of accent/dialogue books and tapes, I do not feel that Dr. Stern's tapes are the best of the bunch. If I could only choose one author's accent/dialogue tapes I would not choose Dr. Stern's. Dr. Stern's system has several flaws. The first flaw is that Dr. Stern is a "one man band", meaning the only voice you will ever hear is Dr. Stern's. By contrast, two of the three other accent/dialect systems I own include lots of recordings of actual natives speaking the dialects. The second flaw is that Dr. Stern chooses dialects that bias towards educated middle class. For example, his tape on New York City accent does not teach the normal Brooklyn/Bronx dialect of the "Dese and doze, toity toid street" variety, but instead uses as his standard a sort of mildly Jewish middle class Manhattan accent as the single dialect he teaches on the tape. Similarly, his tape on the Polish dialect sounds so sanitized and educated that its really hard to tell what accent it is other than being mildly European and educated. Similarly, his Italian tape is of a European, educated person instead of the lower class Italian that one would expect to hear included on a tape devoted to Italian. A third and severe flaw in Dr. Stern's single-dialect tapes is that he repeats every exercize first in standard American and pauses for the student to repeat it, and then says the word or sentence in the dialect and pauses for the student to repeat it in the dialect. This effectively wastes about a quarter of the tape, as it doesn't teach anything to hear and repeat the words/sentences in standard american. A forth flaw is that Dr. Stern is obsessed with his pet theory that each dialect must resonate from a unique portion of the mouth cavity. Dr. Stern wastes from ten to twenty minutes of each of his hour long single-dialect tapes going on and on about the point of resonance of the dlalect. This is mind-numbingly boring to hear more than once, so one ends up fast forwading through it when listening on subsequent ocasions. The two accent/dialect systems that I recommend are not currently offered by Amazon so I will not give their names. Hopefully at some point Amazon will expand their selection of accent/dialect tapes. It would also be extremely useful if Amazon had a cross reference system in place so that one could show all video tapes or recordings that, say, give examples of a Cockney accent, an Irish accent, etc. For example, the 1938 video of Shaw's Pygmalian is an excellent example of Cockney, but one must figure this out on one's own as Amazon does not list videos by the accent/dialects they use.