Winning the Memorial cup is probabally he most difficult trophy to win. You must win the playoffs of your own league and then
qualify for an eentual sudden death game to win the cup. If in the last game you meet a hot goaler you have no second chance.
This book takes us back to 1919 and proceeds in great detail
all the major events and games leading up to and including the championship games. It lists the rosters of all winners which
is great for a lot of the winners who for different reasons did not go on to play pro hockey or were never again part of a winning team. It should provoke discussions about who the greatest junior team of all time was or for some deciding the best in different eras. My personal choice is the 1969 Montreal
junior Canadiens led by Gilbert Perreault,Marc Tardif, Richard Martin and Andre Dupont followed closely by the 1964 Torontoi Marlboros led by Mike Walton , Wayne Carleton, Peter Stemkowski
Gary Dineen, Ron Ellis. The Marlboros DID lose one game in the eastern finals . In the book on page 129 the authors state that
the marlies swept N.D.G.and went undefeated throughout the Memorial Cup playoffs. In fact the N.D.G. team coached by the legendary Sotty Bowman beat the Marlies 6-4 at the Montreal
Forum in what probabally was one of the biggest upsets as well as being one of the greateest coaching jobs by Bowman which has
gone nearly undocumented. I'd love to hear from him on the subject.

Regards

Claude Rioux

While the research contained in this book offer some interesting information much of the work looks very dated. While it was published in 1995 that is a very long time when it comes to neuroscience. Around that time there began an explosion of brain imaging studies using newly developed brain imaging technologies. This has allowed brain and behavior researchers to understand at a much deeper level the processes involved in for example emotion.

I suggest looking at the very latest in publications. For example Joseph LeDoux (who has entries here that are head and shoulders above the other contributers)

Contains fantastic photos. A little to 'Photoshopped' for my taste but great. The only problem I had with the book is that it contains no actual panoramic images. Many are wide angle but nothing that fits the definiton of panoramic.

The poor, repetitious writing may be due to the fact that there was a "group effort" preparing and writing the book. There are a lot of good insights comparing the "old economy" labor force and the "new economy" labor force. The reader, however, must perservere to get through the repetition and disorganization. There are few short but interesting case studies in Chapter 3, and lots of left-wing policy recommendations throughout the book.

I don't understand why my instructor chooses this book for 3 quarters continously. This book gives you nothing. I have a feeling like the author doesn't know anything, so he uses lots of words to describe some thing that are soo obvious. With other difficult concepts, he doesn't say anything, or just a few words. Some one compared this book with Lev Landau's one. Please give me a break. Lev Landau is a great physicist, while this guy is nothing at all. I still wonder why this kind of textbook is still around. I feel frustrated with this book. My conclusion is: if you really understand physics, this book is not for you. This book is only for kids. I hope that some one could pass my message to the authors, and hope that they could write better books in the future.

This book is very bad. It includes lots of false physics theories which are just copied from other textbooks. It looks as though the authors do not have a good understanding of this subject. It hardly includes any proofs for most of their assertions. This was the first physics textbook I ever bought and I have worked hard to prove many of their theories wrong, to later find out that they are not the correct theories that more advanced textbooks teach in the first place. I seriously do not recommend this book for anybody who has a love for physics and truth. But of course, most other college level textbooks such as this one are pretty much the same. But this sort of introduction to physics is definitely not necessary for a clear understanding. I suggest you skip straight to the next level. By getting books by Griffiths or Kleppner. But if you insist on getting an introduction of this sort to physics, then it is still a good tool for the general topics discussed at college level physics.

In all fairness to the book, it's not as bad as I made it out to be below. It is a little upsetting to be given tons of equations without any proofs. But the proofs really are beyond the scope of the book. I've looked at other books of the same level since I wrote the original review, and this one has turned out to be better than all the others. The book would've been better if they mentioned a few extra things like how its treatment of electricity and magnetism should be taken as only working in an absolute frame, and is only an approximation to the full treatment.

All in all, this book covers so many topics, that no matter what physics you are doing in the future, you'll always be able to find some information in here that won't be mentioned in your other book.

It covers everything you need to know for a first mechanics course, a course in waves and modern physics, a first course in electricity and magnetism, plus a lot more that is never touched in class. Calculus is not needed for the mechanics course, but it is used in the book. If you know calculus, then you'll benefit. If you don't, you can skip the "calculus equations", and the rest of the mechanics part of the book will still all be comprehensible.

One of the most glib and inaccessible treatments of the subject I've encountered. You're much better off with something like Julian Brown's "Minds, Machines, and the Multiverse" or Feynman's own lectures on computation.

This book is clearly written by a physics professor who doesn't spend much time talking to people who haven't studied physics. I would guess his editor falls into this category as well. The back cover praises its accessibility, a marketing gimmick as obviously deceptive as the sensationalistic chapter names. For example, one chapter, "Teleportation for Gamblers" is named after an obscure quantum phenomenon that has been dubbed teleportation for no apparent reason, has nothing to do with gambling, and is only referred to in passing.

The first four chapters try to give an overview of quantum mechanics to those who haven't studied physics. Even after spending 4 years earning a Bachelor's in Physics, I was only barely able to follow the discussion. If I did not already understand the principles he was explaining, I would never have been able to fill in the holes of explanation.

But my biggest complaint about this section is that he bases the entire discussion on calculating probabilities in a quantum environment. But in trying to avoid complex math, he leaves out essential details. The much more intuitive explanation of superposition of states (whereby an object is in two places or states at the same time) he barely mentions in this section. If the material was presented in this way, all the math would be unnecessary, and the interesting second part of the book would make much more sense.

Beyond that, the book contains numerous factual mistakes. His Turing machine for multiplying on page 99 just doesn't work. On page 109, he says that if you have N objects, and for each object you need to store N pieces of information that have a total of N^N pieces of information. The correct answer, N^2, makes his point much less dramatic.

The last two chapters are interesting indeed. They discuss what is possible with a quantum computer, and the state of research in 1998. I recommend that if you do buy this book, only read the last two chapters. If you can't follow it, look anywhere else for an explanation. The first four chapters will not help.

This is a decent book for someone trying to get and overview of how quantum computing works. The author seems to get bogged down in the details, however. The mathematical examples are poorly worded and thus not very clear, the variable names are also quite hard to keep track of.

This is certianly a book where you will have to read certain paragraphs two or three times to make sure you have it right.

This book is simply awful. One wonders at the standards of academic publishing that this material ever got into print. The poor man barely writes English, for starters, and watching paint dry would be more interesting than wading through his prose.

When I accepted an admission offer from Stanford, I wanted to learn all I could about the environment into which I would be entering. Having read the book, I developed expectations about the culture of Stanford, expectations which, upon arriving on the Stanford campus, I found to be errant.

This book is quite a disappointment. Suffering both from poor editing and omission of crucial facts, the contents do not flow smoothly. The text is presented in a somewhat offensively over-refined and pretentious manner, the kind one finds in art museum catalogs or as introductions to Penguin Classics. The reader gains little sense of the beauty of the campus, as only a few of the photographs depict the excellent landscaping, the detail of Quad buildings, or the quality of materials and construction of the buildings. The foothills of the Stanford campus, and the trails leading up to the Dish aren't even included -- an omission that reflects poorly on the editors. Equally poor editorial judgment can be found in the photograph of the Hoover Tower appearing in one of the chapters -- this famous landmark is shown in its early construction, as an unsightly steel frame amid a dirt field.

To the credit of the authors, they give an engaing account of the history of the variously defined Stanford master plans, and of the culture which gave rise to the different stages of the campus' expansion.

In general, the reader's labors are not rewarded with fresh perspectives, or a sense of the spirit that habituates Stanford. If one toured the Stanford campus before reading the book, one might wonder what drove the editors to present such an excellent environment so vapidly.

I had high hopes for this book, but was a little disappointed. I bought conspiracy x, expecting great stuff, and it met with my expectations. Cryptozoolgy didn't. First, it's set up with information divided into two parts: the gamers information, and the GM's information. the result is that you have to look in two different areas for information on different "supernatural creatures". Most of the regular freaks of nature are covered--Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, etc. I was pleased to see a few others like the Mokole. The writing is a lot more pendantic than I'd like--but that may be a direct result from being written in character, where teh character is old, stuffy, and bombastically long-winded. If your game will run into a supernatural creature, it might be worth checking this beek out. If not, I wouldn't bother.

This is the second Zubro mystery I have read, and it was not near as good as the first one, "Another Dead Teenager." However, I am not deterred from reading all of his work, and I will continue to purchase the new ones as they are published.

What I criticized in "Another Dead Teenager" I found to be much worse in "Political Poison," and that is Zubro's continually interjecting explanations for a character's actions or of police procedure. It was a moderate bother in the other book, but in "Political Poison" it is a major impediment to enjoying the book. The editing was slipshod as well, with many typos and other errors in the text. Zubro apparently has improved at telling his stories by letting the characters reveal what is going on, rather than stepping into and stopping the flow to provide an explanation.

Most mystery readers are savvy enough to know how things work, and don't need constant reminders on why police do the things they do.

If you haven't read any of Zubro's work before, don't start with this one. He is a much better mystery writer than what this novel exemplifies.