This encyclopedia begins with an entry for 'aa' (a particular type of lava flow) and ends with a page-worth of data on Yellowstone National Park. In between, all geophysical phenomena associated with earthquakes and volcanoes are covered alphabetically, including anecdotes on many individual eruptions or shakings, e.g. the Kobe earthquake in Japan.

I enjoyed reading the "Encyclopedia of Earthquakes and Volcanoes" but thought it must be a work in progress (I have the new edition) as there were many typos and errors that even a layperson like myself could spot:

•"Io is the hottest place in the solar system outside the sun (p. 105)"---actually I believe that honor belongs to Venus. Io's average surface temperature is 130 K whereas the surface of Venus averages 740 K (hotter even than Mercury).

•The destruction of Saint Pierre by Mount Pelée: "only six individuals from the city survived (p. 172)"---Actually there were three survivors, but two died soon after being rescued. "The third, a convicted murderer liberated from an underground jail cell three days after the disaster, recovered from his burns and emigrated to the United States to live out his years as an attraction in the Barnum & Bailey Circus." (from "Perils of a Restless Planet" by Ernest Zebrowski, Jr.).

•"One of the most powerful ([Richter] M = 9.1) and destructive earthquakes of the 20th century, the Good Friday earthquake struck the south coast of Alaska along Prince William Sound on March 27, 1964 (p. 84)." On the following page, the caption under a picture states, "The [Good Friday] earthquake had a Richter magnitude of 8.5..." I checked a couple of other books which give the Richter magnitude as 8.3 and 8.6, so I am guessing that Richter M = 9.1 is probably incorrect.

Another interesting oddity concerning earthquakes, is that the authors tend to favor the Mercalli Scale, which is based on ordinary human observations, rather than the Richter Scale which defines an earthquake's magnitude in terms of the seismographically recorded ground motion.

Not all of the black-and-white photographs are dated, and the cover photograph of a volcanic eruption is not identified (although a friend of mine from Oregon swears it is Mt. St. Helens). Ideally, a newer edition of this book will label all of the photographs, and perhaps include a few in color.

All quibbling aside, this is an interesting book that fills a useful niche. It will definitely remain in my reference library, although I may be cross-checking some of its entries.

"Appendix B" which includes "Eyewitness Accounts of Major Eruptions and Quakes" is absolutely fascinating, and it alone is worth the price of the book.

Hi, I really like this book. It's bben helpfully to me for my carrer. Thanks, Michelle Trzecisnki

In a unique and very handy A-Z format, here in one volume is all the information you are ever likely to need on these most dramatic natural phenomena.
The great earthquakes and famous volcanic eruptions are comprehensively covered, with clear explanations of the geologic concepts and terms, interesting photos and maps, and thumbnail biographies of leading figures in the study of these majestic forces of nature. A particularly interesting feature is the inclusion of each state with an evaluation of its seismic potential. (There are some surprises here). Highly recommended as a very useful single-volume introduction for libraries and interested individuals.

(The "score" rating is an ineradicable feature of the page. This reviewer does not "score" books.)

The Trial and Death of Socrates, by Plato, is a timeless piece dealing with themes that are applicable to the generations of then, now and those to come. Written in the classic, observant, style of Plato, the book is a compilation of four dialogues that the main character, Socrates, engages in at various times with different people. Each dialogue is didactic in style and although they don't always end conclusively, they do provoke one to reflect upon that which is discussed. Throughout the book Socrates deals with such subjects as pious versus the impious, wise versus the unwise, and just versus the unjust. The book is set in Athens, in the year 399 B.C.E., and is written so that each section revolves around Socrates' trial as described in the section entitled "The Apology". The book focuses much attention on the trial in which Socrates is being tried for corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods recognized by the state. Aside from the philosophical side of Socrates, the reader is also introduced to his family and friends, thus observing the person who Socrates really was. Many readers are introduced to various sections of this book at some point in their education, yet those who never read the entire book miss altogether the importance of the relationships that Socrates has with others. It is through study of these relationships that the reader begins to view Socrates as a real human and develop a sympathetic connection with him. While the conversations are occasionally difficult to follow, the thoughts and philosophies of Socrates are profound and worth the invested time to understand. Each debate that Socrates partakes in introduces to the reader a new piece of knowledge or moral question to ponder. It is through the answers to these questions that the reader reaps the true benefit of tackling The Death and Trial of Socrates. Wisdom gained is worth more than the time invested.

For those of you who must have it all, buy PLATO COMPLETE WORKS, edited by John M. Cooper. Personally, I would save your [money] and just buy this. I have read and reviewed many other Platonic texts, but I really don't think you need anything else. This is the irreducible core of Platonic Goodness.

THE TRIAL AND DEATH OF SOCRATES is a compilation four dialogues: the "Euthyphro," the "Apology," "Crito," and the "Phaedo". As the title clearly states, these four dialogues convey the story - and philosophical debate - that surrounded Socates' trial and death. In these dialogues we find Socrates defending the righteousness of his actions and views, and tearing away at his prosecutors with the skill of expert lawyer. His only weapon being the truth.

In spite of, or perhaps because these four dialogues were written while Plato was still a middle-aged man (as opposed to the "Republic" and the "Laws," which are thought to be his more formulated philosophical expressions), they absolutely sizzle. The text bleeds with life, and so-called Socratic method of endless penetrating questions is here exemplified in the most dire of occasions - Socrates defense against the State of Athens.

It is in these dialogues that Plato expresses the core of philosopohy: a committment to truth, beauty and justice, and the the supreme tenent: "The unexamined life is not worth living." That said, if you still yearn for more Plato after reading these dialogues, grab a copy of Allan Bloom's translation of THE REPUBLIC. It is currently the best English translation available, and you will still be saving [money] over an edition of Plato's complete works.

This book really needs more attention than any other deserves. To understand this book is a life time challenge... So small yet so deep in thought...

The books images are very very disturbing. I will never be the same, little kids should not see this. Good Lord all the humanity. Please do not read it if you are weak of heart. If you are satomasikist then go right ahead.

This slim volume contains over forty drawings and paintings done by David Olere. He did these works from personal remembrances of his time at Auschwitz death camp. The text is written by his son, Alexandre, who was not at the camp, but hiding out with his mother.

Olere spent his time in the camp working in the crematorium. He would bring the bodies from the chambers and put them in the ovens. His story is not told as most stories are. His story is told through his pictures and his son's writing. Both are horrific to witness. "Witness" is an important word in this book. Through Olere's art, the reader witnesses what he witnessed. Through Oler's words, the reader becomes a witness. The father and son force the reader to look at the horror, and not turn away.

The images are not for the faint of heart, but the faint of heart should witness this book. Everyone should witness this book. Oler writes that his father died in his eighties but not of a disease. He died from a broken heart when university professors began to deny the Holocaust altogether.

"Witness: Images of Auschwitz" is a small, terrifying book. I suggest it to anyone who thinks we should "get past" the horrors of World War II, and the events of September 11, 2001.

Quote:
"I did not survive to rewrite the history
Of the Second World War
And explain how it came about and why.
I have no idea. I have no opinions.

I survived just to show you what it is like
Every day in the camp.

I say, "What it is like," not how it was.
To me it still is. I am in it.

Every morning I start all over again from
The Hell Train on.

Every night, I struggle for my next breath
Of fresh air."
--page 26

I first saw this book when I was visiting the Holocaust Museum (in Washington) and it was equally disturbing as all the displays/exhibits in the museum. The illustrator is a very talented artist, and the author of the text was very poetic. It's an extremely powerful piece of work, both terrifying and also touching. Specifically, I remember the pictures of the phases of the gas chamber, and the text entitled something like "How Many More?" which was a prayer. An incredible book, but only for mature audiences.

This collection of stories mixes together a little of everything that makes science fiction enjoyable: a solid basis in the hard and soft sciences and a wonderfully imagined future, with a twist of pure fun. The contributors, all members of a science fiction workshop, first planned out the future history of Boston and then related it in this series of interconnected tales.

The quality of the writing, overall, is remarkably good and the future they lay out is intriguing. You don't have to be a Bostonian to enjoy these stories.

Several of the contributors are prominent for other award-winning work--Sarah Smith, Alexander Jablokov, and Geoffrey Landis, among others. Their stories here are excellent.

It's realistic and even plausible. They definitely pulled it together. These authors know the little things about this city that make it entrance those of us who might wander far away, but who know in our hearts Boston is home. The inter-stories between the big ones are brilliant.

There are several rap/hip-hop history books out there, but very few that just give you the straight facts free from press-kit biographies or fan-magazine drivel. This is one of the few really good ones, covering the whole spectrum from the early 1970s block party DJs to the late 1990s mega-industry. Well-informed and informative.

If you happen to be a true hip-hop head that ends up thinking a little too much about your music collection, then this book is for you. Never before has a product been introduced to the market that has captured the full scope of the roots of hip-hop music to its present day crossover appeal. Literally thousands of books have been written about rock music and other genres, but only now can we, the fans of rap, boast of our own definitive historical review. Another great book to check out that isn't quite as serious as "A History of Rap" is "Ego Trip's Book of Rap Lists," a light-hearted look at rap's unique presence in the music industry. So do yourself a favor and add this to your shopping cart today, along with the Book of Rrap Lists. Then you'll be able to really know what you're talking about when you try to defend rap music to all your friends.

An excellent book for both the Stickley and Arts & Crafts Movement enthusiast. We recommend it.

woodworking projects. We moved in this Arts & Crafts house built in 1912 two years ago and started remodeling a bit by bit. Also my woodworking hobby has taken off along with the remodeling. The more we have done on the house, the more we like and the more we want to know about it. I have been in the stores looking at those expensive mission style furnitures and mimic the design on my own piece. I designed every piece I made for the house. Then at the point that we think we need to know more about the history of Arts & Crafts and bigger picture, we bought this book. It is surprisely good book that contains everything we were looking for. Gorgeous pictures, stunning furniture. When we were refinishing the master bedroom, we were looking at the book constantly for ideas and colors. Now the room is done, I am looking forward to making my next project - morris chair. Again, I already know what it will look like from this book. Well, this book is not only for people like me who needs reference but also very nice one for those Arts & Crafts enthusiasts.

This book is great for people who want to learn the basics of different trees, their leaves, their twigs and bark of the trees around their area. If you don't know if the tree grows in your area, you can look at the maps in the book to see if it does. If you like trees and want to learn about them, you'll love this book. I loved this book because it built my foundation for knowledge in trees and their different families.

I love this little book. I've carried it on many hikes, dog walks, and through several years of walking to graduate school. It's easy to use, detailed enough to be helpful, and small enough (my aged copy, at any rate) to fit in your back pocket. Of all of the field guides that I own, I've used this one the most.

This is a great tool to any serious or even casual student of the Bible. It is full of full-color photos of myriad items of interest, maps, charts, and historical excerpts of Biblical figures.

The contents include photos of sites in modern day Israel, photos of archaelogical sites such as digs at Ur, a reconstruction of what the Tabernacle might have looked like, a diagram of Jerusalem, and much, much more. With over 600 pages, it is a very interesting book, whether you're reading it in detail, or just thumbing through it!

This volume is a fine resource for the reader who wishes to delve a bit deeper into Biblical study, but feels intimidated by the commentaries published specifically for use by pastors and theologians. It's an easy read--two words one seldom associates with a reference book--beautifully illustrated, with plenty of background information to give the biblically challenged a flavor for the times in which the Bible was written. I have recommended this volume and its companion, Eerdmans Handbook to the History of Christianity, since their initial release. I continue to do so, especially with this more affordable paperback edition.

this is a worthy addition to any Bible scholars library

I have a problem with those he chose. He left out some of the greatest generals of all time. Grant????? Please! What about Phillip of Macedonia? His little boy Alexander would have been just another hot-headed babe if not for his incredible father.

And Jeb Stuart, the Confederate General that Grant could never hold a candle to??? Perhaps this generals are great but the author seemed to deem "great" those generals to whom history has given us more inforation in our history books instead of those who were truly great.

There were also some other great generals in the past. They just couldn't finish their military duty because their commanders or should I say superiors forbade them to do something very spectacular that would have changed the world history. The Author seriously left out alot of great generals. What about George Washington? George S. Patton? McArthur? These three alone would really have changed the world alot more if their stupid superiors, who were concerned more about their personal lives than the war itself. If They just stepped aside and let them did their job then I think that the world would be alot more fascinating today!

Having read the same author's I, Caesar which was brilliant - a great introduction to the Roman Empire - I thought I'd give this book a try too. It's not normally my area of interest but the stories are gripping. And, as a woman, I, of course, found men such as Alexander the Great fascinating to read about. Beautifully written and nicely illustrated, I enjoyed the book so much I even bothered to spread the word on the internet!!

This book comprises a series of interviews conducted with Noam Chomsky from the late 1970s through to aftermath of the Gulf War. In a sentimental introduction, Alexander Cockburn states that "Chomsky's greatest virtue is that his fundamental message is a simple one". Chomsky's message is indeed simple, though I am not sure that this should necessarily be counted a virtue rather than a debilitating weakness: the book is testament to a single animating principle, namely the excoriation of western democracies, without so much as a pretence of considering countervailing evidence. The interviews are in fact more properly characterised as a set of deferential supplications where no source is referenced by Chomsky and no assertion is challenged by his interlocutors. This is rarely a path to enlightenment.

The first interview is nominally devoted to Chomsky's academic specialism, linguistics, but the reader should prepare for disappointment. In reality it comprises only Chomsky's traditional complaints against America and Israel - and that forms the substance of the whole book. But if the complaints are traditional, the manner of their exposition becomes increasingly and unimpressively strident. Chomsky declares that, mirabile dictu, "There is such a thing as international terrorism." And who is a principal progenitor of terrorism? Why, "the United States is one of the main sponsors of it", of course. Chomsky neither defines his terms nor gives any evidence for this judgement save for complaining at US efforts in the 1960s - early in the 1960s, for the missile crisis initiated by Khrushchev secured the tacit renunciation of such efforts - to overthrow Castro's dictatorship in Cuba. Now, there are strictly pragmatic arguments for allowing Castro to oppress and impoverish Cuba's people without external hindrance, but it is difficult to see any ethical reason to do so, for in no sense could the people under such a system be said to be exercising self-determination. Moreover, given that Castro was a strong advocate during the Cuban Missile Crisis of launching a nuclear first strike against the US (on 26 October 1962 he sent a cable to Khrushchev urging such an "act of legitimate defence, however harsh and terrible the solution would be"), there genuinely was a clear case for US preventive war against his regime. Yet Chomsky, with apparent indifference to these geo-political realities, damns US actions as 'terrorism'. As often happens, the reader who lacks a historical background might be susceptible to this sort of rhetoric, but it does not withstand critical scrutiny and is far from the levels of scholarship that ought to be axiomatic for someone in Chomsky's position.

The quality of analysis does not improve as the book goes on. Chomsky's insistent theme, as I say, is the supposed iniquities of Israel; he advances this notion with scant substantiation but a great deal of abuse. He condemns the Anti-Defamation League and Alan Dershowitz in terms that indicate a revealing defensiveness on his part (apparently they "defame and intimidate and silence people who criticise current Israeli policies" - an absurd charge given the well-known eagerness of Dershowitz to engage Israel's vituperative opponents in debate), but he goes far beyond the bounds of reasonable polemic when he describes the prosecutor of Adolf Eichmann, Gideon Hausner, as "us[ing] this terminology which is in fact rather reminiscent of Eichmann himself" (Hauser had apparently referred to the PLO, reasonably enough given its record of terrorism, as a cancer). He believes US support for Israel is founded on considerations purely of realpolitik, portraying Israel as a "strategic asset" for the US. Indeed, Israel is a strategic asset for the US, being the only state in the region to hold free elections and to have an independent judiciary, but there is more to it than that. Chomsky maintains all states have a common character - "they are instruments of power and violence, that's true of all states" - and thereby manages to miss the huge, qualitative difference between a liberal democracy like the US (or Great Britain, or Israel) and a totalitarian state like Iraq or Cuba. Certainly democratic states need to exercise force in their defence against terrorism, as Israel has had to do for decades, but that force is limited and accountable, rather than indiscriminate and aimed at civilians. These are rather basic questions of political sociology and history, and they receive literally no acknowledgement in this book.

One surprising aspect of the book is that it refers to - if only to brush off - certain aspects of Chomsky's career that more than anything have damaged him in the eyes of former sympathisers. Barsamian refers to "your apologia for Nazi and Khmer Rouge genocide". Having thus been presented with a convenient straw man to knock down, Chomsky waxes indignant about these charges. The problem is that no one has ever made them. The particular comments of Chomsky that earned him notoriety were an indulgent description of the views of a Holocaust denier, Robert Faurisson, not (as Chomsky claims here) a defence of free speech, and attempts to discredit the accounts by Cambodian refugees of Khmer Rouge genocide - which accounts were in fact horribly accurate.

There is much else in this book, but it rarely rises above the level of calling other people names. Many of those Chomsky disapproves of are designated 'racist'. Abba Eban, former Foreign Minister of Israel, is apparently a racist for making the unexceptionable and irrefutable judgement that the Palestinian leadership, which has three times rejected the offer of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, has 'never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity'. The New Republic, a bastion of American liberalism, is of course 'outright racist' - apparently because it disagrees with Chomsky's denigration of Israel. A Christian religious broadcast is 'typical of a racist culture'. To begin with, the effect of this sort of stuff is comic, but after a while merely becomes banal. Like the book itself.

In order ro get a real flavour of this book i would invite the reader to check out the sample pages provided - ...
The first thing that must be said is that the purpose of the interviews is to get Chomsky to expand on and develop some of the thinking that informs his work. Thus whereas his work is heavy with empirical detail, the interview format permits more reflective and general observations. The reader (assumed to be basically sympathetic to Chomsky's work) is here permited to se some of the ideas and theoretical arguments which underlie and arise from the work. Any book, of course, presupposes a certian readership - that is pretty much a truism - so there is nothing wrong with assuming a basically sympathetic readership in this case. I mention this, only because any of you out there utterly antipathetic to Chomsky and expecting the interviewer to (attempt to) refute the vernerable old chap will be doubtless disappointed. But of course, I'm being silly, because those of you utterly opposed to Chomsky and disamissive of his work won't of course be wasting your time reading this book - or this review. Those of you, by contrast, with a serious interest in Chomsky's work but looking for lots of empirical data would be best off looking at some of his other stuff first. Chomsky provides immense evidence for each and everyone of his propositions.

I found this book more-or-less by accident, not realizing just what I was getting into. I was in 2nd year university I believe, and found this name Chomsky came up on many of the topical searches I would look up at the university library, with evocative (provocative?!?) titles like "deterring Democracy" "the Washington Connection and Third World Fascism" etc... I was curious. I have always been a seeker of truth, and have always been skeptical of power and its abuses and the fact that many, if not most, of the people I knew shared this scepticism, yet media never talked about what to all of us was plainly obvious. I actually did not take any of Chomsky's books out (so many it seemed kind of overwhelming), but I found one in a bookstore, chronicles of dissent. Interviews. Seemed like a good introduction. Talked about the Gulf war which was just ended and which I was really keen on learning more about. This event really started to make me wonder what in the hell was wrong with the world.

I bought it for myself as a Christmas gift. I read it in a few days. I was so fascinated that someone could have such insight, such a good memory for history, economics, such a way of looking at events and facts from different angles than are normally presented. Much of what he said summed up (much more articulately of course) what had been going through my head over the past few formative years. Why doesn't everyone know about and read this guy I wondered. You find out pretty quickly after discovering Chomsky that he certainly has his share of detractors (read some of the reviews of recent works ie 9/11 for example!) So I occasionally read his detractors as well, and I must say they are seldom as convincing as he is, and he stands on a much higher moral ground than most (all?) of them, a voice of sanity in a wilderness of deception, propaganda and ideology. They seem to mostly repeat US government propaganda and try to call Chomsky an apologist for genocide, which is one of the biggest jokes I can imagine. Chomsky is merciless in his defense of real freedom, and in his denunciation of tyranny. A common thread in all he says and writes is that we (the west) must judge ourselves with the same (even higher he argues) standards as we judge our enemies, but that in no instance is this ever done by the intelligentsia community, becoming basically apologists for state atrocities and violence. This seems so obvious to me, yet there are several lunatics out there who criticise (even lambaste) him for suggesting that our crimes are anywhere near as significant as "theirs" (whoever the "them" of the month happens to be) He can write a meticulously well documented book on the effects of American intervention in Vietnam (ie many many corpses), and the some wacko criticises him for not talking about all of communist atrocities in the world even though that is not the topic of his book! His point is that communist atrocities are very well documented (occasionally fabricated even!) as they are the official enemy. He chooses to focus his attention on atrocties carried out by his own government, something he feels his words and actions may be able to influence.

Noam Chomsky is feared as he exposes the truth, and something I have learned since nearly 10 years ago when I first read this book (a good reference to have on hand to this day I might add), is that people are terrified of the truth. They would rather believe government propaganda and that governments are looking out for their best interests rather than the truths which Chomsky exposes in great detail in the piles of political books he has written. This series of interviews provides a good intro, and is easier to read than his heavily footnoted books, which can be admittedly difficult to slog through (though definitely worth it as well) and brings up points that are found in more detail in his books for the more interested, or people skeptical of his interviews (something he encourages by the way). Highly recommended to anyone who is a skeptic.