Oliver Stone is known for making intense, controversial movies, based on historical events. I don't know how much of this story of Nixon is true, but what is written is a very dramatic and interesting story of the goings-on in the White House. If you enjoy the film Nixon, check out this book. You will not be disappointed.

I only like this book because it is clear about the kind of thing which everybody thinks is typical, but most people would think that only fools can object to this much truth and get away with it. To be specific, on pages 371-391 is a Transcript of Conversation in which Nixon and Haldeman talked on May 5, 1971, more than a year before the Watergate break-in, but from a "Watergate Special Prosecution Force File Segment." It might be a conversation about Colson and "a guy that nobody, none of us knows except Dwight." (p. 379). "Thug type guy." (p. 379). "This is the kinda guy can get out and tear things up." (p. 379). "Just ask them to dig up those, their eight thugs." (p. 380). "They, they've got guys who'll go in and knock their heads off." (p. 380). "Murderers. Guys that really, you know, that's what they really do." (p. 380). "And, uh, hope they really hurt 'em. You know, I mean go in with some real--and smash some noses." (p. 380). "They'll just get, the country'll just get a belly full of these people." (p. 381). "There's no, there's no, uh, semblance of respectability." (p. 381). "How the hell do you expect the poor God damned policemen--" (p. 382)? Parts of the transcript were sanitized, RESTRICTED-"D", and the way administration records are likely to be withhelf from public view forever after now, people might as well figure that whatever the government is up to must be in the RESTRICTED-"D" category.

"Nixon" was, I think, the best film of 1995 (it was certainly more important and fascinating than "Braveheart")and here is a great book that gives you a good glimpse not only into it's production, but into the documents, the testomonies and brilliant artistry that make the film what it is. It starts off with an interesting interview with the great cinema genius Oliver Stone in which discusses the film's genesis (how interesting that he passed on a film about Noriega for this movie). And then come the fascinating, interesting and great essays by important Nixon-era, Watergate figures like John Dean, E.Howard Hunt and one Cuban CIA operative. The co-writers of the screenplay also contribute great essays that explore Nixon and a history of political assassinations and black ops within the American government and its overseas operations. The screenplay itself is brilliant, mingling intrigue with drama and political issues, not to mention thrilling history. Stone, as in "JFK," makes a fascinating study of politics and power with this movie. He also makes a point about how our government conducts operations which involve assassination, secret underdealings etc. just as much as any South American or Central American country. "Nixon: An Oliver Stone Film" is a must for film buffs, political film analysts and fans of Oliver Stone (me).

When a football player follows this book they will increase there skills and abilities exponentially. The training program in this book helped me to increase my forty yard dash time by .2 seconds over a summer, and also helped me to score in the top 5 on my team in overall atheletic ability!

For anyone who wants to attain optimum conditioning, this is the book for you. This book will show you how to be the fittest athlete on the football field. It's no wonder Eric Dickerson shattered the record books. I personally have benefited from the flexibility training and increased my strength as a result.

The Foolish Tortoise was a very good book, I love Eric Carle's work. The pictures were marvelous. I won't give away the ending but he leaves his shell to travel to places he could never go before, but he's still not as fast as a horse, so he gets kind of depressed. He also finds trouble and he can't hide in his shell, so he find shelter behind rocks and tree, etc. He gets cold and has no heat. He walks around looking for his shell, does he find it? Get the book to find out.

Unlike the annoyingly stupid Brown Bear, etc., this book is easy on the parent's nerves. I can read it over and over.

It's a great book because of it's extensiveness.

Great tutorial that helped me get a A on my final ezam. Amust have to review important concepts and terms.

I have 3 children, ages 5, 3 & 1. My two oldest think The Greedy Python is a funny book. The illustrations are awesome- as all of Eric Carle's work is. The story teaches a good lesson in selfishness and greediness. The greedy python is eating everything in sight and even after getting too full to hold anymore he sees one last thing to eat. He winds up gulping down his tail and eventually disappearing. It's a really good lesson for all children to learn. It's also easy reading.

A good book to begin an entire curriculum of sharing for the preschooler. Adding the song "I'm being swallowed by a boa constrictor" and acting out the song brings this book to life. The rhyming and bright colors of an Eric Carle book always brings a smile to the class and the teacher.

Beginning reader in our house really likes this book as he uses the illistrations to "cue" him into the words. There are many subject areas that can be explored as a result of the book, reading, math, science...For an older child who is slower learning to read, this is excellent as there are multisyllable words and a 'story line' that holds their interest.

i took this class, the cases used and presneted and done so in an informative manner, i learned a lot just by reading the text

I realize that many of you buying this book won't have a choice about it--it's probably required for a class you are taking and don't much care how good or bad the book it because you need it regardless. However, for those of you who do have a choice:

This textbook has 9 Parts (Intro to law, Contracts, Sales, Agency and Employment, Business Organizations, Property, Commerial Paper, Credit Transactions, Government Regulation) with a total of 48 chapters.

The format of the book, along with the firgures and tables, makes the book easy to read. When applicable, there is a case relating the law described to a real-world situation or a box with ethical considerations and questions. Additionally, the problems at the end of each chapter explore the issues and make students think of both sides of the arguement.

However, in certain areas when describing the law, the text can be vague. The authors could do better making it clear when and how a law is applicable. There are many times when doing the problems where I would look up the case or the issues involved online to get a complete picture.

Overall, a good textbook, especially with supplemental material to be given during lecture.

In my opinion, this is the finest business law textbook on the market. It contains well-edited cases for discussion, cogent analysis of policy and legal history, and easy-to-read flowcharts that help students go through the legal reasoning steps.

It is extremely user friendly to both the lay student and instructor. In addition to the core contract law chapters, it contains chapters summarizing all the main substantive areas of law (and even contains a chapter on the new field of Cyberlaw).

The supporting instructor materials and test bank are excellent. I highly recommend this text. It is well worth the price.

The authors are professors from the Indiana University School of Business, one of the top 5 business schools in the world.

The confusing -- and irrelevant -- jumble of algebra and calculus that is the hallmark of college economics is tossed out the window in Maybury's little gem of a book (although you will find half-a-dozen very simple graphs). Although this book does require a little thought and study, Maybury presents, clearly and concisely, how economics affects _everyone_ in society. Specifically he deals with inflation and how it devastates everyone. The cause is simple (the government creates too much money); the effects are profound (government inflation has brought down society after society thoughout history). Maybury clearly understands that economics, political science and law are not separate disciplines (and this was known in the past, when they were taught as 'political economy'). He subscribes to the principles on which the U.S. was founded; the old British Common Law (or Natural Law) and that which springs from it: the free market (today defended most of all by the Austrian School). This book is less than 100 pages long and yet packed with more information than you'll find in most college-level econ texts. If you want to immunize yourself (and your children) from what passes for economics today, Maybury is one of the best places to start.

the money mystery is a quality book made by blue stocking press. this book helps to reveal the hidden indicators affecting youre investments. it also shows you the problems of the financial panic of 1980 and how you can learn from them.

Economics is a young and exact science and this book shows you how to understand it clearly and exactly. As you read through this book several investment tips will be provided for you. such tips as how to make a profit in a period of inflation,recession, deflation and a depression. but one cold hard fact reamains, You must plan ahead and watch for the indicators! the money mystery explains cleary what to look for and how to profit from them. I recommend this book highly :^)

It is amazing to say this but I feel like I am actually taking another course of study that should be part of my college curriculum. Mr. Maybury's books have allowed me to examine an area of study that I have been intimidated by for years. Economics never held any fasination for me in the past but when I am done with his series of books I may actually look into seeking further education in that subject. His books have given me the confidence to tackle that foe.

One cannot wait to finish whichever book they are currently reading to move on to the next in the series in order to avoid loosing any of the recall from the previous ones. This is book three and I am already eying number 4, "Whatever Happened to Justice," on my bookshelf.

Mr. Maybury has opened up the world of history, economics, money management, political backroom tactics, moral issues and government, bringing them all together in an easily understandable way to help us increase our understanding and improve ourselves.

Great Book.

I agree with many of the reviewers below that this book was helpful and often interesting. It gives a readable orientation to one of the most important movements in the software industry today, and the editors have been fortunate to gather together so many contributors who obviously know whereof they speak. In particular, the editors' Introduction, Eric Raymond's "Brief History of Hackerdom," Richard Stallman's account of GNU and FSF, Bruce Perens's discussion of Open Source, and Tim O'Reilly's essay on "Infoware" were informative and thought-provoking.

That said, it should be noted that the Amazon reviewer above gets it wrong when she writes that the book gives a "fascinating look at the raging debate." In fact, *nothing* about Open Source is debated in this book, which is a major disappointment. As the reviewer from Princeton below notes, the goodness of everything Open Source and the badness of everything Microsoft seems to be a given for many of the writers. At the risk of criticizing the book for not being something its creators didn't intend, I think it would be greatly improved with the addition of a wider range of viewpoints and even a dissenting voice or two. (There are a number of essays that could give place to some alternate content: Eric Raymond's second essay, "The Revenge of the Hackers," leans heavily toward the self-congratulatory, as does the Netscape cheerleaders' "Story of Mozilla." And Larry Wall's "Diligence, Patience, and Humility" seems to have been included not on its own merits but on the author's reputation as the Perl Deity.)

A final wish is for the book to address a broader range of readers. As a longtime computer user but a relatively new programmer, with no formal business training, I found many of the essays to rely heavily on the jargon of hackers and MBAs. More editorial control here, in addition to a broader range of content, would make this book seem less like preaching to the choir and more effective at spreading the Open Source gospel.

This is a good idea on O'Reilly's part to try to document the history and goals of the Open Source movement, which had roots in several college campuses and research labs in the '70s and '80s, and became news in the late '90s with the popularity of Linux, Apache, and the decision of Netscape to open its browser source. The best introductory piece, however, is probably Eric Raymond's "Cathedral and the Bazaar" which is not in this book(O'Reilly publishes it separately, but it's available free on the Web and short enough to be read in one sitting). As for this collection, I liked Robert Young's business case for distributing open source - his story of how Red Hat was launched reminds me of the Compaq tale of "three guys in a restaurant". The Apache article is also quite good, and Linus Torvalds offers a brief but interesting (and characteristically opinionated) article about how Linux evolved technically. There's also a good article discussing the various open source licenses (BSD, GPL, Netscape, etc) and what they do and don't restrict.

Others I was less impressed with. Stallman's article is predictable and self-serving. He explains how he evolved his software-as-gift philosophy but doesn't come close to terms with how the software industry can support substantial employment if all source is given away. There's yet another history of the different branches of BSD Unix. There's a breathtaking inside account of the launch of Mozilla which ends with the fancy Silicon Valley party when development has finally gotten underway. The low point is Larry Wall's "essay", which is a frankly ridiculous waste of time and print.

Although this is a mixed bag, there's enough reference material and interesting points of view to keep the book around.

Open Sources is a collection of essays by people who have been involved in a prominent way in what is being called "the open source revolution." The authors are all very bright people with good intentions and diverse viewpoints; this makes for interesting reading. However, I had a problem with the introduction. In fact, I hated it. It attempts to couch the issue of free vs. non-free software in religious terms: in the bad old days, free software only came from universities or other government-funded research. Then, a few companies saw the light and began to open-source their software; currently the industry is divided between these companies (the saved) and the rest of the companies (the damned) who will spiral into oblivion due to their proprietary selfishness. I thought the presence of this sort of rhetoric in the introduction, which sets the tone for the rest of the book, was particularly unfortunate.

The essays in Open Sources are a mixed bag. Kirk McKusick's history of Berkeley UNIX is great, as is Michael Tiemann's history of Cygnus Solutions, RMS's article about the GNU project, and Bruce Perens' article about licensing issues. Also, I really enjoyed the transcript of the infamous 1992 flame war between Linus and Andy Tanenbaum about the merits of Linux vs. Minix. On the other hand, Paul Vixie's article about software engineering is pretty random, Larry Wall's article does not seem to have a point at all, and Eric Raymond's

second article and Tom Paquin's account of the open-sourcing of Netscape are too self-serving to be useful.

Overall, I enjoyed this book quite a bit. However, the year that has passed since its publication has exposed some of the more outlandish predictions made by its contributors (Eric Raymond said that Windows 2000 would either be canceled or be a complete disaster). My guess is that Open Sources is not destined to become a classic. Rather, in a few years it will be viewed as an interesting but somewhat naive period piece.

I will not argue the fact that Joyce is a master of the English language. Nor will I argue that at times he has very good insight into the psychological motivations of art, religion, and sociology. He possesses both of these talents. However, the manner in which they are presented in this book is simply disappointing. I am an avid reader and can appreciate thick philosophy woven artistically into an intriguing story. This book has sparse bits of philosophy and an occasional artistic stitch, but by and large fails to create a fabric that sparks my interest. Throughout this book, I found myself hopelessly holding onto the idea that, "this is one of the greatest books ever written in the English language," and was left there holding onto that hope afterwards because it failed to deliver anything more.

The story drags at the beginning, and while the minutia of Stephen's life is important to understand where he ends up, its focussed on way too much; the first 80 pages are useless and will leave you rolling your eyes for relief. Next, while a certain degree of specificity is important in terms of describing a scene, the precision to which he describes things, largely irrelevant things, can only be construed as "filling" to make this very short book acceptably long. Say something. Repeat it for emphasis. But don't fixate on it for pages and pages and pages. Lastly, the "meat" of the book, that being what actually made the man into an artist, is so sparse and loosely hung on the frail skeleton of plot, that any person reading this book hungry for some sort of insight or depth is ravishing and unsatisfied at the end, anxious to be filled up by some other book.

Kundera is much better at doing what this "master" was intending to do. He cuts off the fat and leaves raw, creative, chiseled, philosophical muscle on the bone for a reader to savor. I wish I would have spent my time rereading something of his instead of deciding to pick up a book about the very slow and boring progression of this artist's perception.

"Portrait" is arguably Joyce's best work, truly a masterpiece from the greatest writer of the 20th century if not ever. Even if you are not a writer (I'm an engineer), after reading Joyce you will want to write--albeit sadly not as well as Joyce, but you will want to write nonetheless. As for the rare bad review that you may see on this forum, well, there's no accounting for taste! More seriously, it can be a tough read and people often get more out of it the second time through (for fellow members of the Television Generation, we call that "replay value"). So give the heretics who scored it two or three stars a few years for their tastes to mature, and we'll see what they say when they read it again.

When I first read Joyce, I did not catch many of the nuances of Portrait, so I understand how some may find this a challenging book. Hence, I highly recommend buying a copy of the "The Dubliners"--the Dover Thrift edition costs $1.50, though it has no notations. (Also, if you are a busy person, a taste of Joyce may help motivate you.) Dubliners is a collection of short (4-10 page) stories that, beyond being excellent in themselves, will help you get acclimated to Joyce. And for a little more than a buck, you can afford to throw it in to some order to get a nice preview of Joyce before spending the time to read Portrait. (Not that Portrait takes a long time--it's just over 200 pages.)

"A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" is an impressionistic, semi-autobiographical work in which Joyce, through the character of Stephen Dedalus, relates the events and impressions of his youth and young adulthood. The novel flows effortlessly from Stephens first memories as "baby tuckoo" to his final journal entries before embarking on a promising literary career in Paris. In the pages between, Joyce's virtuosity of prose explodes in passages with frightening intensity. Even those who dislike Joyce's confusing, sometimes-infuriating style, should be awestruck by his undubitable writing ability.

However, as anyone reading this review should already know, despite his virtuosity, Joyce is not for everyone. He is simultaneously one of the most beloved and despised writers of the twentieth century. For those of you who are unfamiliar with his work and hesitantly contemplating becoming acquainted with it, here is some food for thought: first, start with "Portrait," it is far more accessible than his subsequent works and a better introduction to them than the also-excellent "Dubliners" is. Second, do not try to judge "Portrait" by the same standards as other books. Joyce is not trying to tell an amusing story here, he is trying to relate the impressions of a young man torn between two existences: a religious or an aesthetic. If you are a meat-and-potatoes type of reader, meaning the kind of reader who prefers a "story," Joyce will not be your cup of tea. Lastly, Joyce's reputation perhaps does his works injustice. Yes, he is extremely encyclopedic and takes on many themes in his works. But perhaps too many readers get sidetracked from the aesthetic merits of his works by concentrating solely on the intellectual values. It is his prose which can be universally appreciated, whether you understand the ideas it portrays or not. His prose is his bread-and-butter. Some people pompously brag of their "getting" Joyce without actually appreciating what he does. I don't claim to be a bonafied Joyce scholar, but it is my experience that to enjoy Joyce is to appreciate "literature for literature's sake." If you enjoy literature, poetry or prose, than you should enjoy the style with which Joyce writes, that is to say, all styles. And he has seemingly mastered all styles. That is not to say that the many thematic levels in which his novels succeed are to be ignored, for their expression is not seperate from the means with which Joyce does it, but congruous with it.

To read Joyce is to revel in the limits of artistic creation and then to read on as the limits are then stretched further.

Bon Apetite!

That's about all I could say about this book. I know it started off to be kind of slow, but wasn't the first couple of pages full of very detailed sex scenes? I can't really remember I gave it to someone to read. It was good and well written, I just had a difficult time getting use to EJD'S new style of writting. It was different, to say the least. You know I didn't even realize the narrator was nameless until I read some of the reviews, funny huh? Is that a bad thing?

I thought the narrator was about a fool. What man or woman would put up with self-centered Nicole? I don't know of one. She was a ridiculous character and so shallow. Tried to justify her selfish behavior by telling both her lovers how confused she was 'Please feel sorry for me'! Oh Paleeez! Ayanna's character was cool with me at the beginning, she wasn't puttin' up with nameless at all. Then she got dumb on us.

Although the characters all drove me to drink, I couldn't put it down. It wasn't typical EJD, for sure.

Although this book started slowly, I thought it pulled things together nicely toward the end. This story was told by a nameless, super-sensitive man, who loved Nicole even after leaving him at the altar years earlier. He soon learns that Nicole is in love with another woman and in his blind love for Nicole he agrees to meet the "other woman", Ayanna. The lead character struggles when Nicole asks him if he will share a bed with her and Ayanna. The story continues and explores the dilemma the title character faces as he considers the offer, tries to win Nicole back, and deals with other relationship issues with his father. We also see the issues that Nicole faces with her super-religious mother and Ayanna. Each must struggle to make decisions that would change the rest of their lives.

Dickey has penned a book that contains a great deal of explicit heterosexual and lesbian sex which may be appealing to some and repulsive to others. It stretches the imagination and has a real feel to it...like Dickey has personal experience with the issues.

I enjoyed the book...it wasn't what I expected, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

When I first heard about Between Lovers, I was taken aback by the subject matter, but decided to read the book anyway for its story-telling worthiness. Personally, I thought he did a fine job in telling a complex story, especially since he isn't taking it from his own life, but is actually making it up, becoming the characters, and trying to imagine what it would feel like to be in their shoes. It is bothersome to see how people are dissing this book. If you were to take EJD's name off the cover, would it still be considered so horrible (as a few other readers have indicated)? Why is it that people think just because Eric alters his style a little bit, and writes about something controversial with unlikable characters that his writing is getting worse? I thought his writing was fine. As a matter of fact, Eric's "worst" could be considered another writer's "best", but that's another matter. Think about it! This is his sixth book. If he keeps redoing Cheaters & Friends and Lovers, people will complain that he's formulaic. Yet if he takes a risk, which all serious writers have to do at some point, some of the readers don't like it and wish he'd go back to the style that he's already mastered. If you want the true formulaic type writer, go read a Danielle Steele novel, but if you are willing to hang with someone who seems to enjoy stretching artistically and challenging himself, than stick with Eric Jerome Dickey and allow him the space to create unusual stories and at the same time cultivate his craft.