I am a fourth year neuroscience major and found this book to be extremely verbose and boring. The chapters are 50 pages long at least and the author continually digresses into random tangents so you're left bored and confused at the end of each chapter. Do NOT buy it unless you want to be even more confused in your course than necessary!

I agree with other reviewers that this is not best suited as an introductory textbook; however it seems to work fine as a source of information for the student who has already taken intro psychology. There is a lot of terminology, but everything seemed to be very well explained. We did note an error or two. Overall I think this book is great.

I have used it in an upper division undergraduate psychology class, and in my students' rankings of textbooks, this book has consistently been ranked higher than any other text I've used.

The level is beyond a simple introductory psychology text, but is very appropriate for the upper division course.

The numerous full-color illustrations and photographs are especially helpful in illustrating key points.

It covers the full spectrum of the neural basis of cognition, from simple perception through the biology of emotion to the basis of consciousness (with very interesting case studies of brain damaged patients throughout).

I recently returned from a 3 month tour of Europe and took this book with me. While it did have a number of major European cities in it the actual information about them was definetly lacking. I found my self usually better off with out a book at all as opposed to only having this one. Several other travelers we met felt the same way and some were lucky enough to have Lonely Planet guides. For the money spent I'll stick to them or Rick Steves in the future. i.e. This book would take you to the train station/ subway but then fall short on what the heck to do to get a ticket!!! Which is important information stranded in 20 different stations/ subways a month each with different customs. Frommer's did do an excellent job of pointing out all of the gay and lesbian districs and bars in each city and the gay friendly hotels and shops... but they also have a strickly gay guide to Europe as well. The amount of space used for this information could have been better allocated for more pertinent information. I'll have to give a thumbs down on this book. Take something else with you or take nothing at all.

Frommer's does a good job with the general hints on travelling cheaper, but unless you plan on visiting only the major cities and capitals only, look for another book. There are 24 major cities and surrounding areas covered from Ireland to Budapest, but that's not many cities in comparison with all of Europe. I only will have a short time in Europe and that means that I will only be able to visit two of the cities listed and have to use another book for everything in between. Lonely Planet is much more inclusive and definitely covers the lower price scale.

Just returned from a 2 month trip using the 2002 guide. I found the recommendations for the restaurants to be excellent. After realizing that the Frommer's writers and I had the same tastes, I made it a point of seeking out all of their 'starred' recommendations for restaurants. The sightseeing descriptions and recommendations were also quite good. The hotel recommendations were not as good. A few of the hotels we stayed in that were not 'starred' or listed as a 'Find' were not as comfortable as hotels in other books.

We traveled with this Frommer's, Rick Steves, Lonely Planet and Rough Guides through France, Belguim, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Italy. We liked Rick Steves' recommendations for lodging, Frommer's for restaurants and both for sightseeing. Lonely Planet and Rough Guides were not used if in a Frommer's city. If in a Rick Steve's city (but not Frommer's) we used Lonely Planet for restaurant recommendations (not as good a Frommer's but better than Rick Steves).

Background: Two travelers, professional, early 30s with enough money to stay out of the hostels, but did not want to blow the bank of 5 star lodging. Rick Steve's packing philosophy. Both traveler's love to eat!!

Oh my goodness, what can I say. This is not even fit for TBN junkies. This is the worst presentation of preterism I have ever read. Just note the lack of indexed information in it. Had these guys really read even the few books that they listed. It is as though these guys are hinding the fact that they have really only read Chilton or "Last Days Madness." This is not the work of men learned in this field of study. These are guys just trying to sell a book to their church members and families. One gets the feeling that they are just wanting to write anything to make a few dollars. A current and better book from a preterist view is R.C. Sproul's book.

If you are looking for a scholarly exegesis of the eschatology of Jesus it is NOT to be found in the 'Sign of the Kingdom.' While I don't agree with the view I purchased this book in the hope it would provide good argumentation for the historicist interpretation of Jesus' "little apocalypse" found in Matthew chapter 24 (and parallels). The book includes no indexes, occasional spelling errors, fallacies of logic (e.g., 'ad hominem' & 'post facto'), and in the Table of Contents five of the eight chapters have been given incorrect page numbers. The occasional historical inaccuracies are probably due to the book's over reliance on outdated sources such as Barnes, Gibbon and Edersheim.

The authors seem to operate from a basic misunderstanding of the Hebraic linear concept of time, of two ages, the present one and the coming messianic age when God intervenes suddenly & dramatically in history to establish His reign upon the earth. Most disappointing is the treatment of Matthew 24:14, the most troublesome passage to the historicist view since it clearly states, "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole ('holos') inhabited earth ('oikumene'), for ('eis') a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come," a prophecy difficult if not impossible to see as fulfilled by 70 AD. In order to "solve" the apparent problem the authors somehow read into this a prediction of preaching to all the Jewish inhabitants of the Roman Empire rather than to the Gentile nations as the verse states (page 83).

I would not recommend this book to anyone interested in researching the eschatology of Jesus regardless of your view of Bible prophecy.

This is one of the most biblically based books I have read. Unlike many theological works, this easy reading book came alive and made me feel as though I were walking through the streets of Jerusalem with Jesus as prophecies unfolded all around Him. I was engulfed beginning with the first paragraph and could not put it down until the Suffering Servant had been revealed as King of kings. As a seminary student at Saint Michael's Seminary I read many books, but very few have impacted my theology like The Sign of the Kingdom.

As a die hard Redskins fan, I was very sorry to see this excellent concept so badly muffed. The idea behind this book is to cash in on the Washington Post vault, providing great photos and articles combined with new pieces by long-time Skins beat reporters to tie it all together. Sadly, whoever edited and proofread this thing reeeally dropped the ball. Sentences at the bottom of the page are repeated at the top of the next, photographs are mislabeled, pieces of sentences are missing, words are chopped off in the middle. Probably still of some value for the die hard Skins fan, but a real black eye for the Washington Post. If their newspaper were produced as shoddily, Richard Nixon would have finished his second term.

Yes, there are some typos and such in the early chapters but the book isn't as lousy as described in the 2-star review. Most of the problems are hyphen-ated words that are not at the end of a page or line. It is like the typeset was changed but the book was not reproofed.

Still, there is a lot of good information in the book. I think it covers items that Loverro's book (very good as well) ignored or glossed over-- how Gibbs wanted to sign and trade Riggo and how Joe Jacoby ended up sticking around in that first camp. The Times summary makes it sound like Gibbs and Beathard were geniuses building a team. This book shows that they were also lucky geniuses. If you are a Skins fan, you should own this book.

I see there is also a newer edition out with the Synder years (ugh).

Anyone that has picked up a newspaper in the last 10 years can see through the massive misinformation, and half truths in this book. Written almost immediately after Berkowitz's arrest this book does nothing but spout out the fabricated tale that Berkowitz told to keep the truth covered up.

If you want to get a feel for the 'real' Son of Sam reign of terror pick up a copy of Maury Terry's Ultimate Evil.

The best account of another brutal chapter in urban Amerikan history.Carpozi captures the nagging nausea of fear which tugged at the entrails of the residents who found themselves potential prey in a predator's hunting ground. A must-have for any true-crime voyeur's library of dementia!

I enjoyed this book, but did not think the story line was as strong as some of the earlier books in this series. I had a feeling the author was writing stories just to extend the series a few more volumes. But, since I am a Bolitho fan, I will probably end up buying all of them.

Richard III remained a hated king on par with John, the original wicked uncle, until Sir George Buck undertook this revisionist work in 1619. He has been accused by some modern authors as biased and partial, viewing the last medieval king's life with too much romanticism and not enough objection. For those examining the conundrum Richard's life presents, Buck is a balance to More, Vergil, and the modern Ross and Weir. He relies mainly on contemporary chroniclers such as Mancini and de Commynes, while keeping the Tudor historians' accounts firmly in the time in which they were written. His work is a prime example of the many scholarly defenses of Richard III.

I used this book for an undergraduate renal/endocrine physiology class. For this material, it was excellent, but I still found myself referring back to my Guyton text fairly often. For comprehensive coverage of systems physiology, I would suggest Guyton.

In addition, I think we got one of the first printings of this book a few years ago, and the binding everyone's book fell apart completely after only three months of use. I hope they've solved that problem.

This author writes one lie after another! The author makes a living off of lying to thousands of readers. He through the entire book demotes heros and heroines like Joan of Arc and Cathrine the Great to dust, and raises evil demons like Nero and Hitler to gods. A quote from the book is, "Nero was not ALL bad, sure he slaughtered his wife, but all the other women he slept with he never lad a finger on!" It also has to attack Christians and Jews by insulting the Bible! Sure some maybe true, but not much. History is my favorite subject, and this is not history. It's just a bunch of lies.

Richard Schenkman admiots he doesn't know much about history. he says so throughout the book. "I don't know if this is true..." he writes at the beginning of nearly ten percent of the paragraphs in this slim volume, then tries to make some lame joke about the veracity of Cleopatra's looks or Catherine the Great's sexual proclivities.

It seems to me that, if you plan to write a book exploding the myths of popular history, you might want to start out by establishing your credentials to enhance believability instead of shooting yourself in the foot.

Most of the entries in this book are just a few pages, not enough to establish truth or lack thereof, but enough to provide lots of white space to enhance the thickness of the tome without bogging the reader down with content. To make matters worse, Schenkman writes in the worst Scholastic Book Club patronizing tone, which serves to put off the intelligent reader.

Unless you've tapped out all other sources, I wouldn't bother with this book.

Some people don't take this book in the way it was clearly written - with tongue planted firmly in cheek. The author obviously didn't mean for this to be a definitive account of all the events covered - that would have acquired volumes approaching a set of encyclopaedias!

What he does do, however, is cause you to pause, and think, about some of the things you might have believed for years based solely upon what Hollywood and others have passed off as legitimate history. Such as those great Western allies and Chinese "patriots" Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek, and those "authentic" Spanish Civil War battle scenes - shot in a bathtub in New Jersey.

What he might have included, as examples of manipulative history, was Frank Capra's unjustifiably renowned "why we fight" video series which shows, among other gross inaccuracies, the "gallant" Russians, prior to the Nazi invasion, toiling away in Socialist bliss. Because Capra compiled this DURING the war, no mention was made, of course, of the murderous Stalinist purges that sent millions of his own people to their deaths. The problem is, the series is STILL being sold as "historical" accounts of the era.

Sure, you can poke holes in what author Shenkman writes. Isn't that the whole point of history? As George Santayana said [and who is quoted in the Conclusion of this book] "History is always written wrong, and so always needs to be rewritten."

One of my jabs is aimed squarely at the chapter "World War II" where the author attempts to justify the appeasement of Hitler by Britain - specifically Chamberlain. He says the Munich Accord [the sell-out of Czechoslovakia] not only produced peace [however temporarily], but that Britain was in no position to take on Germany in 1938.

Now while that is certainly true, what he completely overlooks are the relative strengths of France and Germany at that time. France had a pact with the Czechs, and a move by Daladier and the French Army, Navy and Air Force [which dwarfed the Germans at that time] would have caused Hitler to cave in. Indeed, his own generals were absolutely petrified at the prospect of going head to head with France in 1938 with inferior tanks and less aircraft! The fact is, France did not need Britain in 1938 - except for moral support. What the French did NOT have in 1938 was the courage of their convictions. And THAT Hitler banked upon.

He counted on it again a year later when, in September 1939, he invaded Poland, leaving his Western flank virtually defenceless. By this time Britain was stronger both from manpower and materiel
standpoints, and so was France. An attack then and again Hitler would have had no choice but to capitulate as he was in no position to fight a two-front war.

Not only does the author not even mention that possibility, he then goes on to punch a few holes in his own Munich argument later in the chapter when he says that, when Germany attacked France in May 1940, the latter were STILL better equipped than the Germans in almost every respect [although he does acknowledge that the reason for their quick collapse - quicker than the Poles by the way - was a lack of a will to fight.

But that's the fun of looking back. Opinions will vary widely on what should or should not have been done, and you can argue forever as to who was right and who was wrong.

I like the book because what it made me do was go out and seek the more straightforward, no-axes-to-grind historical accounts that simply present the facts and allow you to draw your own conclusions. THAT's the way history should always be presented.