this is undoubtly an intresting book,but its main problem is the weaknesses in growth theory.furthermore,i believe it should be improoved in its explanations and the depth of the knowledge it provides.concluding,it is an excellent book for a begginer level,but not an intermidiate one

this book focused on certain economics issue and is excellent for readers with an intermediate knowledge on macroeconomics. however it does not have much graphical explanations

That Stanley Booth is one of America's finest profile writers AND a close friend of Keith Richards should have ensured this biography would be a moving, essential read. Instead, it is sloppy and a little sad.
Most disappointing is the fact that a significant chunk of the material seems lifted from Booth's far superior "True Adventures of the Rolling Stones." Admittedly "True Adventures," is great source material, even when cannibalized. Unfortunately, Stones fans must still endure Booth's account of his first meeting with Mick Jagger in which songs such as "Backstreet Girl" and "Connection" are linked to the album "Beggars Banquet" rather than "Between the Buttons."
To be fair, accounts of Keith's childhood and adolescence are enlightening, as are some anecdotes from the '70s and '80s. But this is a book that needed re-thinking, or at least savvy editing. Those who want a fresh, revelatory biography on Keith, or a worthy example of music writing from Booth, will have to look elsewhere.

Stanley Booth bases his capability of writing keith richards' life on the fact that he 'lived in social intercourse with him'. although he manages to create few moments of intimacy, his book is more like a glance on the stones career through richards' eyes, rather than a true biography of keith. if you like to read the story of the stones, you would find Booth's previous book - 'the true adventures of the stones' - more complete. if you are interested in keith's biography, Victor bockris' book ( 'keith richards - the biography') is more focused. most of 'standing in the shadows' is based on conversations with keith. when not recycled, some of the quotes are valuable for those who, like me, find keith richards interesting.

Stanley Booth is overqualified, to say the very least, to write this biography of Keith Richards, the muscle behind the music of the Rolling Stones; having toured with the band in 1969, he chronicled the events leading up to their December, 1969 brush with darkness at Altamont. His focus here is not on the whole band, but on the Keith himself, the Human Riff, "the world's blackest white man" and the creator of such rock classics as "Jumping Jack Flash" and "Happy." This book draws heavily from previously published material - that's a drawback; however, said material is superior in almost every respect to just about anything else you'll find about the place, concerning rock music, American culture, sex, drugs, religion, and politics. Booth, a Southern boy, obviously loves how this Englishman took to his own heart the Mississippi Delta blues of black American musicians, and made it into something...else. Booth is not incapable of being critical towards his subject; he is unsparing in his criticisms of Keith's bull-in-a-china-shop lifestyle, his drug addictions and self-denial concerning his addiction problems, but mostly, this book celebrates the life, music, and adventures of the greatest living symbol of rock's defiant spirit.

As a struggling calculus student (ended up in calc I three times and calc II four times) I found the book at times to be difficult to understand and the many of the example problems seemed to skip over some of the steps. The worst part of the book was the solutions manual, which often bore little, if any, difference from the answers in the back of the book and was therefore largely a waste of money. In some cases, the back of the book provided more detailed solutions than the solutions manual. I originally took the course at a major institute of higher learning. I repeated calculus at a community college that used a different book. The other book was about twenty bucks cheaper and provided better examples and solutions in the solutions manual. Granted I was a poor (as in not good) student when I was a freshman, but the other book seemed much better.

A good book, esp. for new learners. The author tried to invoke intuition all the time by treating the subject in issue in an unformal way. Simply examples are called upon to show the motivations. Strict definition and proof are given later to make the text complete. This is exactly what I would need if I were studying calculus for the first time.

Overall, The writing is clear and consistent, thus make it a good textbook for both classroom use and self-study purpose. However, given the approach the author used, this book is not suitable for quick reference for those who have already learned the subject and just wish to revive the knowledge.

This collection presents more of the Mutual Broadcasting System's Holmes radio shows from a time after Rathbone and Bruce had left the show, as had writers Anthony Boucher and Dennis Green. Unlike the Simon & Schuster collections of tales from the Bruce/Rathbone era, this collection presents 12 consecutive tales in chronological order of presentation. Also, unlike the Simon & Schuster presentations, this collection dispenses with the pre- and post-story commentary. With the extra tape, they present three, rather than two, stories per cassette.

Every third story is an adaptation of a Conan Doyle story, so the quality of those stories is superb. When Meiser is left to her own devices in writing, she can produce very uneven work. "The Case of the Well Staged Murder" makes for satisfying listening, but "Professor Moriarty and the Diamond Jubilee" is quite contrived, and "New Years Eve in the Scilly Isles" is downright silly. A firebug is seen deserting a ship as it sails out of harbor. The Captain is radioed that the ship will probably go up in smoke at the stroke of twelve on New Years Eve. The lives of 2,000 passengers and crew hang in the balance. So does the Captain turn around and go back to port to unload the passengers and search for the time bombe? Nope. He sails on for 18 hours until he is far at sea and there is only an hour left until midnight. But Holmes arrives in a yacht just in the nick of time. This has my vote for the most contrived Holmes radio pastiche of all times.

John Stanley sounds more like Rathbone than Rathbone, and doesn't muff his lines as often. Alfred Shirley tries manfully, but he cannot quite convey the warmth of Bruce's Watson. The organ music is more subdued and not quite as annoying, but Meiser makes Holmes far too disagreeable. He is the rudest Holmes I have encountered, and very nearly the most conceited. I'm sure that on several occasions, the only thing that prevented Watson from inviting Holmes outside for fisticuffs was the fact that Holmes was an expert amateur boxer.

The 60 page booklet that comes with the collection is a gold mine of information for Holmes afficionados.

This text is very tough to read and follow. The style of the authors is tough to adjust to. And what can be explained easily, the authors go round and round and finally when the arrive at the explanation, you have already closed the book because you have a headache, or your head is whirling.

Use this if you have lots of time, and you can understand abstract and abstruse writing.

My only complaint about this play is that Shakespeare should have had some dialogues where the characters discussed crucial history before the play opens. Gloucester (murdered or dead before the play but mentioned several times) had tried to usurp Richard's crown too many times. History itself is not sure if Gloucester died or was murdered. Bolingbroke for a while conspired with Gloucester and now sees another oppurtunity to usurp the crown.The virtuous John of Gaunt served Richard with honor and integrity and eventually moved parliament into arresting Gloucester for treason. This would of made John of Gaunt's rages all the more valid. Otherwise this play is outstanding! Richard shows himself to be capable of ruling at times, but gains our contempt when he seizes his the honorable John of Gaunt's wealth. John of Gaunt's final rage in 2.1 is a passage of immense rageful beauty. Also, Shakespeare moves us into strongly suspecting that Richard had Gloucester murdered. However, despite Richard's crime, Shakespeare masterfully reverses our feelings and moves us into having deep pity for Richard when he is deposed. The Bishop of Carlisle (Richard's true friend) provides some powerful passages of his own. I can not overestimate the grace in which Shakespeare increases our new won pity for Richard when Bolingbroke (Gaunt's rightful heir) regains his wealth and the death of Gloucester is left ambiguous. 5.1, when Richard sadly leaves his queen and can see that Henry IV and his followers will eventually divide is a scene of sorrowful beauty. 5.4 is chilling when Exton plots Richard's murder. 5.5 is chilling and captivating when Richard dies but manages to take two of the thugs down with him. The icing on the cake is that Bolingbroke (Henry IV) can only regret his actions and realize that he has gotten himself into a troublesome situation. But that will be covered in "1 Henry IV" and "2 Henry IV." We can easily argue that it is in "Richard II" where we see Shakespeare's mastery of the language at its finest.

Richard II was incompetent, wastefully extravagant, overtaxed his nobles and peasants, ignored his senior advisors, and lavished dukedoms on his favorites. His rival, Henry of Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), was popular with the common man and undeservingly suffered banishment and loss of all his property. And yet two centuries later Elizabethans viewed the overthrow of Richard II as fundamentally wrong and ultimately responsible for 100 years of crisis and civil war. Queen Elizabeth's government even censored Shakespeare's play.

Shakespeare masterfully manipulates our feelings and attitude toward Richard II and Bolingbroke. We initially watch Richard II try to reconcile differences between two apparently loyal subjects each challenging the other's loyalty to the king. He seemingly reluctantly approves a trial by combat. But a month later, only minutes before combat begins, he banishes both form England. We begin to question Richard's motivation.

Richard's subsequent behavior, especially his illegal seizure of Bolingbroke's land and title, persuades us that his overthrow is justified. But as King Richard's position declines, a more kingly, more contemplative ruler emerges. He faces overthrow and eventual death with dignity and courage. Meanwhile we see Bolingbroke, now Henry IV, beset with unease, uncertainty, and eventually guilt for his action.

Shakespeare also leaves us in in a state of uncertainty. What is the role of a subject? What are the limits of passive obedience? How do we reconcile the overthrow of an incompetent ruler with the divine right of kings? Will Henry IV, his children, or England itself suffer retribution?

Richard II has elements of a tragedy, but is fundamentally a historical play. I was late coming to Shakespeare's English histories and despite my familiarity with many of his works I found myself somewhat disoriented. I did not appreciate the complex relationships between the aristocratic families, nor what had happened before. Fortunately I was rescued by Peter Saccio, the author of "Shakespeare's English Kings". Saccio's delightful book explores how Shakespeare's imagination and actual history are intertwined.

I hope you enjoy Richard II as much as I have. It is the gateway to Henry IV (Parts 1 and 2) and Henry V, all exceptional plays.

The thing with Shakespeare histories is that almost no one reads them, as opposed to his tragedies and comedies. I don't know why that is. The histories that are read are either Henry V (largely due to Branagh's movie), Richard III (because the hunchback king is so over-the-top evil), or the gargantuan trilogy of Henry VI, with the nearly saintly king (at least by Part III) who much prefers contemplating religion and ethics to ruling and dealing with the cabals among his nobles.

So why read a relatively obscure history about a relatively obscure king? Aside from the obvious (it's Shakespeare, stupid), it is a wonderful piece of writing - intense, lyrical, and subtle. Richard II is morally ambiguous, initially an arrogant, callous figure who heeds no warnings against his behavior. Of course, his behavior, which includes seizing the property of nobles without regard for their heirs, leads to his downfall. Nothing in his character or behavior inspires his subjects so he has no passionate defenders when one of the wronged heirs leads a rebellion to depose Richard II. But Richard now becomes a much more sympathetic figure -especially in the scene where he confronts the usurper, Richard acknowledges his mistakes, but eloquently wonders what happens when the wronged subjects can depose the leader when they are wronged. What then of the monarchy, what then of England?

On top of the profound political musings, you get some extraordinarily lyrical Shakespeare (and that is truly extraordinary). Most well known may be the description of England that was used in the airline commercial a few years back... "This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, ..."

If you like Shakespeare and haven't read this play, you've missed a gem.

I dont read this book yet!

Stanley's "green book" is an overview of a new aspect in commutative algebra:its links with combinatorics.Stanley,as one of the pionners on the subject,is the right one to give us this compendius.But,unfortunally,its hard to beguiners.

The editor, Andrew Ross, describes this book as "an expanded edition" of a special issue of the journal "Social Text". Potential readers should be warned however that it is also an expurgated edition, from which Alan Sokal's celebrated parody of of recent socio-cultural jargon has been suppressed. One understands Professor Ross's chagrin at the cruel and unusual joke that Professor Sokal practised on him. However, the unadvertised deletion of Sokal's contribution is a hoax on the buyers of "Science Wars" who naturally expect to find in it the one item of the original publication that has received worldwide attention.

The subsequent reviewer found the current tome missing in scholarship, merely by not having reprinted Sokal's piece from the social text issue of the same name (science wars). If one cared to read through the book, however, one would notice a number of quite specific reasons for this: among these that the book is meant as a counter argument to Sokal, Levitt & Gross's readings of their fave foe: pomos and other dangerous 'leftists' (what does this mean?). It is no secret that these authors are fired by a profound hostility and unwillingness to engage with the material with which they are dealing. This has already been shown ad nauseam in the litterature (see for instance Callon's review in social studies of science). Nevertheless this book stands as a nice response to some of the worst nonsense that has come out of the sokal/gross tradition. Specifically one should not miss Hart's devastating analysis of Gross et al's 'scientific neutrality' and their analytical abilities in Higher Superstition. Other pieces such as Mike Lynch's are good too; some however, are merely perpetuating the current stand off in a nasty 'war' (among these both of Ross's pieces). So is this review, I presume. That said, I should stop. Read both sides before you judge, you might get to know a good bit about rhetorical wars from the putatively neutral and objective scientists (sokal, gross, koertge etc).

Even the title is absurd and insulting, giving new meaning to the word "unbelievable". Results of mythical "U.S. leadership" in the region are factually documented in the reports of Amnesty International and the professional work of journalists such as Henry Kamm (Cambodia: Report from a Stricken Land),Nate Thayer, David Chandler,Elizabeth Becker, Robert Templer, even Bui Tin. This one is worth its cost only as a humorous novelty of the times in which we live. A sadly delusional effort by His Excellency Richard H. Solomon.

This book covers a great topic that hasn't been addressed in published materials very much. But, it needs some re-writing to be more readable. The first chapter in particular is poorly done. Chapters 2-4 are better, and again 5 is poorly done. The authors attempt to explain the role of gender during the 1990 gubernatorial elections in Texas. At many times, they sound just as confused as the elections were that year. Their general conclusion is that Ann Richards won because Claytie lost! That is probably an accurate conclusion, but their material that attempts to show the role of gender rambles, and does not just get to the point. Please edit and re-publish!