As a college Accounting student I found this book extremely useful in explaining the US tax laws in a way I could easily understand. Many "real-life" examples make the reading meaningful.

VERY easy read. Can understand, if that is possible, the tax laws and procedures

After checking out the book for couple hours in the Book store. I realized why some one would want to create a simple Window by writing extensive API code, which takes about 15 lines, when you can do it in delphi by visually creating it (Chapter 1). I was hoping they would cover Windows Messages as opposed to APIs which Borland takes care of them with their wrappers. I personally I find this book neither helpful nor informative at all.

I cannot find out for an expert trick or undocumented windows API. I expected more about this book ! Badluck for me :( But , It may OK for some beginner programmer , who know ?

I believe, it's on every Delphi programmer to concentrate on this book.

This book offers an explanation of the market dynamics during the late 1920's; and helps the reader understand how people may have gotten swept up in the speculative frenzy that lead to the 1929 crash. It also covers the aftermath that ensued.

Quick enjoyable read. Recommended.

Particularly interesting to read while one can watch our own financial markets exhibit seemingly speculative behaviors.

Somebody on comp.software.year-2000 urged me to read this Galbraith volume because, he noted, "the parallels with current economic conditions -- with an out-of-control, logic-defying stock market, and happy-face government posturing in face of obvious disaster -- make it a must read." Fine. I bought this book 2 weeks ago on amazon (I'm a regular) and just finished.

True, the parallels are there. And I highly recommend the work if nothing more than to highlight in the reader's mind the elements of human nature that insure that we will always have depressions -- every 70 years or so ... secula seculorum... but in a small way, I expected more.

I find Galbraith (author of some 20 works on economics) to lack an emotional, visceral style that should have enunciated a polished telling of this critical set of events - (I say "set" because although October 24, 1929, or "Black Thursday" may have set events in motion... the bottom did not come until July, 1932). To borrow from Trekkies, if I may, I felt like I was following a history lesson from a Vulcan history professor. The chronology was well placed and organized, but there was nothing to help me "feel" the event.

Nonetheless, I appreciated the referral and the read. And I think that this work will have even more renewed interest when the world investment community eventually comes to grips with the lack of rationale in supporting stock values whose P/E ratios stretch well into infinity.

Greg Caton Lumen Foods (soybean.com) caton@soybean.com March 14, 1999

Why do the laissez-faire apologists wax so apoplectic about John Kenneth Galbraith? Because he punctures the myth of permanent economic expansion with such merciless glee. This work offers incredible insight into the social psychology that tempted so many Americans to bet their all on a quick fortune in the stock market during the 1920s -- and the blind panic that drove the market into a headlong freefall when thousands of suckers realized, too late, that they'd been had.

You have one guy, posting under different names, who has gone through Galbraith's entries on this site, trying to trash the man's reputation through innuendo and outright lies. Read his works for yourself. I think you'll find that Galbraith outclasses the dead apologists for the Hapsburg empire (Von Mises and Hayek)and their modern-day apostles, whose fury rises higher and higher as more people reject their mindless, far right-wing propaganda.

Just an FYI, these books are based on Stargate the movie and not Stargate SG-1 the TV series, which is much better than the movie. SG-1 expands on the different worlds that could be dialed up on the Stargate which could- and does lead to all kinds of adventures, making the TV series much more interesting especially with the excellent choice for of a cast.
This is the final book out of 5 in the series. The problem that I have is that the whole book series is very drawn out with various sub plots that could have been shortened and probably bring the series to 3 books instead of 5. I also find this series somewhat more bland then the SG-1 series because of the lack of the other characters. All in all it was still interesting reading and I am glad I did.

What some folks may not be aware of is that the SG-1 series was based on the hit movie Stargate. In my opinion, the movie was far superior to the series and the novels that continue the movie thread (not the series) also reflect this.

If you are a fan of the tv series and never saw the movie (or like the series more than the film that started it all), then stick with the SG-1 books based on the tv show because this book will not carry over some of your favorite characters from the show - except the originals that came from the film (and will carry over their characteristics, not the ones reflected in the show). If you are a fan of the movie then definitely pick up this series of books.

Unfortunately, some of the other reviews here of this book appear to be by fans of the tv series who expected this book to be a continuation of this show...and actually thought the book was based on the series. The book says right on the cover that it is based on the characters created by Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich, the writers of the movie. These two creative people are not involved in the tv series (which is too bad because I would probably watch it more if they were).

So if you want a great read that continues the story started in the movie then pick the whole series up. If you are expecting a book that is based on the show then you'll be disappointed.

This book is a rush. The story is suspenseful the whole way through. I hope there is another book but i'm glad we got five great ones continueing the stargate tradition.

I found this to be an excellent book for those with a physics phobia. All theories are explained using simple mathematics thus making it easier to understand. There are several questions worked out with thorough explinations in every chapter and the text explains how each new idea is related to other concepts learned earlier in the book and/or chapter.

There are couple of weaknesses in this text that stand out in my mind. First, there is a section in each chapter that quizes you on conceptual questions but there are no answers in the back of the book making it difficult to be certian about your work. Second, the web page associated with this book is riddled with errors and is not much of a tool. In spite of these problems I would recomend it to someone just starting physics.

This is an excellent book for a high school level physics course or a less than rigorous Physics I course at the college level. It contains no math beyond algebra/trig. For a more rigorous treatment, the book to get is the Serway/Beichner text.

I originally found this book in a local library while I was looking for a text to help my daughter with her homework. I found it to be extremely well written with clear language and examples that were well matched to the concepts being explained. I would recommend it as a reference for all students and anyone who needs to refresh concepts in general Physics topics.

This is NOT a mathematical book. It looks like a bad's students cheat-sheet. I don't know how they can learn math in England from this? Especially, when their undergraduate studies are only 3 years (actually, 3 x 8months < 3years). Conclusion: do not study in England.

I've bought this book to learn the mathematics I need for physics. I'm a high school student (currently, but I plan to study physics). I'm interested in physics and learn it on my own. This book has help understand (and solve) mathematics needed for physics. I used it to learn mathematics, now I use it for reference. A great book.

As a physicist I'm constantly scrambling to my bookcases to look something up. This text sits at the top of my shelves and is used more often than any other. I give it 5 stars as a reference text, however I cannot really rate it as a 'learning' mathematical methods text (maybe 3 stars?) since most of the methods are familiar to me.

I really agree with everything the previous review wrote (Jon Davidson, August 8). It is rare that someone already wrote most of what I thought. The only difference is that I think the book is more in the range of 3 stars than 4.

When I started reading this book, I had to check the copywrite date. I know I had seen and/or read the opening scene somewhere before, and more than once. A submarine is hi-jacked. That has been done a number of times before. Most recently in a movie about a German sub (U-571?) and earlier in a Steven Segal movie. And the action is always the same, shooting people coming up/down the ladder, trapping people in the hallway and capturing the crew in the bunks and mess.

But, the book starts out strong as our hero (Jake Grafton from earlier Coonts books) plays detective and follows clues. The detective story is fairly strong. And there is a subplot with a burglar who turns into a spy that is very engaging.

However, the detective story finally loses out when the sub starts launching missiles and causing catastrophic events. Ever since Tom Clancy nuked the Superbowl and blew up the Whitehouse, everyone has to go one better. Threat of disaster is no longer good enough. You have to have destroy something to show menace.

The end really peters out, with the heroes and their wives on the Love Boat while America is being attacked. It is all handled like a light adventure, even after the wives are captured and about to be killed.

What is even worse, is how Coonts tries to make the main Russian badguy and his partner as sympathetic, likeable characters. They have murdered tons of seamen and civilians, but you are supposed to like them because they took mercy on some other people. I am betting that they turn up in future books and eventually become good guys.

In spite of the bad points, it is still interesting to read, especially in the beginning. It is certainly better than any of the latest Clancy books.

Stephen Coonts must be one of the most inconsistent technothriller authors writing today. He has produced one true classic in the genre - "Flight Of The Intruder" - and ever since, the ride for the reader is one of ups and downs. His track record has been to pen one or two so-so or outright bad novels, then get serious and fire off a gem. So, in between good reads such as "The Red Horseman" and "The Intruders", we are also served clunkers such as "Final Flight" and "Cuba". It has become such that a "buyer beware" tag should accompany every Coonts novel, just to be on the safe side.

Fortunately, after the debacle that was "Cuba" and the tepid "Hong Kong", he got down to business and wrote "America", which turned out to be a pretty darn good story. The plot that Mr. Coonts lays out - that of a hijacked, top-of-the-line sub and the havoc it wreaks on the Eastern Seaboard - is unique in this genre that has grown to be jammed with Tom Clancy-lookalike plots.

After a prologue that will eventually tie into the main plot, Mr. Coonts doesn't waste any time diving headlong into the action, leaping right into a gripping opening sequence in which the submarine "America" is hijacked. Enter hero Jake Grafton, tasked to find out who the bad guys are and to figure out a way to get the sub back. Grafton begins his sleuthing amidst the missile attacks, and deals with a Russian operative who may not be all he seems to be. The pages fly by as the plot unfolds, leaving the reader wondering how everything will tie up in what is sure to be a riveting conclusion.

Except that the conclusion sort of fizzles out. I would echo the sentiment of another reviewer in that the final 100 pages seemed to be written as if Mr. Coonts had run out of gas and was coasting the rest of the way home on vapors. Suddenly the pace slowed, and some of the side stories are mostly wrapped up in an all-too quick and "tidy" way as a means of falling into the solution of the main plotline. This is followed by the climatic confrontation with the bad guys, which is curiously set aboard a cruise ship and leads to a "happily ever after" sort of ending that seems all too clean and sterile, given the story that had led to this point. The cruise ship element felt way out of place, and only seemed to serve the purpose of making sure the characters of Callie, Toad, and Rita had some print space in this story where they were otherwise largely ignored (and not missed by this reader).

I wavered back and forth on rating this at three stars or four; it really could have gone either way. In the end, though, I gave "America" four stars because - conclusion aside - it was an entertaining book. Additionally, when evaluated with his other work, "America" was a far better effort by Mr. Coonts.

I can only hope that his next book is as good or better, but given his track record over the years, we'll have to wait and see. The good ones tend to be few and far between.

A definite improvement over the previous Grafton novel, CUBA. Coonts hooks you in the first couple chapters as a new SDI satellite goes missing before it can achieve orbit. If that weren't bad enough, a group of Russian and German mercenaries hijack the most advanced submarine in the world, the USS America. Some pretty good action scenes. I liked how Coonts brought out the sense of disaster when Tomahawks armed with electro-magnetic warheads are used on major American cities. Good job on the characters. The most memorable had to be Kolnikov, the Russian who hijacks America. A stern skipper who at the same time always levels with his crew. He's super shrewd and often times doesn't seem to care if he lives or dies. Jake Grafton comes off as an everyman with one heck of an important job that at times can feel overwhelming. Still he tackles it full bore. USMC Commendant Flap Le Beau was another guy to get behind. Not a uniformed butt kisser, but a leatherneck through and through who's not afraid to do grunt work. My one complaint is there was not enough of Grafton's right hand man, Toad Tarkington. The guy is great for comic relief.

Good story with good characters. Nice intrigue and countermoves. The climax on the cruise ship and America rocked!

I often ponder the meaning of life. I often consider what experiences I might accomplish over the course of my life. And I also consider those experiences I hope not to accomplish. Certainly, I wish reading Locke's essay had been on the latter list. This book is an exhibition of human wastelandism. If your hope is to become truly stupider, I suggest you read this breakthrough in stupidity and worthless Babel. And then eat the book. And then vomit the book up, and burn the book/vomit. And vow never to read another one of Locke's filth-bombs.

John Locke's 1698 "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" is one of the foundational texts of Western philosophy. It is a phenomenal enquiry into how and why people become functional individuals. Bringing into philosophy a developmental model of personal becoming, Locke drilled pre-Berkeleyan common sense into a growing capitalist nation, one which was already moving away from the absolutist model of government and viewing self in the world espoused by Thomas Hobbes in "Leviathan." While clearly building on and stepping on his predecessors, most notably Hobbes and Rene Descartes, Locke deals broadly with ideas, language, and how people come into knowledge, and sets the stage for a new phase of philosophy entering the 18th century.

Locke begins the "Essay" by rejecting and dispensing with the notion of "innate ideas," which basically says that we are born in possession of certain principles, elements of knowledge, or maxims that help us orient ourselves in the world. Through long and drawn out (one downside of Locke is his insistency on detail and repetition) examples and arguments, he attempts to prove that when we are born, we have absolutely nothing intelligence-wise, to recommend us. This is what is popularly referred to as the 'tabula rasa' theory, that when first born, our minds are like "empty cabinets" or "white sheets" of paper - which experience and experience only furnishes with our ideas about the world. His goal here is to get people to question their assumptions about the world, to ask questions and decide for themselves based on reason and experience, how best to interact with the world.

Locke says that the only two sources of all human knowledge are sensation (that information which is passively thrust upon our senses) and reflection (when we consider and think about that sense data, and about our own thoughts). From these "simple ideas," we are able to combine and recombine thoughts to form "complex ideas" and use clear and distinct language to express them to other people. This social aspect of this philosophy is something that really fascinated me about Locke. While focusing on the individual's growing base of knowledge, he is all the while trying to orient people to functioning in society. Saying that the end of all knowledge serves two purposes, viz., honouring God, and being morally responsible, Locke goes on to show how human life often works counter to these goals, with a view to correcting them.

Another of his famous formulations, one all too familiar to Americans, as part of our national idealism, is that the basic state of nature of humanity consists in the "pursuit of happiness." Compared to Hobbes, for whom the state of nature consisted in the attempt to attain greater and greater power over others, Locke's state of nature seems relatively benign - however, he goes to great lengths to show how the pursuit of happiness often leads to reckless and wanton behaviours, ultimately destructive both to self and society. The idea that we must examine our desires and discipline them to the greater good is something that many of us lose sight of, and is an element central to his system.

Briefly then, a couple of other items that might be of interest to someone thinking about picking up Locke's "Essay": His philosophy of language is one that still has currency and influence on linguistic theory all the way to Saussure and the post-structuralists; Locke's manner of addressing cultural and gender diversity is progressive, but vexed, which makes for fascinating work in trying to determine his stances toward non-white European males. Locke's constant invocation of gold in his examples can be maddening, which can only mean that there is some significance therein; and finally, his other hobby-horse, so-called "monstrous births" and their status in the human race bears heavily and still importantly on the debate over a woman's right to choose. All this and so much more awaits you - over 600 pages of Lockean goodness. Beware though, Locke is extremely repetitive and can get bogged down in what, for us to-day, may seem common sense notions. But this is quintessential reading, nonetheless, for everyone interested in the formation of the modern self.

The most important book in the History of Western Philosophy. Anyone wishing to understand the western tradition will have to grapple with this work eventually.

Its not that Locke got everything right, but he does at least point us in the right direction.

If you agree with Galbraith's notions on economics you may find this a seminal work. If you disagree with him you will no where find a better spar for your own ideas. (Friedman spent an entire book analyzing Galbraith) Love it or hate it The Affluent Society looms large in American economic thought of the 20th century. The book itself is dedicated primarily to re-assessing the role of production in an economy of increasing affluence. Economics long ago acquired the unhappy designation as "the dismal science." This was derived from the observation by all famous early economists that economic life for the masses was inevitably harsh. Ricardo, Smith, and Marx all agreed that while a minority might enjoy abundance the majority were doomed to struggle for their very economic survival. As early as the 1950s Galbraith made the very simple point that the economic prospects of the masses are no longer dark. The average worker could (and still does) expect reasonable wages, a constant supply of luxury goods, and free time to enjoy these things. The modern economy is no longer a battle for simple survival but rather one over what an individual's share of excess production should be. Some reviewers have commented that the specifics in The Affluent Society have become dated. Indeed automotive tail-fins are no longer the common automotive add-on they once were, but the underlying questions remain valid. In the economy of 150 years ago to claim that suffering was inevitable seemed fair, for it was the state of the masses. In the economy of the present where economic deprivation is no longer the norm, to claim some must suffer while the majority live in relative affluence suddenly appears cruel.
A social scientist who argued the changes of the last 200 years were not relevant to analysis would be laughed at in any other field. Unequivocably our economic priorities have changed during that time. The Affluent Society provides a history of that change, a look at how our failure to adapt has led to a number of social problems, and suggests how we might better organize economic priorities in the present. It is no small acheivement.

The Affluent Society was a term to describe the United States after World War II. An Affluent Society is rich in private resources but poor in public ones because of a misplaced priority on increasing production in the private sector. John Kenneth Galbraith argued that the U.S. should shift resources to improve schools, the infrastructure, recreational resources, and social services providing a better standard of life instead of mor and more consumer goods. The term is now used to indicate prosperity, wide spread I shouldn't tell you any more or it would spoil your experience when you read it. It was a great book. John Galbraith game some great opinions which he truly believed in. I would reccomend this book to anyone who is into American history.

Forget the fact that Galbraith is more readable than any other economist ever, this is an important work, full of insights into not only the condition of the post WWII economy, but also the history of economic thought and why economists think the way they do (and avoid thinking about real issues). Most economic theory is based on the notion of scarcity, yet we live in a society of generalized affluence. The economy changed, and continues to change, yet orthodox economists are, for the most part, still thinking about the economy as if it was 1800. As relevant today as it was when it first came out. I became an economist because of this book (though not an orthodox one).

C. Clark