Those who dismiss this book as non-economic I fear are stuck within narrow definitions, as opposed to the more human-based origins of the word economics (from oikonomia, home management). It is this narrow definition that is prone to the boom-bust cycles Galbraith discusses in earlier historical works on the history of modern economics, and is part ofthe current recessional problem.

This book is a cry for human-based economics, and would be a good book study or resource for businesses, community organizations, or churches around North America.

Galbraith himself, aside from being a Professor Emeritus of economics at Harvard, has a great deal of familiarity with the country's political landscape, having been, among other things, a former US Ambassador to India. His familiarity with Washington politics in both parties comes through with striking clarity. At times he need only to refer to a Senator or Congressman obliquely for me to know exactly who he speaks of. Economically, as well, the book sparkles with a cynicism and perpetual questioning of whether or not economic interests control political ones. Even his academic knowledge is impressive - it's obviously that he is both very fond and somewhat sardonic of Harvard at the same time - but it is not so much a book about academics as it is about the direction of our country.

If it struggles anywhere, this book struggles with it's own style. Galbraith is obviously highly intelligent and an accomplished economist. He is not, however, first a novelist. This becomes apparent when he has to push the plot along from time to time in with forced dialogue or grope for it within his satirical meanderings. However, he has enough experience with the novel as a form that it never grinds to a halt.

In spite of it's form - or maybe because of it, this book does have an important comment to make about the interplay between politics and economics in the United States today. He does so so effectively, in fact, that you worry where satire leaves off and cynical reality begins. I found myself reading this book hoping for the former and worrying over the latter. I would recommend anyone with an interest in modern history or the process of government-running to read this and judge for themselves.

A Tenured Professor is a great read for those of us who find the financial markets fascinating.

The plot weaves events and interactions of a professor who discovers a formula for predicting and profiting from others' irrational investment behavior. Using a host of funny and realistic characters, Galbraith shows how economic insight can cause some humorous personal problems.

And the insight for us trader wannabe's? Can't tell -- it would spoil the story!

The 20th is ending and the era of "ivory tower egghead" is coming ot a close. The preeminent egghead is Professor Galbraith and this books is a clarion call of a out of touch egghead socialist. Buy it for records.

As a former student of economics and history, only when one leaves the university does one realize none of these people have ever had a "real" job so much as working McDonald. Tenure has given them lifelong employment-what in China is called the "iron rice bowl".

Professor Galbraith has written over 30 books. However, has this man ever open a business, work at a private company, try to make a product or services that the people want and need.

Academica and Government are havens for those who want job security, lifetime employment and insulation from the marketplace and the "customer".

Professor is the ultimate egghead socialist and dreams up fantasies where everyone lives "fulfiling life" with jobs, health care, and education. The Soviet Union and China failed miserably building stagnant socialist economies and the whole world is moving from a planned economy to a market economy. This books by Professor Galbraith is a testament to "ivory tower egghead" who refuse to confront reality. Never mind the "egghead" refuses to get a real job where they have to actually work for a living.

I recommend all to buy this book. Agree or Disagree. This book is a final testament of the greatest "egghead" of them all and how the world is moving to markets and totally bypasses them and yet they continue to champion socialism and collectivism: ideas that are going the way of the dinosour.

Included, are flouro images of each simple and complex procedure performed.

I highly recommend this manual to any radiologic technologist, interventional pain management physician, orthopedist, neurosurgeon and physical medicine and rehabilitation physician.

Radiology departments everywhere should have at least one copy for those technologists who are asked to participate in any injection or implantation procedure.

The cost of this easy-to-use book is paid for in a few days of using it!

I would recommend a book like Freedman's Statistics or Moore and McCabe for an intro stats textbook.

The authors are well known statisticians with the credentials to produce such a book. Both Stout and Marden teach in the Statistics Department of the University of Illinois. The book came out in 1999 and is already in its third edition. I finally got a copy of the third edition that just came out so this is a review of the third edition... The idea of starting beginning students out with simulated and real data sets instead of mathematical models is a good one. The auithors execute this well. They are not doing it because they lack the capability to handle probability models. Stout has published in the top probability and statistics journals for years and has published several advanced books! Marden is no slouch either.

Also I have not taught this way yet myself, I believe it can be done successfully and such an approach can be beneficial to the students. I have taught bootstrap confidence intervals as part of an elementary statistics course for health science majors and I do think that the bootstrap percentile method confidence intervals are more easily understandable than the paraqmetric ones to these students and I suspect that other concepts based on resampling will also be more understandable to them. So I am surprised that the other amazon reviewer found that the approach didn't work. All I can say is that it works at UCLA and I think it could work for me too using this text as the vehicle.

The authors start out in Chapter 1 with descriptive data including histograms, stem and leaf charts and pie charts. In Chapter 2 the cover measures of centrality and spread and in Chapter 3 relationships among variables. All this is covered without reliance on statistical models which are first introduced in Chapter 4. All important topics are covered and they make good use of cartoons and graphics much like Freedman's book "Statistics". Difficult topics are not avoided but are marked as optional. It has a large number of problem sets with explained solutions in the back of the book.

I would love to teach out of this book.

Some of it is very useful, but the majority of the book isn't--particularly the architectural guidelines. I realize there can be more than one way to do things. This book, however, takes a very different path towards getting things done and doesn't seem to fit with the recommended design and architectural guidelines from other Microsoft Press titles.

If you are new to distributed programming, this might be an eye-opener for you. However, be prepared to take the road less traveled if you following this book. If you're experienced in distributing programming, you will likely disagree with how the application is designed.

For example, why aren't type datasets used? Perhaps there is a good reason for this, but it isn't in the book.

I agree with the first reviewer--some of the book is quite useful, the REST is junk.

I say intermediate - the book is 450 pages. You could easly do a 450 page book on each topic, but I like how the authors used all of these techniques in one consise example.

I wrote this partially to take issue with the last reviewer who called the code "junk". That is way too harsh. I have found the sample app quite usefull - a great introduction on .NET N-Tier design and programming. As a learning tool, this book succeeds. I don't believe it was written to be the last word on OOP, coding standards or app design. Or to be an advanced text.

I can reccomend this to anyone armed with the basics of ASP.NET and VB.NET who wants to move into OOP concepts and N-Tier design in their web pages.

There are hundreds of ways to develop software, but Spencer, Eberhard and Alexander have done a great job illustrating one approach that is very practical for an enterprise enviroment. This book shows goes over many of the steps in software development and how to design the many tiers using .NET inheritance and reusing of code.

My company name is Wharton Computer Consulting and we have been developing software for nearly a decade. I have read over a hundred technical books and have over 20 Microsoft Certifications. This book will allow me to spend less time going over how code should be done. During my technical reviews I will be able to point to chapters in this book on how it should be done.

I have also taught at several university's and this will now be my recommended book for students interested in learning how to develop using .NET.

This is my favorite period of British history and the one with which I am most familiar, but still, I found the text confusing. I think there were several misplaced lines of type in the second half. Maybe a writer can't do much in 70 pages to elucidate a period, and probably the illustrations would have distracted from the sketchy text. The writing was not lively.

The very last section is called "Intellectual and Religious Life," but it was mostly about religious life. Literature is almost totally ignored throughout the volume. Pepys is never mentioned.

There is no index. Perhaps the complete, one-volume version has an index, and the publisher didn't want to go to the trouble of compiling indexes for the individual volumes. Still, a history book without an index is unthinkable.

On the whole, the book was disappointing.

(1) It doesn't have an author. Instead, it has a bunch of authors, each apparently assigned a certain portion of British history to cover. The problem is that none of the authors seem to have consulted each other, nor did the editor seem to edit. On every other page, you see a fact or definition repeated (by a previous author), or a topic referenced (but uncovered by a previous author). History is a messy thing, but it has to be organized to be learned, and any hope of presenting material in terms of themes or movements is lost, because styles and approaches switch radically from author to author, from clear and sparse, to confusing and overly-detailed.

(2) It should have an author. This sounds like point (1), but hear me out: the editor, Mr. Morgan, claims that writing grand history, spanning the length of the British past, just can't be written anymore. It is better, rather, to have specialists write about their specialities. Sounds good in theory, but is just abominable when placed next to comprehensive histories written by single authors. Toynbee and Trevleyan wrote such history earlier. And J. Roberts writes such history now, particularly his History of Europe, and History of the World, two models of lucid historical writing that make this disjointed compilation look like an ill-considered mishmash.

(3) It should have an audience. Or at least a different audience: the average intelligent reader wants a clean, interesting exposition of the important events and currents of the past. While some chapters achieve that, the most seem to be written not to the Average Reader, but to the Rival Colleague. And so we see a few facts casually presented, and then a sudden digression into some piece of scholarly minutae that leaves the reader (me, that is) pexplexed.

(4) It should teach historical knowledge, not assume it. This is one of those histories that assumes from the onset that you know all the relevant history. That might be OK for a narrow scholarly article, but it's an awful presumption for a comprehensive history. I read dozens of pages discussing the 'Domesday Book,' its importance, and its effects. The authors never thought to enlighten the ignorant, and explain what this Domesday Book was (an very old tax survey). Things like this litter every page.

From previous reading, I've learned that good history can be written. From reading this, I've learned that very bad history can be written, too.

The chapters of this book are all written by different authors, each one clearly an expert on the subject of his individual chapter. The authors do not agree on their audience. For instance, Gillingham's chapter on the early middle ages was clearly written, had several maps and followed a timeline before ending with a thematic look at the economy and political structure of the period. The very next chapter, Griffiths' chapter on the late middle ages, skips around by dozens of years within a single paragraph, mentions towns in France without maps and assumes foreknowledge of the battles of the Hundred Year war. Unfortunately, this book contains more chapters like the latter than the former.

I suspect that a European or an American with a basic familiarity of British history would find this a very useful intermediate level book with which to learn or re-discover an overview of Britain. The handiness of one volume written by many experts providing an overview of such a long history is what is right with this book. To those with some background in the subject, this book will be extremely convenient and useful. For someone without European geographic knowledge or a recognition of the figures in British history, even a patient and attentive reading will lead to frustrating hunts for the background of many important figures mentioned once within the narrative and to pointless searches through inadequate maps.

comments and segues within the text itself which
highlight and explain Ruskin's insights and evolving
creativity. Ruskin's writings are so extensive and
fill so many volumes, that though there may be a
few overlaps of same excerpts in various collections,
they are usually at a minimum. That is why I was
glad to purchase several different collections of
his writings -- and so far, there is more than
enough new material in each one to have made the
purchases valuable.
One of the quotes which I especially like from this
volume is this one:
"For the artist who sincerely chooses the
noblest subject will also choose chiefly to
represent what makes that subject noble,
namely, the various heroism or other noble
emotions of the persons represented. If,
instead of this, the artist seeks only to make
his picture agreeable by the composition of its
masses and colours, or by any other merely
pictorial merit, as fine drawing of limbs, it
is evident, not only that any other subject
would have answered his purpose as well, but that
he is unfit to approach the subject he has chosen,
because he cannot enter into its deepest meaning,
and therefore cannot in reality have chosen it
for that meaning." [from MODERN PAINTERS III;
p.100 in Everyman]