Unlike the other reviewers who have commented favourably, I found this to be an appallingly bad text. Although Schildt states that Visual Studio .NET is required, all examples are text based. There is not one example in the book that makes use of a form or even a MessageBox dialogue. Everything is written to the console using Console.Writeline and can be coded using a simple text editor. What a waste of the excellent Visual Studio IDE.

The examples are extremely tedious and are reminiscent of a C unit I did some 12 years ago on a Unix box. Come to think of it the whole book looks like a boilerplate job with C# syntax thrown in and a couple of original chapters on OO.

The saddest thing of all is that the text is completely devoid of humour or any sort of personality and as mentioned before the 1-2 page code examples are excruciatingly boring.

Apart from the above, everything else was terrific :) Do yourself a favour and look at alternatives such as John Smiley (Learn to Program with C#) or even John Sharp (Microsoft Visual C# .Net Step by Step).

After glancing through many books at Borders, this is the only book that seems to be great for the absolute beginner. I highly recommend this book to a beginning programmer such as myself. Don't think you are going to learn the whole language from this book either, it teaches you the basics. If you want to start learning C#, go for it!

Firstly I can't easily locate anywhere on the book where it's says Visual Studio .Net is required. Because it isn't. In fact I'd suggest with this work, it's probably a bit of a hinderance, since the entire book uses no graphical elements. A freeware c# editor is probably just the ticket (try before you buy! Why fork outcash to MS for VS .Net anyhow?).

To the book.

This books covers a considerable amount of c# (I have a programmers introcution to c# by Deitler and Deitel and Schildt covers topics here that aren't covered there). Right up to Delegates, namespaces and such.

Let's face it, you're looking at this book because you're a beginner. Well this book is written for the beginner with lots of exercises, tips (with ALL the answers!) and mastery tests so you are encouraged to use the learning you have accumulated. And as I said, all the answers are there so if you struggle with an exercise, crack the back and reverse engineer the method. So you're never dumped into a situation where you're truly alone and without help. Herb is always there. This is a good thing for the novice, so you don't feel discouraged and quit.

This book is very easy to read, very focused and very explanatory. I would suggest that if you can't get the concepts of C# as they are presented in this book, with a reasonable amount of effort on your part, then you probably never will. Ultimately that is what it comes down to: effort, direction, purpose and a sense of achievement to keep persisting with whatever it is you're trying to learn. Herb gives you that (all but the effort). If you don't finish this book, feel a sense of accomplishment and feel justifiably knoweable and capable in the basics of C# I'd be surprised. Put the effort in, let Herb teach you and you'll ge there and in good time too. It's cheap as well!

The is a work rich with examples and through explanations of the examples, with elaboration on the point the example is trying to make (also teaches you some clever tricks now and then). Well, okay, this book will NOT teach you the graphical side of c#. But learn the basics (Properly) and then go on and do that and excell at that because you do have a strong grasp of the basics. This is what this book gives you- the basics as promised by the title.

I've used it. I learnt a LOT from it. I like it. And it is a good price! So it isn't thousand page brick...A 500 page book stuff full of good stuff that will be all read is better 1000 pages tome of crap that get's dumped halfway through.

That's my opinion.

This book is yet another nitpicking attack on Derek Freeman that, as usual, treats disagreements on interpretation and judgment as if they were huge errors in concrete facts that discredited Freeman.

Martin Orans implicirly admits that Samoan society was as Derek Freeman depicts it (puritanical, authoritarian, unequal, and punitive) and was not as Margaret Mead depicted it (relaxed, sexually free, egalitarian, and permissive).

Orans makes it sound as if he had proven Freeman wrong or dishonest on key matters of fact, when the actual substance of his accusation is a mere disagreement with Freeman on motives, purpose, beliefs and intentions, a topic on which neither Orans nor Freeman have any special qualifications.

The substance of Freeman's criticism is that Mead, and the anthropology profession, presented an account of Samoa that was radically false

Orans writes as if showing Freeman wrong on the issue of whether Mead was hoaxed exculpates Mead, and anthropology. It does not. Orans writes as if he is accusing Freeman of important errors of fact and substance, but when we look at the actual details he is merely accusing Freeman of attributing incorrect thoughts and intentions to Mead's actions, issues on which the truth cannot be known, and is difficult to even define, issues on which neither Freeman nor Orans have any special qualifications or ability.

Given that Mead's depiction of Samoa was untrue, and was widely accepted and taught by the anthropological profession, as Orans implicitly admits, we must conclude that Mead, and the anthropological profession, are either fools or liars, and most likely something of both. Deciding where self deception ends, and deliberate deception of others begins, is more a job for a priest than a job for anthropologist, so if Freeman has got it wrong, as Orans argues that he got it wrong, that is both unsurprising and unimportant.

Orans writes as if Freeman's weakness on the question of the extent to which Mead was hoaxed show Freeman as a bad scientist, but rather than condemning Freeman as a bad scientist, the evidence and arguments presented in this book merely condemn him as bad priest, a condemnation that is probably accurate, but hardly surprising.

Orans argues that Margaret Mead, and the entire anthropological profession, was somehow being scientific and responsible in presenting a politically motivated image of Samoa that was clearly false, and that they were well aware it was false, and that Freeman is somehow unscientific and irresponsible in presenting an image of Samoan society that is clearly true.

Freeman argues that the Mead, and the entire anthropological profession, were hoaxed largely due their strong desire to be self deceived. If, as Orans argues, they were not hoaxed, that does not make the falsehoods that they presented about Samoa any less of a hoax, it merely makes them more guilty of wickedness, but less guilty of stupidity.

Neither Orans or Freeman are trained to distinguish between wickedness and stupidity.. It is not their job.

If Orans's position on Mead being hoaxed is correct, and Freeman's position is wrong, then the conclusion we should draw is not that Mead is right, but that she was a liar and not a victim of self deception. The hoax is Freeman's excuse for Mead's behavior, not the substance of his attack on Mead, thus for Orans to attack Freeman on this issue of Mead being hoaxed as if it was the substance of his accusation, as if refuting it exculpated Mead and anthropology, is irrelevant and deceptive, an attempt to manipulate the reader. If Orans is right on this issue, and Freeman is wrong, we should think worse of Mead, and of Anthropology and anthropologists in general, not better.

Derek Freeman's absurd, non-scientific attacks on Margaret Mead's early work are handily skewered by Orans in this study. That ANY scientist's work should be expected to weather 70 yesrs of subsequent scholarship and methodological developments is completely ridiculous, but Freeman uses this ploy as a way to attack not only Mead but all of anthropology that does not share his sociobiological bias. It is indeed those who believe in culture as a shaping force in human life that are Freeman's true target, and Orans exposes him for the blaggard that he is. It is noteworthy that Freeman's attack was not published until after Mead's death, so he is a coward to boot. Mead's pioneering works are now coming to the fore as the precursors to many significant modern trends such as collaborative research, media studies and cultural studies. Her contributions are far from dead, and will live long after Freeman's silly attack is forgotten. Bravo to Orans for exposing this fraud.

Anthropologists have been in damage control since Derek Freeman published Margaret Mead and Samoa (1983). Although Mead had long since ceased to be a research leader, Freeman linked her high standing with anthropology's research paradigm and threw both to the sharks. Anthropologists thus found themselves in the compromised position of defending a study of only historical interest, in order to save face. In the latest episode of the contest, Freeman inflicted a grave wound. Mead got Samoa so wrong, he claims, because she was hoaxed. 'A whole view of the human species was constructed out of the innocent lies of two young women', says Freeman. 'That one of the ruling ideologies of our age should have originated in this way is both comic-and frightening!' Plainly Freeman has fitted the dunce cap on anthropology.

Martin Orans's study gives anthropologists something to cheer about. It removes the dunce cap by presenting what to my mind is a conclusive rebuttal to the duping allegation. But it achieves something more important. Orans shows by example how to get beyond the storm of controversy and personal antagonisms and the mystique of prestige to examine the issues on the evidence. The book is a model of composure heedless of fear or favor. There is no impulse to vanquish, no concern to save or diminish face, no demonization or valorization of paradigms, no flag-waving. Refreshing!

The issue is the reliability of Mead's Samoan ethnography. Orans places this examination on a factual basis by comparing the text of Coming of Age with Mead's field records. The leading questions informants and what are their reliability? how did she evaluate the information she collected? what was her methodology for weaving the extraordinarily intimate portrait of Samoan psychology? does the evidence support her global claim that coming of age in Samoa was unperturbed by adolescent storm and stress, and does this evidence support the conclusion that adolescent psychology and behavior are not materially affected by the biology of sexual maturation?

The contested ethnographic terrain concerns Mead's descriptions of sexual moeurs and of aggression. According to Freeman, she greatly inflated the degree of permissible sexual congress and greatly diminished the degree of competition and aggression. Orans examination of the field record shows that Mead collected substantial evidence of norms and practices restraining adolescent sexuality. Freeman's countervailing evidence adds little to what she knew. Orans writes, Mead 'knew perfectly well' that free love did not prevail in Samoa. There is very little support in the field materials for numerous particular claims about sexual license and no support for generalizations that depicted Samoa as a free love paradise. Mead purported to have obtained the information primarily through interviews with adolescent girls. But the records of these interviews are sparse and do not support her claim. Her principal informant on sexual practices was indeed not a girl but a male of her own age, who did not remotely suggest Mead's sensational reports of stress-free homosexuality and lesbianism among adolescents.

How on earth, then, did Mead arrive at her celebrated conclusions? Orans points out that Mead did in fact report many of the restrictions on adolescent sexuality. The result was a deeply inconsistent text, which she reconciled by repeatedly suggesting that strict norms were winked at in practice. For example, the conspicuous Christian worship of the Samoans she squared with free love by claiming that they did not internalize the teaching on sinfulness of the flesh. In addition, Mead made 'extravagant claims' on the basis of 'exceedingly limited data . . .'. This she did because she was 'not [on] a voyage of discovery' but was 'out to make the strongest possible case for her position'.

The rebuttal to the hoax allegation is straight-forward. Mead did not record the specious information and demonstrably did not credit it because she knew-and stated in her book-that ceremonial virgins were chaste. In addition, by the time the duping occurred, she had already collected testimony that she interpreted as evidence of promiscuity among adolescents of common status. So the prank was not credited and added nothing to what she thought she knew.

This book takes its title from Orans' assessment of Mead's global claims to have proved the independence of cultural practices from biology in this test case, and in particular to have proven that Samoan adolescents are free of stress. These arguments are so vague that they cannot be empirically tested and hence haven't reached the threshold required of scientific claims. 'Not even wrong', Orans advises, is 'the harshest scientific criticism of all'. It strikes both Mead's global claims and Freeman's purported refutation.

In drawing out 'lessons for us all', internal contradictions and grandiose claims to knowledge that she could not possibly have had and is so weakly supported by data, could have survived and formed the foundation for an illustrious career raises substantial doubt regarding improved standards of research'. This statement is highly 'incorrect', viewed from the perspective of controversy, but it is wholesomeness itself judged from the point of view of the rejuvenation needed by anthropology. Orans' book deserves to be studied in every graduate seminar on method and evidence.

It is not a criticism to note that the author has not spoken the last word. While we can now better understand how biases shaped Mead's evaluation of her evidence, there remains the problem of claims made in the complete absence of evidence. These are many, the most sensational being alleged homosexuality and lesbianism. In addition, she endowed herself with omniscience about adolescent experience that only novelists can have.

Did she, then, spin a yarn?

Hiram Caton Griffith University Editor, of America, 1990.

The book I have is paperback with the the Disney characters of Miss Bianca and Bernard on the cover. The book was rereleased in 1977. The illustrations are done by Garth Williams.
This book was not what I expected. I expected a version of the Disney animated film with some differences. The only similarities of this book and the film are the characters Miss Bianca and Bernard, the Prisoners Aid Society, and that they are rescuing a child.
Margery Sharps style of writing is different and it is difficult to understand what it is she is saying.
The story is exciting and the characters of Nils the Norwegian sailor mouse and the feared Mamelaok the gaurd cat add to the story with their many exploits.
The story gets better with each chapter. Stick with it, I think you will be glad you did.

The Prisoner's Aid Society is a network of mice with a mission similar to that of Amnesty International, that is to cheer prisoners and work for their release. To this end, they have selected to rescue a Norwegian poet, held on unspecified charges in a citadel called the Black Castle in an unspecified European country that may or may not be behind the Iron Curtain. To do so, they must enlist the aid of a mouse who knows a) local Mouse, b) International Mouse, and c)Norwegian. To find such a mouse, Bernard, a pantry mouse with the Tybalt Star (for bravery in the face of cats) sets out to engage the services of the premier diplomatic mind of mousedom, the fabulous Miss Bianca, who lives with the Ambassador's Boy in a Porcelain Pagoda and travels by diplomatic pouch.

Miss Bianca is, in a word, a piece of work: ravishingly beautiful, with a small silver chain about her neck, she embodies Fifties ladylike femininity to a degree not seen outside of Tennessee Williams. Charming, adroitly diplomatic, but I'm afraid, a bit of a ditz, who, with a sigh, owns that she "knows nothing about machinery", frets and has a headache at the least provocation, is a fanatic for interior decoration, and is too dumb to know that most cats just want to eat her. Nonetheless, she finds Nils, a Norwegian seafaring mouse (somehow the joke would work better with a *rat*, I think), and the three go off to rescue Mr. Poet.

In the Black Castle, they face Mameluke, "the Head's" (of the prison) black Persian, subject of several of Garth William's most startling drawings. For an illustrator who's been a cornerstone of cute, Mameluke, done with all the round furriness of his work with Golden Books, is truly shocking, with a malevolent glare and alarming teeth, setting off Miss Bianca's Madame Pompidor fragility. The Poet (humans aren't named in this book, but all animals are) undergoes a series of changes in the illustrations as he goes from stunned half-starved fatuousness to handsome young manhood.

The good points of this book are many, for a sensitive parent: it's a good way to open discussions of things like world politics and diplomacy and so forth with a child in a way that doesn't take sides. The bad points are, well, it's a very campy book: its view of prison life is roughly identical to that of the boys in Huckleberry Finn, its view of poets, that of the late 19th century, and that of women...well, let's just say that the last woman I knew who acted anything like Miss Bianca was a man. The Mameluke illustrations are VERY frightening, and so are some of the others. Still, it's a good book. Give it a try.

Margery Sharp's Miss Bianca series is quite wonderful. It's much better than the Disney movie.

Imaagine Lemony Snicket writing about Miss Manners in a former incarnation as a High Society mouse, all noblesse oblige in pre-Great-War splendor.

Some parts of the book--which is presented as a compilation of personal interviews--are extremely interesting. However, the author's choice to over-represent practioners of T'ai Chi Ch'uan and Aikido weakened what could have been a very important book for women in the martial arts. An explanation may be that the author herself studies T'ai Chi, but with so many women now training in so many different styles, I feel there should have been a more inclusive mix.

being a man and having practiced with one of the women mentioned in nthe book, I found it intriguing and eye opening to see women martial artists and their perspectives on their arts and how it has affected their lives.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a new perspective on their martial arts practice and their lives... I know it changed mine

As a female student of the martial arts, I found this book very inspiring. Our lives as girls and women are often filled with men as role models, particularly in areas such as martial arts and certain sports, so this book offered a connection to other women out there who are leading powerful, peaceful lives helping themselves and in turn, others. I also like the structure of the book; you don't have to read it cover to cover, you can skip around & read the sections that catch your eye first. Also, the photos are realistic, they help show us that these are REAL women in REAL life, they are not model-types posing for appearance. The variety of women here is truly inspiring and made me want to find people like this in real life to connect with. And men: get this book for the woman martial artist in your life (or any woman searching for inner strength), she'll really feel you care about her, it was one of the best gifts I ever received from a guy! :-)

I read the book carefully, i kept looking for triggers on leadership, i found none that i felt effective. It is an alright book on collaboration but not on leadership. The topics were not stongly emphasized, basically i gained no knowledge out of reading this book. I kept feeling bad i did not buy getting to Yes.

This book gave me more than I spected whenI bought it.
I was looking for some guidelines on good teamwork behavior, and I didn't got just that but far more usefull insight on plain work.

Reagarding working with others, the best part is the Feedbck chapter. You'll never give advice to a team mate in the same way after you had read this book. Everybody know someone that "takes advice the wron way", well you'll learn that maybe you and everybo else are giving advice in the wrong way.

Besides this particulary well covered subject, the author explains very usefull techniques to improove not only group workin but personal efficiency. All of this is ilustrated with down to earth examples and exercises.

I read the first edition almost one year ago, and I keep going back to it as if it was reference book, and in some way it is

Somebody told me once: "Never talk about a problem without giving a solution". After reading this book, I think it should be: "without inviting others to improve a solution you have drafted".

The ideas presented in this book do a great deal to improve communication and gain support. I have reread some of my old memos, and now understand why people did not like them, even if they clearly explained the situation and proposed a solution. I used not to invite people to think with me.

I have applied many of the topics to my every day life, specially at work, and it's given results. I mostly try to invite others to participate in the process, and remember that all ideas can be improved.

It was not as erotic as i thought it was going to be.

This isn't fiction, but a series of fantasies by women divided into different subjects, such as "women with women" or "women with multiple partners." Highly erotic like all Black Lace books, I recommend this. However, I had to buy it from Amazon.uk.com. Still, it's worth the wait.

It is a huge turn on to read what other women are thinking and fantasizing about. I found that my sexual fantasies weren't so outrageous after all and discovered quite a few new ones that were very arousing. Open any page to find a vivid vignette of sex and seduction...delicious!

I will be keeping this book next to the bed for easy access! It's just the thing to get your motor running.

I've read all the books in the Elements of Fiction Writing series and this is how I'd rank them.

"Scene & Structure" "Characters & Viewpoint" "Beginnings, Middles & Ends"

The above three books are invaluable -- must reads. They are the best of the series, in my opinion, and are packed with good information on every page. Well-done.

"Conflict, Action & Suspense" "Description" "Plot" "Manuscript Submission" "Setting"

The above five books are good, solid reads. Again, they contain good information and cover the subject decently.

"Voice & Style" "Dialogue"

To me, the last two books need to be rewritten. They are by far the weakest of the series. Both suffer from an annoying style, particularly Dialogue, and both are very skimpy on real information. Neither one is very helpful.

This is the order in which I'd recommend reading them.

Another Writer's Digest book that offers a multitude of ways ensure that your reader has a visual and sensual focus on place and time in your stories. The author not only tells you why setting is so important in supporting the plot and characters, but gives pleanty of exercises to help you create a clear picture of where and when your story takes place.

With a track record like Bickham--published novelist and author of other writing books--it's hard to get it wrong. This book covers everything on setting--the importance of setting; sense impressions; factual material; plot devices; character casting; viewpoint; and just about every point need in good fiction in relation to setting--There is even a great little section which tells you when 'too much is too much', so you don't over-write your setting. A great book for the novice or the seasonned fiction writer.

I own six books on men's style so far. The only other author to whom I gave 5 stars was Alan Flusser.

This book is expertly organized. The information is clear, and it is all rather thorough. It takes you from being and idiot (which I was) to being quite well informed (which I'd like to think I now am.)

If you are going to buy only one book on men's style, get this one! If you buy two, get this and _Style and the Man_.

Style is more then dressing. It's attitude, grace, manners and confidence. If you want some of those traits, you'll pick them up by reading this book, or, at least be on your way to getting them.

Highlights: (1) cultivating confidence; (2) elegance and grace; (3) emanating sex appeal; (4) grooming; (5) shopping strategies; picking the right person; (6) sports jackets, slacks, casual wear; (7) at a job, restaurant, bedroom or formal affair; and (8) aging in style.

Also includes reviews of popular men of style, like JFK, Cary Grant, Miles Davis and the Duke of Windsor.

This guide is a great starting point to a complete fashion make-over, or a refresher for those who . The editors covers head-to-toe (from shoes to hats and from underwear to coats) and inside-and-out (the key points in the art of confidence). I've had this book for some time now, and I can say that you don't have to be from new York ti reap the benefits.

... on the history of Black Women in the world. The author basically brainstormed many facts to the reader. Nearly all were fascinating and interesting.

However, Sharp, fails to provide an adequate bibliography, footnotes or other sources for her facts and quotes. Also, she included too many sarcastic captions (via comic book fashion) which were very degrading to Black Women (and the crass language was not appreciated either). For these 2 reasons, I give this book only 3 out of 5 stars.

The author has wonderful information but did not treat the subject of Black Women in world history with the respect and sacredness it deserved. Nevertheless, the book is a good start. I recommend with hesitation. For immediate follow-up: a better, more scholarly book is Ivan Van Sertima's Black Women in Antiquity.

This book is written by Suandra Harp and it is written in a very entertaining style. The author makes you feel comfortable in the first few pages and makes you feel relaxed that this is going to be an easy book.

The book is divide into 6 or 7 sections dealing with many aspects of Black Women Influence. For example, one of the sections at the end of the book focuses on how black women fight in the army and how they have have fought in many wars. Another section talks about how black women were part of history and how Cleopatra was really black.

The book is written in very, very easy language and there are probably words on each page which makes it quick to read. There are also picutres and many quotes from books to support her point.

She tries to show in the book that Black Women were the orignal beauties and that white people originated from blacks.

Now comes my personal thought of the book

The book was good in the sense that it was very easy to read and it had many sources but the book portrays as black women being basically perfect and that a lot of their problems were caused by whites.

The book did not show to many opposing opinions. For example, in the book she talks about Cleopatra being black but she doesn't give facts to support. This might seem a contridiction to what I said earlier about her using sources but her sources in certain parts are from refutable sources.

But all in all the book is good in the sense that it does have some good information about the history of black women. It talks about how they fought for civil rights and how they fought for women's rights and many other accomplishments that black women are responsible for.

Buy this book for a fairly good history of black women.

Then know a sistah. Black Women for beginners gets you started on the right track of black woman's history. Remember though it is only a beginning, there is much more to learn.