Life in Pears' Rome never pretends to be simple, and it's always loads of fun for the reader. Here the theft of a priceless painting on loan from the Louvre leads to the Italian prime minister's order to Flavia to find it, but she must not allow the public or the press to know about the theft, she must get it back no matter the cost, she must pay whatever ransom is demanded without using public funds, and she must do this knowing in advance that she will be a scapegoat--that the prime minister will publicly deny everything he's told her. As the search for the painting gets underway, further mysteries unfold, until even Bottando himself is implicated in an art theft.
Influence peddling, payoffs, and old political rivalries are both accepted and taken for granted here as Flavia negotiates the minefields of art and politics. The satire is gentle, and the action is non-stop. The intricacies of the characters' relationships keep the reader constantly challenged and always thinking, and the art history angle, more about provenance than about painters, should appeal to readers with little art background. The surprising conclusion and the major changes resulting to the lives of the main characters are stunning. If Pears continues this series, it will undoubtedly be in new directions.
Used price: $7.25
Collectible price: $10.00
Buy one from zShops for: $9.00
I'm looking forward to Book 2!
Used price: $80.00
Stategies like the TKO and the Bowties are among my favorites. One Bowtie trade took care of the cost of the book 100 fold!
Landry is what you call SIFU in the Asian culture, he is the Master (of swing trading) and we the readers are his students. Practice and study what the Master has taught you and you will succeed in your trading.
A must read by all...novice and professionals!
All I can say is get this book written by a true Master of the Art of Swing Trading.
The Oscillator Swing System is one of the best there is. I have adapted it to trading both stock and futures. The results are amazing. This one system is worth the price of the book!
Well worth the $... for the book as the reward from his insight will payout 1000 fold. Buy it! Great ideas from a great trader.
According to Landry, the first task of the momentum swing trader is to identify the trend. And his definition of "trend" (Chapter 3) is as broad as his trade setups are specific. Landry emphasizes seeing the "bigger picture" when defining a trend.
The ADX., of course, is used as a trend filter, but not exclusively. Moving averages, as well as over a half dozen other "trend qualifiers" are described in a similar vein. Landry gives numerous chart-illustrated examples of a trend with both high and low ADX readings.
Though other basics of swing trading are discussed (e.g. drawdowns, money management, stock selection), it is Chapter 5, "Pullbacks," (deemed by Landry as the "single strongest way to trade"), along with Chapter 3, that form the core of the book's first section.
Section Two details other swing-trading patterns, including:
-Fakeouts and false moves
-Bow Ties
-Micro Patterns
The "Bow Tie" pattern is a visually descriptive one, using a moving average crossover system. Landry explains how and and why this method works, when, he emphasizes, most crossover systems do not.
Section Three, "Volatility," is an advanced lesson in swing trading. Landry adds historical volatility (HV) to the swing trading "mix" in order to capture explosive market moves over a short time frame. A formula for HV is included in the an appendix.
Next, Landry shows how to tie in his strategies with the overall performance of the market (Section Four, "Market Timing"). Included are three different systems (The Oscillator Swing System, TRIN Reversals, CVR III-Modified) designed to trade the stock index futures, all examined in detail. Like all the preceding chapters, there are examples (with charts) aplenty.
Landry continues his "treatise" on momentum swing trader with a discussion of options trading and the psychology of trading. The latter section includes "Lessons Learned" (Chapter 13), some fun, yet common sense-based trading tips based on real experiences. A sample: "Who Makes A Better Trader: An MBA Or A Receptionist?"
The last section attempts to tie everything together and includes a very interesting chapter on the importance of one's routine -- their nightly preparation to trading success. This chapter, like many throughout the book, ends with an informal review with the author in a Q&A format.
This book is chock-full of those exact techniques that Dave Landry uses day in and day out to swing trade successfully. And all are presented in an easy-to-read-and-understand format. A great investment, this book.
List price: $24.95 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $13.46
Buy one from zShops for: $13.48
The problem with this book, as far as I am concerned, is that it feels rushed and disjointed. I was more than happy to read all 500+ pages of DDI because the topic deserved that much space and, honestly, that book is a pleasure to read. The topic of free will, if anything, requires even more space to develop, and I would have gladly sat through six or seven hundred pages if necessary. As it is, my understanding of Dennett's arguments is sketchy - even after letting them sink in a few days and re-reading a few sections - so sketchy, in fact, that I won't attempt anything like a synopsis here, for fear of bungling the job. Beyond that, I was a little annoyed with the amount of recycled material from CE and DDI.
So why is Daniel Dennett's task a thankless one? Because he insists that free will is not an "illusion" as some hardcore materialists claim - nor is it some "extra something" in the sense implied by traditional dualist philosophers. There are a lot of feathers to ruffle in this area. Affirming free will on a strict materialist basis would be quite a feat, if done clearly and convincingly. I believe that case can be made, and that it should be made, and that Dennett is qualified to make it. Unfortunately, in Freedom Evolves he didn't do so as clearly and convincingly as I wish he had. Until Dennett or somebody else does so, the task will remain long overdue.
Freedom Evolves ties together all of his previous books. He convincingly shows how a naturalistic account of ourselves gives us REAL free will. He also clarifies many previous arguments.
Dennett defines freedom as the "capacity to achieve what is of value in a range of circumstances." Despite the prevailing view, science does not decrease our freedom through exculpation, but increases it by giving us more options and self-control. He also points out that memes give us freedom by giving us new standpoints. Also, memes are tools and need to be used to work; that is, we still have to think. This is a very important point because almost everyone I try to explain memetics to hates it because they feel it robs them of their self. It does the exact opposite!
Dennett says that a human self results from an interpersonal design process and to become autonomous, we need a little help from our friends. I would add to this point by saying that some of the best "friends" we can ask for help in the arduous process of creating an autonomous self are the great artists of the ages. This is a point Richard Rorty has recently been making.
This is a fantastic and extremely important book. I am a philosophical dilettante (but I am a scientist) and I appreciate Dennett's extremely useful and lucid writing. If only more philosophers were like him.
More importantly, this book is wonderfully hopeful and can be thought of as a philosophical self-help manual. Now I know why he is smiling.
His basic effort is to reconcile the determinism of Darwinism with the humanist's concern with human freedom. To do so he jettisons the notion that free will is a metaphysical concept. Rather, he explains it in terms of contemporary objective science, specifically via the same sort of evolution that led to the development of the eye or of language. He relies heavily on Richard Dawkin's concept of the evolution of memes: ideas that compete with each other just as other characteristics do via natural selection. In other words he argues that freedom of will grows and evolves. To achieve this conclusion he makes the point that determinism (a cause mechanistically producing an effect) is not the same as inevitability. He uses an example from baseball (shades of the late Stephen Jay Gould!) to make his point. He says that a batter has a choice of turning away from a pitch that is going to hit him or allowing it to hit him, depending on which action will help his team. His action is not determined by the prior history of the universe, but by his own analysis in the moment. In a different game, he might make a different choice. This, and other similar arguments, lead Dennett to the conclusion that the more we know, the more varieties and degrees of freedom we can have. Thus, modern man has more freedom than did, say, the Neanderthal.
Essentially then, Dennett, whose earlier work in the areas of consciousness (another concept that gives determinists fits) are seminal, asserts that natural science is the ally of freedom, not an argument against it. The audacious arguments he posits to support this position are breathtaking in their scope and are, for this reader, convincing.
Used price: $3.48
Collectible price: $5.49
Buy one from zShops for: $5.50
-Brereton knows the series, and the characters, and really has a lot of affection for them. Brereton's main passion is a series called the Nocturnals, which he both draws and writes script for -- so he knows the genre.
-Brereton proposes several interesting ideas in the Dust Waltz.
-Giles niece ('Death Wish Spice') was pretty cool :)
-Lilith comments that 'no good has ever come from one of our Kind feeding on a Slayer' -- she cites the Master's failure as an example.
-And Lilith can show up again later, which is all to the good :)
The Bad:
Plot holes you could drive Oz's van through.
-Lilith thinks that the Slayer is dead, but also knows that 'her son' the Master is dead. The Master was killed BY the Slayer, so what's the Flum? Seems awfully weak.
The Annoying:
I appreciate that Brereton likes the show, and watches it with his family every week, but I became increasingly annoyed by the constant show references in this story -- some is good, too much is TOO much -- it stopped feeling like conversation from the characters and started feeling like the author saying 'See? I know the show!'
Logic jumps with nowhere to land. Some of the characters (notably Giles' niece) do some things that had no support in the story.
The Summary: -If I sound overly harsh above, that's only because I /am/ being overly harsh. I admit that, and I think I know why: I'm used to analyzing a Buffy story line ad nauseum and finding it essentially airtight -- this works fine with the show, because JOSS analyzes everything for airtightness too. This doesn't work on the comics as well, because while Joss signs off on the concepts, he isn't involved with the story itself, so you get holes, logic problems, annoying character things, and timeline goofs.
Brereton ain't Joss, and he ain't never gonna BE Joss. I can forgive him for this, because he really did do a good job, and if he, like all the script writers for the show, had had Joss there to go over the story, his story would have been as airtight -- the fact that Joss isn't there isn't his fault :)
Because the book /is/ good. The story is solid, and presents some fun ideas, even if they aren't strictly canon. The art is great -- both accurate (more so in some places than the comic series, especially with Xander) and visually exciting. The only problem I had with the Big Monster is that there wasn't ENOUGH of him -- Brereton /did/ do a good job of telling a legitimate Buffy story that we HAVE to see in a comic, because we could never really see it in the show... or in a Movie, for that matter. The characterization of the show's main characters (Scooby Crew et al., Cordelia, Giles) were all good.
Basically, if I take a step back from the comic and put down the magnifying glass that I usually pull up to go over an episode on the second viewing, than I really, really, enjoy the Dust Waltz. Your Mileage May Vary, so I'd suggest picking up a copy. :)
List price: $34.95 (that's 30% off!)
Buy one from zShops for: $23.14
I do have complaints. For the tiny ones first (big one at the end). First, I object to calling the loss of pain and loss of memory during hypnosis examples of increased mental control. By that definition, Alzheimers patients have increased control. What one isn't aware of one isn't aware of and this hardly seems like control.
As far as not being able to avoid thinking of things, it seems to me the explanation is simpler. Words conjure images, but negative words have no images associated with them so when you say "Don't think about a bear" the only word causing an image is bear, and so you think of a bear. Trying to monitor bear thoughts will lead to bear thoughts. Also he says, if you are distracted while you are trying not to do something you will be more likely to do it. I can see that since trying not to do something (like drop a jar) requires action in an opposite direction, i.e. it requires effort. But is this true when you are trying NOT to think of something? If I tried not to think of Wegner's white bear and was then asked to recite the Gettysburg address I strongly suspect I would forget the bear. Not thinking about something, unlike not doing does not require any positive action. Distraction ought to make it easier to forget and he never distinguishes between these and acts as if what is true of behavior is true of thoughts.
But my BIG complaint is the last chapter. He suddenly claims his own theories only explain why we feel will, but he tried to minimize the impact of all this on morality and even started talking about will as a causal force again. He even seemed at times when using the word will to indicate something that wasn't necessarily conscious. This is nonsense. If will isn't conscious it isn't will.
Our thoughts have causal impact on our actions, but then what is the cause of our thoughts? Clearly we don't control these either. They are a sum of what we are, what we have experienced, the way our brains are wired together etc. As far as morality I have to believe that the only thing we can judge is individual bits of behavior. Behavior is moral or not, acceptable or not and some people have a higher propensity to engage in unacceptable behaviors than others--whatever the reasons. As a society we have to judge behavior and engage in activities to modify the behavior of others when it is unacceptable and that is what our jutsice system should attempt. If an individual's behavior remains unacceptable or cannot be modified, we have an obligation to put them where they cannot engage in the behavior.
Wegner is clearly unwilling to give up on the idea that people will their behavior and are thus responbsible in the traditional way for what they do. The idea that we can use "mens rea" a guilty mind to show a person willed their actions seems like a dubious standard to me. A person may not will their behavior but later feels guilty because they realize their behavior is in violation of their own moral code. A person totally lacking a developed moral code (a sociopath, let's say) would never exhibit a guilty mind. Are such folks les guilty? Or less dangerous?
The whole issue of whether mental states should be considered in a legal system should be abandoned as far as I can see. I believe we should judge behavior and then decide what to do with the person engaging in the behavior. What we do should be motivated by our desire to 1) modify the person's behavior and 2) protect innocents. The strategy for each individual will vary depending on their mental abilities and their behavioral history etc and we may often get it wrong.
Wegner's thesis has much bigger implications for our ideas about personal responsibility than he wants to admit and ultimately he is unwilling to really stick with his guns. That was a dissappointment.
But the book has a lot of great stuff to say and I would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in mind/body questions.
Since my primary interest is in spirituality, I was anxiously awaiting The Illusion of Conscious Will. In my opinion there is no topic that can be more seductive in the study of spirituality or philosophy. If we think we have "free-will" our thought-life takes one path, if we come down on the side of determinism (or predestination in some circles) our life will follow a different path. The author jumps right into the fray at the very start:
"So here you are reading a book on conscious will. How could this have happened? If [a team of scientific psychologists] had access to all the information they could ever want, the assumption of psychology is that they would uncover the mechanisms that give rise to all of your behavior and so could certainly explain why you picked up this book at this moment.
However, another way to explain the fact of your reading this book is just to say that you decided to pick up the book and begin reading. You consciously willed what you are doing"
A sample of topics cover everything from spirit possession, animals that communicate, hypnosis, morality, and a host of other topics including a brief but interesting insight regarding a confession by the Amazing Kreskin.
Since my background is not in psychology, this became a challenging read but always entertaining. At the very least you will be impressed with how psychologists approach a problem that philosophers and theologians have debated for a thousand years. But if you are like me, this book is destined to change your outlook on life.
Used price: $12.95
Buy one from zShops for: $24.68
Used price: $3.00
Collectible price: $8.47
Buy one from zShops for: $8.50
Let me give you one example, out of the innumerable cases, and I challenge any of the fans of Finkelstein and Birn to come up with any justification whatsoever for this.
In one of her delirious critical outbursts, on page 204 of 'A Nation on Trial', Birn writes, referring to Goldhagen: "He also overlooks the fact that millions of Soviet POWs were starved to death before it dawned on the German authorities that they had a problem with a labor shortage."
On page 290 of 'Hitler's willing Executioners', Goldhagen writes: "Despite the ardent and until then decisive ideological opposition to the employment of Russian 'sub-humans' within Germany - a purely ideological stance that had led the Germans to kill, mainly by starvation, 2.8 million young, healthy Soviet POWs in less than eight months - the policy was reversed during this period. In 1942, owing to ever more pressing economic need, the Germans stopped the decimation of Soviet POWs through starvation and began to use them as laborers, leading by 1944 to the presence of over 2.7 million Soviet citizens (many were not POWs) working in the German economy."
Did Birn even read the book she was supposed to be 'reviewing'? Or, just like her fans, she doesn't bother to read the books she talks about? And this is only one out of dozens of cases where the authors (I must suppose willingly, unless they really cannot read) ignore, distort, falsify and manipulate Goldhagen's work to fit their preconceived destructive agenda.
Throughout the pages of this book, all principles of scholarly critique are torn to pieces, humiliated, and annihilated. This book cannot be taken seriously.
The book comprises two separate parts, each written by one of the authors. About Finkelstein's part of the book, the less said the better. He fails to address any of the central issues raised by the Goldhagen book, and instead makes a series of tangential points. He intersperses personal attacks on Goldhagen with a scattershot technique of refutation: many of the arguments he raises either support Goldhagen or are totally irrelevant. The words juvenile, badly-written and scatterbrained pretty much sum up his part of the book!
Ruth Bettina Birn's part of the book makes for much better reading. Using a more restrained tone of voice, she faults Goldhagen primarily on this major point: that his data does not support his conclusions. Citing his selective interpretation of German legal transcripts and his heavy reliance on secondary sources, she demonstrates Goldhagen's retrofitting of data to support his conclusions. In the case of Police Battalion 101, this is especially telling. Goldhagen bases a large part of his conclusions on selective interpretations of another book (Christopher Browning's "Ordinary men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland"), while in the same breath, discrediting the author of the book whenever his conclusions differ from Goldhagen's.
In the end, I would judge the debate a draw. Goldhagen's book, while thought- provoking, seems fraught with misinterpretations. (Personally, I find his monocausal "eliminationist antisemitism" theory a little wild-eyed). On the other hand, if you're looking for an incisive criticism of "Hitler's Willing Executioners", and a more believable explanation of *motive* in the Holocaust, then this book doesn't quite fit the bill, either!
The book is a response to Goldhagen's Harvard dissertation--which certainly challenges Harvard's academic credibility in my book--which asserts that the "ordinary Germans," a phrase frequently used by Goldhagen, though not defined by him, knew of and actively endorsed the mass slaughter of particularly Jews throughout the Third Reich. It consists of two separate essays, the first by Finkelstein and the second by Birn, the former the son of concentration camp survivors and the latter a professional in investigating crimes against humanity.
Both authors challenge Goldhagen's use of evidence. Finkelstein offers more "commentary," some essentially calling Goldhagen silly and inept. Finkelstein himself offers reams of contradictory evidence to the meager claims suggested as proof of Goldhagen's thesis. Many even of the Nazi officers were perfect bureaucrats more than they were ideologues. Anyone who has worked in a partisan political environment knows the tendency of many a staffer to do that. It's how promotions are allocated more than on the basis of competence or capability! So, because such and such an officer did what the Fuehrer said, didn't make him an inherent anti-Semitic, mass murderer.
And both authors criticize Goldhagen's contention that the "Holocaust" was unique in human history, and particularly suited to German brutality. Both offer several examples of similar activities undertaken throughout history.
As for the average German, there is more evidence of their helping out victims of the Reich than of their active complicity in the slaughter. Of course, these are petty items Goldhagen didn't use because they would have contradicted his angle.
Finkelstein has had a bone to pick with Goldhagen, and to some other hyper-Zionists for some time. His "The Holocaust Industry" showed something he reiterates more briefly in this text that "The Holocaust," while of less major political note before then became a veritable industry after the 1967 war. At that point to challenge anything about the Israeli state or about Judaism in general--even by Jews!--was proclaimed to have an anti-Semitic motive. Finkelstein, offering countless examples of that by "writers" such as Elie Wiesel, accuses Goldhagen of capitalizing off that sentiment and blatantly political motive.
Birn's is a very sober analysis of Goldhagen's selective use of evidence--pieces chosen simply because they fit his thesis. She even credited an earlier critique of Goldhagen of her work in which Goldhagen disputed her statements; apparently the quotation marks weren't in the right places. Her fine summary comments on the "trivialization" of the holocaust, which seems to be happening now that the number of actual survivors of that catastrophe dwindles.
I have a weakness for Finkelstein's matter-of-fact style. But if I were to be in a privileged enough position to have my work criticized by either Finkelstein or Birn, I would prefer Birn's criticism. My ego would be less bruised.
This book is important for those who have read Goldhagen's book and wonder about Goldhagen's--or Harvard's--integrity. It is important for those interested in the critical thinking process, and how someone of ostensible credibility, an Ivy League doctoral student, can make some awfully weak arguments in defense of his claims. And it is very important for those who want to keep contemporary politico-Zionism in context. Read it. But don't expect any soft pedaling by Finkelstein.
By the way, I would not have granted Goldhagen his Ph.D. for the sloppy, ideological work in his book. As Birn points out, his thesis is fit for those who want a simple answer to a more complex situation. I add that it resembles hate literature, that "those Germans" were like that. It is, therefore, a mirror image of what Goldhagen claims to despise: propaganda. I would not enroll in a course he teaches, or spend a minute reading anything he'd written.
Used price: $4.98
Collectible price: $10.59
I would have given the book 5 stars except there are several glaring issues with this book. Given the target audience and general education level of its readers, I think some of the issues are inexcusable.
Typos and grammatical errors abound in this book. The Editor at McGraw Hill must have been asleep or been so completely uninterested in the topic that they didn't bother to check. Also, there are issues with decimal point placement throughout the book. It's sufficiently technical that someone should have bothered to verify the figures before publishing. I also would like to have seen higher quality illustrations/pictures and some logic applied to their placement.
This book is due for an update SOON. It positions die shifts to 180 nanometers as an up and coming event. Intel currently has 90 nanometer manufacturing up and running, with products entering the channel in 4Q03. Not to mention, graphics chip companies and their fab partners have made the shift to 130 nanometers. These process and manufacturing changes bring a whole host of new issues, challenges, opportunities and technologies to the mix.
All in all, this is a good book.
In terms of quality, the book is abysmal. Shame on the publishers for putting it out in this form! There are typos, omissions, and grammatical errors everywhere. Also, the illustrations and tables are very poor. Some tables are too small to be legible, and the illustrations in many places are less comprehensible than the text itself. The line drawings are often quite laughable, and there are mistakes even in the illustrations.
These problems aside, the basic content is worth 4 stars. I got a wider and deeper view of semiconductors and the industry than I expected for the price.
List price: $23.95 (that's 79% off!)
The prescription is that parents should set a good example, spend more time with their children (especially at dinner time), set limits so that their children will only take on challenges they are ready for, establish clear and consistent ways of enforcing limits, be caring, and help their kids take on greater, appropriate challenges as time passes.
The seeds of the problem relate to the parents' unresolved conflicts about parenting roles. They want their kids to be happy, but haven't thought through what's needed. Having more and more unearned freedom and choice creates dissatisfaction. Being more and more competent provides engaged, meaningful flow experiences. The parents want to be too much of a pal, and not enough of a parent.
To deal with this, Professor Kindlon encourages readers to think about the best things their parents did for them that are appropriate for their own children . . . and use those as models. Equally, parents should avoid overcompensating for what they disliked most about what their own parents did.
The first part of the book describes the details of overindulgence and spoiling as they are practiced today. The second part looks at seven psychological states that can be perverted into something worse, and examines the way this occurs. The third part focuses on what to do.
The book is built on Professor Kindlon's clinical experience as a psychologist, questionnaires from a convenience sample he examined, 50 in-depth interviews, and a literature review.
The seven foundations of "deadly" syndromes are as follows: Pride leads to self-centeredness; wrath causes anger; envy causes being driven; sloth creates lack of motivation; gluttony leads to eating disorders; lust causes self-control problems; and greed leads to acting spoiled. Over 80 percent of the affluent 634 teens questioned reported problems in one or more of these areas.
I thought there were two serious problems with this book. First, to find out how parenting turned out, don't you have to see how the lives of the youngsters end up? Reporting on this study is premature unless you only care about making the teen years more pleasant. Many people straighten up and fly right in their 20s who were a real mess as teens. Second, this book is so loose that it almost doesn't tell you anything. The average sermon contains more specific guidance than this book has in total. I compared the book to the more specific books I have read on teenaged obesity, learning to handle money, overcoming teenaged depression, and so forth. Each of those books is vastly more detailed and helpful. This book is like the Cliff's Notes version of a classic novel. I suspect that it will be most appealing to those who are most in denial about the idea that overindulgence for children is a bad idea.
After you read this book, ask yourself where you had tough, but helpful, learning experiences that your children have not yet had. How can you help your children to duplicate those lessons today?
Encourage all to climb the highest mountain that appeals to them!
The present book is a good addition to the series. Pears is inventive enough not to have lost momentum and has kept the professional and personal lives of his characters evolving in a way that prevents them from becoming stale. Good bedtime reading.