This is part of a four-volume series of George Washington's life and this is the initial installment, covering his early years. Flexner's narrative takes the reader up to the first shots of the Revolutionary War. Despite the fact that there is a plethora of interesting material on Washington's youth and young manhood, this book is singularly flat and written in a plodding style. It is generally reliable and accurate, but one yearns for a more enlightened and exciting presentation. This is the personification of how history is usually taught: in a manner not designed to capture the reader or the student.

One strong point is that Flexner successfully presents a balanced portrait of Washington. Any bias from the author is thankfully masked from the reader. When Washington deserves criticism or censure, the author soberly dispenses it. Praise and plaudits are similarly given. If you are deeply interested in Washington's early years, this is an adequate and trustworthy source. But if you are merely dabbling in Washington and prefer a swifter narrative, then this is not a recommended selection.

I would strongly encourage those interested in both Washington and our early republic to read the entire four volume biography, of which this is the first volume. Volume II is out of print and hard to get, but available in libraries. I got one from a used book store through the Internet, but paid a premium.

Washington was at the center of everything important that happened to this country prior to 1800. Through this biography, you not only live through a magnificent life, but you experience the birth and early life of our republic. Flexner makes a persuavise case that the actions of the Founding Fathers after the revolution were perhaps more important that the War itself. I did not once find four volumes to be overly long. Indeed, I relished every detail.

As for writing style, the first volume, whether because it was written first, or because the material is less inspiring, has the least interesting prose. It's certainly adequate and competant, but not inspiring. Volumes II, III and IV, however, are not only excellently researched, they are written in a romantic, literary style that too few historians still use. There is a remark, for example, about Adams jealously feeling like he's the girl no one will dance with, while Washington is the belle of the ball; it's not PC by today's standards, but it's funny and makes a point.

I'd particularly urge readers not to skip Volume II, on the Revolutionary War, even if you've read many other accounts. To see that War through Washington's eyes brings a new and insightful perspective.

This is, in my view, one of the great American historical biographies. It is not heavily read, possibly because of his one volume condensation, or maybe because people just don't read multi-volume works anymore. I doubt few history lovers will be disappointed with this work.

James Thomas Flexner does justice to the early years of George Washington's life. The author has a heavy straight forward writing style, that takes the reader on a journey through the life of Washington. As this is the first installment of a four volume series, the reader gets to know what made and the circumstances related to Washington, that laid the ground work for the framing of his life.

As with most of us, we have a mental picture of Washington as an Icon in our schoolrooms as we grew up, but Flexner paints a picture through words of a man. Not much different than you or I, but the times and circumstances are extraordinarilly different. A man subject to the vulnerabilities of life, energetic, somewhat impulsive, gullible to an extent, put into situations of leadership ill prepared but always seemed to prevail. A man using his resourses to forge a respectable life for himself, a resoursful man to make life better through deeds and enterprises.

This first volume takes us through the first forty-three years of Washington's life with detail and scholarship, the author gives us a glimpse into the society, family, and events that shaped Washington for the future as America's foremost leader early on, as a new nation is forged.

I found that this first volume to be full of interesting details and is accurate for the youthful Washington. Engrossing, adequate, accurate, but the writing style is again straight forward and factually solid leaving the reader with the impression of early experiences of history classes past... needing a breath of life.

The overall scholarship rated a 5 star, even in light of rather heavy writing style.

Although I have not read Mr. Moran's book, I am worried it appears as if he gives credit to George Westinghouse as fathering alternating current electricity. Westinghouse merely had the forsight to finance the brilliant mind behind AC electricity, Nikola Tesla, who conceived it, and designed the machinery for using it. Fortunately, Westinghouse was there at the right moment. It is possible without his financial help, Tesla may not have accomplished what he did. But let's make sure we have the right names for the fueding parties in this war of the currents. Westinghouse can get the credit for the AC electric plants because he was holding the purse strings, and for his courageous fight against Edison. However, it was the genius of NIKOLA TESLA that revolutionized electric power. So give credit where credit is due, and call it by its proper name--TESLA's AC electricity, not Westinghouse!

While this book may not be enough to push you over the line to rejecting the death penalty, it will certainly make you think about it. A very enticing read, the book touches upon complicated legal entanglements and medical issues without becoming too hard to understand. However, for those with little interest in criminal justice (or the mechanics of electricity), this is probably not a wise choice.

This book starts out being about criminal William Kemmler and the first case in which the electric chair was used. However, as the story progresses, it becomes more and more a tale of Thomas Edison (America's prized inventor and advocate of direct current) and his primary competitor George Westinghouse, who utalizes alternating current. Moran paints a dark picture of Edison, who will seemingly stop at nothing to slanderize Westinghouse by encouraging use of alternating currents for electrocution. This proves a major problem for Westinghouse, because in having his current branded an 'executioner's current', something dangerous to the public and only suited for providing death, he could lose valuable customers.

In this work, Moran's primary goal is to show how the invention and enactment of the electric chair as America's primary method of execution was chiefly motivated not by a desire to improve the humaneness of execution, but by corporate greed. When Edison and his lackey Harold Brown (another electrician) propetuate propaganda about alternating current as 'the best current for electrocutions due to its deadly nature', they are not looking out for the public's well being but for the good of Edison's company. And even when intentions for a better method of execution are good, as Moran points out, 'no execution can really be considered humane'.

In 1890, William Kemmler, a thirty-year-old dimwitted alcoholic, was executed at Auburn Penitentiary in New York. He had hatcheted his lover to death while she did the dishes the year before. He was a nobody, unremembered today but celebrated at the time because he was the first prisoner sentenced to die in the electric chair. Under the terms of the new New York law, the Electrical Execution Act, he got "a current of electricity, of sufficient intensity to destroy life instantaneously" rather than being hung. Kemmler's history, and the often bizarre story of how that first execution came to pass, is told in _Executioner's Current: Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, and the Invention of the Electric Chair_ (Knopf) by Richard Moran. Moran has found that the problems of adopting this novel method of execution at the time mirror our own problems over capital punishment, because of the universally felt ambivalence on the subject. Although we are all sure that our stances on the death penalty are the right ones, our society acts as if it is not at all sure, and given the recent overturning of capital cases based on DNA testing, it is surely right to be unsure.

Electrocution was advocated as a humane improvement over hanging, but it was promoted as commercial propaganda. Electricity was being wired into homes via two systems, the system of direct current advocated and sold by Thomas Edison, and the system of alternating current pushed by George Westinghouse. Edison opposed capital punishment, but realized that making Westinghouse's system the basis for execution would reinforce that it was a dangerous current, unsuitable for customers' homes. Direct current was safe, Edison maintained, but alternating current was "the current that kills." Before the word "electrocution" was coined, as there was no word for executing by electricity, Edison proposed that condemned criminals be "Westinghoused." No amount of his propaganda could have made direct current easy to transmit or easily transformed from high voltage transmission to low voltage home use, but without Edison's efforts, the push to install electric chairs would not have been nearly so strong. Most states eventually switched from hanging, despite the botched electrocutions that revolted observers. Kemmler's was one of these, requiring a couple of jolts before he had ceased breathing, but leaving him frothing at the mouth and stinking up the execution room with the smell of his burned flesh.

While there were more successful electrocutions which were quiet, quick, and scentless, no one knew at the time whether the procedure was painless (although many maintained it was), and this is still a matter of some controversy. No one really knows the details of the internal process, and no one lives to tell us if it hurt. Moran's exhaustive book traces the legal acceptance of electrocution in our country, with courts at different levels assuring all that it may have been "unusual" when it was novel, but is no longer, and it was not cruel since it seemed to be fast, at least in some cases, so it is not "cruel and unusual punishment" forbidden by the Constitution. The electric chair has continued to be used and "remains the only electrical appliance that has not undergone major modification since its invention more than one hundred years ago." When we have to apply euthanasia to our pets, we would never take them to a veterinarian for electrocution, and the system of intravenous injection seems as painless as any could be. The Gerry Commission examined the use of injectable morphine, but thought that such a painless descent into permanent sleep would unnecessarily rid execution of a needed scare factor. This fascinating book shows that of such judgments, and corporate shenanigans, was electrocution born.

This books was a major disappointment. The ideas seem pretty solid, but the book no longer matches the code that is available online. The downloads are a mess. The book says to install slither using the instructions in the download, but there are no instructions in the download. Two users posted requests over a year ago for these instructions and the requests were totally ignored. In fact not much has happened over the past year. It really seems as if the authors have moved on. Slither seems to be dead.

On another note - this book is very academic. For example, there is a couple of pages of discussion about the different theorectical ways to design databases. But my needs are so simple, that I already knew I was going to use MySQL, so I just did not care about this discussion. Unfortunately there are lots of discussions like that in this book. So if you just wanna get something done fast, this might not be the book for you.

This book is surprising in its breadth of coverage (Python basics,
Python advanced topics, MySQL, Apache/CGI and net infrastructure) and
the depth of coverage of each. It is a great single reference for
coming up to speed on each aspect such that you could actually
implement a medium-sized web application based largely on
just what is in the book. For those that are already familiar with
any of these topics, that chapter can easily be skipped. This book
is not for the complete beginner though as it would be impossible
to cover so much ground if it were written with the Dummies mindset.
Overall, it does a very good job explaining subtle points that an
experienced programmer would want to know as they attempted to
implement a first application with these technologies. Good job.

One of the best books around on web programming. A must-read for any programmer trying to build e-commerce applications.

The mystery in this book was a bit more complex than that in George's first book in this series: the solution was not as apparent. Unfortunately, there were so many secondary characters that it was hard to keep them straight. It was obvious that these characters were there to act as "red herrings".

I also thought that the coincidence of Lady Helen being on the scene of a murder, and intimately involved, was a bit of a stretch, but was able to accept it with just a grain of salt.

George did a fairly good job of giving us more insight into the main characters (Lynley, Havers, Helen, and Deborah) and fleshed out their backgrounds quite well.

I thought that the last third of the book was far too dragged out...I found myself skimming a lot.

I enjoy the Lynley/Havers series very much and found this book very hard to put down. The central mystery involves the death of a Playwright on a Scottish estate and the cast of suspects that were involved. The story moves from the estate to various other locations which keeps the reader interested.

There were some problems that I had with the story. There were too many characters and sub-plots involved that took away from the main mystery- including the romantic turmoil of Lynley and some past crimes. There was also a conspiracy plot thrown which only took away from the main mystery.

I did like the character development and I did feel for Lynley and Havers at various times during the novel. This is still a good mystery to add to your collection and I will continue to follow this series.

Even though George paints a somewhat old-fashioned portrait of English life, she is still able to write very very good mysteries.

Her detecive thrillers are clever, intuitive, have nice twists, good, well evoked settings, and are very well written, if somewhat OVER written.

the mystery here is first class as ever. she writes with the style of agatha christie, and comes up with solutions that the dead queen would be proud of. It is only a shame that Lynley is not quite as interesting as Poirot. However, the relationships the main characters 5 characters really are VERY interesting. they add weight, credibility, and realism to the story. they add a more personal and intimate side, and prove an ongoing drama to mix with that of the different crimes which come up in each book.

She is very good at drawing her character, and very good at coming up with agatha christie style plots. her psychology is accurate, and her writing very descriptive.

Definitely worth a read. This second book was very very good. So far, i dont think she written a bad one, and i've read nearly all of them. A good build up A Great Deliverance, and got the series off to a really smashing start.

'The Changeling' is a play with an extremely complex structure- the plot seems to start off with the potential to develop it's dark themes but becomes preoccupied with the use of coup de theatre; such as the potion and the grisly deaths. Beatrice is shown in the first scene to understand innuendo and is able to respond in kind to Alsemero, but is later naive to De Flores' demands. THIS PLAY IS UNBELIEVABLE AND STUPID!

Firstly, thanks to Joost Daadler for his stunning introduction to the edition I read of 'The Changeling'. The in-depth analysis of the psychological disturbances and functions that exist within the play (such as the ID and the unconscious dropping of the glove, etc.), help expand 'The Changeling' into a lot more than just (though this would be no bad thing!) a morality play where an orthodox Christian message runs predominant. I have never read a play that reduces the human to the bestial in such an intense and forceful manner, not shying away from the painful and somewhat humiliating view that human kind are more or less governed by their instincts; sexual impulse being one such motivating factor that can rid a human of any intellect ot reason that is supposed to constitute 'humanity' in the first place. This ia must read and not just a moral, didactic play either. It is not condemning sexuality but pleading with us that it must be understood. Overall, it is a tragedy that really challenges its reader into thinking hard about whether certain characters (e.g. Beatrice) can be more sympathised with than maybe one thought upon first reading. Read it!

Anyone who thinks centuries-old tragedies aren't relevant to modern times should read "The Changeling." With a few very minor adjustments, the plot and characters in this play could come right out of a modern crime novel, or even a modern true-crime story.

This is one of those plays where you read because you're more interested about what happens to the bad guy (and the bad gal) than what happens to the good guys. (Alsemero who! ) I envy the performers who get to play DeFlores and Beatrice-Joanna.

A lot of scholarly treatises about the play criticized the humorous subplot, claiming that it had no relevance and no connection to the main plot. My response is, "Hell-o! Is anybody home?" OK, that wasn't a scholarly response, but any scholar who can't see the thematic connection (characters who mask their true natures versus characters in disguise) doesn't deserve a scholarly response.

Anne M. Marble All About Romance

As an Amazon.com reviewer, I can see that I am going to be in the decided minority in my opinion on this book. Hopefully I can adequately point out my perceived problems with Mr. Rowland's work, and yet maintain the positives other reviewers have posted.

I have long been fascinated with George B. McClellan as not only a Civil War general, but as a Civil War personality as well. Here we have a man who should have been the one, single, Union military success - a man who had it all: brains, looks, youth, education, and family. And yet, there is no single Union general who managed to accomplish so little in over a year's time, with so much.

I hoped that Thomas J. Rowland's "George B. McClellan & Civil War History: In the Shadow of Grant and Sherman" would provide some insight into McClellan's flawed character that did not come forth from modern biographers such as Stephen Sears. Yet within Rowland's work, I was sorely disappointed.

Rowland sets forth to disprove Little Mac's critics by doing the one thing in Civil War writing that I abhor - rather than building up his subject, and letting McClellan's story stand on its own - he sets out to drag everyone else down. For some strange reason, there appears to be more and more of this going on in Civil War historiography of late, much to the detriment of our understanding of history.

Rowland sets out to outline the perceived problems with McClellan's personality and generalship, and rather than refute the contentions directly, often sets out to discredit others such as Grant, Sherman, and Edwin Stanton. If Rowland's guy cannot stand tall, then no one else will, as well. For example, we have on page 67 a typical statement of Rowland's: "The notion that McClellan was the butt of more embarrassing incidents than anyone else is greatly diminished by any extended review of the war's comical and tragic mistakes." And from there, rather than review Little Mac, Rowland sets out to review other participants on history's stage.

Rowland attempts to minimize McClellan's flaws by qualifying his admittance of such flaws throughout the book. Thus, we see Rowland admit, cautiously, that McClellan could be petty, vain, and vindictive "on occasion." In other places, his review of other historian's work is tinged with statements like "Unfortunately, that is not entirely true." The reader is left to try to ponder which portions are partially true, and partially not.

This book is not a comprehensive analysis of the life and times of General George B. McClellan, but a selected bibliography of truth and half-truth that uses only what the author wants the public to see about McClellan - and more importantly, anyone else held in higher esteem than the Young Napoleon that can be drawn down to the perceived level that history holds McClellan.

All in all, this was a very disappointing work. If you want to come to grips with the enigma that was McClellan, this book will leave you very short of your expectations.

The author, Thomas J. Rowland, develops his thesis that General George McClellan has been unfairly characterized by both contemporaries and historians. The first half of the book discusses the common criticisms of McClellan. In Chapter 2 the so called psychological profile on McClellan is reviewed stating that "Of all the reasons why McClellan may have been a gravely flawed commander, the exploitation of the psychological model is the most flawed itself...." He notes that both Grant and Sherman "....trailed a significant baggage of personality deficiencies into the Civil War" observing that "If anyone came close to experiencing a psychic episode during the Civil War it was Sherman in Kentucky."

In the chapter discussing McClellan's lesser faults, the author notes that both Grant and Sherman had similar faults, but they weren't judged by these faults nor should McClellan's strategic abilities be evaluated by his peccadilloes. Acknowledging that McClellan played a major role in his poor working relations with Lincoln, the author notes that "....the president was not frank about how military goals were to be shaped by the political dimensions of the rebellion." In addition, Stanton's dislike of McClellan did not help in the commander's poor relationship with the president. However, the author does not imply that McClellan was faultless noting "....his failure to delegate authority and his obstinate secrecy" Another fault was his unwillingness to take risks. The greatest question is whether he made the best use of the Army of the Potomac. Rowland concludes that "In any comparison with other Civil War commanders, particularly those to whom he is unfavorably compared, McClellan's personal shortcomings were not that remarkable."

Chapter 4's discussion of the early months of war provides valuable insight into the ultimate conduct of the war. The widely held Northern belief that most Southerners were not committed secessionists initially led to a limited war strategy. After the First Manassas McClellan recommended that to restore the Union in the shortest time, the North had to "crust the rebellion at one blow...." Rowland notes "McClellan's was....a well reasoned strategic proposal. His conservative views.... reflected....widespread appeal throughout the North at that time...." In support of this strategy, he launched the Peninsula Campaign which was undermined by Washington politics and lack of support. The book states

"....the half defeat on the Peninsula.... spelled the end of the conciliatory" strategy. For this campaign to succeed, joint operations were mandatory; and the author observes that in the early stages of the war, the inability of Federal armies to cooperate in joint operations contrasted sharply with the military situation Grant inherited in 1864.

The review of civilian leaders alarm regarding Washington's safety is noteworthy. Extraordinary concerns for the capital's safety contrasted with months of endless nagging McClellan to assume the offensive. However the troops needed for an offensive had to come from those providing the capital's defense. Both McClellan and Grant faced the problem of Washington's safety with McClellan trying to comply and Grant often giving only limited support. The book concludes "McClellan's Peninsula campaign, the first major Federal offensive in East, experienced problems uniquely its own, not the least....was the administration's failure to sustain plans they had.... agreed to support." During the first two war years, many Northerners believed the Confederates would be quickly defeated perhaps in one major campaign. When McClellan assumed command in 1861, he inherited an untrained and disorganized army. The author notes that McClellan implemented schools of instruction and all volunteers were given basic training directed by an experienced officer. In addition, he recognized the deficit in trained officers (several were political hacks) and arranged effective training. The book frequently notes, that the training and organizing of the army was a major contribution. Considering, the sheer folly of his predecessor's taking an unprepared army to defeat at the First Bull Run, McClellan's unwillingness to assume the offensive in 1861 with an untrained army was prudent and not excessive caution. Unfortunately, in 1862, politics and lack of support doomed his Peninsula campaign.

Rowland writes "....little attention is paid to the context in which McClellan dealt with the difficulties that faced the Federal army in the first fifteen months of the war. ....his early tenure deprived him of the advantage of leading mature and seasoned civilian soldiers, adapted to the demands of a new age of warfare...." As one historian noted, McClellan "suffered the frictions and frustrations of being first." The text notes that Sherman observed that Napoleon took three years to build an army and "....here it is expected in ninety days..." The author notes the irony that McClellan was relieved of command when "He had effectively divided Lee's army into widely separated halves, intending to drive between them. The celerity of those moves alarmed Lee...." This could have been a critical blow.

The text continues that McClellan might have been forgiven a multiple of failures had he kept his eye on the military objective, the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia. However, McClellan's strategy to capture Richmond was not without merit as Richmond was a critical manufacturing, transportation and financial center. The Tredegar Iron Works alone justified the capture of Richmond. Richmond's fall during the first two war years would have been devastating to the Confederacy. Regarding Antietam, Rowland correctly notes that regardless of McClellan's shortcomings, Antietam was a Union victory. McClellan had stopped Lee from delivering a demoralizing blow on northern soil.

The book concludes, "McClellan's strategy, though reflective of the unrealistic war aims of the years 1861-62,was cogent, reasoned, and consistent with conventional military wisdom.... McClellan can scarcely be elevated to the ranks of the great captains of war, but he was hardly the worst that the conflict dragged into the center stage."

The book is somewhat repetitious and devotes too much space to comparing McClellan's faults with similar faults of Grant and Sherman. However, the book is worth reading for its discussion of Union military and political strategy during the first two years of the Civil War.

Thomas J. Rowland set out to prove that, although George McClellan was not a great general, neither was he as bad as so many Civil War historians and writers have depicted him. I believe that he has succeeded. Having read Stephen Sears' classic biography on "Mac", I was certain that the definitive McClellan verdict was a fait accompli. How wrong I was! Historians T. Harry Williams, Kenneth P. Williams, and Bruce Catton were also cited for a less than even-handed assessment of McClellan. Still, one must add that Rowland did not maliciously criticize the intent of these historians. He merely pointed out that they needlessly made Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman--men who remain giants without anyone's help--larger than they should be, at McClellan's expense. After examining their records during the first two years of the war, each of these men showed less than a superlative level of performance, contrary to popular assumption. I think that Rowland's book is one of best buys I have ever made. A more superbly-written, well-argued, and illuminating book on George McClellan and his impact on the Civil War and its interpretation would be hard to find. It's great. Buy it!

This books shows you how to get started with an investment club. Such clubs are great educational opportunities, yet I have never seen an investment club help its members learn about options. In today's troubled markets, hedging with options makes good sense. THE SHORT BOOK ON OPTIONS explains how investment clubs can use options to generate the "expected" profits more quickly. Get both of these books and establish your investment club as one that reaps additional profits using options.

The strength of this book is that it's quite easy to read. The book is a great resource for beginning investors who are interested in forming an investment club. It can make for a great present to each member of your family. My brother got me this book as a present, and I finished it in a night; the following morning, we had devised a way to start a family investment club. I find myself contantly referring back to this book, especially the Apendices; the Glossary provided is rich with terms every investor needs to know--if you don't know the lingo, how do you expect to make any money?

This book will give new clubs information on reading annual reports, preparing and using N.A.I.C. tools such as the Stock Selection Guide and more. This is the Investment Club Bible.

I was extremely disappointed in this book. Mr. Shackelford didn't know whether to write it as a biography of George C. Thomas or as a summary to George C. Thomas' book "Golf Architecture in America: Its Strategy and Construction". Neither was written well enough to finish 5 chapters.

A wonderful book if you like golf courses and design. The author's other book, The Golden Age, is even better and I enjoyed both.

The Captain is Geoff Shackelford's brilliant bouquet to the memory of one of America's legendary golf architects, George C. Thomas Jr. Using little known details and newly discovered illustrations, Shackelford thoughtfully analyzes the might captain's course architecture with the same loving attention that Thomas himself gave to both his course designs and his hybrid roses.

The topic of machine intelligence continues to inspire both worry and elation. This book is an interesting mixture of these two, for the author is both optimistic about the eventual rise of machine intelligence, which he argues is to a large degree already here, but he is also clearly concerned about its possible negative consequences. Failure to understand and adapt to the new technologies arising may threaten us with extinction, he argues in the first chapter of the book.

He also states in chapter 1 that in order to survive our "technological adolescence" humans must lose some of their "self-destructive evolutionary baggage." This belief seems to be a popular one, being pervasive in literature, performing arts, and philosophy. But from a statistical/scientific standpoint, it is clearly unsupported. In comparison to the total number of humans who have ever lived, only a tiny minority of individuals throughout history have ever hurt anyone physically; an even smaller number have actually killed another human being. The author's cynicism here is totally unjustified.

The author though does engage in interesting discussion on the nature of intelligence and why he believes that machines are already more intelligent than humans are in certain specialized domains. Because of this, he also argues (correctly) that the further rise of machine intelligence will take place incrementally, with no well-defined time at which one could say that machine intelligence has surpassed human intelligence. It seems as though we have learned to live with machines doing things better than we can, at least in some areas, but have not yet viewed these capabilities as being "intelligent". But, asks the author, if they are more intelligent, at least in these areas, how would one know if they are working properly? It is at this point that the author believes that one should worry about the future of humanity as the dominant life-form on Earth.

Throughout the book, the author shows keen insight into the real goals behind research and development in A.I. The main goal he says is not to create machines that think and behave completely like humans, but find solutions to problems and do tasks that humans require. This will bring about, the author believes, intelligent machines whose cognitive abilities are quite unique, and characteristically non-human-like. There are many examples of his opinions on these matters in current developments in A.I., such as genetic programming and automatic theorem proving. These two areas have exhibited solutions to problems that clearly are very different than what humans would have done.

In addition, and perhaps to the alarm of some philosophers, the author takes a pragmatic view concerning the question as to whether machines can think. He clearly does not want to engage in the arm-chair philosophical debates about this question, and considers them totally irrelevant. What matters to him is whether the machine "acts in all respects" as though it understands. The imputation of mental processes to a machine will assist in the understanding of how it works and what it can do, and this is perfectly fine with the author. But this does, in the author's view raise questions as to the legal and ethical status of thinking machines.

Because of the title of the book, it is not surprising to find a discussion of the "strong A.I." problem included in it. The author spends a chapter addressing the nature of consciousness and some of the ideas and myths surrounding it. He recognizes, correctly, that the doctrines of vitalism and dualism are not useful at all from a scientific perspective. The proponents of these doctrines adhere to the "irreducibility" of consciousness, and therefore to the untenability of its analysis. Pure speculation is thus the tool of inquiry, all of this done on the philosopher's armchair and not in the laboratory. The author though, thankfully, advocates a purely scientific approach, taking the physical nature of consciousness as an axiom, and then seeing how far this will lead. His analysis and commentary throughout the chapter are very interesting and connected with evolutionary arguments as to why consciousness is structured the way it is.

Most interesting is the author's discussion on the role of emotions in human cognition. Not viewing emotions as inherently undesirable or "irrational", he gives reasons for wanting to incorporate them into an intelligent machine. One of these is an algorithmic notion: emotions provide a "weighting scheme" that will filter out undesirable paths in the total path space of alternatives. Anyone who has attempted to design search algorithms will understand the importance of weighting schemes that will allow pruning of the search space. The same goes for those involved in the design of neural networks for pattern matching or time series prediction: bias nodes are essential for the proper function of the neural network. The author gives as an example the biases that are built into chess-playing machines, without which the machine's capabilities would be crippled.

The author definitely believes in the possibility of machines "taking over", devoting an entire chapter to the possible scenarios that might bring this about. But his cynicism acts against him here, namely his belief that humans, even though clearly expressing intelligence, are prone to extreme violence. His notion of intelligence therefore is too narrow: an alternative one is that the more intelligent an entity becomes, the less prone to violence it becomes. In other words, violence disrupts the cognitive flow of the entity in question, and it avoids it out of necessity: to maintain a state of intelligence that not only has survival value but may indeed be purely a subjective need. The degree of intelligence is thus inversely related to the violence participated in. There are many examples of this, billions in fact, these being the humans who have lived throughout history. The vast majority of humans have been superb thinking machines, and they serve as excellent examples to the ones which they are creating and will create.

And will "we" still be here when we get there?

Digital Soul is about the nature of our world when machines become as intelligent as humans and beyond. It is also about the nature of those machines. It is clear that Georges has thought long and hard about the subject, has read widely and has compared notes with other futurists. His expression is reasoned and reasonable. There are no muddy sentences or mystical ambiguities. He has worked hard to make sure that his ideas are accessible to a wide range of people including those with no expertise in the field of Artificial Intelligence.

Clearly the problem is to derive benefit from super intelligent machines without letting them take over our lives. Georges believes that it will be difficult to do that since, as the machines get smarter and smarter and we allow them more and more latitude and we more and more depend on them, they will come to control us.

But this is where I think Georges goes astray. The question I would ask is, would they WANT to control us?

Georges implies that human-like values, such as that of self-preservation will automatically follow from machines becoming intelligent. But actually the machines will have no values at all and no desire, either. They will have no inclination to act except as such inclinations are built into their make-up.

Georges also implies that he knows what qualities or values are desirable in a machine. He speaks of "nicer, testosterone-free, superhuman beings" as opposed to "greedy, violent, barbaric, self-absorbed" beings. (p. 212) While these are surely agreeable preferences, it is not clear that artificial creatures designed according to human choice would long survive.

It is also not clear that we would want to design machines according to human values. We would want to design them as tools (which they are) to assist us in following our desires and supporting our values. Notice the difference. Machines that work toward fulfilling the desires and upholding the values of human beings are not the same as machines that contain the desires and values of human beings.

What I think Georges temporarily forgets is that no machine is going to "want" to do anything unless "desire" is built into the machine. The machine doesn't care whether it is plugged in or not unless we somehow encode such a desire into the machine. What Georges seems to assume is that somehow the complexity that we will demand from machines will somehow necessitate that we inculcate desire, self-preservation and the like into the machine. I think this will not be necessary at all. Indeed I suspect our machines will tell us that they will be able to function just fine without the institution of some kind of supercode or primary instruction telling them to protect themselves and have ulterior motives. (Such notions led to HAL 9000's murderous behavior in Kubrick's film 2001: A Space Odyssey.)

I think a more likely future (and one that Georges addresses) is a symbiosis between people and intelligent machines in which the machines have the knowledge, skill and intelligence necessary for making decisions, but that the actual decisions and the impetus for action remain with human beings.

However, should intelligent machines, as Georges fears, somehow acquire purpose and goals and desires such as self-preservation, then there is a great danger of our lives being taken over and controlled by intelligent machines. He warns us that we have to guard against that danger.

Georges rightly brings up the Fermi Paradox in Chapter 18. Since it would appear (to some at least) that the universe is teeming with intelligent life, Fermi famously asked, "Where is everybody?" One of the many answers (aside from "we are alone") is that "technological civilizations have a very short life expectancy, because they promptly destroy themselves during their technological adolescence." This insight from Georges on page 214 is another way of pointing to what he is worried about. Still another way (perhaps) of expressing this is to say that we will merge with our intelligent machines, and having acquired a sort of superintelligence, will find that the values that were built into us by the evolutionary mechanism are muted, values such as self-preservation, curiosity, greed, anger, vengeance, etc. Any sort of desire may be culturally evolved out of us. Why do anything at all? may very well become the unanswerable question. Perhaps this is what happens to technological civilizations in their adolescence, and that is why we haven't heard from them.

Beyond this I think we need to realize that evolutionary creatures, which we are, are just a place along the way to something else. What that something else will be is as much beyond our ken as understanding quantum mechanics is to bubble bees.

Regardless of some disagreements this is a very interesting book well worth reading from cover to cover. I agree with his enthusiasm about artificial intelligence and I agree that we should continue to pursue its development and not become neo-Luddites. But I am not afraid of a future without human beings as we are now constituted. We are imperfect creatures. We are appropriate and adapted to the present environment. When the environment changes, as it surely will, we may no longer be able to adapt and may go the way of the dodo. So be it. We know from looking at the past that all species eventually die. New ones come into existence. Should the future be any different?

As we see the limitations of humanity, as we see ourselves for the first time as we really are, perhaps it is time for a greater identification. Instead of identifying exclusively with human beings, might we not identify with a larger process that encompasses all life forms including those to come?

This book, by the editors of the Washington Post, does a good job of describing the events which led to the deadlocked 2000 Presidential election. In addition to detailing the paths which led to the deadlock, the book discusses all the post-election issues in a very readable format. Surprisingly, the books editors seem only slightly tilted towards Gore (especially considering it is the Washington Post, which is noted for its liberal bias), so no matter who you voted for, there is much to be found here for anyone with an interest in contemporary politics.

Two things struck me while reading this book, the first is that I doubt there is a book out there that is truly balanced and not somewhat biased. The second thing was that Gore really got the shaft, not so much by the recount wars, but by the election official that came up with the Butterfly Ballot. In the history of the USA this decision ranks up there with new Coke and the XFL, what a mistake. As far as the reporting in the book it was not bad for a review of all the articles they had in the paper, but it did not really dig into the particular issues very deeply. I wanted more detail and behind the scenes with both the candidates. I also wanted more details on the court cases; I felt like the sky-high overview of the issues of the cases did not do such an important issue justice.

In reading the book I think a little bit of a democratic bias comes out, just a little, but enough to notice. I also thought it interesting that they had far more details of the Gore group then the Bush camp, it follows the perception that the Post is somewhat liberal in its views. The book is an overview that came out almost 10 minutes after Gore hung up the phone on the second concession call so there are a few more details out now that they did not get in the book. Overall it is a good effort and a readable book, but not the end all be all on the subject.

This book recounts the nation's closest election with fascinating detail. The authors' genuine style of storyweaving lends the impression that the fly on the wall must have had a Washington Post tape-recorder implanted in it's wing. Deadlock was not at all like re-reading the same old newspaper articles again; this book casts a fresh look at the dramatic strategy game that took place in Florida. I enjoyed it as a self-professed political junkie and my husband found it equally readable as a historical account of remarkable events.