Bennett Books

I've been trading the ART software for almost five years and have found it to be the easiest to use of all the technical analysis systems I've tested. What helps me is that the software gives me entries and exits plus risk control. Other approaches would give me entries -- but then didn't always have clear exit signals before I placed my trade. Problem with that for me is that there wasn't a way to calculate the trade size -- since I didn't have an exit selected prior to my entry. The other aspect of the ART software is that it has voice technology so I can work on other things while I'm waiting for my entry or exit. There's no chance of missing the signal because a voice comes on that says "Pyramid Trading Point Entry NOW". Of course the ART book has tons of material on how to use the ART software system -- but it's also got a strong foundation in all the areas needed for success including money management, trading psychology, risk capital, etc. Meaning -- it's not a total loss if you don't end up using the software when you are done with the book.

This book is very detailed and through and explains the value of how price and volume are the true realities of any market. I learned a great deal about the benefits of technical analysis and how to apply it. As an investor, the ART Software helps to identify trending markets and identifies buying opportunities, as well as, when the trend has finished and it is time to sell. Using risk control and how to apply it is also explained with clarity and detail. I learned a great deal from this book and therefore I highly recommend it.

If you are a trader, his book is a must! You will learn the many necessary facets needed to win in trading. From money management and risk control to the science of reality based trading this book has it all. It also comes with a neat DVD and a free software trial. I highly recommend this book to all traders!

If you are a novice trader you can really benefit from Bennett McDowell's methodical approach to trading explained in "The ART of Trading". If you are an experienced trader and open to new ideas, this book can give you a new edge.

Bennett McDowell's method helps the trader add structure to his/her trading skills. The book also addresses the power of psychology. How everyone reacts to the financial market is a function of their psychology and Bennett McDowell helps us discover that dimension.

What I also liked about "The Art of Trading" is that Bennett McDowell does not promise the reader the Holy Grail with a "get rich quick" type of recipe. Trading needs to be treated with the utmost discipline, rigor, passion, and needless to mention lots of work. Trading is like playing a musical instrument. The more you play and practice, the more you learn, the better you perform.

This book and Bennett's approach to trading has helped me improve my trading skills and has given me the peace of mind that I need to become a better trader.

What I liked about the book is that it covers all the various aspects of trading, from psychology to money management and explains the true realities of the markets which are price and volume. In his book, McDowell does not lull readers into thinking ART is a "get rick fast" trading system and instead instills the notion of strict risk control and discipline, essentially helping readers to learn how to trade in a market where odds are against traders.
The down side is that the trading ideas in the book are applicable for his software only. Therefore unless you purchase the software, the majority of the book is pretty much just nice to read but not that useful.

This book is an excellent resource for those entering the Architecture profession. It is exhaustive and has information I couldn't find easily elsewhere.

This book is a great desk reference for any materials needed in construction. I am a student and find myself going back to this book semester after semester. Great Book.

Certainly THE bible in the construction industry. The problem is the depth to which this book delves in discussing rather dry, mundane topics. I guess if someone needs to know just about anything in construction, it's here, but be forewarned that there is an IMMENSE amount of information that must be waded through in order to find a specific piece of information. Often used as a textbook in Constructing 101 since it is so exhaustive in its scope (we spent an entire semester on only 1 chapter!). Also makes good reading for insomniacs.

As the other reviews stated this book is in depth. If you are a building professional than you should already know the fundementals and require a reference that is the basis of your field. This book is too exausting for school, but as soon as you move to the office you should use it as the starting point for your details, CD's and specs. I used this book to study for the ARE and it has also come in handy when questions arise on the construction site with contractors. I have always felt that, as Architects, we have enough books all about subjects that we hire consultants for ie. Structures, MEP but we are the ones who need to be the experts about our handicraft: Construction.

It is certainly THE BIBLE for construction. Boy, I sweated it! But, if you can get through it, it is certainly worth the efford.

An awesome history lesson, especially for those who have forgotten what it takes to defeat evil in the world. I hesitantly started reading this book expecting some blowhard general to gloat about his limited accomplishments in the big war. I had a very pleasant surprise and was drawn into another perspective of what we did as a nation to defeat Hitler and his cronies. The title is taken from a line in the Cadet's Prayer from West Point. It is a prayer we all could use to recite occasionally. I very highly recommend this book.

The book is well written and was hard to put down. It tells Gen. Donald V. Bennett's story of the struggle to get in and through West Point. It next moves to initial artillery training. Here he learns how to ride a horse while pulling his artillery piece. In addition, he learned how to place his foot where it would not be crushed while riding the horse. His stories of North Africa included the sights, smells, running a bordello (to get the disease rate down), and fighting Rommell. His insights and experiences in Sicily were preparations for his Normandy experience. His spell binding account of Normandy is the best chapter in the book and as good as any ever written. He gives a fresh point of view on the Battle of the Bulge pointing out the signs and intelligence higher up overlooked. His conclusion with experiences and insights about the Russians are eye opening.

I really enjoyed this first hand account of General Bennett's experiences. I have read this type of book extensively, and I put this very close to the top of my list.

I especially enjoyed his comments about how people behaved and thought during this climatic time in our history. His feelings about missing his wife, and how he felt when his first troopers died, and what that must have meant to the families added a real human touch. I enjoyed his description of train rides, gas rationing, and many other small points that really gave me a feel for what it was like for not just soldiers, but also civilians, both American and Foreign.

I agree, it would have been really nice to have some pictures of what his vehicles looked like and some maps. But, I would also have enjoyed a picture of his wife whom he obviously loved deeply. A picture of Fort Knox, or Fort Sill during training.

Those would really have added value to this book, but it certainly stands out without them too. My thanks to General Bennett for sharing his story, and not just the combat.

Well done!!

The first hand telling of WWII by a retired 4 star general. Detailed battle discriptions and analysis, and amazing individual encounters. Possibly THE BEST BOOK I HAVE EVER READ!!!!!

This is one of the best books I have read on World War Two, and I have read many. Bennett takes us back in time, as if we are sitting in his living room listening to him over coffee. He tells us what it was like to be an American officer during World War Two. He reveals the worry of 1942 - 1943 that we could lose the war. At that point, we were military amateurs compared to the Germans and Japanese. Our military had been dismantled after World War One.

Bennett shows an interesting side to Patton. Bennett had malaria and was in the hospital where Patton slapped a soldier for cowardice. Bennett, who was in the next tent over, cheered Patton on, as did the other patients. Patton was confronting the growing problem of desertion among American soldiers in Sicily, which was another worry we don't often hear about.

Bennett comments on the realism of the first 20 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan," which is the D Day landing at Omaha Beach. Then he adds that the real thing was four terrifying hours of that 20 minute sequence.

He sprinkles leadership advice throughout his narrative: Remain humble as an officer. Eat the same food the men eat; live in the same conditions. The worst officers, in Bennett's view, were the ones who considered soldiers their personal servants.

The book is written as a living room chat. It is not written with the polish of a John Toland or Cornelius Ryan or Stephen Ambrose. But it is movingly written.

"Lizzie Goes Wild" is a good book based on the televison series. I, personally, like Part Two better, but that's just me. Here's a sneak peek of both parts.

PART ONE---Lizzie (aka Good Girl McGuire) gets detention. HER! DETENTION! Lizzie is so upset but in detention she meets Angel Lieberman, and she realizes that Angel's no monster, and that she's pretty cool. But that's just what Lizzie thinks. Lizzie starts hanging out with Angel, and Miranda and Gordo want her back. Lizzie starts ditching them and lying. Can Miranda and Gordo get Good Girl McGuire back off the wild side?

PART TWO---Gordo's new obsession is this Rat Pack cool lounge stuff. Lizzie and Miranda first aren't with Gordo on it, then they change their mind. Lizzie and Miranda turn all the Rat Pack lounge stuff into a new trend, and Gordo doesn't want any part of it. He wants to be his own person, and is upset that it turned into the new fad. It's the trendsetter himself that gets left behind. Will Lizzie and Miranda get Gordo to jump back on the Rat Pack wagon? Or will he stay left behind?

This book is a novelization of two episodes of Lizzie McGuire. The first one is called "Bad Girl McGuire". In that part of the story, Lizzie gets detention and starts hanging out with a girl named Angel and suddenly goes "bad". Of course, since this is a children's show (and book), she doesn't do anything drastic, but her friends still want the old Lizzie back. In the second part of the book is the episode "Come Fly With Me", where Gordo is into 60's(not hippie, but "Rat Pack")stuff. Lizzie and Miranda accidentally make it a trend, but then Gordo gets mad and stops liking it(or at least pretends to.) The title of this book is sort of fitting for the first story, but not the second. This is an exact copy of the show, but to make it seem more like a real book, the writer adds a lot of details, like Lizzie writing a note to her math teacher, but then getting rid of it. I recommend this book only to people who either are collectors or have very young children. The whole story is completely G rated and can be a bit boring. Just buy the videos, it's more fun that way.

I liked when Lizzie met Angel and she got all weird and put a nose ring on her nose but instead it was an earring. But then Gordon and Miranda made up a video about Lizzie and they told Lizzie that they would give her the answers for the quiz and when Lizzie came in the room Gordo and Miranda made Lizzie sit down in a chair and show her the video and it changed Lizzie back to normal.

This book is divided into two pars, so I've reviewed each part separately.

Part 1: 7/10 Lizzie gets stuck in detention with Angel Lieberman, the class rebel, and decides that Angel is misunderstood. She decides to dress and act like Angel. But she's dissing her old friends. Can they get the old Lizzie McGuire back? This story did not have much of an ending.

Part 2: 8/10 Gordo decides that he likes the Rat Pack and everything vintage, and Lizzie and Miranda decide to follow suit. But when Ethan Craft becomes curious about the fashions that Gordo and the girls are wearing and they tell him where they got them, the whole school follows suit and a new fad is started. Suddenly, Gordo is mad at Lizzie and Miranda. Can they patch thier friendship up? This part was better than the first one in this book.

Overall, this book is fairly good.

This book is very good, and it has 2 stories in 1 book. If you have watched the series, though, there will be no surprises, or nothing to keep you guessing what happens next. It's exactly like the series, and so are all of the others. It is a good book, though.

Dr. Deborah J. Bennett, a professor of mathematics, writes about logic making it easy and simple for us to understand. Logic is not always up front. Dr. Bennett writes the book to help us understand logic. I would recommend this book for anybody interested in opening their minds. This book would be great read for an aspiring college student. High School students heading off to colleges and universities should have some idea of logic. It's not taught enough in the earlier grades. Dr. Bennett's approach is simple and practical advice and much more common sense. She writes to the reader rather than preachy and out of tone. Dr. Bennett writes as if you are right there with her having a discussion. It's a good discussion.

Geez, go ahead and buy this book. If you get it, and it is way to simple, then give it away as a gift. for others it will 'fit the bill' by doing exactly what the title claims, make logic easy.

On page 125 Bennet writes: "This [Modus Ponens] is a valid inference as long as the two premises are true". But the sentence should read: "This is a valid inference, and as long as the two premises are true the conclusion will be true".
The original formulation is in fact mistaken. Modus Ponens, like all valid inferences, is valid also in the case in which the two premises are false.
The standard definition of validity says that an argument is valid if and only if if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Since "if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true" is a conditional statement, it is true in the case in which its antecedent is false (and therefore the premises are false). So the original formulation confuses validity with truth.

If you read this book, you'll be sure to understand that 'All S are P' does not imply that 'All P are S.' If you don't read this book, you may understand this anyway. But if you don't understand this, then you must not have read this book (modus tollens!). Most of the book covers basic syllogisms and All/Not/Some/If statements.

Throughout the book are a number of logic problems from standardized tests. The book discusses modus ponens and affirming the consequent, and gives an overview of common fallacies, such as begging the question. I would have liked to see more of the latter, however. Bennett further spends many pages addressing the issue of why people are illogical, frequently citing recent research. This is nice, but repetitive. How many times does she have to mention the common problem caused by bringing external knowledge into logical reasoning?

I disagree with those who say this book is advanced. It seems simple enough to me. For example, although Bennett mentions Barbara, Celarent, etc., she clearly doesn't think the average reader needs to memorize this. Nor does she spend much time on symbols used in formal logic.

"Logic Made Easy" by Deborah J. Bennett

A peculiar shortcoming of rationalism, is that it is no better than the people who practice it. There are those who claim to be rationalists, and who pride themselves, thinking that they are embodiments of logic, but who still embrace flawed propositions. Why? The method may be a perfect science, but those who practice the method may operate with errors, bias, and ulterior motives. This is why books like "LOGIC MADE EASY" can help us.

There is other generalized information that I wish to communicate to you. From an early age, I have been fascinated by matters of LOGIC. Learn from me, so that you do not enter into discouragement. I have taken up and failed at studying LOGIC many times. Allow me to tell you why. It is because in normal day to day activities, our minds do not function in the Logical manner suggested by the books. Why is that? How does our Mind operate? Only formal efforts produce book-like syllogisms. Life itself, operates on the principle of a hidden syllogism. We have the conclusion of logic, without the syllogism being made explicit, or objectively clear.

Pause and think for a moment. The Greeks postulated CHAOS. Even now, from the swirling CHAOS around us, Life itself has no stated propositions, empirically observable. Physical matter itself does not speak to us. It offers only silence. From that silence, our mind must operate selectively, choosing Primary Assumptions, and from this will follow logical corrollaries, or extensions by logic. This is why the book of life is readeable. It is for us to discover the Hidden Syllogisms. There are more obscure obstacles.

The authors of books on formal logic almost never write about the fundamental duality of life; that only part of life is Objective. That the greater manifestation of life is entirely Subjective.

Then there are the myths that logic ought to make us into some kind of perfectly logical automaton, like a robot. I'm sorry, but that is silly. One of the shortcomings of Logic books is that they almost never clarify the Subjective side of Life, and the relationship between the Objective and the Subjective. That is why we have books by some, proclaiming themselves to be "rationalists" (and scientists), that they have proven the NON-EXISTENCE of the Super-Subjective, otherwise known as "God". Worse still is the implication that sometimes creeps into writings by "rationalists" who infer that pure rationalism prohibits belief or faith in our spiritual life.

Moreover, the role of FEELINGS are also left unclear. Logic books are their own worst enemy. When people find that they have FEELINGS, and operate in a world where logic is all very fine and nice, but POWER is the rule of the day, they become very discouraged with the idea that Logic is of any real use. "What's the point?" they demand, and angrily toss aside the books on Logic. Logic books rarely clarify the role of subjective principles such as Power, Feeling, Intuition, and the like. Losing a student in this manner is the fault of the expert teacher, not the fault of the student, who will wrongfully conclude that he or she is "stupid".

I rate this 5 stars, but I do not agree with the cover language that this is:

"The best and the most lucid introduction to logic you will find." --Martin Gardner (from the book cover)

Much struggle with complex ideas has taught me that we often do better to start simple and work up to the more definitive lessons. I have reviewed 2 other INTRODUCTIONS to logic in the past few months. Both are simpler, but I must make the observation that "LOGIC MADE EASY" is more thorough, more complete, including SET THEORY and SYMBOLIC LOGIC and LME is profoundly rich in historical background material. For those of us who are fascinated by What Aristotle learned from Plato concerning Logic, this is of interest. Credit Deborah J. Bennett for including this historial material. It shows good scholarship.

Allow me to clarify some of these remarks, lest the reader think that my review is intended to suggest that you PREFER one book to the exclusion of others. I recommend buying several books. If you see three book reviews, rating all 5 Stars, I mean to say that you should buy all three, not just one. These must be studied patiently. The goal is Truth, and the great difficulty in Life, is that Truth requires work, always, whereas Lies are quick and easy. The student of Truth must literally sacrifice himself and his opinions to reach the Truth. This is the reason why not everyone claiming to be a "scientist" or a "rationalist" is an Einstein, or a Faraday.

Our inclinations may lead us in one direction, whereas the logic of basic facts tend to go in the other. Let me remind with a serious WARNING also, that there is much published in books today by authors who are very biased, who have no regard for facts, whose popular literature on hot issues of public debate is rife with logical and philosophical error. Logic has nothing to do with "shouting louder" than the other fellow. In fact, C.G. Jung liked to point out that when argumentation passes a particular point in emotionality, it no longer is rationally useful. Truly, men can function as beasts at times, losing sight of their heritage.

Have you ever wonderd what happens to all the gargoyles at night?Well, this book will tell you!Writtin by Eve Bunting this book is a great childrens book.
In this book the gargoyles all wait intell night comes around thats when they wake up.Some of them go to the fountin where other gargoyles are are spitting from there leage.Others just run around town or fly through the sky.
The pictures in this bool are by David Wiener and they are great! He draws all of the gargoyles extremly well!My feelings about the bokk are that its an awsome childrens book and I think everybody should read it!

This book is about how in the day gargoyles are still, dead like stone figures, but at night they live. They fly around and cause trouble. Then by morning there as dead looking as ever, till night comes.

This book I think is a great kid's book. It's easy to understand, yet, there are hard words for them which will make them smarter, in the end I would give this book a five out of five stars.

Night of the Gargoyles is a highly interesting, spooky gargoyle book. This spooky book has all of the things that gargoyles would do at night. All in all this is a perfect book for children.
Eve Bunting uses ALOT of descriptive words in this book. It seems she uses at least three descriptive words on each page. Even if the pictures weren't there you could still very easily see what is happening in the story because of the use of the descriptive words.
A lot of the younger children would like this book because of all of the little gargoyles they have in there that kids normally like. It seems that in this book kids could really get into it and they would actually listen. Even though this book is intended for kids they would ask some questions because of some of the words that they use in the book.

Eve Bunting is not only one of the most prolific children's authors writing, she is also one of the best. Her poetic tale of NIGHT OF THE GARGOYLES is a darkly comical look at what happens at night when the sun goes down. Taking a cue from THE NUTCRACKER, THE VELVETEEN RABBIT, and other famous "come to life" stories, Bunting weaves a poetic homage to the stone guardians about when and how they come to life and what they do when no one is looking. David Wiesner's magnificent black, white, and grey illustrations are a perfect accompaniment to the text. The youngest and most easily scared of readers may find the story too scary. However, older children and even adults can be entertained by and enjoy the "foolish" (mischievous) escapades of these ancient stone warriors.

Imagine this Prom scene: girl in sweet, demure, ripped gauzy dress walks in with Gothboy dressed to the nine's in Goth attire. Closer---the girl has a black teardrop tattoed beneath her eye.

There, I have just introduced Eve Bunting, writer of sweet and bittersweet children's books: "The Wall," a Vietnam veteran takes his son to experience the Wall; "Smoky Nights," ethnic neighbors come together in this burning of L.A. during the '70's; "Dreaming of America," the story of one immigrant family arriving at Ellis Island; "I Love You, Too," a fabulous story of a daddy rabbit's and son's mutual love. And there is
David Wiesner, artist extraordinaire with an edgy twist to his work: "Tuesday," frogs on lily pads flying everywhere; "Flotsam," a camera criss-crossing the oceans reflecting children across time and space; "June 29, 1999," science experiment gone really bizarre and involving aliens.

"Night of the Gargoyles" merges these two Caldecott winners to create a phantasmagorical children's book. Eve has been infected with Goth--go, girl (not that I'm Goth, but it is a great Gothic sort of book). As a children's librarian, I always advise my student/children to look at the cover and every page in a children's book. You can count on creators of children's books "not to color in the lines," meaning they may begin the story anywhere: cover, end pages, half-title page, title page, or even page one. So we look first at the cover of "Night of the Gargoyles." Yep, they began there. One gargoyle has "awakened" and stares at us, almost as if we caught him in the act. Blood-red end pages (just inside front and back covers)--we'll come back to those, hey! a definition page--good, we need to know what a gargoyle is, title page with a regular gargoyle, page one--a really scary close-up of three stony gargoyles at the close of day.

"till night comes"....three gargoyles stretch and yawn. "[G]argoyles creep on stubs of feet"... Wow, what evil looks, or is it my imagination? All these dark drawings are eerie, fantastic, and downright scary.

In fact, I read this to my first graders and totally creeped them out. I showed them the book beforehand, told them it was really really scary and I could read another book. NOOOOO, read that one!! OK, if you get scared, go to the other room. My library is divided into two rooms. We have story time in one room and class in the other. As I read to these quaking children, hugging each other, the girls would jump up, scream, and run into the other room. Even some of the boys joined them. Then they would run back, sit down, scream, and do it again. Fun, fun, fun! It was delicious, scary fun. Of course, they all wanted to check out this book.

The reaction of these children is surely a great indicator of just how wonderful this book is. Of course, you know your own child. The illustrations are graphically vivid in portraying these creatures in stony action. They annoy the cherubs in the fountain who have to spit water forever. They sit together like old men huddling in front of an old-time country store and grump over the hazards of their job: hot sun all day, leaves clogging their throats, pigeons doing what pigeons are wont to do. Then they scuttle about to terrorize the night watchman. Until..."It's almost morning now/and so the gargoyles fly,/ up walls/ as spiders do." And they become guardians of the day once again, "till night comes."

Blood red. The end pages, remember? This is just my theory, but I think David, even though he totally loved drawing in blacks, whites, grays, silvers, he missed his vivid greens and oranges, and yellows, so he asked the publisher, Could I have red, please, for the end pages? There they are!

In my opinion, this book places the present knowledge of "the mind", in the right perspective.
It tells us about the limitations of neurobiological approaches, and the contribution of an independent philosophy. It seems that the latter should not be a simple philosophical approach to the neurobiological knowledge of the field, but a knowledge in its own right.

I claim that with language we are nothing-but jabbering naked apes!

Seriously though, this is the best-written exposition of the Anglo-American analytical philosophical view of the current status of conceptualizing going on surrounding the new sciences of "mind and brain." It is written with extreme clarity. It is very readable in that one can start almost anywhere using the table of contents and the annotations throughout to find points of interest. You can almost read it as if it were web enabled after putting away the first chapter or two. The authors succeed in their goal in making the book very easy to use and understand. I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in philosophy of mind, or philosophy of neuroscience. All the arguments are up-to-date. All the major polarizing issues in the field are covered, and all the major players are given coverage. The footnotes and appendices are also well done. The clarity of exposition and good grammar is admirable.

The only problem with the book is that they are completely wrong. The authors' point of view is built almost entirely on a view of meaning that has outlived its usefulness. Ludwig Wittgenstein has the unique distinction of having lead two, going on three, generations of philosophers on two continents into semantic oblivion TWICE in one career, and the authors are bent on continuing that tradition. They criticize neuroscientists (and those philosophers who are tagging along for the ride) primarily for misusing concepts. They have nothing bad to say about the quality of research or the scientific achievements except where the wrong kinds of experiments get done or where results are misconstrued due to continuing conceptual confusion. Nevertheless, they exemplify the extreme unquestioning dedication to a rationalism based on how words are or should be used according to public linguistic norms. (A rule is a rule, right?) The book then amounts to 400 some odd pages of hand-slapping as the philosophers, like English teachers, take it upon themselves to discipline all those unruly slang laden neuroscientists. No wonder analytical philosophers are characterized as pompous or irrelevant all too often. (They give philosophy majors like me a bad name.)

I likewise do not have much enthusiasm for the naïve reductionist views that are prevalent among neuroscientists and the "eliminative" views that support them. I held both views myself some 35 years ago. But I finally outgrew it with good reason upon realizing how badly reductionism was doing explaining our natural world, particularly its failings in accounting for emergent behavior in systems, quantum phenomena and the relationship between them. Another reason was being turned off by all the uncritical go-go-science cheerleading from the sidelines. I worry for what the public will make of all the mind-brain breakthrough bragging going on. Reading this book provided me with a much needed philosophical tune-up and the realization that I'd better be more careful of what I say and how I say it. But it did not convince me that a blind allegiance to the "meaning is use" view will get us any closer to resolution of these issues. This is only going to lead to a stalemate, or worse - the winner will unfortunately be the guy with the most government funding and press time - not the one with the most sensible and meaningful philosophical outlook. The main contribution of the book is to accidently demonstrate how badly a new approach is needed.

To solve these problems and get philosophers and neuroscientists on the same page will require a new view of meaning, what it is, where it comes from, how it evolves, and what exactly it has to do with usage norms. Such a view is, I think, not too far off. Read this book, and then go read everything you can about cognitive semantics and cognitive linguistics by folks like Lakoff, Johnson, Turner, Fauconnier, Elman, Bates, etc, etc. Once the full implications of what this area of research has to say about concepts, language, language games and philosophy itself are known, some new ways of approaching these stale philosophical problems will surface. [OOPs, guess I blew it, areas of research cannot talk, sorry Hacker.] When that happens, I am sure we will all find the words to express it.

I concur with the reviews below. I would also like to advise reading Peter Munz's "Critique of Impure Reason" and "Beyond Wittgenstein's Poker" as prerequisites or complements to this book.

In addition, I would like to underscore the kind of practical guidance this book has to offer. For example, on page 134 (paperback), the authors state--

"We are not suggesting that these considerations settle the a priori question of whether colours (and other secondary qualities) are objective qualities of objects or subjective modifications of our sensibility. The arguments are complex and ramified. [footnote here] What we are suggesting is that cognitive neuroscientists should not adopt a non-scientific, metaphysical doctrine of questionable philosophical ancestry, which is supported by philosophical arguments of questionable validity. This recommendation is by no means trivial, since the seventeenth-century conception of reality, of what is objective and what is subjective, of the nature of perception and its objects, has profoundly affected the ways in which brain scientists currently conceive of their investigations. This particular philosophical doctrine is not necessary for coherent, successful neuroscientific investigation, and neuroscientists' reports of the results of their investigations would benefit, not suffer, from bypassing this contentious conceptual matter."

If you would prefer bypassing the futile attempt to conduct twenty-first century research using seventeeth-century metaphysics, then you will appreciate this kind of guidance.

And the book is a treasure trove rich with examples of this kind of sage and practical guidance.

*disclaimer: I am writing this as a philosopher of mind so any parts of the book or chapters not related to this are not what I am addressing.*

I do not mean to say that Bennett and Hacker have all the answers, but their "ordinary language" approach, along with their debt to Wittgenstein, Ryle, Kenny and Strawson, says something about their book. Most contemporary philosophers of mind (Sprague, Strawson and Hacker, among others, excluded) have rightly dismissed the soul, but have decided that there is something "mysterious" about consciousness, or perception or emotion, or what have you. In response, Bennett and Hacker have shown what "consciousness" really is: the conscious acts of people existing in the world. This is why we know that other people are conscious actors: they do conscious things such as watch birds, or play chess, or eat ham sandwiches.

If Michael Tye's or David Chalmers' or Colin McGinn's problems of consiousness (e.g. that I can know that you feel the same pain that I feel, or that you see the same color that I see) are indeed problems for you, you should read this book; if it doesn't prove to you that they are not problems at all, at least it will give you a new way of looking at the problems so that you may come to your own interesting conclusions.

This book is an anachronistic attempt to police the language used by neuroscientists. Don't waste your money.

While neuroscientists let data drive their models of the world, these authors, as is typical of those entranced by early 20th century Oxbridge navalgazing, get it backwards. They consider "our" (that is, their) concepts of mind and use these concepts to tell the neuroscientists how they should be modelling and talking about the brain. Scientists are world-focused, trying to understand the phenomena, while these authors are language-focused, and try to turn their armchair musings into prescriptions about how neuroscience should operate. Thankfully, this book has had, and will have, no effect on practicing neuroscientists.

One of their arguments, for instance, is that the term 'discrimination' is only appropriately applied to persons, that it is used to describe their behavioral dispositions. It is a mistake, these Quixotic language police aver, to import this language into the brain and describe brain processes as discriminating something. This is an inane argument. Let's say the authors are right that neuroscientists have extended the term 'discriminate' to something beyond which it originally applied. Big deal. Is it really helpful to arbitrarily sanctify certain linguistic conventions? You might as well say it is not appropriate to call something a computer because originally the word computer only applied to people like accountants who computed things for a living. I want to understand how the brain works, and I'm perfectly happy adapting preexisting words to do this. They need to go back to the drawing board and come back when they have something useful to say.

You will like this book only if you don't know anything about systems neuroscience, you like the linguocentric perspective of the analytic philosophers, and if you fetishize Wittgenstein (they use him as an authority in matters of linguistic overbearance).

The best thing about this book is its title, which is actually a misnomer. If you want to learn about the conceptual foundations of neuroscience, read a neuroscience text like Kandel and Schwartz (Principles of Neural Science), Purves (Neuroscience), or Kristoph Koch (Biophysics of Computation).

I give it two stars rather than one because it is such a clear example of philosophy that is completely irrelevant. I would never recommend that someone spend money on it.

If the book Star Trek 4 the voyage home is anything like the movie that i'm going to enjoy the book.

Rondall Banks

One of the abilities of the Star Trek franchise has been the ability to alleviate a potential cliche in a story by bringing a bit of humor in. A time travel scenario can be really hackneyed and lame except for the fact that this one gets a good laugh out of it. Like Kirk and Spock wandering around San Francisco traffic without a working knowledge of profanity. Most of us know how Kirk & co use a borrowed Klingon ship to go back to our time when the humpbacked whale was not yet extinct so that they could bring a couple of them forward in time to tell the mysterious probe to shut down the hurricane already, we hoid ya da foist time--if not from reviews, then by seeing the movie. One scene that got ad-libbed into this novelization didn't make the screen, though. Remember if you will the sequence where Kirk pauses by the checkout of a restaurant and hands Spock an after-dinner mint ("Don't say I never gave you anything"/ "Why would I say that, Captain?")? Now fast forward to the scene where Kirk and Spock find the whales at an aquarium and Spock goes "swimmin' wit' da fishes" (yeah yeah, whales aren't fish, I know). The scene we didn't get in the movie is right after scientist Gillian gives Spock hell for that little swim. In this book, Kirk gets Spock aside and asks him what's the matter with him. Spock reminds him of the mint and reveals the not widely known medical fact that sucrose has a certain physiological effect on Vulcans. If I'd written this book, I would have also added the above reaction by McCoy.

Why did I enjoy this more than any of the other Star Trek movies? Probably because it's got all of the elements I love. Kirk and McCoy trying to relate to Spock, and Spock too puzzled by his Human half to help them much - if at all. Humor. A feisty, intelligent "love interest" who actually has a key plot-driving role, in Dr. Gillian Taylor. Sarek. And, at the end...oh, never mind. Just in case there's someone left who may want to read the book, or see the film, without already knowing the ending - no, I wouldn't spoil it for worlds.

So the science doesn't make a lot of sense. It often didn't in the original Trek, on TV. The plot premise and execution worked well enough to let me temporarily suspend my disbelief when I first saw "The Voyage Home" on the big screen, and I found that unchanged when I finally read the novelization. So the humor's lame at times. It still felt to me like a visit with old friends, and that's really what I'm looking for in a Star Trek story. On screen, or between book covers.

It is even better then the movie. It has all the elements of a classic Star Trek episode, with Capt. Kirk falling in love with a beautiful young women, the crew dealing with a different time periode, MR.Spock and Dr.McCoy going at it like an old married couple.......And there are the Klingons, a major threat to Earth, and, of crouse, the whales... Who wouldn't like this book?

I liked it because it really helped to put the movie into prospective.

Julian Bennett's biography of Trajan goes into great detail of how the early Principate worked. Trajan's famliy's rise to power is discussed in the first few chapters. Also, the reign of the tyrant Domitian is given a good overview.

Certainly Trajan is one of the most admired rulers of the early Empire. His exploits in Dacia and Parthia are the stuff of legend. Fortunately Julian Bennett gives these campaigns full attention, but goes well beyond that to look at the workings of the Imperial government. Be warned this book is not for the novice in Roman History. The financial policies of the Empire are discussed in detail, such how the Princeps would determine how much gold and silver to put into coins. Also well documented is how the Provinces, both 'Senatorial' and 'Imperial', were governed and how the Legions higher command structures were handled, what today we would call 'corp' or 'army' command level.

If you are looking for just a history of the Dacian and Parthian wars you probably won't like the detail given the more 'mundane' aspects of Roman Imperial Government. However, if you are familiar with Roman history and want to see how the Principate worked on a more detailed and personal level this book is with out a doubt on of the best.

This is an excellent book on the life and times of the emperor Trajan. Though this book is not recommended for those uninitiated in imperial roman history, for those who are the attention to detail will be appreciated. Furthermore, Bennett acknowledges the lack of specific information relating especially to the early life of the emperor but uses his vast yet detailed knowledge of history, politics, society, etc.. to synthesize any necessary sequence of events and give the reader an excellent perspective of the empire at its apogee.

I thought this was the guy who designed and built the Trajan Horse. Looks like I bought the wrong book. Anyhow, it makes a very good foot stool.

While a rather dry read at times, this book is simply unmatched in scope when it comes to describing the reign of Trajan from his rise to power to his death. The author does an excellent job at fine details such as with his discriptions of Hadrians campaigns and the financial situation of Rome.

This is the run-of-the-mill booktype on Ancient History that the English speaking academia produces. Mr. Bennett is obvious in love with his hero Trajan, and has painstakingly amassed all relevant materials (textual, archaeological, numismatic, etc.) in order to somehow produce a continuous account of his reign. However, onece we are done with that, what remains for us modern readers who do not love Trajan for his own sake? Nothing much, I fear, as there is not a definite issue (e.g. Trajan's policies of imperial expansion, or his _alimenta_ schemes) to which the author should offer a solution taking Trajan as a model case. As Moses Finley said in his last book, this "say everything you know about" approach only leaves the reader with an idea of wasted intellectual acumen, and begs the issue of the actual relevance of knowledge on the subject. Unfortunately,the book is throughly reasearched, but fails to be actually intersting.

It's July in Stillwater, Minnesota. It's hotter than hot and about to get hotter as the town moves into record breaking temperatures.

After a known pedophile was killed last year, the murder was quickly shoved under the rug because no one was too concerned. Unfortunately, the recent murder of a priest, believed to be a pedophile, suggests the murders will continue. The murder of a priest isn't something people are soon to forget about. The media has sensationalized the killer by naming him "the Saint" because of the St. Nicholas medallion (patron saint of children) left behind at all the scenes.

The police force doesn't have the time or resources to handle the case so retired cop Phil Broker is brought back because of his involvement in the original search for the killer and to help take care of one of the suspects; fellow officer Harry Cantrell is an alcoholic with a quick and sometimes volatile temper. He and Phil used to be partners and best friends until a falling out split them apart. Phil's side mission is to make sure Harry gets into rehab. Harry also has a well publicized hate-on for pedophiles. The other suspect is lawyer Gloria Russell who lost a case that put a pedophile back on the street.

I enjoyed reading Vapor Trail which is the sequel to the hit police thriller Absolute Zero but you don't have to have read it to enjoy this novel's plot and characters. The characters were true to life and the plot was suspenseful. There wasn't a lot of jargon to distract from the storyline or flow of reading. The ending was great. I thought things were going one way and they ended up going the other, for the betterment of the story. I recommend reading Vapor Trail and I would also like to read more from this author.

I found that this thriller left quite a few loose unexplained threads when the story ended. I liked Broker, and think he has possibility to be a good main character, but I found that he wasn't actually shown in the best light in this one. He was hired on as a special consultant to find the person who is going around killing presumed pedophiles. He does some preliminary background checks, but I found he really didn't follow up on a lot of the information that he supposedly got. He seemed to be along for the ride when the plot stepped up and got there more or less by accident when things started happening. Too many loose ends to mention without giving the story away, so not, I'm afraid, my favourite thriller.

This is a very straightforward, compelling mystery/police novel. The characters are well developed and the story moves along at a quick pace. There is not a lot of superfluous exposition in Mr. Logan's novels. He writes about characters and plot and his stories are interesting and easy to read.

Chuck Logan is one of those rare talents that just keep getting better as they go, even though they started off with a bang. You can read any of his first novels, and get the same feeling that he's been there, lived it, and has inherited the story-teller's gene needed to make it real for the reader. Great, believable characters, incisive writing, a very much appreciated brevity of language, and intelligent plots grace all of his books. I read an earlier review that panned "VAPOR TRAIL" based on a lack of descriptive prose about Stillwater, Minnesota. Time to read some nonfiction, pal. I read Chuck Logan and John Sanford for gripping suspense, action, humor, and, HELLOOOOO, entertainment, not for a lesson in geography.
Well, "Vapor Trail" has it all, in spades, ( as they say), and I enjoyed it tremendously!
One thing more....Logan is on my very short list of authors that I'll buy without bothering to read the blurb on the back page. He writes it, I'll enjoy it. Buy "Vapor Trail" without reservations. You won't be disappointed.

Broker's back and now instead of freezing to death, he's fiery hot in "Vapor Trail." You don't think of Minnesota having such tremendous heat waves, but like their winters, this one is excessive. The villain in this one is called "The Saint." He or she disposed of a known pedophile who got off on technicalities, taking justice into his or her hands. Now a year or so later, the Saint returns wiping out a priest who had been accused of fondling a teenage girl. She (we now know it's a she?) has a list of people she plans to dispose of, and thus the journey begins.
Throw in the cop who used to be Broker's friend, who is now an alcoholic and renegade, and who could possibly be the Saint; the ambitious attorney Gloria Russell, who has a picture of the young victim in her office; and Broker's ex-girlfriend, Janey, and you've got a potboiler going.
Logan agains masters his skill of believable characters, a strong feel for his surroundings and a great twist at the end. The identity of the Saint...ah, well, you just have to read it...great reading.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.