This book is good for anyone interested in or perplexed by the different ways the underwriting works in financial sector. It explains the various factors, variables and techniques used and considered while deciding the quotes/premiums on various financial instruments.

Clear, concise and useful. The artwork is not "cup of tea" - but it may be yours. I refer to this quite often, and therefore recommend it.

I love annotations. I think it's due to an innate curiosity about why things are the way they are--the classic childís question, and I never got over asking it. Iím surprised that annotated editions arenít more popular--think of it as a Cliff's Notes side-by-side edition. While not all books benefit from annotations, certain texts these day require them for all but the experts. The English language has changed substantially since Chaucer and Shakespeareís day, and annotations in these texts often serve as an open dictionary. In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes series, the annotations can explain aspects of Victorian society that modern readers aren't aware of.

The folks at Harper's Magazine have taken the idea of annotations one step farther. Like their famous Harper's Index, which takes the idea of rating items to an extreme, thus illustrating common misperceptions, Harper's annotations attempt to explain the significance and history of different items by examining both the function and form. Deconstructing a complex item can be educational and intriguing, such as how to read a birth or death certificate; how a Louisville Slugger is made and its place in the industry; and how a picture of John Gotti can tell you about the man and the trial.

I just thought of a new method of annotations that is currently taking off, and that is, of course, the World Wide Web. With its ability to "link" to other sites within its text, it is a perfect example of an annotation. The only thing better would be to search for more information based on any word within a document, not just simply the ones that authors have built links into.

Not bad, typical SSR type book, but in a "Choose-your-own-adventure" format. Still has Harry Harrisons style but is severly broken up by the format of the book. If you are a fan of the "choose-your-own-adventure" format you will enjoy this book, but if not... you won't.

I am at a complete loss as to how anyone could have liked this book. ....

The author goes through great lengths to set up these characters and their lives (hundreds of pages of overly descriptive prose about asian finance, artifical ensemination and retirement homes), and all for absolutely no reason. Almost none of it had any bearing what-so-ever on the story or ultimately on the fate of the characters. ....

Out of the all of the many books I've read in recent years this is probably the only one that ever left me extremely angry at the author, because I enjoyed about two-thirds of the book only to feel like I was deliberately kicked in the teeth in the final third.
Now what bothered me wasn't the fact that it didn't have a cookie-cutter "they live happily ever after" type of ending, I've enjoyed and recommended other books which had dark, even grisly endings. But at least when authors like Stephen King, Dean Koontz, and Lawrence Block are explicit they do so with a purpose that serves their story, and they know where to draw the line.
But "Afterburn" is needlessly cruel and openly sadistic, putting it's main characters through unbelievably graphic physical torture, which Harrison describes in excruciating detail. In the end I couldn't find any purpose it had served, other than what seemed to be an inexplicable attempt by the author to punish his readers.
When I finished this book I felt sucker-punched, with all the stomach-churning sadism I had endured reading it I found the end held no real surprises, no ironies, no last minute saves, no poetic justice, or any thing else of substance to justify what Harrison puts you through. This was the first and will be the last book I'll ever read by this author, I hope to never stumble upon another like him.

Afterburn is my first exposure to this author, and I can see why this novel generates the strong sentiments, both positive and negative, that it has. Let's start with the obvious-Colin Harrison is a brilliant writer and Afterburn is a daring book. It is not your average cookie-cutter feel good run-of-the-mill thriller. And that's the problem for the people who hated it. The sex, the violence and the torture are all so vividly portrayed that you shrink away from the words even as you read them. But if you're daring, and if you can appreciate the word smithing that underpins Afterburn, then you'll enjoy it. If not, you'll hate it. I came down firmly in the enjoy/admire category.

It's weird. Harrison obviously did _some_ research. So why did he not go the full length to make it accurate? There are many, many problems with the ships in the book, problems that could have easily been fixed if he had bothered to find a single good reference book. The Warrior in the book is not the same ship as in real life and would have been far more than a match for the Monitor. For that matter, the Monitor succeeds because the British are "strawmen", designed specifically to fail. I didn't take as much offense at the North and the South joining forces against Britain (when the actual Trent Affair occured, some members of Lincoln's cabinet actually thought a war with Britain might bring the two sides together), but its execution in the novel is rather hackneyed.

I didn't bother with the other books in the series. I was totally turned off by this one. Go read something by Harry Turtledove if you want Civil War alternative history.

When I studied history in college my professors told us never to play the "what if" game. Of course,such speculating was too much fun to resist. Now it seems to be a healthy subgenre of science fiction, growing in popularity. My old professors must be appalled. Harrison's foray into the genre starts from one of the "what ifs" we also used to play with : what if the British had declared war over the Trent incident. Harrison's handling of that divergence is good, and he gets much else right,especially the way 19th century people thought and spoke, but too much of the book is implausible. By having North and South reunite so quickly and enthusiastically, I fear Harrison sells short the powerful animosity between the sections. Likewise, Harrison has Jefferson Davis persuaded to give up slavery after one easy lesson in economics. Racism and memories of Nat Turner would've kept slavery going despite John Stuart Mill's best arguments. The book's other flaws: no central fictional characters for us to follow through the action. The war itself is the main character, and this is of interest primarily to military buffs. In his afterword Harrison asserts he has written what would've certainly happened given his Trent divergence. The whole point of alternate history is nothing is written in stone.

Stars & Stripes Forever is the first novel in a trilogy about a Civil War that didn't quite happen. In our timeline, on November 8, 1861, the USS San Jacinto, an Union warship, stopped the Trent, a packet ship flying British colors, in the Bahama Channel and took off two Confederate diplomats, John Slidell and William Murray Mason. Since the packet ship belonged to a neutral power and the boarding occurred on the high seas or, in some views, within British colonial waters, the US warship had committed an act of war. The British public responded with a great outcry and the Queen and her ministers were infuriated. Prince Albert, however, persuaded the Queen to moderate their response and a firm, but not inflammatory, note was immediately passed to the US government and eventually the two diplomats were released.

In this novel, Prince Albert tries to calm his wife but is too ill to be effective; in fact, he passes out and has to be carried to his bed. Thus, the note generated from this meeting is markedly different in tone from that of our timeline. The note is hand carried to the US Secretary of State, Sewart, with a request for an immediate answer. The US Cabinet, however, is divided on the response, but agrees to have the ambassador to Great Britain, Charles Adams, meet with Lord Palmerston to negotiate a compromise settlement. However, the British are not in the mood for compromise; Lord Palmerston has already considered withholding military supplies from the Union and is sending additional troops to Canada. Then there is a firefight between Canadian whiskey smugglers and a customs patrol that is reported to England as an invasion of Canadan territory. The British issue an ultimatum: seven days to return the Confederate prisoners and apologize for the invasion or there will be war.

When the British invade from Canada, they are met by New York militia, who take heavy casualties. Additional British troops under the command of the Duke of Cambridge, Commander-in Chief of the British Army and the Queen's cousin, have been sent to the Gulf of Mexico in an attempt to take Deer Island, a Union bastion offshore from Mississippi, but miss their landing in the fog and instead attack a Confederate installation in Biloxi. Learning of the mistake, the Duke continues to push the attack in order to meet up with the Canadian invasion force, thereby splitting the country.

Under intense pressure from the British, CSA General Beauregard requests an armistice from General William T. Sherman and instead is given a temporary alliance against a common enemy. Word of the unexpected attack and this cooperative response galvanizes both the North and South, leading to a ceasefire and talks of reunion.

Moreover, General McClellan is hospitalized with a fever and Lincoln seizes the chance to relieve him as General of the Armies; he appoints General Sherman as his replacement. Due to his actions in Biloxi, the CSA agrees that Sherman will also be Commanding General of the Joint Armies of the Union and the Confederacy.

In the meantime, a tragic fall from his horse sends a paralyzed General Ripley, Chief of Ordnance, to the hospital. His aide, General Ramsey, is chosen as his replacement and immediately initiates changes to modernize Army weapons, starting with replacement of the standard rifle with breechloaders and equipping marksmen units with the Sharps rifle. The spirit of innovation also pervades the Naval Department, leading to orders for more of Ericcson's iron ships and for Parrott's interrupted screw breechloader cannons. Formerly a mostly rural society, this new war causes an infant military-industrial complex to stretch its muscles and produce new weapons and tactics.

The Civil War was never as popular in the Union as America's previous wars. There were many opponents of the War who were shouted down by the vocal proponents and even imprisoned for their protests. A civil war just didn't sit well with many people and too many families were split down the middle. A war with England, however, would have been rather popular in the North, particularly after so many English ships were blockade runners.

The South had a warmer attitude toward England, mostly due to these blockade runners, but still had differences of opinions, especially about the British Navy backed embargo against the shipment of slaves from Africa. The current British government irritated both North and South with its arrogance assumptions of superiority. Another war with England would probably be much more popular in the Confederacy than the ongoing Civil War.

The permanent reunion of these two American nations, however, would depend on a stronger commitment to resolving their disagreements. The new spirit of cooperation can only strengthen that possibility, yet many differences must still be overcome.

This book sticks close to the actual history, both in events and in the personalities. The fictional events, moreover, are much like actual events that occurred elsewhere; for example, the British mistakes in the Gulf reflect actual problems in their other wars in that century. The navigation of that time, particularly in open boats during foggy weather, was generally much less than precise and British troops of that era were frequently undisciplined in victory. The critical reviews of this story, on the other hand, often are achronistic in viewpoint, reflecting present day standards and capablilities.

The major criticism that can be made of this series is that the author selects among those possibilities that will support his story line. The author almost certainly started with a specific conclusion and then followed the possibilities backwards to the point of divergence. This practice is much like reverse engineering and is used even among working scientists. Maybe the probabilities are slim and maybe not, but it is nevertheless a legitimate strategy for plotting a work of fiction. It is the practice of "What if" and who can say that these events could never have happened.

...P>Recommended for Harrison fans and anyone who enjoys well-crafted tales of alternate wars.

This book is what I consider the terminal end to the series. I've been a die-hard fan of Slippery Jim for around... two decades (and I'm only 26). This book, however, is a phenominal whiffle of bunk. I can't believe that the series has become this corny. It's terribly insulting that Mr. Harrison would do this to one of my most beloved literary memories. Not that I want to give away any spoilers, but I have one word for those of us that have already read the book... SAUSAGES!
So lets say that you don't believe me. Just have a look at the cover. That pretty much sums up the feel of this book. Corny. It made me irate for days.
I'd still like to recommend the first 7-8 books in the series to you folks, though.

First there was "The Stainless Steel Rat", our introduction to Slippery Jim diGriz, aka the Stainless Steel Rat, the galaxy's greatest thief and con man, in which our hero, after a long and successful career is apprehended by the galactic special corps and "persuaded" to join them, on the theory that it takes a thief to catch a thief. Then there followed four sequels; in order, "The Stainless Steel Rat's Revenge", "The Stainless Steel Rat Saves The World", "The Stainless Steel Rat Wants You!", and "The Stainless Steel Rat For President". Then, apparently growing bored with the direction that his series was taking, Harrison wrote the prequel, "A Stainless Steel Rat Is Born", followed by a sequal to the prequel, "The Stainless Steel Rat Gets Drafted", and a sequel to that, "The Stainless Steel Rat Sings The Blues". This book is a return to the original sequence, following "The Stainless Steel Rat For President".

All of these books are fun reads, light and action-filled, without overmuch concern for plot plausibility or consistency. This one is no exception. Still, it did seem to me that the writing style had matured a bit; this is one of the better books in the series from that standpoint. Still, the plot itself seemed rather weak, and the ending rather unsatisfying. All in all, it isn't bad, but don't expect too much. Read it for entertainment, not when you want a book that makes much sense.

Any rat fan who's expecting a Stainless Steel Rat novel with a straightforward plot will be disappointed. The plot rolls more like a Bill, the Galactic Hero story, but if you love them, you will love this book as well. HH takes the occasional huge plot jump which is a shame, but the language is as fluent as ever and every chapter ends with an exciting line so you just have to read the next one...

In order to save readers from spending money on this shoddily written novel (yes, novel, since it's completely fictional), I will repeat what I said about the forgery ("the diary") itself, since this book is essentially one expanded comment section of the original Maybrick hoax.

In 1992 a junk dealer from London, Michael Barrett, presented what would become known as "the Maybrick diary", attempting to ping the guilt of being Jack the Ripper on James Maybrick. The "diary" became a media event, and people interested in making money and gain of it have attempted to "prove" its "authenticity"; needless to say, they were unable to, for one simple reason - it is a crude forgery, which was in fact quickly and shoddily updated as new Ripper facts came to light (e.g. when it was revealed that Mary Kelly's heart was missing,
the forger was in process of creating the "diary" - and he quickly added an awkward note "No heart, no heart..." to the "Kelly section", but forgot to use the same ink to write it!)

It would take too much space to list literally hundreds of errors and inconsistencies in the "diary", as well as dozens of proofs for its inauthenticity. Instead, a good summary is simply the fact that on 5 January 1995, Barrett admitted to the forgery. To quote his sworn affidavit: "Since December 1993 I have been trying, through the press, the Publishers, the Author of the Book, Mrs Harrison, and my Agent Doreen Montgomery to expose the fraud of ' The Diary of Jack the Ripper ' ("the diary") (...) The facts of this matter are outlined as follows: I Michael Barrett was the author of the original diary of 'Jack the Ripper' and my wife, Anne Barrett, hand wrote it from my typed notes and on occasions at my dictation, the details of which I will explain in due course. The idea of the Diary came from discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself, there came I time when I believed such a hoax was a distinct possibility. We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter. I felt Maybrick was an ideal candidate for Jack the Ripper. Most important of all, he could not defend himself. He was not 'Jack the Ripper' of that I am certain, but, times, places, visits to London and all that fitted. It was too easy. I told my wife Anne Barrett, I said, "Anne I'll write a best seller here, we can't fail". Once I realised we could do it. We had to find the necessary materials, paper, pens and ink. I gave this serious consideration. Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book (...) Sworn at Liverpool in the County of Merseyside, this 5th day of January 1995"

Stay away from this crude forgery and don't support people who try to peddle it as "the real thing". The same kind of people would try to sell you "splinters from Christ's cross" in the Middle Ages...

For what it's worth, I think that the Diary is real and that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. History will owe those who brought the Diary to the public's attention a debt of gratitude. However, there is a lot of contentiousness in the field of "Ripper Studies", and a flaw in the book is that Feldman can't quite bring himself to rise above responding to the abuse that he has received from professional Ripperologists. He would have been better off simply allowing his research and the research of those on his team to speak for itself. But it's a very impressive job which does show how many of the KNOWN elements of Maybrick's life dovetail nicely with the theory that he wrote the Diary and was indeed the Ripper. The Diary itself is a very impressive document that largely stands on its own, and I've never quite understood how, in the absence of any real proof of forgery, it could be flatly disregarded by so many. The book is worth the price simply for the photographs in front of page 147 that show a "match" between James Maybrick and the Daily Telegraph picture of "Jack" published on October 6, 1888. Also, the geneological research of the Feldman team shows links between Maybrick and the Ripper as well as their/his present-day descendants. Some meat is added to the existing bones of the Diary's provenance, though the provenance of the Watch, while just as tantalizing in its implications, becomes somewhat murkier. The biggest problem is handwriting. Feldman produces no known sample of Maybrick's handwriting that matches with that of the diary or of the "Dear Boss" letters that Maybrick takes credit for in the diary. He finds one ancient Maybrick correspondence that resembles one questionable Ripper letter. Otherwise, he is reduced to arguing that an individual'shandwriting can vary from sample to sample and that Maybrick's own handwriting varied greatly, particularly when under the influence of arsenic. He is also reduced to relying on the opinion of a graphologist who performed a character analysis based on the handwriting in the diary. Graphology is a suspect science, which was used to incorrectly identify Anna Anderson as Russian princess Anastasia. Set against this though is the enormity of the task that Diary critics have. The contents of the Diary FORCE them to argue that the Diary and the Watch are modern forgeries -- post 1989 -- rather than ancient ones and so they are reduced to impugning the character of those own the Diary and the Watch and who brought them to the public's attention. By introducing his readers to these people through interviews and biographies, Feldman shows them to be of sound moral character. Their story that the Diary was first discovered in the mid 1940's and rediscovered in 1968 or 1969 is buttressed by their character. More research needs to be done by independent analysts of the Diary, of the watch, of James Maybrick, and generally in the field of handwriting analysis. My prediction is that history will point its finger at Maybrick and say, "He's the one" and this will be due in no small part to Feldman, Shirley Harrison (who first produced an edited version of the Diary, with commentary), Feldman's team, and those who assisted and cooperated with them. But that debt of gratitude will not be paid in our lifetime because of what still remains unknown or questionable and because of the contentiousness that surrounds "Ripper Studies" today.

Having read several recent ripper books, I found this to be as close to the answer, than any of the others, although, further research needs to be done to prove that the diary is genuine. Mr Feldman puts his points across very well, however I am still not convinced re the watch.

It would also have been helpful if the diary was also published within the book for those who have not had the benefit of reading it in detail.

Having said that, I for one am sure that it will be hard to distinguish anyone else, other than James Maybrick of being Jack the Ripper.

Is this a tome? I was expecting deep subject coverage. What we have instead is a reproduction of the API docs. Does that a tome make? I think not. What's missing? Complex examples. Real-world examples (who creates windows with API calls when we have TForm?). Undocumented insights behind the APIs -- things you can't find in MSDN or the Platform SDK. More than anything, this book highlights the bloody lack of good Delphi books. This one is definitely a pass.

I don't know many Delphi developers who can't at least read VB code. Obviously, the authors of this book can, because the examples are eerily similar to the VB Win32 examples in MSDN. So much so that I rather doubt a competent Delphi developer who has MSDN would really get much value from this book. If you can read VB, you don't need this book. I was expecting unique insights into the way that Delphi implements the API, particularly the graphics API, but instead got a lame VB-to-Pascal translation. Can't recommend this book.

Couldn't help but notice the obvious similarities between this book and the examples in MSDN and the Platform SDK. If you have either of these, I don't know why you'd need this book. I bought it thinking I'd get expert advice and insights. All it really is is a rehash of what's publicly available from MS anyway.

This book is complete garbage. There is nothing in it that is factual. If you want to read tabloid material please go buy "National Enquirer" or something.. Don't give your hard earned money or attention to this guy. He never knew The Harrison's and the book is fabricated stories by zealous bad author. Please go buy George's book "I Me Mine" or The Beatles 'Anthology" book is want to learn the truth about the man.

Known as the "Quite One", George Harrison has hid himself from the public enigma for many years. Dark Horse lets everyone in on the man of mystery. In the 1980s, Geoffrey Giuliano lived in the unreal world of Harrison and his friends, and by doing this experienced many interviews that make up the basis for his lively and revealing portrait of George. The book contains descriptive summaries of Harrison's life in a very orderly manner. Its hard to learn and write about a life of such a highly private and religious man whose musical associates were far more interesting than he was, which is why I give this book credit. George Harrison is my favorite Beatle and I thought it would be fulfilling to read about his life. At times the author looked at George in a negative way, putting his bad characteristics at the surface. For this reason, I believe Dark Horse is probably not the most interesting rock biography out there, but is a great addition to any Beatle fans library.

Loved the man. Loved the book. NOW I understand who George Harrison really was. Thank you.