Very simplistic treatment, with some results left for the reader to work through exercises. The chapters are almost non-existent, with all the book being mainly exercises.

I use the ideas in this book in my mathematics teaching in high school. Students learn to think of the world as Euclidean through most of their instruction; Taxicab Geoemetry gives teachers a very straghtforward way to introduce non-Eucliean Geometry. Admittedly, this book is not thorough, and it is very open ended (which I consider to be positive). Nevertheless, for its intended audience it is outstanding.

Before purchasing this book, realize what it is. This is a book about non-euclidean geometry. Specifically, a specialized form of non-euclidian geometry affectionately referred to as taxi-cab geometry. This is not a table top book, but is a book for mathemeticians and those interested in mathematics. Others need not apply (regardless of how interesting the topic is). This is an excellent introduction to non-euclidean geometry because it strips away common misconceptions about the nature of non-euclidean geometries. This text is excellent for grade school children and those who would like to branch into more advanced non-euclidean geometries like hyperbolic.

Do you teach in a classroom in which there are no behavior problems. Where students sit at there desks with arms folded and smiles on their faces, eager to jump at the challenge you are about to put before them? No? This book assumes you do. Not only is this book an excersize in Utopia, it is very liberal by design. Several times, known communists are quoted and their ideas taken as gospel. Do you want our children being taught by a teacher following a socialist agenda? Do you want to teach your classroom in this manner? Then do not follow this book. The book is peppered with a few good ideas, but I have a problem with the message delivered. Comments such as "truth is often a matter of interpetation", and "grades are used to communicate that some students are smarter than others" are liberal ideas communicated throughout this book. If you want to improve your teaching by using research based instructional strategies, there are many pieces available that address this without being so radical.

The fact that this book is written by a science professor and a district superintendent should say it all. The lack of day-to-day contact with public school classrooms shines through. This book is ivory tower thinking.

The anecdotal examples of constructivist classroom activities are nice, but they lean toward the math and science (surprise, surprise) where constructivist/problem solving activities should come rather naturally. Although the end of the book tries to save itself with six ways a teacher/educational system can be more progressive, the book all but ignores language arts and history (save one or two elementary anecdotes) and completely fails to make any sort of "case" for constructivism, as the title promises.

In education, it seems that anything goes. We want our students to build their knowledge in an independent fashion so we give lip-service to constructivist methods, and yet, with pressures of testing purely constructivist classrooms are simply not possible. For constructivism to work, there must be (a)a philosophical systemic change, (b)additional class time, and (c) a student culture interested in learning. None of these items are seriously addressed in the authors' nonexistent 'case'. Books by William Glasser, Alfie Kohn and Howard Gardner do a much better job of making a case and laying groundwork for progressivist classrooms.

All constructivist teachers should thank the lecture-style teachers who came before and actually taught students something. Without "prior knowledge," constructivism is an empty and vain endeavor, an exercise in futility. This book didn't address any studies on constructivist-taught students' ability to perform better on multiple choice tests. In fact, it talked down to multiple choice testing (of course), ignoring that such tests are the way--whether we like it or not--that students make it through the system. Not preparing them for such tests is a disservice, and contrary to the opinion of the author, there are multiple choice tests that engender inductive and inferential thinking.

Find another book to buy if you want enlightenment. The fact that teachers say they get something out of this book scares me. As an AP Lit teacher, I found this book was not the least bit enlightening.

I first read the 1993 edition in 1993, and I was sold on it. There is no more clear nor concise book on constructivist instructional design in the business. The book is practical and can be read quickly. It doesn't get bogged down in too much jargon or theory. I object to one critic who claims the book is "ivory tower" and leans to much on science and math examples. The book is just the opposite from "ivory tower" and as for math and science examples, as a science teacher who spent years reading theory pitched toward humanities teachers that I had to adapt to my realm, I found this book refreshing. I would counter that creative,constructivist, dedicated teachers of English, World Languages, and Social Sciences would be able to adapt the Brookses's examples to their fields with ease.

Merzbacher is one of the `classic' learning books on quantum mechanics. It is commonly grouped together with Messiah, Schiff and Davydov. Unlike most of the other classics however, Merzbacher has moved with the times and managed to keep up with current trends in quantum mechanics.

When I originally flipped through this book I was impressed by the wealth of the content and the large number of interesting exercises that applied the fundamentals to the basic principles of various fields of research (quantum optics and quantum information for example). I then resolved to work through all of the problems and exercises. After having completed this book I am less impressed than I hoped I would be.

The problems in this book are divided into two classes, the first being exercises interspersed throughout the text, the second being problems at the end of each chapter. None of the exercises in the text are difficult but they tend to disrupt the flow of the book as they (especially towards the end of the book) are of the form: `now you have seen the most trivial case, verify this formula for the cases n=5,6,7 which will involve you inverting 27 4x4 matrices' (I exaggerate slightly). I am a little irritated by this as it requires the reader to switch into autopilot and wade through pages of algebra to get a result you knew you would get anyway. The problems at the end of each chapter range from the ultimately trivial to applications to some research topics (but still fairly straightforward).

The style of the presentation of the subject matter is a little quirky and idiosyncratic in places. This book is in its 3rd edition and it is easy to pick additions in this edition. The typo density increases in these chapters/sections and the text just skims the derivations. Merzbacher seems to occasionally choose a deliberately more complicated explanation for some topics.

I would not recommend this book for a reference as Merzbacher does leave some useful formulas to the problems/exercises. I have trouble recommending this book as a learning book as well. Shankar is certainly the best (modern) learning book in my opinion. You could simulate the content of Merzbacher by using Shankar and then referring to the literature/references for the advanced topics that Merzbacher treats.

This text deals with the theory behind quantum mechanics and also shows how the theory applies to contemporary physics. In addition to incorporating suggested improvements from many users, this edition is thoroughly updated - not only in terms of physics research but also in terms of how quantum mechanics is taught today. The book provides a unified approach to quantum dynamics giving students a broad perspective, and showing the derivations of various pictures and representations of quantum dynamics without losing sight of the overarching common features of the theory. This graduated approach introduces matrix methods and symmetry arguments at an elementary level, before the systematic study of the abstract theory of vector spaces and operators. Theory is emphasized in three stages - explicit elementary examples, essential concepts for the interpretation of experiments in subatomic physics, and general abstract formulation in terms of integral equations and scattering operators

Having had this text recommended for my graduate quantum class, but not taught from (instead taught out of the execrable book by J.J. Sakurai), I think that Merzbacher has written a very readable and very thorough book. Clearly, it is not a book aimed at undergraduates, but it is very elegantly written and uses the approach mirrored in Gasiorowicz and others, building the subject up with ordinary calculus and slowly bringing in matrix algebra. For a more modern treatment, and one very well written for the motivated self-studier, try Shankar's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics".

As a professional geologist, I use this reference often but I have found numerous errors. An example is that the mineral Pentlandite, an important ore of nickel, is not listed in the index. A German website is compiling an errata list on this book and it is many pages long of spelling, locality, formulae and indices errors. Other complaints are: The information concerning the economic use of the minerals is too sketchy and incomplete; and the page paper is too thin and fragile.

I can't believe that John Wiley & Sons (the publisher) actually tries to sell this book as "compact". It's 1100 pages! The Peterson Field Guide to Rocks and Minerals is a much better "compact" guide. This thing should really be on CD-ROM.

I use the book almost daily while working on a large mineral collection. It is up to date and comprehensive with valuable references to localities. The book is fragile with thin pages so must be used with care. It should be published as a CD ROM.

Sure, Pushkin had fun with his Russian, and why shouldn't a translator carry that playfulness into his translation. But damn, I found it way too distracting. The introduction by Hofstadter was very interesting and conveyed his love and dedication to this novel; my hopes were high for an enjoyable ride. But I found the novel too dificult to follow, and the clever translation distracting. Hofstadter himself recommends a translation by Falen, and I concur, finding it much easier to follow.

Hofstadter's translation of the great Russian poem "Eugene Onegin" deserves credit on two counts. First, it is a modern, lyrical, jovial and admittedly singsong (due to the author's strict adherence to the original iambic tetrameter) translation of Pushkin's masterwork. It is a translation to be read aloud, to be shared with one you love. Second, in its preface it holds a concise statement of Hofstadter's extensive thoughts (see "Le Ton Beau De Marot") on the art, whimsy, folly and beauty of translation itself. It has been mentioned that Hofstadter looks down on Nabokov's "translation", but this is not entirely without cause. Nabokov's stodgy literal gloss of "Onegin", eschewing meter and rhyme, serves as a dictionary and a deathblow. Pushkin's poem is vibrant and alive in Russian; Hofstadter boldly suggests that we english-speakers may also experience this life denied by Nabokov. This book will teach you something about poetry, something about translation, and hopefully give you a feel for what Pushkin's Russia might have been like.

Eugene Onegin is the pinnacle of Russian literature. This hundred-page poem is embedded in Russian brains. Imagine high school nerds repeating the "dead parrot" skit from Monty Python. Now imagine that for all Python skits, the whole population could do that. Eugene Onegin is ubiquitous in Russia. A tale of love and longing, fair maid Tatyana pursues her Romeo. "Romeo" is named Eugene Onegin and he is a decent enough playboy prince. The story is classic, particularly the sections of dialog between Tatyana and Eugene. School children should study their exchanges, which would fit neatly into a forty-minute class. Perhaps, in doing so, literature would score rare points over "Malcolm in the Middle". I read this poem out of admiration for Hofstadter, the translator, a cognitive scientist, Pulitzer Prize winner and all around Einstein. "Godel, Escher, Bach" (1979) earned Hofstadter immortality at a young age. If you wish to think deeply, let Hofstadter guide you with his science and philosophy. Hofstadter claims the definitive translation of Eugene Onegin is that of James Fallen. Thus, Hofstadter was liberated to translate liberally and with personal pinache. Admittedly, I haven't memorized the stanzas, so perhaps something was lost in translation. Nonetheless, I'll guarantee that you will finish this poem if you make it half way through. Shakespeare himself would not complain at losing a few days of English instruction to Russia's Pushkin, as the conclusion brings a smile to the dead.

Kinkead records the sad performance of US Army prisoners of war captured during the Korean conflict. US Soldiers interned by the Communist Chinese had poor discipline. This led many to cooperated with their captors and produce works propaganda, despite lack of use of any physical torture. Besides this obvious problem, the author shows other effects of this poor discipline. Poor discipline led to death rates in the camps that were excessive, based on observations on captured medical officers and in comparison to other interned groups. Crime was a problem. Soldiers even murdered other soldiers for their meager possessions. In one extreme example, an officer ordered a surly and brutish soldier to help carry a litter. He dumped the soldier into a creek, where he drown, and beat the officer. The book title is derived from the observation that the Korean conflict is the only one in which no US soldiers attempted to escape from prison camps. (There were attempted and successful escapes by soldiers before they reached the camps.) These events led to the development of the Code of Conduct.

As alluded to above, other groups with stood confinement with commendable behavior. US Marines and Turkish soldiers held up well. These groups had minimal deaths as they organized to rid the camps of disease vectors and nursed their sick. When subjected to attempts at coercion, individuals realized that their fellow prisoners deemed cooperation unacceptable. Discipline maintained military cohesion. When US soldiers were debriefed en route to the States and asked for their unit, they responded with the designation of the prison camp in which they were held. Turks and Marines responded with the unit designation of their nation's unit with which they served before capture. Strong discipline prevented the absorption of the Communist Chinese values.

Unlike "a reader" below, my conclusions regarding parallels with the state of the Army today differ. Drawing conclusions based on one recent incident involving one leader is risky (and the soldiers did not collaborate, they surrendered - a different issue than in Kinkead's book). Viet Nam had incidents of fragging, which was virtually unknown in Korea and WWII. Clearly there is much complexity in interpreting history.

My take on Kinkead's presentation is that the soldiers' failings resulted from two factors. First, Kinkead often points out that the draft-filled enlisted ranks contained many soldiers who were either of limited intelligence or poorly educated, or both. (There were also many bright soldiers too, of course.) These soldiers were unprepared to intellectually counter professional, experienced propagandists. Secondly, poor discipline arose from a lackadaisical attitude toward readiness that existed between VJ Day and the outbreak of hostilities on the Korean Peninsula.

These factors are quite different today. Enlisting in the Army requires GT high scores and a high school diploma. (In recent years the diploma requirement has been waived for no more than five percent of enlistees per year.) The quality cut out of US society remains good by objective measures. There is always a justified debate as to how good is good enough, and what are the true measures of merit. But joining the Army today is much harder than it was 1945 - 1950. Today's attitude toward readiness is quite different. Professional soldiers at all grades today populate the Army. Compared to soldiers in a draft Army, they understand their mission and that they signed on to do it. There were very highly disciplined soldiers in the Army in 1950. But there were also those who were not. If you subscribe to the "bad apple philosophy," the bad apples can spread the rot throughout the barrel. Training planning and execution went through a revolution in the 1980s. Units routinely rotate through the Combat Training Centers, where training is realistic and challenging. I challenge anyone to randomly pick a US Army unit, and then compare it to an equivalent unit in any armed service in the world. I am confident that the Army unit will compare favorably.

But there are concerns about lessons from Kinkead's work. First, although discipline and training today are far above 1950, there is always concern about when it is sufficient. No leader is ever completely satisfied with the state of his or her unit, but there is room for valid concern of the trajectory of readiness in the Army. In the last decade Army units and manpower has been cut by a third, yet the OPTEMPO rose 300 percent, accompanied by decreases in funding for training and operations. Retention of leaders has become a concern. The challenge in preparing for and conducting Operations Other Than War while staying ready as a force for open conflict is tough. I think the main conclusion about Kinkead's writing are that it is stupid to assume that war will not again come, and to fail to prepare our service members, to fail to give them the best chance to do their duty and then return home, is failure of the highest order.

The Korean War was a shock to the American society. The victory in Japan and Germany was still fresh in the minds of every adult. Then a small country few in America had even heard of almost shoved the heroic GI Joe into the sea. When the conflict reached a paper settlement, there were some American prisoners who said they liked life as a foreigner in North Korea better than the good old USofA. The popular media and government officials took a good look at those N. Korean prisoner of war camps, and there was another shocking discovery: NOT ONE American GI had escaped! This had never happened before. (The source of the title.)

This book reviews the circumstances and causes of this unique military event. One of the results was a careful training program at all levels on the responsibility of a soldier who is captured by the enemy. The result was called the "Code Of Conduct" and every military individual knew they had the responsibility to resist the enemy at all times and in all ways, even as a prisoner.

Now that lesson has been forgotten. The American soldiers on patrol captured in Kosovo were taken and disarmed by the Bosnian forces with no resistance. The lessons of "Every War But One" are now ignored as too idealistic. That the strict standard of the Code of Coduct kept mind and body together for many a GI prisoner in Viet Nam is of no weight in today's all volunteer Army where casualties are unthinkable and combat training is Aerobic Dancing.

Those who ignore the lessons of history. . . .

I read this book over 20 years ago and still remember it as one of the most interesting things I ever read. Led to a lifelong fascination with POW situations and coping strategies. Lessons described in this book led to new approach to training military for possible POW situations.

This text is one of the most hard-to-read finance book I have ever come across. The authors must have been mentally retarded or on drugs, or something. Instead of explaining a concept in one page Brigham and company will take up to 30 pages to explain in the most confusing twisted language. I pity the student who has to go thru what I went thru to learn intermediate finance concepts. This book is the biggest waste of your hard earned money!

I wasn't too impressed with this text. I found that many of the chapters were incredibly verbose, and seemed to confuse me even more in some instances. Perhaps one of the problems (obviously not Brigham's fault) was that my prof "wizzed" through some of these chapters, so reading the "wordy, never-ending" chapters was overwhelming. Further, I think that some concepts could have been more simplified, when instead Brigham seemed to ramble and "lost" me.

In short, I think some "academics" (profs, grad students, etc) might be impressed with the depth with which Brigham wrote. However, not all of the students are on the same level, and this must be taken into consideration when the author revises the text. We are using the text as a guide for learning, not as a means to evaluate the author's aptitude in the field of finance...

easy to read and cover in every topic.

Like some of the other reviewers I cannot say that this is an interesting book. I have read many New Age books, many of them quite scholarly. This is just not a good book. Sorry, Mr. Taylor -- better luck in the next life, eh?

Taylor does indeed present an overview of a certain sort of tradition that has not been well-surveyed to this point. His historiography, while not deep, is adequate, given the wide range of material. However, Taylor's own agenda so overwhelms the history that his assessment of particular figures is nearly useless. To contrast broadly the "Western rationalist tradition" with the "Western visionary tradition" - as he does in various ways at every opportunity - is little more than name-calling. His "faith" in something called "pure religious experience" is almost 100 years out-of-date -- has the author not realized that all experience (including religious experience) is shaped by language, culture, and tradition? Unsuspecting readers, beware: a position as a psychitrist at Harvard does not make up for a history that is little more than an advertisement for his own personal spiritual predilection.

I feel compelled to review this book because of the several bad reviews its received so far. I agree strongly with the review below by A Reader from San Francisco. This is a remarkable history of what I see as the true spirit of America, which is about as far removed from the Puritan ethic as one can get. For better or for worse, only in America could the developments described here take place. What Taylor very successfully shows is that there is nothing at all "New Age" about this attitude toward the conventional. Above all, though, I like SHADOW CULTURE for an entirely different reason. This was the first of several recent books I've read that discuss how the 60s counter-culture really *was* successful in bringing about a change in the American mindset. Again, for better or for worse, this is *not* the same country it was 50 years ago. There continues to be strong resistance to this from the far Right (take, for instance, the *viscious* hatred they hold for Mr. & Mrs. Clinton). But, as Taylor shows in this book, the "alternative" approaches to almost everything have decidedly permeated our culture. (I even read recently a newsletter from a medical malpractice company *strongly* advising doctors to become familiar with alternative practices, as the doctors are likely to do harm and get sued if they don't know how those things interact with prescription medications!) There's no turning back from this. Where it's heading, though, remains to be seen.

I would have to agree with a previous "reviewer" and say that the book itself is written quite well, but Merril states certain things that are obviously not true and can be picked up by almost any sunday school student. For instance, he states that three, maybe four, of the twelve tribes of Israel left Egypt at once and met up later, before the Ten Commandments were given. This, obviously cannot be true because the book of Exodus itself that all twelve tribes left together. His Biblical flaws aside, his writing was good, making the book easy to read and I believe that most of his dates were right on target. It could be hard for some people to ignore his Biblical ignorance, however, and I suggest that those people do not read this book looking for an indepth study, survey and education of the Old Testament.

Merrill's work is certainly well-done. Although the work is obviously scholarly, the reader is not lost in a morass of technical jargon. Footnotes are generoulsy sprinkled at the bottom of every page and Merrill is always careful to include a reference to the work of other scholars, even those who do not agree with him, for the sake of those readers who might wish to do a little more research and receive both sides of the argument. At the same time, he gives cogent arguments for his own conservative stance on controversial issues and I must say that, barring one or two, I found his arguments very persuasive and, overall, whether I always agreed with him or not, he certainly provides a strong defense of his own position. Throughout the work I was consistently reminded of the experience, learning and concentrated insight that any reader can gain from a true scholar. Merrill did a fine job.

At times, because he is fair in his representation of differing opinions among certain historio-literary schools of thought (even going so far as to make explicit the fact that some of his views are in the minority among scholars), he might fool some of his readers into thinking that he holds certain views which he, in fact, does not. This is why I must disagree with the first reviewer who mentions Merrill's supposed belief that three or four tribes of Israel left Egypt at once and met the others later... In truth, Merrill was relating the views of another and not his own.

The crucial fact to consider in this work is that Merrill explicitly states that his position stems from the assumption that the Bible is the revealed Word of GOD (itself a minority view among "Biblical scholars"). Because of this, Merrill looks to the accounts rendered in the Old Testament first and compares what is found there with the claims of his peers. I found this approach extremely refreshing and of the utmost integrity.

All in all, it is quite obvious that Merrill is right in the thick of things and brings an up-to-date approach to the study of the Old Testament and he provides references for on every page. If you desire to know more about the economical, political, religious and geographical influences which helped shape the thoughts and actions of GOD's first covenant people from a well-written, conservative Christian perspective, "Kingdom of Priests" is an invaluable guide.

One wonders if the previous "reviewer" simply did not like Merrill's conclusions, which are more in line with conservative Biblical scholarship than the (questionable in my view) documentary hypothesis school of Biblical studies... Merrill has a useful ability to take a great deal of information - hundreds of years of history - and make it manageable wihtout losing the humanity of it. Granted this is done at the expense of increased detail (my reason for 4 stars, instead of 5), but the work is made more accessible by doing so. His language is understandable, which is all the more laudable as he is overtly a scholar. One might prefer different emphases than Merrill, but he can't be faulted for not consulting "me" before he wrote the book! I can recommend this without qualms or hesitation.

Why do books like this keep getting published? Soft, warm covers designed to appeal to the spiritually-minded -- but then nothing but rehashed filler material inside. I agree with the other reviewer. This book really is a "crashing bore." I'm glad I got it from the library and did not spend money on it.

This has to be one of the most boring books I have ever read on a very interesting topic. Mr. Taylor's elaboration of the obvious offers nothing new. When are New Age spirituality books going to stop repeating the same ol' crap? Save your money -- this one's a crashing bore.

Don't be fooled by adolescent minds that find books of substance "boring". This is a masterpiece of exploration of the spiritual depths of human nature.