I am not familiar with the particular family that is the focus of the book and documentary, but having lived in Eastern Kentucky all my life, I can attest to the fact that this family represents the exception and not the rule. It is quite dangerous to generalize that the entire region is full of families living in such conditions. There are poverty-stricken people in every region, even in inner-cities. Documentaries like this serve to perpetuate the "hillbilly" stereotype that is so demeaning and destructive to the proud people of Appalachia. Most of us are not living without modern conveniences, technological advances, or even advanced education. I would have appreciated the spirit of this effort if there had been any attempt to distinguish the experiences of this family from the majority of the population of Eastern Kentucky. Instead, they are presented as a typical example of the "modern" Appalachian family. That is a shamefully deceptive myth.

I am not from Kentucky but I personally know relatives of this family and I have visited this mountain area with them. This is really how this family lives and I find the documentory and the book to be actual fact regarding this situation. Many of the relatives have left the area over the years and do lead fine lives in other states. This would represent the remainder of the family that chose to stay with their roots.

In my opinion, the American Hollow is not the author's literary and photographic perception of life in Appalachia. It is an unbiased view of life in the hollow as seen by one family. The author did not attempt to label the family as being representative of the population in general. Whether the family is atypical of the average Appalachian family is irrelevant. The determination of authenticity can be more appropriately evaluated by the participants, the actual family members depicted in the book and film. If the family and neighbors recognize the depictions as creditable, then the author has done a good job of telling it like it is, without approval or disapproval, but merely acceptance that this is one Appalachian family. I missed the documentary on HBO and have searched high and low for it without success. Would be interested to know where I might obtain a copy...all comments welcomed.

I am an engineer of embedded system. I want to make embedded networking system. I find this book. An Introduction to Real-Time Systems:From Design to Networking with C/C++. When I read first page, I find wrong name of this book.

The introduction to real-time : from design to MULTITASKING with c/c++

NOT NETWORK, BUT MULTITASKING.

Writer and Prentice Hall cheat readers that buys this book. In this book, there is NO context about networking. How can I reward???

This book is really a "easy-read" one. The author stablishes a link with the reader that keeps you glued to it like if you were reading a J. R. R. Tolkien book. The theoretical explanations are accompanied by code examples small enough to clear the concepts while maintaining the focus on the concepts and not on the code. But it has a great disavantage: the real time kernel used, Tempo, was designed to run over DOS operational system (the author claims it can be used on Windows NT, but I am not really sure...). Also, you need to download the kernel code, compile it and afterwards link to your programs. Well, I think the author took this way to permit us analyze the kernel code, what is a great ideia. But I don't need to say how it is difficult nowadays to obtain DOS and an old compiler like Borland C++ 3.0, which is used in the book. Besides this, I think it is a good choice for a beginner on the field of real-time systems (that is my case).

Brian J. Bailey's The Luddite Rebellion, it seems now, was doomed from the start. The tale of the Luddites, those impoverished English hosiery workers who smashed machines in the 1800s, does not merit a whole book. The primary material on the topic is quickly exhuasted, and what is left are drawn-out discussions on whether the machine-smashers were politically motivated or not, and the ins and outs of a few insignificant trials. In addition, Bailey's more emotional outbursts against capitalist exploitation only detract from the seriousness of the work.

The term, "Luddite", is one that is invoked, at present, when rapid and momentous changes in technology are discussed. It also is often misused, Brian Bailey has written, "The Luddite Rebellion", in a concise history that gives historical substance and related facts to the term. Taken in its entirety I very much enjoyed the work, and it appears from the notes to be well documented. The Author is also scrupulous in pointing out when he switches from known fact to his interpretation or personal opinion. It was amongst these opinions that I found the only fault with the work. The Author's views stated as opinion and based upon documentary fact are fine. However at times he made very clear where his sympathies lay, and it was these moments the cadence of the book was broken, as well as confidence in pure objectivity.

Violence against machinery that escalated to the death of those on both sides of the issue is really a tragic story. The legal reforms that the Prince Regent answered the protesters with were inept, and unjustifiably extreme. This Prince was the Son of the King who amongst other events was known for, "The Madness Of King George". The stupidity of The Regent's actions was consistent with the madness of the Father. Lord Byron gave the most eloquent condemnation and summation of the underlying issues during his maiden speech in the House of Lords. Happily for the reader the speech is reproduced in its entirety as an appendix to the book.

While the book focuses primarily on a brief time span and a few counties in the early part of the 19th Century, the issues that drove these groups to violence are both much older and continue to the present. Advances in technology that make the worker redundant in a worst case, or lowers his financial utility at best, will always be fought in one manner or another. Add to this the willingness of those in power to often maximize the negative impact on their labor through greed, or by breaking laws, or conducting themselves so that new law must be written to stop them, and conflict again is both ensured and heightened.

The Author also explored whether there was a Political Agenda amongst the participants, or whether their motivation was purely personal financial grievance. I did not think this area was explored enough, and that may be the case because there is little to explore. Conspiracies involving Bonaparte of France may be both dramatic and romantic, but it does not make them legitimate.

Overall a good book for anyone interested in The Luddite Rebellion, what and when it was, and what and when it was not.

The story line is incredibly weak. Bouncing back and forth from goofy to just plain dumb, I couldn't even finish the entire thing. The audiobook is worse. They used a male and female reader, which had great potential, but they recorded them separately and did a poor job splicing them together. Don't read this at mealtime; you'll end up with indigestion.

I listened to the audio version of this book on a trip from Vail to Farmington. It was a good way to keep awake if only because I spent the time marveling at the major flaws in the authors setting. As a resident of the 4 corners, not far from Chaco Canyon and other cliff dwellings I can state for a fact that the temp rarely reaches 100 (let alone exceed it!). The area is not sand and desolation either. This story might have been more plausible if set on the white sands missile range much farther south.

...

Track of The scorpion Val Davis
(pg 307 mystery New Mexico)

If you like Nevada Barr, archeology or forensic this book is a must read. Nick is a recent college graduate
working on her tenure for a professor's job. Her father is a famous archeologist looking for the lost Anazi
empire in the hot dry desert of New Mexico. Nick's job is to catalog the artifacts as they are unearthed and
ready them for shipment. She does this job as a dutiful daughter and to fulfill her obligations for tenure.
Her real love is aircraft especially from W.W.II and when an old codger claims he found a buried plane in
the sand she is skeptical but excited. Upon arriving at the site she discovers it is in fact a W.W.II plane but
the mystery of its crash is one the government wants kept secret. This could of been just another novel
about government corruption and cover up but Davis gives us delightful characters that we can root for and
a plot with substance. Even Nick is not the normal dumb female bimbo we see in so many novels. She
actually asks for assistance and listens to others for advice. She doesn't run around helter skelter but comes
up with a plan to figure out the identity of the plane. There are many in positions of power who want her to
keep her mouth shut and close friends along the way are hurt when she continues the pursuit of identity of
the occupants of the plane. As we reach the dramatic ending, Nick keeps her wits about herself, delivers
justice and lives to tell another tale of the West. Rating 8

I didn't really like the book and the author seems to reiterate information from her different books into others. I had just borrowed the book from the library as well as the book on Grace Kelly and neither this or the book on Grace had any pictures to speak of and any author who cannot be resourceful enough to get pictures to include in the biography is lazy or did not try hard enough...others have been able to so why can't she? So you definitely can't say I am her biggest fan.

This biography is saddled with many flaws. It often reads like one of those silly romance novels one sees at the literature sections of such famous bookshops as Walmart, K-Mart, Walgreens and B.Daltons. It is filled with irrelevant gossip, much of it more suitable for a luncheon of late-middle aged hens rather than a serious biography. The author's interviews with Joan Crawford(one of Gable's many lovers) dominate too many sections of the bio; much of what Miss Crawford says is taken at face value with little to counter-balance her assertions. Most undefensible is the author's portrayal of intimate conversations as if she were there with a microphone and tape recorder. Many of the precise "conversations" alleged by the author were between two people long since dead. How would Jane Ellen Wayne know precise conversations between Louis B. Mayer and Clark Gable? Both have been dead for over thirty years. Did the author interview either man from beyond the grave? This technique of the author is most dishonest. However, this biography has some very good points. Gable's early life and rise are covered in great detail. The author's desriptions of the big studio milleu of pre-TV Hollywood are interesting. The author paints a thorough personality portrait of Gable- his calculated decisions, his high sex drive, his alcoholism, his love of the outdoors, his tight wallet. Gable's marriage to Carole Lombard is handled rather well. Oddly, the Gable-Lombard marriage reminds one of the marriage of the current First Couple in the White House, only Carole Lombard is better looking and much, much better humoured than Hillary R. Clinton and Clark Gable is much more manly than Bill Clinton. Clark Gable is worthy of a fine biography; Jane Ellen Wayne's is not it, however.

Started reading this book after the death of Katharine Hepburn. Gable is another one of those great stars I know and love only from GWTW and black and white movies on TCM. I knew little of his personal life, except for his storybook marriage to Carole Lombard. This book filled me in on his background. I had no idea he worked so hard on the craft he made look so effortless. Nor did I know how complicated he was. Knowing this will make me appreciate his work that much more. Does it bother me that the biographer writes as if she was in the room for some of the conversations? Not really. This is, after all, a movie star biography, not a history book. If Gable had been a politician or statesman, it might concern me more.

This book gives a bare amount of info most of which could have found out by using the phone. The information given is very vague and the book needs more info to be helpful.

As I sit in Strozier Library, in the center of the Florida State University campus, I can tell you that FSU was established in 1857.

I was browsing at the local bookstore for future graduate schools when I came across this: The book listed University of Florida as established in 1953 and Florida State University as 1857. The dates are reversed. University of Florida was establisehd in 1857. I know this because I graduated from the University of Florida. Overall the book gives a decent overall view of what programs and degrees the grad schools offer. A bit more info on graduate tuition fees for in state and out of state would be helpful.

I am a postop transsexual woman. I find this book to run counter to my personal experience and to the experiences of the dozens, if not hundreds, of transsexual women whom I've met in the past decade.

Mr. Baily might be discussing drag queens, transvestites, or transgendered people, but he is certainly not discussing transsexual women. He certainly interviewed a number of DQs, TVs, and TGs, but few, if any, transsexual women.

If there were a lower rating than one star, I'd "award" it to this book.

Don't waste your money on it. If you want to read a decent book about transsexuals, get a copy of _True Selves_ by Millie Brown and Chloe Rounsley and/or _Confessions of a Gender Defender_ by Randi Ettner

Bailey's reductionism, unfounded assumptions, and flawed methodology ruin what might have been a serious discussion of sexuality in transsexuals. It is a contradiction that half of the author's thesis rests essentially on observations of a single individual, yet throughout the book, Bailey seems incapable of dealing with people as individuals. In Bailey's world, all stereotypes are true, and stereotypes explain all human behavior. All gay men are effeminate, all gay men hang out in bars, and all transsexuals are obsessed with sex. The notion that people can be reduced to their sex drives has no currency in any field, except, it appears, sexology. That probably says more about sexologists than about people generally.

As to his unfounded assumptions:
1- All gay men are effeminate
2- Being effeminate is the same as being feminine (think about it, do you know any women who act like really effeminate gay guys? I think really effeminate gay guys are fabulous, but they're not really much like women)
3- Feminine behavior in kids who turn out to be transsexual is the same as feminine behavior in kids who turn out to be gay (Since Bailey believes that sexual orientation is inborn and accounts for feminine behavior in boys, he would seem to have a problem in explaining extremely feminine behavior in kids who grow up to be normal heterosexual males, who actually outnumber kids who were extremely feminine and turned out to be transsexuals, but that flaw in his theory, like so many others, seems to have passed him by)
4- Transsexuals who describe themselves and their history in ways which do not perfectly fit his model are always lying (this is not an inference, this is something he explicitly states)
5- The best place to find transsexuals is at gay bars
6- Transsexuals who work as prostitutes are representative of transsexuals generally (Reread that sentence and substitute "women" for "transsexuals")

As bad as this is, Bailey's research methodology is worse. The reductionism and assumptions we can understand, if not forgive, as simply being the way people like Bailey think. However, Bailey holds a PhD. He ought to know what is and isn't competent scientific methodology. What he presents in his studies is anything but. His study of so called "homosexual transsexuals" seems to rely entirely on prostitutes and people he met in gay bars. Most of them were people he met by being introduced to one subject's circle of friends, who then became his next subjects. This is a method of data collection commonly referred to as "snowball sampling." It is notoriously ineffective at producing reliable results. Since the people one obtains as survey subjects tend to run in the same circle, they are going to be far more like each other than random subjects from the population being studied will be. It's like if you want to survey political affiliation, and your first subject happens to belong to the Green party. You ask your subject to introduce you to other people to survey, and she gives you names of her friends, who are also Greens. Based on your results, you confidently predict the Green party will win the next presidential election in a landslide. Um, not likely. While snowball sampling is sometimes used with populations which are hard to locate, like transsexuals, results should ALWAYS be published with the disclaimer that there is no real way of knowing how well the data is representative of the actual population being studied. Bailey nowhere does this. Instead, he is absolutely dogmatic in his insistence that ALL transsexuals, 100%, with no exceptions whatsoever, fall into one of his two categories. Furthermore, according to Bailey, all transsexuals who fall into the "homosexual transsexual" category are essentially really effeminate gay men who, having difficulty attracting gay lovers, become women in order to fool straight men into having sex with them.

Then there's his other category. According to Bailey, all transsexuals, 100%, with no exceptions whatsoever, are either "homosexual transsexuals" or "autogynephilic transsexuals." Autogynephilic transsexuals are, according to Bailey, straight men who are so sexually obsessed with the image of themselves as women that they get sex changes in order to live out their sexual fantasy. Bailey appears to base this on a "study" of exactly one transvestite and one transsexual who was not feminine as a child and who at one point constructed an anatomically correct mannequin as a male love doll, plus his interpretation of Dr. Ray Blanchard's work. It is quite clear that Bailey has not approached this subject with an open mind. He has simply assumed Blanchard's work to be accurate and sought out an example to present to the public. He does not replicate Blanchard's findings, he does not even attempt to. Instead he assumes they are correct and goes looking for evidence to support his predetermined conclusion. Leaving aside the fact that Blanchard's work appears to suffer from the same reductionism and unfounded assumptions as Bailey's, Bailey further assumes that any transsexual who appears to fit the autogynephilic category but gives a history and understanding of herself inconsistent with the assumptions of the autogynephilic model is lying. So, Bailey has determined his conclusion at the outset and given himself a license to ignore contrary evidence. That is simply not science.

In the real world, transsexuals do not fit into these neat categories. There are transsexuals who transitioned young, were very feminine as children, pass with little effort, but are attracted to women. Many transsexuals whom Bailey would categorize as "homosexual" gave up relationships with men in order to transition. If Bailey's theory is correct, that should never happen. Bailey has a scale from 3 to -3 to determine if any given transsexual is homosexual or autogynephilic. Everyone who's 3 is homosexual, everyone who's -3 is autogynephilic, and ALL of us are one or the other. (...)

I understand & respect how deeply offended transsexual women are by this book.

The whole debate about autogynephilia - which is the concept on which Bailey makes his assumptions about transsexuality - is unfortunately missing its real mark, which I think is the crossdressing community. It's heterosexual crossdressers who show more evidence of being autogynephilic, - but of course not all of them, either.

I will add that I think anyone who points to any conflation of sexual desire and gender identity is going to get him or herself into hot water. The reality is that there needs to be some definition as to what sexual desire is - not just a perverted urge, but a deeply-experienced and (dare I say) essential part of our personalities. Unfortunately, we are not that enlightened as a culture, and Bailey's theories will instead damn a whole new generation of transsexual women to dismissal, which is not what they deserve.

Any research like this - especially when it's purporting to be scientific - should 'check in' with the community where the impact of a book like this will be felt.

Helen Boyd (is the wife of a crossdresser)

there is no outline and there are no answers to the multiple choice questions

I ordered this book, and thought I would not have to read the text, but I was unprepared for the class. I also did not need the busy-work portions of the book.

The Guidebook is not a substitute for the text, but it is not designed to be. It is a good resource for those looking for review materials to help them in a course in which American Pageant is the primary text.

This book in not about a boy and a donkey as stated in the review on your site. I would very much like to have the book the reviewer was talking about. I remember learning to read from that book as a child. I remember the cover showing the boy and his donkey going down a road. If you have THIS book, let me know.

This is a small childs textbook used in the 50's and 60's that tells the tale of a boy and his donkey. It is quite a pleasant story, and helps children with their vocabulary. I recommend this book to baby boomer's who might have used this book when they were small.