After reading this book I found myself wondering if this guy ever "really" spent a day in the Special Forces. Little things like his attention to detail are what bothered me the most. on page 303 he mentions a character carrying a Glock pistol, on page 343 he mentions the Glock again yet in the next paragraph he states " Cassidy cocked the hammer on his double action semi-automatic..." If you could show me the hammer on a Glock I would really appreciate it. Glocks DO NOT have hammers.

Also the poorly written "sambo" treatment of the housekeeper was just a bit to stereotypical. I expected her to say " Yes massa no massa". This guy doesn't have a clue. SF or no SF he needs to research his work a little better. Lastly the Kragle family is boring to no end. Lets hope they all die at some family reunion in a future book. Preferably murdered by the housekeeper with the terminal case of EBONICS. DO NOT COMPARE THIS RUBBISH WITH CLANCY

One dimensional characters where the kragle family, who are the focus of this book, are all the same iteration of the same identity. Only one of them has any uniqueness with any emotion the others are walking robots. It seems like thier purpose is to be present at major points in the story flow. It is unfortunate that almost all characters of Middle Eastern descent are portrayed as evil extremist while the others with the exception of one are willing followers are believers in the American soliders.

On the good side there are some points where you can't let the book down. There is some suspense and thrill in the tail I only wish there was more dimension in the characters and dialog.

I dont know why you guys are being so harsh. I think that the book was a bit odd at times but very interesting. The family represented did seem to be a bit too similar, but thats what happens when an entire family is raised only by a military father, they all join the armed services. I also like how he showed how corrupt past presidencies were without using any names. On the whole I think this was a terrific book

I've got this book from an university libary. It' based on taped narrations from Warao Indians about their life, like school, living in the familiy, work and as well how they see the influence of modern times in their environment. The informations are quiete old, but I think it's worth to know about their thoughts and not to have a description about them from authors of the modern world. Nevertheless this book is influenced by etnologists who translated and wrote the narrations. But prices we found on book market are not worth for the quality of printing and paper.

i am an international students and want to read books called readers. i am graduated from university also.

I didn't pick up this book looking for Tolstoy's "War and Peace." I new it was fluff, but adventure fluff, and that's OK. I do, though, like to believe that when an author writes a book, s/he does some research, were the author not an authority to start. Sasser claims past background in Special Forces. This made me want to believe, to some extent, his descriptions of Special Ops as portrayed in the book. He was off.

What set my reading Geiger counter off, though, was how he messed up his references to languages used by the "bad guys," and the American translators. One example, alone, suffices: The FBI SAIC in Cairo, who's assigned to the task force investigating the attack on the ship, speaks the local language in Egypt (and Yemen), which is Arabic. The female officer, the Delta translator, talks to him in Farsi. Whereon, he replies,"...From the way she talks she could have been born in Baghdad..." A heck of a praising comment, but off. Farsi is the language of Iran, not Iraq, although spoken in parts of Afghanistan, also. It is NOT the language of Yemen. And there was no reason to believe that the agent spoke Farsi.

There were other linguistic gaffs, and each one deterred from enjoyment of the book. I began to wonder whether a super market newspaper was his source of information.

In addition to the other comments made by those who gave this book a low grade, I too am unable to give more than 2 stars for this book. One star is for the author simply having the wherewithall to write and publish a book. Understanding that this is not an effort to write a prize winning book, I give it a second star for a reasonably entertaining story. My dislikes were for one, the 'Aunt Jamima' treatment of the 'maid/mother figure' in the story. Given a little more character development she could of been a stronger part of the story. And two, though it may be ticky-tack, but last check the navy does not operate F-16s from carriers. But I did enjoy and agree with the two-faced, self-serving, back-stabbing portrail of the politians in the story. The author must know some people in Washington! I was also dissappointed in the loss of the female in the story after playing such a big role through most of the story. It would of been a good book with a little more attention to detail. Could of been a good book with the storyline. Should of been a good book from the jacket info. But it ended up just ok.

Incredible read! Would easily compare to Clancy. Can't wait for the next in the series.

AVOID this book.

NOTHING MORE THAN A COPY AND PASTE

I do appreciate his OTHER books but this is just POS

After reading the first two books by Fred Pushies (U.S. Army Special Forces and U.S. Air Force Special Operations), I had high expectations for this title. I could not have been more disappointed. It appears he had no official backing for this title (which is to be expected, it is Delta after all) and the result feels very slapped together in order to cash in on the war on terror.

He offers a good profile of the M4 SOPMOD weapon system and a brief, but good profile of communications systems. The rest of the book is just info he apparently lifted from websites or other books. It could have been a handy reference title but very few specifications are included so you basically get a photo with a few lines of text per weapon or piece of hardware. And a lot of that text is incorrect or typos. However, the most unforgiveable transgresion is spending only three paragraphs discussing Delta's handguns when they are the weapon trained with and carried most often.

Skip this title and buy CSM Haney's "Inside Delta Force" instead.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book from Mr. Pushies. I too read both of his previous books and highly anticipated this release. I think he did a good job putting together a large scope of the weapons and equipment used by such a secretive group. If you read his preface, you'll see where he states he probably didn't get everything they use. I don't think anyone could.

While the HK's may no longer be the preferred weapon of choice, they are still part of the Delta arsenal and have their use. Devoting an entire section to something that was so beneficial to Delta's previous success makes sense to me. Besides, who wouldn't want an MP5?

This is the last novel of the late Hammond Innes. I don't want to write bad things about it. But honestly, I am deeply disappointed.

Paul Cartwright is an English engineer employed by a resource research company. He visits Romania on the eve of the Ceausescu regime's collapse. He kills a Secret Police officer to save his Romanian friend, and he desperately tries to get out of the country.

That's the first half of the story. Not so exciting. The story goes rather awkwardly. Paul Cartwright, the protagonist, lacks attractiveness and/or individuality; he is rather a nondescript narrator than a protagonist. But there are several impressive scenes; the killing of the Secret Police officer, the lively description of the Ceausescu regime's collapse, and the wild wetland of the Danube Delta.

The latter half is much worse. Immediately after Paul gets out of Romania, his company urgently dispatches him to Pakistan-Afghanistan border district. But, what the urgency is, what the company wants Paul to do, where is the final destination ... the story goes on and on about 100 pages without clearing what is all about. I feel this tantalizing situation goes on endlessly, and I quit reading the book.

Terribly disappointed, but I give 2 stars, because some Romanian parts worth reading.

I usually enjoy mathematics books, and it is rare that a book on the subject is incompetent. Hellerstein's book is, unfortunately, one such. It begins by citing, as though they were true conundrums, many famous and lesser known "paradoxes". Most have long been known to harbor no real paradox. Here are some examples:

He asks (p 10) whether aleph null (the cardinality of the integers) is even or odd. It is the question that is odd, as evenness and oddness are defined for integers and not for aleph null. He says that it "is a counting number, it is presumably an integer..." however, it is most definitely not a counting number, and not an integer. In defining the counting numbers we use a concept called the successor of a number, define zero, and build from there. Aleph null, not being the successor of a counting number is simply not one of them. His word "presumably" is a dead giveaway; on what basis does he presume? This is mathematics, we conjeccture, prove, or disprove. We do not presume.

Another class of what he thinks are paradoxes are merely cases where he has used undefined terms. For example, his "Paradox of the Boundary" where he asks, "Is noon A.M. or P.M.?" I would ask: Define what you mean by A.M. and P.M.?If A.M.'s definition ends, "up to and including 12:00, then noon is A.M." If A.M.'s definition ends "up to but not including 12:00", then noon is not A.M. As soon as you define noon, midnight, A.M., and P.M., the problem disappears. Similarly for his other questions of this type, for example, "Which country owns the border?" or "Is zero plus or minus?" (a better mathematician would have asked, "Is zero positive or negative?"). It is as if he is ignorant of the properties of open and closed sets.

His "Size Paradoxes" also vanish when we define our terms with precision. "Surely," he says, "one grain of sand does not constitute a heap of sand. Surely adding another grain will not make it a heap. Nor will adding another, or another, or another. In fact, it seems absurd to say that adding one single gran of sand will turn a non-heap into a heap." The problem is that we have no definition of a heap of sand. We can, however, create one, and as soon as we do, the paradox disappears. A definition in terms of number of grains of sand will do, or -- if that seems overly rigid -- then define a heap of sand empirically, by asking, say, 41 randomly chosen people to decide, and going with the majority. But best is to simply recognize that there is no fixed definition, that we cannot determine whether some small piles of sand constitute a heap or not, that there is no logical contradiction, and that therefore there is no paradox.

The paradox of the smallest uninteresting number begins by asking if there are any uninteresting whole numbers. There cannot be, because the set of uninteresting whole numbers (UHNs) has a smallest member. The smallest UHN is, obviously, interesting, so we remove it from the set. But the new set has a smallest, and we remove number after number until there is nothing left. However, "uninteresting" is not well-defined. Given a number, there is no test we can apply to determine whether it is an UHN. In fact, a number that is uninteresting one day may prove interesting the next to the same observer. Again, there is no paradox, just his confusion.

Consider this argument of Hellerstein's:

"Let us attempt to evaluate finiteness. Let F = 'finitude', or 'finity'; the generic finite expression. You may replace it with any finite expression."

He does not define 'finitude' or 'finity' and I have no clear idea of what they mean. But he seems to say that we can replace it (that is F) with any finite expression. If I can replace F with any finite expression, I will choose "3". He may mean "Let F be an arithmetic expression whose result is a whole number." but he seems to want to leave things unclear.

He goes on, "Is Finity finite?" If Finity is F (which he said) and F = 3 (which he permits), then the answer is obviously 'yes'. But he ignores the obvious answer to go on and state,

"If F is finite, then you can replace it by F+1, and thus by F + 2, F + 3, etc. But such a substitution, indefinitely prolonged, yields an infinity." He is simply wrong because, for all real numbers k, F + k is finite. Let us restate his sentence more precisely: He means that if the assertion "F is finite" is true, then the assertion "F + 1 is finite" is true, and every assertion of the form "F + k is finite" is true for all real numbers k. This is correct, and it is correct for the integers and the whole numbers, too. We never get any infinities, just larger and larger finite numbers.

Another class of paradoxes are the liar and barber paradoxes. To explode them, we need only look at the method of proof by contradiction, often used in mathematics. An elementary exercise in formal logic proves that proof by contradiction is valid. The most famous such proof is that the square root of 2 is not rational. I won't repeat the proof here, but the method is this: you assume that the square root of 2 is rational, in particular it is the ratio of two integers p and q, and then you show that this leads to a contradiction, whatever integers you choose for p and q. You therefore reject the supposition that the square root of 2 is rational.

In the barber paradox we suppose a village where all men are clean shaven (a man is, for the sake of this puzzle, assumed to be someone who needs to be shaved in order to be clean shaven, though this assumption is rarely stated explicitly), and we know that the barber shaves every man who does not shave himself and only such men. The paradox comes about when we ask: Who shaves the barber? If it is the barber, then he shaves himself and therefore is not shaved by the barber, that is, himself. If the barber does not shave himself, then by our assumption, he is shaved byh the barber, that is himself. This self-contradictory conclusion arises only because we made an assumption that there can be such a village. This so-called paradox is simply a proof that a village so defined cannot exist. There is no paradox, there is no village.

The book's front matter states that it is printed on acid-free paper, so it won't fall apart. However, books can fall apart in other ways. This one was not only printed on acid-free paper, it is also on mathematics-free paper.

This is the third in the Delta Stevens Mystery Series, and features Delta "Storm" Stevens and her best friend Connie Rivera hot on the heels of a child pornography ring - against orders, of course. For "Storm" is a female John Wayne, spurning rules and regulations, disobeying orders and disregarding personal danger. Unfortunately she does it with such moralistic intensity it becomes rather boring, if not ridiculous. In fact, in this novel, all the clue-solving is carried out by Rivera, whose actions save Storm's life more than once. Storm is also saddled with an inept rookie (as punishment for her last vigilante adventure) whom she lectures to interminably about doing the "right "thing. It's no wonder her love life is on the rocks - every interaction with her girlfriend, Megan, seems to consist of either anxious discussion about their relationship or gushings of affection - all tempered by Storm's love of her job. If you are looking for a well-written, exciting novel, buy something else - this is just way too earnest to be likable.