Law Books

This book was great. It filled the gaps left after reading The Secret.
At first I was a bit turned off because of the some of the psycho-babble but in the end it was perfect. The author explain concepts well and reinterates points just frequently enough that they became something that I kind of sang along with and now I am putting in to practice everthing that I learned in the book. The book explains our place in the world and that our desire to get rich is ok and even expected. Please take the time to read/listen to the book yourself. It was quick and it won't take anything out of your life it you don't like it. I think it was wonderful.

Loved this book--excellent info. It's been almost 100 years since first publication but it rings just as true today. Two versious of the book are included--updated for today's reader and the original version. I love the original version and it's references to businesses of long ago--you can see in retrospect that Mr. Wattles was correct.

Think and grow rich...great concept. I'm trying it out and hope for the best.

Wallace Wattles' masterpiece, one of the definitive works on the principles of success and wealth. Thank you. Definitely belongs in any library on wealth and success.

Note to publisher: There are typos and editing errors. Please fix before the next printing!
Dorothy

The Science of Getting Rich:
Attracting Financial Success through Creative Thought, 4th ed.
By Wallace D. Wattles
If you watched The Secret and wondered what the little book was that changed author Rhonda Byrne's life, this is it. Originally published in 1910, its time has come. In light of recent scientific discoveries, we are creating a new worldview in which consciousness is in everything, and in fact, it's through consciousness that matter comes into being. Many of today's widespread prosperity movements are tapped in to this knowledge and now you can also learn the secret.Rahasya Poe, Lotus Guide magazine

The audio CD is very good tool for beginners who need to know more about selling techniques , however you need to know that :
1. The target customers are clients of commidities purchase and not business to business approach.
2. Mostly the audience need to be english native language to get most of the lecture in pure english accent.

Other than this it's great resource to invest and "value for money".

This audio book changed my way of approaching sales. It is a classic must have that will change your life.

Very fun to listen to in your car when your driving to customers houses. Lots of good information and insights into selling. Not everything Zig talks about can be used in my line of sales, but for the most part this is a must have audiobook for anyone who wants to be the best.

This is the "Bible" of legal forms and information. Used early 1989 edition quite a bit. Will use this up-dated edition even more.

It's not always the most entertaining book to read (who enjoys reading about taxes?), but read through it once. Stick it on your shelf. And then whenever you need it, the book can reference you to certain government documents such as release forms, copyright forms, tax forms, consignment forms, authenticity forms, etc. There's tons of forms in the book for you to work off of when you are writing up your own agreements. Also current on laws for artists. Always keep a current edition of this book handy.

This is an excellent resource to define and explain legal issues in the arts. It is a little dry in some parts but far easier to read than books written for the legal profession. I have been using this book as a textbook for a college class at an art school for graphic design students for several years.

The book covers copyright law and touches on legal business issues that pertain to all visual artists. The focus of the book is on fine artists but it is the best resource I have found for graphic designers.

Tad Crawford does his as-usual excellent job clarifying a complex area for the working visual artist. Readers will admire his straightforward writing style and many, many practical examples.

A word of warning, though: as Tad himself says, he is not providing legal advice and, while the artist will thank Tad if he or she follows Tad's advice, it does not substitute for appropriate legal consults as needed.

Even if you have the luxury of an attorney that speicalizes in art contracts, as I do, this is a great book of forms to keep handy for quick reference. My advice is to get it with his other book: Business & Legal Forms for Fine Artists also by Tad Crawford

I first read this book about 12 years ago, or so. It changed the way I approach instruction of any kind. I reread it all the time. Easy to read, full of application and challenge. If you are in ANY leadership role, you need this book. You can be a dry, boring teacher, or you can influence others and change lives. Don't be content to be a part of the mass of dull, ineffective teachers who fill our schools and universities across the country. Change the way you think and change the way you teach. Read this book!

I am a freshman in college and am in the Secondary English track. This book is actually one of our textbooks, and it is by far my favorite book! If you want to become a master teacher, read this book and apply its principles. All my former teachers are getting this book from me for Christmas this year!

These books have the most misleading titles! Unless you are teaching Sunday school bible classes, this book is mostly useless, because the only examples it gives you are about how to better teach the bible. The title says 'teach almost anything to pratically anyone'. That is so NOT TRUE. Sure, it gives you some pointers, but I feel I have to squeeze the text really hard to get some juice.
I bought this book and 'Almost Every Answer for Practically Any Teacher' hoping to learn how to teach better, and to get in touch with modern teaching skills. What a disappointment and a waste of money! The other book went straight to the garbage can.
Another thing: if all the examples of bible teaching were stripped out of the book, it would be half the size and, perhaps, a much more pleasurable read. Maybe it would even earn another star!

The text book accompanied with the video series is a phenomenal teacher training package. I am beginning the second series with the book and videos this month (January) The readings by themselves are excellent, but seeing Dr. Bruce Wilkinson in action has made the attendess read the book.

This book is highly recommended for anyone thinking about teaching or persons in leadership.

Three years ago, our church of about 1,000 set about to reinvent itself within our Christian Education department. At about 26,000 feet flying somewhere over Arizona, I was shaken while reading it for the first time. It shocked me into realizing how really boring many teachers can communicate without anyone learning anything...always pushing content while omitting any application or creativity to ensure learning. These principles revitalized my own teaching, and I have used it as our core curriculum for the 15 teachers we have in our education department. Our teachers have come up with some great classes as well as creative ideas in their professional/occupational lives as a result of this book.
Going on year three, we stand by this book as the best-of-class, and continue using its principles weekly. We now have a growing and alive ministry, and can honestly say this book began it all. This book is a "must" if you want to change lives vs. "cover" the material.

Very easy-to-read text, chock-full of case citations and examples. A great text for business students and an easy-to-understand introduction to law as it applies to the real world!

My book arrive very quickly and it was in excellent condition. It arrived just in time for class. Thanks

You can get the book at much cheaper price from elsewhere including book stores.

Barnes and Nobles.com sells it only for $72.50.

Check it out. do not buy from AMZN. They are cheaters.

it's more than 8 years since I read TENM. The other day I found it fallen on the floor and decided to write a review about it, although I remember it hazily. I was dismayed to see it has 11 1 star revs, against only 23 5 star ones. How is it possible?

I think neg revs misinterpreted the book's intent: here [I hope] we're not in the middle of a religious war, as with string versus loop, or Darwin versus ID, or Sokal versus God knows what (by the way, I'm with Sokal). What Penrose set out to do, IMHO, was to amuse himself a little, and (why not?) also earn some money and get his name away from twistors and spin networks and tiling, and into the public's awareness; and by the way, propound some of his pet hypothesis and beliefs. But all among rational people. I was stunned by the virulence of some neg revs, as if he were rejecting naturalism (and even if so, what?). It seems that civilised discourse is definitely over.

So in my view the book is to be taken first of all as an opportunity to explore a first-rate mind, and what an enjoyment that is! I've NEVER seen Turing machines, Goedel method of converting letter strings into numerical ones, etc., better explained outside a classroom, when a prof had to clarify things for bumbling students.

As for his theses, well ... I concur with him about the implications of Goedel's theorem. I think his critics miss the point he's trying to make. Let's be reasonable: nobody can prove anything one way or the other, but to assert, as one neg rev does, that SUBJECTIVE vision is algorithmical ... well, again! What meager evidence we have (humble introspection) would seem to point the other way. As Eddington once said "if you see a salvo of rockets soaring upwards, it doesn't disprove the existence of gravity, but certainly is no evidence for it". I think the onus of proof lies with those who assert mind processes ARE algorithmical. Another neg rev says math is a closed system; well, if so, please explain to me the REASON for the connection between Riemann's zeta and prime numbers. Ah, we don't have the whole picture of the building's architecture yet? Well, neither do we of the (Uni/Multi)verse, another closed system, and this last one with some connection to reality, whatever THAT means. It depends on whether we're Platonists (as Penrose elsewhere acknowledges himself to be) or Formalists -and perhaps here one also should lump the Intuitionists?-.

As for the tubules and the -shotgun- marriage between quantum "theory" and gravity, they are two different things. I think the TUBULE HYPOTHESIS is a falsifiable suggestion (I wonder why Penrose mentioned it at all), hasn't any theory-like status, and anyhow doesn't purport to explain purely MENTAL phenomena: it's as far from it as any physical theory that eschews dualism. So I don't think it has anything to do with the AI discussion. Anybody wanting to criticize it is welcome (though not on the ground that hook -or flat- worms also have tubules: are they free-floating in a vacuum, or inside some cell of the worms?).

As regards the UNTENABILITY OF QUANTUM "THEORY" with its many dualities and dialetheisms -wavicles, wavefunction propagation versus collapse, acausality, nonlocality- I concur with Penrose that it is a phenomenally successful collection of recipes in search for an explanation, not a true theory (that's why I put the scare quotes around it) and should be reformulated, as should have been Newton's because of its nonlocality. In TENM he seeks to do it in an very incomplete and somewhat unorthodox way, but obviously doesn't put forward a theory to that effect in the book, so take it only as an amiable proposal! Even so, I think this is more of a philosophical question (should theories be based on entities understandable to human minds shaped by evolution, if only, pace Mach, by analogy and metaphorically, as for example the 4-dimensional continuum?; or should they be accepted even if they deny basic notions about "reality" such as non-contradiction and causality?) than a scientific one, and so must have as many answers as there are reviewers.

By the way, delving a little more into the AI problem: I think neither Penrose nor the reviewers here mention self-referentiality, which I would think should be considered the hallmark of (self)consciousness, on which naive -but honestly toiled- set theory foundered, and which would seem difficult to implement algorithmically. Why is that?
Another reviewer, and not book-oriented question: what results are emerging NOW fron research into computerised evolutionary algorithms?

To summarise this rambling half non-review: when readind Penrose (and especially "TENM" and "The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe") I had the warm feeling I was in the company of a trusted, non-abrasive old friend with whom one might -respecfully, because he knows so much more than you do- disagree, but to whom it is always sage to listen and to pay attention to. And for this, TENM gets my five stars.

I was compelled to write as I came by on the way to buying Dr. Penrose's more recent book ("Road to Reality") and was appalled that Amazon features 2 out of 3 negative views on the first page, including one which dismisses the "Emperor's new mind" as "rubbish". Surely the book is controversial in certain quarters, but the vehemence of much of the criticism can only make me wonder why some people are so defensive about it.

I have to admit I have not reread this book since my original reading around 1990, so take my remarks at some discount on that basis. But I will tell you that this book remains influential in my choice of what I read and how I evaluate things even to this day. It has indeed changed my life.

Dr. Penrose's premise is that a computer simulation of a brain will not achieve the equivalent of human consciousness. I don't wish to enter the fray of arguing points. Dr. Penrose is a mathematical and scientific genius, a deep thinker on the nature of reality, and he can do his own counterpoint. Read this book with an open mind, and even if you disagree with some of his arguments, you will take much away with you.

Here's my take. "Consciousness" is pretty central to the whole enterprise of scientific endeavor, as well as how each of us understands our place in the world. Consciousness, as modeled by psychological and AI researchers, has a lot to say about the biological/physical systems that underpin what is happening in our heads, but one has to wonder about claims that consciousness is now completely understood. To this end, Dr. Penrose takes us on a fascinating journey to the frontiers of scientific knowledge, at scales both large and small. This is entirely relevant to the central theme. Science can only talk about what we can measure, and there are limits to what we can now measure. Our current picture of reality is not as complete as some people would have us believe.

So read Penrose. Read Stephen Jay Gould. Read Raymond Smullyan. Read about the Banach-Tarski theorem. Read about Fermat's last theorem. Read great literature. Keep an open mind. Peace!

This book is a real mess, and although I am giving it five stars, I don't really recommend anyone read anything like all of it. In fact, most of it isn't about the problems with strong AI at all. Mostly, it's a general, populist book about modern physics and mathematics. That can be an interesting read too, but probably Penrose isn't the person to be writing such a thing. He uses way too many exclamation points and I suspect he also tends to think he knows more than he really does. For example, it is clear by his one use of the word "ergodic" that he thinks it means something like "single orbits of a measurable set spread out and fill the whole space". That's mixing, not ergodicity. Lots of ergodic transformations do nothing of the kind, like for example irrational rotations of the circle. I only know this because I'm an ergodic theorist; I do tend to wonder how many other things I would catch Penrose speaking as if he knew more about them than he does, if only I knew more about them than I do.

So why does this book get five stars? Mostly because it has no good competitors. Daniel Dennett, for example, wrote a book called "Consciousness Explained." In it, he didn't even try to explain consciousness. Which is not to say he didn't write a terrific book. He did. It's wonderful. But when it comes to consciousness, Dennett just punts and doesn't seem to realize this is what he is doing (hence the ludicrously inappropriate title). This is why Searle thinks cognitive scientists come out, on analysis, "too stupid for words" (Dennett's phrase, speculating on what Searle thinks--if you haven't read these two guys' reviews of each others books, you really are missing some top-flight entertainment). As scientists, that's not really fair, but as philosophers of consciousness, it's probably pretty apt. Unfortunately Searle, marvelously adept at diagnosing the deficiencies of others, is ill-equipped to give a positive account. Penrose on the other hand at least gives us an inkling of what a positive account might look like. He does this mostly in the last chapter of the book, which is all I think anybody really needs to read (read the chapter on quantum theory too, if you don't remember anything about it).

Is Penrose right? I think, in broad outline, probably so. I do think consciousness has some power to choose at quantum branching points. I think this because I believe in the causal closure of the physical, I believe in the efficacy of consciousness, I don't believe that consciousness is physical, and I don't believe in overdetermination. You can only rectify these beliefs (as far as I can tell), by booting causal closure upstairs into the many-worlds arena and letting consciousness slide around in this ultra-high-dimensional plane with some measure of latitude. It's also the only way I can imagine that consciousness could have evolved in the first place (given that the strong AI premise that consciousness is automatically, miraculously generated by the execution of an algorithm really is too stupid for words).

I'm sure I'm one of hundreds of people who took quantum mechanics as an undergraduate and immediately formed these opinions; I am happy to defer to Penrose as to the details of how it might work. Are these details worked out in full, or even correctable in principle? Probably not. But almost surely it's not for being too crazy; the truth of the matter about consciousness is probably much, much crazier than even Penrose can imagine. Indeed, probably too crazy to be of any practical use to congnitive science now (maybe ever). So you're still going to have good reason to read your Daniel Dennett.

Oh, right. Penrose thinks the quagmire of consciousness has a lot to do with computability, tilings, entropy and Godel incompleteness. It doesn't (though the aperiodic tilings make for a good analogy involving unusual crystals). Those are just things Penrose knows a lot about, and paranoids think that all the things they know about are related.

Jeez, twelve bucks and one hell of a good read! Stick your neck out and find out for YOURSELF if the book is any good. I'm suspicious that Penrose is being persecuted for theist tendencies.

I skimmed over the equations, and still found the exposition clear enough, with one significant exception. At one point, Penrose describes how an event in the Andromeda galaxy would already have occurred for a person on Earth walking toward the galaxy and not for another at the same spot walking away. the implication is that information would arrive at the same place at significantly different times for people walking in different directions. Penrose is assuming simultaneity of the events on our planet and in the Andromeda galaxy -- after several pages of discussion of how relativity excludes it!

Penrose soon returns to form though, stating that neither person would perceive the event until information about it arrived at the speed of light, millions of years later. Even if people could live that long, they would have to keep walking away from one another to perceive the event at very different times. That would be not be possible on our little round planet.

This is the one place where Penrose's discussion of modern physics lost me for a little while. Otherwise, I found it compelling. In particular, his explanation that Newtonian physics is deterministic stuck with me.

The discussion of mind at the end of the book is inconclusive and speculative, as it must yet be. The mechanical structure of living beings reflects Newtonian physics -- for example, the leg must be strong enough to support the body. Digestion can be explained in terms of chemistry, the nervous system uses electrical conduction, the reception of light by the eye is a quantum phenomenon. But then, there is the mind. Though the uncertainty in quantum physics allows of free will, it does not explain that, or consciousness. Evolution takes advantage of physical phenomena not yet understood -- after all, none were understood until very recently. The question of consciousness and that of the structure of the universe converge. Thought-provoking, indeed!

This book along with Grandma's Yellow Pie Plate are a must have if you are involved with an estate of any kind, or planning your own.

These things should be taught in High School.

I am the executor of an estate and needed guidance on an equitable way to distribute my parents assets that were not large value items but also not garage sale or donation items. This book has the best ideas I found and with 4 kids in the family with different personalities and locations, it really worked!

Confidently recommended reading, The Settlement Game: How To Settle An Estate Peacefully And Fairly by Angie Epting Morris is a practical, "user friendly", and informative guide to arranging a fair division of a departed loved one's estate. Readers will be provided with a proven system for dividing all items in an estate in a fair, peaceful manner; an analysis of personality styles that can help you avoid conflict; useful, practical advice for dealing with all details of an estate, from bank accounts to taxes; handy forms you can photocopy to keep track of all items and miscellaneous expenses.

After mother's death, my brother and sisters looked to me to begin the estate
settlement process. The Settlement Game: How to Settle an Estate Peacefully and Fairly has been like a life line to a drowning victim. Anyone can settle an estate, but to do so peacefully and fairly, is another matter. After reading the introduction, I
purchased copies for myself and my siblings. Our home is like returning to another era with beautiful antique furniture, dishes, and many of our old toys. This book outlines a system for distributing these items fairly and peacefully. I particularly liked the spiritual side that the author weaved into the beginning of the book. I
would recommend this book to anyone who is faced with settling an estate and
wants to make sure the process is done fairly and that family relationships remain
unharmed.

Being one of five siblings I was not looking forward to settling our dad's estate. I needed real life, practical help! Reading the Settlement Game was an answer to my prayers! Here is a book written by an author who has successfully setteled her parent's estate using practical ideas; she shares these ideas, gives you guidelines and tools so that you actually have something to work with. I felt like I had a friend to help me. Giving each member in the family a copy of the book helped them to know what to expect too. The Settlement Game not only helped me with my father's estate but it will be a great guidline in organizing my own estate. I am defintely refering the book to friends. Each one of us will someday have an estate that will need to be settled; I recommed this book to anyone who cares about keeping peace and harmony in the family.

I saved nearly $80 by using this older edition of the textbook for my Real Estate Law class. The book arrived promptly. Differences between the 2nd and 4th edition were negligible. Thanks for helping students save money!

Another excelent hard bound text from Thompson/Delmar Learning publishing house. This textbook will teach you the fundamentals of real estate law giving you example after example on situations with can and probably will occur.

First, some reviews say this is not a book for laymen. They're reading it wrong. I don't get the impression that even those with degrees in physics will be familiar with everything term this book, ... and much of it isn't explained.

It isn't "not explained" because he expects you to already know, .. it's not explained because it doesn't matter.

"In 1937 someone-or-ruther discovered the xyz theory and it was very important." Doesn't mean you should be able to derive a proof for xyz theory. You don't even really have to understand what exactly it says, .. and you won't unless you read another book. I'm not physicist. I just read over the names and keep going.

but when it comes down to it,.... a hundred of pages of dates and theory names are BORING.

To me. I don't care about history. Maybe someone else wants to read about what particle accelerators cost how much money.

Next, ... from the reviews I read here on amazon I expected to be getting a book that would tell me a *little* bit about the history of string theory, give me some idea of where it was lacking, and maybe some kind of picture of where physics is going.

I feel like, so far, this is not what I got. Maybe I should have read "the trouble with Physics" ?

I'm at page 140. I might give up. I just finally now hit the first chapter that relates at all to string theory. It is also a history chapter. Maybe I should have started at page 140?

I didn't want to read a pure history book.

Finally:

Early on he describes his decision to study mathematics. He says that if he were to keep studying physics, he would have to work on string theory to get funding, and he didn't want to. I thought that was an interesting predicament for him to be in, and it starts to hint at some kind of a political situation in academia. That little story was about all I got so far that interested me.

He goes on to describe how math is important to physics, and, undervalued.

Since then, there's been some reference to how undervalued math (his field) is in physics (the field he's complaining about) in every chapter since. Maybe more than once a chapter. Maybe once a paragraph. Maybe once a sentence. ok, maybe I'm exaggerating.

I'm bored of it. I really don't care. I just want to hear what the argument is about string theory. I don't even know anything about string theory,... I was curious, and so far I still don't have any idea what it is. I know it involves lots of dimensions and some kind of strings. I knew that much before I started reading!

It makes me feel pretty frustrated that I had this book mailed all the way to china, and carried it around for half a year thinking it was going to interest me when I finally got some free time to read it.

I'm going back and reading the reviews again. It looks like those who did read both books say the other one is better. I was going to give this book two stars... but since another book exists saying the exact same thing but better, It's only getting one.

It might be a good book for someone. It just wasn't what I was looking for, and I feel like the existing reviews are sort of mis-leading in terms of what this book is about. If you want to read a history of math/physics then fine, go for it... or... well, ... maybe still you should read "the trouble with physics" instead?

My hope is - also after the book of Lee Smolin / Trouble with Physics - to pursue the search of truth and reduce strings. Maybe pursue overall understanding of the Universe and reduce the only today's physical view.

I am writing this blurb in reply to Lubos Motl's (you guess it, another String practitioner whose livelihood is being threatened by this book) comment.

The fact that Peter Woit runs a blog critical of String only shows that he is consistent with his opinions. It should shock any impartial observer that in the eye of String practitioners--Lubos Motl being by no means exceptional among String people--this somehow automatically qualifies Woit and his readers as "crackpots". But what is even more shocking is the comparison to William Dembski's ID (Intelligent Design) blog, because String itself actually provides the perfect analogy to ID.

Let me elaborate. At the height of the recent Pennsylvania ID trial, many education experts came forward to defend the theory of Evolution. One of the hotly debated issues was the definition of a "theory" in science. The ID people, including Mr. George W the Decider, have argued repeatedly that, since Evolution is just a theory, other theories such as ID deserve at least some mention in the classrooms. The defenders of Evolution rely on the rebuttal that a theory in science actually means something that provides the best framework to explain a multitude of independent observations or experimental results and therefore has been accepted by scientific community at large. This, of course, is a lie. String has been paraded as a "theory" in every physics department for over two decades, and yet not only has it produced no testable prediction but it will almost certainly never be able to do so. This puts String squarely in the company of ID. Furthermore, just like ID has morphed constantly, free of the constraint of experimental confirmation, String has changed constantly ever since its inception. In other words, not only does String produce untestable predictions, but these predictions also change from year to year, often dramatically and in a mutually contradictive way. (Have they settled on the dimensionality of space-time yet? Is it 26, 10, 11, or all of the above?)

Other similarities exist, chief among them the religious ferver driving both groups to influence popular opinions and police dissenting thoughts, as exemplified by Lubos Motl's criticism of this book. But there is one big difference between String and ID. The String practitioners are insiders of the science community. They hire their own and make sure String-related papers get published. When a group dominates the peer-review process, it controls the career of every physicist in related fields. It then gains the power to influence, bribe, coerce and intimidate.

Of the five purported String supporters in general physics cited by Motl, I have not worked with Gell-Mann or Hawking, so I don't know what their excuses are (or if they actually need one, since String people tend to misrepresent general enthusiasm for high-energy theories as specific support for String). Prof. Weinberg is the head of a large String group even though he did not publish many real String papers himself. I would certainly count him in the String camp. Dr. Randall and Dr. Arkani-Hamid both took advantage of String referee's eagerness to find supporting work and padded their publication counts with a series of well-publicized "String-Phenomenology" (an oxymoron) papers, thus can hardly be called disinterested third parties either.

The rest of Motl's criticism can be condensed into two simple arguments. The first is that the author does not know details in String as well as he does. This is probably correct technically, particularly in light of the freely changing nature of String's "conclusions". But the core message (as well as the title) of the book is not that String gets the details wrong but that String has no details that can be proven wrong (or right). In this sense, Motl's straw-man argument is irrelevant.

The second point Motl made is, "The problematic statement that string theory makes no prediction is repeated hundreds of times, and in many particular contexts, such a statement becomes not only boring but also patently false." But Motl did not offer any justification why that statement is false. He simply proceeded to throw out more buzzwords and correct more details. One has to conclude that these buzzwords are nothing more than smoke screens meant to obscure the fact no justification could possibly be offered for his claim.

String is a unique phenomenon. It is the most "successful" pseudo science in modern history. Its catalyst is the unprecedented absence of real experimental input in high-energy physics during the past 30 years. Like a cancer, it turns otherwise worthy members of a formerly proud body into the self-promoting endlessly-propagating automatons sucking all resources dry. Later generations of historians of science will surely make their careers studying this bizarre event. Yet it has not begun. This book is not perfect, but as the first formal effort to recognize and document this historical phenomenon, it is a must read.

In the 90's, I started hearing about this wonderful leap in our understanding of physics, called "string theory". From the brief clips that I had read, I thought. "Wow, I want to know more." So when, "The Elegant Universe" came out, I immediately bought it and read it.
The book was very well written, and everything was presented in such an exuberant, upbeat manner. The illustrations were entertaining, but really all of the things that he covered scientifically, I knew had already been discovered previous to string theory. There were no new discoveries in the book, but everything in the book was being mixed with string theory, and then it was given a wonderful send off, with how string theory could solve everything. I'm sorry, but I couldn't at that point help but feel, that I had just been given a heaping helping dose of complete BS. He did add a lot of sugar to it though. No new discoveries. No real predictions. But lots of hopeful innuendoes, and future promises, if only the universe was in 10 dimensions. If, if, if, and then, wouldn't it all be grand.
I thought that I was all alone in feeling that the wool was being pulled down over my eyes. I thought that maybe there was something wrong with me. I read the book a second time, a few years later, and I bought Greene's second book, "The Fabric of the Cosmos", and yet still, my BS meter kept going off. It was kind of like those commercials that say things like. "This product works five times better than the leading brand." ...leading brand of what?
Finally some other books started coming out that explained that I was not the only one who felt this way. I read Lawrence Krauss' book, "Hiding in the Mirror". It was nice and polite in saying that "string theory" may not be the answer after all.
Lee Smolin came out with, "The Trouble with Physics". That book was even better at showing "string theory" for the mistake that it is, and how the physics academia have shamelessly promoted it. It made me feel sorry for those that were trying to pursue a higher education in physics.
Finally this book, "Not Even Wrong" written by Peter Woit. I've gotta admit that most of what he says in the first half of his book is over my head. I have never studied the math that is involved with particle physics or "string theory", but Woit has. He can point out all of the flaws in detail with "String Theory". From about chapter 12 on, I understood the ideas represented and discussed.
String theorists use phrases like, "It's the only game in town.", and "It's so elegant and beautiful, that there must be some truth to it." This book shows that some games just aren't worth playing, especially if you can never win. He also points out that the math involved is not really elegant or beautiful at all.
Can "String Theory" be proven wrong? No. But that's because it makes no predictions about anything. It's like an incomplete sentence. "The sky is ....". String theorists have been saying for over 20 years that they are just that close to solving everything. Woit can tell you that that's complete and total BS. No amount of math can complete the sentence and solve everything.
"Not Even Wrong" is also good at showing the scary situation that the physics community is in right now. Their self glorifying promotion, the greed, and pride have all attributed to this terrible situation in which they have created a belief system that is completely false. It is no longer science anymore, but they have gone so far down that road into falsehood that they are too embarrassed to say that they were mistaken. They have become a false religion of physics.
Scientists are not better people like they want you to believe. They are just people. They are prone to the same mistakes that everyone else is. Just as there are some good people, there are also some good scientists, but the opposite is also true. Don't be mislead.
If you are a student of physics in college, "Not Even Wrong" really should be read by you. "The Trouble with Physics" was an easier read, and so if you are a layman with a basic knowledge of physics, this book would be for you. If you are just beginning your adventure in science and physics, but are wondering about "string theory", "Hiding in the Mirror" would be the easiest book to understand.

I picked up "Not Even Wrong" after working my way through "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin. Both books attack the problems of string theory from much the same direction - string theory shows none of the results necessary to be classified as anything more than a new type of math. In other words, if you can't use it to predict any new results and it only confirms old results by presetting all your variables to already known values, it's not science. And the opposite of science is religion, which is exactly how a lot of string theory adherents view this new math. "The Trouble with Physics" is an easier read, with lots of background, history and characters. "Not Even Wrong" assumes you are already up to speed on the theory, because Peter Wolfe spends very little time spoonfeeding the precepts and gets down to foundation level problems immediately. I have no background past high school level math and physics but can usually hold my own with popular science texts. I would not recommend "Not Even Wrong" as a beginning text or even intermediate - this is for people who understand the concepts already.

LSAT deconstructed was the perfect self-study guide. I took the practice tests, pinpointed my weaknesses, and found the best approach to the different types of questions. -Whit Remer

I have read the PowerScore Logic Games Bible and the PowerScore Logical Reasoning Bible and both were extremely helpful to me. I have been preparing for the upcoming June LSAT and I needed help increasing my score. With these books my score has already gone up 10 points! The 2004 LSATs Deconstructed was very helpful as well. It walked me through an entire LSAT with very clear and detailed explanations. I would highly recommend this book.

This book, published by Powerscore, contains the 3 LSATs administered in 2004 and comes with comprehensive and detailed solutions to each test.

The solutions are 90-120 pages long and give you great insight into how to answer these questions efficiently and accurately. The explanations tell you why each right answer is right and why each wrong answer is wrong. And it's detailed too. They don't just give you a one-liner like "no, out of scope". There's usually a paragraph explaining why the wrong answer is wrong and should be eliminated.

After doing the tests, it's worth reading the entire solutions to questions you got right as well as wrong answers because you start to think like an LSAT question writer and see where they are trying to trick you and how to avoid these traps.

LSAC's own Superprep is also an outstanding resource in this regard.

It's too bad no company publishes solutions sets this detailed on a regular basis.

This book is EXACTLY what I needed. The explanations are written in a very clear and easily understood manner. This book is really what made the LSAT "click" for me.

I actually pushed back my LSAT until after this book was published, and it was worth the wait. Without having PowerScore classes in my area, I've relied on the PowerScore bibles and real LSATs. They have all helped immensely.