Just one star-stealer
930535
Overall, a very good board and very useful Asus utilities.  Only flaw is the positioning of the Sata ports, at the lower front of the board facing out, not up.  If one would have a true micro tower/case, it would be nearly impossible to connect cables without removing the board.  Bad enough in a mid size case.
4337090
A few days ago, the overall rating for this was 2 stars. There have been nothing but one star reviews since then. Now, all of a sudden, it's up to 3 and a half, even though 99% of the reviews are one star due to Lucas' stubbornness. Looks like Lucas' goons are at it again.
4947035
One on One is an album that can be enjoyed if one takes it for what it is and not try and compare it to Cheap Trick's previous efforts.  Compared to the ensuing albums, this is a frickin' masterpiece.

Someone else wrote that the album has two dynamics:  loud and louder, and I would agree.  Bun E.'s playing is very pedestrian and does sound like a drum machine.  The bass is buried.  Truly, the only stand-out tracks are the two "hits."

To my ear, the album sounds very rushed, much like All Shook Up did.  Gone from this album is Rick Nielsen's usual lyrical wit, which has been replaced by Ooo-La-La and Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah choruses.  Rick even rips off the lyrics to his own classic "Big Eyes" for the song "Love's Got a Hold On Me."  Also included are several throw-away tracks that are much worse than the throw-away tracks from All Shook Up.  Gone are Robin Zander's usual vocal depth and colorizations and, unfortunately, replaced with banshee shrieking.

There is really no reason to buy this album unless you're a completist.  I'd spend my money on one of the first five albums.
4948263
This book deals exclusively with the theory of relativity.  It's funny that that theory was studied and expanded by many of the brightest minds in the world, such as Richard Feynman, Paul Dirac, and Steven Weinberg, all of them Nobel prize winners, some of them experts in the history of physics, and nobody noticed anything remotely similar to "plagiarism".  It took a complete unknown like the author, without academic qualifications of any kind, to "discover" the "plot".

Something smells very fishy here.  I strongly suspect the problem is not with the author of the theory of relativity, but with the author of this book.

Well, I guess everybody has to eat, and some people find ways of earning their beans with more dignity than others...............
4262072
I am a Beatles completist, and so there was never any doubt in my mind that this CD would eventually become part of my collection. I probably would have bought it anyway, since at the time it was the only place "It's All Too Much" appeared on CD. (Too bad the extended version from the movie isn't available anywhere!) But if you're not a completist, this album is entirely skippable. With the availability of the Songtrack, George Martin's instrumentals are the only thing unique to this album, and, while pleasant enough, are by no means essential. This hardly even qualifies as a real Beatles album.
1665122
DO NOT PURCHASE THIS BOOK.  And, if you are considering it, DO NOT STEAL THIS BOOK.  I cannot make it any plainer.  I was originally intrigued that the author was concealing his/her/their identity(ies).  As I started to read the book, I was ready to put it down a quarter of the way through.  This is a lazy collage of recent televison and movie script adapted to a Buddhist veneer.  I'm surprised Yoda didn't show up in it.  The characters are one dimensional.  The plot is a long drawn out chase scene with very little substance to push it along.  The only reason I finished it was to be able to rake it over the coals with a clear conscience.  The reviews praising this book are also highly dubious.  Buy something original - let this mish-mash of X Files (ooh, authority is out to get us, man), Highlander (there can only be one), and Matrix (things are not what they seem) drift into the oblivion - hey, maybe even to the other realms that this book goes on about.  I'm sure they have bird cages that need lining too.
4582991
G'day. Ross Hamilton here, the author. And I just wanted to say that there will not be any bogus, pretend reviews written by me about this. I shall leave that garbage to the likes of Mr Ellory and his mates.

By the way, the website insisted I leave a rating so I just went for the middle-of-the-road three star one.
855297
Amazing how reviews can span the spectrum from one star to five stars?

I haven't bought it yet. I might. It depends on whose stars or star I decide to believe. Thanks to all star makers out there. I wrote a similar book called Over & Back by Wild Bill Callahan about aerial smuggling of electronics into Mexico back in the 80s. Man, it's tough trying to please everybody's literary palate.

Oh, I gave it three stars even though I haven't read it because that's as close as I can get to middle ground between the fives and the ones posted here.
1068170
I am not going to review the content of this short, serialized bit of fluff except to offer this warning:
Way way too short! Almost no plot! Completely unnecessary CLIFFHANGER!

~~
~~
In response to this bit of writing (which I cannot, in all good conscience, call a "book"), I have this to say:
Like so many others, I have become increasingly irritated by all the cliffhanger-filled, unnecessarily serialized crap that's been routinely passed off as "books" these last few years. When did serialized novels become the literary soup du jour (at least in the romance genre)? Why do we, as readers, continue to accept this insane rip off of our purchasing might? What happened in the publishing world that allowed actual novels to become so rare that, today, they have their own designation, the 'stand-alone novel'?

This "book" is a perfect example of all that's so insane with today's serial-novel craze. A decade ago, relatively few (and, mostly, well-known and talented) authors utilized this as a very effective method to showcase their work. Magazines, for example, utilized "serial" stories to help authors get their work out to a much wider group of people than would otherwise read it. Back then, almost every book/story in almost every genre was well-imagined and -written. Cliffhangers, when present, was meaningful in the context of the story and made sense to the reader. Authors didn't overuse this method of forwarding content, as is so prevalent today. Everyone was happy.

Now, though, the big business of cliffhangers and serialized novels (works which seem to keep getting shorter and shorter; they're hardly more than long chapters in some "books" today) are quite obviously the rule rather than the exception. Everyone with a word processor and a rudimentary ability to string words together seems to have jumped aboard this particular gravy train. The plots are dull, repetitious and craze-driven.

Just how cliffhangers in how many plots about gazillionaires who fall for a poor-but-honest office temp can one industry sell? Bad boys of all ilks who fall for good girls, there to "fix" them? Rock stars who clean up in order to win the love of that one woman who, alone in the world, doesn't know who he is? Sports stars who need nursing but are too afraid to let anyone know, except her, that one girl from his past, the one who got away?  My god! USE YOUR IMAGINATIONS, authors! Stop relying on cliffhangers to add badly needed drama to your sad little stories! Come up with something new(ish)! We're tired of the same old crap, the same old tired serialized crap with stupid, useless, nonsensical, for-money-only cliffhangers. STOP IT!
~~
~~

I'm done buying crappy serialized books. I'm exceedingly annoyed by and resentful of authors who push drivel out at me as if it's work they really labored over, a manuscript they're proud of. I'm no longer going to buy books that (1) aren't complete, (2) contain less than 200 pages, or (3) have CLIFFHANGER!!! warnings in the comments. Like so many readers, I almost always scan through the comments before buying a book unless, of course, I already know/trust the author--and now I'll be doing more of it.

Authors: Write a BOOK!
Charge me more for it, if you must, but write a whole damn book!
And while we're on the subject--just in case you don't already know--your shoddy writing habits have engendered the beginning of a groundswell of massive discontent. If you pay attention to the comments in places like this, you'll understand that it's begun. It should come as no surprise, therefore, when--some time in the near future--you find it difficult to sell the kind of cursory, mediocre and inadequate offerings that today you're calling a "book".

~~
~~
Note: This author, this "book", is definitely not alone in earning my ire over such shoddy and borderline-dishonest writing/publishing/business practices.
1402288
How can it be that nobody's reviewed this semi-classic?  I wouldn't want to see the movie; Dan Jenkins' pithy one-liner wisdom needs to be visualized, not seen.  And Shake Tiller's comment about football at the end stands for all of sport (paraphrase - Jenkins is well-worth paraphrasing): "Tell you something I learned about football a long time ago, Baby:  what could have happened, did."  Say no more!

But, if you like one liners, obscure books by Robert Heinlein are great too!
3885142
There is only one redeeming quality of the movie. How could Oswald fire intact bullets and the bullet that struck President Kennedy be an exploding bullet (metal fragments lodged in his brain) as opposed to intact bullets that struck JFK and Connelly earlier.

Besides that, all of the material, is based upon the book "Mortal Error". That writer spent 25 years studying the case; while the star of the show from Australia spent 5. The star doesn't do anything in particular, except for looking up and around in Dealey Plaza. Presumably he was brought into the movie because he had some legitimacy as a Australian forensic attorney.

But the part that is really a stretch, and is a stretch in "Mortal Error," is the accidental shooting by a fresh new Secret Security agent of the fatal JFK head shot.

I have watched the Zapruder film countless amount of times. HD and slow motion. Clint Hill can be clearly seen jumping on the car after the first shot(s) and before the head shot. Given the angles - posited by the movie and "Mortal Error" the shot would have hit Clint Hill and not JFK.

All in all, this movie is a too hyped-up production, that was released just in time for the 50th anniversary. I gave it three-stars because of the reference to "Mortal Error" regarding the single exploding bullet. That's something that has never occurred to me.

More reason to believe Oswald didn't act alone. But less reason to believe a Secret Security agent accidentally did it.

P.S. The Secret Security wasn't the ones pushing to have the autopsy moved from Dallas. Instead it was JFK's closet aids Kenny  O'Donnell and Dave Powers. Counter to the Secret Security autopsy manipulation, it was in fact, ordered and administered by Bobby Kennedy.
4573908
I write this review with great sadness, as I am a long time Marx Brothers fan. They were one of the greatest, if not the greatest comedy team of cinematic history. 10 stars for them -- but for this product one star or less! That said, where is the details as to what is contained in this 3 disc (6 hours running time) set? It claims to be a "TV collection" -- so it should contain NONE of the Marx Brothers movies that are readily available in other collections. Does it contain more episodes of "You Bet Your Life," of which there is a plethora of collections? The General Electric Theater episode "The Incredible Jewel Robbery" (1959), which starred Harpo and Chico with an uncredited Groucho in a cameo role? "The Mikado" (1960) starring Groucho only? "Papa Romani" (1950), a television pilot which starred Chico only?  Without more information -- MUCH MORE --- even a die-hard Marx Brothers fan would not plunk down $38, an inflated price, for just six hours of just what ??????
2199588
It was pretty bad and I have enjoyed many movies that have been considered "bad" in the past. So this one star has an extra sting to it.
2206531
I bought this book based on the 5-star recommendations, since I enjoy paranormal romance, but this is silly fluff.  To me, a 5-star book is one that can be enjoyed more than once; I can't imagine reading this one again.  Please be thoughtful when rating your books; not that many are truly great books deserving 5 stars.
2098105
I'll give it 1/2 star for entertainment value. It's a perfect bathroom or "read it while you're waiting someplace" book. I would not call it history by any means, and I'm sorry to see Amazon classifying it as history...there's not one tiddle or jot of citation, verification, not even a sentence of author bio to lend any credibility to this person's authority to 'debunk' history. It's a simple compilation, in no order whatsoever of nits, noids, supposed facts, cartoons, lots of empty space, and enough head-scratching page titles to fill up 267 pages of air. Yes, some of it is fun, but Reader's Digest can be fun too!

I can get the same info on Wikipedia and at least they're trying to get build up their credibility.  This one should be on the shelves with Erma Bombeck--funny, not necessarily fiction, but unless I see some kind of verification, or credentials, I don't want it called History. The trivia tag is by far the most appropriate.  SAD.
4248197
I looked through the 149 customer reviews and couldn't help but read all of the one stars.  My message goes as follows:  When you go to the theatres to see a critically acclaimed, award winning movie and leave in disgust for  you were confused the whole time it's one thing (trust me, I've been  there).  But, when you have the movie, in your posession, free to watch  till the sun comes up, there's no excuse for profession of idiocy.  We're  happy to know that you were confused but it gives you no legitmate reason  to give it one star.  When I first saw the movie, towards the end, I was  ready to give it one star.  But, then there's that twist.  The one that the  most in tune person did not see coming the entire film.  This five minutes  of "Oh my God!" easily merits another viewing of what I now  belive is the greatest collaborative/suspense epic (yes epic) ever.  I've  nothing more to add to the already great 5 star reviews.
1180043
I've heard a lot about this book since I picked it up, and I've got to wonder what book everyone else is reading. It surely can't be this one. What originally drew me to this book was its high rating on Amazon, as well as (I won't lie) the low price, and I'll say this: you get what you pay for. While the story was able to provide me with the actual activity of reading, it was only minimally enjoyable-I would find myself tuning out, only to tune back in a few pages later and not really caring what happened on the interim.

The book, set in mid-17th century Germany, touts itself as a historical mystery. When a boy is discovered beaten to death with a witch's mark on his shoulder, the town of Schongau whips itself into a frenzy looking for the witch they are sure is responsible. As more children are killed, it is up to the town hangman and the physician's son to find the real perpetrators of the crime and exonerate the midwife of supposed witchcraft.

Unfortunately, what sounds like a good story is lost in irrelevant details of local government, a plodding pace, and unbelievable characters. We have Jakob Kuisl, who is arguably the only well-developed character, who is still a one-dimensional representation of the killer with a conscience. Simon, the physician, is an outcast for believing in "new medicine" and shunning bloodletting and "piss-smelling" -yet the only medicine we actually see him practice is giving garden-variety dirt (saying it is a new powdered medicine) to a guard as part of a ruse to get past him. Magdalena, the book's titular character, is hardly ever present except as love interest to Simon-again, she is alluded to as being smart but in fact we only see her meddling in the investigation and `not caring what the town thinks' (as the narrator tells us over and over and over again). The townspeople, who Potzsch would have us believe are all clamoring for an execution, seem to forget all about the witch once she is arrested. In fact, the only two we here from are actually presenting the rational point that the midwife could not be a witch.

The author tries to build mystery by introducing the `devil' character: a man with a creepy hand made of bone, the actual murderer. He, however, suffers the same fate as the rest of the characters-he is a one-dimensional representation of evil. His methods are not unique or interesting, he is no mastermind, simply a ex-soldier killing machine (and not a good one at that, considering he is successfully evaded by a small child with a debilitating fever). In the meeting between Kuisl and the devil (hero and anti-hero), a more interesting story is hinted at. But again, this is skimmed over in favor of getting back to the (boring) `action'.

Overall, the book lacks the urgency and pacing of a good mystery novel. One can tell that a lot of research went into the workings of daily town life in 1600's Germany, but the author fails to incorporate it in a natural way. Many times it feels like a lecture. I have the sense that Potzsch had an idea: "I want to write a story about a hangman in Germany," but did not round out the characters or plot enough to make a successful mystery story. Though wonderfully translated, I believe the book has been highly overrated.