Problems with some facts
925965
While most facts appear to be accurate, there is a problem with his descriptions about Martha.  Pages 94 through page 106 we get a description of a Martha who has managed to survive the fire by 3 hours with her "burned lips seemed silently to mouth Edna's name." (p. 106)  However, on page 116 we are told that on the back seat there was a wooden box that held the remains of the Cheney children . . . but the box is described as a "painfully small box, easily carried in one hand."  This is a critical error.  (I have friends who have read this book and come away with the impression that there were very few remains found for either of the Cheney children.) Obviously, if Martha was intact enough to survive for three hours she would be intact enough for a coffin large enough to hold a 7 year old child.  John's remains, on the other hand, would go in a container that small.  Other authors also comment about Martha's body being fairly intact while John's remains were pretty well consumed by the fire making it necessary to sift through the ashes to find the remains that they did find.  I think the author could have been a little more accurate with these details.  Perhaps, it is a poor choice of words at this point but it gives the impression that there were not any significant remains left for either child.  After all, coffins for children are significantly smaller than those for adults and Martha was only 7 and may have been a petite child, at that.  However, I would not deem this to be "small enough to be carried easily with one hand."  Most researchers agree that John's few remains were placed in the same casket as Martha.
4705545
While this textbook is very informative, there are some problems. First, the editing needs an update as there are mistakes in illustrations and reasoning (for example the statement is made that two 2x6s are less material than three 2x4s which is wrong). Second, the approach to the math involved at times is vague and presented in a way that seems hurried, as if the authors wanted the formulas in the book, but also wanted to quickly check off that they had done so. Third, the end- of- chapter questions are ambiguous at times leading readers wondering if the authors wrote the questions or someone else. One thing I hate in any book is the referring to diagrams or illustrations pages away from the one being read and that happens quite often. Still, it is a very informative book, one that I am sure I will refer to many times in the future; correct the mistakes and it will easily be a five stars rating.
3115395
Unfortunately, this book does not appear to have been carefully fact-checked or edited. It is a nifty topic and written in an engaging style. But Dr. Denny presents at least two factual errors in Chapter 3, one which describes the development of modern firearms. There is an awful lot in this book that is very interesting that I do not have the background experience and training to evaluate. But I *do* know a good bit about modern handguns. To most trained handgunners, the two factual errors I note below might be the equivalent of getting the wrong answer on an American history test question similar to, "Who was the first President of the United States?"

I know that theoretical physics is Dr. Denny's academic discipline and not firearms or any other history. But he presents information in this book as authoritative and presents himself as a credible authority. Having found these errors calls into question the credibility of other statements he makes throughout the book, even those pertaining to ballistics. After all, conscientious, detailed fact-checking is important for non-fiction book authors, and I think most would agree it should be all the more important when presenting information outside one's area of expertise.

So here goes.

On page 56, first paragraph, he describes that a person rapid-firing a double-action revolver will, "...repeatedly pull the trigger, which cocks and fires the gun, ejects the spent cartridge and loads the next round, all from the same trigger pull." In fact, double-action revolvers do not automatically eject spent cartridges and load new rounds. The text actually describes the functioning of a semi-automatic pistol, not a revolver.

Speaking of semi-automatic pistols, on page 62, second paragraph, Dr. Denny writes that semi-automatic pistols were invented by Hugo Schmeisser in 1916. In fact, the first commercially successful semi-automatic pistol was designed by Hugo Borchardt and appeared in 1894. Moreover, by 1916, John Browning's famous M1911 .45 ACP semi-automatic pistol had already been adopted (in 1911) by the U.S. Army as its standard sidearm after several years of development and extensive competitive trials.
283386
Mr. Hollander provides many well researched and compelling facts about the contribution of poverty to environmental degradation and the state of the global environment. However, many times through the book his facts and theories stand in direct contradiction to each other. For example, one of his most basic premises of his thesis is the necessity of democratic government, yet he repeatedly cites China as both a wild success and dismal failure depending on the current point he is trying to prove. This often creates a situation where it is difficult to discern exactly what he is advocating.
By addressing different issues in individual chapters the book is written with an easy to read layout, but as a by product it often fails to address how many of these issues are inter-related.
Also unfortunately for Mr. Hollander, many of the facts which he has cited from research conducted up until 1999 have since been updated to disprove some of his theories (such as the incidence of a rising number of hungry people since 2003, and the well documented spike in oil prices).
Overall, the book adds a valuable perspective in a debate that is increasingly becoming one-sided, but his lack of a cohesive well-rounded argument makes it difficult to view this book with as having any serious scientific clout.
1624016
I am crazy about this book, but I feel there's something that should come to the author's and publisher's attention. They should take a look at the footnotes regarding the spiritual life changes of Margaret Corey and Cat Stevens. Look at the facts presented as well as the tone. Corey who becomes the Hasidic Jew sounds crazy, an innuendo supported by the very inaccurate presentation of the facts regarding her apparent involvement with the Jewish burial society. To set things straight: burial society volunteers are among the most esteemed memebers of a community AND they do not 'spend their days' washing bodies. They might prepare a body once a week or even a couple of times a week and each ritual washing and dressing usually takes less than an hour. Cat Stevens, on the other hand, sounds like a spiiritual seeker. Why couldn't Corey have been a spiritual seeker too, and not crazy? (I hate to think that it's because she became something so outre to mass culture as a Hasidic Jew.) The fact--as presented--that she was on the burial society would lead an informed researcher to understand that she was stable, spiriutal, and secure.

Risa Miller
2205541
The authors have a great concept, to use the life of a centuries-old tree to explain some things about plant life, ecosystems, nature and a wide range of science-related concepts. The text is an easy read, a wide-ranging, rather random discourse filled with information on nature, the environment, history and many things unrelated to the theme of the book. That's its charm.
  The book, however, contains so many factual and conceptual errors about plant biology, that its credibility was ruined for me. I know plants, and so when I encounter so many glaring errors and misconceptions in a subject that I know, how can I trust the authors' facts in other fields that I don't know? Well, I cannot.
  The authors, editors and publishers should have had the text reviewed by somebody with knowledge of the topic. I can't blame Suzuki - a fruit fly geneticist by training - for not knowing all the details of how plants carry on their daily life, but I do blame him for not checking his facts. It's really embarrassing.  Some examples of the errors in the book:  that plant roots bend downwards because auxin falls to the lower part of the root by its own weight; that auxin cuts the bonds in cellulose; that cellulose is made up of glucose and fructose; that starch moves from the leaves to the roots - these are just a few of the crazy concepts stated as facts in the book. Where did Suzuki find these crazy ideas? Not in any authoritative textbook written in the last half century!
  I like to cook and I've learned the hard way that hours of effort can be ruined by adding one incompatible ingredient to the recipe.  In a book about science and nature, facts are the ingredients, and if you get those wrong, there's no rescuing the dish. It goes in the trash bin.
2978141
I've been enjoying Mr. Norman's biography, and it's jam-packed with interesting stories and details.  I just came across one obvious (and easily spotted) fact error, however.  Mr. Norman writes that Keith Richards and Anita Pallenberg lived in "Salem, Massachusetts."  In fact, they lived in South Salem, New  York -- just down the road from me.  This is where a young friend of Pallenberg's shot and killed himself, allegedly while playing "Russian roulette."  Mr. Norman goes on to say that, due to the fact that Pallenberg lived in Salem, Massachusetts (incorrect) it was an easy inference for some to believe that she dabbled in witchcraft. Given the press attention that focused on that shooting, it would have been easy to fact-check this detail.  It makes me wonder what other "facts" in this book are not quite right.  Nevertheless, I am enjoying the book!
1929591
I won't belabor the point that others have made: the fact-checking is lacking. There are more errors than those recounted in the above reviews, such as stating that the well-known photo of TR and Elliot watching Lincoln's funeral procession from their grandfather's window might be TR and Edith; other mistakes of names and relationship and the like. The glaring errors of the carriage accident being in DC and the Medal of Honor given by Wilson are what stymied me, however - the decent bibliography should have produced research that never would have come up with these errors in the first place.(It's understandable mistaking "Ethel" and "Edith", even though that should have been checked; how on earth would Mr. Burns have come up with the idea that Wilson awarded TR the Medal of Honor unless he just made it up out of whole cloth?) Other than that the book is a fairly enjoyable, quick read and despite much Roosevelt research I learned some things I did not know, even after reading Bishop's book on Quentin Roosevelt and Flora Whitney, which covered much of the same ground. But it's hard to get past the fact these errors exist and it makes me wonder how serious Mr. Burns was in tackling this topic.
4032990
I first saw this at a book fair at my child's school [...] I should have read it more carefully before purchasing.  In all fairness, it is a good introduction to all the presidents and has some interesting facts.

Now, here are the problems I have with this book.

First: Under the description of Richard Nixon, there is no mention of China, the END of the Vietnam war and the END of the draft.  Instead, the authors chose to speak ONLY about the Watergate scandal.  There was much more to the Nixon Presidency than just Watergate.  If they are going to speak about the negative, at least mention some of the positives to show a little balance.

Second:  Under the description of Bill Clinton, the book states that "[t]he 1990s were good years for the country - fewer people were out of work and the U.S. was not at war."  HELLO!  Do the authors not remember Kosovo, the situation in Somalia (i.e. Black Hawk Down), the first bombing of the world trade center, the situation in Haiti, constant activity in the Persian Gulf, planes being shot at in the no fly zone over Iraq, the Oklahoma city bombing, the U.S. bombing of an asprin factory in Africa, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, multiple U.S. embassy bombings, etc?  While these were not full-blown wars (of which we have not technically had since WWII - only Congress declares war) they are still significant military endeavors and the infancy of the "War on Terror" that began post 9/11.  The Clinton Administration deployed our soldiers more times than any other President, albeit the majority of these actions were "peacekeeping missions."  Additionally, the nation's unemployment reached its lows in 1997 through the latter end of 2001.  After 9/11, we saw unemployment hit 6.4% in June of 2003, but has since returned to a level of 5.4%, which is where we were from 1994 through early 1997 (This information can be verified at the bureau of labor website: [...]  So the point that I am making is that the authors paint a picture that everyone had a job and the whole world was holding hands during the 1990's, which simply is not true.  I'm not going to touch (no pun intended) the Lewinsky affair - it is mentioned.

Third (And Final):  Under the description of George W. Bush, the authors write that the 2000 election was close, Bush did not win the popular vote and "[t]he U.S. Supreme Court finally decided four weeks after the election that bush was the winner."  Again, a myth is being perpetuated.  Based on the Constitution, the ELECTORAL COLLEGE decides who is president.  However, as it is mentioned under the section on John Quincy Adams, if there is a tie, then CONGRESS votes and decides the outcome.  No where, no how did the Supreme Court of the United States `decide' the election.  They simply put an end to that ridiculous circus of a recount going on in Florida, of which we found out in March of 2001 that Bush did indeed win Florida, thereby receiving the winning number of ELECTORAL votes required to win.  Maybe a section should have been added to the book to describe the electoral process.

I am still debating whether or not to give this as a Christmas present.  Maybe I can justify it by recommending that my child become "Smart About the Presidents" by doing independent research to find all the errors and omissions in this book.
2112712
When you read a book like this, it can be judged by the facts you know to be true or false. The author made serious factual error regarding that Bill Gates invent the BASIC programming language (like Al Gore saying he invented the Internet).  His comment, "...Mata Hari have famously been exceptional espionage agents", is grossly wrong. Mata (Margaretha Gertrude Mac Leod) was a prostitute who worked for the Germans and the French. She did a bad job at it, both sides knew she was a double agent and in the end the French shot her. The rest was myth.

On the other hand, the commandment "thou shalt not murder" is correct versus "thou shalt not kill". The Hebrew words for murder and kill are only slightly different, but absolutely unambiguous. And unlike the New Testament, the Torah has not gone through tons of alterations. There are other facts that are easily verified or refuted.

So why read it? If you read "The Prince", you better know your history (but I strongly recommend you read it first). Michael A. Ledeen uses modern day examples to help illustrate Machiavelli's insights. This should make it much easier to understand. But if you wonder about the facts behind the example, do check it out yourself and don't take the authors words as Gospel.
2274819
this book was written the year i was born, so i can't complain, but  while it is very informative i think it misses a couple really important facts that could really help people who suffer from candidiasis. firstly, a good high potency probiotic can really help someone regain their balance and combat yeast, and as someone else pointed out there are lots of other herbs and supplements that kill yeast, like grapefruit seed exact and oregano. the other thing, is that a lot of people, myself included, don't have to avoid cheese,  vinegar mushrooms ect. in order to feel better, a straight forward low carb diet is fine. the  book"  the gut and psychology syndrome " also has some very interesting information about the yeast/gut problems
1803212
The book was good, but not factual. Jesus was 33 upon his death not 36 as mentioned in book at least 3 times. This was a major oops on authors part. Other minor errors but pretty good.
3812477
While most of the information in the book is accurate, there are some things that are not. The author also describes some events in incorrect terms.

When she describes the apparent motion of the planets, the author says that they move in ovals.  As a science teacher, I'm not happy about her using that term. She could have said that the planets move in an elliptical orbit and then described what that meant. I don't want to students to say the planets move in an oval shaped pattern...

When talking about the mission to Mars, the author states that the first pictures of Mars were taken by an orbiter. It was in fact a flyby, the Mariner 4 (US), that returned with 21 images according to the NASA website.

Having said all that, the book does contain a lot of good information. If you use it in your class, just point out the inaccuracies and make it a teaching moment.
4386165
I began reading this book in my free time at the beginning of the semester because it seemed interesting enough, and I wanted to learn something new. I have never studied psychology, but I have studied history, and thought it might be interesting to read about historical figures from a different perspective.

There are more than a few historical inaccuracies and ridiculous assumptions which Dr. Ghaemi presents as fact in order to affirm his thesis (ex: "Lincoln clearly empathized with slaves..."). I managed to overlook those until the chapter about FDR (Ch. 10), where because of my fascination with FDR, and Dr. Ghaemi's ridiculously blatant disregard for fact-checking, I had to stop reading.

The straw that broke the camel's back was the fact that twice (as far as I read), Dr. Ghaemi referred to "Hot Springs, Georgia". The town is called Warm Springs, and it is an actual town in Georgia where FDR owned a home, land, and where he died. This is a basic historical fact that one could confirm with a simple Google search, at yet, Dr. Ghaemi and his editors managed to overlook the existence of an entire town! That's like someone writing a book about the Civil War and deciding to refer to the burning of Hotlanta!

If you can't get simple historical facts straight, then you probably shouldn't be writing a book with any historical claim. Write fiction.
3092089
The author disrupts facts and tells what is convenient for him and subtracts from what is uncomfortable.

For example, the early doctor Aelius Galenus  because he performed experiments on animals concluded that hygiene is not important because dogs do not wash and the result is that the operations were performed in filth.

And this has killed tens of thousands of men and
women. The same doctor also claimed that a woman has two pitfalls: one for the female and the other for the male. In fact, this doctor caused one of the greatest disasters in the medical world.

Most of the epidemics that broke out were due to lack of hygiene, and all because of this stupid doctor.
2337428
A lot of good information, but there are some glaring medical mistakes. He states that carnitine is the precursor for acetylcholine, but choline is the precursor. Also the book says that acid reflux is caused by lack of stomach acid when in fact its the loss of muscle tone in lower & upper esophageal sphincters.  Also the author believes that there's only one class of antidepressants- SSRI's when there are in fact at least seven different classes. The book also states that most people can be weaned off their. antidepressant which is false if an individual has inherited a strong genetic tendency for depression.  Also the author gives conflicting advice for developing a strong endurance base.
3238744
My boyfriend was happy with this gift although some of the facts are not correct and should have been better research by the authors.