Why archtitects hate the "s" word
348009
This book consists of three lectures given by Professor Rybczynski at the New York Public Library (lectures he admits to revising for publication based on the need to respond to challenging questions from his audience). While not as innovative in topic and scope of inquiry as his books "Home" and "Waiting for the Weekend," there is much here that Rybczynski's loyal readers will recognize and appreciate--the author's love of his subject, his deep and broad knowledge of the history of architecture, his high regard for the minutia others tend to dismiss, and his confidence in his own opinion. The three essays--"Dressing Up," "In and Out of Fashion," and "Style"--are an investigation, among other things, of archtects' reluctance to speak of their work in terms of style. "Architects don't like to talk about style," Rybczynski says in his introduction. "Ask an architect what style he works in and you are likely to be met with a pained expression, or with silence." (p. xi). The lectures explore the differences between arcitecture and other art forms (including interior design, cooking, and the rag trade). Of the distinction between style and fashion, he says, "If style is the language of architecture, fashion represents the wide--and swirling--cultural currents that shape and direct that language." (p. 51) In the end, Rybczynski observes, "A suspicion of style is a heritage of the Modern Movement, which preached against the arbitrary dictates of style and fashion, while maintaining an unspoken but rigid stylistic consistency." (p. 109) He also attributes the reluctance to speak in terms of style to archtects' fears (but I'll let you ferret out the provocative supporting quotations for yourself). The lectures are well-seasoned with aphorisms, and I found myself often lowering the book to my lap and pondering individual statements for minutes at a time as if in conversation with the author. I will leave you with just one more of these statements, "The role of details is not to complement architecture; details ARE archticture." (p. 94) All in all, I found "The Look of Architecture" to be a very enjoyable read.
4137222
Seigel is a designer.  He's talented and creative and I found much of his book useful.  However, usability doesn't enter in to his design equation.  Take his ideas and make them better.  Oh, and stay away from that god-awful tunnel architecture.  It's too easy to use it to build a really, really bad site. Your mileage may vary.
2260755
Very pretty but has grammatical error that annoys me. Not that noticeable but it's a pet peeve for me.
2610151
While doubters of the official version include "nuts", those on the left, intellectuals with contempt for science or physical work, fail to account for the planting of kooks and extemists to legitimize the official version, an ancient ploy given broad impact by the internet.  Common sense, folks.  Don't Amazon readers read crime stories or watch CSI?  There's more detective work on one murder than the crime of the century.  That says more than Building 7 free fall.  Those in charge were all promoted.  An act of this magnitude and NO accountability?  That alone should shame the  scoffers to silence.  The world is laughing at you.

Suggestion: a poll of all heavy construction workers in the US who have seen the videos.  I'd consider that a "case closed" judgement worth hearing.  Go out to your local building site and ask some questions.
416525
Title was misleading. Contains no fiction, only reviews by an author who's opinion I strongly disagree with. I've been reading S.F. for 60 years. Oh, yeah: old school (John Campbell) its "S.F." pronounced 'ess eff". "Sigh Fi" is for noobs.
4749193
My first (rash) reaction to this book was unfairly negative, because of the word "code" in its title. I teach software design to technicians, and so they already know how to code. The problem I have is getting them to think about design and its importance. This book, despite its title, contains a lot of useful information regarding design. The electronic (Kindle) version was helpful to find the areas where it is.
575234
For those who love to study the Word of God, buy this for the Hebrew Masoretic (ben Chayyim?) Text.  Buy this for the Greek Textus Receptus (1894 Scrivener edition).  BUT DO NOT buy it for the English.  Yes, this "bible" contains the foreign texts translated from the Authorized King James Version (the only version I read for serious study), but the English text is modernized, belittling the beauty of the WRITTEN language of the AV1611, or the HOLY BIBLE.  I take the KJV very seriously.  Oh, by the way, the written language of the Holy Bible was not SPOKEN ANYWHERE in the world.  Thou, thee, thy, thine, and ye, were already replaced with the ambiguous but understood "you."
  Although the Apocrypha existed in early KJV Bibles, they were taken from the Greek Septuigant, a corrupt text.  Only a very few of today's KJV Bibles contain them.
Moving on, the author, Jay P. Green, doesn't believe that neither Acts 9:5-6 nor 1 John 5:7 are true Scripture.  Clearly, this man doesn't believe that God hath preserved His Words (Psalm 12:6-7). If one takes the time to take a look at this book, Green mentions difficulties in the Hebrew and Greek texts.  No two languages are the same, so phrases and idioms, of course, are differentiated. The vocabularies of two languages aren't the same, either, both in denotations as well as connotations.
  However, this "bible" has some good points.  Strong's number system is on top of each word.  I've heard that some of Strong's numbers are inaccurate.  Either way, be careful.  Another advantage is the back index shows the changes between the "Majority Text" and the Critical Text, first compiled by reprobates B.F.Westcott and F.J.A.Hort.  Another advantage is the Literal Translation, taken too "literally".  I don't agree with Daniel 3:25 quoted as "a son of the gods". I don't agree with "pascha" being translated as Passover in Acts 12:4.  Time and space don't give me the reasoning to explain.  I also don't agree with Revelation chapter 13 saying "on" the right hand and on the forehead as the correct "in" the right hand and the forehead.
  Time for me to shut up: Antiochian texts, Alexandrian viewpoint.  Buy for Hebrew and Greek, not for English. Ta ta.
2830292
He isn't working in the Dark Ages,but he diosplays the same selfishness with refusing to vocalize the sample sentences. Arabic is always the preserve of the elite,you have to grind your knuckles to the bone to understand it,so why make it easier?
268381
The reviewer, scottwm, has a right not to like this book, but he does a disservice by misleading potential readers. Mr. DeKorne does discuss how to terminate a mouding (p. 58), and yes, he doesn't cover crown for a vaulted ceiling, but this is like saying a book on building paper airplanes doesn't cover jet engines -- it's one of the more difficult carpentry tasks. Indeed, anyone trying it is advised to build a horizontal shelf and install conventional crown below it as a way to trim this difficult junction. But the point is, this is hardly a slight to this excellent carpentry book. What's great about DeKorne's work here is that it's not full a minutia that bogs a reader down in unnessary detail, but get's right ot the heart of doing the work.
4453242
The What on Earth catalog has this mat, too. For only about $3 more, you can get the mat properly using "its" instead of "it's", and not have to answer to everyone who comes to your door and feels the need to point it out. I'm sure that would get old.
4425579
Is "in" a word? This version doesn't recognize it! It has limited dictionary, skinny board, can't add "s" to make plurals, "ed" past tense, etc. The cells are too small even for birds that can spot a seed from 50 ft.  Only option is to turn off the music.  Can't make the game board bigger. You can't exchange letters, there are no blank tiles, It's not a Hasbro version. Apple does not let it download, but Amazon was able to get around it. I wanted to re-install my old Scrabble order to new MAC. However, this "new" scrabble took over my old download.
4927319
I thought this might differ a lot from other scholarly translations, but where it does differ, I find meaningful and interesting. I can imagine using this for public worship. However, I'm unhappy with the decision to keep the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Scriptures. If I were to hand a copy of this bible to someone to read from in worship, most folks would want to pronounce the Tetragrammaton (which is the very holy, unspeakable name of God). I also fo d myself saying it when I read silently to myself. It is very distracting. Why not find a substitute like GOD or some other term?

And for the Kindle edition, it is very poorly formatted. All of the text is centered. All of it. It just looks bad. Also, the verse numbers and the footnote numbers are the same size font as the text around it, and they're not hyperlinked so it just reads into the rest of the text. There are no links for chapters, so to get to Psalm 100, for instance, I have to go to the beginning of the Psalms, then page through 99 osalms to get to it. Finally, in the preface and the table of contents, capitalisation is very inconsistent. The formatting looks like a free ebook where you get what you pay for. This doesn't feel like it's worth $17.
1672191
The product is made on a nice, thick piece of wood, so that's good.  However, the makers of the plaque need to read the saying and think, "gee, we better get this lettering straight". Nope, it's off centered and enough to make this OCD person crazy!  I have to return the plaque can't handle the lettering being off.
2939275
such language to use around little kids I am ashamed of this F bomb word
751101
I can't believe this book was a "re"translated version from Vietnamese language.  And there were so many people involving in its translation, too.  That didn't help making the language (English) better!  On page 80, second paragraph: "Unfortunately, all that life brings to us are ephemerals"  EphemeralS?  Why "s" at the ending of an adjective?  How poor!
3367618
Good read, but it makes me crazy when a good author neglects the basics of English usage --- prostate instead of prostrate, lay instead of lie, Nigel and I instead of Nigel and me, etc.
3402620
I love the accessibility of the translation, but whoever curated the letters really dropped the ball. They substituted some of the best, and in my opinion, most important letters for (again, my opinion) unnecessary letters.