There must be a mistake...
359137
I recently purchased the 8in version of this product for my proscan 8in tablet. My tablet is roughly 6 5/8 in tall in landscape orientation. Their 8in case was really too small to be practical.
  These cases have 3 tablet clips, with about 1in travel in the top clip. The 8in case accommodates 5 1/2 to 6 3/8 inches. So buying a 9in might be best option for you if you have a 6 1/4 to 7 3/8in housing. See below for caveats.
  These are the relevant measurements that sellers SHOULD be giving, with the advice 'Fits most 9in tablets, check your measurements with our specs' .
  However, there must be some mistake with my shipment . The tablet case that I received from HaojetSo is the exact same size as the 8 inch tablet case that I ordered from another seller last month . It measures  6 5/8" x 9 3/4" outside dimensions , with usable space slightly smaller .  As with the 8 inch case,  the sides of the tablet spill sloppily over the edges of the case .
  Maybe they measure inches differently in China than we do in the US . But this will definitely not suffice for my needs .  I will say that although my usable screen size is indeed 8in, there is a black buffer zone around it that measures 9 1/2", (I have not compared the architecture to an iPad.) . So, maybe I should be shopping for a 10" case???
  I plan to contact the seller to see if they shipped the wrong item .
In addition, they included only a mini usb adapter. A micro usb adapter was supposed to be included, and is required for the proscan tablet .
3551585
This book would have been terrific if the publisher would have taken the trouble to check the printing. There is one important section left out and one section repeated. In attempts to contact the publisher for resolution of the mistake, I was directed to an agent who has yet to respond.
I hold this author in high esteem and am certainly not holding him responsible for this publishing error, but suggest that he be more careful with selection of a publisher in the future, and use his influence to get this mess straightened out.
1801831
Basically, an enjoyable read.  The main reason I'm writing a review is to point out the GLARING error that took place in the first two or three pages!  In fact, this error was so large it threw me out of the story and it took me a while to get back into it.  I am surprised that no editor or anyone giving the writer advice would have picked up on the error, which is:  An accountant in the book (the heroine's father) is riding in his car with his cell phone next to him in 1987.  1987??? Seriously?  Cell phones were not in common use in 1987.  In fact, I didn't see my first cell phone until the early 1990s!  So that is a huge error and it made me doubt the author because she clearly did not do her research or she would have known that accountants did not ride around in their cars in 1987 with cell phones!

Other than that, this was a good entertaining story.
933428
I liked and recommend this book.

However I was very surprised to read two blatant mistakes in this second edition of a bestseller written by an experienced and informed author:
p. 66 "This is called the normal distribution or, in mathematical terms, the log-normal distribution." (wrong, those are two distinct distributions by any token).
p. 71 "There were too many extreme readings, ... that random distribution could not explain." (wrong, one should read "normal distribution" instead of "random distribution").
I wrote to the editor and wish they could heed those remarks.
3109183
The mug is great, a little pricey, but good.  What I don't like is what appears to be a font error.  Look at the word "The" in all three lines.  In the first line, the "e" looks like a "c" that has been made into an "e", the other ones look right.  Maybe I am a little too OCD but it does bug me.
4802210
Error filled and complex--
  page 616 Quote: "Just minutes before its scheduled landing at the Cape, STS-107, Columbia, had come to pieces over Texas, high in the Earth's atmosphere, following a sixteen-day mission to the International Space Station" Huh?  With no docking capability, this must have been a real feat.  I hope this is corrected in the paperback edition.  Now that gets me to start wondering--who did break the circuit breaker in the LM on Apollo 11?  And how was it repaired?  With a pen--or overridden at Houston?
  Who fact checked this book?  I started to take everything the author said as gospel until these errors stood out.  Now what else isn't true?
  (The author has assured me that the mistake regarding STS-107 and other egregious mistakes will be corrected in the paperback edition.)
  The author's engineering background shows with sentenences such as "Put simply, two of the three pivoting gimbals that were located between the inertial platform of the LM's guidance system and the spacecraft itself accidentally got into alignment and temporarily could not move, resulting in the loss of the platform's stability and the firing of some attitude jets."  Simply?  Simply?  I hate to hear a complicated sentence!
  Dumping the minutiea, simplifing and condensing this volume, would have made it a much better book.  Michael Collins "Carrying the Fire" is a much better read.
1335771
I looked at this book a couple of weeks ago.  One area I looked at had facts that are incorrect.  Overall may be good but when I find one incorrect fact it makes me wonder how much more is incorrect.
1244941
There is a GLARING error in Puzzle 2!  :)  It can't be solved, and even the solution in the back is all wrong... some editor didn't give this one a lot of time because it's just so freakin' obvious!  :)  Anyway.  I love any Sudoku variation book, so even with the error, it's still fun.
1268090
Please disregard, a mistake was made on my part. The product was described and illustrated accurately. Sorry for the confusion.
4911044
This may seem picky to some, but I was reading this book with my two year old grandson and noticed an all too common mistake in one of the illustrations, the picture of two children watching night come.  The crescent moon is absolutely FACING THE WRONG WAY and in the wrong place in the sky for evening. The curve of the crescent always faces toward the sun, so this is the way the moon would appear in the morning when it rises before the sun comes up, not in the evening when the children are watching night come. In light of the fact that the book claims that the science content and the illustrations have been checked by prominent scientists for accuracy, this should not have slipped by. Picky?  Maybe, but if there's a claim of accuracy, please be accurate. We are a family of moon watchers and this is confusing, especially to the younger ones who think they know better but see inconsistencies in books.
2055873
This is an important book. However, the entry on the book's page refers to a wrong author. The author of this book is:
(...)

It would be helpful to potential readers if this error could be corrected. I looked through the choices for reporting this error,
but could not find an appropriate page.
3504130
Did anyone else notice the mistakes in Crossword Number 44 in this book; both in the puzzle and the answer? Several of the clue numbers were off, 49-Across should have been 50-Across, 52-Across should have been 55-Across. Also, clues 48 through 53-Down should have been one number higher. The grid was screwed up too, the white block labeled 48 should have been blacked in and the block 4 spaces to the right of that one should have been white. I'm disappointed in the apparent lapse in proofreading here, I've been buying the NYT crossword books for a long time and haven't run into anything like this before. After I saw the error I was able to find online when it was actually published in papers. It was published on May 1, 2015 and it appears to have been correct as published at that time. I hope that Amazon will notify the NYT puzzle editor, Will Shortz, of this error so that he can apologize to those of us that buy the NYT crossword books.
1136982
I overlooked the obvious error in his creatively defining "first space" and "second space", then ran smack into the equally creative geographical relocation of Reston, VA.

The author (or editor if there was one) needs to do some basic fact checking.  It is difficult to take what is supposed to be a factual non-fiction book seriously when obvious, easily verified "facts" are in error.  It casts serious doubts on the factuality of the remainder of the story.
943668
Being a retired military officer, I am aghast at how an author or his editor can let obvious errors escape scrutiny. In the first place, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a full General, not a Major General as the author has portrayed him. Secondly, an ejection at supersonic speeds would most likely be fatal and modern ejection seats (not "chairs") force the occupant out of the seat so that the seat doesn't crush their legs if they get caught under the seat on landing. There are a few other errors as well, but those aside, this isn't a bad yarn. A bit unbelievable in some of the ordeals the hero undergoes, but I'll overlook those in favor of the story. Having said all this, I'll add that I won't be looking for future stories from this author.
3920963
I was surprised at the number of mistakes in the book. For example, the wrist diagram (and text) mislabeled the scaphoid bone as the navicular bone. Now this may seem like a little mistake, but the scaphoid is the bone most often fractured in the wrist. Just try telling your attending that you patient fractured their navicular bone... he or she will laugh at you! Any undergrad human anatomy student should catch this mistake! I was hoping the physical exams were more complete. Some common exams were left out of the book. I concur with the reviewer that Bates or Mosby should be used first. This way, you won't look stupid in front of an attending.
1620584
I wrote a review earlier about this item and in error on my part gave it I hate it rating...Please be assured this was a terrible error on my part and should reflect this as a 5 star rating
148126
The part may have had the right serial number on the package but it was not the right part.