Its Adrian Ivashkov logic. Dont try to understand it. Just roll with it.
356969
Right off the bat, having read Bloodlines (duh!) I knew this is going to be a 5-star book. Now, I need to regale you with why.

All I wanted to do while reading this book was run amok around the house yelling AADRIAAAAANNNN! Nuts, right? Thats what you think. I absolutely love that boy/man/hottie/perfection of a vampire. GAH!

Bloodlines ended relatively calmly, where the only big shock was Sydneys sister, Zoe, arriving in campus as backup/assistant combo for the alchemists. This of course makes it harder on Sydney and Adrian to keep their relationship a secret, and even worse, they barely have time to see each other. Adding to that, Adrians connection with Jill, the queens sister, leaves them with very little privacy when they are together.

Throwing in a divorce and a custody battle over Zoe that forces Sydney to pick a side, and things are beyond hectic in Sydneys life. And lets not forget her working on her magic studies with her professor, joining a coven and figuring out a concoction for the indigo ink. My head is spinning just thinking about it all.

Adrian, on his part is totally in love, puts time into his art studies and being his gorgeous-swoony self. Oh, and dealing with the effects of using Spirit. Spirit makes him feel high, its addicting, and will eventually drive him mad. Thats something Sydney is trying to help him with, since his method drives him to alcoholism.

Naturally things don't go as planned and they both end up putting out fires more than just living their lives. Sydney being torn about her allegiance to the alchemists and living with the knowledge that not all is kosher with them, between trying to help Adrian and contemplating taking things further with him, and basically  balancing all the aspects of her life. Easier said than done.

Ill stop blabbing about the plot itself or this post will be somewhere around 289343734620938457498368 words and just say this:

Things are exploding in this book. Big time. Taking into account the two MCs, all the not less important sideline characters and everything challenging and scary being thrown in their direction, Sydney and Adrian are dealing with a lot. A lot of which (lot) may or may not be life threatening and may or may not leaves the reader close to tears and nearly bald.

I recommend reading The Fiery Heart in book form as opposed to an e-reader. Safer for the e-reader. LOL

Nevertheless, this book is made of awesome. It brings out every feeling you can think of and some you dont, its extremely well written, has a TON of swoon inducing moments that will make you all gooey inside, and it definitely packs a meaningful punch. I loved it and need the next (and last) book in the series somewhere around now, please.
4016417
I had read just two Dostoevsy novel before this - 'The Brothers Karamazov' and 'Notes from the Underground', but lots of Turgenev and some other Russians - Kropotkin, Goldman, .... I also have some connection with Russian people because some of my work colleagues are Russian ex-patriots (one even carries a family name mentioned at one point in 'The Idiot').

Russian naming is difficult for those of us who do not have the Russian background, and 'The Idiot' was hard to keep straight in my mind - I probably didn't feel comfortable with names to near the end of this very long novel. There's Pavlovitch and Pavlischtev - not the same person. The hero Myshkin is also Lyov Nikolayevitch. Gavril is also Ganya (the short form of his name). With a large suite of characters, tracking these names is not easy. Perhaps a publisher/translator might provide a guide for non-Russian readers. I did find some connection through my knowledge of music: Madame Epanchin, Lizaveta Pokofyevna reminded me of Prokofiev, and the young man dying of consumption, Ippolit, reminded me of Ippolitov-Ivanov.

This novel is a psychological thriller and it may be unbelievable to most readers. How did Dostoevsky know that there are people in the world like Myshkin - perhaps he was one himself, perhaps he observed and understood one. Myshkin, perhaps because of his own 'illness' is attuned to everyone else's needs - sacrificing his own needs as totally without value. So what happens when two women fall in love with him (strange though each of them is)? He wants to love them both. Neither can accept that, but still he cannot let go. This seems to be a recipe for disaster (and in some ways it is), but Myshkin flourishes where he might not have because he has the most extraordinary view of the value of every moment of life. Early on he describes a guillotine execution he had observed and how the man being executed clung to every moment of his life - trying to maximise the richness of it even as the blade came down on his neck. Does Dostoevsky really believe that this is an idiotic way to live life? Or is he recommending that we should all pay more attention, be less flippant with the time that passes us by?

One of the women who fall in love with Myshkin is one of Madame Epanchin's daughters - Aglaia Ivanovna. Despite her love, Aglaia torments Myshkin (but that's not of much significance to him). Here is a quote that meant so much to me - a real insight into Myshkin's personality. 'There is no doubt that the mere fact that he could come and see Aglaia, again without hindrance, that he was allowed to talk to her, sit with her, walk with her was the utmost bliss to him; and who knows, perhaps, he would have been satisfied with that for the rest of his life.'

This novel is hard work, and it's not a happy story. But it is rewarding in its insight into human nature. If you read it you will have to decide for yourself if people like Myshkin actually do exist. And if you happen to meet one - how should you interact with them?

other recommendations:
explore the philosophy of phenomenology - I don't have a preferred book to suggest
as a contrast - 'Spring Torrents' - Ivan Turgenev (the author is mentioned in 'The Idiot')
'Under Western Eyes' - Joseph Conrad
'Sylvie and Bruno' - Lewis Carroll
3612684
These are the same types of people who will say and write anything to achieve their ends. Cut from the same cloth, these disgusting types put out stuff like:

Clinton killed Vincent Foster, murdered Ron Brown, John McCain had a black baby (during 2000 GOP Primary), etc.

Here's a thought for all of you without common sense:

How likely is it that someone would calculatingly shoot an RPG no less, to get wounded to get a Bronze Star? What if he miscalculated and it wasn't a nick on the butt or arm or whatever these bozos want to make up, but the ammo exploded and killed himself? Does it make any sense? What are the chances that it just so happened everything worked out and it was a slight nick causing no serious injury, but would earn a Bronze Star? Who makes up these stories?

Only the dirty rightwing, anything to assassinate and bring down the character of someone who's perceived as a threat to their "boy", the hero George Dubya Bush, who avoided combat, no-showed in his National Guard committment for which he received federal benefits, and who for SEVEN minutes, that's 420 seconds, stared blankly into space after his Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, whispered in his ear, "Mr. President, the country is under attack!", akin to someone saying, "Your house in on fire!".

Yup, that's Mr. Decisive, Strong, Heroic Dubya and the hypocrite rightwing for ya.
2781742
Much of game theory is not intuitive, therefore this may be a difficult read. If one has taken mathematical proofs, first order logic, etc. one should garner a working understanding of the material.
2805920
USCF Expert and FIDE 1900+ here. I don't claim to be an expert, but I've been doing this a while now. Blokh's motifs have been organized, selected, and pruned. Let's not fool ourselves: if it's a Russian Chess book that either has been translated or is some universal problems format like this book then get it. Enough said.
Russian's know and love their chess no reason to shy away from that. And to the reviewer who said it was too advanced. This is your minds way of letting you know you have a weakness in your game. Please have the courage to struggle through this book (Or any of Blokh's tactics workbooks). Been a while sense I've been a USCF class player or know what strength level that really is, but if you are a 1600 USCF and feel like tactics and combinations are a weakness then I have no doubt a book like this can get you to the 1800+ level.

Get this book and keep it with you at all times. I randomly do 5-10 problems right before an over the board tournament game: simple level 1 & 2 practice tactics gets me ready for the ensuing chess battle. GM Roman Dzindzichashvili or some other GM recommended this "warming up" approach before games and I can vouch for the results.

Word to the wise: if you feel like you are putting in a lot of effort using some online chess tactics software (please don't say chesstempo.com...Not that it's bad, but I think it serves a different purpose: how quickly you can spot tactics. And all of the items are so random. Not a fan), but don't see a translation in your other the board real chess. Please buy this book, take a standard chess tournament set, setup each position and use a real clock (10 minutes to solve these problems) you'll figure out what works. If you flag falls and you don't have a solution then circle that problem, look up the solution in the back and move on to the next problem. A correct solution should be you calculating all critical variations. One HUGE issue with software based chess tactics is you can kind of cheat and just blindly sac your queen the moment you recognize some motif. This is why study with this book on a real board, holding yourself accountable for the variation is the correct way to get better.

Stay away from chesstempo.com...be the only one who does.

Once you've had your fun with this book go get "Imagination in Chess: How to Think Creatively and Avoid Foolish Mistakes" by Paata Gaprindashvili. Currently out of print and the prices are not reasonable. But pdfs of it may or may not exist. Personally recommended by IM John Bartholomew and in his words "1 problem from Imagination in Chess" is equal to 20 chesstempo problems. Study it the same way you do this book: over a real board and clock. Only mark it true if you got the majority of key variations in the back of the book. Would recommend this for 1800+. For the vast majority of players it will teach you how to logically solve tough problems. As opposed the 600 Combinations by Blokh which serves as pattern recognition puzzles. Try for 2-3 problems a day: consistency is more important than intensity!

Always have fun with it.

--Dave Wisecup
458233
The last reviewer is very innacurate in his effort to portray this book as innaccurate. So I thought I would coutner his arguments.

Pg56: You're missing the point, he's talking about variations from year to year, not from tree to tree.

Pg124: 2003 WAS actually a very deadly avalanche year with many avalanches all over BC, not just the one accident you mentioned.

pg185: You're simply interpreting that he means the exact pole, which he clearly isn't. His affirmation that icy water from the depths comes to the surface near the poles is accurate.

So lighten up, and take the book for what it is, a very well written and informative document. It is a very important book that I wish everyone would read, especially the oil and coal industries who are pillaging the planet for short-term profits.
1836305
Jayson Stark uses flawed logic and skews statistics to try to support his unfounded opinions comparing selected players to a mythical baseball popularity rating system influenced by his employer's industry.  It is very apparent in his arguments that he does not have a very deep knowledge of the history of baseball and doesn't attend or watch many games outside of the Philadelphia / New York / Boston area.  Ironically, Stark is a voter for the Baseball Hall of Fame and the word "truth" is in the title of a book about his perceptions.

A more relevant topic for a reputable sports journalist would be a book that actually focused on the careers of the best baseball players at each defensive position in the history of baseball and their statistics, rather than overrating and underrating players compared to their position in a fictitional popularity contest.  However, it is apparent that Stark's view of "baseball history" is vastly skewed towards the present day and his view of player performance does not involve entire careers.

A sample segment, cited on a national sports media website, attempts to support his opinion that Andruw Jones is the "most overrated centerfielder of all time," a position Stark defends by using "zone rating," which baseball experts know was invented by John Dewan, the former CEO of STATS, Incorporated, then altered to eliminate extra credit for double plays, then changed again to penalize players for catching balls caught outside a subjective "zone" (OOZ) area of the field.  These formula changes, along with the fact that the zone calculations are performed by many different people with different opinions of proper fielding zones while negating defensive positioning changes and irregularly shaped ballparks, would cause differences in the calculation of this statistic over time.  This is the reason it is considered by many as an inadequate formula for true comparisons of defensive ability, particularly for players who make plays in the OOZ area, like Andruw Jones on a daily basis.

Based on his lack of understanding on the zone rating statistic, Stark claims that Andruw Jones lets 100 balls over a 162-game season drop that he was supposed to catch.  I challenge him to show me 10% of that in a season, although I would be shocked if he was able to count them on one hand.  Then we could look at the countless highlight-reel catches that Andruw Jones makes, all of which are "out of zone" and not included in the second revision of the zone rating formula.

A more consistent, fact-based defensive statistic is fielding percentage, but it contains data that contradicts the opinion of the author.  Andruw Jones has a higher career fielding percentage (.991) than the other legendary, perhaps accurately rated, although maybe underrated centerfielders included in this chapter: Willie Mays .981, Mickey Mantle .982, Joe Dimaggio .978, Ty Cobb .961, Kirby Puckett .989, & Ken Griffey, Jr. .986.

Stark also misquotes that Joe DiMaggio has the highest slugging percentage of any retired right-handed hitter at .5788.  This is simply incorrect as Jimmie Foxx (.6093), Hank Greenberg (.6050), and Mark McGwire (.5882) are all retired right-handed hitters with a higher career average.

The book does not accurately represent the history of baseball and is merely the unjustified opinions of the author, who is a baseball journalist and voter for the National Baseball Hall of Fame, but is more suited to be selling peanuts and hot dogs at baseball games than writing about them.

This book is a waste of time and paper.  It contains unfounded, biased opinions that are supported by citing "a baseball scout" and giving incomplete and incorrect statistics rather than fact and sound logic.

I gave the rating 1 star, which is "overrated" because it deserves zero.
802121
Wow. As soon as I started reading the first chapter about names author lost all of his credibility in my eyes. I am a native Russian speaker (though I am not Russian) and I could not believe that Russian name ending on -slav has anything to do with the word slave. In fact, when translated from old Russian, all names ending with -slav mean glory  from Russian word slava. How could I continue reading and believing facts when the FIRST chapter provides such disinformation?
3051788
Someone wrote in the comments section in an article that was posted on Hotair.com,that you never get between a phd and a government grant. A generation of kids have been reeducated(soft soviet style) that global warming will end the earth,unless we act,act now. They(Mann et la al) believe in the church of the intellectual vanguard elite(thanks Lenin) and will destroy all dissenters. If they could,they would round us up and make us comply. That's why Steyn is in court now,damn the facts full lawsuit ahead. What it amounts to is intellectual hooliganism(someone else coined it) of the worst kind. Einstein  put his work on relativity for everyone to see and prove him wrong,Mann can't do that because he is a fraud.
2901667
Why is a book written by two mathematicians, on the subject of the use/misuse of maths in criminal trials, making deliberately derogatory and opinionated comments on such things as the alleged hospitality received by the family of one of the defendants? Why is that important? Why indeed does it make a jot of difference to the way maths was used or misused in the Knox/Sollecito trial? Would it have made a difference if ABC were putting up the Knox/Mellas family in a palatial villa with 30 staff on hand? Would it have made any difference to the actual mathematical problem (the way in which Hellmann handled the DNA evidence on the knife) that the book sets out to discuss? Of course not.

I can only reach one conclusion: Leila (and possibly - though perhaps unwittingly - her daughter also) is being intellectually and ethically dishonest when it comes to discussing the Knox/Sollecito case in the book. It's fair enough for the author(s) to outline the basics of the case (background info is of course important), but then to focus on the alleged mathematical error - although on this mathematical point I would argue that the maths Leila has applied to the situation is irrelevant in the wider context of whether or not the knife is a reliable piece of evidence per se (it's not).

But to have used the lever of an alleged mathematical error to slide in biased, one-sided - and in many cases blatantly false - snipes and jibes against the defendants and their families is, in my opinion, an unforgivable act of stupidity, warped thinking and appalling judgement in what is supposed to be (and is positioned as) a neutral, maths-based analysis. I am genuinely shocked that someone who considers herself to be an academic can allow her judgement to have been compromised in such a fashion - I'm afraid that she has let down her profession and herself in the process.

I personally don't care less whether Leila and/or her daughter think Knox and/or Sollecito to be guilty or not (I think they are not guilty, and I think that pretty much all of Leila's "justification" for believing in guilt is either due to dreadful confirmation bias, incorrect information, or poor reasoning skills). But if one is writing a book that purports to have academic undertones and which is applying the authors' clear knowledge and experience of maths to specific maths problems in various criminal trials, such a book should quite clearly not also serve as a forum for the author(s) to vent their personal beliefs regarding guilt/non-guilt in areas that are outside the mathematical realm, and absolutely should not provide a platform for the authors to make thinly-veiled personal attacks on the defendants and their relatives. It's a disgrace, I'm afraid. An utter disgrace.
1232178
First, where I'm coming from:  My formal Russian studies were long ago, and tended to be literary- and linguistics- oriented, rather than conversational.  Now that there are more Russian speakers available to me (in the US), I'm working on brushing up and developing my skills to communicate with them in Russian.  At this point I've selected about 200 of the idioms for memorization, and have had opportunity to check out perhaps 50 of these with native speakers.
  Other than what's contained in dictionaries, this is the first and only book of idioms I've used, so I don't have other works to compare it with.  It is an interesting work and I've learned a lot from it.  I do have two criticisms of it, based not on what other texts might be available but on what I would like if I could have my way:
  First, it is not always quite clear what the exact meaning of an idiom is.  Granted that it's impracticle, in one volume, to tell enough about each of so many idioms to make a student really competent in using them all, but I've found instances that could have been a done better.  While each idiom has an example of how it may be used, it occassionally seemed not a useful llustration; and there are times when one is just not enough -- either because the corresponding English idiom has dufferent meanings in different contexts, or because more than one English idiom is is given. (On page 31, for instance an idiom is translated as "Like it or not" and as "willy-nilly", and the example fits only "like it or not.)
  Second, when talking with native Russian speakers, I've found that a particular idiom is not used anymore, or is formal and  stodgy-sounding, or -- in at least one instance -- is used only in a particular circumstance (on p. 15, "You are welcome to whatever we have" should be used only for offering food, not offering other things.)  None of these things are necessarily grounds for not including an idiom, but they should be noted in the text, and they are not.
  If you're wanting to find out what someone else meant by what they said in Russian, I think that this book would be very reliable and useful.  If you want to know how to say something yourself, a book like this isn't going to be really adequate anyway -- you'd need several illustrative uses of many idioms, which would mean either a much bigger book or a lot fewer idioms; but there will also be occassional misleading things here which could have been avoided.
2632244
Inconsistencies in his logic. One example: on p. 10, he says, "During any debate, it's the job of a person making a claim to provide support, evidence and reasoning for that claim". The title of the book is, WHY THERE IS NO GOD, therefore the burden is on Armin. But on p. 11, he says, "In the case of debates about God, the burden is on the believer to offer support for her position if she wishes it to be considered seriously". Not only is this logically inconsistent, it seems that Armin thinks he gets to make all of the rules and those just happen to favor him. I believe he needs to revisit his proposition and he needs to abide by his own rules
4870425
why are some of you people letting him off so easy (ie, "so what if he changed a few details...")? you seem to be missing the whole point. the book is only compelling if it is *true*. if it is not true, and he didn't really do time, didn't kick an extreme, life-threatening crack habit by very unconventional means... if he's not this badass he made up and is really just a spoiled frat boy with a few DUIs and a booze and coke problem.. then the story has no power!

further, he is from my wife's hometown. he went to school with my sister-in-law. there are giant inaccuracies, and misappropriation of another family's tragedy (namely that he had anything to do with the death and aftermath of the girl[s] who died in the train accident). to me, it says that what he has currently admitted to falsifying is likely just the tip of the iceberg: was there really a leonard and were they really friends? was there a lilly and did she really die just hours before he could get to her? if not, again, the story has no power.

if we could just make up fantastical stuff and call it true/memoir/non-fiction... then why don't we all write stories about how we can fly, just by flapping. or cure cancer by touching people, "i swear i can do it, i'm just not gonna show you cuz i don't feel like i want people probing my life anymore... even though i pubilshed a frigging memoir!"

please do not let self-aggrandizing, crap-talking liars off this easily. sickens me to think he profited off his BS. and profited off me. i bought AMLP and MFL. finished AMLP just a day before this broke. will NOT be reading MFL - ever. it has no truth or power anymore - whatsoever.
3345659
This is way way deeper than Mike Lawrences "How to Read Your Opponents Cards".  Don't even open the cover if you are not already an above average player.

Al Dormers "Dormer on Deduction" is a Classic I'd suggest reading over this one.

Frank Stewart has 2 books that cover the drawing of inferences.

- Better Bridge for trhe Advancing Player

- Winning Defense for the Advancing Player

I liked both of them a lot more than this one.

This one has some difficult inferences that its unlikely anyone below National Champion would be able to find at the table.  The chapters on carding are found in other books on defense.

Is this book worth reading?  I guess so.  I'd suggest reading other books instead, and saving this for later.
3045115
When I read this book I am puzzled.  Are the authors so stupid as to actually believe this stuff (eg Cruz is a "superhero" and this book is "objective").  Or are they smart but think the American public is so stupid as to believe this ridiculous propaganda?
1895522
I verified some of author's information by googling some of the professors' in this collection of interesting left-wing bio's. On one of these professor's web-site, there it was, confirmation that Horowitz is writing the truth. This professor declares that one of the main pillers' in his philosophy of life is "anti-violence" he even seems to be disturbed by his professional observation that animals are violent. But he does, indeed, suggest that Castro can be excused for his violence, because the violent methods used in Cuba produced a "better" life for most of the people.

We need a book like this about right-wing professors (can 101 good ones be found?) in a book like that we might find a professor who provides some balance to Professor Chomsky (by the way starlings recently proved that that Mr. Chomsky is also wrong in his area of expertise)  by stating that "America needs a kind of debolshavikization".  Chomsky said "America needed a kind of denazification".
1674606
Patrick Barnes is a very educated and knowledgeable Orthodox Christian. He has a web site called Orthodox Christian Information Center which is one of the most highly read Orthodox Christian web sites.  Most people are unfamiliar with the Canons of the Church and do not understand there place in the Church.  Unfortunately a great number of Orthodox, some clergy and some laity, put out a lot of false information about the Canons and how we are to relate to them.  Much of the false information is simply a repetition of what someone has been told, and not from actual study of the Ecumenical Councils, church history and the church fathers. Patrick Barnes presents an excellent refutation of the writing of Charles Shingledecker. A dictionary definition of "crazy" is "senseless, impractical, totally unsound".  After reading Patrick Barnes review of Shingledecker's writing, I concluded that it is Shingledecker that is the "Crazy"