Marcus
Just over 800 pages in and I'm calling it read. I am done with Against the Day, done with Pynchon.
I really enjoyed the first two thirds of the book, there is never a dull moment, if it's not the plot (yes, there is plenty of plot) it's the characters and references to hundreds of historical and literary events that keep the pages turning.
My problem with it came towards the end. Apparently Pynchon got hornier and kinkier as he wrote the book because after 500 or 600 pages every other chapter is peppered with sexual encounters. That, in and of itself, isn't enough to turn me away, I've got nothing against sex, quite the contrary, but the way Pynchon writes about it I found to be repulsive. There is no love, no romance, it's porn. Not my thing.
So, I'm done with Pynchon, The Crying Lot of 49 notwithstanding. The man is brilliant, the writing is fascinating but there are only so many hours in the day and so many days in a life and my “to read” list is long enough for me to forget about him and this book forever.
Taleb is fascinating. How does a guy who relentlessly attacks the credibility of economists and academics get invited to speak in front of them so often? He's utterly arrogant and abrasive, yet he has a certain appeal that is difficult to explain. Part of it undoubtedly stems from his main idea that revolves around “how we deal, and should deal, with what we don't know.” It is interesting and applicable to so many aspects of life; investing, politics, literature, philosophy and more and since it is, by his own admission, all he talks about, it makes him really interesting to listen to.
A lot of his aphorisms deal with what it takes to be clever, witty, magnificent, generous, erudite and humble, himself being the implied example for each of these. Through his arrogance though, there seems to be a certain insecurity about him. He constantly criticizes people who are not like him (anyone who works out in gyms or uses technology heavily, all economists, people who are over 30 and still employed or not wealthy etc.) while justifying his own lifestyle. His wisdom often feels more like a recipe for how to live like Taleb rather than any transcendental truth. Still, there are plenty of good ones, for example:
“There is no intermediate state between ice and water but there is one between life and death: employment”
“You don't become completely free just by avoiding to be a slave; you also need to avoid becoming a master.”
“There are two types of people: those who try to win and those who try to win arguments. They are never the same.”
“Every social association that is not face to face is injurious to your health.”
“Randomness is indistinguishable from complicated, undetected, and undetectable order; but order itself is indistinguishable from artful randomness.”
“They agree that chess training only improves chess skills but disagree that classroom training (almost) only improves classroom skills.”
So some are good, pithy, insightful etc.; what an aphorism should be, and while the book is worth reading, it's pretty hit or miss, far from the master of the aphorism, Nicolás Gómez Dávila.
Rothbard is the man. His brutally methodical and rational approach to what money is, and what it should be, make his case for a gold standard seem obvious, despite the majority of economists supporting government controlled, fiat currencies and condescendingly mocking ‘goldbugs.'
After reading from various sources on inflation, deflation, the gold standard, the merits and evils of saving (aka hoarding) and the role of government in creating and regulating money I am convinced that this is the book to go to. Any argument against a gold standard will have to answer Rothbard to remain credible.
This is a pretty good defense against anti-deflationary (inflationary) policies. I was hoping it would address what would happen in a “deflationary spiral” where deflation leads to currency hoarding and eventually the currency bubble bursting, possibly addressing historical incidences of that type of scenarios (if they exist). I found that while it didn't really address that situation specifically, it did have quite a bit to think about. Hülsmann shows pretty clearly how both inflation and deflation are harmful to certain members of society but in cases of deflation, those who benefit or are harmed are usually more visible while with deflation it's anonymous on both ends.
It's hard in such a short book to counter the thousands of pages of Keynesian economics that encourage inflation, but for what it is, Deflation and Liberty does a pretty good job.
I read this book after watching a talk given by Benjamin Zander at Davos and another he gave at a TED conference. In person, he is inspiring, likable and he comes across as a genuinely good human being. Much of that comes across in his writing as well. He's a natural story teller and his passion for music and life are contagious.
No review, just quotes. Each of the following paragraphs are direct quotes, in the order they are found in the text. The book is freely available online.
We have taken a flowing vortex of thought, feeling and sensation and we have solidified that into a mental construct. Then we have stuck a label onto it, ‘me'. And forever after, we treat it as if it were a static and enduring entity. We view it as a thing separate from all other things. We pinch ourselves off from the rest of that process of eternal change which is the universe. And then we grieve over how lonely we feel. We ignore our inherent connectedness to all other beings and we decide that ‘I' have to get more for ‘me'; then we marvel at how greedy and insensitive human beings are. And on it goes. Every evil deed, every example of heartlessness in the world stems directly from this false sense of ‘me' as distinct from all else that is out there.
You do not sit around developing subtle and aesthetic thoughts about living. You live. Vipassana meditation more than anything else is learning to live.
The other person is our mirror for us to see our faults with wisdom. We should consider the person who shows our shortcomings as one who excavates a hidden treasure in us that we were unaware of. It is by knowing the existence of our deficiencies that we can improve ourselves
Somewhere in this process, you will come face-to-face with the sudden and shocking realization that you are completely crazy. Your mind is a shrieking, gibbering madhouse on wheels barreling pell-mell down the hill, utterly out of control and hopeless. No problem. You are not crazier than you were yesterday. It has always been this way, and you just never noticed. You are also no crazier than everybody else around you. The only real difference is that you have confronted the situation; they have not. So they still feel relatively comfortable. That does not mean that they are better off. Ignorance may be bliss, but it does not lead to liberation. So don't let this realization unsettle you. It is a milestone actually, a sigh of real progress. The very fact that you have looked at the problem straight in the eye means that you are on your way up and out of it.
One popular human strategy for dealing with difficulty is autosuggestion: when something nasty pops up, you convince yourself it is not there, or you convince yourself it is pleasant rather than unpleasant. The Buddha's tactic is quite the reverse. Rather than hide it or disguise it, the Buddha's teaching urges you to examine it to death. Buddhism advises you not to implant feelings that you don't really have or avoid feelings that you do have. If you are miserable you are miserable; that is the reality, that is what is happening, so confront that. Look it square in the eye without flinching. When you are having a bad time, examine that experience, observe it mindfully, study the phenomenon and learn its mechanics. The way out of a trap is to study the trap itself, learn how it is built. You do this by taking the thing apart piece by piece. The trap can't trap you if it has been taken to pieces. The result is freedom.
Pain is inevitable, suffering is not. Pain and suffering are two different animals. If any of these tragedies strike you in your present state of mind, you will suffer. The habit patterns that presently control your mind will lock you into that suffering and there will be no escape. A bit of time spent in learning alternatives to those habit patterns is time will-invested. Most human beings spend all their energies devising ways to increase their pleasure and decrease their pain. Buddhism does not advise that you cease this activity altogether. Money and security are fine. Pain should be avoided where possible. Nobody is telling you to give away all your possessions or seek out needless pain, but Buddhism does advise you to invest some of your time and energy in learning to deal with unpleasantness, because some pain is unavoidable.
You can experience the desire to perfect yourself. You can feel craving for greater virtue. You can even develop an attachment to the bliss of the meditation experience itself. It is a bit hard to detach yourself from such altruistic feelings. In the end, though, it is just more greed. It is a desire for gratification and a clever way of ignoring the present-time reality.
If you leave ‘I' out of the operation, pain is not painful. It is just a pure surging energy flow. It can even be beautiful. If you find ‘I' insinuating itself in your experience of pain or indeed any other sensation, then just observe that mindfully. Pay bare attention to the phenomenon of personal identification with the pain.
Meditation in the midst of fast-paced noisy activity is harder still. And meditation in the midst of intensely egoistic activities like romance or arguments is the ultimate challenge.
The concept of wasted time does not exist for a serious meditator. Little dead spaces during your day can be turned to profit. Every spare moment can be used for meditation. Sitting anxiously in the dentist's office, meditate on your anxiety. Feeling irritated while standing in a line at the bank, meditate on irritation. Bored, twiddling you thumbs at the bus stop, meditate on boredom. Try to stay alert and aware throughout the day. Be mindful of exactly what is taking place right now, even if it is tedious drudgery. Take advantage of moments when you are alone. Take advantage of activities that are largely mechanical. Use every spare second to be mindful. Use all the moments you can.
You see the way suffering inevitably follows in the wake of clinging, as soon as you grasp anything, pain inevitably follows.
Your whole view of self changes at this point. You begin to look upon yourself as if you were a newspaper photograph. When viewed with the naked eyes, the photograph you see is a definite image. When viewed through a magnifying glass, it all breaks down into an intricate configuration of dots. Similarly, under the penetrating gaze of mindfulness, the feeling of self, an ‘I' or ‘being' anything, loses its solidity and dissolves. There comes a point in insight meditation where the three characteristics of existence – impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and selflessness – come rushing home with concept-searing force. You vividly experience the impermanence of life, the suffering nature of human existence, and the truth of no self. You experience these things so graphically that you suddenly awake to the utter futility of craving, grasping and resistance. In the clarity and purity of this profound moment, our consciousness is transformed. The entity of self evaporates. All that is left is an infinity of interrelated non-personal phenomena which are conditioned and ever changing. Craving is extinguished and a great burden is lifted. There remains only an effortless flow, without a trace of resistance or tension. There remains only peace, and blessed Nibbana, the uncreated, is realized.
I got bored of it and stopped with 50 or 60 pages left. The Possessed is only marginally about adventures or Russian books. Instead it consists mostly of travelogue and a series of Elif's personal stories about her experiences in grad school, with a vague thread of Russianness connecting them all. Some are interesting, some are funny and a few possibly even poignant, but as a cohesive work, the book feel flat with me.
It's not like the Nabokov I know to write a Russian book, but despite its Berlin setting, this is a very Russian book. There's a Dostoyevsky-like dinner scene, mentions of revolutions and Cossacks, stealing money from drawers and of course plenty of drunkenness. It's strange to get so much of it from an author that despite his origins, feels so American. Still, amidst all the uncharacteristic Russianness, there is a definite hint of what was to come in later Nabokov novels.
There's some of the cynicism:
“Vulgar little man,” thought Ganin as he watched Alfyorov's twitching beard. “I bet his wife's frisky. It's a positive sin not to be unfaithful to a man like him.”
Back in his room he tried to read, but he found the contents of the book so alien and inappropriate that he abandoned it in the middle of a subordinate clause. He was in the kind of mood that he called ‘dispersion of the will.'
And in those streets, now as wide as shiny black seas, at that late hour when the last beer-hall has closed, and a native of Russia, abandoning sleep, hatless and coatless under an old mackintosh, walks in a clairvoyant trance; at that late hour down those wide streets passed worlds utterly alien to each other: no longer a reveler, a woman, or simply a passer-by, but each one a wholly isolated world, each a totality of marvels and evil.
Even though it is written by a different author, this book reads like a sequel to David Allen's über-famous Getting Things Done (GTD), only this time geared specifically toward the broad category of anyone who creates, a.k.a. creative people. Like GTD, the concepts here aren't particularly exciting but I'm hoping that like GTD, they'll be life-changing.
Since reading GTD several years ago the concepts of “what's the next action” and having a trusted system for tracking projects have become firmly engrained in my life and work. They work. Even so, I still find that I have a ton of projects that are started, and despite having clear “next-actions,” for whatever reason I haven't finished them. That's where Making Ideas Happen comes in. This book begins by explaining a similar system to GTD. Belsky calls his version “The Action Method” (with a nod to David Allen). The basic components are:
-Projects organized by actions (your own and delegated), references and backburner items
-Minimal note taking
-Designed materials (nice paper, software, etc. to make you want to use your system)
There's, of course, a flowchart:
So far, all very familiar, all very GTD. The other 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the book begin to get interesting and contain new and interesting information that builds on familiar GTD concepts.
Belsky discusses prioritizing projects by energy levels.
Getting past the lulls excitement in projects:
Other topics are: How to kill ideas that lack potential. How creativity is about shipping more than ideas. How to focus meetings and meeting follow-ups toward creative goals. How constraints beget greater creativity. How to form rituals around productivity. How to harness the strengths of those around you to successfully complete projects. The benefit of sharing ideas (great section). How to get and give constructive feedback. How to organize groups and spaces to maximize creative productivity. How to self-market tastefully. How to manage creative teams and be a leader of creative people (there is quite a bit on this).
Definitely worth reading, probably multiple times. There is a lot to digest.
The main gist of this book is that it's better to be aware of what you're doing and avoid the automatic categorizing of situations and people that your mind naturally does when making decisions for yourself or when dealing with others. There are also sections on learned helplessness, especially in the context of old age, creativity and workplace efficiency.
While it's interesting how many of her original studies have gone on to be included in other books over the years, the content of this book lacks a certain oomph. The content is solid, but the presentation is not nearly as compelling as other, more broad-reaching, books on positive psychology.
One interesting study she includes in her section on the placebo affect, that I had never heard of, is the use of hypnosis for wart removal. Apparently it works... you're hypnotized, told that you should cure yourself of warts and 9 times out of 14 the warts go away. Not that I would ever need it, of course.
This is possibly the best physics book I've ever read. Most physics books acknowledge that there are certain unknowns such as dark matter or certain aspects of string theory, but they all cleverly hide the real, and somewhat desperate, situation with contemporary physics. It's rare to find someone in any field who is willing to say “despite appearances, we don't know really what's up.” Smolin does exactly that. He argues that we are in the slowest period of innovation in physics of at least the last 100 years.
String theory, super-symmetry, superstring theory, M theory and all related theories are far, very far, from being proven, disproven or even potentially provable by any known experiments. The Large Hadron Collider, which could possibly lend some actual evidence for super-string theory, hasn't done it yet, and more importantly, will never be able to take us much closer to knowing if string theory is anything more than elegant math. In fact, we can't conceive of any experiment that would. Yet crazily, despite it's tenuous position as a real scientific theory, string theory remains hugely influential and is often couched in the same language of consensus as other, much better proven theories.
Smolin argues that if we can't make observations that could prove or disprove string theory or, at minimum, come close in either direction, and we've been working on it for over 25 years without any sign of a solution, it might be time to start looking elsewhere. It's tough to do that though since the theory is so entrenched in the elite corridors of academia. In other words, there are huge sociological barriers that must be crossed before physics can begin to be “healed.”
The Trouble With Physics is a rollercoaster. Smolin sets up string theory as a beautiful and elegant theory that seems so easy to accept, then, once you've started to really appreciate it, he systematically tears it down. The book feels honest, insightful and sincere. It has completely changed the way I think and read about not only physics, but any science where there is a consensus that lacks the characteristics of historically successful theories.
This is a strange book. It's an intellectual speaking out against his profession. Sowell defines intellectuals as a people for whom ideas are the beginning and ending of their work. Tenured professors are the most ready example, but intellectuals can also be found outside academia. For example authors, commentators and public speakers who are paid to continue producing ideas. The key is that intellectuals need only continue to attract an audience for their ideas in order to remain relevant.
This reliance on ideas insulates intellectuals in a way that is uncommon in almost any other profession, they are relieved of accountability. Intellectuals can be, and often are, completely wrong and, as long as they can maintain their audience, they are insulated from the negative consequences of their ideas. Intellectuals and Society is about the sources and rationalization of the ideas of intellectuals, the way their ideas are propagated, why they are so often wrong, and the effects of the ideas on the world.
Sowell is a conservative and, not unexpectedly, his targets are liberals like Bertrand Russell, Noam Chomsky, Edmund Wilson, George Bernard Shaw, John Dewey and others. It may seem like an arbitrary or biased selection, but the reason for the focus on liberals comes down to a fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism. Despite the popular assumption that conservatives only want the status quo, both conservatives and liberals want change. The difference lies in the types of change each wants. Liberals favor change that centralizes and idealizes decision making and power while conservatives seek the type of change that distributes power and that values tradition over ideology.
Liberals often assume that an individual or small group, knows better than the masses. First-hand experiences succumbs to prevailing notions. A concentration of knowledge is seen as being superior to distributed knowledge. Reason trumps experience. One-day-at-a-time rationalization wins over long-term and big picture thinking. Mundane knowledge is shunned for the specialized knowledge of elites. Sowell calls this the vision of the anointed.
Historically, Sowell argues, that type of reform has a bad track record. There are undeniable successes, civil rights, for example, but the failures of mistaken intellectuals, as seen in the section on intellectuals and war, were often catastrophic. Sowell is thorough, insightful and, while nobody will accuse him of having a great sense of humor, he is convincing.
Predicting the future has historically been a somewhat sketchy, if not occasionally lucrative, occupation. How are Strauss and Howe doing, casting their lots with Ray Kurzweil, Arthur C. Clarke, John the Revelator and Nostradamus? Commendably I'd say. The book was written in 1997 and here, 13 years later, it feels like they were fairly accurate with their cyclical approach to history and its implications for now and the near future.
The third turning, the one we're in now, and which is about to end, is “a downcast era of strengthening individualism and weakening institutions, when the old civic order decays and the new values regime implants.”
A fourth turning is “a decisive era of secular upheaval, when the values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one.” If they've demarcated the cycles of history correctly, we're supposed to be entering a fourth turning now. It could entail war, major social, economic and political changes or worse. Whatever it is, it will happen quickly and affect almost every aspect of life.
According to Strauss and Howe, there's nothing we can do to stop it. It's a historical cycle, written in stone and it's coming regardless of our attempts to stop it. The best we can do is prepare. They suggest strengthening reputations, families and preparing yourself financially. If we're ready for it, a fourth turning can lead to positive change once it's over. If not, it can lead to a complete collapse.
We'll see how it plays out. If they're right, all that will be starting any day now.
Wow. Brandon Sanderson is incredibly creative. The world he builds in The Way of Kings is phenomenal. This is the first book I've read by him and if it's any indication of his work, he has a fabulous talent for creating conflict in imaginary worlds. I love how he gradually weaves his characters and plots together in ways that raise interesting moral and philosophical issues but still move the story along in intricate and unexpected directions. In that way, The Way of Kings is excellent.
My only qualm with the book is that Sanderson, like most other novelists I've read whose name is printed larger than the title of the book, doesn't shine as a stylist. There are too many long, and sometimes boring, flashbacks. Everything is shown explicitly. An example that stands out in my mind is that when someone is killed by shard, their eyes burn out. We're told this every time someone is killed by shard. Sanderson doesn't trust the reader to visualize what's happening. The same is true of the “spren” that appear every time someone is in pain or sick or excited or experiencing any strong emotion. It's not enough to show a character sitting on the ground panting in exhaustion, we have to see the fatigue fairies emerging just to drive home the point that yep, the character is really tired. Also, people aren't kind, they're “kindly.” And in a fantasy world you can't really say what's an anachronism and what isn't, but there are many times where the language feels like it's from Earth, year 2010 then in the next sentence back to the old-style used throughout the rest of the book.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book. A lot. I devoured the 1000+ pages and looked forward to reading it at every opportunity. It just seemed like such a shame that what could have been an excellent book with some additional editing was instead just a good book.
[Edited to tone down my whining.]
Max (8) REAAAALLLLY wanted me to read this, a first for him, so I did. What can I say? It got a few lols which is more credit than I can give 9 out of the last 10 books I've read. There's time travel, Eastern philosophy, science, math, business and of course there's a baby dino that pukes into the mouth of the antagonist. All the elements of good high brow lit.
Sowell's arguments are more complex than this, but if you want the general idea of the book, here it is:
Housing became unaffordable in many cities due to laws that restricted land use and sale.
Fewer people could afford the more expensive homes so government, to promote higher home ownership and end ostensibly racist lending practices, imposed regulations that encouraged, and in some cases, forced lenders to offer loans to under-qualified applicants.
People who couldn't otherwise afford to buy homes took advantage of the newly available financing and bought houses. The large influx of borrowers who were previously priced out of the market led to a housing boom. After a short period of time many of these new homeowners found they couldn't pay their mortgages, leading to large numbers of foreclosures and the subsequent housing bust.
Sowell would place probably 75% of the blame on government and politicians and divide the remaining 25% on lenders (Wall Street etc.) and borrowers.
You may disagree with some or all of that summary, but before you write the book and his ideas off completely, it's worth your time to read it. It's short and easy to digest and Sowell is a master of presenting ideas clearly and logically.
I've played the banjo for a couple years now. My only prior brush with playing music was piano lessons in the 4th and 5th grade. I'm glad I took them, i learned the basics of reading music and where middle C is, but apart from that, they didn't go so well. My younger brother and I were enrolled together and the piano teacher, Mrs. Blackburn, tried to keep us at the same level but he picked it up a lot quicker than I did and I was holding him back. He learned faster and played better. He did then and he does now.
When I was a kid in church I was honestly asked in so many words if I was trying to sabotage the song we were learning and would I mind singing a bit quieter? It's safe to say that my ability to carry a tune was, and is, minimal.
For me, the ability to play music has always felt inaccessible. It's a membership in an exclusive circle that you are either born into or obtain access to by selling the invisible part of your dual nature at a midnight meeting on a dusty crossroads in the deep South.
Needless to say, I wasn't born into the club and my soul remains firmly ensconced in my body.
I don't think it's because I don't have the genes. I often fell asleep listening to my dad jamming on the piano or making up songs on the guitar. He'd even whip out the viola at family reunions and treat us to a duet with grandma on the piano.
Whatever the reason for my lack of musicality, I really, really want in. I want to be able to pick up the guitar and strum a few chords with a friend or play backup banjo in an informal bluegrass jam session. I want my playing style to shift from being something that resembles computer programming to being organic and emotional. Regrettably, after two years of picking the banjo daily, I don't feel I'm a lot closer to that goal and, as rewarding as the learning has been, it's a bit disheartening at times.
The Music Lesson is probably geared more towards people like my dad or my brother; musicians who are already competent but want to take it to the next level, but I found it incredibly helpful in my personal mission to extract the music that I hope exists somewhere in there.
The writing is more metaphysical than technical and more abstract than concrete, but I found the way it teaches you how to think about music and life enlightening. Wooten talks about music as a language and how you should go about learning it the way you learned English. To learn English, you practiced, but didn't think of it as such. You simply found yourself immersed in the company of expert speakers and in order to communicate with them you had to follow their example.
At this point, I think learning music will have to be something closer to the process I used learning Spanish: intense study and explicit practice combined with immersion. Immersion meaning playing along with experts, in person if possible, but with recordings when the Avett brothers aren't available to come over and jam. As simple and obvious as that sounds, I hadn't really thought about it that way before.
The Music Lesson is full of insights like that. There are lessons on how to trust yourself when you play, how to combine the elements of music in ways that sound good and how to play along with others.
I think the book was meant to be listened to, not read. The audiobook is narrated by Victor Wooten and a cast of several actors. It's full of music and sound effects and it makes the conversational writing style that might seem forced or naive on paper feel completely natural. Quite a bit of it is “out there,” but I think the hyperbole is purposeful, it drives home the lessons and makes them memorable. Listen to it with an open mind.
I still haven't found my music, but after reading this, I feel like there's finally progress in the search.
The Road to Serfdom is not an anti-government book, it's definitely not a libertarian or pro-laissez-faire capitalism or even a pro-democracy book. It's purely and simply an anti-socialism book. And, just to be clear, to Hayek, socialism primarily means central-planning. It's chapter after chapter of reasons why socialism, despite it's apparently noble goals, both will not work in the practical sense, and how it tends to lead to totalitarianism.
Hayek's arguments are level-headed and logical. He is careful not to insult his opponent and goes out of his way to point out their good intentions.
Despite the fact that The Road to Serfdom is currently being championed by conservatives, Hayek calls himself a liberal and the book is written with fellow liberals in mind. There is no contradiction. Definitions, especially in the world of politics, have a way of changing. For Hayek liberalism was tantamount to freedom and liberty. Today the definition of the world “liberal” has shifted. In economics, liberalism is now a synonym for equality, and significantly, not equal freedom for all, but rather equal, or at least more equal, distribution of resources.
In a time when on one hand the accusation of socialism is bandied about as a slur and on the other there is a strong anti-capitalist movement that champions the same socialism, it's useful to understand not only what socialism really is, but what the implications for society are. They might not be what you think.
I really enjoyed Mark Joyner's other book, The Irresistible Offer. He's clearly an expert marketer and knows what he's talking about in that arena. Unfortunately, Simpleology is nowhere near as good. For one, the book is largely a plug for his “web cockpit” software. I hate books whose sole (or primary) purpose is to sell me something. Despite that, I kept finished it since I know from his other book that he's a smart and insightful guy.
Simpleology is basically an explanation of the author's own utilitarian epistemology and instructions for how to apply it to your decision making process in a way that will help you reach your goals.
It's not so much that it's a bad epistemology, it's not, it's just not novel. In a nutshell it is this: challenge your assumptions, use the scientific method, use logic and learn to recognize logical fallacies, know your goals and take the most direct path towards reaching them.
Decent advice really, and for someone who hasn't thought much about how they want to determine truth, there are some interesting starting points in this book.
Overall though, my review is “meh.” Not bad (other than the slew of plugs for the “web cockpit,” that was terrible), not great.