In this task, you are given books product reviews in English language. The goal is to classify the review as "POS" if the overall sentiment of the review is positive or as "NEG" if the overall sentiment of the review is negative.

Get Out Your Plow and Harness Old Nellie . ...to get a little tilling done before someone steals and eats her.    I chose this book for my second read on this subject because it has the highest ratings (on subject) on Amazon.  Heinberg has done a thorough job of discussing every aspect of the coming problems to society due to a lack of petroleum - most of which I had never considered.  Literature about this are from the point of view of either the politician, the economist, or the geologist.  He takes the view of the geologist and the future does not look good.      I hold a more positive view: that human ingenuity will prevail - but I could easily be wrong.  In any case, this is a worthwhile read for anyone.  Of particular interest is the chapter that deals with alternate energy sources.  The next time you read about an alternate energy source in the news, you'll remember the real pro's and con's from an expert.    Quick synopsis of 41 page alternative fuel chapter from "Party's Over:"    Natural Gas:  Cannot be shipped from overseas easily like oil - is more difficult to extract economically every year - is being depleted like oil.  In view of the precarious status of North American gas supplies, any attempt to shift to NG as an intermediate fuel would waste time and capital in the enlargement of an infrastructure that will soon be obsolete.    Coal:  Shortage not so much a problem, however, its EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) and pollution are a problem.  As the richer seams are exhausted, it may cease to be a useful energy source within only 2-3 decades.    Nuclear:  Electricity from existing nuclear plants is inexpensive, but only if direct costs are considered.  When adding in plant construction, safety, reactor decommissioning, and waste storage - nuclear power is very expensive indeed.  There are currently 442 reactors operating worldwide.  France in the only country in Europe still building them.  Only Asia expects to expand significantly.  Only a few of the highly touted fast breeder reactors have been built, and they have proven to be prohibitively expensive.  The US currently processes enough uranium to fuel existing US reactors for the next 40 years.  The mining process is wasteful, polluting, and dangerous. When all things are considered, the EROEI on nuclear energy is fairly low and there is significant intangible downside.    Wind:  Of all renewables  (not depletable), wind power usage on a global scale is being developed the fastest.  Technology has advanced - it no longer kills birds because it uses slower fan speeds and the fans are mounted on a vertical axis. It can operate in more variable wind speeds and the cost is declining rapidly.  Soon your own equipment could be bought and used on your own property.  Wind has the best EROEI and Germany leads the world in its usage.  On a large scale, wind power would require vastly new infrastructure, but it is the most practical alternative so far.    Problem: cannot easily be converted to fuel transportation and agricultural needs.     Solar:  Technology advancing rapidly, photovoltaic the best so far.  Research is advancing into diverse methods of collection, including such easy methods of application as solar buckyball collectors incorporated into house paint.  Tremendous potential, would need new infrastructure.  Problem: cannot easily be converted to fuel transportation and agricultural needs.    Hydrogen:  For now, the process of hydrogen production always uses more energy than the resulting hydrogen will yield.  For one thing, hydrogen is not an energy source, but an energy carrier.  It's production depends on continued usage of the dwindling supply of natural gas.   There is new technology, however, and reason to be optimistic.  As with wind and solar, a whole new infrastructure, requiring time and investments of huge amounts of money and energy technology are necessary.   Like wind and solar, hydrogen fuel cells should be central features of our plans to phase out petroleum.  We should be dramatically increasing these investments.    Hydroelectric:  In many regions of the world - and especially in the US - it is already thoroughly exploited.    Geothermal power, tides, and waves: limited application in limited regions of the world.    Biomass: wood burning - pollution and limited resources in a world with 6 billion people - imagine the world being one big Easter Island.    Ethanol: costs more energy to produce than it eventually delivers to society.  Brazil is the poster child, but is burning down rain forests to grow sugar cane.    Cold-Fusion: pseudoscience    Conservation - Efficiency and Curtailment:  Will be crucial in cushioning impacts from the depletion of oil.  But it is not a panacea - even when you ignore cheaters (individuals and countries).      Saudi saying:  My grandfather rode a camel.  My father rode in a car.  I fly a jet airplane.  My grandson will ride a camel.
POS

Disappointing . This was not the life-changing book it was touted to be. I have no major complaints, but the book was not helpful
NEG

An idiotic or deliberately misleading book - take your pick . I read this book in order to see if it would change my opinion about the status of social security. It does not. In fact, it glosses over the key, overriding issue: that the so-called "social security trust fund" does not in fact exist. The claim that huge surpluses are being mounted is meaningless when all that really exists is an IOU that the government writes to itself.     The book spends all of one paragraph (see page 28) on this critical issue, suggesting that the reader imagine that the fund is invested in private stocks and bonds, rather than government bonds, and concluding, "It is difficult to see why the composition of the trust fund's portfolio should make any difference." I just about threw the book across the room at that point! In other words, the authors see no difference between a fund backed by real assets that can simply be sold and a fund that will require raising taxes or additional borrowing on an enormous scale

NEG