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.

Ex Input:
If You've Decided to use VSTO, an Excellent Place to Start . VSTO (pronounced Visto) is a most interesting product when viewed from Microsoft's overall standpoint. It is a very carefully crafted product with the primary purpose of continuing Microsoft's continued dominance of the desktop marketplace, and a part of Microsoft's thrust to move more heavily into the server marketplace.      As best I can tell, it works something like this. Microsoft recognizes that servers handling up web pages, processing mail, etc. are a huge market, but that Linnux owns a big percentage of that market. Consequently Microsoft came up with the .NET strategy. .NET is a bunch of subroutines (if you will) that are written to provides all kinds of utility to programmers. You write your applications using propriatary programming languages such as C# and J# that use the .NET library and consequently have to run on Microsoft operating systems.     In the Office environment, packages such as OpenOffice have gotten to be pretty good, are basically Microsoft compatible so you don't have a re-training problem, and are FREE. I don't know how much success OpenOffice has had, but it appears to be enough to attract Microsoft's attention.     Enter VSTO. VSTO adds customization and productivity to Microsoft Office applications through 'links' that tie Office to the .NET framework. So to use VSTO first you must have and load the .NET framework, then you must load Visual Studio.NET - in that order -- then install Visual Studio 2005 Tools for Office.     All of this is clearly explained by Mr. Bruney in this book, who then goes on to do an excellent job of explaing how to write programs using VSTO. As examples he includes some real world applications. Most of the book is on Excel applications, but Word and Outlook are included as well. Finally he concludes the book with an excellent discussion on pivot tables.     Conclusion: A well written, understandable and complete book on VSTO. If you're going to be using VSTO, this is an excellent place to start

Ex Output:
POS


Ex Input:
Breathing Extraordinary Truths Into Ordinary Lives . I read this novel because it won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction.  Anne Tyler has a gift for portraying ordinary indivdiuals who live ordinary lives.  Yet her novel is anything but ordinary because her characters are simple, yet real and their dialogue rings true.  Moreover, Ms. Tyler, like Hardy and Miller before her, clearly believes and successfully posits that her mundane characters are heroic because they survive, perservere and present (albeit unknowingly) moral and spiritual lessons that are universal to us all. But my hesitation in giving this novel 5 stars is that, while it is great fiction, it is not the greatest fiction of its time. And this raises another issue.  Why have so many Pulitzer Prize novels, such as "Gilead," "The Known World," "Empire Falls," "The Hours," "Kavalier & Clay," and "Middlesex," disappointed me recently? While these are compelling and at times superb works, they are not, in my opinion, deserving of the Pulitzer Prize.  Of recent winners, only "The Shipping News" merits that distinction.  Perhaps I will focus on National Book Award winners, since they seem more uniformly satisfying.

Ex Output:
POS


Ex Input:
Sad... . Even if one is sympathetic to Groothuis's broad concern, one can't help but be disappointed with this text. This book is a bad regurgitation of other bad and reductive non-readings of `pomo'. Groothuis depends way too highly on secondary (and sometimes tertiary) sources. It escapes me how a former reviewer could call this work `scholarly.' I suppose if one considers Logic 101 tinged with the usual fundamentalist `defender of the Faith' rhetoric and aura (which hovers over every page), then this could be called `scholarly.'     The big problem I found is that even when Groothuis offers defensible criticisms, his alternatives end up being just as problematic as the positions he criticizes. For all his advocacy for a correspondence theory of truth, his tone betrays a penchant for certainty and formal coherence. He falls into the problem of the relation between thought and `reality,' representation to presentation, the role of language, and so forth. No doubt God comes to save the day with all these problems, yet on the very justificatory terms Groothuis advocates for, God escapes the measure of correspondence and becomes its condition of possibility. In other words, God becomes a structural metaphysical function which `saves' Groothuis's truth from the skeptic. The problem, however, is that Groothuis wants truth to be absolute, universal, and accessible to all, yet he is dependent on a moment (i.e. faith) which, by definition, retains a trace of contingency or `objective' undecidability.      Groothuis's more ethical concerns are where I am more sympathetic, but again, here his polemics and non-reading of the people he criticizes drowned out whatever constructive points he offers. Groothuis practices the same type of irresponsible reflection that some of the `pomo' Evangelical's do: uncriticality. Here, philosophy and reflection - whether Modern or postmodern - becomes a means to simply confirm and justify a complacent status quo, rather than challenging and transforming the status quo. The challenge presented in this book is for a nostalgic return to the good old days of Christendom.     Jesus did not come to `save' our metaphysical systems, but to redeem us and this world. That redemption is not contingent upon accurate representations as Groothuis seems to think. It is madness to the Greek (i.e. the logician) and a stumbling block to the Legalist (i.e. moralistic hypocrites). The task is not to make the faith less crazy or more socially repressive. As James tells us, the measure of `true' faith - and here I will grant a type of reference - is that we `attend to the widow and orphan.' Kerygma without service is dead, a worse lie than any humanism. Perhaps if we began `proving' our faith, that is, manifesting its truth in radical service and justice - we could actually demonstrate the truth to which we testify. I guess it is much easier to `defend the faith' with bad arguments which only convince the already convinced, than to `live the faith': serve the people no one gives a hoot about. After all, in the latter case one cannot fancy oneself a hero in quite the same way.

Ex Output:

NEG