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 Q]: Obsolete . This book completely fails to realistically convey the relative risks and profit potential for the average wannabe day trader.  Im talking about someone with less than a few thousand to play the market.  Unless you have big bucks and Level II quotes forget day trading unless you are very lucky. In the trading parlance, I wish I had a short position on this book at its current price, and could cover my short at the current used price! Save your money
[EX A]: NEG

[EX Q]: 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.
[EX A]: POS

[EX Q]: Triathlons for Beginners . Sally Edwards is an impressive athlete, that's why I bought her book.  I was looking for tips from a former Ironwoman.  What I got was a book geared toward women who are just beginning a fitness program, not serious athletes who are training for triathlons.  This book is chock-full of really bad advice ("If you don't have a HRM, put down this book and go buy the best one you can afford") and completely inadequate training schedules (for endurance training, she recommends 45 minutes to 1.75 hours of training per WEEK!), this book was a major disapointment.  Edwards should have given her book a more realistic title and marketed it to the weight-loss crowd, not serious female athletes looking for good advice.  Joe Friel's "Triathlete's Training Bible" is a MUCH better choice for serious athletes.  If you want to look better in a bathing suit and have impressive stories for your friends at work, this book is fine
[EX A]:
NEG