LogMeIn know how many free users there are. They will have seen revenues from converting free users to paid users dwindle. They have decided they do not need them anymore and they can grow their customer base without the "freemium" model.
So now they can off-load bandwidth-leeching free users to TeamViewer and focus on providing an even better experience for their paying customers. TeamViewer must spend more on supporting people who have no intention of spending any money.
Very astute business and the free users got all the professional service they paid for.

That would be ridiculous on several counts. First, I assume you are not saying "my god gave me these so that trumps everyone on Earth" as that would require proof that a god gave them for that argument to hold weight.
The US constitutional rights are a product of US culture. Why should every other country share that same culture?

Lots of people review things for no money (me included). Finding fault is a very important aspect of any review regardless, and actually criticizing something dispels the "payola" accusation for a lot of people.
I normally review mountaineering gear that I have bought and used, and my aim is to give a review that I'd have found useful myself. Are the pockets too small on a jacket? Are the boots badly fitting at the heel? Is the compass able to withstand a knock or two? (no it wasn't...!)

You don't see a problem with this? People need to know that some books are not worth buying to save wasting their money. They also need to know what the bad bits of books are, rather than just reading that, hey, everything is OK. To what do we compare your view with to work out what "good" means?
Let me give you an example. I ride a bike. I used to get a commercial magazine that would have cycling gear reviews. Bad products would be marked out as such. Now I don't get that magazine anymore but as a member of a cycling organization I get their in-house magazine. It too has gear reviews but as it is a large charitable organization they are trying hard not to be too negative, perhaps because to avoid upsetting a manufacturer. They feel they can take fewer risks than a commercial publication.
Whatever the reason, the reviews are useless. Bad point for a piece of gear are kind of papered over and a piece of gear that is only suitable for about 5 people is "OK for some". The biting criticism is missing. This means reviews lack teeth, or at least a reference point. When they review a cycle helmet they will say "this is a good product because it will protect your head". Er, great. And this is better at protecting my head than other helmets...why?

So some may ask "what style of writing does Ben Rothke find poor?" and we'll never know. Some may ask "so what layout of information in a book does Ben Rothke consider confusing?" and we'll never know. One thing is for sure I shan't be bothering to buy the books to find out because there's no incentive from reading these reviews.
You realize there are squillions of similar "hey make great content" books out there, right? How does this book fit in with those? Don't know? Then what does your review tell us when we're trying to choose the best one? Think about the cycle helmet example for a second.

!?! Non sequitur, surely? The book is written for organizations.

Most organizations who are in a position to enact this stuff (SMEs and upwards) actually do do this already. You can say "oh if they do it then it must be good advice" but it's just obvious.
Involve stakeholders early? Well blow me down with a feather. Who would guess that (say) the lead technical documentation writer in my organization might want to be involved early in a website rewrite that involved new docs for our software?

True. The rest of it was about stating the obvious however, so maybe no one felt obliged to comment on it?

I do mean Ben Rothke underwear scandal.
That's precisely it. You get two gold stars! :)

You know what a book is, right? Well a book review is a review of a book. And you know what anodyne is, right? Well an anodyne book review is a book review that is anodyne.
And just in case you don't know what anodyne is: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=anodyne

Many many professionals long ago abandoned Flash as it became easier to make "pretty" websites with useful dynamic content without it. It was always a nasty piece of technology to work with.
So why does the reviewer mention it? Maybe because he's hardly an expert in this field himself?
Take this quote: "You will likely find the sites you intuitively return to coincidentally happened to be those very sites that have done it right and have the content you want. "...no shit Sherlock. As if we weren't saying this 15 years ago.

Truth is Ben Rothke writes anodyne book reviews as evidenced by:

http://www.rsaconference.com/blogs/465/rothke/job-reconnaissance-using-hacking-skills-to-win-the-job-hunt-game
"...a great resource to help you get there."
http://www.rsaconference.com/blogs/451/rothke/digital-forensics-processing-and-procedures-meeting-the-requirements-of-iso-17020-iso-17025-iso-27001-and-best-practice-requirements
"...will prove to be an invaluable resource."
http://www.rsaconference.com/blogs/449/rothke/information-security-governance-simplified-from-the-boardroom-to-the-keyboard
"...a great resource."
http://www.rsaconference.com/blogs/444/rothke/fisma-compliance-handbook
"...a great resource to use."

I might write some half-conceived ideas and submit them for review and maybe I too can have a "great resource" of my very own?
(P.S. Ben - the SEO boost here is free! But I am making it possible to Google for "Ben Rothke underwear scandal" in return)

I kind of miss the hot grits and petrified Natalie Portman. Kind of. I also miss chicken pox.

The first few thousand all signed up within a day or so of each other in this valiant effort to combat trolls IIRC. I actually thought it would work too. Hahaha.

Oh bless your little cotton socks. I bet you were campaigning to marry your sister as well weren't you? :)
I can imagine the placard said "Why can't I marry my sister if I am allowed to marry any random woman I meet on the street?"

The BBC pay for people to support it on the Internet? Why would they do that? The only people they have to convince that they are doing a good job are government ministers who set the licence fee amount.

The main thrust of teaching kids maths at an early age should be that the things in it are intuitive. Adding 2 and 2 together to make 4 is intuitive. Having 10 carrots and taking away 6 of them to leave 4 carrots is intuitive.
Obviously children will vary in the speed at which they pick these things up but they are so straightforward as to be self-evident eventually, when the little switch clicks and they realise that the abstract numbers have an application to real world things.

This test is not intuitive. It seeks to use clumsy language to describe things ("number sentence"?!?) and it makes people who can think intuitively about maths struggle because they can't apply their understanding of normal language to ascertain what the questions are about. It's as if maths is some special clever thing which can only be described using special language. It serves the companies making these materials nicely because it makes what they're producing seem somehow more impressive/technical than it is.

You assume most of them can drive properly. But very good well done.