>>>>Oh leave me alone.

you made the claim,I called you on it; now I have to leave you alone? Please play fair.

The problem is that people see certs as an end-all, when they really are the beginning.

Certifications are great, but one should use them as a stepping stone, not a retiring stone.

It is style you refer to.

What are the errors you claim to have found?

>>>Few spelling or grammar mistakes, though they were fairly noticeable and detracted from the tone of the piece.

Beside a missing space, could not find any of the glaring spelling or grammar mistakes. Can you point them out?

Isn't it a stylistic issue?
Some people do standard book reviews, chapter 1, chapter 2,chapter x.....
Others write a more macro-approach to the book.
Is one better?
Matter of opinion.

That is absolute nonsense.

With zero empirical evidence.

>>>>The problem is not the lack of time spent on creativity, it is a lack of creativity from schooling.

Semantics no?
Decent review, and reviewers observations seems correct.

Make sure you read the second, updated edition.

Even better than the first edition.

So you are saying Bamford is beyond approach?

According to you, the New York Times review which he quotes should not have been published either.
Should Slashdot have a policy stricter than the NY Times :)

Yes, Bamford has contributed a lot, but that does not give him license to misrepresent facts and connects dots that are not there.

Certainly. Just make sure it is legitimate and verifiable.

As opposed to what goes on at Durban II. Ironic conference which turns into an anti-Israel roundtable by some of the worlds most oppressive regimes.

What makes you seen to know his 'affiliation'?

Thanks.

AC's also seem to be predisposed to believing these conspiracy theories.

I don't think 'that' was the point of the review.
You may want to look at it just once more....

Sorry, but what is 'AC'?

That is actually a good point.