Sorry...obviously what?

I felt you did not explain yourself.

I am still waiting for the specific 'errors'.

Thanks!

And to think someone thought that CHKV was a programming language :)

I lot that law, very funny!!

>>>I really just want to see better book reviews on Slashdot.

One could argue that is an oxymoron.

This is /., not the NY Times book reviews.

You 'claimed' there are errors, but now suddenly can't find them?

They be thare mate! :)

>>>>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.