Legal Theory Books

I would agree with many of the reviewers that this is Posner at his finest. Although I tend to be skeptical of his articulation of pragmatism (especially via his selective use of economic theory), I found that this book really destroys the false binary that posits a clear split between activist and legalist judges.

Going beyond that, Posner also takes clear aim at the legal academy for mistaking the stated reasoning in legal opinions as the cause of a particular decision, rather than its effect. He makes it abundantly clear that legal scholars have lost connection with the judiciary and potentially the legal profession as a whole.

However, I can only give the four stars because the book desperately needed a good editor. Because the chapter are mostly previously published material, they are quite repetitive and probably make the book fifty pages longer than it needs to be. It would have been much better if Posner could have made the argument flow more coherently into a single argument instead of a dozen stand alone claims.

This may be Posner's most important book; certainly the most likely of his books to be read across the political spectrum. Whoever (Obama) wins (Obama) the next election (Obama) would do well to read this before appointing anyone to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

Truly well written, well thought out, and well worth reading, especially by those of us on the left.

I found this to be a very significant volume by Judge Posner, since he is writing on several of his strongest areas--legal philosophy, American judges, and theories of judicial decision-making. As the title indicates, this is an enormous topic and even to cover all of Posner's topics in a brief review is impossible. But this is what he is up to:

First, he wants to review existing explanatory theories of judicial behavior: the attitudinal; sociological; economic; organizational; pragmatic; legalistic; and policy choice. Posner here seeks to demonstrate that no one of these theories can wholly explain judicial behavior, and that some other approach he suggests is better suited to do the job.

Posner is quite a creative fellow, extremely well versed in a variety of literatures in addition to the legal. For example, he discusses judges as workers in the judicial system, quite an innovative approach. Next he focuses on judges as "occasional legislators" and what ideology a legislating judge employs. Unconscious preconceptions and intuitions are major topics in this discussion. Posner then shifts to what external and internal constraints limit judicial freedom of decisional action, including precedent, tenure and salary issues, and internal constraints (what we political scientists refer to as "role theory" and small group analysis). Along the way he takes some effective potshots at folks such as LLoyd Weinreib (who argues analogy as the key to legal analysis), the legal process school, "neutral principles" and the Scalia approach to constitutional interpretation. Interestingly enough, law professors are not a major constraint, because they have segregated themselves out of studying and interacting with judges. This is one of the most perceptive chapters in the book.

By chapter 9, Posner is zeroing in on one of his favorite topics--pragmatic adjudication. He argues that pragmatic policy concerns often are the best device for explaining judicial actions because Posner believes these considerations should guide judges. Of course, Judge Posner has written literally reams on this topic, but I found this one of his best discussions. Finally, Posner targets the Supreme Court, "a political court" as he terms it. The limited impact the Court has in policing the Courts of Appeals constitutes an interesting theme here. Posner follows this up with a fine review of Justice Breyer's "Active Libery" and a fascinating discussion of what he terms "judicial cosmopolitanism," or how much foreign legal concepts should play a role in American judicial decision making. This chapter includes highly critical discussions of Beatty's "Ultimate Rule of Law" and Israeli CJ Aharon Barak's "The Judge in a Democracy." Posner can throw critical right jabs with the best of them.

This is a very long book (at around 377 pages). But is it packed with thought stimulating material and arguments, as well as exceptionally useful bibliographic references in the notes (which are actually at the foot of each page). Anyone interested in American judges and what they do, and why they do it, would consider this volume as essential reading.

This man is *cold*. Fortunately for the reader, it is this icy wit that makes reading Posner's books such a joy. Watch how he rips into inconsistencies:

'In discussing a case that invalidated the exclusion of homosexuals from the military, Beatty approvingly remarks that the court "noted the lack of `concrete' and `actual or significant' evidence that allowing gay men to enlist in the armed forces would prejudice its morale, fighting power, or operational effectiveness in any way." He does not require that there be "concrete" and "actual or significant" evidence that homosexuals are harmed by the exclusion. Nor is he bothered by a lack of concreteness when he says that "laws that establish a broadcasting spectrum [must] guarantee that the full spectrum of opinion in the community will be heard." What is "the full spectrum" of opinion, and who is to decide? Must every lunatic have access to a broadcast studio? Beatty contends that government has a constitutional duty to subsidize religious schools but "may make funding conditional on religious schools agreeing to teach the same curriculum that is used in state-run schools." If the curriculum is identical, in what sense are they religious schools?' (internal footnotes omitted)

The point, here as throughout How Judges Think, is to drive a spear into the side of judicial and scholarly hypocrisy. The particular target here, Beatty, is no more or less hypocritical than the rest of us: judges and legal scholars, as much as anyone, pretend that their opinions are more than just opinions. Judges -- especially Supreme Court Justices -- have a fancy term for this, which we as Americans have come to sanctify as The One True Way Of Judging. The fancy term is `textualism' or `originalism' or (as Posner calls it) `legalism.' Legalism is meant to keep the judges out of judging: they're supposed to read the facts of the case, read the relevant precedents, read the text of any relevant statutes, maybe read the legislative history, then decide the case syllogistically. A judge becomes an automaton lacking independent will. This is supposed to keep politics out of the court, and keep us closer to the ideal of "a nation of laws, not men." The law, after all, shouldn't depend on who's enforcing it. This isn't the way actual judges or actual courts work, says Posner; he spends the next 350 pages crisply and efficiently taking down any number of legalist conceptions of judging. He replaces them with his own description of how judging actually works.

Judges also don't spend much time at all deliberating -- at least not in groups. A judge may be internally conflicted over a case, and at times he may actually change his mind on the basis of what others say. But not normally. Normally -- like poor Mr. Beatty, above -- he's either deliberately or subconsciously deploying judicial reasoning, or the appearance of judicial reasoning, in the service of what he already believes to be true. The ultimate source of judicial opinion is emotion: the race you were born into, the economic class you inhabit, whether you worked as a prosecutor or a defense attorney before you reached the Court.

If judges find sophisticated-sounding justifications for conclusions that they reached at the start, what's to stop them from running totally off the rails? Why can't a judge say whatever he wants? Here Posner walks through the range of `judges' -- from paid arbitrators through Federal appellate-court judges, all the way to the Supreme Court. An arbitrator has certain economic motivations: if he's known as thorough and unbiased, he'll get more business; if he tends to land on compromises that make both sides happy, he'll get still more. District court judges are subject to review by the appellate courts. Federal appellate judges have life tenure, insulating them from public opinion -- but they're subject to review by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices themselves have a cushy job with limited caseloads and no possibility of review. So where do Supreme Court justices get *their* constraints? The public: if the Court veers too far into cloud cuckoo land, it can expect that the people will revolt and clamor for overriding legislation. The Supreme Court still has constraints.

Judges are "constrained pragmatists," in Posner's terminology. They must choose among conflicting interpretations of the common-law and statute history; a pragmatist chooses by considering the consequences of each interpretation in the light of the law's *intent*, if not its wording. A pragmatic judge doesn't get overly bogged down in the words of the law, when those words are an imperfect guide to what the law was supposed to achieve. This sounds similar to objectives-based regulation: specify the outcome and the intent, and focus less on the implementation. The realization behind this is that society changes quickly, and laws that fixate on the present moment's circumstances will quickly become obsolete.

This was the weakest part of Posner's argument: legislation, says Posner, moves more slowly than the courts do, so it's natural to place some of the burden of its interpretation on the courts. The process of amending the Constitution is tortuous, but Posner never makes it clear why this is a bad thing, or whether legislators actually desire to make the judicial branch a second branch of execution. Posner's argument isn't absurd. Even pragmatist judges operate under constraints, after all: if they strike down perfectly constitutional legislation, remedies up to impeachment are theoretically available. And the public has been trained to be on the lookout for `activist judges'. But to base a large part of the argument for pragmatism on a bare assertion that "it works out better that way for everyone" is odd.

His analyses of how a pragmatist would resolve any number of cases are fascinating. Take the Kelo case, for instance, which allowed the city of New London, Connecticut to seize land by eminent domain for private development. A pragmatist assesses a claim of eminent domain by looking at the original intent of the law, and the economic consequences of granting or withholding the seizure right. The original intent, says Posner, was to prevent individual people from holding a big public-works project hostage: if I'm building a several-thousand-mile-long road, everyone in its path knows that their cooperation is vital. They have, in other words, something like monopoly power, and they can demand exorbitant sale prices for their land. If there's no danger of "holdouts," as these are called, there's no reason to grant the state eminent domain. Moreover, a pragmatist would examine the consequences of granting eminent domain in these cases, would realize that the market is better able to assign just compensation to land sales than the state itself is, and would in effect hand the case over to the market for resolution.

A pragmatist judge, it seems to me, is expected to exercise remarkable foresight. Not only must he know enough about the common and statute law to genuflect appropriately at the law's majesty, but now he must also be able to guess the long-term consequences of a particular taking. This means he must be rather thoroughly educated in economics and statistics. Posner might reply here that it's six of one, half-dozen of another: a non-pragmatist judge only has to convert his gut feelings into the language of precedent, but the outcome of this simpler process is decidedly worse than what a pragmatist -- with his wider scope -- comes up with. If I have Posner right, there's little evidence for this claim in How Judges Think. Indeed, Posner repeatedly critiques judges for a lack of interest or skill in the exact sciences. So what's to make us think that an unschooled pragmatist judge would come up with better decisions overall? Maybe "unschooled pragmatist" is a contradiction in terms?

This reliance on economics, statistics, and science makes it all the more jarring when Posner throws down bare assertions -- as, for instance, when he asserts (p. 306) that the "total misery of the wrongly convicted was not lessened" when the Court increased the rights of criminal defendants in the '60's. Total misery decreases if the average wrongly convicted defendant spends less time in jail, or if fewer people are wrongly convicted to begin with. Posner asserts (with evidence) that defendants spent more time in jail after the '60's, in part because of a legislative backlash against the courts. (It could also be because violent crime increased. Posner himself doesn't engage in much convincing heavy-duty statistical analysis, though he cites plenty.) For his claim to hold, he has to show that the probability of wrongful conviction didn't fall enough to compensate for increased jail time. This he does not do. In general, the pretensions of economists invite skepticism during their falls from the empiricist wagon.

One final note from Posner that I found especially interesting: academics, he says, have grown increasingly distant from the actual practice of judging. One consequence is that law students learn the very artificial academic view of how judicial decisions are made. Law students, in a word, are trained to be legalists. They come to expect that judges are the automata they read about in class. Students learn that if they want to convince judges of anything, all they need to do is read a long litany of precedent; the judge will be forced, through logic alone, to accept their conclusions. They import this conceit into the courtroom and get nowhere with it. If legal academia were more in line with how judging actually worked, law students would learn to address judges pragmatically. As it is, even a decorated legal scholar like Larry Lessig -- a man who clerked for Scalia and Posner, in fact -- didn't understand quite how to talk to Supremes:

"Here was a case that pitted all the money in the world against *reasoning*. And here was the last naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning."

My god, what a boring book this was. It was written like a law review article and nothing is more boring than a law review article (unless you are doing research). I was hoping for some down to earth conversation about how judges think, something that was an easy read. This was NOT an easy read was just BORING. I didn't even finish it. It was like a lecture on paper.

This is an utterly brilliant book that has held my attention all morning. Although the authors do not integrate the thinking in the ten books below, I am totally, deeply, impressed by their intelligence, knowledge, and good intention.

They set out to develop understanding in five areas:

1. What State needs to do
2. How international community can help
3. How timelines and interdependencies should define sequencing
4. Why one size does NOT fit all
5. Why we must accept our shared responsibility and recognize the need for both proactive intervention, and coproduction (and sharing) of wealth.

I started with the endnotes and index, which is where I begin the most intelligent books in my reading program. I immediately detected the gaps that I address with the ten annotated links, but I was also immediately won over in seeing their appreciation for the report of the High Level Threat Panel of the UN, for Singapore under Lee Kwan Yew, for the balanced score card approach (some call for a triple bottom line), for Paul Collier's focus on the bottom billion, for Paul Hawkin's et al on natural capitalism.

Within the notes, I was shocked to learn that it has been reported that the United Nations deprived Afghanistan of the first two and a half years of all donor contribution, "by agreement" with US Government and World Bank. Since one of the author's has served as Finance Minister in Afghanistan, not only do I believe this--it must never happen again.

I find in this book one of the most original, refreshing, relevant, and therefore essential reviews on the matter of the State. Although the author's do not cite McIver, the original master on the origins and functions of the state, I consider them to be the new thought leaders and essential to any discussion of how to improve the inter-relationships among the eight tribes of governance: states, militaries, law enforcement authorities, academics, businesses, media, non-governmental organizations, and civil society including labor unions and religions. They are wrong-headed in thinking that "only sovereign states...will allow human progress to continue," and that "illegitimate networks will not be conquered except through hierarchical organizations," but in no way does this diminish the extreme importance of their deep thinking on the role of the state and the need to change both our concepts of sovereignty and our rules of the road for international organizations.

A useful early idea is that of the "double compact" between the country leadership and the international community on the one hand, and with the citizens on the other. It becomes obvious very quickly that corruption in government service is the single cancer that must be removed before states can achieve legitimacy and efficacy.

The authors have many gifted turns of phrase to include "harnessing our collective energies and readjusting to emerging patterns."

The authors recognize early on that legitimacy comes from below, from citizens, and must be earned.

I am not going to summarize each chapter, but I want to point readers toward the Army War College Strategy Conference, just concluded, on "Rebalancing the Instruments of National Power." I have posted both 29 pages of notes and an 8-page draft article for the Joint Forces Quarterly. Singapore got it early and is the world's first "smart nation." They understood early on that education powers economics, economics powers security, and so on.

Today, the authors document ably, stewardship of the environment, respect for social entrepreneurship, fair trade, and innovation in applying information technology to create wealth are all coming to the fore with honest leaders.

They identify five aspects of the networked world that are of note:

1. Framework for balancing activities of diverse stakeholders
2. Rule of law at a strategic level, with freedom of action at a tactical level (not quite true in the USA where the corrupt federal Congress establishes federal CEILINGS for regulatory action).
3. Massive investment--one reads repeatedly of the glut of money available for emerging markets (and I would add, the absence of both commercial intelligence and co-investment planning with charitable foundations)
4. World is evolving according to open systems (super point, see my keytone briefing to Gnomedex 2008, "Open Everything."
5. World is finally starting to evolve past rote memorization and toward recognizing patterns (the adaptive complex system and panarchy literature covers this well).

In the middle of the book they have six themes, each developed in a manner that makes this book quite valuable for any library, personal or organizational.

1. Conflict causes polarization of identities *and* ungovernability of aid subject to black market rules.
2. Peacemaking has been geared to compromise rather than strategic planning for a long-term outcome
3. This means that state dysfunctionality is highest immediately after the peace accord.
4. Even if civil war does not break out, cost of failed politics and poor policies is immense.
5. Lack of money is not the driver for poverty, but rather corrupt politics that enrich the few at the expense of the many.
6. Dysfunctional states spawn the rise and spread of networks of criminality and wealth confiscation instead of networks of social wealth creation and sharing.

The book concludes with "A New Agenda for State Building"

1. International compacts
2. Sovereignty strategy
3. Shared rules of the game
4. Mobilization of resources (this would be better titled harmonization of resources--we need Global Range of Gifts Tables for every country down to the village hut level, online, updated by national call centers
4. New leadership styles--this is a superb overview of what it takes to migrate from industrial era pyramidal leadership to Epoch B swarm leadership (see the image I am loading above).
5. Reflexive monitoring at every step of the implementation process
6. Double compact in practice

The final two chapters focus on national programs, and in conclusion, on "Collective Power."

I put the book down feeling GREAT. This book is a seminal reference.

Now for ten books (and my reviews) that round out this one book:
The Health of Nations: Society and Law beyond the State
High Noon 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them
Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Third Edition
The leadership of civilization building: Administrative and civilization theory, symbolic dialogue, and citizen skills for the 21st century
Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems
The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits (Wharton School Publishing Paperbacks)
The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom
Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom
How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas, Updated Edition
Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace

This is an important, easy-to-understand look at why rebuilding failing states should be the at the top of our country's priority list. The authors provide clear cut examples of why previous efforts to curb corruption and terrorism have failed, and offer a viable "framework" for fixing these systems.

All Americans need to read this. Here lies the foundation. Our Founding Fathers had it right (and what beautiful English!)

Among the significant documents of American history, few hold such a high degree of significance as the FEDERALIST PAPERS, constructed by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. There is an endless list of books written on the Federalist Papers of which to choose from, however, the Anti-Federalist side of the argument has, for the most part, been ignored among American historians, and I know of no other volume that gives the reader a better opportunity to examine both sides of the argument together. THE ESSENTIAL FEDERALIST AND ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS, edited by David Wootton, presents both sides of the argument for the reader's examination.

Wootton provides documents defending each argument beginning with the historical sources, such as Blackstone's COMMENTARIES, used to construct the Constitution. Seven antifederalist voices follow, beginning with George Mason's broadside and concluding with four of Judge Robert Yates' ESSAYS OF BRUTUS.

This book serves a long overdue purpose, however, is not without fault. I'm sure, for brevity's sake, Wootton has included only 33 of the Federalist Papers (the original 33 which appeared in the New York newspapers, none of the later 52 papers which appeared in book form). My biggest disappointment in the book, however, is that the Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments are separated rather than in chronological order. This would have made it much easier to comprehend what was being said in that, many of the arguments were responses to previous arguments from the opposition.

The book concludes with a selection of Constitutional documents. The Articles of Confederation, Madison and Edmund Randolph's Virginia Plan, and the Constitution-together with the first ten amendments-finish the volume, which also features a detailed index. Even though there were a few things I did not like about this book, if your goal is to research both sides of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist argument, this is a terrific source and will save you countless hours of research.

Monty Rainey
www.juntosociety.com

First, I have not read the book in this form. I read a free version online. There might be some differences; I don't know.

Anyway-
I was pointed to this book while arguing that intellectual property is needed to overcome a public goods problem. After reading it, I've moved from confidently supporting minimal IP rights to tentatively advocating their abolition.

The authors provide plenty of evidence and a few intriguing theoretical arguments to bolster their position.

It definitely won't be the last word on this subject, but it will widen the debate and point it in new directions. Very much worth reading, if you're interested in IP issues.

A must-read for any and all law students (along with Dworkin's "Law's Empire"). Both are pre-eminent jurisprudence scholars of the 20th century.

Hart takes apart the legal positivism of Austin and acknowledges some validity in natural law theory. But Hart fails to connect the "minimum content of natural law" with his analysis of a "rule of recongition" that allows a legal system to exist.

Hart's critique of Austin's legal positivism is right on and rightly consigns it to the dust bin as a way of explaining all manifestations of the phenomenon of law. Law as a threat backed up by force simply cannot explain contracts, wills, and trusts. The law doesn't just threaten people, it also empowers them. Positivism also fails to acknowledge the "internal" aspect of legal rules as well as failing to give an account of how law is recognized, clarified, and changed. Hart posits a "rule of recongition" to take care of this. Hart acknowledges a "minimum content of natural law" that explains the purpose of law as responding to certain human needs (bodily vulnerability, limited altruism, etc.). This gave rise to the revival of natural law theory in Anglophone jurisprudence in the 20th century. But Hart just kind of sticks the natural law chapter in his book without saying how it connects to the rest of what he says about legal rules and systems. Look at Finnis' Natural Law and Natural Rights for the "extension" of Hart's project.

One of the most important books written in the field of jurisprudence and legal philosophy. A must-read for anyone who wants to talk intelligently about the topic. Each of Dr. Hart's chapters has been the springboard for entire areas of discussion since its publication, such as law as a system of rules, the separation of law and morality, etc. After you finish this book, read Prof. Dworkin's critique in "The Model of Rules," 35 Univ.Chi.L.Rev. 14 (1967) (excerpted in "The Philosophy of Law") and Prof. Dworkin's "Taking Rights Seriously" to see how Hart's theories have affect jurisprudential scholarship since the publication of this text in 1961. Again, if one had to select the top thinkers in the field, it's Austin, Hart, and Dworkin.

Hart insists that there are many differen kinds of rules - he only 'elucidetes social rules' -but he also accepts that not all legal rules are social rules. What then are they? The foundation of his account of a social rule is an aspect of the form of life (vide Wittgenstein) underlying the use of language - but it is life without the multiplicity of activity at any one time and without conflict.

One of the highest achievements in the history of jurisprudence. Simple to read, complex to thoroughly grasp, written in clear prose but full of ideas. Previous familiarity with Kelsen and Austin should prove helpful to extract the most out of this book. You can follow it by reading Dworkin and Bobbio (sadly unavailable in English - his Teoria della norma giuridica and Teoria dell'ordenamento giuridico are as obligatory as Kelsen and Hart).

Even though it is a work of legal positivism, it contains one of the best analyses of natural law and ethics I have ever read. This is, much more than the elements it's most famous for (the distinction between primary and secondary rules), what makes The Concept of Law shine.

The postscript, also sold separetely at Amazon, is included in this second edition of the book.

If you have ever been in law enforcement and have a curiosity of the system that you are apart of this is a good overview with interesting connections to the legal system.

My Univ is using this as a textbook, and its good so far, even for an experienced computer geek like myself. It is a basic one, but I would say it sets the foundation for advanced training.

Like the previous reviewer I agree that the book does cover a fair breadth of material but not great detail. But, as a quick search will show, there are several hundred books on the subject. Most of those books are very technical and detailed unlike this book which is a great introduction to an incredibly complex industry. If your interested in getting more information about this field before jumping in this is a must have.

The book I chose to review was a book on Computer Forensics. Computer forensics is a very helpful easy to read book on investigative techniques for corporate managers or law enforcement. Unauthorized Internet access for employees could potentially grow into a festering tumor for many employers. This book details how someone with basic computer skills could investigate a workstation to see if anything malicious has been occurring.
The authors do a splendid job of offering real work examples to show the damage of inappropriate access and use by certain individuals. The use of the Internet and emails as a method of destruction is particularly alarming. Criminals and people with a penchant for malice are using emerging and established forms of communication to pervert the original intent of creators. The examples give snap shots into the complexity of the world of 21st century crimes.
The book is does go into detail about fraud on web based commerce. Thing such as ebay and bargain shopping web sites, seem noticeably missed in the context of crimes committed. The interesting example they use is the theft of website design from one website. Criminals could then use such designs to their own professional credit. It proceeds to tell the audience how to retrace the computer footprints to determine if designs were stolen.
It surveys overall Internet issues such as domain name services and email servers. The subject matter is daunting to say in the least, but the authors keep an individual grounded in the fact they are a beginner. It gives the feel of becoming a modern Dick Tracy or Sam Spade. The section also covers encrypted passwords, which are becoming more commonplace due to online commerce.
My main criticism would be the overall simplicity the authors present when entering such a field. It almost smacks of snake oil salesmen bartering cure alls. The work seems admirable but a very vast field, which encompasses everything from the intellectual property rights of web designers to human resource managers keeping tabs on company employees. Other than those points, I would say this is a must read for anyone who plans to enter businesses, which conduct online based exchanges of information or capital. It was a real experience to discover the depth of emerging criminal conduct with technology.

very satisfied with this purchase. didn't take long for item to ship and looked as good as new.

it's a great book to begin in-class discussions

This was used as my text book for a graduate level ethics course. I read it cover to cover and found to be well-organized, informative and enlightening. Highly recommended.

Because the author's ethics class at SDSU uses this text as a primary source, I may be a bit biased in my judgment of this book. For the class, it was an excellent reference, bringing up interesting points for discussion and showcasing these points with anecdotes -- some humorous, some downright frightening. Baase's writing style is accessible to a wide audience, and even the parts that, by virtue of being part of a textbook, are dry and only mildly interesting are digestible.

If you're looking for a book that will give you a general overview of problems associated with computing, this book will hit the spot. Without any noticable bias, it provides information from different perspectives, and even gives fair treatment to Luddites.

A good, solid choice.

This book is an incredible waste of time to read. If you must, I recommend briefly scanning the topic sentence of each paragraph. The book is tedious because Baase attempts to wring every idea possible from the subject material, whether it is significant or not. She does this because:

1. The book would only be 50 pages if all of the fluffy hand-holding were removed.

2. None of the ideas presented in the book are original or exciting, and must be trumped up with a lot of "high level" discussion. You know it well; it's the kind that only career academics would enjoy.

3. She has to dilute the terrible writing and editing that went into the book. I particularly enjoy this gem:

"A subsequent version of the product, known as Windows NT, a high-end system that incorporated networking technology and allowed users to link PCs together."

The only thing I like more than paying for common knowledge is paying for sentences that lack a predicate.

2 stars for an uninspired money-grab.