review of Zittrain’s “Future of the Internet”

by on March 23, 2008 · 30 comments

Jonathan Zittrain, who is affiliated with Oxford University and Harvard’s Berkman Center, recently released a provocatively titled book: The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It. It’s an interesting read and I recommend you pick it up despite what I’ll say about it in a moment. (Incidentally, if you ever have a chance to hear Jonathan speak, I highly recommend you do so. He is, bar none, the most entertaining tech policy geek in the world. Imagine Dennis Miller with a cyberlaw degree.)
Zittrain Future of the Net cover

Jonathan’s book contrasts two different paradigms that he argues could define the Net’s future: The “generative” Net versus what he refers to as a world of “tethered, sterile appliances.” By “generative” he means technologies or networks that invite or allow tinkering and all sorts of creative uses. Think general-purpose personal computers and the traditional “best efforts” Internet. “Tethered, sterile appliances” by contrast, are technologies or networks that discourage or disallow tinkering. Basically, “take it or leave it” proprietary devices like Apple’s iPhone or the TiVo, or online walled gardens like the old AOL and current cell phone networks.

Jonathan’s thesis is that, for a variety of reasons [viruses, Spam, identify theft, etc], we run the risk of seeing the glorious days of the generative, open Net give way to more tethered devices and closed networks. He states:

“Today, the same qualities that led to [the success of the Internet and general-purpose PCs] are causing [them] to falter. As ubiquitous as Internet technologies are today, the pieces are in place for a wholesale shift away from the original chaotic design that has given rise to the modern information revolution. This counterrevolution would push mainstream users away from the generative Internet that fosters innovation and disruption, to an appliancized network that incorporates some of the most powerful features of today’s Internet while greatly limiting its innovative capacity—and, for better or worse, heightening its regulability. A seductive and more powerful generation of proprietary networks and information appliances is waiting for round two. If the problems associated with the Internet and PC are not addressed, a set of blunt solutions will likely be applied to solves problems at the expense of much of what we love about today’s information ecosystem.” [p. 8].

In other words, Jonathan fears that many people will flock to tethered appliances in a search for stability or security. That’s bad, in his opinion, because those tethered appliances are less “open” and more likely to be “regulable,” either by large corporate intermediaries or government officials. Thus, the “future of the Internet” he is hoping to “stop” is a world dominated by tethered digital appliances because it is too limiting and too easy for others to control.

My primary objection to Jonathan’s thesis is that (1) he seems to be over-stating things quite a bit; and in doing so, (2) he creates a false choice of possible futures from which we must choose. What I mean by false choice is that Jonathan doesn’t seem to believe a hybrid future is possible or desirable. I see no reason why we can’t have the best of both worlds–a world full of plenty of tethered appliances, but also plenty of generativity and openness.

Importantly–and Jonathan acknowledges this point to some extent–the boundaries between “generative” and “tethered appliances” are growing increasingly murky. Social networking sites, for example, allow a great deal of generative activity, but they also impose some limitations on what can be posted, or limit the porting of profiles / information over to other sites. Similarly, the iPhone—which Jonathan calls a “sterile” technology—was completely closed at first, but is now growing more open to tinkering with the SDK rollout. But it’s unlikely it will ever be perfectly open. Finally, the TiVo, which Jonathan also throws into the “sterile” bucket, is a tightly controlled technology in some ways, but allows consumers to do some truly wonderful things with it within certain confines.

And there’s a good reason for all of this: Hybrid solutions often make a great deal of sense. They offer creative opportunities within certain confines in an attempt to balance openness and stability. And this brings us back to how Jonathan is over-stating his thesis, in my opinion; he just doesn’t convince me that the old order—of open networks & general-purpose PCs—is dying. It’s still around and always will be. It’s just that a new crop of characters—let’s call them “mere mortals”—have joined us in cyberspace and are increasingly part of the ongoing digital experience. But those of us who are true-blue tech geeks and tinker-happy gadgeteers still have plenty of generative toys at our disposal even though the mere mortals now walk among us.

For example, like many other tech geeks, I have an outrageously expensive mobile phone that allows me to add just about any application I want to it. Problem is, the more I muck with it, the slower and less reliable it gets in some ways, which is precisely why some mere mortals just want a good old-fashion “sterile” phone that won’t give them any hassles. Regardless, on the “generative-vs.-sterile appliance” spectrum, the range of mobile devices just continues to grow and grow in both directions. You can decide what type of device you want. I want something more generative—warts and all. My wife—a true mere mortal if there ever was one—just wants something that works, even if has far fewer options in terms of generative capabilities. (Of course, she’s not trying to compose blog posts like this on her phone like I am! She just wants to check e-mail on occasion and make phone calls. Imagine that: using a phone just to make calls. Crazy!)

So, my question to Jonathan is—to quote the great philosopher Rodney King—Why can’t we all just get along? Isn’t it a sign of progress that we now have different models that appeal to different types of users? After all, those supposedly “sterile” applications like the iPhone and Tivo are loved by millions. Even calling them “sterile” seems a bit silly to me. After all, those devices have “fostered innovation and disruption” just like PCs and the Net have, just in a different way. Regardless, does Jonathan think all those people would really be better off if they were forced to fend for themselves with completely open iPhones and TiVos? Should the iPhone be shipped to market with no apps loaded on the main screen, forcing everyone to get them for on their own? Should TiVos have no interactive menus out-of-the-box, forcing you to go online and find some homebrew that someone whipped up to give you an open source guide in all its blocky ugliness?

Again, before you answer that question for yourself, put yourself in the shoes of a mere mortal. It’s easy for many us who are tech geeks to look down our noses at those who seem to want to have the hand held through cyberspace or digital experiences. But there’s nothing wrong with those people who seek stability and security in digital devices and their networking experiences—even if they find those solutions in the form of “tethered appliances.” Not everyone wants to have the same cyber-experiences we do. Not everyone wants to reprogram their mobile phones, hack their consoles, write their own code, or even just write a blog or join a social networking site. Millions upon millions of people live perfectly normal lives without ever doing any of these things! (It’s true, I’ve even met a couple of these people… They are called my parents!) Still, many of those mere mortals WILL want to use many of the same toys we tech geeks use, or take cautious steps into the occasional cold pool called cyberspace—one tippy toe at a time. Why shouldn’t those folks be accommodated with “lesser” devices?

I fear that Jonathan has spent a little too much time in the ivory tower surrounded by countless people like me who are almost part cyborg in that they use so much technology that they are practically at one with their devices. (If I don’t have a laptop in my backpack and a mobile phone in my pocket I start to experience phantom pains, like I am missing appendages). If one finds themselves stuck in an echo chamber with enough of these other cyborg-humans, they can start to fear the consequences of what might happen when the mere mortals start walking in the front door and asking asinine questions about how to boot up their devices or log on to certain websites. But we have nothing to fear from these aliens. They can have their closed systems and we can have our open systems. We can tinker; they can just play with what they are given. We can be highly interactive cyber-goobers; they can be utterly passive couch potatoes. And so on.

Moreover, a big part of the gap here is simply generational and will pass with time. Once today’s tech geeks are grandparents, most of our kids and grandkids will largely demand the same sort of systems we do because they will be more accustomed to the occasional downsides that accompany the Wild West that cyberspace can sometimes be. But there will always be a crowd who demands some hand-holding and added security.

Jonathan’s short-term concern about how the desire for more stable and secure systems will lead to a more “regulable” world, is understandable. Concerns about privacy, child safety, defamation, identity theft and so on, will continue to lead to calls for more intervention. At the corporate level, however, some of that potential intervention makes a great deal of sense. For example, if ISPs are in a position to help do something to help alleviate some of these problems—especially Spam and viruses—what’s wrong with that? Of course, it gets a lot trickier with things like child safety and copyright issues. That’s where excessive intervention by ISPs could create serious speech and privacy problems—namely in the form of a forced surrender of anonymity.

But, again, I think there is a happy balance here. Bruce Owen, one of my intellectual heroes, really nails it in his response to Jonathan’s thesis:

“Why does Zittrain think that overreaction is likely, and that its costs will be unusually large? Neither prediction is self-evident. Faced with the risk of infection or mishap, many users already restrain their own taste for PC-mediated adventure, or install protective software with similar effect. For the most risk-averse PC users, it may be reasonable to welcome “tethered” PCs whose suppliers compete to offer the most popular combinations of freedom and safety. Such risk-averse users are reacting, in part, to negative externalities from the poor hygiene of other users, but such users in turn create positive externalities by limiting the population of PCs vulnerable to contagion or hijacking. As far as one can tell, this can as easily produce balance or under reaction as overreaction—it is an empirical question. But, as long as flexibility has value to users, suppliers of hardware and interconnection services will have incentives to offer it, in measured ways, or as options.”

That’s exactly right. We can find happy middle-ground solutions. By contrast, Jonathan’s alternative solutions to these problems are quite amorphous. He speaks of the need for a “latter-day Manhattan project, not to build a bomb but to design the tools and conventions by which to continuously defuse one.” (p. 173). That seems like a strange metaphor or paradigm for him to choose since the Manhattan project was highly secretive and centrally planned, the exact opposite of what he seems to desire. But, again, what he desires remains very murky. It seems he wants to solve the problems brought about by openness with more openness—primarily in the form of collective intelligence and action. If we all just find smart ways to work together, we can improve open systems, he argues. Well, sure we can.. sorta. But it will never work perfectly on its own. Some people are going to want more safety and security. They should get it, even if comes in the form of “sterile appliances and tethered devices.” Because, again, the rest of us always have the option to choose something else.

One proposed solution that Jonathan does spell out in a bit more detail troubles me greatly. When discussing the future of Net neutrality, he makes some interesting arguments similar to those we often make here about how unlikely it is that network intermediaries will really be able to stifle the free flow of bits. But then Jonathan goes on to say:

“If there is a present worldwide threat to neutrality in the movement of bits, it comes not from restrictions on traditional Internet access that can be evaded using generative PCs, but from enhancements to traditional and emerging appliancized services that are not open to third-party tinkering.” (p. 181)

He then blasts cable and satellite boxes as being “walled gardens” and creating “mediated experiences” and goes on to ask: “So when should we consider network neutrality-style mandates for appliancized systems?” I would have hoped the answer would be NEVER, since we don’t want pesky FCC bureaucrats making those sort of calls for us and stifling device innovation as a result. Alas, Jonathan seems to feel differently, and responds to his own question as follows:

“The answer lies in that subset of appliancized systems that seeks to gain the benefits of third-party contributions while reserving the right to exclude it later. … Those who offer open APIs on the Net in an attempt to harness the generative cycle ought to remain application-neutral after their efforts have succeeded, so all those who built on top of their interface can continue to do so on equal terms.” (p. 184)

I have many problems with that logic. First, most developers who offer open APIs aren’t likely to close them later precisely because they don’t want to incur the wrath of “those who built on top of their interface.” But, second, for the sake of argument, let’s say they did want to abandoned previously open APIs and move to some sort of walled garden. So what? Isn’t that called marketplace experimentation? Are we really going to make that illegal? Finally, if they were so foolish as to engage in such games, it might be the best thing that ever happened to the market and consumers since it could encourage more entry and innovation as people seek out more open, pro-generative alternatives.

Consider this example: Now that Apple has opened to door to third-party iPhone development a bit with the SDK, does that mean that under Jonathan’s proposed paradigm we should treat the iPhone as the equivalent of commoditized common carriage device? That seems incredibly misguided to me. If Steve Jobs opens the development door just a little bit only to slam it shut a short time later, he will pay dearly for that mistake in the marketplace. For God’s sake, just spend a few minutes over on the Howard Forums or the PPC Geeks forum if you want to get a taste for the insane amount of tinkering going on out there in the mobile world right now on other systems. If Apple tries to roll back the clock, Microsoft and others will be all too happy to take their business by offering a wealth of devices that allow you to tinker to your heart’s content. We should let such experiments continue and let the future of the Internet be determined by market choices, not regulatory choices such as forced API neutrality.

Anyway, read Jonathan’s book. I’ve probably gone a bit too hard on him here, but it’s an important and enlightening book about one possible vision of the Net’s future. In the end, I guess my outlook is just a little rosier than his.

(Update: Following this review, I discussed my reservations in a series of follow-up essays. (Part 2, 3, 4, 5).  We’ve also debated his book on the an NPR-Boston [audio is here] and we debated in person at New America Foundation in early November [video is here]. Finally, I named Jonathan’s book the “most important tech policy book of 2008″ on my end-of-year Top 10 list.)

  • http://www.cato.org/people/harper.html Jim Harper

    There should be a name for the syndrome where smart people universalize their own preferences (those of their cohort) and declare flaws in markets, technologies, policies, etc. because such system doesn’t satisfy their unique preferences.

  • Adam Thierer

    Johnathan has responded on his blog here. He says:

    I don’t mind sterile technologies in principle — I like the idea of taking the rough-hewn innovations that spring from the Internet and packaging them into cleaner, more reliable forms. I love my TiVo. (Indeed, that used to be the first sentence of the book. Then I went with the iPhone.) I even appreciate that sterile technologies can come about without having to emulate the products of generative ones — not every toaster comes from nerds experimenting with heating elements.

    My worry, though, is that we’ll lose a sense of equilibrium between the generative and sterile spheres, and that the emergence of contingently generative technologies — platforms that are open to third party innovation at first, but then close off selectively — will squeeze out fully generative technologies, to the detriment of innovation and enhancement of exquisite regulatory control. This is in part because the amateur nerds that drive innovation here rarely read the fine print; teenagers will code for the Facebook, iPhone and Google platforms without thinking about the ways in which their advances can be eliminated or proprietized.

    Again, I guess I just don’t see how all of us would “lose a sense of equilibrium between the generative and sterile spheres,” or that “platforms that are open to third party innovation at first” will “close off selectively” and “squeeze out fully generative technologies.” Perhaps some will; but I just don’t see the entire future of the Internet unfolding in that fashion. The momentum is too great in the direction of open, interactive, generative platforms and devices. Head over to “Go2Web2.0.net” and tell me how all that progress is going to be reversed. I just don’t see it happening.

  • http://www.cato.org/people/harper.html Jim Harper

    There should be a name for the syndrome where smart people universalize their own preferences (those of their cohort) and declare flaws in markets, technologies, policies, etc. because such system doesn’t satisfy their unique preferences.

  • http://www.techliberation.com Adam Thierer

    Johnathan has responded on his blog here. He says:

    I don’t mind sterile technologies in principle — I like the idea of taking the rough-hewn innovations that spring from the Internet and packaging them into cleaner, more reliable forms. I love my TiVo. (Indeed, that used to be the first sentence of the book. Then I went with the iPhone.) I even appreciate that sterile technologies can come about without having to emulate the products of generative ones — not every toaster comes from nerds experimenting with heating elements.

    My worry, though, is that we’ll lose a sense of equilibrium between the generative and sterile spheres, and that the emergence of contingently generative technologies — platforms that are open to third party innovation at first, but then close off selectively — will squeeze out fully generative technologies, to the detriment of innovation and enhancement of exquisite regulatory control. This is in part because the amateur nerds that drive innovation here rarely read the fine print; teenagers will code for the Facebook, iPhone and Google platforms without thinking about the ways in which their advances can be eliminated or proprietized.

    Again, I guess I just don’t see how all of us would “lose a sense of equilibrium between the generative and sterile spheres,” or that “platforms that are open to third party innovation at first” will “close off selectively” and “squeeze out fully generative technologies.” Perhaps some will; but I just don’t see the entire future of the Internet unfolding in that fashion. The momentum is too great in the direction of open, interactive, generative platforms and devices. Head over to “Go2Web2.0.net” and tell me how all that progress is going to be reversed. I just don’t see it happening.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    Thanks for the review, Adam. I’ve wanted to read Zittrain’s book, but Silicon Valley’s public library doesn’t consider it important enough to stock. What I’ve read about it leads me to be suspicious about his premises, but any time a pundit invents new terms to describe what are alleged to be traditional practices, I get nervous. If “network neutrality” were really the cornerstone of the Internet, for example, it wouldn’t have been necessary for a law professor to coin the term in 2003. So this “generativity” concept makes me want to grab my wallet.

    I think he’s trying to give “programmability” a new name, and in doing so misses several vital points. All devices need not be programmable by all users for creativity to find a way into the gizmo arsenal. Code is mainly written by experts, after all, and “closed devices” are open to experimentation by experts with adequate specifications and proprietary APIs. And many of the cherished pieces of the “open Internet” are rarely modified, such as TCP, UDP, and IP. While these elements of the Internet reside on end-user systems, they’re so much a part of the Internet’s plumbing that nobody alters them in any meaningful way.

    There’s a design cycle or two that we find in general purpose computers where systems that may begin as software algorithms running on the CPU and controlling add-on hardware are eventually reduced completely to hardware for performance and cost reasons. Ethernet used to be a card you plugged into a computer but it’s become part of the basic circuitry of the PC or handheld. Some systems commit TCP to hardware for speed as well. We find a similar cycle in graphics.

    Handhelds represent an interesting set of challenges for the designer because of the conflicting demands of battery life, radio quality, size, weight, flexibility, and reliability. It’s necessary to reduce system flexibility in these devices to get decent parameters for the rest of the device, and most users understand these trade-offs at some level. It’s downright silly to pretend that Blackberries have to be end-user programmable to have any utility.

    I doubt that Professor Zittrain has ever programmed a computer. That doesn’t disqualify him from pontificating about the benefits of programmability, but it does suggest that his perspective may be a bit skewed and romantic.

    These ultra-simple dichotomies the Berkman people like to make are seldom useful in the sense of generating fresh perspectives or real insights.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    Thanks for the review, Adam. I’ve wanted to read Zittrain’s book, but Silicon Valley’s public library doesn’t consider it important enough to stock. What I’ve read about it leads me to be suspicious about his premises, but any time a pundit invents new terms to describe what are alleged to be traditional practices, I get nervous. If “network neutrality” were really the cornerstone of the Internet, for example, it wouldn’t have been necessary for a law professor to coin the term in 2003. So this “generativity” concept makes me want to grab my wallet.

    I think he’s trying to give “programmability” a new name, and in doing so misses several vital points. All devices need not be programmable by all users for creativity to find a way into the gizmo arsenal. Code is mainly written by experts, after all, and “closed devices” are open to experimentation by experts with adequate specifications and proprietary APIs. And many of the cherished pieces of the “open Internet” are rarely modified, such as TCP, UDP, and IP. While these elements of the Internet reside on end-user systems, they’re so much a part of the Internet’s plumbing that nobody alters them in any meaningful way.

    There’s a design cycle or two that we find in general purpose computers where systems that may begin as software algorithms running on the CPU and controlling add-on hardware are eventually reduced completely to hardware for performance and cost reasons. Ethernet used to be a card you plugged into a computer but it’s become part of the basic circuitry of the PC or handheld. Some systems commit TCP to hardware for speed as well. We find a similar cycle in graphics.

    Handhelds represent an interesting set of challenges for the designer because of the conflicting demands of battery life, radio quality, size, weight, flexibility, and reliability. It’s necessary to reduce system flexibility in these devices to get decent parameters for the rest of the device, and most users understand these trade-offs at some level. It’s downright silly to pretend that Blackberries have to be end-user programmable to have any utility.

    I doubt that Professor Zittrain has ever programmed a computer. That doesn’t disqualify him from pontificating about the benefits of programmability, but it does suggest that his perspective may be a bit skewed and romantic.

    These ultra-simple dichotomies the Berkman people like to make are seldom useful in the sense of generating fresh perspectives or real insights.

  • Adam West

    As for a name for the syndrome where smart people universalize their own preferences (those of their cohort) and declare flaws in markets, technologies, policies, etc. because such system doesn’t satisfy their unique preferences, how about:

    Zittyranny?
    Zitttrainization?
    Zittrainia?
    Zittmania?
    Zittmegalomania?

  • Adam West

    As for a name for the syndrome where smart people universalize their own preferences (those of their cohort) and declare flaws in markets, technologies, policies, etc. because such system doesn’t satisfy their unique preferences, how about:

    Zittyranny?
    Zitttrainization?
    Zittrainia?
    Zittmania?
    Zittmegalomania?

  • http://decemberwolf.splinder.com/ december

    Well, you convinced me to read this book even if his theses may be over-simplified.

  • http://decemberwolf.splinder.com/ december

    Well, you convinced me to read this book even if his theses may be over-simplified.

  • Maggie

    Thanks for a great tear-down review. I do still intend to read the book, but everything I’ve read so far (from reviews, book excerpts and from Zittrain’s blog and talks) on this subject has left me feeling more than a little frustrated; if not outright irritated.

    What you’ve expressed above touches perfectly on some of the ideas and assertions that bother me the most. Along with the artificially elevated sense of alarm/doom (at least in the language he uses) and, sometimes, plain old hyperbole (‘Macs get viruses too’ – which is extremely hyperbolic and sensationalist and just there to grab attention) that the whole ‘Zittrain manifesto’, including to some degree the whole ‘badware’ thing, still concerns me.

    Adding you to my must-read list. :)
    Maggie

  • Maggie

    Thanks for a great tear-down review. I do still intend to read the book, but everything I’ve read so far (from reviews, book excerpts and from Zittrain’s blog and talks) on this subject has left me feeling more than a little frustrated; if not outright irritated.

    What you’ve expressed above touches perfectly on some of the ideas and assertions that bother me the most. Along with the artificially elevated sense of alarm/doom (at least in the language he uses) and, sometimes, plain old hyperbole (‘Macs get viruses too’ – which is extremely hyperbolic and sensationalist and just there to grab attention) that the whole ‘Zittrain manifesto’, including to some degree the whole ‘badware’ thing, still concerns me.

    Adding you to my must-read list. :)
    Maggie

  • http://www.techliberation.com Adam Thierer

    Just FYI… Zittrain and I debated these issues in person at the New America Foundation on November 6th. The video of that event can be found here.

  • Elsie M Aiken

    Excellent, entertaining, useful reading, Thanks !!

  • http://vip-pregnancy.blogspot.com first pregnancy symptoms

    I wish to wish all pregnant women of good mood, easy pregnancy and natural sorts! Good luck also are happy! Give birth easily and independently! Let not doctors give birth for you, and you! Also adjust itself on chest feeding of the kid! Read the necessary information! Be, lovely pregnant mums and expecting posterities of the daddy, are healthy and wise!

  • Helen Atwood

    your blog is awsome

  • http://stem-cell-transplant.blogspot.com Stem cell transplant

    Stem cells in an organism of the adult person are developed by a bone brain. It is their basic source, but it is far not the unique. Also stem cells are found out and in a fatty fabric, a skin, muscles, a liver, lungs, an eye retina, practically in all bodies and organism fabrics. They provide restoration of the damaged sites of bodies and fabrics.

  • http://www.moncanape.net Canape

    I really much like the “Zittyranny” proposal. :p

  • http://add-blogbanner.blogspot.com pramodh

    The Internet’s current trajectory is one of lost opportunity. Its salvation, Zittrain argues, lies in the hands of its millions of users. Drawing on generative technologies like Wikipedia that have so far survived their own successes

  • http://www.beenverified.com Background Check

    I don't think having an “open” web and “closed” systems for security and privacy are mutually exclusive. There are solutions and they will work themselves out as the demand and business model prove themselves, will just take time and some ingenuity.

  • http://www.armyshop24.eu surplus online-shop

    Wow! its an impressive article. Cause of your article i am interested in learning more about the book – i think about buying it. thank you!

  • http://www.armyshop24.eu surplus online-shop

    very good informations – i think of buying this book because of your article. Thanks very much.

  • http://franceflights.info/ Flights to France

    Great review man. This review had made me think whether i should read that book and put on my comments here. But from the review i got a clear picture of what the author is trying to convey. Good work mate.

  • http://www.ericblackink.info/mirrors/libweb-mirror/ Library Servers

    nice for tear-down review. and I hope to read Zittrain's book

  • http://productreviewsby.me/ muffin9129

    I think the author has a very good point, and I agree that it may not be long before there are some regulations enforced on the Internet. As I believe that already occurs in most schools, and even through out some countries. There will be a sheltered version, as the information online is endless, and therefore potentially dangerous. Great post, thanks!
    muffin9129
    http://productreviewsby.me/

  • http://www.24-7bookie.com/ Pat_R

    I love all of this internet conspiracy stuff. Some of it I think is over the top, but the majority I can see how people could think that it may come back to bite us in the rear ends.

  • JaySmith

    Yeah they definitely should block most of the negative content that rots peoples minds on the internet…. great post!

    Get Your free credit report

  • http://forums.plexapp.com/index.php?/user/13919-policeauctionsaa/ Fernbleable

    Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my site something like that. Can I take part of your post to my blog?

  • http://www.ifishny.org/ fish tank

    I really appreciate the break down and analysis of the book in your article. It really presents a simplified thesis, which simplifies the main ideologies behind the book. It is really an interesting book to read and this is evident from the reviews as well as the excerpts from the book that are available from talks and blogs. The article above touches on some of the issues that concern me up to today. At least I now know that my fears have been answered. It is an eye opening article for me and I would highly recommend that people should get their own copies and get first hand information in relation to this.

    Lane
    http://www.flowersrieger.com/

  • http://www.ifishny.org/ fish tank

    I really appreciate the break down and analysis of the book in your article. It really presents a simplified thesis, which simplifies the main ideologies behind the book. It is really an interesting book to read and this is evident from the reviews as well as the excerpts from the book that are available from talks and blogs. The article above touches on some of the issues that concern me up to today. At least I now know that my fears have been answered. It is an eye opening article for me and I would highly recommend that people should get their own copies and get first hand information in relation to this.

    Lane
    http://www.flowersrieger.com/

Previous post:

Next post: