Stephen Hawking now communicates by blinking his eye

[marvin_pa]

Disabled physiscist Stephen Hawking, who is now slowly losing the control over the only finger he can still move, now communicates with his eye. Remarkable story:

Hawking talking with his blinks

Disabled scientist Professor Stephen Hawking is using a hi-tech gadget to communicate by blinking because his deteriorating health limits movement.

The 63-year-old physicist is Britain's longest surviving sufferer of the debilitating Motor Neurone disease.

He uses one hand to control the computer which gives him a voice.

But his hand is getting weaker and he is now using a new gadget, which allows him to control the computer simply by blinking his eye.

David Pond, Professor Hawking's graduate assistant at Cambridge University, said: "His hand has been slowing down."

Infrared beam

He added: "He wants to fight all the way but he recognises he needs a better way to communicate.

"He started using the switch two months ago. It's very simple to use and it's going really well."

The Infrared Sound Touch (IST) switch has been developed by the American company Words+ and works by emitting a very low-powered infrared beam.

The reflection of the beam changes when the eye is closed and the cheek muscle moves and so controlling the computer is as simple as blinking.

It is attached to Professor Hawking's glasses an inch from his cheek to detect the moving muscle.

Professor Hawking, who is in his early sixties, achieved international prominence with the publication of his book A Brief History of Time in the late 1980s.

He developed motor neurone disease while studying at Cambridge University in his early twenties.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/4213082.stm

[DesertFox]

Hawking's something of an s.o.b. and a Lefty, but one has to respect his guts and determination -- not to mention his mental gifts.

[nene]

Even geniuses can be misguided.

[Patriot Heart]

How can he not see the hand of God in his life, to have lived so long with that dread disease, and been able to process such knowledge.........

[TempestTossed]

How can he not see the hand of God in his life, to have lived so long with that dread disease, and been able to process such knowledge.........I can't speak for Dr. Hawking, but I see it as more reasonable that he sees only the hands of brilliant medical scientists in his life, hands that are directly observable with his two eyes, hands that are perfectly sufficient to explain his prolonged survival. Magic is not used by scientific minds to explain things that more easily explained by the natural environment.

[DoctorDoom]

Hawking is proof that intelligence and wisdom are not synonymous. He is beyond brilliant. However, he is not wise. If he were, he would have concluded long ago that the universe is not the product of chance, and more so that life is not an accident.

History is replete with super-geniuses (except for Wile E. Coyote), but only in the last century or so has it become an unwritten law that high intelligence requires being atheistic.

BTW, some of the most clueless people that I encountered in my 38 years in industry were high-IQ engineers. Not without reason are loafers called engineer shoes.

As for magic, what would really be magical is the discovery of a wise liberal ("wise atheist" would be an oxymoron).

[marvin_pa]

Hawking is proof that intelligence and wisdom are not synonymous. He is beyond brilliant. However, he is not wise. If he were, he would have concluded long ago that the universe is not the product of chance, and more so that life is not an accident.

History is replete with super-geniuses (except for Wile E. Coyote), but only in the last century or so has it become an unwritten law that high intelligence requires being atheistic.

BTW, some of the most clueless people that I encountered in my 38 years in industry were high-IQ engineers. Not without reason are loafers called engineer shoes.

As for magic, what would really be magical is the discovery of a wise liberal ("wise atheist" would be an oxymoron).

Would you prefer wisdom over intelligence?. How would you define both of these concepts? Have you read "A brief history of time"? What did you think of it?

[Eagle1]

no denying hawking is a smart guy

there are eye readers that allow you to type using eye movements, that may be more helpful than blinking.

anyone, however, that cannot see that following the spirit of the bible will lead to a better world (whether they believe in God or not) is nuts

[DesertFox]

A Brief History of Time is too much Hawking's paean to Hawking. I thought Isaac Asimov's 1977 Black Holes the best book on the subject until Kip Thorne came out with his Black Holes and Time Warps (1993), which is one of the best books you'll ever find on science, recent scientific history and how science is done, not to mention black holes.

FWIW: Albert Einstein very much believed in God.

One need not choose between wisdom and intelligence. It's out of our hands anyway, so the question is sorta moot.

[Logic]

FWIW: Albert Einstein very much believed in God.

Einstein was a pantheist, he did not believe in a personal God.

[DesertFox]

Huh?

Is God God, or what? '

What exactly is a "personal God," anyway?

If God is God, He/She/It can be as personal or impersonal as He/She/It chooses, don'tcha think?

You gotta point?

[Logic]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views

Pantheists basically believe that the universe itself is God, they do not believe in a supernatural deity. I believe in God if you want to define God as the universe.

[DesertFox]

Einstein believed in a supernatural deity (as if there were any other kind of deity). Otherwise his famous statement, "God does not play dice with the universe," makes no sense; and he was one sensible feller.

[marvin_pa]

Einstein and Hawking both famously used the God word in some of their statements. In the sense that they used them, they both seemed to be reffering to some underlying principle governing the universe, as in Hawkings reference to a unified theory, letting us know "the mind of God" or in Einsteins "God doesn't play dice", a comment on Heisenbergs uncertainty theory. In the same sentiment, Einstein also said "Gott ist schwierig, aber bösartig ist er nicht" (God is difficult, but not malicious). More like references about the makeup of the physical universe, the field that both gentlemen are / were heavily involved with, than a declaration of religious faith. Whether the sentiment was pantheistic, or something similar, is an interesting proposition. We can't ask Einstein anymore. Hawking seems to have stated somewhere that he is not a theist. To be fair to Einstein we must consider that he might have used a fairly widespread analogy from his cultural background to get his point across. I do not think that he was into doctrinal or organised religion. He would certainly have denounced the supernatural, I do not think that the existance of a deity was much on his mind therefore.

[marvin_pa]

no denying hawking is a smart guy

there are eye readers that allow you to type using eye movements, that may be more helpful than blinking.

anyone, however, that cannot see that following the spirit of the bible will lead to a better world (whether they believe in God or not) is nuts

Eagle, what exactly is the "spirit of the bible". I commend your optimism about a better world. But if the bible or its "spirit" can bring this about, what are the results up to this date? And how would not believing in God lead to the same result as believing in a God?

[DoctorDoom]

Would you prefer wisdom over intelligence?Every time! Intellect that is not controlled by wisdom is useless if not dangerous.

[DoctorDoom]

One need not choose between wisdom and intelligence. It's out of our hands anyway, so the question is sorta moot.Intellect is inate in the person. Wisdom is gained through experience.

Main Entry: in·tel·lect
Pronunciation: 'in-t&l-"ekt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin intellectus, from intellegere to understand -- more at INTELLIGENT
1 a : the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will : the capacity for knowledge b : the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed
2 : a person with great intellectual powers

Main Entry: wis·dom
Pronunciation: 'wiz-d&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wIsdOm, from wIs wise
1 a : accumulated philosophic or scientific learning : KNOWLEDGE b : ability to discern inner qualities and relationships : INSIGHT c : good sense : JUDGMENT d : generally accepted belief < challenges what has become accepted wisdom among many historians -- Robert Darnton >
2 : a wise attitude or course of action
3 : the teachings of the ancient wise men
synonym see SENSE

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Intellect is inate in the person. Wisdom is gained through experience.

Why Doc, that makes you doubly-blessed, because you were endowed with BOTH! :thumb:

[DoctorDoom]

And yet I am still humble, an amazing fact considering my utter lack of need for humility. :D

[Bob_Arctor]

A Brief History of Time is too much Hawking's paean to Hawking. I thought Isaac Asimov's 1977 Black Holes the best book on the subject until Kip Thorne came out with his Black Holes and Time Warps (1993), which is one of the best books you'll ever find on science, recent scientific history and how science is done, not to mention black holes.
Black Holes and Time Warps is a great book. I've actually never read A Brief History of Time, and probably never will as you say it's inferior to Thorne.

I saw that Roger Penrose has recently come out with a massive tome on physics and cosmology titled The Road to Reality; I actually meant to pm you about it. 1136 pages! I want to buy it, but have a feeling I'll never give it the time it deserves, and I have quite a backlog anyway.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679454438/qid=1127270946/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4624696-1923267?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

FWIW: Albert Einstein very much believed in God.
Well, not too much, and certainly not in the traditional sense! If I recall he was also something of a socialist as well, and definitely a pacifist.

For whatever reason, physicists seem to have the lowest rate of religious belief among the different branches of scientists - only something like 20% are believers.

[DesertFox]

Not surprising when about all they deal with anymore is abstruse mathematics. To me, that by itself shows a Designing Hand.

[gnome]

Would you prefer wisdom over intelligence?. How would you define both of these concepts? Have you read "A brief history of time"? What did you think of it?

At the risk of revealing (even worse Geekdom) I have generally used a classic D&D definition of Intelligence vs. Wisdom. You go outside and water is falling from the sky. Your intelligence tells you it's raining. Your wisdom tells you to go inside.

[DoctorDoom]

Intelligence is the computer. Wisdom is the programming.

[Rhino]

I have never understood the fascination with Stephen Hawking.

Then again, I have never understood the fascination with Paris Hilton either.

[LightHorseman]

Hawking's something of an s.o.b. and a Lefty, but one has to respect his guts and determination -- not to mention his mental gifts.
Hear, hear

[LightHorseman]

I have never understood the fascination with Stephen Hawking.Have you read any of his work?

[Rhino]

Nope. Only snippets here and there.

[LightHorseman]

Nope. Only snippets here and there.Brief history of time is pretty good

[Rhino]

I'm not saying his stuff isn't good. I just don't understand the fascination.

[LightHorseman]

well, hes an inteligent, witty writer who has overcome great personal hardship... heck of a lot more interesting than Paris Hilton's latest binge... I mean, if people have to be fascinated by others, at least you might learn something reading Hawking

[Rhino]

Being more interesting than Paris Hilton isn't exactly saying much. I'm not downplaying Hawking, but there are lots of intelligent, witty writers out there, and many others have also overcome great personal hardship. I applaud the man for his achievements, but I still just don't understand the fascination.

[DoctorDoom]

His mystique is based largely on his handicap. Are his views and thoughts more credible or worthwhile solely because his body is a wretched shell? Would a healthy man or woman who expressed the same thoughts be given the same credence?

Stripped of the mythos, it is pure theory. Can it be tested or falsified? That is the essence of the physical sciences.

[DesertFox]

Hawking's contributions to physics are beyond question. He advanced the study of black holes with several astonishing discoveries, including the one that black holes radiate. His reputation isn't based on his condition or any myth; like him or not (and I don't), he is one of the great physicists of all time.

[DoctorDoom]

I have no opinion of Hawking as a person, since I don't know all that much about him. However, a mind like his being trapped in that slowly degenerating hulk of a body, incapable of communicating with the the outside world other than by eyeblinks, would certainly evoke impatience and frustration. I would fully understand his being less than personable.

The issue remains whether his theories can be tested. E.g., he might be able to prove mathematically that a black hole radiates, but is there even one that is available for studying the hypothesized radiation? Can the radiation from the hole be isolated from the electromagnetic chaos caused by the influx of matter into it?

I love a good theory, but to test theories about phenomena that have not yet been unarguably proven to exist by direct observation will require technology that we don't have yet. Black holes seem to answer a lot of questions, but it is impossible to find one without relying on its effect on surrounding matter. And that effect is a prolific source of radiation over a huge spectrum.

If there were a way to sense the radiation that he proposes from a black hole that exists isolated from surrounding matter (would the radiation exist without the intake of matter?), it would go a long way toward validating his theory.

Hawkings is doubtless one of the most intelligent people who ever lived, but until his theories can be tested objectively, they remain only theories. And would those theories be given the same deference if they came from a physicist without a debilitating condition such as his? IOW, is the "Jersey Girls" effect playing a part here?

[Franko]

Hawking is very subtle in his admissions of ASSumptions, including the assumption of an infinite universe - there's no reason to choose it over a finite universe except ideology - that an infinite universe means that there is no real edge or center, and therefore that the earth is in no special place. He subtly touches on the assumption that the observed red shifts are the same everywhere, again based on ideology, not on 'observed' science. That the universe may be finite is a real possibility, including the possibility that there is a center and that the earth may be in a "special" place. In fact, if we look at the red shift at face value, at WHAT IS OBSERVED, it seems as though the earth IS in a special place, because red shifts go away from the earth in every direction; the earth may be near the center of a finite universe. (and central to the Creator's purpose)

Hawking doesn't want to entertain these possibilities - because he DOESN'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT. When Prof. Hubble realized the implications of what the doppler effects showed, he WAS HORRIFIED, and quickly sought a way to suggest something else was going on instead OF WHAT WAS OBSERVED.

Hawking (Dawkins too) are very religious fellows.

[DoctorDoom]

In fact, if we look at the red shift at face value, at WHAT IS OBSERVED, it seems as though the earth IS in a special place, because red shifts go away from the earth in every direction ...One way that can be explained is by comparing the expansion of the universe to ink marks on a strip of elastic. If it is stretched ...

|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|

|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|

|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|

... from the PoV of any specific mark, all the others are moving away from it. The same effect could be seen by making dots on a balloon and then inflating it.

One can logically argue that the expansion would cause greater red shifts in the direction of Event One due to looking past it to the galaxies on the other side than would be expected if looking directly away from it. I have no idea whether this has ever been done.

[LightHorseman]

One can logically argue that the expansion would cause greater red shifts in the direction of Event One due to looking past it to the galaxies on the other side than would be expected if looking directly away from it. I have no idea whether this has ever been done.

Correct... although I don't think anyone has, as yet, identified an initial point to trace the expansion back to... i.e. a direction to look in

[Book]

Einstein believed in a supernatural deity (as if there were any other kind of deity). Otherwise his famous statement, "God does not play dice with the universe," makes no sense; and he was one sensible feller.

Read Dawkins 'The God Delusion'. He clarifies the point quite well.

Einstein certainly did not believe in a supernatural deity. Supernatural doesn't make sense to a scientist (certainly not a scientist in Einsteins league).

[Nutrider99]

Einstein certainly did not believe in a supernatural deity. Supernatural doesn't make sense to a scientist (certainly not a scientist in Einsteins league).
Every atheist who cites a person of renouned intellect invariably tries to paint that person as an atheist as well, thus inferring by connection that intelligent people don't believe any silly ol' God. Book is, as usual, wrong. Einstein believed in God. He was a Jew born to parents who were not very religious and neither was he, but he DID acknowledge that God existed. He simply looked for God in the wrong places. Einstein was a pantheist.

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein)

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Albert Einstein)

[Book]

Nut my boy, firstly you seem to be confused by the words you are actually quoting. He does not believe in a god in the way that you do. Read 'The God Delusion' and it might finally make sense to you. To make it easy the important bit is pretty much in the first chapter.

secondly, where in my post did I say that Einstein was an Atheist?

Thirdly, you say he was not very religious and yet you quote the man saying he is deeply religious. I think you might be confused as to what 'religious' means.

[DoctorDoom]

Read 'The God Delusion' ...It's next on my reading list, right after that little tag on the mattress.

[DesertFox]

in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. Book, I think you might be confused by Einstein's words here. One can be deeply religious in a narrow sense yet not very religious in a broader sense.

[DoctorDoom]

I for one am Christian, not religious.

[LightHorseman]

I for one am Christian, not religious.
Because Christianity isn't a religion? Huh?

[Book]

Book, I think you might be confused by Einstein's words here. One can be deeply religious in a narrow sense yet not very religious in a broader sense.

Yes...and? The point is that 'God', in the narrow sense that a Christian would view Him/Her/It, is not the same 'God' that Einstein is refering to.

Hence his statement, "I believe in Spinoza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza)'s God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

Pantheism seems like a fairly broad religious concept if you ask me.

Naturalistic pantheism is a form of pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism) that holds that the universe, although unconscious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious) and non-sentient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient) as a whole, is a meaningful focus for mystical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism) fulfillment. Accordingly, Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature) is seen as being god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) only in a non-traditional, impersonal sense. Also known as Impersonal pantheism and Impersonal Absolutism.

[Book]

It's next on my reading list, right after that little tag on the mattress.

A pity. It really is a very good book.

[Nutrider99]

...firstly you seem to be confused by the words you are actually quoting.
I'm not confused about anything.

Einstein certainly did not believe in a supernatural deity. Supernatural doesn't make sense to a scientist (certainly not a scientist in Einsteins league).
But Einstein DID believe in a God.

He does not believe in a god in the way that you do.
What part of "...he DID acknowledge that God existed. He simply looked for God in the wrong places." would lead you to believe that I thought He believed in God the same way I do?

Read 'The God Delusion' and it might finally make sense to you.
The true God delusion id the denial of His existence.

secondly, where in my post did I say that Einstein was an Atheist?
You said he did not believe in a supernatural entity, which is what God is. Therefore, you claim he did not believe in God. That really isn't too hard to follow, is it?

Thirdly, you say he was not very religious and yet you quote the man saying he is deeply religious. I think you might be confused as to what 'religious' means.
Re-read the quote. Einstein said he was only religious in the very narrow sense that he believed in the existence of something greater then man. He did not follow any religion nor practice any estalished faith.

[DoctorDoom]

A pity. It really is a very good book.1. NOTHING by Dawkins is good.

2. I refuse to put even a penny in that charlatan's pocket.

[DoctorDoom]

Because Christianity isn't a religion? Huh?No, it's not. Christianity is a dynamic relationship with the Lord Christ Jesus apart from religion.

Christianity is God reaching down to man through His Son. Religion is man trying to reach up to God through his own efforts. The churches are full of people who are being religious at the expense of being Christian.

And no, I am by no means a perfect Christian. I am and always will be a sinner on this side of the river. However, I'm saved despite that. And religion didn't save me.

[LightHorseman]

1. NOTHING by Dawkins is good.



How do you know if you havn't read the book?

[DoctorDoom]

How do you know if you havn't read the book?Only one thing comes from an equine rectum, and I need not taste it to know what it is.

Dawkins is a posturing, pontificating charlatan, the semi-official carnival sideshow barker of evolutionism and atheism. Only intellectuals swallow his guff.

[LightHorseman]

Dawkins is a posturing, pontificating charlatan, the semi-official carnival sideshow barker of evolutionism and atheism. Only intellectuals swallow his guff.Well, you wouldn't want anyone thinking you an intellectual now, would you?

[DoctorDoom]

Well, you wouldn't want anyone thinking you an intellectual now, would you?Intellectual, like liberal, has become a term of derision.

Re Dawkins' crap, and evolutionism in general:

You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary man could be such a fool.
-- George Orwell

[LightHorseman]

Um, I don't think thats what Orwell meant.

[DoctorDoom]

Um, I don't think thats what Orwell meant.And? If a quote fits, use it.

[Timberwolf]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Because Christianity isn't a religion? Huh? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
No, it's not. Christianity is a dynamic relationship with the Lord Christ Jesus apart from religion.

Christianity is God reaching down to man through His Son. Religion is man trying to reach up to God through his own efforts. The churches are full of people who are being religious at the expense of being Christian.

And no, I am by no means a perfect Christian. I am and always will be a sinner on this side of the river. However, I'm saved despite that. And religion didn't save me.
Amen, Doc. VERY well said.

This one is a keeper. I hope you don't mind my referencing it from time to time to explain the difference between religion and Christianity.

There's another member on the board who REALLY needs to see/read it. Horseman, take it to heart...what Doc has posted above is the absolute, unadulterated truth.

[DoctorDoom]

This one is a keeper. I hope you don't mind my referencing it from time to time to explain the difference between religion and Christianity.Feel free to do so. I'll waive the customary $100 royalty fee for the first ten citations. :evilgrin:

[Timberwolf]

:thumb: :thumb:

[LightHorseman]

sounds like word re-definition to me.

[DoctorDoom]

sounds like word re-definition to me.And we should care because?

BTW:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/ShiftKey.jpg

[Timberwolf]

sounds like word re-definition to me.
How so? It's the unadultered truth. Christianity and religion do not necessarily go hand in hand.

[DesertFox]

This is an interesting turn in the thread. I've always been religious, in the sense that I believed in God, but never had much use for churches and had my doubts about Christ. Two years ago I found out that I did after all believe in Christ but still have problems with the religion that has grown up around Him. He doesn't seem to mind.

[Timberwolf]

DF...I have little use for churches myself. I go to hear the word of God preached and to fellowship with those who believe along the lines I do. To me, it really doesn't matter to which denomination one adheres...as long as the central tenet preached is salvation by grace. Other than that, it's really just a lot of window dressing...until the doctrines of man begin to take on more importance than the word of God.

[Book]

But Einstein DID believe in a God. No, he didn't. You are missing the point. As I said before, read 'The God Delusion' it will make more sense when you do.

What part of "...he DID acknowledge that God existed. He simply looked for God in the wrong places." would lead you to believe that I thought He believed in God the same way I do?um...because the implication is that he...[drumroll]...believes in God but wasn't looking for him in the right place. Hey dude, you wrote it.


You said he did not believe in a supernatural entity, which is what God is. Therefore, you claim he did not believe in God. That really isn't too hard to follow, is it?God in the Pantheistic sense of the word is not a supernatural entity. In fact it is nature itself. I'm not the one having trouble following things here Nutty.

[Nutrider99]

How so? It's the unadultered truth. Christianity and religion do not necessarily go hand in hand.
Very true. Buddhism and Islam are also religions. Lucifer KNEW Christ to be the son of God.

[Un Con Troll Able]

I have read the comments that are a part of this thread and have been left with a bitter taste in my mouth.

Rather than this digress into a discussion on faith and the existence of an almighty, I think we would be better served by maintaining focus on the most important aspect of Hawking's physical condition. Specifically, so long as he can blink an eye, he can, ergo, wink an eye! And so long as he can wink an eye, he can still get himself some!

Trust me, folks, women love kinky stuff like that sythesized voice that pops out his wheelchair computer voicebox (not unlike KITT on "Knight Rider"). But you won't hear any staid "Michael, my engine is overheating," statements. Rather, you might hear:

"Yes, baby, I'm going to travel to the bottom of that black hole!"

"My wheelchair can reconfigure it's orientation to provide you with the top 460 Kama Sutra positions."

"Physicists begin with a big bang and go on forever!"

[DesertFox]

*groan*

Sick. *moan*

[DesertFox]

Book keeps insisting we read The God Delusion. Here (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=43228) is a first-class review of it, for those who wish to waste their time read it. Just as I suspected, Dawkins doesn't know WTF he's talking about. Reading him on God is like reading Stephen Jay Gould on IQ or Katherine MacKinnon on culture. He's completely out of his field and therefore altogether out of his depth.

[Book]

I get the impression that the person who wrote that "first class" review hasn't actually read the book.

Here's a better one, http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1878706,00.html

It appears to have been written by some-one who actualy read the book first.