

A new kind of review - inspired by Stephen Wolfram's book - gozzoo
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3KL7ITUIPVNOI

======
bgraves
I haven't read this book, but this other review was a great overview.

[http://www.amazon.com/review/RUGSCP3XBNBUV/ref=cm_cr_rdp_per...](http://www.amazon.com/review/RUGSCP3XBNBUV/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

------
pohl
That was beautiful. It perfectly captured everything about the book that
rubbed me the wrong way.

------
jackfoxy
Clever satire! ANKoS is a worthwhile read full of great nuggets of interest.
You could read the Notes as a standalone work. But it is not quite as
important as Wolfram believes.

~~~
gjm11
It is not clear that anything could be quite as important as Wolfram believes
ANKoS is.

------
gjm11
For an equally scathing but more contentful review, it's hard to beat Cosma
Shalizi's at <http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfram/> \-- I
love the title: "A rare blend of monster raving egomania and utter batshit
insanity".

------
FluidDjango
What I find striking is the huge _approval_ ('helpful' votes) that this
(1-star) review and two other thoughtful pans (a 1- and a 3-star review)
received on Amz.

For a 2002 book that still sells quite well in hardcover (coffee table book to
impress geeky friends?), the huge overbalance of negative reviews is something
this Amazon addict does not recall seeing:

5 star: (89)

4 star: (38)

3 star: (50)

2 star: (60)

1 star: (104)

Perhaps somewhere in all those I'll find someone who's culled the gems from
it. "Hacker Readers Digest" where are you?

~~~
regularfry
"Helpful" might mean "helped me decide to spend my money elsewhere."

~~~
FluidDjango
But the "stars" are the ratings of the book in concern - not of any reviews'
"helpfulness".

What is striking is the modal rating of people _about the book_ is _one_ star
- something seldom seen at Amz.

------
patrickgzill
"It is staggering to contemplate that all the great works of literature can be
derived from the letters I use in writing this review."

However the author of the review left out the letter "z". Thus none of the
works of e.g. Zola can be properly derived ... or is that the review writer's
intention?

------
gnosis
Also see Ray Kurzweil's take on the book:

<http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0464.html?printable=1>

------
csantini
great, no words

