As I see it, the reviewer of a proceedings volume such as this has two responsibilities. The first is to inform the potential readers of the technical content of the volume. The second is to give an honest opinion on the merit of the papers presented at the meeting, including an evaluation of the probable worthwhileness of reading the proceedings at all. The first task is somewhat simplified in the present case beause Moore and Scully thoughtfully collected the papers into topical sections and provided a picoreview of each section. I have taken the liberty of using their comments below, often without modification.