I actually thought Angels and Demons was considerably more fun than the Da Vinci Code. It was silly as all hell, and as badly written as its more famous sequel, but it made a more entertaining badly written silly action novel than the DVC. I’m confident the movie version next year will suck, though.

I think that the list is of the most popular books that people have on their bookshelves but haven’t read. Here is how I would explain Angels and Demons‘ place on the list: an obscene amount of people read The DaVinci Code and ‘loved’ it. The next time they were at Barnes and Noble, they noticed ‘hey, Dan Brown has written more than book. Since I absolutely loved The DaVinci Code, I should buy that.’ They thus bought it but then never read it. And that’s how it got on the list.

http://amelo14.wordpress.com/2005/12/09/reflections-on-the-desire-to-read/

I think this is what Al means. The standard view is that while:
(1) You can’t know p unless p.
(2) You can’t know p without a justification for the belief that p.
It is nevertheless the case that:
(3) The justification condition necessary for knowledge of p’s truth could be satisfied if S possesses a justification, J, such that it is possible for someone to possess J even if ~p.

It is not the false view that someone who knows p could satisfy the justification condition while also having a false belief about p. The falsity of the belief might not show that knowledge fails for the reason that the J condition wasn’t satisfied. The falsity of the belief shows that knowledge fails because even if the J condition is satisfied, the T condition is not.

The J and T conditions are thought to be independent conditions necessary for knowledge in the way that, say, the T and B conditions are necessary. So, surely someone could satisfy the B condition necessary for knowing p even if ~p. The same idea is what Al has in mind for the J condition.