Slashdot Mirror
Cracking the Quicksilver Code
wka writes "Todd Garrison describes in detail how he solved the cryptographic puzzle promoting Neal Stephenson's forthcoming book Quicksilver, and the reward for his effort. Stephenson himself calls Garrison's story 'remarkable' because Garrison was completely unfamiliar with the system of writing (Real Character) used in the puzzle. Also, Stephenson notes that the system and its creator play roles in The Baroque Cycle."
What I think Real Character does is break up not the english language, but the ideas the words in that language represent. Those ideas exist in almost all languages for the largest part - so if you know what eacht "break up" means, you get a description of what the character means, in your own language.
The system might, for example, have a way of saying "this word is a noun, it's something abstract, it's something postive", etc., and you might end up with something that can only mean "good". "Good" in itself is an english word, but if you know the sytem, you could still apply it using another language, and come up with the meaning of the character in your language, or, if you're advanced enough, you might be able to understand the meaning without having to translate (that's how really knowing a language works - you know what is ment by words without having to think about/translate them).
That way, this system'd allow for people who speak totally different languages to understand eachother by describing the meaning of words using a universal system. At least, that's what I think it does. Can anyone confirm?
Although he doesn't seem to understand a lot of the underlying technicalities, Stephenson seems to have a poking hard-on for crytography. The science of "hacking" has become the sexy niece of the more stolid scientific arts, validating anyone who's ever pushed a slide rule or logged on to a serial console.
Bestselling yarns from Stephenson, Tom Clancy, and others get a lot of praise from geeks. Geeks are usually notoriously persnickety about minutae, but it seems that beloved authors like Stephenson and the late Douglas Adams get a free pass.
What is it about the relationship between geeks and authors? The author takes a relatively mundane scientific field and uses it as a base for a typical hollywood story, usually betraying his interest and love for the scientific field (sometimes begun in his/her childhood).
In response, geeks buy the book en masse, and they don't pick apart the bad science (like they usually do in lesser books). They become fans-for-life of the author who has tipped the cap to them.
So there's like a symbiotic relationship at work. The author who's looking for new frontiers, new avenues of masculinity (a great race car driver is dull and trite, but a great hacker is new and sexy). And the geek who might not have the most exciting job in the world, but he loves it...and he loves his job being validating in a book or movie more than anything else.
Is this cultural phenomenon unique to the US? Or do the schlocky escapist maestros in Japan, Germany, or Italy mix so well with the taciturn gadgeteers of those locales? It's really an interesting parasocial relationships.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Starts off well, but loses it long before the fairly disappointing conclusion. It didn't make me want to rush out and get Cryptonomicon, which I've never bothered to read.
There are plenty of better writers out there.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
CIA Kryptos Sculpture
CIA Website
ABC News Article