Slashdot Mirror


Tetraktys

brothke writes "Imagine for a moment what his novels would read like if Dan Brown got his facts correct. The challenge Brown and similar authors face is to write a novel that is both compelling and faithful to the facts. In Tetraktys, author Ari Juels is able to weave an interesting and readable story, and stay faithful to the facts. While Brown seemingly lacks the scientific and academic background needed to write such fiction, Juels has a Ph.D. in computer science from Berkeley and is currently the Chief Scientist and director at RSA Laboratories, the research division of RSA Security." Read below for the rest of Ben's review. Tetraktys author Ari Juels pages 351 publisher Emerald Bay Books rating Excellent debut novel by Ari Juels reviewer Ben Rothke ISBN 978-0982283707 summary Intriguing cryptographic thriller The book, which might be the world's first cryptographic thriller, tells the story of Ambrose Jerusalem, a gifted computer security expert, still haunted by his father's death, a few months shy of his doctorate, who has a beautiful and loving girlfriend, and a bright future ahead of him. This is until the government gets involved and Jerusalem's plans are put on hold when the NSA asks him to join them to track down a strange and disturbing series of computer breaches.

Tetraktys, like similar thrillers, has its standard set of characters; from corrupt State Department and World Bank officials, a dashing protagonist with a long-suffering girlfriend, to mysterious and obscure terrorist groups. This terrorist group is in the book is comprised of followers of Pythagoras.

As to the title, a tetraktys is a triangular figure of ten points arranged in four rows, with one, two, three, and four points in each row. It is a mystical symbol and was most important to the followers of Pythagoras. While mainly known as the creator of the Pythagorean theorem, Pythagoras of Samos was an influential Greek mathematician and founder of the religious movement of Pythagoreanism. Those wanting more information can watch a video about the symbol.

As to the storyline, the NSA is trying to recruit Ambrose as they feel that the terrorists, who form a secret cult of followers of Pythagoras have broken the RSA public-key algorithm. Breaking RSA is something that is not expected for many decades, but if a revolution in factoring numbers were to occur sooner, RSA's demise could happen that much quicker. And if RSA was indeed broken by the antagonists, it would undermine the security of nearly every government and financial institution worldwide and create utter anarchy.

A good part of the book centers on the cult of Pythagoras. Its followers believe that truth and reality can only be understood via their system of numbers. The NSA needs Jerusalem's assistance as he is one of the few people who have the mathematical, classical and philosophical background to help them. It is he who ultimately connects the dots that the Pythagoreans have left, which leads to the books dramatic conclusion.

The book is a most enjoyable read and one is hard pressed to put it down once they start reading it. The reader gets a good understanding of who Pythagoras was and his worldview via Juels weaving of Pythagorean philosophy into the storyline.

While the book is not autobiographical, there are many similarities between Ambrose Jerusalem and Ari Juels. From identical initials, to their lives in events in Berkeley and Cambridge, to RSA and more.

For a first book of fiction, Tetraktys is a great read. As a novelist, Juels style approaches that of Umberto Eco, in that he weaves numerous areas of thought into an integrated story. Like Eco's works, Tetraktys has an arcane historical figure as part of it storyline, and an intricate plot that takes the reader on many, and some unexpected, turns. While not as complex and difficult to read as Eco, Tetraktys is a remarkable work of fiction for someone with a doctorate in computer science, not literature.

The book though does have some gaps, but that could be expected for a first novel. The reader is never sure what the Pythagoreans are really after or why they have resurfaced, and one of the characters is killed, for reasons that are not apparent. Readers who want more information can visit the Tetraktys web site.

As to the book's protagonist, Ambrose Jerusalem is to Juels what Jack Ryan is to Tom Clancy, meaning that his adventures are just beginning, and that is a good thing.

For those interested in a cryptographic thriller, Tetraktys is an enjoyable read. The book interlaces Greek philosophy, mathematics, and modern crime into a cogent theme that is a compelling read. And if the exploits of Ambrose Jerusalem continue, we may have found the successor to Umberto Eco.

Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.

You can purchase Tetraktys from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

216 comments

  1. Talk about getting your facts right! by Java+Pimp · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...tells the story of Ambrose Jerusalem, a gifted computer security expert, ... who has a beautiful and loving girlfriend.

    Yeah right!

    --
    Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
    Kull: She told me she was 19!
    1. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by twiddlingbits · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the first incorrect "fact". Wonder how many others there are.

    2. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think slashdot needs a 'Mary Sue' tag

    3. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by AP31R0N · · Score: 2

      All kidding aside, that bit broke my suspension of disbelief before even picking up the book. Ambrose? Jerusalem? Beautiful AND loving???

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    4. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by Gospodin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's one right in the review: World's first cryptographic thriller? Has he never heard of Cryptonomicon?

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    5. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Beautiful AND loving???

      According to the "attractive, intelligent, sane: pick two" law, she'd have to be out of her gourd.

      (hey, if you can throw around Godwin like it's some kind of holy writ, I want in)

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    6. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      what is the point ????

    7. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      ...tells the story of Ambrose Jerusalem, a gifted computer security expert, ... who has a beautiful and loving girlfriend.

      Yeah right!

      Oh come on, it says he's a gifted computer expert. You don't think he could program his sexbot to "love" him?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      or even the slightly cheesy z4ck which uses a Sharp Zaurus as the key hacking device.

    9. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by inKel · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm not even sure that Cryptonomicon is the first one, but for sure it was previous to this one!

      --
      0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...
    10. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by Dragnl0rd · · Score: 1

      There's one right in the review: World's first cryptographic thriller? Has he never heard of Cryptonomicon?

      If we expand our view to other media, such as movies, then Mercury Rising would also definitely help boot this from the 'world first' spot.

    11. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by magictiger · · Score: 1

      There's even one by Dan Brown himself called Digital Fortress published in 1998. It's probably nowhere near as in-depth and probably crazy inaccurate, but it was a pretty good read.

    12. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While Cryptonomicon would definitely qualify, the assertion would still be false if you only consider the two authors mentioned in the blurb...Dan Brown wrote Digital Fortress which, while not particularly accurate or indicative of much understanding about cryptography, still dealt with the subject.

      At least with Cryptonomicon, the poster can claim to have not known about the author.

    13. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      ...tells the story of Ambrose Jerusalem, a gifted computer security expert, ... who has a beautiful and loving girlfriend.

      Yeah right!

      Its OK if it turns out that the GF was actually in the pay of the Big Bad, tasked with keeping an eye on Our Hero and offing him with some deadly sesame seed if he causes trouble...

      (Am I the only one who actually liked that movie?)

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    14. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Cryptonomicon is both a good WWII thriller and a cryptography thriller. The flaws were relatively minor, like stating that the US Navy's ocean-floor mapping satellite used radar instead of passive gravimetry, or giving the Messerschmitt 262 a range 400 km longer than maximum. When describing a late-war German submarine, the author chose to combine the features of two separate advanced U-bot designs into one. I am not competent to judge his description of the Imperial Japanese Army, it would be interesting to see what surviving Japanese veterans have to say on the subject.

    15. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by rs79 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      " According to the "attractive, intelligent, sane: pick two" law"

      TWO? I've been married twice. How do you get to pick two?

      And fuck Godwin. I said it first. Really.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    16. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by rschwa · · Score: 1

      I stopped reading the review right there.

    17. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...tells the story of Ambrose Jerusalem, a gifted computer security expert, ... who has a beautiful and loving girlfriend.

      Yeah right!

      I think that is what is referred to as suspension of disbelief...

    18. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by 4181 · · Score: 1

      I quite liked that Stephenson devoted half of the "Courting" chapter of Cryptonomicon to graphs and formula showing Waterhouse's modeling of the relation between intellectual productivity, mental clarity, horniness, time since last orgasm, and type of encounter leading to orgasm -- an authentically geeky thing to do -- but I was rather disappointed that he bungled the
      C_m proportional_to lim n->inf 1/(sigma - sigma_c)^n
      equation. I suspect that he was trying to combine a sense of the asymptote in 1/x with the wonder of a series of continuous functions f_n(x)=x^n on [0,1] which point-wise converge to a non-continuous function as n->inf, but it just doesn't work the way he combined them.

      I am surprised that it made it by his editors as I would have thought that a book like his would have been proofread by someone from the intended audience, someone to whom mathematical formula mean more than just a group of mysterious symbols intended to create the proper atmosphere. It's a shame that Stephenson hasn't issued an corrigendum .

    19. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by masterzora · · Score: 1

      I read Digital Fortress and I can't remember if I gave up on even pretending that it was accurate when he said "rotating cleartext" or "let's try the kanji" but, uh, "probably crazy inaccurate" only scratches the surface.

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    20. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by g253 · · Score: 1

      Also, Robert Harris' Enigma is worth reading.

    21. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by oldbamboo · · Score: 1

      God I love Stephenson. Just finishing Quicksilver now. And I have to say, as an inhabitant of London, his accuracy on detail and facts is astonishing. I only spotted one potential error, where he seems to infer that the Thames is not tidal, but even that was a stretch and is plausibly deniable by way of the wording used. I may just be a pedant. On Slashdot, natch!

      The guy blows me away, definitely should have had a major, major bestseller by now, and am convinced that, if he can keep something down to a reasonable size, he has a mainstream success due to him some time soon.

      --
      You may not agree with what I say, but you should fight to the death to allow me to say it, by modding me up.
    22. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by Evildonald · · Score: 1

      This was my immediate first reaction as well.. and then "Can I trust a review from someone who hasn't read Cryptonomicon?"

    23. Re:Talk about getting your facts right! by melanyor · · Score: 1

      There's one right in the review: World's first cryptographic thriller? Has he never heard of Cryptonomicon?

      No, I've never heard about this. What is it?

      --
      Sincerely yours.
  2. Svefg cbfg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never heard of him nor the book before, but I'm in the mood for some fun reading so I'll give it a shot.

    1. Re:Svefg cbfg! by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I've never heard of him nor the book before, but since he's obviously a deeply fascinating and varied guy who writes self-promoting books about the company he works for, I'll give it a shot too.

  3. science? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    While Brown seemingly lacks the scientific and academic background needed to write such fiction, Juels has a Ph.D. in computer science from Berkeley

    Does Computer Science really qualify as "science"? It seems much more like mathematics to me.

    One place where CS might be considered a science is in the empirical characterization of software/computer systems. But even there, the nearly complete lack of statistical rigor shown in C.S. papers suggests a big difference between computer scientists and, for example, physicists.

    1. Re:science? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      It seems much more like mathematics to me.

      And you consider mathematics to be what, art?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:science? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but "Computer Mathematics" just sounds so ridiculous.

    3. Re:science? by Dr+Tall · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Frankly, yes. Art of the most beautiful kind.

    4. Re:science? by Dr+Tall · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It depends what you mean, and I think a lot of people are conflicted about it. If "science" means to make predictive theories about the way the natural world operates, then no, CS isn't science. If "science" means to make claims in a verifiable, empirical, and unbiased fashion (that is, the scientific method), then CS theory proofs and industry debugging seem a lot like science to me.

    5. Re:science? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Informative

      Physicists are trying to discover unknown facts by using known facts and empirical testing.
      .
      Computer professionals have a broader scope. Some of what they do is to create known predictable systems from known facts and known rules. Occasionally, they are asked to discover previously unknown facts from these rules. Perhaps only the latter should be called "Computer Scientists" so as to differentiate them from "Computer Engineers" or "Programmer/Journeymen" or the other different positions involving computers.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    6. Re:science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Computer Math" was the name of my CS class in 1984 when I was in high school.....you insensitive clod!!

    8. Re:science? by halivar · · Score: 1

      Mathematics is science. CS is mathematics. Apply transitivity, and Bob's your uncle.

      One thing I disagree with in your post is the insinuation that mathematics and science are separate entities. I should hope that anyone who's taken upper-level mathematics and upper-level physics knows there are significant points of convergence. When you have distinct fields that are both utilizing the same mathematical principles, there's a fairly strong indication that those disciplines belong together.

      But that's not all. CS (and mathematics as a whole) rely not only tie into physics (and biology, and chemistry), but also into philosophy, linguistics, and a host of other seemingly completely unrelated fields. CS is not only a true science, it is in fact the single point of convergence for almost every other field of science out there, even social sciences.

    9. Re:science? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Really? So what DO you call the use of a computer to solve with "brute force" complex Mathematical problems, like very large prime numbers, or roots of very complex equations, or Computational Fluid Dynamics problems???

    10. Re:science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, so they call it "discrete mathematics" instead.

    11. Re:science? by orkybash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I consider it to be closest to philosophy, though I don't see why it can't be it's own field. Science and mathematics have completely different epistemological outlooks.

      In science, if you say that anything has been "proven", you get laughed out of all respectable circles. Instead, you demonstrate a hypothesis by providing experimental evidence.

      In mathematics, if you say that something has been demonstrated by empirical evidence, you get laughed out of all respectable circles. Instead, you need to prove everything rigorously.

      Hopefully you can see a fundamental difference.

    12. Re:science? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Computing.

    13. Re:science? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Too broad, that term is vastly overused. There are distinct differences in each area of application of computing power. I know, I've worked in many of them in my 30 yrs of Software/Systems.

    14. Re:science? by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      Sorry but mathematics != science. Math is used in science but math is not science. Just because "upper-level mathematics and upper-level physics...[have] significant points of convergence" does not mean they are the same. Making that argument is like arguing that statistics and psychology are the same, or at least "belong together", because almost all psychological research relies heavily on statistics.

      Mathematics is a field but it is also a method. Physics (and most other sciences) incorporates mathematics as a method. Mathematics is one of the main languages of science but it is not "science". That's good though because science is fickle but mathematics is much more solid and pure (although it certainly is not perfect or infallible).

    15. Re:science? by wurp · · Score: 1

      Mathematics is not a science - it's its own thing.

      In math, you can prove a theory (theorem) is true: a proof in mathematics is a set of typographical transformations using the rules of a system of mathematics that take you from the lemma in your mathematical system to the thing you're trying to prove. It can be verified by a machine with a VERY high degree of confidence.

      In science, "proving" a theory means you've given a repeatable experiment whose results strongly support your theory. You can never prove something is right, you can only disprove by finding a counterexample.

    16. Re:science? by morcego · · Score: 1

      So what ? You asked him what HE calls it.

      I like to call it "Bob" myself.

      --
      morcego
    17. Re:science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too broad, that term is vastly overused. There are distinct differences in each naming of Robert, Bob and Bobby. I know, I've worked with many of them in my 30 yrs of Software/Systems.

    18. Re:science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Science is to computer science as hydrodynamics is to plumbing" -anon

    19. Re:science? by ajs · · Score: 1

      Mathematics is science. CS is mathematics.

      No and yes, respectively.

      Math and science are related fields, but certainly not the same thing. Math seeks to explain relationships in terms of a system of logic and reasoning. This is a required precursor of the development of science, but simply demonstrating that a relationship is logically consistent is insufficient in science. It must also be demonstrated that it bears out in the real world. This is why, for example, many physicists consider string theory to be very lovely math, but math none the less.

    20. Re:science? by halivar · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Mathematics, like all other sciences, is the study of a collection of models that are built methodologically. Hypothesis, testing, and proof are used to create and verify these models, just like physics, biology, or chemistry. That those models may or may not have concrete operational representation makes no difference. Furthermore, Computer Science is also the study of a subset of these models that do, in fact, have real-life representation.

      Also, I'm having a hard time understanding your statistics/psychology analogy. Are you suggesting one or both of these are not sciences?

    21. Re:science? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Mathematics is science. CS is mathematics. Apply transitivity, and Bob's your uncle.

      You can apply whatever you want, and my uncle's name still isn't going to be 'Bob', therefore, you fail.

    22. Re:science? by halivar · · Score: 1

      All sciences seek to explain relationships in terms of a system of logic and reasoning. The difference is what kind of relationships they are trying to explain. The relationship between mass and energy; the relationship between recreational drugs and the human brain; the relationship between a buttress and gravity; the relationship between two people; the relationship between a sphere's surface area and its radius. All these things are modeled by their respective fields of science to organize, explain, and predict. In this manner, mathematics is no different that other fields of science.

    23. Re:science? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      In science, if you say that anything has been "proven", you get laughed out of all respectable circles. Instead, you demonstrate a hypothesis by providing experimental evidence.

      The term for these is "natural sciences", they are a subset of "science".

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    24. Re:science? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's not science. Applied mathematics might be a kind of science, but pure math is sort of quantitative philosophy.

    25. Re:science? by Sinbios · · Score: 1

      And you consider goatse to be what, art?

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    26. Re:science? by ekhben · · Score: 1

      And in computer science, if you say that something has been proven, or you say that something has been demonstrated by empirical evidence, you get laughed out of all respectable circles.

      Instead, you need to shout louder than the other participants in the debate.

    27. Re:science? by Glyphn · · Score: 1

      Also, I'm having a hard time understanding your statistics/psychology analogy. Are you suggesting one or both of these are not sciences?

      He's just saying that significant points of convergence (or overlap) isn't the same thing as identity. I.e. that mathematics isn't science just because of the overlap or reliance of upper-level physics (whatever that is) with mathematics. Differences matter too.

    28. Re:science? by halivar · · Score: 1

      Bob's my brother's name. Look, there's something I need to tell you. It's about your mother...

    29. Re:science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, yes. Art of the most disturbing kind.

    30. Re:science? by Skrynesaver · · Score: 3, Funny
      An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician were holidaying in Scotland. Glancing from a train window, they observed a black sheep in the middle of a field.

      "How interesting," observed the astronomer, "all Scottish sheep are black!"

      To which the physicist responded, "No, no! Some Scottish sheep are black!"

      The mathematician gazed heavenward in supplication, and then intoned, "In Scotland there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."

      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
  4. First cryptographic thriller? by sys.stdout.write · · Score: 4, Informative

    which might be the world's first cryptographic thriller

    Toast by Charles Stross would be a counterexample to this ludicrous claim.

    1. Re:First cryptographic thriller? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2, Informative

      which might be the world's first cryptographic thriller

      Toast by Charles Stross would be a counterexample to this ludicrous claim.

      Little Brother by Cory Doctorow counts, too. Maybe a bit further away from literature, but it's more than a match for a Brown or Clancy novel.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    2. Re:First cryptographic thriller? by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      not to mention Simple Simon (which was turned into Mercury Rising.)

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:First cryptographic thriller? by Jason69 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You would think since the submitter referenced Dan Brown in the review, he would have recognized that Digital Fortress, a cryptographic thriller by Dan Brown, was published before this book.

    4. Re:First cryptographic thriller? by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1

      Does Enigma, by Robert Harris also count as a cryptographic thriller? First edition was 1995.

    5. Re:First cryptographic thriller? by cduffy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Digital Fortress has nothing to do with actual cryptography, as any reader with even the most remote amount of background knowledge could attest.

      I had the misfortune to read that worthless dreck, which permanently cured me of any desire to purchase or read another book by Dan Brown.

      Hmm -- maybe that gives it at least some worth.

    6. Re:First cryptographic thriller? by Loquis · · Score: 1

      Thought Edgar Allen Poe's The Gold-Bug was considered the first, if not how about Arther Conan Doyles - The Adventure of the Dancing Men

  5. Cryptonomicon??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The book, which might be the world's first cryptographic thriller"

    Perhaps the reviewer has never heard of Cryptonomicon....

    1. Re:Cryptonomicon??? by sys.stdout.write · · Score: 0, Troll

      Notice how my comment above beat yours and also did the quote tag correctly ;-)

      Cryptonomicon is a decent example, but I'm not sure it is a "thriller" in the sense meant by the author.

    2. Re:Cryptonomicon??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and also did the quote tag correctly ;-)

      Says the noob with a 1.5MM+ UID. There is more than one way to format a quote here, asshat.

    3. Re:Cryptonomicon??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Perhaps the reviewer felt, as I did, that the only thrill in Cryptonomicon was returning it to the library.

    4. Re:Cryptonomicon??? by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

      Digital Fortess, also by Dan Brown, is a year older than that and centers around cryptograpohy. Though it is Fiction.

      --
      from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    5. Re:Cryptonomicon??? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      Digital Fortess, also by Dan Brown, is a year older than that and centers around cryptograpohy. Though it is Fiction.

      It also happens to be possibly the worst piece of fiction ever written. Dan, if you read slashdot I'm sorry for the insult. But I read that craptastic book of yours and didn't get an apology or refund from you either. In fact, the only reason I read past the first 100 pages was that I just couldn't believe that it could be this bad - it had to get better soon. By the time I reached halfway I just finished it out of pure irony. Then I passed it off on a coworker to see if it was just me. He had the same experience (sorry Alex). If you ever need an example of how not to write a book, "Digital Fortress" is it.

  6. slashdot editors must live in caves by peter303 · · Score: 1

    For believing these claims. WRONG!

    1. Re:slashdot editors must live in caves by sys.stdout.write · · Score: 1

      Dude, if you know of a way to get Internet access in a cave let me know, because that would be totally sweet.

      I'd totally register the domain stalac-site.

    2. Re:slashdot editors must live in caves by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      what claims?

    3. Re:slashdot editors must live in caves by twiddlingbits · · Score: 2, Funny

      OSAMA?? Is that you??? I got this guy from the Government that is here to help you with your cave...

    4. Re:slashdot editors must live in caves by TheLink · · Score: 1

      How about using tubes?

      You could put stuff like wires in the tubes. Or just use them as waveguides.

      --
  7. Excuse me, but... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Funny

    Isn't "cryptographic thriller" an oxymoron?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Excuse me, but... by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Short Answer: "No"
      Cryptographic Answer: "Ab"

      Cryptographic Mystery, might be though.

    2. Re:Excuse me, but... by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      I've been up for 2 days, scratch that... that's something else that I can't remember the word for...

      But, still Cryptographic Thriller isn't an oxymoron, the thrill could be from deciphering what's encrypted, and something doesn't have to make sense, to be a thrill. Some drugs are like that, you don't *really* know WTF is going on chemically, or in general, but it's a thrill. There are some movies like that as well, on the first viewing, you get a couple glimpses of what the whole story might be, but it's not till the second (or more) viewing (deciphers) that it makes complete sense.

      Why not a book?

      fuckit, I'll go to bed.

    3. Re:Excuse me, but... by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      not @ all.

      why should it be?

    4. Re:Excuse me, but... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      1 word: Coventry

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  8. What? by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Imagine for a moment what his novels would read like if Dan Brown got his facts correct.

    That's like asking me to imagine what an Agatha Christie novel would read like if no one committed a crime.

    1. Re:What? by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Funny

      Asking people to imagine a Dan Brown where he got his fact straight is closer to asking people to imagine what an Agatha Christie novel would read like if set in a postapocalyptic future where giant mutant weasels fight off vampire dogs aided by elves from a parallel universe, in a metaphor for the fifth century Roman Empire and the collapse of the Catholic church.

      Performed as a play written in iambic pentameter, and directed by Spike Lee.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I represent a leading film firm, and I'd like to talk to you about optioning this script for a Summer 2011 release!

    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh man! I'd so pay money for that!

    4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, just like a Dan Brown novel with correct facts, that sounds almost as awesome as it does improbable.

    5. Re:What? by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're going to have to talk to Agatha Christie's estate. The play is called 'The Mousetrap', it's been running for over 50 years in West End.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    6. Re:What? by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 1

      Ever since I saw The Mousetrap, I've been very suspicious of Miss Marple's true reasons for always being there when someone has been murdered...

    7. Re:What? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      Asking people to imagine a Dan Brown where he got his fact straight is closer to asking people to imagine what an Agatha Christie novel would read like if set in a postapocalyptic future where giant mutant weasels fight off vampire dogs aided by elves from a parallel universe, in a metaphor for the fifth century Roman Empire and the collapse of the Catholic church.

      Performed as a play written in iambic pentameter, and directed by Spike Lee.

      Which is, strangely enough, exactly what happens in the @$$clown's next novel!

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    8. Re:What? by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      She's a ghoul. She eats the dead.

      As opposed to Poirot, who, of course, is a necrophiliac.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    9. Re:What? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      No, you're confused. The plotline itself isn't in the next novel.

      His next novel, called 'The Play's The Thing', is about a lost Agatha Christie 'novel' (although actually a play) with that plot, secretly directed by Spike Lee at a theatre on 'Underground Broadway'.

      It eventually turns out this Agatha Christie novel was used to send a message through time revealing who Shakespeare really was.

      Spoiler: Shakespeare is really Arthur Miller, a fact the Actors' Equity Association has been covering up for 900 years.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    10. Re:What? by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      NO! NO! NO!!!! Read the intro to Da Vinci code. Dan Brown prides himself on his fact checking. That is what drives people crazy.

    11. Re:What? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Imagine for a moment what his novels would read like if Dan Brown got his facts correct.

      You could conceivably have a factually accurate mystery/thriller. But the result of the above thought experiment would be a factually accurate book that reads like it was written by a semi-literate 4th grader. Dan Brown's writing deficiencies go far beyond the ridiculously improbably fantasy of the content. The fucker has no skill at pacing, plot, characterization, or even choosing appropriate vocabulary. But hey, kudos to him for getting people to buy his asinine tripe.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    12. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hastings, a giant mutant weasel mutated by the presence of the universe-rift, comes back wounded from the front and stays at the house of an old family friend, a philanthropic alt-universe elflady. She gets murdered. He calls in ex-police detective Achilleus Poirot, one of the few surviving Imperial human refugees from the bloodsucking bitch beastpack that has conquered Belgium and much of the continent. The whole thing turns out to be a plot by a two-timing collector of royal women and a thinly disguised stand-in for poor Galla Placidia, who in fact has been said in the past to have resembled weasels and goblins in her portraits.

      The work is best known for a single dramatic monologue, Poirot's famous speech which begins:

      "Messieurs, mesdames, as you all know,
      I was called in to take this case
      By Jonel Cafendidd, and now
      You must be wondering why you
      Have all been called together...."

    13. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you ever read Free Zone?

    14. Re:What? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Yes, the fact that Dan Brown prides himself on fact checking does, indeed, drive people crazy. I have absolutely no objection to that statement at all.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    15. Re:What? by neonsignal · · Score: 2

      I find your ideas intriguing, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    16. Re:What? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I love how people suddenly hate Dan Brown. The guy writes fiction. Emphasis on the fiction. The cranky pants who have to repeat how Dan Brown sucks several times in their Slashdot submission are just irritated because they got sucked into believing The DaVinci Code was a documentary. The same thing goes for Michael Crichton, until he went crazy and started including conspiracy theory essays as appendices.

    17. Re:What? by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 1

      I don't suddenly hate Dan Brown. I've hated Dan Brown since I tried to read Angels & Demons when it came out nine years ago.

    18. Re:What? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Ah, but did you feel the need to tell us all about your hate before he hit the big time?

    19. Re:What? by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 1

      If the subject came up, as it did in this case, yes I would. Whether or not something is popular has nothing to do with my like or dislike of it or my willingness to say so.

    20. Re:What? by Skrynesaver · · Score: 1

      You owe me a new keyboard, or at least first option on the manuscript ;)

      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
    21. Re:What? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I didn't say I hate him. I said his books were as factually inaccurate.

      His 'research' is just random nonsense with names and dates and words all thrown in he doesn't understand at all.

      Hell, the work that makes the most sense is The da Vinci Code, and that's because the facts and story were ripped off from a book of pseudohistory claptrap called Holy Blood, Holy Grail, so at least these facts were moderately consistent in what could have happened.

      Note when I talk about 'facts' like that, I'm not talking about actual fictional things like Jesus being married, I'm talking about the framework of facts that he builds his fiction around.

      Like in my parody, the idea that Shakespeare's play were written by someone else, and there's a conspiracy to hide it, is an interesting concept to write a book around. Maybe they were written by Pope Gregory XIII, or Queen Elizabeth I. Who knows. Tell us some exciting story, I'm okay with it.

      But the idea that they were written by playwright Arthur Miller, who was born in 1915, and the conspiracy was created by the Actors' Equity Association, which was founded in 1913, is sheer total gibberish.

      And it's the sort of gibberish that Dan Brown would just use in his books with no mention or realization it makes no sense. No handwave or anything, he'd just assume that we'd be okay with the concept that Shakespeare's plays were written in 1935 or whenever. Because he doesn't know anything about what he writes.

      It's not for nothing he has an expression named after him.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    22. Re:What? by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      me neither... again! :)

  9. Let's be fair by glwtta · · Score: 5, Funny

    While Brown seemingly lacks the scientific and academic background needed to write such fiction

    Now, now, let's not leave out literary background from that list.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:Let's be fair by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      And 'culture' background.

      And 'human being' background, while we're at it. (Dan Brown is actually an AI feed by Usenet conspiracy and pseudoscience groups.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    2. Re:Let's be fair by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      And don't forget the 'not having down's syndrome' background.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    3. Re:Let's be fair by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Now, now. The man is an English teacher; his inspiration to take up writing was a Sidney Sheldon novel (as, in, I can do better than this tripe). That's not exactly a high bar; nor is it his fault that hitting on conspiracy theory as a plot is something the public will drink like free whicky in Inverness.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  10. "World first?" by TerranFury · · Score: 2, Informative

    brothke starts a sentence,

    The book, which might be the world's first cryptographic thriller[...].

    which of course isn't true. E.g., Cryptonomicon.

    1. Re:"World first?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crypto-who-i-what?

    2. Re:"World first?" by CByrd17 · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly what I thought of first.

    3. Re:"World first?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and Digital Fortress (by Dan Brown) which was... horrible.

    4. Re:"World first?" by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      'which might' he wrote. so he is still technically correct. and besides the fact, Cryptonomicon is way tooo long!!! I got bored after the 8th repetition.

    5. Re:"World first?" by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

      Digital Fortress (Dan Brown) has some cryptology thrills in it as well, a year prior to Cryptonomicon

      --
      from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    6. Re:"World first?" by ranimsm · · Score: 1

      Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson was a great read. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptonomicon)

      Daemon by Daniel Suarez also had encryption and security as one of its themes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(novel)

    7. Re:"World first?" by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      No, he's not. There is no way it 'might' be the first, since we all know for a fact that it is not (and this isn't one of those 'facts' like the earth is round, or 'just the tip'). This fact is sitting on my bookshelf.

    8. Re:"World first?" by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      I'm currently struggling to get through Cryptonomicon, though that may be because of Stephenson's verbosity. (Owning and having previously read Snow Crash and Anathem, I really should nave known what I was getting into). On the other hand, Daemon is a book that I had a hard time putting down.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
    9. Re:"World first?" by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      might implies it is not definite. So he is still technically correct. As in 'this MIGHT be the biggest upset in sports' Might is the key word here. and even so, whats the big deal. this is a tiny error in the book review. so what? this might be a non-issue. no, this IS a non-issue :)

    10. Re:"World first?" by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      By your logic, I might have a ten foot penis.

      Its not a big deal, but it completely discredits the reviewer. If the reviewer is so obviously not familiar with the genre, I have little reason to trust his opinion.

    11. Re:"World first?" by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      wow, i am too overwhelmed by your sense of truth to reply.

    12. Re:"World first?" by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      also, that was such a minimal part of the review, why make a deal over it? must a person be an expert in the genre to write a review? if that is the case, maybe i should not write a review.

  11. Poor Dan Brown by sunking2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure he's crying all the way to the bank. Maybe the reason he writes his books lacking technical authenticity is at least in part because that's what people want to read?

    1. Re:Poor Dan Brown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't aware that people read science fiction to find out what was possible today....

    2. Re:Poor Dan Brown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Part of what makes the slashdot we know and love are those personalities driven to ignore the main point of something solely for the sake of pedantry. How can they enjoy a work of fiction when some of the facts are made-up?

    3. Re:Poor Dan Brown by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe the reason he writes his books lacking technical authenticity is at least in part because that's what people want to read?

      That's what some people want to read. Hell, maybe even most people. But as long as there are enough people who want to read books with a technical gimmick where the technical part isn't complete gibberish, this one sounds like a good bet. Not every author has to write for every reader, you know? And the fact that Brown's books are popular doesn't make him immune from criticism.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Poor Dan Brown by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      Or maybe, they just don't care about authenticity in their fiction and it doesn't affect them either way.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    5. Re:Poor Dan Brown by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      I think he writes books lacking technical authenticity because fact checking and research are hard, expensive prospects and the vast majority of Americans are far to dumb to know the difference. Why spend a million dollars on extra research so you can sell a few thousand more copies to the few nerds who give a shit and can tell the difference?

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    6. Re:Poor Dan Brown by radtea · · Score: 1

      Maybe the reason he writes his books lacking technical authenticity is at least in part because that's what people want to read?

      As others here have pointed out, his books also lack literary quality... although say that is a bit like saying positrons lack negative charge. Brown's books are the popular antithesis of good fiction. His big hit--whose title I don't recall, thankfully--is a characterless episodic melodrama based on a wild sub-academic speculation regarding the nature of the Holy Grail. The crazy book he ripped the speculation off from is called "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail." [*]

      Brown posits an hallucinatory world that has as much to do with actual academia as "House M.D" has to do with real doctors, without the faintly redeeming feature of Hugh Laurie talking with an American accent.

      And people eat it up. If anyone tried to do the same sort of thing without the egregious stupidities that pepper Brown's work (my favourite: referring to Arabic as "Islamic", and claiming medieval Christian scholars used it as a language to hide secrets because they believed it already profane) they would not get the same readership because Brown is writing for the ignorant majority

      It is a truism of writing that when a struggling but competent author sees a badly written best-seller and says, "I can write way better than that!" their work will never see the light of day, because publishers see "better than that" every day of the year. They don't buy it because they know it won't sell as well as garbage like Brown's. Trying to best Brown by improving literary and factual quality is like trying to best McDonald's by improving nutritional and aesthetic quality. That's not what people in that market are looking for.

      So yeah, you're right: Brown is writing garbage because that's what people want to read, which is kind of sad (for them.)

      [*] Aside: we know that there is up to a 25% chance that a baby will be fathered by someone other than the mother's pair-bonded mate. Even if the crazy speculation is true, therefore, after 100 generations there is conservatively a 1 - 0.9**100 = 99.9973% chance that any nominal progeny of Jesus would not actually be the progeny of Jesus, but the descendant of some lucky medieval interloper. And since Jesus' bother James, and later his nephew, lead the revolutionary Jewish organization Jesus founded, it is not clear why other family members would have to be hidden away, particularly as other people of nominally royal descent were always available to lead as well.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    7. Re:Poor Dan Brown by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1

      "And since Jesus' bother James, and later his nephew, lead the revolutionary Jewish organization Jesus founded, it is not clear why other family members would have to be hidden away, particularly as other people of nominally royal descent were always available to lead as well."

      Don't you mean James along with Peter, John, Barnabas, Paul, etc.? :)

    8. Re:Poor Dan Brown by morcego · · Score: 1

      The crazy book he ripped the speculation off from is called "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail."

      And for anyone too lazy, or for any other reason uninterested in reading that book, just go play Gabriel Knight 3 (Blood of the Sacred; Blood of the Damned). The game was released in 1999. Dan's book was released in 2003. "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" was released in 1980.

      --
      morcego
    9. Re:Poor Dan Brown by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      It sure as hell wouldn't cost a million dollars. A week in a good university library would do the trick.

    10. Re:Poor Dan Brown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Ringo and George!

    11. Re:Poor Dan Brown by pluther · · Score: 1

      Research needn't cost millions of dollars.

      Or even much money at all.

      At Dan Brown's level, it would be nearly free. I read one of his books (Angels & Demons). Ten minutes spent reading the Wikipedia article on antimatter before writing about it could have prevented most of his technical errors there.

      Hell, just having used a cell phone at some point of his life could have prevented the scene where he had the physicist wondering why he couldn't get a dial tone on his mobile phone while deep underground at CERN. But, the plot depended on it, and he's far too lazy of a writer to bother going back to think up something more believable to fix the scene.

      Fortunately for him, his readers are just as lazy, ignorant, and uncreative, so he's pretty much set for life.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  12. First cryptographic fiction? by john82 · · Score: 1

    Imagine for a moment what his novels would read like if Dan Brown got his facts correct... The book, which might be the world's first cryptographic thriller

    Imagine if the reviewer did some research before posting here. Bah! Why bother with even a simple search to see if there are any previous works which might be construed as fiction involving cryptography. You would think that Ben would at least recall Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. If that does not fit ones definition, there's a list suggested by Wikipedia.

    1. Re:First cryptographic fiction? by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Really, Cryptonomicon is heavilly based on fact. Very few of the deviations from the real world in said book were not highly deliberate (since all fiction requires deviation from the real world or they would not be fiction).

      But it is rather how many novels make little or no attempt to follow the facts. But even worse is TV. Look at CSI. That is awful. Similarly 24 is pretty bad in terms of technology realism. One of the few shows I've seen that really tries is Burn Notice. They clearly have a staff of experts who assist in making the portrayal of technology, weapons, and explosives accurate. No GPS trackers that magically transmit the location to a computer. No hackers who magically break into things. Generally speaking none of the mistakes present in absolutely every episode of CSI, 24, or most other technology heavy fictional television programs.

      If other shows tried as hard, many of these other programs would be significantly improved.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    2. Re:First cryptographic fiction? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      The BBC make a radio drama called The Archers (the world's longest running radio series), essentially about farmers/farming somewhere in England. My mum listened to it when I was a child. The credits always ended with "The agricultural story editor was Some One". Presumably he had to check they didn't harvest the crops when the weather was wrong, or have calves being born in the wrong month.

  13. Fiction == Making shit up. by Doug52392 · · Score: 0

    Last time I checked, fiction IS making shit up, not making sure everything's 100% correct and accurate.

    Asking what The Da Vinci Code would be like if the author got the facts right would be like asking what J.R.R. Tolkien's books would be like if he got the facts right.

    1. Re:Fiction == Making shit up. by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you are going to weave history into your fiction or (even worse) if you are writing historical fiction, the actual facts you use should be checked and correct. There are rules to the game. Just as you cannot conjure up a ray gun in a work of fantasy or cast a spell in a hard SF novel (unless you're trying for some cross-genre thing) and not get laughed out of a publishing house, you aren't supposed to play particularly fast and loose on historical facts in a work that is supposedly historically based.

      --
      That is all.
    2. Re:Fiction == Making shit up. by abigor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dan Brown claims 99% correctness with the Da Vinci Code. I'm sure no one would care if he hadn't made that and similar claims.

    3. Re:Fiction == Making shit up. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Tolkien did get the fact rights.

      Which wasn't too hard as he invented those facts in the first place, but whatever.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    4. Re:Fiction == Making shit up. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Making up what is necessary to tell the story is very different from making everything up. The first is, pretty much, what all fiction writers do; the second is pure laziness.

      Tolkien's an interesting example. How do you come up with a believable fantasy world? Well, for one thing, you create a history for it. The history you create has echoes of real history and/or well-known mythology, so it feels right to the reader. You populate your world with people who are products of that history, who live in a self-consistent world and react to their surroundings in believable ways. If you're really dedicated, maybe you even come up with meaningful, believable languages for them to speak. All of which, of course, Tolkien did -- and most fantasy authors don't, which is why poorly thought out sword-and-sorcery epics come and go all the time, while Tolkien's work endures.

      In the case of fiction set in the more-or-less real world, it's both easier and harder. Easier, because most of the worldbuilding is already done for you; harder, because if you make a mistake, there are going to be a hell of a lot of people who know exactly where you went wrong. If you give a damn about your own work, you'll try to do the latter as little as possible, and put just as much effort into your background research as you do into characterization and plot. There are plenty of authors who just don't care, of course, and plenty of readers who don't either; that's their choice, but those of us who do care reserve the right to point and laugh.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:Fiction == Making shit up. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Maybe he meant gramatically.

    6. Re:Fiction == Making shit up. by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1

      Easier, because most of the worldbuilding is already done for you;

      I don't believe authors ought to be involved in what's called "world building". :)

    7. Re:Fiction == Making shit up. by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      And your belief is why we end up with many books that are basically the same formula. Authors should be able to do whatever they want to. If they do it well, their books will sell (in an ideal world).

    8. Re:Fiction == Making shit up. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Apparently you've never read Dan Brown.

    9. Re:Fiction == Making shit up. by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      thank you. yours is the most best reply on this thread.

    10. Re:Fiction == Making shit up. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Why? There are authors who are VERY careful to make their historical fiction as accurate as possible. Patrick O'Brian was famous for that. When he was writing about the Napoleonic Royal Navy he spent most of his time poring over old ships logs.

      Other's don't. They want to tell a story. They're writing fiction, not historical fiction. So long as they don't claim to be writing historical fiction they can do whatever they want.

      Are you suggesting that anything but rigorous historical fiction should just lack any backstory at all? Or should the backstory just be entirely made up and bear so little relationship to reality that it's obviously fiction even to the dumbest person who is actually literate enough to read the book?

      You got caught believing The DaVinci code was real, didn't you?

    11. Re:Fiction == Making shit up. by Theolojin · · Score: 1

      Dan Brown claims 99% correctness with the Da Vinci Code. I'm sure no one would care if he hadn't made that and similar claims.

      Yes, but he also claimed the other 47% was just made up.

      And now the moderators wonder: +1 Funny...or +1 Informative?

      --
      Life is short; think quickly.
  14. Correction: First Cryptographic Thriller by SporkLand · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:Correction: First Cryptographic Thriller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about "The Gold-Bug" by Edgar Allan Poe ?

  15. Oh noes! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    What has the world come to when we can't rely on our works of fiction for our facts! Oh, Discordia!

    1. Re:Oh noes! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Willing suspension of disbelief is easier when you aren't being asked to disbelieve everything you know all at once. In other words, no, people shouldn't rely on fiction for factual information. (Which doesn't stop people from doing it, as the constant "citations" of Gattaca and Jurassic Park in any /. discussion touching on genetics shows nicely.) But for a lot of readers, if the author comes up with a believable background, it makes the story itself a lot more enjoyable.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  16. Dan Brown? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

    Dan Brown is relevant to this review... how?

    Imagine if Stephen King got his facts right about supernatural entities.... Sheesh. There's a reason it's called fiction. The non-fiction section is on the other side of the book store.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:Dan Brown? by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      the difference is that dan brown claims to write accurate historical fiction. Stephen King is pure science fiction.

  17. Kindle Edition? by 1a1n · · Score: 1

    what sort of novel for geeks in 2009 does not have a Kindle edition? This one, i guess... bummer - i was going to buy it - now i'll forget. /i

    1. Re:Kindle Edition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real geeks wouldn't touch a kindle with a 0x0a' pole?

  18. Why do the credentials matter? by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    Many of you saw The Matrix, despite the people behind it lacking a degree in Artificial Intelligence. You all went and saw Transformers, and (might) have enjoyed it. And let's not get started on how many movies are gutted at Bad Astronomy... And yet, despite this, we watch them anyway and enjoy them, despite the technical inconsistencies and writers lacking in super-special-awesome credentials of doom. Odds are, if you're reading this, you don't have those credentials either.

    P.S. Totally posted this from the console of a Gibson. :P

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Why do the credentials matter? by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      as others have posted, Dan Brown says that his fiction is closer to historical truth. that is the reason for the differnce.

    2. Re:Why do the credentials matter? by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

      Quite right (although I wouldn't see Transformers even on a dare.)

      Better examples:
      - William Gibson gleaned the "cyberspace" concept used in Neuromancer from a PBS special he saw on the future of computing.
      - Kate Bush was inspired to write her groundbreaking hit "Wuthering Heights" after seeing the second-half of a BBC adaptation of the book (she read the book afterwords just to fact-check.)

      There's to be sure loads of others.

    3. Re:Why do the credentials matter? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Science includes waivers for inaccuracies which are accompanied by slick slow-mo gunfights or Megan Fox.

    4. Re:Why do the credentials matter? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I think that's the third time I've read this same comment from you, and a couple by others as well. Got a link?

    5. Re:Why do the credentials matter? by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      sorry for the delay. Link... better. Look at the preface to the Da Vinci Code. He writes about accuracy there.

    6. Re:Why do the credentials matter? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Not better. I've read it, but I certainly don't have a copy lying around.

      From the web the only likely statement I could come up with from the book's preface is this:

      âoeAll descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.â

      Is that what you're referring to?

      Strictly interpreted, that means that he didn't make up the description of the appearance of the Mona Lisa, for example. Not that he didn't invent the story of it's provenance. I can't really remember his description of artwork or architecture being inaccurate, and at the time I remember looking a few up to check. Documents and secret rituals are harder to check.

      Either way, that statement doesn't really support "Dan Brown says that his fiction is closer to historical truth."

    7. Re:Why do the credentials matter? by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      >>>Either way, that statement doesn't really support "Dan Brown says that his fiction is closer to historical truth." of course it does, who do u think u r fooling? please. enuff/

  19. It's called creative license by DJRyanJ · · Score: 1

    Brown freely admits that his books are not based entirely in fact. It's called creative license - the facts that Brown has written about weren't quite interesting enough to make his book a bestseller, so rather than that he modifies them a little bit for public consumption.

    1. Re:It's called creative license by fracai · · Score: 1

      Actually, Brown repeatedly contends that his books (at least The Da Vinci Code anyway) are one step away from history books. He has several times stated that the only fiction involved in The Da Vinci Code is the present day action surrounding the main characters. Everything else is claimed to be entirely accurate, including those "facts" which are easily shown to be poorly researched, misinterpretations, or debunked hoaxes.

      --
      -- i am jack's amusing sig file
  20. First crypto thriller? by gknoy · · Score: 1

    the world's first cryptographic thriller

    Cryptonomicon doesn't count as a cryptographic thriller? Perhaps I misunderstood the term. (Not that I'm claiming it's the first, just that it's the first thing that came to mind when I read "cryptographic thriller".)

  21. Dear Slashdot Genii: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has any reader considered the possibility of the N.S.A. breaking public-keys?

    Yours In Akademgorodok
    Kilgore Trout

  22. Horrible Reviewer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The book, which might be the world's first cryptographic thriller, tells the story of Ambrose Jerusalem, a gifted computer security expert, still haunted by his father's death, a few months shy of his doctorate, who has a beautiful and loving girlfriend, and a bright future ahead of him.

    Worst, sentence, ever.

    This terrorist group is in the book is comprised of followers of Pythagoras.

    Was this review written by a second grader? Non-English speaker? Why are you reviewing this book? Go learn English first.

  23. and that's when my eyes started bleeding by corbettw · · Score: 1

    This terrorist group is in the book is comprised of followers of Pythagoras.

    Did Yoda write this review??

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    1. Re:and that's when my eyes started bleeding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Yoda would have written "Comprised of followers of Pythagoras is this terrorist group in the book."

    2. Re:and that's when my eyes started bleeding by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      No, Yoda speaks in Object-Subject-Verb word order. Yoda's version would be:

      Followers of Pythagoris comprised of this terrorist group is.

      That's what I learned in lingusitic anthropology, btw.

    3. Re:and that's when my eyes started bleeding by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yoda spoke grammatically correct, if unconventional, English. Maybe he wrote that sentence in an alternate reality after he'd died and his brain had been rotting in the swamp for a year or two.

  24. imagine? by owlnation · · Score: 1

    Imagine for a moment what his novels would read like if Dan Brown got his facts correct.

    His novels would still read as though written by a cheap hack, whose best friend is cliché.

  25. It's called "fiction" for a reason by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    Since when does any work of fiction have to have the "facts" straight? A good story is a good story and what the "facts" are is entirely irrelevant. You might as well say, "Jules Verne's From The Earth To The Moon would be more interesting if he got his facts straight." Sheesh! go buy an imagination.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:It's called "fiction" for a reason by ekhben · · Score: 1

      Good example!

      Science fiction is best separated from space opera by determining if the events and circumstances in the book are at least self consistent, and preferably consistent with current scientific understanding. Exceptions should be explained, eg, faster than light travel. The explanation does not need to be rigorous, obviously, but it should be self consistent.

      From the Earth to the Moon didn't take into account the massive forces involved in launching something from a cannon into space, but those forces weren't understood at the time. The rest of it was pretty sound.

  26. Reality check by kaizendojo · · Score: 1

    While Brown seemingly lacks the scientific and academic background needed to write such fiction, Juels has a Ph.D. in computer science from Berkeley and is currently the Chief Scientist and director at RSA Laboratories, the research division of RSA Security.

    And while Juels is a Chief Scientist and director at RSA Labs, Dan Brown is a multimillionaire and is currently hanging out in his pool at his palatial mansion and dating smoking hot models and actresses.

    So much for writing *accurate* fiction...

    1. Re:Reality check by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      So do you mean to imply that wealth trumps truth?

    2. Re:Reality check by kaizendojo · · Score: 1

      So do you mean to imply that wealth trumps truth?

      No, I mean to imply that the three people who didn't get the joke don't realize that they're arguing about a fiction book.

  27. Last time I checked by SilverJets · · Score: 1

    The Da Vinci Code was fiction. Exactly what facts should the author of a work of fiction get straight?
    If the morons that read that particular book took it for truth that's their problem not the author's.

  28. plugin required? by bokmann · · Score: 1

    If the author is smart enough to write about 'a gifted computer security expert', why does the video of the tektrakys require a plugin from Microsoft?

    1. Re:plugin required? by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      perhaps the ISP requires that?

  29. CREATIVE LICENSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dan Brown took liberty with Christianity using "creative license".

          To most here thats not a problem, in fact its a badge of honor, anything to distort, obfuscate or lie in order to plant new seeds and do their small part to inflict damage to win new agnostic, atheistic or anarchistic converts to their ranks.

        I dont have a problem with all of that as long as were following that lead and writing the same in regards to Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and whatever fucking ism exists.

        How about Climatism?

        Oh but wait, if one were to write that book and make that movie they would either be a anti-semite, evil right wing gop christian conservative or a GW denier.

    Thats the Slashtard Groupthink so fuck you all, your all fucking doomed anyway and I am enjoying watching the bottom fall out of your plexi-glass houses and the best part, YOU VOTED FOR THIS SHIT.

  30. NUMB3RS by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Sounds like NUMB3RS for the big screen.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:NUMB3RS by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      An awesome series that attempts to explain complex mathematical concepts to the masses.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  31. Suggestion, perhaps? by zephris · · Score: 1

    Could you put the "Book Review" part of the title in the RSS feed? I personally don't find any of the book entries useful and I'd rather avoid them instead of clicking thinking I'm gonna read something that excites me... Not that books don't excite me. The ones listed here, however, do nothing for me. Not even after 10 beers.

  32. Screw Dan Brown's facts, or lack thereof by sirwired · · Score: 1

    Even if Dan Brown were a scrupulous fact-checker, merely weaving in plot points to his collection of "facts", his books would still be complete and utter crap. I tried to get through one and couldn't make it past twenty pages. It was downright painful to read. The dialogue was horrible and the background text even worse.

    SirWired

    1. Re:Screw Dan Brown's facts, or lack thereof by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Dan Brown is actually a giant psychology experiment gone horribly wrong. The thesis was to create a work of fiction that was utterly horrific but create a buzz in literary and entertainment circles to see how the public would respond. Much to the dismay of the research team, the buzz was more effective than they had ever hypothesized. In reality the only real use of a Dan Brown work is to segregate people into two groups... those worth discussing literature with and those with whom to avoid such discussions.

  33. cuckoo's egg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's your geek-cred, guys? There's the Cuckoo's Egg by Clifford Stoll which is a /true/ story whose plots that reads like a novel. If memory serves, the hacker uses a bug in Emacs to gain access to machines. I think it wasn't checking the write permissions before it wrote so any user could over-write system files. Seems insane nowadays.

  34. Enigma? by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1

    The first edition of Robert Harris' Enigma came out in 1995.

  35. Fantasy*? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    On my Slashdot??

    ___
    * Religious topics are a subset of fantasy.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  36. Breaking RSA expected in next few decades? by zindorsky · · Score: 1

    Speaking of "getting your facts right" ...

    Breaking RSA is something that is not expected for many decades

    Um, [citation needed] much? Seriously does anyone expect RSA to be broken in the next few decades?

    Certainly much longer key lengths will be brute-forceable in the next few decades, but that's a far cry from coming up with a polynomial time algorithm that breaks RSA.

    --
    If the geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is not thick.
    1. Re:Breaking RSA expected in next few decades? by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      i thought i read that when quantum crypto goes mainstream in 20 yrs or so, rsa will be broken.

    2. Re:Breaking RSA expected in next few decades? by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Breaking RSA means to to break the problem of factoring a bignum into its prime factors. Since this is essentially a pure mathematical problem, I expect the first one to solve it to be a mathematician, using old fashioned pen and paper (and not a quantum computer).

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    3. Re:Breaking RSA expected in next few decades? by 4181 · · Score: 1

      Since this is essentially a pure mathematical problem, I expect the first one to solve it to be a mathematician, using old fashioned pen and paper (and not a quantum computer).

      Indeed it was a mathematician, Peter Shor, who using old fashioned pen and paper solved how to do such factoring on a quantum computer.

    4. Re:Breaking RSA expected in next few decades? by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      did he give any estimiates on when quantum factoring will be ready for prime time? and when it would break RSA?

    5. Re:Breaking RSA expected in next few decades? by 4181 · · Score: 1

      any estimiates on when quantum factoring will be ready for prime time? and when it would break RSA?

      That is an important question (one I do not have any answer to), but it is a question for physicists and engineers. The point was only that the mathematics for quantum factoring has already been done.

  37. I miss Robert L. Forward by shewfig · · Score: 1

    Sci-fi written by a JPL scientist, well-written, with compelling stories and characters... and knowing that all of it, however fantastic it sounded (e.g. life on a neutron star), was completely plausible...

  38. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So let me get this straight. The Author shares the same initials as the books hero who has a beautiful and loving girlfriend and is the only person on earth who can save the world from terrorists. This sounds a lot like Stephen Colbert Presents Stephen Colbert's Alpha Squad 7: A Tek Jansen Adventure.

  39. No no no by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Digital Fortress is as real as the sequels to The Matrix and the prequels to Star Wars. It has never existed and never will. For your own safety, shut up now.

  40. Now, now, in fairness to Dan Brown by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

    He doesn't just make little mistakes. He makes such amazingly wrong claims that they are worth reading by themselves. And it doesn't matter what the subject is. He can screw up math, religion science or philosophy. The most directly relevant work for for this thread is Brown's Digital Fortress. My favorite part of that is the part where he clearly doesn't understand public key cryptography. He thinks that one needs to exchange a secret key to use public key cryptography. Of course, the whole point is that you don't need to do that. I'm not quite sure if Dan just didn't do the research http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch or is so pigheaded that after reading about public key crypto it didn't fit in with his intuition about how crypto should behave and so he just completely misremembered it. And that's only one of the many serious problems with Brown's works.

    1. Re:Now, now, in fairness to Dan Brown by Madsy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Digital Fortress *really* sucked. I mean, it was so dumb and full of flaws I found it insulting. The protagonist (a cryptographer) didn't even understand an obvious anagram clue until the very end of the book. And failing cooling systems made a computer explode. Brown also seems confused regarding the difference between bits and bytes. They also put machines to work on decrypting something without knowing which algorithm to use. It's quite sad.

  41. Zero availability by beef3k · · Score: 1

    Well, definitely sounds interesting but there's nowhere to buy this thing it seems. Amazon's stock is depleted and I can't find it anywhere else...

  42. Or for something far far cheesier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was always the movie "Cryptic Seduction"....

    1. Re:Or for something far far cheesier by RoboJ1M · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the one with Sandra Bullock? ?:\

  43. Re: Technical Accuracy vs. Writing Skill by billstewart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are people who can present interesting technical or philosophical discussions in fiction and do it well; there are far more who can do it really badly, and some of them can get editors to publish their work for them :-) IMHO, "better novel writer than Dan Brown" is a fairly low bar to jump, as is (to pick a much more important writer in a different technical field) "better novel writer than Ayn Rand"... I haven't read Tetrakys, so I'm not going to judge its literary merits.

    Cryptonomicon is probably the canonical novel in the field - Neal got away with enough rambling that he was allowed to write a far longer Baroque trilogy after that, but so much of the fun with Cryptonomicon was that back when it came out, we _knew_ most of the characters (and even if you didn't recognize the specific individuals, most people in the tech startup world at least knew them as archetypes, and the getting-venture-funding and literary-critic-girlfriend bits were dead on as well as totally over the top.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  44. Wait a minute by dr.banes · · Score: 1

    I read Digital Fortress and I think it was his first novel, I thought it was ok at best, pretty amateur... Why are they calling Dan Brown out on this? This guy writes fiction. Without getting into a religious debate with every Googler and Wikipedia addict on the net, there was a time when people read books and contrary to popular belief not every fact or theory is on the net. The problem with Mr, Brown is that he really irked Christians and Catholics alike. How can you call Jesus a regular man? And that he had feelings like other men? How dare he...lol

  45. ebook format? by vanyel · · Score: 1

    You would think a book written by a computer guy would be available in a modern format...

  46. World's first cryptographic thriller? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cryptonomicon was great but certainly not the first...

    Has he not heard of Poe's "The Gold Bug" or Doyle's "The Adventure of the Dancing Men" (with Sherlock Holmes)...?

  47. Well it's not like he could have checked Wikipedia by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    I mean, it's a non-authoritative source and everything. Totally unreliable. Useless.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  48. The Illuminatus! trilogy slaps Dan Brown... by scalpod · · Score: 0

    ...upside down. The only good this hack has accomplished is shoving his friend John Langdon, ambigram designer and artistic genius ,further into the public's eye.

    --
    If "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and "it was beauty that killed the beast" then "please stop staring at me".
  49. You lost me at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fts: "a few months shy of his doctorate, who has a beautiful and loving girlfriend, and a bright future ahead of him.".

    Yeah.... nonplausible premise....fail.

  50. Umberto Eco? by Proto23 · · Score: 1

    Compare this book with the work of Umberto Eco, post-modernist literature? You got to be kidding, right?

    1. Re:Umberto Eco? by jaysonsings · · Score: 1

      Ok, I don't know much, well anything about Umberto Eco. So what is the problem with the comparison?

  51. Boo! No Kindle edition by MojoSF · · Score: 1

    Tried to buy it for my Kindle and couldn't. :(

  52. Anyone have the book for sale? by FtDFtM · · Score: 1

    Would love to get my hands on the book, but Amazon is out and the general printing isn't until September.