Isn't it a stylistic issue? Some people do standard book reviews, chapter 1, chapter 2,chapter x..... Others write a more macro-approach to the book. Is one better? Matter of opinion.
According to you, the New York Times review which he quotes should not have been published either. Should Slashdot have a policy stricter than the NY Times:)
Yes, Bamford has contributed a lot, but that does not give him license to misrepresent facts and connects dots that are not there.
Why can he claim that Homeopathy is worthless, because the various tests prove it is.
>>>It is said about Homeopathy that it works on a subtle level
And what 'exactly' is that subtle level?
>>>I doubt the author is an expert in subtle, subliminal or realms other than just the sense to claim that homeopathy or other such things are worthless.
As to your comment of 'So what? Anybody with half a brain already knew that alternative medicine is a scam.', there are billions of people that are gullible. That is precisely what the book is trying to do. Educate them, and protect them.
Nmap grew in functionality as a direct result of Google's sponsorship of the program in the summer of code. With those programmers, Fyoder could have never done it on his own. He has said as much and knows that. All of these criticisms all have their base in people being jealous of Fyodor's success. It is that simple.
As to your comment 'How can someone call the reference guide well written, then five sentences later say that the book explains commands not documented elsewhere', there is a difference between 'undocumented' and 'not documented elsewhere'.
My understanding is undocumented is more of an active attempt to keep under wraps.
Not documented elsewhere is something that someone never got around to writing about.
And as to the comment 'this lends credibility to Fyodor's detractors', since when does he have detractors? And who are they?
No one really cares, nor did they ask about it. So the question is, why do you feel the need to share that bit of irrelevant information? Yes, everyone is vulnerable to social engineering. Is this the best security tool around, heck yes.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it a stylistic issue?
Some people do standard book reviews, chapter 1, chapter 2,chapter x.....
Others write a more macro-approach to the book.
Is one better?
Matter of opinion.
That is absolute nonsense.
With zero empirical evidence.
>>>>The problem is not the lack of time spent on creativity, it is a lack of creativity from schooling.
Semantics no?
Decent review, and reviewers observations seems correct.
Make sure you read the second, updated edition.
Even better than the first edition.
So you are saying Bamford is beyond approach?
According to you, the New York Times review which he quotes should not have been published either. :)
Should Slashdot have a policy stricter than the NY Times
Yes, Bamford has contributed a lot, but that does not give him license to misrepresent facts and connects dots that are not there.
Certainly. Just make sure it is legitimate and verifiable.
As opposed to what goes on at Durban II. Ironic conference which turns into an anti-Israel roundtable by some of the worlds most oppressive regimes.
What makes you seen to know his 'affiliation'?
Thanks.
AC's also seem to be predisposed to believing these conspiracy theories.
I don't think 'that' was the point of the review.
You may want to look at it just once more....
Sorry, but what is 'AC'?
That is actually a good point.
You are rare. Many programmers would say that security is NOT their job.
Why the need to obsess on errors that make no difference?
Your comment makes no sense.
Why can he claim that Homeopathy is worthless, because the various tests prove it is.
>>>It is said about Homeopathy that it works on a subtle level
And what 'exactly' is that subtle level?
>>>I doubt the author is an expert in subtle, subliminal or realms other than just the sense to claim that homeopathy or other such things are worthless.
Which means what?
Can you please clarify what your point is?
Yes, it may have indeed worked for you.
But as the review states, and the book reiterates, the plural of anecdote (namely your comment) is not data.
Chiropractic lacks formal data. Formal statistics. It is a sham.
You say the author is wrong. Did you read the book?
The authors admit that acupuncture has limited use, not that it is useless.
The problem is that many acupuncturists market their acupuncture as a cure all, cancer and all. Now that is a crime.
As to your comment of 'So what? Anybody with half a brain already knew that alternative medicine is a scam.', there are billions of people that are gullible. That is precisely what the book is trying to do. Educate them, and protect them.
That is silly.
The book does not 'take money' from people.
They purchase the book with their own decision.
Nmap grew in functionality as a direct result of Google's sponsorship of the program in the summer of code. With those programmers, Fyoder could have never done it on his own. He has said as much and knows that.
All of these criticisms all have their base in people being jealous of Fyodor's success. It is that simple.
Was that shameless meant to be tongue in cheek?
Not sure what is supposed to be shameless.
As to your comment 'How can someone call the reference guide well written, then five sentences later say that the book explains commands not documented elsewhere', there is a difference
between 'undocumented' and 'not documented elsewhere'.
My understanding is undocumented is more of an active attempt to keep under wraps.
Not documented elsewhere is something that someone never got around to writing about.
And as to the comment 'this lends credibility to Fyodor's detractors', since when does he have detractors? And who are they?
Guns are legal, and much more dangerous than nmap.
So why should nmap be even close to being illegal.
No one really cares about this, except you. The question is, why?
What do you have against Fyodor? Why are you jealous of him?
The is a book about an powerful security tool, can't ya just focus on that?
No one really cares, nor did they ask about it.
So the question is, why do you feel the need to share that bit of irrelevant information?
Yes, everyone is vulnerable to social engineering.
Is this the best security tool around, heck yes.