Talk:Digital Fortress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do: Novels WikiProject Announcements and open tasks (watch • edit • discuss) → Please help with tagging articles! This WikiProject now includes "Novels", "Novellas", "Novelettes" and "Short Stories" of narrative form! Critique (Featured Article): None current - "7 achieved / 2 removed" Review: Erast Fandorin Improve: Nineteen Eighty-Five • Vathek • Enderby Outside • The Runes of the Earth • The Giver • Crown of Shadows • More... Create: Black Cocktail • Blackthorn Winter • London, 1850 • The Fatal Eggs • More... Novel without Infobox (auto list): many novel articles do not have an infobox - and need one (auto generated list) - may need expansion of article too A new policy proposal has been started and this is to be seen at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, please take a look at these and comment. This is a vital subject and all editors should consider the implications. These are NOT active yet, but could have wide reaching consequences. Please contribute your views. Our Collaboration Department is continuing with one more title Waverley (novel) for the current month. Get collaborating on the article and also look at nominating other titles to be considered. Pages that only exist as redirects: Men at Arms changes

This article includes an incomplete infobox, which is part of the standard display of novel information developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. You can help by filling in the missing or incorrect information yourself, or copying the "source code" into the attached article if you need it, and filling in the information yourself, or by providing the following information here on the Talk page so that someone else can construct the box:
	~title of novel~ ~cover image of novel fair use~ ~image caption to give edition details~ ~author of novel~ ~country of publication~ ~language of original novel~ ~illustrator for novel~ ~cover artist name for novel~ ~novel genre~ ~publisher for novel~ ~dd month yyyy~ Print (~binding~) ~pagecount pp (~binding~ edition)~ ~ISBN ~999999999~ (~hardcover~ edition)~ ~prior book in series if relevant~ ~subsequent book in series if relevant~
Edit this message

Contents 1 Triva??? 2 Biased. 3 "Artistic Licence"? 4 Earth 5 Use of Japanese names and vocabulary 6 Units jumping around 7 This the english wiki!! 8 Encryption paradox 9 Unrealistic Crisis 10 It might be possible 11 Hulohot 12 Hulohot 13 NSA Databank? 14 Slamming getting out of hand. What to do?

[edit] Triva???

Should there be a trivia section added, or something of the sort, since the alleged Jon Benet Ramsey killer John Mark Karr was seen reading this book on his flight back into the USA? I thought it was pretty interesting. Batman6 05:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you User:J-Star for your change. Hurrah for artistic license! Sfdan 9 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

[edit] Biased.

It seems, in my honorable opinion, that this article focuses on the flaws of the book, and not if it was commercially successful or not. If it was a bomb, state so, not just a list of "artistic freedoms".

- Caleb Osment 09:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If the book attracted criticism for having an implausible plot, then we should document that criticism in some way. An exhaustive list of factual errors may not the best way to go, but a few examples are appropriate. — Matt Crypto 10:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but the point of an unbiased article is to show both sides. For example, "This book sold millions, blah blah blah, but was heavily criticised within certain circles, for it's lack of accurate details." Caleb Osment 13:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Caleb, I agree that the "Artistic License" section is bloating. I added it as a compromise as people were filling up the "Criticism" section with that stuff. The inaccuracies are factual and not a matter of opinion. We can discuss whether or not that much is needed or if we should start trimming. However, I for one do not think a POV check in needed. --J-Star 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps move it all to a new seperate article "Criticisms of the Da vinci code" - personally I think that having this much in an "artistic license" section in a main article is unprofessional, and turning it into a bulletin board. (This unsigned comment posted by Gruffy at 20:17, 17 January 2006)

Pointing out that reality and fiction differ is not criticism. It is merely a statement of fact. It doesn't become criticism until someone someone adds judgement and uses theses differences as arguments when doing so.--J-Star 07:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It'd be very inappropriate to move this stuff to an article entitled "Criticisms of the Da vinci code", what with this page being about Digital Fortress and all. ;) /blahedo (t) 08:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no violations of NPOV; it's not as if somebody hates the book, and wrote a scathing article about it. Pointing out every flaw or just some is up to the author- if a number of people don't agree, then we should remove the less important/prominent flaws. -Chewbacca 00:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me that the whole article is badly in need of references. If there has been a valid criticism from a verifiable source, then it should be placed and quoted. But if there are elements in the article that are unsourced criticism, then I agree that they should be removed, as violating the policy of no original research. Elonka 03:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That the goofs are goofs can be easily verified as being true, but I suppose what you're saying is that the criticism needs to have been voiced before outside of Wikipedia, rather than being newly expressed here for the first time. There has been criticism on various online places for the crypto-naffness of Digital Fortress. Some comments of this type are available here, and, more self-promotionally, here. — Matt Crypto 08:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Artistic Licence"?

I think that "Artistic License" is a rather generous way to describe the glaring errors in the book, as it implies that they are mostly deliberate, which is clearly not true. Perhaps "Factual Errors" would be a better title for the third section. WP:BOLD notwithstanding, I feel that it is important to obtain consensus before changing this. --David.Mestel 18:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it is. Guinnog 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much, but I'd lean towards keeping "Artistic license" to avoid the impression we're out to slam the book. — Matt Crypto 19:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your arguments, and, though I still don't agree with you, but, since I don't feel strongly on this, and I can see that everyone else thinks that we should leave it as is, I'll drop the issue

Before I changed the title to "Artistic license", the whole section was nothing but a big slam-fest where people were going after the book with pliers and blow torches. "Artistic license" emphasizes WP:NPOV. --J-Star 17:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Where has this section gone? It is linked to from Dan Brown.Billlion 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earth

I reverted the changes by 70.24.71.215, as they were made with no edit summary or explanation on the talk page. However, this source suggests that soil is only slightly more dense than water, which leads to the calculation that the room is somewhat less than 2m long. --David.Mestel 19:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I may make one point, that this books is fictional! No where in the novel does Mr. Brown state that any of this is true, including the supercomputer and especially the programing. Just thought i'd point this out.

[edit] Use of Japanese names and vocabulary

I'm currently reading this book and I'm disappointed with the sloppy use of Japanese words, names, and cultural references (seems to be a common problem among western writers).

The first name "Ensei," though old fashioned, is acceptable, but the last name "Tankado" sounds more like the name of a street or a bar than a person and is not listed in the Japanese Name Dictionary (WWWJDIC).

Likewise the name "Numataka" is probably fabricated. "Tokugen" is listed in the name dictionary.

In Chapter 13, Numataka is called "akuta same -- the deadly shark." The word 'same' is correct but I'm unsure where 'akuta' comes from.　It's possible Brown meant to use 'akuma' -- demon, or 'akutama' -- villain/bad guy.

In Chapter 18, "menboko -- honor and face" is mentioned, but this should be 'menboku.'

At the end of the same chapter, he makes reference to "shichigosan -- the seven deities of good luck" but 'shichigosan' actually refers to a festival celebrating children's health at the ages of 7 (shichi), 5 (go) and 3 (san). The seven deities of luck are 'shichifukujin.'

This is as far as I've read.

Neill (Comment posted by User:Redhead1978jp, 04:33, April 5, 2006 )

For some reason parts of that were deleted, and so now there is a point in the article that says "at the end of the same chapter" without ever referencing a chapter. I will change it to "at the end of chapter 18."

[edit] Units jumping around

"At one point, an underground chamber is described as having a 40-by-30 foot video wall at one end, and having been built by excavating 250 metric tons of earth. Assuming the earth to be of average density, the room would be less than 2 metres long" Feet? Then metric weight and metric tons? Shall we provide that information in furlongs, perhaps, just to further make it confusing? :-) 216.99.220.12 06:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This the english wiki!!

"Susan Fletcher, matemático brillante y jefe de la división de la criptografía de la agencia de la seguridad nacional, hallazgos mismo hechos frente con un código irrompible resistente a los ataques de la bruto-fuerza por superordenadores del procesador del NSA 3 millones de. El código es escrito por el criptógrafo Ensei Tankado, a japanese sacked a empleado del NSA, que se descontenta con la intrusión de la agencia en la aislamiento de la gente. Subastas de Tankado el algoritmo en su Web site, amenazando que su cómplice, "NDakota", lanzará el algoritmo para libre si él muere. Tankado se encuentra muerto en Sevilla, España. Fletcher, junto con su fiancé, David Becker, lingüista experto con memoria eidetic, debe encontrar una solución para parar la extensión del código."

I do not understand a word that says! It looks spansih can someone translate it to english! If you wrote that can you please explain why you worte it in spanish--Scott3 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encryption paradox

In the book is stated that the so brilliant encryption code of Ensei Tankado is encrypted by itself. (vault plans of an unbreakable vault in the vault itself).

Would it not require knowing the encryption algorithm to decrypt the encryption code? Are therefore the persons who are able to decrypt not already in possession of the decryption code? - 22 june 2006 -

That would be true. The passkey for a ciphertext encrypted by a certain algorithm would be useless unless the algorithm is known.--J-Star 09:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unrealistic Crisis

The crisis in this book at the end is quite unrealistic - in any such mission critical system you have at least 2 of the exact same thing, with the ability to immediatly switch between them in the case of a problem occouring. Also, there is no need to turn the system off, as you could simpily unplug the many network cables leading to such a machine and have hours to find the kill code. The threat to their classified data being deleted is also meaningless - at least daily backups would also be carried out on any such system.

[edit] It might be possible

The main article states: "Contrary to the book's claim, it is not possible to trace the address to which an email is forwarded once it is sent (at least, not without cooperation from the recipient)." This might be possible by exploiting some security vulnerability in the email system. E.g. a bug in Sendmail only known to the NSA. --Teglsbo 14:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The main article also states: "Once a file has been downloaded, changing the contents of the file at the website will not normally affect any downloaded copies; this makes Strathmore's plan unworkable." I've returned the book by now, but is this really his plan? I assumed he would somehow hack the webserver containing the file. --Teglsbo 14:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hulohot

"Hulohot: A deaf assassin from Japan hired to hunt down Ensei Tankado and take the ring." As far as I know, he was described as a Portuguese mercenary, not originated from Japan. Could anyone confirm this?

[edit] Hulohot

"Hulohot" is not an portuguese name... that's strange

[edit] NSA Databank?

Does anyone know if all the government data is actually stored inside an NSA databank or is that fiction aswell?

Reply

it would make sence, because it would make life so much easyer as all the info is in one spot..

yet. its would give the conrollers well too much power, and would b a huge security risk

[edit] Slamming getting out of hand. What to do?

Alright... Dan Brown is not as accurate as the pretext says. But it seems to be a sport these days to fill Dan Brown-related Wikipedia articles with every inane little error one can think of, down to how many times a telephone rings or not! This article alone dedicates 50-75% of its bulk to nitpicking. It's absurd and must be contained.

So... suggestions? --J-Star 10:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Beelzebub, yeah, that's large (and at least a couple of sentences are my fault). My vote is that we get rid of it. Well, most of it. We can say that the book has been criticised for inaccuracies (and provide a source). We can even give an example or two, I suppose, but it's not appropriate to turn this into an exhaustive catalogue of errors. — Matt Crypto 10:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote we keep the section and trim it down to only the most notable errors... such as - in this case - the flawed plot premise. --J-Star 12:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried a bit of Googling for usable sources. Part of the problem is that a number of reviewers actually praised the book for its realism! "Digital Fortress is the best and most realistic techno-thriller to reach the market in years." [1] and "Brown certainly does his homework as it relates to computer security technology and talks intelligently about encryption algorithms" [2] by a certified computer security professional. This beggars belief, frankly. The most scholarly review I could find was in the journal Cryptologia, who say "the result is a thrilling story that is frighteningly real, with unexpected twists and turns, which will keep you turning the pages and making comparisons to Tom Clancy"[3]. My own opinion is that the book is riddled with absurd errors, but... — Matt Crypto 19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Aw, not allowing the nitpicking spoils the only fun one can get from a Dan Brown novel :-) I'm not suprised you couldn't find usable sources... if people are stupid enough to buy it, they are also stupid enough to praise it, I guess. But the second External link is a very usable source IMHO. It's from a reviewer who reviews (on being asked to) a lot of books and movies for their scientific and technological content, and that alone should make him notable. I don't know how notable he actually is, though. --Shreevatsa 21:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You watch your tongue now young grasshopper. I for one liked the book. There's this thing called "Suspension of disbelief" you know. ;)--J-Star 12:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can usually manage suspension of disbelief, but I found "suspension of all intelligence" (plot predictability, etc... especially considering there is a one-to-one mapping to any of his other books)[4] and "suspension of all knowledge of the English language" to be quite tough :-) --Shreevatsa 14:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)