NationStates Jolt Archive

He's a great writer, but serously, he thinks the order of the Illuminati is real.

He's a great writer, but serously, he thinks the order of the Illuminati is real.

I thought there was evidence it did exist, or something to that degree. Anyway, can't wait for his next book.

Did you notice the word NOVEL on the cover?

I think I wrote on the same level as Dan Brown when I was in high school.

Who cares if he’s insane?
I like reading Chrichton, but he’s a loon.

I think I wrote on the same level as Dan Brown when I was in high school.

Yet, he is published and you are?......

What's the Illuminati?

The guy writes stories, and he writes them in a way to give an air of legitamacy to his plot lines to those who have not studied the subjects in depth (or at all) and are disinclined to do so. I found Code a good read, if overly fantastical, and Angels and Demons bored me to tears.

Doesn't mean he's nuts though.

I think I wrote on the same level as Dan Brown when I was in high school.
So where are your best selling novels?

Who cares if he’s insane?
I like reading Chrichton, but he’s a loon.

Eh? Good fluff reading with a weak ending. He really needs to work with somebody to close the story.

Yet, he is published and you are?......

Still a better writer than Dan Brown.

Still a better writer than Dan Brown.

Awww not published? Keep working at it.

Eh? Good fluff reading with a weak ending. He really needs to work with somebody to close the story.
Agreed. I didn't say it was the best, just the first crazy author I enjoy that came to mind.

He's a great writer, but serously, he thinks the order of the Illuminati is real.
Plenty of people think plenty of things. Doesn't mean we can't like them (or like making fun of them for it). As a matter of fact, it's part of what makes famous people enjoyable.....that some of them are batshit insane and everybody knows it.

However, on that note...Dan Brown? Not as batshit as many others. I'd rate him a 3 or 4 on a scale of 10.

What's the Illuminati?
Secret society types, supposedly controlled everything behind the scenes in Europe and the US up to... I think the mid-1800's. Pretty much used as a nice plotline for anyone conducting a consperacy thriller, a target for the Church, and the favorite boogymen of the tin foil hat types.

How accurate is Digital Fortress (excluding TRANSLATR) in its depiction of the NSA?

Did you notice the word NOVEL on the cover?
Quote, from Angels and Demon's author's note:

"The brotherhood of the Illumaniti is also factual."

Quote, from Angels and Demon's author's note:

"The brotherhood of the Illumaniti is also factual."
It’s a gimmick. He’s trying to move books by being controversial and it works.

Quote, from Angels and Demon's author's note:

"The brotherhood of the Illumaniti is also factual."
As stated before, I thought there was proof that at one time they did exist and had radical control over upperclass affairs. Kinda like the Masons, but you don't see much about them these days.

"Factual" doesn't mean "still in control", though.

Quote, from Angels and Demon's author's note:

"The brotherhood of the Illumaniti is also factual."

There has been significant evidence to suggest that an organization named "the illuminate" existed. Thus that statement is true.

However, if you believe that his books represent his actual belief, then it should be noted that if you read angels and demons:

spoiler
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The "illuminate" in the book was simply someone posing as them in order to gain power, the illumnate of even Brown's novels has been dead for some time

Quote, from Angels and Demon's author's note:

"The brotherhood of the Illumaniti is also factual."
It's called selling books, it also works to get you to suspend your disbelief faster.

How accurate is Digital Fortress (excluding TRANSLATR) in its depiction of the NSA?

Well, as they dont let people just waltz through the NSA, I'm not really sure.

Although I did love Digital Fortress.."Who will guard the guards".

Did you, or anyone else on here, happen to read Breaking Point?

I thought it was AMAZING...such a good read.

I think I wrote on the same level as Dan Brown when I was in high school.
That's not something to be proud of. I've read stories by 9 yr-olds that are better written than the putrid potboiler crud Brown puts out.

Awww not published? Keep working at it.
Being published is no indication of talent. Similarly not being published is no indication of lack of talent.
The book "A confederacy of dunces" by John Kennedy Toole is a perfect example of how publishers can happily overlook great talent.

Agreed. I didn't say it was the best, just the first crazy author I enjoy that came to mind.
Crazy? Crichton? Nope. All he does is rip off other ppls ideas and/or news articles and inserts them in his stories as if they're original ideas.

If you want crazy, try Phillip K. Dick, Kurt Vonnegut, Chuck Palahnuik, Bret Easton Ellis or even William Burroughs.

He's a great writer, but serously, he thinks the order of the Illuminati is real.


"They" don't want you to know "They" are real....

































;)

<chuckle>

I just love how people attribute fiction to an author's real life attitudes and ideas. Dan Brown is an excruciatingly private man in real life. Contrary to popular belief, authors who write fiction rarely reveal their private beliefs in a work of fiction. There have been some notable exceptions.

Tom Clancy, Michael Crichton and Robert Anson Heinlein all pulled the curtain back and gave us an idea of some of their real life attitudes.

I share something in common with Dan Brown, I believe Opus Dei is a cult within the Roman Catholic Church, being Roman Catholic I have first hand experience with their sect. As a Jesuit, I am greatly bothered by the genuine inconsistencies associated with this lay organization. I will provide a link to a scholarly article by a renowned Jesuit.

http://www.americamagazine.org/articles/martin-opusdei.cfm

But I digress.

The object of any written novel is to weave fact seamlessly with fiction to create a good story and entertain a receptive audience. Dan Brown has done this on more than one occasion.

To the person who claims Mr. Brown's writing is indifferent, I can think of quite a number of ways to refute this person's claim. But mostly I find it disingenuous that an unpublished critic and possibly even a wannabe author's arguments would be remotely legitimate, much less have the knowledge and authority to make such a claim.

Being published is no indication of talent. Similarly not being published is no indication of lack of talent.
The book "A confederacy of dunces" by John Kennedy Toole is a perfect example of how publishers can happily overlook great talent.


Wasn't suggesting it was. All it means is that you don't have anything interesting enough.

As to Toole, yes it does happen.

Yet that was one manuscript out of how many the publishers get a year?

Dan Brown is a sloppy writer at best. For a look at what is wrong with the Da Vinci Code, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_The_Da_Vinci_Code, just for even the most basic things (referring to any kind of computer data exchange as "uploading," calling the gun "heckler-koch," not realizing the priory of sion was a hoax created in the late 50's, etc.) If I want to read a good book that I know is accurate almost to a fault, I'll probably read Tom Clancy.

Secret society types, supposedly controlled everything behind the scenes in Europe and the US up to... I think the mid-1800's. Pretty much used as a nice plotline for anyone conducting a consperacy thriller, a target for the Church, and the favorite boogymen of the tin foil hat types.
Them or the New World Order. You would think with all these shadow, puppeteer groups there would be some sort of shadow war waging as we speak. Maybe there is and we don't even know! You are all in on it, I know it!

Dan Brown is a sloppy writer at best. For a look at what is wrong with the Da Vinci Code, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici..._Da_Vinci_Code, just for even the most basic things (referring to any kind of computer data exchange as "uploading," calling the gun "heckler-koch," not realizing the priory of sion was a hoax created in the late 50's, etc.) If I want to read a good book that I know is accurate almost to a fault, I'll probably read Tom Clancy.
You and the author of said criticisms obviously don't realise that Dan Brown writes fiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction

Dan Brown is a sloppy writer at best. For a look at what is wrong with the Da Vinci Code, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_The_Da_Vinci_Code, just for even the most basic things (referring to any kind of computer data exchange as "uploading," calling the gun "heckler-koch," not realizing the priory of sion was a hoax created in the late 50's, etc.) If I want to read a good book that I know is accurate almost to a fault, I'll probably read Tom Clancy.

You guys are funny. You can read a story for simple entertainment. I read it on a long flight. I don't read NOVELs to find facts.

I enjoy other authors much more ... but whatever entertains you I guess

Quote, from Angels and Demon's author's note:

"The brotherhood of the Illumaniti is also factual."

Here is something you probably didn't know.

The Blair Witch Project is not true!

You guys are funny. You can read a story for simple entertainment. I read it on a long flight. I don't read NOVELs to find facts.

I found it, for the most part, enjoyable. However, I did not like the whole "this is based on fact" part of the beginning, that and the fact he used the phrase "divine feminine" about twice a page.

I haven't actually read the book, so I don't know what the Brotherhood actually are. But opinions don't really reveal fact, so perhaps we should do this the proper way. Assume they don't exist and supply evidence that is contrary to that assumption.

I enjoy other authors much more ... but whatever entertains you I guess

Oh I read many things. I just find "fluff" easier to digest on a long flight.

Chriton is very good for that.

Dan Brown is a sloppy writer at best. For a look at what is wrong with the Da Vinci Code, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_The_Da_Vinci_Code, just for even the most basic things (referring to any kind of computer data exchange as "uploading," calling the gun "heckler-koch," not realizing the priory of sion was a hoax created in the late 50's, etc.) If I want to read a good book that I know is accurate almost to a fault, I'll probably read Tom Clancy.

No book gets published without errors and most authors (including Dan Brown, btw) take responsibility for errors in facts. In addition, as part of the editing process type editors read the book and make line corrections. This is how Heckler & Koch may become Heckler-Koch. Dan Brown does not need to apologize for using the Priory of Scion, after all "The DaVinci Code" is a work of fiction. Dan Brown and other major authors use the Writer's Research Service, and I am certain he is aware that the Priory of Scion was and still is considered a hoax.

As for Mr. Clancy and his "factual" books. I will agree his research on the nuts and bolts of the US political system and the military is accurate. But some of the political theories Mr. Clancy forwards are fringe at best. His picture of intelligence analysis, while factual in structure takes great liberties with command structure and the career mobility of a part-time CIA Analyst.

Why did he do this? For a myriad of reasons, but the primary reasons are:

1. His audience expected Jack Ryan to move up the structure of the CIA hiearchy.

2. Jack Ryan is Tom Clancy and Mr. Clancy has an ego the size of the Chesapeake Bay.

Without a doubt he has improved structurally as a writer. The biggest problem he had in his early career was a lack of dimension to most of his characters. I enjoy his work, make no mistake, but I don't pretend for a moment his works are any more factual and less prone to error than Dan Brown.

Oh I read many things. I just find "fluff" easier to digest on a long flight.

Chriton is very good for that.
I tend to lean sci-fi (Baxter is one of my favs) but I personaly like Dale Brown much better then dan brown :)

My flights aren't usually long enough to justify a book. But, I suppose I'll have to pick up "Demon in the closet" before my trip back home.

How accurate is Digital Fortress (excluding TRANSLATR) in its depiction of the NSA?

Oooh, please do not exclude TRANSLATR ! After all, it is the worlds first working quantum computer that can actually process large numbers- though it is painfully obvious Brown has no clue whatsoever how such a device would work (or how cryptography and firewall technology in general work for that matter).

As for the NSA staff.. well.. I do hope one of the leading decoding specialists would be able to solve a simple code like "without wax" in real life; and that the security protocols are not really that idiotic.

My problem with Dan Brown is the huge number of inaccuracies. I am not certain if those are due to poor research or that he purposefully uses them to make his books more appealing to the public. Of course, since his works are fiction, he would be allowed to do that - but still...

Oooh, please do not exclude TRANSLATR ! After all, it is the worlds first working quantum computer that can actually process large numbers- though it is painfully obvious Brown has no clue whatsoever how such a device would work (or how cryptography and firewall technology in general work for that matter).

As for the NSA staff.. well.. I do hope one of the leading decoding specialists would be able to solve a simple code like "without wax" in real life; and that the security protocols are not really that idiotic.

My problem with Dan Brown is the huge number of inaccuracies. I am not certain if those are due to poor research or that he purposefully uses them to make his books more appealing to the public. Of course, since his works are fiction, he would be allowed to do that - but still...
While I agree most authors are painfully lacking in firewall/computer security fields. They like to wave computers like magic wands

*snip*
My problem with Dan Brown is the huge number of inaccuracies. I am not certain if those are due to poor research or that he purposefully uses them to make his books more appealing to the public. Of course, since his works are fiction, he would be allowed to do that - but still...

Do you know how many people's eyes would roll up into their skulls if you started explaining firewalls and encryption?

You have to admit it was a "better" approach then what was done in the movie Jurassic Park. ;)

Do you know how many people's eyes would roll up into their skulls if you started explaining firewalls and encryption?

Actually that is *exactly* what Brown was doing in in a significant part of that book. His explanations were just "dumbed down" so much they became painful.

Do you know how many people's eyes would roll up into their skulls if you started explaining firewalls and encryption?

You have to admit it was a "better" approach then what was done in the movie Jurassic Park. ;)
Who needs to really explain it ... I mean if you are going to use "details" at least make them acurate details

(I have not read the works specified by the poster you are quoting but basing it off of many authors)

I mean I understand I went to school for this stuff and I understand it well ... and that others may not want to get as up close and personal as I have with things like tripple DEC or RSA key generation

BUT a lot of these authors put "Details" in their stories that are not even close. If you are going to bore readers with going a bit in depth (well a little in depth) might as well make it at least aproxomate reality

But if you can't trust the pure, unadulterated facts presented in works of fiction, who can you trust?

He's a great writer, but serously, he thinks the order of the Illuminati is real.
Yeah, ahahahahaha, how stupid is that, eh? Because everyone knows that there is no such organization today. Nope, doesn't exist, isn't real. He's just being silly, ignore him, just don't listen to him. There is no such thing as the Illuminati! :cool:
Fnord

Good writer, I agree, factual inaccuracies, I agree....but insane? Erm, I don't think so....

He's a great writer, but serously, he thinks the order of the Illuminati is real.

Illuminati naturally exist in all societies. They tend to be groups of rich professionals and academics, military officers, Artists and politicians, sometimes on the right of the political spectrum, sometimes on the left who meet and debate issues over dinner parties etc. Sometimes from these groups spring political movements, often not. One could argue that the neo-con group someting something for an new American Century were an illuminati. The origin of the term is Cosimo I's Florontine gatherings, which included Da Vinci. They discused politics, religion, art and advised Cosimo on how to improve Florence. Illuminati mearly means the enlightened. Also there is no reason to beleive that any country has only one group that could be refered to as itself as the Illuminati of that country.

He's a great writer....


Don't make me laugh. He's worse than Jeffrey Archer.

Don't make me laugh. He's worse than Jeffrey Archer.

I really didn't think that was possible...but each to their own...

Illuminati naturally exist in all societies.
:eek:
He's one of them! Get him!

I thought there was evidence it did exist, or something to that degree. Anyway, can't wait for his next book.

The Illuminati did exist, it was a masonic secret society in Bavaria. They had some strange rituals, anti-establisment views, and the police shut them down after their activities became somewhat noticable. That was the end of the group, it did not really amount to anything.

However, my guess is because of their cool name, the Illuminati has lived on in popular culture and the minds of conspiracy theorists.

Them or the New World Order. You would think with all these shadow, puppeteer groups there would be some sort of shadow war waging as we speak. Maybe there is and we don't even know! You are all in on it, I know it!
My dear worthy Sir, calm your self. There is no underground war, nothing really is going on, and no one is in on anything at all beyond the great Mod consperacy.

:eek:
He's one of them! Get him!

Well, maybe. but please don't hit me.

There is a group of Zimbabwean intellectuals based in London that tried to recruit me into their circle of frineds which includes some British MPs and a Lord or two. They were a bit to right wing for my taste at the time, but I have drifted to their right on may things so I'm not sure they'd still want me.

He's a great writer, but serously, he thinks the order of the Illuminati is real.Not necessarily is real, but most certainly was real. Also that they haven't really built up the big infiltration network everyone associates with them.

I really didn't think that was possible...but each to their own...

alright, maybe that was a bit harsh, he is shit though.

The Da Vinci Code read like a text-based storyboard for a planned feature film, if such a thing could exist.

I don't begrudge him his success, he's an effective opportunist, but that doesn't make him a good writer.

(note: however 'proper' writers are mostly self-important c*nts anyway)

The Da Vinci Code read like a text-based storyboard for a planned feature film, if such a thing could exist.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that when reading it. Every bit felt like it was written as a screenplay script.

My dear worthy Sir, calm your self. There is no underground war, nothing really is going on, and no one is in on anything at all beyond the great Mod consperacy.
On behalf of the International Jewish Conspiracy, I've got to confirm that there is definitely no conspiracy.

8-15-23-39-69
Fnord

alright, maybe that was a bit harsh, he is shit though.

The Da Vinci Code read like a text-based storyboard for a planned feature film, if such a thing could exist.

I don't begrudge him his success, he's an effective opportunist, but that doesn't make him a good writer.

(note: however 'proper' writers are mostly self-important c*nts anyway)

Hehehe, quite true.

I've only met a couple of writers, usually with the following conversation,

Me: I really like your books! My fave is ......... Could you sign this one?

Them: Yeah, thanks.

*scribbles*

Me: Thanks a lot!!! Keep it up, i really would like to see what happens to character/plot line/ship.

Them: You'll just have to wait and see.

So obviously I can't actually comment on writers. One of the nicest I've met was Terry Pratchett (the LEGEND), who was only to happy to chat smile and be sincere about it.

He's a great writer, but serously, he thinks the order of the Illuminati is real.


My question is:

What makes you think it isnt?

How can you be certain one way, or the other?

How many of us really know what Skull & Bones do?

How many of us really know all about the Masons?

I myself, have serious doubts about the existance of a super-secret Illuminati, that controls the entire world, but the truth is, its not out of the realms of possibility....its merely unlikely.

To the person who claims Mr. Brown's writing is indifferent, I can think of quite a number of ways to refute this person's claim. But mostly I find it disingenuous that an unpublished critic and possibly even a wannabe author's arguments would be remotely legitimate, much less have the knowledge and authority to make such a claim.
How? His writing is hack, at best.

Look at how he introduces Robert Langdon in DaVinci. He's awoken by a phone ringing and somehow that encourages him to remember a woman introducing him to an audience earlier that day. She introduces him by reading out a newspaper article about him. That way we, the readers, get a 2 page introduction as to who he is and what he's about.
Excuse me, but that is the worst, laziest way of informing the reader about the book's protagonist. How often has a phone ringing obiligated you into remembering what happened to you a few hours earlier? Brown's not even trying here. He's obviously wanting to move the story along and can't be bothered thinking of a better way to let us know who Langdon is, so gives up and just shoves this in as near to the start of the story as possible.

Likewise when he's informed as to the numbers near the curator's corpse. For some reason he doesn't recognise that it's the start of the Fibonacci sequence yet when told it is again has a 2 page flashback of Langdon presenting awhole leture about Fibonacci. He lectures on the sequence but can't recognise it! Where's the logic or continuity there? Let alone that his lecture was all disproved crap.

Throughout the entire book we're given deux ex machinas and trivia like this. Many of them having nothing to do with the story, other than (I suspect) to show off to us how informed, well-researched and intelligent Brown is.

And then there's the killer. A 7 foot tall albino wandering the streets in a monk's robe and no-one notices? puhleezee...

It's plainly, painfully obvious that it was written with a movie deal in mind. A hulking albino flagellator will look awesome on the big screen, likewise the way the curator dies, Langdon's flashbacks (which would work quite well on film but suck in print).

Nope. Brown's a hack. There's no denying he knows what to write to sell and I admire him for that. But to say he's a talented writer is a joke and tbh rather an offensive one to talented writers.



Incidently, what gives you the ability and knowledge to know whether someone has the "legitimacy, much less have the knowledge and authority" to critic a person's work?

He's a great writer, but serously, he thinks the order of the Illuminati is real.

No, he's a copy-cat who steals someone else's ideas.

How? His writing is hack, at best.
*snip*
Nope. Brown's a hack. There's no denying he knows what to write to sell and I admire him for that. But to say he's a talented writer is a joke and tbh rather an offensive one to talented writers

I couldn't agree more with that whole post..

What also pissed me off is the constant repetition of what has gone on previously. It seemed like every chapter was half "this is what happened previously" and half "this is what's happening now" :headbang: In effect you could read the last 3 chapters and be up on the whole bloody story.

If I'd edited it it would have been a third of the length, equally as shit, but a lot lot shorter.

Thank god for NS, I thought i was alone in hating this garbage :D

No, he's a copy-cat who steals someone else's ideas.

I thought that was just a gimmick by Random House to sell more copies, since both books are owned by them, and they're both now in the Top Ten lists.

I thought that was just a gimmick by Random House to sell more copies, since both books are owned by them, and they're both now in the Top Ten lists.

The main theme of the book was taken from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which was also published by Random House. The authors of this book lost a court case, but Dan Brown even copied bits of that book apparently (with minor alterations).

But if you can't trust the pure, unadulterated facts presented in works of fiction, who can you trust?

YOU FOOL! THE TV NEVER LIES!

The main theme of the book was taken from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which was also published by Random House. The authors of this book lost a court case, but Dan Brown even copied bits of that book apparently (with minor alterations).

The courts would have noticed that.

At most it was a marketing ploy. At worst it was an attempt to cash in on the movie profits.

Plagiarism or research? It's a damn fine line...
Yeah, definitely a screenplay in book form. Terribly written, but a good story. That's his talent.
As for Digital Fortress, please. How the hell is a recombining cipher (is that what it was) going to work? It's impossible. (From my knowledge of cryptography anyways...)

Once again, I find myself in a thread directed negatively at dan brown. Now, I have to admit, I think the guy is nutters, but you have to have some degree of insanity to write anything. It helps, at the very least. Give the poor guy a break. I ejoyed A&D, but not so much the da vinci code. The illumnati does actually have historic roots, but all evedence points to them bieng an extinct brotherhood. My opinion is, once again, It's just a book. If you read and like it, good. If you read it and don't like it but jump on the bandwagon, go drown yourself. And if you read it and don't like it and say so, good for you for expressing yourself.

Plagiarism or research? It's a damn fine line...
Yeah, definitely a screenplay in book form. Terribly written, but a good story. That's his talent.
As for Digital Fortress, please. How the hell is a recombining cipher (is that what it was) going to work? It's impossible. (From my knowledge of cryptography anyways...)
No what he did was give bad information.

He described a columnar transposition cipher and atributed it to cesar

When the Cesar Cypher was actualy just a simple substitution cypher (shift of 3 specificaly)

Add to the list of fuck ups in cryptography.

Encryption algorithms were just mathematical formulas, recipes for scrambling text into code. Mathematicians and programmers created new algorithms every day. There were hundreds of them on the market—PGP, Diffie-Hellman, ZIP, IDEA, El Gamal. TRANSLTR broke all of their codes every day, no problem. To TRANSLTR all codes looked identical, regardless of which algorithm wrote them.

Does he really need to throw random words in there

How the hell do you confuse compresion algorythems, software, key agreement algorythms, public key systems, and block cyphers.

Idiot, if he is going to provide details like this he could have spent five minuits and looked them up online. Otherwise just dont go into details

He's a great writer, but serously, he thinks the order of the Illuminati is real.

Insane, no. Confused, yes.

How the hell do you confuse compresion algorythems, software, key agreement algorythms, public key systems, and block cyphers.

Well.. technically one *can* argue that a compression algorithm is a cypher. It does make legible text unreadable unless you know how to decompress/decode it after all.
Problem is that a machine that would not differentiate between those different types as the text claims would not be able to crack them.

Well.. technically one *can* argue that a compression algorithm is a cypher. It does make legible text unreadable unless you know how to decompress/decode it after all.
Problem is that a machine that would not differentiate between those different types as the text claims would not be able to crack them.
But the intent of the algorythem is not to disguise the text but rather compress it. While it does make a change in the data it provides no real ability to protect data confidentiality.

Not only that but when you think of it when you type the information into the computer origional it is encoded in a non english format in some way (ASCII or unicode or some other encoding scheme)
I would hardly argue that they are a cypher too

No what he did was give bad information.

He described a columnar transposition cipher and atributed it to cesar

When the Cesar Cypher was actualy just a simple substitution cypher (shift of 3 specificaly)
Ah right. But what about the cipher that TRANSLTR is trying to crack, the recombining one? I don't think it can work, but I don't have acopy to hand so I can remember how it was supposed to.

He may be insane, but he is also rich. Very, very rich.

Ah right. But what about the cipher that TRANSLTR is trying to crack, the recombining one? I don't think it can work, but I don't have acopy to hand so I can remember how it was supposed to.
I am trying to find it ... nothing shows up when I look for recombining cipher ... all the ones that I caught in the text that I can find online sound like possible ciphers

If you find the text I can go through it (I got my second masters in cryptography and information security)

Ah right. But what about the cipher that TRANSLTR is trying to crack, the recombining one? I don't think it can work, but I don't have acopy to hand so I can remember how it was supposed to.
Though his description of what TRANSLTR can do is false, there are a few known ciphers that can not be cracked with a brute force method (look at a “one time pad” specially if you use capacitor discharge for a seed for your pad generator)

Though his description of what TRANSLTR can do is false, there are a few known ciphers that can not be cracked with a brute force method (look at a “one time pad” specially if you use capacitor discharge for a seed for your pad generator)

Also His description of what a public key and how it is used is incorrect.

Also looking it up were you talking about his claim of a “mutation string” cipher? If so it is made up and not enough info given on it to tell if it is possible or not(but most likely not)

Though his description of what TRANSLTR can do is false, there are a few known ciphers that can not be cracked with a brute force method (look at a “one time pad” specially if you use capacitor discharge for a seed for your pad generator)

Also His description of what a public key and how it is used is incorrect.

Also looking it up were you talking about his claim of a “mutation string” cipher? If so it is made up and not enough info given on it to tell if it is possible or not(but most likely not)
There we go! Mutation string cipher, I think that's it. That's the thing that TRANSLATR was trying to crack in its hugely long run, yeah? I can't remember how it worked, but it seemed to me like it couldn't. (After all, decryption is not commutative, yeah? As in, you have to do it in "last on, first off" order.)

(My knowledge of cryptography is from Simon Singh's book on the subject - very interesting stuff indeed. Oh, and one-time pads can be cracked by brute force - problem is, you can't distinguish between the real message and all the other possibles. And, of course, if you're stupid enough to use a one-time pad twice, it's crackable.)

There we go! Mutation string cipher, I think that's it. That's the thing that TRANSLATR was trying to crack in its hugely long run, yeah? I can't remember how it worked, but it seemed to me like it couldn't. (After all, decryption is not commutative, yeah? As in, you have to do it in "last on, first off" order.)

(My knowledge of cryptography is from Simon Singh's book on the subject - very interesting stuff indeed. Oh, and one-time pads can be cracked by brute force - problem is, you can't distinguish between the real message and all the other possibles. And, of course, if you're stupid enough to use a one-time pad twice, it's crackable.)
A one time pad is hardly a "one time" pad if it is used twice :P

And can you realy say it is cracked if you do not obtain any information from it?

A one time pad is hardly a "one time" pad if it is used twice :P

And can you realy say it is cracked if you do not obtain any information from it?
Yeah, true. Unless there are no other possible sentences that fit the situation. Highly highly unlikely, but probably possible.

There's some stuff here:
http://math.cofc.edu/faculty/kasman/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumber=mf340#math
It has the problems with the mutation strings - that they can never be decrypted, even with the ke, because they change as things go along.

Yeah, true. Unless there are no other possible sentences that fit the situation. Highly highly unlikely, but probably possible.

There's some stuff here:
http://math.cofc.edu/faculty/kasman/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumber=mf340#math
It has the problems with the mutation strings - that they can never be decrypted, even with the ke, because they change as things go along.
Hmmm sounds a lot like an eliptical cipher to me ... kind of a modification of that idea... intresting.

Hmmm sounds a lot like an eliptical cipher to me ... kind of a modification of that idea... intresting.
What is an elliptical cipher?

What is an elliptical cipher?
http://www.cryptoman.com/elliptic.htm

From what I can find of mutationg ciphers, some of them use an eliptical curve to generate the equation they just change the points used at fixed or random intervals.

Yes, I think that'd be right. But if it changes at random intervals, how can one decrypt it, unless the intervals are recorded? And then, of course, they're vulnerable to being broken.
(I think)

Yes, I think that'd be right. But if it changes at random intervals, how can one decrypt it, unless the intervals are recorded? And then, of course, they're vulnerable to being broken.
(I think)
Very true … same way a one time pad can be broken if you know how the pad is generated. There are very few things that are thought to be random. And if it is not generated truly randomly it always COULD be broken theoretically

That’s why I added the capacitor discharge bit in there … one of the few methods thought to possibly be random (so far at least)

But you are right if you know how a pad is generated or a point is picked and you know how it was done it can be cracked

Very true … same way a one time pad can be broken if you know how the pad is generated. There are very few things that are thought to be random. And if it is not generated truly randomly it always COULD be broken theoretically

That’s why I added the capacitor discharge bit in there … one of the few methods thought to possibly be random (so far at least)

But you are right if you know how a pad is generated or a point is picked and you know how it was done it can be cracked
I wish I had my copy to hand so I could elaborate further...
On the one-time pad point, I would HATE to try and break even the kind of pad generated by 'randomly' pressing keyboard keys. Has it been done, and how?

I wish I had my copy to hand so I could elaborate further...
On the one-time pad point, I would HATE to try and break even the kind of pad generated by 'randomly' pressing keyboard keys. Has it been done, and how?
Sure … it’s possible, Just not easy. You would have to find statistical bias in the Seed (in this case random keyboard press) which should generate a bias in the number which should generate bias in the Cipher text.

I did not say it is easy by any mean but if there is bias it is possible to detect.

Incidently, what gives you the ability and knowledge to know whether someone has the "legitimacy, much less have the knowledge and authority" to critic a person's work?

I'm a published author. It doesn't mean I'm great, it doesn't mean I'm well-known...but I've worked in the business enough to know a few things. I started out as a literary critic.

I have a Master's Degree in English and an MFA in Theatre Performance.

Am I better than you? No.

In fact, most folks here are doing exactly what a literary critic does without being paid for it. Offering an opinion.

I can say without equivocation that Dan Brown is not insane. Authors, like others who seek to perfect a craft do not start out as polished and experienced craftsmen. I have read the debut novels of many of the great masters of the craft of writing. Leon Uris' first novel Battle Cry does not have the depth or complexity of A God in Ruins , published near the end of Mr. Uris' career. The Hunt for Red October by Tom Clancy is not even close to the level of polish of The Bear and The Dragon .

The best we can say is that we either like or don't like an author. For instance, among authors who write suspense, military and spy fiction, I prefer Ken Follett, John le Carre' and Fredrick Forsythe to Tom Clancy and Patrick Robinson. That does not mean that other people don't think that le Carre' and Forsythe are terribly pedantic or that Follett is a dabbler. It's just the difference in the style of writing.

So Dan Brown is not your cup of tea, fine. I happen to like him and accept his errors as part of the "growing up" process novelists go through. His plotlines interest me and I can make the mental corrections necessary when reading him.

My opinions are no better than yours or anyone else's, but make no mistake I don't throw out nasty, baseless accusations regarding an author's sanity, nor do I waste my time nitpicking the errors in facts in a work of fiction.

Technically the Illuminati are real. I'm sure there are dozens of groups who call themselves Illuminati. I wouldn't think that any of them are secretly ruling the world, but you never know.

BesidesThere are no Illuminati in Angels and Demons. There's one guy who think's he was hired by an Illuminatus, but there are no Illuminati in the book

I always though real power was wielded by the Members of the Gentlemen's Clubs