![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
The following material, in a section titled "Real life scenarios", is unsourced, and so I have moved it here. If someone can source it, it can be restored to the article.
Extended content
|
---|
==Factual basis== In fact the DES was first publicly broken in 1997, 96 days after the first of the DES Challenges. In 1998, the same year as Digital Fortress was published, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (featured in the book) built a piece of hardware costing less than $250,000 called the EFF DES cracker which broke it in 56 hours. The brute force search used by TRANSLTR takes twice as long for each extra bit added to the key (if this is done sensibly), so the reaction of the industry has understandably been to lengthen the key. The Advanced Encryption Standard established in 2001 uses 128, 192 or 256 bits, which take at least 1021 times as long (i.e. 270) to solve by this technique. Unbreakable codes are not new to the industry. The one-time pad, invented in 1917 and used for the cold-war era Moscow-Washington hotline, was proved to be unconditionally secure by Claude Shannon in 1949 when properly implemented. However it is inconvenient to use in practice. In chapter 4, 10^120 (ten with 119 zeros after it) is said to be the number of sand grains in a 3 mile beach... Well, 10^80 (10 followed by 79 zeroes), a MUCH smaller number than 10^120, roughly corresponds to the number of subatomic particles (e.g. protons, neutrons, electrons) that exist in the known Universe. We're lightyears away from a ridiculous 3 mile long beach ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.225.167 ( talk) 04:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC) ==Inaccuracies== At the end of the novel, the protagonists in trying to solve a riddle about the prime difference between the elements used in the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki curiously consult the Internet from within the NSA. Brown incorrectly writes that the bomb used on Nagasaki was not a plutonium bomb as commonly perceived, but a uranium one. The bomb used on Nagasaki (as well as the Trinity test in New Mexico) was in fact, a plutonium bomb ( 239Pu) which used an implosion-type detonator, though it does employ uranium to a lesser extent as part of the detonator. In addition, plutonium-239 is created from uranium-238 which may be the source of Brown's error. The bomb used on Hiroshima, on the other hand, used uranium-235 ( 235U), and employed a gun-type detonator. The most obvious difference between the elements used in the two bombs academically would be the atomic numbers: 92 for uranium and 94 for plutonium providing a difference of 2 which is also coincidentally a prime number. The other obvious difference would be between the mass numbers of the isotopes: 235 for (235U) and 239 for (239Pu) providing a difference of 4 which is not a prime number. These are the only absolute values for these elements (i.e. statistically non-varying), and the only ones whose difference would produce a whole number. Even provided that this error was not made, the solution is also strange for the following reasons:
|
Nightscream ( talk) 02:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy, one that is responsible for the reliability of article content. There are no "references" in the passage, as those are wikilinks, not references. Material must be supported by reliable, verifiable third party sources, and not other Wikipedia articles, which cannot be used as sources, as that would be circular. If there are sources in those wikilinked articles, then they should be placed in the above passage, and only if they explicitly mention this novel. If sources do not mention the novel, then it is not appropriate to include such a section, since that would be Original Research. That's not censorship. It's adherence to a valid policy that's in place to ensure the reliability of an article's material. Nightscream ( talk) 01:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The entire article currently reads like an advertisement, and excising the inaccuracies section has made computer security a disfavor. Attempts to add anything that mentions the inaccuracias are actively stymied. - Mardus / talk 12:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. A complete list of links to all foreign language wiki articles seems a bit over the top. I think a sentence saying the number of foreign language editions released would be sufficient. I can not find any featured article books with a list such as this. The note at the top of the list, referring to wikipedia, also seems odd, in that it seems unusual to talk about the project within an article. Beach drifter ( talk) 16:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Your addition was reverted because that section is for foreign language editions of the novel, and not foreign language Wikipedia articles. A list of foreign language versions of this Wikipedia article is found in the sidebar on the lefthand side of the article, just as they are in all other Wikipedia articles. It says that in the note at the top of that section, and I clarified it yet again in the Angels & Demons article talk page discussion, to which I provided a link in my February 2010 post above, and again with the message I left on your talk page, the day before you left the message above.
Despite this, this addition you added was indeed a link to to Italian language Wikipedia version of this article. You did not provide any citation of a source supporting an Italian language version of the novel, again, despite the fact that the note at the top of the section reminds editors of this, as it is required by various policies and guidelines, such as WP:Verifiability, WP:No Original Research, WP:Citing Sources, etc. When you add material to an article that is based on personal knowledge rather than a citation of a published secondary source, that is called original research, and that is the reason for citing that policy, among others. You don't add such material, or re-add it with a citation needed tag. What is the purpose of such a tag? To indicate that you want someone else to find a source for it? Why is this? If you want that material to be in the article, then you have to provide a citation of a source for it. You don't add unsourced material to an article, and then act like others have to do the legwork for you.
The list is not "incorrect". If you contend that there are other language versions that are not indicated in the list, then that would mean that it is simply incomplete. I included the versions that were supported by sources that I was able to cite. If you have sources indicating other versions, then feel free to add them.
This is not "patronizing", nor does it indicate a failure to assume good faith on my part. It is simply reflective of this site's core policies and guidelines, which you apparently have little regard for, if your referring to them as "hidden rules" is any indication. The question that Leontrague asked, on the other hand, certainly was patronizing, as is the notion that I am somehow required to answer every single rhetorical question made during a discussion. Nightscream ( talk) 15:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This is one of my favourite books, but I'm really disappointed of the Spain image in the book. I'm from Spain and I can assure you that the Spain described in the book IS NOT SPAIN, it's more similar to the poor areas of Mexico. I'm translating a section of the Spanish Wikipedia that talks about it, but I need somebody who has read the book to help me with some things. -- 93.156.201.185 ( talk) 13:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.201.185 ( talk) 13:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
There are so many errors you don't know where to begin with...😰 Ibn Gabirol ( talk) 23:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how Commander Strathmore is the bad guy. I know he wanted Susan, but that doesn't really count as harming her. Ensei Tankado Numataka's father Tokugen on the other hand would be for his deal with Strathmore. Luckily, the plan was foiled. Maybe, he sent one of the "sharks" to NSA's data bank to wait for his son's worm to destroy the security fields, then he could get America private secrets. The assassin Strathmore hired Hulohot could be the secondary villain. Strathmore is really the TRAGIC HERO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.96.51 ( talk) 15:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Although "protagonist" and "antagonist" may sometimes used synonymously in common parlance, they actually do not mean "good guy" and "bad guy". In strict literary terms, the antagonist is the obstacle against which the protagonist, or central character, acts within a narrative. This point comes into high relief when you consider stories whose protagonist is certainly not a "good" guy, as in films like In the Company of Men, Hannibal, Heist, or any story that focuses on a bank robber, criminal, a biography of people like Adolf Hitler or Jack the Ripper, etc. "Good" or "Bad" are value judgments, rather than objective descriptions of a character's function in a narrative. In this sense, the description of Strathmore as an antagonist is accurate, as it is free from personal value judgments. Nightscream ( talk) 00:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not debating that. My point is the it doesn't matter if he's good or bad, because the passage uses the more value-neutral antagonist. Nightscream ( talk) 22:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
We can add minor characters as well E.g. 1. The canandian old man whom David Becker meets in Spain for the ring. 2. Rocio : The prostitute whom David meets the hotel. 3. The girl who gived David the ring on the Airport.
and so on...
Also the major characters may have some more description.
E.g David Becker : A university professor on languages and the fiancé of Susan Fletcher. He is instructed to travel of Spain and retrieve the pass-key from dead Ensei Tankado. SalilSBudhe ( talk) 11:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure the coding system preceded this book.... 145.100.125.133 ( talk) 17:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article include (at least a mention of) the 128-10-93-85-10-128-98-112-6-6-25-126-39-1-68-78 easter egg following the epilogue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amonroejj ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to mark the 235->238 math on the Nagasaki bomb as innacurate. What is the WP style for doing so? even tho it is accurate to the novel, i'd appreciate grossly incorrect facts marked or footnoted in some way. e.g. (sic) or [Incorrectly...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameres ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Digital Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I cannot make anything out of it, needs cleanup. Rearrangement will help to understand plot better. B947116 ( talk) 00:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
The following material, in a section titled "Real life scenarios", is unsourced, and so I have moved it here. If someone can source it, it can be restored to the article.
Extended content
|
---|
==Factual basis== In fact the DES was first publicly broken in 1997, 96 days after the first of the DES Challenges. In 1998, the same year as Digital Fortress was published, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (featured in the book) built a piece of hardware costing less than $250,000 called the EFF DES cracker which broke it in 56 hours. The brute force search used by TRANSLTR takes twice as long for each extra bit added to the key (if this is done sensibly), so the reaction of the industry has understandably been to lengthen the key. The Advanced Encryption Standard established in 2001 uses 128, 192 or 256 bits, which take at least 1021 times as long (i.e. 270) to solve by this technique. Unbreakable codes are not new to the industry. The one-time pad, invented in 1917 and used for the cold-war era Moscow-Washington hotline, was proved to be unconditionally secure by Claude Shannon in 1949 when properly implemented. However it is inconvenient to use in practice. In chapter 4, 10^120 (ten with 119 zeros after it) is said to be the number of sand grains in a 3 mile beach... Well, 10^80 (10 followed by 79 zeroes), a MUCH smaller number than 10^120, roughly corresponds to the number of subatomic particles (e.g. protons, neutrons, electrons) that exist in the known Universe. We're lightyears away from a ridiculous 3 mile long beach ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.225.167 ( talk) 04:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC) ==Inaccuracies== At the end of the novel, the protagonists in trying to solve a riddle about the prime difference between the elements used in the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki curiously consult the Internet from within the NSA. Brown incorrectly writes that the bomb used on Nagasaki was not a plutonium bomb as commonly perceived, but a uranium one. The bomb used on Nagasaki (as well as the Trinity test in New Mexico) was in fact, a plutonium bomb ( 239Pu) which used an implosion-type detonator, though it does employ uranium to a lesser extent as part of the detonator. In addition, plutonium-239 is created from uranium-238 which may be the source of Brown's error. The bomb used on Hiroshima, on the other hand, used uranium-235 ( 235U), and employed a gun-type detonator. The most obvious difference between the elements used in the two bombs academically would be the atomic numbers: 92 for uranium and 94 for plutonium providing a difference of 2 which is also coincidentally a prime number. The other obvious difference would be between the mass numbers of the isotopes: 235 for (235U) and 239 for (239Pu) providing a difference of 4 which is not a prime number. These are the only absolute values for these elements (i.e. statistically non-varying), and the only ones whose difference would produce a whole number. Even provided that this error was not made, the solution is also strange for the following reasons:
|
Nightscream ( talk) 02:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy, one that is responsible for the reliability of article content. There are no "references" in the passage, as those are wikilinks, not references. Material must be supported by reliable, verifiable third party sources, and not other Wikipedia articles, which cannot be used as sources, as that would be circular. If there are sources in those wikilinked articles, then they should be placed in the above passage, and only if they explicitly mention this novel. If sources do not mention the novel, then it is not appropriate to include such a section, since that would be Original Research. That's not censorship. It's adherence to a valid policy that's in place to ensure the reliability of an article's material. Nightscream ( talk) 01:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The entire article currently reads like an advertisement, and excising the inaccuracies section has made computer security a disfavor. Attempts to add anything that mentions the inaccuracias are actively stymied. - Mardus / talk 12:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. A complete list of links to all foreign language wiki articles seems a bit over the top. I think a sentence saying the number of foreign language editions released would be sufficient. I can not find any featured article books with a list such as this. The note at the top of the list, referring to wikipedia, also seems odd, in that it seems unusual to talk about the project within an article. Beach drifter ( talk) 16:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Your addition was reverted because that section is for foreign language editions of the novel, and not foreign language Wikipedia articles. A list of foreign language versions of this Wikipedia article is found in the sidebar on the lefthand side of the article, just as they are in all other Wikipedia articles. It says that in the note at the top of that section, and I clarified it yet again in the Angels & Demons article talk page discussion, to which I provided a link in my February 2010 post above, and again with the message I left on your talk page, the day before you left the message above.
Despite this, this addition you added was indeed a link to to Italian language Wikipedia version of this article. You did not provide any citation of a source supporting an Italian language version of the novel, again, despite the fact that the note at the top of the section reminds editors of this, as it is required by various policies and guidelines, such as WP:Verifiability, WP:No Original Research, WP:Citing Sources, etc. When you add material to an article that is based on personal knowledge rather than a citation of a published secondary source, that is called original research, and that is the reason for citing that policy, among others. You don't add such material, or re-add it with a citation needed tag. What is the purpose of such a tag? To indicate that you want someone else to find a source for it? Why is this? If you want that material to be in the article, then you have to provide a citation of a source for it. You don't add unsourced material to an article, and then act like others have to do the legwork for you.
The list is not "incorrect". If you contend that there are other language versions that are not indicated in the list, then that would mean that it is simply incomplete. I included the versions that were supported by sources that I was able to cite. If you have sources indicating other versions, then feel free to add them.
This is not "patronizing", nor does it indicate a failure to assume good faith on my part. It is simply reflective of this site's core policies and guidelines, which you apparently have little regard for, if your referring to them as "hidden rules" is any indication. The question that Leontrague asked, on the other hand, certainly was patronizing, as is the notion that I am somehow required to answer every single rhetorical question made during a discussion. Nightscream ( talk) 15:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This is one of my favourite books, but I'm really disappointed of the Spain image in the book. I'm from Spain and I can assure you that the Spain described in the book IS NOT SPAIN, it's more similar to the poor areas of Mexico. I'm translating a section of the Spanish Wikipedia that talks about it, but I need somebody who has read the book to help me with some things. -- 93.156.201.185 ( talk) 13:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.201.185 ( talk) 13:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
There are so many errors you don't know where to begin with...😰 Ibn Gabirol ( talk) 23:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how Commander Strathmore is the bad guy. I know he wanted Susan, but that doesn't really count as harming her. Ensei Tankado Numataka's father Tokugen on the other hand would be for his deal with Strathmore. Luckily, the plan was foiled. Maybe, he sent one of the "sharks" to NSA's data bank to wait for his son's worm to destroy the security fields, then he could get America private secrets. The assassin Strathmore hired Hulohot could be the secondary villain. Strathmore is really the TRAGIC HERO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.96.51 ( talk) 15:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Although "protagonist" and "antagonist" may sometimes used synonymously in common parlance, they actually do not mean "good guy" and "bad guy". In strict literary terms, the antagonist is the obstacle against which the protagonist, or central character, acts within a narrative. This point comes into high relief when you consider stories whose protagonist is certainly not a "good" guy, as in films like In the Company of Men, Hannibal, Heist, or any story that focuses on a bank robber, criminal, a biography of people like Adolf Hitler or Jack the Ripper, etc. "Good" or "Bad" are value judgments, rather than objective descriptions of a character's function in a narrative. In this sense, the description of Strathmore as an antagonist is accurate, as it is free from personal value judgments. Nightscream ( talk) 00:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not debating that. My point is the it doesn't matter if he's good or bad, because the passage uses the more value-neutral antagonist. Nightscream ( talk) 22:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
We can add minor characters as well E.g. 1. The canandian old man whom David Becker meets in Spain for the ring. 2. Rocio : The prostitute whom David meets the hotel. 3. The girl who gived David the ring on the Airport.
and so on...
Also the major characters may have some more description.
E.g David Becker : A university professor on languages and the fiancé of Susan Fletcher. He is instructed to travel of Spain and retrieve the pass-key from dead Ensei Tankado. SalilSBudhe ( talk) 11:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure the coding system preceded this book.... 145.100.125.133 ( talk) 17:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article include (at least a mention of) the 128-10-93-85-10-128-98-112-6-6-25-126-39-1-68-78 easter egg following the epilogue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amonroejj ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to mark the 235->238 math on the Nagasaki bomb as innacurate. What is the WP style for doing so? even tho it is accurate to the novel, i'd appreciate grossly incorrect facts marked or footnoted in some way. e.g. (sic) or [Incorrectly...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameres ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Digital Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I cannot make anything out of it, needs cleanup. Rearrangement will help to understand plot better. B947116 ( talk) 00:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)