Dale Dougherty: Sharks and Daemons

Discuss

9 Responses to “Dale Dougherty: Sharks and Daemons”

  1. matthb says:

    Haven’t read this but I had the same kind of heebie-jeebie feeling when I first watched Connections all those years ago:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcSxL8GUn-g

  2. Junon says:

    Anon @2

    Funny, I could have made almost the exact same comment about “Mainspring” which was recommended some time back. Definitely should have waited for the paperback in that instance.

    And just so I’m not all negativity, many thanks to BoingBoing for introducing me to Karl Schroeder. Now that’s the crazy hi-lo, worlds-within-worlds SF that I can dig.

  3. cmpalmer says:

    I thought Daemon was great and relatively unputdownable. There were some rough spots in the prose and a maybe a few other problems, but being boring wasn’t one of them (to me at least).

    As other reviews of the book have pointed out, it’s actually a weird experience to read a book like this written by someone who actually knows the technology he is writing about.

    While the plot and gadgets taken as a whole might be a stretch, there really isn’t any one thing described in the book that isn’t available off-the-shelf (or maybe off the shelf within a year or so) or via a little hacking given the resources in the book. Pretty much a whole book that never calls for a sarcastic, “Yeah, riiiiight” comment.

  4. joel_kelly says:

    that is a funny photoshopped book cover.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I’m currently half-way through Daemon and wishing I hadn’t read the “plot doesn’t resolve itself” spoiler in this post.

    That said, while I find the book’s concept interesting, I’m thoroughly underwhelmed by the writing. It’s rife with run-of-the-mill pot-boiler cliches and melodramatic prose. Not that there’s anything wrong with a pot-boiler! But I expected something a little better from a novel that came highly recommended by the good people at both boingboing and slashdot.

  6. Mojave says:

    My take on this book?
    ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…….

  7. Kytsune says:

    @2 Mojave, That bad?

  8. jtegnell says:

    Looks raelly graet.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I’m a little scared of any “new and improved”, more secure internet. Secure? For whom?
    To me, it just sounds like more surveillance and control and taking away the error-recovery mechanisms.

    And as for stolen credit card numbers, yeah, it’s bad. However, how about some more laws and regulations on what and how long data can be stored and what minimal requirements are imposed on the infrastructure? Seems like that would be the obvious first step.
    What about the method of payment itself? I mean, the system is *based* on the pull-model with little or no actual verification needed, so anyone can charge the card if the number is known. That’s like walking into a bank saying you’re someone else and emptying their accounts without having to prove you identity. Whose brainfart was that?
    The proper way of doing online payments would be to start with a simple wire transfer made in your own online bank. The identities of the participants in the transaction are known by the banking system so devising ways, protocols, for withdrawing payment etc. shouldn’t be that difficult to create and implement in the international banking community. But no, instead we pay extra for the privilege of using a system that is flawed at its very core.

Leave a Reply