im rather sure ive read it..but id have to go look through my collection to see if i have it and then refresh my memory to be sure. That said im a HUGE advocate for reading about old exploits/hacks. Sure many times that "old" hack is so out dated that it will never ever be used again as is, but a well written book or article wont just give exact details for an exploit, but the methodology behind it. methodology is imo one of the most useful things you CAN learn. The more methods at your disposal, the more "thought patterns" the more exploits you are capable of seeing.
Im going to tell a story here 
. It is not computer related, but it is hacking related.
So a buddy of mine i played pool with(billards) taught me a interesting game some time back. basically set up for a normal game of 8 ball, break like normal. but after that you use object balls(such as the 7 ball) as your cue ball that MUST hit the cue ball as your object ball before going in a pocket. Meaning you would hit the 7 at the cue ball that MUST strike it, THEN the 7 is allowed to be pocketed. What this does is opens your mind to all sorts of combinations and angles that you would normally not see. Now before i learned this game i was a rather decent player, capable of holding off a barroom full of people for hours on a table. Meaning i was by no means a shabby player. i know "shapes", have good cue control, can hit bank shots/cuts etc. Yet learning this alternate style game GREATLY improved how i viewed object balls on the table. In other words the "style" of play itself is the hack, greatly changing how the game is played/viewed.
Many times an exploit is discovered, someone familiar with old methodologies can see where it tied in for that hack, or in the case of someone finding a discovery many times it will be based off of the methodologies they applied. Basically those shots/hacks were already their, you simply lacked the framework or proper mind set to apply to see them. Learning old HAM radio techniques/phreaking/etc are still just as useful now as they were then, even if the original hack cant be applied, the methodology can.
That's very true my friend.
You know, learning physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics (well, perhaps excluding mathematics which is very important in computer science) will not affect your hacking skills, because for fuck's sake, someone could be an utter idiot incapable of telling the difference between the central nervous system and the sun, yet for some reason able to hack into a digital billboard and display porn (as some hackers did a while ago in Brazill, for reasons nobody will understand, except the band of brothers.) But you know, understanding the anatomy of a centipede (not the nicest creature to look at, but since I have the fear of spiders, I think it's benenficial but scary-as-fuck to perform a surgery at a sun spider.)
You know, able to think like a chemist will able to free your mind from "it's just computers." You know, the table Mendeleev created, that had 63 elements, he even predicted some elements that were not discovered. That was quite unlike Newlands, who thought only some elements existed. You know, when I think about it, Newlands, if he existed in the 21st century, wouldn't have been a mediocre hacker even if he wanted to. He thought the primitive chemistry at his time was "be all end all."
He, unlike Mendeleev, thought that there couldn't be any more compounds than those which were discovered in his lifetime. Furthermore as atomic number wasn't discovered (or perhaps, "used" be more correct) in his lifetime, his system of octaves failed after Ca. Although his failure gave rise to Mendeleev's Peridoic Table, which had its own faults (hydogen in halogen, and isotopes...), but at least he was able to predict Germanium, Scandium and a few others. He knew that there will be several more elements discovered.
From a modern hacker's point-of-view, thinking about it, you are trained to know that exploits can be discovered in every new version of any software. So even if possiblly all exploits able to be exploited in any specific enviroment are discovered, the patches themselves can introduce new exploits. Or new features, optimizations and so-on further modifications in the code.
Just think about it, mathematically, a computer may never be smart as Einstein, or a groundbreaking future physicist that's sucking a plastic nipple right now, but when its programmer knows what Einstein knew at his time combined with the mathematical capabilities of a chemist and open-mindness of a biologist, biochemist, it will sure create some respect for its programmer in the world of science, where computer science isn't much appreciated as E = MC2 formula.
