Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Servers, Hackers, and Code In the Movies

Posted by Zonk on Fri Dec 08, 2006 08:10 PM
from the what-no-angela-bennett dept.
Billosaur writes "As with anything, Hollywood has a weird way of viewing computer technology and the people who use it. To help quantify things, take a look at The Top 20 Movie Hackers, the Top Ten Movie Servers, and the things code doesn't do in real life." From the servers article: "3. UNIX environment - Jurassic Park (1993). The UNIX environment here is a classic geek joke. Everything we saw was real - created by Silicon Graphics and called IRIX. InGen was the corporation funding the island, and from an IT perspective they let the worst possible thing happen: they allowed one programmer to design the infrastructure with no supervision. What's worse, they obviously required no documentation of what was done. The result was a kid had to hack in and gain ROOT privileges. The likelihood of a young kid knowing a way to get ROOT (and not a more experienced programmer) is pretty hard to swallow. The hardware for this server was probably minimal, running door locks and starting Quicktime movies. 'We spared no expense!' You would think that with the millions of dollars they spent on the park, they could have hired a couple newbie programmers and added a server on the backend."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Ask Slashdot: What Movies Got Computers Right? 176 comments
boxturtleme asks: "There have been several posts recently about how movies have gotten computers, hackers, and other geeky stuff entirely wrong. A while back there was an article on Servers, Hackers, and Code In the Movies and another on Usability [of a GUI] in the Movies. Now we all know that most movies out there that have anything to do with technology get some part of it wildly inaccurate, though it often makes for a fun movie. This brings me to my question: What movies got technology right? This could range from movies about the past that represent it correctly to modern day movies or movies about the future that slashdot readers think present something within the realm of possibility. With all the complaining about bad movies, what movies do Slashdot readers think of as the good ones?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • It's funny? Laugh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2006, @08:16PM (#17169736)
    No, it's not funny. This sort of geek-complaining-because-it-isn't-100%-realistic crap is what gives us a bad name. No one cares about shit like this. Please stop posting meaningless "Top N" lists like this. That "Top 10 Geek Girls" article from last week was bad enough. How many decent, informative articles were rejected to make room for this dreck?
    • by Chris Burke (6130) on Friday December 08 2006, @08:29PM (#17169844) Homepage
      Ever watched E.R. with a doctor? This is hardly a computer geek specific trait.

      There's nothing unusual about someone with knowledge in a specialized field finding the Hollywood portrayal of that field amusing. Because they are, 95% of the time, wrong and 50% of the time they're wrong enough for it to be funny to the person who knows better.

      "I know this! This is UNIX!" is funny as shit. Okay, it's not funny at all to non-computer-geeks, but neither are the Hollywood gaffs that doctors, lawyers, auto mechanics, and ninja assassins find amusing to people not in those fields.
      • by Freaky Spook (811861) on Friday December 08 2006, @09:00PM (#17170062)
        IANAL but I do provide IT support to a few firms.

        You never, ever, see any paperwork, stacks of document boxes or any case files being used in any legal shows.

        They make it seem(Especially in Boston Legal) that the defendant or plaintif just tells the attourneys their problem and then just go to court and argue it.
          • by CrudPuppy (33870) on Friday December 08 2006, @11:20PM (#17170838) Homepage
            as a senior unix admin, I gotta say I personally enjoy the mystique surrounding our profession, especially that of the hardcore sysadmin. if they wanna think that it takes some uber-genius to be a sysadmin, and therefore keep our pay up in the ranks, let em! I may even buy a skateboard and hold onto limos while I intercept garbage files on a floppy from the teenager who just rooted my Sun e25k. heh.
          • by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Saturday December 09 2006, @01:17AM (#17171408) Homepage Journal
            I've always wondered what the patients on House think when they get the bill afterward? I mean every show has the same formula:
            1. Patient gets sick with some obscure condition.
            2. Doctor 1 orders standard stuff, it doesn't work/makes it worse
            3. Doctor 2 orders some obscure test
            4. Doctor 3 orders an MRI
            5. Doctor 2 orders another weird test
            6. House has some drama with his own life/leg/whatever
            7. Doctor 4 makes some final off the wall test, and decides on a rather extreme course of action
            8. House jumps in at the last minute and explains how all they needed was an aspirin

            I mean what HMO would authorize that crazy list of tests? You gotta figure these people get back and have enormous hospital bills.

            I watched it for awhile with my wife and the first few shows were interesting, but then the whole "House is a jerk" angle got kinda stale and I didn't really have any hope of trying to figure out the medical mysteries when half of the stuff they say sounds like it came from the medical version of the Star Trek Technobabble generator.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2006, @10:11PM (#17170498)
        . . . When you were gwowing up, didn't you notice that anything was possibwe in cawtoons? Do you weawwy think Howwywood movie diwectors ow pwoducers awe any diffewent? It isn't weawity, you know?

        Oh, BTW, that weminds me . . . I went out hunting this weekend and the stwangest thing happened. Weww, I saw this wabbit, you see. So, I chased him down and he wan and jumped into this howe in the gwound. I said, "I'm gonna get you, you wascawy wabbit!!". You wouldn't bewieve what he did!! He jumped out of the howe, gwabbed my big, fat cheeks and kissed me wight on the mowth!! Then he jumped up again, spinning in a compwete bwur at about a thousand times a second, to which, at his apex he jack-knifed and did a Gweg Wouganis-style dive, wight back into the howe. So I stuck my double-bawwel shotgun in the howe and said, "Now, I've got you, wabbit!!". Suddenwy, I fewt a tun on my gun, and befowe I know it I was in a tug-of-waw with him. He yanked and I yanked back. Yank . . . yank. . . yank, . . . back and fowrth. When I finawwy puwwed my gun out, it was tied in a knot!! As a wast wesowt, I puwwed the twigger and bwew my own face owff. That was the wast time I went wabbit hunting.

        Now, I just wook fowawd to duck season. If that doesn't wowk out, I'ww just take up painting.
        • by Chris Burke (6130) on Saturday December 09 2006, @01:32AM (#17171470) Homepage
          The next time you watch a swordfight in a movie, watch where the swords are being swung. Most of the time, if the opponent just dropped their sword to the floor, the attacking swing would miss completely. In hollywood, they swing the swords at the other swords - blade to blade - instead of trying to actually hit the other guy.

          A very noteable exception -- or maybe not since it isn't Hollywood but what you're saying is common of action movies from everywhere -- being The Seven Samurai. Everyone who uses a sword in that movie uses it to kill, and as a result most sword fights are one or two strokes long. While lacking the acrobatic beauty of a good ten-minute lightsaber duel, it did have a gritty reality that just felt right.
  • MIA: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by toby (759) * on Friday December 08 2006, @08:17PM (#17169748) Homepage Journal
    1. Buscemi's Seymour (Ghost World).
    2. De Niro's Harry Tuttle (in keeping with the Brazil theme posts this week).
    • Re:MIA: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kv9 (697238) on Friday December 08 2006, @09:13PM (#17170162) Homepage
      i also can't believe they left colossus [imdb.com] out. tsk tsk tsk.
      • Mice? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by finiteSet (834891) on Friday December 08 2006, @09:29PM (#17170246)
        Regarding the "things code doesn't do in real life" list, am I the only one who spit out my coffee upon reading:

        9. People who write code use mice
        According to Hollywood most programmers haven't discovered how to use a mouse. Sure, we type fast, but a mouse is a very useful tool and there's no reason we'd abandon it.
        I can code for hours without touching the mouse. What purpose does a mouse serve when writing code? What does it provide that a keyboard doesn't? This isn't photo-editing or game-playing we're talking about, it's coding.

        The only benefit I could see would be for cut-and-paste purposes, but even then a couple quick keystrokes in a good editor will do the trick faster.
      • Re:MIA: (Score:5, Funny)

        by BobNET (119675) on Friday December 08 2006, @09:36PM (#17170282)
        Makes sense to me. You have to understand, that like every other being in the galaxy in the year 1996, these aliens were forced to use Windows 95. Very easy for Jeff Goldblum to hack into from his laptop.

        In fact, that's why the aliens came to Earth; they were looking for Bill Gates...
  • by User 956 (568564) on Friday December 08 2006, @08:18PM (#17169758) Homepage
    As with anything, Hollywood has a weird way of viewing computer technology and the people that use it.
    It may be weird to you or I, but Hollywood does it that way because that's how your "average joe" sees it.
    • by euice (953774) on Friday December 08 2006, @08:25PM (#17169812)

      It may be weird to you or I, but Hollywood does it that way because that's how your "average joe" sees it.

      It's the other way around, the "average joe" sees it that way because of the movies.

      • by Deadstick (535032) on Friday December 08 2006, @10:08PM (#17170480)
        You can often see that effect in news coverage of a shooting. Some earwitness will say "I didn't think it was a gunshot because it didn't sound like one"...meaning it didn't sound like a movie gun.

        rj
      • by tooyoung (853621) on Friday December 08 2006, @10:20PM (#17170544)
        I find this outlook somewhat humerous. I studied computer vision as a grad student, and yet whenever a face recognition story is posted on slashdot, sure enough, all of the +5 comments reflect Hollywood misconceptions. Digging through the articles, I generally find that people with real experience in the computer vision field have their comments relegated to a 1 status.
    • Actually (Score:3, Insightful)

      they do that because it is quicker. Actual computer work is boring as hell to watch in a movie.

      • Re:Actually (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Bottlemaster (449635) on Saturday December 09 2006, @02:50AM (#17171830)
        they do that because it is quicker. Actual computer work is boring as hell to watch in a movie.


        Remember the scene in one of those awful Matrix sequels in which Trinity nmaps and then sshnukes the power plant computer? She was a quick typer, so it wasn't any more boring than the rest of the film, and the savvy among the audience were like "omg, semi-realistic portrayal of computers".

        Also, Sneakers was an entertaining film and, although I haven't seen it since I was like 10, I remember it being fairly realistic (it was my first introduction to social engineering as a cracking technique). Also, the braille terminal was really awesome, despite the fact that braille terminals actually exist. Much more impressive than the stupid 3D crap in Hackers.
    • by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday December 08 2006, @09:22PM (#17170214)
      It may be weird to you or I, but Hollywood does it that way because that's how your "average joe" sees it.


      No, Hollywood does it that way because it servese the interests of the plot and cinematic pacing without conflicting so much with people's experience that it breaks suspension of disbelief, not because it accurately reflects the "average joe" impression of computers.

      (Note, this also applies to general Hollywood portrayal of basically everything: physics, police procedure, military tactics, whatever.)
    • by Jerf (17166) on Friday December 08 2006, @11:02PM (#17170740) Journal
      I find I'm generally happier when I consider what we see on the screen to still be a little symbolic, more like a book than a true "what a guy on the scene would see" documentary style.

      Many things make more sense that way, hacker displays are just one thing. All space combat at all ranges happens in a way to frame the combat precisely in the screen, even when there are multiple ships. Real space combat would presumably take place at even greater ranges than modern naval combat; I'll be conservative and call the zone of influence of a carrier group many tens of miles. (Depends on how you measure it, I suppose.) Yet the two space ships always approach within a few hundred meters... well, they have to or there's nothing to show. Sure, I'd pay to see a realistic movie, but it'd make Serenity look like a spectacular financial success in the general market.

      This presumably also explains why the good crew of the Enterprise misses so many point-blank visual-range shots; it's symbolic of the fact that at a few tens of kilometers it's a lot easier to miss.

      In Serenity, the scenes with the Reavers between them and the planet Miranda has to be a little symbolic, because space junk at that density would be unstable. But the real situation would be completely unfilmable, and most of the same effect can be had with a re-arrangement of the situation.

      Space combat is just one of the easier ones; a lot of things are better taken as symbolic.

      This leaves you more worried about good characters, internal consistency (even with silly rules), and other more story-related issues. Taking this viewpoint has mostly satisfied my inner geek, although he still sometimes notices things that still can't really be explained this way.

      (It probably helps that I still read and enjoy science fiction from the 1950s and back; the rules are very silly by modern physics standards, but as long as they are consistent, I still can find the stories interesting and entertaining; in fact in our zest for realism we've lost some interesting story worlds.)
  • by iteyoidar (972700) on Friday December 08 2006, @08:21PM (#17169778)
    While I realize this list is written for folks who enjoy this kind of stuff, I don't think *anyone* would find that adding another half hour of film devoted to showing how Jurassic Park hired computer experts and documenting their security systems would benefit the movie.
    • I'm always vaguely confused by the Jurassic Park complaints. The Jurassic Park movie had almost nothing wrong with its presentation of computers or technology in general. (I'm not including the sci-fi cloning in that. I'm sure there were problems with that.)

      First of all, yes, that's a real Unix system. A very stupid one, but a real one.

      Secondly, the system was crap. And the point is?

      It's a very badly designed system. It was designed by one person, and it's not finished. No one was trained in it yet, and the only person who understands it dies early, and it was sabotaged. Of course you have crazy stuff like not automatically switching the power over or the fences going down.

      I mean, yeah, some stuff was slightly improbable, but it's the kinda shit that actually does happen in emergency situations, at least the first time...you discover that, hey, the damn generator didn't come on line or that the carefully constructed key-card security system is not, apparently, on the battery backups This is why you don't test with live data, or, in this case, live dinosaurs.

      Again, unfinished, crappy system. Sorta like the actual park itself, when you think about it. Remember it was being worked on by someone who, at least for a short period of time, knew he was going to fleeing his job with a boatload of money for selling them out, and ask yourself if you think he really was working on fixing bugs during that time?

      About the only thing I actually have issues with is the 'We can't get a phone line out' plot. But I guess, logically, those couldn't be 'real' phone lines, it's not like the phone company ran lines to the island. No, they have a sat or underwater cable connection with somewhere, and a PBX, and Nedry screwed up the PBX, and they don't know what the hell they'll talking about, all they know is they can't get a dial tone.

  • Maybe it's just me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by porkThreeWays (895269) on Friday December 08 2006, @08:21PM (#17169780)
    Maybe it's just me, but I seem to find the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park a little less believable than a kid getting root.
  • I haven't been this shocked since I found out pro-wrestling was fake!

    If Hollywood isn't accurate regarding computer technology, I shudder to think what else they've depicted might be wrong. Next you're going to tell me good guys don't have unlimited ammunition, you can't trick a killer to confesing to a murder on national television, and that ugly women can't be transformed into supermodels merely by taking off their glasses!

    • I haven't been this shocked since I found out pro-wrestling was fake!


      I have some news for you about porn movies ...
    • by Rick17JJ (744063) on Friday December 08 2006, @11:11PM (#17170786)

      A number of years ago, I remember seeing a movie on TV where the cockpit of a large passenger jet was totally destroyed in a mid-air collision (or was it an explosion?). The pilot and co-pilot were dead and all of the controls, instruments and radios were destroyed so there was no way for the passengers to fly the jet. Fortunately, there was a bundle of wires hanging down into the passenger compartment and there was a geek with a laptop sitting nearby. He calmly explained that all he had to do was hook the wires to his laptop computer and he would be able to fly the jet from a program on his computer. When someone questioned whether he could really do that, he explained that of course he could do that because "he was from Silicon Valley." They safely landed the jet of course. What was that stupid movie called?

      As I recall, he did not mention ever having worked with aircraft avionics equipment before, he was just an ordinary computer expert from Silicon Valley. They did not have radio contact with any experts on the ground and did not have access to any wiring diagrams or manuals. How likely is it that he would have been able grab some bundle of wires and within several hours get them hooked up and working with some program on his computer? Would those be some common type of wires using some common protocols that are well know outside the aviation industry? Perhaps he might have had to quickly use some boolean algebra to reverse engineer what the circuits were doing and then within several hours quickly write, debug and compile some C++ code and interface that with a flight simulator or game program on his computer. He is good!

      As for non-computer movies, I recall seeing one where Arnold Schwartzeneger was being chased by dozens of solders with rifles. They shoot at him for about 10 seconds with their rifles as he is running and miss. Then he suddenly turns around and kills them all in 2 seconds with his machine gun. I have never been in the military and don't know much about guns, but supposedly dozens of trained solders with rifles were almost useless against one man with a machine gun.

      As for Science fiction, I don't even know where to begin. In the old television series "Space 1999" a nuclear waste dump on the moon exploded with enough force to seen Earth's moon flying through space past a different solar system each week. The nearest star is over 4 light-years away, so the moon must have been traveling faster than the speed of light. Fortunately, the crew of the moon base survived the rapid acceleration.

      On one of the various CSI type programs on TV, a crime was recorded by a security camera. They noticed a small reflection in on of the victims pupils so they zoomed in and enhanced the picture. There was the reflection of the killers face visible in the reflection. I have zoomed in on a few digital images on my computer and the image very quickly becomes a useless collection of large individual pixels. Who has security cameras that record at that kind of resolution?

  • by Timesprout (579035) on Friday December 08 2006, @08:25PM (#17169816)
    Take Swordfish for example where he hacks into some top secret site whilst having a gun pointed at him, a gorgeous blonde giving him a blow job and Halle Berry looking on. In my entire working career that's only ever happened to me twice (ok probably cos I live so far from Halle Berry). But still.
  • My favorite bit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Friday December 08 2006, @08:47PM (#17169962)
    Was Barnard Hughes as the I/O port in TRON (systems programming as allegory, all "Through the Looking Glass") all covered with patches and patches and patches so that he was literally an imobile tower... Somebody who got it wrote that scene.
  • by iabervon (1971) on Friday December 08 2006, @08:51PM (#17169992) Homepage Journal
    The screenshot for Jurassic Park looks like a normal Irix screen. But what anybody who actually watched that part of the movie noticed was that the screen in the movie was some weird flying-through-a-virtual-reality-landscape thing, which the kid immediately recognized as UNIX. Almost everybody with actual UNIX experience just laughed at that, because it was classic a Hollywood computer representation. Except that it really was Irix, but running a window manager only available to people whose UNIX system had superfluous accelerated 3D graphics in 1995 (i.e., movie CG folks). What the audience couldn't see, but the kid would have been able to, was that the landscape had, written on the ground, things like "sbin" and "usr", clear signs of a UNIX system of some sort. As for breaking in, when dinosaurs are taking over your facility, chances are you aren't patching sendmail every day. And, in '95, that would have been a problem.
  • by The Famous Druid (89404) on Friday December 08 2006, @08:51PM (#17169994)
    ... that projects the back-to-front green text onto the face of the user.

    Oh, and the image processing software that takes a poor quality security camera image, and 'enhances' it so you can see the villains face reflected in the sunglasses of the victim.
    • by MoralHazard (447833) on Friday December 08 2006, @09:09PM (#17170134)
      ...image processing software that takes a poor quality security camera image, and 'enhances' it so you can see the villains face reflected in the sunglasses of the victim...

      While your point is well-made (I love the CSI episode where they "rotate" the security camera still to see the front of the guy's face, when the camera caught him from the back), you'd be surprised what can be done with heavy math and a LOT of processing power to improve the quality of digital images.

      Depending on the type of images (stills versus video), and whether compression has been used, it's potentially possible to extract more information from the datastream than was intended. There's a neat trick that can be used on video, where the algorithm enhances one frame by analyzing the preceding and succeeding frames, recognizing the actual objects in the picture. It combines several seconds' worth of video information to provide a much clearer image of what's in a single frame. Of course, this doesn't always work, it depends on what you have to work with.

      A guy I sometimes work with got hold of a cellphone camera video, shot freehand during a demonstration in New York City, of some cops pulling people down and roughing them up. Because of the crappy camera work, and the fact that the cellphone was such a horrible source, and the video had been compressed to hell, it wasn't possible initially to make out the faces of the cops or protesters. After tweaking the algorithm parameters and running the original stream through a LOT of processing, he had the video clear enough to identify most of the people present, AND read an officer's badge number.

      This was originally prompted by the cops charging the protesters with resisting arrest and assult, all of which were thrown out of court for other reasons. But a couple of people won civil suits against the city on account of the video enhancement, and I think at least one cop lost his job.

      I love telling people this story when they complain that higher math is useless except in theoretical physics. Power to the people, man!
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        [OT]
        Was that at the RNC in 2004? I used my video tape to get BS charges against myself (and possibly a few others arrested in Times Square) dropped. Hell, my ACLU lawyer didn't even have to show up in court. I just had the tape in my hands.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Yep. I was amazed by how fast the cops and the city backed off from the bullshit charges, when they realized how extensively people had documented the actual goings-on. When I started getting calls from friends to help get bail money together, I was pretty worried about some of the folks that I knew had been popped, but it mostly turned out fine in the end. The cops weren't even that rough--only a few serious injuries, most of the physical incidents just left bruises. I didn't know anybody in Times Squa
      • by Tim Browse (9263) on Friday December 08 2006, @10:40PM (#17170638)

        I love the CSI episode where they "rotate" the security camera still to see the front of the guy's face, when the camera caught him from the back

        Sounds like Enemy of the State.

        I often think in CSI that they should have a 'Bullshit Lab'. I mean they have a DNA lab, a Fingerprint lab, a Trace Analysis lab, a Ballistics lab. Wouldn't that be a great ace in the hole the next time Grisson or Horatio is up against it? "Ok, people, we need to take it to the next level. Let's go to the Bullshit lab." Then they march in to watch some totally made-up 3D animation of victims bouncing off walls and cars and the tech guy says "Here's that bullshit you wanted, guys!" and hands them the retina scan from a reflection of someone's face from a car mirror taken by some ATM cctv footage, and it has the eye colour right and everything.

        Case solved!

  • by cgreuter (82182) on Friday December 08 2006, @09:14PM (#17170164)

    Indepence Day has flaws--many, many, many flaws--but the whole virus-on-a-Mac is not one of them. What Jeff Goldblum's character did was standard cross-platform development. He wrote the virus on his Mac, compiled it to an EvilAlienOS binary and uploaded it via the EvilAlienNetwork port on the captured spaceship.

    This is more or less exactly what you'd do if you were developing for, say, an embedded microcontroller. The host computer doesn't need to be compatible with the target.

    If you want to quibble, you could ask where he got the EvilAlienOS programmer's reference manual or the EvilAlienCPU's architecture description or how he managed to find an exploitable vulnerability in EvilAlienOS so quickly. But enough about the frickin' Mac, okay?

    • If you want to quibble, you could ask where he got the EvilAlienOS programmer's reference manual or the EvilAlienCPU's architecture description or how he managed to find an exploitable vulnerability in EvilAlienOS so quickly.

      EvilAlienOS is actually Windows95, which they, like everybody else in the universe, were forced to install on their hardware by Microsfot.

      This is actually the reason they invaded in the first place.

      Fortunately, once Jeff Goldblum figured this out, finding an exploitable vulnerability wasn't a problem.

  • Overlooked 'The Net' (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cgreuter (82182) on Friday December 08 2006, @09:20PM (#17170198)

    I'm surprised that The Net [imdb.com] didn't make it onto the list. After all, this is the movie where the bad guys kill a guy by hacking into the computer controlling his car's anti-lock brakes.

    Really.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Friday December 08 2006, @09:26PM (#17170234)
    Let's even ignore for a moment the fact that real hacking is boring to look at. What's interesting for Joe Average to watch a guy live on Chips and Jolt for hours and days while typing cryptic commands?

    Imagine someone actually did a "true" hacker movie. Let's imagine a documentary. A "show hack" if you want, where someone who really knows what he's doing is giving us a 90 minute rundown of a hack. Using real tools, trying real exploits. How long do you think 'til certain three letter orgs step in and round up everyone who had even remotely anything to do with it?

    Hacking isn't a funny game anymore. As more information and money is dealt through electronic channels, the stakes rose considerably. Hacking is a business, more than it ever was. And it has become a problem to the powers that be, more than it ever was.

    Movies already tell BS in certain other areas, for example when it comes to chemicals used in bombs or how certain tools can be (ab)used to cause havoc, just to deter wannabe copycats. You think anyone would be allowed to do a "true" hacker movie in this climate?

    Besides, nobody would want to watch it. Except maybe geeks, but you can hardly make a blockbuster that way. I mean, when was the last time your computer blew up due to a botched hack? See? No explosions, no gunfights, not interesting.
  • In the six years that I worked as lead game tester in the video game industry, I had never gotten drunk, stoned, titted or laid because of my job. "Grandma's Boy" is such an unrealistic movie that I laughed all the way through.
  • I feel old... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AWhistler (597388) on Friday December 08 2006, @09:41PM (#17170314)
    I read the list about things code doesn't do in real life. The one about text not making noise when it is typed on the keyboard struck me that the one making the list is just a kid. Anyone who has used a real VT100 terminal, or a clone of such (remember Wyse terminals???) had a keyboard with a very quiet touch...so quiet that people were uneasy about typing on it, so they added an artificial key click on the keyboard, with a volume control. Every key pressed made a very short beep, at the same time it appeared on the screen.

    And the part about the Gibson in Hackers being a 3D city and having a problem with it just means this guy has no imagination. Anyone remember the movie Disclosure? There was a "cutting edge" operating system being rumored to be developed in real life that was a 3D world that people walked around in and interacted with files, etc in a virtual reality. That metaphor was used in several movies. How else can non-geeks understand anything about what we geeks do without clear visuals? It's called artistic license.

    What bothered be about movies is when they substitute one thing for another. For example, in Tron, when Flynn gets "lasered" back into the real world, the printer starts printing. The printer was a daisy-wheel printer, and it made sounds like a dot matrix printer.

    Oh well. Lighten up!
  • by Shadow-isoHunt (1014539) on Friday December 08 2006, @09:51PM (#17170378) Homepage
    The window manager showed in Jurrasic Park is actually real, it's fsn. There's a linux port, fsv at sourceforge. [sf.net] As you'll notice, the view does make it possible to tell that you're in a *nix enviornment.
  • by ArcherB (796902) on Friday December 08 2006, @10:45PM (#17170654) Journal
    All hardware is compatible.

    I remember watching "The Lone Gunman" one day (thank God that show didn't make it!) and they needed more processing power to crack a password to take over a hijacked plane. "We could do this if had one of those new Octium 4's!" Well, they get one, right before the plane hits the building, they pull out their existing processor and drop in the Octium 4 (without so much as powering the machine off) and BAM! They had their password and saved the plane. (Oh, and no processors had any type of thermal anything!)

    • I'd kill to have a program that makes terminal output sound like it does in the movies!

          Yes. Then you'd very quickly be snuffed out by everyone who has to be anywhere near you.
    • by rutwms (737121) on Friday December 08 2006, @09:24PM (#17170224)

      I'd kill to have a program that makes terminal output sound like it does in the movies!

      From the beep [johnath.com] man page (in Debian):

      When using -c mode, I recommend using a short -D, and a shorter -l, so that the beeps don't blur together. Something like this will get you a cheesy 1970's style beep-as-you-type-each-letter effect

      cat file | beep -c -f 400 -D 50 -l 10
    • movl (%esp),%eax # Load NPX control word.
      andl $0xfffff2ff,%eax # Set rounding mode to nearest.
      orl $0x00000200,%eax # Set precision to 64 bits. (53-bit mantissa)
      pushl %eax
      fldcw (%esp) # Recover modes.
      popl %eax
      is not binary. Writing something that is easily translated to machine code is not the same as writing machine code.
    • Re:The blip noise (Score:5, Informative)

      by iluvcapra (782887) on Saturday December 09 2006, @12:15AM (#17171146) Homepage

      A statement:

      I am a sound designer and a programmer. I have on many occasions intentionally, even without being asked, cut "blip" sound effects for code scrolling across a screen -- not just code, but any sort of stdout/text output/situational awareness display.

      I do not do it because I'm stupid, or am trying to dumb down the audience, it for a few specific reasons:

      • There are several storytelling conventions in cinema, namely, computers make beeping noises when their graphics change. Though most computers don't now, they used to, and the convention was started around the time Robert Redford was passionately waiting for a teletype [imdb.com] to emit an important bit of data.
      • Aside from the computer convention, there is the strong convention of providing a sound effect for any physical change that occurs on screen that humans cannot account for with alpha, beta or delta motion (see phi phenomenon [wikipedia.org] for a discussion of how humans interpret 2-dimensional images). "See a sound, hear a sound" is the first commandment of sound effects.
      • Along these lines, I could show you footage of a computer screen and give you nothing but a fan whirr, and you'd be bored and immediately looking around the room, and the sound helps keep your attention on the data on screen. This is important, since computer displays often are bearing an embarrasing amount of exposition. Sound is like control characters in ASCII: it's out of band and can do magical things to your "session" (in the broadest sense of the word).

      We put blips on a computer screen for the same reason ipods chirp when you press a button. Psychology.