Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Programmer Debunks Source Code Shown In Movies and TV Shows

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the movie-mistakes-of-a-particular-kind dept.

Movies 301

rjmarvin writes "Someone is finally pausing TV shows and movies to figure out if the code shown on screen is accurate or not. British programmer and writer John Graham-Cumming started taking screenshots of source code from movies such as Elysium, Swordfish and Doctor Who, and when it became popular turned the concept into a blog. Source Code in TV and Films posts a new screenshot daily, proving that, for example, Tony Stark's first Iron Man suit was running code from a 1998 programmable Lego brick."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

oh duh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950541)

Really? How is this a slashdot conversation piece?

Every person here has seen a freeze frame from a stupid news story or Hollywood movie that is obvious simple HTML, a directory listing, a CSS file, or something inconsequential. Not a surprise to anyone who even know what slashdot is.

Re:oh duh (4, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about 10 months ago | (#45950601)

Yeah, I'd have been a lot more impressed if he'd concentrated on code that was closer to right, on examples that were more realistic.

For examples, in two different films with Matthew Broderick, his modifying school records, assuming that he does indeed have credentials, is not implausible. In The Matrix Reloaded Trinity's hack is more realistic that most other movies.

Sounds to me like this guy is bitter that he can't suspend his disbelief to just enjoy the movie, and he feels a need to drag the rest of us down with him. If the movie isn't specifically about computer hacking or computer security then I'm willing to give a fair amount of silliness a pass.

Re:oh duh (5, Interesting)

aitikin (909209) | about 10 months ago | (#45950751)

For examples, in two different films with Matthew Broderick, his modifying school records, assuming that he does indeed have credentials, is not implausible..

Interesting factoid about those, as I recall, Broderick actually learned to code the 8080 for his role in Wargames and saved some time in filming because of it.

Re:oh duh (4, Informative)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 10 months ago | (#45950923)

One of the many things that impressed me about Wargames (aside from showing social engineering and the actual hard work and research going into a serious hack) was that David could type fast, as you would expect from someone who spends all his time on a command-line computer. It's just one of those many little details that made that movie so impressive, and still makes it fun to watch even 30 years later.

Re:oh duh (4, Funny)

hubie (108345) | about 10 months ago | (#45950987)

I think the fast typing has less to do with attention to detail and more to do with not wanting to break the flow of the movie so that we can watch him painfully hunt-and-peck commands.

Re:oh duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45951243)

Just like when an actor is playing a piano on-screen, you can tell the difference between real typing and fake typing when you watch it. I haven't watched Wargames in a long time, but I do not recall feeling like Broderick was faking it.

Re:oh duh (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#45951269)

Just like when an actor is playing a piano on-screen, you can tell the difference between real typing and fake typing when you watch it.

There is a middle ground where the timing of the keystrokes is used for the display of the keystrokes. They don't have to hit the right keys, but it still helps. And you can do it after the fact with timecodes, or you can code it into the demo. The fact that so many movies fail at it even though they have two perfectly good options for implementing it is particularly pathetic.

Re:oh duh (3, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | about 10 months ago | (#45951469)

Back in the 1980's there was much more interest towards programming.
It was a topic taught in Elementary Schools, the general conception was the future of computing is where everyone will program the computer to their needs, they never really though about having a large supply of existing application to pick and choose from.

I am not surprised about this fact, it if people are to read code like any other language it would be considered as silly showing wrong code, as it is for an actor to talk in a garbled tongue and pretend to be a french man.

However things have changed, most people don't read code, and the code they show on the screens are just to make it look complicated, and usually only show for a few seconds, too short for even good coders to go back and say oh this code does this. Usually in that period of time, I may be able to get the language, they are using, or the OS. But for the most part I turn myself off and focus on the plot, not the detail on what is on the screen.

Re:oh duh (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 10 months ago | (#45950867)

Perhaps we can write a GUI in VisualBasic to help angry literalist programmers get into the spirit of technical scenes in films.

Re: oh duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950979)

Actually Trivity's hack was covered here. I'll have to rtfa when I can get on a computer, tfa isn't working on this phone

Re:oh duh (5, Informative)

Si (9816) | about 10 months ago | (#45951083)

As is usual with /., ignore the written-by-illiterate-simians summary and click through to the article/ website (I know, I know) and your concerns will be put to rest. The blog is less about 'code in movies is wrong' and more (and more interestingly) where did the code shown come from? Knowing that Iron Man's suit is powered by code written for a lego brick gives the concept more verisimilitude - at least if you've played been playing Lego Marvel Superheroes as much I as I have recently.

Re:oh duh (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | about 10 months ago | (#45950605)

Why would anyone go to the trouble to even think that analyzing "source code" posted in movies is a useful endeavor? YAWN.

Re: oh duh (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45951015)

Why does everything have to be useful? It's amusing.

Re:oh duh (4, Funny)

c0lo (1497653) | about 10 months ago | (#45951213)

Why would anyone go to the trouble to even think that analyzing "source code" posted in movies is a useful endeavor? YAWN.

On the same line of rationing (not that I agree with it): why would anyone think posting on /. is a useful endeavor?

Re:oh duh (5, Insightful)

CamelTrader (311519) | about 10 months ago | (#45950675)

This is cool because he isn't just calling out as bogus, but identifying the source, such as python julian calendar library, or C image library. It's pretty nerdy to know that the scene in the matrix where he's scrolling through code is the source for netstat.

Re:oh duh (5, Funny)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 10 months ago | (#45950729)

Oh shit, when I saw The Matrix I assumed it was nethack :-/

Re:oh duh (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 10 months ago | (#45950791)

It's not bogus, it's homage or easter egg. Like the stereogram in Mallrats that is not a sailboat of any kind.

Re:oh duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45951273)

It's not a sailboat? What the hell is it, then?!??!?!

Re:oh duh (1)

CamelTrader (311519) | about 10 months ago | (#45951423)

IT'S NOT???!!

Re:oh duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45951519)

It's a schooner.

Re:oh duh (3, Interesting)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 10 months ago | (#45950813)

My favorite is when cracking/hacking is shown to be ridiculously easy. As in: leet hacker guy types a few characters and clicks this one thing...and.....WE'RE IN!

Re:oh duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45951003)

There is the term script kiddies for a reason. Alos, those of us who have to interact with many and/or complex systems all the time, have scripts to do most stuff is almost a requirement to keep us sane.

Re:oh duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950871)

maybe you can submit a better article instead of just complaining all the time

Re:oh duh (0)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 months ago | (#45951535)

First link is slashdoted. You'd think somebody criticizing other people's code, would be able to write more robust code.

Oh My God! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950553)

You mean TV is fake???

My whole TV world is an illusion?

- Chauncey Gardiner

Re:Oh My God! (4, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 10 months ago | (#45950571)

Next they'll tell me that "hackers" don't get a nice big screen that says "Access Granted" or that "Swordfish" isn't a common password.

Re:Oh My God! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950625)

How lame has this site become?

Re:Oh My God! (1)

Adam Colley (3026155) | about 10 months ago | (#45950641)

You do occasionally get a message reading "Permission granted"

Although not full screen unless you're using a very large console font -.o

Re:Oh My God! (4, Insightful)

fisted (2295862) | about 10 months ago | (#45950697)

Only by stupid programs which don't follow the golden rule of shutting the hell up as long as nothing goes wrong.
Therefore you're much more likely to see a message reading "Permission denied", if anything

Re:Oh My God! (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 10 months ago | (#45950785)

Next they'll tell me that "hackers" don't get a nice big screen that says "Access Granted" or that "Swordfish" isn't a common password.

... Or that you can't find someone's IP address by making a GUI with Visual Basic!

Re:Oh My God! (1)

boristdog (133725) | about 10 months ago | (#45951131)

Yeah, everyone knows that "Password123" is probably what will get you into most corporate systems.

Re:Oh My God! (1)

east coast (590680) | about 10 months ago | (#45950835)

It's only fake because they lack the skillz...

Now me, on the other hand, actually did create a woman from a Barbie doll with the help of a NORAD computer. It's really not that hard.

thats crazy (1)

Revek (133289) | about 10 months ago | (#45950565)

As soon as I find a tilt a whirl, i'm gonna build me a spaceship!

Re:thats crazy (5, Interesting)

game kid (805301) | about 10 months ago | (#45950825)

Speaking of spaceships, I found it fun to contrast these fake code uses with one in the game Starbound (got it a day or few after it hit Steam as an Early Access game). When you obtain enough fuel (like coal) from your current planet there and send it back to your spaceborne ship, you can take it to another planet and enjoy a flashy warp sequence with code that scrolls on a screen. The code shown is that of...the warp sequence. [reddit.com] (Starbound is a C++ game, and you'll notice fun things in the display like uint64_t and class names.)

Granted, it's almost certainly not a true quine [wikipedia.org] , as it uses only a portion of the code; said code is in PNG form, not text; and I doubt the display will be updated for each patch, especially this early in development.

common and fun (4, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | about 10 months ago | (#45950567)

Doesn't everyone who can proram do this? Just like gun fans identify and count shots for each weapon they see?

From the (mistaken? wise?) use of a .300 in an IPv4 address in The Net, to the identification of some kind of 6502 assembly code in the Terminator's red overlay, it's always been something to try to do in the theater without freeze-frame available.

Re:common and fun (4, Informative)

TooTechy (191509) | about 10 months ago | (#45950651)

Watching 'Castle' the other night. Enjoying it for the accurate, serious show that it is. Beckett indicated the entry wound was too big for a 9mm round. Had to be something bigger. They later found a .357 which was the right size.

25.4*.357 = 9.07mm She has a good eye. Actually she has great looking eyes.

Re:common and fun (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about 10 months ago | (#45950701)

Which is funny, 'cause when you are reloading w/ lead bullets (non-jacketed, maybe even made yourself in a mold) you size a bullet for 9mm to .355 and for 357 you size it to .358. And .380 is the same diameter as 9mm (its "european" name is 9x17 vs 9x19 for 9mm Parabellum) and 38 special is the same diameter as .357 magnum (only difference is .1" of case length which is why you can shoot 38 special in a 357 revolver)

Re:common and fun (2)

Megol (3135005) | about 10 months ago | (#45950735)

A .357 have more kinetic power and so causes a bigger hole. One doesn't even need to be hit by a bullet to be killed by it - high speed ammunition can tear tissue apart by the pressure differentials.

Re:common and fun (4, Insightful)

rts008 (812749) | about 10 months ago | (#45951545)

A .357 magnum may have a bigger exit wound under rare circumstances, but under similar conditions, the .357 magnum and 9mm will have essentially equal size entrance wound characteristics.

One doesn't even need to be hit by a bullet to be killed by it - high speed ammunition can tear tissue apart by the pressure differentials.

The only part of that statement that is even remotely true is the second part:
yes, frequently high velocity projectiles do damage soft tissue from tearing and rupturing...but there are a lot of variables that affect this, so it cannot be ruled as absolute.(pro tip: the bullet has to hit the soft tissue before this can even be considered--all the bullets whizzing past cause no physical harm)

But that statement that "One doesn't even need to be hit by a bullet to be killed by it -..." is so full of crap that it's ludicrous!
I'll even give you the possibility that in extremely rare (so rare as to be unheard of for all practical purposes) that some few individuals have 'died from fright' from being shot at...but [citation needed].

I have personally been shot three times:
twice with 9mm ammunition (one pistol:Soviet made Makerov, and one sub-machine gun), and once with 7.62x39 ammo (AK-47--which has a MUCH higher velocity and kinetic energy than either 9mm or .357 hand guns).

I can assure you that I am not a ghost/dead. And having witnessed hundreds of combat deaths, none happened from near misses but bullets!

I think your highest priority at this stage should be to finally stop putting off that education you should have received as a child..it's for your own good, really.

Re:common and fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950829)

the eyes is not the only great looking on her ;)

Re:common and fun (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#45950707)

From the (mistaken? wise?) use of a .300 in an IPv4 address in The Net

I count that as wise. If you put a real IP address, it would likely get a lot of traffic.

Mostly, I've long since learned to go "la la la" when techno-babble happens -- either the movie is good, or it isn't, the specifics of what they show on the screen are irrelevant.

Getting mired in the fact that it's actually just a scrolling Pascal program or a web-page is kind of pointless for me.

Hell, the biggest piece of techno-babble that made me cringe in the theater made sense in the Directors cut -- and that was the use of the Apple laptop in Independence Day to take over the stuff. In the directors cut they make it clear it's radio frequencies, in the theater felt it was using Apple Talk or telnet or something.

When I saw the director's cut I was thinking, "OK, why didn't you do it like that in the theater, this actually (mostly) makes sense".

Re:common and fun (1)

JWW (79176) | about 10 months ago | (#45951161)

I count that as wise. If you put a real IP address, it would likely get a lot of traffic.

Yeah, just ask the people with the phone number 867-5309.

Re:common and fun (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 10 months ago | (#45950749)

When I read the title, I just started laughing. I have actually given a thought or two to capturing a screenshot to see what the hell the code meant. Just a thought, now and then, I've never taken it seriously enough to do it. If I had, I could have posted here, "Hey, Slashdot! The code in 'The Matrix' actually does mean something, almost, except, they screwed up right here and made it meaningless after all!" Or, whatever I actually found.

Problem is, I'm not a programmer, and it would have taken me hours to figure out what a programmer could have figured out in ten minutes. Better to just let all those cool looking squiggles remain cool looking squiggles I guess.

pshaw! harumph! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 10 months ago | (#45950767)

If I recall correctly, I'm pretty sure "ASSHOLE" is a perfectly cromulent argument for the "FUCK YOU" opcode in 6502 assembly language.
At least the way I coded.

Re:pshaw! harumph! (2)

jeremyp (130771) | about 10 months ago | (#45950913)

All 6502 opcodes are three characters long e.g. LDA (load accumulator), ASL (arithmetic shift left). So the opcodes you are thinking of are the AHL and FKU opcodes.

Re:common and fun (2)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 10 months ago | (#45951103)

I'm a programmer.

The source code? Sometimes I might glance at the syntax to see if they just put COMPLETE gibberish in there or an actual well structured statement / for-loop / etc. But I've never bothered to see if it was trying to do anything cute or even close to what it should have been, or if the loop was infinite or whatever.

For command-line stuff, I might look to see if it looks like a real command of just gibberish.

What I DO tend to do is freeze-frame newspapers and stuff where the character is reading a story out-loud relevant to the plot. I like to see if they just copy/paste the same paragraph over and over or use the cliche lorem ipsum .... text.

Terminator was Apple ][ ROM (1)

swm (171547) | about 10 months ago | (#45951181)

some kind of 6502 assembly code in the Terminator's red overlay

I knew a guy (Hi, Tom!) who identified the code as coming from the Apple ][ ROMs (which were 6502)
He said he recognized some of the code comments.

Re:common and fun (4, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | about 10 months ago | (#45951283)

Well, yes, but the point is that there's no need to do this.

If you're making a film about cars, get someone who knows about cars to help produce/edit it, at least for glaring inaccuracies. If you're making a film about guns, the same. If you're making a film about computers, the same.

To be honest, even the "555" phone number is enough to jolt me out of a movie I'm into - you instantly are reminded that it's fake things you are watching (which is not what a film director should be doing to their captivated audience).

I've always had this annoyance, too. I have it about computer movies, mathematics and science. A geneticist I live with has it about science and genetics in general (do not let her watch Gattaca or Jurassic Park!). My ex and her father (both black belts) have it about anything martial-arty. My dad (a mechanic) has it about cars and mechanics.

I just don't see how hard it is to get someone who vaguely knows what they are doing to actually step back and say "hold on, that wouldn't happen". I don't expect perfection but at least if you're qualified enough to teach, say, a film star kung fu over a year of filming, have the decency to make sure that the moves you teach are realistic and there's no "queue of baddies waiting to be beaten up, because they're too stupid to attack simulatenously" elements. Same for computer graphics - SOMEONE with computer knowledge had to make them and display them, just ask them what it would look like if they REALLY did what the actors are being asked to do.

Same for cars, guns, planes, stunts, etc. You have an expert on the movie, ask them if it's at all realistic and, if not, change it. Artistic licence is fine so long as you KNOW that's why you're doing it but too often directors go OUT OF THEIR WAY to make things "pretty" when actually the real thing would be a lot more realistic, useful, interesting, less jarring, etc. (e.g. who the hell uses text-based displays nowadays, and why do you need to "fake" loading screens or password decryptions or whatever - everyone KNOWS what a computer looks like and how display windows work).

You don't get this in theatre, except by accident. You don't get it in novels, because the amount of detail required means you can hide all the potential pitfalls behind the line "He logged on..." or similar.

You only get it in Hollywood, and you must only get it through directors who think they know what LOOKS better. While a certain percentage of the audience can't stop laughing at the ridiculous methods used, or just screen "NO! That's NOT how it works" at the screen.

I don't get why annoying your audience is a good thing, at the expense of listening to the people you hired to be experts anyway.

Good for him! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950581)

Because I know when I'm watching movies about guys in flying robotic suits and orbital space habitats and time-travelling weirdos, I need to know that source code that's not on-screen long enough to even read is accurate and realistic... inasmuch as we have, in real life, actual examples of accurate and realistic source code for flying robotic suits, orbital space habitats and time-travelling weirdos.

Alternative Titles: (1)

an0nemus (668839) | about 10 months ago | (#45950591)

People who need hobbies! Someone to make comments about their breathing habits!

Re:Alternative Titles: (1)

FuzzyDustBall (751425) | about 10 months ago | (#45950627)

People who need hobbies! Someone to make comments about their breathing habits!

This appears to be a hobby so I would say they do not need one...

Re:Alternative Titles: (2)

twocows (1216842) | about 10 months ago | (#45950629)

I'm pretty sure that this is a hobby and he is likely doing it for fun. The fact that it showed up on /. is more of a reflection on /. than it is on what he chooses to do in his spare time for fun.

Comments here are overreacting (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950593)

I think this was meant as a fun and interesting kind of thing, not as some kind of whistle-blowing on how "OH MY GOD TV ISN'T REEEEAAAAAL!" Lighten up.

Re:Comments here are overreacting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950677)

I think this was meant as a fun and interesting kind of thing, not as some kind of whistle-blowing on how "OH MY GOD TV ISN'T REEEEAAAAAL!" Lighten up.

Shouldn't have used the word "debunk" in the title if that is the case. (I mean the submitter, not the blogger.)

Re:Comments here are overreacting (5, Insightful)

terevos (148651) | about 10 months ago | (#45950715)

No, they're responding appropriately to how the story was posted. The original article is supposed to be fun. But the post says "Programmer Debunks Source Code Shown In Movies and TV Shows" and "Someone is finally pausing TV shows and movies to figure out if the code shown on screen is accurate or not." as if it's something new.

It's not new, but it is cool how deeply they investigated this stuff.

Re:Comments here are overreacting (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 10 months ago | (#45950839)

Its pretty redundant to even do. The medical decisions in movies make no sense, the car jacking makes no sense, the jumping through windows, computer hacking, alarm defeating and air duct crawling are all ridiculous too.

Looking at the source code is barely even interesting on that scale.

Terminator (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950663)

I remember when I saw the original Terminator I recognized the code scrolling over his eyes was checksum listings from Nibble Magazine.

Re:Terminator (1)

hubie (108345) | about 10 months ago | (#45951031)

Nibble Magazine used things like "Fuck You Asshole"?

Re:Terminator (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45951517)

"Hey buddy... you got a $DEADBEEF in there, or what?"

Re:Terminator (1)

KernelMuncher (989766) | about 10 months ago | (#45951397)

I remember seeing that ages ago when I was young and wondering what it was. Thanks for the info.

Copyright implications? (4, Interesting)

Bradmont (513167) | about 10 months ago | (#45950667)

So if the code is taken, used, and redistributed without acknowledgement, is that copyright abuse? I imagine tiny snippets would fall under fair use, but if a substantial block of code from, say, a GPLed project is reproduced without acknowledgement or attaching the license, what are the chances the filmmakers could be held liable?

Re:Copyright implications? (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 10 months ago | (#45950821)

Fair use equally applies to copying from GPL projects as well. The GPL does not trump copyright law. If you wouldn't have needed permission to copy something from a non-GPL'd work (because it fell under fair use), you wouldn't need to include or adhere to the GPL license when copying the same amount from a GPL'd work, since you never a actually needed any permission to copy that amount in the first place.

Re:Copyright implications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45951443)

But but but, some evil corporation is making money off of showing GPL'ed source code in proprietary movie! That's not fair! They should be required to release the entire film under the GPL!
*Runs to bedroom in mother's basement crying, and slams door*

fuck west virginia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950669)

I hope they all drink the water and bloat.

YOU fAIL IT? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950699)

about half of the to decline for population) as well

Debunk? (5, Informative)

JohnGrahamCumming (684871) | about 10 months ago | (#45950739)

Hmm. I am the person who created that Tumblr. I'm not trying to "debunk" anything. Just showing what it really is: sometimes it's nonsense, sometimes it's there's an amusing juxtaposition, sometimes it's a fun Easter Egg.

Re:Debunk? (1)

HoldmyCauls (239328) | about 10 months ago | (#45950939)

Found your site yesterday linked from Yahoo! Shared some of the things you found with friends, who also thought it was cool. Don't mind the people saying it's needless, as I found it really entertaining, especially where you identify commonly found code being presented, as in the Iron Man case or how it would actually be interpreted, as in the Malbolge from Elementary. It's a little educational but mostly fun, which is what it should be. I look forward to what else you and your subscribers find!

Re:Debunk? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950941)

well, kudos anyways. You made me laugh so you're entitled to 1 (ONE) free beer next time you're in Portugal.
( posting as AC 'cause I once had the nerve to say /. is not the /. I remember when I was in my 20's )

Re:Debunk? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950953)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy today announced President Barack Obama's selection of Heather McTeer Toney as regional administrator for EPA's regional office in Atlanta. EPA Region 4 includes Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and six tribal nations.

"Heather McTeer Toney has a proven track record and broad experience as an advocate and dedicated public servant,” said Administrator McCarthy. “I have full confidence that she’ll continue that sense of service and leadership working to protect people’s health and the environment as regional administrator in the region she was born, raised, and still calls home.”

Ms. McTeer Toney was the first African-American and first female to serve as the Mayor of Greenville, Mississippi, holding that post from 2004-2012. She joins EPA from Mississippi Valley State University, where she is the Executive Director of the Center for Excellence in Student Learning. She is also the Principal Attorney at Heather McTeer, PLLC.

Ms. McTeer Toney's private-sector success is complemented by considerable experience in local and state politics. She began her career working as a member of McTeer and Associates Law Firm and handled a diverse group of cases ranging from racial discrimination to medical malpractice. Later she served as the President of the National Conference of Black Mayors and in 2009, was nominated by former EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, to serve as the Chairwoman of the Local Government Advisory Committee. Heather is active in her community and an advocate for education, women’s issues, health and wellness. She is married to Dexter Toney and they have two children.

EPA regional administrators are responsible for managing the Agency's regional activities under the direction of the EPA administrator. They promote state and local environmental protection efforts and serve as a liaison to government officials. Heather is expected to begin her role as regional administrator in January.

Re:Debunk? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45951141)

Sorry, the Slashdot editor staff has decided you are debunking. Therefore you have been debunked.

Re:Debunk? (1)

LongearedBat (1665481) | about 10 months ago | (#45951251)

It's one thing to pause, recognise and test the code. But I'm truly amazed that you manage to find the origins of those snippets, especially as some of them would have to be very hard to find.

I'm very impressed. :)

This guy (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950755)

This guy is in desperate need of a life.

Re:This guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45951187)

sez AC posting on /.

We need a new Entertainment Awards Show (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950771)

The "Tacos", with categories such as "Best Source Code Shown On-screen in a Movie".

The tweet please...

Unless they used a special compiler (5, Funny)

StripedCow (776465) | about 10 months ago | (#45950807)

But what if they used a special compiler that works roughly as follows:

if(code == "insert code from programmable lego brick")
  return "insert binary for iron-man suit";
else
  return compile_ansi_c_code_as_usual();

Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950815)

FINALLY, somebody has done this!

Monty Python Knight Doesn't Taunt in French (2)

retroworks (652802) | about 10 months ago | (#45950857)

I did not realize how huge this "Hollywood" scam went. Kudos to Graham-Cumming for uncovering it. In other news, many foreign language scenes appear not to be spoken correctly. E.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhVg2uLVDtk [youtube.com]

Re:Monty Python Knight Doesn't Taunt in French (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 10 months ago | (#45951065)

What I never really get is why an american movie, especially world war two movies, the original german spoken by the "germans" either has an american accent, or is simply completely wrong. I mean: how retarded is it in an "english spoken movie" to have "german sequences" and then have those be either "nonsense talk" or with an exagerated american accent?
In a german movie where a few scenes are in the original language, e.g. a texas guy speaking to a scotch, they would take extra care that the texanian speaks in a texas accent/dialect and the scotisch with a scotisch dialect.

Re:Monty Python Knight Doesn't Taunt in French (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45951337)

Det är en "Easter Egg" för att roa dem som är både villiga och kapabla att förstå. Betraktarens sinne för humor är testad av denna sort av dialog, der børk børk børk.

Re:Monty Python Knight Doesn't Taunt in French (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45951417)

When your scotch has a Scottish accent, you know you have had too much to drink.

Re:Monty Python Knight Doesn't Taunt in French (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 10 months ago | (#45951431)

In a german movie where a few scenes are in the original language, e.g. a texas guy speaking to a scotch, they would take extra care that the texanian speaks in a texas accent/dialect and the scotisch with a scotisch dialect.

Gosh, how wrong this could be.
1. texans would never speak to a scotch, even if it may happen to them to speak to a bourbon whisky
2. there's no such thing as a scotisch dialect. At most, there could be a minor speach impediment (like in "a serious slur") caused by excess of schnaps (yeeahh... you may be onto something... Scotish may sound like that)

Re:Monty Python Knight Doesn't Taunt in French (1)

gx5000 (863863) | about 10 months ago | (#45951483)

You mean a Texan speaking to a Scott ?
and a dialect is a subset of a language that is peculiar to a specific region or social group.
If you can't get any of this right why would they ?

Bloody Yanks, ça m'fait chier vos erreurs....

In Jurasic Park... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45950885)

In Jurassic Park there is unknown but real looking source code (possibly for an SGI UNIX machine)

Of course its a Unix system, even a small girl would know that. [youtube.com]

Tech movies (1)

bveldkamp (1838948) | about 10 months ago | (#45950899)

Any tech movie that goes beyond the usual teletype interface with accompanying telex sounds, and doesn't have the full-screen blinking access granted/access denied message is already quite an accomplishment. And if those movies showed actual source code and not, say, a directory listing in a command window, even better. Bonus points if that code is genuine and has some kind of easter egg.

Re:Tech movies (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#45951253)

I have vision, but I imagine those noises are helpful to blind people who are watching movies, as a placeholder to tell you that some text is being printed on the screen.

I further imagine that there's some sort of system that helps with that information, but that it's not widespread.

Beep boop (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 10 months ago | (#45950935)

They can't get computers to stop beeping, booping, and whirring. Text messages are transmitted one character at a time and show up that way. Every piece of information EVER is linked to one central easily searchable government database. And you're fucking looking at the source code that you're not supposed to read anyway?

Well now that this is "a thing" (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about 10 months ago | (#45951095)

Filmmakers should now add real obfuscated code to the computer screens that do or say something clever if someone sits down and tries to run it.

(Just not this. [i.qkme.me] )

.

Tony Stark is a genius! (4, Funny)

doggo (34827) | about 10 months ago | (#45951119)

No wonder Stark Industries is so successful. If Tony can modify Lego code to control an armored flying suit, imagine what he could do with... I dunno, the source code for... Emacs!

Re:Tony Stark is a genius! (3, Funny)

gaudior (113467) | about 10 months ago | (#45951393)

Yeah, he might even be able to edit text.

Knight Rider (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45951139)

My favorite was the episode that shows KITT was programmed in BASIC .... lot's of GOTOs

Re:Knight Rider (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45951149)

http://www.aldenbates.com/archives/2007/01/28/kitt_was_programmed_in_basic.html

The Matrix Reloaded (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 10 months ago | (#45951165)

The scene where Trinity is hacking into a power grid using nmap was actually accurate. Too bad the Matrix never had any sequels. [xkcd.com]

The Matrix Did it Right (1)

Kagato (116051) | about 10 months ago | (#45951173)

The matrix was one of the few movies to get it right. There's a scene where they are sabotaging a computer. The screen showed the output of a real rootkit.

Re:The Matrix Did it Right (1)

ledow (319597) | about 10 months ago | (#45951323)

It was nMap if I remember rightly, finding an open port, and then applying a rootkit to it. But it was something like 10 years old at the time of filming. Because of the "we don't know what year it is", you can sort-of get away with it, but how hard would it have been to just change the numbers, tweak the name, etc. to have it do the same thing, convincingly.

Oh, and display it on a fecking WIMP-based system rather than a text console and it would look infinitely better, more modern and also not be quite so stupid (hell, put it in an SSH window, ffs).

So they are stealing? (1)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | about 10 months ago | (#45951305)

Would they steal a car?
Unlike people who download their movies, they are making money from theft.

Or perhaps they finally figured out why copying isn't the same as stealing. :D

Iron Man is made of LEGO! (1)

steam_cannon (1881500) | about 10 months ago | (#45951349)

Quote: "So it appears that Iron Man is either powered by Open Source software or made of Lego. I’m not sure which is cooler." http://deeperdesign.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/is-iron-man-made-of-lego/ [wordpress.com] I agree with this sentiment. This is both cool and enhances believably. If I was stuck in a cave, with a magnet in my chest and I had some code I know is reliable, I might not spend too much time building a new code-base.

Debunk? (1)

rnturn (11092) | about 10 months ago | (#45951367)

One of the first times I noticed "realistic"-looking code/console output in a movie was the scene in Robocop when they first "boot" Murphy. (It looked like he/it was booting MS-DOS or CP/M.) But who in the world thinks that that code should be realistic? Nobody's going to consider walking out of a movie after saying "Hey! That doesn't look like robotic control source code!" So "debunk"? Geez get a life. (Of course shortly I'll be off to that web site to see what movie source code they're writing about today.)

On a related note... (3, Informative)

Alioth (221270) | about 10 months ago | (#45951453)

On a related note, many shows (including modern ones!) have been using a snippet of tape loading sound from the 1980s Sinclair ZX Spectrum computer which made its way onto some special effects library somewhere. The latest sighting (sounding?) was on an episode of The Wire a few years ago. With some effort (there's lots of other noise in the clip) it was decoded and turned out to be part of the loading screen for a game made by Ultimate: Play the Game (of Knight Lore and Jetpac fame). Ultimate became Rare before being bought out by Microsoft.

The Lego Ironman plausibility (3, Insightful)

netsavior (627338) | about 10 months ago | (#45951485)

The lego source code is completely believable in the context of the story IMO. This is a program he used to run the prototype that he built in a cave in a war-torn country. He probably told them "I need a robotics kit" and this was in the bin of crap that they got him. If I was secretly programming an exo-suit in a cave, a mindstorm kit would be a boon. It sends signals based on several kinds of input... what else do you need?

The mindstorm program is a lot more believable than anything state-of-the-art.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?