The Worst Tech Mistakes in TV and Movies

[ravewulf]

[citation][nom]shades_aus[/nom]Kate, one more bone to pick, then i'll leave you alone. Genetic Memory. Please explain how if what you say is true that "There's absolutely no scientific evidence that any living organism can store its experiences in its genetic code and pass it on to its offspring." how a baby knows when to breath, move it's eyes, suck it's thumb, cry or stop crying. How about a bird know how to call for food, eat, know how to snuggle. What about the pre-programmed ability to self program and learn! i'd say this is all passed on in a genetic assembly and good evidence to support it too. Call it reflex if you will, it is passed on and i'd even call it amazing abilities to an extent. Life would not be possible without some sort of passed on information for working. Hard wired maybe ;-)[/citation]
Memory is learned information stored in the brain. All that other stuff you mentioned is hard coded as a result of the various biological systems being in use after being constructed from the base info in DNA. Memories are fluid and can be distorted/changed as soon as they are created and continually change throughout a lifetime. All the other stuff rarely ever changes over hundreds or more years.

Think of it this way:
Memory is all the software/data that goes through your computer
Automatic functions (heart beating, breathing to an extent), reflexes, etc is the basic ALU and other very basic low level hardware that does not change.

 

[YeZ]

How about those weird IP addresses from the movie "The Net" by Sandra Bullock... Is there really an IP address such as 421.643.21.2 ???

 

[shades_aus]

@raavewulf
"Memory is learned information stored in the brain. All that other stuff you mentioned is hard coded as a result of the various biological systems being in use after being constructed from the base info in DNA. Memories are fluid and can be distorted/changed as soon as they are created and continually change throughout a lifetime. All the other stuff rarely ever changes over hundreds or more years.

Think of it this way:
Memory is all the software/data that goes through your computer
Automatic functions (heart beating, breathing to an extent), reflexes, etc is the basic ALU and other very basic low level hardware that does not change."

There are very real debates in various scientific circles on this very aspect. Evolution is one such way that these stored information's do distort and change over a time period. The same reasons are used for the same debates. A baby crying is not considered even considered reflexive and is yet a learned, pre setup/programmed ability stored in the brain, that also changes from environment and autonomous mood changes. Some would also argue that the fight or flight was a at some point, learned requirement for survival that is also passed on to this day and built upon over time to change with the environment down to a most basic of level and also stored in the brain. If there was not a per-defined set of parameters for a human (in this particular example) it could be argued what a fight or flight situation would require of an infant Vs non infant and why a new born will cry/not cry for loud noise or complete silence. Why limbs even on an infant do not flail around aimlessly without intent and why pre-information is able to be re-called, utilized and manipulated in to a defined and structured way that will differ on location and environment. Are you aware that babies of different nationalities cry differently in different geographies? the sound of a cry raising in tonality towards the end of a breath end versus going down for another culture?? I wasn't until recently! very interesting!!

This topic of debate on weather information is actually passed down in a genetic form is still quite a hot topic of debate with scientific evidence from both sides even to this day. it's very interesting if you dig a little deeper on the topic but that's science for you, digging for proof...

 

[wiyosaya]

Anything that stops visible light will stop them – anything visible light can pass through, they can pass through.

While it may seem to make sense that this statement is correct, technically, it is not. The one factor in this that is not considered is this: does the laser have enough power to punch through the object? If it does, then it does not matter whether or not the "shield" stops visible light; the laser will still punch through. This is true even of a mirror. If the mirror is incapable of handling the laser's power, it will, undoubtedly, fail, and the laser will penetrate it. This is also true of ceramics.

In addition, the US military already has weapons class lasers that are easily able to punch a 2-inch diameter hole through 3-inches of solid metal.

If the laser does not have enough power, then, yes, the beam would be stopped. However, what this article is talking about is surely weapons-class lasers. Such lasers are no comparison, power wise, to the average laser pointer.

Also, while there are no force fields that are known to the general public that are capable of stopping a laser beam, the physical principle, if I am not mistaken, is sound. Light is nothing more than a high-frequency electromagnetic field. In theory, if you can produce an equivalent electromagnetic field that is 180-degrees out of phase from the laser's field, or if you can produce an electromagnetic field that will cause the laser to follow that field around a protected object, it would work. The idea is not beyond the realm of physics. It is, however, to the best of my knowledge, beyond the capabilities of existing technology. IMHO, give this time, and it will eventually happen.

My apologies for stating this, Kate; however, if you write an article like this in the future, please contact a scientific expert before going to press. I am sure your local university's physics department would be happy to answer any questions you have. And if you do not have a good local source of such knowledge, then places like the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics or other such laser lab would be happy to advise.

IMHO, rather than correct a myth, the section on lasers advanced equally incorrect assumptions about lasers.

 

[wiyosaya]

[citation][nom]YeZ[/nom]How about those weird IP addresses from the movie "The Net" by Sandra Bullock... Is there really an IP address such as 421.643.21.2 ???[/citation]
Not with IPV4. The first digit in 421 would never be a four. In IPV4, the first digit can only be 0, 1, or 2. Same goes for 643.

 

[DSpider]

[citation][nom]DSpider[/nom]Why are there explosions in space? Or sparks caused by bullets that hit a space ship or space ships trading paint? I don't get it. You need oxygen for something like that. In Battlestar Galactica I swear I saw parts of Galactica's hull burning (on the surface). Come on![/citation]
I hate to quote myself but I seriously would like an answer.

There can't be an open flame without oxygen, right? You can't light something on fire in the absence of oxygen, so sparks in space make absolutely no "fracking" sense. For instance in Battlestar Galactica when the raptor ships were forced to land, they would light up like the 4th of July across something like half of the landing strip. I was like wut.

 

[wiyosaya]

[citation][nom]DSpider[/nom]I hate to quote myself but I seriously would like an answer.There can't be an open flame without oxygen, right? You can't light something on fire in the absence of oxygen, so sparks in space make absolutely no "fracking" sense. For instance in Battlestar Galactica when the raptor ships were forced to land, they would light up like the 4th of July across something like half of the landing strip. I was like wut.[/citation]
My best guess, the mechanism here is not that the "spark" is something that is burning in the presence of oxygen; It is much more likely that what is going on is that the metal in the skids and the ship's deck are heating up due to friction, and fragments of the metal in both the deck and the skids that are ablating off. So the sparks are really red-hot pieces of metal rather than a burning ember. Thus no oxygen required.

 

[coldmast]

For Breaking Bad it wasn't a cigarette that destroyed the Challenger, but a rolled up magazine that was placed in the gas port and lit on fire.

 

[jellico]

In the Star Trek reboot movie starring Chris Pine, there is a scene in the beginning of the movie where the Romulan ship attacks the USS Kelvin. There is a hull breach on one of upper decks and there is all of this loud noise, air rushing out, and people screaming. Then a member of the crew gets blown out through the breach and in an instant it goes from cacophony to dead silence. You can still see the weapons firing and all of the chaos, but it is completely silent. I thought that was very well done.

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]curb193[/nom]You forgot the biggest mistake in all zombie movies: Ninja zombies. In any zombie movie or tv show, there always seems to be a point where a perfectly silent zombie just appears from nowhere. Whilst every other zombie in the whole world seems to constantly be groaning and making general zombie noises, this one is perfectly silent and still, waiting for your arm to poke round the corner before it grabs you.[/citation]


oh movies arnt the only ones guilty of ninja zombies , granted the speedsters in Dead Island that i'm thinking of make all manner of noises , they come at you arm's flailing bruce lee , annoying as hell in game when they swarm you too.

 

[demonhorde665]

the biggest show stopper on this article for me is the fact they are complaining about science fiction things , occurring in scifi movies ????

They might as weel be bitching that Lord Of The Ring's has an Omnipitant god like bad guy that is kept alive for millenia by a magic ring (which he can't find) and he also controls 9 undead kings with smae said ring , yet he doesn't have teh ring and those undead lords still follow him . LOL yeah lets bitch about some technologies that totally push a movies plot why don't we ?

 

[mortsmi7]

The best entertainment always comes from breaking a few laws.

 

[Guest]

What about creating a GUI interface using visual basic to track an IP address ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU

 

[wayneepalmer]

On Independence Day and PC-hacking: I'll be willing to be there was a scene cut from the final production where they talked about how all of our pc tech and software was derived from what they discovered on the alien scout fighter they go from Roswell.

Somewhere somebody decided it either interrupted the flow of the movie, they needed to shave time, or that it was otherwise unnecessary.

 

[kastraelie]

But but but...Blade Runner takes place in the future where Androids are better than HUMANS. Couldn't they have 200MP cameras by then???

 

[drwho1]

good laugh

 

[Guest]

Surprised none of my fellow geeks pointed out that in Star Wars the 'lasers' are not lasers, but rather energized gas that fires as a bolt of plasma, and not a beam of light. Even the ship mounted 'turbolasers' are just bigger versions of that basic concept. I can't speak for other sci-fi movies where lasers move slow enough to see, but this is the explanation for Star Wars...

And for sounds in space, regarding TIE Fighters in particular, I always kinda imagined that they were hearing some effect over their radios/speakers from the ionization as they zoomed by. No basis for that, just how I personally rationalized it.

 

[memadmax]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why they are called "science fiction".

With an emphasis on fiction.....

 

[back_by_demand]

To be fair to Blade Runner for the Magical Enhance, its the future and we don't know the reolution of the camera in question also if it was a non-digital (old film camera) they don't use pixels and should be able to scale up massively, the same way you can turn Gone With The Wind into full HD by working on the original cellulose.

With the Remote Control car for James Bond, to be fair it's not the device that is really good, they are bigging up how skilled Bond is, if you give the same device to an ordinary Joe it would probably drive like crap.

But yeah, all these are hilariousand it's amazing how we have allowed the biggest movies and TV series in history spoonfeed us bullshit and we just keep eating it up, just make the 1968 movie 2001: A Space Odyssey seem so much better for it's attention to real physics.

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]YeZ[/nom]How about those weird IP addresses from the movie "The Net" by Sandra Bullock... Is there really an IP address such as 421.643.21.2 ???[/citation]
Maybe it was done in hexagonal? That'd yield 157.243.13.2 in decimal.

[citation][nom]DSpider[/nom]For instance in Battlestar Galactica when the raptor ships were forced to land, they would light up like the 4th of July across something like half of the landing strip. I was like wut.[/citation]
wiyosaya generally beat me to it, but the basic idea is that something doesn't have to BURN to glow. Materials glow not because they burn, but because they're hot: so the glow is actually an indirect product of burning. If it was heated up through another means (such as by friction from landing) yes, they would certainly heat up enough to glow without burning at all. And sparks that fly, similarly, don't have to be bits of flaming material, but rather simply scraped-off pieces that heated up a lot.

A good real-life example would be flint-type igniters, such as the kind used for cigarette lighters; the initial spark seen when you flick it isn't anything burning at all, but rather a glowing shaving of metal, heated through friction. The burning doesn't start until it comes into contact with fuel from the reservoir.

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]To be fair to Blade Runner for the Magical Enhance, its the future and we don't know the reolution of the camera in question also if it was a non-digital (old film camera) they don't use pixels and should be able to scale up massively, the same way you can turn Gone With The Wind into full HD by working on the original cellulose.[/citation]
Just because the source was analog doesn't mean infinite detail can be extracted from it. There's still a limit to the physical medium. With actual transparent frames, yes this can be quite extensive, hence allowing HD adaptations of old films. But if it's something like magnetic media, (such as what would be used for security cameras) then there is a MUCH more limited level of detail that's stored, because it still records a discrete (hence, digital) number of scanlines, for one. Likewise, noise, and other limitations on the magnetic properties provide a practical "minimum grain size" (which more or less equates to "pixel size") on the recording.