Metanet Forums

So, I've been lined up to give a panel at the state Science Fiction & Fantasy convention next year. My topic is the use of computers and computer interfaces in science fiction. The convention is almost exactly a year off, but I know that if I don't get some materials together now I'll put it off until the day before and my panel will suck.

I'd like some ideas as far as horrible computer interfaces (unrealistic, incorrect attempts to duplicate present technology, just plain ridiculous) or implementations of computers (technically incorrect, unbelievable, ridiculous) that I can propose as bad examples. Also, some good ones. I'll be covering basic concepts of computer interfaces and computer science, and how to develop futuristic and unique interfaces that are realistic and technically correct enough to appease 'the geeks', particularly in films where the UI is shown, but also in books. I'd like some examples to refer to as I proceed.

Thanks!

Well I don't know what use this is to you, but those ones shown as just coloured buttons pressed in a random order to control something, is probably the worst example you could use.

Good luck getting your project done, it seems pretty cool.

Go watch Iron Man.

Minority Report is a good one for interfaces.

I don;t know if this will be helpful or not, but this page here on TV Tropes is a list of Computer related tropes, and how they are used in Media. Some examples:
Password Slot Machine explains how the computer password system in movies/tv/etc often bears little resemblance to real life computer password systems.
Rapid Fire Typing explains how unrealistic it is when people on movies type at an incredibly fast pace, whereas in real life, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to do.
Beeping Computers. Computers don't make lots of beeping sounds in real life.
Billions of Buttons. Why are there always so many buttons, yet only three are used?

I hope this helps, it seems like the sort of thing you are looking for. If it is, there is a lot more computer-related tropes than are listed on that page, it justs takes a little effort to find them.

People not using a mouse is one i've always thought odd.

What Yanni said- Minority Report. I like how the touchscreenthingy technology in that seemed so far fetched at the time :P Well it did to me, anyway.

The TV Tropes page is chock full of excellent examples. I failed to think of the Minority Report films - that's a good example of an interface that is actually pretty good - right now we're moving to gesture-based control, and it's not too hard to imagine computers being entirely controlled by memorized gestures in the future, particularly with context sensitivity minimizing the number of gestures (although not to just one!).

If you remind me, I can post my presentation whenever I get done with it. It could be useful to the writers/filmmakers/videogamemakers/everythingmakers around here.

There was a show on the History Channel about the tech of Star Trek and what is realistic and what isn't (and what has inspired real tech). I'm not sure how'd you find this, but I think it'd be helpful to you.

I once saw a computer on Star Trek that did 150 million calculations per second. I'd say that's pretty realistic for 300 years into the future.

Eiturlyf wrote:I once saw a computer on Star Trek that did 150 million calculations per second. I'd say that's pretty realistic for 300 years into the future.

Given that my computer has a 2.4ghz CPU, therefore runs at 2,400,000,000 clock cycles/second (thats 2.4 billion), and its a quad core, so it can sorta do 4 calculations at once, my CPU is already 64x better then that ((2.4 billion / 150 million) * 4) if the calculations are easy enough to do in one clock cycle.

The Difference Engine gives an interesting idea for an alternate, well, present. The interface is punch cards!

There are two examples that stand out most readily in my mind:

In the most recent James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, the computers at MI-6 are essentially Microsoft Surfaces. It's all well and good that they're all operated by touch, but my problem is that they don't give nearly enough input to tell the surface exactly what data to bring up. The person operating the surface receives questions about specific places and people, which he brings up on the surface by extending certain circles on the surface, instead of going through any index whatsoever and finding the entry he's looking for. Either this is a huge coincidence and someone decided to put exactly that information about those exact people in unlabeled circles on the edges of the surface, or the surface can read minds.

The second is actually more a problem my boss identified and brought to my attention. We do work related to artificial intelligence, and so he's naturally interested in how such systems would work... enough that he can't help but critically evaluate how the terminators function in the Terminator series. The issue in these movies is the interface the terminators have to the outside world: why does their vision take in light like any conventional camera, analyze what is shown, and then highlight and label things of interest so that it could presumably proceed to redundantly analyze its own HUD to understand the notes it's giving itself? Why bother with this extremely inefficient second layer?
If the terminator is actually a human with nifty goggles on, then obviously it's important to keep everything in a format a human is used to interpreting, but if this is built into the terminator's brain, then you'd only be massively slowing things down.

The way I see it, when you're in college, you can either get a computer science degree or a degree relevant to work you'd do in Hollywood. Clearly, each field is for the most part lacking in knowledge of the other.

smartalco wrote:

Eiturlyf wrote:I once saw a computer on Star Trek that did 150 million calculations per second. I'd say that's pretty realistic for 300 years into the future.

Given that my computer has a 2.4ghz CPU, therefore runs at 2,400,000,000 clock cycles/second (thats 2.4 billion), and its a quad core, so it can sorta do 4 calculations at once, my CPU is already 64x better then that ((2.4 billion / 150 million) * 4) if the calculations are easy enough to do in one clock cycle.

Or even better: http://news.cnet.com/Intel-shows-off-80 ... 58181.html