@ Zel: I agree for the most part, but being a security researcher myself, I disagree about what you said about finding vulnerabilities with source code is faster. Finding a good part of them is an arduous task with just the source available (even with automated white-box tools), I’d say close to impossible.

But your criticism about compiled code is something that caught my eye as well. There is nothing magical about compilers and they are not designed to just accept text and output an application either.

Source code can be a huge number of things and even though I haven’t seen the movie yet, I don’t think it’s automatically a stupid title. I think it has some philosophical qualities to it. The concept of source code is an attempt to formalize communication, so that a machine can interpret and execute it. It is kind of like an archetype of discussion and a way to transfer a concept to execution.

Adam N. Copeland wrote:

@ Tino:
Watch this clip. Someone says “charge the drivers” to Michael Bolton from Office Space who then does the movie thing where they type on a keyboard and make graphical things squiggle on a screen. WTF indeed.

I’m not sure you understand what “benefit of doubt” means. Rather than trying to find faults, perhaps it is better to start from the assumption that the dialog is supposed to make sense? Hence, I don’t think “driver” was meant as “software driver”. What I heard was rather an instruction for starting up some kind of mechanical driver or driver circuit which is needed for the “universe reprogramming” process. As for the white blinking dots: Have you seen research-quality code? I have, and cryptic blinking white dots are not unthinkable when scientists write UI to be used by other scientists… If you want “stupid movie UI”, that is not it, this is it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUJFOuHIS4Q

I don’t know why I am putting so much work into defending this movie. For all I know it will indeed be stupid when it is released. I guess I just like to argue on the Internet. :)

@ Tino:

Nope. This movie is stupid.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4216953369/

Watch this clip. Someone says “charge the drivers” to Michael Bolton from Office Space who then does the movie thing where they type on a keyboard and make graphical things squiggle on a screen.

WTF indeed.

Maybe I’m taking the concept of ‘benefit of doubt’ to unhuman lengths here, but perhaps rather than assume that the people behind this are all trolling us with a gigantic “F**ing source code, how does it work?”, maybe we should wait with the judging until we seen more than a trailer?

All the woman says is “A secret program called `the source code’ will send you back in time to relive the last 8 minutes of a passenger’s life on that train.” This may at first sound like gobbledygook, but I am pretty sure she does not mean “program” as in ‘computer program’, but as in ‘research program’.

This research program, “the source code”, seems concerned with unraveling the mysteries of time and space. Maybe what they have found is connected to digital physics and the idea of the universe as a gigantic computational engine. When trying to understand the strange physics connected to this, and when trying to alter the very programming of our world, what would be a good name for that research program? It wouldn’t seem off to talk about “understanding the source code of the universe”, and then shorten it off as “the source code”.

So, there you have it. There is a research program called “the source code”. They have figured out how to read/write “the source code of the universe”, and some type of machine use this knowledge to alter the execution of the universe. Rewatch the trailer with this interpretation in mind; is the name still so bad?

@ Alex:
What do you mean? “Terminally incoherent” is the awesomest name ever.

Of course there might be a splash of irony in the fact that the owner of a website called “terminally incoherent” is arguing that choosing “source code” as a movie named is bad or annoying. It’s just a name, right?

I don’t really agree with the sub-discussion about what source code “is”. You’re saying “It is text, and nothing but text.” and make the case the source code in itself is “dead” compared to compiled code. I don’t really agree. In principle they are the same. Source code is more abstract and human-readable and the conversion usually just goes one way. But the basic principle that the code needs a “black box” (whether that be a compiler, software interpreter or hardware interpreter, most often a CPU) still applies.

I’m assuming that the movie title, and in extension the naming of the program/project/whatever within the movie, is named so because they’re using some form of code to find the source of some sort of information. That’s the ambiguity at hand.

So, it’s named “Source Code”. You expected something else? Too bad. Movies like this one are not made for programmers, but for some subsection of the general public. As with many genres, if you’re a professional in the field that is being portrayed (or live in a country that is being portrayed, if the movie is set some “exotic” country, etc.) , it’s more difficult to let suspension of disbelief kick in.

maybe the source code is perl. you don’t need a compiler for perl. hehe.

Actually, you can upload your mind into an Excel spreadsheet (well, provided you can upload your mind into a computer, at least). That’s what macros are for! Oh, and viruses too.

jambarama wrote:

My favorite part of that trailer is when the expert says “it doesn’t work like that” and the guy insisted he’d find a way. That’s exactly on point with your Charlie & the Car analogy. How many times has someone said something utterly nonsensical, like I’m trying to change my IP to avoid spam, and refused to believe you when you told them they’re talking impossibilities.

OMG, yes!

I had a guy actually ask me to set up a new email for him, and then automatically forward all of his old emails to the new one to “avoid spam”. I tried explaining that this won’t do anything, but he insisted I do it anyway. And then he complained that he is still getting spam. Cause you know, there has to be a way to do this.

Of course he was getting so much spam because he insisted that we make an exception for him on the server side spam filter because one time some important email got snagged by it.

Oh, and good article.

As for “matrix”, it is a fairly ambiguous term. The actual meaning largely depends whether you are talking about a mathematical concept, biological cellular glue, technical term used in chemical analysis, one of the functional parts of the human hair, typesetting mold or a specific technique of audio decoding. Clearly it is a very popular term.

The term “matrix” it is usually used to denote some sort of enclosure, base, mold, etc. I believe it’s latin root means womb. So I think the title works pretty well with the theme of the movie. The machines use the human farms as a power grid (matrix), human minds are trapped in a virtual enclosure (also matrix) and their bodies reside in mechanical wombs. Maybe I’m looking to much into it, but it seems like it might have been very carefully and thoughtfully picked title.

@ Zel:

I agree, source code is more important/interesting/valuable than the executable but it is fairly useless without a working compiler/interpreter. You have to build it for it to do anything practical. Source is an idea, the compiled binary is the execution of thereof.

Zel wrote:

It’d fit quite good on a action movie about corporation espionage or military satellite takeover, provided the theft (with excruciatingly slow copy progress bar to build suspense) and delivery (with car chases) of said code is the main action of the film.

That’s actually exactly what I expected when I read about “this new movie from the makers of the Moon called source code”.