Numb3rs does a CSI: NY:

Link, since embedding appears to be broken: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2rGTXHvPCQ

[EDIT]
Oh hey. Embedding is back up.

This seems to be rather old news.

However, all it goes to show is that Visual Basic is great for really fast development.

Or for creating a GUI to track the killer's IP.

I watched both episodes when they first aired... Numb3rs' portrayal of hackers in that episode was pretty ridiculous. I particularly didn't care for how shortsighted the main hacker was^[1]. I love how they took a tense last-second screenshot instead of just gasp logging the conversation (or leaving the application running...).

On the other hand, we sometimes have television and Hollywood to thank for confusing average people, making the things we do seem magical and mysterious; therefore making us seem like wizards.

They could still do that factually though... I would prefer realism.

I haven't seen the show, so I'm not sure what you're referring to there, but hackers are just like anyone. They can be incredibly brilliant at doing what they do best, but very stupid in other situations. It's how they often get caught.

Hackers don't get caught.

Young'uns pretending to know what they're doing just blow themselves up when they get their latest edition of "C4 magazine" and "insert hot wire A into explosive B".

For example, no one has ever caught me, and I'm not even hiding!

as per my avatar, i'm a hacker

Looks more like it's saying that you're two hackers, at least. Multiple personalities, or just a lot of you behind your router?

If you're not familiar with the show, a mathematical genius (who is a professor at a university) and his friends/colleagues help his FBI agent brother's team catch bad guys primarily using math, though occasionally using other skills that they have (physics, computers, etc.).

You mean creating a gooey

also lol all hackers speak leet. According to them anyway.

bamccaig's post makes me feel good about myself

Unfortunately, a lot of clever people never consider the consequences of their actions.

It's kind of like "absent minded professor" stereotype. Amazingly brilliant, yet amazingly stupid all at the same time.

Computer smarts != people smarts

Programmers don't always get dates. They understand computers. They don't understand women.

We don't understand women because they're illogical. Programmers tend to be logically minded. It's only logical that the criminals you've stolen huge amounts of money from are going to want it back and be willing to take extreme measures towards that aim. It's also only logical that law enforcement are going to want to take down those illegal operations and if you're the one running them then you're the big fish that they want to catch (not to mention, it's only logical that a government agency is going to want to prosecute you for blatantly sabotaging a sting operation).

Show me a real world hacker that has been surprised by any of this stuff. I'm not even talking about unprepared or out of his league, but surprised (as in, didn't expect).

This thread makes my head hurt.

Me too. WHAT HAVE I STARTED!?

Those were both painful to watch, especially the Numb3rs one. "Can we get a screenshot?!"

I just watched the second link. Now there's a bloody head-shaped dent on my desk.

Which one on your avatar is actually you?

Edit:
>IRC. It's how hackers talk when they don't want to be overheard.

Damn.
That was a real lol..

i'm on irc with my homies right now

Haha, I wish I was awesome enough at math to monitor every IRC server on the intarwebz. Funny that the server died after they were done chatting, unless they are really awesome and can find running IRC servers in real time. But if they can do that, why will it matter if they are offline? An IP is an IP, you can trace it just as well whether or not the person is offline.

NO SCREENSHOT NO DOWNLOAD!

I hear you!

Well, there was the idiot who hacked into the New York Times system, and served time after he wrote his name on their computers.

Just watched the first link, which is retarded. Watched the second yesterday and didn't laugh - laughing at work of retarded people isn't fun.

<cough/> Kevin Mitnick

Come on guys, how can anyone with a slight interest in math, CS, or physics, watch that show (or any other similar show) and be serious about it?
Scenario: Someone has kidnapped a girl, and all we know is where she was last seen. What's the first thing you'd do? Go to the scene and see if you can gather any useful traces? Try to reconstruct her last actions? Map her social environment, trying to find likely kidnappers? Prepare for when the kidnapper makes contact?
All wrong. The right thing to do in such a situation, apparently, is to calculate a "probability matrix" (with virtually no input data) that will give you the most likely spot to find her.

Yes, Numb4s is a bit like Winnie the Pooh. The best spot to dig a heffalump trap on is right next to the spot where the heffalump is before it falls into the trap.

I'd just like to quote this and reply with a cleverly disguised jab at y'all how I quit programming and got myself a fuckbuddy.

Well, failed that disguising part miserably.

1. Charlie is not a cop. He's a mathematician. The cop stuff, like collecting evidence, is the FBI's job and not really the primary focus of the show^[1]. They ask Charlie for help when the evidence requires complex mathematical analysis to be useful to the FBI.

2. We're never really shown the inputs he's given. Usually, they are just assumed sufficient by the audience, and take place off camera or as a result of handing over a thumbdrive.

Also, the character is a mathematical genius (miles above your average student or professor), which can easily be used to rationalize that his knowledge and understanding exceeds your own. Of course, for me, whose last serious math class was Grade 12 Calculus^[2], I don't even begin to have an understanding of the advanced math used on the show so I can't notice fallacies. They are supposed to have real mathematicians on the show advising them though so I'm sure it's based on some fact, even if exaggerated where necessary (the writers basically have to come up with a script every week, and it can't always be exactly the same solutions or people would get bored of it, so it isn't unreasonable to see that sometimes the writers have to be more creative than accurate). Also, for a show that you enjoy, you're willing to roll your eyes and move past it when they do skew reality.

I don't remember the exact situation, but I'm pretty sure the viewer knew that there was virtually no input data except the point on the map where she was last seen, and the map itself. And the guy just summoned a "probability matrix" out of thin air, but while he was doing so, his partner uttered that a far better approach would be to create a mathematical model of the kidnapper's mind (again, without much data, since they didn't even have the kidnapper's identity, let alone a complete biography or anything near a brain scan or something), which turned out to be the successful approach.
I'm not a mathematical genius, but I do know that you can't just mathemagically come up with a solution if you don't have enough of a problem. It's actually a lot like when the "computer expert" watches a blurry, grainy video surveillance tape, zooms in on a 3x1 pixel licence plate, presses a few keys, and the number is clearly readable. He does this without even thinking about touching the mouse, and the computer tweets and chirps happily whenever something moves on the screen.
Don't get me wrong, I love watching this stuff, I just can't take it seriously.

Another classic is where Sandra Bullock finds the complete, real identity of her attacker by entering his chat handle into whois.

{"name":"phd040609s.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/7\/272975513029fd047a1f0ed319dbf783.gif","w":600,"h":541,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/7\/272975513029fd047a1f0ed319dbf783"}

Up to a point. And that point is well and truly exceeded in the posted examples. And the CSIs / Numb3rs in general.

I find that Numb3rs does a much better job than CSI: NY and CSI: Miami. And the original CSI: Crime Scene Investigation does a much better job of being realistic or at least believable. They still stretch reality out of necessity, but compared to CSI: NY and CSI: Miami they're way more feasible. I hate how in CSI: NY and CSI: Miami, the crime labs have crazy technology like 3D holograms manipulated with hand motions, let alone ones that are so perfect they can autopsy corpses without having to touch the body (yet still do in every other episode...)! That's far more ridiculous than a shortsighted hacker or hackers holding secret conversations in IRC. I don't even think that technology exists yet (at least, not at such a mature, practical level), but even if it did, city crime labs probably couldn't afford to have their own personal equipment.

I've been wondering about that fancy 3d holagram thing, it seems they used it a couple times, and never again. I'll bet they got too many complaints

They have somewhat better actors, that's why it appears more realistic.

Also: this.

Why are you people debating this!? It's like you're trying to figure out which of two retarded kids is more retarded. That's offensive to the children, their parents, all common decency, and most importantly ... this thread still makes my head hurt.

I think its funny really. Its like watching Top Gear for the serious car advice