Poor guy - I hope we can help him get back to his senses.
Omega0 wrote:It's not very accurate to say that. What a binary number represents is entirely dependent on the context (and they are not always separated into bytes). They can be used to represent many different things, including integers, floating points, addresses, boolean values, ASCII characters, or any other information that a computer might need. (I've learned about this stuff in college.) In this context, they don't represent anything, they're just clues. I think that people were calling them codes because they don't realize that binary is just another way to represent a number (before I became an electrical engineer, I didn't realize that either).I know it's dependent on the context, which was why I said 'once separated into bytes' and 'usually represent ASCII characters'. And whenever binary comes up around here it's invariably a sequence of ASCII characters. Anywhere else they could be numbers or codes with any meaning possible, but here they're always codes, so we might as well call them that.
It's not very accurate to say that. What a binary number represents is entirely dependent on the context (and they are not always separated into bytes). They can be used to represent many different things, including integers, floating points, addresses, boolean values, ASCII characters, or any other information that a computer might need. (I've learned about this stuff in college.) In this context, they don't represent anything, they're just clues. I think that people were calling them codes because they don't realize that binary is just another way to represent a number (before I became an electrical engineer, I didn't realize that either).
No, they're not. There is no reason to separate these binary numbers into bytes, but if you did that with the first number, you would get this:
01010100 11100011 10100100 10111001
or 84 227 164 185 (decimal).
Except for the first byte, none of those can be ASCII, because ASCII only represents 128 characters. (You obviously haven't done your homework.) These numbers did not have to be translated or converted into anything to solve the puzzle. Therefore, they're not codes.
Then why don't you explain it to me? Why do you think that whenever binary comes up around here it's invariably a sequence of ASCII characters? I've done a lot of work with binary numbers, and I can't think of any reason why that would be the case.
(Also, I think it's kind of hypocritical of you to talk about my attitude. I've seen you make posts where all you say is that you laughed at someone. Do you think that attitude helps anyone?)
Why do you think that whenever binary comes up around here it's invariably a sequence of ASCII characters?
Excellent! You managed to say exactly what I meant, minus the babbling and the ranting. Well done. " />
However, that's not what you said. You said "here they're always codes." The word "always" includes this event. Gitano said that in this case the binary numbers were not codes (unlike other cases), which is what I've been trying to explain this whole time, and now you're finally saying the same thing? Thanks for wasting my time.
Listen. When I noticed Ouranos referring to those numbers as "binary codes," even though he surely knew that they weren't encoded ASCII in this case, I got the impression that he (and possibly a few others) didn't know the difference between binary numbers and binary codes. So I thought I would take a moment to try and explain that when you see a series of 0's and 1's, it's okay to call it a "binary number," but I guess I could've done a better job. I will admit that now I have a better understanding of why he called them "binary codes," thanks to Vinia and Gitano, and maybe he did actually know the difference (if so, then I apologize). I didn't mean to be condescending to Ouranos. I even put that funny quote and smily face in there to try and lighten up the mood.
I didn't think that anyone would argue about this, and if I knew that it would turn into such a stupid argument, I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. It was just supposed to be a harmless little FYI.
Anyway... On a different subject 'Ersatz' is todays 'word of the day' on Dictionary.com strangely enough... (yes I subscribe to the daily e-mail... never hurts to impress colleagues daily by slipping into a general conversation)
For those that don't know/havent looked it up it means:
Being a substitute or imitation, usually an inferior one.