Thorham

Yeah, great idea! Lets first use them, and then kill them when we don't want them anymore, nice! The ethics are strong in this thread!

Deleted.

Humans who enjoy hunting make better psychos.

Maybe.

Thanks for those links

Everything. I took a quick look at integrals and thought it wasn't so hard, but I don't get any of it. I should probably just take my time to learn integrals properly.

I don't understand that, either. The gaps in my maths knowledge are just to large. Perhaps it's time to go and do something about that.

I have no Idea what that means. Could someone explain this as if I'm a four year old?

In this integral (error function), what is d and what is t? This stuff is hard to find for math noobs

Sure, fine. Doesn't make killing for fun any less evil.

Am I talking about necessity? No, I'm talking about ENJOYMENT. Two completely different things.

So, basically I have to let others tell me whether or not enjoying killing is sick? I don't think so. Anyone who enjoys hunting is mentally disturbed, period.

Why do I need others to tell me what is and isn't sick and evil?

You could try FreeBasic first. Makes accessing the screen extremely easy. It allows you to do things the BASIC way, and it also allows you to do things the C way (proper pointers, etc). Nice and fast little language, especially for quickly trying some things.

No, I can't, but do I really have to? I'm talking about enjoyment, not necessity. Is nature a good moral guideline for humans? Probably not. To hell with what's natural. I like to live to higher standards than what nature gives us. If you like what's natural so much, then why don't you go live in a cave, wearing a bear pelt? Time and time again do I read about how it's good because it's natural. What a load of bull droppings. Nature isn't nice, and I thank all that's good and wholesome that my life is largely unnatural.

People who enjoy killing animals are psychopaths. Very sick individuals indeed.

That block system could be used for a view mode in a memory/file viewer when you want to view things in binary. For that it's undoubtedly much better than writing everything in base 2 (it's the same, yet uses up much less space). They use an IME for that. It basically comes down to spelling words in Hiragana (or Romaji when using Latin only keyboards) which are then converted to Chinese characters. You'd end up using something like it, meaning you'd simply type numbers in decimal or hexadecimal and the software converts it to the base 256 digits. Certainly very doable, and probably not as inconvenient as I thought before. For use on computers I'd go for something that sacrifices ease of writing by hand and is as clear as possible, because you'll need an IME anyway and the computer ends up handling the writing part for you.

We're doing exactly the same thing, namely sticking eight bits into a single character position. The systems just look different. Yes, because you're just shifting bits to the left and right. Anyway, if I'm going to write anything, either by hand or with a keyboard, then I'll simply use decimal or hexadecimal, based on what the number represents. It's just the easiest way. Think about it, how would you type these characters? You'd need an IME, and you'd basically end up just typing the number normally. Why not just type them without this IME crud? It's not more convenient for writing, it's a hassle.

To TAR: Octal fits a eight bits just fine, you just don't have to use all possible digits for the third number. The system I came up with doesn't actually do this and it simply shows the eight bits in a compact form. Here are some more versions. The digits are clearly whole units, and you can easily make out the individual bits allowing you to see the value. This system seems quite clear to me. Dots are zero, squares are one, and the blank space isn't used. The bits are now in right to left order as well (got this wrong in the first version). However, generally speaking, writing a single byte value is best done with an existing writing method, based on what the byte represents. If the byte represents a normal value, then base 10 is fine, because there's often no need to see the connection with the binary representation. If the byte represents a bit mask, then base 2 or base 16 is probably best. Basically, systems such as this become potentially interesting if you want to see large numbers in their binary form, such as 32 or 64 bit bit masks, because that is a rather large number of base 2 digits.

It's not for writing by hand, but for computer generated text. Usable for printing text to screen or paper, and with a suitable input method you can easily type these characters as well. Hexadecimal is probably best for handwritten text.

You'd know the binary equivalent if you know hexadecimal. Anyway, I would do it like this (three rows of octal per character):

To H.sapiens: Why did you necro this depressing thread?

To tar: Sorry, but I have to say this again: HEXADECIMAL Those 80 binary ones simply become this in hex: 0xffffffffffffffffffff How easy is that? You're trying to fix something that's not broken.

My reason for preferring normal hexadecimal notation is that you don't have too many digits. You could, for example, use base 100 to replace base 10, and you'd have the same problem as replacing base 16 with base 256: Too many digits. There's a point where more digits doesn't improve readability, and doesn't make numbers easier to write. As for naming conventions, just pronounce a hex number the way it reads: 0xBC50 -> hex bee see fifty. Don't make it more complicated than it is.

I think I'll stick to hexadecimal notation.