• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Who's the biggest dork here?"

Collapse

  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    Darn, forgot to log out.

    Not the first time

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    Thank you, BrownIssue, you're very kind.
    Darn, forgot to log out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by BrowneIssue View Post
    Brilliant! I shall steal that response, claim it as my own and recycle it many, many times.

    As for Dorkism, I've got a personal reference for being a geek (see .sig) does that count?
    Thank you, BrownIssue, you're very kind.

    Leave a comment:


  • NickFitz
    replied
    Originally posted by Denny View Post
    Ever heard of bore-nary?
    Originally posted by AtW View Post


    Denny is great!
    Get a room, you two

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Denny View Post
    Ever heard of bore-nary?


    Denny is great!

    Leave a comment:


  • Denny
    replied
    Originally posted by NickFitz View Post
    32767 (0111 1111 1111 1111 in binary) is significant if it's contained in a 16-bit word which is treated as a signed two's-complement value, because incrementing it would cause it to wrap around to -32768 (1000 0000 0000 0000 in binary). If a 16-bit word is treated as an unsigned value then the maximum value it can contain is 65535 (1111 1111 1111 1111 in binary) - when incremented beyond that it would overflow and be reset to zero (0000 0000 0000 0000 in binary).

    So they are of equal significance depending on context - for example, it was VB treating a 16-bit value as signed two's-complement that wiped out all the posts on the 10 Downing Street web site's forum when post 32768 (which is actually -32768) was submitted. Had the post ID been treated as an unsigned value, then the incompetence of the developer(s) (and therefore at the heart of Government, as they hired them) wouldn't have been exposed for another few months.
    Ever heard of bore-nary?

    Leave a comment:


  • NickFitz
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Geek!

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by NickFitz View Post
    32767 (0111 1111 1111 1111 in binary) is significant if it's contained in a 16-bit word which is treated as a signed two's-complement value, because incrementing it would cause it to wrap around to -32768 (1000 0000 0000 0000 in binary). If a 16-bit word is treated as an unsigned value then the maximum value it can contain is 65535 (1111 1111 1111 1111 in binary) - when incremented beyond that it would overflow and be reset to zero (0000 0000 0000 0000 in binary).

    So they are of equal significance depending on context - for example, it was VB treating a 16-bit value as signed two's-complement that wiped out all the posts on the 10 Downing Street web site's forum when post 32768 (which is actually -32768) was submitted. Had the post ID been treated as an unsigned value, then the incompetence of the developer(s) (and therefore at the heart of Government, as they hired them) wouldn't have been exposed for another few months.
    Geek!

    Leave a comment:


  • DiscoStu
    replied
    Originally posted by Nicky G View Post
    On the bright side, you are also blessed with me. I am the biggest **** here.
    I thought tosser was 6 characters?

    Leave a comment:


  • NickFitz
    replied
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
    Oh - in the same way I had 32767 which would have been the last one if BATTS broke it by exceeding 32k.

    Why would it be a 64k limit though? 32767 is much more significant, if you ask me.
    32767 (0111 1111 1111 1111 in binary) is significant if it's contained in a 16-bit word which is treated as a signed two's-complement value, because incrementing it would cause it to wrap around to -32768 (1000 0000 0000 0000 in binary). If a 16-bit word is treated as an unsigned value then the maximum value it can contain is 65535 (1111 1111 1111 1111 in binary) - when incremented beyond that it would overflow and be reset to zero (0000 0000 0000 0000 in binary).

    So they are of equal significance depending on context - for example, it was VB treating a 16-bit value as signed two's-complement that wiped out all the posts on the 10 Downing Street web site's forum when post 32768 (which is actually -32768) was submitted. Had the post ID been treated as an unsigned value, then the incompetence of the developer(s) (and therefore at the heart of Government, as they hired them) wouldn't have been exposed for another few months.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by BrowneIssue View Post
    If you have to ask... you're in the wrong thread!

    Because if 5X's subsequent post had brought CUK crashing down about our keyboards, mine would have been the last CUK post ever.
    Oh - in the same way I had 32767 which would have been the last one if BATTS broke it by exceeding 32k.

    Why would it be a 64k limit though? 32767 is much more significant, if you ask me.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrowneIssue
    replied
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
    Why is 65535 important in your signature?
    If you have to ask... you're in the wrong thread!

    Because if 5X's subsequent post had brought CUK crashing down about our keyboards, mine would have been the last CUK post ever.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by BrowneIssue View Post
    Brilliant! I shall steal that response, claim it as my own and recycle it many, many times.

    As for Dorkism, I've got a personal reference for being a geek (see .sig) does that count?
    Why is 65535 important in your signature?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Lone Gunman
    replied
    No no, I never ever win anything. I am desperate to be acknowledged.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrowneIssue
    replied
    Originally posted by Scaroth of the Jagaroth View Post
    You see that -----> .

    That's you and the validity of your opinions, that is.
    Brilliant! I shall steal that response, claim it as my own and recycle it many, many times.

    As for Dorkism, I've got a personal reference for being a geek (see .sig) does that count?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X