Geek Jokes

[marshalla]

havoc said:

spyder dryver said:

mrmr96 said:

I still don't get it.

(I guess this is like the "10" binary joke?)

Yes. In a base sort of way.

Ba-doom tish!



Did anyone do the "two atoms in a bar" joke yet - can't be bothered to search all 20+ pages...

No - I'm positive it hasn't been done yet.

[mrmr96]

JonRB said:

mrmr96 said:

I still don't get it.

(I guess this is like the "10" binary joke?)

It's hexadecimal. Base 16.

"Normal" counting is Base 10 which goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
"Hexadecimal" goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, 10

10 in hexadecimal is 16 in "normal" (or decimal).

So "dead" in the joke is 57,005.

Edited by JonRB on Friday 21st January 16:38

I see, so deaf=57,005 deaf+1+1=57,005+1+1=57,007=dead
Cheers.

[Frederick]

mrmr96 said:

JonRB said:

mrmr96 said:

I still don't get it.

(I guess this is like the "10" binary joke?)

It's hexadecimal. Base 16.

"Normal" counting is Base 10 which goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
"Hexadecimal" goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, 10

10 in hexadecimal is 16 in "normal" (or decimal).

So "dead" in the joke is 57,005.

Edited by JonRB on Friday 21st January 16:38

I see, so deaf=57,005 deaf+1+1=57,005+1+1=57,007=dead
Cheers.

dead=57005+1=deae+1=57007=deaf

Simple!

Edited to add - there's always the hex variant of 184594917 - that's what I like to see

Edited by Frederick on Friday 21st January 17:56

[Alex@POD]

Frederick said:

mrmr96 said:

JonRB said:

mrmr96 said:

I still don't get it.

(I guess this is like the "10" binary joke?)

It's hexadecimal. Base 16.

"Normal" counting is Base 10 which goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
"Hexadecimal" goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, 10

10 in hexadecimal is 16 in "normal" (or decimal).

So "dead" in the joke is 57,005.

Edited by JonRB on Friday 21st January 16:38

I see, so deaf=57,005 deaf+1+1=57,005+1+1=57,007=dead
Cheers.

dead=57005+1=deae+1=57007=deaf

Simple!

Edited to add - there's always the hex variant of 184594917 - that's what I like to see

Edited by Frederick on Friday 21st January 17:56

Can't be bothered working it out so I googled it, sniggered, and my girlfriend said we are all massive losers.

[Munter]

Alex@POD said:

and my girlfriend said we are all massive losers.

Whoa there Neddy.

You have a girlfriend...on this thread! Something feels wrong.

[GeraldSmith]

marshalla said:

Q: Let's say only you and dead people can read hex. If you teach your buddy how to read hex also, what do you all have in common?

A: You are all deaf.

Well no you aren't. 'deaf people can read hex' would work, but you aren't all deaf.

(this is a geek thread...)

[JonRB]

GeraldSmith said:

marshalla said:

Q: Let's say only you and dead people can read hex. If you teach your buddy how to read hex also, what do you all have in common?

A: You are all deaf.

Well no you aren't. 'deaf people can read hex' would work, but you aren't all deaf.

A good point well made. Massive failage for the poster of the joke.

[spyder dryver]

Schumacher......Vettel.....FIA Steward

Edited by spyder dryver on Friday 21st January 20:29

Edited by spyder dryver on Friday 21st January 20:32

[Morningside]

spyder dryver said:

I have now emailed this to a couple of people.

Edited by Morningside on Friday 21st January 22:25

[JonRB]

class WebCrawler : public Spiderman, private PeterParker
{
};

[spyder dryver]

[Ace-T]

spyder dryver said:

After installing some software recently that one is very timely and funny!

Trace

[MartynVRS]

spyder dryver said:

Yeah that's spot on

[james_tigerwoods]

spyder dryver said:

So true...

[ZesPak]

james_tigerwoods said:

spyder dryver said:

So true...

That calculation algorithm is indeed rubbish.

[james_tigerwoods]

ZesPak said:

james_tigerwoods said:

spyder dryver said:

So true...

That calculation algorithm is indeed rubbish.

If I'm copying anything and someone's waiting for it, I always say that it will be x "Microsoft" minutes - the other party always rolls their eyes in general exasperation and asks me to tell them when it's done as, let's be honest, I've seen it go up and down more than Jordan's knickers.

(I do, tragically, have a vague idea as to why it the copying time changes)

[mrmr96]

james_tigerwoods said:

(I do, tragically, have a vague idea as to why it the copying time changes)

I thought it was because it bases it's time estimate on the number of files left vs. number copied, whereas it would be more accurate if it measured on file size, not number? Am I close?

[plasticpig]

mrmr96 said:

james_tigerwoods said:

(I do, tragically, have a vague idea as to why it the copying time changes)

I thought it was because it bases it's time estimate on the number of files left vs. number copied, whereas it would be more accurate if it measured on file size, not number? Am I close?

Nope. The main problem is that other applications and services require access to the hard drive and memory at the same time. There is no mechanism for predict the amount of access these other things require.

[Mr Will]

plasticpig said:

mrmr96 said:

james_tigerwoods said:

(I do, tragically, have a vague idea as to why it the copying time changes)

I thought it was because it bases it's time estimate on the number of files left vs. number copied, whereas it would be more accurate if it measured on file size, not number? Am I close?

Nope. The main problem is that other applications and services require access to the hard drive and memory at the same time. There is no mechanism for predict the amount of access these other things require.

The main problem is that it bases the estimated time on the current speed, leading to wild spikes, rather than basing it on the speed over the last few minutes/transfer so far which would smooth it out significantly.

[james_tigerwoods]

Mr Will said:

plasticpig said:

mrmr96 said:

james_tigerwoods said:

(I do, tragically, have a vague idea as to why it the copying time changes)

I thought it was because it bases it's time estimate on the number of files left vs. number copied, whereas it would be more accurate if it measured on file size, not number? Am I close?

Nope. The main problem is that other applications and services require access to the hard drive and memory at the same time. There is no mechanism for predict the amount of access these other things require.

The main problem is that it bases the estimated time on the current speed, leading to wild spikes, rather than basing it on the speed over the last few minutes/transfer so far which would smooth it out significantly.

Nope. You're all wrong. It's the Microsoft Randomizer tool that you've left enabled - to disable it you need to ... Shhh, it's a secret ...