On Jul 16, 2006, at 4:05 PM, David VanHorn wrote:
>
> I'm not disbelieving you, but I know that in some version, it was
> 222.  I'm just wondering why anyone would change that, since as
> a work of fiction, all it needs to do is LOOK believable.
>
I remember 222, but in two early versions of the book I read, there
was DIFFERENT text for how to do the binary conversion, at least
one of which was quite wrong (perhaps just the LSB-first issue
mentioned, but it definitely didn't match the binary conversion
we were doing in school.)

 From most american phones, dialing any combination of 1s and 0s
gets you the operator.  Especially in the timeframe the book was
first published.  The 1's are essentially ignored...

BillW
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist