I find it fascinating that people claim some computer coding is "human readable" and some is not. Pencil marks on a piece of dead tree are often "human readabl

I find it fascinating that people claim some computer coding is "human readable" and some is not. Pencil marks on a piece of dead tree are often "human readable". Bits on a hard drive (or on a FLASH drive or in DRAM or ...) are not. Bits on a some kind of modern electronic storage device require a program (software) to interpret them. When people say something is not "human readable" they mean not human readable by their favorite text editor, etc. Nothing would prevent a different program from making the binary blob "human readable". So I claim that, unless we use e.g. Williams-Kilburn tube memory, which stored bits on the screen of the CRT http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/memory-storage/8/308 http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/memory-storage/8/3... which were, in fact, "human readable", I believe it does us all a disservice to say that just because your program does not interpret the binary blob the way you like implies that somehow the binary blob itself is deficient!