``Why would you use a signed integer for a value like this?''

Probably because you would be programming in a language that makes it easier to use signed integers than, say, a type that could actually represent arbitrarily large values, as long as there were enough bits of memory available. Had the program been written in, say, Common Lisp, Ruby, or Python, using such an unconstrained numeric would actually have been the easiest thing to do.

I haven't had a TV in my house since 2001. I watched on my computer from the indie video store, later netflix, and now the net. Incidentally, since hulu et al., my TV viewership has gone way up. I do have a big monitor in front of the couch, now.

I honestly hadn't watched any TV until Battlestar Galactaca and Lost sucked me in.

Now there's Glee, Community, Dexter...the list goes on.

p.s. it means I'm cooler since I've been without a TV longer, right?

If the test isn't worth enough to update, then it probably isn't worth using. How many million did it cost to validate the original 10? According to the Wikipedia page the blots were made in 1921 with 400 subjects. That doesn't scream millions to me.

For a few million you might even be able to write software that would generate "inkblots", thereby solving the perceived weakness in the test.

Already available as a bookmarklet: http://pastebin.com/m21e4f5c3

Written by Jesse Ruderman, https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/