Geekiest post on G+

22 Responses to Geekiest post on G+

1. Ramsez Stamper says:

   January 30, 2012 at 5:18 pm

   Identified.
2. Dean Montague says:

   January 30, 2012 at 5:19 pm

   01001001001000000110000101101101001000000110000100100000011001110110010101100101011010110010000001100001011011100110010000100000011000110110111101100100011001010010000001101101011011110110111001101011011001010111100100100000011101110110100001101111001000000110100001100001011100110010000001101110011011110111011100100000011010010110010001100101011011100111010001101001011001100110100101100101011001000010000001101101011110010111001101100101011011000110011000101110
3. Cheval Rex says:

   January 30, 2012 at 5:22 pm

   01101111 01101011 01101001 01100101 00100000 01100100 01101111 01101011 01101001 01100101
4. Scott Cramer says:

   January 30, 2012 at 5:23 pm

   +Dean Montague or +Ramsez Stamper See if you can get +Roger Murley 's comment toward the end of +Keith Cramer 's original post. It's the one with groupings of 5 binary digits. I spent way too much time on it. And…

   010010010010000001001000010000010101010001000101001000000110000101100100011011010110100101110100011101000110100101101110011001110010000001100100011001010110011001100101011000010111010000100001001000010010000100100000010000010110110001100001011100110010110000100000011010000110010100100000011011110111010101110100001011010110011101100101011001010110101101100101011001000010000001101101011001010010111000100000001110100010110100101000
5. Kari Tedrick says:

   January 30, 2012 at 5:23 pm

   010101110110100001101111001000000110000101110010011001010010000001111001011011110111010100100000011000110110000101101100011011000110100101101110011001110010000001100001001000000110011101100101011001010110101100111111
6. Roger Murley says:

   January 30, 2012 at 5:27 pm

   I'll give you a hint. I'm fascinated by old technology.
7. Gabriel Kennedy says:

   January 30, 2012 at 5:35 pm

   Well, I'm really more of a geek….. but…

   01010111.01100101.01100010.00100000.01000001.01110010.01110100.01101001.01110011.01110100.00100000.01100010.01111001.00100000.01100100.01100001.01111001.00101100.00100000.01000111.01100001.01101101.01100101.01110010.00100000.01100010.01111001.00100000.01101110.01101001.01100111.01101000.01110100.00100001.
8. Gabriel Kennedy says:

   January 30, 2012 at 5:37 pm

   +Roger Murley HAM radio, when networking really did use 'tubes'? 😀
9. Dean Montague says:

   January 30, 2012 at 5:38 pm

   Guitar amplifiers,at least the good ones, still do +Gabriel Kennedy
10. Scott Cramer says:

    January 30, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    +Kari Tedrick If the 01110011011010000110111101100101 fits, my dear. 😉
11. Gabriel Kennedy says:

    January 30, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    I found a fun one, it's called 'Octal'! I use hexidecimals in my day to day work, but had never heard of the Octal system. Yay Google!

    117157150041040111040146157165156144040141040146165156040157156145041040111164047163040143141154154145144040047117143164141154047054040157162040047117143164047040146157162040163150157162164056040111164047163040141156040145151147150164055142141163145040143157144145054040157142166151157165163154171056040116165155142145162163040143141156040142145040155141144145040142171040147162157165160151156147040143157156163145143165164151166145040142151156141162171040144151147151164163040151156164157040147162157165160163040157146040164150162145145041
12. Gabriel Kennedy says:

    January 30, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    +Dean Montague Oh yeah, huh? Vacuum Tubes are really coming back into the vogue too. A lot of audiophile 'statement' systems have begun using modern implementations of vacuum tubes, where they combine them with contemporary MOSFET. Pretty interesting.
13. Roger Murley says:

    January 30, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    QmFzZTY0PyBBbnlvbmU/IEFueW9uZT8=
14. Ramsez Stamper says:

    January 30, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    +Scott Cramer lol, um…yea, i'm not doing manual decoding..ever: http://www.roubaixinteractive.com/PlayGround/Binary_Conversion/Binary_To_Text.asp
15. Roger Murley says:

    January 30, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    No real geek would do manual decoding, anyway 🙂
16. Scott Cramer says:

    January 30, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    +Ramsez Stamper Perish the thought! Nothing has worked "right out of the box" for +Roger Murley 's comment on Keith's post. After his hint, am going to work on it later. Work is really getting in the way fun. 😉
17. Cheval Rex says:

    January 30, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    +Roger Murley SSBnb3QgeWVyIGJhc2U2NCByaWdodCBoZXJlLCBiYWJlcw==
18. Gabriel Kennedy says:

    January 30, 2012 at 11:28 pm

    Agreed. Geeks/Nerds are great at using the tools available. 😀 http://nickciske.com/tools/binary.php
19. Keith Cramer says:

    January 31, 2012 at 3:20 am

    Hmmm.. I'm thinking that creating that original post might be the biggest mistake I've made on G+…. or, maybe spending a couple days away from G+ after writing the post might be the true mistake. I just spent 20 minutes catching up. arg.

    Oh, and +Kari Tedrick 01001001001000000110000101101101001000010010000000100000001110100010110100101001
20. Scott Cramer says:

    January 31, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    +Gabriel Kennedy Wasn't ignoring, just took a while to get to the web! You're kind of a Geek Batman by description. 😉
21. Gabriel Kennedy says:

    February 1, 2012 at 1:22 am

    +Keith Cramer You created a monster! +Scott Cramer 'Where do I get those wonderful toys? Oh.. you know, the web.' -Gosh, I'll take that as high praise!
22. Keith Cramer says:

    February 1, 2012 at 1:26 am

    +Gabriel Kennedy I think that monster already existed. I may have just opened the closet door.

Comments are closed.