# Geekiness percentage



## Giaguara (Apr 8, 2004)

A geek test .. http://www.innergeek.us/geek.html
It calcolates the % of how geek you are. 

I scored ...

38.46154 % geek .. how about you?


----------



## Ricky (Apr 9, 2004)

22.87968% - Geek.


----------



## Satcomer (Apr 9, 2004)

27.61341% - Total Geek

Giaguara - I knew you were a geek, but wow!


----------



## Randman (Apr 9, 2004)

15.58185% - Geek (is that good or bad?)


----------



## ora (Apr 9, 2004)

37.2
Am sure it was all that star trek trivia that did for me, that and doing a science degree which i think gave me a whole bunch of points. I think i'f id ever played Magic the Gathering or D&D i would have been in the 40% region, thankfully i studiously avoided that scene.


----------



## rbuenger (Apr 9, 2004)

Ok, answerd all correct and scored 38,65878 points and I'm a Major Geek


----------



## Lyra (Apr 9, 2004)

I have to work out the English equivalents of some of the questions: what's 'SCA'? 

Leaving out boxes that don't have an English equivalent  23.66864.


----------



## bobw (Apr 9, 2004)

Sexual Compulsives Anonymous

http://www.sca-recovery.org/

Gia is the president


----------



## Randman (Apr 9, 2004)

Hey! Don't make of SCA and its meetings. It's a great place to pick up chicks.


----------



## bobw (Apr 9, 2004)

Happily, I flunked


----------



## twister (Apr 9, 2004)

I gave up.  To many questions.


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 9, 2004)

Gah...I'm more of a geek than I thought I was.  I was going around, actually answering truthfully, thinking I'd only get something like 10% or so...but then this popped up when I hit 'Rank My Geekiness':

44.18146% - Major Geek

No wonder I haven't been getting any dates lately...  Figures, too; I can always remember trying not to be too geeky.


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 9, 2004)

44 % ? Pretty geeky, Darkshadow .. 

Hey, there is an easy solution ... date geeks. I think the female geeks aren't probably as common, but I think I know 3-4 other girls who could score over 30 % ..


----------



## chevy (Apr 9, 2004)

46.74556 - Super Geek

No idea why ?!? I don't feel so. I just feel FEA2 0010 A56A 0981.


----------



## chevy (Apr 9, 2004)

Giaguara said:
			
		

> 44 % ? Pretty geeky, Darkshadow ..
> 
> Hey, there is an easy solution ... date geeks. I think the female geeks aren't probably as common, but I think I know 3-4 other girls who could score over 30 % ..



I've not yet met a nice looking female geek.


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 9, 2004)

Well, I feel better now.  There's someone geekier than me around. 

Yeah, I agree, Chevy, I haven't met any, either.


----------



## chevy (Apr 9, 2004)

The thing is... I don't feel geek !


----------



## ksv (Apr 9, 2004)

*13.01775% - Geekish Tendencies*

Geekish _tendencies?_
Alright, I guess I can live with that


----------



## mdnky (Apr 9, 2004)

9.66469% - Geekish Tendencies


----------



## quiksan (Apr 10, 2004)

hm, i think anyone who finished it gets extra points anyway.

I got 39.25%...wow, more than I thought.  I've always thought of myself as a geek, and apparently I've been correct!  

lol


----------



## adambyte (Apr 10, 2004)

19.72387 - Geek.

I'm surprised I'm not more of a geek. I think it's 'cause I'm not into Star Trek, the Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings type stuff. Definitely into the math, science, and computers, though. 

Still working on my nuclear reactor.


----------



## markceltic (Apr 10, 2004)

I hope there isn't a score that will disqualify me from here, since I only got a 14.59%


----------



## scruffy (Apr 10, 2004)

31.75542% - Total Geek

If they'd been focusing more on bookish geeks and less on media geeks I might have ended up a bit higher.  That's probably about right though...


----------



## chemistry_geek (Apr 10, 2004)

42.80079% - Major Geek

I am disappointed as I thought I would have ranked somewhere around 60% or 70%.  Awe-man, they should have asked what a Tensor was and if you use it everyday, or if you know what the sixth enzyme in glycolysis is and what type of reaction it catalyzes.  I am very disappointed.  The test is slanted against CHEMISTRY GEEKS!!!

They don't list *I want to be (or have been)...A CHEMIST!!!*   Ungh!!!


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 10, 2004)

Yea ... not all geeks are only star trek or babylon 5 or star wars fanatics. 
geekiness can be in other levels too


----------



## goynang (Apr 12, 2004)

11.83432% - Geekish tendencies

I'm only really a geek about computers. I've never been into role playing games or the other classic geek stuff. Geek is a bit of a loose term though isn't it? You can be a geek about lots of different things.


----------



## tree (Apr 12, 2004)

What I am seeing here. A kind of a Iqtest developed by some psychiaters. I am not going anymore to psychiaters. I don't believe in such a test. Everyday I go to my work. I sleep relatively regular. I am never ill. Everyone is speaking here "I wanna be a computerguy". Do you know that there is a graduate in informatics at my work cleaning the toilets?


----------



## chevy (Apr 12, 2004)

tree said:
			
		

> What I am seeing here. A kind of a Iqtest developed by some psychiaters. I am not going anymore to psychiaters. I don't believe in such a test. Everyday I go to my work. I sleep relatively regular. I am never ill. Everyone is speaking here "I wanna be a computerguy". Do you know that there is a graduate in informatics at my work cleaning the toilets?



At least HE is doing something useful.


----------



## delsoljb32 (Apr 13, 2004)

14.7929% - Geekish Tendencies

I would have thought I'd get more than that! Going to have to start studying more I guess...

Hey tree, I have a degree in Computer Information Systems, and I'm a bartender both here (Herve's Bar and Grill, hahah) and in the real world. Its not cleaning toilets, but useful nonetheless. I consider it my second education in human interaction and communication...


----------



## Easter (Apr 28, 2004)

43.19527% - Major Geek


----------



## Easter (May 4, 2004)

Hi 


			
				chevy said:
			
		

> 46.74556 - Super Geek
> 
> No idea why ?!? I don't feel so. I just feel FEA2 0010 A56A 0981.



maybe you are right ... you have a wrong Geek Code; thi is the correct one:

```
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GS/P/>SS d-(++) s+: a+ C+() U* P L E--- W++ N- o+ K? w--- O-- M++ V PS++
PE+ Y- PGP t+ 5 X+ R tv-- b+++ DI++ D+ G e+++ h---- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
```

bye, byez_


----------



## dlloyd (May 4, 2004)

42.20907% - Major Geek 
If I actually had a TV I think I would have beat all of you hands down! 
And I actually get along fine socially in the real world, strange...


----------



## Giaguara (May 4, 2004)

I think not all geekiness need to be babylon 5 or star trek stuff .. or i might know "geeks" that have ONE computer that does not even run anything recent .. and that are not that much into computers but like all cartoons, star stories, go to cons ... 

Easter, the geek code thing ... when you know how do decipher it in your head, the next thing is taking it to the next level. Or add a sex code etc to it. Such as ...


```
SVa/St/FeEr ?~A ?W+- ?H+- w-- h++ D++++ E++ P98 a--- A--- b-- !B- !Bs C++++ Cd+ Co+ !d !Di e+ f++ F !Fi ?g ~i ?I k++++ m+ Ma++ ?Me n++ !p !P Pi+ ?r ?s ~S !Sw ?t T->++ wa- Wa--
```


----------



## HyperLiteG4 (May 4, 2004)

9.27022 % here....


----------



## Cat (May 4, 2004)

42.40621% - Major Geek

I classify as BiblioGeek: I read more, much more geeky fantasy books than are on the test, but I scarcely know how to use my calulator.


----------



## dlloyd (May 4, 2004)

Heehee, I still out-geek you Cat!


----------



## chevy (May 4, 2004)

Easter said:
			
		

> Hi
> 
> 
> maybe you are right ... you have a wrong Geek Code; thi is the correct one:
> ...



Tks. I corrected the wrong parts and added the "r" rating. I suppressed the header and footer on purpose (I don't like long signatures, and everybody who can understand geek code can see it, other will not understand anyhow), as I wrote most in lower case 'cause I find uppercase too aggressive.


----------



## Easter (May 5, 2004)

Hi chevy,



			
				chevy said:
			
		

> Tks. I corrected the wrong parts and added the "r" rating. I suppressed the header and footer on purpose (I don't like long signatures, and everybody who can understand geek code can see it, other will not understand anyhow), as I wrote most in lower case 'cause I find uppercase too aggressive.



I don't earn any money from the Geek Code so my post was only a suggestion ...
I'm agree about to suppress the header in signature but not to lower case all: the Geek code is case sensitive; maybe in future someone will add a new token using some lower case char and then your code will be wrong. 

So if you are using the Robert Hayden Geek Code v3.12  you have to use the proper case, else write down your new code or extensions. If your geek code is sent to a lexical scanner it will terminate with error, sorry.

Dyez_


----------



## Easter (May 5, 2004)

Hi gia,


			
				Giaguara said:
			
		

> Easter, the geek code thing ... when you know how do decipher it in your head, the next thing is taking it to the next level. Or add a sex code etc to it. Such as ...
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



I don't understand ...
I cannot decode that Geek Code, I don't know the rules, the grammar ... scanner stopped at first token ...

Kisses_


----------



## Cat (May 5, 2004)

Try a google search for "geek code" "sex code", you'll be shocked and/or astonished 

Dlloyd: not that I really care, but how is your 42.2% more than my 42.4%?  Ok, math was never my favourite subject, but I can do basic sums and subtractions ...


----------



## Giaguara (May 5, 2004)

Easter, you can not decipher an old sex code with a decoder for a geek code. It's like taking a text in Spanish and trying to babelfish it from "Italian to English"...


----------



## chevy (May 5, 2004)

Easter said:
			
		

> Hi chevy,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Man, you're absolutely right. And as a mod I should respect the rules...


----------



## Easter (May 6, 2004)

Hi Gia,


			
				Giaguara said:
			
		

> Easter, you can not decipher an old sex code with a decoder for a geek code. It's like taking a text in Spanish and trying to babelfish it from "Italian to English"...



OK! ... that's it!!! It's a Sex Code ... now I understand!
I have to find the production rules for the "Sex Code" grammar (context-free grammar, or CFG for short)*, and implant them into my head to act as lexical scanner, analyzer, push-down stack automaton (maybe I will take less time writing a software to do that).
By now I'm not worth to it.

Byez_

*
CFGs were first formalised as a definition by Chomsky in the 1950s, but the intuitions behind them go back way before that, and indeed are pretty straightforward. For example, if you have ever learned the definition of the well-formed formulae of propositional logic, you have learned a particular phrase structure grammar. It is also the standard format for presenting the grammar of programming languages (where it goes by the name Backus-Naur form and incidentally often  is used)
For more info see Context Free Languages by Martin Emms


----------

