?

100001111100101100001111001101000001100101111001101000001101110110111111100111110100110010111100100100001010000001110100101001

Sure you copied that correctly?

I see fifteen bytes and six bits.

Adding two bits to the end (to make a whole byte), an online convertor gives me “‡Ë4y Ý¿ŸL¼ t¤”. Is that code?

[I’d play around with BASIC, but I’m sitting outside in the sun clutching a tea, since I woke at 3.40 to start work at 5, so, yeah, don’t expect me to make any sense…]

Hmm, in hex that becomes 3f cb 0f 34 19 79 a0 dd bf 3f 4c bc 90 a0 74 a4.

Or 3fcb0f34 1979a0dd bf3f4cbc 90a074a4 which doesn’t look like ARM code.

In 6502, it begins BBR3, so that doesn’t make any sense.

If I’m wrong-endian here, sorry, life’s too short to sort that out using a phone!

Oh, I’ve got it! It’s the WPA2 password to let people use WiFi at the show!

;)

Why does it have to be 8 bits?

126 bits splits into other multiples nicely.

Might want to brush up on your Latin too.

:)

Who needs Unicode when you have Arthur Askey?

[Edit: At Acorn, manglement once came round and asked what character set standard we used. Tim replied “Arthur ASCII” pronounced as per the aforementioned entertainer.]

It does not fit 6-bit divisible

Crap, and there I was thinking a hundred and twenty six divided by six was twenty one.

There might be some mileage in this, given the odd six bits at the end, but I’m not going to wade through sorting that mess out.

Are you sure it’s not 14 × 9 bits with parity bit?

As a set of 6 bit values…

!<,

%9(
6?'42<$

4)

Steve is probably wetting himself with laughter. He just bashed zero and one a bunch of times, right, and now we’re all trying to find some meaning in it… 😂

“Arthur ASCII” pronounced as per the aforementioned entertainer

Isn’t it pronounced like that? That’s how I’ve always said it! prepares once again to be have been wrong my entire life

REM >decode
ON ERROR PROCerror:END
in$=  "100001111100101100001111001101000001100101111001101000001101110110111111100111110100110010111100100100001010000001110100101001"
rem%=LENin$
a$=""
L%=7
PRINT FNdecode(L%)
END
:
DEFFNdecode(len%)
  REPEAT
    ch$=LEFT$(in$,len%)
    ch$="%"+ch$
    a$=a$+ CHR$(EVALch$)
    rem%= rem%-len%
    in$=RIGHT$(in$,rem%)
  UNTIL rem%=0
=a$
:                                                                  C
DEF PROCerror
  REM *reporterror T
  PRINT REPORT$;" at line ";STR$ ERL
  OSCLI("set DeskEdit$ERL "+STR$(ERL))
ENDPROC

Nice!

Cras es norter

Sorry folks, I cannot help myself on this one. That makes no sense in Latin, even when the typo ‘r’ is replaced by ‘s’ and the missing ‘t’ is inserted. In English tomorrow has two senses: the noun, meaning the next day after this one , or the adverb, meaning on the day after this one . Latin cras is an adverb and was never used as a noun. The noun tomorrow has to be expressed in Latin as dies crastinus. Similarly noster would have made no sense. Try dies crastinus nobis futurus est .

“Romanes eunt domus”? People called Romanes, they go, the house?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_©

;) You are our tomorrow.

dies crastinus nobis futurus est

Translation: It is a noble future to die of procrastination.

;)

Appears to be non-alcoholic.

DavidS – English is the language spoken in England today.

While it has changed over time, there is no such thing as an “original” English.

Wikipedia, for Old English, says:

Old English developed from a set of Anglo-Frisian or Ingvaeonic dialects originally spoken by Germanic tribes traditionally known as the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. As such, Old English was a “thoroughly Germanic cousin of Dutch and German”, unrecognisable as English today. As the Germanic settlers became dominant in England, their language replaced the languages of Roman Britain: Common Brittonic, a Celtic language, and Latin, brought to Britain by Roman invasion.

Go even further back, and it’s proto-indo-european, which has no known written form (it even predates runes), and there’s just a lot of guesswork and conjecture about what it actually sounded like, derived from finding similarities existing in known languages.

Ultimately, English, French, and German (etc) are what is spoken today by the citizens of the countries within which the language is spoken.

As for what was spoken before, and if this Latin is correct or not, I do wonder if it were possible to bring a Roman into modern day, if he’d look at our Latin and exclaim “Quid in irrumabo!”?

To put this into context, how many times have you heard Shakespeare quoted in a Received Pronunciation accent? Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! That’s a modern affectation.

Tomorrow, be ours is a perfectly good translation, once it is understood that it is not addressed to tomorrow but to some individual. Sorry, Andrew, it is your translation that is the problem. But I guess pseudo-Latin and pseudo-French have become a revenge for all those wasted hours in the classroom. That goes for the reputation of mathematics too.

Steve’s link partial screenshot looks different. A graphics update incoming?

While it has changed over time, there is no such thing as an “original” English.

Let me recommend David Crystal’s The Stories of English (note the plural), ISBN 0-141-01593-4 . He makes the point that English has always been a conglomeration of different dialects and that it is impossible to describe the evolution of English as spoken today without taking this point on board. Received English is a recent discrepancy. I have another rich tome to recommend, Shakespeare’s Words , by him and his son, Ben, on Shakespearean English, ISBN 978-0-140-29117-9.

as it is the later translation

It defies belief that you’d need to translate Shakespeare, but then, I’ve seen what you guys have done to the bible and The Lord’s Prayer.

not like the correct word ‘Kool’

Kool was how some people spelled it in the 90s in order to be “kool”. You’re the only person I know that still uses that spelling. The correct spelling is with a C. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cool

As for the K version? Not a word. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kool

Hey looks like we have translucent Iconbar???? :)