Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lue]

My teachers call the DNA code "degenerated", because of its redundancy (I think). So this is "degenerating" in the same meaning, because in a way, any debate about sexuality is about chemistry in the first place
#feeble_attempt_at_justificating_himself

I said 'degenerating?' because it's not degenerating, the conversation is improving.

Secondly, it's called a degenerate code because many base triplets code for the same amino acid.

I prefer to think of them as Undocmented opcodes. Except instead of killing your cells or creating some sort of dual-purpose amino acid they just do the exact same thing another triplet does. (In case you can't tell, I tend to think of DNA and all the related systems like a computer )

[gigaraptor487]

My friend once said that how good something is directly corresponds to its popularity, and then everyone backed him up.

I facepalmed.

[hops]

My friend once said that how good something is directly corresponds to its popularity, and then everyone backed him up.

I facepalmed.

His opinion is very good. 

[gigaraptor487]

Doesn't stop that from being stupid, though he was what i would percieve as popular.

He then went on to say that if something costs money it is automatically better than something that is free(he cited dwarf fortress(a game he had never played) vs Minecraft). And still they continued to support him. I think it shows how people i know are sheep or butt kissers(in a way both).

EDIT: After thinking for a fraction of a second, i think they may have failed to see Dwarf Fortresses inner beauty as a complicated master piece expressed in a simple way(if not particular kind to the untrained eye).

[Darvi]

Oh, definitively.

[Loud Whispers]

Oh, definitively.

He then went on to say that if something costs money it is automatically better than something that is free(he cited dwarf fortress(a game he had never played) vs Minecraft).

Somebody bring out the '2CASUAL4U' banner.

[frostshotgg]

Somebody bring out the '2CASUAL4U' banner.

6.07638945782E+25

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It's decimal from binary from 2CASUAL4YOU

[Putnam]

Is 2CASUAL4U in base 35 or 36 there?

[Helgoland]

I think he used the ASCII code.

[Iceblaster]

Bay12: The only place where internet phrases are put into numbers

[miauw62]

Doesn't stop that from being stupid, though he was what i would percieve as popular.

He then went on to say that if something costs money it is automatically better than something that is free(he cited dwarf fortress(a game he had never played) vs Minecraft). And still they continued to support him. I think it shows how people i know are sheep or butt kissers(in a way both).

EDIT: After thinking for a fraction of a second, i think they may have failed to see Dwarf Fortresses inner beauty as a complicated master piece expressed in a simple way(if not particular kind to the untrained eye).

Just ignore them if they pull those cards. Or pull a Godwin.

[Shakerag]

I think he used the ASCII code.

QUIT REPRESSING EBCDIC, ASCII SCUM
#mainframepride

[frostshotgg]

Is 2CASUAL4U in base 35 or 36 there?

I actually did 2CASUAL4YOU, not U.
2CASUAL4YOU -> 00110010 01000011 01000001 01010011 01010101 01000001 01001100 00110100 01011001 01001111 01010101 -> 60763894578225989805494101 -> 6.07638945782E+25

[tahujdt]

Changing the topic, my Chem teacher, although bright, has had two major Stupid moments recently.

#1 was when we were studying dimensional analysis. I argued that the English system is better than metric for everyday use, because it is based on body parts. She responded with the standard arguments. Later that day, she denied the superiority of the binary system, even though I was defending it using the exact same arguments she had earlier.

#2 Was when me and her had been arguing over a scientific topic the previous day, so when I came in the next morning she handed me an article which supported her claims. What they were is not important. What was important was that she had the utter gall to staple an article about how people don't change their mind after they lose an argument on top of the science part. Of course, she would be much more susceptible to that effect than I would, because she held superiority over me. My reason for disagreeing was not any psychological aspect, but because I had read articles that had claimed the exact opposite of what she claimed and had been researched a lot more thoroughly. However, she did (kind of) apologize when I pointed out how hypocritical that was of her.

[Graknorke]

I would disagree with measurement systems based on bodyparts (I assume you mean imperial here?) being good, because people vary dramatically in size.