|  | 
| 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
    
 |  | 
 
 
	
		|  |  |  
	
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 26th, 2003, 09:16 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Shrapnel Fanatic |  | 
					Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Southern CA, USA 
						Posts: 18,394
					 Thanks: 0 
		
			
				Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: OT: is this real? 
 I never said that GTTACA was a word... quite the contrary. That is not what they are talking about when they mention the full length word for DNA. That is NOT any particular DNA strand.     
And even if you do not like DNA, the word mentioned at the beginning of this thread must be a word if tetrachloride is a word, because they are exactly the same thing, the word-representation of a chemical. They convey exactly as much meaning as "dog," "mouse," "puke," etc. convey, that of a noun. |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 26th, 2003, 07:18 PM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Shrapnel Fanatic |  | 
					Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: CHEESE! 
						Posts: 10,009
					 Thanks: 0 
		
			
				Thanked 7 Times in 1 Post
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: OT: is this real? 
 besides, many words are made up of other words. 
				__________________ 
				If I only could remember half the things I'd forgot, that would be a lot of stuff, I think - I don't know; I forgot!  
A* E* Se! Gd! $-- C-^- Ai** M-- S? Ss---- RA Pw? Fq Bb++@ Tcp? L++++ 
Some of my webcomics.  I've got 400+ webcomics at Last count, some dead. 
Sig updated to remove non-working links.
			 |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 28th, 2003, 08:56 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Lieutenant General |  | 
					Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: california 
						Posts: 2,961
					 Thanks: 0 
		
			
				Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: OT: is this real? 
 i never claimed the word originating this thread was unwordly.  just dna code and symbolic formulae. 
				__________________...the green, sticky spawn of the stars
 (with apologies to H.P.L.)
 |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 28th, 2003, 08:58 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Shrapnel Fanatic |  | 
					Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Southern CA, USA 
						Posts: 18,394
					 Thanks: 0 
		
			
				Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: OT: is this real? 
 DNA code and symbolic forumlae are certainly not words... the fully extended name of DNA is though. It is not a symbolic formula, nor code of any sort. |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 28th, 2003, 09:26 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Lieutenant Colonel |  | 
					Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Emeryville, CA 
						Posts: 1,412
					 Thanks: 0 
		
			
				Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: OT: is this real? 
 Hey Fyron...  "The fully extended name of DNA" is deoxyribonucleic acid.  Two words      
I think you're saying what the link posted previously was saying, that the specific DNA spoken of is human mitochondrial DNA, and it's fully extended "name" is the longest word of English.  Correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption, and disregard the rest of this posting if the assumption is wrong.
 
I'm still not convinced however, that this is a true word, and not the coded sequence of a specific strand of human mitochondrial DNA.  The main reasons are 1) nobody has produced the actual word, only a reference to it and it's approximate length, and 2) the approximate length, IIRC, would coincide with the number of base pairs in human mitochondrial DNA.  I can't really think of any other way that a DNA strand would be referred to with a string of such length.
				__________________GEEK CODE V.3.12:  GCS/E d-- s: a-- C++ US+ 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 !r*-- y?
 SE4 CODE:  A-- Se+++* GdY $?/++ Fr! C++* Css Sf Ai Au- M+ MpN S Ss- RV Pw- Fq-- Nd Rp+ G- Mm++ Bb@ Tcp- L+
 |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 28th, 2003, 03:49 PM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Lieutenant Colonel |  | 
					Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dundas, Ontario, Canada 
						Posts: 1,498
					 Thanks: 0 
		
			
				Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: OT: is this real? 
 You guys still arguing about this?
 The first posted 'word' is not a real word for the simple reason that it has never been spoken.  Most definations of a word have one thing in common.  that it is a unit of speech or the written representation of that.  'Speech' being the key word here.  Since I assume this 'word' has never ever been spoken it is not a word. (and even if someone did attempt to speak this word I serious doubt it would convey any meaning in spoken form)
 |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 28th, 2003, 04:21 PM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			
			| 
 First Lieutenant |  | 
					Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: California 
						Posts: 790
					 Thanks: 0 
		
			
				Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: OT: is this real? 
 
	Unless, of course, you end up with a play written by Shakespeare.  Happens to monkeys all the time.Quote: 
	
		| Originally posted by Will: I can remove all the non-letter characters from my keyboard, and pound on it for a few days.  The resulting word should be able to convey the concept 'nonsense' to any human who reads it
     |  |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 28th, 2003, 07:16 PM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Shrapnel Fanatic |  | 
					Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Southern CA, USA 
						Posts: 18,394
					 Thanks: 0 
		
			
				Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: OT: is this real? 
 Words do not have to be spoken to be words. Written/typed words still count as words. And, that word most certainly conveys meaning. It conveys the same sort of meaning that "tetrachloride" conveys. |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 28th, 2003, 07:50 PM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Lieutenant General |  | 
					Join Date: Nov 2002 
						Posts: 2,903
					 Thanks: 1 
		
			
				Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: OT: is this real? 
 They can come up with words as long as they want.  They could synthesize bigger and bigger protein molecules or nucleic acid molecules, and I don't think there's a limit to how big a polymer that can be created. |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				December 28th, 2003, 08:12 PM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 Second Lieutenant |  | 
					Join Date: Nov 2003 
						Posts: 482
					 Thanks: 1 
		
			
				Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: OT: is this real? 
 I can think of a way to further obfuscate this issue, but I think maybe I'm just going to leave it alone...aside from this #$R%%7! post. 
				__________________The great tragedy of science...the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. (T. H. Huxley)
 |  
	
		
	
	
	
	
	
	
	| Thread Tools |  
	|  |  
	| Display Modes |  
	
	| 
		 Linear Mode |  
	| 
	|  Posting Rules |  
	| 
		
		You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts 
 HTML code is On 
 |  |  |  |  |