2690: Cool S

|< < Prev Comic #2690 (October 26, 2022) Next > >|

Cool S

Title text: Although I hear they were caught cheating off of Rosalind, who sat at a desk in front of them.

Explanation

This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a COOL MIDDLE SCHOOL RESEARCHER - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

Transcript

This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.

 add a comment! ⋅  add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅  refresh comments!

Discussion

Wow. Never seen a blank one before Boatster (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for my mediocre attempt, new to this Boatster (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I used to do these chains! 108.162.237.25 15:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Bumpf

You must have used to be DNA polymerase, then! —While False (museum | talk | contributions | logs | rights) 19:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

As a molecular biologist, I'm a bit annoyed any time I see DNA drawn as a left-handed helix. Perhaps this was intentional on Randall's part.

To expand on Bumpf's comment -- DNA is typically right-handed, so it was most probably derived from the "cool Z". (Yes, Z-DNA (q.v.) is left-handed -- perhaps leading to Randall's presentation) 172.70.178.221 17:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I've never seen on so angular before either. 17:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Z DNA was not discovered until the 1980s and is a minor form. Also, it doesn't really look much like the regular helix. Franklin had X-ray data on A and B form DNA. B is the most well known form. Also, so as not to have someone else blamed for my comment, the left-hand comment was "docpelletier," me.

This was actually a rediscovery, Celtic decorators had discovered it before. Fabian42 (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Dosen't the transcript generally not have the title text included? --172.70.82.167 19:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct. The transcript is of the image only. —While False (museum | talk | contributions | logs | rights) 19:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Should we try a more descriptive transcript? I could write up a description, but wasn't sure if I should. MAP (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we always should. Remember that it's partly for people who cannot see the images and need something fully understandable read out to them (an easier ask than trying to accomodate every single possible relevent text-search for comic feaures, which is another reason to have it.) I was tempted myself, but not had the time. But anybody can 'improve' more or less anything (acknowledging that it's subjective) so if you have the means, motive and opportunity then why not? 172.69.79.163 23:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Not giving her the Prize because she was already dead is still discrimination. Didn't Pratchett even had word for that? -- Hkmaly (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

There is debate to be had on whether it is or isn't discrimination when as a rule, the prize isn't awared posthumously unless the person recieved the award before death.--Mapron01 (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

From the world of Pratchett: "Undead, not Unperson!" - Although that might only count if Franklin also became like 896: Marie Curie, at least in time for the original award being decided). 172.71.186.163 20:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I think there's more to the controversy over Rosalind Franklin than just being omitted from the Nobel Prize. The significance of her contribution was downplayed in the media in general. Practically everyone has heard of Watson and Crick, but relatively few lay people have heard of Franklin. Although I guess that can be considered a natural result of them receiving the Nobel. Barmar (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

She's at least getting (assuming it can be rearranged) a Mars rover... I think C&W aren't getting anything like that, whatever past supplemental honours they got in response/parallel to their Nobelisations... 172.71.186.163 20:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we need a clarification. Whether a spiral winds clockwise or widdershins when you look at it end-on depends which end you are looking at.MarquisOfCarrabass (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Except it doesn't. Take apart your nearest pen and try looking at the spring inside from either end, and you'll see. 141.101.77.62 06:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The spring in my pen twists to the right as it goes down, whichever end I hold upward. Nutster (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a trick comment - when you take apart a pen the spring will invariably fly off somewhere never to be found again, so you won't be able to examine it.172.70.162.155 15:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, a spiral can wind differently depending upon how you view it (c.f. a watch-spring or a particular type of rafia tablemat). But not a helix, such as a pen spring or DNA, which is what we have here. That indeed has constant chirality; without deliberate deformation, either pushing it through itself or unwrapping and allowing it to rewrap in the opposite direction of coiling, as anyone trying to rationalise a badly tangled telephone handest cable of years past (or similar) will have realised. 172.70.85.25 17:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Idea for society

What if we dub Franklin as the sole discoverer of DNA, just to balance things out?

--172.69.79.140 13:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)