31–40 of 133 posts
They're using T and G for a 1, and A and C for a 0; why not double the density and get two bits from each letter? T = 00 G = 01 A = 10 C = 11 for example.
Base pairs. They don't occur individually.
Can we encode all of human knowledge into the DNA of some organism? How can organisms access data stored in their DNA? Imagine being born with knowledge of every Wikipedia article, or even every website. What would that be like?
I think you're misunderstanding things a bit. In the context of DNA as a data storage medium, it no longer functions as a "building block of life". It'd be like taking some binary image data and overwriting it with binary audio data. You can still technically interpret it as image data, but it's just going to be a random jumbled mess, and will probably error out immediately.
Not saying it's practical or desirable, just that it is possible.
I don't understand how this density could be so much better than something like flash drives. Aren't they also on the same scale of nanometers?
DNA is 3D. Flash drives are 2D.
Assuming 5.5 petabits stored with 1 base pair representing 1 bit, we can extrapolate the time required to extract the data based off the time taken to sequence the human genome (3 billion base pairs).
5.5 petabits / 3 billion bits ~= 2 million, so theoretically it should take 2 million times longer to sequence the original.
3 years ago, there was an Ars Technica article about how it now only takes 1 month to sequence a human genome[1]; the article now claims that microfluidic chips can perform the same task in hours.
Assuming 2 hours (low end) to sequence the human genome:
2 hours * 2 million = 4 million hours = 456 years, give or take a few years.
So, maybe not so great for storing enormous amounts of data. But if you want to store 1 GB, it would only take ~6 hours. Not too bad.
[1]http://arstechnica.com/science/2009/08/human-genome-complete...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Education would no longer be necessary or valued. Experience and creativity would be what everyone garners to get a job.
I think we'd be past "jobs" if it were possible to store and read memory in DNA with the human brain.
Clearly with some form of fountain code or LDPC codes you will be able to get the data back, but what struck me is that I always thought of DNA as relatively unstable, in the sense that cells decay/die etc, but the fact that just sitting there, DNA which isn't expressing various proteins under the influence of other cellular mechanisms, well it just sits there. That was new for me.
When I showed it to my wife she pointed out that the sourdough starter she has been using since we were married was from her grandmother, I joked that the next megaupload type raid would have to sequence all the DNA the found in a place to figure out if Shrek3 was encoded in it somewhere. That would be painfully funny I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're misunderstanding things a bit. In the context of DNA as a data storage medium, it no longer functions as a "building block of life". It'd be like taking some binary image data and overwriting it with binary audio data. You can still technically interpret it as image data, but it's just going to be a random jumbled mess, and will probably error out immediately.
But you can also embed interesting information into an image without distorting the image itself (much). Similarly, the DNA of most organisms have a ton of garbage space that could be used to encode information without hurting the organism. Not saying it's practical or desirable, just that it is possible.
Edited to add: Ruined my own punchline. Steganographic stegosaurus, damnit!
I notice that the article fails to mention how long it would take to extract all 700 terabytes of data... Assuming 5.5 petabits stored with 1 base pair representing 1 bit, we can extrapolate the time required to extract the data based off the time taken to sequence the human genome (3 billion base pairs). 5.5 petabits / 3 billion bits ~= 2 million, so theoretically it should take 2 million times longer to sequence th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you can also embed interesting information into an image without distorting the image itself (much). Similarly, the DNA of most organisms have a ton of garbage space that could be used to encode information without hurting the organism. Not saying it's practical or desirable, just that it is possible.
So, we could end up with a (drum roll please) stenographic stegosaurus? Edited to add: Ruined my own punchline. Steganographic stegosaurus, damnit!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're misunderstanding things a bit. In the context of DNA as a data storage medium, it no longer functions as a "building block of life". It'd be like taking some binary image data and overwriting it with binary audio data. You can still technically interpret it as image data, but it's just going to be a random jumbled mess, and will probably error out immediately.
But you can also embed interesting information into an image without distorting the image itself (much). Similarly, the DNA of most organisms have a ton of garbage space that could be used to encode information without hurting the organism. Not saying it's practical or desirable, just that it is possible.