Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm considering buying an iPad, and I have a question: is there no browser on the iPad that allows you to choose whether you want to the mobile version or the regular version? If not, that's almost a deal breaker.
Yes those browsers are available. Chrome has a "request desktop site" option and my personal favourite, iCab Mobile, has an extensive list of agent strings (custom ones can be added as well) that can be set.
Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram
61–70 of 133 posts
Re: Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram
#62It is incredibly stable? We better don't tell evolution.
I've got a few trillion cells in my body that say it's incredibly stable.
Non-snarky reply: There is a huge difference between phenotype stability and genotype stability. Take 100 cells from your body and you'll find hundreds if not thousands of genetic differences between them (single mutations).
Re: Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram
#63Re: Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram
#64If you store data onto 50 DNA strands, can you always read back all the data from all 50 strands, or does one need to store multiple copies of each in case the sequencer can't "find" a particular strand? If one does need multiple copies, it would seem that this method suffers from the coupon collector's problem [1] (i.e. to collect all 50 strands requires collecting 225 random strands on average), and that the retrie…
Re: Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram
#65I really liked their paper. Its a bit less over the top than the extremetech guys but hey, that is the difference between pop journalism and science. 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 expressin…
Re: Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram
#66Does anybody know how to escape their horrible "mobile" version that they force onto ipad users? It can't even be zoomed :-( More and more often I find myself not reading articles because someone thought it would be a great idea to create a non-scrolling, non-obvious, paginated "iPad format" with additional misleading and unintuitive buttons looking like native ones but doing something different. Sorry for the rant.…
paper http://db.tt/ZDoDJZeD supplement http://db.tt/elIqsy72
Re: Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram
#67Does anybody know how to escape their horrible "mobile" version that they force onto ipad users? It can't even be zoomed :-( More and more often I find myself not reading articles because someone thought it would be a great idea to create a non-scrolling, non-obvious, paginated "iPad format" with additional misleading and unintuitive buttons looking like native ones but doing something different. Sorry for the rant.…
Re: Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram
#68They'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.
Re: Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm. DNA is fairly easy to duplicate though, right? Wouldn't that allow an exponential speedup?
I assumed that the microfluidic chip speed listed would include parallel processing. Even if it doesn't, you'd still need something like 5,000 experiments in parallel for it to take less than a month...
Re: Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram
#70I 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…
paper http://db.tt/ZDoDJZeD supplement http://db.tt/elIqsy72
tldr; we are 6-8 orders of magnitude away from doing petabytes routinely; that said costs of sequencing/synthesis have seen such drops over the last decade or so. there are many barriers though for that continuing for another decade