I don't know whether to dance or crap my pants.

I guess this is really cool and potentially awesome, but it seems really creepy on another level. It makes me wish I knew more about how to gauge possible uses or outcomes of this technology.

Organic computers perhaps? Instead of 0 & 1, imagine the computing capacity with "0,1,2 &3" so to speak.

I thought the binary code is used in computing because it is the simplest way to represent things. The digitization is setting up the sequence of 0s & 1s as that is the language of machines, basically translating whatever into machine. I don't see how changing from binary would increase the power or capacity of the machine. However, I am not an engineer and my be missing some knowledge that you possess.

I believe, and am more than happy for someone to point out the flaws in this if there are any that this is the case.

Binary is used in computing because of transistors - tiny little switches that are either on or off, representing 1 and 0 respectively. This is not so much efficiency as the only thing that a transistor can do.

I think though that what this would be used for is storage. By getting size down to the molecular you'd be able to massively increase the amount of data you could store in any given volume.

Of course, if it's biological matter and some helpful geek tells you "your hard drive has died" they will really mean it.


As for the appropriate response - not sure. Do you have a dance that makes it look like you've crapped your pants? That would cover both bases.

Exactly, and thanks for making it clearer.:)

I should've specified storage. To oversimplify, our DNA basically stores information on what to do and when. I'm flabbergasted by the amount of info stored with four nucleotides (adenine-thymine.....cytosine-guanine).

When it comes to the workings of computers I follow the philosophy of Sgt. Shultz....I know (basically) nothing.


I was attempting to draw a parallel between inorganic and organic information storage.


Thanks for the "mind tweak", i.e. helping me express my thought more clearly. :)

Think of it this way - each storage slot in either system represents a single digit of information. A binary digit (the fabled "bit") can only store 2 states (1 or 0) in that space. A system that uses 4 possible states (like 4 nucleotides in DNA) at each slot has a considerably higher information storage density.

do you think we'll ever reach the point where we can synthesize a living being instead of just the dna.

By "just", I don't mean to take away from what they've managed to do

Thanks. :)

This is a vastly more complicated problem than just synthesizing the strands of DNA - DNA doesn't do anything on its own - it would be kind of like creating a storage disk with a bunch of data on it for an operating system that doesn't yet exist. You must place the DNA in a cellular context where it makes sense in order for it to proceed to govern the life of an organism. So your choices are to synthesize DNA that works in the nucleus of a known organism and do a "nuclear transplant" (so the new DNA can drive the cell from that point forward) or to engineer a new cell from scratch. The former is kind of cheating (since you're not really creating a new organism, just reprogramming an existing one) while the latter is a mind-numbingly huge task of biomolecular engineering. The "nuclear transplant" technique is, by the way, currently used in various forms as the basis for most cloning work.

Craig Venter has taken on the task of creating a totally synthetic lifeform from scratch - not sure how that's working out just yet...