Slashdot Mirror


World's First Game-Playing DNA Computer

An anonymous reader writes "NewScientist.com posted an article today about the first game-playing 'computer' powered by DNA logic. An interesting read, although not at all a practical alternative for those looking to replace their PlayStation2 with the next great platform." The machine is "...an enzyme-powered tic-tac-toe machine that... uses a complex mixture of DNA enzymes to determine where it should place its nought or cross, and signals its move with a green glow."

166 comments

  1. Shall We Play A Game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obligatory of course. However, maybe this time we can stick with a nice game of chess, eh?

  2. Would you like... by jcostantino · · Score: 0, Funny

    to play a game? How about Global Thermonuclear War?

    --
    Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
  3. Would you like to play... by rwiedower · · Score: 0, Redundant

    A nice DNA-powered game of global thermonuclear war?

    1. Re:Would you like to play... by daeley · · Score: 2, Funny

      Strange game...the only winning move is not to play.....or GATTATTCCAATTACA.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    2. Re:Would you like to play... by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      Nah, we've played that one. The new one is 'Insurgency'. Same rules really, and same winning move, but sometimes your hand is forced and you must play, whether you like it or not. And sometimes it just seems like your hand is forced...

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    3. Re:Would you like to play... by paroneayea · · Score: 1

      That's kind of unfair. You just stole someone else's post and are taking credit for it. jcostantino wrote this post first, post #6724617

      Honestly I don't think it was that great of a comment, but that doesn't change the fact that you stole the post from him. He should be the one with the posotive modifier, not you.

      --
      http://mediagoblin.org/
    4. Re:Would you like to play... by rwiedower · · Score: 1

      Um, we posted at the exact same minute. He may have posted the comment first, but I certainly didn't have time to read his comment, let out a loud "Bwah-hah-hah" and then post mine (carefully adding the words "DNA-powered" to distinguish the two) in order to steal his karma.

      Or did I?

    5. Re:Would you like to play... by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Those two posts were written during the same minute, at 11:23 exactly. Honestly, in a web full of geeks you think that only *one* person thought of the War Games reference?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    6. Re:Would you like to play... by zinkem · · Score: 1

      Seeing how the parent didn't find it funny probably means hes too young to have seen wargames, hasn't seen wargames, or has a bad taste in movies :)

      --
      I can't think of a good sig...
  4. Re:I hope it's not frosty: GGPL by StarmanDeluxe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This may be perhaps one of the most off-topic posts of all time. As much as I support gay rights and whatnot, stick to the topic at hand :)

  5. Smart enough to make a DNA computer but not to... by hpulley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Play tic-tac-toe? "Stojanovic has lost to MAYA more than a 100 times." With semi-intelligent players I thought this game was pretty much guaranteed to generate a draw?

    --
    $#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
  6. Game Playing DNA? by mopslik · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bah, my DNA's been playing Life for ages.

    1. Re:Game Playing DNA? by minus_273 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      im not gonna ask wehre your DNA has been going to play life

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    2. Re:Game Playing DNA? by Phekko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can guarantee your DNA'll lose eventually, though ;)

      --

      Sigs for Nerds. Sigs that Matter.
    3. Re:Game Playing DNA? by kunsan · · Score: 2, Funny

      mine is playing Tapper... & the beer just keeps on flowing!

      JP

      --
      The facts expressed here belong to all, the opinions to me. The distinction between fact and opinion is yours to decide.
    4. Re:Game Playing DNA? by morten+poulsen · · Score: 1

      I am sure you mean "for generations"? ;-)

    5. Re:Game Playing DNA? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Argh! Bastard! I spent a number of weeks .. adapting .. the Tapper sound routines to our coin-op game hardware, and those tunes are permanently engraved in my brain. Just the mere mention of Tapper will cue the space-bar tune on repeat for the rest of the day.

      It was a nice piece of software. The hardware was vanilla: sound dedicated Z80 talking to a bunch of 8910 sound chips, command port from the game Z80, funky filters that didn't do much. The software was a MIDI-like control program. I still have the ROM image somewhere, converting to a MIDI file should be too hard. Must Have More Tapper Music!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    6. Re:Game Playing DNA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But surely his DNA has a way to continue... oops, you are right, this IS slashdot after all. Sorry.

    7. Re:Game Playing DNA? by toby · · Score: 1
      Actually, no, DNA doesn't necessarily lose. The organism dies, yes, but if it is cute enough, it gets to procreate first, and its DNA is thereby perpetuated.

      According to Richard Dawkins' thought-provoking book The Selfish Gene, specific genes can survive for millions of years in the pool. And, if some of the females I've seen are any guide, I'm not surprised...

      --
      you had me at #!
  7. Competitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, it might not be oxy enough and sure you can't yet boot Linux into it yet, but hell - you can read your proteins right off of it when booted into Messenger mode. Maybe developers are into this DNA thang right now, but let me be the first to say that the RNA console is tops!

  8. Ok sure, by arcite · · Score: 5, Funny

    When Leisure Suit Larry get ported, call me.

    1. Re:Ok sure, by TedTschopp · · Score: 2, Funny

      It has been, but becuase you come to /. you might not have heard the news.

      DNA supports sexual reproduction of mammals. And the process through which this takes place is supports a Leisure Suit Larry like enviroment. Perhaps you should consider playing. For complete results insure subject has matured for the appropriate number of years before playing the game.

      Ted

      --
      Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
  9. Re:I hope it's not frosty: GGPL by StarmanDeluxe · · Score: 1

    Upon actual reading, this was just a bad joke. Blargh.

  10. can not be defeated? by Lispy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the article: "We could have programmed it to lose sometimes, to make humans happy," he told New Scientist. "But to say 'the automaton can not be defeated' has a nice ring to it."

    Great. Can I quote you after humanity got defeated by DNA-based Uberhumans? But then again, if it's DNA-based we might be able to make holes in it with a bullets, right?

    1. Re:can not be defeated? by Dylan2000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "But to say 'the automaton can not be defeated' has a nice ring to it."

      I thought that was a great quote. Do you know why? Because it shows that they really are geeks, not just faceless white coats in a lab. Sounds like this guy is a fan of Futurama, Hitchhiker's guide, etc. These are the people I want jeopardising my race's existence :)

      Oh, nearly forgot- I for one welcome our new enzyme-powered tic-tac-toe-playing overlords :)

      --
      Build your own website - full service homepage system your m
    2. Re:can not be defeated? by Lispy · · Score: 1
      What really gives me the creeps is that my comment actually got rated interesting.
      I really hope I didn't just inspire someone to do something stupid: "Mhmm...holes in DNA...Bullets..mhmm...INTERESTING..." ;-)

    3. Re:can not be defeated? by bear_phillips · · Score: 1

      We need the DNA-based Uberhumans to protect us when the machines rise up.

      --
      http://www.windmeadow.com/
    4. Re:can not be defeated? by joncraft · · Score: 1

      Can I quote you after humanity got defeated by DNA-based Uberhumans?

      Thank you, but I already consider myself a DNA-based uberhuman.

  11. Wrong game by WTFmonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Naughts and crosses? I though you played tic tac to with xes and os. Man, I've been playing wrong all these years.

  12. It plays tic-tac-toe! by The+Other+Nate · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Excellent! Now we can hook it up to the US's nuclear missle launch mechanism, and we'll all be safe!

    Do you want to play a game?

    --
    The Other Nate

  13. Silly Human! by rwiedower · · Score: 4, Funny
    Stojanovic has lost to MAYA more than a 100 times.

    Um, even I couldn't lose to a machine more than a 100 times at tic-tac-toe. It doesn't take a WOPR to learn that tic-tac-toe is surprisingly easy to grasp. I bet you could train a DNA-powered monkey to the same level of effectiveness as this silly human named Stojanovic.

    1. Re:Silly Human! by Wolfbone · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Yeah - How can anyone lose a game of tic-tac-toe even once? It's impossible to lose unless you do so deliberately or are very, very stupid.

    2. Re:Silly Human! by Dudio · · Score: 2, Informative

      Indeed. The Tropicana in Las Vegas used to have a chicken trained to play tic-tac-toe, with cash prizes for anybody who could beat it. I didn't see it when I was just out there for Defcon though, so maybe the novelty wore thin.

    3. Re:Silly Human! by Dukael_Mikakis · · Score: 1

      Stojanovic has lost to MAYA more than a 100 times.

      Yes, I suspect that Stojanovic might be throwing games to make the computer seem "smarter" than it may actually be. Manipulating results, I understand, is something that many scientists have become guilty of.

      "We could have programmed it to lose sometimes, to make humans happy,"

      And this seems like it might be their rationalizing the deficiencies of their technology. Sort of like when I tell my girlfriend, "I could have gotten the Porsche, but I thought it'd be more practical to get the Escort." Right. If these guys really cared about the discovery and te impressiveness of the accomplishment, I'd think they'd make it as damn good as possible, not program it to lose occasionally. For all I know, it could be operating randomly, or they might not even have control over its operation.

      While I don't doubt that DNA and biological computers are going to be phenomenal and essential in the future, I suspect that this computer may not actually be all it seems to be at this point. There is a certain amount of ambiguity in the article.

      A movie like the one posted in the micro-tetris article would have done a lot, obviously, to illustrate how impressive (or not) this computer may be.

      _______________________________________________
      I crochet because I'm lonely; I'm lonely because I crochet.

    4. Re:Silly Human! by Ominous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whenever testing something, you should test not just expected responses, but also the unexpected. Perhaps he lost so many times because he wanted to see MAYA capitalize on human errors, and make sure that it would win?

      Who cares if the machine will always play to a tie, if it can't convert a win from a stupid human mistake?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.
    5. Re:Silly Human! by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      Tic-Tac-Toe playing chicken is a drawing point for residents of Natchez, MS, Reno, NV and Cherokee, NC, which I have personally lost to. On a side note, I did get to watch a de-clawed bear slap the hell out of a hillbilly that day, so it was a good one for my ten-year-old mind at the time.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    6. Re:Silly Human! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, the chicken didn't actually play tic-tac-toe. It just sat in a glass box and a computer played for it.

    7. Re:Silly Human! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      R: I'll pay you $6
      D: I'll pay you $10, but I need $5 of that in taxes
      Who helps the poor?-- CodeGod@fark
      It's more like:
      R: I'll pay your boss $6 (of which you see $0 - and then get a pay cut blamed on the recession)
      D: I'll pay you $10, but the feds need $5 of that in taxes, and the state needs $3 in taxes, and I need the remaining $2 to help pay for distributing the $10 to everyone.

    8. Re:Silly Human! by zedmelon · · Score: 1

      True. All the chicken was trained to do is peck a button (conveniently hidden just out of sight by the frame of the chicken's side of the board) next to a dim light or other signal. When (s)he pecked the button corresponding to the square chosen by the computer, the "choice" was made, and it's your turn again.

      Did you ever notice that the chicken got a little treat after every move?
      ;)

      --
      Mom says my .sig can beat up your .sig.
    9. Re:Silly Human! by Servo · · Score: 1

      Now, I'm no scientist, but I thought all monkeys were DNA powered? Aren't we all?

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
  14. CNN article by kaan · · Score: 5, Informative

    here's a similar article titled "DNA basis for new generation of computers"

  15. Very significant development by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Game playing comes second only to porn as the driver of new technologies.

    More seriously, this is a good time to look at how to model DNA computers on "normal" computers so that we can start abstracting the tools and techniques needed to design (breed?) the really complex patterns we'll need to exploit DNA technology.

    Good stuff - in 20 years this may seem like the only way to compute, with silicon being as quaint as valve transistors.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
    1. Re:Very significant development by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well we already got DNA based porn. They're called girls.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Very significant development by Bob+McCown · · Score: 1

      Now THATS the funniest post Ive read in a while. Got my funny bone, that did.

    3. Re:Very significant development by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "More seriously, this is a good time to look at how to model DNA computers on "normal" computers so that we can start abstracting the tools and techniques needed to design (breed?) the really complex patterns we'll need to exploit DNA technology."

      I disagree. I believe that if we want to fully exploit DNA technology we should be researching how to build a new computing paradigm out of it. Why model it off of current computers when we have the possibility to create computers that are wildy different and capable of much different things?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    4. Re:Very significant development by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 1

      You can look at it that they are in fact modeling DNA computers on "normal" computers. So far, they've managed to make a number of logic gates. In the article in Nature Biotechnology, this group has made YES, NOT, AND, and ANDANDNOT gates. Other groups have made similar molecular gates, but this is the most advanced thing to date. As for replacing your silicon PC, my $0.02 says it ain't gonna happen.

    5. Re:Very significant development by MagPulse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bah you actually believe in girls? We all think we've seen them, walking around among us, even seemingly interacting with us to give us our change or look at us only to roll their eyes. But we see a lot of things that don't really exist. Examples include searchlights zooming across the sky when there really is nothing moving that fast, and faked images we see all the time on TV and in magazines.

      I ask you this - have you ever touched a girl? I haven't, and none of the guys (a redundant term, since all people are guys) I know have either. What would happen if you tried? I hypothesize that those who do are deleted from existence, possibly from a Matrix that we all live in. Why this is I'm not sure, but it fits the reality that no one has ever touched a girl and lived to tell about it. We seem to have evolved not to be able to, instead spending our time stroking our keyboards and mice with love and affection.

    6. Re:Very significant development by heironymouscoward · · Score: 1

      Why model it off of current computers...

      Because building the tools needed to build tools takes time, and too much time. If you can model the DNA machines on today's computers, you can simulate enough of an environment to bootstrap the whole process.

      It's like building a compiler for a CPU when all you have is a simulation of the CPU. Then you compile the compiler with itself, and finally get native code that lets you compile the compiler using a compiled compiler instead of a similated compiler. Make sense?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature
    7. Re:Very significant development by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      And unfortunately most of us guys are big losers at this game and don't like to play.

      No wonder so many geeks rather play computer games instead.

    8. Re:Very significant development by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Why this is I'm not sure, but it fits the reality that no one has ever touched a girl and lived to tell about it. We seem to have evolved not to be able to, instead spending our time stroking our keyboards and mice with love and affection. ... and this is about the closest you'll ever get to a girl.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    9. Re:Very significant development by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "It's like building a compiler for a CPU when all you have is a simulation of the CPU. Then you compile the compiler with itself, and finally get native code that lets you compile the compiler using a compiled compiler instead of a similated compiler. Make sense?"

      O....yeah....um....perfect sense....hehehe. Sorry, um...that was a bit hard to follow, but its been a long day, can you possibly dumb that down a bit for me? Thanks.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    10. Re:Very significant development by whorfin · · Score: 1

      While this is true, have you ever noticed that there are no truly good Porn Games?

      --
      Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
    11. Re:Very significant development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're obviously new here

    12. Re:Very significant development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on slashdot does this get modded Interesting :)

    13. Re:Very significant development by heironymouscoward · · Score: 1

      Imagine you design a new CPU, totally incompatible with anything else you have. It may take you a year or two to get the first real models ready for use in systems. During that time, you can simulate the CPU in software. This lets you write software for the CPU even before it exists.
      Basically I'm assuming it will take several years, maybe a decade or more, to get a DNA computer up and running to the point where it can be actually produced. Without software simulation, that time is lost to developers. But, if a decent simulation can be made in software, people can start developing software for the computer long before it's actually "live".
      This is important, because it takes time to build up the software tools (such as compilers) that allow new architectures to be used.
      If the DNA computer really works, it will use such a different architecture that a software "headstart" is vital if the thing is to be used.
      That's all.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature
  16. I, for one... by Guano_Jim · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...welcome our new DNA-based tic-tac-toe playing overlords.

    How long until somebody makes a DNA-based machine that can play a decent game of Go?

    I'm taking bets on 20 years.

  17. GREAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll dump some DNA on my wifes face tonight, then say "your move".

    1. Re:GREAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully you know your wife well. Otherwise, *your* next move might be trying to re-attatch your scrotum :)

  18. Summary for those to lazy to RTA by stienman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Essentially they have 9 enzymes to specify the nine possible moves of the player. Once a move is chosen the enzyme for that position is added to each of the nine wells. The DNA inside each well is aware of its location, and, of course, each of the player's moves since the enzymes are added to each well.

    The DNA in each well makes a simple logic decision based on all the enzymes it currently detects and turns green to indicate that the dna 'computer' is choosing to move there.

    Overall it's an interesting logic puzzle, not only because it's done in DNA, but because the method involves seperate logic cells which have no means of communication - only the knowledge that they know everything that their brethren know.

    It has weaknesses in that it's easy to fool them all individually so they all light green.

    Probably has many good applications in chemical sniffing and quite possibly future DNA analysis speed ups.

    -Adam

    1. Re:Summary for those to lazy to RTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Close, but not quite. I actually read the Nature Biotechnology article the New Scientist article is based on.

      There aren't 9 enzymes, but nine *DNA Strands* that represent moves. In each well is a mix of several "deoxyribozyes" (enzymes made of DNA) which are constructed to act as "X AND Y AND NOT Z" gates. That is, they turn "on" when DNAs X and Y are present, but are suppressed when DNA Z is also present.

      The "computer" plays first, and alway goes in the middle square. (Via an always active enzyme.) For the first move, the human is limited to playing one of two possibilities: edge or corner. Once the appropriate DNA is added to all squares, enzymes in another square recogizes the DNA, which causes it to turn on. The next move turns on enzymes which recognize both pairs of DNA added.

      The reason this is possible is that tic-tac-toe has at most 4 moves by the human player. The game play graph can be written out exhaustively, and the conditions in which a square should be turned on can be specified. That is, before programing the game, they listed all possible games, and came up with a set of logic gates that encodes them.

      This tecnique would not be appropriate for checkers or chess, where the pieces move around. Once a square is activated, it stays on.

      It also wouldn't work with larger games of tic-tac-toe (4x4 or 5x5 boards). Not only would they need to exhaustively list all of the game play combinations, their logic gates are limited. They only have the "x AND y AND NOT z" gates. They cannot chain them in any sophisticated fashion. (They can get an implicit "or" functionality by putting two gates in the same well, but they cannot pass the results of one gate into another.)

      Also, it assumes that the human being follows the rules. If you make a move that isn't allowed (like playing a square that the computer already played), there is no error recognition by the computer at all.

      For those of you wondering how the gates work, they are DNA segements with three stem loops. When the two outer stem loops are closed, the active site is masked. When complementary pieces of DNA are added, this opens up the stem loop, and allows the enzyme to react. The third stem loop is nessasary for function. When a complementary piece of DNA is added, it opens up this stem-loop, causing the enzyme to be deactivated.

  19. Great by Narphorium · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've never been a leet gamer by any means but now I can add enzymes to the long list of organisms that are capable of beating me at computer games.

  20. DNA based computer used to solve TSP by GillBates0 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I submitted a related story about another article on CNN today.

    Apparently, Leonard Adleman of the University of Southern California used his DNA based computer to solve the travelling salesman problem by exploiting the predictability of how DNA interacts. "Adleman used his computer to solve the classic "traveling salesman" mathematical problem -- how a salesman can visit a given number of cities without passing through any city twice -- by exploiting the predictability of how DNA interacts. Adleman assigned each of seven cities a different strip of DNA, 20 molecules long, then dropped them into a stew of millions of more strips of DNA that naturally bonded with the "cities." That generated thousands of random paths, in much the same way that a computer can sift through random numbers to break a code. From this hodgepodge of connected DNA, Adleman eventually extracted a satisfactory solution -- a strand that led directly from the first city to the last, without retracing any steps. DNA computing was born".

    Apparently, a single gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion CDs.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by CraigoFL · · Score: 5, Funny
      "Apparently, a single gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion CDs."

      Wow, then I've been doing the equivalent of throwing out my entire record collection every night for years...

    2. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      To me, DNA based computing will be a reality before quantum based computing. It'll at least augment what we have now. Imagine the above, a CPU thats a little bucket of DNA, and you drop someones public PGP key in as a DNA coded deal. It basically tries all possible combinations at once, kaboom.

      WOW

      Or DNA based prOn. Oh wait, I got that already, it's called a wife.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by 2short · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that's not the traveling salesman problem. Finding a path that leads to all cities without hitting any twice is easy. Finding such a path that is provably the shortest possible path is trickier, and a fine thing to do. But the famously unsolved "Traveling Salesman Problem" is to find an algorithm that finds the provably shortest path between N cities in a number of steps that is not proportional to N factorial (or worse). There is no proof that an algorithm better than N! does not exist, but no one has come up with one. There are a wide variety of problems which can be shown to be equivalent to the traveling salesman problem, and N! is a killer for attacking these programatically, so it would be really awesome if a solution could be found. But it's an algoithm problem, not a hardware proble.

    4. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by jfengel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem, unfortunately, is that TSP is still an exponential problem. Solving it for seven cities is reasonably trivial. Although DNA is extremely small, an exponential about of it is not. By the time you get to 200 cities, you start requiring masses of DNA larger than the planet.

      DNA based solutions basically call for you to use DNA to sort through every possible combination. Since it's all done in parallel, it can be done fairly fast, as long as you provide enough DNA. However, the only interesting problems are exponential ones (since polynomial problems can already be solved fairly fast), and you're basically trading material for time.

      A 200 city TSP problem really isn't all that much. Some crypto breaking is equivalent to a 1,000 city TSP. The whole point of NP-completeness is that if you can solve one of them you can solve all of them. Traveling salesman is easy to explain, and more interesting than, say, 3SAT. So solving TSP for large numbers would be interesting, but sadly the solutions don't scale.

      More comp-sci background: These problems are NP in that they are "nondeterministic polynomial". That is, you can check a proposed solution in polynomical (read: reasonable) time. If you guess right the first time, you can "solve" the problem immediately. The trick is guessing right the first time. But you don't have to with DNA: you can use the molecules to check all solutions at once, which is equivalent to guessing right the first time.

      The "complete" part means that one NP-complete problem can be reduced to another in polynomial (again, read reasonable) time. So if you can solve TSP, you can solve all the other NP problems, which include scheduling, some cryptography, and a bunch of other interesting stuff.

      Sadly, the numbers get big. 10^20 DNAs weighs only micrograms, but 10^200 DNAs weighs 10^170 tons. That's why we use it for crypto: it's hard to do. Just solving it in parallel doesn't help, because there are too many things to do in parallel.

      There may be uses for DNA computing; note that the article talks more about sensors than math problems. So don't oversell it for math problems.

    5. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you were referring to urination and not masturbation.

    6. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by rebelcool · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yes and no. It may indeed be true that you can't solve it in less than O(N!). Theres alot of problems similar enough to travelling salesman that if you can provide such a proof that you can't do it in less than N! (or a proof that shows you can), then those problems will fall in line as well.

      If indeed it can be shown the problem may not be solved in less than N!, then the problem becomes hardware to solve. This is why DNA and quantum computing will be handy because of their inherent parallel nature, in very tiny sizes.

      --

      -

    7. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by tommck · · Score: 1

      I'm sitting here at work trying to stifle my laughs so that nobody knows that I'm not doing a god damned thing. Thanks for the chuckle...

      T

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    8. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ehm ... Sorry but I would like to point out a couple of things. Finding a path which goes through all cities is of course trivial if you assume that you have connections between each pair of cities (i.e. you are on a complete graph). If the graph is not complete, then the problem gets difficult (ie this is the so called hamiltonian cycle problem, which is in its decision version a well known NP-complete problem).

      On the other hand, the TSP problem is a NP-Hard problem, and a well known one. This does not mean the best algorithm goes like n!. Indeed, this is the most stupid approach (i.e. try them all), there are better (still not polynomial) algorithms using eg dynamic programming. There are even much better approaches based on branch and bound and cutting plane techniques, which, although of course not polynomial, perform quite well for reasonable size.

      The problem is well studied in the field of heuristics in combinatorial optimization. Nice methods which perform very well are based on genetic algorithms and (recently) on ant colonies. The problem is so well known that it is widely used as a (serious) toy example for new heuristics, as well as in DNA computing. I recently attended a conference on the subject where the TSP problem was shown as an example.

    9. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are bad running times which are not factorial, however. A simple O(2^n) is bad enough, n! is really bad. The relevant thing is that they are not polynomial.

      Quantum computing does not give that magic speedup many people think it could give. It is true, on the one hand, that QC provides parallelism, but quantum parallelism is not directly as useful as one can believe. In particular, the best techniques known so far to speed up exahaustive search *just* give a quadratic improvement. Looks good, but the square root of n factorial is still a bad running time ;-)

    10. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Does the article mention the O-notation efficiency of the DNA TSP algorithm? Even if it can "check all the solutions at once", setting up all the DNA required to actually solve the problem may not run in polynomial time (or polynomial space, which is the same thing.)

      The issue with DNA storage (at least, at this point) is the reliability of said storage. DNA works as a storage mechanism for biological systems (me), because slight replication errors usually don't cause failure; even if they do, it's usually of no consequence, since cells die all the time. (Cancer is an interesting exception, where the failure mode is "not dying" rather than "dying".) Also, cells have a huge array of DNA-repair enzymes and mechanisms--I don't know the details of all of them (IANAB). I do know, though, that the repair method in many cases is "kill affected cell".

      Computers, OTOH, often need every bit to be correct. Even so, I imagine that some sort of molecular storage will be in use sometime in the future.

    11. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Rereading this a few hours later, I can't believe I said "reasonably trivial". Sheesh.

    12. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      At least you didn't leave anything 'as an exercise for the reader'.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    13. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have accidentally forgotten to cite the original source for this argument(which is identical to your own... right down to the numbers and the 'bigger than the planet' comment):

      Juris Hartmanis. On the Weight of Computation. Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, 55:136-138, 1995.

    14. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by 2short · · Score: 1

      I was atempting to define the problem without going into P vs. NP etc. In any case, I'd consider the incomplete graph problem a variant of the basic problem.

      The various heuristic, genetic, ant colony, etc. aproaches are also not directed at solving the core problem. Because no one has come up with an algorithm to provide a provably optimal solution in reasonable time, and because the TSP and it's kin are actual important real world problems, there is much interest in answering the question "OK, forget about provably optimal, is there an algorithm that gives me a pretty good solution in reasonable time?" The aproaches you mention are all about coming up with good (but not necessarily perfect) answers quickly, but not necessarily the very best answer.

      Still when someone claims to have "Solved the Traveling Salesman Problem" one expects they are talking about the hard core find-a-provably-optimal-solution-in-polynomial-tim e problem. One also suspects they are mistaken.

      I haven't looked at the state of the art for finding provably optimal solutions lately, but as far as I am aware, all of them have a factorial term in there somewhere. When N gets large, N!/2 (for example) isn't much help.

    15. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by 2short · · Score: 1

      "If indeed it can be shown the problem may not be solved in less than N!, then the problem becomes hardware to solve"

      I have to disagree. If it can be shown the problem may not be solved in less than N!, hardware won't save you. Let's say at your current level of computer speed, in the time you have available to work on a given instance of the problem, you can solve it for 100 cities. But now you want to solve it for 110 cities in the same time. You must increase the speed of your computer by a factor of roughly:

      15,882,455,415,227,429,404,160,376,911,
      647,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
      000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000
      000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00,000,000,000
      000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000
      000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

      (1.5etc times 10^178 if I counted corectly)

      No amount of quantum or DNA computing is going to do that. And even if it did, we could do the calculation for going from 1000 to 1010, but I suspect slashdot would not alow a post big enough to contain the zeroes.

      An algorithm whose time calculation has a factorial term in there is dead in the water as a practical solution. We have to fall back to various polynomial-time algorithms that provide very nice, but not necessarily perfect, solutions, and for these you'll generally get a solution that is closer to optimal in rough proportion to the processor cycles you throw at it, so hardware helps. But if you need the real-deal-optimal solution in reasonable time, you're doomed if N! is the best there is.

    16. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      In other news, the RIAA is now suing music owners for having sex.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    17. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I did a brief Internet search for it before composing my post, but couldn't find it. I was aware of it (through secondary sources) which is why I used the same numbers. But I couldn't trace the original article. Thanks for correcting that oversight.

    18. Re:DNA based computer used to solve TSP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what does that tell us about you?

  21. WORGANIC GAMES by 2true · · Score: 0

    I see a movie in the works..... aint that right boo TRuueeeee

  22. Naught or cross? by YetAnotherName · · Score: 1, Informative

    That's O or X in the US of A, baby. :-)

    Crosses and naughts...sheesh.

    1. Re:Naught or cross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Actually they are Freedom-O's and Freedom-X's. Please report to your nearest Patriotism Terminal for re-education.

  23. DNA by smatt-man · · Score: 1

    If you or someone you know is tired of poking their fingers for tic-tac-toe blood samples you should try our new DNA testing supplies...

    --

    ---
    Lousy rotten karmic retribution.
  24. Chess by DanThe1Man · · Score: 1

    I wonder if I could get some DNA from Kasparov and play a wicked hard game of chess.

  25. Re:Smart enough to make a DNA computer but not to. by IFF123 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yep. But mayby the rules mutate as you go. I mean it's the DNA tic-tac-toe we are talking about.
    1. Millions of dollars of investment, thousands of man and machine hours...
    2. DNA-powered Tic Tac Toe
    3. ?

    --
    Who took my tinfoil hat?
  26. bah! by the+darn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Slashdotters already play LOTS of games with DNA...mostly solitare, though, as I understand.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un post.
  27. Well then... by motardo · · Score: 2, Funny

    this gives a new meaning to "Powered by Nvidia"

  28. Grey goo by vevva · · Score: 1

    People have been worried about an unleashed nanobot replicating copies of itself and turning the world into a grey goo.

    Grey goo I can live with - an earth sized Xs and Os planet I cannot.

    I for one am getting the first ticket out of here.

  29. Evolution? by sorrodos · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't one of these computers already evolved out the goo found in swamps today? Considering thats how we came about and all...

    1. Re:Evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know they havn't?

    2. Re:Evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think we are?

    3. Re:Evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, playing Tic-Tac-Toe is not something that adds survivability to an enzyme, so I guess a Tic-Tac-Toe playing cell is not very likely to have evolved.

      However, these "computers" have evolved from the goo found in swamp today; in fact, you're composed of billions of computers so powerful and efficient, that we can not foresee a future where we can create equals to them: your cells.

      It has all you ever dreamed of; stereoscopy, stereo speakers, liquid cooling, a kickass graphic card; even *ahem* an "ethernet interface".

      Well, gotta go; there's a "lan-party" on TV! ;)

  30. Re:Smart enough to make a DNA computer but not to. by stienman · · Score: 5, Informative

    from http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tic-tac-toe

    "In a normal 3x3 tic-tac-toe game, both players have a strategy to draw the game. In fact, any move by the first player leads to a draw with best play.

    "Statistically the best opening move is in one of the corners, after this move has been made if the opponent takes any square other than the centre one, then the first player can play in such a way that a win is certain, as shown in the above game. "

    -Adam

  31. This is old "technology"! by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny
    DNA playing Tic-Tac-Toe?

    Been there, done that.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:This is old "technology"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but it's not yet perfected.

  32. Re:Smart enough to make a DNA computer but not to. by ctr2sprt · · Score: 2, Funny
    Slashdot humor:

    1. Find joke used 1,000 times already.
    2. Use it wrong.
    3. ???
    4. Karma!

  33. And now... by GearheadX · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...for the obligatory 'imagine a Beowolf cluster of those...' post.

    Thank yew.


    1. Re:And now... by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

      Canis mathis?
      Canis tictactoe?

      --
      01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
  34. Re:Shall We Play A Game? by phthisic · · Score: 2, Funny

    You are too cool. When I read that, I heard the voice in my head. Thanks for the memory.

  35. Interesting b/c its a molecule or b/c it's DNA? by kaltkalt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeh I realize DNA is a molecule. But if this computer were running of off, say, some chemical other than DNA, would it be as interesting? DNA implies life, whereas other chemicals (aside from caffeine) do not. But a DNA computer is no more alive than the silicon-based PC I'm using right now. I know DNA molecules have interesting properties, and I'm not saying this is about clever marketing. But I think the fact that the molecule being used here is DNA makes this much more interesting than it would be if the molecule were anything else. JMHO, though. An alcohol-based PC is a novelty, but a DNA-based PC is amazing....

    --

    Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
  36. Re: Natural step by CyberDruid · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Game playing comes second only to porn as the driver of new technologies.

    And since DNA is already involved in porn and sex in so many ways, this was basically the logical continuation. As long as I'm not DNA-spammed by malevolent viruses, I'm happy.

    --

    Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati

  37. Let the jokes begin... by SirDaShadow · · Score: 4, Funny

    >The human player makes his or her moves by dropping DNA into 3 by 3 square

    No comment...

    1. Re:Let the jokes begin... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That really gives new meaning to toss across. (I picked this link because of the pocket aspect.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  38. Re:I hope it's not frosty: GGPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy jesus you're a fucking idiot.

  39. Memo to marketing : cheaters never prosper. by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    From the article: "We could have programmed it to lose sometimes, to make humans happy," he told New Scientist. "But to say 'the automaton can not be defeated' has a nice ring to it."

    We all know how that story works out!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  40. Can you imagine... by twoslice · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the kind of viruses that could be created? The thought is mind blowing!

    --

    From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
  41. Re:Smart enough to make a DNA computer but not to. by faxafloi · · Score: 1

    According to this article, Stojanovic rigged the rules so that MAYA can't lose. It's assumed that MAY goes first and takes the center square, and the human takes either the upper left or the square beneath it.

    --
    Exit, pursued by a bear.
  42. Re:I hope it's not frosty: GGPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ur mom is a marsupial

  43. Time frame of a game? by keller · · Score: 1

    The article (yes I RTFA) states that it is interactive, but how long does it take for the 'computer' to make it's move?

    --

    Enig? Det alt for hot det smor!

  44. Finally us Serbs... by JBG667 · · Score: 0

    ...getting into news for something other than wiping out people's DNA...

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world > > Those who understand binary and those who don't
  45. Herediatry Too! by niko9 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Son, don't do that, you'll go blind!"
    "Dad, I'm over here."

    1. Re:Herediatry Too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Then what do I feel over here?"
      "Woof!"

  46. But is the DNA smarter than a chicken? by NewbieV · · Score: 4, Funny

    This chicken may not be around anymore, but a little Googling will show other references.

    And yes, I can admit to having lost a few games to her, too.

    --


    "For every right, an equal responsibility..."
  47. Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our new molecular overlords demand tribute in the form of our DNA!

    Personally, I like to pay tribute at least three times a day and have shown my devotion by doing so since I was 11 years old!

    I am the true servent of The Molecular Overlords (tm)!!!

  48. Re:What I want - what I really, really want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not suprisingly, none of the moderating slashbots did recognize this.

  49. Beating DNA Logic? by nortcele · · Score: 1

    Beating a DNA Logic game is not a problem... or so says O.J. Simpson and crew.

  50. Re:What I want - what I really, really want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm really troubled over the fact that you misspell Jesus Christ and yet you capitalize JFK and USA.

  51. Oh, come on: by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1
    But the pair acknowledge that the approach will never rival silicon computers...

    The opportunities for political humor are endless...
    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  52. EDSAC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those who don't know, the first "video game" was, in fact, a game of tic-tac-toe (naughts and crosses for some of you out there)

    http://www.pong-story.com/1952.htm

    If you don't have an EDSAC at home (of course you don't) you can get the emulator and the origional code A.S. Douglas wrote here:

    http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/~edsac/

    recompile.org

  53. Patents? by derfel · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hope these guys don't find out about it.

    1. Re:Patents? by derfel · · Score: 1

      Oops. That would be Myriad Genetics, the buggers who patented a breast cancer indicator and want lots of $ to test for it.

  54. DNA is very convenient by rebelcool · · Score: 1
    The way cells work is very computational in nature. You have DNA which is comprised of certain sequences of ACTG which are called codons, that are essentially assembler mnemonics. These codons stand for each amino acid, and a couple of special ones that tell it to stop reading, start, etc. The DNA stand is pulled through a structure (ive forgotten the name of it..bio class was awhile back) which reads the codons and sends out calls for amino acids, which then bind together to form proteins. Then the proteins are packaged by other cell structures and leave the cell. Proteins can be thought of as data packets as they go from cell to cell and tell the nucleus in them what to do next.

    So basically what you can do is write your own DNA strands and let existing cellular structures act on them to get the results you want. If you used other molecules, you'd have to create the read structures, the method of passing information around (proteins) and so on.

    --

    -

    1. Re:DNA is very convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DNA stand is pulled through a structure (ive forgotten the name of it..bio class was awhile back)...

      Ribosomes.

    2. Re:DNA is very convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The DNA stand is pulled through a structure (ive forgotten the name of it..bio class was awhile back)...

      Ribosomes.

      Close: The DNA is first transcribed to mRNA which is then passed through the Ribosomes. THis allows for editing of the message before it is translated into protein.

  55. Proof by Wabin · · Score: 1

    Well there it is! If it requires our intelligence to make some bits of dna play tic-tac-toe, clearly there was a creator that made it do something as complicated as make us. I may as well give up my work toward a PhD evolutionary biology right now. Damn scientists proving the existence of God... excuse me, that's "intelligent designer".

    --
    Most exciting phrase in science: not "Eureka!" but "Hmm... That's funny..." -Asimov (abridged for \. limits)
  56. What's a 'nought'? by Uninvited+Guest · · Score: 1

    ...uses a complex mixture of DNA enzymes to determine where it should place its nought or cross...

    Is it one of those obscure biblical units, like a cubit?

    'Doth Job fear God for nought? --Job i. 9.'

    Maybe it's some kind of animated character that ruins pizzas for fun.

    --
    Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
    1. Re:What's a 'nought'? by justMichael · · Score: 1

      Main Entry: nought
      Pronunciation: 'not, 'nat
      variant of NAUGHT

      Main Entry: naught
      Function: noun
      Date: before 12th century
      1 : NOTHINGNESS, NONEXISTENCE
      2 : the arithmetical symbol 0 : ZERO, CIPHER

  57. oh the possibilities by tssiap_wmuc · · Score: 1

    an alcohol based pc...what i've always wanted. computing and beer in one

    1. Re:oh the possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're drinking DNA in your alcohol..... so how's the pale ale anyway? :)

  58. "A strange game... by sverrehu · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... the only winning move is not to play."

    1. Re:"A strange game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool, you're just about 1 hour after the first joke was pulled off!

  59. but can even a dna computer run doom3 10fps? by *weasel · · Score: 1

    ... cuz if it can, then i'll be impressed with its computing power.

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  60. Re:Smart enough to make a DNA computer but not to. by imnoteddy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Play tic-tac-toe? "Stojanovic has lost to MAYA more than a 100 times." With semi-intelligent players I thought this game was pretty much guaranteed to generate a draw?

    I imagine he lost in order to test the system.

    --
    No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
  61. Re:Smart enough to make a DNA computer but not to. by dpcgriffin · · Score: 1

    Step 3: Millions more spent on hardware, software, and DNAware.
    Step 4: DNA-powered Tribes 2! Rapture! Joy!
    Step 5: Millions more spent.
    Step 6: DNA-powered (insert name of any game here)
    Step 7: ?
    Revised Table

    --
    Step away from the idiocy. Now. But first, a word from your sponsors!
  62. Bear in mind... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    ...that you can build a tictactoe playing machine, that learns to play from experience with a bunch of matchboxes and marbles. It's in a Martin Gardner book as well as a Scientific American article.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  63. Uh oh by greenhide · · Score: 1

    Molecules could, for example, assess faults in a living cell and then either kill or repair it.

    Boy, gives the phrase "Blue Screen of Death" a whole new meaning, right?

    Uh, only there's no screen. And you don't turn blue.

    But what would happen if these mini DNA logic gates all went haywire, or something. Like if they, say mutated, as DNA is sometimes wont to do (granted, IANAG). But say these things went haywire and decided that all your cells must die. What then?

    I, for one, do not want to welcome any DNA overlords into my body cavities.

    --
    Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
  64. Re: Natural step by saforrest · · Score: 1

    And since DNA is already involved in porn and sex in so many ways, this was basically the logical continuation. As long as I'm not DNA-spammed by malevolent viruses, I'm happy.

    Well, we've already got DNA spam; it's called... umm... SPAM.

  65. Shall we play a game? by plexxer · · Score: 1

    How about... Global Viral Outbreak?

    --
    The government's moral compass is controlled by GPS.
    In times of crises, they alter it to suit their needs.
  66. Re:Smart enough to make a DNA computer but not to. by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Funny

    Actually he lost 50 times. He lost another 50 times betting on the instant replay.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  67. Yipes, hope they do not use some Doom mod code! by ratfynk · · Score: 1
    "developing simple decision-making solutions that can operate in vivo. Molecules could, for example, assess faults in a living cell and then either kill or repair it."

    Yipes, hope they do not use some Doom mod code I've seen! Code with comments like " this should take all your extra lives away"

    --
    OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
  68. Mod up parent = insightful by heironymouscoward · · Score: 1

    I agree... I mean, how do we know that these so-called "girls" actually exist?

    It could all be a hoax! Like the famous 9" penis and everlasting printer cartridge. Yes, yes, it all makes sense now.

    Parent insightful, parent insightful!

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  69. pong by xv4n · · Score: 1

    So no version of pong yet?

  70. Re:Smart enough to make a DNA computer but not to. by wizardmax · · Score: 1

    1. Millions of dollars of investment, thousands of man and machine hours... 2. DNA-powered Tic Tac Toe 3. Millions more... 4. DNA-powered Pentium 450i running Half Life 3 5. Drool...

    --


    Free speech is getting expensive...
  71. The significance? by The+Eye+of+the+Behol · · Score: 1

    Does this mean uber- advanced computer technology or just a new way of gathering chance and probability? The way I see it, this DNA is a new way of probability, finding out where to stick the next nought or cross on a nine square board. Sure its cool, and it opens up new possibilities, in science and Quake 3 gaming.

    --
    ----- Friends, l33tists, l4m3z0rs! Lend me thy keyboards.
  72. Re:Smart enough to make a DNA computer but not to. by tsa · · Score: 1

    That's why you don't get karma for being funny anymore.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  73. Re:Smart enough to make a DNA computer but not to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3. Stupid moderators

  74. Riiiight. by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

    I, for one, do not want to welcome any DNA overlords into my body cavities.

    Uhhhh, that's not what I heard ;-D

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  75. Angband bot! by ihatesco · · Score: 1

    Of course this wuould be the first senseful purpose for a computer of that kind...

    --
    "I am slashbot, hear me roar!"
  76. Dammit, this means nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need SCREENSHOTS!

  77. Stop the insanity now! by IDigUNIX · · Score: 2, Funny

    Aren't games already enough like life forms?

    Tetris for instance is the next best thing to a virus, afterall, think of how simple and yet utterly addictive it was until attention deficit disorder offered us a cure.

    Do we have to make games INTO life forms?

    1. Re:Stop the insanity now! by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      This brings up a question I wanted to ask: Would this kind of thing be considered a very basic life form playing a game? Have these guys created a lifeform that plays tic-tac-toe? Or is this way too low-level to be considered life?

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  78. Re:made in israel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    That Khazar DNA sure is clever...

  79. Re:Smart enough to make a DNA computer but not to. by Feztaa · · Score: 1

    With semi-intelligent players I thought this game was pretty much guaranteed to generate a draw?

    Yeah, I once had a tic-tac-toe game that was basically programmed with a database of every possible board, and the best possible move in every case. You couldn't win against the thing, you could only draw, or lose.