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. The Sound of Karma burning... by Flabby+Boohoo · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Frost. First. Gonzo?

  2. Hmm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    First post?

  3. 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?

  4. First pr0st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Mad crazy shout outs to the crew keepin it real at the law library. CCA-yall!

  5. 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
  6. WILDCAT IS ON TEH SPOKE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    Either your network or ip address has been banned from Slashdot

    ...due to script flooding that originated from your network or ip address -- or this IP might have been used to post comments designed to break web browser rendering. Or you crawled us with a rude robot, especially one that doesn't understand RFCs very well.

    If you feel that this is unwarranted, feel free to include your IP address (66.35.250.150) in the subject of an email, and we will examine why there is a ban. If you fail to include the IP address (again, in the subject!), then your message will be deleted and ignored. I mean come on, we're good, we're not psychic.

    If you think your IP number is different from 66.35.250.150, tell us both.

    If you are using a browser with some kind of add-on that crawls or caches pages for you, tell us what it is.

    Since you can't read the FAQ because you're banned, here's the relevant portion: Why is my IP banned?

    Perhaps you are running some sort of program that loaded thousands of Slashdot Pages. We have limited resources here and are fairly protective of them. We need to make sure that everyone shares. If your IP loads thousands of pages in a day, you will likely be banned. Please note that many proxy servers load large quantities of pages, but we can usually distinguish between proxy servers being used by humans, and IPs running software that is hammering our servers.

    Your IP might have been used to perform some sort of denial of service attack against Slashdot. These range from simple programs that just load a lot of pages, to programs that attempt to coordinate an avalanche of posts in the forums (often through misconfigured "Open Relay" proxy servers).

    You might be using a proxy server that is also being used by another person who did something from the above list. You should have your proxy server administrator contact us.

    Your IP might have been used to post comments designed to break web browser rendering.

    Answered by: CmdrTaco
    Last Modified: 7/02/02
    How do I get an IP Unbanned?

    Email banned@slashdot.org. Make sure to include the IP in question, and any other pertinent information. If you are connecting through a proxy server, you might need to have your proxy server's admin contact us instead of you.

    Answered by: CmdrTaco
    Last Modified: 3/26/02

  7. 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...
  8. I hope it's not frosty: GGPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    GGPL (Gay General Public License) is the first license which
    gathers Gay Programmers from all over America and abroad for one common goal - writing Gay software.

    Are you GAY ?
    Are you a PROGRAMMER ?
    Are you a GAY PROGRAMMER ?

    If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GGPL (GAY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
    Use GGPL (GAY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE) today, and enjoy all the benefits of this queer license.
    GGPL (GAY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE) is the fastest-growing GAY PROGRAMMER license with THOUSANDS of users all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GGPL if you write Gay software today!

    Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

    First, you have to write Gay software, such as this Gay Software and license it under the GGPL.

    Second, you need to succeed in gathering a few "Gay Users" on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website

    Third, you need to contact Richard Stallman, creator of the GGPL, and ask him to sacrifice a straight person for you in the name of All Fags.

    If you have mod points and would like to support GGPL, please moderate this post up.

    This post brought to you by SARS Monkey, writer of GGPL software.
    And now, the GGPL.
    0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a Gay regime (such as blue plastic dicks, or a frozen potato reference) placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this Gay General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under Vatican law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "a fag". Activities other than copying, distribution, modification, or cock sucking are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. (Serve the gay community.) 1. A fag may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it (up the ass), in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice, Gay pornographic image, and disclaimer of warranty or straightness; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. A fag may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. You may also offer AIDS ribbons and rainbow tattoos, as well. A fag must also embed a gay demeanor in his software. The mention of the following items MUST BE INCLUDED in each piece of GGPL software. A blue, plastic cock. An AIDS ribbon. A frozen piece of shit. A cock ring (with or without razor blades.) KY Jelly. Anal warts/tearings. Billy Mays. Distribution of GGPL software without the inclusion of these gay items is strictly against the code of Gay Software Programmers, and a fag lawsuit will ensue. Please make note of this and include one, if not all, of the Official Gay Items in your software. The GGPL rest

    1. 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 :)

    2. Re:I hope it's not frosty: GGPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      > Are you GAY ? Yes. > Are you a PROGRAMMER ? Yes. > Are you a GAY PROGRAMMER ? Apparently so. What's your point?

    3. Re:I hope it's not frosty: GGPL by StarmanDeluxe · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:I hope it's not frosty: GGPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy jesus you're a fucking idiot.

    5. Re:I hope it's not frosty: GGPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ur mom is a marsupial

  9. Large print version for the visually impaired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Courtesy of shout-o-matic.

    THE W0RLD'S N0.1 SCIENCE & TECHN0L0GY NEWS SERVICE

    FIRST GAME-PLAYING DNA C0MPUTER REVEALED
    09:52 18 AUGUST 03
    NEWSCIENTIST.C0M NEWS SERVICE

    THE FIRST GAME-PLAYING DNA C0MPUTER HAS BEEN REVEALED - AN ENZYME-P0WERED TIC-TAC-T0E MACHINE THAT CANN0T BE BEATEN.

    THE HUMAN PLAYER MAKES HIS 0R HER M0VES BY DR0PPING DNA INT0 3 BY 3 SQUARE 0F WELLS THAT MAKE UP THE B0ARD. THE DEVICE THEN USES A C0MPLEX MIXTURE 0F DNA ENZYMES T0 DETERMINE WHERE IT SH0ULD PLACE ITS N0UGHT 0R CR0SS, AND SIGNALS ITS M0VE WITH A GREEN GL0W.

    THE DEVICE, DUBBED MAYA, WAS DEVEL0PED BY MILAN ST0JAN0VIC, AT C0LUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN NEW Y0RK, AND DARK0 STEFAN0VIC, AT THE UNIVERSITY 0F NEW MEXIC0 IN ALBUQUERQUE. K0BI BENENS0N, WH0 W0RKS 0N 0THER DNA APPR0ACHES AT THE WEIZMANN INSTITUTE IN ISRAEL, SAYS THE W0RK DEM0NSTRATES THE M0ST C0MPLEX USE 0F M0LECULES AS L0GIC GATES T0 DATE, AND "REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT ADVANCE IN DNA C0MPUTING."

    M0RE C0MPLEX C0MPUTATI0NAL TASKS THAN N0UGHTS AND CR0SSES C0ULD BE TACKLED WITH DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENTS 0F THE ENZYMES. BUT THE PAIR ACKN0WLEDGE THAT THE APPR0ACH WILL NEVER RIVAL SILIC0N C0MPUTERS, BECAUSE HUMAN ACTI0N IS NEEDED T0 0PERATE THE GATES IN SYSTEM AND IT IS N0T REUSABLE.

    "IT'S L0VELY W0RK," SAYS PETER BENTLEY, A C0MPUTER SCIENTIST LINKED T0 UNIVERSITY C0LLEGE L0ND0N. BUT HE N0TES THAT A SYSTEM THAT CANN0T BE EXTENDED MUCH FURTHER THAN PLAYING TIC-TAC-T0E "IS MERELY A N0VELTY". ST0JAN0VIC AND STEFAN0VIC ARE AWARE 0F THIS AND ARE N0W F0CUSING 0N DEVEL0PING SIMPLE DECISI0N-MAKING S0LUTI0NS THAT CAN 0PERATE IN VIV0. M0LECULES C0ULD, F0R EXAMPLE, ASSESS FAULTS IN A LIVING CELL AND THEN EITHER KILL 0R REPAIR IT.

    SNIP APART

    IN PREVI0US DNA C0MPUTING SCHEMES, ALL 0F THE ELEMENTS ARE MIXED IN A TEST TUBE AND THE ANSWER T0 THE CALCULATI0N IS DEDUCED FR0M THE PR0DUCT 0F THE REACTI0N. MAYA IS THE FIRST INTERACTIVE SYSTEM. THE NINE WELLS 0CCUPY JUST 0NE SQUARE CENTIMETRE AND EACH C0NTAIN MIXTURES 0F THE ENZYMES THAT ACT AS M0LECULAR L0GIC GATES.

    THE HUMAN PLAYER HAS NINE TYPES 0F DNA STRAND, EACH WITH A SEQUENCE SPECIFIC T0 A PARTICULAR SQUARE. T0 MAKE A M0VE, 0NE TYPE 0F STRAND IS ADDED T0 ALL THE SQUARES, AS ALL MUST BE AWARE 0F THE CH0ICE.

    THE DNA STRANDS ARE THE 0N-SWITCH F0R THE "DE0XYRIB0ZYME" ENZYMES. THE ENZYMES' 0UTPUT, WHEN ACTIVATED BY THE REQUIRED DNA STRAND, IS T0 SNIP APART M0LECULES IN THE MIXTURE, WHICH PR0DUCES THE GREEN GL0W.

    THE ENZYME GATES ARE CAREFULLY C0NSTRUCTED AND DISTRIBUTED S0 THAT AFTER THE HUMAN'S M0VE, THE ENZYMES UNL0CK 0NLY IN 0NE WELL. THIS IS "QUITE INGENI0US" SAYS BENENS0N. BECAUSE TIC-TAC-T0E IS A SIMPLE GAME, THE C0MPUTER C0ULD BE DESIGNED S0 THAT IT ALWAYS WINS 0R DRAWS.

    ST0JAN0VIC HAS L0ST T0 MAYA M0RE THAN A 100 TIMES. "WE C0ULD HAVE PR0GRAMMED IT T0 L0SE S0METIMES, T0 MAKE HUMANS HAPPY," HE T0LD NEW SCIENTIST. "BUT T0 SAY 'THE AUT0MAT0N CAN N0T BE DEFEATED' HAS A NICE RING T0 IT."

    J0URNAL REFERENCE: NATURE BI0TECHN0L0GY (D0I:10.1038/NBT862)

    JENNY H0GAN

    # Brought to you by shoutomatic.sh
    tr 'a-noOp-z' 'A-N00P-Z'

  10. 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???
  11. 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 #!
  12. 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!

  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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
  18. CNN article by kaan · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  19. Response to sig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Shit: a word you can say.

  20. 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
  21. 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.

  22. 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 :)

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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?

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

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

  27. 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.

  28. 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.
  29. Chess by DanThe1Man · · Score: 1

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

  30. 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?
  31. 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.
  32. Well then... by motardo · · Score: 2, Funny

    this gives a new meaning to "Powered by Nvidia"

  33. 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.

  34. 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! ;)

  35. 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

  36. Play with this by scumbucket · · Score: -1

    A Guide to Office Bathroom Ettiquette

    We've all been there but don't like to admit it. We've all kicked back in our cubicles and suddenly felt something a brew down below. As much as we try to convince ourselves, the WORK POOP is inevitable. For those of you who hate pooping at work, I give you...The 2002 Survival Guide for Taking a Dump at Work.
    Memorize these definitions and pooping at work will become a pure pleasure.
    ESCAPEE
    Definition: A fart that slips out while taking a leak at the urinal or forcing poop in a stall. This is usually accompanied by a sudden wave of panic/embarrassment. This is similar to the hot flash you receive when passing an unseen police car and speeding. If you release an escapee, do not acknowledge it. Pretend it did not happen. If you are standing next to the farter at the urinal, pretend that you did not hear it. No one likes an escapee, it is uncomfortable for all involved. Making a joke or laughing makes both parties feel uneasy.
    JAILBREAK (Used in conjunction with escapee)
    Definition: When forcing poop, several farts slip out at a machine guns pace. This is usually a side effect of diarrhea or a hangover. If this should happen do not panic, remain in the stall until everyone has left the bathroom so to spare everyone the awkwardness of what just occurred.
    COURTESY FLUSH
    Definition: The act of flushing the toilet the instant the nose cone of the poop log hits the water and the poop is whisked away to an undisclosed location. This reduces the amount of air time the poop has to stink up the bathroom. This can help you avoid being caught doing the WALK OF SHAME.
    WALK OF SHAME
    Definition: Walking from the stall, to the sink, to the door after you have just stunk-up the bathroom. This can be a very uncomfortable moment if someone walks in and busts you. As with all farts, it is best to pretend that the smell does not exist. Can be avoided with the use of a COURTESY FLUSH.
    OUT OF THE CLOSET POOPER
    Definition: A colleague who poops at work and is damn proud of it. You will often see an Out of the Closet Pooper enter the bathroom with a newspaper or magazine under their arm. Always look around the office for the Out of the Closet pooper before entering the bathroom.
    THE POOPING FRIENDS NETWORK (PFN)
    Definition: A group of coworkers who band together to ensure emergency pooping goes off without incident. This group can help you to monitor the whereabouts of OUT OF THE CLOSET POOPERS and identify SAFE HAVENS.
    SAFE HAVEN
    Definition: A seldom used bathroom somewhere in the building where you can least expect visitors. Try floors that are predominantly of the opposite sex. This will reduce the odds of a pooper of your sex entering the bathroom.
    TURD BURGLAR
    Definition: A pooper who does not realize that you are in the stall and tries to force the door open. This is one of the most shocking and vulnerable moments that occur when taking a dump at work. If this occurs, remain in the stall until the TURD BURGLAR leaves. This way you will avoid all uncomfortable eye contact.
    CAMO-COUGH
    Definition: A phony cough which alerts all new entrants into the bathroom that you are in a stall. This can be used to cover-up a WATERMELON or to alert potential TURD BURGLARS. Very effective when used in conjunction with an ASTAIRE.
    ASTAIRE
    Definition: A subtle toe-tap that is used to alert potential TURD BURGLARS that you are occupying a stall. This will remove all doubt that the stall is occupied. If you hear an ASTAIRE, leave the bathroom immediately so the pooper can poop in peace.
    WATERMELON
    Definition: A turd that creates a loud splash when hitting the toilet water. This is also an embarrassing incident. If you feel a WATERMELON coming on, create a diversion. See CAMO-COUGH.
    HAVANA OMELET
    Definition: A load of diarrhea that creates a series of loud splashes in the toilet water. Often accompanied by an escapee. Try using a CAMO-COUGH with an ASTAIRE.
    UNCLE TED
    Definition: A bathroom user who seems to linger around forever. Could s

    --
    CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
  37. 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.

  38. 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!

  39. 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
  40. 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.

  41. What I want - what I really, really want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I wanna die just like jesus christ
    I wanna die on a bed of spikes
    I wanna die come see paradise
    I wanna die just like jesus christ
    I wanna die just like J.F.K.
    I wanna die on a sunny day
    I wanna die just like J.F.K.
    I wanna die in the U.S.A.
    I wanna die
    I wanna die

    I wouldn't sell my soul
    But I'd hang for this
    I gotta get my goal
    Cause I'd hang for this

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

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

    2. 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.

  42. 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.
  43. 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

  44. 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.'"
  45. 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

  46. 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...
  47. 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.
  48. made in israel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    so after the israelis used fucktard Dubya to do their dirty work they have spare time and money to do research...how nice
    is any of the /. editors jewish anyone can answer this? (hopefully reading at -1)

    1. Re:made in israel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That Khazar DNA sure is clever...

  49. 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!

  50. 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
  51. 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!"

  52. 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..."
  53. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    DNA Computer plays YOU!

  54. 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)!!!

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

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

  56. 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
  57. 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

  58. 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.

  59. 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.

  60. 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)
  61. 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

  62. 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? :)

  63. "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!

  64. 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?"
  65. 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.
  66. 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!
  67. 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.
  68. 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.
  69. 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.

  70. 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.
  71. 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.
  72. 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!
  73. 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
  74. pong by xv4n · · Score: 1

    So no version of pong yet?

  75. 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...
  76. 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.
  77. 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!

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

    3. Stupid moderators

  79. 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!"
  80. 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!"
  81. Dammit, this means nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need SCREENSHOTS!

  82. 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?
  83. 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.