Scientists Store Entire Textbook In DNA

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Store Entire Textbook In DNA

Posted by timothy on Thursday August 16, 2012 @07:30AM from the ok-but-where-are-the-tiny-spectacles? dept.

sciencehabit writes with this mind-boggling bit from Science Magazine: "When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoretical—until now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA — one trillionth of a gram — an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data."

110 of 160 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

HOSTS file would have prevented this. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-16 07:33 · Score: 1

nummynuts
Brewster you've screwed us all! by DnaK · 2012-08-16 07:33 · Score: 1

I am sorry. I opened Pandora's Box.
1. Re:Brewster you've screwed us all! by butalearner · 2012-08-16 09:07 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I am disappointed that nobody has pointed out that we can now measure human mass in terms of Libraries of Congress. For example: Americans can now proudly proclaim that we carry, on average, at least ten million more Libraries of Congress than citizens of any other country. Or: I really shouldn't have eaten those atomic wings, I just dropped two million Libraries of Congress from spending so much time in the bathroom.
2. Re:Brewster you've screwed us all! by camperslo · 2012-08-16 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Why did the scientists do this?
  Are they planning to add a EULA, manifesto or wiki-backup to some biological creation?
  It could be handy if DNA was well-commented source code. Hidden jokes anyone?
  Better that than cookie storage.
Take it one step further by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-08-16 07:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

Store data in DNA, then figure out a way for our brains to interpret it as knowledge. Imagine being born with the combined understanding of all of the major fields of science, history, languages, crafts, trades, from day one.
1. Re:Take it one step further by Dyinobal · 2012-08-16 07:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Knowledge but not understanding. I think it is important to remember that those are two different things. Still it would be pretty neat.
2. Re:Take it one step further by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-16 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you could do it with knowledge, you could also do it with understanding.
3. Re:Take it one step further by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-16 07:45 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Knowing mankind, they would use it so we're born with knowledge about who's in charge, the limits of our freedoms and the religion appropriate for your country.
4. Re:Take it one step further by thmsdrew · 2012-08-16 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  What's it like to have knowledge that you don't understand? That concept doesn't make sense to me.
5. Re:Take it one step further by DigiShaman · 2012-08-16 07:48 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  At what point would individuality be replaced with fabrication?
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
6. Re:Take it one step further by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-08-16 07:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Knowledge with no understanding = Memorization. I can memorize the parts of the brain with no understanding of how they work. To do anything useful with the information you have to be able to apply it.
7. Re:Take it one step further by maxwell+demon · 2012-08-16 07:50 · Score: 2
  
  What's it like to have knowledge that you don't understand? That concept doesn't make sense to me.
  For example, I know that some people hate math, but I don't understand it.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
8. Re:Take it one step further by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-16 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  ...Kirk...out...
9. Re:Take it one step further by cpu6502 · 2012-08-16 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Knowledge encoded in DNA would be cool, but it's not a very reliable method. DNA has a bad habit of denaturing if it gets too hold, or produces errors if not cloned properly (leading to a runaway cancer cell in some cases). DNA works "well enough" to get an organism to 15 years old & procreate itself to the next generation, but is far from perfect.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
10. Re:Take it one step further by xevioso · 2012-08-16 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps one of the things that can be encoded into the DNA is information on how to apply it. This would "interface" with our own experiences and our background would allow us to make use of some of this information, but contained within the information could be information on how to make use of it.
11. Re:Take it one step further by jader3rd · 2012-08-16 07:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Imagine being born with the combined understanding of all of the major fields of science, history, languages, crafts, trades, from day one.
  Isn't that what made the goa'uld so evil?
12. Re:Take it one step further by Millennium · 2012-08-16 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  Until we figure out the means to update DNA remotely, this wouldn't be as awesome as it sounds. Your knowledge of history could be outdated as soon as day two. Science and languages would fall out of date only slightly less quickly. Crafts and trades would take longer, but would almost certainly be at least a little outdated by the time you were mature enough to enter the workforce. And all of this would be hard-coded into a person's knowledge, so overcoming that hurdle would likely be very difficult.
13. Re:Take it one step further by icebike · 2012-08-16 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  At what point would individuality be replaced with fabrication?
  At what point would our library of congress stored in DNA mutate into something totally different?
  When the Gettysburg Address starts sounding lib Bob Dylan or worse yet, mutates into a hand with 7 fingers?
  Or would you simply call that evolution of knowledge, and line up for your smart-shots at the local library?
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
14. Re:Take it one step further by Urban+Garlic · 2012-08-16 07:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  > What's it like to have knowledge that you don't understand? That concept doesn't make sense to me.
  That would be like if someone told you about a concept, so you knew it existed, but it didn't make sense to you.
  
  --
  2*3*3*3*3*11*251
15. Re:Take it one step further by Gotung · 2012-08-16 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  How do you overcome knowledge that is hard coded in your DNA? When you go beyond indoctrination, and start implanting knowledge as base instinct it would likely be near impossible for that being to believe anything that was contrary to that implanted knowledge, much of which would be contradictory or turn out to be just plain wrong. I think your being would be mentally crippled and tragic instead of the glorious super genius you imply they would be. Probably more of a super-rainman then a fully functional member of society capable of any kind of advances.
16. Re:Take it one step further by starsky51 · 2012-08-16 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  This would be the equivalent of adding comments into some source code and expecting the compiled program to impart the knowledge. Cool idea, but we won't be programming genius babies this way.
  
  --
  There are 2 types of people in this world. Those who understand ternary and those who don't.
17. Re:Take it one step further by infodragon · 2012-08-16 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Then something happens, random mutation, chemical poisoning, radiation, ... and then cancer starts. A cell containing some obscure text about homicidal geniuses becomes cancerous and spreads to the reproductive organs, and then happens to reproduce before they die. This passes on an overwhelming amount of information to an impressionable brain which then becomes an homicidal genius. Not to tip their hand too soon, they wait to unleash the homicidal nature of their being until they reproduce. Their offspring do the same and before you know it skynet is developed. Earth becomes a planet of homicidal geniuses bent on... Skynet becomes self aware and then the homicidal geniuses have a new target.
  
  --
  If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
18. Re:Take it one step further by Arancaytar · 2012-08-16 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Genetic memory?
  I don't see how that could possibly go wrong...
19. Re:Take it one step further by jellomizer · 2012-08-16 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  How much unlearning will you have to do. Will it be worse then learning.
  Just compare our culture and understanding with life 30 years ago. We will be programmed with the latest and greatest Disco Dance moves, The threat ingrained in your system from the USSR. The process of learning is the process of change. Our Text books from a generation ago is rather different then todays text. Things have changed.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
20. Re:Take it one step further by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-08-16 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  good point. anyone with enough money to make this happen is going to give you the version of history that they wrote.
  
  --
  insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
21. Re:Take it one step further by getSalled · 2012-08-16 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Or take it only a half step further, breed it, and see the finished product.
22. Re:Take it one step further by SomePgmr · 2012-08-16 08:18 · Score: 2
  
  Best I can figure, the old "knowledge" vs "understanding" is just a discussion of completeness. We like to think there's some kind of magic between the two, but I don't think there is.
23. Re:Take it one step further by xaotikdesigns · 2012-08-16 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Because we don't need the information in our DNA that is already present?
  
  --
  XDInd
24. Re:Take it one step further by xaotikdesigns · 2012-08-16 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  You can memorize the multiplication tables up to 10*10, but if you don't understand why 10*10=100, you probably won't be able to do 15*34 or any higher numbers.
  You can memorize a few words so you can fill out a resume, but unless you know how to read, the you'll never be able to enjoy a good book.
  
  --
  XDInd
25. Re:Take it one step further by Antipater · 2012-08-16 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  At what point would individuality be replaced with fabrication?
  At what point would our library of congress stored in DNA mutate into something totally different?
  What evolutionary benefit would a mutation of encoded history serve? Any distortion would simply be part of random noise and wouldn't take over the general population. Moreover, I have a feeling someone would consciously notice if they thought the Gettysburg Address started "Three score and..." when everyone else said otherwise. Encoded knowledge wouldn't preclude the ability to obtain knowledge during your lifetime.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
26. Re:Take it one step further by xaotikdesigns · 2012-08-16 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  We just mated the complete Twilight saga with 1000 pages of Harry Potter Fan Fiction...
  There are some things that science should just leave alone.
  
  --
  XDInd
27. Re:Take it one step further by Kismet · 2012-08-16 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  At what point would individuality be replaced with fabrication?
  Isn't that what our mass-production consumer society does already? The question is, how much of who we think we are is due to some sort of fabrication?
28. Re:Take it one step further by Antipater · 2012-08-16 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget Alia Atreides!
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
29. Re:Take it one step further by sjames · 2012-08-16 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  How? We have yet to manage such a task in any form. We know how to lead a person to understanding with varying degrees of success but it has never been directly transmitted before.
30. Re:Take it one step further by houghi · 2012-08-16 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  And finally we can make people think how we want it. Who will decide on what to think. I don't know, but I know it won't be the public.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
31. Re:Take it one step further by markjhood2003 · 2012-08-16 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is the best.
  -- Frank Zappa
32. Re:Take it one step further by bbelt16ag · 2012-08-16 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  i suspect that the information would multiply or parts would be inject over a period of decades, perhaps during the move from one school to the next, and the school could fill in the understanding. i cant wait for the days of 'class please open text book 101 on history in your minds and jimmy start reading chapter one from memory....'
  
  --
  NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
33. Re:Take it one step further by sjames · 2012-08-16 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  "If" wasn't the problem. You implied that being able to implant knowledge was necessary AND sufficient to implant understanding. I maintain it is necessary but not sufficient.
34. Re:Take it one step further by ldobehardcore · 2012-08-16 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  This brings up the problem of incompleteness and ontology.
  You can code every last bit of information that could be found in a car, but can you use that information alone to extract every possible use for a car? You still use your brain to process meaning and application even when you already have complete knowledge. That's how new things come about. If I knew absolutely everything to possibly know about let's say: a piece of piano wire, it still wouldn't contain any application of the piano wire further along than what's already been done with it, and included in the knowledge given. But given the knowledge of a piano wire you can infer that you can use it as a varmint snare. Or any number of an arbitrarily large amount of things you can do with it.
  How would you encode how to make use of something, if there are nearly infinite ways to make use of something beyond it's conventional purpose?
  Just saying.... I think that first off, the knowledge obtained (essentially a long list of understood attributes for a given object) would be plenty useful on it's own. Secondly, I'm pretty sure that (if you assume one can obtain knowledge, but not know how to use it) if you include a package of uses, it would be incredibly limited in relation to the actual possible applications of said knowledge.
  
  --
  Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
35. Re:Take it one step further by History's+Coming+To · 2012-08-16 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Extraordinarily interesting, +6. Whether that is even vaguely practical is another matter, but it's one of the most interesting SF ideas I've heard in a long time. I'd include religion in there, an outsider's view of the history and theory of religions is a useful thing, and it would be interesting to see how a person's belief system develops with all of the information already there, good and bad.
  
  --
  Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
36. Re:Take it one step further by ldobehardcore · 2012-08-16 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say it's more like loading corn-cobs and a manual on how to operate a projector into a semi truck, and expecting it to magically become a fully functional and staffed movie theater with the films ready to roll.
  
  --
  Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
37. Re:Take it one step further by ceoyoyo · 2012-08-16 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  The old learning by osmosis theory (falling asleep with your head on a textbook) except with a modern trendy biology twist!
38. Re:Take it one step further by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-08-17 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  DNA works "well enough" to get an organism to 15 years old & procreate itself to the next generation, but is far from perfect.
  Even worse, it works well enough because there is a strong evolutionary pressure to keep it intact - any disabling change in the DNA removes the individual from reproduction, thereby keeping the population mostly clean of genetic problems. Unless the stored data participates somehow in introducing evolutionary pressures, it will degrade fairly quickly for sure.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
39. Re:Take it one step further by Jade_Wayfarer · 2012-08-17 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  He's dead, Jim.
  
  --
  Absence of proof != proof of absence.
40. Re:Take it one step further by Jade_Wayfarer · 2012-08-17 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Being born in the said USSR I can tell you - the sense of threat from our own country ran much deeper and stronger in us, than in any "Westerner". If someone in the Party could use said technology to instill some "communist wisdom" in our generation, most of us would have to live with severe schizophrenia. So I think in reality this whole idea would lead to much more grim and unpleasant consequences than anything we can imagine right now.
  
  --
  Absence of proof != proof of absence.
41. Re:Take it one step further by Jade_Wayfarer · 2012-08-17 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  So that's what Abdul Alhazred saw in his visions! That explains much.
  
  --
  Absence of proof != proof of absence.
42. Re:Take it one step further by cpricejones · 2012-08-17 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Probably at the point when the man with the goatee leaves an origami crane outside our apartment.
43. Re:Take it one step further by Distinctive+Name · 2012-08-19 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking more along the lines of:
  Store data in DNA, then figure out a way for it to reproduce and self-preserve.
  Then sue the data for copyright infringement.
backups? by frovingslosh · 2012-08-16 07:34 · Score: 1

But could we make backups? Oh, wait, never mind.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
1. Re:backups? by sourcerror · 2012-08-16 07:42 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yeah, but then you have to pay child support.
2. Re:backups? by quantumghost · 2012-08-16 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  But could we make backups? Oh, wait, never mind.
  A guy with a PCR machine could make a few billion copies in a few hours....RIAA would have a fit.
  But on the other hand....
  Just hope a retrovirus doesn't get into your library....
How fast? by cyberjock1980 · 2012-08-16 07:34 · Score: 2

It appears on the surface that the data isn't quickly(sub-ms speeds) stored or recovered. This technology could be very useful for backing up large quantities of data. The real question is how many MB/GB/whatever per second can be read/written to this new "media"?
1. Re:How fast? by coldandcalculating · 2012-08-16 07:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The fastest DNA polymerases can copy a template at around 250 bases/sec. Chemical DNA synthesis is much slower.
  
  As for read speeds, DNA sequencing can be done serially (500-800 bases in a matter of hours - 1 cent per base) or massively parallel (100-200 bases per read; 100 million reads; overnight - $1000 per chip by year's end?)
  
  Tools allowing for rapid synthesis (write) and sequencing (read) of DNA would enable a biotech revolution similar in scope and impact to the computing revolution of the last century. As far as I know, this technology is still incredibly far away, but definitely merits relentless R&D.
2. Re:How fast? by rnaiguy · 2012-08-16 08:36 · Score: 2
  
  Given the machine they used in the paper to read the data back, it would take about 10 DAYS to read out the data they encoded. The problem is that it takes that time to get any data at all. So they could parrallelize it to get better MB/sec (or realistically MB/hr), but with current tech, the latency is 10 days, with a theoretical maximum of 100gigabits of uncompressed data read out in that time, (but realistically much less since they rely on redundancy to reduce error, and have overhead for their encoding system).
3. Re:How fast? by Cyberax · 2012-08-16 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Also, common sequencing techniques require amplification of DNA and read it in very small batches (hundreds of base pairs). These batches then have to be painstakingly assembled - think about assembling a puzzle from a billion fragments, some of which are duplicated, overlapping and/or have errors.
  
  And such assembly is definitely not an easy process if you don't have a reference genome to help you.
4. Re:How fast? by mattr · 2012-08-16 20:59 · Score: 1
  
  All your bases...
In other news ... by maxwell+demon · 2012-08-16 07:39 · Score: 1

In other news, they are now sued for copyright infringment. :-)

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
1. Re:In other news ... by Tablizer · 2012-08-16 08:14 · Score: 2
  
  Patent lawsuits will be worse now; Apple just merged with God.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
Genetically-Modified Schoolbooks? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-16 07:42 · Score: 1

Soon, students will be able to claim that their homework ate them!
1. Re:Genetically-Modified Schoolbooks? by Tablizer · 2012-08-16 08:17 · Score: 2
  
  Soon, students will be able to claim that their homework ate them!
  The assignment was about Soviet Russia, no doubt.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
Self-replicating textbooks? by drdread66 · 2012-08-16 07:42 · Score: 1

Man, are the educational publishers going to get cheesed about this.
Not even if it's storing Lord of the Hobbits? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-08-16 07:45 · Score: 1

"I still don't want your DNA anywhere near me, nerd!"

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Put the DNA in a cell already by Yvan256 · 2012-08-16 07:46 · Score: 2

They already tried it. It became a human.
Skip the Library of Congress, go for Wales by G3ckoG33k · 2012-08-16 07:46 · Score: 1

Skip the Library of Congress for once. Why not go for a small country, like Wales (no, not Jimmy or his deed). That would be an effort worth bragging about!
I hope that they have good error correction... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-08-16 07:51 · Score: 2

I would think that copying errors and degradation would be a serious issue if attempting to use DNA for arbitrary data storage. In organisms, we can even observe some segments of DNA(like those that code for elements of vital metabolic processes) are highly similar across a broad range of organisms, while non-coding or minimally important regions can vary wildly from individual to individual or even cell to cell; because the penalty for getting them wrong is so low...
Unless the data you are interested in also have, by some impressive coincidence, vital biological importance cruft buildup(or even substantial deletion) could be quite rapid. DNA isn't without self repair mechanisms; but one of the big ones is 'mutants dying' rather than something more elegant.
Just in time by arielCo · 2012-08-16 07:53 · Score: 3, Funny

The answer to the last Ask Slashdot: Protecting Data From a Carrington Event?:

I've been wondering: is it actually possible to store or protect data in such a way that if such an event occurred, data survives and is recoverable in a useful form? Optical and magnetic media would probably be rendered useless by a large enough solar flare, and storing source code/graphics in paper format would be impractical to recover, so Slashdot, short of building a Faraday cage 100 km below the surface of the Moon, how could you protect data to survive a modern day Carrington event?"
So, kactusotp, there you have it: splice it into as many mice / E. coli as needed, release into the wild.

--
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
1. Re:Just in time by Hatta · 2012-08-16 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  The real question is how you guarantee data integrity. If there's no selective pressure maintaining the data, mutations, insertions, deletions, etc, *will* occur. How do you checksum DNA?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
2. Re:Just in time by aristotle-dude · 2012-08-16 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  The real question is how you guarantee data integrity. If there's no selective pressure maintaining the data, mutations, insertions, deletions, etc, *will* occur. How do you checksum DNA?
  Huh? DNA is being use as a storage medium. There is a chance for the protein strains to deteriorate or denature but DNA is no different than any other strain of proteins. You are assuming that this is being stored in a organism of some sort which could "evolve" or that is it laid out in any sort of helix pattern with a self-replication mechanism intact.
  
  --
  Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Meh by Artraze · 2012-08-16 07:55 · Score: 1

Cool achievement, to be sure, but for data storage? There are a great many ways of achieving ultra high density data storage that have been performed in the lab and are 'only 10 years away'. The trouble always is the engineering: how expensive, how fast, how much, how reliable? One strand isn't too big a deal, but it'll only store maybe 1GB. Now you need thousands of strands and a way to page through them. And maybe a way to seek within them. Etc.
Again, really cool accomplishment, but I can't see it being practical for anything but an organic computer as I have to think organic tech will outpace organic at pretty much every step. (For example, see racetrack memory as a sort of alternative that is already much more viable.)
At a gaga act. by Hatta · 2012-08-16 07:59 · Score: 1

What sort of textbook can you write with nothing but G, A, T, and C?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1. Re:At a gaga act. by bmo · 2012-08-16 08:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  What sort of textbook can you write with nothing but G, A, T, and C?
  The same sort of textbook you can write in zeroes and ones, but in base 4 instead of base 2.
  Happy now?
  --
  BMO
2. Re:At a gaga act. by Tablizer · 2012-08-16 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  What sort of textbook can you write with nothing but G, A, T, and C?
  Something about choking cats
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
Here's an example by Okian+Warrior · 2012-08-16 08:09 · Score: 2

I can't think of an example from something that everyone should know, but I'll attempt to answer this.
1) There are two tides each day, one when the moon is directly overhead, and one when the moon is directly underneath. Since the gravitational attraction of the moon causes tides, can you explain why there is a tide when the moon is directly underneath?
2) The fourier transform converts from time domain to frequency domain; ie - it takes an audio WAV file of amplitudes over time and converts it to a list of frequencies over time. To do this you multiply by a complex exponential and integrate. Can you explain why this works? In other words, why does multiplying by the exponential and integrating convert from time domain to frequency domain? (Don't look at the answer until you can explain it yourself.)
3) In economics it is well known that a little inflation is good, a lot of inflation is bad, and negative inflation is very bad. Can you tell me what the correct value is? Can you tell me how important it is to hit the correct value exactly (ie - is the good/bad measure relatively flat or sharply peaked)? Can you tell me how to measure inflation in such a way that all economists would agree?
1. Re:Here's an example by tibit · 2012-08-16 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  Personal anecdote re.2, and I hope I'm not mixing it up too much. I eventually understood it in linear algebra. The integration happens to work like a dot product of two vectors, if you consider linear vector space of functions. If you think of abstract vector spaces, it becomes (eventually) quite blatant that it must be so. To me the big point was wrapping my head around the fact that "vectors of numbers" are merely representations of abstract vectors in a certain base, and that the abstract vectors are just that. It so happens that functions form vector spaces too. The set of exponentials of a certain form happen to form a base of the vector space of functions. The frequency domain happens to be equivalent to a certain orthonormal basis. Other interesting domains (like quefrency) have their own bases as well.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
2. Re:Here's an example by Plunky · 2012-08-16 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  There are two tides each day, one when the moon is directly overhead, and one when the moon is directly underneath. Since the gravitational attraction of the moon causes tides, can you explain why there is a tide when the moon is directly underneath?
  Except that your statement is not actually true.. some places only have one tide per day, and even when there are two it is not directly aligned to the moon as the tides are caused by the water slopping back and forth, rather than following the moon around the planet.
  I don't know enough about fourier transforms to comment on your second example, and your third is very oriented towards the current economic management who would like you to think that what they do is correct, but you might like to note that those people are generally getting richer at our expense, so I'm taking whatever they say with a pinch of salt.
Fundies by Tablizer · 2012-08-16 08:09 · Score: 2

encoded an entire genetics textbook in DNA...
Fundamentalists did the same thing. Here is the decoded version:
G O D . D I D . I T

--
Table-ized A.I.
1. Re:Fundies by Empiric · 2012-08-16 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, anything that has specifically 23 pairs of chromosomes is expected to be able to infer it.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
So much for "I forgot my book at home!" by Picass0 · 2012-08-16 08:21 · Score: 1

Another great high school excuse bites the dust.
Mutation by dskoll · 2012-08-16 08:21 · Score: 1

Fovr sc9re+and sexen ypars agz ovr f{theRs bromght fprth *n th2s cont&nent a ne= natin, congeived in lkbprty, and dWdicmted tx the pr;pos|tion thqt alll mvn are creyted equap.
Star Trek by SuperTechnoNerd · 2012-08-16 08:27 · Score: 2

There was a star trek episode where this klingon could inject himself with encoded top secret files. I see reality is catching up with sci-fi
1. Re:Star Trek by AioKits · 2012-08-16 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the episode, The Drumhead?
  
  --
  "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
2. Re:Star Trek by SuperTechnoNerd · 2012-08-17 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Thats the one!
Human engineering is bad by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-16 08:36 · Score: 1

Human engineering is bad not only because of intrinsic moral problems, but also because it would lead to societal catastrophe. Imagine multiple countries engaging in supersoldier arms race.
1. Re:Human engineering is bad by Jade_Wayfarer · 2012-08-17 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  I think said catastrophe would be completely internal - imagine a whole generation of people learning about the world around them, and the more they learn, the more they feel a dissonance between real experience and DNA-memory. And there will be dissonance - even in the disciplines of simplest weapons handling, tactics, first aid and so on there will be enough ideological crap and simple "mind-washing". Great recipe for the severe psychosis, not for the supersoldier army.
  
  --
  Absence of proof != proof of absence.
It will no longer be called "Fapping" by xaotikdesigns · 2012-08-16 08:39 · Score: 1

You are now just getting deleting unneeded files.

--
XDInd
use for spy messages? by peter303 · 2012-08-16 08:45 · Score: 1

You code inject secret message into pigeon DNA ...

I think this was a plot of Star Trek TNG episode: some ancient part of our DNA had a message from our long, lost Creators.
Big by grumpyman · 2012-08-16 08:57 · Score: 1

Big Brown Bear?
Near perfect backup by joe_frisch · 2012-08-16 08:59 · Score: 1

Encode the data into DNA, then splice the DNA fragment into a self reproducing organism and release into the environment. You end up with trillions of copies of the original data distributed all over the world. (error correction codes would deal with transcription mistakes)
Future generations, even future sentient life forms millions of years later would the be able to decode the data. It would be very obvious as soon as they had sequencing technology: organisms with large parts of their DNA that don't code for anything useful...........
1. Re:Near perfect backup by Jahava · 2012-08-16 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Encode the data into DNA, then splice the DNA fragment into a self reproducing organism and release into the environment. You end up with trillions of copies of the original data distributed all over the world. (error correction codes would deal with transcription mistakes)
  Future generations, even future sentient life forms millions of years later would the be able to decode the data. It would be very obvious as soon as they had sequencing technology: organisms with large parts of their DNA that don't code for anything useful...........
  It's a cool thought. Another possibility, though, is that evolution would, within a few (relatively speaking) generations, completely reject the the superfluous DNA as inefficient and/or unfit. Duplicating it costs energy and matter, and transcription errors and/or cross-gene sharing may actually ruin critical parts of the animal. Given evolution's tendency towards optimization, it seems almost inevitable that the information wouldn't survive in even the short (again, relatively-speaking) term.
  Another independent (and conflicting) fun thought is: "what if it's already been done?" Would be cool if we were walking books :)
2. Re:Near perfect backup by rodarson2k · 2012-08-16 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  You've made a few errors in your fun theoretical musing:
  1) Most of our DNA is, in fact, superfluous, as far as we can tell. Less of is superfluous than we thought a few years ago, but more than we thought ten years ago.
  2) Evolution does not tend towards optimization. It trends towards "good enough". Extra DNA only matters if you're a bacterial cell, and the rate-limiting step in your growth is the replication of your entire cellular DNA. In many ways, for a human, noncoding DNA is beneficial - random errors and strand breaks are less likely to corrupt important parts of your file if a good chunk is noise anyway.
  3) It has, technically, already been done (although not released). Venter's synthetic life form has genetic "watermarks" embedded in it. Nothing as awesome as an entire book, but the premise is there.
3. Re:Near perfect backup by Jahava · 2012-08-16 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  You've made a few errors in your fun theoretical musing:
  Oh goodie, someone who talks like this...
  
  1) Most of our DNA is, in fact, superfluous, as far as we can tell. Less of is superfluous than we thought a few years ago, but more than we thought ten years ago.
  Sounds like we've got it right this time, though! Assuming you're referencing Junk DNA, there's a world of difference between "no discernable function" and "superfluous". Additionally, even with an upper bound in DNA functional density, there's no reason to assume there isn't also an optimal upper bound to superfluous-to-functional DNA ratio. Adding a massive chunk of DNA to an organism is going to have some effect, you have to agree, and with no functional purpose there's very little evolutionary reason not to just whittle it down to nothing. After all, if there was actually a benefit to more superfluous DNA, evolution's had plenty of time to add it.
  So, I guess, thanks for really not saying anything at all.
  
  2) Evolution does not tend towards optimization. It trends towards "good enough". Extra DNA only matters if you're a bacterial cell, and the rate-limiting step in your growth is the replication of your entire cellular DNA. In many ways, for a human, noncoding DNA is beneficial - random errors and strand breaks are less likely to corrupt important parts of your file if a good chunk is noise anyway.
  There is a lot of naiveté in this part of your response. First, "good enough" is a form of optimization; it's just an optimization across factors other than straight efficiency. Second, there is a cost to copying useless DNA, bacterial cell or not, and unless there is a benefit to offset the cost, an organism that sheds that DNA will be fitter than one that doesn't. If, for example, I stuffed a kilogram of extra DNA into your cell, it'd probably matter, even if you aren't bacteria. You're asserting, without any logic, that this cost fits into some magical "good enough" threshold you have just conjured. Cool threshold bro.
  
  3) It has, technically, already been done (although not released). Venter's synthetic life form has genetic "watermarks" embedded in it. Nothing as awesome as an entire book, but the premise is there.
  It's painfully obvious that my "what if it's already been done" statement was not referencing other synthetic human works, but rather the natural genome. Just a heads up, but your genes may be missing some padding around your Broca's Area expression ;)
4. Re:Near perfect backup by joe_frisch · 2012-08-16 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  Just to continue the musing...
  IF our (or some other species) did have data intentionally stored in their DNA it was presumably done in a way to allow it be deciphered after a long period of time, without a key, and with accumulated errors. I wonder if anyone has thought of how you might code such a signal, and what sort of analysis of patterns would let you detect it. Then - has anyone analyzed known "junk" sequences to see if there is encoded data. Imagine finding a prime-number sequence in DNA somewhere.....
  (gives a whole new meaning to intelligent design).
  Is there any message (probably could only be a few MB) that is worth passing down through the eons?
Library of Congress outdated? by IgnitusBoyone · 2012-08-16 09:07 · Score: 1

If a gram of DNA can hold a Library of Congress we are going to need a new unit of measure here at database when having storage debates.

--
Momento Mori
Fun way to spread the knowledge by rohit+krishnan · 2012-08-16 09:13 · Score: 1

And finally Discovery channel can stop relying on animal sex to sell ratings ...
Good luck reading it by thisisauniqueid · 2012-08-16 09:51 · Score: 1

Good luck reading it for less than several thousand dollars. And I thought my textbooks were expensive.
Re:Put the DNA in a cell already by pushing-robot · 2012-08-16 10:05 · Score: 1

And is colloquially known as "Stephen Fry".

--
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
The return of LoC as a unit of information by Old+Wolf · 2012-08-16 11:00 · Score: 1

I know you guys aren't fond of the metric system , but does data have to
be measured in "libraries of Congress" ?
Having never been to said library, this doesn't make much of an impression on me. Any official conversion ratio?
Google claims 1 LoC = 235 TB.
1. Re:The return of LoC as a unit of information by WillAffleckUW · 2012-08-16 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the original Library of Congress was just a few books in a couple of bookshelves.
  It changes in size each year.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
And they shall call virii by the name Editors by WillAffleckUW · 2012-08-16 12:51 · Score: 1

What if they outsource the Editors of this publication to India or Canada?
Will those viruses that edit the DNA replace all the words like "color" and "soccer" with "colour" and "football"?
I'll just get out my laser scalpel and hack away at it ...
Also, does this mean we can get a glow in the dark version of the text just by adding a His-tag green glowy gene like we do in the labs to make cancer surgery easy by docking phosphorescent ligands to rewrite the cancer DNA to glow, allowing us to make sure we got all the cancer just by turning off the lights briefly?

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Now corporate espionage will actually be fun! by WillAffleckUW · 2012-08-16 12:56 · Score: 1

If this carries on, corporate espionage will involve buying drinks for executives and getting a few cells they leave on their wine glass.
Hmmm.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
1. Re:Now corporate espionage will actually be fun! by ceoyoyo · 2012-08-16 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  That's the most fun way you can think of to get someone's DNA?
2. Re:Now corporate espionage will actually be fun! by WillAffleckUW · 2012-08-17 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  That's the most fun way you can think of to get someone's DNA?
  No. But it is the one I'll talk about.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It has to be karma by hyades1 · 2012-08-16 13:27 · Score: 1

I guess turnabout's fair play. They put a whole genetics textbook into a small amount of DNA. Somehow that seems nobler than the serious error of judgment I committed when I bought my "Victorian Underground Literature" textbook in a used book store. It probably had enough DNA in it to populate a small galaxy.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
He wrote the book... and vice versa... by Polo · 2012-08-16 14:51 · Score: 1

If you wrote the book into someone's DNA, you could be the book.
It's SYNTHETIC DNA by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-08-16 15:00 · Score: 1

The data was recorded into SYNTHETIC DNA, not the ones produced in nature

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:It's SYNTHETIC DNA by RaceProUK · 2012-08-16 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  And that's significant why?
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Obligatory (but still funny) SMBC by wisebabo · 2012-08-16 17:11 · Score: 1

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2122
Also, as far as prior art goes, when the New York Times asked a bunch of futurists what they would propose for the time capsule they were building for the year 2000 (this was for the millenial issue), Jaron Lanier (I think) suggested that information be DNA encoded and put into cockroaches. The thinking was that they were indestructible and still be ubiquitous in a thousand years.
No mechanism for preventing copying errors was described though so it would likely be like that game of "telephone" where each person orally conveys to the next a message but many many times (worse). How many cockroach generations would there be in a thousand years? Also the radioactivity from the Armageddon(s) would likely speed up mutations!
1. Re:Obligatory (but still funny) SMBC by cffrost · 2012-08-16 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  How many cockroach generations would there be in a thousand years?
  
  ~3,000 to ~4,000.
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
MPAA and RIAA are already lobbying Congress by obstacleman · 2012-08-17 01:17 · Score: 1

And in a related story, the MPAA and RIAA has successfully lobbied Congress to ban any technology that allows copying of the stored information by claiming pirates will use it and ruin their industry. From this day forward it is now illegal to be in possession of RNA or mRNA. All life as we know it is in violation of the law.
What could possibly go wrong? by Hillgiant · 2012-08-17 01:23 · Score: 1

Obligatory Dresden Codak link: http://dresdencodak.com/2009/07/12/fabulous-prizes/

--
-