The IBM patent server doesn't give you the full text of the patent. Here is the URL to fulltext of the patent as provided by the US Patent and Trademark Office. Enjoy!
Re:bioinformatics and cryptography
on
DNA Encryption
·
· Score: 1
Point taken. Nonetheless I think people around here need to be hit on the head with a "Not Everything Can Be Reduced To A Facile Computer Analogy" stick.
How about a coding sequence for an autoendopeptidase that post-translationally cuts itself up into fragments whose noncovalent interactions reveal the plaintext?
Or maybe I should just stop sniffing glue.
Maybe not encryption, but more than steganography
on
DNA Encryption
·
· Score: 1
It's just a nit that I'd like to pick, but without knowing the PCR primer "password", it's unlikely that you'd be able to amplify enough DNA to read its sequence.
So, no: The DNA is not exactly sitting there "in the clear" and able to be read. Not only do you need to know where it is, you also need to know a little bit about what it is.
But, yeah, technically you're right: The message isn't encrypted. Encoded, certainly, but not encrypted. Maybe if you define "encrypt" as "hide" but I digress.
This article is so content-free, it hardly bears comment except for the hysteria it seems to be inducing.
First of all, the technology described here -- synthesis of DNA oligomers and use of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect them -- is old hat. Every molecular biology lab in the world has been using these techniques routinely for over 15 years.
Second of all, coding DNA into something biologically "meaningful" is orders of magnitude more difficult than spelling out a message.
Finally, you all already can be uniquely identified by your DNA. Nobody needs to implant an ID in you, Big Brother can just take a drop of blood from you and store your DNA fingerprint in a database if he thinks you're worth looking after.
In closing, I would urge everyone not to look at biology (or even bioinformatics) through a hacker's eyes -- it doesn't work; the two fields don't map to each other well.
Oh, PS: If you want to see something genuinely cool being done with DNA by a hacker, check out Adleman's (the "A" in RSA) tackling the travelling salesman problem with DNA oligomers. (Sorry I don't have a cite handy.)
How about this? "Emergent behavior is unexpected behavior that's cool."
I don't want to sound too critical, because it's a fascinating field, I just wish people wouldn't hold the concept of "emergent behavior" in such mystical reverence.
Check out the Santa Fe Institute if you haven't done so already. Also, Mitch Waldrop's
"Emergent" behavior seems to be an exact synonym for "unexpected" behavior. Yes, complex interactions among simple components can give rise to interesting behaviors, but "emergent" behavior seems to me to be nothing more than a phenomenon of our own limited intelligence. Just because you couldn't predict the outcome ahead of time doesn't make it magic, because even the smartest person who ever lived has a finite amount of intelligence, and trying to predict a complex system falls prey quickly to a combinatoric explosion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of unexpected behavior.)
Slashdot Mirror
The IBM patent server doesn't give you the full text of the patent.
Here is the URL to fulltext of the patent as provided by the US Patent and Trademark Office. Enjoy!
Point taken. Nonetheless I think people around here need to be hit on the head with a "Not Everything Can Be Reduced To A Facile Computer Analogy" stick.
How about a coding sequence for an autoendopeptidase that post-translationally cuts itself up into fragments whose noncovalent interactions reveal the plaintext?
Or maybe I should just stop sniffing glue.
It's just a nit that I'd like to pick,
but without knowing the PCR primer "password",
it's unlikely that you'd be able to amplify
enough DNA to read its sequence.
So, no: The DNA is not exactly sitting there
"in the clear" and able to be read. Not only do you need to know where it is, you also need to know a little bit about what it is.
But, yeah, technically you're right: The message isn't encrypted. Encoded, certainly, but not encrypted. Maybe if you define "encrypt" as "hide" but I digress.
This article is so content-free, it hardly
bears comment except for the hysteria it seems
to be inducing.
First of all, the technology described here --
synthesis of DNA oligomers and use of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect
them -- is old hat. Every molecular biology lab in the world has been using these techniques
routinely for over 15 years.
Second of all, coding DNA into something
biologically "meaningful" is orders of
magnitude more difficult than spelling out a message.
Finally, you all already can be uniquely identified by your DNA. Nobody needs to implant an ID in you, Big Brother can just take a drop of blood from you and store your DNA fingerprint in a database if he thinks you're worth looking after.
In closing, I would urge everyone not to look at biology (or even bioinformatics) through a hacker's eyes -- it doesn't work; the two fields don't map to each other well.
Oh, PS: If you want to see something genuinely cool being done with DNA by a hacker, check out Adleman's (the "A" in RSA) tackling the travelling salesman problem with DNA oligomers. (Sorry I don't have a cite handy.)
"Emergent behavior is unexpected behavior that's cool."
I don't want to sound too critical, because it's
a fascinating field, I just wish people wouldn't hold
the concept of "emergent behavior" in such mystical reverence.
Check out the Santa Fe Institute if you haven't done so already.
Also, Mitch Waldrop's
- Complexity
is a good intro."Emergent" behavior seems to be an exact synonym for "unexpected" behavior.
Yes, complex interactions among simple components can give rise to
interesting behaviors, but "emergent" behavior seems to me to be
nothing more than a phenomenon of our own limited intelligence.
Just because you couldn't predict the outcome ahead of time doesn't make it magic,
because even the smartest person who ever lived has a finite amount of intelligence,
and trying to predict a complex system falls prey quickly to a combinatoric explosion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of unexpected behavior.)
The Federal government gets its money
from "the people," not from "the states."
It seems like a small point, but it was this
very distinction that justified the formation
of a Federal government in the first place.