What is Digg?68 Comments
- Samsara, on 07/25/2008, -3/+62I left some DNA on my keyboard once... nothing too special happened.
- obsolite, on 07/25/2008, -0/+30Will Computers Ever Use Potato Chips Instead of Silicon Chips?
No. - magneticdozer, on 07/25/2008, -5/+25my computer is already covered in DNA if you catch my drift
- 5730, on 07/25/2008, -0/+18Will Humans Ever Use Silicon Chips Instead of DNA?
- aimhelix, on 07/25/2008, -0/+18Yes. And if you give it breakfast, it will perform better. Caffeine will overclock it, followed by a crash a few hours later.
- brandmankajan, on 07/25/2008, -0/+17You raped it?
- roostersheep, on 01/16/2009, -1/+18I love this comment for the wrong reasons.
- serif69, on 07/25/2008, -0/+16You covered it in the peeled flesh of a murdered hooker?
- inactive, on 07/25/2008, -1/+15I did too, and a few things happened, but none of them were related to the computer.
- inactive, on 07/25/2008, -1/+13We mean Sperm, not Vomit...
- ConceptualTrap, on 07/25/2008, -2/+13Someone was already not-clever two minutes before you.
- grungegbunny, on 07/25/2008, -2/+9person: "Computer pull up my list of applicants for the luke warm fusion project."
computer: "I forgot how." - TastyLamp, on 07/25/2008, -0/+7I get hair in the keyboard too.
- bradleyland, on 07/25/2008, -2/+8The answer to a question no one is asking.
- boulderomen, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4“Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window.” -The Woz
- inactive, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4Oh no I downloaded a virus.
- cababika799, on 07/25/2008, -1/+5And once again Star Trek predicts the future of tech. Bio-neural gel packs anyone?
- alperea, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4was it ectoplasm from a ghost?
- KWhat, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4Just an short PSA: DNA computers are only good at NP-Complete style problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-complete
It should also be noted that instead of spending your time processing, you spend your time setting up the problem for processing. Something good may come of it as far as cpu design goes but i highly doubt you will be looking at porn to power folding@home projects. - magneticdozer, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3is that possible
- faatbuddha, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3But then, it was only haploid DNA...
of course nothing was going to happen! - inactive, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3Hey, The previous one was much more clever.
- nothix, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Impossible is exactly what geeks everywhere want to hear.
Now there is a goal =P - ihaterobots, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2ironically, there was an interesting piece at ecogeek today on just this topic, stating the exact opposite viewpoint:
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1913/ - WombleSlayer, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3I sure as hell hope not, did you not play Portal?
- DrTeeth01, on 07/25/2008, -5/+6DNA computing has already been around for millions of years. It's so advanced that it even builds its own hardware.
- jbmcb, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I don't think the problem is in the architecture of the molecular computer, I think the problem is inherent in what DNA is and what it does. It's basically just a storage medium for holding a bunch of data in such a way that simple organic structures can use it to replicate themselves. There is no inherent benefit to this as far as computing goes, the same could be done with microscopic carbon structures driving a mechanical chain.
The main drawback to DNA processing is it's slow, you can't pull DNA apart and analyze it quickly, or you'd end up damaging the molecule. The human mitochondria copies nucleotides at about 50 pairs per second, which really isn't very fast considering how little data is in a single nucleotide pair. - inactive, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1oh ***** you found another flaw!
- WhiteRaven, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Actually, that would incorrect. DNA is more akin to a floppy disk. It holds information. It is used by other structures.
- WhiteRaven, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Silicon is just used as a semi-conductor. Beyond a bit of doping, messing with it's chemical make up (that is, using other compounds) would either make no difference or, much more likely, simply not work at all.
Computing is about the *shape* of circuits, not chemical composition. - inactive, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1DNA Computing is interesting, but until PCR is able to be done in nano seconds (it's done in minutes now), DNA computing is pointless.
- Suzilla, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1When electronic computers were first conceived, they were literally wired for a specific purpose. They were not "programmable" in the sense we think of today. To change the way a computer worked you had to re-wire it, internally, to create a DIFFERENT computer. The economics of this quickly become prohibitive as the size and complexity of the task increases, making this approach far inferior to a general-purpose, programmable machine.
However, if the economics are different -- if it is in fact much cheaper to create a new computer for each task, a computer that is far better-suited to that task than the programmable, electronic sort, you now have incentive for development and deployment of special-purpose computers. It is in this regard that I think the article is off the mark, and that it may someday be possible to create DNA-based computing "devices". - WhiteRaven, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1As the article says, the idea is an old one. And like many speculative notions, it doesn't really hold water. It's something that is possible but has no practical benefits or applications with the possible exception of calculations relating to actual biologic systems.
- Suzilla, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1My (admittedly very weak) understanding of DNA analysis is that one doesn't so much pull it apart as splice in markers that are detectable, such as florescence or radio-isotope signature. That aside, we don't use the results of computations by pulling apart the program mid-run; it's typically a black-box out of which we derive some sort of result. I the case of a DNA-based computer, it would be the analog of a protein. Binary logic could be implemented by detection of the presence (or absense) of such products and one could even imagine constructing logic gates, emulating binary processes that we use in digital computers.
But, that would rather defeat the purpose, the massive (and presumably cheap) parallelism tenable with DNA "processors". We would have to truly re-think the whole way we go about representing and processing information, including computational/logic "states" seeing as the binary/digital paradigm would quickly absorb and obviate any efficiencies gained. - kraftj, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Why is this in the images section?
- mstachiw, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1as life has proved no usually means within the next 200 years
- Heidenreich12, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2If you asked someone a couple hundred years ago if we would have airplanes, they would think you were crazy... same with automobiles.... so i really do not take this doubt to the heart, though I do understand if it ever did happen, that it would be a longtime
- WhiteRaven, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1While I dugg you for an intelligent question, there's actually a problem with it. Will we integrate silicon chips or their successors into human bodies? Of course... it's happening now and will continue to spread. But such things will never be used in place of DNA. That makes no sense. (They could in extreme cases be used to modify DNA).
- RandomGorilla, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1either that or sex-bots of the future could get their DNA programming damaged ore 'mutated' and turn a man's penis into a decorative origami swan.
- lilhelper, on 08/04/2008, -0/+0you are severely underestimating the speed of our technoligical advancements.
In 10 years, the computing world has done more than it has in its existence prior to this 10 year time period. Its growing at an exponentially fast rate. - redscofield, on 07/25/2008, -2/+2i hope not...
- lilhelper, on 08/04/2008, -0/+0DNA, billions of small computers are inside of us.
What are they doing?
Running out entire body and so much more. They are running the world.
Ever wonder what the computer virus got its name from?
well, I can tell you they are synonymous in both worlds. - pauls88, on 07/25/2008, -6/+6no...
- Giga, on 07/26/2008, -0/+0Oh *****, not again.
- linagee, on 07/25/2008, -2/+1OM NOM NOM NOM
- obsolite, on 07/25/2008, -1/+0Was it AIDS?
- wsuBobby, on 07/25/2008, -4/+3Reply to internet cliché with newer internet gnome cliché.
- jsd8cc, on 07/25/2008, -2/+1(psst..."satire")
- whoaohh, on 07/25/2008, -4/+3Silicon has potential to be more complex than carbon based DNA anyway, with the possibility of more bonds than carbon's four. What we need to figure out is how induce the properties of DNA into a silicon-based strand.
- obsolite, on 07/25/2008, -3/+1Do you work at Jurrassic Park?
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is