
I think the main interesting thing is that it would (apparently) give a higher density of data storage than current solid state technologies. That might not be true by the time they make it practical, though....
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:11,
archived)

"1.8E22 bits (2.25 zettaoctets) – amount of information which can be stored in 1 gram of DNA", sounds hard to beat to me
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:16,
archived)

whoever wrote that article needs to learn to right in standard form:
1.8x1022
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:44,
archived)
1.8x1022

but when i pasted it, it lost the formatting, and i couldnt be bothered to add it back in, since most people know what it means anyway
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:46,
archived)

fair enough, thought some cunt at wikipaedia had well, been a cunt at wikipaedia.
/hates wikipaedia blog
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:49,
archived)
/hates wikipaedia blog

But bases are reasonably sized molecules, not to mention the sugar phosphate 'scaffolding'; it's not totally unreasonable to imagine you could build something which handled the same amount of data with fewer atoms; or trim some of the extra stuff away, start substituting other atoms, or use other base modifications (e.g. methylation, glycosylation, I think) to increase data density.
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:29,
archived)

i guess one of the denseist you could get is a lattic of e.g a metal with two atoms, with the atom at the lattice point dictating the 1 or zero.
use Li/Na, one mole~10gms, which would give Nabits (Na= avagadros number)=~10E22B/gm, which is about the same, which makes me suspect that wiki may be lieing
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:37,
archived)
use Li/Na, one mole~10gms, which would give Nabits (Na= avagadros number)=~10E22B/gm, which is about the same, which makes me suspect that wiki may be lieing

Carbon and hydrogen atoms are lighter than sodium and lithium respectively....
( ,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 15:15,
archived)