33 ms·

Your reasoning is flawed (and frankly, phrased slightly annoyingly in your other comments, in a way where you omit your core arguments in what seems like baitin

by y7 9y ago

Your reasoning is flawed (and frankly, phrased slightly annoyingly in your other comments, in a way where you omit your core arguments in what seems like baiting for replies). DNA storage provides durability [1] and information density (per weight) [2] beyond any current technology. 1: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201411378/abstract;jsessionid=98CF741BB3403A90D116E88837C59A01.f02t01 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201411378/ab... 2: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6328/950 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6328/950

dekhn 9y ago
That's not higher density because nobody actually made something that stores a unique terabyte in DNA. The Science paper stored a megabyte. Ewan Birney's paper stored a concatenation of the same string over and over again. Showing you can store a tiny amount of data and then claiming you have a density higher than hard drives isn't just poor marketing, it's outright lying. To show durability, you need to actually test things for the planned lifespan, or use intelligent mechanisms to test in a shorter lifespan. Then you can claim durability.