ITT: dna data storage

>So what would happen ifl someone encodes the common virus with pedo porn?

A virus changes every time it copies itself. I'm sure storing info would be one off read-write shit.

>>8719185
So if I download some pedo porn to my computer and change a couple of bits of data, it's not kiddy porn any more?

File: 1478082863654.jpg (119KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 960x960px

>>8719237
You could write out a mathematical formula to change this image into child porn.


Actually, if you would write a program that would generate a picture of a 500x500 pixel image with every possible pixel combination (e.g. brute force style)
It would output the faces of every human that ever exist or will ever exist. But also your parents having sex, or you being at the receiving end of a bukake.

huh, that really activates those neurons.

>>8719346
something like that already exists for words and books
>it would contain every possible combination of 1,312,000 characters, including lower case letters, space, comma, and period. Thus, it would contain every book that ever has been written, and every book that ever could be - including every play, every song, every scientific paper, every legal decision, every constitution, every piece of scripture, and so on.
https://libraryofbabel.info/About.html

If you could find a method to convert characters into pixels then you could claim the library of babble is the worlds largest repository of child pornography.

>have to spend two grand in sequencing costs to retrieve your stored information

The biggest issue I see with DNA storage is you will lose critical parts of information randomly (because the information needs to be stored as short DNA fragments that are free floating) so you need a lot of redundancy as you store more and more data or you need a whole host of machinery to maintain the storage.

They calculated the redundancy as number of oligos designed over number of fragments needed, but you need much more than 1 oligo in the actual suspension that you use as input. They have 3ug of oligo in total, and they stored 2MB of data. So even if their technique scale (it doesn't) that's like 700GB in 1g of DNA if my calculation checks out?

Not to mention current method to decode it requires a PCR process so when you do store 1g of data as DNA you will need much higher redundancy than reported in the paper and your PCR reaction will be a nightmare.

File: parity-check.gif.png (56KB, 384x334px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 384x334px

>>8719502
Data stored in computers has error checking built right into the bytes. With binary data the error checking is limited. If 2 or more bits are incorrect it may not detect and error and may crash. With 4 base pairs it increases the success of error checking with a single parity bit increases dramatically.

Living DNA does not have this because if DNA was transcribed with 100% accuracy every time it would completely halt evolution.

>>8719635
I take it the shitty quality of that pic is supposed to be some form of meta humour.

>>8719635
>Data stored in computers has error checking built right into the bytes.
That's not how error checking and correction works.
Anyway, if you wanted to store data as DNA there's nothing stopping you throwing in a Reed-Solomon code.

>>8719047
So human beings are literal biological computers?