DNA Strands Modified Into Tiny Fiber-Optic Cables 113
holy_calamity writes "New Scientist reports on the latest idea from researchers trying to make microcomputers use photons in place of electrons — to make optical interconnects from strands of DNA. Mixing DNA strands with the right dye molecule upgrades them into wires for light, like microscopic optical fibers, able to absorb photons at one end and transmit them to the other. One of the neat things about using DNA is it is the right scale to play nicely with existing and future chip lithography. Quoting: 'The result is similar to natural photonic wires found inside organisms like algae, where they are used to transport photons to parts of a cell where their energy can be tapped. In these wires, chromophores are lined up in chains to channel photons.'"
Re:Right scale... (Score:3, Insightful)
You be afraid. I can't wait. Oh the trans-humanity!
Re:Light beings (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, because our brains are light based (Score:2, Insightful)
How exactly does implanting optic wires into your brain do anything except give you a possible headache.
We have had electrodes for ages, so anyone wanting to create a brain-computer interface already had the tech. Oooh, and they already done it.
Mind you, you are the perfect sample for my next paper. "Tinfoil-hats linked to permanent brain damage."
new plan, people (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Use DNA-based fiber-optics in the major backbones of the internet
2. Spread rumor that the DNA comes from fetal stem cells from forcibly aborted babies, white christian babies!
3. Watch right-wingers shut down their sites and flee the internet so they won't be taking part in the satanic evil of telecommunications.
4. Remind them that their phone calls go over that same satanic fiber so they can't use phones, either.
5. Gin up a new rumor that the power lines are being replaced by baby DNA fiber-optics, too, mail that to them in a chain letter.
6. Watch them become the new Amish, shunning baby DNA-based demon technology, spinning their hate into hand-crafted quilts sold by the roadside.
7. ??? Maybe if we're still feeling malicious, convince them buttons use baby DNA, too.
8. Profit!
Re:The organisation of life (Score:5, Insightful)
I read the links. For someone divinely inspired, you're not a very good guesser.
I didn't see anything in there about "1914". Nor do I see the number "1914" anywhere in "the" bible [biblegateway.com].
The other "bibles" I'm talking about are those held sacred (and literal) by other faiths, such as the Mahabarata and other Vedic scriptures, any number of Buddhist sutras, the oral traditions of North American tribes, the Greek, Roman or Egyptian texts and traditions, and on and on around the world. Of course you don't think of those as "the bible", but rather just some superstition, but of course their believers think the same of yours, and of each other.
There are other things that have changed. Even the Hebrew torah changed in important ways about 2000 years ago, and there's plenty of analysis showing it changed from an original form to its form around the time of the Roman conquest in specific sections. And of course the original christian canon of over 400 different texts was reduced to the 4 in the "new testament" by a christian order about 1600 years ago. The persistence of biblical transcription and consistency through the millennia is still remarkable, but owes to the priority for exact transcription, and the fear of punishment for failure in both the living world, and the expected "afterlife". Zoroastrian gospel has been at least as consistent since about 3000 years ago, while spending its first millennium transmitted only orally, with at least as many "efforts to destroy it entirely".
There is no evidence that "the" bible you prefer is effective for family life, work ethic, view of money, treatment of fellow man, etc. Practically no one follows the entire literal prescriptions of the bible, to the exclusion of any other source of life guidance. And there are plenty of perfectly functional and happy people who follow their own bibles, with little influence sourced from "the" bible you prefer.
I know "the" bible, and its blindered, faithy adherents (of many denominations, many bibles), quite well, thank you. I also know science and reason, which make it easy to debunk any of the bible worshippers' contrived arguments like you've offered here. The only way that bible worship ever meets science and reason with any chance of survival is by willful blindness, or acceptance of science and reason debunking the bible except as a self-programming exercise in pure metaphysics.
The bible's got some good lessons, co-evolving with a successful style of civilization the dominance of which self-selects for successful life strategies within its constructed values. But it's a work of humans, even if quite an excellent one. Except maybe when it doesn't matter what's true, and what you're looking for is a good story to share with other people you like, when believing it's something supernatural is harmless fun. Taking it further than that is unwarranted, and usually leads to terrible consequences fairly quickly.
Re:The organisation of life (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no physical evidence of "divine creation". The whole point is that "god created the heavens and the Earth" by some miraculous act.
You're a Creationist. You "know" that god created existence, and Adam and Eve. The way you know it is by reading a book written before you were born. You have faith in that knowledge, which means you know something that cannot be either proven or disproven.
Others have their own faiths, like tribal Americans who believe a Creator created some garden plants, then made the first people out of them. Neither of you can prove the other is wrong, because faith is independent of proof. You're both guessing. It's sufficient for you, because you don't require proof to believe things.
I require proof. Until I get proof, I know that knowledge is merely provisional. And I don't take any serious actions based on provisional knowledge.
But regardless of the place for your way of knowing things, you are a Creationist. That you deny it just undermines any reason to respect the rest of what you claim to know.
Re:The organisation of life (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Get a list of 128 email addresses.
2) Pick a volatile stock.
3) Send half the list a "tip" that the stock will climb.
4) Send the other half a "tip" that it will fall.
5) Discard whatever half you gave bad advice to.
6) Repeat steps 2-5, five times
7) Send the remaining guy an email pointing out that you just picked six stock movements in a row, offer to give another tip in exchange for immortal soul and 10% of earthly income.
8) PROPHET!!
It's called survivor bias. When you decide which books are the holy ones and which are the heretical ones 1000 years after they get written, it's pretty easy to pick out the ones that were right.