From: jg nlb (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 02:27:45 MDT
assumingly, people are most productive from 20 to 40, then if we could
extend a little bit this period. Say until 50, or even enhance people
health. In fact that's already what's happening. The point would be to
have an exact measure of this.
Otherwise, of course humans are already "living" dna based machine.
>From: Cliff Stabbert <email@example.com>
>To: Dani Eder <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: Hardware Progress: $272/GFlop/s
>Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:23:07 -0400
>Monday, August 26, 2002, 9:49:48 PM, Dani Eder wrote:
>DE> Variables like speed of genome sequencing are a
>DE> consequence of computers and automated equipment,
>DE> not an independant variable. Progress in biology
>DE> will not change the world in the next 25 years
>DE> as much as the other variables listed above.
>Would DNA-based computing fall into a biological category or just be
>another aspect of Moore's law? My impression was that it could enable
>quite a leap in processing speed/power.
Discutez en ligne avec vos amis ! http://messenger.msn.fr
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:40 MDT