POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Data security Server Time
6 Sep 2024 23:19:53 EDT (-0400)
  Data security (Message 11 to 17 of 17)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages
From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: Data security
Date: 3 Nov 2008 15:15:36
Message: <490f5be8$1@news.povray.org>
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> What, you mean despite the minor detail that DNA molecules slowly 
>> decompose into simpler molecules and we're talking about animals that 
>> lived 70,000,000 years ago? :-P
> 
> Yep.

Riiiight. Oh well, please, don't let the laws of thermodymanics bother 
you... ;-)

>> Regardless, I doubt we'll be reanimating any long-dead animals any 
>> time soon.
> 
> Nope, likely not.  Altho I wouldn't bet my life on it... :-)

That's what the scientists are doing, isn't it? (If JP is anything to go 
by...!) ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*


Post a reply to this message

From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Data security
Date: 3 Nov 2008 21:57:38
Message: <490fba22$1@news.povray.org>
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> What, you mean despite the minor detail that DNA molecules slowly 
>>> decompose into simpler molecules and we're talking about animals that 
>>> lived 70,000,000 years ago? :-P
>>
>> Yep.
> 
> Riiiight. Oh well, please, don't let the laws of thermodymanics bother 
> you... ;-)
> 
Well, to be perfectly clear decomp requires either a) enough heat to 
break the molecular bonds of a material, or b) chemical reactions, 
usually microbial. If the conditions that preserve something doesn't 
produce the former, and the later is suspended or halted, then you don't 
get as "fast" a decomp. Its.. like the difference between sticking an 
book on a shelf for 500 years, or in a sealed glass case, with an inert 
gas. The former is going to disintegrate at a rate that varies a great 
deal on humidity, temperature, and if anything touches it at all, the 
later, might last a billion years, presuming the seal never fails. 
However, "some" of the legibility, structure, etc. will fail, so you get 
a very fragile, and possibly partly damaged, copy when its all over.

That said, there is also the matter that "some" DNA is more resistant to 
that erosion too, so lasts longer (in fact, one entire species, called 
water bears, could conceivably survive thousands, or maybe even 
millions, of years, in extreme dry, cold, or vacuum, and come back to 
life when the conditions allow (they don't really know how long the 
things "can" survive in a dormant state, but some revived in like... 200 
year old moss, or something). This is because the molecular bonds, sans 
anything to "actively" disrupt them, will remain "sort of" intact, and 
its possible for some configurations to be so stable, even in a 
multi-cell organism, so as to come close to making them indestructible, 
at least within a survivable range of conditions. And, finally, its 
possible from "some" structure to maybe be preserves, even if some 
replacement happens, in which case, since the replacement is likely to 
be a chemical process itself, as long as "most" of the structure is 
intact, you might be able to predict what was replaced, based on simple 
chemical rules.

All of which says only that you can possibly recover scattered fragments 
from say 5% of the animal's DNA? But, its **still** way more than 
thought possible, and enough to make "some" comparisons. The question 
comes down to, if 5% survived, is that the only 5% that "could", and if 
not, could other 5% amounts survive in other samples, eventually 
resulting in a 70-80% recovery, or some such. An amount that "may" be 
sufficient to reconstitute the original pattern (or close enough).

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Data security
Date: 3 Nov 2008 23:37:39
Message: <490fd193@news.povray.org>
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> All of which says only that you can possibly recover scattered fragments 
> from say 5% of the animal's DNA? But, its **still** way more than 
> thought possible, and enough to make "some" comparisons.

Plus, you have millions of copies of the DNA, and you can take 
independent pieces of it and put them in the right order. Like having 
100 copies of a book, each with pages missing, and putting together one 
good copy.


-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)


Post a reply to this message

From: Invisible
Subject: Re: Data security
Date: 4 Nov 2008 04:21:37
Message: <49101421$1@news.povray.org>
>> All of which says only that you can possibly recover scattered 
>> fragments from say 5% of the animal's DNA? But, its **still** way more 
>> than thought possible, and enough to make "some" comparisons.
> 
> Plus, you have millions of copies of the DNA, and you can take 
> independent pieces of it and put them in the right order. Like having 
> 100 copies of a book, each with pages missing, and putting together one 
> good copy.

I'm sorry - I thought foscils were "rare"? ;-)


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Data security
Date: 4 Nov 2008 10:19:14
Message: <491067f2$1@news.povray.org>
Invisible wrote:
> I'm sorry - I thought foscils were "rare"? ;-)

It doesn't take a whole lot of fossil to have a million cells in it.

"Humans have an estimated 100 trillion or 10^14 cells; a typical cell 


-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)


Post a reply to this message

From: Invisible
Subject: Re: Data security
Date: 4 Nov 2008 10:31:47
Message: <49106ae3$1@news.povray.org>
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I'm sorry - I thought foscils were "rare"? ;-)
> 
> It doesn't take a whole lot of fossil to have a million cells in it.

No - but you do need to find a rare cell that hasn't been completely 
mineralised... ;-)

(I would anticipate that sorting out cells from different species would 
be hard too.)


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: Data security
Date: 4 Nov 2008 10:39:35
Message: <49106cb7@news.povray.org>
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I'm sorry - I thought foscils were "rare"? ;-)

  You keep using that word...

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.