Your Genome is Smaller than Microsoft Office

7 responses to “Your Genome is Smaller than Microsoft Office”

1. 

   Anonymous

   Aug 18, 2004 at 10:31 am

   I dont know about software development and Microsoft, something sure the Micro will disapear. Something sure is, Bill Gates will disapear too if he does not sign up for Cryonics. And venture capital might also disapear because I dont see any for profit corp beyond nanotechnology.

   Reply
2. 

   Anonymous

   Aug 18, 2004 at 1:02 pm

   it doesn't tell us nothing really besides that you are using MS office 2004
   and there's long way ahead of us!

   everything is relative..

   cool fact though:)

   a.v

   Reply
3. 

   Gisela Giardino

   Aug 20, 2004 at 5:09 pm

   Has anybody already licensed the Genome?

   Who are going to be the future EMI or Microsoft who charge .99 per song or 100 per software license?

   Who will say that has the Genome copyrights so they will charge those who use it for any purpose?

   Tell me Steve, that no one has yet, and that there are laws to defend us (mankind) against this awful perspective of future…

   Reply
4. 

   Steve Jurvetson

   Aug 21, 2004 at 12:51 am

   Very interesting observation Paul. It makes me want to think about a new post on quantum computational equivalence (blending Wolfram's notions with David Deutsch).

   It also reminds me of the observation that the code might be compact, but just look at the compiler. (The ribosome is pretty amazing as a molecular assembler, by the way, weighing in at just 99K atoms)

   Now, as to your post, do you literally mean "quantum" (e.g., Penrose's arguments about the brain) or just analog, non-linear and complex?

   Much of the power in bio-processing comes from the leverage of feedback in the electrical, physical and chemical domains.

   For example, in a fetus, the initial inter-neuronal connections, or "wiring" of the brain, follow chemical gradients. The massive number of inter-neuron connections in an adult brain could not be simply encoded in our DNA, even if the entire DNA sequence was dedicated to this one task. There are on the order of 100 trillion synaptic connections between 60 billion neurons in your brain.

   This incredibly complex system is not 'installed' like Microsoft Office from your DNA. It is grown, first through widespread connectivity sprouting from 'static storms' of positive electro-chemical feedback, and then through the pruning of many underused connections through continuous usage-based feedback. In fact, at the age of 2 to 3 years old, humans hit their peak with a quadrillion synaptic connections, and twice the energy burn of an adult brain.

   Learning is part of the code.

   And then come the memes.

   Reply
5. 

   Steve Jurvetson

   Aug 29, 2004 at 5:52 pm

   thanks for the pointer. (This discussion spilled over to the post on Quantum Computational Equivalence, by the way)

   Meanwhile, the debate over quantum effects in biology continues. Stuart Hameroff sent a summer postcard discussing this:

   “The conference concluded with a Plenary Debate on the significance of quantum effects in biology. On the "Pro" side were physicist/author Paul Davies, experimentalist Anton Zeilinger, and me. Our opponents included Hans Frauenfelder, the protein dynamicist from Los Alamos. Paul gave compelling (in my view) arguments in favor of quantum biology, and Anton described quantum interference of porphyrin, a biological molecule.

   I argued that protein dynamics, the engines of life, were controlled by quantum forces, specifically van der Waals London forces. Having spent years studying how anesthetic gases erase consciousness by the same London forces in non-polar pockets in critical brain proteins, I noted that high energy interactions in proteins cancel out, and weak but numerous, leveraged London forces reign.

   Frauenfelder was having none of it. He said protein dynamics reflected purely solvent fluctuations; proteins were slaves! But his talk on myoglobin protein showed a xenon atom sitting in a non-polar pocket. He said the xenon inhibited the dynamics, but was of no biological significance. "But" I said, "xenon is an anesthetic, and binds only by quantum London forces. Your myoglobin has a quantum switch!" We lost the debate by audience vote of about 60% to 40%.”

   Reply
6. 

   Anonymous

   May 23, 2005 at 6:21 am

   Maybe it is time to use OpenOffice? Fully installed it only takes up about 150MB. Plus, it is free.

   Reply
7. 

   Anonymous

   Jan 18, 2007 at 12:57 pm

   LOL Interesting comparison!

   Let's not forget though that human genes have had tens of thousands of years to evolve into an efficient and effective system (through survival of the fittest). MS-Office has only been around for just over a decade, and man-made in the first place. If software was subject to the same "survival of the fittest" requirement, I suspect that most software wouldn't have even made it on stores' shelves…

   Reply