At 04:05 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Your opinion has certainly been noted by
Bill. Quite obviously, I'm still here cause
Bill saw nothing that I have done to deserve banning.
Well, we don't know that. Bill sometimes pays
little or no attention to this list for a time. I
would expect Bill to comment either way, if he makes a decision.
[...]
PS. I consider labels such as "troll" a grave
insult. Let that be clear to everyone lest
Lomax will claim that it is a "mild"
insult. Being a liar justified by his religion,
he would begin building a fallacious history of this event again.
At one time I posted some history, with links.
I'm not likely to do that again unless requested.
It's actually a lot of work. One of the reasons
it's a lot of work is that it involves
interfacing with the archive so that every
statement is verifiable. Otherwise it is just more he-said she-said.
I actually did this on Wikipedia, for a central
claim that was at Arbitration, and it was
rigorously -- and completely -- supported by
proof. The cabal still cried "lies," but ... an
Arbitrator decided to make the same compilation,
and wrote a program to do it. And posted it. It
showed, of course, *exactly the same as my
evidence had previously shown.* I had *neutrally*
compiled it. It wasn't cherry-picked. *At all*.
Until then there was a possibility I'd simply be
banned for being "disruptive," and those
compilations of evidence were proof against me,
i.e, "walls of text." In fact, a lot had been
done to make everything concise and precise, but,
bottom line, to refute lies can take a *lot* of
words, and most people won't read them.
Once the Arbitrator had confirmed my position,
and claims, the Committee was stuck. It later
came out that a majority really wanted to ban me,
but it would have been way too obvious. That
Arbitrator was a rebel, a trouble-maker. They
eventually got rid of him, as I recall. The
reality behind the face of Wikipedia can be quite
ugly. I haven't said the half of it.
It's still a highly useful project, but handle with caution.
---- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.com>Jouni Valkonen
To: <mailto:bi...@eskimo.com>William Beaty
Cc: <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>Jed Rothwell ;
<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
; <mailto:jth...@hotmail.com>Jojo Jaro
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 4:31 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Hello,
There has been some recent discussion about
continuous trolling by Jojo. I would highly
recommend banning him/her. This message has not
much else content expect insulting the original
author indirectly and political trolling. As
Jojo proudly admits his/her off-topic/political
trolling and he/she is not going to end it, I would recommend banning him/her.
Thanks in advance,
Jouni
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jojo Jaro
Date: Thursday, 27 December 2012
Subject: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
To: <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>vortex-l@eskimo.com
Yes, digital information is indeed present in DNA.
One has to wonder how it got there. Natural
Selection can not explain how random process can
originate information; let alone exabytes of
information present in DNA in its natural state.
But, of course, Darwinian Evolutionist are right
because there's 2000 of them and nobody has
heard on one of them being threatened or bribed.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:32 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am
looking into this as part of an essay about the
history of cold fusion I am writing. Anyway, see:
<http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf>http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf
This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been
experimenting with recording data in DNA. He
recorded his own book and then read it back,
with only a few errors. He reproduced it 30
million times, making it "the biggest best seller in history" in a sense.
Quote: "DNA storage is very dense. At
theoretical maximum, DNA can encode two bits per
nucleotide (nt) or 455 exabytes per gram of ssDNA . . ."
I'd like to confirm I have the units right here --
Present world data storage is variously
estimated between 295 exabytes in 2011 to 2,700
exabytes today (2.7 zettabytes). See:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672
(295 exabytes)
<http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q>http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q
(2.7 ZB)
I don't know what source to believe.
This takes a colossal number of hard disks and a
great deal of electricity. On NHK they estimated
the number of bytes of data now exceeds the
number of grains of sand on all the beaches of
the world. Assume it is 2.7 ZB. That seems like
a large number until you realize that you could
record all of this data in 6 grams of DNA.
That demonstrates how much our technology may
improve in the future. We have a lot of leeway.
There is still "plenty of room at the bottom" as Feynman put it.
DNA preserves data far better than any human
technology. It can also copy it faster and more
accurately by far. I mean by many orders of magnitude.
It might be difficult to make a rapid, on-line
electronic interface to DNA recorded data,
similar to today's hard disk. But as a back up
medium, or long-term storage, it seems
promising. As Prof. Church demonstrates, this
technology may come about as a spin off from
genome-reading technology. Perhaps there are
other 3-dimensional molecular methods of data
storage. Maybe, but I would say why bother
looking for them when nature has already found such a robust system?
- Jed
