Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: mike@everexn.com (Mike Higgins) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Is this stuff for real? Keywords: reality nanotech questions Message-ID: Date: 24 Mar 91 23:54:24 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Everex Systems, Inc. Lines: 22 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In john@granada.mit.edu (John Olson) writes: > . . . My understanding is that DNA replication is >very reliable. Keep in mind the vast information content of DNA, and the >rarity of mutations. > . . . DNA is duplicated with an error rate of about 1 error per ten >billion (10^10) base pairs. > . . . How do these error rates >compare to, say, the rates for reading RAM or ROM? Someone out >there can probably tell us. I'm told that hard disk drives make errors at about 1 per 10^10 to 10^12 bits. So a hard disk is as good or better than DNA, and RAM is MUCH BETTER! Consider: on a typical IBM AT computer, you have one megabyte, or 10^6 bits. These bits are distructively read and re-written (inside the chip) once every 4 miliseconds for the normal dynamic RAM refresh! That's 10^6 bits refreshed 10^9th times a year. You would be very upset if your PC gave you 1 parity error a year, but that represents an error rate of only 1 error every 10^15th! DNA doesn't light a candle to the box on my desk... Mike Higgins mike@everexn.com