Talk:Exe0.1 Audrey Samson
Hi Audrey,
Very interesting subject that moves towards rethinking of memory as static and implications of such a working model within the big data world. I understand this is an early stage of an article and it would be useful in the final version to have a bit more information explaining the references which are mentioned in the first paragraphs of the essay. In particular differences between the different memory models/research and why they are included here, how they inform developing of the argument that is how memory is separated from execution. Also, could you explain the static storage as a framework. Maybe it is enough just to go a bit slower through your references explaining the issues that these references represent.
The example of existing memory storage devices is interesting and I believe you are going to make more links with the DNA memory storage you are discussing. It reminds me also of the tension that is brought by issues in media art conservation practices and models that relate to technology obsolescence, data loss etc. on the one hand, and on the other the insistance to keep media art works alive and the difficulty to recognise that they might have a lifespan. You question this need to store for such a long time and it would be great to expand on it by explaining the references that you give, which is probably what you are going to do in the final text anyway. Your suggestion of erasure as a luxury service is super interesting and great to follow up on this. I understand this is where you are going with your argument, is it? Erasure and death, etc.? In summary, very interesting article and I would like to see it developed with focus on your argument more. As you say this is early stage which gives an introduction, little like a literary review. It would be useful for the reader to frame its focus and explain the argument, and then make clear why the references so you lead us to your argument and execute it in the essay. the general direction is there, but more signposting and linking things together, + more of your argument related statements, and relations between them.
I hope this is useful. Best, magda
--Magda (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)------------------------------------
Hi Audrey,
I think it is a good start where you interlinked with memory between computer science and synthetic DNA. Also with a clear focus of your text. Indeed, I am also wondering how computer science examines memory as dynamic memory. There are quite different concepts of memory here, memory as storage devices such as USB drive, disc, ram hardware etc that we are able to buy as a physical object. They are seemingly static but the material itself also cause depreciation, just like any other technological devices. On the other hand, when memory executes, it terms of read/write through hard/software, it also exposes to dynamic processes and material agency of such processes (for example the case of magnetic tapes). I am thinking how much does such dynamic process helps thinking about the DNA storage. I know in this piece you are more focused on the static memory model and it also links to the desire of human who might want to open up the concept of immortal data as a way of keeping it as stable situation. But I am also thinking how might we even examine DNA in a static sense as we know it is not the case in the world of biological organism. To me, discussing the static model only seems limiting to me, or may be you can make explicit that existing discussion of DNA is mainly around the static model (with some proof) and how the thinking of static and dynamic storage in computer science might be useful in critically examine the DNA static model? Also like how scholars have been discussed about the dynamic/mutable DNA ? As you propose in your last paragraph as " I propose to consider possible mutable memory models" -> are there any related discussion on that in the field of science?
--Winnie S (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Audrey,
Thank you - I find your subject and argument very fascinating! It is very technical, very difficult and very new to me, and in your final text you could ad more explanation to make it easier to understand, linking things. (as Magda has already mentioned). It makes completely sense that you want to expand your research to focus upon immortal data in relation to DNA storage - the paradox that what could make data "stable" or immortal is not to statically store it, but instead to keep it under mutable, constantly stabilizing conditions. It is super interesting and very relevant! Will DNA storage not be as unreliable as human memory as the data has to change with it? So what we store now, will not be the same after a million years, because what keeps it "alive", mutates, duplicates and maybe kills it (as is the cycle of cells)? Mutable memory models? How? Also to look at the political and ethical implications this imply. I am looking forward to hear your further take on this, because I know it will be good.
Also, I really like how you briefly sketch the changing lucrative aspects of the storage condition - that data recovery is big business, and now erasure, un-recovery, is becoming a commodity as well. The ignorant user, who has to buy expertise in order to fix the computers memory, which is either too bad or too good. It is very well-spotted, and I would like to hear more.
(sorry for the belated comment) /Lea