Author of the article (sheepishly) here: In my mind at the time of writing, the innuendo was an informal experiment of sorts. I wondered whether such suggestive writing would attract or repel readers; who would applaud and who would protest; etc. If you read the other articles on the site, you'll see this one was an outlier, the other articles don't have this tone.

In retrospect I was probably just being juvenile. But then, I always shake my head when I read my old writings, so I may not be the best to assess.

Whoa! Just stealing an opportunity to thank you for writing this, both the subject matter and your style of presenting it are very compelling to me (in context that probably says a lot about my own way of thinking lol). I've shared this with many people over the years as a gentle and sensible introduction to two very cool topics. Thanks!!!

Please ignore the trolls. The article is perfectly fine for a blog.

– force the selected couples to mate

– these primitive bodies of data bumped together in their silicon logic cells

– penetrate the virgin domain

– the fruit of their digital loins

– the non-stop electronic orgy

– analogue shades of gray

– its single-minded thrust

– a sufficiently well-endowed FPGA

– strip away such limits and lay bare

Someone needs to get laid. And it's not the "Informatics" researcher.

Sure, a little caked in there. But I think it drives a point. Genetics is all about sex, even through bacterial conjugation. It's ultimately the exchange of DNA, of construction patterns. Every person reading this is a product of sex. Every person everywhere at any point in time, past or future, is a product of sex. We don't like to think of it in this way, but we simply can't and don't exist without it.

Way I see the point of that clumsy alliteration is that this particular, traditionally dry, compsci approach is about simulating sex. We find vulgar distasteful, and yet forcing circuits to evolve has a parallel to that vulgarity.

Amazingly, there's a comment "Posted 28 June 2007 at 12:47 am" to the same effect.