I loved the movie, but I keep going over a part of it in my mind that seems to be a plot hole. They talk about the limits of organic minds. Yet, the robot minds are organic as well. So that brings me to plot hole #2. The robots went off to the radioactive area where organic life can't exist. Their brains are organic. Didn't look like their heads had enough lead to protect them either.
sharewhy are the brains organic? isnt it just the chips?
besides they took the baby to the radiation zone and he was ok :P
http://myimpressionz.tk
At 42:53, Dr. Dupre says "Where did you get that bio-kernel?". I'm assuming that means it's organic. Then she says "That bio-kernel was damaged, but it wasn't dead."
Then she made a hybrid of it with Cleo's kernel. The brains were organic and living. Pretty much definitive at that point.
Not sure why you're bringing up the baby, that was addressed in another thread. Everyone (except Vaucan) got radiation pills. But even if the baby didn't, that's not a plot hole as we're also not made aware of the amount of radiation there was.
At 42:53, Dr. Dupre says "Where did you get that bio-kernel?". I'm assuming that means it's organic.
Just a small fyi. BIOS stands for Basic Input/Output System. Not built in operating system.
shareand to top off, a BIOS is not even an operating system, it's a percursor to an operating system. Ie. it gets things ready for the operating system to take over. So a 'bios'-kernel would make no sense at all.
shareThat's not the point. I'm saying that in this case "bio" stands for (artificial) life. It has nothing to do with organic brains, which is also a vague description.
shareBIOS is an OS; just a hardware-based OS that links all the hardware to be able to talk to each other.....Most people understand the OS as Windows and MacOS or Linux, graphical based for the idiots, not the low-level machine language that uses 0 and 1 switches.
BIO-KERNEL: pretty sure that they were playing at BIO-logy, meaning the the circuitry is based on biological components rather than silicon. As a matter of fact, IBM was thinking of using seaweeds as circuitry components some years back.
http://myimpressionz.tk
No, no, no. The "BIOS" of IBM PC compatibles is not an operating system.
The BIOS is an abstraction layer that can be (is/was) used by operating systems in order to provide access to devices in a compatible way (hence "basic input/output system"). It allows operating systems deployed on IBM PC compatibles to not have to know everything about how to access or enumerate devices on a particular machine and instead access a number of device types via a simple but standard interface.
An actual operating system such as CP/M (for which the BIOS was first devised), MS-DOS, DR-DOS, OS/2, MS Windows or Linux (etc...) is still required in order for the user to actually perform tasks.
In theory, it allows an operating system to be deployed on CPU compatible but otherwise differing machines. For example, the same operating system and programs could be used on an IBM 8080 machine or even a Commodore 128 with its Z80 CPU. The BIOS was the only difference on the various supported machines.
The BIOS is responsible for the POST (power on self test), iterating certain installed devices, setting up a standardised interface to those devices and then boot-strapping the installed operating system. It is incredibly primitive in how it understands disk accessing and expects the boot data to be in a very specific location, for it to be a specific size (which is tiny) and does nothing more than pull that data into memory and execute it. It doesn't understand partitions, volumes or disk formats in any functional way.
These days, the BIOS isn't used by operating systems at all. It is entirely replaced by things like HAL in MS Windows NT (32 or 64 bit MS Windows systems not based on MS DOS). The only thing the BIOS is used for these days is POST, boot-strapping and providing (some) assistance to CMOS configuration utilities.
The BIOS is being replaced by UEFI which supports interfaces for differing CPUs, has better support for newer hardware and provides a greater number of services.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS
I haven't seen this movie yet but I'm very keen to. I'm not sure when its going to be released here in Australia.
For me, the term "bio-kernel" is actually made of two terms with entirely different meanings and are even directly opposite to one another. "Bio" or "life" implies individuality, the notion of self or independent entities. "Kernel" is very specifically standardised and its whole purpose is to remove or deny individuality as a provision of features. I think this term could easily relate to some AI hardware/software system that provides some "spark" of perceived life, having been derived from existing terminology. I'd like to see the movie to decide for myself but the trailer certainly seems to suggest that the robots are machines, that they are robots (all hardware) and not cyborgs (partially organic).
Daniel.
You say tomarto, and i say tomaeto
In computing, the kernel is a computer program that manages input/output requests from software, and translates them into data processing instructions for the central processing unit and other electronic components of a computer. The kernel is a fundamental part of a modern computer's operating system.
Life will find a way
I'm afraid that you are not correct.
The BIOS is only a layer in some potential OS.
Originally, for CP/M (it was the first to use the BIOS), there were the BIOS, BDOS and CCP layers. All three of which are required in order to have an "OS". Theoretically, you could use just BIOS and BDOS and then some other application but the general usefulness of the system decreases.
The BIOS does not "allow hardware to talk to each other". This is the function of the BDOS layer in CP/M.
The BIOS does not "allow you to access your hardware" since you will need to run other programs to have any tangible functionality and structured data management (memory, disk) is not performed by the BIOS.
Yes, you are (very nearly) correct in that the BIOS is something like the system drivers but this and the fact that there is no structured data or storage manipulation, only limited device type handling, no task/process management and no memory management means that is certainly not a kernel. The equivalent of a kernel in CP/M is BDOS.
The BIOS is nothing more than a extraordinarily limited abstraction layer and it is in fact, entirely obsolete (hence UEFI).
I'll point out again that it is not really even "drivers" because of problems with it such as those with EGA/VGA and character output. It was created in a time before graphical displays and even simple things like serial communications was initially a problem for it. It handles only very specific functions for certain devices and recent "enhancements" have been nothing more than hacks, mostly to allow for boot strapping from CD-ROM and USB. It certainly does not allow for the use of any/all functionality of the devices it does "know about" (which is what drivers do) and it does not know anything about most devices in the system.
You shouldn't confuse the configuration utility with the BIOS itself, they are in fact separate things.
MS-DOS certainly was/is an operating system. MS Windows 1 to 3 (and even to a lesser extent, MS Windows 9x up to but not including ME) are actually not what I'd class as operating systems since they rely on DOS to do much of the "hard work" (they are really just shells).
I really don't know what you mean by "IBM tried it and was too hard for them, so they bowed to M$". CP/M was in use on 8bit IBM machines but there were "problems with licensing" CP/M when IBM wanted an operating system for its new 16bit PCs. Exactly how Microsoft (yes even I use M$ on occasion - the bastards...) became involved changes depending upon who you speak to but it certainly wasn't unusual at the time for hardware manufacturers to out-source software development from other companies.
CP/M-86 (16bit CP/M) was finally made available by IBM but only after legal difficulties (MS-DOS was a clone of 86-DOS which copied much of the CP/M API) but they made it prohibitively expensive (perhaps out of spite or thinking that it wouldn't sell given the situation with MS-DOS). Of course, Microsoft had had time to corner the market and their anti-competitive strategies killed off (murdered) the competition and they even managed to back-stab IBM themselves.
In any case, this is way off topic but I will say as a final note about it that MS-DOS did in fact re-implement many of the functions of the BIOS because of the issues with it. Most "advanced" software didn't use the BIOS for much, at all.
Back on topic, I am pretty convinced from the trailer that the robots are entirely mechanical. I think that "bio-kernel" simply refers to a "life API" as mentioned by someone else in the thread. It makes no sense what-so-ever to relate biological/organic organs to a kernel. In a human, the closest thing to a kernel would be the brain stem, nervous systems and the mostly automatic processes over which we have no control. These things are very simply implemented in hardware versus the difficulty of implementing higher order thought processes.
Even in the case of something like the term "expert systems", the machine is really no expert but it is something cute and inspires the imagination about what might be possible. There is a large quantity of this type of terminology in computing. We use "AI" for certain systems all the time even though we really have no such thing. "Fuzzy logic" is something of a contradiction in terms but its fun and can be absorbed.
Daniel.
LOL not sure why you are so hung up on BIOS being a rudimentary OS....
Modern OS dont run on 128Mb or whatever limited hardware used for a BIOS, naturally you wont be able to do word processing or video editing BUT you can type from the keyboard and move the mouse to some extense.
And why would you not combine the config and the BIOS, thats just an extension made for more expensive motherboards and laptops
As for the human body, it is a machine made of BIOlogical components rather than metal.
http://myimpressionz.tk
Errm, it NOT being an OS...
The BIOS was created in the days of only having 32 to 64KB of RAM and even these days it can only address 1MB (unless you have UEFI instead). It is far more limited than you presume.
You don't seem to understand the function of the BIOS at all. No, you cannot "type from the keyboard and move the mouse to some extent". You need another layer to actually know to do so and perform the necessary initialisation and then reads and writes as required. It is an abstraction layer so that your doing these things is somewhat simplified and nothing more. But, more importantly, most software written after say MS-DOS 3, wouldn't even use the BIOS for these things, anyway. I'll also point out that even for DOS, you have to install drivers for these things.
Actually, I think the body is more like a collection of inter-networked machines rather than a singular one.
Meh.
LOL
The BIOS is vendor-specific, it s where they limit the hardware, to un-limit the hardware, make each component talk to each other, the BIOS interface (ie rudimentary OS) allows you to update the firmware, to support and talk to new hardware.....
i can type easily in my bios LOL As a matter of fact, you can remote link to your bios to update it ! especially on servers, eg Dell
Just because you update your OS, windows, MAC, Linux, that doesnt mean the hardware, eg an x486 MAC is gonna play nicely with Wintel drivers.
As you can see, you do need a BIOS
you are confusing the convergence of "drivers" eg Nvidia and ATI where many manufacturer produce similar products from each chip manufacturer.
http://myimpressionz.tk
*Groan* You're not even writing in English any more. Is English your first language? It sure doesn't seem like it from that post. I can barely respond because what you have written makes so little sense.
"...limit the hardware, to un-limit hardware..."? Nonsense. "make each component talk to each other"? The BIOS does no such thing! Honestly, what is your background and where on earth did you get this ridiculous perspective from?
"...the BIOS interface (ie rudimentary OS) allows...". Look, its very simple: the BIOS is an abstraction layer (a pathetic one at that) and a boot-strapper. That's the correct terminology. This idea of it being a "rudimentary OS" is absolute nonsense.
Again, you are confusing the availability of tools and utilities and the BIOS's ability to transfer control to them as meaning something it doesn't.
Type easily? Rubbish. You need another program to link the functions together and allow for the functionality.
The paragraph beginning "Just because you update your OS..." makes no sense. You seem to suggest installing Windows drivers on a Mac? What nonsense. The Kernel API is completely different for those operating systems. Even the object format for the files themselves is entirely incompatible. You're really going off the deep end.
As for the statement "As you can see, you do need a BIOS", I have no idea what you're talking about because the previous paragraph made absolutely no sense. Macs that use Intel CPUs don't have a BIOS - they have an entirely different start up handler.
The only "need" for a BIOS is POST, transfer of configuration from CMOS (which is actually a new feature of the BIOS since initially this wasn't something it did, the settings were made using jumpers on the motherboard), ability to launch into a configuration utility if desired (a separate program that again, is a "new" feature), updating firmware from ROMs and loading ROMs into memory (but I'm sure these don't mean what you think) and finally, boot-strapping. Out of all of these things, the only thing you really need to do is the boot-strapping.
The BIOS is a functionality facilitator, an abstraction layer, an early start-up accessory. No one who understands anything about the subject would ever class it as being even remotely close to an OS.
And the paragraph "you are confusing the convergence..." makes so little sense that I doubt that you understand the words you've used in it let alone the subject itself (whatever that was meant to be).
I gave you a link to the Wiki page about the subject. You need to read it and probably then read it again. Its says exactly what I have... Except that I will acknowledge that I "glossed over" the absolute truth a little bit with the statement "the BIOS can address 1MB" because in fact the truth is more like, "the BIOS can only be used in an addressing mode that allows for the use of 1MB".
All of these things that you keep talking about the BIOS being able to do are actually done by programs which may or may not make use of it. It is really obvious that you currently don't understand the subject. I have no intention of replying further until you exhibit a better understanding of the topic. Of course, I'm betting you'll jump in with some further nonsense because you won't do any research and will just want to have the last word but mores the pity for you.
*Ugh*
now you are talking rubbish
Answer this simple question:
Can you type YES OR NO at the bios? Y or N
*GRR*
Being able to poll for key presses during its start up procedure has nothing to do with the features it exposes to a programmer.
This is not about inflexibility or lack of imagination, its the simple facts. Once the early start-up procedure of the BIOS is complete, there is no use for it other than as an abstraction layer. That's why I say, its an abstraction layer and a boot-strapper.
The BIOS needs to be running its early start-up procedure to give a damn about key presses. Once that is complete, it is entirely passive. Almost all programs written after the mid 80's won't even use the BIOS for keyboard handling because of how primitive it is. Have you ever tried low level programming on an IBM PC compatible? If you have you will know that you'll get better control, functionality and performance by talking to the hardware itself and all but ignoring the BIOS. Because of VESA, even using the graphics hardware directly is better than trying to use the BIOS. And even without it, you're still better off writing a whole host of drivers to do the job yourself rather than attempting to use the BIOS as is patently obvious by the fact that its what every developer actually does. The BIOS is rubbish and obsolete for anything other than its early start-up and boot-strap and has been, I'll assert, since the 90's or even a decade before. The abstraction layer API that it provides is just far too limited.
Read this carefully because this is a key point... YOU DO NOT "ACCESS" THE BIOS!!!! This is a very common misconception. You can use or "access" the configuration utility/utilities but not and I repeat NOT the BIOS. This is all talked about on the Wiki page.
Of course MS Windows doesn't have "tools" to "access" the fans as standard. These things are hardware specific and require drivers and configuration utilities. There are standards now though and I can and even have downloaded a generic program to handle them.
I'll say it again, you are confusing the configuration utility and start up procedure of the BIOS with the BIOS itself. The configuration utility that's installed on your motherboard being able to know stuff about the motherboard itself means absolutely nothing about the features of the BIOS.
Just because the BIOS has been hacked on in recent times for it to be able to access keyboards over USB (which to do, as far as I'm aware, requires certain compatibility features of USB itself) means absolutely nothing about the functionality that the BIOS exposes or what it is capable of in terms of feature set.
I'm so over this rubbish.
I'll say it again, you are confusing the configuration utility and start up procedure of the BIOS with the BIOS itself.
Already have, sweety, already have...
*ugh*
I cannot go thru your bloated crap, sorry....
Hit me again, thanks !!!
http://myimpressionz.tk
Bloody Nora! If you click the "I Feel Lucky" option and search for BIOS in Google you get this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS
Key quotes are: "The fundamental purposes of the BIOS are to initialize and test the system hardware components, and to load a bootloader or an operating system from a mass memory device. The BIOS additionally provides an abstraction layer for the hardware, i.e. a consistent way for application programs and operating systems to interact with the keyboard, display, and other input/output devices."
And: "Because it is the only visible feature of the BIOS to the average user, who is not familiar with hardware programming techniques and device abstraction layers, he often misidentifies the BIOS configuration utility as the BIOS, as in typical statements such as, "To add a second internal hard disk, you have to go into your BIOS and enable it," or, "To change the boot password you have to use the BIOS." This misuse of terms has become so common that it may now be considered that "BIOS configuration utility" or "BIOS setup menu" is a new second definition of the word "BIOS"." Don't be fooled though, technically the BIOS and the configuration utility are NOT the same things and even together, they do not even come close to being an OS!
Seriously, RTFM is a term that comes to mind.
Key quotes are: "The fundamental purposes of the BIOS are to initialize and test the system hardware components, and to load a bootloader or an operating system from a mass memory device. The BIOS additionally provides an abstraction layer for the hardware, i.e. a consistent way for application programs and operating systems to interact with the keyboard, display, and other input/output devices."
Because it is the only visible feature of the BIOS to the average user, who is not familiar with hardware programming techniques and device abstraction layers, he often misidentifies the BIOS configuration utility as the BIOS, as in typical statements such as, "To add a second internal hard disk, you have to go into your BIOS and enable it," or, "To change the boot password you have to use the BIOS." This misuse of terms has become so common that it may now be considered that "BIOS configuration utility" or "BIOS setup menu" is a new second definition of the word "BIOS".
One last time, just to make sure I'm completely clear...
Do you realise that the statement "...the bios sets up the system to speak to one another" doesn't make any sense at all and has no relevance to anything? Its not even properly formed English. It's a meaningless statement with no bearing on the subject. The BIOS has no perception of any other system. I'm sure you think that your statement has some significance but there really isn't any. You obviously haven't read anything I've said nor the Wiki or any other operational manual, have never actually programmed at a low-level or at any level for that matter and have no interest in any information outside your own crazy ideas.
"Its an abstract layer, it mostly machine language codes, How simple is this?" Indeed, how simple is it? Abstraction layer is NO WHERE NEAR an operating system. Mostly machine codes? God... Its ALL machine code! Again you make it obvious how clueless you are about the subject. Lame, lame, lame.
It wasn't a moron who wrote that on Wiki. Like it or not, its the facts. You should accept it as true and try to re-educate yourself (assuming you have any education to begin with).
Your analogies have no relevance to the subject. In fact, you are the one trying to say that having porn only in your RAM doesn't make you guilty. What's more, your speakers AREN'T your hi-fi system, they are merely one component of it. What you are saying about the BIOS is the equivalent of trying to say that your speakers are the same as or an intrinsic part of your amplifier.
I hate saying this but from now on I'm going to have to remember that you are one seriously ignorant troll.
UNbelieveable LOL
"...the bios sets up the system so that the components can speak to one another"
It is fairly clear that ChazzJazz has no clue how things work and is at most 16 years old.
Nerds fighting.
shareI ran ChazzJazz's replies through a Turing test and, unsurprisingly, they failed.
shareDon't worry, everyone with even a modicum of intelligence knows that you're right and "Chazz" is wrong.
I've seen a lot of comments from him on different boards actually ... guy seems to consider himself an expert on every topic under the sun, but gets most of them wrong. And he's arrogant enough to just double down and start making things up rather than admit to being wrong.
Yes... Actually, after I went around the round-a-bout again on the subject, I thought I'd check his other posts. *ugh*
I can't help myself and I feel a need to fully divest myself of all available information. Gets me into trouble sometimes. It was certainly clear he was making it up on the fly and had no interest in making his own investigation or acquiring the facts.
Thanks for the shoulder rub though. Makes me feel a bit better.
But back on topic a little, I'm a bit saddened by the fact that there is still no mention of an Australian release (local) of the film. I hope it comes here.
Daniel.
BIOS is not an OS, it has some elementary OS elements for I/O and hardware control, it's very close to the "metal", and is written in a very low level, hardware specific language (usually assembly) in order to be as fast as possible. It is not a real OS because you cannot install or run applications directly on it. It could be rather called "preOS" because you install the real OS on top of it.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
You're an imbecile.
Hama cheez ba-Beer behtar meshawad!
How is that a plot hole ?
Human brain are very flawed in they way they store and process data, dosnt mean its their limit. You could easyli make a man a thousands times smarter just by modifying and optimizing how it uses neural pathways without any modifications to the neural structure itself.
Sure, there is a limit to how far an organic chip or a quantum computer can be pushed, just like there is a limit to how small a transistor can be made until there is no more atoms to work with, but that limit is so far away from current tech that a machine using it fully would be a god to us. Or even more than a god, something we cant even imagine and could never comprehend.
As for your second point high radiation is only harmful to cells that keep on dividing, the errors create cancer and cancer kills the organism, but in a more stable organic structure with little subdivision or with better self correcting mechanism such levels of radiation wouldnt be harmful, they could be used as a source of energy.
Again, we are not the best example of an organism resistant to radiation, there are plenty of better creatures on earth that can do just fine in radiation deadly for us.
Nether of those is a plothole, pls put some more effort into your reasoning behind science in a movie next time.
You complain about my reasoning on the science behind the movie, yet you provide nothing but your own flawed reasoning.
How is the human brain very flawed in the way it stores and processes data? You're just throwing around ideas regarding optimisation. If what you say was the case, we wouldn't be trying to make an AI replicate our own 'inefficient' pathways, we'd be working on making something better, no?
Regardless, that point is moot. The robots argue about the limits of organic minds, as if they do not realize that they, themselves have organic minds. The plot hole isn't what is more efficient. You seem to not understand the difference here.
Your second hypothesis, is also incorrect. Radiation doesn't just harm DNA. Here's something for you to read:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/09.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-induced_cognitive_decline
Maybe look in the mirror before you complain about 'reasoning behind science' next time. Maybe also proof-read what you wrote, and spell check a bit too.
As it stands, my assumption is still valid. There's 2 plot holes.
well firstly, you dont know what "enhancement" the clockmaker made.....
you assume the baby cockroach had the same biokernel made by humans
secondly, you assumed that the radiation didnt "enhance" the biokernel in the first place.
ie. within the realms of SCI-FI those are acceptable paramaters for you to suspend disbelief
http://myimpressionz.tk
I'm assuming that the 'clockmaker' (really the '1st', clockmaker here refers to a human robotics hacker... like Dr. Dupre) him/herself had no enhancement. I also assume that the enhancement to the other robots by the 1st, was mostly software.
I wasn't actually thinking about the cockroach and wasn't making any assumptions regarding it. In fact, nothing at all is shown or spoken about it's brain so it's really our of purview of this discussion.
You assume for some reason that the radiation enhances the biokernel. That's not discussed anywhere, what brought you to that conclusion?
I had no problems with suspension of disbelief. In fact, this genre is my favorite. Heck, I enjoyed Extant mostly because of the AI factor.
My problem is that the robots are going into a highly irradiated area, and they were not built to function in such a radioactive area. It's true, we do not know any actual data. But we can assume that an area that causes almost immediate human death from radiation, is pretty darn lethal to all organic life.
Cleo went with the roach, and I still think that their brains are organic. In fact, the latest cutting edge computer research is pointing at organic computers. Sure, it's probably unlike the neurons and cells in our brains, but if it's organic, it uses water, and thus affected by radiation.
But it's true, how much radiation needed to affect it, is unknown.
"You seem to not understand the difference here. "
i really dont. Maybe you just use the word plot hole incorrectly, flawed arguments or logic from one of the characters isnt a plot hole, none of them is supposed to be omniscient. Also i dont remember the exact words, but "organic minds" can be a pretty vague term, i have no clue if it was supposed to apply to artificially manufactured brains vs natural ones or what.
There is way too much room for interpretation of that sentence to call it contradictory or more exactly, a plot hole.
As for second part of your post, yeah the cell damage mostly happens to the dna bonds. Sure there is plenty of smaller effects, but put enough radiation onto something and you can break any chemical bond and fry any electrical circuit.
Point is that at smaller levels machines and other organism will deal much better with radiation than humans.
We are never given any kinds of numbers or quotes on anything, at no point there is any direct contradiction within the plot.
the whole movie is a complete mess. Its a complete plot hole. They didnt suffer of radiation poisoning, neither the humans nor the robots, they have bioparts. Even the *beep* newborn dont suffer the radioactivity.
They can communicate, even out of the city, with the same protocol, and in the radioactive desert.
The exponential learning dont match with the robots capacities, yes, even their hardware capacity. They recharge the weapons with some kind of electic device (notice the noice they do when they recharge) and yet they have to load the magazines.
And a bunch of etc that I wont name because Im sleepy and because the movie plain sucks. Its stupid and long.
I dont know what the *beep* I was thinking when I decide to watch this crap.
I hate banderas, he is really a bad actor, I hate his stupid accent and his stupid face.
Bah, *beep* you banderas, I hope not to see you again in my life, yea, *beep* you.
You joined the wrong thread bub. You want to crap on the movie, fine, this isn't the thread to do it in. Your issues aren't plot holes, just a lack of understanding on your part. My suggestion is that this genre of sci-fi isn't for you.
And if you hate Banderas so much, why put yourself through the agony by watching anything he's in? Visual masochism your thing?
Like SubstanceJ782 suggested; I don't think 'bio' in Bio-Kernel suggests anything organic. Merely a 'living' kernel. But if our computers crash we tend to say our computers have 'died', not suggesting that they were ever living organisms.
Correct me if I missed it but what I could make out of it was that Dr. Dupre states that; "self repairing, implies some idea of a conscience." I suppose 'some idea' are keywords here. In the same scene she also says that the human brain is physically and biologically limited. Implying the robot's 'brain' isn't and it's only limited by it's second protocol.
LOL
Do you call your lucky rock "bio"? But i bet you call a fallen flower bio...
How do you have "living" kernel if it made of metal?
AI, is defined as "artificial" because it s not living.
As a matter of fact, everything carbon-based is probably organic :P
http://myimpressionz.tk
"artificial" just means "man made". it does not imply any form of living. take in vitro fertilization as an example. it creates life when successful but it's still "artificial". that's it least how I understand the notion of this word.
shareNice catch. It's possible that bio-cores are organic* but not alive (see OLEDs - would an OLED panel have a problem with radiation?) or the bio- part is meant figuratively, and it does not really have DNA in it.
*If graphene takes off graphene CPUs will also be technically organic, meaning of course carbon based, not.. alive.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
I think the term 'bio-kernel' should be interpreted as the basic/central core of the operating system which is designed to *mimic* a biological system.
shareYes or the central part of the machine that gives them "life", making them function as robots.
Recent Science News: Giefscience.com
I imagine the liquid we sometimes say dripping from the robots could be organic, but if it was well isolated it might be a non-problem or, as someone mentioned in this thread, if there is no cell division then, again, it shouldn't be an issue.
share