Difference between revisions of "Self limitation for safety"
From apm
m (→Related: added link to page Consistent design for external limiting factors) |
m ("utility fog" => "general purpose utility fog") |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Template:Stub}} | {{Template:Stub}} | ||
| − | [[File:Ugility fog chair attacks by MCKIBILLO.png|300px|thumb|right|If objects are made form specialized [[gem-gum|gemstone based metamaterials]] rather than [[utility fog]] then they fundamentally can't be hacked to do direct malicious surprise attacks. Just a self suggesting example here.]] | + | [[File:Ugility fog chair attacks by MCKIBILLO.png|300px|thumb|right|If objects are made form specialized [[gem-gum|gemstone based metamaterials]] rather than fully general purpose [[utility fog]] then they fundamentally can't be hacked to do direct malicious surprise attacks. Just a self suggesting example here.]] |
* [[Mobility prevention guideline]] | * [[Mobility prevention guideline]] | ||
Revision as of 20:36, 23 December 2024
If objects are made form specialized gemstone based metamaterials rather than fully general purpose utility fog then they fundamentally can't be hacked to do direct malicious surprise attacks. Just a self suggesting example here.
Against software hacking:
- Usage of specialised and in function limited metamaterials instead of general purpouse utility fog (e.g. shelving systems).
Against direct physical hacking attacks:
- Combination lock stones as a safety measure against malicious disassebly attacks are metioned here.
- Integrated oszillators as physical timer to artificially slow down the disassembly of microcomponents - this allows for more response time.
Other:
Related
Another case of self limiting but here not for safety but for performance:
