Self limitation for safety: Difference between revisions

From apm
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m Related: added back-link to page Grey goo horror fable
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:
* [[Safety]]
* [[Safety]]
* [[Safety towards and with gem based APM]]
* [[Safety towards and with gem based APM]]
* '''[[Designing against Murphies law]]'''
* [[Informal laws]]
* [[Informal laws]]
* [[Keysholes for microcomponent disassembly]]
* [[Keysholes for microcomponent disassembly]]

Latest revision as of 13:07, 22 June 2026

This article is a stub. It needs to be expanded.
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: