Self limitation for safety: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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
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: