|
Post by confuded on Jul 7, 2008 19:03:32 GMT -5
Is it possible to guarantee a construct? Why? Well for example someone sends a rogue construct and you would like to know it's function and who does it come from with out being affected by it, so you quarantine it. Then analyze it.
It seems pretty possible to me. The question is how. If you crate a shield around it, it might take too much energy to sustain it.
Any ideas on how to quarantine a construct without destroying it and not wasting a load of energy?
~confuded
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Jul 7, 2008 19:48:45 GMT -5
Yes, it's possible, both using a construct and just your 'own' energy. Whether an individual psion has the capabilities to do so is a different argument. It also depends on the skill of the scanner involved. I know I usually have little need to 'quarentine' a construct unless I want to save it for someone ELSE to look at. I'm quick enough on detailed scans to not need it. Beyond 'yes it's possible' a great deal depends on the type of construct it is. Just like you wouldn't put hydrocloric acid in the same kind of container you would put water in, some constructs require different confining measures based on their program. Some constructs just need to be told to stop where they are and they do so. Some of them will attach to any quarantine construct you put up and try and 'eat through' it. So getting an initial 'feel' for the construct would be critical to any quarantine system.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by confuded on Jul 9, 2008 11:05:37 GMT -5
Oops! My bad! I asked the wrong answer, though DA still manages to give me the correct answer . So mostly a quarantine is not worth the effort, since constructs vary greatly in programming, and is just easier to learn how to scan. Unless, as you pointed out, you want someone to look at it. Thanks for the info.
|
|