[An Hero in Disguise]

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

The fact that it only applies to certain people means that it's no convenience at all, which means yes my example counts.

And you forgetting that this is suppose to be a very powerful weapon, it's not meant to be something you can buy in a groccery store.

We have Nuclear weapons, but it's going to be a bitch for most people to get it.

Technology is not always proportional to convenience.

Do we have different views on convenience? Our nuclear weapons are convenient enough for me. Once I have resources I get it, then it's ready to use.

The whole weapon in question would be convenient despite its costs if its humanoid part isn't meant to be produced along with it but was considered by the creators available de facto. We need to wait to learn the details.

Do you look down on living things?

Yes, to some extent. They're never fail-safe.

But high cost usually comes with hi-tech, until it reaches a point where a large majority of the people could afford it then it's no longer considered hi-tech.

Look at the cellphones for example.

How many people could afford it ten, twenty years ago compared to now?

Why are we discussing this? My points about inconvenience and troubles with mass production were referring to the humanoid+Relic parts, not the costs to create the rest. I started the whole discussion around the ways how it could be explained why a humanoid part was needed in a non-magical weapon by the way, that's where my arguments belong. If it's only an operator (and some kind of physiological check is needed) it's kinda OK, if it's a crucial part for the whole system to be able to function it's not the best choice imho.

Mama? well yeah, but that's not exactly the fault of the machine's design.

If the human component was not brought up with the knowlegde of love, then it would indeed be a good weapon.

After all, it was said that a human brain can be far superior than a computer.

It's the fault of the design if it was meant for a living being with self-consciousness to be the crucial part of the system.

If it's a part of the system to be controlled by someone else fail-safety measures should've been implemented to prevent unwanted behavior.

Why only a certain person then? That's the question.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

It's simple.

You create an animal. It will kill. But it would only kill what it needs and to protect itself.

You create a child. You give him/her a game. Until you stop him/her, that child is going to play to the end of time, or until they're bored of it, but either way it won't be anytime soon.

Need more explaination? An animal would give up if it knows it can't win. A child? If the game is interesting enough, they would get keep going at it until he/she 'wins'.

And by the way? Nothing is truely fail-safe, you should know that. Why do you think people still die?

Why do weapons need personalities at all? Also it's sometimes beneficial to understand when you can't win. And if your childs lack emotions other than those connected to said game they're not childs in a common sense. If they don't - those emotions will most probably be a hindrance at some point. BTW we're out of topic here too.

Volcano eruption did it by the way.

My point is that it's not hard for an entire race or Civilization to be wiped out that easily, you don't need advance technology for that. Sure there would be survivors, but their numbers would drop drastically.

I got the reference.

It's too convenient and screams "a plot device" if it's really true.

Also, do not mistake the different between getting access to, and being able to use. Sure a child could use them, but it's not like they could run into it everyday.

There ARE different types of weapons you know, even the WMD types.

Getting access and being able to use are two different things.

Well, we're going to see a non-magical banned weapon which can't be used by anyone but certain people.