Darwinbots Forum
General => Biology => Topic started by: fulizer on January 30, 2008, 08:54:31 AM
-
as far as I remember a virus is a semi living thing that will control cells and reproduce itself to death while ejecting viruses.
a real virus like that doesnt kill the bot just gets into every bot and attempts to makemore viruses would be cool
am I right?
am I?
am ?
am?
a?
?
-
as far as I remember a virus is a semi living thing that will control cells
Well, close enough to be true.
and reproduce itself to death while ejecting viruses.
No, and what do you mean exactly?, I believe I misunderstood you, but no(I think)
a real virus like that doesnt kill the bot just gets into every bot and attempts to makemore viruses would be cool
Like DB works now??
am I right?
am I?
am ?
am?
a?
?
?? . . .?? .. ????
???? . .?? .?? . ??
?? ?? . ?? ?? . . ??
??. ?? ?? .?? . ??
?? . .???? . ????
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus)
Next time when you aren't sure. Look it up. You're wrong 9 times out of 10.
Also, there are already viruses designed that reproduce out of control killing the host bot.
Also, since you are nearly impossible to understand, there are viruses that don't kill the host bot, if that's what you want.
Oh also a few more links for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_grammar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_grammar)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_element (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_element)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalisation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality)
-
as far as I remember a virus is a semi living thing that will control cells and reproduce itself to death while ejecting viruses.
a real virus like that doesnt kill the bot just gets into every bot and attempts to makemore viruses would be cool
am I right?
am I?
am ?
am?
a?
?
Some viruses actually cause cells to die, its called necromancia. Just because the majority is something, does not mean that the chaos theory cannot be applied; I.e. anything in nature is possible when it comes to genetics.
-
ok then by ejecting viruses we will need an example
the common cold causes people to sneeze when they do so it releases millions of its decendents into the air
id darwinbots it will only release one because of a limitation on virus creatons.
-
Oh also a few more links for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_grammar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_grammar)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_element (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_element)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalisation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality)
Read them.
ok then by ejecting viruses we will need an example
the common cold causes people to sneeze when they do so it releases millions of its decendents into the air
id darwinbots it will only release one because of a limitation on virus creatons.
There is not a single cold-virus. There are two major versions. But anyway.
Normally with a virus in reality, if the virus reproduces, simply spoken the virus kills the cell and then spreids a lot of virussus around.
-
Normally with a virus in reality, if the virus reproduces, simply spoken the virus kills the cell and then spreids a lot of virussus around.
Not necessarily. There are many different strategies viruses use.
I actually agree with fulizer, that viruses could be improved by giving them more control of their behavior. The severe limit on the number of shots released should go first. But even in the current form they are pretty cool. It's all about balancing people's interests - we only have one active programmer at the moment and he can do only so much. He's working on sexrepro now, but maybe some time he'll find a day or two to improve viruses as well.
P.S: Peter, your spelling is pretty awful too, so don't be a smart-mouth
-
Maybe forum ranks could be determined from spelling and grammar ability instead of number of posts
-
Maybe forum ranks could be determined from spelling and grammar ability instead of number of posts
Gack!
-
Normally with a virus in reality, if the virus reproduces, simply spoken the virus kills the cell and then spreids a lot of virussus around.
Not necessarily. There are many different strategies viruses use.
I actually agree with fulizer, that viruses could be improved by giving them more control of their behavior. The severe limit on the number of shots released should go first. But even in the current form they are pretty cool. It's all about balancing people's interests - we only have one active programmer at the moment and he can do only so much. He's working on sexrepro now, but maybe some time he'll find a day or two to improve viruses as well.
P.S: Peter, your spelling is pretty awful too, so don't be a smart-mouth
fulizer's argument is based on real life multicelular infected bodies, not single bots which is what the game emulates. If you want the cold effect, program it, it is possible provided it only activates in multicellular organism, then activate the fire virus gene which in turn does something simular to a sneeze and fires all the viruses out at once. The argument is based on somethinge which has no concrete backing. The first things that should be adressed is dna transfer through bot ties, this would really make sexual reproduction easier, along with multibot-viral-infections.
-
fulizer's argument is based on real life multicelular infected bodies, not single bots which is what the game emulates.
You are completely wrong here. A single cell infected with a virus produces large amounts of viruses, which are not released sequentially, but come out en mass. Some viruses keep the cell alive during this release, while others break the cell completely.
-
fulizer's argument is based on real life multicelular infected bodies, not single bots which is what the game emulates.
You are completely wrong here. A single cell infected with a virus produces large amounts of viruses, which are not released sequentially, but come out en mass. Some viruses keep the cell alive during this release, while others break the cell completely.
With settings like that in the game, viruses would multiple so rapidly that small cale simulations would not work properly if a virus cell was in use, and it had a deadly virus.
-
I can already simulate massive viral reproduction by having the infected bot reproduce cancerously (thus producing lots of also infected offspring). The only problem is this too causes the sim to blow up with lag.
Here's the viral code, if you're interested:
'===========Virus===========
cond
532 *.safety !=
start
1256 rnd .setaim store
*.thisgene .mkvirus store
32000 .vshoot store
50 .repro store
*.maxvel 1 sgn store
*.body 2 < *.nrg 10 > and
.strbody inc
*.thisgene 1 !=
1 .delgene store
*.thisgene *.genes !=
*.genes .delgene store
stop
Maybe forum ranks could be determined from spelling and grammar ability instead of number of posts
I love this! Institute the awesomeness immediately!
-
Normally with a virus in reality, if the virus reproduces, simply spoken the virus kills the cell and then spreids a lot of virussus around.
Not necessarily. There are many different strategies viruses use.
There are?
I thought that in any case, if the virus decides to release itself to the world it kills the cell. I am serious suprised that it isn't true. Does it have a special name when it doesn't kill the cell?
P.S: Peter, your spelling is pretty awful too, so don't be a smart-mouth
I am not suprised if my spelling is awful , but it is understandable(is this spelled correct ), atleast I hope so. Read the first post of the topic and then come back and then say you would have completely understand it at first. A spelling mistake wouldn't be that bad, but if I have to read over a few times to get an idea where he is talking about, it is going the wrong way.
-
There are?
I thought that in any case, if the virus decides to release itself to the world it kills the cell. I am serious suprised that it isn't true. Does it have a special name when it doesn't kill the cell?
There is a HUGE variability in viral replicative strategies. They pretty much can do anything we can imagine (as long as it does not break any physical laws:) ).
Yes, there is a special name: It's called persistent infection. It's a pretty general term, which may mean a lot of different things, but it assumes that infected cell is not killed immediately. I'll give you two examples:
Oncoviruses is a general name for viruses that make their host cell cancerous. They turn off the essential check-points in cell cycle and force cells to divide indefinitely. The cells release new viruses, not in huge amounts, but not "one-virus at a time" either. Certainly enough to infect new cells and new hosts.
HIV causes AIDS and is not an oncovirus. Normally it stops cell division and kills the cell within several days. But some strains of this virus don't kill their host cells. Cells feel sick for a couple of days and then recover and start dividing. They shed large amounts of virus all the time, but they continue to grow and divide. In vivo such cells get killed by immune system, but in culture you can keep these cells growing indefinitely.
-
Viruses are fun So many different ways to do basically the same thing.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong wouldn't this:
...
*.thisgene 1 !=
1 .delgene store
*.thisgene *.genes !=
*.genes .delgene store
...
cause the virus to delete its self if it was the last gene? Virus is gene 5, number of genes is 5, deleted gene is 5, and thus the virus.
Maybe forum ranks could be determined from spelling and grammar ability instead of number of posts
No, instead, make this a requirement to use the Internet.
-
No, instead, make this a requirement to use the Internet.
Oh if only
-
I'm not sure where you got that conclusion, Shasta. It'll delete the first gene if it isn't the first gene, or preferably delete the last gene if it isn't the last gene. *.thisgene *.genes != will not fire if the virus is the last gene (and then it will delete the first gene, unless the virus is the only gene.)
-
Correct me if I'm wrong wouldn't this:
...
*.thisgene 1 !=
1 .delgene store
*.thisgene *.genes !=
*.genes .delgene store
...
cause the virus to delete its self if it was the last gene? Virus is gene 5, number of genes is 5, deleted gene is 5, and thus the virus.
The != means ''if not desame'' if it was '=' you were right.
In both cases it first checks if it isn't itself it would delete.
Maybe forum ranks could be determined from spelling and grammar ability instead of number of posts
No, instead, make this a requirement to use the Internet.
you wan t blk m iternt acces, I agre not.
Heh, an forum update. The browser suddenly forgot the password.
And beneath I see this,
Select a file
Attachment space used 18.57MB of 50MB
I already used 18,57MB, for what?
-
I'm not sure where you got that conclusion, Shasta.
Perhaps not be familiar with the new in-line conditional paradym? We all have had to re-learn not to ignore conditionals outside of cond sections...
-
Oh... whoops, I kept reading it as *.thisgene .delgene = , disregard the comment above.
-
If you don't want to kill the infected bot all you need to do is... not kill it....
A lot of viruses use high vshoot values in order to kill infected bots, but you could set it to "*.nrg 30 div .vshoot store" if you want the infected bot to survive.
The problem is that in the end it gets very complex to infect any bot and not kill it but still have controll.
Using .genes dec will hide the presence of your virus, but only if people use *.genes to reconize virus infections, if they use *.thisgene or save the *.genes value in the first gene, then it's hard to fool them.
And if you want to delete all the genes you need to save the initial value of *.genes minus one and write that value into genes every cycle while deleting the genes...
Already at this point your virus will be getting rather long, and it still wouldn't handle other types of gene reconition.
I would say the most solid vay to make a virus, is to focus on things that are hard to secure against... make a lot of shell, poison, slime or such, things that will spend the energy. Or tie to your own bots and feed them, or do anything that can't just be secured against in some way, like having an odd repro value and zeroing any other repro values, or locking delgene to 0 and stuff like that, you need something that people have to do so they can't secure against it... like just shooting normal shots (If you shoot energy shots the host would become aware of it) and setting the shootval to max... this would prevent reproduction and kill the host rather fast....
Anyways that wasn't why I was replyijng here...
I realy wanted to ask :
Do inline conditions cost the same as normal conditions ?
-
Do inline conditions cost the same as normal conditions ?
Yep. Go wild.
-
normally when you want a infected bot to survive you will want to disable it so that you can kill it and take the energy.
more time consuming but more efficiant than killing something as it tries to kill you