Thou/thee/thy/thine are singular forms, whereas you/ye/your are plural. Just as we and our became royal pronouns, where a monarch would emphasize that they spoke for a whole country by referring to themselves in the plural, it became popular for the upper and eventually middle classes to refer to each other as plural, as a more respectful or formal usage.
"Following a process found in other Indo-European languages, thou was later used to express intimacy, familiarity, or even disrespect, while another pronoun, you, the oblique/objective form of ye, was used for formal circumstances"
Interesting - I've read that the common pronunciation where we use "Ye" pronounced as "Yee" is a mistake - it was always pronounced "The"
It's a vestige of how the Thorne transformed over the years - eventually it looked very similar a Y with a small "e" above it... leading to someone looking at an old document to assume it was just a Y.
We could be talking about two separate uses of the word though....
I'm guessing that as many people as are probably trying to log into his account, he probably doesn't answer his phone any more, or even use that email account. How would he know if the access he just authorized was him, or someone else?
Maybe if they texted him a code he had to type in, it would be more secure, but then it would be simple enough to brute force all of the codes, or find the seed and generation mechanism.
Sell it to as many customers as you can find first, and then go to them for the extra $10,000. You get more money than you would have otherwise, and you also save innocent people from being unduly compromised. It's a win-win situation ;)
Kinda makes me hope that the person who does find this vulnerability just publishes:
"I have found a critical vulnerability in this application, which I will demonstrate under NDA to any reporter who requires verification. I will under no circumstances reveal this vulnerability to the vendor or to any other party."
And there is the essence of the need for captchas ;)
You need to scale, so you employ computers instead of people. Now you have to have computers run a reverse turing test. Otherwise, it's much easier for spammers to scale as well.
It's easy to cut down on spam if you don't accept any incoming mail.
I think this is one of the major reasons that Americans have so many divorces. They marry for the "feelings", and as soon as those change they want out. The Indians marry for more than that - financial support, children, family name, cultural pressure, etc. The end result is that they are interested in making it happen, and are willing to work for that, whereas Americans think that the fact that it might require effort proves that they are "incompatible".
Imagine if someone tried to run a startup the way most Americans try to manage their marriages; they wouldn't last a week before they gave up - the "feeling" probably wouldn't be there, and there would be something else they'd rather do.
If both you and your spouse want the marriage to work, it can work, whether you "feel" for each other or not. The problem is really when they don't want it to work, and need an excuse.
Divorce means wasted years, loneliness, traumatized children, and yes, even in America, social stigma. Nobody wants to be on the dating market as a divorcee, because everybody looks at you and wonders what went wrong and what kind of baggage you have. As a never-married guy, I can say that despite my best intentions I view divorcees with suspicion. If you think people take it lightly, then you're wrong.
In reality, marriage in America illustrates the blade of freedom cutting in both ways. I would like to point out that traditional marriages, Indian or otherwise, carry very strong expectations about the partners' roles and the structure of their home life. If one partner fulfills his or her economic and social role, the other partner's expectations are fulfilled. In American marriages, there are fewer culturally determined and socially enforced rules on who brings what to a marriage. That creates a disorienting number of possibilities. It is harder for two people to live together when every choice made by one closes off possibilities for the other. In a marriage where tradition has already closed off all possibilities except one (if indeed any other possibilities are imaginable) there is less disappointment and less reason to resent one's spouse.
Obviously, it would be nice to have a modern marriage contract, a new set of obligations such that if each spouse fulfills his obligations, then both spouses share a mutually beneficial marriage that supports, rather than hinders, their goals in life. That is what traditional marriages offer, but they are too concrete about household roles and duties. Modern attempts to define marriage are rather abstract and dependent on interpretation; probably that's what bothers you when you say that Americans depend on a "feeling" being there. Modern definitions of marriage are very wishy-washy because there's no concrete division of duties to found them on.
Why stop at one frame per core? Once you have easily scalable renderfarms, you could switch the the somewhat slower (though currently less heavily optimized) raytracing approach, and run almost as many cores per frame as you like. That way the only thing limiting your render time is your budget (not that that hasn't always been true, but your set up makes it sound like there is a "rock bottom" limit that you reach before the end of your budget at one hour per frame).
Most modern high-end offline rasterizers aren't forward renderers, or deferred renders, _or_ ray tracing. No, they are typically radiosity renderers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity
Put simply is that ray-tracing is a per-screen pixel ray which is quite good at glossy surfaces with predictable lighting and plastic appearance. Radiosity, on the other hand, simulates actual light photons/waves. It is slower and more computational intensive, but it produces far more realistic results. In particular, it is good at lighting/shadowing, and is more directly applicable to rendering non-plastic surfaces, including sub-surface scattering (like flesh or hair).
All that said, REAL modern renderers, are wacky hybrid of every technique :-P
You're right, I forgot about the radiosity - but couldn't that still be split up to multiple cores per frame? i.e. simulate one "bundle" of photons per core, and then presuming that you're not too badly i/o bound, you should be able to do some sort of map/reduce. Each would generate a separate scene of light, and you would add them all together to make the final frame.
Yes, it can made data parallel, but not nearly as easily as ray-tracing. Ray tracing is easily parallelized by dividing the screen into sub renders. Each box renders a different NxM segment of the final image. This approach doesn't work for radiosity because each patch is dependant on the computations of other patches.
The primary trick used to parallelize radiosity is to partition the scene spatially. Treat the virtual polygons which separate the rooms as light absorbers. When the room is finished with all of the available light, send the light absorber across the bus as light emitters to the other processes rendering the other rooms. Iterate back and forth until the light absorbers absorb under a threshold of light.
Most game replay systems work this way - they store the chain of user inputs, and then just resimulate it in order, with the same random seed. Thats the main reason they don't give you the option to rewind the replays and you have to start over.
This game just has multiple simulators running through the chain of commands at the same time, a "movable" simulator (the player's view) and the ability to modify the chain of commands. Once you can distill the idea of "moving backwards through time" into a command, it can be added to the chain of commands and be deterministically simulated like everything else.
For the game replay system you describe, the only requirement is total determinism. That's not the same as what is being shown here, where the "separate simulators" are actually not independent.
Both you and stcredzero are significantly underestimating the complexity introduced by the chronoporters. Without those, you'd be right, but those introduce additional complexity that I would despair of getting right with imperative programming.
It always looks simple when you just look at a demo. It's much harder when you go to actually do it.
Quoting from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou):
"Following a process found in other Indo-European languages, thou was later used to express intimacy, familiarity, or even disrespect, while another pronoun, you, the oblique/objective form of ye, was used for formal circumstances"