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"
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 ;)
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.
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.
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).
I should also have stated that in the reverse: What if he had patented the thing, when I have also independently created the idea? Looking over his curriculum vitae, it looks like he already has:
"Patent Pending: Methods, systems, and computer program products for simulating a scenario by updating events
over a time window including the past, present, and future. Submitted July 10, 2008."
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.
WOW. Just WOW. I have always believed that you can't have a good idea without someone else having it at about the same time, but this is the most uncanny experience I have had yet.
I had this exact same idea in January, or at least a very similar one. Time waves, etc.
Amazing.
By the way, this is one of the reasons I don't like patents that much - what if I had patented "A real time strategy game with time travel elements using propagating time waves"? Then these guys wouldn't have been able to implement it, even though they obviously came up with the idea separately, and have spent more effort implementing it.
That's calculated directly from the county's tax data. It's a bit out of date; from February, I think. I'll see if I can get some new data up soon.
Some people are actually interested in telling the truth, not misleading you. It's rare though, I'll grant you that.
Btw, he was an engineer before he became a realtor, and if you must know I am the "webmaster". Yes, it could be construed as shameless promotion, but it is relevant.
Edit: I don't know if it's clear enough - the data is year over year.
Also, even court enforcement of contracts has its limits - you just go outside the borders of a country, and they can't (easily) make you fulfill your contract.
That said, I am all for court enforcement of contracts. In fact, I wish that the courts would respect, if not enforce, far more contracts than they do.
I don't think that the project can be 'subverted' from bringing freedom to users. A fork of it might be made "un-free", as in your Microsoft example. But Microsoft did a lot of their own work, and the original project is still around - completely free.
I like freedom. Freedom is good. The only question in this instance is - freedom for whom? Freedom for the developer to write code without comments, so that you can't hack it? Or freedom for you to read his code? I think that javascript currently embodies both of these freedoms in the best possible way. The author does not force you to execute his scripts; by your http request you asked for them. At the same time he is not being forced by you to make his source code "intelligible."
The implementation of JavaScript is most likely open source, and the script's code is obviously available. Am I missing something? Is he saying that it's not "Open Source" if it doesn't have enough comments?
Trying to prevent people from releasing source code without comments because it's not easily hackable is a bit much. Almost everything about RMS is "a bit much" though, and that's why so many hackers like him ;)
Certainly excessive usury is wrong, but being able to walk away from debts causes it's own problems. Because of the ability for people to just walk away from debt, they acquire more of it without the attention of paying it off. This can cause lenders to be more wary of loaning money, as well as waste resources when that person spends the money on a house or other item they don't need and can't pay for.
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"