prestonbriggs

I saw one fly at an airshow near Houston, maybe 30 years ago. Completely cool, and more than a little spooky.

Or maybe Iran, as early as 8,000 BC. Astonishing. Or maybe Mongolia?

Apparently the conquistadors noted the Aztecs using trained hawks, so some parallel development seems plausible.

Hmm, well, Wikipedia suggests Mesopotamia, about 2000 BC.

I don't know the history of falconry. It seems unlikely that such an esoteric activity would evolve in multiple locations; more likely that Japanese falconry and European (not to mention US) falconry evolved from some shared ancestor. So whose bright idea was it? Do we have a clue?

Yeah, data-parallel computing on a GPU doesn't really approach what Hillis was aiming for. Check especially CM Lisp; great stuff.

I'm still a big fan of the feedback offered by the XMT's compiler. I think it's a lot more important/useful when the difference between success and failure is a few orders of magnitude (as when trying to parallelize for a target with plenty of processors).

Nice start.

I'd personally like to avoid the extreme surgeries (e.g., bypass, joint replacement), the terrible cancers, diabetes, etc. I'm certainly willing to modify my diet and exercise to help avoid such things.

An extra few years, lying in bed, unable to interact w/ the world? Not so interesting.

Well, no. In the US, lawyers can't work for non-lawyers; that is, they can't work in a position where their legal judgement is subject to review by a non-lawyer. Part of their code of professional responsibility.

You look at the face of the person who's talking. Or, if there's a presentation, you look at the material being presented. You might also look at your phone or notes or computer. but those are all somewhat rude for other reasons.

I was impressed by https://6002x.mitx.mit.edu/

I've explored similar questions using a grid of equilateral triangles. Obviously they are very close in spirit. I wonder though, if the triangles are somehow more basic.

Lockhart has a book, "Measurement", that elaborates in the same vein. Quite nice.

Perhaps more interesting for most is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVH2qOwZd18#t=373 showing an elite runner running at a reasonable pace (perhaps 7:30 - 8:00 minutes/mile), with some commentary.

The book chapter is about form for running fast, but most of the comments are about form for training. In terms of injury prevention, I'd agree that the latter is important, but the book chapter doesn't have a lot to do with this. All the pictures are of people running better than 5 minutes/mile, with some probably running faster than 4 min/mile. But almost all running injuries are the cumulative effect of lots of slower miles, run at 6, 7, or 8 minutes/mil, or even slower (though the difference between 6 min/mile and 8 min/mile is pretty significant). Good form at those speeds is markedly different.

For fun, try to find footage of Kenny Moore running. Looks absurd, so knock kneed, but terrifically fast in his day.

An alternative video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKOrpyO0z48

hmm, his list includes "The Rosie Effect".

If your universe has 2^64 elements, you don't want to use bit vectors or this scheme due to giant memory consumption. Instead, you'll probably want to use a hash table.

One data structure can't be the best for every situation. It's why they pay engineers the big ducks [sic].

You can't just assert "we win" or "we lose"; you need to measure different the different possible implementations for your particular application. In the paper I wrote with Linda Torczon (cited by Russ Cox), we did exactly that. In that application (a graph coloring register allocator), we were very sparse (n was significantly less than m) and we cleared the working set quite often - the win was pretty significant.

I think crediting Fixx with the running revolution is a mistake. Instead, look to Frank Shorter winning a gold, on TV, in the '72 Olympic Marathon.

I'll bet it's still faster in plenty of circumstances. It's hard to beat superior asymptotic complexity.

Consider http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/18/weekinreview/walk-this-way...

Plant more trees?

Here're are a couple of papers you'll probably enjoy:

Design and implementation of the UW Illustrated compiler by Andrews, Henry, and Yamamoto PLDI '88

and

The University of Washington illustrating compiler by Henry, Whaley, and Forstall PLDI '90

I wonder when they'll go after people for gambling in the the stock market? How would you defend them?

Taschen has a nice reprint available: http://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Byrne-Six-Books-Euclid/dp/38365...

You might enjoy Lockhart's book, Measurement. http://www.amazon.com/Measurement-Paul-Lockhart/dp/067405755...

I also noticed (and complained) that their passwords were limited to so absurdly short sequence. Not sure if it's still true. Hope not.

The current answers seem good, but I wonder why you work? Or perhaps: why work so much?

You're pretty young and your parents are supporting you, at least providing housing, which is pretty nice. I'd tackle some of those personal projects you enjoy, and travel (at the very least, explore your own city), and learn to do some new stuff (learn Latin and read Cicero, practice a musical instrument, learn how to bind books, build a tube amplifier, other stuff we never have time to do 'cause working for rent/mortgage gets in the way). Go to the library (w/o a laptop) and sit and read, a lot.

I so wish I were young again...

And yeah, talk to your parents, being sure to let them do lots of the talking.

Gill Sans was my guess, but looking at the R, I'm certainly wrong.