doc4t

Full title is "Former Copyright Boss: New Technology Should Be Presumed Illegal Until Congress Says Otherwise" but HN does not allow more than 80 chars in title.

Relevant discussion at mathoverflow.net http://mathoverflow.net/questions/106560/philosophy-behind-m...

I don't know about the Ostrich but the Antelope would certainly loose

Here is an article based on the science presented in Christopher McDougalls book Born To Run.

It explains a lot of the bio mechanics involved in running and why humans are so superior.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27well.html

I highly suggest reading the book itself - it's quite an eye opener.

A horse can't sweat (at least not enought to reduce body temp. sufficiently) and thus can only get rid of the heat through breathing. Eventually it will overheat and either rest or die.

Humans don't suffer from this limitation. If you're curious I suggest you read Born To Run

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Born-Run-Hidden-Ultra-Runners-Greate...

"I hate to break this to you, but science is not steered by marketing, by "more clicks". It's steered by evidence"

Of course it is. Evidence you get from research which get funded by sparking peoples interest...which can be helped a long way by marketing. But I'll give you that the title was kind of linkbait-y (and funny)

"Not when people are being asked to invest their money, no. When that's going on, I get dead serious."

I assume people would actually read the project description before giving their money away.

I am the originator...and I didn't change anything

What do you think will get more clicks?

The original intriguing and funny title "You can now kickstart a space elevator" or this lame ass boring "Space elevator science"?

Which of the two could get more people potentially interested in science?

You guys are just not about the fun are you?

BTW: Who edited the title?