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.
Pronghorn Antelopes, on the other hand, can maintain speeds of 60 mph for miles at a time. "If the Cheetah and pronghorn were running side by side, and if the track was longer than a quarter of a mile, the pronghorn would win it, no contest," Carmi Penny, director of collections at the San Diego zoo says. While cheetahs have flexible spines which allow their legs to spend more time pushing off the ground, antelopes have long thin limbs that allow them to run both fast and economically. These legs, paired with tremendous aerobic capacity, are what allow the antelopes to outrun most predators. When you get to long distances, the antelopes can sustain 30 mph for about an hour.
Read more: Long Distance Running Biomechanics – Marathons in the Animal Kingdom - Popular Mechanics
This is a video of human hunters (Koi San, an African ethnic group that has been pushed to extinction over the last millennia by the Bantu tribes) chasing down a kudu antelope. Antelope are great runners, but they can't cool themselves as efficiently as humans. It's a beautiful video, and the way the hunter reacts after the kill is very moving.
That is a really cool video but I'm not sure if I'd take that to say "humans are better long distance runners".
The fact is that humans are the most intelligent species (excluding dolphins and mice) and have used that to their advantage. For example, carrying water and weapons. Since these tribesmen can carry water they can replenish water that the other animal cannot. If the tribemen and the antelope had the same amount of water (none) who would win?
Also, I'm not sure if it is the case in this video (also, my audio is not working so I'm at a loss for anything said during the video), it wasn't clear if they were using a triangle approach where you have two hunters on either side and one in the middle. In that instance the antelope might run back-and-forth over that long distance and not run in a straight line (meaning it ran farther, just not smarter).
Even if we disregard the benefits from a higher intelligence it still only says "humans are great long distance runners in hot/flat terrain when carrying water". For example, try out-jogging a deer this December in the midwestern wilderness, or slap on some tennis and try to wear out a husky when it is twenty-below and 30mph winds.
humans are the most intelligent species (excluding dolphins and mice)
When I read this for a split second I was thinking "man, how can this guy think dolphins are smarter than humans? And mice? What is he think... oohh, Heheh! Nice.
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
Where does the phrase "Sweating like a horse" come from then?
And I've often heard people complaining that training horses in hot weather is horrible because they get sweaty and all the dust sticks to them.
While I have never myself witnessed a horse sweat, I've read/heard enough references to the sweatines of horses that I assume horses do in fact ... sweat.
They key is "not efficiently enough".
The body volume (where heat is produced) is propoprtional to the cube of linear dimensions, when surface area is proportional only to the square — hence the bigger you are the harder it is to get read of extra heat.
And vice versa: the smaller you are the more effort it takes to keep yourself warm.
There's a tool for grooming horses called a "sweat scrapper" for a reason. :)
If you ever watch a horse race or any other time a horse is working hard and fast, you'll see white foam near where the reins touch the horse's neck and and anywhere else there's friction. That's frothed up sweat.
Horses absolutely do sweat.... however, this is where the bipedal aspect comes into play.
Not only is a bipedal gait more efficient over long distances, but the fact that humans have a mostly hairless torso which is directly perpendicular to the direction they are running means two things: a maximum amount of surface area of sweaty skin is being exposed to moving air vs. body mass it has to cool. Much greater than a quadraped's.
I think the BBC 'Origins of us' series covered this in an episode also. They conclude that where humans evolved from in Africa changed from being lush forest to grassy plains at one time. We as a result had to evolve to catch prey and as there was nowhere to hide, we had to out-run the prey, hence no hair and sweating.
I hate to break this to you, but science is not steered by marketing, by "more clicks". It's steered by evidence. The Kickstarter project isn't about a "space elevator", unless a horse chestnut is actually a chestnut horse.
> Which of the two could get more people potentially interested in science?
Science isn't about persuasion, it's about objective evidence. Being "interested in science" means being interested in what's actually so, rather than being interested in Bigfoot and Ghost Hunters.
> You guys are just not about the fun are you?
Not when people are being asked to invest their money, no. When that's going on, I get dead serious.
> BTW: Who edited the title?
I believe it had to be the originator, he's the only one who has the right/ability to do that.
"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
> Evidence you get from research which get funded by sparking peoples interest...which can be helped a long way by marketing.
Marketing is about persuasion, about emotion, not reason. Science requires a dispassionate pursuit of evidence, without the slightest preference for any given outcome.
> I assume people would actually read the project description before giving their money away.
An idealist. Fair enough. But many people will invest based on what they think the project is about, rather than their actual understanding of it. For example, in a recent survey 51% of respondents believed "cloud computing" had something to do with the weather -- even people who used some aspect of cloud computing in their daily lives.
> I am the originator...and I didn't change anything
Really? I assumed that only the originator could change the title of a submission, and I have a hard time believing that anyone else could change a title. Not that I doubt you, I just see a lot of room for mischief or unfairness.
An often used approach is to think of and feel your entire body. You start with the pinky toe on one foot. You just focus everything on the toe and try to "feel it". When you believe you can eel it you move on to the next toe, eventually to the foot, the lower leg and so fourth. In this way you move through your entire body in detail just concentrating on what you can feel. It usually works for me when my mind is overflowing with thoughts and I can't sleep.
I did Astanga yoga (also refered to as power yoga) for many years. Such a class would consist of some 10 - 20 students and 1 - 2 instructors. In this form of yoga at no time do you close you eyes (expect for the final relaxation time).
Contrary to what you might think this particular form of yoga is very very psychically hard. Although you move slowly you are never still in a relaxed position. You move a lot of small muscles and carry your own weight for 1.5 - 2 hours.
The concentration needed takes all your focus until you know the series of movement of the back of your hand. For me this took about a year. After this I would occasionally slip into a kind of mindlessness. I would "come back" and be conscience about this mindlessness at some point near the end of the session. It very much felt like 1.5 hours had passed in an instance. I would not be able to recall any detail or anything the instructors have said and I would feel immensely relaxed and full of energy. It was a great sensation.
I suspect this has something to do with how you breath during yoga. It kind of resembles the way you breath when you are deep at sleep. It takes a long time to learn and I have a feeling that the breathing is actually the most important part of yoga.
Besides swimming this is by far the best workout I have ever done. Being a programmer it does wonders for a body which spends most of the time sitting down in an office chair. If you get the chance I recommend that you try it out. You will be very surprised how hard it is - and how rewarding it is.
>The concentration needed takes all your focus until you know the series of movement of the back of your hand. For me this took about a year. After this I would occasionally slip into a kind of mindlessness.
That strikes a chord with me, actually. Just after responding to ChuckMcM's comment, I realized that there is one way I can achieve a state of non-thought: Whenever I'm physically struck by something, clearly not injured (and thus not worried), but still in pain enough to be distracted. Somewhere in those moments I'm too busy with the sensation to think, and my brain finally shuts up.
What an arrogant comment. Can you tell us what it is you dislike so much about outlook and why, instead of inferring that the user base is unenlightened?
