Reg article

All they teach now is how to recognize serial liars... you're listed :-) ...Jim Thompson

The probably do, but they probably also teach that there's no such thing as negative publicity - a negative puff in "The Register" is worth pretty much the same as a positive write-up, even ignoring the fact that The "Register" has a rather feeble grasp of scientific facts.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

You must represent the "international kudos" those MIT idiots collected.

Except John makes a valid point and you don't.

While MIT started it's downward slide after the Paul Biddle whistle blower event, garbage like their media lab really killed the school for real engineering.

Imagine a public space paved with those tiles. It would be like walking in wet concrete. And everybody would be tripping and breaking their legs and suing. What about people in wheelchairs or MIT alum geezers with canes and walkers?

Not really. You are the sucker who picked up the story in The Register, and pasted it into this usegroup - a group who'd never heard of it before, and would have been just as happy to remain ignorant.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman, ever happy to remain ignorant.

Larkin is always "the sucker" :-p ...Jim Thompson

Biddle sued Stanford, and caused all sorts of media attention, but the dispute was settled in 1994 substantially in Stanford's favour. (Stanford wound up owing the feds about 0.1% of the money at issue.)

University administrations are some of the most featherbedded institutions in the world. The Ministry of Administrative Affairs has nothing on them.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

e...

r...

In some areas, but not - for instance - about anthropogenic global warming, which is probably of more significance than trivial tricks for making public buildings seem "ecologically responsible".

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

..

..

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...Jim Thompson

Probably not. The tiles would have to give a bit for work to be done, but so does carpet. Wet concrete sticks to your feet, which seems unlikely to be a necessary feature of such a floor. Maybe you imagination needs a bit of recalibration.

Just like they do when walking on carpet? A bit of resilience underfoot is easier on the feet than a hard surface.

ers?

Are they going to be going to London for the Olympics? It's more for the well-heeled sports enthusiasts ...

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

But...one IS larger than zero - THEREFORE worth something...

How about one-upping them and create a parallel liar?

The Register has writers of varying qualities.

Lewis Page, well I compare him with Bob Parks (of the old fasioned faxed around list "Bob Parks' What's new") and come to the conclusion that Bob Parks did far better, with maybe one percent of the words,

And other Register writers are incisively funny... my favorite was Ted Dzubia:

make_it_stop/

d/

The author of that article is a mental midget. The 7W figure as an example = of the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. How bet= ter to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use than en= capsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction described in = terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reasonable= to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want to kn= ow about it. So 7W is 7 x 24=3D 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. How better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use than encapsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction described in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reasonable to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24= 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

Not likely, Larkin is "Tulane"-ized. If you can't run the math, run your mouth. ...Jim Thompson

"On average, one footstep generates 7 watts of electricity, though the amount varies depending on a person's weight."

Woohoo! They're putting up a new WalMart nearby. We'll have all the energy we need!

NO amount of energy is enough to erase those images...

the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. How better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use than encapsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction described in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reasonable to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24= 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

OK, Mr MIT Math Man,

says that

"One step, for instance, can power two 60W light bulbs for one second. But multiply that step by 28,527 and you have enough energy to power a moving train for one second. And if you multiply a single step by

Do you verify that calculation?