Science has pretty much always involved scrambling for parts not least because a lot of stuff needed is a one off. Jodrell Bank Observatory for example was built with a lot of former military kit including bits of battleship turret. Scavenging stuff from previous experiments is a pretty standard skill across the sciences.
Except technology improves which means it will likely take less effort and less cost as time goes by. In fact that has already happened. The reason these systems seem to appear out of the blue is that they don't require major capital expenditures and large departments managing them. They can also be retrofitted to existing systems.
You also don't need every street corner. Major roads and areas of interest will give you enough information for most purposes.
No he's logical. When you are campaigning you pick and chose your cases. Rosa Parks was selected as the person to campaign over because she had a pretty respectable background. You want to demonise drugs? Ignore the deaths on sink estates and focus on any deaths of pretty middle class girls (Leah Betts).
For copyright you want to stick to cases involving respectable parents doing things that are borderline fair use in any case.
Leave Kim DotCom to the lawyers. He can afford them.
When you consider the importance of sports TV rights and how badly they risk getting mangled online the appearance of the United States Tennis Association is understandable.
Ah you forget this is Wales. The economy is something of a mess due to well various factors but Thatcher's reforms are probably a significant reason. The result is the area is on the receiving end of a lot of regeneration projects. These tend to have arts funding in the pot which results in random artworks being attached to the strangest things.
Alternatively it could have been a member dying and leaving them a one off payment or something.
Or someone dug out that UK report (where there is really a lot of experience with CCTV) that concluded the things were pretty useless for both crime prevention and detection.
The proof again goes back to the cameras in question. Can you really imagine ANY private company where a vast number of physical security measures simply do not work at all?
Sure. There's even a market for fake cameras or at least there used to be. Real ones may have got so cheap that it has ceased to be worthwhile. Even if we assume a flawlessly run company its entirely possible that they have broken security stuff that wasn't worth scrapping when it became obsolete or experimental stuff that turned out to be not worthwhile but was never removed.
In real companies non working gates (or gates simply left open) and broken CCTV is entirely possible (does security even have a maintenance budget?). How often is the burglar alarm actually tested? Urban explorers show that for larger sites there tend to be ways in.
It isn't stupidity its marketing. Games have a self selected audience. People who don't like virtual guns won't buy games that feature them whatever you do so you do but the remaining market is large enough to make profit. Thus you make games with virtual guns and market them as such. The Xbox live Avatar system needs to be as acceptable to as many people as possible since the theoretical market is everyone with an Xbox 360. As a result you get the Avatar market equivalent of Garfield.
False. "The press follows the scanner conversations to report on all accidents and incidents". Few problems with that. First issue is modern press budgets are so low that paying a someone to sit and listen to a scanner 24/7 isn't an option. Secondly the press isn't interested in reporting all accidents and incidents. Most aren't news. Domestic disturbance at X, car broken into at Y a couple of the local lowlife having a tiff in the local park. No one cares.
The reality is that a journalist who regularly meets with police in the local pub has a much better chance of finding something interesting or something being concealed than one sitting by a scanner all day.
No they wanted a business with a $100K turnover to behave in a responsible manner. They are in effect running a small scale chemical plant and that always is going to result in some paperwork even if it's just to let the local fire-brigade know that they need to be a bit careful.
Worse than that. He chose to fight rather than settle. Which means he either received some extremely poor legal advice or was prepared to accept some insane risk/reward ratios.
While the article may have a few razor thin points that can be put down to the BBC needing to make the article human readable the author's attempt to fit in some many political digs rather destroys their credibility.
Actually in this case they probably are being smart. Trying to mess with fuel use standards in the interests of safety will just result in a lot of loopholes and red tape. In this case KISS applies.
Thing is in most cases when we do track them down the person was trying to push their own pet theory/advertise a company/other problematical behaviour. Other times it's just plain trying to add stuff that is already in wikipedia in a more relevant place.
Thing is we don't see many hard science articles deleted. There are a grand total of 28 articles that are nominaly related to science and technology listed for deletion on wikipedia. Few are hard sciences though (quite a few ads in there):
Slashdot Mirror
Google isn't going to do anything that would risk its safe harbour statements. At the same time sending these requests already costs Microsoft money
Science has pretty much always involved scrambling for parts not least because a lot of stuff needed is a one off. Jodrell Bank Observatory for example was built with a lot of former military kit including bits of battleship turret. Scavenging stuff from previous experiments is a pretty standard skill across the sciences.
Except technology improves which means it will likely take less effort and less cost as time goes by. In fact that has already happened. The reason these systems seem to appear out of the blue is that they don't require major capital expenditures and large departments managing them. They can also be retrofitted to existing systems.
You also don't need every street corner. Major roads and areas of interest will give you enough information for most purposes.
No he's logical. When you are campaigning you pick and chose your cases. Rosa Parks was selected as the person to campaign over because she had a pretty respectable background. You want to demonise drugs? Ignore the deaths on sink estates and focus on any deaths of pretty middle class girls (Leah Betts).
For copyright you want to stick to cases involving respectable parents doing things that are borderline fair use in any case.
Leave Kim DotCom to the lawyers. He can afford them.
When you consider the importance of sports TV rights and how badly they risk getting mangled online the appearance of the United States Tennis Association is understandable.
Ah you forget this is Wales. The economy is something of a mess due to well various factors but Thatcher's reforms are probably a significant reason. The result is the area is on the receiving end of a lot of regeneration projects. These tend to have arts funding in the pot which results in random artworks being attached to the strangest things.
Alternatively it could have been a member dying and leaving them a one off payment or something.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1
How did that work out for Chechnya?
Or someone dug out that UK report (where there is really a lot of experience with CCTV) that concluded the things were pretty useless for both crime prevention and detection.
The proof again goes back to the cameras in question. Can you really imagine ANY private company where a vast number of physical security measures simply do not work at all?
Sure. There's even a market for fake cameras or at least there used to be. Real ones may have got so cheap that it has ceased to be worthwhile. Even if we assume a flawlessly run company its entirely possible that they have broken security stuff that wasn't worth scrapping when it became obsolete or experimental stuff that turned out to be not worthwhile but was never removed.
In real companies non working gates (or gates simply left open) and broken CCTV is entirely possible (does security even have a maintenance budget?). How often is the burglar alarm actually tested? Urban explorers show that for larger sites there tend to be ways in.
It isn't stupidity its marketing. Games have a self selected audience. People who don't like virtual guns won't buy games that feature them whatever you do so you do but the remaining market is large enough to make profit. Thus you make games with virtual guns and market them as such. The Xbox live Avatar system needs to be as acceptable to as many people as possible since the theoretical market is everyone with an Xbox 360. As a result you get the Avatar market equivalent of Garfield.
False. "The press follows the scanner conversations to report on all accidents and incidents". Few problems with that. First issue is modern press budgets are so low that paying a someone to sit and listen to a scanner 24/7 isn't an option. Secondly the press isn't interested in reporting all accidents and incidents. Most aren't news. Domestic disturbance at X, car broken into at Y a couple of the local lowlife having a tiff in the local park. No one cares.
The reality is that a journalist who regularly meets with police in the local pub has a much better chance of finding something interesting or something being concealed than one sitting by a scanner all day.
An appeal has been lodged.
No they wanted a business with a $100K turnover to behave in a responsible manner. They are in effect running a small scale chemical plant and that always is going to result in some paperwork even if it's just to let the local fire-brigade know that they need to be a bit careful.
Worse than that. He chose to fight rather than settle. Which means he either received some extremely poor legal advice or was prepared to accept some insane risk/reward ratios.
While the article may have a few razor thin points that can be put down to the BBC needing to make the article human readable the author's attempt to fit in some many political digs rather destroys their credibility.
F1 would probably beg to differ.
Actually in this case they probably are being smart. Trying to mess with fuel use standards in the interests of safety will just result in a lot of loopholes and red tape. In this case KISS applies.
1)Admins answer to [[WP:ARBCOM]]
2)what was the article in question?
Thing is in most cases when we do track them down the person was trying to push their own pet theory/advertise a company/other problematical behaviour. Other times it's just plain trying to add stuff that is already in wikipedia in a more relevant place.
The plural of unsupported anecdote is not data.
It is being worked on. For the time being though see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cheatsheet
hmm whats your wikipedia username?
Thing is we don't see many hard science articles deleted. There are a grand total of 28 articles that are nominaly related to science and technology listed for deletion on wikipedia. Few are hard sciences though (quite a few ads in there):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfD_debates_(Science_and_technology)
can you provide a link?
Wikipedians hold meetups in pubs from time to time:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Meetups_in_London