That's really interesting. I remember when this [1] article came out, showing the difference in streets' income level with the greenery in the street, I found it amazing. Once I started thinking about it, I figured it should have been rather obvious.
So, the way to do would be to first figure if there's more crime in lower-income streets (likely. Right? No data to support me here) Then using the 'foliage detection algorithm', which you can use on LIDAR data available from USGS, which urban neighborhoods have less, and more crime. Do some tests, to see if your hypothesis holds and water at all, and it should be a solid test.
I would assume foliage is correlated to wealth. The most affluent areas of town in my city are generally placed on half acre lots (the old city has some that are on acre plus lots inside the city), upper middle class are on the 1/8th to 1/4 acres lots. I live in the original limits of the city, my house is 100 years old and sits on 1/16th of an acre. I'm solidly middle class and my neighbourhood feels it. The biggest thing to happen in my area in the past few months was a car accident on the main road just today. The last was a domestic in a 3-unit rental (IE cheap rent).
The issue with this theory is that my city has a strong industrial sector. So you can actually get great big 1/4 acre housing lots for really cheap. You're sandwiched between train tracks and an industrial machine shop. So be prepared for lots of crack deals on your streets (not even joking).
Again, going purely by foliage, my friend had a fantastic place in the city. 1/8th acre lot, amazing location in town. Hookers on the lawn. Ever had to yell at a pimp that you called 911 with a 3 month baby in your arms? She had a house worth half a mil.
The biggest issue with "perceiving" danger is that it's not real danger. Sure, there's a lot of dangerous looking parts of town. I know, I work doing home renovations. I've been there.
I worked in the roughest area of town. We had expensive tools, we had scrap aluminum (I had two 4ft pieces weighing 30lbs a piece and were easily carryable. Scrapped for $70). My boss was freaked, worried something was going to get stolen. Except, we were completely safe. I'd say we were on the safest street in the damn area. Why? Because all the hookers going home in the morning were scared shitless of one house. That house had a black guy who puts NFL line backers to shame sitting on the porch all day, every day as people came and went. When a homeless guy had a freak out at the end of the street, he's on his way. Why? Because a guy who's likely dealing drugs or worse, and presumably doing pretty good at it to have a bouncer, doesn't want shit happening on his street.
The Hells Angels club is in one of the poorest areas of town. When MS13 started showing up in town in the poor areas, their area ended up with a bunch of no-suspect assaults on gang members and it's been a couple years since I saw anyone who looked like they would belong to MS13. It would be a really bad area to live if you're Hispanic, but if you're white. It's probably one of the safest areas in town for you.
We as humans are pretty shit at evaluating actual risks. Our fears play into it too much, and our greatest fear is the fear of the unknown. I grew up in a very rough area of England and I moved to Canada. The "roughest area" has nothing compared to middle-class suburbia where I lived. At 2am in the morning am I afraid I'm going to get the shit kicked out of me by drunk hooligans? No. At 6pm on a sunday am I afraid I'm going to get mugged at knife point by a bunch of 15 year olds? No. People on my street feel "in danger" because there's teenagers playing on skateboards.
Likely. Lawns have pretty much always been conspicuous consumption: Versailles is sometimes considered the source of the first modern lawn, as opposed to a pasture.
Some places will have much more green area just because they have much more open space, or empty areas. A more compact or older city will have less space, less green area. But not necessarily because poverty.
>Airbnb was dismissive when I contacted them about our security concerns. It apologized for the inconvenience, but said it is just an Internet company and can't get involved.
This. Happening over and over again, everywhere. No matter what your business model is, involve the 'internet', and then you are just an Internet company, and can't get involved in the problems you caused. Because, The Internet.
This sets a dangerous trend for new companies that will grow in an environment where the claim of being an 'Internet Company' clears them of all responsibility.
I have a similar (albeit modified) theory. Let me clarify that stupid and smart don't necessary mean the same as regular usage, but they're close enough.
If you are 'stupid' (not necessarily intellectually, but in some ways), the neurosis (psychosis is a strong word, no?) is less, you don't think about things you shouldn't (bothersome, existentially) and you have a healthy and comfortable intellectual-emotional life.
If you are very smart/smart, you can get beyond the temporary plateau of 'thoughtfulness' that also brings neurosis. You think about things that are bothersome, but you have enough mental strength to overcome and suppress them. You're high-functioning intellectually, and it doesn't take a toll on your psychosis.
If you're in the 'middle', you tend to think about things, and keep thinking till you've found reasonable solution. It is bothersome, depressing, and often not pleasant. But you have the gift of 'thinking', and you like using it. It's a stimulating albeit mentally tiring existence.
When you say you're 'dumber', I interpret it as you saying you've trained yourself not to ponder upon things that will lead to no obvious outlet. Maybe you've genuinely trained yourself to never think about certain things, maybe you've trained to control your bothersome thoughts on command. Either way, you've trained your thoughts to a 'different level'.
Hm, there's another extreme that you're missing, which is that of not just thinking about a problem, but thinking about all of the problems, and just forward-projecting and forward-projecting until the cows come home, branching and branching and branching until you start to find commonalities and convergences between the outcomes of (the outcomes of the outcomes of) various ongoing situations which either provide useful strategic insight, or just satisfy curiosity. I see temporal and atemporal problems in much the same light - it's all just causation, and tracing the patterns forwards or backwards far enough to see the common causes.
I can, happily, quash general anxious negative outcome thoughts (i.e. fixation on a specific negative thought) - but just having to go through them all, even once, as part of the human path-finding algorithm still takes its toll.
Ultimately the benefit, in terms of having Seldon-esque pre-sight on many matters (although I don't hesitate to admit that I do get things wrong, as the imp of the perverse likes to roll the dice from time to time), outweighs the toll - although I do, from time to time, worry that I will end up in a straightjacket.
>Society can't make progress if progress hinges upon the diktates of a corruptible few.
Not being sarcastic here, but come again? Isn't that also the argument _against_ bitcoin? The extension of that argument being: would people rather they get to _elect_ the corruptible few, or that the select few be just that because they are rich (family, etc) (eg. VC's dumping their money into bitcoin).
It doesn't matter what some politician thinks, or even what a rich VC thinks: there will never be more than 21,000,000 bitcoins.
Once you invest in Bitcoin, you have a vested interest in the system maintaining and appreciating in value.
I'm not worried about Bitcoin being debased by VCs.
Politicians and bankers do concern me, however, because they can do whatever they want to my fiat currency: inflate it, deflate it, confiscate it, freeze it
and they can always hold those things over my head in order to compel me to take an action against my will.
Mainstream institutions have proven time after time to be more interested in accumulating and preserving their own power, than acting in the public's best interests.
I no longer trust this system, and I actively seek out ways in which to protect myself from its whims. I would never hold any more of its money than I absolutely had to, and I look forward to building a free economy on top of the blockchain.
That's what Bitcoin's about. It's not about being PayPal 2.0.
I'm not sure I completely comprehend the issue: so you want to play a location-based massive multiplayer game, AND you don't want to let your location be known. Hmmm.
Why can another player retrieve my current location just because I posted a chat message?
This information is not displayed in the game, but the data is retrieved.
Every time the event list or the chat is loaded, along with each post content the location of the player who has been the source of the event is also coming from the server.
It's not the current location that's retrieved. It's the approximate location of when you sent the message (or as I mentioned previously, the location of your map view in intel if you send the chat from there) or other "alert" event.
Considering most of the alert events are location specific events (playerX captured/attacked/deployed portalX, linked portalX and portalY), playing the location based game exposes your location to other players.
All the reports have clearly stated 'international air corridor'. Pretty ignorant to be commenting on the issue without actually reading the article. I'm sure some common sense would have avoided that.
This particular article says nothing about an "international air corridor". You owe him an apology for accusing him of not reading the article when you clearly did not read it yourself.
Thanks, tzs. So what if it's an international treaty, would you expect terrorists (possibly, wanting to boast of their hardware superiority) to honor it? There's always a risk in everything, but there are some known risks that we should never take. Qantas, Korean and US airliners were already avoiding Ukraine airspace altogether even without an ICAO ban. Sorry if the post hurt your feelings, no malice intended.
True that, but if you were writing poems in say, ancient Greece, you likely weren't Little Billy writing love ballads to Susan from across the street. That someone was writings poems itself makes them notable than their compadres.
There's this woman, Allia Potestas [1], who is notable just because we happen to have her epitaph, and the epitaph happens to mention details of some sort of polyandrous relationship configuration that she had. I doubt she would be notable if she lived today.
Additionally, I'm pretty sure that poetry in Ancient Greece was if anything more commonplace than it is today, and not necessarily some high action of the literati. I think we're used to a world where the marginal cost of reproducing creative works is very low, so everyone can hear the same songs and read the same books as everyone else - before the era of easy reproduction, I think you had a lot more "local talent" generating their own little poems, songs, plays, etc.
I found a bug in there: sometimes you'll get two of same person, and since they have the same ID, they'll act like they were the same image, so you can never complete the round onwards.
While I agree IEEE is evil, the practice is standard among publishers, or any economic entity. It's called price discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination). The seller usually makes the difference the amount that price arbitrage is unprofitable. The producer (IEEE in this case) often does this to create presence in markets where it would otherwise be uncompetitive: the pricing reflects the cost only of printing and getting the book to the customer. Do we all want to buy books at South Asian prices? YES! Can we: No! That would drive the producers dead right away.
For those who didn't click the link, the classic example of price discrimination is movie tickets. There is one price for adults, and another for children, even though the costs to the cinema are the same either way.
Yes, the ability to separate markets and thereby price discriminate will increase producer profits. Yes, this will sometimes make otherwise unviable products viable. However, this is not always the case. In the case of textbooks, I would suspect that, if producers could not discriminate, they would price at roughly the 'Western' price, and people in low income countries would be unable to afford a licensed copy of these books. Perhaps we would save a small percentage, but not much.
So, the way to do would be to first figure if there's more crime in lower-income streets (likely. Right? No data to support me here) Then using the 'foliage detection algorithm', which you can use on LIDAR data available from USGS, which urban neighborhoods have less, and more crime. Do some tests, to see if your hypothesis holds and water at all, and it should be a solid test.
http://mashable.com/2012/07/18/google-maps-income-inequality...