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.
>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'.
>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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...