For example, drug use of course but increasingly also

smoking
drinking alcohol

Less common but more common by the year.
engaging in risky sports.
going on a vacation where you can't be reached by cell phone.
Saying something unpopular that "reflects badly on the company" even tho you did it on your own time.
being unreachable outside of working hours for more than a short period.
taking certain prescription drugs.
not taking certain prescription drugs (blood tests better show their presence).

etc.

I'm sure you can think of more now.

Interesting.

So do you think that you could replace a good advertising executive with an automated process?

Or a creative lawyer who thinks of new ways to argue existing laws?

Isn't dealing with ever changing exceptions being creative?

----

One thing about the ever changing exceptions is that companies are eliminating those by eliminating options and reducing the domain space (or eliminating it entirely).

For example with customer service menu trees and automated websites (and even automated chatbots).

You have a point but it's really more about terminology.

There are many different kinds of intelligence. I think being "creative" is one of them. And there are many different kinds of "creativity". A person who is really creative at painting won't be creative as a lawyer (finding new ways to apply existing law) or an advertising executive (thinking of something "fresh" to penetrate the noise" or as a writer.

But a lot of smart people don't create as much as they do analyze. Their jobs are at risk.

And a lot of people can create an idea now and then, but given a shortage of jobs, standards would be very high.

And ordinary manual labor (even telemarketing) is going the way of the dodo now.

I've seen estimates of 2/3 of fast food jobs being gone within 15 years. And the jobs that remain will basically be loading supplies into robots. (i.e. automated drink machine, automated cooking machines, automated kiosk or voice recognition ordering machines-- even automated delivery and unloading to storage of bulk supplies.)

To employ people for $5,000 and sell products to people who make $80,000.

They do not see the fundamental problem.

It will resolve itself. Wages in china and india are up to $5,000 now and still doubling every 2-4 years (lower wages doubling faster).

Of course, that leaves the problem of robotics- which right now- today- can do work for less than poverty level wages in most of the world- and are only getting better an cheaper.

Robot repair jobs are two orders of magnitude less (1 worker and robots replaces 1000 workers). Automated procedures is replacing most of the thinking jobs.

The only jobs left will be "creative" jobs. Where the creative part of your jobs is less than half of your job- look for outsourcing. And about, oh, at least half of the global population isn't well suited for creative jobs since they are (by definition) below average intelligence.

Either a free stuff utopia or some kind of really terrible future is just down the road.
Hopefully after I'm dead of course.

And I should say..

The amygdala of an atheist who disbelieves would put much more "alarm! Danger! Something weird is going on! You are probably being tricked!" than the brain of an atheist who simply lacked belief.

If the lack of a deity was extremely important to the atheist, they'd do or think just about anything to avoid logically concluding that the evidence of a deity was correct.

We mostly see this in religious people right now... you know.. "the face in my tortilla is a miracle created by my god" or "I survived out of 213 people when the airplane crashed because of my god". I matter and the world isn't just random chaos. That baby in aisle 7 died for a reason.

The irony being that many people are literally saved from death by their religion. For example, some religions are really strict about how you bath before meals, others are really strict about burning tainted bedding. Or when people of religion X go apeshit on everybody- other people of religion X are left alive.

ha ha.. I see what you did there.

But seriously, no.

Religious belief is a personal and cultural survival trait under many circumstances.

The amygdala of an atheist- faced with "interesting" evidence of the supernatural or a flat out deity would weight the facts accordingly.

0) "This isn't be real. You are mis-observing reality in some way"

And the rest of the brain kicks in ideas why...
1) it can't be real so what else is it?
2) I'm probably dreaming.
3) It's much more likely that I'm having a psychotic break or hallucinating.
4) Someone is playing a prank on me.
5) etc.

Actually solar and coal with CO2 capture are getting pretty close.

Germany, In Euros
hard coal 63â"80
PV power plants 78-142

and

UK, in pounds
Solar farms 125â"180
Coal with CO2 capture 100â"155

--

Coal causes 4,000 direct deaths per year and pollution from plants without pollution control measures cause tens of thousands of premature deaths annually.

Besides the radioactivity from coal- coal fires render and will continue to render more land uninhabitable than Chernobyl and Fukishima combined. Just one coal fire (burning for decades) has rendered as an area (700sqkm) as large as Fukishima uninhabitable. As a bonus- it pollutes a huge area with mercury and other pollutants.

I don't mean to give solar a pass (lots of rooftop deaths) (and we really don't know the down stream pollution effects or how much land will be rendered uninhabitable yet if we use a LOT of solar). My point is that solar is getting cheaper every day- batteries are getting better every day- and the cost of the two is getting fairly close (unless you want to burn raw brown coal with few to no pollution controls- then coal is half the price).

Personally- I've gotten a MUCH better bang for my buck from going to some CFL and mostly LED Bulbs (I esp. like the 900 lumen G7 3000K A19 factor bulbs. At $12.50ish they pay for themselves very quickly and as a bonus I've never had to replace one yet).

http://solarcellcentral.com/co...
"As can be seen from the chart at the left, solar cell prices have come down by a factor of 100 over the last 35 years. (The reason for the small increase between 2005 and 2008 was because of a polysilicon shortage.) The 2013 average price is expected to be $.74."

"First Solar's stated goals are to be under $.55 in 2014 and to be about $.40 by 2017. "

When continuing maintenance costs are considered, solar is already less expensive than cheap coal after 19 years. Coal plants have a higher annual maintenance cost than solar. This is more relevant to municipal plants. A homeowner might be dead or move before the payoff is realized.

I own one solar panel as an experiment.

It generates a maximum of 178 watts (but an average of about 100 watts) between 10am and 6pm right now. I have to wipe it off about twice a month. It saves me about $2 per month averaged over the year but the largest savings are in the summer. I bought it 3 years ago and it will take 19.44 years to pay off (if it makes it- I think the micro inverter will break first). But it's made me aware of solar.

Robotic soldiers will do exactly what they are ordered to do by a small subset of humans.

That's a more realistic danger in a thirty year window.

Fire on civilians? No problem.

Kill children? No problem.

Kill old people? No problem.

Kill every human within a selected 1 square kilometer area? No problem.

And we already have robots capable of recognizing humans, that have weapons, with autonomous movement. The only real challenges are operational duration, potential jamming, and maybe virii.

The amygdala assignes emotional weights to facts.

For example, some poeple with a damaged amygdalas will head towards dangerous things because one part of the brain says, "Whoop! Something interesting there" and then the amygdala makes you fear it or like it, etc. Without the amygdala you only know it's interesting.

Oddly, without the emotional weighting, other people with damaged amygdala's lose the ability to make logical decisions. Without the emotional weighting- they dither. Everything is equally important.

So, when a person has a strong belief in something- the amygdala weights contrary facts as unimportant or even dangerous while supporting facts are weighted as important and good.

You really need to find some other belief they have to get into their brain. For example, some religious people believe that making human beings suffer is bad. So if you can humanize another group and then show that some behavior the person is doing is making the other human suffer, then they can change their mind.

A religious person has a fundamentally different axiom. They believe there is a real deity and usually also believe that their deity cares about the believer's existence and how they behave. Anything that doesn't agree with that axiom- or worse- is perceived to threaten it- is downweighted or even made fearful/dangerous by the amygdala.

Is that
If "ANY" human can do it better or "many humans" or "most humans" or "all humans (even dumb ones) who don't have a brain injury that has broken one of the subsystems:

Such as
Brainstem (Medulla Oblongata, Reticular Activating System, Pons.)
Cerebellum â" balance, smooth movement, and posture
Thalamus
Hypothalamus
Limbic System
Amygdala
Hippocampus

---

Any human is a pretty high bar. There are probably a couple thousand humans on the plant right now that pretty much no other human being can duplicate their intelligence.

If we can get something as smart as a jack russell terrier- I'd be happy to call it strong AI.
I'm certain we can eventually get to "most humans" tho not as fast as this person is speculating. Some robots might never be as intelligent as a few human beings. Even if they are super smart- they may not be intelligent in the same way as those humans. And robots might be more intelligent than humans in some ways humans won't be able to comprehend.

It appears to be in dispute. I was going to reply to this and I kept running into 60% to 70% of people are introverts figures.

Like here
http://www.marshallparthenon.c...

"Extroverts make up between 60 to 70 percent of society and introverts account for 20 to 30 percent, according to Dr. Ed Diener from the University of Illinois."

http://www.psychologytoday.com...
"Researchers estimate extroverts make up 50 - 74 percent of the population. These âoesocial butterfliesâ thrive under social stimulation. "

(the very lowest end in line with your example).

I guess it depends on how you define it and it may have changed over time.
Myer's brig has gone from 75e/25i to 49.3e/50.7i that you list.

The curious press a button that shocks them at least once; The masochistic press the button many more times, over and over, with rising passion and obsession until with a wild cry of raw lust their body shudders with intense release and they hear the soft singing of angels.

Al Schopenhauer

I think with several years of child porn and drug sales buzz about Tor being "the place to be" that the presumption is changing to one where when you put up a Tor server, you know a lot of illegal stuff is going to happen when you put one up. Probably multiple illegal events in the first hour you put one up.

Personally, I wish they get over the drug insanity and legalize most drugs for consumption under some circumstances. Even the most highly addictive drugs are well under 70% addictive. Yes- some people's lives would be destroyed but we are destroying a lot more people's lives by criminalizing them and making them unemployable.

However, the child porn is an abomination and Tor needs to make an effort to stop it or it will grow to the point that it endangers Tor. (too late, eh?)

My impression of Tor is that it's used by people at political risk and people who do illegal activity- mostly drugs and child porn.

What's the degree of criminal activity over your average ISP? The degree of criminal activity could arguably show intent to aid and abbet.

Sure- a VW could be used in a robbery, but it's clear that they are not sold as a brand to help robberies.

Sure- a random ISP could be used to abet criminal activity, but it's clear they are not intentionally aiding any crimes. (you could argue You Tube intends to allow massive copyright violation-- the only reason I can't see they haven't been busted is that they are a large corporation).

But with Tor, you know when you put up a node that illegal activity will be conducted over it. People are not using Tor to post on Facebook.

In fact- it's child porn which is leading the charge to pierce Tor's anonymity. Just google "how common is child porn on Tor" and you can see articles about law enforcement agencies in multiple countries breaking into Tore as a result of child porn.

Indeed- that's what they found this person guilty of-- "Ferrying Child Porn".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

So they gave change for stealing?

Still stealing is more likely than a bribe for reduced charges and then you don't tell your friend about it.

The weird thing is that they made change for whatever occurred.