I'd say you are correct with regards to Mahayana buddhism (the larger fraction). It believes in a kind of cosmic presence ("The Cosmic Buddha") which can be equated to God, and Bodhisatvas are prayed to much like saints are prayed to in catholicism.
Theravada buddism (the smaller fraction), however, does not have these kinds of beliefs, and I think it can be considered truly atheistic.
Dude, an algorith which is O(n*log(n)) is not faster than O(n) just because n*log(n) < n.
When an algorithm is O(n* log(n)), it means the actual time requirement is p*n*log(n)+q, where p and q are constants specific to the algorithm.
The O(n*log(n)) algorith is faster than the O(n) one when
p1*n*log(n)+q1 < p2*n+q2
... and for any n, it is possible to choose p1, p2, q1 and q2 so that the O(n) algorith becomes faster.
This means, for example, that an algorithm which is O(n*log(n)) isn't automatically faster than an algorithm which is O(n) on lists with three elements or more. The O(n*log(n)) algorithm may take a hundred times longer to sort a list of two elements than the O(n) one (due each step being more complex), and in that case the lists will need to grow some before the O(n*log(n)) algorithm becomes faster.
I don't believe in the domino effect theory. It states that a communist country will more or less automatically affect its neighbours into becoming communist.
It is a fact, though, that the Soviet Union supported political and rebel movements in many countries, and I believe that interventions from the USA may have stopped many of them from succeeding.
And my point is that most of the things people believe are fact, are actually relative or subjective, when you look at them closely. Even the things people bring up as textbook examples of facts.
Statements can be more or less factual, but I doubt they can ever be completely factual.
It would be wrong to say that "red light" has a wavelength of 400 nm, but there is no single right answer, unless you arbitrarily choose one of the many possible definitions of "red light".
It would be impossible to tell if an alien perceived red objects as we perceive blue ones, since we can't place ourselves in their minds. Even with a full understanding of both theirs and ours neurology, it would be impossible to say what their subjective experience were. This is equivalent to the old philosophical problem of telling if two humans subjectively perceive the same colour when they see the same object. If your subjective perception was reversed, so you perceived all red objects as blue and vice versa, how could you tell?
The problem is that the nerve cells for perceiving different wavelengths in the retina overlap. A single wavelength can activate two different types of cells. That means, if you define "red" light that broadly, the same wavelengths can be used to create colours completely distinct from red.
Conversely, if you define "red" wavelengths so narrowly that they only activate one type of nerve cell, there are many wavelengths outside that range which can be used to create the colour red.
Colours do not correspond directly to any objective measurement in the outside world. Colours are constructed by the brain, based on, among other things, the wavelength of the incoming light.
I agree on the piling on part. The USA tends to get the blame for everything, both when it does good and when it does bad.
I'd just like to remind you that the USA didn't invent liberalism, individualism, or free-market capitalism. They were invented by mainly French and British philosphers (like Montesquieu, Locke and Spinoza), put into practice in Great Britain, and then picked up by the British colonies which would become the USA.
I do, however, believe that the USA acted as a role model for Europe up until the early 20th century, by virtue of being the first modern democracy, and taking the liberal ideas further than anyone else.
and the long run of world peace (i.e., no wars between major powers) since the end of WWII is a testament to its effectiveness as a deterrent and peace-keeper.
The long stretch of peace from 1945 to 1990 is, unfortunately, as much due to the existence of the Soviet Union as to the USA. The Soviet Union made sure there were no wars between its satellite states, and only participated in minor wars themselves, much like the USA. Communist China, as oppressive as it is, ensured that 1/4 of the world's population lived under peace (today it contains a smaller fraction of the world's population).
Peace in Western Europe has been maintained mainly by tying together the countries' economies through the European Coal and Steel Community (the idea being that no single country can start a war without control over the essential resources of coal and steel).
But I do believe the presence of USA:s military power makes many rogue states think twice before attacking their neighbours, and that the USA played an important part in preventing the Soviet Union from expanding.
I'm not familiar with how much humanitarian aid the USA provides compared to other industrialised countries. If you have a link, I'd be happy to investigate.
For any of the complaints about US overreaching or manipulation, there are 10 more to be made about far more egregious violations of human rights, national sovereignty, etc. by other nations.
Yes, other nations like China, Iran or Cuba. But you're a rich western democracy, so you should compare yourselves to Canada and Western Europe.
Well, for example, during the Cold War era, the Soviet Union was trying to expand its territory (into Afghanistan and Vietnam, for example). Somebody had to oppose them, or the Eastern bloc could have been even stronger and survived even longer.
I'm not sure if the meddling in the middle east has been for the good, though. Each intervention seems to have created more problems one or two decades down the line. Like supporting Saddam in the 80's.
I assumed the grand-grand-parent was talking about preventing someone from using Internet outside of prison/arrest, like the courts can do in the USA. That's why I said it wasn't possible in Sweden. But I probably misunderstood.
Yes, I'm Swedish. Even though the US and the UK are close allies, I'd rather be helped by the UK. The US has a very disturbing tendency to let the end justify any means.
If it goes as far as petting and she's been fairly clear that she don't want to I think you deserve to get the rape stamp.
But it still counts as rape if the woman agreed to have sex and then tells you to stop in the middle of the act.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think a woman has a right to change her mind anytime, but the law should allow for the guy to be a little slow on the uptake in certain situations.
The wavelength physicists call "red" is the one which gives the clearest red colour in a "neutral" environment. But that wavelength may give rise to a completely different colour, like orange, in another environment. Not just a different tone.
Assigning colour names to wavelengths is just a useful shorthand. It doesn't mean that particular wavelength always corresponds to that colour.
The rape charge has been withdrawn now, but in this article one of the women explains how she met the other and they decided to go to the police together: Expressen
You can probably get an intelligible English version by feeding it through Google Translate.
Sheesh, do you really think the military would agree to declassify documents which show their own failures in Afghanistan? They even lied and said that the helicopter video, where journalists were gunned down, didn't exist until Wikileaks leaked it.
And in case you missed it, what Assange did was completely legal. There is no law preventing Australian citizens from releasing documents classified in the US, just as there is no law preventing US citizens from releasing documents classified in Australia.
Unfortunately, Swedish courts tend to set the bar very low for rape convictions. Here, the alleged victim's story may be enough for a conviction if it corroborates with physical evidence. And "physical evidence" doesn't refer to evidence of rape, it refers to anything which is consistent with the victim's story, like a torn piece of clothing.
There was one case where the same torn blouse was used to send innocent men to prison in three different rape trials, and it wasn't until a policeman recognised the blouse it was stopped.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say you are correct with regards to Mahayana buddhism (the larger fraction). It believes in a kind of cosmic presence ("The Cosmic Buddha") which can be equated to God, and Bodhisatvas are prayed to much like saints are prayed to in catholicism.
Theravada buddism (the smaller fraction), however, does not have these kinds of beliefs, and I think it can be considered truly atheistic.
What about the scientific method?
Not necessarily.Population growth is low to zero in industrialised countries.
Um, you're right, the left and right hand of the inequality should switch places...
Dude, an algorith which is O(n*log(n)) is not faster than O(n) just because n*log(n) < n.
When an algorithm is O(n* log(n)), it means the actual time requirement is p*n*log(n)+q, where p and q are constants specific to the algorithm.
The O(n*log(n)) algorith is faster than the O(n) one when
p1*n*log(n)+q1 < p2*n+q2
... and for any n, it is possible to choose p1, p2, q1 and q2 so that the O(n) algorith becomes faster.
This means, for example, that an algorithm which is O(n*log(n)) isn't automatically faster than an algorithm which is O(n) on lists with three elements or more. The O(n*log(n)) algorithm may take a hundred times longer to sort a list of two elements than the O(n) one (due each step being more complex), and in that case the lists will need to grow some before the O(n*log(n)) algorithm becomes faster.
Just tell them to get off your lawn!
Ok, do you think that rationale is wrong?
The Domino Effect Theory may have been stupid, but it can still contain a grain of truth.
For comparison, the communist hunt during the 50's was hysterical, but there was a small number of actual communist agents in USA at the time.
I'd say the burden of proof is on the one doing the invading.
I don't believe in the domino effect theory. It states that a communist country will more or less automatically affect its neighbours into becoming communist.
It is a fact, though, that the Soviet Union supported political and rebel movements in many countries, and I believe that interventions from the USA may have stopped many of them from succeeding.
And my point is that most of the things people believe are fact, are actually relative or subjective, when you look at them closely. Even the things people bring up as textbook examples of facts.
Statements can be more or less factual, but I doubt they can ever be completely factual.
It would be wrong to say that "red light" has a wavelength of 400 nm, but there is no single right answer, unless you arbitrarily choose one of the many possible definitions of "red light".
It would be impossible to tell if an alien perceived red objects as we perceive blue ones, since we can't place ourselves in their minds. Even with a full understanding of both theirs and ours neurology, it would be impossible to say what their subjective experience were. This is equivalent to the old philosophical problem of telling if two humans subjectively perceive the same colour when they see the same object. If your subjective perception was reversed, so you perceived all red objects as blue and vice versa, how could you tell?
The problem is that the nerve cells for perceiving different wavelengths in the retina overlap. A single wavelength can activate two different types of cells. That means, if you define "red" light that broadly, the same wavelengths can be used to create colours completely distinct from red.
Conversely, if you define "red" wavelengths so narrowly that they only activate one type of nerve cell, there are many wavelengths outside that range which can be used to create the colour red.
Colours do not correspond directly to any objective measurement in the outside world. Colours are constructed by the brain, based on, among other things, the wavelength of the incoming light.
I agree on the piling on part. The USA tends to get the blame for everything, both when it does good and when it does bad.
I'd just like to remind you that the USA didn't invent liberalism, individualism, or free-market capitalism. They were invented by mainly French and British philosphers (like Montesquieu, Locke and Spinoza), put into practice in Great Britain, and then picked up by the British colonies which would become the USA.
I do, however, believe that the USA acted as a role model for Europe up until the early 20th century, by virtue of being the first modern democracy, and taking the liberal ideas further than anyone else.
and the long run of world peace (i.e., no wars between major powers) since the end of WWII is a testament to its effectiveness as a deterrent and peace-keeper.
The long stretch of peace from 1945 to 1990 is, unfortunately, as much due to the existence of the Soviet Union as to the USA. The Soviet Union made sure there were no wars between its satellite states, and only participated in minor wars themselves, much like the USA. Communist China, as oppressive as it is, ensured that 1/4 of the world's population lived under peace (today it contains a smaller fraction of the world's population).
Peace in Western Europe has been maintained mainly by tying together the countries' economies through the European Coal and Steel Community (the idea being that no single country can start a war without control over the essential resources of coal and steel).
But I do believe the presence of USA:s military power makes many rogue states think twice before attacking their neighbours, and that the USA played an important part in preventing the Soviet Union from expanding.
I'm not familiar with how much humanitarian aid the USA provides compared to other industrialised countries. If you have a link, I'd be happy to investigate.
For any of the complaints about US overreaching or manipulation, there are 10 more to be made about far more egregious violations of human rights, national sovereignty, etc. by other nations.
Yes, other nations like China, Iran or Cuba. But you're a rich western democracy, so you should compare yourselves to Canada and Western Europe.
I doubt that "Al Qaeda" even exists as an organisation (it seems to be more of a common name for many independent terrorist organisations).
I agree on Iraq. There was no real justification to invade it. But the USA actually provides a large part of the UN peacekeeping forces.
Yes, on a small scale. It's mostly experimental, but since it's a huge cost-saver, I believe it will become more and more common.
For once, cost-saving and humane treatment go hand in hand.
Well, for example, during the Cold War era, the Soviet Union was trying to expand its territory (into Afghanistan and Vietnam, for example). Somebody had to oppose them, or the Eastern bloc could have been even stronger and survived even longer.
I'm not sure if the meddling in the middle east has been for the good, though. Each intervention seems to have created more problems one or two decades down the line. Like supporting Saddam in the 80's.
Perhaps a large fraction, but not the majority.
I assumed the grand-grand-parent was talking about preventing someone from using Internet outside of prison/arrest, like the courts can do in the USA. That's why I said it wasn't possible in Sweden. But I probably misunderstood.
Yes, I'm Swedish. Even though the US and the UK are close allies, I'd rather be helped by the UK. The US has a very disturbing tendency to let the end justify any means.
If it goes as far as petting and she's been fairly clear that she don't want to I think you deserve to get the rape stamp.
But it still counts as rape if the woman agreed to have sex and then tells you to stop in the middle of the act.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think a woman has a right to change her mind anytime, but the law should allow for the guy to be a little slow on the uptake in certain situations.
"... not just a different shade", I meant to write.
The wavelength physicists call "red" is the one which gives the clearest red colour in a "neutral" environment. But that wavelength may give rise to a completely different colour, like orange, in another environment. Not just a different tone.
Assigning colour names to wavelengths is just a useful shorthand. It doesn't mean that particular wavelength always corresponds to that colour.
The rape charge has been withdrawn now, but in this article one of the women explains how she met the other and they decided to go to the police together: Expressen
You can probably get an intelligible English version by feeding it through Google Translate.
Sheesh, do you really think the military would agree to declassify documents which show their own failures in Afghanistan? They even lied and said that the helicopter video, where journalists were gunned down, didn't exist until Wikileaks leaked it.
And in case you missed it, what Assange did was completely legal. There is no law preventing Australian citizens from releasing documents classified in the US, just as there is no law preventing US citizens from releasing documents classified in Australia.
Unfortunately, Swedish courts tend to set the bar very low for rape convictions. Here, the alleged victim's story may be enough for a conviction if it corroborates with physical evidence. And "physical evidence" doesn't refer to evidence of rape, it refers to anything which is consistent with the victim's story, like a torn piece of clothing.
There was one case where the same torn blouse was used to send innocent men to prison in three different rape trials, and it wasn't until a policeman recognised the blouse it was stopped.