SMS messages use GSM control channels, not the main voice/data channels. Even worse, SMS messages compete for bandwidth with the other service messages (like 'make a call'). So too many SMS messages can easily crash operator's networks.
>I suppose a lot of people don't understand the desire for openness and transparency in government:-)
I do want an open and transparent government. But I also want a _competent_ government. Preferably, lead by a man without a previous record of splitting a country into 13 parts.
Beslan children might have been killed by special forces' bullets. But people somehow forget that _terrorists_ first filled the building with explosives and killed two dozens people even before the siege has began. Maybe there were better way to storm the building - but it's stupid to say that Russian military and Putin are guilty.
I don't really believe that the murder of Politkovskaya was linked to Putin. It's much more probably that it's linked to her Chechen friends.
As for Union of Socialist Democrats - I don't understand people voting for Gorbachev _again_.
>Putin is only popular because of the manipulation of the press. Nope. Putin is popular because he created at least SOME stability. It's much better now than during late 90-s.
>Otherwise, incidents like the Kursk and reasonable rational inqueries into who really killed the kids in Beslan would have destroyed him long ago. Why? Kursk blew up because of a faulty torpedo. And Beslan children were killed by terrorists (sometimes indirectly).
I'm saying that Putin is not tampering with the elections (I'm Russian, BTW) in any serious manner. There may be some individual incidents when overeager local governments which try to please the ruling party, but overall elections are quite normal. Putin has high enough approval rate (about 70%) to win elections.
And I don't really think that Putin needs to assassinate anyone - our opposition can't find its own ass with both hands. For example, one of Kasparov's political ally is a neo-Nazi (I'm not joking) organization. I'm sorry, but the best word describing Kasparov's opposition to Putin is not 'fierce' but 'rabid'.
Unfortunately, Putin and the ruling party ("Edinaya Rossiya" - "United Russia") have enough public support to win the upcoming elections without resorting to violence and voting fraud.
In any case, Kasparov's approval rate is about 2%, it's really that small. I personally won't vote for him in any case (I'm a Russian citizen). For example, he have neo-Nazis (no, I'm not joking) as political allies.
He's a good chess player, but not a good politician.
No. Particles interfere with themselves when they are not observed before they pass the double slit.
And particles must be able to interfere with themselves because we can get the interference pattern with double slit-experiment even if we shoot only one electron at a time.
>What is "macroscopic state" but the sum of a bunch of quantum states? In this case it means any measureable classic state. I.e. temperature, speed, the time taken by atom to cross through a laser pulse etc.
There's also microscopic or 'quantum' state - it's not possible to measure it.
Answer: quantum physicists do not care about _interpretations_ of quantum mechanics.
In many-worlds theory quantum systems never really collapse - they just branch new universes. In the classical Copenhagen interpretation the wave-function collapses. There's also 'many minds' interpretation (which states that universe exists because it's being observed by conscious observers) and so on.
Underlying math does not depend on your favorite interpretation. And so they are outside of scope of the science at the moment. However, there's a hope that there might be falsified some time later.
However, quantum mechanics is organized in such way that it's impossible to transmit _information_ (and as a consequence any interaction on macroscopic level) back in time. So it's impossible to change the cause of event.
Universe doesn't care about conscious observers. For example, slight heating of the Earth atmosphere by the light from SN1988 _also_ counts as 'observation'.
In fact, if an event changes macroscopic state of ANY physical object - it already counts as observation.
We're using it. It's a nice small database, very good for J2ME and small devices.
But even the authors of db4o say that it's not suitable for multi-gigabyte enterprise databases. For example, queries and query optimizer in db4o is a joke. Restructuring and versioning are primitive, etc.
Do you see a future for object databases? They are quite nice for some applications, but there are no real industrial-grade OpenSource implementations.
I used to go on camping trips for two months during summer holidays when I was at university (good times, sigh...). So I got plenty of respect for our ancestors who did not have our tools, clothes and modern camping equipment:)
Ah, but you see - most people don't live in Congo (and in tropical regions in general). And it's impossible to have a large population in temperate climate without agriculture.
Slashdot Mirror
In any case, SMS messages are significant burden for operators. So operators naturally want to limit the flow of messages.
At least because nobody would be using SMS if operators were throwing 90% of messages or delaying them for a few days.
Actually, no.
SMS messages use GSM control channels, not the main voice/data channels. Even worse, SMS messages compete for bandwidth with the other service messages (like 'make a call'). So too many SMS messages can easily crash operator's networks.
>I suppose a lot of people don't understand the desire for openness and transparency in government :-)
I do want an open and transparent government. But I also want a _competent_ government. Preferably, lead by a man without a previous record of splitting a country into 13 parts.
Beslan children might have been killed by special forces' bullets. But people somehow forget that _terrorists_ first filled the building with explosives and killed two dozens people even before the siege has began. Maybe there were better way to storm the building - but it's stupid to say that Russian military and Putin are guilty.
I don't really believe that the murder of Politkovskaya was linked to Putin. It's much more probably that it's linked to her Chechen friends.
As for Union of Socialist Democrats - I don't understand people voting for Gorbachev _again_.
>Putin is only popular because of the manipulation of the press.
Nope. Putin is popular because he created at least SOME stability. It's much better now than during late 90-s.
>Otherwise, incidents like the Kursk and reasonable rational inqueries into who really killed the kids in Beslan would have destroyed him long ago.
Why? Kursk blew up because of a faulty torpedo. And Beslan children were killed by terrorists (sometimes indirectly).
I'm saying that Putin is not tampering with the elections (I'm Russian, BTW) in any serious manner. There may be some individual incidents when overeager local governments which try to please the ruling party, but overall elections are quite normal. Putin has high enough approval rate (about 70%) to win elections.
And I don't really think that Putin needs to assassinate anyone - our opposition can't find its own ass with both hands. For example, one of Kasparov's political ally is a neo-Nazi (I'm not joking) organization. I'm sorry, but the best word describing Kasparov's opposition to Putin is not 'fierce' but 'rabid'.
The problem is that Putin doesn't NEED to tamper with the elections. He has a high enough approval rate as it is :(
Unfortunately, Putin and the ruling party ("Edinaya Rossiya" - "United Russia") have enough public support to win the upcoming elections without resorting to violence and voting fraud.
In any case, Kasparov's approval rate is about 2%, it's really that small. I personally won't vote for him in any case (I'm a Russian citizen). For example, he have neo-Nazis (no, I'm not joking) as political allies.
He's a good chess player, but not a good politician.
No. Particles interfere with themselves when they are not observed before they pass the double slit.
And particles must be able to interfere with themselves because we can get the interference pattern with double slit-experiment even if we shoot only one electron at a time.
>What is "macroscopic state" but the sum of a bunch of quantum states?
In this case it means any measureable classic state. I.e. temperature, speed, the time taken by atom to cross through a laser pulse etc.
There's also microscopic or 'quantum' state - it's not possible to measure it.
No, no, no.
If you don't have observer then you don't have (classical) information. You have a quantum superposition of states, i.e. all possible outcomes.
So it's possible to perform double-slit experiment even with single photons (or any other particle) - particles interfere with _themselves_.
Answer: quantum physicists do not care about _interpretations_ of quantum mechanics.
In many-worlds theory quantum systems never really collapse - they just branch new universes. In the classical Copenhagen interpretation the wave-function collapses. There's also 'many minds' interpretation (which states that universe exists because it's being observed by conscious observers) and so on.
Underlying math does not depend on your favorite interpretation. And so they are outside of scope of the science at the moment. However, there's a hope that there might be falsified some time later.
Actually, quantum "interactions" _do_ propagate back in time (Google for 'de-broglie wave back propagation'). And there's also uncertainty principle which also works in time: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/02/2231215&tid=14
However, quantum mechanics is organized in such way that it's impossible to transmit _information_ (and as a consequence any interaction on macroscopic level) back in time. So it's impossible to change the cause of event.
No, if there's nobody to hear it then the question does not make any sense - tree will exist in fallen and standing states simultaneously :)
But in the real world there's always some kind of 'observer'.
I know, there's even a scifi novel (alas, in Russian) centered around this very idea.
But this idea really falls into the same bin as religion and solipsism and other such philosophy - it's unfalsifiable.
Nope. The act of observation does NOT 'change' the chain of events, because the word 'change' assumes that event has occurred with some outcome.
Observation of an event 'creates' it (collapses wavefunction).
Universe doesn't care about conscious observers. For example, slight heating of the Earth atmosphere by the light from SN1988 _also_ counts as 'observation'.
In fact, if an event changes macroscopic state of ANY physical object - it already counts as observation.
I'm sorry. Only car analogies are allowed on Slashdot.
No, it's a limitation of db4o. "Big" object databases like Versant have a pretty good optimizer, but they cost $$$$$$
We're using it. It's a nice small database, very good for J2ME and small devices.
But even the authors of db4o say that it's not suitable for multi-gigabyte enterprise databases. For example, queries and query optimizer in db4o is a joke. Restructuring and versioning are primitive, etc.
Do you see a future for object databases? They are quite nice for some applications, but there are no real industrial-grade OpenSource implementations.
I used to go on camping trips for two months during summer holidays when I was at university (good times, sigh...). So I got plenty of respect for our ancestors who did not have our tools, clothes and modern camping equipment :)
That's why I said that it doesn't scale
Ah, but you see - most people don't live in Congo (and in tropical regions in general). And it's impossible to have a large population in temperate climate without agriculture.
Actually, people now work FAR LESS than hunters-gatherers or even medieval peasants. You basically need to work 7 hours a day 5 days a week.
Hunters-gatherers had to work from dawn to dusk just to survive.