Here is a paper.

Shor's algorithm allows factorisation in polynomial time---there are fundamentally-quantum algorithms that can give a greater speedup.

Coming from Australia, almost every world map that I have ever seen is centred upon the prime meridian like this one.

Where I live a gun safe is required to be something like 1500kg or to be attached to the foundations, so it needn't be the case that they can just take them. I would be rather surprised if a significant number of burglars came prepared for safecracking after all.

No---the calculations were performed during the Manhattan project, and it was determined that the atmosphere could not sustain a fusion reaction. Furthermore, practically all of the Earth's atmosphere is composed of non-fissionable elements (that is to say, those that consume rather than release energy in a fission reaction).

EMP from a nuclear bomb occurs when gamma radiation ionises the upper atmosphere. A non-nuclear explosion does not produce gamma rays and so no EMP occurs.

Another source is here.

The real reason is probably that in the past, if it realised that you were on a fast connection, it would turn into a supernode and use gigantic quantities of bandwidth.

The DSO Quad has digital channels as well, which is what I believe the grandparent to be alluding to.

Magnetics is a term sometimes used for all such components.

As you approach c, though, length and time dilation work in your favour. 1g (of force, since constant acceleration is not possible for obvious reasons) might produce diminishing returns from the earth's perspective with respect to speed, but from the traveller's perspective the distance from earth to the destination will diminish by an equivalent factor---such is my understanding, anyway.

If you're looking for an understanding of what the DFT computes, sure. But the OP was more interested in how it works than what it does, so all of the Matlab in the world won't do much good. If you try to actually write out the DFT matrix, you're overdoing it for this purpose---that it is possible to write the transformation from frequency-domain to time-domain as a multiplication by an invertible matrix is enough, since then the DFT is then just the solution of a system of linear equations.

You don't need a deep knowledge of linear algebra for the finite-length discrete-time case, just the basics that everyone studying maths/science/engineering gets taught in the first couple of months of university. The point that I was trying to make was that for finite-length discrete-time signals, all that you're really doing is solving a system of linear equations like every man and his dog can do after a bit of training---that your coefficients happen to be uniformly-sampled complex exponentials doesn't really matter until you start thinking about efficient implementation.

The introductory signal processing textbook that I have is Lathi's "Signal Processing and Linear Systems". If you don't want to see it from the signal processing side, then any book covering introductory PDEs should have some Fourier Series. Alternatively, have a look at this.

The distinction I suppose is between conclusions that one can work out by inspection or immediate application of theorem, rather than by taking a detour through intermediate steps. It's probably not quite so cut-and-dry, but that's how I tend to see things. Such turns of phrase are just about part of the jargon.

It almost functions as a punctuation mark to reassure the paranoid (which sometimes is practically everyone) that "no, this next bit really is what it looks like".

Sorry, I meant to say a real exponential. It's probably true for more than one as well, but that means more than one line of Octave code to check (or some kind of conscious thought).