But doesn't recreating a waveform by summing several other waveforms require that those components be of significantly higher frequency? Basic Taylor series stuff? E.g. recreating a 1 GHz carrier at the receiver from 10 random-distance sources would require each of those sources to be in the order of 10 - 100 GHz, especially if those transmitted waveforms are further constrained to be simultaneously delivering signals to other receivers.
The shooter that is...
FIPS certification is only available for systems that implement modest key lengths. Many of the approved algorithms are designed to support much greater key length, but longer keys are not allowed by the specs. FIPS won't certify 'em. It's a pretty safe guess that the allowed key lengths are such that the NSA can break them if needed using custom hardware or whatever else quasi-unlimited money can buy. Remember 20+ years ago when the gov't regulated all crypto as a munition? They still allowed low-bit encryption because they knew they could break it. They're still playing that game, except now it's done with standards and certifications instead of laws.
You really don't want to start making up your own ad hoc crypto. Approved algorithms have been extensively vetted by honest experts; any possible weaknesses would be very, very subtle. Using approved algorithms with non-standard "ridiculous" key lengths is probably the safest workaround to suspected weaknesses until... on second thought, key lengths much greater than the gov't "recommends" will always be a good idea! Keep in mind that any weaknesses in crypto algorithms would merely make them easier to break, but breaking still requires huge resources and takes time. Longer keys kick up that effort exponentially to the point that very probably nobody can break them in a useful time frame, provided that implementations are reliable and trustworthy.
To think that for all these years I had assumed these types of conferences are just well-publicized cocktail parties. Maybe that's the most revealing part of this new round of disclosures. But then again, those upper-crust Brits have been known to take their parties (and their spying) pretty seriously...
Won't help your current situation, but in the future consider routinely dropping some standard personal easter eggs into your code. You need to invent your own obscure bag of tricks, but some silly examples would be that stringing together the 3rd letter of each of the first 10 variable names spells your name, or trivially encrypted words in numeric constants or variable names. It's been done in literature for years, for example http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-05/pl_print
Yeah, I know you can supposedly hear "Paul is dead" if you play a certain Beatles track backwards. This isn't the kind of "proof" that would send someone to prison, but being able to demonstrate a few such little flourishes should be plenty enough to buy you the benefit of the doubt and likely constitute probable cause for an investigation.
Most importantly, SHUT UP and don't tell ANYBODY what your secrets are unless you're up against the wall. Even then, don't spill all of 'em. This is security by obscurity -- not an opportunity to show your friends how clever your little treasures are. People talk.
From my experience as an ISV selling a low-price tool, it's very hard for teachers to get you paid unless it's out of their own pocket. This kills most school sales for us.
School boards tend to require *all* purchases to go through a rigid, old-fashioned admin maze where the teacher submits a purchase order, the administration maybe approves it & mails a PO, vendor receives PO and possibly rejects it due to oftentimes onerous terms & conditions, vendor ships the product, invoices the school, does some more chasing after the money when they don't pay, etc, etc. For e-goods, there is sometimes a hassle getting paid because there's no physical item that their receiving department can confirm they received. There are usually no shortcuts like you'd have with regular businesses, e.g. the teacher buying or contributing and then getting reimbursed. Definitely no corporate credit cards in this market, either.
Obviously this cuts out e-vendors who require up-front credit cards or e-checks (just about all of 'em), and no teacher's going through that maze just for $10 - 20 unless they're crazy desperate. I'd suggest you either set up a scheme where payments/contributions are low enough for teachers to pay out of their own pocket and where you make it clear that you recognize and appreciate their personal expense, or high enough to make it worth everybody's while to go with purchase orders.
Microsoft technically was at the starting line.
It's actually a 2-way matchup: Android vs. Windows. Apple doesn't want to be #1. They're married to their high-margin boutique business model and the really big market numbers are for low-cost items where Apple can't outgun the entire rest of the hardware industry. Android aspires to the mass market but faces several very real perils from different directions right now (e.g. fragmentation, no control over the total experience, the patent war isn't over yet, ridiculous process for pushing updates, problems with partners due to the Motorola deal, inconsistent Marketplace App quality, etc.), so odds are very good that Google will fumble one or more of those... at which point Windows will be waiting, with nowhere to go but up.
The question will then be whether Windows is ready to pursue the advantage. Um, make that "ready enough" since we're discussing a Microsoft product.
Remember that Microsoft's biggest cash cows (Windows NT family, Excel, Word) were once distant also-rans (vs. Novell, Lotus, Word Perfect) that ended up being the last man standing. Admittedly, Microsoft wasn't above pursuing their advantage whenever their competitors faltered, but mainly they just kept ratcheting up their products + marketing and watched the others screw up. XBox, Exchange Server & a bunch of others also come to mind. Oh, and Bing: it's solidly #2 now that Yahoo has fallen, though they're still way behind Google.
Of course Microsoft have also had many failures (hell, they completely blew Hotmail's #1 spot), especially recently, but the tablet OS business is no sideshow: they well know it's do or die for them. They will use their biggest guns (they still have plenty) to make their OS attractive by sheer effort and perseverence, even if it costs billions, takes 2 more versions of Windows, and they have to bribe every 3rd party developer + device maker on the planet. They wrote the book on how this is done and they won't run out of money in the meanwhile.
1 - Do you think college does a good job of preparing students for a sustainable CAREER in IT? (Let's say 75% Yes)
2 - Does college train graduates for the nitty-gritty specific requirements of your company? (8% Yes)
3 - Referring to question 2: fantasies aside, should college train graduates for those specific requrements (10% Yes)
#1 is the "honest" question, designed to make sure people answer #2 in contrast to it. #2 is the answer the questioner desires to "prove" and publish. #3 is used to target think tank fund-raising to the 10% who think college should be a trade school.
Honestly, folks, 8% is the tipoff. There are some clueless managers out there, but not 92% of them! Those folks were just answering the questions exactly as posed.
RECOGNIZE & RESIST these tactics. When you see non-peer reviewed (or anonymous) "research," THINK BEFORE YOU EMOTE and remember that most of the outfits who ask these questions have an agenda. When you are asked to answer loaded surveys like this, don't just toss them. See them for what they are and advisedly answer them incorrectly.
My college (who deals with engine health monitoring and MRO's) reckons a medium sized airlines may be in the hole for US$2B should they're engines be exposed to ash.
It's much worse than that: I'm not sure that a medium-sized airline would even get a chance to spend their non-existent $2B. Let's suppose the carriers got lucky and there were no catastrophic accidents of failures from flying thru ash. There would probably be sub-catastrophic engine damage that would manifest itself over time. What's the probability of that? Nobody knows, we're talking a manly shoot-from-the-hip gamble.
What would happen if an extra 10,000+ engines from the entire European fleet prematurely came in for overhaul over the next 6-18 months? Engine overhaul capacity is a very finite thing, and so is turbine manufacturing. Overhaul facilities are already booked for scheduled maintenance well into the future. Overtime + existing parts stock definitely wouldn't cover this, and the necessary mechanics take forever to train and legally certify. Just replacing all those engines with new ones is a non-starter for many reasons.
The backlog would take years to clear. In the meanwhile, a big chunk of the entire fleet would be out of action for a long time. Could any airline survive that? Could the economy?
Branson's effectively suggesting that the entire industry should have taken a cowboy-style gamble on their entire future to save a week's losses, not to mention the broader economic and security consequences of such a disaster! Branson's never been a risk-adverse guy, but gambling the entire fleet...?!
Again, "human input." That would be the end users making their queries in this case. They would seem to be the equivalent of photographers operating their cameras here, so I'd expect that the end users own the copyright on the output.
Reading http://laws.findlaw.com/us/499/340.html, it's clear that there's a "creativity" requirement for copyright, and that only tangible instantiations of a work are copyrightable -- not general principles or algorithms. Wolfram's system is on full autopilot and would seem to be the analog of a camera in this discussion, and my understanding of the current state of technology and law is that only humans are capable of creativity.
Wolfram's software is surely copyrightable, as are certain human-created elements (e.g. their logo) which are copied into the final output. The human user's formulated query is probably copyrightable "authorship." However, Wolfram's system has no humans in the loop and a mere mechanical process cannot change authorship, so it would seem that the user and Wolfram both own copyrights on different parts of the output. The user probably owns the "meat" of the results, much as if I would own the copyright if I rented Wolfram's camera to take photos.
Anybody can claim copyright on anything, but making it stick is another matter.
Machine-generated output per se isn't copyrightable, since machines aren't (yet) capable of original authorship. Of course, computer output is copyrightable if it also contains original, human-generated content, for example Wolfram's logo, etc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright, search for "authorship."
I have seen cases where patents are issued for "inventions" that were allegedly previously published in big-name publications (e.g. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory).
As a real-world matter, getting and abandoning a patent has a significant advantage over other methods of publication: if somebody else tries to patent your invention later, the Patent Office has a better chance of rejecting their application. The fact is that the USPTO examiners are pressed for time and usually only search their own patent and patent application databases for prior art because it's quick & easy for them. Anyone who's ever been involved in a patent application will remember that the examiner raises prior-art objections by throwing patents or apps back at you, not journal articles or websites.
Obviously, helping the USPTO to reject a patent in the first place is much better than the expense, time and anxiety of trying to overturn somebody else's patent later. Naturally there's no guarantee that the examiner's search will actually turn up your patent or application, but being in their data base improves your odds significantly.
Don't bother to RTFA, everybody here already knows everything in that article.