Why is this called the "Brazil Nut Effect?" This is just normal buoyancy, science teachers have been doing demonstrations like this for years. You can do the same thing if you put a golf ball in the bottom of a container full of shredded bark and shake it.

Buoyancy is about displacement and density - a buoyant item has less mass than the amount of bulk matter it displaced. Like say, how boats float - the mass of water displaced by a boat is more than the mass of the boat.

The Brazil Nut Effect isn't about buoyancy because it has nothing to do with the Brazil Nut's mass. It's about the observation in a can of mixed nuts, if you give them a shake, the Brazil nut rises to the top. Consistently.

If it was about buoyancy, then it's because the Brazil nut displaces less err, nuts, than the others, but no. You can replicate the effect with many other things - the bigger items rise to the top.

Social Engineering.
  Certainly, it's not as cost effective as other methods and requires elaborate planning. But no matter the technological level of advancement this has been, and most likely will continue to be, a very serious security threat. Simply because it targets a vulnerability that will be very hard to fix - our social, human nature.

Not cost effective? You're kidding right?

Even Windows is more secure than humans. Modern viruses and Trojans are relying on social engineering to get themselves installed all the time because it's easier and cheaper to do so than to try to sniff a vulnerability out and shell code your way in.

Hell, we used to joke about the "honor system virus" (where it asks you to do the destruction and send it to 10 of your contacts). Truth be told, it actually is kind of successful these days.

There are still elaborate attacks, but social engineering remains one of the cheapest, most effective ways to get through any security measure.

Businesses shouldn't be using the Internet to do checks on applicants. All that should matter is if they can do the job, and any criminal activity they may have been convicted of within the past 10 years.

Someone having sex on a crowded train shouldn't matter. What should matter is if they were convicted of said crime within the previous 10 years, and if they're applying for certain jobs where such actions speak to their character--train conductor.

Just because someone commits a crime or does an ill-deed, doesn't mean they should end up jobless and homeless on the street.

MAKE IT ILLEGAL for businesses to use certain resources in determine job eligibility, loan qualifications, etc.

And for goodness sake, there's something called a retraction! News article got something wrong? Have them print a retraction or sue them for defemation.

So you solved the employment problem.

Now what about the neighbour problem? I mean, you move into a new house in a nice neighbourhood, and one of the neighbours Googles you and finds you did something unsavory. Perhaps it was urinating in public. Or maybe it was a nasty divorce. Or perhaps you have a DUI.

Well geez, now your neighbours starts spreading rumors and you're persona non grata in what is otherwise a nice neighbourhood. Perhaps one of them finds their lawn gnome stolen. Who's blamed? You. This is a VERY annoying way to live one's life, and the only way out is to move.

Hell, any crimes of a sexual nature are "guilty". There's no innocence to prove - you will NEVER be found innocent even if the legal system says you're innocent.

As for retractions - have you actually seen one? They're usually on the bottom of the page in a tiny corner of the page. Anyone searching is more likely to find the retracted article than the retraction. Even if they post a "This article has been retracted and is presented here for archival purposes. The retraction notice is here" link at the top.

Oh, and 10 year old convictions? With Google, it doesn't matter it happened 10 years ago and you've gone clean. Think about it - if the only bad thing that went public was something 20 years ago, Google's going to bring it up as if it was new and fresh because that's all the information it has on you.

If you want to know what "brand management" companies do, it's just that - making old stuff disappear by making more news that buries the old items that are no longer relevant. It's the only way to "hide" old stuff.

And that's the real problem with the internet - it's got an infallible memory and if the only things it knows about you are bad things that happened decades earlier, that's what the internet will bring up on you. So either you have to exercise "Right to be forgotten" because it's no longer relevant, or you have to brand manage and SEO your way to hide that stuff from years ago by burying it under mountains of new news.

Curious in that Apple iPhone was the only piece of gear that could be relied upon to be cracked. Any model.

If it was so easy, why does it take physical access to break into one, and why does Law Enforcement have a huge waiting list at Apple to break into them? (And only partial success, at that)?

If they can be reliably cracked, then there is no need to send the phone back to Apple for extraction of data - they could just extract it right then and there, no Apple involvement at all. Because Apple makes it highly inconvenient to get at it, after all.

Of course, if you're talking about jailbreaking, well, that's not utterly reliable, either (few existed for iOS6, and iOS7 has some by questionable Chinese places seeking to make money selling pirated apps). Of course, it also helps there is massive interest in cracking it - I mean, with so many devices out there, there is an army of people who will want to break into it.

But all the jailbreaks tended to require actual access to the device - if it was locked in any way you couldn't do it - no longer can you just create a hacked IPSW and flash it in.

Pretty sure you're asking a facetious question but for those who don't know (like myself prior to Saturday night, walking through N4 with my brother): Hotblack Desiato is the name of a North London estate agent (Realtor for the merkins), which was adopted by Douglas Adams for the name of the frontman of plutonium rock band Disaster Area.

As is Ford Prefect, which was the name of a Ford car in the UK (1930s-1960s). It's not, as most Americans think, a purposeful mis-spelling of Perfect.

It was written for UK audiences, and poorly Americanized. Half the jokes in there only work in the UK because of cultural issues.

This also ignores the fact that once a phone is fully encrypted, Android does not support un-encrypting it. Believe me, I know. I encrypted my phone and the only way to un-encrypt it, even according to the experts, was to do a restore from a bit-by-bit "nandroid" backup from before the encryption.

That's the point.

The point is not to enable encryption for day-to-day use of your phone (because Android forces you to have a PIN or password at a minimum, no more facial recognition), and given how inconvenient those things are for a good chunk of users, they'd rather go without security.

The point is to enable encryption, have it encrypt the phone, then do a master wipe which tosses the encryption key and restores it back to unencrypted state. Since the key is tossed, the data is irretrievable.

In short, you do this prior to selling the phone. Just make sure you have a couple of hours and AC power to do it - it's not like the 5 minutes it takes on an iPhone to toss and regenerate keys.

Sorry, book sellers group it like this since, how long? Since Harry Potter?
Because they believe a Nerd who likes Fantasy also likes SF or a Geek who likes SF also likes fantasy.
Fact is, most people only read one of the genres ... so no point to linger in a book store and browse the wall of books. For everyone 50% of the books are the wrong ones

SF & Fantasy have been tied together for as long as I can remember, predating Harry Potter by decades.

And people mix the genres up, because they'll read The Lord of the Rings, and then read Asimov or Clarke.

Personally, I don't care for dragons or elves or mystics or magic (so no, I don't do LotR or Hobbit or whatever), but a lot of what I read that fits in the "SF" side is speculative enough to be fantasy. (Would Starship Troopers be SF or Fantasy... or both?). In fact, they're generally combined because people just cannot agree on a sufficiently precise definition of SF - you have hard-SF geeks who think anything that is not possible with today's technology IS fantasy, etc.

So rather than debate the issue to death, retailers just realize that it's a hopeless distinction because there's no line that cleanly delineates the two. You have SF that takes place in the past, in the future, in present times. I'm sure you have fantasy that takes place in the past, in the future, and present times as well. Technology and Magic, well, is a Star Trek replicator any more magic than a wizard conjuring up a feast? They both have food magically appear In the end. Or teleportation via a spell or a teleporter?

Hell, there used to be a really nice bookstore up the street from my workplace, and they had a gigantic SF/Fantasy section (took up a whole wall of the store). Its SF/Fantasy section was larger than the mega-bookstore a couple of blocks away (3 floors of books, and a huge SF/Fantasy section too).

You want to impress me, get OLED happening everywhere, I've done the reading, I understand the tech, the colour range, refresh rate and incredibly black blacks are awesome.

Blacker blacks maybe, but color range is actually excessive. We're already at 100% sRGB using LCD displays (see iPhone 5/5s). OLED displays have a gamut larger than sRGB, which results in photos that actually look worse - the images are completely oversaturated and start to look hyper-real.

About the only good thing with them is you can tone down the color so you don't use the entire range so it stays within the sRGB range, and then modify the transfer characteristics so you get more accurate colors. (Using full range OLED just results in inaccurate colors)

Too bad the post office isn't as efficient as the weather service.

Actually, the post office is remarkably efficient, given the volumes of mail they carry. USPS alone, in one day carries more than FedEx annually, and in 3, more than UPS. (Take that, late Christmas 2013 presents).

They have to be efficient otherwise the whole system breaks down in short order. And by law of big numbers, of course, they'll run into problems. It ain't nice when it happens via the mail, but FedEx and UPS can be completely hopeless when it's their package. (You'd think with all that tracking information they could easily find a missing or lost package, but no. If a package gets scanned out but not scanned in, you're SOL).

The problem with the approach the FAA has been taking on this issue is that the deciding factor is whether money changes hands. If an activity is safe for a hobbyist to perform, why is it suddenly dangerous and in need of regulation when a professional does it? If anything, commercially operated remote controlled planes/helicopters would be safer in a given situation, as the parent company is going to have real liability insurance, and the insurer is going to have all sorts of maintenance and training requirements.

Because once money changes hands, well, they want to make sure you have SUFFICIENT liability insurance, and that your equipment is well maintained.

A realtor probably only has their malpractice insurance - if they crash into a neighbours house, that insurance may not be sufficient, or even covered. The realtor would just close their business, while the neighbour is stuck suing a bankrupt company (they're all "independent franchises").

So the FAA would like to make sure you accidentally kill someone, they can be adequately taken care of.

The other reason is well, drones are getting REALLY popular. The problem with this is how well qualified are these people flying them? A hobbyist probably knows the rules of t heir hobby and is conscious enough to fly it properly.

Some guy with a rich parent buying their kid a drone flying it into traffic and causing accidents? Imagine all those people who can't figure out where the "any" key is flying those things everywhere.

The other issue is well, what jurisdiction is it when clashes happen? If you're flying a drone taking photos of a house, what's to differentiate it from taking photos of hunters, taking photos of nude people on a beach, taking photos of you in your backyard?

Plus, it's easier to go after people with money and regulate that first. Because they're using it to make money, it's easier to go after them for commercial activity than someone who wants to take a neat photo of their kid in their backyard.

It's really only a matter of time before some idiot with a drone goes and misuses it. The FAA is really trying to warn them to not even try so the activity can progress by those who know what they're doing. Want some crazy legislation? Watch it when a bunch of lawmakers get their panties in a knot. It's what led to the awful legislation that banned scanners from receiving cell-band (800 MHz) signals.

They're getting cheaper, better, and are available to anyone with a credit card. And everyone knows there are lot of rich idiots out there who will ruin it for everyone. Especially since the FAA is still trying to come up with reasonable rules that take into account everyone - pilots, law enforcement, commercial interests, the public, etc. Take an idiot with a drone who crashes it into a busy intersection, and you'll have lawmakers screaming "something must be done" and enacting all sorts of overbroad legislation ahead of the FAA.

Building wide WiFi is not something the FCC really regulates. They put some standards on manufacturers to comply with but beyond that there is no interaction at the user level.

Because they manage the fees paid for telecommunication services to be provided to areas where it's less profitable but necessary.

The thing is, the Internet is real. And the modern day student NEEDS access to the internet. But an alarming number of them only get access to it via the "free" hotspots at McDonalds and such - and kids needing to do homework, that's an issue. I mean, you'd think they'd go to the library to do their work and use their wifi, but no, they close at 6pm, so they move to the local McD's because they have WiFi for free.

The parents can afford a computer (they're not THAT expensive these days). but can't afford internet access, so instead of kids having to trudge through the city seeking free internet, why not provide funding for schools and libraries to offer it up so kids can use it.

Sure, it works fine in the city, but when you're out in the boonies, well, wifi may be least of a town's concern and the kids just have to find a local hotspot. Having it be their library and school, can only help matters

Minor collision? The BusinessInsider source claims the pursuing officers had to be hospitalized. That doesn't sound "minor" to me.

Or, basically if you're going 100mph, sideswiping the median, while normally a recoverable incident, becomes one where you can get hurt. Physics! (Remember, the energy in an object increases by the square of the velocity - go twice as fast, energy in the system quadruples).

I get what you're saying, but if the "high speeds" were "nearly" 100MPH it's not unreasonable to wonder just how the car got literally ripped in half. I do wonder about the safety of a car like that. A lot of the US's top Interstate speed limits are between 70-80MPH. You're not talking a huge difference in speed at that point, so it's not unreasonable to at least question the safeness of the car and ask for some additional testing/data.>blockquote>

The problem is energy. It increases with the square of velocity. (you know, (1/2)*m*v^2).

The survivability of a crash drops greatly going from 35mph to 50mph, going to 70mph drops it even more. Plus, given it's a city street not designed for such speeds, the chances of surviving go lower still.

Next, he was ejected from the car - usually because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt. Seeing as the car split behind the front seats, that would indicate he was an idiot, and people can die at 35mph being ejected. I don't think it's even survivable at 100mph when the fundamental safety system in a vehicle isn't used (all the others, airbags, etc., derive their benefits only when seatbelts are worn).

Hell, cars split in two all the time, usually going no faster than 55 or less.

They just need to register ONE of them to reestablish contact. They might even be able to use "domain tasting" to register a bunch and then cancel within 5 days.

Domain tasting is no longer possible - ICANN started charging 25 cents per domain registration years ago to counteract domain squatting where they'd register a bunch of domains, see if they make money, and return them if they don't.

By charging 25 cents always, it seems to have cut down the practice immensely because you need to register thousands of domains at a time, and that costs real scratch.

There's no need to spend that much. A lot of motherboards have S/PDIF outputs, and with a good coax/TOSLINK DAC (like the ~$40 FiiO D3), pristine noise-free stereo sound is both easier and cheaper than buying an expensive sound card.

If you want only two channel audio.

To get surround sound you need to move up in interfaces, and the only available one is HDMI, which has a bunch of issues in and of itself when you only want it for audio, and not video.

Or USB.