#Saudi #woman pictured not wearing #hijab faces calls for her to be #killed, Saudi’s are #TOSSERS!

One social media user said: ‘Kill her and throw her corpse to the dogs’


A woman in Saudi Arabia pictured without a hijab is facing calls for her to be killed.

Some social media users reacted with outrage after the emergence of the image taken in capital city Riyadh, with one man demanding: “Kill her and throw her corpse to the dogs”.

The photo was allegedly first posted by an account under the name of Malak Al Shehri, which has since been deleted, reports the International Business Times.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

A Saudi woman went out yesterday without an Abaya or a hijab in Riyadh Saudi Arabia and many Saudis are now demanding her execution.

An unnamed student who reposted the image told the website that Ms Al Shehri had announced she was going out to breakfast without either a hijab or abaya; a traditional Saudi body covering.

The student said she started receiving death threats after posting proof in response to followers who had asked to see a photo.

Saudi Arabia executes prince accused of killing man in brawl

“So many people retweeted it and what she did reached extremists, so she got threats,” the student said. “She deleted her tweets but they didn’t stop, so she deleted her account.”

A hashtag which translates into English as “we demand the imprisonment of the rebel Angel Al Shehri” subsequently went viral.

One user wrote “we propose blood”, while another demanded a “harsh punishment for the heinous situation”.

Despite the outrage, many more users in Saudi Arabia came out in support of the woman’s actions.


11 Totally Normal Things That Science Can’t Explain

11 Totally Normal Things That Science Can't Explain

Science is amazing, is it not? It can tell us the size of planets light years away. It can explain the eating habits of giant dinosaurs that have been extinct for millions of years. Science can even tell us all about particles that are far too small to see with the human eye.

But there are a lot of things — many every day things, in fact — that science cannot explain.

How do magnets work? Why does watching someone yawn make you have to yawn? Why do dogs poop the way they do? These are the questions that scientists can’t quite answer…yet.

UP FIRST: Why does lightning happen?

11 Totally Normal Things That Science Can't Explain

Why Does Lightning Happen?

Some 44,000 thunderstorms rage worldwide each day, delivering as many as 100 lightning bolts to the ground every second. That’s a lot of lightning. So much, in fact, that one would be forgiven for assuming that scientists understand why lightning happens — but they don’t.

For all we know, lightning might as well come from Zeus. Counting Ben Franklin’s kite-and-key experiment as the starting point, 250 years of scientific investigation have yet to get to grips with how lightning works.

Atmospheric scientists have a basic sketch of the process. Positive electric charges build up at the tops of thunderclouds and negative charges build up at the bottoms (except for perplexing patches of positive charges often detected in the center-bottom). Electrical attraction between these opposite charges, and between the negative charges at the bottom of the cloud and positive charges that accumulate on the ground below, eventually grow strong enough to overcome the air’s resistance to electrical flow.

Like a herd of elephants wading across a river, negative charges venture down from the bottom of the cloud into the sky below and move haltingly toward the ground, forming an invisible, conductive path called a “step leader.” The charges’ path eventually connects to similar “streamers” of positive charges surging up from the ground, completing an electrical circuit and enabling negative charges to pour from the cloud to the ground along the circuit they have formed. This sudden, enormous electric discharge is the flash of lightning.

But as for how all that happens — well, it just doesn’t make much physical sense. There are three big questions needing answers, said Joe Dwyer, a leading lightning physicist based at the Florida Institute of Technology. “First, how do you actually charge up a thundercloud?” Dwyer said. A mix of water and ice is needed to provide atoms that can acquire charge, and updrafts are required to move the charged particles around. The rest of the details are hazy.

The second point of confusion is called the “lightning initiation problem.” So the question is, “How do you get a spark going inside a thunderstorm? The electric fields never seem to be big enough inside the storm to generate a spark. So how does that spark get going? This is a very active area of research,” Dwyer said.

And once the spark gets going, the final question is how it keeps going. “After you get it started, how does lightning propagate for tens of miles through clouds?” Dwyer said. “That’s an amazing thing — how do you turn air from being an insulator into a conductor?”

UP NEXT: How do magnets work?

11 Totally Normal Things That Science Can't Explain

How Do Magnets Work?

Sure, they’re run-of-the-mill household items, but that doesn’t mean magnets are easy to understand. While physicists have some understanding of how magnets function, the phenomena that underlie magnetism continue to elude scientific explanation.

Large-scale magnetism, like the kind observed in bar magnets, results from magnetic fields that naturally radiate from the electrically charged particles that make up atoms, said Jearl Walker, a physics professor at Cleveland State University and coauthor of “Fundamentals of Physics” (Wiley, 2007).The most common magnetic fields come from negatively charged particles called electrons.

Normally, in any sample of matter, the magnetic fields of electrons point in different directions, canceling each other out. But when the fields all align in the same direction, like in magnetic metals, an object generates a net magnetic field, Walker told Live Science in 2010.

Every electron generates a magnetic field, but they only generate a net magnetic field when they all line up. Otherwise, the electrons in the human body would cause everyone to stick to the refrigerator whenever they walked by, Walker said.

Currently, physics has two explanations for why magnetic fields align in the same direction: a large-scale theory from classical physics, and a small-scale theory called quantum mechanics.

According to the classical theory, magnetic fields are clouds of energy around magnetic particles that pull in or push away other magnetic objects. But in the quantum mechanics view, electrons emit undetectable, virtual particles that tell other objects to move away or come closer, Walker said.

Although these two theories help scientists understand how magnets behave in almost every circumstance, two important aspects of magnetism remain unexplained: why magnets always have a north and south pole, and why particles emit magnetic fields in the first place.

“We just observe that when you make a charged particle move, it creates a magnetic field and two poles. We don’t really know why. It’s just a feature of the universe, and the mathematical explanations are just attempts of getting through the ‘homework assignment’ of nature and getting the answers,” Walker said.

UP NEXT: Why do dogs face north or south to poop?

11 Totally Normal Things That Science Can't Explain

Why Do Dogs Face North or South to Poop?

Did you know that dogs prefer to poop while aligned with the north-south axis of the Earth’s magnetic field? Because they totally do, but scientists can’t really explain why.

Research conducted in 2014 found that dogs preferred to poop when their bodies were aligned in a north-south direction, as determined by the geomagnetic field. (True north, which is determined by the position of the poles, is slightly different from magnetic north.)

And while dogs of both sexes faced north or south while defecating, only females preferred to urinate in a north or south direction — males didn’t show much preference while urinating.

This odd finding joins a long and growing list of research showing that animals — both wild and domesticated — can sense the Earth’s geomagnetic field and coordinate their behavior with it.

A 2008 analysis of Google Earth satellite images revealed that herds of cattle worldwide tend to stand in the north-south direction of Earth’s magnetic lines when grazing, regardless of wind direction or time of day. The same behavior was seen in two different species of deer.

Birds also use magnetic fields to migrate thousands of miles, some research suggests. A 2013 report found that pigeons are equipped with microscopic balls of iron in their inner ears, which may account for the animals’ sensitivity to the geomagnetic field.

Humans, too, might possess a similar ability — a protein in the human retina may help people sense magnetic fields, though the research into this and many other related geomagnetic phenomena is preliminary and therefore remains inconclusive.

But why do animals of all shapes and sizes seem to be ruled by Earth’s geomagnetic field? The answer remains elusive, the scientists admitted.

“It is still enigmatic why the dogs do align at all, whether they do it ‘consciously’ (i.e., whether the magnetic field is sensorial[ly] perceived) … or whether its reception is controlled on the vegetative level (they ‘feel better/more comfortable or worse/less comfortable’ in a certain direction),” the study authors wrote.

The researchers also found that when the Earth’s magnetic field was in a state of flux — it changes during solar flares, geomagnetic storms and other events — the dogs’ north-south orientation was less predictable. Only when the magnetic field was calm did researchers reliably observe the north-south orientation.

Further research is needed to determine how and why dogs and other animals sense and use the planet’s magnetic field every single day.


: What causes gravity?

11 Totally Normal Things That Science Can't Explain

What Causes Gravity? 

You know gravity? That invisible force holding you (and every person and object around you) to the Earth? Well, you might learn all about gravity in a science classroom, but scientists still aren’t sure what causes it.

In the deepest depths of space, gravity tugs on matter to form galaxies, stars, black holes and the like. In spite of its infinite reach, however, gravity is the wimpiest of all forces in the universe.

This weakness also makes it the most mysterious, as scientists can’t measure it in the laboratory as easily as they can detect its effects on planets and stars. The repulsion between two positively charged protons, for example, is 10^36 times stronger than gravity’s pull between them—that’s 1 followed by 36 zeros less macho.

Physicists want to squeeze little old gravity into the standard model—the crown-jewel theory of modern physics that explains three other fundamental forces in physics—but none has succeeded. Like a runt at a pool party, gravity just doesn’t fit in when using Einstein’s theory of relativity, which explains gravity only on large scales

“Gravity is completely different from the other forces described by the standard model,” said Mark Jackson, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab in Illinois. “When you do some calculations about small gravitational interactions, you get stupid answers. The math simply doesn’t work.”

The numbers may not jibe, but physicists have a hunch about gravity’s unseen gremlins: Tiny, massless particles called gravitons that emanate gravitational fields.

Each hypothetical bit tugs on every piece of matter in the universe, as fast as the speed of light permits. Yet if they are so common in the universe, why haven’t physicists found them?

“We can detect massless particles such as photons just fine, but gravitons elude us because they interact so weakly with matter,” said Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago. “We simply don’t know how to detect one.”

Turner, however, isn’t despondent about humanity’s quest for gravitons. He thinks we’ll eventually ensnare a few of the pesky particles hiding in the shadows of more easily detected particles.

“What it really comes down to is technology,” Turner said.

UP NEXT: Why do cats purr?

11 Totally Normal Things That Science Can't Explain

Why Do Cats Purr?

From house cats to cheetahs, most felid species produce a “purr-like” vocalization, according to University of California, Davis, veterinary professor Leslie Lyons. Domestic cats purr in a range of situations — while they nurse their kittens, when they are pet by humans, and even when they’re stressed out. Yes, you read right: Cats purr both when they’re happy and when they’re miserable. That has made figuring out the function of purring an uphill struggle for scientists.

One possibility is that it promotes bone growth, Lyons explained in Scientific American. Purring contains sound frequencies within the 25- to 150-Hertz range, and sounds in this range have been shown to improve bone density and promote healing. Because cats conserve energy by sleeping for long periods of time, purring may be a low-energy mechanism to keep muscles and bones healthy without actually using them.

Of course, cats purr even when they aren’t injured. Many domestic cats purr to indicate hunger, for example. A recent study out of the U.K. shows that some cats have even developed a special purr to ask their owners for food. This “solicitous purr” incorporates cries with similar frequencies as those of human babies. These conniving kitties have tapped into their owners’ psyches — all for more kibble.

However, this study doesn’t explain why cats purr in all of the situations they do. And scientists aren’t likely to find out more answers until cats learn to speak human…

UP NEXT: How does the brain work?

11 Totally Normal Things That Science Can't Explain

How Does the Brain Work?

With billions of neurons, each with thousands of connections, the human brain is a complex, and yes congested, mental freeway. Neurologists and cognitive scientists nowadays are probing how the mind gives rise to thoughts, actions, emotions and ultimately consciousness, but they still don’t have all the answers.

The complex machine is difficult for even the brainiest of scientists to wrap their heads around. What makes the brain such a tough nut to crack?

According to Scott Huettel of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at Duke University, the standard answer to this question goes something like: “The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe … complexity makes simple models impractical and accurate models impossible to comprehend.”

While that stock answer is correct, Huettel said, it’s incomplete. The real snag in brain science is one of navel gazing. Huettel and other neuroscientists can’t step outside of their own brains (and experiences) when studying the brain itself.

“A more pernicious factor is that we all think we understand the brain—at least our own—through our experiences. But our own subjective experience is a very poor guide to how the brain works,” Huettel told Live Science in 2007.

Scientists have made some progress in taking an objective, direct “look” at the human brain.

In recent years, brain-imaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have allowed scientists to observe the brain in action and determine how groups of neurons function.

They have pinpointed hubs in the brain that are responsible for certain tasks, such as fleeing a dangerous situation, processing visual information, making those sweet dreams and storing long-term memories. But understanding the mechanics of how neuronal networks collaborate to allow such tasks has remained more elusive.

The prized puzzle in brain research is arguably the idea of consciousness. When you look at a painting, for instance, you are aware of it and your mind processes its colors and shapes. At the same time, the visual impression could stir up emotions and thoughts. This subjective awareness and perception is consciousness.

Many scientists consider consciousness the delineation between humans and other animals.

So rather than cognitive processes directly leading to behaviors (unbeknownst to us), we are aware of the thinking. We even know that we know!

If this mind bender is ever solved, an equally perplexing question would arise, according to neuroscientists: Why? Why does awareness exist at all?

UP NEXT: How do bicycles work?

11 Totally Normal Things That Science Can't Explain

How Do Bicycles Work?

The brain is a super complicated organ, so it kind of makes sense that scientists haven’t yet learned all its secrets. But surely those same scientists have figured out something as simple as a bicycle, right? Wrong: The brainiacs of the world still aren’t sure how bicycles work.

Bikes can stay upright all by themselves, as long as they’re moving forward; it’s because any time a moving bike starts to lean, its steering axis (the pole attached to the handlebars) turns the other way, tilting the bike upright again. This restorative effect was long believed to result from a law of physics called the conservation of angular momentum: When the bike wobbles, the axis perpendicular to its wheels’ spinning direction threatens to change, and the bike self-corrects in order to “conserve” the direction of that axis. In other words, the bike is a gyroscope. Additionally, the “trail effect” was thought to help keep bikes stable: Because the steering axis hits the ground slightly in front of the ground contact point of the front wheel, the wheel is forced to trail the steering of the handlebars.

But recently, a group of engineers led by Andy Ruina of Cornell University upturned this theory of bicycle locomotion. Their investigation, detailed in a 2011 article in the journal Science, showed that neither gyroscopic nor trail effects were necessary for a bike to work. To prove it, the engineers built a custom bicycle, which could take advantage of neither effect. The bike was designed so that each of its wheels rotated a second wheel above it in the opposite direction. That way, the spinning of the wheels canceled out and the bike’s total angular momentum was zero, erasing the influence of gyroscopic effects on the bike’s stability. The custom bike’s ground contact point was also positioned in front of its steering axis, destroying the trail effect. And yet, the bike worked.

The engineers know why: they added masses to the bike in choice places to enable gravity to cause the bike to self-steer. But the work showed there are many effects that go into the stability of bicycles — including gyroscopic and trail effects in the case of bikes that have them — that interact in extremely complex ways.

“The complex interactions have not been worked out. My suspicion is that we will never come to grips with them, but I don’t know that for sure,” Ruina told Live Science.

UP NEXT: Why are moths drawn to light?

11 Totally Normal Things That Science Can't Explain

Why Are Moths Drawn to Light?

“Look! That moth just flew straight into that light bulb and died!” said no one ever. We see it happen so often that it’s more likely to invoke yawns than discussion. But, surprisingly, the reason for these insects’ suicidal nosedives remains a total mystery. Science’s best guesses about why they do it aren’t even very good.

Some entomologists believe moths zoom toward artificial light sources because the lights throw off their internal navigation systems. In a behavior called transverse orientation, some insects navigate by flying at a constant angle relative to a distant light source, such as the moon. But around man-made lights, such as a campfire or your porch light, the angle to the light source changes as a moth flies by. Jerry Powell, an entomologist at the University of California, Berkeley said the thinking is that moths “become dazzled by the light and are somehow attracted.”

But this theory runs into two major stumbling blocks, Powell explained: First, campfires have been around for about 400,000 years. Wouldn’t natural selection have killed off moths whose instinct tells them to go kamikaze every time they feel blinded by the light? Secondly, moths may not even use transverse navigation; more than half of the species don’t even migrate.

Alternate theories are riddled with holes, too. For example, one holds that male moths are attracted to infrared light because it contains a few of the same light frequencies given off by female moths’ pheromones, or sex hormones, which glow very faintly. In short, male moths could be drawn to candles under the false belief that the lights are females sending out sex signals.  However, Powell points out that moths are more attracted to ultraviolet light than infrared light, and UV doesn’t look a bit like glowing pheromones.

Moth deaths: not as yawn-inducing as you might think.

UP NEXT: Why are there lefties (and righties)?

11 Totally Normal Things That Science Can't Explain

Why Are There Lefties (& Righties)?

One-tenth of people have better motor dexterity using their left limbs than their right. No one knows why these lefties exist. And no one knows why righties exist either, for that matter. Why do people have just one hand with top-notch motor skills, instead of a double dose of dexterity?

One theory holds that handedness results from having more intricate wiring on the side of the brain involved in speech (which also requires fine motor skills). Because the speech center usually sits in the brain’s left hemisphere — the side wired to the right side of the body — the right hand ends up dominant in most people. As for why the speech center usually (but not always) ends up in the left side of the brain, that’s still an open question.

The theory about the speech center controlling handedness gets a big blow from the fact that not all right-handed people control speech in the left hemisphere, while only half of lefties do. So, what explains those lefties whose speech centers reside in the left sides of their brains? It’s all very perplexing.

Research published in 2013 suggests that genes that play a role in the orientation of internal organs may also affect whether someone is right- or left-handed.

The study, published today (Sept. 12) in the journal PLOS Genetics, suggest those genes may also play a role in the brain, thereby affecting people’s handedness.

Still, the findings can’t yet explain the mystery of why a minority of people are left-handed because each gene only plays a tiny role in people’s handedness.

UP NEXT: Is yawning contagious?

11 Totally Normal Things That Science Can't Explain

Are Yawns Contagious?

In 2012, Austrian researchers won an Ig Nobel Prize for their discovery that yawns are not contagious among red-footed tortoises.

We know so much about tortoises, but human yawning? Still an enigma. The sight of a person’s gaping jaws, squinting eyes and deep inhalation “hijacks your body and induces you to replicate the observed behavior,” writes the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, psychologist Robert Provine in his new book, “Curious Behavior” (Belknap Press, 2012). But why?

Preliminary brain-scan data indicate that regions of the brain associated with theory of mind (the ability to attribute mental states and feelings to oneself and others) and self-processing become active when people observe other people yawning. Many autistic and schizophrenic people do not exhibit this brain activity, and they do not “catch” yawns. These clues suggest contagious yawning reflects an ability to empathize and form normal emotional ties with others, Provine explained.

But why should our social connections with one another circulate through yawning, as opposed to hiccupping or passing gas? No one knows for sure, and that’s because no one knows quite why we yawn. Embryos do it to sculpt the hinge of their jaws. Fully formed people do it when we’re sleepy and bored. But how does yawning ameliorate these complaints?

UP NEXT: What causes static electricity?

11 Totally Normal Things That Science Can't Explain

What Causes Static Electricity?

Static shocks are as mysterious as they are unpleasant. What we know is this: They occur when an excess of either positive or negative charge builds up on the surface of your body, discharging when you touch something and leaving you neutralized. Alternatively, they can occur when static electricity builds up on something else — a doorknob, say — which you then touch. In that case, you are the excess charge’s exit route.

But why all the buildup? It’s unclear. The traditional explanation says that when two objects rub together, friction knocks the electrons off the atoms in one of the objects, and these then move onto the second, leaving the first object with an excess of positively charged atoms and giving the second an excess of negative electrons. Both objects (your hair and a wool hat, say) will then be statically charged. But why do electrons flow from one object to the other, instead of moving in both directions?

This has never been satisfactorily explained, and a study by Northwestern University researcher Bartosz Grzybowski found reason to doubt the whole story. As detailed last year in the journal Science, Grzybowski found that patches of both excess positive and excess negative charge exist on statically charged objects. He also found that entire molecules seemed to migrate between objects as they are rubbed together, not just electrons. What generates this mosaic of charges and migration of material has yet to be determined, but clearly, the explanation of static is changing.

Has the EU Just Outlawed ‘Fully-Loaded’ Kodi Boxes?

Image result for raspberry pi

Android devices with modified Kodi software installed continue to prove popular among the pirating masses. However, a ruling from the EU Court this week will make life more difficult for suppliers. That’s the opinion of Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN, who say that sellers will now have to verify if the links contained in such devices are infringing.

kodiWhile millions of people around the globe share files using BitTorrent every day, there are some who prefer to stream their content instead.

These users can easily visit any one of thousands of streaming portals via a desktop web browser but for those looking for complete convenience, set-top boxes offer a perfect solution.

These devices, often Android-based, regularly come with the Kodi media center already installed. However, Kodi provides no illegal content – custom addons do – and it’s their inclusion in the package that provides users with what they want – free (or cost reduced) movies, TV, and sports.

One of the groups trying to crack down on so-called “fully loaded” boxes is Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN. The organization has threatened legal action against several local suppliers and has had one case referred to the European Court. However, a decision in a separate case last week could have big implications for “fully loaded” box supply across Europe, BREIN says.

The case, which involved Dutch blog GeenStijl.nl and Playboy, resulted in an important ruling from the European Court of Justice.

The Court found that when “hyperlinks are posted for profit, it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published.” In other words, posting links to infringing content in a commercial environment amounts to a communication to the public, and is therefore illegal.

For groups like BREIN, the ruling opens up new avenues for anti-piracy action. For sellers of piracy-capable boxes and related IPTV subscriptions across the EU, trouble could lie in wait.

“Copyright protection organization BREIN holds suppliers of IPTV devices responsible for verifying whether their sources for internet TV channels are legal or not. In general, this is not the case,” BREIN said in a statement this week.

“Suppliers advertise that when buying their service you do not have to pay separately for pay-channels for films, TV shows, and sports. Such a compilation costs a fraction of the total sum of subscriptions to the individual channels.”

BREIN says that following the decision of the European Court of Justice last week, commercial suppliers of IPTV boxes are now obliged to verify whether the sources being linked in their devices are authorized by the content providers. If they are not, the seller could be held liable for infringement.

If BREIN’s interpretation of the decision proves correct, sellers of “fully-loaded” Kodi and other IPTV boxes face a minefield of uncertainty.

There is absolutely no way vendors can check every single link contained in the software present in the boxes they sell. Furthermore, those links are often updated automatically, meaning that what is legal on the day they are sold might not be legal when the software updates tomorrow.

But while it’s certainly possible that BREIN’s take on the decision will prove to be correct, actually enforcing the law against hundreds or even thousands of suppliers is likely to prove impossible. Big suppliers are easily targeted though, which may send out a warning.

“BREIN has written letters to suppliers of IPTV subscriptions to warn them that they are required to verify beforehand whether the sources for the IPTV channels they use are legal. If the suppliers are not willing to do so, then BREIN will institute court proceedings,” BREIN says.

However, more often that not “fully loaded” boxes are offered for sale on eBay and Amazon by regular people out to make a few bucks. Taking action against every single one is not realistic.

But even if all infringing boxes were wiped from sale, that wouldn’t stop people selling blank devices. These can be easily setup by the user to stream all of the latest movies, sports and TV shows with a few clicks, rendering a smart supplier immune from liability.

And of course, anyone with VLC Media Player and the ability to Google can find plenty of dedicated IPTV streams available online, without paying anyone a penny.

Mathematicians shocked to find pattern in ‘random’ prime numbers


Mathematicians are stunned by the discovery that prime numbers are pickier than previously thought. The find suggests number theorists need to be a little more careful when exploring the vast infinity of primes.

Primes, the numbers divisible only by themselves and 1, are the building blocks from which the rest of the number line is constructed, as all other numbers are created by multiplying primes together. That makes deciphering their mysteries key to understanding the fundamentals of arithmetic.

Although whether a number is prime or not is pre-determined, mathematicians don’t have a way to predict which numbers are prime, and so tend to treat them as if they occur randomly. Now Kannan Soundararajan and Robert Lemke Oliver of Stanford University in California have discovered that isn’t quite right.

“It was very weird,” says Soundararajan. “It’s like some painting you are very familiar with, and then suddenly you realise there is a figure in the painting you’ve never seen before.”

Surprising order

So just what has got mathematicians spooked? Apart from 2 and 5, all prime numbers end in 1, 3, 7 or 9 – they have to, else they would be divisible by 2 or 5 – and each of the four endings is equally likely. But while searching through the primes, the pair noticed that primes ending in 1 were less likely to be followed by another prime ending in 1. That shouldn’t happen if the primes were truly random –  consecutive primes shouldn’t care about their neighbour’s digits.

“In ignorance, we thought things would be roughly equal,” says Andrew Granville of the University of Montreal, Canada. “One certainly believed that in a question like this we had a very strong understanding of what was going on.”

The pair found that in the first hundred million primes, a prime ending in 1 is followed by another ending in 1 just 18.5 per cent of the time. If the primes were distributed randomly, you’d expect to see two 1s next to each other 25 per cent of the time. Primes ending in 3 and 7 take up the slack, each following a 1 in 30 per cent of primes, while a 9 follows a 1 in around 22 per cent of occurrences.

Similar patterns showed up for the other combinations of endings, all deviating from the expected random values. The pair also found them in other bases, where numbers are counted in units other than 10s. That means the patterns aren’t a result of our base-10 numbering system, but something inherent to the primes themselves. The patterns become more in line with randomness as you count higher – the pair have checked up to a few trillion – but still persists.

“I was very surprised,” says James Maynard of the University of Oxford, UK, who on hearing of the work immediately performed his own calculations to check the pattern was there. “I somehow needed to see it for myself to really believe it.”

Stretching to infinity

Thankfully, Soundararajan and Lemke Oliver think they have an explanation. Much of the modern research into primes is underpinned G H Hardy and John Littlewood, two mathematicians who worked together at the University of Cambridge in the early 20th century. They came up with a way to estimate how often pairs, triples and larger grouping of primes will appear, known as the k-tuple conjecture.

Just as Einstein’s theory of relativity is an advance on Newton’s theory of gravity, the Hardy-Littlewood conjecture is essentially a more complicated version of the assumption that primes are random – and this latest find demonstrates how the two assumptions differ. “Mathematicians go around assuming primes are random, and 99 per cent of the time this is correct, but you need to remember the 1 per cent of the time it isn’t,” says Maynard.

The pair used Hardy and Littlewood’s work to show that the groupings given by the conjecture are responsible for introducing this last-digit pattern, as they place restrictions on where the last digit of each prime can fall. What’s more, as the primes stretch to infinity, they do eventually shake off the pattern and give the random distribution mathematicians are used to expecting.

“Our initial thought was if there was an explanation to be found, we have to find it using the k-tuple conjecture,” says Soundararajan. “We felt that we would be able to understand it, but it was a real puzzle to figure out.”

The k-tuple conjecture is yet to be proven, but mathematicians strongly suspect it is correct because it is so useful in predicting the behaviour of the primes. “It is the most accurate conjecture we have, it passes every single test with flying colours,” says Maynard. “If anything I view this result as even more confirmation of the k-tuple conjecture.”

Although the new result won’t have any immediate applications to long-standing problems about primes like the twin-prime conjecture or the Riemann hypothesis, it has given the field a bit of a shake-up. “It gives us more of an understanding, every little bit helps,” says Granville. “If what you take for granted is wrong, that makes you rethink some other things you know.”

Journal reference: arxiv.org/abs/1603.03720

Mathematicians have discovered a strange pattern hiding in prime numbers

They’re not as random as we thought.

15 MAR 2016

Mathematicians are pretty obsessed with prime numbers – those elusive integers that can only be divided by one and themselves. If they’re not creating cool artworks with them or finding them in nature, they’re using computers to discover increasingly larger primes.

But now a group of researchers has found a strange property of primes that’s never been seen before, and it violates one of the fundamental assumptions about how they behave – the idea that, for the most part, they occur totally randomly across integers.

The pattern isn’t actually found within the primes themselves, but rather the final digit of the prime number that comes directly after them – which the mathematicians have shown isn’t as random as you’d expect, and that’s a pretty big deal for mathematicians.

“We’ve been studying primes for a long time, and no one spotted this before,” Andrew Granville, a number theorist at the University of Montreal who wasn’t involved in the study, told Quanta magazine. “It’s crazy.”

So what are we talking about here? Our current understanding of primes suggests that, over a big enough sample, they should occur randomly, and shouldn’t be influenced by the prime number that comes before or after them.

But that’s not what Kannan Soundararajan and Robert Lemke Oliver from Stanford University in California found.

They performed a randomness check on the first 100 million primes and found that a prime ending in 1 was followed by another prime ending in 1 only 18.5 percent of the time – a far cry from the 25 percent you’d expect given that primes greater than five can only end in one of four digits: 1, 3, 7, or 9.

Furthermore, the chance of a prime ending in 1 being followed by a prime ending in 3 or 7 was roughly 30 percent, but for 9 it was only 22 percent.

In other words, the primes “really hate to repeat themselves”, said Lemke Oliver.

The obvious explanation for this is the fact that numbers have to cycle through all the other digits before they get back to the same ending. “For example, 43 is followed by 47, 49, and 51 before it hits 53, and one of those numbers, 47, is prime,” writes Jacob Aron for New Scientist.

But this doesn’t explain the magnitude of the bias the team found, or why primes ending in 3 seemed to like being followed by primes ending in 9 more than 1 or 7. Even when they expanded their sample and examined the first few trillion prime numbers, the mathematicians found that – even though the bias gradually falls more in line with randomness – it still persists.

“I was very surprised,” James Maynard from the University of Oxford told New Scientist. “I somehow needed to see it for myself to really believe it,” he says, admitting that he ran back to his office and performed the calculations himself after hearing about the work.

So what’s going on?

According to Soundararajan and Lemke Oliver, the pattern can be explained by something called the k-tuple conjecture – an old but unproven idea that describes how often pairs, triples, and larger sets of primes will make an appearance, and how close together these should occur.

Essentially, the k-tuple conjecture proposes that groups of primes don’t appear all that randomly, and Soundararajan and Lemke Oliver showed that this prediction could accurately explain the last-digit pattern they found.

Maynard agrees with this outcome, which has been published on pre-press site ArXiv.org, and hopes that it’ll be further evidence that primes do contain patterns, even if we can’t always see them.

“Mathematicians go around assuming primes are random, and 99 percent of the time this is correct, but you need to remember the 1 percent of the time it isn’t,” said Maynard. “If anything, I view this result as even more confirmation of the k-tuple conjecture.”

Despite the fact that it’s pretty exciting work, the newly spotted pattern doesn’t really provide many practical answers for number theorists – for example, there’s still the twin-prime conjecture and the Riemann hypothesis that need to be resolved.

The study also hasn’t been peer reviewed as yet, so we need to take it with a grain of salt, but it’s been placed on ArXiv so that other mathematicians can look over the work and add their own ideas and suggestions.

According to Granville, the discovery takes us one step closer to properly understanding the enigmatic primes. “Every little bit helps … I can’t believe anyone in the world would have guessed this,” he told New Scientist“You could wonder, what else have we missed about the primes?”

Exploiting the Tools from “Mr. Robot”

Exploiting the Tools from “Mr. Robot”

We have seen several times in the past, one of the most popular hacking utilities in movies is “NMap.” Often, movie producers will attempt to place a dose of reality-hacking into the respective computer(s) for specific hacking scenes, and more often than not, NMap will be the first to pop up. In fact, the first time this method was used was by the character Trinity in the hit movie The Matrix.  This same method had been used for several other movies, including Elysium, The Bourne Ultimatum, Die Hard 4 and Mr. Robot,  just to name a few.

Mr. Robot

With the debut seasons of Mr. Robot hitting our screens, the television show has received a nod from top security tweeters, for their attempts at trying to stay within (for the most part anyway), realistic boundaries. While watching this new show, hacktivist communications, which include using the IRC, can be viewed. Several Linux based machines are seen throughout the entire series. And of course, the main player also wears a black hoodie (kinda cool). While this is not always true within the hacktivist world, we do have to provide some slack for the producers, as they would have to provide a balance between story-mode and what we all know is technically possible to carry out in the real-world environment.

So, what are the more common tools used within this series? For one, the widely known hackers operating system, Kali Linux.

Kali Linux

Throughout the series, several references are hinted at the Kali Linux Operating System. This is a full O.S. with all the wonderful tools (let’s get real, here – toys) that any hacker would love to have!

Wget, Shellshock, and John the Ripper

The popular tool Wget is a handy little exploiting tool, which is a terminal based software with the ability to carry out HTTP requests. This widely used tool can download the source of a web page, or maybe grab a file from a web-based server from within a terminal.

Shellshock, on the other hand, is one of the better tools utilized to compromise a targeted system, using one of the most widely known and popular vulnerabilities from 2014, the Shellshock bug. In Figure 1.0, commands that have been sent in the user agent of the request, can be seen on the respective web-server. The command, in order to execute this vulnerability, is just a simple cat /etc/passwd.

Figure 1.0 also demonstrates how this success was also achieved by using the /etc/passwd file inside a company’s server. However, without utilizing the /etc/shadow file in which does contain the actual password hashes, we know that the next line – where John the Ripper takes place – would never carry out the rest of the exploit.

Mr. Robot

Canbus Hacking

With the automotive industry increasing its technology every day, car hacking is a rising cliché. Since the publication of a recent research paper by computer security researchers, where it was suggested a car could be remotely hacked into, and even taken over (in this case, a Jeep), while still in motion down a freeway, community interest has piqued. Canbus hacking has since been around for both car enthusiast and security researchers. In Figure 1.1, a screen shot from Mr. Robot shows how he uses candump on his terminal, in order to view the Canbus message.

USB in Park

In one Mr. Robot scene, we see a security guard pick up an unknown USB Thumbdrive. He proceeds to insert it into his Windows XP computer, thus resulting in infecting the machine with malware. (Silly him). Fortunately for the guard, his Avast Antivirus was able to detect and stop the malware from spreading. This technique is commonly used among server popular spots, to place code onto a server or targeted computer, where network access is limited or really secured.

BTScanner (Bluetooth Scanner)

This handy little tool is utilized for probing around and targeting phones possessing Bluetooth capabilities. This tool then proceeds to extract as much information from the targeted phone as it possibly can, without truly possessing a Bluetooth connection. This nifty little tool comes stocked with Kali Linux.


In screen shot Figure 1.4, there is another handy tool for conducting attacks against Bluetooth enabled devices. In the Figure below, the attack was aimed in order to perform a “Man-in-the-Middle” attack – to take control over a Bluetooth keyboard. While having full control over the keyboard, the next move is to drop a simple Meterpreter shell directly into the script, thus, gaining access into the targeted network.

Metasploit Framework (Meterpreter)

Looking at Figure 1.5, we are able to see just a couple of lines of code. After looking in this code, we can clearly see that this line is from a Meterpreter shell framework. Any hacktivist that has used this tool previously, understands that just a tiny amount of code goes a very long way.

S.E.T. (Social Engineer Toolkit)

This software is a powerful framework that allows the setting up of social engineering attacks on an easier level. Such attacks consist of email-based spear phishing attacks, creating false websites in which replicates popular and well known websites, and even wireless access points, which can be launched through the main menu system. In Figure 1.6, the attacker is utilizing the SMS spoofing module.

Netscape Navigator

The Netscape Navigator is a preferred browser of choice for hackers. The Microsoft Operating System ‘Windows 95’ and ‘Netscape Navigator’ are mentioned everywhere throughout the T.V. show when the lead character, Elliot, reviews his early days as a hacktivist. In Figure 1.7, the source is viewed by the camera man. While humble in consideration towards new and updated browsers, Netscape Navigator prooves extremely useful when performing attacks for launching web applications, or just simply performing research on someone…or a company of interest.

While this T.V. show is based on how hackers operate, the attempts to recreate realistic hacking events within the confines of fiction are worthy of ovation. Nevertheless, this show is by far, much easier to relate to as a hacktivist, than say, CSI: Cyber; because in the real world, the FBI and CIA websites are hacked into, in less than 5 minutes. It really does happen.

Sources: NMap.Org, Kali Linux, Wget, Shellshock, John the Ripper, BTScanner, BlueSniff, Metasploit, S.E.T.

This article (Exploiting the Tools from “Mr. Robot”) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ


The 5 Biggest Things in the Universe

The 5 Biggest Things in the Universe

Psst, hey there. We’re about to let you in on a really big secret. You know space? It’s a humongous place filled with enormous stuff.

In space, nothing is measured in football fields. For example, the distance between objects in the universe is typically measured in light years, or the distance that light travels in one year (which is about 6 trillion miles).

And objects are also measured on a grand scale. For example, Earth is kind of small in the cosmic scheme of things. We’re easily dwarfed by the planet Jupiter. More than 1,000 Earths would fit in the planet, according to NASA. And the sun? More than a million Earths would fit in there, according to Cornell University.

But guess what? Jupiter and the sun aren’t really that big. There are objects in the universe that make these familiar giants seem puny. Here are five of them.

UP FIRST: Big, big star


The Biggest Star

The sun is the largest object in our solar system (though some argue that the sun’s heliosphere is actually the largest continuous structure in our corner of the galaxy). But even our sun looks little when it’s compared to the biggest stars we know of.

The sun is a G-type star, a yellow dwarf — pretty average-size on the cosmic scale. But some “hypergiant” stars are much, much larger. Perhaps the biggest star known is UY Scuti, which could fit more than 1,700 of our suns, according to Gizmodo. UT Scuti is only about 30 times more massive than the sun, however, which demonstrates that mass and size don’t necessarily correlate in space.

And while UY Scuti is pretty huge, it isn’t the most massive star out there. That honor goes to a star called R136a1, Gizmodo reports. R136a1 is 265 times more massive than the sun, but its radius is only 30 times that of our nearest star.

In addition to being the most massive star we know of, R136a1 also has the highest luminosity of any known star.

UP NEXT: Big black hole


The Biggest Black Hole Ever


Ok, so stars are pretty huge, but they’re not the only humongous objects in the universe. Progressing up the list of big cosmic objects, other things to consider are black holes and in particular, supermassive black holes that typically reside in the center of a galaxy. (Our Milky Way hosts one that is about 4 million times the mass of the sun.)

The biggest supermassive black hole is roughly 21 billion times the sun’s mass, and lives in the Coma Cluster, which includes more than 1,000 galaxies. (For comparison, the black hole lurking at the center of the Milky Way totals around 4 million solar masses.)

Astronomers discovered another supermassive black hole in April 2016. That giant is located at the center of the galaxy NGC 1600 and contains roughly 17 billion times the mass of the sun. It’s a little strange that this huge black hole resides in NGC 1600, which is something of a cosmic backwater.

The newly spotted black hole lies 200 million light-years from Earth in the constellation Eridanus and belongs to an average-size galaxy group, whereas other monster black holes discovered to date tend to be found in dense clusters of galaxies. So researchers may have to rethink their ideas about where gigantic black holes reside, and how many of them might populate the universe.

UP NEXT: Gigantic galaxy


The Biggest Galaxy


Monster black holes are, well, monstrous, but they are also not the biggest things in the whole wide universe. What’s bigger than a supermassive black hole? A galaxy, for one thing.

Galaxies are collections of star systems and all that is inside those systems (such as planets, stars, asteroids, comets, dwarf planets, gas, dust and more). Our own Milky Way is about 100,000 light-years across, NASA says; a light-year is the distance light travels in a year. It’s difficult to characterize what the largest galaxies are, because they don’t really have precise boundaries, but the largest galaxies we know of are millions of light-years across.

Take the supergiant elliptical galaxy IC 1101, for example. Located at the center of the Abell 2029 galaxy cluster, IC 1101 is approximately 1.04 billion light-years from Earth, and is often referred to as the largest galaxy in the universe (though, again, there’s no way of definitively proving how large it really is). What we do know for certain is that IC 1101 is much bigger than our Milky Way — about 50 times the size of our galaxy and 2,000 times more massive, to be exact.

UP NEXT: Bigger than the biggest galaxy


Biggest Galaxy Cluster


Now at last we are starting to approach the biggest structures in the universe. Galaxies are often bound to each other gravitationally in groups that are called galaxy clusters. (The Milky Way, for example, is part of the small Local Group that comprises about two dozen galaxies, including the Andromeda Galaxy.)

Galaxy clusters are collections of galaxies that formed once stars and individual galaxies had been built. Gravity binds hundreds of thousands of galaxies together in collections so large, they can distort the fabric of space-time. According to present understanding, the massive objects should take billions of years to form.

In 2012, scientists used NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope to measure the galactic cluster IDCS 1426, which lies approximately 10 billion light-years from Earth. Because light takes a full year to travel the distance of 1 light-year, that means astronomers are able to study the cluster as it appeared when the universe was only 3.8 billon years old.

Initial estimates suggested that IDCS 1426 contained an enormous mass at a significant distance, but were not conclusive. Brodwin and his colleagues decided to use NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope, Keck Observatory and Chandra X-ray Observatory to refine measurements of the mass of the cluster, using three different methods.

All three observations independently provided a mass 250 trillion times higher than the mass of the sun, or 1,000 times more massive than the Milky Way. But IDCS 1426 is not the most massive galaxy cluster in the universe. That distinction is held by a massive cluster that lies only 7 billion light-years from Earth.

Known informally as ‘El Gordo,’ the hefty cluster weighs in at a whopping 3 quadrillion times the mass of the sun (that’s 3 followed by 15 zeros, or one thousand million million). However, according to Brodwin, the cluster is on track to grow into something that large.

UP NEXT: Super sized


Biggest Supercluster


For a while, astronomers thought that galaxy clusters were the biggest structures in the universe. In the 1980s, however, astronomers realized that groups of galaxy clusters are also connected by gravity and connected in a supercluster.

The biggest supercluster known in the universe is the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall. It was first reported in 2013 and has been studied several times by teams led by the same person. It’s so big that light takes about 10 billion years to move across the structure. For perspective, the universe is only 13.7 billion years old.

The structure first came to light as the research team (led by Istvan Horvath, with the National University of Public Service in Hungary) was looking at brief cosmic phenomena known as gamma-ray bursts. It is thought that they come from supernovas, or massive stars that explode at the end of their lifetimes.

Gamma-ray bursts are thought to be a good indication of where huge masses of stuff lie in the universe, because big stars tend to congregate in dense areas. The first survey showed gamma rays particularly concentrated about 10 billion light-years away in the direction of the Hercules and Corona Borealis constellations.

UP NEXT: Super, super sized


Bigger Than the Biggest Supercluster?


So galaxy clusters may be the largest things in the universe, but it’s still a puzzle as to just how giant structures like the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall came to be. A 2013 article from Discovery News (a partner site to Space.com) pointed out that this structure appeared to go against a principle of cosmology, or how the universe formed and evolved. Specifically, this principle says that matter should be uniform when seen at a large enough scale. The largest known supercluster, however, is not uniform.

“I would have thought this structure was too big to exist. Even as a coauthor, I still have my doubts,” Jon Hakkila, an astronomy researcher at the College of Charleston in South Carolina, said in a 2014 press release. He said there is a very small chance the researchers saw a random number of gamma-rays in that location, but it is far less than one in 100.

“Thus we believe that the structure exists,” he added. “There are other structures that appear to violate universal homogeneity: the Sloan Great Wall and the Huge Large Quasar Group … are two. Thus, there may very well be others, and some could indeed be bigger. Only time will tell.”

2CELLOS – Thunderstruck [OFFICIAL VIDEO]

Published on 18 Feb 2014


From our new album Celloverse – out now!
iTunes: http://smarturl.it/celloverse
Amazon: http://smarturl.it/celloverse-amz

2CELLOS Luka Sulic and Stjepan Hauser playing their arrangement of Thunderstruck by AC/DC BaRock style!

Video by Kristijan Burlovic
Story by 2CELLOS
Editing: Ivan Stifanic and 2CELLOS
Technical support: MedVid produkcija

Produced, mixed and mastered by 2CELLOS and Filip Vidovic (Morris Studio, Zagreb)
Audio master for the video by Miro Vidovic

Special thanks to Friends of Giostra Society, Poreč, Croatia

  • Category

  • Licence

    • Standard YouTube Licence
  • Music

    • “Thunderstruck” by 2CELLOS ( • )