Total Pageviews

Friday, September 30, 2011

Mahindra launches XUV 500 at a killer price


Mahindra has launched its new global sport utility vehicle XUV 500 at a staggering price of Rs 10.80 lakhs. The company will begin bookings from Saturday.


Mahindra has launched its new global sport utility vehicle XUV 500 at a staggering price of Rs 10.80 lakhs. The company will begin bookings from Saturday.















Stick for the blind wins award


Delhi boy's stick for the blind wins award


This Delhi boy has designed a stick for the blind, which has infra-red sensors and can sense obstacles within one feet.



New Delhi, Sep 27 (IANS) Shantanu Gangwar, a Class 12 student, was pained to see his blind friends bump into walls, furniture and other objects. So he invented a smart walking stick that gives early warning of an obstacle.
The cheap and easy-to-use stick, which will cost around Rs.800, has bagged him the Council for Scientific and Industrial research (CSIR) Diamond Jubilee Invention Award for School Children 2010.
The award was created by the ministry of science and technology to enhance creativity among children.
A student of Delhi Public School here, Shantanu, 17, has shared the award with Ankit Kumar Mittal, another Class 12 student, from Barnala in Punjab. Ankit has invented a modified zip.
'I used to feel bad seeing visually-impaired students in my school bump into walls and furniture. I thought of developing something that warns them about obstacles,' Shantanu told IANS.
He proposed the idea to his electronics teacher who was all for it. 'It took me six months to develop the stick.
'It has infra-red sensors. The sensors are connected to a motor. When infra-red rays are reflected, the stick starts vibrating, giving warning about obstacles ahead,' said the lean and tall boy who wants to be an engineer.
The equipment can be fitted on conventional stick.
'It can detect an obstacle within one feet. Now I plan to increase the range to 2-3 metres. I have been approached by some companies to market the invention,' he says, with a tinge of pride.
Ankit's invention is equally interesting. He modified zip locks which used in travel bags, kit bags and jackets.
Normally it is difficult to change a defective zip lock. The traditional ones are in one piece. After seeing my father struggle to fix the zip lock of his jacket, I thought of developing a two-piece lock,' Ankit, who want to be a scientist, told IANS.
According to CSIR Director General Sameer Brahmchari, the two inventions were chosen out of 353 proposals received for various categories of prizes to be given away.

How To Land A Job At Google, Apple, or Facebook


(Infographic)


It can be safely said, in 2011, that everyone wants a tech job. The seemingly unstoppable industry continues to charge ahead as the rest of the economy stumbles, posting record sales and innovating at an astonishing rate. To work at Apple, Google, or Facebook is the dream of many wide-eyed college grads, and it’s no surprise; in addition to creating some of the best products on the market, the three big companies are consistently ranked as some of the best in the world to work for. So how do you go about getting that job? This infographic details the state of the tech jobs scene as it stands today, paying special attention to the aforementioned tech giants.

Tech Job
Created by: Masters Degree

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Dangerous Flying Machine


As well as cool robots, hacks and science, Geek Tech loves to check out bizarre flying contraptions that may eventually replace transport on wheels. Who wouldn't want to trade in their car for a hoverbike? So, how does a DIY project to create a flying machine equipped with eight motorcycle engines sound?

China: Awesome gentleman builds homemade flying contraption powered by eight motorcycle engines

Local farmer Shu Mansheng starts the engines of his self-designed and homemade flying device before a test flight in front of his house in Dashu village on the outskirts of Wuhan, Hubei province September 21, 2011. The round steel flying device, which cost more than 20,000 yuan ($3,135), is the fifth model made by Shu, a junior middle school graduate. It measures around 5.5 meters (18 feet) in diameter, and is powered by eight motorcycle engines. Shu managed to hover for 10 seconds at about 1 metre (3.3 feet) above ground during a recent test flight.





Above, in August, he set up a propeller on the motorcycle engine of his self-designed and made flying device before the first test flight in front of his house. 


Farmer Shu Mansheng from China designed and built the circular devicein his home  images of the machine are o
n Reuters. It's actually his fifth attempt at creating a flying machine--it's not known what happened to the previous prototypes. The machine cost Shu around $3,135 to create, and is about 18 feet in diameter. The main frame is created out of steel from other modes of transport, and the eight engines are attached to propellers. The driver sits is a small square cockpit just above the propellers and engines. Presumably with eight bike engines strapped on, those propellers are going to go at some speed, so getting out of the seat while the machine is running would probably be a dangerous idea.
It may sound ridiculous, but recently Shu did manage to get it off the ground. Just outside his home, onlookers would have witnessed the flying contraption hover for 10 seconds at 3.3 meters before landing again.
Considering the materials used and Shu not exactly having qualifications in aerodynamics (according to The Escapist he is a Junior School graduate, which in the US is around middle school level), this first test attempt is pretty impressive. Especially in comparison to much more "high tech" machines Geek Tech has covered. While the farmer will be continuing to tinker with his project to make it hoover higher, right now it's hard to believe this will ever be safe enough to jump into and drive.


Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Coming Soon

Under Construction
         

Railways' 'Baby Simran' to help people track trains


The Indian Railways is about to redefine rail travel by devising a new satellite-based technology to help commuters waiting at stations to track down the exact location of their train. The project will first be launched for the Rajdhani Express trains.
Called Baby Simran, the official name of the project is Satellite Imaging for Rail Navigation (SIMRAN), an ambitious project that the ministry has been working on for the last four years. The project involves digital mapping of stations. 
A top Mumbai-based official said, “The Research Designs and Standards Organisation and Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) have been working on the project, which will be launched soon. Four trains would initially be installed with Global Positioning System equipment.”

Apple iPhone 5 Launch on Oct 4


Here's What to Expect


The iPhone 5 is coming. This is no rumor, no guesswork, no fuzzy photo taken by someone allegedly holding an iPhone 5 prototype. Apple has set the date and the place for a real product launch. 
FacebookOkay, I am getting ahead of myself a bit. The invite does not explicitly mention an iPhone 5. It just promises we’ll talk about the iPhone. Yes, a nice little chat with me, Apple CEO Tim Cook and a few hundred of our closest friends at Apple’s Cupertino campus. There’ll be coffee and Danish. It’ll be cozy.
What else can we expect on October 4? Here’s the shortlist:

A Major Redesign

Shortly after Apple unveiled iOS 5, the cloud-friendly operating system that will soon reside inside current and future iPhones, there was speculation that the iPhone 5 would look almost exactly like the iPhone 4. The innards would be different, but most people could simply swath iPhone 5’s in the same cases as their previously adored iPhone 4’s.
But soon enough, some eagle-eyed folks spotted new iPhone cases that would in no way house current iPhones or the doppelganger iPhone 5. Answer? The iPhone 5 will be radical design departure. Some believe it will be thinner, or perhaps tapered. Others insist it will be wider.
Personally, I love the current design. I know, antenna attenuation nearly ruined the initial iPhone 4 launch, but my Verizon model moved the antenna bar breaks around and I rarely, if ever, lose signal. Plus, I don’t want a wider phone (read “bigger”) phone.

A Faster Phone

Duh! Even if we didn’t know about the A5 chip, Apple’s custom dual-core CPU, why would Apple do a major product launch without raising the performance bar? We rely on our smartphones to do more every day; they simply have to get more powerful as any good computer should, under Moore’s Law. Apple will also likely increase the amount and quality of RAM which always has a big impact on performance. These changes will be necessary if Apple does some of the other things we’ve been speculating about.

Better Screen and Cameras


Apple’s Android competitors outshine the iPhone in the camera resolution and screen size department. On the latter, Apple’s retina display is smaller than many slab Android phones, but often approaches or beats them in resolution. If Apple goes with a larger screen, 8 megapixel camera and full 1080p video recording, it’ll need more horsepower to support all of them. The bigger screen, in particular, will also demand more battery power. Apple’s been very careful about battery life (it’s why it fought so long and hard against multi-tasking) and it may have to increase battery size and capacity to support a larger retina screen.

Voice Recognition

I’ve used Google’s voice-enabled search app on the iPhone and it is quite good. Some pundits believe the iPhone 5 will come with native voice recognition, which means other iPhone apps can tap into this capability for a variety of nifty interactions. Apple did acquire voice-based personal assistant service Siri last year, and hasn’t done much with it yet, at least not publicly. Talking into your phone is natural, so what’s not to like about native voice recognition?

4G or Not 4G?

I guess I’m alone in this, but I don’t give a rat’s behind about 4G on my phone. My Verizon iPhone does just fine with its 3G data connection. However, I don’t think Apple can ignore the consumer clarion call forever. These people want 4G (look at all the 4G Android phones they’re snapping up). I can’t say their battery life is worth much, but at least they have a good time surfing YouTube videos while the charge lasts. Apple could do LTE 4G, the premier option, but only if it’s convinced there’s enough quality 4G out there. I’d say there is and the phone will ably dumb down to 3G anyway.
If Apple does go 4G, however, it’s a good bet the iPhone 5 will be larger than the eminently pocketable iPhone 4. 4G needs an ample battery for a full day’s use. Big batteries make for bigger phones.

No Shopping

Back when Google introduced Google Wallet, a technology for turning one NFC-enabled phone (the Nexus S 4G) into a wallet/credit card, there was a speculation that companies that weren’t included in the deal  such as Visa might hook up with Apple. All Apple had to do was put an NFC (Near Field Communication) chip inside the iPhone 5 and the rest would be easy. Now, however, Google has managed to sign up Visa for Google Wallet as well. I’m not certain Apple will see any value in the added cost of an NFC chip when there are no clear partners, and even less certainty that consumers are ready to start paying with their phones.

More Carriers

Apple now has both CDMA and GSM phones. Ubiquity is how to play the competition game. I expect Apple to welcome at least one new carrier partner to the table. My money is on Sprint (which, like Verizon, uses CDMA). T-Mobile is out. AT&T is trying to buy them and it’s clear Apple wants any part of that mess.

iPhone 4S

Sprint may not get the iPhone 5, however. Since I do expect that to be a 4G phone, my guess is that Apple goes with Verizon and AT&T as the first two carriers. Sprint will get a different phone, the lower-powered, still 3G, iPhone 4S.
These are merely my predictions. The only thing I can guarantee is that Apple will have an event next week on Oct 4th at 10 A.M. There will be coffee. There will be Danish. There will be an iPhone 5.

New 'FeTRAM'


New 'FeTRAM' is promising computer memory technology



    New 'FeTRAM' is promising computer memory technology
    This diagram shows the layout for a new type of computer memory that could be faster than the existing commercial memory and use far less power than flash memory devices. The technology, called FeTRAM, combines silicon nanowires with a "ferroelectric" polymer, a material that switches polarity when electric fields are applied, making possible a new type of ferroelectric transistor. (Birck Nanotechnology Center, Purdue University)
    (PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers are developing a new type of computer memory that could be faster than the existing commercial memory and use far less power than flash memory devices.
    The technology combines silicon nanowires with a "ferroelectric" polymer, a material that switches polarity when electric fields are applied, making possible a new type of ferroelectric transistor.
    "It's in a very nascent stage," said doctoral student Saptarshi Das, who is working with Joerg Appenzeller, a professor of electrical and computer engineering and scientific director of nanoelectronics at Purdue's Birck Nanotechnology Center.
    The ferroelectric transistor's changing polarity is read as 0 or 1, an operation needed for digital circuits to store information in binary code consisting of sequences of ones and zeroes.
    The new technology is called FeTRAM, for ferroelectric transistor random access memory.
    "We've developed the theory and done the experiment and also showed how it works in a circuit," he said.
    Findings are detailed in a research paper that appeared this month in Nano Letters, published by the American Chemical Society.
    The FeTRAM technology has nonvolatile storage, meaning it stays in memory after the computer is turned off. The devices have the potential to use 99 percent less energy than flash memory, a non-volatile computer storage chip and the predominant form of memory in the commercial market.
    "However, our present device consumes more power because it is still not properly scaled," Das said. "For future generations of FeTRAM technologies one of the main objectives will be to reduce the power dissipation. They might also be much faster than another form of computer memory called SRAM."
    The FeTRAM technology fulfills the three basic functions of computer memory: to write information, read the information and hold it for a long period of time.
    "You want to hold memory as long as possible, 10 to 20 years, and you should be able to read and write as many times as possible," Das said. "It should also be low power to keep your laptop from getting too hot. And it needs to scale, meaning you can pack many devices into a very small area. The use of silicon nanowires along with this ferroelectric polymer has been motivated by these requirements."
    The new technology also is compatible with industry manufacturing processes for complementary metal oxide semiconductors, or CMOS, used to produce computer chips. It has the potential to replace conventional memory systems.
    A patent application has been filed for the concept.
    The FeTRAMs are similar to state-of-the-art ferroelectric random access memories, FeRAMs, which are in commercial use but represent a relatively small part of the overall semiconductor market. Both use ferroelectric material to store information in a nonvolatile fashion, but unlike FeRAMS, the new technology allows for nondestructive readout, meaning information can be read without losing it.
    This nondestructive readout is possible by storing information using a ferroelectric transistor instead of a capacitor, which is used in conventional FeRAMs.
    More information: FETRAM. An Organic Ferroelectric Material Based Novel Random Access Memory Cell
    ABSTRACT 
    Science and technology in the electronics area have always been driven by the development of materials with unique properties and their integration into novel device concepts with the ultimate goal to enable new functionalities in innovative circuit architectures. In particular, a shift in paradigm requires a synergistic approach that combines materials, devices and circuit aspects simultaneously. Here we report the experimental implementation of a novel nonvolatile memory cell that combines silicon nanowires with an organic ferroelectric polymer—PVDF-TrFE—into a new ferroelectric transistor architecture. Our new cell, the ferroelectric transistor random access memory (FeTRAM) exhibits similarities with state-of the-art ferroelectric random access memories (FeRAMs) in that it utilizes a ferroelectric material to store information in a nonvolatile (NV) fashion but with the added advantage of allowing for nondestructive readout. This nondestructive readout is a result of information being stored in our cell using a ferroelectric transistor instead of a capacitor—the scheme commonly employed in conventional FeRAMs.
    Provided by Purdue University

    Monday, September 26, 2011

    HOW DESIGN HELPED SHAPE THE IPOD


    From Braun to Bauhaus

    Have you ever looked at your iPod and thought 'how Bauhaus'? Probably not. But it is. Observe...
    The core Bauhaus philosophy is all about function over form. To the Bauhaus types, a design that looked good but didn't work intuitively was useless. Well, duh. They also thought that students should use techniques used in other disciplines - like, say, taking a method from sculpture and applying it to architecture - to create the best product possible.
    Apple's core philosophy isn't that far from Bauhaus, especially the part about marrying art and technology. In fact, Steve Jobs once said that the only problem with his competitors was that 'they have no taste'. Ooh, get her! Hence, then, Apple's focus on simplicity above all - a Bauhaus philosophy that stands them apart from the 'more more more' philosophy of most tech companies. Apple's approach is reminiscent of another Bauhaus-influenced company, Braun, who made the iPod-a-like T3 pocket radio [pictured] in the sixties.
    Braun were headed by the fabulously-named Dieter Rams, who was himself heavily-influenced by the approach Bauhaus took to design. He took their philosophy and distilled it into a 10-step design principle which is still referenced to this day. Weirdly, for an ethos which places function over form, everything still managed to look blisteringly cool.
    Funny that…


    Wednesday, September 21, 2011

    8 Simple Questions

    You Won't Believe Science Can't Answer


    The field of science is capable of some amazing things, mostly because it's filled with all the Albert Einsteins and Doogie Howsers the world has produced over the centuries. But it may shock you that some of the most mundane, everyday concepts are as big a mystery to scientists as they are to the average toddler.
    Things like ...

    #8. Why We Sleep

    As far as we know, virtually every creature on earth enjoys a good night's rest as much as people do (though the hours we choose to sleep varies greatly). So obviously sleep must serve a key purpose for all living things, right? Well, it turns out science doesn't have a clue.
    Getty
    That's why science sits outside your room every night, watching.
    What we have is a handful of proposed explanations for sleep that not many scientists can agree on. There's the theory that it's helping the brain clean house after a long day of learning. You see, your brain is constantly generating new pathways thanks to all the stuff that you see and do all day, so sleeping is when all the useless info gets tossed out.
    Or maybe, instead of ditching the stuff that's not necessary, the brain might be reinforcing the stuff you do need. Scientists have seen that, when rats were asleep, the same neurons fired as when they had run mazes earlier that day. That means that the rats are essentially reliving their day and "practicing" the maze. This has led Harvard sleep researchers to assert that sleep is crucial for humans to form memories and to learn.
    Getty
    So really, passing out in the middle of an all-nighter is a valid study tactic.
    But there's a problem with both of these theories. Plants and microorganisms, otherwise known as "things without brains," have dormant states that are very similar to sleep, which kind of puts doubt on the whole "sleep is good for the brain" theory. Then there's the fact that scientists have found certain humans who can go without sleep with no ill effects. There's even one dude who claims he hasn't slept a wink in 33 years.
    In fact, all of these theories kind of went out the window when researchers discovered a gene mutation that allows people to sleep two to four hours a night without any adverse effects at all. So, is sleep useless, then? Is it just God's way of making us take a break between masturbation sessions? Your guess is as good as science's.
    Getty
    "We have found a strong, positive correlation between bong hits and passing out on the field behind the gym."

    #7. How Many Planets Are in Our Solar System

    Since Pluto was surprisingly kicked out of the solar system treehouse, we've known that the membership of the Planets Club is subject to change at science's whim. What you may not have realized is that the current inventory of eight planets and one sun is pretty much just science's best guess for the time being.

    And somewhere out there, Pluto sheds a lonely tear.
    It sounds bizarre, considering you all saw the same model of the solar system in elementary school. And every time you hear anything about space in the news, it's always badass telescope this, or new photograph of faraway galaxy that. We're mapping the edge of the freaking known universe over here. There's no way anything in our own cosmic backyard is escaping our notice, right?
    Faulkes Telescope Project
    We even took a picture of a space cloud that looks like a space pig humping a space turtle. The truth is out there, all right. And it's weird.
    But despite what Big Space wants you to believe, the vast majority of our solar system is still uncharted and unknown. The area between Mercury and the sun is too bright to see, and the area beyond Uranus is too dark. Scientists are still finding new objects in theasteroid belt by the hundreds of thousands. Oh yeah, and some of astronomers think there might be a second sun. Seriously.
    NASA
    They've named it Nemesis because it flings comets at us. Nothing NASA says can convince us this isn't Galactus.
    You see, not even our best telescope technology can see things that are far behind Pluto, where sunlight doesn't illuminate things all that well and where we're essentially blind. So astronomers have to combine vague clues and guesswork to figure out what's going on out there, kind of like space CSI.
    First off, the fact that there's a huge gap in asteroids after a certain distance behind Pluto tells scientists that there's very likely a planet between the size of Earth and Mars that gobbled up all the space rock out there, so yeah, our solar system is probably back up to nine planets again. They're getting really tired of rewriting those middle school textbooks. And speaking of Pluto, astronomers have also discovered an object named Sedna orbiting the sun, and although no one's a hundred percent certain of its size, they're pretty sure it's carrying at least Pluto's heft.

    Our next goal as a species should be to fashion these dwarf planets into a pair of Truck Balls for Earth.
    But wait, that's not all, folks. Another little anomaly that astronomers have noticed is that comets' orbits aren't exactly going along as predicted. The explanation? There must be another planet out there that's affecting the icy rocks' orbits. And according to their hypothesis, this mother of a planet is huge -- like, "four times the size of Jupiter" huge. Named Tyche, this giant gas ball is way too far away for sunlight to reach it, but still, scientists are pretty confident that evidence gathered from a NASA telescope will prove its existence very soon. Who knows, in a few years, naming all the planets may be as hard as naming all 50 states.

    #6. Why Ice Is Slippery

    Saying that ice is slippery is like saying that water is wet -- it's something we've known for as long as we can be said to have known anything. Presumably, humans as a species knew ice was slippery before we knew fire was hot, or that it existed. But ask anyone why, and they won't be able to give you any better explanation than one of those cave people would have.
    Getty
    Our intern Thoog suspects that either evil spirits or flash thawing is the culprit.
    We just don't know why it is that you can ski on ice but not on boulders. Although at this point, most of you are probably screaming "It's water, stupid!" -- and that's more or less the answer that scientists have always concluded. Even in some modern textbooks you can still read the popular explanation: Unlike most substances, ice expands when it freezes. So when you walk on it, you're actually compacting it back into slippery old water. Sounds simple, right? Too bad then that it's bullshit. Experiments have shown that your puny body doesn't exert nearly enough pressure on ice to squeeze even a tiny bit of it into liquid.
    Getty
    Science: "We don't know ... ice fairies, maybe?"
    There are some competing theories, though none of them are better than the others. One popular theory is that the surface of ice remains liquid because there's nothing but open air on one side to put pressure on it. And some tests have confirmed that -- although they also confirm that the liquid layer is probably too thin to have any effect on friction.
    Another theory that scientists have put forward is that ice is not actually slippery at all. Though this sounds like something that science, exasperated, would proclaim while waving a gun in your face to make you stop asking stupid questions, a guy named Dr. Salmeron thinks that the roughness on the surface of ice is actually so high that, ironically, it becomes slippery when you flash-melt it due to the sheer friction you're applying to it. Of course, in the same breath, Dr. Salmeron admits he may be talking out of his ass.
    Salmeron Group
    "Science has no hard answers, only questions and tasteful sweaters."

    #5. How a Bicycle Works

    Bicycles have been around since the early 19th century, and its basic design has actually changed relatively little for almost 200 years. You always had two wheels, a frame to connect them and a handlebar for steering, and you required a person completely devoid of shame to ride on it.
    Getty
    It turns out skintight short-shorts are an improvement in bicycle fashion.
    At the very least, you'd think that the guy who invented the damn thing knew what he was doing, but after more than a century of research, science has been forced to conclude that he was probably some kind of sorcerer. The first bicycles were invented, not through any kind of scientific procedure, but by dumb old trial and error. Even modern bike design schools admit that it's not engineering or computer knowledge that make a good bike designer, but instead "intuition and experience."
    So, what happens when you ask scientists exactly what makes a bicycle stable? Or what keeps it going? Or how people ride them? Well, odds are they'll either nervously tell you that they have cookies in the oven and run out on you, or if they're honest, they'll give you a pretty big shrug. In fact, top bike researchers admit that, even though some people have come up with equations on how to ride a bike or how they think bikes work, those equations are pretty much fancy icing on top of a cake of cluelessness. One Cornell researcher even says that absolutely nobody has ever come to an intuitive understanding of what makes a bicycle do its thing.
    Getty
    Science: "We've narrowed it down to either spoke fairies or wheel fairies."
    For ages, scientists assumed that the gyroscopic effect (the force that keeps a spinning top from falling over) was the key for a bike's balance. But nope! In the '70s, a scientist disproved that theory.
    So then, scientists thought that the principal factor for a bike's stability was something called the caster effect, or trail (something to do with the front wheel's angle away from the frame). But just this year, top bikeologists from Cornell and other universities formed an angry scientific mob, then torched and pitchforked that theory as well. They did this by building a goofy-looking bike that has no gyroscopic effect and no trail, but manages to stay upright nonetheless.
    Sam Rentmeester/FMAX
    "Look, Ma! No physics!"
    So scientists are essentially back at square one, as things such as steering geometry and the physics of stability are all going back to the drawing board. At least you can be secure in the knowledge that the humiliation you feel when you ride a bike is akin to the humiliation science feels when it's asked how a bike stays up.

    #4. How to Beat Solitaire

    Odds are pretty high that you're reading this article while you're at work. And once you're done wasting time with Cracked, odds are you'll continue to waste time with something else. And conveniently at your fingertips is one of the most played and addictive games of all time, one that you don't even need a partner for: solitaire.
    Getty
    "Mrs. Jones in the cancer ward can wait. I just got the fourth ace!"
    More specifically, Klondike solitaire, which is as familiar to career procrastinators as Minesweeper. All of us at some point, usually around our 10th consecutive loss, have buckled down and tried to figure out the secret. After all, if Rain Man can break Vegas, surely you can beat a goddamn Windows game.
    Wrong!
    Getty
    "I just got the king of diamonds. Engage Protocol Delta."
    Maybe it has something to do with the fact that scientists get distracted when "studying" solitaire, or the fact that solitaire may have evolved from freaking black magic, but pretty much every damn thing about the game has remained a mystery since the 1800s. In fact, big-time mathematicians openly admit that it's one of the "embarrassments of applied mathematics" that almost nothing about the standard Klondike solitaire game is currently known.
    For example, when the math geeks tried to find the odds of winning, they ran into a problem. They couldn't even get a fixed idea of how many winning hands are possible. The mathematicians came up with an approximate percentage of how many hands are winnable that was somewhere around 80 or 90 percent. But think about it -- when you play solitaire, do you win at least eight out of every 10 hands? Either you have the lamest X-Men superpower ever, or you're lying.
    Getty
    Sorry, kid. No one in history has ever gotten laid for their ability at solitaire.
    Now, there's some wild-ass guesses out there as to what the actual odds of winning Klondike are, but you'll never get an exact answer, even if many computer people agree that you don't have a good chance of winning at the game.
    You might think that it's just because scientists are too busy breaking apart neutrons and quarks to bother trying to hack a card game. But consider that science has already cracked the secrets to the seemingly much more complicated game of Monopoly. But solitaire? It's simply beyond our powers of understanding. Then again, if we actually did know how to beat solitaire, we'd have to go back to work faster.
    Getty
    "Ma'am, I've told you this before. I'll deal with your 'home invasion' when I've won two in a row."

    #3. How Many Species of Animal Exist

    In the 21st century, the days of Marco Polo and Columbus are long behind us. Nobody is exploring new lands and finding exotic new creatures like the platypus for the rest of the world to call bullshit on. So surely, having stomped across every nook and cranny of this blue earth, we should by now have some kind of ballpark figure about how many species we have left to kill, right?
    Getty
    Gotta catch 'em all!
    Actually, not even close. When you ask taxonomists (scientists specially tasked with finding and cataloging animals), they'll tell you they haven't even scratched the surface in their attempts to find all the creatures that live on the planet. However, despite working on this mission for almost 250 years, along with discovering over 15,000 new living beings each year, taxonomists don't even have the faintest idea of how many species live on Earth.
    In fact, although scientists have identified almost 2 million of the species we've got, estimates for the amount of species that are actually on the planet range from a measly 5 million up to a daunting 100 million. The reason for this supernova-sized room for error is that, no matter what method the scientists use to make their estimates, there's always some amount of guesswork involved.
    Getty
    "Anyone have a d10googol we can roll?"
    One of the early estimates from 19th century taxonomists said that there were about 400,000 species on Earth, and seeing as how we've already discovered five times that many, it's only logical to conclude there was some faulty sciencing involved there. In fact, the most recent estimate, which claims that that there's less than 10 million species, is being heavily criticized by scientists. Hell, even the people who put out this estimate admitted publicly that they might be way off.
    There are a few good reasons why the birds, bees, and bacteria remain woefully uncounted. First off, the research on species takes place mostly in the northern hemisphere, which remains more technologically advanced than the southern, so it's very likely that places like Australia have yet to show us the complete horror of their fauna.
    Getty
    Somewhere, deep in the outback, the fabled and terrible Murder Koala waits.
    But the biggest reason that science is still shrugging its shoulders and making sad trumpet noises is that 99 percent of all living space is under the ocean, and humans have explored less than 10 percent of it (experts say we have better maps of the surface of Mars than of our own oceans). We discover new and horrible types of life there all the time!
    Prosanta Chakrabarty
    GAH!

    #2. The Length of the U.S. Coastline (Or Any Coastline, For That Matter)

    Of all the subjects we learned in high school, the one with the least amount of mystery was probably geography. The continents, rivers and mountains aren't going anywhere. At least not very fast, they're not. Sure, the fine points can get more complicated. Maybe the tallest mountain isn't the one you think, and maybe the largest desert will surprise you, but even then, it's all just a matter of committing definitions to memory and spewing them back to your teacher. It's all freaking measurements! Surely the length of the United States coast isn't something "up for debate."
    Getty
    What do you need besides a ruler?
    Yet estimates vary wildly. The Central Intelligence Agency, for example, officially lists the length of the U.S. coast as around 12,380 miles. But another study came up with 29,093 miles. Then this study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a U.S. government agency) came up with 95,471.
    What the hell?
    Getty
    "Somewhere around that second set of docks we found a pub and blew the whole damn count."
    You see, measuring coasts isn't simple and indisputable, like measuring a straight line on a piece of paper. It's complex and prone to wild exaggeration, like measuring your dong in the bathroom. The reason is that, depending on how much detail of a coast you want to measure, you'll always get a different final outcome from someone who chose to take into account a different amount of detail. If you want to just take the rough outline of a coast, you can get a measurement like the CIA has. But when you get into the fine details of every little inlet and estuary, suddenly the numbers get much bigger as you calculate in all of these twists and turns.
    Avsa, Wikipedia Commons
    Keep zooming in, and this can literally continue for infinity.
    And the thing about all those numbers is that they can all be adopted as "official" measurements by government agencies, and nobody would bat an eye. In fact, the disparity between coastline measurements is accepted and is a pretty well-known problem in geography dubbed the "coastline paradox." This coastal conundrum comes from the fact that, no matter how much detail you choose to take into account in your measurement of a coastline, no matter how many of the zigs and zags you measure, there is always more detail to get. This paradoxically makes every single coastline of every single country infinitely long.

    #1. How Gravity Works

    Come on, it's gravity. Is there any concept in the universe quite so basic? You throw shit up, it comes down again. Despite his textbook reputation, Newton didn't discover gravity. It was discovered by the first fish ancestor who crawled onto land and found it had lost the ability to swim upward. What's to understand?
    Getty
    One aborted attempt at parkour and the subsequent ER visit can drum the basics into even the thickest skull.
    Turns out there are four basic forces that hold the universe together, and out of these four, gravity is the only one that doesn't make any sense. Specifically, how it can be so incredibly weak and incredibly strong at the same time. Gravity holds the entire universe together, and no matter how far out you travel, it never completely disappears. And yet, it is the weakest force in existence. To illustrate, you know when you bring two magnets near each other and they snap together? That force is actually 10^36 times stronger than gravity. Yeah, the technical term for that is "a big-ass order of magnitude" stronger.
    Getty
    "Using the scale devised by Dr. R. J. Fuckton, of course."
    To add to the confusion, because all these other forces are controlled by their own particles, it stands to reason that gravity should have its own particles, too. But this hypothetical critter -- the graviton -- is basically the only one we haven't found yet, unlike the particles that mediate a lot of the other important forces in nature, which have been altogether more cooperative.
    But the mother of all baffling gravity mysteries is that, once you get down to the level of atoms and molecules and even smaller stuff, gravity just plain stops working. In fact, gravity is one of the biggest reasons why quantum physicists and real-world physicists have nothing to say to each other. We know more about what's inside an atom than we do about why a ball comes back down when we throw it in the air. For all science knows, it's because of ghosts.
    Getty
    "Ghosts are one of the four fundamental forces, along with poltergeists, unicorns and David Bowie."