Ecuador cut Assange’s internet with a little push from the US

When Ecuador admitted that it cut off Julian Assange’s internet connection at its embassy in London, the country’s officials said it was their own decision. According to NBC News, though, the US might have something to do with it. American intelligence officials told the publication that the US urged Ecuadorian politicians to stop allowing Assange to do Russia’s bidding from within their territory. Assange, as you know, founded WikiLeaks, which has been publishing emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee’s computers. The government believes Russia has been orchestrating the cyber attacks and releasing sensitive data to influence the US presidential elections.

American intelligence also believes that Assange knows the emails he’s been posting come from the Russians. However, they don’t think he actively played a role in the cyber attacks against the DNC. As one senior intelligence official explained: “The general view is he is a willing participant in the Russian scheme but not an active plotter in it. They just realized they could use him.”

Ecuador granted Assange asylum back in June 2012, and he’s been living in its London embassy ever since. The WikiLeaks EIC sought help from the country to protect himself from being extradited to Sweden to face rape allegations. He also feared getting shipped to the US to face espionage charges. As for how the US managed to convince a known anti-American nation, NBC News said it’s all because Ecuadorian officials have been growing frustrated with Assange’s activities and presence in their London embassy. They were receptive to the US government’s suggestion, because they’ve been trying to figure out how to deal with him these past few months.

Source: NBC News

LeEco Le Pro3 and Le S3 specs

LeEco’s latest phones are coming to the U.S. — here’s what’s inside.

There’s something to be said for checking the big boxes in a phone that costs no more than $400, and that’s what the Le Pro3 from LeEco does. It doesn’t have all of the specs you get in a flagship phone, but it has a lot of the big ones that people are looking for. The Le S3, even at $249 retail, has plenty of the big specs as well, cutting back strategically in some areas to make the price point reasonable.

Here’s the complete spec sheet for both the Le Pro3 and Le S3.

Le Pro3 and Le S3 hands-on: Welcome to the U.S., LeEco

LeEco is trying to make its case in the U.S., starting with inexpensive phones attached to a massive ecosystem.

We’ve seen LeEco phones before, mostly in Asia and India, but now the company is branching out to North America with its latest “ecophones,” the Le Pro3 and Le S3. The pair of 5.5-inch phones are supposed to be a one-two punch to get U.S. consumers introduced to the LeEco brand and excited about the value it provides with devices that have really solid specs at impressive prices.

We’ve seen countless phones come from Chinese companies at mid-range value-oriented prices before, but LeEco is hoping to differentiate itself with software, services and an ecosystem that only a company of its size can provide. Let’s take a look at the front-end smartphone hardware that brings it all together.

Le Pro3

As the name suggests, the Le Pro3 is the higher-end of the two phones, coming in at $399 to directly compete with the likes of the OnePlus 3, Honor 8, ZTE Axon 7 and others. And unsurprisingly the Le Pro3 looks very similar hardware-wise to these other Chinese phones — the OnePlus 3 and Huawei Mate 8, in particular, come to mind when I look at this brushed metal rectangle. (The difference, in my short time using the Le Pro3, is that the OnePlus 3 seems to be better executed.)

More: LeEco Le Pro3 and Le S3 specs

The 5.5-inch 1080p phone has no real design flair, but is instead a simple blank vessel to carry high-end specs that look great on paper: a Snapdragon 821 processor, 4GB of RAM, 64GB of storage, a massive 4070 mAh battery (with Quick Charge 3), a one-touch fingerprint sensor and a 16MP rear camera can all be found inside.

The metal itself is simple and coated with a high-gloss sheen that separates it from the Le S3’s more raw aluminum look, and aside from the capacitive buttons below the screen nothing actually stands out about the hardware design. Unless the lack of a 3.5mm headphone jack is considered standing out at this point.

The internals of the Le Pro3 are incredibly impressive, particularly for a $399 phone, but beyond that value there really isn’t much to be said about the looks or feel. This isn’t a phone you’re going to be particularly proud to show off as much as you’ll just be happy to fit in with the crowd of other metal slab phones.

Le S3

At a glance, the Le S3 doesn’t seem at all like a cheaper phone than the Le Pro3. It has nearly the same dimensions as the Le Pro3, the same quality of screen and a similar metal build that lacks the reflective coating of the more expensive phone but actually feels better to me. Of course LeEco cut back on the internals to hit a $249 price point — a slower Snapdragon 652 processor, along with less ram (3GB) and storage (32GB) than the Pro3. The Le S3 also has a lower-quality screen glass that isn’t sculpted as nicely on the edges, and is missing other fringe features like NFC.

Despite the shortcomings when compared to the Le Pro3, the Le S3 still offers a compelling set of hardware for $249, much in the same way that the Honor 5X did earlier this year. You’re getting solid internals and a much nicer build and design than most of the phones you can pick up in this price range. From that standpoint, the Le S3 is a bit more interesting than the Le Pro3 that has more competition at $399.

A common vision: The ecosystem

Though there are differences in internals and small tweaks of design between the two that lead to a solid difference in price, both the Le Pro3 and Le S3 are clearly here to accomplish the same goal: get LeEco’s software and ecosystem to you as simply as possible. Both of the phones run a customized version of Android 6.0 Marshmallow that is simple, clean and heavily focused on LeEco’s content.

The goal is to get you viewing LeEco’s video content.

Permanently placed in the center of the home screen dock is a “Live” button that takes you directly to LeEco’s live TV app. Above it, you’ll find the Le, LeVidi and LeView apps to give you access to various bits of LeEco’s content library. A swipe to the right on the home screen sends you to the live feed of the Le app showing you everything happening in the world of LeEco. That’s A LOT of LeEco to take in, and it’s all right there waiting for you to consume.

Of course you can install a new launcher, uninstall the Le series of apps and skip all of that, but that’s not really what LeEco expects people to do. If you were to remove that set of apps, there isn’t so much compelling about the Le Pro3 in particular … you can get very similar internals and better external hardware for the same money in a OnePlus 3, while also getting a better overall software experience.

The hardware on offer for the money with the Le Pro3 and Le S3 is extremely impressive, but that hardware clearly isn’t the end game for LeEco. We’ll have to see how its apps, services and content library stack up as a true value-add to these phones that can make them appealing overall devices.

Climate change took a backseat to scandal at the presidential debates

While the third and final debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton covered national debt, gun control — and whether or not to accept the results come election day — climate change barely got a look in. In fact, environment was hardly on the radar across the span of all three debates. As we summarized in our election guide, the majority of scientists are convinced that human activity is responsible for rising levels of CO2 and mean temperature increases. This will have powerful effects on crops, sea levels and weather patterns — and our lives. Political policy, when it comes to climate change, is very important.

Trump has previously said he’s “not a believer in man-made global warming. I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change.” He’s added that there are bigger problems to tackle, like global famine and disease. Trump’s energy policy, at least so far, isn’t focused at dealing with the issue of climate change, but more on trade and business connected to energy policy. Clinton said she believed “climate change is a challenge of such magnitude and urgency that we need a president who will set ambitious goals.” She wants to make America the “21st century clean energy superpower.” (The Democrat candidate mentioned the topic in passing during today’s debate.)

Despite both candidates having strong opinions on the issue, it didn’t show. Across all three televised discussions, the most we’ve heard about climate change and energy policy was due to an audience question from a certain red-sweatered individual.

Ken Bone, a coal plant operator from Illinois, asked how each candidate’s energy policy will tackle the country’s energy needs, while balancing environmental impact and and minimizing job losses. (Let’s note that most viewers found the undecided voter far more fascinating than his question.)

In his answer, the Republican candidate accused the Environmental Protection Agency of “killing these energy companies,” adding that the country needed “much more than wind and solar.” Clinton reiterated that the US was energy-independent for the first time ever — something she wants to maintain, if elected. Her government would move “toward more clean, renewable energy as quickly as we can.”

Then again, perhaps the candidates are just addressing what polls also show: the environment is generally a low priority for American voters. The Pew Research Center’s poll from June puts it as low as 12th, out of 14 topics. Despite such low ranking, voter opinion is severely divided on the issue.

According to a survey from the Energy Policy Institute, 42 percent of Americans wouldn’t pay an extra $1 per month to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, 20 percent they’d add an extra 50 bucks. ($50 per month is the government’s estimated cost of damages from climate change would be on each household in the country.) These opinions attach quite strongly to democrat party lines: 84 percent of Democrats thought that the government should do something about climate change, while only 43 percent of Republicans thought the same.

When it comes to policy, Trump says he will “save the coal industry” .

When it comes to policy, Trump says he will “save the coal industry” and make land in the Outer Continental Shelf available for oil drilling and natural gas — aiming to increase fossil fuel stocks rather than reduce use. His ideas goes further, undoing previous environmental policy. If elected, Trump plans to rescind the Climate Action Plan and the Paris Climate Agreement (to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius), and stopping all payments of US tax dollars to the UN’s global warming programs.

Clinton’s plans are grand and possibly optimistic. She wants to generate half of the country’s electricity from clean sources, hoping to install half a billion solar panels by the end of her first term. These are huge aims. She also wants to reduce the country’s oil consumption through cleaner fuel alternatives and more efficient transport technology.

Clinton wants to generate half of the country’s electricity from clean sources.

Instead of hearing more on these promises, a large proportion of the final debate consisted of both candidates attacking (and defended themselves) against their failures and controversies. Trump called the sexual assault accusations against him false, while Clinton had to defend against her use of a private email server while Secretary of State.

Voters, divided on climate change, have two very different candidates to choose from.

Tiny body-roaming robots could be the future of wearables

Wearables have gotten smaller and less obtrusive over the years, culminating in today’s compact fitness trackers and smartwatches that stay immobile and out of the way. But that doesn’t have to be the case. Researchers at MIT and Stanford teamed up to develop Rovables, miniature robots chock full of sensors that roam around the human body while the wearer goes about their lives.

This gives them an edge over traditional static wearables, the research teams says in their paper: Rovables might seamlessly assemble into a wristwatch or nametag, reacting to the host or the environment. The bots are little bigger than a ring box, but they pack a microcontroller, wireless communications and a battery that powers them for 45 minutes of continual use. Their magnetic gripping wheels on either side of clothing let them crawl up, down and around unmodified garments.

By mimicking the locomotion typical of living organisms, Rovables can become truly autonomous, the team argues. Movement lets them perform self-maintenance, like plugging themselves back in to charge, or maneuver to let their sensors get different readings. Finally, it would let the devices tuck themselves away when done, suggesting an eerie but efficient vision of wee bug-like robots storing themselves after performing their function.

The current Rovables are only capable of moving linearly: The team hasn’t built a microprocessor powerful enough to handle the complex algorithms required for 3D movement, they told Recode. Aside from the lengthy development needed to turn these petite rovers into the self-assembling swarm of bots imagined by the team, there’s no way to predict whether other innovators will latch on to the concept. After all, it’s much easier to just cram sensors into a wristband.

Source: Recode