>Yawn. Another battery breakthrough with x10 price...
>I will believe in Solid State batteries when iPhones come with them.
Wow this community is full of assholes who vote each other to the top as to avoid or derail conversation.
The title itself says it is about research, if you don't care until the technology is packaged into a product which is then packaged into an iPhone please just shut up, go elsewhere. Find an article about iPhone accessories to comment on.
Sorry about the coarse language but its much more civil than a lot of the supposedly enlightened takes I see here, and its only gotten more snotty in time.
Me, windows 7: *turns off as much indexing and search rubbish as possible.
Me, windows 10: "Oh please search box deliver me the local result I need, without your knowledge I would be lost in this wasteland of cobbled together UI design."
Kinda like saying there is real Chinese baby formula out there however there are also fakes (which are responsible for metric tons of formula being shipped from AU to CN to this day).
People mistrust Chinese products because of the deadly history behind many of their products. That a reshipper is buying and repacking the cheapest products he can find isn't a condemnation of Chinese masks but its like black tar heroin, you don't exactly expect to see it in the best of places.
I still have vivid memories of that paper thin Chinese PPE disintegrating upon a nurse trying to take it out the package and wear it. The stuff isn't worth the bunker fuel used to ship it over. Much of this is due to people on both sides of the seas agreeing to buy and sell low spec garbage to each other, and it drags the entire Chinese 'name' down.
>I don't know how you cans ay that, when the UN press briefings literally refer to them as a "UN expert".
His claim:
>Its not just my opinion, its the UN opinion.
It's not the UN's position, its a position of a Special Rapporteur for the UN. Thats why I can say it. You are arguing a different subject, if he is a UN expert. Notice I'm not debating his affiliation with the UN. A position of the UN would be a decision made by council, not by someone who:
>are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.
Its really hard for me to define when we're over-complicating the premise that made Archive.org flourish, but I would love to distribute the data to alleviate the dangers of centralization in general.
I believe something like ipfs, a strong search engine, coupled with the activism that brought traffic to archive.org initially would be wonderful:
Was thinking about this when dwelling over archive.is's habit of blocking Cloudflare DNS users due to Cloudflare not sharing specific types of identifying info on user traffic. I like archive.is but that practice smells so funny it makes me believe the entire site will go dark or paywalled/private in time.
In contrast to the greasy nature of archive.is the owner of archive.org is a data nerd in the purest form. This guy archives, he makes other people want to archive. Archive.org has been such a smashing success that its now too large for it's own good.
We need more alternatives, in the same vein and spirit as archive.org. Please keep all venture capitalist/disruption/innovation agitators away from making the issue over complex or stilted towards a commercialized end game. Just archive.
There is a reason people have to put annoyingly long official titles in when discussing persons and their opinions. "UN Special Rapporteur" does not equal the UN, it specially does not equal an official position of the UN which is what the user tried to do.
You have to be specific. "UN Special Rapporteur" does not equal the UN, which is why that specific language is put onto the footer of all their articles.
It was made then. This was a very dumb question. One that tells more about where the person asking it is coming from than what could possibly be put into the answer itself.
What did you expect?
"Oh yes I made this account for the purposes of manipulating public opinion about Assange in this specific thread. Muahaha and I would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for someone looking at my profile creation date."
You attempted to spin the opinion of special rapporteur into that of the UN. In every special rapporteur article they have to put the disclaimer I posted because of people like you attempting to frame something in false or malicious ways.
To recap your claim:
>Its not just my opinion, its the UN opinion.
UN's actual position as stated in the article you posted:
>The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council's independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures' experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.
Mr Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; is part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.
>they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.
>In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who provided the records.
>WikiLeaks declined to publish a wide-ranging trove of documents — at least 68 gigabytes of data — that came from inside the Russian Interior Ministry, according to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy.
>The logs, which were provided to FP, only included WikiLeaks’s side of the conversation.
>“As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time.
>“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,” the organization wrote in a Twitter direct message when contacted by FP about the Russian cache.
Assange would later go on to propagate and distribute manipulated leaks sent by Guccifer 2.0 and other known Russian fronts like the "CyberBerkut" promotion of his I linked at the thread top.
>Guccifer 2.0 — believed to be a misinformation campaign operated by Russian intelligence — posted an 860-megabyte file on Tuesday afternoon that he claimed was donor information he hacked from Clinton Foundation servers.
>A sampling of the posted documents include a spreadsheet of big bank donations, a list of primarily California donors, an outdated spreadsheet of some Republican House members — and a screenshot of files he claimed to have obtained, one of which was titled “Pay to Play.”
>But there are a number of red flags that suggest the documents are in fact from a previous hack on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), not a new hack on the Clinton Foundation.
>A spot check of some of the people on the donor list against FEC filings found that they all lined up with DCCC contributions.
You can't document Assange's drifting from seemingly neutral leader of a leak network staffed by individuals across the world to a lone operator of a clearly biased outfit, without people throwing their accounts into the fire. Making personal attacks like a fella just did here minutes ago.
I didn't think so many people would be saying "Russia anything is lies!" so vehemently given the activist/journalist/governmental sources documenting Kremlin's role in fostering relations with Wikileaks while spinning up their own personas like Guccifer 2.0 to act as fronts for the distribution of hacked data to Assange.
>I think it says something that this is the best you can come up with.
Hi I can basically see you sneering with a "gotcha" face through that text. Sorry but Assange's history of leak revisionism, favoring Russia specifically, is deep.
When Assange was working with "Anon" who was really an FBI snitch, he accepted files hacked from Syria. When they were released they were missing information about Russia including bank transfers of billions of dollars. Assange's selective leaking based on his biases has been documented for years:
>The court records, placed under seal by a Manhattan federal court and obtained by the Daily Dot through an anonymous source, show in detail how a group of hacktivists breached the Syrian government’s networks on the eve of the country’s civil war and extracted emails about major bank transactions the Syrian regime was hurriedly making amid a host of economic sanctions. In the spring of 2012, most of the emails found their way into a WikiLeaks database.
>But one set of emails in particular didn’t make it into the cache of documents published by WikiLeaks in July 2012 as “The Syria Files,” despite the fact that the hackers themselves were ecstatic at their discovery. The correspondence, which WikiLeaks has denied withholding, describes “more than” €2 billion ($2.4 billion, at current exchange rates) moving from the Central Bank of Syria to Russia’s VTB Bank.
We know this because the courts showed the data that Assange personally held back.
>I will believe in Solid State batteries when iPhones come with them.
Wow this community is full of assholes who vote each other to the top as to avoid or derail conversation.
The title itself says it is about research, if you don't care until the technology is packaged into a product which is then packaged into an iPhone please just shut up, go elsewhere. Find an article about iPhone accessories to comment on.
Sorry about the coarse language but its much more civil than a lot of the supposedly enlightened takes I see here, and its only gotten more snotty in time.