Samsung Galaxy S8 vs. LG G6: In-Depth Comparison

LG and Samsung have unveiled their latest phones, and since we spent enough time to come up with near-final conclusions, let’s compare the two hottest phones in the “large display” category. The LG G6 and the Samsung Galaxy S8/S8+ are leading a new push for large-screen displays with incredibly high display-to-body screen ratios, especially for high-volume devices. How do they stack against one another? Let’s take a look. Although not required […]

Samsung Galaxy S8 vs. LG G6: In-Depth Comparison , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

Google brings Fact Check to Search and News worldwide

Google has been taking steps to fight fake news over the past few months, but today those efforts took a big leap. After launching fact check tags for Google News results in a few countries, Google has announced that this tag will roll out on a worldwide scale. This should hopefully help readers tell the difference between news based in … Continue reading

Pokemon GO update: Easter event arrives in part [APK Download]

In the latest update to Pokemon GO for both Android and iOS, users will find a wide variety of updates to the UI features of the game. Included in this update are a new loading screen – part of which you’ll see in the hero image of this article (slash guide). Another bit that’s updated is new language support – … Continue reading

This is Samsung’s big Galaxy S8 commercial

Even with the Galaxy S8 and S8+ undoubtedly the most eagerly-anticipated Android phones of the year, Samsung is leaving nothing to chance. The company has revealed its first TV commercial for the upcoming smartphones, and it’s playing up their most obvious change over the Galaxy S7. That’s the so-called “Infinity Display”, Samsung’s curved Super AMOLED screen with tiny, weeny bezels. … Continue reading

Roger Stone Denies All Trump-Russia Foul Play

Roger Stone, political consultant and author of The Making of the President 2016: How Donald Trump Orchestrated A Revolution, wants to “expose this myth” of Russian assistance in President Trump’s victory in the 2016 election.

He goes on to deny any evidence of Russian interference, even General Michael Flynn and Attorney General Jeff Sessions of Trump’s cabinet have admitted to speaking with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

If there really is no connection to Russia, why are there others that have been caught with connections to Russian officials? Stone replies that because “I am none of those people,” he doesn’t have to explain the situation.

Although there is no evidence of a wiretap of Trump Tower, Stone also claims that because of an NSA program that monitored phone calls after 9/11, it’s reason to believe that President Trump was wiretapped during the election.

Stone also speaks about his apparent poisoning around Christmas, saying that he experienced vomiting, night sweats, and delirium. He said he is also due for a blood test soon, but refused to provide any medical evidence or a doctor’s note to prove this outrageous claim.

“For what purpose? I’m not an elected official or a public official,” he says, “I have written my experience; people can make their own judgements.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

America Can't Afford to Buy a Broken Afghanistan

This piece was previously published in The National Interest.

Trump should refuse to grant the request of Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Central Command, for thousands of additional troops to be sent to Afghanistan. Indeed, Trump should announce that, true to his campaign promise, he will not continue the failed Bush-Obama policy of nation-building in Afghanistan. The President should state that the U.S. will give the Afghan government six months to work out a deal with the Taliban, but then withdraw U.S. troops—advisers and all—and rapidly scale back the billions of dollars the U.S. provides to the corrupt government. He should warn the Taliban—who are sure to play a major role in the future of Afghanistan –that if it again hosts terrorists who seek to harm the U.S., the U.S. will respond with heavy bombings. He best also notify U.S. allies, who have troops in Afghanistan and who help train and finance the Afghan government, that if they are willing to take over the futile attempt to turn Afghanistan into a stable government, maybe even a liberal democracy, they are welcome to try. Otherwise, they may wish to phase out assistance as the U.S. does.

One notes that General Votel did better than his long line of predecessors in Vietnam, Iraq, and in Afghanistan—who time and again asked for more troops—by at least not promising that if his request is granted, the U.S. will win the war. He only holds that it will “make the advise-and-assist mission more effective.” And General John Nicholson, who leads U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, said in early March that he needs several thousand more troops to break the “stalemate.” To win, some previous U.S. military analysts held, the U.S. will have to stay for long periods. Former U.S. military leader, Dr. John Nagl said in 2015 that “If ground is important enough to spill American blood on it, and in quantity, it is important enough to continue to station American forces on that ground for decades in order to prevent that threat to U.S. interests from arising again.” This ignores the principle of sunk costs. Sadly the losses we have already suffered and inflicted cannot be reversed but it defies logic that if we have made a bad investment we must continue to do so.

What one hopes Trump advisers will note is that the war in Afghanistan was won a long time ago and easily. Only 12 U.S. soldiers died during the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, where the fighting was largely carried out by locals of the Northern Alliance. The Department of Defense spent only $39.8bn in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002, while the total cost of security-related aid in 2002–03 was only $535m. Killing off most of Al-Qaeda was also not a difficult undertaking. What caused, by far, the greatest loss of lives (including that of many locals) and squandering of scores of billions of dollars was the attempt to stay and “rebuild” Afghanistan into a modern state and ally.

The only previous U.S. successes in long-distance nation-building were in Japan and Germany, which had very different sociological conditions than Afghanistan. The special conditions in Japan and Germany included the cessation of all hostilities, a high level of domestic security, and local acceptance of the foreign occupation and democratization project. In addition, these nations had a strong sense of national unity, competent government personnel and low levels of corruption. Furthermore, they enjoyed strong economic fundamentals, including solid industrial bases, established infrastructure, educated populations, and vigorous support for science and technology, corporations, business, and commerce.

But none of these conditions are in place in this godforsaken 12th-century country for what we did in Germany and Japan after World War II. Afghanistan’s military and police forces are riddled with corruption and ineptitude, and according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Afghanistan is by far the world’s largest producer of opium.

Supporters of continued U.S. involvement argue that if the U.S. leaves, Afghanistan will turn into a breeding ground and haven for terrorists: “If we do not fight them there, we will have to fight them here.” In a recent op-ed, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham write that “The U.S. objective in Afghanistan is the same now as it was in 2001: to prevent terrorists from using the country’s territory to attack our homeland.” However, first, terrorism already has so many places to ‘breed”—in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and half a dozen African countries, and parts of Pakistan—that they hardly need one more. And so far there is little evidence that they are able to hit the U.S., ever since the U.S. put up its guard after 9/11. Most relevant, the 9/11 terrorists were not Afghans or Taliban, but Saudis and other foreigners that the Talban reluctantly hosted. There is little reason for them to tolerate them again after the suffering they underwent for the last fifteen years.

Others argue that the U.S. leaving Afghanistan would upset India because it would allow Pakistan – India’s archrival in the region – to increase its influence. However, this is hardly a reason to keep sacrificing lives and scarce resources on a war that has no end in sight. As a candidate, Trump suggested that the U.S. shouldn’t pull out its troops because Pakistan has nuclear weapons. However, these would be much better placed off shore, on ships. Others suggest that U.S. troops should stay, if nothing else, to protect the U.S. embassy. But if any embassy really is under such continual assault that it requires such a large troop presence, it would be better to evacuate embassy than keep thousands of Americans mired in Afghanistan.

Trump is, by instinct, a domestic president and much occupied with replacing Obamacare, banning immigration, building infrastructure, budgets, and much else. However, he should not let the generals allow his administration to be mired in the same quicksand that sucked in two previous American administrations over the last 16 years.

Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor and Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University. His latest book, Avoiding War with China, was recently published by The University of Virginia Press.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Cuba Gooding Jr. Responds To Sarah Paulson Skirt-Lift Controversy

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

Cuba Gooding Jr. said Thursday that lifting up Sarah Paulson’s skirt during a panel last month was misinterpreted as “sexual misconduct.” The two “American Horror Story” co-stars hashed out the matter in a phone call after social media users criticized the move. 

“I love the lady that is Sarah Paulson,” Gooding told People at the FX All-Star Upfront in New York City. “We have a banter like brother and sister, which is how the spirit of that whole panel was.”

“Yet that image was taken out to represent some kind of sexual misconduct, and that wasn’t my intent,” the Oscar winner continued. “The first person, when I heard about the fervor, I called Sarah, I said, ‘I love you, I see you as my sister,’ and she said, ‘I feel the same way about you.’ And so I let it go.”

Gooding added that he used the ensuing controversy as a “teachable moment” for his sons, who are in college, about how images can be misinterpreted on the internet.

The incident happened March 26 during an “AHS” screening and panel at Los Angeles’ PaleyFest. As Paulson greeted co-star Kathy Bates, Gooding lifted up Paulson’s dress from behind, generating a discussion on the internet.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Reese Witherspoon, Please Save The Rom-Com

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

Earlier in her career, “Reese Witherspoon” and “rom-com” frequently occupied the same sentence. Between 2002 and 2012, she made “Sweet Home Alabama,” “Just Like Heaven,” “Four Christmases,” “How Do You Know” and “This Means War.” During that same time period, the romantic comedy genre largely dried up, at least in comparison to the ‘90s. Which brings us to the hook of this story: Save us, Reese.

Witherspoon will star in “Home Again,” which on Thursday got a Sept. 8 release date. It’s billed as a rom-com, and here’s the premise, according to Deadline:

“Home Again” follows a recently separated mother (Witherspoon) of two whose new life in Los Angeles is overturned when she decides to take in three young, charismatic guys (Pico Alexander, Nat Wolff and Jon Rudnitsky) who become part of her unconventional family. Michael Sheen, Candice Bergen and Lake Bell co-star.

It’s unclear what direction this love story will take, which makes it all the more fun. The non-Witherspoon names bringing the movie to life are just as thrilling, as “Home Again” will mark the directorial debut of Hallie Meyers-Shyer, daughter of rom-com regent Nancy Meyers. (Meyers-Shyer has appeared in a few of her mother’s movies, including “The Parent Trap” and “What Women Want.”) According to Variety, the elder Meyers, who is producing the movie, “played a major part” in recruiting Witherspoon for the role, which Rose Byrne was circling at one point. Meyers-Shyer wrote the script, too.

The Sept. 8 release will be a lovely bridge between the summer blockbuster onslaught and Oscar season, just like “The Intern” was in 2015. (Have you seen “The Intern”? It’s wonderful.) In the meantime, we can just watch “Big Little Lies” over and over and over again.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=58e27215e4b0ba359596c95e,58d578b9e4b03787d3587cfa,58e1cd05e4b0c777f7886553

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Sam Bee To Hillary Clinton: 'It Should Have Been You'

NEW YORK ― Sam Bee is one funny lady. And sometimes her comedic timing is so good that its underlying earnestness punches you right in the gut. During her introductory remarks for Hillary Clinton on Thursday night at Tina Brown’s Women in the World Summit, she elicited laughs, cheers and some tears.

“I’m surprised that Secretary Clinton was available to speak tonight,” Bee said after walking out on stage to huge applause. “I assumed by now Hermione would have returned to her rightful home at Hogwarts, where she’s rumored to be the new Defense Against the Dark Arts professor ― at least we’re all hoping.”

Bee expressed how hard it was to think of what to say to Secretary Clinton, given all that has happened since November 8th. 

“I should be lauding Hillary for making time to be here despite her busy schedule as president,” she said. “I should be talking about how she didn’t just shake Angela Merkel’s hand, but hugged her. Instead, Mr. Trump is nearing his 100th day in office. I assume he’ll mark it the same way all schoolchildren do ― by gluing 100 pieces of macaroni to a health care bill.”

In the latter part of her remarks, Bee addressed her thoughts directly to Clinton:

“I’m only gonna say this once, though you deserve to hear it 100 times. It should have been you.”

Bee continued, mapping out what might have been:

And yes, you would’ve made mistakes. And you would’ve been attacked for doing things that now seem so inconsequential. I mean for god’s sake, I was supposed to talk about you on my show for the next four years. And now I’m saddled with that pint of flat orange Fanta, who gives me more material than I would ever want.

I thought ― and I feared ― that you being elected would unleash a wave of misogyny in the U.S., but we’ve seen that that happened anyway.

Bee ended her introduction on an optimistic note, looking toward a future she hopes we will one day reach.

“We may not know what the future holds, but I’m hopeful that there is one,” she said. “And I do believe it exists in the young women and men who live in this new unexpected reality, who see your legacy, Hillary, and work to build upon it.”

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=58e688ace4b07da81324bb22,58e6db18e4b051b9a9da26a9,58e69344e4b07da81324daf0,58e6435fe4b06a4cb30f9ffa

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

This Professional Cuddler Says He Has 'The Best Job In The World'

When most people think of cuddling, they probably picture the end of a really good third date or maybe a pile of puppies. But when Christopher Ammon thinks of cuddling, he thinks about having “the best job in the world.”

That’s because Ammon is a professional cuddler. That’s right ― he gets paid to spend intimate, non-sexual quality time with clients for Cuddlist, a company founded in 2016, and he’s opening up about his experiences in a new video (see above).

“A year ago I both came out of the closet and left the Mormon Church while appearing on MTV’s ‘The Real World,” Ammon told The Huffington Post. “I lost my family, my community… everything. It was devastating.”

He says that a friend introduced him to Cuddlist and paid for his cuddling training, which includes an in-person or online orientation training course and attending at least one Cuddle Party workshop, and subsequently, his life has changed.

“I now consider my clients to be some of my dearest friends,” he said. “Learning about their lives, their heartaches, their dreams… it helps me to better understand my own.”

According to a press release sent to HuffPost, Cuddlist’s mission is to “address touch deprivation in a safe, professional environment” by using “touch and non-sexual intimacy.” Sessions cost $80 an hour and the company has 80 professional cuddlers working in major cities across the United States. A clear set of guidelines provided by Cuddlist to clients makes sure “the cuddle session remains comfortable for both people.”

In the press release, Cuddlist co-founder and CEO Adam Lippin notes there are two types of people who are “starved for the type of touch received in a cuddling session”: One who “acts out sexually in a way that’s not do not serve them and in fact makes them feel worse” and another type “who is starved for touch and connection.”

Someone like Gerard, one of Ammon’s clients who is featured in the video, falls into the second category. Cuddlist, which has plans to specifically expand its outreach to the queer community, has helped him to fight the rejection and isolation he frequently experiences when he tells people he is a queer or genderless person. 

“Cuddlist has helped me to live a healthier life,” he says. “What I found in this cuddling session is I felt the energy with Chris that he’s very open and there are zero judgements.”

As part of the queer community, which includes a troubling number of individuals who suffer from what has been deemed an “epidemic of loneliness,” Ammon feels just as empowered by his role. “I want to be a part of the fight against LGBTQIA suicide,” he said. “What this does is that it actively fights against loneliness… Cuddlist is the most accessible, reliable, source of connection out there right now.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.