Hasta La Gadget!

Since Samsung is expected to unveil the Galaxy Note 7 in a little over a month from now we can expect to hear quite a lot of rumors about this handset as it nears the official launch date. It was leaked over the weekend that Samsung is going to call its next flagship phablet the Galaxy Note 7 and some of its specs were revealed as well. The latest leak out of China brings us more specs of this upcoming Samsung flagship.

The leak claims that the Galaxy Note 7 is going to feature a 5.7 inch Quad HD Super AMOLED display with a 2.7GHz octacore Exynos 8893 processor in some markets and the 2.3GHz Snapdragon 821 processor in others. Both variants will be aided by 6GB of RAM.

It also mentions that the Galaxy Note 7 will be available in 64, 128, and 256GB interal storage options with microSD card support. A 12 megapixel dual-pixel rear and 5 megapixel front camera has been mentioned as well.

Other specs of this upcoming handset include a 4,000mAh battery with support for fast charging, Android 6.0.1 with Samsung’s new Grace user experience, as well as a USB Type-C port.

Samsung is also expected to introduce a new S Pen with the handset. Additional features include Samsung Pay and the much-awaited iris recognition system. Samsung is yet to confirm when it’s going to announce this handset but the rumor mill appears to agree that the announcement will take place in early August.

Latest Leak Reveals More Galaxy Note 7 Specifications , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

The White House looked weak as it defended President Obama’s policies in Syria, in response to the strongly worded memorandum sent by 51 US diplomats calling for the “calculated use” of long-range weapons and airstrikes against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, arguing that the “”status quo in Syria will continue to present increasingly dire, if not disastrous, humanitarian, diplomatic and terrorism-related challenges.” The moral rationale for taking steps to end the deaths and suffering in Syria, after five years of brutal war, is evident and unquestionable, the memo said. The memo’s harsh tone and allusion to “the moral rationale” compelled the White House to go on the defensive, raising impossible questions to justify its policies. The White House asked “what was the alternative” or “show us another option”, phrases that seem to be at the heart of the Obama doctrine and the lexicon of the administration. The White House’s message is clear and unchanged: The White House will not intervene militarily against the regime in Damascus. Its main battle today is against the Islamic State group and not Bashar al-Assad. Therefore, the Obama administration is trying to wash its hands clean of the moderate Syrian rebels represented by the High Negotiations Commission (HNC), and implicitly agrees with Russia on replacing the rebels with Kurdish and tribal forces on the ground that make up the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fighting ISIS primarily rather than the regime. This trend coincides with international inaction in the Security Council and the UN at large, where the Syrian question has been effectively reduced to one of refugees and humanitarian crisis requiring focus on the delivery of aid, away from political considerations and accountability for the crimes and atrocities being committed in Syria. The Geneva Communique that spoke of a transitional process handing over full executive power to a new governing council has been aborted. The Vienna Process midwifed by Russia has fulfilled its objectives and stopped where Moscow wanted it to stop. The members of the Security Council have retreated into empty statements and bowed down to the dictates of Russian-Iranian policies without a “Plan B”. The UN secretary general swallowed his words about seeking accountability, and submitted to the will of the Russian-American duo with regard to managing the Syrian tragedy without protesting. Thus the UN lost its moral leadership by relinquishing the principle of accountability and its values. It accepted to be the blunt instrument by which the Geneva Communique was bashed, and hid behind its weakness when another deadline for a political process (August 1) approached, on which the UN is supposed to launch a political process albeit less firm than the one launched by the Geneva Communique. Its only excuse is that the US and Russian leaderships had had long lost their moral compass in Syria before the UN followed suit.
This week, the number of refugees and displaced persons in the world reached 65 million. Syria has a large share of this figure with more than 10 million refugees and displaced persons. The UN has long since stopped counting the number of those killed in Syria, but unofficial estimates put the number at over 400,000, all killed in just five years, since protests demanding reforms erupted in Syria, before the regime decided to respond with a brutal military crackdown. From the beginning, it was clear that prolonging this military approach without accountability, while using terrorism as a pretext to avoid reform, would lead to the growth of terrorism in Syria at the hands of both the regime and its opponents, as well as those who decided to turn Syria into a magnet for terrorists to drive them out of their own countries – i.e. away from US, Russian, and other cities. When it comes to involvement in Syria, no one at all is innocent.
The failure of this line of thinking became clear, however, as terror attacks struck Europe and the US, and could strike Russia at some point. Now, however, US, Russian, and European leaders believe the priority is for war on ISIS in Syria and Iraq. It was in Iraq where terrorists were lured away from US cities, as then-President Bush had suggested.
In Iraq, the collapse of the Iraqi army began when the US decided to dismantle it based on a deliberate political decision by the Bush administration. The Iraqi army was among the strongest Arab armies and represented a threat to both Israel and Iran. The Iraqi army was the strongest in the Arab-Israeli strategic equation, and at the time, the decision by Syria to join the war on Iraq and destroy the Arab weight in this equation was stunning. Thus, the dismantling of Arab armies began with the Iraq war, benefiting both Israel and Iran, which will never forget the Gulf support for Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war even though it has forgotten the US role in support of Saddam in the same war.
In Iraq today, militias like the Popular Mobilization control the military arena, replacing the army. The army pretends to be coherent, even as tribal fighters join the wars on terror, against al-Qaeda and ISIS.
The same situation exists in Syria. Iranian-run militias control the military arena, undermining the army. Russia is furious because it prefers the army to the militias, but has found itself on the losing side as Iran insists on the militias at the expense of the army.
What matters most for Russia is that no Islamists should replace the regime in Damascus. From the outset, Russia moves against the Arab Spring because it opposed the rise of Islamists to power. Russia backed Bashar al-Assad because it assumed that the alternative is the rise of Islamists to power. Russia has also insisted on not excluding Assad from running again for the presidency, because it refuses for Syria to fall into Islamist hands, and has clung to the term “secularism” at all costs because it would not allow the new Syria to be ruled by Islamists.
Therefore, Russia and the Unites States agree today on supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). From Moscow’s point of view, the SDF are a secular alternative to other rebels in Syria represented in the HNC. And for Washington, the SDF are the only force able to fight ISIS effectively on the ground.
The Obama administration was a backer of the rise of Islamists to power in the early days of the Arab Spring, in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. The administration of President Putin in Russia pushed back against this bid, until they converged in Syria. Moscow then gradually co-opted Washington, though differences remain over Turkey and Egypt.
Moscow is committed to a strong relationship with President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, who is intent on preventing the Muslim Brotherhood from participating in power in Egypt. For its part, Washington is opposed to Sisi’s excesses, but it is trying to mend relations with Egypt which have been damaged by Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned former President Morsi.
Putin, meanwhile, has an overt animus with Turkey, whose president Erdogan is considered the godfather of the Muslim Brotherhood and the model of the Islamist rise to power. Obama is fond of the Turkish model that he believed was good for the whole Sunni world, before he was forced to reassess this position.
Informed sources familiar with the situation in Syria say that Washington and Moscow seem to have a minimum agreement on the SDF, which comprise Kurds and Arab tribes, and that European and American advisors on the ground are there to help these forces against ISIS primarily. The SDF comprise minorities and do not have in their ranks any Salafist or jihadist groups. These forces seem to be the alternative being prepared to replace Syrian rebels represented in the HNC, backed by Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, and others.
The question among these circles is: Are the Syrian rebels associated to the HNC aware of the US-Russian convergence against them, especially as the SDF is leading key operations in the Aleppo countryside and moving to liberate Raqqa. Do they have any option since they do not receive the military support they need to retake the initiative and restore their momentum? And what are the prospects of Saudi and Turkish resistance to these developments?
Diplomatically and at the level of negotiations, there is a near de-facto discarding of the Syrian opposition through the silence of UN envoy De Mistura regarding the political process that was supposed to start on August 1. This is happening by overemphasizing the cessation of hostilities and the delivery of aid, both of which issues leads to nothing politically noteworthy.
Moscow won its bet. It has turned the battle away from toppling the regime towards toppling the opposition, by toppling the Geneva Communique and the commitments of the Vienna Process. It is now working to ensure the survival of the regime and its president until further notice.
Putin and his military and diplomatic teams delivered on what they pledged to him. Putin never hid his intentions, although he played the Assad card from time to time to appease US calls for his departure. Russia was clear in everything it has said and done, unlike Obama’s administration, which vowed, hesitated, then backtracked before fully colluding. Now it is on the defensive.
Spokesperson for the White House John Earnest, in response to the memo by the US diplomats, defended the administration’s position saying it would be difficult to avoid full-scale war in the event of using military power against the Assad regime. He said: “I think what it means is it means that we should direct the force of the United States military against the Assad regime. And I think there are a lot of questions that are raised about that. First of all, how do you do that without harming innocent civilians? Second of all, I’m not sure exactly what legal authority the President would rely on to do something like that. And, three, it seems like a slippery slope. Does that just mean that there’s one round of missile strikes and then we spend a month trying to negotiate again, and if nothing happens, do we launch more missile strikes? Or then do we have to steadily ramp up the military engagement? And at what point does that stop? It’s hard to imagine where that stops — that that somehow stops short of a war against a sovereign nation that is being backed by Russia and Iran.”
John Earnest’s response is nothing short of astounding. There can hardly by any response that insults the intelligence of 51 US diplomats more than his defence of Obama’s failed policy. In truth, the response exposes the US’s Syria policy for its lack of any moral high ground, which is perhaps why the US diplomats protested, because they do not want their country to lose its international moral standing.
No such protests would have been possible from Russian or UN diplomats. But the US cannot be reduced to a president, administration, or policy. We should at least credit the US diplomats for being bold enough to tell their president: You have failed us morally and humanly.
Translated from Arabic by Karim Traboulsi
http://www.alhayat.com/Opinion/Raghida-Dergham/16254970/%D8%A3%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A7-%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B9%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%81%D9%88%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A8-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9

— 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.

Republicans working to deny Donald Trump their party’s nomination at next month’s convention may not have the votes lined up to pull that off, but they’ve certainly gotten Trump’s attention.

On an anti-Trump conference call Sunday evening, Georgia delegate Bobby Booth said the No. 2 person in the Trump campaign had called him, asking whether he’d been contacted by anti-Trump organizers. “I told him I was seeking them out,” Booth said.

The conference call comes as the anti-Trump “Free the Delegates” movement gets more media attention, along with radio ads from a friendly super PAC, cable TV ads from a secret donor political group and more establishment Republican support.

Joining the call Sunday was former New Hampshire Sen. Gordon Humphrey (R), who supported Ohio Gov. John Kasich in the GOP primaries. “Donald Trump is just about the worst candidate you can think of,” he said.

Just a week ago, both Trump and RNC chief strategist Sean Spicer were calling the anti-Trump group a media invention. Trump called it a “hoax” that had been “made up by the press,” and also said there was “no mechanism” by which his GOP rivals could challenge his candidacy.

Neither the Trump campaign nor the RNC responded to The Huffington Post’s queries about what steps they are taking, if any, to counter the anti-Trumpers.

But Booth’s report suggests that Trump’s campaign is now taking the insurgent group seriously. Colorado delegate Regina Thomson said the Trump campaign is using its meager campaign funds to cover travel and lodging costs for volunteers and delegates attending the Cleveland convention to shore up Trump’s support there, rather than using the money against his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. 

The chances of modifying convention rules to relieve delegates of their obligation to vote for Trump are now “better than even,” and new delegates are contacting the group each day, Thomson said. “That is not a man of integrity,” she said of Trump. “The Republican Party and the American people deserve better.”

Donald Trump is just about the worst candidate you can think of.
Former New Hampshire Sen. Gordon Humphrey (R)

The anti-Trump activists have just over two and a half weeks before the Convention Rules Committee meets in Cleveland prior to the convention. Although Trump won a total of 1,457 delegates in the primaries and caucuses this spring, the rule that requires those delegates to vote for Trump must be re-adopted by this year’s convention to remain valid.

The “Free the Delegates” group is hoping to win over a majority of the 112-member rules panel on its proposal to insert a “conscience clause” that would let any delegate avoid voting for a candidate whose record violates the delegate’s religious or moral beliefs.

Group leader Kendal Unruh, also a Colorado delegate and a member of that rules committee, said she believes that the full convention will go along with the conscience clause if the rules committee approves it – and that it would effectively be the end of Trump’s candidacy.

“If there are Rules members who are listening in,” she said Sunday, “I need your votes.”

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

— 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.

BRUSSELS – EU antitrust authorities will rule by Aug. 1 whether to allow Sony Corp buy out the Michael Jackson estate’s stake in its music publishing joint venture, a move which rivals such as Warner Music Group say gives Sony too much power.

Sony requested approval on June 24, according to a filing on the European Commission website. The EU competition enforcer can clear the deal unconditionally or demand concessions.

It can also open a five-month long investigation if it has serious concerns the deal may harm consumers and rivals.

Sony signed a deal in March to acquire the stake that the deceased pop star held in Sony/ATV Music Publishing, the world’s largest music publisher, which owns copyrights to most of the Beatles’ songs and songs by the Rolling Stones, Taylor Swift, Pharrell Williams and Kanye West.

Warner Music Group has conveyed its concerns to the Commission, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters, while lobbying group Impala which represents independent labels and national trade associations, has also done the same.

— 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.

The Truth about Brexit: the most stunning aspect of England’s vote to exit the European Union is how shocked and emotional people across the globe are about it. But the real surprise is that Bregret, on the heels of Brexit, could be the best thing that has happened to the EU in a long time.

First, the surprise about the surprise. The reason for the surprise is simple. To cross the Pond for a moment and quote a beloved American movie starring Paul Newman called Cool Hand Luke, “what we have here is a failure to communicate.” The British electorate, the English electorate really, is talking at cross-purposes. For those well-set up to thrive under Europe and under its more distant cousin globalization, the likes of multi-lingual investment bankers, hedge fund managers, financial analysts and star reporters, leaving the EU is a head-scratcher. Why impede the free flow of capital and labor, of efficient markets? But, if you are the village baker, burdensome regulation created in a far-off location by bureaucrats who have never baked a loaf of bread and the influx of Eastern European competitors to the local high street is not a positive in your world. And the appeal of keeping the money that would otherwise go to the EU, whether a reality or not, demonstrates the failure to communicate the value of the EU to the average person.

So now, the double surprise – the Bregret. Given that England is the land that gave the world the stiff upper lip and the fact that looking down one’s nose at an English person is the very thing most likely to cause them to dig their heels in, I would have thought that post-Brexit there would have been considerable squirming but no open regret. Bregret may have been caused by EU politicians jumping in immediately to push England out of the EU in conjunction with the sudden realization of the inevitable breakup of the United Kingdom if Brexit succeeds while Scotland and Northern Ireland are determined so stay in the EU, not to mention the fright caused by the sterling falling out of bed and the markets reeling. I myself was taken aback not by the vote but the reaction to the vote. I thought the markets would go sideways rather than plunging and I also was sure that UK and EU leaders would get to the negotiating table quickly to talk about how to keep the UK in the EU. Because the EU is a construct and despite all the talk about Article 50 and rules and regulations around withdrawal and Frexit and whatever else, almost anything is possible if the politicians, bureaucrats, and electorates want it to be. The bigger questions are – what is the motivation of individual EU leaders given personal agendas, vast cultural differences, and a thousand years of infighting –and do they want it to be?

Why could Brexit Bregret be the best thing that ever happened? We now all have a clear vision of what the EU without the UK looks like and it is not pretty. So that fantasy is over. And should be over for any EU country who thinks an exit is a good idea. Thinking about leaving your spouse and actually leaving your spouse are two vastly different things. Whatever the vote was, England is still Europe. It should have been clear to EU politicians and bureaucrats that the time to suggest that Britain to come to the negotiating table was as soon as the vote tally was official. This is a chance to redefine the European dynamic following a millennium of cooperation, competition, and warfare. Angela Merkel is busy demonstrating why she has been Chancellor for over 10 years. She is already ahead of the pack in exercising leadership, stating that the remaining 27 EU members should “calmly analyze and evaluate the situation and, on this basis, together make the right decisions.” She added that, “We must ensure that citizens can feel in concrete terms how much the European Union contributes to improving their personal situation.”

Where things need to go from here. It is exciting to get excited. But the news of the death of the EU is greatly exaggerated. The UK has never been the Continent but has always been a part of Europe. Claret will continue to be drunk. Olive oil will continue to be a staple. There are no liquidity issues at this time. Despite the extraordinary global emotion, fear, and agitation, this is not Lehman Brothers by a long shot. UK leaders need to understand and absorb what exactly led to the vote going the way it did and clearly identify those issues. Those issues need to be taken up with the EU powers that be. And as Chancellor Merkel implied, issues that reflect a failure to communicate with the European voters need to be explored. Communication needs to be a two-way street. EU bureaucrats and politicians like the mayor of Calais need to avoid extracting revenge and falling back on reflexive patterns developed over time immemorial and get about the business of leading. If UK and EU politicians exhibit leadership and seize this opportunity, a new and better Europe will emerge. So, let’s all Keep Calm and Carry On.

Linda Dunbar is a PR/ corporate communications executive and consultant with experience leading a full spectrum of communications disciplines. Her multi-industry experience includes roles at Dow Jones, Ford Motor Company, the American Institute of CPAs, Philip Morris International, and JP Morgan. She can be contacted at ldunbar@MonsoonNYC.com or at linkedin.com/in/lindaedunbar.

— 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.