珠海哪里算命准灵验的地方鄄城哪儿算命准,临朐哪里有易经算命,连云港周边有算卦比较准的地方,宁海算命准的地方,伊川哪里有算命准的地方,自贡算命较准确的大师在哪,九江算命灵的地方

Royal Caribbean might be looking for volunteers for its simulated cruises and test out its COVID-19 protocols before they can resume and get back on the water full-time."We are currently reviewing the requirements proposed by the CDC, and with the help of the Healthy Sail Panel, we will determine who is eligible for our simulated cruises," Royal Caribbean told E.W. Scripps in an email. "We are very eager to welcome our guests back on board, but we have a lot to do between now and then, and we're committed to taking the time to do things right."The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new guidelines requiring ships to "test cruise ship operators' ability to mitigate COVID-19 risk" with "simulated cruises."One of the main requirements is that operators must inform volunteers in writing that they are "participating in a simulation of unproven and untested health and safety protocols for purposes of simulating a cruise ship voyage and that sailing during a pandemic is an inherently risky activity."The voyages' procedures will include terminal check-in, onboard activities, including dining and entertainment, private island shore excursions if planned, and social distancing. Evacuation producers must also be tested, isolating anyone who tested positive for COVID and quarantining others on board.According to the CDC rules, volunteers 18 and older must have written certification by a healthcare provider, that they don't have any pre-existing medical conditions that could place them at high-risk for COVID-19. 1553

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited home invasions where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker while in two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets."Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts," San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote as he declared unconstitutional the law that would have banned possessing any magazines holding more than 10 bullets.California law has prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before then were allowed to keep them.In 2016, the Legislature and voters approved a law removing that provision. The California arm of the National Rifle Association sued and Benitez sided with the group's argument that banning the magazines infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.Benitez had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect with a 2017 ruling.Chuck Michel, an attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said the judge's latest ruling may go much farther by striking down the entire ban, allowing individuals to legally acquire high-capacity magazines for the first time in nearly two decades."We're still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he struck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one," Michel said.Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that his office is "committed to defending California's common sense gun laws" and is reviewing the decision and evaluating its next steps.The goal of the California law is to deter mass-shootings, with Becerra previously listing as an example the terrorist assault that killed 14 and injured 22 in San Bernardino.Benitez, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, called such shootings "exceedingly rare" while emphasizing the everyday robberies, rapes and murders he said might be countered with firearms.The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, named after a former congresswoman who survived a mass shooting, is also still evaluating whether the decision applies more broadly, said staff attorney Ari Freilich.But Freilich predicted the "extreme outlier decision" will be overturned on appeal and criticized a judge "so deeply out of touch that he believes mass shootings are a 'very small' problem in this country."Becerra previously said similar Second Amendment challenges have been repeatedly rejected by other courts, with at least seven other states and 11 local governments already restricting the possession or sale of large-capacity magazines. The conflicting decisions may ultimately be sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court.Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state."Benitez described three home invasions, two of which ended with the female victims running out of bullets.In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone."She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911," the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped.The magazine ban was included in 2016 legislation that voters strengthened with their approval of Proposition 63, which was championed by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.In a statement, Newsom criticized the judge's ruling."This District Court Judge's failure to uphold a ban on high-capacity magazines is indefensible, dangerous for our communities and contradicts well-established case law," the governor said. "I strongly disagree with the court's assessment that 'the problem of mass shootings is very small.' Our commitment to public safety and defending common sense gun safety laws remains steadfast." 4228

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California voters could decide in 2020 whether it should be easier for their local governments to raise taxes and issue bonds for affordable housing, road improvements and other public projects.A constitutional amendment proposed Wednesday would lower how much voter support communities need to raise money for infrastructure projects from two-thirds to 55 percent.Assembly Democrats say the current threshold allows a minority of voters to derail needed projects."These two-thirds thresholds are meant to enable a boisterous minority to impede progress," said Assemblyman Todd Gloria of San Diego.But taxpayer advocates said it would make things more expensive for homeowners in particular because it could lead to more parcel taxes, a flat tax levied on property owners."If this passes it's going to be devastating for property owners," said David Wolfe, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.Constitutional amendments need support from two-thirds of lawmakers to land on the ballot, and the backing of a simple majority of voters to become law.Assemblywoman Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, a Democrat sponsoring the amendment, said she hopes to place it on the November 2020 ballot. That would coincide with the presidential election, which usually draws the highest voter turnout and millions more Democrats than Republicans.It would apply to projects including affordable housing, wastewater treatment, fire and police buildings, parks, public libraries, broadband expansion, hospitals and more.Local governments typically fund those projects through bonds or special taxes, like the parcel tax or a dedicated sales tax.The 55 percent threshold would still be higher than the simple majority communities need to raise general taxes, such as sales taxes not dedicated to special projects.Democrats highlighted projects that have narrowly missed the two-thirds threshold to make their case, such as a recreation center restoration in Millbrae and road repairs in Eureka."I have heard about deteriorating buildings, decrepit community facilities and our extreme lack of affordable housing," said Aguiar-Curry, a former mayor of a small rural California city. "This will empower communities to take action at the local level to improve the economies, neighborhoods and residents' quality of life."But Wolfe, of the taxpayers association, said the list of allowable projects is broad and could lead to a slew of new tax and bond proposals from cities and counties that could saddle taxpayers for years."These are pretty encompassing categories and there's no limit," he said. "You're talking about long-term debt that lasts for decades." 2688

SACO, Maine – A man in Maine has been arrested after authorities say he was caught putting razor blades into pizza dough that was then sold to customers.The Saco Police Department says it was notified of the tampered food by the city’s Hannaford Supermarket last Tuesday. Officers say a customer had purchased a Portland Pie pizza dough and later discovered razor blades inside.“The review of store security surveillance footage revealed a person tampered with the packaging of several Portland Pie pizza doughs,” wrote the department in a statement.Police have identified the suspect as 38-year-old Nicholas Mitchell and said he’s a former associate of It’ll Be Pizza company, which manufactures products for Portland Pie.A warrant was issued for Mitchell’s arrest and he was later taken into custody in Dover, New Hampshire, according to police.As a result of the incident, Hannaford Supermarkets has issued a recall for all Portland Pie branded products sold at its stores.The supermarket chain says customers who purchased Portland Pie pizza dough or cheese sold in its delis between Aug. 1 and Oct. 11 should not consume the products. They may return it to the store for a full refund.Additionally, the chain says it has removed all Portland Pie products from its shelves and paused replenishment of the products indefinitely, “after what is believed to be further malicious tampering incidents involving metal objects inserted into Portland Pie products.”Law enforcement is continuing to investigate the tampering. If you have purchased Portland Pie pizza dough and have found razor blades inside the dough, call the Saco Police Department's Detective Division at (207)282-8216. 1692

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens believes the students and demonstrators who protested this past weekend for gun control should seek a repeal of the Second Amendment."A concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment," Stevens wrote an op-ed published in The New York Times Tuesday, adding, "today that concern is a relic of the 18th century."A lifelong Republican but considered liberal in his judicial rulings, Stevens pointed to his dissent in the 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defense within his home. 722