太原痔疮著名医院(太原肛门 白色分泌物) (今日更新中)

The investigation into the Uber crash that killed a Phoenix?homeless woman is still in its early stages.  But preliminary reports from Tempe police show the victim, Elaine Herzberg, 49, was jaywalking when the self-driving car hit her on Mill Avenue near Curry Road Sunday night.However, it raises an important question. Who is responsible if there is a law broken by one of these robotic vehicles?Phoenix attorney James Arrowood studies driverless car technology and the law. He also teaches a course on driverless cars to other attorneys in for The State Bar of AZ.He said, unfortunately, this was bound to happen because technology isn't foolproof.  "The good news out of this particular tragedy is we will have more information than we have ever had in an auto accident," Arrowood said. "We'll have sensors and cameras (data)."But when it comes to liability, Arrowood said Governor Doug Ducey's executive order requires driverless cars to follow the same rules of the road as any driver in Arizona, plus more."It specifies that if a company operates an autonomous vehicle, it has to comply with all of the traffic safety laws, in addition to extra parameters for autonomous vehicles," Arrowood said.That means "no driver" does not mean "no fine.""So if one of the (Uber) autonomous vehicles were to be speeding, then Uber would get a ticket for speeding," Arrowood said.Arrowood says where it gets cloudy is the civil liability. Under normal circumstances in a traffic crash, a plaintiff could go after a driver, the carmaker and maybe a company like the tire manufacturer if there was a blowout, for example."You had a limited universe," Arrowood said. "Now with autonomous vehicles, we don't know how deep that universe goes. For instance, could the municipality, could the government have some responsibility for permitting those cars on the road or for not having sensors in place?"Arrowood said although the Tempe crash is a tragedy, the public has to remember the technology isn't perfect or magical, and it's virtually impossible to avoid every collision. The goal is to reduce injuries and death.   2173

The organization that runs the Bronx Zoo in New York has apologized for the racist history in the zoo's past.In a news release, the Wildlife Conservation Society apologized for two incidents of "unconscionable racial intolerance" that occurred in the past. The first incident the zoo is "condemning" is the treatment Ota Benga, a young central African man from the Mbuti people of the present-day Democratic Republic of Congo, experienced.For several days in September 1906, the zoo put Benga on display in its Monkey House. Outrage from local Black ministers "brought the disgraceful incident to an end.""In the name of equality, transparency, and accountability, we must confront our organization’s historic role in promoting racial injustice as we advance our mission to save wildlife and wild places," officials said.After leaving the zoo, officials say Benga stayed at an orphanage in Brooklyn. He died by suicide a decade later, the organization said.The second incident officials condemned was the "eugenics-based, pseudoscientific racism, writings, and philosophies" by founders Madison Grant and Henry Fairfield Osborn Sr.Zoo officials said an excerpt from Grant’s book “The Passing of the Great Race” was included in a defense exhibit for one of the defendants in the Nuremberg trials."We deeply regret that many people and generations have been hurt by these actions or by our failure previously to publicly condemn and denounce them," officials said in the statement. "We recognize that overt and systemic racism persists, and our institution must play a greater role to confront it. As the United States addresses its legacy of anti-Black racism and the brutal killings that have led to mass protests around the world, we reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that social, racial, and environmental justice are deep-rooted in our conservation mission." 1871

The mystery isn’t why so many people file for bankruptcy each year. It’s why more people don’t.Each year, only a fraction of the Americans who could benefit financially from bankruptcy actually seek relief. Economists say some don’t file because collectors aren’t aggressively pursuing them, while others may strategically delay filing because bankruptcy could benefit them more down the road.Many bankruptcy attorneys have a much simpler explanation: Fear, a lack of information and misplaced optimism keep people from getting a fresh start.A temporary pauseAbout 14% of U.S. households — or roughly 17 million — owe more than they own, according to Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimates. Many of these households could benefit from having their debts wiped out, but fewer than 1% of U.S. households actually file for bankruptcy each year. Last year, there were 752,160 personal bankruptcy filings. Researchers refer to this gap as “missing bankruptcies” — the filings that could be happening, but aren’t.Now, there’s an additional set of missing bankruptcies: the cases people normally would have filed in recent months, but haven’t. Bankruptcy filings dropped dramatically in the second quarter of this year, to about 60% of the average for the previous five years.Courthouses were shuttered by pandemic closures, which made it harder for creditors to pursue foreclosures and wage garnishments. Those are two big drivers of consumer bankruptcy filings, says David Cox, a bankruptcy attorney in Lynchburg, Virginia, and co-author of “Consumer Bankruptcy: Fundamentals of Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.”Borrowers have benefited from various forms of coronavirus relief, such as suspended payments on federal student loans, mortgage forbearance and expanded hardship options for loans and credit card accounts. The 0 weekly bump in unemployment checks, which expired in July, also kept many people afloat, Cox says.Lower jobless benefits, along with the reopening of courts and continued high unemployment, mean the lull in bankruptcy filings is likely temporary, says Jenny Doling, a bankruptcy attorney in Palm Desert, California, who serves on the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Chapter 13 Advisory Committee.She worries that people will wait too long to file. Too often, people drain retirement funds or other assets that would be protected in bankruptcy to pay debts that will ultimately be erased, she says. Putting off bankruptcy also can make it harder to come up with the ,500 needed to file a typical case.You won’t lose everythingCox says many of his clients delay filing because they fear they will lose cars, homes and other property. They are pleasantly surprised that they aren’t stripped of everything they own, he says.“There’s a misunderstanding about how bankruptcy works and what it would take from you,” Cox says.The vast majority of people who file the most common type of bankruptcy, Chapter 7, don’t have to give up any of their possessions. The types and amount of property you can keep vary by state, but typically include clothing, professional tools, wedding rings and at least some equity in your home. A few thousand dollars of equity in a car is usually protected as well. If you have assets that wouldn’t be protected in Chapter 7, you could file for a Chapter 13 repayment plan instead.You can get credit againA bankruptcy filing remains on your credit reports for up to 10 years. But credit scores can start to recover soon after you file. It’s possible to get a VA or FHA mortgage two years after a bankruptcy. Most loans require you to wait at least four years.People can start to rebuild credit a few months after their bankruptcy case is discharged by getting secured credit cards, which require a deposit, or credit-builder loans, available from some credit unions, community banks and online.The problem with anxiety — or unrealistic optimismDebt often leads to anxiety and depression that makes taking action difficult, Cox says. Many of his clients arrive at their first meeting with grocery sacks full of unopened bills.But misplaced optimism can also be a problem. The same hopefulness that causes people to take on too much debt also can lead them to put off the reckoning, he says.“You always think, ‘Our income’s going to increase, things will be better going forward,’” Cox says.Anyone struggling with debt now should consider consulting a bankruptcy attorney, Doling says. The first visit is often free, and referrals are available from the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. Consulting with an attorney doesn’t obligate you to file, but it could help you avoid expensive mistakes if you later decide that’s your best option.“The people who do much better in bankruptcy are the ones who came in and got advice early on,” Doling says.This article was written by NerdWallet and was originally published by the Associated Press.More From NerdWalletSmart Money Podcast: Used Cars in Short Supply, and Shea Couleé Talks About MoneyHow Frugal Fashionistas Can Stay on TrendAre Medicare Advantage Plans Worth the Risk?Liz Weston is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: lweston@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @lizweston. 5211

The judge presiding over the trial of four former Minneapolis police officers involved in the arrest that led to the death of George Floyd dropped a lower-level murder charge against the man who knelt on Floyd's neck, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune and KMSP-TV in Minneapolis.Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill dismissed a third-degree murder charge against Derek Chauvin on Thursday. Chauvin still faces charges of second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. The state has five days to appeal the ruling.Cahill also ruled that three other former police officers, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao, will remain charged with aiding and abetting murder and manslaughter. Chauvin, Kueng, Lane and Thao were arrested in June, days after video of their arrest of Floyd was shared widely on social media. Video of the arrest showed Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's death for nearly nine minutes. Floyd was pronounced dead hours later.Chauvin was initially charged with third-degree murder, but Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison later added a charge of second-degree murder. In Minnesota, a third-degree murder charge implies that a death was unintentional, while a second-degree murder charge implies intent.Earlier this month, Chauvin was released from jail after posting a million bond.This story is breaking and will be updated. 1378

The long-running TV show “Cops” is reportedly being pulled from the airwaves amid calls for police reforms throughout the United States.Variety was first to report the news. Paramount Networks has not confirmed the announcement to Scripps.Earlier this week, Cops opted to not air its new episode. Days before, similar police show “Live PD” decided not to run its two live episodes. Live PD has been one of the most-watched TV shows on Fridays and Saturdays since its 2016 debut. Following reports of Cops' demise, Live PD host Dan Abrams reassured fans of the show that Live PD would remain on A&E."All of us associated with the show are as committed to it as ever. We are still discussing some specifics but I want to assure the #LivePDNation that we are not abandoning you," Abrams tweeted.Cops began its run on the fledgling FOX network in 1989, being a huge boon for the young network. The program was unique for embedding cameras within police department, showing the work of officers throughout the US.But FOX dropped the program amid declining ratings, and was later picked up by Spike, which was later renamed Paramount Network.“Cops’ is not on the Paramount Network and we don’t have any current or future plans for it to return,” a Paramount Network spokesperson said in a statement to Variety.Tuesday’s announcement was also reported by The Hollywood Reporter. 1383

来源：资阳报