德州预防癫痫有哪些好方法(青岛治疗羊癫疯病的好医院) (今日更新中)

A drug used to euthanize animals has been found in canned dog food, prompting a recall.Low levels of the drug pentobarbital were detected in cans of Gravy Train dog food produced by the J.M. Smucker Company, the FDA said in a statement Friday. Pentobarbital is most commonly used as a sedative, anesthetic or to euthanize animals, it said."Pets that eat pet food containing pentobarbital can experience drowsiness, dizziness, excitement, loss of balance, nausea, nystagmus (eyes moving back and forth in a jerky manner) and inability to stand. Consuming high levels of pentobarbital can cause coma and death," it said.The FDA said its preliminary evaluation of the testing results of Gravy Train samples indicated the low levels found were unlikely to pose a health risk to pets."However, any detection of pentobarbital in pet food is a violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act—simply put, pentobarbital should not be in pet food," it said. 'Single supplier' 984

A federal judge has ruled in favor of a group of adult entertainers who claimed their rights were violated when police raided San Diego strip club where they worked. An attorney for the women said the ruling essentially finds that the city's municipal code, which allows for inspections of police regulated businesses, violated the dancer's First Amendment rights. But the judge stopped short of ruling on the claim that the city also violated the Fourth Amendment on unreasonable searches and seizures. The San Diego City Attorney's office told 10News it's reviewing the ruling at this time and had no further comment. The dancers are also seeking damages, which their attorney says will be decided when the matter goes to trial, but a date hasn't been set.  797

A federal judge on Monday sided with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and ordered the Dakota Access pipeline to shut down until more environmental review is done.U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said in April that the pipeline, which has been in operation three years, remains “highly controversial” under federal environmental law, and a more extensive review is necessary than the environmental assessment that was done. In a 24-page order Monday, Boasberg wrote that he was “mindful of the disruption such a shutdown will cause,” but said he had concluded that the pipeline must be shut down.The pipeline was the subject of months of protests, sometimes violent, during its construction near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation that straddles the North Dakota-South Dakota border.The Standing Rock tribe presses litigation against the pipeline even after it began carrying oil from North Dakota. 905

A hacker who claims to have gotten access to President Donald Trump’s personal Twitter account by guessing his password will not face charges, according to reports, because the man acted “ethically” following getting access.Dutch prosecutors say Victor Gevers did get access to the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account by guessing “MAGA2020!” as the password in late October of this year, saying that Gevers shared screenshots from inside the account, according to the BBC.At the time, the White House and Twitter denied it had been hacked.Gevers, a cyber-security researcher, said he was doing a semi-regular sweep of Twitter accounts associated with the U.S. election when he correctly guessed Trump’s password.Investigators in the Netherlands said Gevers was investigating the strength of the password based on “major interests involved if this Twitter account could be taken over so shortly before the presidential election.”“We believe the hacker has actually penetrated Trump’s Twitter account, but has met the criteria that have been developed in case law to go free as an ethical hacker,” reads a statement from the public prosecutor’s office, the Guardian reported.Investigators say Gevers met the standard for “responsible disclosure.”He has publicly shared how he guessed the password, and tweeted October 22, following the alleged hack, a warning possibly aimed at the president urging people to use two-factor authentication. This is a way to make hacking more difficult by requiring two forms of authentication when account details are changed. 1562

A lawsuit against Harvard brought on behalf of Asian-American students who failed to gain admission goes to trial on Monday in one of the most consequential race cases in decades, with affirmative action policies across the country at stake.The lawsuit was crafted by conservative advocates who have long fought racial admissions practices that traditionally benefited African-American and Latino students. Their ultimate goal is to reverse the 1978 Supreme Court case that upheld admissions policies that consider the race of students for campus diversity.Parties on both sides expect the Supreme Court to eventually resolve the issue. And with President Donald Trump's two appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the high court now has five conservative justices who may be inclined to reverse the landmark ruling.The challengers are led by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who has devised a series of claims against racial policies, including an earlier affirmative action lawsuit on behalf of Abigail Fisher against the University of Texas and several challenges to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key vote in 2016 when the court last endorsed race-based admissions in the University of Texas case, was replaced by Kavanaugh earlier this month. Gorsuch succeeded the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who had opposed all affirmative action and criticized the University of Texas program, but died before that case was completed.The Students for Fair Admissions group Blum founded when he filed the Harvard case in November 2014 contends the university engages in unlawful "racial balancing" as it boosts the chances of admissions for blacks and Hispanics and lowers the chances for Asian Americans.Harvard's practices, the group says, are "the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s."That assertion has deeply resonated with some Asian Americans who fear they are held to a higher standard than other applicants to prestigious universities. Yet Asian-American advocates, representing a wide swath of backgrounds and educational experiences, have come in on both sides of the case.Some who back the lawsuit seek to end all consideration of race in admissions, while others, siding with Harvard, argue that universities should be able to consider race for campus diversity and that some Asian Americans, particularly those with ties to Southeast Asian countries, may have had fewer educational opportunities before applying to college.The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a brief on behalf of 25 Harvard student and alumni organizations comprising blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and whites. The Legal Defense Fund calls the lawsuit an effort "to sow racial division" and emphasizes the Supreme Court's repeated endorsement of the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.Those subsequent rulings, however, turned on a single vote, either that of Kennedy or Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in 2006.The Trump administration, which is separately scrutinizing of race-based admissions practices at Harvard through its Education and Justice departments based on a complaint from more than 60 Asian American groups, has backed Students for Fair Admissions.Harvard, the country's oldest institution of higher education, denies that it engages in racial balancing or limits Asian-American admissions. It defends its longstanding effort for racial diversity as part of the education mission and says admissions officers undertake a "whole-person evaluation" that includes academics, extracurricular activities, talents and personal qualities, as well as socioeconomic background and race.Since the case was first filed, both sides have mined similar statistical evidence and testimony but with sharply contrasting conclusions -- all of which will now be presented before US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs."Each party relies on its own expert reports to show the presence or absence of a negative effect of being Asian American on the likelihood of admission ... and claims that there is substantial -- or zero -- documentary and testimonial evidence of discriminatory intent," Burroughs said in an order last month rejecting requests from both sides to rule for each, respectively, before trial.The case was brought under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibiting racial discrimination at private institutions that receive federal funds.Burroughs, a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, has said she expects the trial to last about three weeks. Both sides will offer opening statements on Monday. 4719

来源：资阳报