重庆下段输尿管结石可以体外碎石吗胆结石的最佳排石方法重庆,重庆肾结石手术哪家医院好,重庆肾结石是啥症状,胆结石最怕一味中药重庆,肾结石怎么排出来最快方法重庆,胆结石什么手术好重庆,重庆尿结石碎石对身体有什么影响吗

We see them everywhere. People are flying them all over the place, but there's a more serious, nefarious side to what should just be fun.Hackers are turning drones into devices that steal our personal information."It's got a bunch of peripherals…to hack basically anything over the air," Francis Brown, co-founder of Bishop Fox, said.Brown works to find holes in other companies' security systems. He says drones are now taking the bad guys where they're usually not allowed to go."Anything within the vicinity that's speaking over the air that's kind of an ideal platform to kind of just go land to do a drive by outside the window or go land on the roof and then hack something over the air, Brown said."Hackers attach a little computer called a Raspberry Pi to a drone. It looks like a big computer chip and then it's just flown around."These quad copters basically are little laptops with hacker tools on them," Brown said.Wireless, Blue Tooth, and R-F-I-D signals are all vulnerable, these drone can access places a normal hacker couldn't even reach."Buildings that are centrally located inside a corporate campus. There are you know near the street buildings where you couldn't necessarily see the Wi-Fi from the parking lot because it's a secure campus lesser or a wireless in a conference room on the 50th floor that witnesses are going to get from the ground,"  Brown said. So how often is this happening? Brown says it's tough to track, because companies are embarrassed to say if they've been hacked this way. He says the threat alone, should be a wake up call."One of the biggest advantages from a hacker's perspective is that it reduces your chances of getting caught is even more brazen," Brown said.Brown says anyone could be targeted, from an office park to your neighborhood block preventing drones from being there is extremely difficult.  Signal blockers in those frequencies to stop the drones from flying are illegal. 1961

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration's proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.The excerpts also show the administration plans to challenge California's long-standing authority to enact its own, tougher pollution and fuel standards.Revisions to the mileage requirements for 2021 through 2026 are still being worked on, the administration says, and changes could be made before the proposal is released as soon as this week.RELATED: California sues over plan to scrap car emission standardsThe Trump administration gave notice earlier this year that it would roll back tough new fuel standards put into place in the waning days of the Obama administration. Anticipating the new regulation, California and 16 other states sued the Trump administration in May.Overall, "improvements over time have better longer-term effects simply by not alienating consumers, as compared to great leaps forward" in fuel efficiency and other technology, the administration argues. It contends that freezing the mileage requirements at 2020 levels would save up to 1,000 lives per year.New vehicles would be cheaper — and heavier — if they don't have to meet more stringent fuel requirements and more people would buy them, the draft says, and that would put more drivers in safer, newer vehicles that pollute less.RELATED: EPA moves to weaken Obama-era fuel efficiency standardsAt the same time, the draft says that people will drive less if their vehicles get fewer miles per gallon, lowering the risk of crashes.David Zuby, chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said he's doubtful about the administration's estimate of lives saved because other factors could affect traffic deaths, such as automakers agreeing to make automatic emergency braking standard on all models before 2022. "They're making assumptions about stuff that may or may not be the same," he said.Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn't hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.RELATED: President Trump, California clash over key issues"Allow me to be skeptical," said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. "To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that's a stretch."Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It's engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. "You want to be in the newer vehicle," he said.RELATED: Nearly every governor with ocean coastline opposes Trump's drilling proposalAn April draft from the Trump administration said freezing the requirements at 2020 levels would save people ,900 per new vehicle. But the later draft raises that to ,100 and even as high as ,700 by 2025.Environmental groups questioned the justification for freezing the standards. Luke Tonachel, director of the clean-vehicle program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the risk from people driving more due to higher mileage is "tiny and maybe even negligible."Under the Trump administration proposal, the fleet of new vehicles would have to average roughly 30 mpg in real-world driving, and that wouldn't change through 2026.California has had the authority under the half-century-old Clean Air Act to set its own mileage under a special rule allowing the state to curb its chronic smog problem. More than a dozen states follow California's standards, amounting to about 40 percent of the country's new-vehicle market.Asked if he thinks a freeze in U.S. mileage standards is warranted, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler told a small group of reporters at EPA headquarters last week, "I think we need to go where the technology takes us" on fuel standards.Wheeler did not elaborate. Agency spokespeople did not respond when asked specifically if the EPA acting chief was making the case that modern cars could be both fuel efficient and safe.Wheeler also spoke out for what he called "a 50-state solution" that would keep the U.S car and truck market from splitting between two different mileage standards.The Department of Transportation said in a statement that the final fuel economy standards would be based on sound science. The department cautioned that a draft doesn't capture the whole picture of the proposed regulation.The draft said a 2012 analysis of fuel economy standards under the Obama administration deliberately limited the amount of mass reduction necessary under the standards. This was done "in order to avoid the appearance of adverse safety effects," the draft stated.___Krisher reported from Detroit. 5642

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The intersection of a global pandemic and a national opioid crisis is a place Alvin Dutruch knows well.“This kind of came out of nowhere,” he said.Dutruch is a recovering opioid addict who spent time in prison in Louisiana, but now he works to coach others dealing with addiction.“I have 33 months of clean time, which is the longest period clean time that I've had in the last 15 years,” he said.However, he added that it’s the past six months that have been some of the toughest of his recovery.“The only thing I'm doing is I'm just secluded here and I'm in my head,” Dutruch said. “And that is the worst thing that a recovering addict can do is get in their own head because in all this self-doubt starts coming around.”It’s a seclusion stemming from something we saw first-hand this summer in Vermont: the pandemic forcing recovery treatment centers to close their doors.“The pandemic hit and, of course, everything just went, everyone just retreated to their homes,” Gary de Carolis, director of the Turning Point Center of Chittenden County, Vermont, told us in July.Experts say that isolation is likely leading to more opioid overdoses.The full picture of 2020 is still unfolding, but according to the Association of American Medical Colleges and national lab service Millennium Health, which recently analyzed a half-million drug tests taken during the pandemic from March to May, there was an increase of 32% in non-prescribed fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, found in those tests.Overall, drug overdoses increased 18% during that same time.The numbers don’t surprise Dutruch.“You didn't take a self-help class or life-skills class to ever get you prepared for a pandemic that is going to cut off all of your recovery resources to you,” he said.Though he admits it’s not perfect, Dutruch said telehealth and virtual meetings can help, anything to give someone in recovery a connection to someone else. He also credits BioCorRX Recovery Program, which in addition to medication, offers peer support, which he says has helped him stay clean.“You are not alone,” he said. “When I had that ability to somebody say, ‘Alvin, we are here, we're going do this together,’ that's what helped me.”It’s a comfort that can be a potential lifeline for those struggling with addiction in isolation. 2317

WASHINGTON (KGTV and AP) — Washington Democrats turned down a deal Monday that would have provided protections for Dreamer immigrants in return for billion in funding for President Trump's border wall.Lawmakers have yet to agree on a .3 trillion catchall spending bill, as well as a major rail project.The bill contains victories for both parties including a Pentagon budget increase requested by Republicans, and the domestic program, infrastructure and opiod crisis funding that Democrats want.Efforts to use the measure as a vehicle to extend protections for young immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival, or DACA, program appeared likely to fail, aides said. Trump killed the Obama-era program in September, but a court decision has essentially left it in place, for now. The White House had revived the idea in recent days — offering on Sunday a 30-month extension of DACA protections in exchange for billion for Trump's border wall — but Democrats demanded protections for a broader pool of immigrants than had signed up for DACA, a request denied by GOP negotiators.There's also a continuing battle over Trump's long-promised U.S.-Mexico border wall. While Trump traveled to Otay Mesa last week to inspect prototypes for the wall, what's pending now is .6 billion for earlier designs involving sections in Texas that double as levees and 14 miles (23 kilometers) of replacement fencing in San Diego.It appears Democrats may be willing to accept wall funding, but they are battling hard against Trump's demands for big increases for immigration agents and detention beds they fear would enable wide-scale roundups of immigrants illegally living in the U.S.Aides believe any measure would be unveiled Tuesday for a House vote Thursday. House and Senate action is needed by midnight Friday to prevent another government shutdown. 1897

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. health officials believe the coronavirus mutation that set off alarms in parts of Britain is no more apt to cause serious illness or be resistant to vaccines than the strain afflicting people in the United States. That's according to Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Even so, he says the variant still must be taken “very seriously" and is being studied intensively by U.S. officials now. Fauci endorsed the decision of U.S. officials to require negative COVID-19 tests before letting people from Britain enter the U.S. and declined to weigh in on whether that step should have been taken sooner. 674