贵阳治疗静脉血栓得多少钱(贵阳那家医院专治小腿静脉曲张) (今日更新中)

Voting in America is a right in our democracy, but the security of our voting machines is a concern.“I’m not exactly sure how the election fraud keeps happening, because they can make a slot machine unhackable, but it seems like the polling machines are susceptible to all kinds of intrusions and manipulation,” Colorado voter Karen Katalinich said.Cyber expert Kevin Ford says he believes the U.S. is still vulnerable to attacks.Ford, with CyberGRX, says voting machine technology differs from state to state. However, he says the problem isn’t necessarily with the machine. Rather, it’s what happens with the data after you cast your vote.“The machines themselves may keep records of who voted for whom, but in a lot of cases those records will be exported from the machine and moved to databases in the cloud and on the internet, which opens up a whole lot of other connectivity routes,” Ford said.He says many machines are connected to state websites. Some of which don’t have the best security due to lack of funding.“We already have examples of Russia accessing those databases, pulling information from those databases, and trying to attack those databases,” Ford said.Ford says intruders can try to upload some bad code to get the database to spit out valid data or destroy some of that data. He says many states have improved voting security, but others are lagging behind. While he does feel the U.S. is still vulnerable to another attack, others trust the technology.“I think people in charge of it are pretty thorough about making sure it’s done right, and if something’s wrong, it’s always brought to their attention,” Mississippi voter Ronnie Wilhite said.“It should be safe and secure enough for voters to feel confident in who they choose to elect their officials,” California voter Pen Chang said. “So, in general, I feel pretty good about the safety and security of the machines.” Ford says there is no federal requirement to look into the security of the voting system. He believes that needs to change, to make sure everyone’s vote is being counted fairly.“We need laws in place to make sure that we are looking into the voting systems so that we’re doing audits and risk assessments on those. We also need standards. We need policies, we need framework which tells the states how to secure voting systems.”Until then, some voters say they'll still cast their ballots by machine.“I guess I just trust the system that people are being honest,” Colorado voter Jenna Cobo said.**********************************************************If you'd like to contact the journalist for this story, email elizabeth.ruiz@scripps.com 2652

US authorities are no longer holding migrants under a border bridge here.But advocates say some children and families who US Customs and Border Protection detained for days in the fenced-in space were shaken once they were released from custody.Bruises were visible on toddlers and older children who had to lay on rocks and concrete, said Taylor Levy, legal coordinator at Annunciation House.The El Paso-based shelter is a frequent stopping point for migrants who've been released from government custody. Migrants who'd been held under the bridge told staff there they'd been held from three to five days and "treated worse than dogs," Levy said.Photos and videos from the scene appeared to show migrant families sitting and at times sleeping on the gravel, with only thin space blankets between them and the ground."It was horrible there, because we slept under the bridge on top of the gravel," said Bartolo Tadeo Gómez, 25, who spent four nights under the bridge with his 7-year-old son. "There was a lot of dust."They struggled to stay warm without blankets, he said. And the whole time, Tadeo said, he worried about his son, who seemed sick and wasn't eating."I was afraid he would die," Tadeo told CNN.Last week, US authorities said a rapid influx of migrants crossing the border forced them to use the space under the Paso del Norte border bridge as an emergency measure in the face of a humanitarian crisis. They described a tent set up under the bridge as a "transitional shelter" for migrants who had yet to be processed.CBP officials say caring for those in custody with dignity and respect is a paramount concern.Advocates accuse CBP officials of worsening the humanitarian crisis at the border, rather than helping it.Over the weekend, the 1767

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court has largely upheld the Federal Communications Commission's controversial repeal of its net neutrality rules for internet providers, finding the agency didn't overreach when it decided in 2018 to deregulate companies such as Comcast and Verizon.The decision marks a victory for the Republican-led commission in light of opposition by consumer groups, tech companies and local government officials who had sued the agency in a years-long battle over the future of the open internet.But there is an important caveat: The court struck down a key aspect of the agency's order that could lead to further battles at the state level.Tuesday's opinion by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit is a win for the broadband industry, which had argued the regulations created uncertainty for internet providers and were too restrictive. But the decision also handed a partial victory to net neutrality advocates in that it provides a path for states to create their own net neutrality rules.Both sides were quick to declare victory.In a statement Tuesday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the decision is a win "for consumers, broadband deployment, and the free and open Internet." He added: "A free and open Internet is what we have today and what we'll continue to have moving forward."Democratic FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a net neutrality advocate, cheered the court's decision as it "vacates the FCC's unlawful effort to block states and localities from protecting an open internet for their citizens."For years, consumer groups have pushed for tough net neutrality rules. Advocates say providers should not be allowed to slow down websites, block access to apps or give faster service to preferred partners, which could distort the market for online services. Under those principles, Verizon, for example, would not be allowed to speed up loading times for, say, Yahoo, which it owns. Similarly, Spectrum could not downgrade Netflix as a way to deter cord-cutting.In light of the decision, Mozilla, maker of the Firefox browser and one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, said the fight to preserve the principle of net neutrality "is far from over."Consumer groups succeeded in 2015 when the FCC decided to regulate internet providers much like legacy telephone companies. The agency imposed clear rules banning the blocking, throttling or accelerating of Web content by internet providers and reserved the right to investigate business practices that risked violating the spirit of net neutrality.Opponents charged that the rules were a gross overreach by the government. Industry groups argued the constant danger of FCC investigations created business uncertainty and the rules opened the door to direct federal regulation of broadband prices.When President Trump took the White House, Republicans gained control of the FCC. Among the first acts Pai took as the new chairman was a plan to unwind the rules. Pai argued that the net neutrality regulations were heavy-handed and discouraged internet providers from upgrading their networks. In 2017, the FCC voted to repeal major parts of the rules, including the bans on blocking and slowing of websites.Internet providers say they are not interested in blocking or slowing down websites anyway.USTelecom, an association representing broadband providers, said the litigation showed how "Congress must end this regulatory rinse and repeat cycle by passing a strong national framework that applies to all companies."But internet providers have lobbied for the freedom to strike deals with websites to provide premium service, possibly in exchange for extra fees.Some policymakers have argued that practice, known as "paid prioritization," could benefit advanced applications like self-driving cars and telemedicine. Critics worry it could become an unbearable cost for some websites and tech companies — giving wealthy, established firms the power to dominate while marginalizing smaller businesses that can't afford to pay.Those arguments figured prominently in the legal battle over net neutrality. A coalition of critics led by Mozilla sued the FCC in hopes of blocking Pai's deregulation.The case was decided with the panel's three judges concluding the FCC acted lawfully when it decided to undo the Obama-era rules and regulate internet providers more lightly.But the opinion also struck down efforts by the FCC to prevent state governments from enacting their own net neutrality laws and regulations. The court on Tuesday rejected that approach, saying it amounted to an attempt to "categorically abolish all fifty States' ... authority to regulate intrastate communications." The FCC could still seek to preempt states on a case-by-case basis, setting the stage for multiple legal tussles.Andy Schwartzman, a lecturer in law at Georgetown University, said the decision "provides a roadmap to rules that can protect the promise of a vibrant internet that serves people, not the big cable and telcom companies." 5018

We've all heard the term "fake news," and there's lots of debate about who it applies to, which we will not get into here.But there's no debate over this: there are fake news websites that appear to be endorsing beauty products.Legitimate news websites from CNBC, CNN, FOX News and more are now being copied by diet pill promoters, so it looks like a legitimate news story, according to 399

Wednesday’s Democratic Party presidential debate hosted by NBC News could make for one of the most intriguing debates in recent memory. The late entry of Michael Bloomberg has posed an intriguing case study on whether it’s possible not to participate in the early-state nominating contests and still earn the nomination.So far, Bloomberg has spent hundreds of millions in advertising. While commercials help spread a candidate’s message, advertisements do not face the type of scrutiny a stage full of opponents questioned by moderators does. And with Bloomberg’s recent rise in the polls, he could be facing incoming from everyone on the stage.When: Wednesday, Feb. 19, 9-11 p.m. ETHow to watch: NBC, MSNBC, NBCNews.com, Universo (Spanish Translation)The candidatesFormer Vice President Joe BidenFormer New York City Mayor Michael BloombergFormer South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete ButtigiegMinnesota Sen. Amy KlobucharVermont Sen. Bernie SandersMassachusetts Sen. Elizabeth WarrenFive of the six candidates have participated in every previous debate. QualificationsCandidate earned at least 10% support in four national polls, or 12 percent in two Nevada and/or South Carolina polls, or have at least one national delegate pledged from the Iowa or New Hampshire primaries. Wednesday’s debate marks the first debate that has lifted the requirement to meet fundraising thresholds. This is what allowed Bloomberg to enter the debate. Ridding the fundraising requirement for Bloomberg, who has largely self-funded his campaign, did not please Warren. “It’s a shame Mike Bloomberg can buy his way into the debate,” Warren said. “But at least now primary voters curious about how each candidate will take on Donald Trump can get a live demonstration of how we each take on an egomaniac billionaire.”Who isn’t on the stageBillionaire Tom Steyer will not participate in a debate for the first time during the 2020 cycle. This comes despite strong polling numbers in Nevada and South Carolina. Also, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who last participated in a debate in October, did not qualify. Businessman Andrew Yang has dropped out of the race since the last debate. Other candidates who have since dropped out include Sen. Michael Bennet and Gov. Deval Patrick. Where the race standsButtigieg holds a slight lead in delegates over Sanders (23-21). Other candidates with delegates are Warren (8), Klobuchar (7) and Biden (6). Bloomberg did not enter the first two nominating contests, and will sit out Saturday’s Nevada Caucuses and the South Carolina Primary on Feb. 29. Although Buttigieg holds the lead in delegates, it is hard to describe him as the frontrunner. Sanders has a plurality of votes, and leads national polling. Real Clear Politics tracks major opinion polls, and an aggregate of polls show that Sanders has seen his share of the vote go from 19% to 27% in the last three weeks. During that time, Bloomberg has seen his numbers more than double, as he has gone from the back of the pack to nearly even with one-time frontrunner Biden for second. Sanders also is polling well in Nevada, a state he won in 2016. An East Carolina University poll held this week shows Biden still holds a lead in South Carolina, despite poor performances in Iowa and New Hampshire. But on March 3, the biggest night of the nominating race awaits as more than a dozen states, including Texas and California, hold primaries. These states are already conducting early voting, meaning Wednesday’s debate could be the final opportunity for candidates to make an impression before a crucial Super Tuesday race. Debate rulesThe moderators will be "NBC Nightly News" and "Dateline NBC" anchor Lester Holt, "Meet the Press" moderator and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd, NBC News Chief White House Correspondent and host of "MSNBC Live" Hallie Jackson, Noticias Telemundo Senior Correspondent Vanessa Hauc and Jon Ralston of The Nevada Independent.Candidates will have 1 minute and 15 seconds for answers and 45 seconds for follow-ups at the moderators’ discretion, NBC News said.Race issues facing Bloomberg, candidatesGiven that Wednesday is the ninth debate since the start of the nominating process, it is very possible that many of the question will be directed at Bloomberg. How he responds to issues such as “Stop and Frisk” and race relations more broadly could be seen as key. Bloomberg will likely be asked about why he allowed “Stop and Frisk,” a policy that allowed NYPD officers to stop citizens to conduct pat downs without probably cause, to exist for years. Opponents of stop and frisk claim that blacks were targeted by the policy, and that these stops did not reduce crime. Proponents said that stops of these nature are permissible by Supreme Court ruling, and dispute findings that the stops don’t reduce crime.Buttigieg and Klobuchar could also be probed on race relations, especially since both candidates did well following the New Hampshire primary. Buttigieg has faced criticism over housing and policing policies while mayor. Meanwhile, Klobuchar has been facing questions on her prosecution of Myon Burrell, who was convicted of killing an 11-year-old girl with a stray bullet. The AP reported that no guns, fingerprints or DNA tying Burrell to the homicide were ever found.Black Democratic voters make up nearly 20% of the party’s electorate. 5358

来源：资阳报