呼市内痔便血的症状(呼和浩特痔疮医院哪个极好) (今日更新中)

Wendy's wants you to have a free chicken sandwich.The fast-food chain announced that customers who purchase anything off its mobile app or drive-thru would receive a free Classic Chicken Sandwich.You can also redeem the free sandwich inside the restaurant by showing them the QR code from your mobile app when you place your order."We can't wait for our fans to get their hands on the New Classic Chicken Sandwich which has the perfect crunch from breading and pickles paired with the juiciness and flavor of the fillet," said Carl Loredo, Chief Marketing Officer for The Wendy's Company in a press release. "The Classic joins what customers have already come to know and love in spice and taste from Wendy's via our Spicy Chicken and Pretzel Bacon Pub Chicken Sandwiches."Now through Nov. 8, customers can receive one free sandwich per week, which means you can get two free sandwiches before the deal expires, USA Today reported.The sandwich usually sells for .99. 976

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a coalition of 48 attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Facebook, accusing the company of illegally stifling its competition to protect its “monopoly power.”The lawsuits allege that Facebook illegally acquired competitors in a predatory manner and cut services to smaller threats, depriving users from the benefits of competition and reducing privacy protections along the way. They claim Facebook took these actions to boost its bottom line through increased advertising revenue.The FTC says it's seeking a permanent injunction in federal court that could require divestitures of assets, including Instagram and WhatsApp. It could also prohibit Facebook from imposing anticompetitive conditions on software developers and require the company to seek prior notice and approval for future mergers and acquisitions.New York Attorney General Letitia James is leading the bipartisan coalition, which includes attorneys general from 46 states, Washington D.C. and Guam. Their goal is to “stop Facebook’s anticompetitive conduct,” according James.“Today, we are taking action to stand up for the millions of consumers and many small businesses that have been harmed by Facebook’s illegal behavior,” said James in a statement. “Instead of competing on the merits, Facebook used its power to suppress competition so it could take advantage of users and make billions by converting personal data into a cash cow.”The coalition's lawsuit claims Facebook employs a variety of methods to impede competing services and “build a competitive moat” around the company. The plaintiffs claim the two most utilized strategies have been to acquire smaller rivals and potential rivals before they can threaten Facebook’s dominance, as well as suffocating and squashing third-party developers that Facebook invited to utilize its platform.The attorneys general use Facebook’s purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp as examples. They claim Facebook saw Instagram as a direct threat quickly after the company launched, so they acquired it for billion in 2012. The company then bought WhatsApp for billion in 2014.The coalition of AGs is asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to halt Facebook’s “illegal, anticompetitive conduct” and block the company from continuing this behavior in the future.Additionally, the collation is asking the court to restrain Facebook from making further acquisitions valued at million or more without advance notice to the states.Finally, they’re asking the court to provide any additional relief it determines is appropriate, including the divestiture or restructuring of illegally acquired companies, or current Facebook assets or business lines.Responding to the lawsuits, Facebook released this statement on Twitter: 2831

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For weeks now, protests have touched every part of America, drawing people out of their homes and into the national debate over police reform and racial inequality.“Hands up – don’t shoot! Hands up – don’t shoot!” could be heard from protesters at a recent gathering in Ville Platte, Louisiana.Yet, while free speech is a part of the First Amendment, it doesn’t extend as far as you might think.One example: your job.“Those protections are nuanced,” said Mark Gaston Pearce, who is with Georgetown Law’s Workers Rights Institute and is a former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama. “People are under the false impression that a private sector employment relationship affords you all of the rights that are guaranteed to you by the constitution – but it does not.”In other words, an employer, in a state where employment is “at will,” could potentially fire someone for attending or participating in a protest.“Provided, of course, that it’s non-discriminatory,” Pearce said.There are a few exceptions. Federal and state employees are protected because they work for the government. Unions also have some protections. Also, four states: New York, North Dakota, Colorado and California have specific laws protecting employees’ free speech rights.“But that’s four states in a 50-state country,” Pearce said.There are efforts underway in Congress that could expand free speech protections for employees under the “PRO Act.” It passed the House in February and is now in the Senate.“If labor law is reformed, then that would bring those kinds of protections to the public,” Pearce said.Until then, he added that an employee’s best defense may be found in their employer’s own words.“Oftentimes, a lot of that lies in the employee handbook and the publications they make you sign to prove that you read it – and most employees don’t read it,” Pearce said. “They need to know all of that stuff.”Because even in America, free speech doesn’t necessarily apply everywhere, all the time. 2037

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A new Gallup poll found Americans are increasingly willing to be immunized against the novel coronavirus.With two COVID-19 vaccines now in the final stages of approval in the United States, 63% of Americans told Gallup they are willing to be vaccinated.The latest findings come from a survey conducted in the last two weeks of November, which was around the time Pfizer announced their vaccine had proved to be better than 90% effective in its Phase III clinical trials.Since then, Moderna has made a similar announcement and both are seeking emergency use authorization from the FDA for their vaccines. If approved, some Americans could begin to receive vaccines before the end of the year.At 63%, the public’s willingness to be vaccinated has nearly rebounded to the previous high of 66% in July. It hit a low point of 50% in September.Gallup says reports of adverse reactions and statements from politicians may have contributed to the change in American views on vaccines.Specifically, Gallup points to President Donald Trump saying in early September that a vaccine could be available before Election Day, raising questions about pressure being put on the FDA to expedite approval.They also point to Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, who said she wouldn’t get a vaccine on Trump’s advice alone and expressed concern about the potential for political interference in the vaccine approval process.“The public's willingness to receive a vaccine in September suggests that public confidence in a vaccine can be significantly influenced by events or political messaging that cast doubt on vaccines' safety,” said Gallup. 1649

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

来源：资阳报