乌鲁木齐高级外科缝合腿模型(济南头颅骨模型附肌肉模型) (今日更新中)

I-8, from SR-79 (Japatul Valley Rd.) to E. Willows all lanes closed due to snow and ice.#SDCaltransAlert #Imperialvalley— Caltrans San Diego (@SDCaltrans) February 22, 2019 186

If you are way into politics, you are not the average American. Not even close.A new poll from the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center reveals how shockingly little people know about even the most basic elements of our government and the Constitution that formed it.Take your pick from this bouillabaisse:* More than one in three people (37%) could not name a single right protected by the First Amendment. THE FIRST AMENDMENT.* Only one in four (26%) can name all three branches of the government. (In 2011, 38% could name all three branches.)* One in three (33%) can't name any branch of government. None. Not even one.* A majority (53%) believe the Constitution affords undocumented immigrants no rights. However, everyone in the US is entitled to due process of law and the right to make their case before the courts, at the least.(And the First Amendment protects the rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of the press and the rights of people to peaceably assemble, in case you were wondering.)"Protecting the rights guaranteed by the Constitution presupposes that we know what they are," said Annenberg Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson. "The fact that many don't is worrisome."The Annenberg poll is far from the first to reveal not only our collective ignorance about the basic tenets of democracy but also the fact that we are even less informed than we were in the past.Take this Pew Research Center poll from 2010. When asked to name the chief justice of the Supreme Court, less than three in 10 (28%) correctly answered John Roberts. That compares unfavorably to the 43% who rightly named William Rehnquist as the chief justice in a Pew poll back in 1986.What did the 72% of people who didn't name Roberts as the chief justice in 2010 say instead, you ask? A majority (53%) said they didn't know. Eight percent guessed Thurgood Marshall, who was never a chief justice of the Court and, perhaps more importantly, had been dead for 17 years when the poll was taken. Another 4% named Harry Reid, who is not now nor ever was a Supreme Court Justice.What we don't know about the government -- executive, legislative and judicial branches -- is appalling. It's funny -- until you realize that lots and lots of people whose lives are directly affected by what the federal government does and doesn't do have absolutely no idea about even the most basic principles of how this all works.It leads to huge amounts of discontent from the public when they realize that no politician can make good on the various and sundry promises they make on the campaign trail. 2654

If you're not getting a push alert every time someone opens your front door, you're living in the past.Smart-home technology company August just announced new versions of its connected locks and doorbell camera.The company's newest locks have a sensor that can tell when a door is open or closed and send you alerts on your phone. Similar features are already available with smart home kits like SmartThings. 416

In a season full of historic moments, the Vegas Golden Knights are moving on to the Stanley Cup Final.With a final score of 2-1, the Knights were able to hold off the Winnipeg Jets in Game 5 of the series.  219

In a victory for employers and the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday said that employers could block employees from banding together as a class to fight legal disputes in employment arbitration agreements.Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority, his first major opinion since joining the court last spring and a demonstration of how the Senate Republicans' move to keep liberal nominee Merrick Garland from being confirmed in 2016 has helped cement a conservative court."This is the Justice Gorsuch that I think most everyone expected," said Steve Vladeck, CNN contributor and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law. "Not only is he endorsing the conservative justices' controversial approach to arbitration clauses, but he's taking it an important step further by extending that reasoning to employment agreements, as well."Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the rare step of reading her dissent from the bench, calling the majority opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis "egregiously wrong.""The court today holds enforceable these arm-twisted, take-it-or-leave-it contracts -- including the provisions requiring employees to litigate wage and hours claims only one-by-one. Federal labor law does not countenance such isolation of employees," she said.In the majority opinion, Gorsuch maintained the "decision does nothing to override" what Congress has done."Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written," he said.As the dissent recognizes, the legislative policy embodied in the (National Labor Relations Act) is aimed at 'safeguard[ing], first and foremost, workers' rights to join unions and to engage in collective bargaining," he wrote. "Those rights stand every bit as strong today as they did yesterday."Gorusch, responding to Ginsburg's claim that the court's decision would resurrect so-called "yellow dog" contracts which barred an employee from joining a union, said that "like most apocalyptic warnings, this one proves a false alarm."The case was the biggest business case of the term, and represented a clash between employers who prefer to handle disputes through arbitration against employees who want to be able to band together to bring their challenges and not be required to sign class action bans.It also pitted two federal laws against each other.One, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), gives employees the right to self organization to "engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection" the other, the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) allows employers to "settle by arbitration."Lawyers for employers, who have long backed arbitration as a means of resolving disputes, argued that class action waivers are permissible under the 1925 law. They say the NLRA does not contain a congressional command precluding enforcement of the waivers.The Trump administration supported the employers in the case, a switch from the Obama administration's position.  3034

来源：资阳报