济南专科医院治疗阳痿(济南如何治疗阴茎不硬) (今日更新中)

Viewers of ESPNU this afternoon got quite a surprise when the entire 64-team bracket for this year's NCAA women's basketball tournament was accidentally revealed on screen, which quickly was spread on social media on Monday. Because of the error, ESPN and the NCAA moved up the official selection show from 7 p.m. ET to 5 p.m. ET. Whoops!This caused havoc for many teams already planning to gather with fans this evening to watch the selection show.ESPN released a statement Monday afternoon to explain the error. “In working with the NCAA to prepare for tonight’s Women’s Selection Special we received the bracket, similar to years past," the statement read. "In the midst of our preparation, the bracket was mistakenly posted on ESPNU. We deeply regret the error and extend our apology to the NCAA and the women’s basketball community. We will conduct a thorough review of our process to ensure it doesn’t happen in the future. We will now broadcast the full bracket at 5 p.m. ET on ESPN2, and the regularly-scheduled show on ESPN at 7 p.m.”As some learned at 3 p.m. ET on Monday, Louisville, Mississippi State, Baylor and the defending champion Notre Dame were declared the four No. 1 seeds for the tournament, which begins on Friday. 1250

WASHINGTON — Hundreds of people converged on the White House on Saturday for a second straight day to protest the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and President Donald Trump’s response. 203

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

Voters in Denver, Colorado may soon have another big decision to make this coming May.In a place where pot is already permitted, is it ready for magic mushrooms as well?A group advocating the decriminalization of mushrooms Denver turned in more than enough signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot this May.The group of backers, Decriminalize Denver, said it had submitted more than 9,000 signatures to the Denver County Board of Elections. Of those, at least 4,726 signatures must be valid to qualify the measure which is called the Denver Psilocybin Mushroom Decriminalization Initiative.Voters could make Denver the first city in the country to decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms.While there are plenty of people who would be happy to see this happen, others believe it's a long, strange trip the Mile High City can't afford to take.This is uncharted territory. So, Denver7 is going 360 to explore it.Kevin Matthews is the man who has high hopes of taking the measure to the May ballot.“Denver has a strong history of drug policy reform," Matthews said. “The timing is right, and we’ve modeled our language on this initiative after cannabis legislation in 2005 and 2007.”Matthews says shrooms have helped him break his own cycle of depression. "Mushrooms have enabled me to look outside the box that depression creates," he said. “We’re working to keep people out of prison for non-violent drug offenses. A drug that has proven medical value and is non-addictive.”But Jeff Hunt adamantly disagrees."This is a psychedelic drug where you're typically going to go into some type of trip that could last three to six hours,” said Hunt, vice president of public policy for Colorado Christian University and director of the think tank The Centennial Institute.Hunt wonders how far it will all go. First it was weed, then supervised injection sites for heroin and opioid addicts and now decriminalizing psychedelic shrooms."It's a terrible idea,” Hunt said. “Denver is quickly becoming the illicit drug capital of the world. The truth is we have no idea what the long-term health effects of these drugs are going to do to the people of Colorado."While the Denver Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Denver Partnership have taken no position on the issue yet, Hunt sees a definite economic downside."At a certain point, parents are going to look at the city of Denver and say, 'I don't want to take my kids to that city,'" Hunt said. “And I don't think tourists are going to want to come to this state."In a statement, the Downtown Denver Partnership said, “At this time, the Downtown Denver Partnership has not convened our Board to review this proposed initiative and determine whether or not we will take an opinion.”The matrix gets even more complex with patients like Chris who has end-stage spinal and brain tumors."The mushrooms seem to have calmed them better than any drugs that they've been able to give me,” Chris said. He asked us not to use his last name. “I'm not saying it's a panacea, or that it's for everyone. I just want to be comfortable."And still, others argue shrooms are less habit-forming than opioids or other drugs."We need to see the therapeutic benefits that are there," said signature gatherer Hope Mellinger. “And create an environment where people can talk about set, setting and dose."Those 9,000 signatures are now under review, as the future of fungus fuels a fiery debate."It is a medicine," argued Matthews. “Right now, individuals are facing jail time, or could lose their jobs and their families. Frankly, that’s absurd for a substance that has proven to be non-addictive, non-habit forming and non-violent.”Hunt argued the studies on the drug are inconclusive at best.“Let’s slow down,” Hunt said. “Let’s do the research. We have a process in this country that’s called the FDA that looks at this. And if it concludes it’s beneficial, by all means – let’s get behind it. I'm concerned we're going in the wrong direction - rather than really encouraging people to lead healthy and productive lives." 4086

We are currently in an active code red situation with an elephant in an area it should not be. No one is any immediate danger and we are taking all needed steps to bring this situation to a safe resolution. We will update you as information becomes available.— Kansas City Zoo (@KansasCityZoo) 306

来源：资阳报