济南前列腺炎表现济南泌尿科的,济南性功能障碍症治疗,济南阳痿了怎么办才能恢复,济南射精很快怎么治好,济南治疗 前列腺炎多少钱,济南阳痿都是怎么引起的,济南生殖器有白色分泌物怎么回事

The head of OPEC has warned that a decision by President Donald Trump to abandon the Iran nuclear deal would harm the global economy.In an interview with CNNMoney, OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Barkindo said that any factor that prevents the smooth running of the oil industry "will not be in the interest of the global economy.""Whatever extraneous factor that affects supply or demand, will no doubt send the market into disequilibrium, which is not in the interest of producers, or the interest of consumers," he said when asked about the consequences of ditching the Iran nuclear agreement.Trump has repeatedly threatened to rip up the Iran accord, which he has described as "the worst deal ever." He said he plans to announce his decision on the matter on Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. ET.The United States and other powers agreed to lift some economic sanctions under the 2015 deal in return for Iran agreeing to rein in its nuclear program. The sanctions had limited energy investment and production, and Iran's oil industry has sprung back to life since they were lifted.Iranian oil exports have increased by roughly 1 million barrels per day since early 2016, and the big question is whether the market will be able to cope with a sharp drop in supply if sanctions are reimposed.Worries over potential supply disruptions have already caused oil prices to spike. They've surged nearly 13% over the past month and hit their highest level since 2014, while the price of US gas has jumped to a national average of .81 a gallon.Barkindo said that price hikes were being driven by "volatility that occasionally returns to the market" as a result of "geopolitical tensions."A Nigerian who is serving a three-year term as secretary general, Barkindo said that OPEC would continue to seek a balanced oil market. The interview was conducted before Trump said an announcement on Iran was imminent.The cartel and its allies agreed to slash output in late 2016, a response to oversupply and an oil price crash. The agreement has been extended until the end of 2018.The secretary general said it had taken four "long" years for OPEC to get where it is today, with prices hovering around .Barkindo said the cartel was committed to seeing the agreement through, but he hinted that market conditions could spur a change."We have always been flexible. There is nothing sacrosanct in this market," Barkindo said.  2414

The head of United States Customs and Border Protection said border agents "prevented a dangerous situation getting worse" when they fired tear gas at a group of migrants who rushed the US-Mexico border Sunday.CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan told reporters Monday that as many as 1,000 people that were part of a migrant caravan traveling through Central America and Mexico sought to enter the US illegally.He said that according to CBP's initial report, 69 people were apprehended entering the US. McAleenan said he was not aware of any successful illegal entries by caravan members into the US."[CBP] effectively managed an extremely dangerous situation involving over 1,000 individuals who sought to enter the US unlawfully in large groups. They did so safely and without any reported serious injuries on either side of the border," McAleenan said.Sunday's incident marked an escalation of tensions that have been mounting since groups of Central American migrants began arriving in Tijuana a few weeks ago on their journey to attempt to gain entry to the US. The incident began with a march to the border that organizers said would be peaceful. In response, CBP deployed additional personnel to San Ysidro, California, on Sunday in expectation of demonstrations on both sides of the border.McAleenan said individuals breached the border fence to the east of San Ysidro and some went west and sought to enter through the Tijuana River channel. He described "assaultive behavior" by some migrants in both locations. Border Patrol agents countered using "less lethal devices," which included tear gas and "other projectiles," but not rubber bullets. He said CBP does not have rubber bullets in its inventory on the border.McAleenan said, per protocol, the decision to fire was made by agents on the scene using their professional judgment, and also per protocol the incident will be reviewed. He also described CBP as having responded with use of force to primarily adult males throwing rocks.However, video of the scene also showed a cloud of tear gas that sent people running and screaming, including families with young children.Four agents were hit with rocks, but because of their protective gear they were not seriously injured, McAleenan said.Sunday's melee closed one of the world's busiest international crossings, San Ysidro Port of Entry, near San Diego, to vehicle and pedestrian traffic for several hours. By Sunday afternoon, CBP reopened crossing lanes in both directions to pedestrians and vehicles.On the other side of the border in Mexico, Tijuana police had arrested 39 people by Sunday night, the agency said on Facebook. 2651

The old king of mobile messaging is coming after the new king.BlackBerry filed a lawsuit in California on Tuesday against Facebook, along with its subsidiaries WhatsApp and Instagram, for infringing on its messaging patents.BlackBerry claims in the lawsuit that the social media companies developed messaging applications that "co-opt BlackBerry's innovations" by using patented features touching on security, the user interface, and battery life."We have a strong claim that Facebook has infringed on our intellectual property, and after several years of dialogue, we also have an obligation to our shareholders to pursue appropriate legal remedies," a spokesperson for BlackBerry said in a statement provided to CNN.Facebook brushed off the suit as little more than a desperate move from a fading company."Blackberry's suit sadly reflects the current state of its messaging business," Paul Grewal, Facebook's deputy general counsel, said in a statement. "Having abandoned its efforts to innovate, BlackBerry is now looking to tax the innovation of others. We intend to fight."Related: Is BlackBerry making a comeback?BlackBerry was an early leader in the messaging market with the success of its smartphones and BlackBerry Messenger product in the mid-2000s.The patents cited in the lawsuit describe foundational elements of today's messaging services. One patent deals with notifications for the total number of unread messages. Other patents address photo tagging and messaging time stamps.BlackBerry is seeking unspecified monetary damages. It also appears to be seeking a partnership."As a cybersecurity and embedded software leader, BlackBerry's view is that Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp could make great partners in our drive toward a securely connected future," the spokesperson said in the statement. "We continue to hold this door open to them."The-CNN-Wire? & ? 2018 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved. 1965

The mother of mail bomb suspect Cesar Sayoc writes that she is estranged from her son but hurt by his alleged attacks, and she calls on the country -- specifically, President Donald Trump -- to tone down the nasty rhetoric.She further warned that the political vitriol -- particularly talk of "war" against the media and political parties — could resonate with the mentally ill, like her son, and inspire them to "violently act out in our country," Madeline Sayoc wrote in an open letter to television network ABC, which published the correspondence Sunday night.Madeline Sayoc also said that her 56-year-old son's relatives had tried, to no avail, to get him help, and that American families need better laws to allow families to "compel and require" treatment, when necessary.Here is the full text of the letter: 822

The polling industry has a lot on the line heading into Tuesday's midterm election.Critics blamed pollsters when voters were caught off guard by Donald Trump's election in 2016. Old cries of "don't believe the polls" became fevered shouts. And the president has encouraged distrust by calling certain polls "fake" and claiming they are used to "suppress" the vote.Although there is no evidence to suggest that is true, there is persistent and widespread suspicion about polling, according to, you guessed it, a McClatchy-Marist poll. And it exists on both sides, albeit in different forms."I think Democrats may have felt let down by the polls but don't think it was an intentional error. I think many Republicans believe the polling errors of 2016 were intentional," GOP pollster and co-founder of Echelon Insights Kristen Soltis Anderson told CNN.So can the industry regain trust?Since 2016 there's been a whole lot of self-reflection in the polling world. Pollsters have tweaked their techniques; pundits have become more cautious when talking about polls; and news outlets have conducted some fascinating experiments.On Tuesday, all the efforts are being put to the test."Some pollsters would disagree with this, but the way that the public generally views whether or not polling is accurate is whether or not it gets the results of the election right," CNN analyst Harry Enten said on "Reliable Sources.""I'm not necessarily sure that's fair," Enten said, "but I do think that there is more pressure on pollsters this year to get it right given the president's rhetoric and given what happened in 2016."Many, though not all, 2016 polls underestimated support for Trump. This effect was particularly pronounced at the state level, where there were embarrassing "misses," showing Hillary Clinton with safe leads in states Trump actually carried.Most national polls accurately showed Clinton winning the popular vote. But reporters and commentators made lots of mistakes in their interpretations of the polls. Readers and viewers did, too. Many people discounted the margin and other factors and made faulty assumptions that Trump would lose to Clinton.There were other problems, too. Predictive features on websites gained lots of traffic before the election but caused lots of consternation afterward. HuffPost's model infamously showed Clinton with a 98 percent chance of winning. "We blew it," the site admitted afterward.But just as importantly, HuffPost's Natalie Jackson tried to explain why.Other news outlets have also tried to be more transparent and remind voters of what polls cannot convey.In special elections since 2016, Democrats have repeatedly outperformed polls of their races.The top example was the Virginia governors' race. "Ralph Northam was favored by three points. He ended up winning by nine," Enten said.But past outcomes are not an indicator of future results."I think many pollsters and forecasters have tried to be much more intentional about explaining uncertainty and being humble about what data can and can't tell us," Anderson said. "Because I think there was a big sense that in 2016, there was more certainty conveyed than may have been justified by the available data."So political pros and reporters are communicating poll results differently this time. Time magazine's Molly Ball, who has a no-predictions rule for herself, said that even people who do make predictions are adding more caveats: There's "less of the, 'Well, the needle shows this' and more of, 'Here's what it doesn't show, here's what we should always remember can happen about probabilities.'"Early voting has been explosive in the midterms, indicating above-average enthusiasm among both Democrats and Republicans. Pollsters have to make assumptions about turnout when contacting "likely voters," and this is a difficult election to forecast.The 2018 electorate is "a universe that doesn't exist yet," Democratic pollster Margie Omero said. "I mean, people don't know whether they're going to vote, some people."They may tell a pollster that they're sure to vote, but never make it to the ballot box. Or they might change who they're voting for.Conversely, certain subsets of voters may have a big impact on the final results without really showing up in the pre-election polling. If pollsters assume relatively low youth turnout, but lots of young people vote for the first time, that could cause big surprises in certain races.The vast majority of people who are called by pollsters decline to participate, so the researchers have to make a huge number of phone calls, bend over backwards to reach a representative sample of people, and weight their results accordingly.Some polls are higher quality than others. Most news outlets tend to favor live interviewers, as opposed to computerized systems, and a mix of landline and cell phone calls. But some outlets are wading into web-based polling. CNN's polling standards preclude reporting on web polls.This fall The New York Times pulled back the curtain by conducting "live polling" and publishing the results in real time, call by call. Working with Siena College, the surveyors made 2,822,889 calls and completed 96 polls of House and Senate races."We wanted to demystify polling for people," said Nate Cohn of The Times' Upshot blog."From our point of view, it's almost a miracle how accurate polls usually are, given all the challenges," Cohn said in an interview with CNN.He emphasized that polls are "very fuzzy things." And the real-time polling showed this to the public. The researchers sought to interview about 500 people for each race that was examined.In Iowa's fourth congressional district, for example, 14,636 calls resulted in 423 interviews.The results showed the incumbent, far-right congressman Steve King, with 47% support, and his Democratic challenger J.D. Scholten with 42%.The Times characterized this as a "slight edge" for King, with lots of room for error. "The margin of sampling error on the overall lead is 10 points, roughly twice as large as the margin for a single candidate's vote share," the Times explained on its website.Cohn's final pre-election story noted that "even modest late shifts among undecided voters or a slightly unexpected turnout could significantly affect results."That's the kind of language that lots of polling experts are incorporating into their stories and live shots, especially in the wake of the 2016 election."With polling, you never actually get to the truth," Cohn said. "You inch towards it, and you think you end up within plus or minus 5 points of it at the end."As Enten put it, "polls are tools," not meant to be perfect. But that message needs to be reinforced through the news media. 6753