梅州白带颜色发绿梅州整形医院拉皮,梅州女性附件炎的诊断,梅州怀孕后要怎么办,梅州可视人流术的费用,梅州隆鼻手术要多少费用,梅州市中医院妇科,梅州超导可视的人流要多少钱

There are plenty of services available to get food delivered to your door. But Uber plans to take delivery to a new level by using drones.The company reportedly plans to launch a food delivery service using drones by 2021.   How soon could this happen? Futurist Thomas Frey says it’s coming whether we want it or not.   "With all the emerging technology, we still have to work our way through the crappy stages before we get to the good stuff," says Frey.   Delivering food to anyone anywhere is a challenge  "Delivering something like food is a lot messier and a lot more time sensitive than delivering a product we're getting from Walmart or Amazon or something, says Frey."Part of the problem with drones is that we have to get the FAA to OK deliveries like this, and that is not a simple thing to do."   And with the convenience, comes a price.  "Eliminate a lot of human labor in doing something like this, so the reasons companies are pushing this so hard is it gives them a competitive advantage,” explains Frey. “It takes much of the labor costs out of this arrangement."  Overall, the good side of technology usually outweighs the bad, Frey says."See, drones can be very dangerous. The same ones that deliver foods or products to your door step they can also deliver bombs or poison or spy on your kids,” Frey says. “We have to guard against abuses of this technology."  Before this can happen, companies will be need to get a license and go through security training in order to get clearance.   1578

There are about 6,000 restaurants in Queens County, according to the Queens Chamber of Commerce — and if indoor dining doesn’t resume, up to 3,000 may never open again.“For the last six months, it’s been very hard for everyone in the diner business, in the restaurant business. Especially for us,” said John Thanosopolous, who owns the Atlantic Diner in Richmond Hill.There are now multiple lawsuits against the city and New York state over not permitting indoor dining at city restaurants, despite every municipality around them being permitted to do so.“This is the knockout punch for us. This is the lawsuit. We didn’t want to do this. This is not us. We are workers,” said Rob De Luca, who owns De Luca Restaurant in Staten Island.Mayor Bill de Blasio did not address the status of indoor dining whatsoever during his Tuesday press briefing, though days ago, hinted an announcement could be coming soon.Governor Andrew Cuomo said other cities and towns were allowed to have diners indoors because their compliance was better than New York City’s.Without explicitly naming the mayor, the governor said local enforcement failed when bars were first permitted to re-open months ago. Ultimately that led state government to create a statewide task force of inspectors to take up the issue. But Cuomo said that task force is spread thin.“If you go to indoor dining, you are roughly doubling the number of places that you're going to have to monitor,” said Cuomo.The governor said the city should be pulling resources and inspectors from the NYPD, or from any and all regulatory agencies it has, and until it does, New York City restaurants cannot welcome its customers back inside.That is not what thousands of restaurant owners across the city want to hear.As for De Luca, he believes this disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable in the industry.Mitch Schwartz, the Mayor’s Director of Rapid Response and Deputy Press Secretary, issued this statement Tuesday evening:“Careful public health guidance. Nimble and rigorous inspections. Fair and honest dealing with businesses. That’s how we’ve reopened our economy while keeping COVID-19 rates extremely low, and that’s how we’ll reopen indoor dining if and when it’s safe to do so. Now, we’re continuing to work with the State on a responsible timeline and clear protocols for re-opening. That process is underway – and when it’s over, New Yorkers will know we’ve put their health and safety first.”This article was written by Narmeen Choudhury for WPIX. 2519

There's something different about this year's Geneva Motor Show: The "booth babes" are almost all gone.For decades, automakers have paid glamorous and often scantily clad female models to appear at major auto shows and pose for photos next to their new cars.But the practice is quickly being abandoned in the era of #MeToo, with carmakers now choosing other ways to attract a crowd at motor shows.  411

This Thanksgiving will be different for everyone. Whether you're going to a small, socially distanced gathering or doing things virtually, this year’s holiday will be a first for everyone.However, there is one constant: uncomfortable conversations.The old adage is to not talk about religion, politics and finances as they are bound to be personal or create polarizing views that could put a rift between family members.This year has given no shortage of things to disagree on. Politics, the pandemic, racial justice, they all produce very strong opinions that can be on very different sides of the topic and elicit emotional responses. But whether you’re around a table or giving thanks over Zoom, these heavy topics can be talked about without ruining the holiday.“I think that for a lot of people, Thanksgiving is going to come with an extra layer of anxiety,” said Deanna Singh, Chief Change Agent for Uplifting Impact. “There are so many things we don’t have answers for. Internal conflicts, external conflicts, this year will come with an extra layer of anxiety but also hope it comes with an extra level of Thanksgiving.”Anxiety and stress are at all-time highs. The American Psychological Association says 60% of Americans are overwhelmed by the number of issues facing the United States right now and Generation Z, those who are 18 to 23 years old, are the most stressed. Roughly 1 in 3 people in the group report their mental health is worse than the same time last year.Singh says because of that, it’s important to recognize what you have to be thankful for this Thursday."We’ve been through a lot this year,” Singh said. “So, to be able to come together around the table and enjoy the people we love, I hope it comes with this extra layer of, ‘Wow. Let’s not take this for granted.’ This is big stuff.”The hot topic conversations also present the highest stress level for people. Eight out of ten people say the pandemic is a source of significant stress in their lives. Before the election, 68% of adults said they were stressed about it. That's up from 52% in 2016. Racial topics also bring about more stress with 59% of people saying police violence against minorities is a significant source of stress in their lives.It doesn’t mean you should avoid those “tough to talk about” topics altogether. There has been tremendous progress made on the racial justice front this year. After the killing of George Floyd, millions of people across the globe stood up against police brutality. It’s created a conversation on standing up for African Americans and being an ally.Around the dinner table, it may feel like an opportunity to share this newfound urge to stand up for racial equity. Singh says, it can be, if done appropriately so it has the most impact.She has three tips to have the most productive outcome from a tough conversation.Above all else, she says you need to check your own agenda before starting the conversation.“Understand what you are coming to the table with and what your purest intentions are,” Singh said. “It’s important to know what your agenda is and make sure your agenda isn’t like an, ‘I got you and I’m going to prove I’m the right person.’ I have never ever seen a conversation that starts with an agenda of, ‘I got you.’ If anything, it raises defenses.”It’s important to remember, as dug in as you are about your viewpoint and however correct you feel on the topic, someone else feels the exact same way about their own viewpoint. In order to be productive, Singh says it takes time to listen.“There are people with different views,” Singh said. “What an amazing opportunity to go to people you trust and love and try to expand your own thinking. Try and see things from a different perspective. I think it’s an amazing opportunity to learn.”Singh says it’s important to go into a conversation like this assuming your own opinion is wrong. It will help you gain empathy to someone else’s view and understand how you can explain your own view better.“It’s a humbling thing to think about, wow, I could be wrong,” Singh said. “No matter how vehemently you feel, start from that premise. That could allow for you to think about how to get to a conclusion or the space you want to move your audience to in a much more effective way. I have to be open to the fact that my ideology has holes in it. I will never convince somebody if I don’t understand them.”In order to be effective, it’s important to think about how you go about explaining your viewpoint. Singh says people have a tendency to explain their views in a way that makes sense to them but that could be counterproductive.“When people want to have difficult conversations, the way they prepare is the way they would want to receive the information and not in a way that’s best for the person they’re trying to have the conversation with,” Singh said. “Some people want facts or numbers and they need to see things on an Excel document and that’s how they make decisions. Other people really understand through stories or experiences. If you are going to wade into the water with people of differing opinions, one thing to prepare is to think about how they receive information and what’s the most effective for them.”Singh’s third tip is to be intentional. When it comes to politics, racial justice or how the pandemic is being handled, it can be easy to let your emotions get the best of you. She urges people to be able to address when something like that happens and acknowledge your interest in having a conversation.“Right now, I want to talk about how great the dressing is and this turkey and who made the mac n’ cheese?” Singh said. “Have that conversation when it’s appropriate. Let’s figure out a time when it would make more sense to have a conversation. There are certain spaces and places that are good for these conversations and you should do that. There are also certain places and spaces that are not.”By reeling in emotional responses, it can keep the conversation under control and prevent pushing loved ones farther apart.“One of the big things for me, I like to say I feel very uncomfortable right now,” Singh said. “I’m really, really emotional about what you said. I do not think I’m in a position to handle emotions that is respectful of you and respectful of me. I’m going to stop. I’m going to stop participating in this right now.”In order to de-escalate, Singh says it’s best to clarify what someone may have said. Asking, “What do you mean by that?” or “Can you tell me your reasoning behind that?” can be disarming ways to continue the conversation and help cooler heads prevail.Ultimately, ‘not talking about it’ may be less of an option now than ever before and Singh says that’s OK.“I would say this is a perfect opportunity for you to wade into those spaces if you’re feeling comfortable and feeling that calling,” Singh said. “It’s ok to do that. I would think carefully about where and how you do it. If you make a big scene of something and someone is already feeling defensive, what’s going to happen? More than likely, no matter how amazing they are as a person, they’re probably going to double down.”Singh has many other tips she is sharing in a webinar on How to be an Ally. Uplifting Impact is hosting the virtual webinar between Feb. 1 and Feb. 3. There is more information on the Uplifting Impact website.This story was originally published by Shaun Gallagher at WTMJ. 7424

They’ve been fighting in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania over the cutoff date for counting mailed ballots, and in North Carolina over witness requirements. Ohio is grappling with drop boxes for ballots as Texas faces a court challenge over extra days of early voting.Measuring the anxiety over the November election is as simple as tallying the hundreds of voting-related lawsuits filed across the country in recent months. The cases concern the fundamentals of the American voting process, including how ballots are cast and counted, during an election made unique by the coronavirus pandemic and by a president who refuses to commit to accepting the results.The lawsuits are all the more important because President Donald Trump has raised the prospect that the election may wind up before a Supreme Court with a decidedly Republican tilt if his latest nominee is confirmed.“This is a president who has expressed his opposition to access to mail ballots and has also seemed to almost foreshadow the inevitability that this election will be one decided by the courts,” said Kristen Clarke, executive director of the National Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.That opposition was on display Tuesday during the first presidential debate when Trump launched into an extended argument against mail voting, claiming without evidence that it is ripe for fraud and suggesting mail ballots may be “manipulated.”“This is going to be a fraud like you’ve never seen,” the president said of the massive shift to mail voting prompted by the pandemic.The lawsuits are a likely precursor for what will come afterward. Republicans say they have retained outside law firms, along with thousands of volunteer lawyers at the ready. Democrats have announced a legal war room of heavyweights, including a pair of former solicitors general.The race is already regarded as the most litigated in American history, due in large part to the massive expansion of mail and absentee voting. Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department elections official, has tallied some 260 lawsuits arising from the coronavirus. The Republication National Committee says it’s involved in more than 40 lawsuits, and a website operated by a chief Democrat lawyer lists active cases worth watching in about 15 states.Democrats are focusing their efforts on multiple core areas — securing free postage for mail ballots, reforming signature-match laws, allowing ballot collection by third-parties like community organizations and ensuring that ballots postmarked by Election Day can count. Republicans warn that those same requests open the door to voter fraud and confusion and are countering efforts to relax rules on how voters cast ballots this November.“We’re trying to prevent chaos in the process,” RNC chief counsel Justin Riemer said in an interview. “Nothing creates more chaos than rewriting a bunch of rules at the last minute.”But there have been no broad-based, sweeping examples of voter fraud during past presidential elections, including in 2016, when Trump claimed the contest would be rigged and Russians sought to meddle in the outcome.Some of the disputes are unfolding in states not traditionally thought of as election battlegrounds, such as Montana, where there is a highly competitive U.S. Senate race on the ballot. A judge Wednesday rejected an effort by Trump’s reelection campaign and Republican groups to block counties from holding the general election mostly by mail.But most of the closely watched cases are in states perceived as up-for-grabs in 2020 and probably crucial to the race.That includes Ohio, where a coalition of voting groups and Democrats have sued to force an expansion of ballot drop boxes from more than just one per county. Separately on Monday, a federal judge rejected changes to the state’s signature-matching requirement for ballots and ballot applications, handing a win to the state’s Republican election chief who has been engulfed with litigation this election season.In Arizona, a judge’s ruling that voters who forget to sign their early ballots have up to five days after the election to fix the problem is now on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a six-day extension for counting absentee ballots in Wisconsin as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. The ruling gave Democrats in the state at least a temporary victory in a case that could nonetheless by appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In neighboring Michigan, the GOP is suing to try to overturn a decision that lets the state count absentee ballots up to 14 days after the election.In battleground North Carolina, where voters are already struggling with rules requiring witness signatures on absentee ballots, the RNC and Trump’s campaign committee have sued over new election guidance that will permit ballots with incomplete witness information to be fixed without the voter having to fill out a new blank ballot.In Iowa, the Trump campaign and Republican groups have won a series of sweeping legal victories in their attempts to limit absentee voting, with judges throwing out tens of thousands of absentee ballot applications in three counties. This week, another judge upheld a new Republican-backed law that will make it harder for counties to process absentee ballot applications.Pennsylvania has been a particular hive of activity.Republican lawmakers asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to put a hold on a ruling by the state’s highest court that extends the deadline for receiving and counting mailed-in ballots. Republicans also object to a portion of the state court’s ruling that orders counties to count ballots that arrive during the three-day extension period even if they lack a postmark or legible postmark.Meanwhile in federal court, Republicans are suing to, among other things, outlaw drop boxes or other sites used to collect mail-in ballots.The Supreme Court itself has already been asked to get involved in several cases, as it did in April, when conservative justices blocked Democratic efforts to extend absentee voting in Wisconsin during the primary.There is, of course, precedent for an election that ends in the courts. In 2000, the Supreme Court settled a recount dispute in Florida, effectively handing the election to Republican George W. Bush.Barry Richard, a Florida lawyer who represented Bush during that litigation, said there’s no guarantee the Supreme Court will want to get involved again, or that any lawsuit over the election will present a compelling issue for the bench to address.One significant difference between then and now, he said, is that neither candidate raised the prospect of not accepting the results.“There was never any question, in 2000, about the essential integrity of the system. Neither candidate challenged it,” Richard said. “Nobody even talked about whether or not the losing candidate would accept the results of the election. That was just assumed.”_____Follow Eric Tucker on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/etuckerAP 7075