梅州怎样治妇科病宫颈炎(梅州内窥式超导人流) (今日更新中)

ENCINITAS, Calif. (KGTV) -- A young woman says she chased an intruder from her Encinitas home. When she began the chase, she had no idea he was armed with a knife. Just before midnight Tuesday, Maria Medvedev was reading a book in her home in the Village Park neighborhood. She was startled by the sound of the side gate opening. Then, she saw and heard a shadowy figure race out of her yard.Medvedev took off after him and found him hiding behind a truck in the street. She says he tried to convince her he was a neighbor, then took out of a knife and approached her."He flashed it and that's when I started screaming, 'Someone call the police. Someone call 9-1-1!'" she said.  706

FAIRFIELD, Calif. – Police officers in Northern California stepped up to help some children cool off on a hot summer day.The Fairfield Police Department says some of its officers were responding to an area apartment complex when they noticed several kids playing outside in the heat.Unfortunately, police say the youngsters weren’t able to enjoy the community’s pool because of COVID-19 restrictions.Seeing this was no way to spend a hot summer afternoon, police say they came up with a plan to use their own money to purchase dozens of water guns and buckets of water balloons for the kids.When police returned, a water fight began, and the officers got in on the fun.“The ensuing water fight left a lot of soaked uniforms and plenty of smiling faces,” wrote police.The department posted video and photos of the interaction on social media, saying that their community is stronger together.“Transparency and trust in our community with regards to how we protect and serve you is our top priority – we understand that the more we are able to open our doors to you on all levels, the more we can connect, communicate, and work together,” wrote the department. 1166

FAIRFIELD, Calif. -- A woman whose 10 children were removed from a home authorities described as filthy denied Monday that she or her husband abused or neglected the children.Ina Rogers, 30, told reporters Monday that all the children slept in one bedroom together because they wanted to.Rogers also said he feels as though she’s being judged for having so many children and choosing to home-school them.RELATED: Parents accused of shackling their 13 children in Perris home expected to appear in court  She added that she’s surprised at the accusations against her husband, Jonathan Allen, because he wasn’t the disciplinarian of the family. Police in Fairfield arrested Allen, 29, on charges that include torture and abuse."There's no broken bones, there is no major scars, nothing," Rogers said Monday. "My kids get bumped and bruised and scratched because they're kids but that's it."PHOTOS: Turpin family's former Texas home had human feces on walls, owner saysThe children were removed from the home on March 31 after Rogers reported that her oldest child was missing.She said he ran away after she took away his tablet and computer. Upon returning the child, Fairfield police Lt. Greg Hurlbut said he found the nine other children living in "squalid and unsafe conditions."Rogers was arrested and later released after posting bail. Allen was also arrested after specialists conducted interviews with the children. He is being held on .5 million bail.The home was described by reporters as messy with scuffed walls and animal feces in the bathroom. The children slept on cots in the bedroom because they were close, Rogers said.Child protection officials made one prior visit to the home, Rogers said. Aleida Quartman, 23, said she was a co-worker at a heart device monitoring company.Quartman said Rogers’ messy house was just life with children, cats, a dog and a fish. "She told me she's never lived alone and now that her kids are gone and her husband is gone, she's just a mess," Quartman said.Allen’s mother said she spoke to Rogers about the dirty condition of the home, saying it was important to keep a clean home. 2149

Even during this time of strong political divisiveness, lawmakers agree there should be changes to Section 230. Congressional committees have subpoenaed the CEOs and heads of major tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google multiple times to answer questions about possible bias, eliminating competition, allowing misinformation to flourish, etc., all trying to get to the heart of what should be done about Section 230.So, what is it?Section 230 refers to a section of just 26 words within the 1996 Communications Decency Act.It reads: “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”This particular section makes it so internet companies are generally exempt from liability for the material users post on their networks.Which means, if a news website article makes false malicious statements about a person, that person can sue the publication for libel. However, if that article is posted on social media and spread to hundreds of thousands of people, the person can only sue the individual who posted the article and cannot hold the social media company responsible for spreading the article.The wording of Section 230 also allows internet companies, and more specifically social platforms, to moderate their content by removing or censoring posts that are obscene, violent or otherwise violate that specific platform’s terms of service and standards, so long as the social platform is acting in “Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.This has allowed online social platforms to grow and thrive, offering a space for users to share their thoughts and opinions, without the fear that those thoughts and opinions will get the platform in trouble. The wording for Section 230 came from established case law, including a Supreme Court ruling in the middle part of the 20th Century, which held that bookstore owners cannot be held liable for selling books containing what some might consider obscene content. The Supreme Court said it would create a “chilling effect” if someone was held responsible for someone else’s content.“Today it protects both from liability for user posts as well as liability for any clams for moderating content,” said Jeff Kosseff, who wrote a book about Section 230 and how it created the internet as it is today.President Donald Trump in May signed an executive order that would clarify the scope of the immunity internet companies receive under Section 230.“Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse,” the order reads.One of the issues raised in the executive order is the question of when does a social platform become a so-called “publisher” by making editorial decisions about the content on the platform. Those decisions include controlling the content allowed on the platform, what gets censored, and creating algorithms that spread certain content further or faster.Content publishers are held to different rules and responsibilities by the Federal Communications Commission. News publishers can be held liable for the content they share on their platform, either in print or online.The president’s executive order came after Twitter started adding a fact-check warning to his tweets that contain false or misleading information. The executive order does not allow the president to change the law, but rather encourages his administration to take a look at Section 230.Lawmakers on both sides have concerns about how social platforms are abusing the protection they receive under Section 230, and have held several committee meetings.Many experts agree Section 230 cannot just be removed.If social platforms are suddenly held responsible for the content on their sites, there could be a whole new level of moderation and censorship as they clamp down on anything remotely controversial and unproven - possibly including some of the president’s own posts.Instead, lawmakers are investigating what changes, if any, could be made to Section 230 to offer clarity for both users and internet companies, as well as set boundaries for potential liability. 4178

FALLBROOK (KGTV) -- A couple looking to buy a home in the North County wants to share an experience they're describing as negative as the new solar energy law goes into effect in 2020.The law requires that homes built in California starting in 2020 must have solar panels. It has caused confusion among potential homebuyers, like Brian and Carmen McKay. They recently left Las Vegas, looking to move back to San Diego County.“I used to work at Fallbrook skilled nursing many years ago,” said Carmen McKay. The couple found a home they liked in the Horse Creek Ridge development, a new housing project in Fallbrook.“When we realized it was a corner lot… oh my gosh, we loved it,” Carmen said.They were told the cost was roughly 5,000—which sounded like a reasonable price for San Diego, according to the McKays. That is when they say they got a surprise from the sales representative.“Then she says, by the way, once we were sold on the house and the price… there’s solar panels on the house. You have the option to lease it or buy it. And we’re like, why?” Carmen said.They said during the home tour, solar panels were not mentioned at all. Carmen said the sales representative only mentioned it when they were back in the office, ready to sign documents to buy the home. As the McKays were questioning solar, they were told “it’s required by the state.” That is only partially true. A spokesperson for the California Energy Commission told Team 10 that “the law only applies to homes that have been permitted after Jan. 1, 2020.”“If that’s not the case with the home in question that you mentioned, then the mandate does not apply,” wrote energy commission spokesperson Edward Ortiz.The McKays were told it would be about ,000 extra to buy the solar panels.“I think that it was misleading because we were buying a house that we were told it was 5, but it’s actually 5 or we’re paying a higher monthly out of pocket,” said Brian McKay.The seller knew they were on a time crunch.“We sold our property [in Nevada]. We’re at an AirBnB… we need to buy,” Carmen added.Nobody at the sales offices at Horse Creek Ridge would comment. Team 10 was directed to public relations. Through email, the spokesperson said:“Two separate state energy requirements guide D.R. Horton in its decisions regarding home design options in the state of California – the current State Energy Code requirements (commonly known as Title 24) and the State‐Mandated Solar requirements, which take effect in 2020. In most communities, we have found that solar is the best, most cost‐effective option for both D.R. Horton and our homebuyers to meet the current Title 24 Energy Code requirements. Thus, Horse Creek Ridge was designed using solar to meet the current Title 24 requirements, and as a result, we are required by the state to have solar on each home in the community.”When asked why that was not told to the potential homebuyers from the beginning, during the tour of the home, D.R. Horton spokesperson added that “solar requirements are communicated to customers via numerous marketing materials… and as an addendum to the home purchase agreement.” She pointed to an 8-page brochure, where solar is mentioned once on page 7. She also sent Team 10 an image of solar displayed on a model home—something the McKays said they never saw.There is no mention of solar or photos of any homes with solar on Horse Creek Ridge’s website. “I feel like I was deceived,” Carmen said. “We fell in love with the place. I felt like I was pushed in the corner.”Dan Zimberoff is an attorney not involved in this case, but he has seen solar disputes in the past. “A buyer needs to be aware,” Zimberoff said. “If you’re purchasing a new home and you see what that price is, ask the details. Is that really going to be the final price?” “We’re starting to remember why we left California,” Carmen said.The McKays ultimately decided not to buy the home. They hope their experience teaches others about the right questions to ask. “We were willing to pay the higher cost to live here, but I don't like being misled by builders,” Brian said. For more information, see the California Energy Commission's FAQ website. 4189

来源：资阳报