梅州哪里看妇科的医院比较好(梅州好的治疗妇科病的妇科医院) (今日更新中)

Robot janitors are already at Walmart, so they are now making their way to Sam's Club.According to a press release by Brain Corp, which is the company making the robot floor scrubbers, Sam's Club will put 372 of them into its stores by this fall.In 2018, Walmart placed the Auto-C – Autonomous Cleaner into 78 Walmart stores.Walmart, which owns Sam's, announced last year it would bring autonomous floor scrubbers to more than 1,800 of its stores by next February, CNN reported.The company says that's so employees can help customers instead of mopping floors."After an associate preps the area, this machine can be programmed to travel throughout the open parts of the store, leaving behind a clean, polished floor," Walmart said in a press release. "Auto-C provides a cleaner shopping experience for our customers, and it frees up our associates to serve them better." 878

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California sued Tuesday to block the Trump administration from cancelling nearly billion for the state's high-speed rail project, escalating the state's feud with the federal government.The Federal Railroad Administration announced last week it would not give California the money awarded by Congress nearly a decade ago, arguing that the state has not made enough progress on the project.The state must complete construction on a segment of track in the Central Valley agricultural heartland by 2022 to keep the money, and the administration has argued the state cannot meet that deadline. That line of track would be the first built on what the state hopes will eventually become a 520-mile (837-kilometer) line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.But Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom says the move is retribution for California's criticism of President Donald Trump's immigration policies."The decision was precipitated by President Trump's overt hostility to California, its challenge to his border wall initiatives, and what he called the "green disaster" high-speed rail project," the state said in the lawsuit.California was not expected to tap the 9 million the Trump administration has revoked until 2021. If the lawsuit is not resolved before then, the election could put Democrats in the White House and Congress who may be friendlier to the project.The lawsuit faulted the Trump administration for halting cooperation with the state on granting environmental clearances for the project. It said terminating the funding would "wreak significant economic damage on the Central Valley and the state."Newsom told reporters the administration is "after us in every way, shape or form." But he expressed confidence the state will win in court."Principles and values tend to win out over short-term tweets," Newsom said.The lawsuit highlighted a series of tweets Trump sent about the project, including one that said California's rail project would be far more expensive than Trump's proposed border wall.That tweet came a day after California led 15 states in suing over Trump's plans to fund the border wall, and hours before the administration first threatened to revoke the rail funding.The Federal Railroad Administration did not immediately respond to an email message seeking comment about California's lawsuit.California has worked for more than a decade on the project to bring high-speed rail service between Los Angeles and San Francisco, but the project has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. It's now projected to cost around billion and be finished by 2033.The state has already spent .5 billion in federal funding, and the Trump administration is exploring whether it can try to get that money back.The lawsuit also asks the court to block the administration from awarding the money to any other project.The lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California.The dispute over the funding was partly driven by Newsom's remarks in February that the project faced challenges and needed to shift focus. Rail officials had been planning to connect the line under construction in the Central Valley to Silicon Valley, but Newsom has proposed extending the line further north and south into the valley before heading west.The California High-Speed Rail Authority presented a plan in early May that showed it would cost .3 billion to get trains up and running between Bakersfield and Merced by 2028.The board overseeing the project voted Tuesday to further study whether it makes sense financially and otherwise to run early train service on that line. Tom Richards, the vice chairman, noted the board has not yet formally approved the new approach."The board has not been asked for, nor has the board given, any interim service direction to (the project's) management," he said. 3851

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gavin Newsom is the favorite in California's governor's race, and if he's elected his extensive business holdings could present an ethics problem.His company, PlumpJack Group, owns wineries, bars, restaurants, hotels and liquor stores that operate in California. Issues involving the hospitality industry often come before the governor.Newsom is adamant he won't sell his interests but otherwise is deferring decisions about how to handle potential ethics conflicts until after the election.RELATED: John Cox, Gavin Newsom battle it out in debateThe potential for blurred lines between business and government service has become especially resonant since President Donald Trump broke with tradition for U.S. presidents and chose not to divest from his extensive holdings.Republican candidate John Cox also is a millionaire with extensive holdings, but his businesses operate outside California.RELATED: Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox's plan for California 1012

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Assembly voted Thursday to cap the interest lenders may charge on loans that can carry rates spiraling into the triple digits.Backed by civil rights groups, religious organizations and some trade associations, the proposed law would cap annual rates at around 38% for loans between ,500 and ,000.The bill comes as legislators across the country seek to reign in a storefront lending industry critics accuse of preying on low-income consumers in need of cash and trapping them under mounds of debt for years.But even as the bill advanced, some California lawmakers expressed concern that it will limit choices for consumers with bad credit or little access to banks and other financial products. And the lending industry, which wields significant influence in legislatures as well as in Washington, has launched an advertising campaign in California attacking the bill as it heads to the state Senate, where observers expect a tougher fight.Proponents of capping interest rates point to an explosion in high-interest consumer loans around the state over the last decade.The state already caps interest rates on consumer loans under ,500 but not for amounts over that threshold. In 2009, 8,468 loans for amounts between ,500 and ,000 came with interest rates over 100%, according to data from state regulators. Lenders now issue more than 350,000 loans each year with interest rates in the triple digits. A legislative analysis said at least one out of three borrowers is unable to pay their loans.But proposals to cap interest rates in recent years have faltered at California's Legislature. Several lawmakers still expressed concern about the latest proposal, suggesting it could drive lenders out of the market, pushing consumers with low incomes toward unregulated lenders or cutting off their easy access to capital."Without these alternative financial service providers, those folks would have nowhere else to go," said Democratic Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove of Los Angeles.Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon dismissed arguments the bill would ultimately harm low-income residents."Those are merely talking points of an industry that has repeatedly lied to members of this chamber," he said.Casting the bill as a moral issue, the Democrat said the legislation can be considered as important as any other lawmakers will vote on this year in the country's most populous state.The bill ended up passing with bipartisan support as one Republican legislator cited religious prohibitions on usury."I'm a free-market capitalist and I'm unashamed of it but we need to stand up and protect people who are being preyed upon," said Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham of San Luis Obispo.The support of the financial industry this year, too, may also signal that the sector foresees a reckoning in the state or at least further political uncertainty if lawmakers do not approve limits for loans between ,500 and ,000.The California Supreme Court cast a legal question mark last year over the lending industry's practices, deciding in one class action lawsuit that some interest rates can be so high as to be deemed unconscionable under financial laws.Democratic Assemblywoman Monique Limon of Santa Barbara, the bill's author, also suggested that an interest rate cap could end up on the ballot if the Legislature does not act.If passed, California would join 38 states and the District of Columbia in capping interest rates for these types of loans, according to a legislative analysis. The level proposed in California would be on the higher end.Observers expect a bigger political fight when the bill heads to the state Senate, however.Opponents of the bill have launched an advertising campaign aimed at stopping it.The trade group Online Lenders Alliance has bought ads on Sacramento television stations, according to Federal Communication Commission filings.A group calling itself Don't Lock Me Out California has also bought online ads attacking the bill. 4018

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California utilities again are facing severe financial pressures from the possibility that their equipment sparked catastrophic wildfires, including two that are now burning at either end of the state.The pressure comes even though Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation in September giving utilities some relief beginning next year.The law made it easier for utilities to pass along costs from fire-related damages to consumers and also avoid possible bankruptcy from a series of major fires that occurred during the 2017 fire season that produced more than billion in losses.But there was a gap in the law: No damages specific to 2018 were included, so utilities face a higher bar to bill customers to cover those costs. And this year already supplanted 2017 as the most destructive in California's recorded history.Authorities have not determined a cause for either of two major blazes burning now, but Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Edison have reported irregularities with their equipment near the time and place where both ignited.A woman who owns land near the site where a deadly wildfire started in Northern California said Monday that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. sought access to her property just before the blaze started because the utility's power lines were causing sparks.PG&E shares have lost more than a third of their value since the Camp Fire broke out northeast of San Francisco, destroying thousands of homes and killing dozens of people as it leveled the town of Paradise.Moody's Investors Service said Monday that the "shortcomings" in the legislation reflect negatively on PG&E's credit rating, which is barely investment grade."Moody's negative outlook incorporates the view that additional financial stress for PG&E is likely," Moody's spokesman Joe Mielenhausen said in an email. "Going forward, we will look for signs of additional legislative and regulatory support for the utility as it works through various legal processes."Last week PG&E told state regulators that it detected a problem on an electrical transmission line near the site of the blaze minutes before the fire broke out. The utility later said it observed damage to a transmission tower on the line, and a PG&E spokeswoman said the company will cooperate with any investigations.Betsy Ann Cowley, a property owner near the site said PG&E sought access to the area before the fire started, telling her power lines were sparking.Southern California Edison told regulators there was an outage on an electrical circuit near the site where the Woolsey Fire started in Ventura County. It quickly spread into Malibu and destroyed hundreds of homes.SoCal Edison said the report was submitted out of an abundance of caution and there was no indication from fire officials that its equipment may have been involved. The report said the fire was reported around 2:24 p.m. Thursday, two minutes after the outage.Shares of parent company Edison International have tumbled more than 20 percent since the fire started.California is one of just two states that hold electric companies entirely liable for damage caused by their equipment, even if they followed all safety precautions. The new law makes it easier for them to pass some of those costs along to consumers.Utilities lobbied aggressively to eliminate that strict liability standard but lawmakers dropped the idea amid pressure from insurers, trial lawyers and fire victims.Instead, legislators passed a law making it easier for utilities to manage the costs without going bankrupt. They created two mechanisms for investor-owned utilities to shift the costs of wildfire lawsuits onto their customers— one process that begins in 2019, and another for the 2017 fires.For reasons that remain unclear, the law left the rules unchanged for 2018."The priority was on addressing 2017 victims and putting in place some fire-safety measures," said Paul Payne, a spokesman for Sen. Bill Dodd, a Napa Democrat and the bill's author. "The focus was on making 2017 victims whole."It's too soon to say whether the Legislature will take up another fight over the 2018 fires, Payne said.SoCal Edison officials say the Legislature needs to do more to shield utilities from wildfire-related liability."SCE believes the state can do more, including enacting fire-smart building codes, particularly in high fire risk areas, and ensuring the proper allocation of risk for the often-tragic consequences of wildfires," spokeswoman Justina Garcia wrote in an email.A PG&E spokesman, Paul Doherty, did not respond to questions about the legislation, saying "our entire company is focused on supporting first responders."Sen. Jerry Hill, a Redwood City Democrat and longtime critic of PG&E, called the report of troubles on PG&E's lines in the area extremely worrisome."At some point we have to say enough is enough and we have to ask: Should this company be allowed to do business in California?" Hill said. "These fires take a spark, and at least in the last few years fires have been caused by negligent behavior by PG&E. We need to see how we can hold them responsible, or look at alternative way of doing business."Hill said he was exploring legislative options to keep a closer check on PG&E, including the possibility of breaking up the utility."They are a monopoly and they act as a monopoly," Hill said. "That is a problem when the motive is profit, and that just may not be the right motive for providing utility services." 5560

来源：资阳报