阜阳哪个医院皮肤科治得好(阜阳哪一家医院治皮肤病好) (今日更新中)

Twana Wilson received an Amazon Echo Dot as a gift from her husband a few months back. He thought she would enjoy having Alexa play music and read her the weather forecast, but the Echo still sits in its original box. She won't use it.Why not? Because like so many people, Wilson suspects Amazon is watching her, even listening to her conversations through her phone and laptop. "I just can't get myself to do it yet," Wilson said. "I am not ready for it."She has her reasons. She was recently chatting with a friend who was flying to Paris. "The next day," Wilson said, "I had a targeted ad for booking flights to Paris." She said she had never done any web searches and had no plans for a trip to Europe.A week or so later, she says, she was talking with her husband about his Jeep. "Afterward I started having a stream of Jeep ads" she said.She said it's the same story if she ever discusses a product with friends via text messages. "I even get emails form Amazon saying, 'Hey, aren't you looking for this?' Actually I wasn’t," Wilson said.Like many other Amazon Prime members, Wilson is caught between the convenience of one-click everything and concerns about her privacy. Recent news reports that 1217

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

Weak effort from @BurgerKing re: rebel whopper, wtf is the point bringing out a veg burger that's cooked with meat? I'm not precious about cross contamination but I draw the line at my food literally being cooked in meat juices. Get a new grill & change the mayo you cowards.— ?? Seeds in the Wasteland ?? (@seedsinthewaste) January 6, 2020 356

UPDATE: I just spoke with a member of the boy’s family who tells me they intend to gain custody. The family primarily lives in Orlando. The family member tells me the boy was here on vacation with his mom and dad. @WKBW pic.twitter.com/AyUHzrR6Ui— Ali Touhey (@Ali2e) September 17, 2019 298

WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) introduced a bill Wednesday that seeks to help working parents by aligning school hours with the normal work day.Under the bill, called the “Family Friendly Schools Act,” 500 schools in the U.S. would push the end of the average school day from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. The bill would create a “first-of-its-kind pilot program” to give schools resources to stay open during the entire work day throughout the school year and to invest over billion to enrich summer learning programs. This would be accomplished without forcing teachers to work longer hours or for less pay, 654

来源：资阳报