濮阳东方妇科可靠(濮阳东方男科医院网上预约) (今日更新中)

Given the continued customer demand we expect over the coming months, we’ll be bringing on an additional 300,000 full-service shoppers to support cities nationwide. As more people look for immediate, flexible earnings opportunities during this time, we hope that Instacart can be an additional source of income for those looking to earn while also delivering for the communities in which they live. 406

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — A man who had a metal police canister launched at his face during protests in downtown Grand Rapids on May 30 is planning to file a lawsuit against the Grand Rapids Police Department.An attorney representing Sean Hart says the planned lawsuit will seek to cover some of the medical and economic damages Hart suffered after the incident.Police say that on May 30, Hart was driving in downtown Grand Rapids as Black Lives Matter protests were taking place following the death of George Floyd. They say Hart was met by a line of police officers who were blocking the roadway at the intersection of Fulton and Sheldon.Police say he stopped at the intersection for about three minutes while playing N.W.A.'s "F*** the Police" from his car.Police say they told Hart to leave the area. Hart claims police aimed a "40 mm single-shot launcher" towards him, but did not fire.Hart left the area but returned a few minutes later to tell officers he was upset with the way they handled the situation.As Hart approached a line of officers, he was hit with a mist of pepper spray by one officer. Seconds later, Officer Phillip Reinink fired a metal canister at Hart's face."Officer Reinink recognized immediately following his actions that he had made a mistake, a mistake we all regret under the pressure caused by the hostile environment, unruly crowds and the type of chaos that none of our officers in our department had ever seen," Grand Rapids Police Chief Eric Payne said Tuesday morning.Officer Joe Garrett, a member of GRPD's Special Response Team, said Reinink had mistakenly loaded the canister into his launcher when he meant to load another type of canister that would have just sent a plume of pepper spray towards Hart."This is a long-range projectile. The objective of this projectile is to be launched from a place of distance. The range is 125 to 150 yards, typically from behind the line into a crowd," Garrett said.The canister Reinink meant to fire was a "MUZZLE BLAST." Garrett said the MUZZLE BLAST rounds are similar in appearance, and that no projectile would have fired from the launcher.Ven Johnson, one of the attorneys representing Hart, said the incident comes down to more than a simple mistake made in the heat of the moment."Are you going to buy this? Because we all know it's a complete and utter lie," Johnson said Tuesday afternoon. "Who do you think loaded the gun? It's his job to know whether you got a bullet in there or a water bottle."Payne announced Tuesday that the department had completed an internal investigation into the incident. Reinink was given a two-day suspension without pay."When they suspend an officer, quote, without pay, that tells you that they have found that he or she ... violated their own policies and procedures," Johnson said. "They're lucky they didn't incinerate him or somebody else nearby him. He was not advancing on them. He was not assaulting them. He wasn't touching them."The Kent County Prosecutor's Office had already announced that they would not be filing any criminal charges in the case.Payne said the department would be announcing changes to their use of force policy on Aug. 11."This was a chaotic situation," Payne said Tuesday. "We had never experienced that before. We prepare for these types of incidents. A mistake was made, and we fully acknowledge that. Officer Reinink acknowledges that.""We will continue to learn from this incident and make sure we're serving the community well."This story was originally published by Michael Martin on WXMI in Grand Rapids, Michigan. 3580

Hello! And welcome to Movie...Pass?MoviePass, the ticket subscription company, is buying Moviefone, the 29-year old movie directory service.A lot has changed since Moviefone first started. It's hard to imagine now, but people used to call a number for movie times. Moviefone became so popular that its famous "Welcome to Moviefone" greeting was parodied in a famous "Seinfeld" episode.Moviefone still has a website and app, but it retired the 777-FILM phone service in 2014. (Seinfeld's Kramer must be pleased. "Why don't you just tell me the name of the movie you've selected?")AOL, now part of Verizon, bought Moviefone in 1999 for 8 million. But MoviePass isn't spending nearly as much to get Moviefone. MoviePass majority owner Helios and Matheson Analytics will pay Verizon only about million for Moviefone -- million in cash and a mix of HMNY stock and warrants worth about million, according to a Securities and Exchange filing Thursday.According to Business Insider, MoviePass has also welcomed back service to a handful of AMC theaters in big cities, including San Diego.The service removed 10 of AMC's busiest locations from its app in January to take a "hard position" against theater chain. MoviePass has been seeking a a portion of concessions sales.WHY MOVIEFONE?So why does MoviePass want Moviefone? MoviePass CEO Mitch Lowe told CNNMoney it wanted access to Moviefone's film and TV show content."Our subscribers want to connect with Hollywood and hear more about what's going on in the film industry," Lowe said. "They'd like to have MoviePass recommend movies to them and Moviefone is iconic."Lowe, a co-founder of Netflix and former president of DVD rental kiosk service Redbox, added that he hopes the acquisition will be a "great funnel to attract new members" to MoviePass, which currently has more than 2 million subscribers.Ted Farnsworth, CEO of Helios and Matheson Analytics, added that the marriage of MoviePass and Moviefone will hopefully lead to more advertising revenue."MoviePass is growing at warp speed. Put it and Moviefone together and it gives us more advertising opportunities," Farnsworth said in an interview with CNNMoney. "This is a great strategic move for us."MoviePass arguably needs more ad sales to convince skeptical investors that its business model of buying tickets from theaters and then offering them to subscribers at a discount through monthly and annual subscription plans is viable for the long haul. MoviePass lets people see a movie a day for .95 a month -- it recently cut its price from .95.Shares of Helio and Matheson Analytics have plunged nearly 55% this year. Investors are worried that MoviePass won't be profitable anytime soon.THREAT OF COMPETITIONPart of the problem? We live in an era of so-called peak TV. Netflix, other streaming services and big cable TV networks are churning out more and more quality shows that eat into the time people have to go to movies.Investors also worry that the big chains that MoviePass currently buys tickets from -- AMC, Regal and Cinemark -- may eventually look to cut out MoviePass and launch their own subscription services or other lower-priced deals.Regal, which is now owned by UK-based Cineworld, has experimented with charging more for tickets during peak movie times and less at times when attendance tends to be lighter. Think of it as Uber-style surge pricing, but for movies.And Cinemark unveiled Movie Club, a monthly plan that lets people buy a movie ticket a month for a discounted price of .99, last year.That deal obviously isn't as good as the one a day plan offered by MoviePass. But Cinemark will also allow Movie Club members to roll over unused tickets every month, bring friends at the lower price and offers bargains on concession stand items.Lowe isn't too concerned about competition though. He said he's convinced that MoviePass will continue to work closely with the big chains -- even if Wall Street is nervous."We have to prove we are a driving force in getting more people into theaters. We have to try and put our money where our mouth is," he said. 4118

Heading into the pandemic, 16 million US workers were employed by the restaurant industry, making it one of the largest industries in America.With the coronavirus still spreading throughout the US, whether it’s safe to visit a restaurant remains a question on the minds of many. For many Americans, they’re not quite sold on restaurants being safe despite most restaurants taking measures to protect staff and customers.ValuePenguin, which is associated with Lending Tree, conducted a survey of 1,000 Americans. The survey found that 44% of Americans feel indoor restaurants are unsafe to visit amid a pandemic, compared to 40% who believe they are safe. Women were more likely to say indoor dining is unsafe compared to men.More consumers, however, say getting takeout and dining outdoors is safe. Nearly 67% of respondents felt it’s safe to get takeout, and 58% said eating outdoors is safe.What do experts say?Many experts have said even with the precautions restaurants are taking, there is still a sizeable risk of catching the virus while dining inside. These risks, however, are generally significantly lower for those dining outside.Last month in an interview with MSNBC, Dr. Anthony Fauci pointed toward restaurants being among riskiest places to visit amid the pandemic. Fauci added that bars and gyms also are considered risky in his view.“When you have restaurants indoors in a situation where you have a high degree of infection in the community [and] you're not wearing masks, that's a problem,” Dr. Fauci said.Fauci pointed toward a September 2020 CDC study that found those who visited restaurants in the previous two weeks were two times more likely to test positive for the coronavirus than those who said they had not been inside a restaurant.“Reports of exposures in restaurants have been linked to air circulation,” the CDC said. “Direction, ventilation, and intensity of airflow might affect virus transmission, even if social distancing measures and mask use are implemented according to current guidance. Masks cannot be effectively worn while eating and drinking, whereas shopping and numerous other indoor activities do not preclude mask use.”Economic impact to restaurantsWith many restaurants forced to close indoor operations during the spring, and scale back indoor capacity during the summer, millions were out of work. According to the National Restaurant Association, 8 million restaurant workers, representing nearly half of the industry, were without jobs during the height of the pandemic. There remained over 2 million out-of-work restaurant employees as of the start of October.As of Wednesday, 100,000 restaurants have either closed for good, or for a significant period of time. As a whole, the restaurant industry is expected to lose 0 billion by the end of 2020.In hopes of minimizing spread and regaining customer confidence, the CDC and industry leaders have implemented cleaning procedures. They hope as cases begin to swell again for the cold-weather season, restaurants can remain open amid the pandemic. 3062

HARTSHORNE, Okla. – A veteran says he is being kicked out of his home by the City of Hartshorne.William Smith has called a camper home for the last eight years on property that he owns. Now, Hartshorne is telling him to pack it all up and find somewhere else to live.William Smith said, "The hookups were here: water, sewer, and electric. Everything was here. I just figured since I had already been living in my RV and it was mine and it was paid for and I got my property paid for, I thought I was good to go for many, many years."Smith was a Navy radar engineer, constantly moving around."To get all of my equipment on an airplane was not a thing that you could really do," he said.He tinkers in his garage on the property, which is the main reason he bought the land, and generally keeps to himself. So, the veteran was surprised when he the police handed him an eviction notice.It said he had 120 days to relocate. Due to a new ordinance passed by the city council, recreational vehicles, travel trailers and campers no longer specify as a structure for permanent living in the city limits. The city claims the reason is "preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.""They told me there's no provision for a grandfather clause or anything that would allow me to stay here," Smith said,Although some may be concerned about property value, most of Smith's neighbors say they would rather see a camper with a well-kept yard next door to them than an abandoned house like several on Smith’s street.Now, the retired veteran is left in limbo, trying to figure out his next move in life."I bought the place so I could retire here and work in my garage to do my piddling and my projects and all that. So, if I have to move this thing out, I really have no other home," he said.Mayor Joy Cline told a local newspaper the city would work with the elderly and disabled and would not leave anyone homeless under this new ordinance. However, she did not respond to a request for comment. 2016

来源：资阳报