郑州郑州那个医院做眼睛激光手术比较好郑州眼部激光手术话术,郑州开封眼科哪家好,郑州近视矫正费用,郑州激光矫正,郑州手术大约多少钱,郑州近视眼可以割双眼皮嘛,郑州近视1000度能治好吗

The wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of Rebecca Zahau focused Thursday on the thoroughness of the investigation, with the lead Sheriff's detective on the case taking the stand. Zahau's death was ruled a suicide by four different investigative agencies but the Zahau family believes Rebecca was murdered by her boyfriend's brother, Adam Shacknai. The questioning by David Elsberg, attorney for Adam Shacknai, was aimed at showing investigators left no stone unturned. Elsberg's initial focus was on dispelling the scream that a neighbor reported may have come from the Coronado mansion around the time of Rebecca's death.  As Adam Shacknai's attorney pointed at areas of an overhead projection screen of the Coronado mansion, Detective Tsuida said the reported scream actually came from an area northwest of the property, toward the beach, and not from the balcony area where Rebecca Zahau was found dead. The attorney also showed a series of photos of footprints on the balcony, including bare prints that would support Rebecca standing on the balcony and near the balcony's edge. The questioning by Elsberg went on to the collection of potential DNA evidence and the intricate detail work involved.  Detective Tsuida testified that none of Adam Shacknai's DNA was found on the rope or knife, or several other items that might suggest he had anything to do with her death. 1480

The Senate voted Wednesday to pass a measure that would repeal changes to net neutrality rules that were recently adopted?by the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission.The measure, which was backed by all 49 Democrats and Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Kennedy of Louisiana, will be sent to the GOP-led House, where it'll likely go nowhere -- and President Donald Trump is unlikely to back it.While Collins' support had been public leading up to the vote, Murkowski's and Kennedy's "yes" vote came as a surprise to some.Democrats used the Congressional Review Act to force a vote -- a law that allows Congress to repeal agency rules and regulations on a simple majority vote, instead of a 60-vote threshold needed to break procedural hurdles on most legislation, the kinds of traditional roadblocks where Senate leadership could typically hold up such a proposal.Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke after the vote to begin debate earlier Wednesday, arguing that "at stake is the future of the Internet.""That fundamental equality of access is what has made the internet so dynamic," he said on the Senate floor. "Net neutrality protected everyone ... that era, the era of an open Internet, will unfortunately soon come to an end."He continued: "The Democratic position is very simple. Let's treat the internet like the public good that it is."The FCC voted in December to repeal Obama-era protections. The net neutrality rules, approved by the same organization two years earlier, prohibited Internet service providers -- such as Comcast and Verizon -- from speeding up or slowing down traffic from specific websites and apps.Democrats argued the new FCC rules give too much power to Internet service providers, which they fear will throttle down speeds for some websites and services while ramping it up for others who pay more.Schumer said in an earlier statement, "The repeal of net neutrality is not only a blow to the average consumer, but it is a blow to public schools, rural Americans, communities of color and small businesses. A vote against this resolution will be a vote to protect large corporations and special interests, leaving the American public to pay the price."While Democrats recognize they are unlikely to reverse the FCC's rule, they see the issue as a key policy desire that energizes their base voters, a top priority ahead of the midterm elections. 2456

The United Kingdom says it will be the first to conduct COVID-19 vaccine human challenge trials.It's different than other vaccine studies. People will be deliberately infected with the virus, which speeds up the research process.Pending approval, the process will start in January at a London hospital. It will require about 90 healthy young adults between the ages of 18 and 30.The group 1 Day Sooner has recruited from all over the world, including 3,000 Britons.“If the vaccine works, then ideally, people don't get infected and if people do, then they will be closely monitored and treated, but because these are young and healthy people taking part in the trial, I think, researchers feel comfortable doing so because the risks of death are on par with something like kidney donation for people who are young and healthy,” said Abie Rohrig with 1 Day Sooner.Before researchers test the vaccine, they'll do a characterization study. That's where volunteers are infected by getting a vaccine to determine the right amount of virus to give during the trial.Because of the risk, 1 Day Sooner is advocating for the entire process to be made public.Results could come in May. Even though that's likely after other COVID-19 vaccines are licensed, it's still important because we need billions of doses and because of the unique data human challenge trials provide.“Researchers can understand how the virus works in the human body. They can understand the biological markers of immunity. In fact, much of our understanding of other types of coronaviruses come from challenge studies that were conducted in the 1960s in Britain,” said Rohrig.Human challenge volunteers are paid and monitored for at least a year after. 1722

The Supreme Court appears deeply divided about whether it can address partisan gerrymandering and come up with a standard to decide when politicians go too far in using politics to draw congressional districts that benefit one party over another.Hearing a case on Wednesday challenging a district in Maryland, several of the justices suggested that the issue could be addressed by the courts, but grappled with how to devise a manageable standard to govern future legislative maps.How the court rules could dramatically impact future races, as Democrats try to win back the House amid widespread unhappiness at President Donald Trump. Recently a state court in Pennsylvania redrew congressional districts there, possibly serving to erase the Republicans' 12-6 district advantage.Wednesday's case was brought by a group of Republican voters in Maryland who say Democrats went too far in redrawing districts after the last census.At one point during their one hour of oral arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the court should take the two challenges it has already heard dealing with maps in Wisconsin and Maryland, and another case out of North Carolina and hold arguments again next fall.The suggestion could have interesting implications if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been considering retirement and could be a key vote in the case, were to step down at the end of this term.On the issue of partisan gerrymandering, Breyer acknowledged that there seemed like "a pretty clear violation of the Constitution in some form" but he worried that the court needed a "practical remedy" so that judges would not have to get involved in "dozens and dozens and dozens of very important political decisions."Justice Elena Kagan pointed to the case at hand and said that Democrats had gone "too far" and took a "safe" Republican district and made it into a "pretty safe one" for Democrats. She referenced a deposition that then Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley gave where he said his intent was to create a map "that all things being legal and equal, would nonetheless be more likely to elect more Democrats rather than less."Kagan asked a lawyer for Maryland, "How much more evidence of partisan intent could we need?"Breyer seemed to urge his more conservative colleagues to step in, for the first time, and devise a framework for how to address gerrymandering.Pointing to the particular facts in the case he said, "We will never have such a record again.""What do we do, just say goodbye... forget it," Breyer asked.The challengers say former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley led the charge to redraw the lines to unseat long-time GOP incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. They argue that Democrats diluted the votes of Republicans in the district by moving them to another district that had a safe margin for Democrats.In 2010, Bartlett won his district with by 28 percentage points, but he lost after the new maps were drawn in 2012 by 21 percentage points.But Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be on the other side of the spectrum and said, "Hasn't this Court said time and again you can't take all consideration of partisan advantage out of redistricting?"Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be critical, did not tip his hand but indicated that the current map, no matter what happens in the court, would have to be used in the next cycle.While the Supreme Court has a standard limiting the overreliance on race in map drawing except under the most limited circumstances, it has never been successful in developing a test concerning political gerrymandering. If the justices do come up with a standard, it could reshape the political landscape.In court, Michael Kimberly, a lawyer for the challengers, said that the Democratic politicians violated the free speech rights of voters by retaliating against them based on their party registration and prior voting history.He said that government officials may not "single out" a voter based on the votes he cast before.Maryland Solicitor General Steven Sullivan defended the map and suggested that the courts should stay out of an issue that is "inherently political." He argued that if the challengers prevail in their First Amendment challenge, it will mean that any partisan motive by political players would constitutionally doom all district maps.Justice Neil Gorsuch, appearing to agree with Sullivan, noted that the maps had been approved by the legislature.The challengers suffered a setback in the lower court when a special three-judge panel of federal judges refused to issue a preliminary injunction.Last year, the Supreme Court heard a similar political gerrymandering case in Wisconsin.That case was a statewide challenge brought by Democratic challengers to Republican-drawn state legislative maps. Challengers rely on both the First Amendment charge and say the maps violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.It is unclear why the Supreme Court added the Maryland case to the docket after hearing arguments in the Wisconsin case. 5026

The revolution is coming. The much-anticipated video premiere of “Hamilton” will be available on Disney+ Friday, July 3.Here are the details: The video is 2 hours and 41 minutes long, and includes a minute countdown for intermission. It was recorded using several cameras during two of the last performances of the initial 2016 Broadway run of the hit musical, and includes most of the original cast.It will only be available on the Disney+ streaming service starting at 12 a.m. PT/3 a.m. ET on Friday. Disney is holding a Twitter watch party later in the day at 7 p.m. ET/4 p.m. PT. 591