上海看腰疼最好的医院是哪家(上海颈椎病引起头痛怎么治疗最好的方法) (今日更新中)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Six Russian military officers sought to use computer hacking to disrupt the French election, the Winter Olympics in South Korea and U.S. businesses.That's according to a Justice Department indictment unsealed Monday that details attacks on a broad range of political, financial and athletic targets.While announcing the charges at a press conference, Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers called the officers’ actions “the most disruptive and destructive” computer attacks ever attributed to a single group. Demers said no country has weaponized its cyber capabilities as maliciously and irresponsibly as Russia, “wantonly causing unprecedented collateral damage to pursue small tactical advantages and to satisfy fits of spite.” All the defendants are alleged intelligence officers in the Russian military agency known as the GRU. The DOJ previously charged members of the same unit, also known to cybersecurity researchers as “Sandworm Team,” for their role in Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections. Though, the new indictment doesn't charge the officers in connection with the interference in the U.S. elections.The indictment also accuses the defendants in destructive attacks on Ukraine’s power grid. “These were the first reported destructive malware attacks against the control systems of civilian critical infrastructure,” said Demers. “These attacks turned out the lights and turned off the heat in the middle of the Eastern European winter, as the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men, women and children went dark and cold.” From there, Demers says the conspirators’ “destructive path” widened to encompass “virtually the whole world.” The conspirators allegedly unleashed the “NotPetya” malware, which was reportedly designed to bring down entire networks in seconds and searching for remote computer connections through which to attack additional innocent victims. “The entirely foreseeable result was that the worm quickly spread globally, shutting down companies and inflicting immense financial harm,” said Demers. “This irresponsible conduct impaired the ability of companies in critical sectors, such as transportation and health, to provide services to the public–not only in Ukraine, but as far away as Western Pennsylvania."Demers says the malware led to monetary losses of nearly billion. Next, officials say the conspirators then turned their sights on the Winter Olympics. “The conspirators, feeling the embarrassment of international penalties related to Russia’s state-sponsored doping program, i.e., cheating, took it upon themselves to undermine the games,” said Demers. “Their cyber-attack combined the emotional maturity of a petulant child with the resources of a nation state.” The officers are accused of conducting spear phishing campaigns against South Korea, the host of the 2018 games, as well as the International Olympic Committee, Olympic partners, and athletes. Then, during the opening ceremony, they allegedly launched the “Olympic Destroyer” malware attack, which deleted data from thousands of computers supporting the Games, rendering them inoperable. The officers are also accused of supporting a hack-and-leak operation in the days leading up to the 2017 French elections, with attacks directed at the political party of French President Emmanuel Macron. “This indictment lays bare Russia’s use of its cyber capabilities to destabilize and interfere with the domestic political and economic systems of other countries, thus providing a cold reminder of why its proposal is nothing more than dishonest rhetoric and cynical and cheap propaganda,” said Demers. 3669

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In small to large protests, Americans from coast to coast are exercising their right to free expression. In some cases, though, protests that started out peaceful have turned violent.“Injured three people, cuts and bruises,” said Mat Davis, a protester in Indianapolis, who saw a vehicle strike several protesters. “It was bad.”In Michigan, Bailee Majeske experienced a protest get out of hand.“There was a lot of rioting, just cars parked in the street were getting smashed,” she said, “and then there was a brick thrown at my head and my friend was stabbed.”So, what happens if you are injured during civil unrest? Getting medical attention is a first priority but knowing exactly what your health insurance covers is key.“You'd need to know what is in the policy - what is covered and especially what is not covered,” said Ray Farmer, who heads up the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). “If a protest happens to turn violent and include some rioting, I think that would be extremely difficult for an insurance company to prove that those injuries occurred due to an excluded act, even if the policy had such a provision.”Some policies, though, do have exclusions, like if you take part in “illegal acts” or participate in “civil unrest.” How that’s specifically defined would be up to an insurer, but it could range from vandalism and property damage to violating a community’s established curfew, or failing to leave an area if police order you to do so.However, Farmer says there are some things a consumer should be aware of, in the event they are denied coverage for the treatment of injuries sustained during civil unrest. One – ask the insurance company to point out the specific language being used to deny a claim, and two – reach out to your state’s department of insurance for help navigating the process.“That's our job is to regulate the insurance industry, but more importantly to protect consumers,” he said.While Farmer said there are no reports of protesters’ claims being denied so far, before it even gets to that point, it’s important understand the details in your health insurance coverage.“You certainly don't want any surprises,” he said.As for those who have been caught by surprise, there’s some advice from them, as well.“If you notice there are riots breaking out, it may be time to go home and support from a distance,” Majeske said.For more information on your state’s Department of Insurance, click here. 2485

WASHINGTON, D.C. – One of the most contentious battles in politics isn’t just the current battle for the White House, it’s also the upcoming battle over who could ultimately end up in the halls of Congress and state capitols everywhere, in a process called redistricting.“The basic idea underlying that system is that we should form a constituency with people who live near us,” said Charles Blahous, a senior research strategist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia.New district maps are created based on census population numbers every 10 years. Yet, those maps can end up getting distorted to favor one political party over another when gerrymandering comes in to play.“I think gerrymandering is of concern to most voters because it seems to violate the foundational principle of our representative system, which is that we are divided into districts geographically,” Blahous said.Geography is something gerrymandering throws out the window. Some of the unusual congressional district maps can end up looking like animals.There is Maryland’s Democratic 3rd district, which looks like a snake, stretching from Baltimore into counties south. There is also northern Ohio’s Republican 4th district, known as “the duck.”So, who designed these?“The Constitution gives the power to state legislatures to draw these maps,” Blahous said.Since politicians draw the maps, they can be skewed to favor a particular party or incumbent. However, they can also be used to favor people from a particular racial or ethnic group, who have often been under-represented in the halls of power, in order to comply with federal Voting Rights Act rules on representation.Still, there are now efforts to take the map drawing out of the hands of politicians.In Virginia, voters will decide this November whether an independent commission should be in charge of the process instead. There are other ideas emerging, too: like using artificial intelligence to make the maps.“It takes an enormous computer capacity, which was not there 30 years ago, and writing the programming to make that all happen is also not a trivial matter,” said political science professor Bruce Cain, director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West at Stanford University.Prof. Cain said he and a colleague, Prof. Wendy Tam Cho of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, believe an algorithm they’ve developed might be the best alternative for making fairer maps.“What you want to be able to do is take every plan and classify it and say, ‘yeah, this one's better for minorities, this one's better for compactness,’ but is there something that combines both of them?” he said.It is all part of the ongoing effort to make sure America’s representative democracy remains truly representative of the people. 2801

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to maintain its restrictive policy on refugees.The justices on Tuesday agreed to an administration request to block a lower court ruling that would have eased the refugee ban and allowed up to 24,000 refugees to enter the country before the end of October.RELATED:  352

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Two conservative Supreme Court justices are taking aim at the landmark case that legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. in 2015.Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito released a four-page opinion Monday about the religious liberty implications from the Obergefell v. Hodges decision.Thomas and Alito argue that the decision threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a “sacred institution” between a man and woman.“Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws,” wrote the justices.Thomas and Alito were among the four justices who voted against legalizing same-sex marriage five years ago, arguing that it should have been left to the states to the decide.“If the states had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs,” they wrote.Monday’s opinion came as the court declined to hear the case involving Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who made headlines in 2015 as she declined marriage licenses to gay couples, despite the Supreme Court ruling. Thomas wrote that he agreed with not taking up the case, because it didn’t “cleanly present” important questions raised about Obergefell v. Hodges.In their opinion, Thomas and Alito say Davis may have been “one of the first victims” of the court’s “cavalier treatment of religion” in the Obergefell decision, but she won’t be the last.They claim, “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”Thomas and Alito ended the opinion saying the court’s decision in the Obergefell case has “created a problem that only it can fix,” suggesting there’s a possibility the justices could move to overturn the 2015 decision.This comes weeks after the death of liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans are working hard to appoint Judge Amy Coney Barrett to that seat, which would give conservatives a 6-3 majority. 2300

来源：资阳报