渭南学校专业联系电话济源市高三复读正规提分快,漯河应届生正规价格,长安区高一补习班排名,汉中高二升学率哪里好,汉中高一高中复读有哪些,汉中补习正规升学率,漯河高三学校靠谱的成绩好

We all know weddings are expensive. Food, drinks, hiring a DJ, and renting a venue are just among the many costs a couple are expected to pay for. But what if a couple asks for some help on wedding costs? One couple in England are asking for their guests to cover wedding expenses, according to the BBC. Ben Farina told the BBC that their wedding will be "like an all-inclusive holiday" for those attending and paying ￡150 (2 US).Nearly 60 adult guests, along with 20 of their children, have agreed to attend and chip in. In return, guests will receive a three-night stay at a venue which has a spa and pool. According to the BBC, the venue in Derbyshire, England will cost nearly ,500, which is exactly how much the couple is expecting to receive from their guests. The couple have agreed to pay ,000 for drinks, dresses and suits. The groom's mother and father are also chipping in to pay for a hog roast. Farina's stepfather is a chef, and has agreed to cook the hog roast. "People always pay a large amount of money to go to a wedding anyway, so why not have it paying towards the actual wedding rather than just to a business owner?" Farina told the BBC."I sold it to them a bit like an all-inclusive holiday, so all the food and drinks will be incorporated in that cost.Farina's fiancee is on board with the idea. "I never thought we would be able to have a wedding like this," Clare Moran told the BBC. "We had spoken about marriage because we've got a little girl together and I always said we wouldn't be able to afford to do it, or it would have to be a registry office wedding, not a big wedding.RELATED: Will it rain on my wedding day? 1728

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Democratic lawmakers in both chambers of Congress are introducing a bill that would ban the federal government from using biometric technology, including facial recognition technology.The bill would also effectively strip federal support for state and local law enforcement entities that use biometric technology. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass) is joining forces with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) to introduce the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act in the House and Senate.This measure comes amid growing calls from civil rights advocates who say facial recognition technology disproportionately misidentifies non-white individuals. It’s the first bicameral piece of legislation introduced that focuses on the tech since police brutality protests began about a month ago.In a press release, Markey cited a growing body a research that points to inaccuracy and bias issues with these technologies, which pose disproportionate risks to people of color.Markey points to a National Institute of Standards and Technology report on facial recognition tools that found Black, Brown and Asian people were up to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than white male faces.The bill’s introduction comes just one day after the ACLU amplified the story of a Black man in the Detroit area who says he was wrongfully arrested after this kind of technology misidentified him as a man seen stealing ,800 worth of watches.Specifically, the proposed legislation would do the following:Place a prohibition on the use of facial recognition technology by federal entities, which can only be lifted with an act of Congress;Place a prohibition on the use of other biometric technologies, including voice recognition, gate recognition, and recognition of other immutable physical characteristics, by federal entities, which can only be lifted with an act of Congress;Condition federal grant funding to state and local entities, including law enforcement, on those entities enacting their own moratoria on the use of facial recognition and biometric technology;Prohibit the use of federal dollars for biometric surveillance systems;Prohibit the use of information collected via biometric technology in violation of the Act in any judicial proceedings;Includes a private right of action for individuals whose biometric data is used in violation of the Act and allows for enforcement by state Attorneys General; andAllow states and localities to enact their own laws regarding the use of facial recognition and biometric technologies.“Facial recognition technology doesn’t just pose a grave threat to our privacy, it physically endangers Black Americans and other minority populations in our country,” said Markey. “As we work to dismantle the systematic racism that permeates every part of our society, we can’t ignore the harms that these technologies present. I’ve spent years pushing back against the proliferation of facial recognition surveillance systems because the implications for our civil liberties are chilling and the disproportionate burden on communities of color is unacceptable. In this moment, the only responsible thing to do is to prohibit government and law enforcement from using these surveillance mechanisms. I thank Representatives Jayapal and Pressley and Senator Merkley for working with me on this critical legislation.” 3433

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials say the Pentagon is developing plans to withdraw up to half of the 14,000 American troops serving in Afghanistan, marking a sharp change in the Trump administration's policy aimed at forcing the Taliban to the peace table after more than 17 years of war.One official says the troops could be out by summer, but no final decision has been made.President Donald Trump has long pressed to pull troops out of Afghanistan, but was persuaded by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and others to keep them there to pressure the Taliban and battle a stubborn Islamic State insurgency.Officials say the latest White House push for withdrawal was another key factor in Mattis' decision to resign Thursday.The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. 809

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Election Day is less than 50 days away, but results from the election could take a lot longer.That's because a record number of voters are voting by mail this election and different states have different rules regarding when those ballots can be opened and processed. Absentee ballots or mail-in ballots generally take a lot longer to count compared to in-person voting machines, because ballots need to be opened and scanned. For instance, in the crucial swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, ballots can't be opened until Election Day. That differs from other states, like Colorado, which can open ballots as they come into election offices. That means it will take election officials in those swing states a herculean effort to process and scan ballots to get accurate results by the end of election night. Each state is facing either pending legislation at their State Capitol or various lawsuits asking the rules be changed. Those aren't the only reasons results may be delayed. In many states, like North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada and Minnesota, ballots are allowed to be postmarked on Election Day. That means it may take a few days to arrive to an election office. "I think we are looking at five to seven days to roughly a week," said Ted Trimpa, a political consultant. "The challenge is you are going to have so many states doing mail-in ballots that have never done mail ballots," Trimpa said. And it may not just be swing states that are the issue.In New York, a state that will almost certainty vote Democrat, primary results from earlier this year took four weeks in some cases. Henry Rosoff, a political reporter with WPIX in New York City, explained New York law requires 48 hours to pass after the election before absentee ballots can be counted. "We are not going to even begin to count half of our votes until 48 hours after Election Day," Rosoff said. "If we were a swing state, it would seem absolutely outrageous," Rosoff said. 1994

WELLINGTON, Florida — Imagine going to the hospital to have back surgery, only to wake up and learn one of your major organs was mistakenly removed.That nightmare was a reality for one West Palm Beach, Florida woman at Wellington Regional Medical Center.“It was an ordinary day," described Maureen Pacheco, who was 51 when it happened back in April 2016.Pacheco was suffering from back pains from a car accident and after a lengthy process and diagnosis from her doctors, she was checked into Wellington Regional to have back surgery to help with the pains.“There was no red flags or anything," she said of the day she went into the operating room.But she ended leaving the hospital without one of her healthy kidneys. One of the surgeons, Dr. Ramon Vazquez, mistook it for a cancerous tumor and removed it from her body without her consent.“He just took my life and just dismissed it," said Pacheco.Pacheco recently settled in a lawsuit against her doctors  -- Dr. John Britt and Dr. Jeffrey Kugler -- and Dr. Vazquez.However, a complaint by the Florida Department of Health is still ongoing. Adding to the frustration, Pacheco says Dr. Vazquez wasn't even her doctor -- his job was just to cut her open so her physicians could perform the back surgery.“If he would have looked at the MRIs that were given to him, he would’ve realized it," she said. According to the state's?health department website, Dr. Vazquez has an active medical license. The site shows him practicing at with Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, St. Mary's Medical Center and Good Samaritan Hospital in West Palm Beach, and Bethesda Memorial Hospital in Boynton Beach.“Physicians do get second chances," said Pacheco's attorney, Donald Ward III of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA in West Palm Beach.“It’s unlikely that he would lose his license over something like this. What is most likely is that he would face a fine and possibly be required to do some continuing medical education so that he could learn not to make the same mistake in the future," he added.Ward said Dr. Vazquez would have to pay that fine out of pocket because he didn’t have malpractice insurance.“What is not common is for you to meet that general surgeon the morning of and be told that if something were to happen to you, that general surgeon doesn’t carry any health insurance whatsoever," he said.Dr. Vazquez's attorney, Mike Mittelmark, said his client settled the matter for a nominal amount due to the uncertainty of litigation. He added that in no way did Dr. Vazquez admit liability by agreeing to the settlement.“I wish no ill will against him. Everyone is entitled to their livelihood but you should have consequences when gross mistakes and negligence are made," said Pacheco. “I just wish that he learns a lesson from the consequences."Pacheco said no amount of money will fix the complications she faces for the rest of her life.“It’s always in the back of my mind -- lifelong kidney transplant or dialysis," she said. “Now, I’m always fearful.”Wellington Regional Medical Center issued this statement in response to WPTV's request for comment: 3147