徐州怀孕什么时候做四维操(徐州那几家可以做四维彩超) (今日更新中)

ENCINITAS, Calif. (KGTV) - A 13-year-old boy suffered burns to his face after a science experiment at Capri Elementary School in Encinitas went awry.Priest Rivera, a 6th-grade student, said a teacher was attempting to show a group of students an experiment known as the “black snake” or “carbon snake” when it exploded in his face.The experiment involves mixing sugar and baking soda with a flammable liquid and lighting it on fire to create a snake-like reaction.Rivera said the teacher told them to stand in a semi-circle around her on the field as she lit the experiment on fire.“The teacher kept on pouring more rubbing alcohol onto the flame itself because the flame wasn’t building up,” said Rivera.That’s about all he remembers before waking up in an ambulance with a sharp pain all over his face.“My face was constantly burning and burning,” he said. “I still feel it right now.”He spent six days in the hospital and underwent four surgeries, according to his mom Gina Rivera.“It was just hell,” she said about the experience. “He kept saying, ‘mom am I going to go blind?’”Priest kept his eyesight but two weeks after the accident, still had bandages around his face to protect the burn areas.Gina said it’s still unclear how bad the injuries will end up being though she said the effects will be long-lasting. “It has halted his life. It’s changed his life,” she said.The outgoing superintendent of the Encinitas Union School District, Timothy Baird, told 10News they could not comment on any specifics because the incident involved a student. Though, he did say the district is investigating what happened.The Rivera family has hired a lawyer and plans to sue the district. 1692

ESCONDIDO (KGTV) -- Hundreds of North County school children were surprised Thursday with a new book for National Reading Day, along with a visit from Clifford the Big Red Dog. 10News employees, with help from the Scripps Howard Foundation, donated 3,000 books to elementary schools in Fallbrook and Escondido. It was the most books ever donated by the station in the annual “If You Give a Child a Book…” campaign, and nearly twice as many as last year, said Community Outreach & PR Manager Patty Thompson.Kindergartners and first graders at Live Oak Elementary in Fallbrook and Farr Avenue Elementary in Escondido lined up to greet Clifford and pick out a book of their own. Other books will be donated to libraries in the districts, Thompson said.At Live Oak Elementary, one girl picked out a new book about Barbie. “I like to read because sometimes, when it’s a fairy tale, it can take you to magical places,” she said.“A lot of these kids can’t afford books,” said Live Oak Elementary librarian Stacey Regotti.Farr Avenue principal Lizeth Lopez said encouraging students to read early is critical.“Data shows that if we can’t get our kids to read by third grade, their future may be limited,” she said. “So starting at 4, 5, and 6 years old is when we can catch them.”10News is owned by the E.W. Scripps Company. Scripps-owned stations across the country took part in Thursday’s event, distributing more than 172,000 books to children in need. The company’s corporate foundation, the Scripps Howard Foundation, matched donations by Scripps employees.The San Diego County Office of Education and Scholastic Book Fairs of San Diego also contributed to the book giveaways in the North County. 1705

Federal immigration agents detained more than 100 people suspected of using fraudulent identification documents to get jobs at a trailer manufacturer in North Texas, authorities said.Agents from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations went to Load Trail in Sumner, Texas to execute criminal search warrants Tuesday.Katrina W. Berger, special agent in charge of HSI's Dallas office, said the raid occurred after they received information that the company hired undocumented immigrants who used fraudulent identification documents.CNN has reached out to Load Trail for comment, but has not heard back. The company describes itself as family-owned and operated, with more than 500 employees. 730

FALLBROOK (KGTV) - Fallbrook neighbors upset Saturday night after they were without power for 24-hours, caused by the storm.UPDATE: The power was restored around 7 a.m. Sunday morning."It was like a combination of a whip cracking and it just kept going and growling," Will Anderson said.Just next door you can see his neighbor has their lights on, but Anderson is one of the seven homes down his street without power. 430

Even during this time of strong political divisiveness, lawmakers agree there should be changes to Section 230. Congressional committees have subpoenaed the CEOs and heads of major tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google multiple times to answer questions about possible bias, eliminating competition, allowing misinformation to flourish, etc., all trying to get to the heart of what should be done about Section 230.So, what is it?Section 230 refers to a section of just 26 words within the 1996 Communications Decency Act.It reads: “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”This particular section makes it so internet companies are generally exempt from liability for the material users post on their networks.Which means, if a news website article makes false malicious statements about a person, that person can sue the publication for libel. However, if that article is posted on social media and spread to hundreds of thousands of people, the person can only sue the individual who posted the article and cannot hold the social media company responsible for spreading the article.The wording of Section 230 also allows internet companies, and more specifically social platforms, to moderate their content by removing or censoring posts that are obscene, violent or otherwise violate that specific platform’s terms of service and standards, so long as the social platform is acting in “Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.This has allowed online social platforms to grow and thrive, offering a space for users to share their thoughts and opinions, without the fear that those thoughts and opinions will get the platform in trouble. The wording for Section 230 came from established case law, including a Supreme Court ruling in the middle part of the 20th Century, which held that bookstore owners cannot be held liable for selling books containing what some might consider obscene content. The Supreme Court said it would create a “chilling effect” if someone was held responsible for someone else’s content.“Today it protects both from liability for user posts as well as liability for any clams for moderating content,” said Jeff Kosseff, who wrote a book about Section 230 and how it created the internet as it is today.President Donald Trump in May signed an executive order that would clarify the scope of the immunity internet companies receive under Section 230.“Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse,” the order reads.One of the issues raised in the executive order is the question of when does a social platform become a so-called “publisher” by making editorial decisions about the content on the platform. Those decisions include controlling the content allowed on the platform, what gets censored, and creating algorithms that spread certain content further or faster.Content publishers are held to different rules and responsibilities by the Federal Communications Commission. News publishers can be held liable for the content they share on their platform, either in print or online.The president’s executive order came after Twitter started adding a fact-check warning to his tweets that contain false or misleading information. The executive order does not allow the president to change the law, but rather encourages his administration to take a look at Section 230.Lawmakers on both sides have concerns about how social platforms are abusing the protection they receive under Section 230, and have held several committee meetings.Many experts agree Section 230 cannot just be removed.If social platforms are suddenly held responsible for the content on their sites, there could be a whole new level of moderation and censorship as they clamp down on anything remotely controversial and unproven - possibly including some of the president’s own posts.Instead, lawmakers are investigating what changes, if any, could be made to Section 230 to offer clarity for both users and internet companies, as well as set boundaries for potential liability. 4178

来源：资阳报