bs88 slot

PHILADELPHIA — Jack Eichel got the lone goal in the shootout and the Vegas Golden Knights overcame a three-goal deficit to defeat the Philadelphia Flyers 5-4 on Monday night. Ilya Samsonov followed up a 32-save performance by stopping all three shootout attempts. Eichel scored in the second period, and Ivan Barbashev, Pavel Dorofeyev and Tanner Pearson also scored for Vegas, which won its third straight. Emil Andrae scored his first career goal for Philadelphia, and Matvei Michkov netted his eighth goal of the season — the most among NHL rookies. He also leads the NHL in points among rookies with 17. Morgan Frost and Sean Couturier also scored for the Flyers. Ivan Fedotov made 26 saves for Philadelphia, which has lost three of four. Takeaways Golden Knights: Noah Hanifin had a rough night for Vegas, as he was on the ice for all four of Philadelphia's goals. Philadelphia Flyers' Travis Konecny, left, cannot score against Vegas Golden Knights' Ilya Samsonov during a shootout in an NHL hockey game, Monday, Nov. 25, 2024, in Philadelphia. Credit: AP/Matt Slocum Flyers: Frost added an assist on Michkov's goal. It was his second multipoint game of the season. Key moment Frost had a chance to win the game for the Flyers on the power play late in the third period but missed a wide-open net from the doorstep. Vegas was able to keep it tied, killed off another penalty in overtime, and pulled out the victory in the shootout. Key stat Samsonov gave up four goals on the first 14 shots he faced. He then stopped the next 25 shots he faced, including the three in the shootout. He made a sprawling glove save on Travis Sanheim in overtime. Up next The Golden Knights wrap up a five-game road trip in Colorado on Wednesday. The Flyers visit Nashville the same night.

New Democrat Leader Marit Stiles proposed the motion on International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women while the government continues to study an NDP bill introduced last spring to declare an epidemic. Stiles said passing the bill would clear the way for a boost in provincial aid to overcrowded women’s shelters and other programs to fight the violence problem as high housing costs make it difficult for women to leave abusive partners. “They’re just spinning their wheels and it’s really offensive,” Stiles said, noting the NDP’s Bill 173 has been before the legislature’s justice committee since it passed second reading in April. “The reason they will not do this is very simple. They do not want to commit the resources to actually addressing the issue,” she added. Williams said the government is using the committee hearings to come up with a comprehensive plan of action, not just a declaration of an epidemic. So far, the committee has heard input from organizations in the field and will soon hear from victims and survivors. “I’ve worked in the sector for 20 years,” the associate minister added. “We know that there are things that we can be doing. And we’re government, we need to be thinking upstream. I want to address those root causes.” Critics are worried the government will call an next spring, stranding the bill, which the Progressive Conservatives after signalling they would not. “I wish the government had the same sense of urgency for intimate partner violence as it does for booze and bike lanes,” Liberal MPP John Fraser (Ottawa South) said in a reference to the government’s moves to put beer, wine, cider and pre-mixed cocktails into and control where municipalities have special lanes for cyclists. Stiles said the government should be moving to save lives now by implementing from a 2022 coroner’s inquest into the brutal 2015 murders of three women in a one-day killing spree by a shotgun-toting man in eastern Ontario.Uganda’s extractive industry marked a year of significant strides in 2024, with advancements in mining and oil and gas shaping the sector’s outlook. Bolstered by government initiatives, increased investment, and an intensified focus on sustainability, the sector solidified its role as a key driver of economic growth. The country’s mining sector underwent transformative changes, underscored by the establishment of a state-owned mining company to manage government equity in mining operations. The move is part of a broader strategy to maximize resource benefits and improve regulatory oversight. Budgetary allocations for the fiscal year 2024/25 saw Shs 41.55 billion directed to mining initiatives, including the Mineral Resource Infrastructure Development Project (MRIP). This funding aims to enhance infrastructure critical for effective monitoring and regulation. Exploration activities intensified, particularly in the Karamoja region, with significant discoveries of gold and copper positioning Uganda as a contender in the global mineral market. Rising global demand for critical minerals, such as lithium and cobalt, further highlighted Uganda’s potential to play a pivotal role in green technology supply chains. Policy reforms also gained traction. Amendments to the Mining and Minerals Act, 2021, streamlined licensing processes and improved transparency, boosting investor confidence. The Uganda Chamber of Mines & Petroleum (UCMP) continued to facilitate partnerships between foreign investors and local businesses, driving capacity-building initiatives. The oil and gas sector recorded a projected $2.9 billion in capital expenditure for 2024, funding projects such as the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) and the Tilenga and Kingfisher developments, according to Peninah Aheebwa, Director of Economic and National Content Monitoring at the Petroleum Authority of Uganda. EACOP remained central to Uganda’s oil strategy, connecting crude oil from the Albertine region to the Tanzanian port of Tanga. Meanwhile, discussions around securing a refinery investor signaled Uganda’s commitment to adding value to its oil resources. Progress was also evident in the implementation of Uganda’s Energy Transition Plan, unveiled in late 2023. The framework aims to integrate renewable energy sources and leverage hydrocarbon revenues to support the shift to cleaner energy. Collaborative agreements with global energy players showcased Uganda’s strategy to align resource exploitation with environmental commitments. Furthermore, Uganda strengthened its regional ties within the East African Community (EAC) through harmonized policies aimed at sustainable energy development. Cross-border dialogues focused on shared resource management and environmental safeguards, underscoring the importance of collective action in the extractive sector. Enhanced Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) and improved compensation mechanisms for Project-Affected Persons (PAPs) addressed community concerns, although implementation challenges persisted. Demand for critical minerals essential for renewable energy technologies positioned Uganda as a potential key supplier. Increased adoption of technologies like artificial intelligence and blockchain enhanced transparency and operational efficiency, attracting foreign investment and streamlining regulatory compliance. Nevertheless, challenges remain. Infrastructure gaps in remote mining areas continue to hinder resource accessibility and operational efficiency. Experts emphasized the need for investments in education and training to build a skilled local workforce capable of supporting the sector’s growth. As Uganda moves beyond 2024, the extractive sector remains poised for further growth. Strategic investments, policy reforms, and a focus on sustainability will be crucial for unlocking the sector’s full potential.

Falcons predicted to sign former No.2 overall pick in 2025 | Sporting NewsAtlus RPG Unicorn Overlord Is Half Price for Black Friday

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — Google, already facing a possible breakup of the company over its ubiquitous search engine , is fighting to beat back another attack by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging monopolistic conduct, this time over technology that puts online advertising in front of consumers. The Justice Department and Google made closing arguments Monday in a trial alleging Google's advertising technology constitutes an illegal monopoly. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, will decide the case and is expected to issue a written ruling by the end of the year. If Brinkema finds Google has engaged in illegal, monopolistic conduct, she will then hold further hearings to explore what remedies should be imposed. The Justice Department, along with a coalition of states, has already said it believes Google should be forced to sell off parts of its ad tech business, which generates tens of billions of dollars annually for the Mountain View, California-based company. After roughly a month of trial testimony earlier this year, the arguments in the case remain the same. During three hours of arguments Monday, Brinkema, who sometimes tips her hand during legal arguments, did little to indicate how she might rule. She did, though, question the applicability of a key antitrust case Google cites in its defense. The Justice Department contends Google built and maintained a monopoly in “open-web display advertising,” essentially the rectangular ads that appear on the top and right-hand side of the page when one browses websites. Google dominates all facets of the market. A technology called DoubleClick is used pervasively by news sites and other online publishers, while Google Ads maintains a cache of advertisers large and small looking to place their ads on the right webpage in front of the right consumer. In between is another Google product, AdExchange, that conducts nearly instantaneous auctions matching advertisers to publishers. In court papers, Justice Department lawyers say Google “is more concerned with acquiring and preserving its trifecta of monopolies than serving its own publisher and advertiser customers or winning on the merits.” As a result, content providers and news organizations have never been able to generate the online revenue they should due to Google’s excessive fees for brokering transactions between advertisers and publishers, the government says. Google argues the government's case improperly focuses on a narrow niche of online advertising. If one looks more broadly at online advertising to include social media, streaming TV services, and app-based advertising, Google says it controls as little as 10% of the market, a share that is dwindling as it faces increased and evolving competition. Google alleges in court papers that the government’s lawsuit “boil(s) down to the persistent complaints of a handful of Google’s rivals and several mammoth publishers.” Google also says it has invested billions in technology that facilitates the efficient match of advertisers to interested consumers and it should not be forced to share its technology and success with competitors. “Requiring a company to do further engineering work to make its technology and customers accessible by all of its competitors on their preferred terms has never been compelled by U.S. antitrust law,” the company wrote. Brinkema, during Monday's arguments, also sought clarity on Google’s market share, a number the two sides dispute, depending on how broadly the market is defined. Historically, courts have been unwilling to declare an illegal monopoly in markets in which a company holds less than a 70% market share. Google says that when online display advertising is viewed as a whole, it holds only a 10% market share, and dwindling. The Justice Department contends, though, that when focusing on open-web display advertising, Google controls 91% of the market for publisher ad servers and 87% of the market for advertiser ad networks. Google says that the “open web display advertising” market is gerrymandered by the Justice Department to make Google look bad, and that nobody in the industry looks at that category of ads without considering the ability of advertisers to switch to other forms of advertising, like in mobile apps. The Justice Department also contends that the public is harmed by the excessive rates Google charges to facilitate ad purchases, saying the company takes 36 cents on the dollar when it facilitates the transaction end to end. Google says its “take rate” has dropped to 31% and continues to decrease, and it says that rate is lower than that of its competitors. “When you have an integrated system, one of the benefits is lower prices," Google lawyer Karen Dunn said Monday. The Virginia case is separate from an ongoing lawsuit brought against Google in the District of Columbia over its namesake search engine. In that case, the judge determined it constitutes an illegal monopoly but has not decided what remedy to impose. The Justice Department said last week it will seek to force Google to sell its Chrome web browser , among a host of other penalties. Google has said the department's request is overkill and unhinged from legitimate regulation. In Monday's arguments, Justice Department lawyer Aaron Teitelbaum cited the search engine case when he highlighted an email from a Google executive, David Rosenblatt, who said in a 2009 email that Google’s goal was to “do to display what Google did to search," which Teitelbaum said showed the company's intent to achieve market dominance. “Google did not achieve its trifecta of monopolies by accident,” Teitelbaum said.

NoneALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — Google, already facing a possible breakup of the company over its ubiquitous search engine , is fighting to beat back another attack by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging monopolistic conduct, this time over technology that puts online advertising in front of consumers. The Justice Department and Google made closing arguments Monday in a trial alleging Google's advertising technology constitutes an illegal monopoly. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, will decide the case and is expected to issue a written ruling by the end of the year. If Brinkema finds Google has engaged in illegal, monopolistic conduct, she will then hold further hearings to explore what remedies should be imposed. The Justice Department, along with a coalition of states, has already said it believes Google should be forced to sell off parts of its ad tech business, which generates tens of billions of dollars annually for the Mountain View, California-based company. After roughly a month of trial testimony earlier this year, the arguments in the case remain the same. During three hours of arguments Monday, Brinkema, who sometimes tips her hand during legal arguments, did little to indicate how she might rule. She did, though, question the applicability of a key antitrust case Google cites in its defense. The Justice Department contends Google built and maintained a monopoly in “open-web display advertising,” essentially the rectangular ads that appear on the top and right-hand side of the page when one browses websites. Google dominates all facets of the market. A technology called DoubleClick is used pervasively by news sites and other online publishers, while Google Ads maintains a cache of advertisers large and small looking to place their ads on the right webpage in front of the right consumer. In between is another Google product, AdExchange, that conducts nearly instantaneous auctions matching advertisers to publishers. In court papers, Justice Department lawyers say Google “is more concerned with acquiring and preserving its trifecta of monopolies than serving its own publisher and advertiser customers or winning on the merits.” As a result, content providers and news organizations have never been able to generate the online revenue they should due to Google’s excessive fees for brokering transactions between advertisers and publishers, the government says. Google argues the government's case improperly focuses on a narrow niche of online advertising. If one looks more broadly at online advertising to include social media, streaming TV services, and app-based advertising, Google says it controls as little as 10% of the market, a share that is dwindling as it faces increased and evolving competition. Google alleges in court papers that the government’s lawsuit “boil(s) down to the persistent complaints of a handful of Google’s rivals and several mammoth publishers.” Google also says it has invested billions in technology that facilitates the efficient match of advertisers to interested consumers and it should not be forced to share its technology and success with competitors. “Requiring a company to do further engineering work to make its technology and customers accessible by all of its competitors on their preferred terms has never been compelled by U.S. antitrust law,” the company wrote. Brinkema, during Monday's arguments, also sought clarity on Google’s market share, a number the two sides dispute, depending on how broadly the market is defined. Historically, courts have been unwilling to declare an illegal monopoly in markets in which a company holds less than a 70% market share. Google says that when online display advertising is viewed as a whole, it holds only a 10% market share, and dwindling. The Justice Department contends, though, that when focusing on open-web display advertising, Google controls 91% of the market for publisher ad servers and 87% of the market for advertiser ad networks. Google says that the “open web display advertising” market is gerrymandered by the Justice Department to make Google look bad, and that nobody in the industry looks at that category of ads without considering the ability of advertisers to switch to other forms of advertising, like in mobile apps. The Justice Department also contends that the public is harmed by the excessive rates Google charges to facilitate ad purchases, saying the company takes 36 cents on the dollar when it facilitates the transaction end to end. Google says its “take rate” has dropped to 31% and continues to decrease, and it says that rate is lower than that of its competitors. “When you have an integrated system, one of the benefits is lower prices," Google lawyer Karen Dunn said Monday. The Virginia case is separate from an ongoing lawsuit brought against Google in the District of Columbia over its namesake search engine. In that case, the judge determined it constitutes an illegal monopoly but has not decided what remedy to impose. The Justice Department said last week it will seek to force Google to sell its Chrome web browser , among a host of other penalties. Google has said the department's request is overkill and unhinged from legitimate regulation. In Monday's arguments, Justice Department lawyer Aaron Teitelbaum cited the search engine case when he highlighted an email from a Google executive, David Rosenblatt, who said in a 2009 email that Google’s goal was to “do to display what Google did to search," which Teitelbaum said showed the company's intent to achieve market dominance. “Google did not achieve its trifecta of monopolies by accident,” Teitelbaum said.

From sex drive woes to cheating and porn addiction, Dear Deidre reveals readers’ most common problems of 2024

Previous: 88 - 64
Next: hk88 pasay