蕾妮·索莫菲尔德： 2025-07-27 18:22:56

　　通过集群协力，甚至还能倒逼应用手艺以致原创手艺的降生

希泰·亚伯拉： 2025-07-27 18:23:46

Thus independence is something very important and greatly cherished by all Latin Americans. We consider that they must preserve it, because the United States will not stop working to topple any independent government that represents the great majorities in each country in this region.

MacLellan： 2025-07-27 18:23:10

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday joined a growing chorus warning that the solution, which he called “the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” could be on the verge of permanent collapse. The solution has for decades been the primary focus of efforts to achieve peace in the conflict, but the contours of what it would actually look like — and why it has been so hard to achieve — can get lost. Here’s a basic guide. It helps to start with the problem the solution is meant to address: the conflict. At its most basic level, the conflict is about how or whether to divide territory between two peoples. The territory question is also wrapped up in other overlapping but distinct issues: whether the Palestinian territories can become an independent state and how to resolve years of violence that include the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the partial Israeli blockade of Gaza and Palestinian violence against Israelis. The solution would establish an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel — two states for two peoples. In theory, this would win Israel security and allow it to retain a Jewish demographic majority (letting the country remain Jewish and democratic) while granting the Palestinians a state. Most governments and world bodies have set achievement of the solution as official policy, including the United States, the United Nations, the Palestinian Authority and Israel. This goal has been the basis of peace talks for decades. There are four issues that have proved most challenging. Each comes down to a set of bedrock demands between the two sides that, in execution, often appear to be mutually exclusive. 1. Borders: There is no consensus about precisely where to draw the line. Generally, most believe the border would follow the lines before the war of 1967, but with Israel keeping some of the land where it has built settlements and in exchange providing other land to the Palestinians to compensate. Israel has constructed barriers along and within the West Bank that many analysts worry create a de facto border, and it has built settlements in the West Bank that will make it difficult to establish that land as part of an independent Palestine. As time goes on, settlements grow, theoretically making any future Palestinian state smaller and possibly breaking it up into noncontiguous pieces. 2. Jerusalem: Both sides claim Jerusalem as their capital and consider it a center of religious worship and cultural heritage. The solution typically calls for dividing it into an Israeli West and a Palestinian East, but it is not easy to draw the line — Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy sites are on top of one another. Israel has declared Jerusalem its “undivided capital,” effectively annexing its eastern half, and has built up construction that entrenches Israeli control of the city. 3. Refugees: Large numbers of Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes in what is now Israel, primarily during the 1948 war that came after Israel’s creation. They and their descendants now number five million and believe they deserve the right to return. This is a nonstarter for Israel: Too many returnees would end Jews’ demographic majority and therefore Israel’s status as both a Jewish and a democratic state. 4. Security: For Palestinians, security means an end to foreign military occupation. For Israelis, this means avoiding a takeover of the West Bank by a group like Hamas that would threaten Israelis (as happened in Gaza after Israel’s 2005 withdrawal). It also means keeping Israel defensible against foreign armies, which often means requiring a continued Israeli military presence in parts of the West Bank. There is plenty of blame to go around. The Palestinian leadership is divided between two governments that cannot come to terms. The leadership in the West Bank lacks the political legitimacy to make but necessary concessions, and the leadership in Gaza does not even recognize Israel, whose citizens it frequently attacks. The United States, which has brokered talks for years, has taken more than a few missteps. And most important, the current Israeli leadership, though it nominally supports a solution, appears to oppose it in practice. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister since 2009, endorsed the solution in a speech that year. But he continued to expand West Bank settlements and, in 2015, said there would be “no withdrawals” and “no concessions. ” Mr. Netanyahu appears personally skeptical of Palestinian independence. His fragile governing coalition also relies on parties that are skeptical of or outright oppose the solution. Israeli public pressure for a peace deal has declined. The reasons are complex: demographic changes, an increasingly powerful settler movement, outrage at Palestinian attacks such as a recent spate of stabbings, and bitter memories of the Second Intifada in the early 2000s, which saw frequent bus and cafe bombings. And the status quo has, for most Israelis, become relatively peaceful and bearable. Many see little incentive for adopting a risky and uncertain solution, leaving Mr. Netanyahu with scant reason to risk his political career on one. There are, but they involve such drastic costs that the United States and many other governments consider all but the solution unacceptable. There are multiple versions of the solution, which would join all territories as one nation. One version would grant equal rights to all in a state that would be neither Jewish nor Palestinian in character, because neither group would have a clear majority. Skeptics fear this would risk internal instability or even a return to war. Another, advocated by some on the Israeli far right, would establish one state but preserve Israel’s Jewish character by denying full rights to Palestinians. Under this version, Israel would no longer be a democratic state. With few viable or popular alternatives, the most likely choice may be to simply maintain the status quo — though few believe that is possible in the long term. A common prediction, as Mr. Kerry stated, is that Israel will be forced to choose between the two core components of its national identity: Jewish and democratic. This choice, rather than coming in one decisive moment, would probably play out in many small choices over a process of years. For instance, a 2015 poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 74 percent of Jewish Israelis agreed that “decisions crucial to the state on issues of peace and security should be made by a Jewish majority. ” That pollster also found that, from 2010 to 2014, Jewish Israelis became much less likely to say that Israel should be “Jewish and democratic,” with growing factions saying that it should be democratic first or, slightly more popular, Jewish first. Many analysts also worry that the West Bank government, whose scant remaining legitimacy rests on delivering a peace deal, will collapse. This would force Israel to either tolerate chaos in the West Bank and a possible Hamas takeover or enforce a more direct form of occupation that would be costlier to both parties. This risk of increased suffering, along with perhaps permanent setbacks in the national ambitions of both Palestinians and Israelis, is why Nathan Thrall, a analyst with the International Crisis Group, told me last year, “Perpetuating the status quo is the most frightening of the possibilities. ”

马里科-凯伯拉格特-凯伯： 2025-07-27 18:23:37

As Missouri lawmakers convene for the 2017 legislative session, they will consider legislation that holds businesses liable for injuries against concealed carry permit holders who are disarmed via the businesses’ policies. [The bill is sponsored by state Missouri Representative Mike Moon ( Grove) and “would cover employees as well as customers. ” In effect, it puts the onus on the business owner, so that when he decides customers and employees must be disarmed on premises, he also accepts full responsibility for their safety. The Joplin Globe reported the bill this way: Moon’s bill would hold private businesses that prohibit guns liable for the safety of anyone who is legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon but is prevented from doing so by the business and who suffers injury or other “compensable” damage in an attack in which the permit holder could theoretically have defended himself if he had been allowed to keep his weapon on him. The bill is directed toward “private, commercial businesses. ” Moon believes the legislation is necessary because an unarmed concealed carry permit holder has no “promise of success” should he or she be inside a business when an attack occurs. Moon explained: Kind of where this thing started was with business owners who were adamantly opposed to those who carry firearms. What would happen if a third party came on and committed a crime and there was bodily injuries sustained to the patrons? Who is liable? And as I’m talking to legal minds — attorneys particularly — apparently there’s still a lot of gray area there on who’s actually responsible. I believe that the third party is responsible but apparently there are some unanswered questions and so hopefully this bill will reveal some of those. AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of “Bullets with AWR Hawkins,” a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart. com.

朱家臣： 2025-07-27 18:22:55

　　目今，全球每3人中就有1人无法获得清静饮用水
。数据显示，到2025年，全球将有35亿人面临缺水，到2050年，全天下将有57亿人每年至少有一个月遭遇严重缺水
。

陈映如： 2025-07-27 18:23:48

相比市面上已有的AI產品，或者像通用的ChatGPT，你的產品需要能夠產生增量價值，提供ChatGPT做不到的，或者做起來體驗欠好的功效，這才是增量價值