手机最快开奖结果官网

记者左瑞报道? ?0比0，升班马云南玉昆客场再取1分，自?身获得?更大缓冲的同时，还把敌手长春亚泰继续按在保级高危害地带。这是他们晋级中超以来，第一次客场零失球。对这场“很有时机拿下”的角逐以平手收场，主教练安德森颇有不甘，?但他体现能在长春客场拿到一分“也是可以接受的”。事实，平手不但磨炼了更多球员，也收获了更多自信。

更多的客场积分 

?

? 本轮对亚泰，是玉昆9天内的一连第三个客场赛事。之前他们先是1比3送给了三镇赛季第一个3分，接着又从蓉城身上抢得一场名贵的平手。先锋恩里克在武汉打入了一个聊胜于无的点球，4天后，中场侯永永在成都攻进一个扳平比分的扫射——同样是当事人的处子进球，当它又一次爆发在邻近终场时，不但是有无积分进账的区别，更主要的是这样的进球鼓舞人心，彰显了球队不平的斗志。

本轮角逐，是玉昆升入中超后空间距离最远、在外漂浮时间最久的一次远征，也是他们首次在白天时段角逐。赛前，安德森再次肯定了成都之行首次从强队身上取分的意义，希望球队继续坚持拼搏精神，起劲争取“从客场拿到更多的分数”。

?

开场后，安德森派出的阵?容与上一轮相?近：徐?宏杰、马丁内斯、弋腾、李松益组成后防地；攻击型中场约尼查继续坐替补席，队?长赵宇豪和内内形成中路纵深，侯永永和叶楚贵活动在左右两侧；恩里克和奥斯卡仍是客队最信任的锋线同伴。

更强的求胜欲望 

上半场不到4分钟，葡萄牙中场内内用左脚踢出一记漂亮的弧线球，但被主队门将吴亚轲飞扑化解。以后，玉昆虽在控球方面略占优势，但亚泰获得了更多的射门时机。第24分钟和第30分?钟，亚泰两次打出高质量进攻，贝里奇的射门让门将马镇做了两次精彩扑救。第39分钟，奥斯卡用一记头球做了回手。

下半场，由于马丁内斯受伤离场，亚泰旧将韩子龙暂时上阵，叶楚贵的位置也举行了响应调解。第49分钟，又是贝里奇在禁区外鼎力大举远射，这一次，马镇的扑救已经于事无补，但门柱挡出了亚泰最有希望的一次得分时机。

第70分钟，安德森用罗竞换下恩里克，迪力穆拉提顶替叶楚贵进场。几名体力充分的生力军?上阵，玉昆用进攻缓解了后防压力。第87分钟，李彪、尹聪耀上场，换下体力下降的侯永永和内内。这让玉昆得以继续增添活力以攻代守，继续向敌手施以足够的压力。

补时阶?段，面临防守强硬究竟、进攻绝不收手的敌手，主队门将吴亚轲也不得倒运用规则，使出“慢行动”延缓接球和开球的时间。终场哨响前，韩子龙主罚的恣意球冲向横梁上空，客队进攻宣告竣事。

? 安德森赛后肯定了球?队的整体体现和执行力，尤其是球队依赖榨取创立出来的一些时机，“若是掌握好了，是可以拿下角逐的。”

更好的助威选择 

关于下半场的进攻没能酿成进球，赵宇豪以为运气差了一点，但全队上下先把防守做好，这一点照旧“很棒的”。

竣事三连客，获得2分，玉?昆的这次远征有所收获。本周五，他们将在?玉溪迎来与海港的硬仗。

届时，云南球迷不但可以看到中超卫冕冠军登门献艺，从昆明出发的球迷，尚有?时机体验更便捷、更?廉价的专属出行效劳。俱乐部与云南平博?联合开通的“滴滴站点巴士-玉昆球迷专线”，将在余?下的每个主场角逐日准时运营。

据悉，玉溪主场靠近四成的观众来自昆明。除?了自驾，选择高铁出行的也不在少数——从昆明站出发，票价38元用时约一小时，抵达玉溪站再转乘免费球迷巴士，用时50分钟。

最新开通的昆明—玉溪往返球迷专线，在昆明市区和呈贡高校区各设三个上车点，优惠票价23元，一个半小时车程便可直达玉溪高原体育运动中心体育场。角逐当晚?，还可以散场后就近上车返程。这项效劳省时省钱，对外地球迷来说是个好新闻。

软件APP

• “若是科技股投资者、尤其是那些持有杠杆ETF的投资者今天接到追加包管金的通知，他们将不得不以任何价钱出售
• 该项目将5G双域专网通讯手艺与医疗数据回传营业场景深入融合，实现体检车实时体检信息数据回传，全程点对点联系，移动安排无线转有线可靠性高，极大助力医院的医疗数字化建设。
• 　　周日，高盛的經濟學家將明年美國經濟發生衰退的可能性從15%提高到25%，但讓讀者定心，這一新闻並不完全壞，因為經濟「總體上看起來還不錯」，沒有出現重大的金融失衡，美聯儲有很大的降息空間，若是需要，可以迅速降息
• 问：怎样解决“为官不为”
  
  ？王良：目今，一些干部以“要求严了”为捏词，庸政懒政怠政，不想为、不敢为、不会为，这现实上是一种软糜烂，基础上是天下观、人生观、价值观这个“总开关”出了问题，政绩观、事业观、权力观泛起了误差。
• From pay to play scams designed to make the Clintons wealthy to satanic rituals called Spirit Cooking to accusations of pedophilia and murder – it’s all weaved throughout the Wikileaks email drop like a tapestry of dark and sinister perversion.

点评装置

• 果真资料显示，2016年4月，利欧股份在北京车和家信息手艺有限公司（即理想汽车）的A轮融资中领投，以自有资金人民币3.5亿元拿下其11.745%的股权
• ”　　德国债券跌幅收窄，因拉加德体现经济正面临阻力，10年期国债收益率盘中持平于2.13%，稍早触及2.18%
• 进一步传承和弘扬“四下下层”优良古板，让“下下层”成为一种自动意识、一种自觉行动，是继往开来的新课题，也是对责任继续的新磨练。
• 　　以色列軍方確認納斯魯拉殒命　　以色列國防軍發言人阿維切·阿德拉伊（Avichay Adraee）在社交媒體X上寫道，昨日以色列國防軍消滅了納斯魯拉，以及阿裏·卡爾基在內的多名真主黨指揮官
• “这把小木梳，做起来可不简朴呢！要经由解板、蒸煮、划样、开齿、磨背、刻花、着色、上漆等20多道工序才华制作乐成，每道工序都有严酷的手艺要求。”克日，山东省临沂市莒南县板泉镇东高榆村木梳制作武艺体验馆内，市级非遗武艺（高榆木梳）传承人丁明文正在向青少年教学木梳制作武艺。今年6月，丁明文刚获评全省墟落文化和旅游带动人。

点评官方版

此前，美元加息周期疊加AI科技創新使得全球資本抱團美股焦点科技股，美科技巨頭估值高企，近3年納指市盈率TTM最高升至49倍　　专家提醒，虽然风不太大，但今天的温度较量低，并且由于冬风带来的风寒效应，人体在室外现实感受到的温度要更低，市民要注重防寒保暖。（泉源：中国天气网）·A few months ago, I wrote an article here on The Upshot discussing the potential health effects of alcohol. I pointed out that the scientific research said moderate drinking isn’t bad for you indeed, it might even offer some benefits. At the same time, I cautioned that this doesn’t mean I’d treat alcohol like medicine, or advise people to start drinking. The message was that if you’re otherwise healthy, and enjoy no more than two drinks a day, you’re unlikely to suffer from it, and potentially might benefit. However, a new study has been published that is leading some people to write stories proclaiming that “alcohol may not be good for you after all. ” Is that the case? Like any good Bayesian, I use new data and evidence to update my priors. In this case, the recent publication isn’t a new trial or experiment. It’s a new systematic review and that argues that it does a better job than prior work, by excluding a lot of research its authors declared was flawed. The main problem, they argue, is that a lot of prior work lumps people who used to drink but quit and no longer do so with people who never drank. They further assert that many of these people may actually have quit because they were sick, and were told to give up alcohol. This would mean that the sickest patients, who had been drinking alcohol, were being counted as if they were abstainers, which would bias results in a way to make drinking look healthier than not. They also only looked at studies that examined all death from all causes considered together. Of the 87 studies they found that met this criterion, only 13 strictly coded lifetime abstainers (and not quitters) as the reference group. When they looked at those studies and compared lifetime abstainers with everyday drinkers, there wasn’t a statistically significant difference. Only those who drank at least 65 grams of alcohol a day (about 4. 5 drinks) had an increased risk of death. The researchers refined their model further, excluding “lesser quality studies,” to consider only seven. The results were unchanged. They then excluded one more study that had results heavily favoring alcohol the remaining six studies suggested that people who drank two to three drinks a day had a slightly elevated risk of death. But those who drank one to two, or three to 4. 5 drinks, didn’t. When it comes to observational research, that’s a pretty weak finding. But that conclusion is somehow making headlines. If you look closely, it’s clear the authors excluded a lot of studies that seem to have already taken into account their concerns. For instance, one study I cited looked at mortality for those 55 to 65 years old. It found that, after controlling for the prior drinkers, as well as other confounders, those who drank a moderate amount had a lower risk of death than abstainers as well as heavy drinkers. It also cited five different earlier studies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that accounted for the “former drinker” problem, yet still found the protective effect of drinking against mortality. It’s unclear to me why these studies didn’t factor in to the new analysis. That doesn’t mean the researchers did anything wrong. You’ve always got to make judgment calls about what to include in a . But the researchers don’t clearly explain why they made the judgment calls they did in the text. That makes me concerned they might be . It’s also important to recognize that this is only a study of mortality. Many other outcomes exist. A 2011 for example, looked at mortality from a variety of cardiovascular causes. This analysis also performed a of studies that classified former drinkers correctly. It found that — with or without this adjustment — active drinkers had both a lower incidence and mortality from a variety of cardiovascular disease. In the same vein, other studies have found associations with alcohol and better cognitive function and lower rates of diabetes. (The story for cancer is much more mixed.) On top of that, randomized controlled trials suggest that moderate drinking can help with diabetes, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. There’s even a of 63 controlled trials showing alcohol’s positive effects on HDL (good) cholesterol. Authors of articles now declaring alcohol to be will need to explain why they ignored those trials. At best then, this new study shows that for those drinking two or fewer drinks of alcohol a day, there’s no association with higher or lower risks of death. At worst, it’s leaving out trials that show a benefit. In others words, the study doesn’t make me think I should update my priors much at all. The evidence still says that a moderate amount of alcohol appears to be safe, and that it might even be healthy for many people. There’s nothing in this new analysis that would make me change my mind.