jackpot casino slots

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.Nonejackpot casino slots 。

A child was tasered, and four police officers were injured after a wild vehicle pursuit from Sydney's west to Wollongong. or signup to continue reading Four teenagers, two aged 14 and two aged 13, are accused of leading police on a chase in a stolen Audi overnight on Sunday, November 24. Officers first spotted the Audi in Granville about 9.30pm, and when they put on their warning lights, the car allegedly sped away and a pursuit was initiated. "Police will allege the car continued onto the Hume Highway and Henry Lawson Drive, Georges Hall before the pursuit was terminated due to safety concerns," a NSW Police spokeswoman said. "POLAir assisted in monitoring the car before road spikes were deployed on the Princes Motorway, Mount Ousley." With a deflated tyre, the car allegedly left the M1 Princes Motorway and turned onto Mount Pleasant Road in Mount Pleasant. The vehicle eventually stopped on Hopewood Crescent, Fairy Meadow. "A 14-year-old male driver and 14-year-old male passenger allegedly fled on foot down Hopewood Crescent, before being arrested nearby on Garratt Avenue, Fairy Meadow, about 10.10pm," police said. Officers tasered one of the teenage boys who allegedly resisted arrest. "The other two male passengers, both aged 13, locked themselves in the vehicle," the police spokeswoman said. "Police forced entry into the car before arresting the two males." Officers seized hammers and knives from the vehicle, which they allege were stolen. The teens were taken to Wollongong Police Station, where the 14-year-old driver was charged with police pursuit - not stop - drive dangerously; drive conveyance taken without consent of owner; and hinder or resist police officer in the execution of duty. The other three males were charged with being carried in conveyance and resisting arrest. Four police officers sustained minor injuries during the arrest and did not require hospitalisation. Nadine Morton covers emergency services and breaking news for the Illawarra Mercury. She takes pride in regional journalism which she believes is crucial to informing our towns and cities. Have a story? Email her at nadine.morton@austcommunitymedia.com.au Nadine Morton covers emergency services and breaking news for the Illawarra Mercury. She takes pride in regional journalism which she believes is crucial to informing our towns and cities. Have a story? Email her at nadine.morton@austcommunitymedia.com.au DAILY Today's top stories curated by our news team. WEEKDAYS Grab a quick bite of today's latest news from around the region and the nation. WEEKLY The latest news, results & expert analysis. WEEKDAYS Catch up on the news of the day and unwind with great reading for your evening. WEEKLY Get the editor's insights: what's happening & why it matters. WEEKLY Love footy? We've got all the action covered. WEEKLY Every Saturday and Tuesday, explore destinations deals, tips & travel writing to transport you around the globe. WEEKLY Going out or staying in? Find out what's on. WEEKDAYS Sharp. Close to the ground. Digging deep. Your weekday morning newsletter on national affairs, politics and more. TWICE WEEKLY Your essential national news digest: all the big issues on Wednesday and great reading every Saturday. WEEKLY Get news, reviews and expert insights every Thursday from CarExpert, ACM's exclusive motoring partner. TWICE WEEKLY Get real, Australia! Let the ACM network's editors and journalists bring you news and views from all over. AS IT HAPPENS Be the first to know when news breaks. DAILY Your digital replica of Today's Paper. Ready to read from 5am! DAILY Test your skills with interactive crosswords, sudoku & trivia. Fresh daily! Advertisement AdvertisementAmazon Slashes the Price on the New Apple iPad Pro Tablet with OLED and M4 Chip for Black FridayJammu, Nov 30: Legislative Assembly of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, in its maiden session, which lasted five days from November 4 to 8, 2024 in Srinagar, moved and passed a resolution seeking restoration of special status and constitutional guarantees. The resolution, moved by Deputy Chief Minister, Surinder Kumar Choudhary, on November 6 under supplementary list of business, “reaffirmed the importance of special status, constitutional guarantees, which safeguarded the identity, culture and rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.” Expressing concern over their (special status, constitutional guarantees) “unilateral removal”, the resolution read, “This (J&K) Legislative Assembly calls upon the Government of India to initiate dialogue with elected representatives of people of Jammu and Kashmir for restoration of special status, constitutional guarantees and to workout constitutional mechanisms for restoring these provisions.” “This Assembly emphasises that any process for restoration must safeguard both national unity and the legitimate aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir,” the resolution, seconded by Minister for Health and Medical Education, Sakina Masood Itoo, read. The resolution, seeking restoration of Article 370 and 35-A in a very subtle expression, was passed by the J&K Legislative Assembly amid violent protest by 28 MLAs of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). As anticipated earlier, the resolution created flutters across political spectrum, though its aftermath also saw dissonance among Kashmir based parties over “its (resolution’s) ambiguous and subtle expression (by not directly referring to Article 370 and 35-A).” This created a kind of discord between the alliance partners National Conference and the Congress as well after the latter interpreted it (resolution) as a reiteration of demand for restoration of statehood and not for restoration of “Article 370, 35-A” as the former (NC) insisted. “For Congress, following the Supreme Court’s decision on Article 370 and 35-A, the only issue pending is that of restoration of statehood, exclusive rights of locals over land and jobs and this was what this resolution emphasised,” was Congress leaders’ interpretation. Nevertheless, resolution spiralled into a controversy, which found its resonance across the country. While local BJP leadership protested against it tooth and nail in J&K, describing it as “an affront to the spirit of Constitution, Parliament and also the contempt of (Supreme) court”, top BJP leadership exploited this issue to the hilt in two poll-bound states, mainly Maharashtra. This not only put Congress on the defensive but also helped BJP bag a stunning victory in Maharashtra. It was notable that the J&K Legislative Assembly, in the absence of new Business Rules, conducted its business, in its maiden session under UT status, as per the rules existing in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. Speaker J&K Legislative Assembly, Abdul Rahim Rather too had stated it, while presiding over the proceedings, quoting provision in J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 enabling House (Assembly) to run as per the rules of erstwhile J&K till the framing of new rules. As the controversy erupted over resolution passed in J&K Legislative Assembly (LA) regarding special status and constitutional guarantees, dubbed as “illegal and unconstitutional” by BJP’s national as well as J&K leadership, it also raised another interesting proposition. Could J&K LA move, pass resolution on special status, had business rules on Puducherry model (which formed the premise of J&K UT’s governance model) been in place? Question finds its genesis in “The Administrator’s Rules for the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly.” Under its Part II, dealing with “Prohibition of discussion of certain matters”, Rule 5 stipulates “Restrictions on resolutions.” According to Rule 5 (1), no resolution “shall be moved which relates to any matter which affects the discharge of the functions of the Administrator in so far as he is required by the Act to act in his discretion.” According to sub rule (2), if the “Speaker is of the opinion that a resolution or any part of a resolution is or may be one which cannot be moved because it is prohibited under sub-rule (1), he shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of the resolution, forward to the Administrator a copy thereof and, unless the Administrator (whose decision in the matter shall be final) decides that the resolution may be moved, it shall not be entered in the List of Business.” As per sub-rule (3), “Notwithstanding the fact that the Speaker has made no reference under sub-rule (2), if the Administrator, acting in his discretion, decides that any resolution or any part of a resolution is one which cannot be moved because it is prohibited under sub-rule (1), he may communicate his decision (which shall be final) to the Speaker, and on such communication, the resolution shall not be entered in the List of Business or, if it has been so entered, the Speaker shall decline to allow the resolution to be moved.” Sub-rule (4) stipulates, “If any doubt arises whether any resolution of which notice has been given or any part thereof is or is not within the prohibition imposed by sub-rule (1), the Administrator shall, acting in his discretion, decide the point and his decision shall be final.” Almost similar restrictions are in place on “questions” to be asked (in LA), under Rule 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the rules for J&K Legislative Assembly, to facilitate its functioning under new setup, too are yet to be framed.

GM Stock Falls on Chinese Write-Off. It’s a Warning for American Car Makers.

South Carolina F Ashlyn Watkins remains suspended

Fans Demand Justice After Michigan Player Was Unfairly Pepper Sprayed By PoliceRico Carty, who won the 1970 NL batting title when he hit a major league-best .366 for the Atlanta Braves, has died. He was 85. Major League Baseball , the players’ association and the Braves paid tribute to Carty on social media on Sunday. A family friend told Listín Diario — a newspaper in Carty’s native Dominican Republic — that he died Saturday night in an Atlanta hospital. “Carty was one of the first groundbreaking Latino stars in the major leagues, and he established himself as a hero to millions in his native Dominican Republic, his hometown of San Pedro de Macoris, and the city of Atlanta, where he was a beloved fan favorite,” the players' association said in its statement . The Braves said Carty left an indelible mark on the organization. “While his on-field accomplishments will never be forgotten, his unforgettable smile and generous nature will be sorely missed,” the team said in its statement. Carty made his big league debut with the Braves in September 1963. He batted .330 with 22 homers and 88 RBIs in his first full season in 1964, finishing second to Dick Allen in voting for NL Rookie of the Year. The Braves moved from Milwaukee to Atlanta after the 1965 season, and Carty got the franchise's first hit in its new home on April 12, 1966, against Pittsburgh. Carty had his best year in 1970, batting .366 with 25 homers and a career-best 101 RBIs. He started the All-Star Game after he was elected as a write-in candidate, joining Willie Mays and Hank Aaron in the NL outfield. Carty batted .299 with 204 homers and 890 RBIs over 15 years in the majors, also playing for Cleveland, Toronto, Oakland, Texas and the Chicago Cubs. He retired after the 1979 season. AP MLB: https://apnews.com/hub/MLBJobless salesman demanding extortion for 'D-Company' heldArizona Wildcats (6-1) vs. Vanderbilt Commodores (6-0): The scout, coaching a young team

‘Docket explosion’ preventing delivery of quality judgments, timely justice: SC Judge

Toll Road Funds Mulled for Tijuana River Valley

Thanksgiving is my favorite American holiday. Let me count some of the ways I love Thanksgiving: Because it isn’t very commercialized. Because it doesn’t leave out the lovelorn and the lonely. Because it has an intrinsic honesty: It’s about being grateful. Because it’s about as much extended family as most of us can take: just one day of them. Because there aren’t a lot of old movies — aired on other holidays — that get taken out of the movie mausoleum every year, like “Nightmare on Elm Street,” “Miracle on 34th Street” or that one about snow, “Holiday Inn,” and “The Ten Commandments.” Because the political class generally shuts up. It doesn’t feel necessary to make long atavistic speeches with dubious grandiloquence that no one believes, least of all the speakers. Because you don’t have to receive presents and lie to your close friends and family, “I always wanted a toy pig that burps,” or “Thank you for the lovely necktie. I’m sure they will come back into fashion in a few decades.” Because there are no flags or bunting, and most houses aren’t turned into glaring neon performance art, nor are there skeletons hanging from swing sets. Because you don’t have to wear a funny hat and red or green or any other color that signals that you are in the spirit of the event. Because when I worked on the newspapers, I could volunteer and get paid double or better in overtime for a shift on Thanksgiving Day. From my arrival at New York’s Idlewild Airport in 1963, I have been able to luxuriate in America’s bounty and give thanks. It wasn’t always easy being an immigrant, even one of favored language and provenance (British), and it didn’t spare me and my English wife, Doreen, from hard times. We had those. But America remained the mansion on the high ground where, if we were lucky, we could be let in to enjoy the riches of acceptance. My first experience of the United States — and I give thanks for it — was the taxi driver who, when he learned I had hardly any money, gave me a free guided tour of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn. Finally, he deposited me at an uncompromising address on Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, where I was to stay while I found work and before I sent for Doreen, my cherished first wife. It was a walk-up and there was no air conditioning. My hosts were an English couple in their 70s: Doreen’s aunt and her husband. She helped with newborns in wealthier people’s homes well into her old age. He had worked rather unsuccessfully as an industrial jeweler. They were palpably short of money and hadn’t enjoyed an easy life since arriving in America in 1918. Their story had a fairytale, extraordinary last volume. Out on Long Island, their grandson and granddaughter were growing up with a single mother, also in straitened circumstances. She worked with seedlings in a plant nursery. The grandson was to climb to the apex of achievement, to stun his family and, in time, the world with his talent. This young man and I would swim in Long Island Sound, where we would head for anchored yachts with people partying on board. A decade older than my companion, I always believed that when they looked down on the swimmers, the partiers would invite us aboard for food and drink. It never happened, but we enjoyed our aquatic adventures and social failure. If they had only known! As I said, that young man was destined to win all that his mother and grandparents didn’t have. His name is Billy Joel, the “Piano Man.” He is someone for all in America to be thankful for — proof that in the United States, the last can be first. — Llewellyn King is the executive producer and host of “White House Chronicle” on PBS. He wrote this for InsideSources.com .Mbappe scores as Real Madrid close gap on Barcelona