swerte 999

swerte 999 PARADISE ISLAND, Bahamas — Nice starts are always good, but finishing strong is just as important. The Baylor women's basketball team beat Villanova, 73-62, on Monday afternoon thanks to a 20-9 surge in the fourth quarter to finish in third place at the Battle 4 Atlantis Tournament. “The challenge in these tournaments is playing three games in three days, with both teams coming off a loss,” Baylor head coach Nicki Collen said. “You’ve got to get right up and do it all over again.” Four Baylor players scored in double figures, led by Aaronette Vonleh, who made eight of her 11 shots and scored 19 points. Sarah Andrews hit three 3-pointers and finished with 15 points, while Jada Walker had 11 points and a team-high five assists and Darianna Littlepege-Buggs scored 11 points and nine rebounds, which tied Bella Fontleroy for the most on the team. “It’s just the flow of the game, every game is going to be a little bit different,” Collen said. “We don’t need to be ball-dominant with any person on our team. We need to take what the defense gives us. It’s reading what’s there.” The Bears dominated the Wildcats, 40-12, in the paint but had 20 turnovers, the fourth time in seven games Baylor had 20 or more turnovers. “We had some travels, but if you take away the illegal screens, I thought our offensive execution was good,” Collen said. “We talked about moving that basketball and being two-sided. We did a good job of playing into side ball screens.” The Bears face off against New Orleans on Friday at 2 p.m. at Foster Pavilion. Baylor didn’t start the game with a ton of energy, turning the ball over four times in a three-minute span and falling behind after a quick 6-0 run by the Wildcats less than five minutes into the first quarter. The Bears hit six of their final seven shots in the first quarter, but the Wildcats made all four of their 3-point tries in the period to maintain their lead. Baylor hit its first six shots of the second quarter, including a 3-pointer from Felder and a pair of driving layups from Walker to tie the game, but Villanova continued to shoot the lights out, hitting its first six 3-pointers. “At the beginning, we were trying too hard to pressure them, and they got downhill against us and it put us in rotation, and when you get in rotation against Villanova, they’re going to pick you apart at the arc,” Collen said. “Starting six-for-six, that was tough.” The Wildcats missed 15 shots in a row in a span that stretched from the five-minute mark of the third quarter to the midway point of the third quarter, the Bears outscored them 12-0 to take the lead. Vonleh made four layups and Andrews hit a 3-pointer in the first three minutes of the fourth quarter to help the Bears push their lead to six points. “That’s what helped us finish the game off strong,” Vonleh said. “We found something that was working and kept doing it. It was nice to just execute and get some bucket to go in and be able to finish the game the way we wanted to.” Fontleroy hit her first 3-pointer of the game during a 9-0 run for the Bears to clinch the win. “I thought we played the game really simply today,” Collen said. “The game doesn’t have to be complicated when you have players that are good in space. That stretch was really important that we understood what was working and you don’t have to be tricky when things are working.” Be the first to know

This Once Ultracheap Biotech Stock Rockets 2,762%, Nears Buy Point After Big Earnings WinMatt Rhule, Luke Fickell both downplay postgame encounter between Fickell, Donovan Raiola

Nantucket vs. Martha’s Vineyard, 5 (Fenway Park) Stoneham vs. Reading, 7:30 (Fenway Park) Brighton at Tech Boston, 1 Latin Academy vs. O’Bryant, 2 (West Roxbury) Central Catholic vs. Lawrence, 4 (Fenway Park) KIPP vs. Lynn Tech, 4 (Manning) Holbrook/Avon at South Shore, 5 Somerset Berkley at Central (RI), 5 Andover at North Andover, 6 Bishop Stang at Bishop Feehan, 6 Cambridge at Somerville, 6 East Boston at Chelsea, 6 Greater Lowell vs. Lowell Catholic, 6 (Chelmsford) Milford at Taunton, 6 Nashoba Tech at Monty Tech, 6 North Middlesex at Rockland, 6 Old Colony at Tri-County, 6 St. John’s (Shrewsbury) at Malden Catholic, 6 West Bridgewater at East Bridgewater, 6 Whittier at Greater Lawrence, 6 Bishop Fenwick at St. Mary’s, 6:30 Swampscott vs. Marblehead, 6:30 (Fenway Park) Acton-Boxboro at Westford Academy, 10 Amesbury at Newburyport, 10 Apponequet at Old Rochester, 10 Arlington at Waltham, 10 Ashland at Hopkinton, 10 Attleboro at North Attleboro, 10 Bellingham at Norton, 10 Beverly at Salem, 10 Billerica at Chelmsford, 10 BC High at Catholic Memorial, 10 Braintree at Milton, 10 Bridgewater-Raynham at Brockton, 10 Bristol-Plymouth at Blue Hills, 10 Brookline at Newton North, 10 Burlington at Bedford, 10 Cardinal Spellman at Archbishop Williams, 10 Carver at Middleboro, 10 Case at Atlantis Charter, 10 Concord-Carlisle at Lexington, 10 Danvers at Gloucester, 10 Dartmouth at Fairhaven, 10 Dighton-Rehoboth at Seekonk, 10 Dover-Sherborn at Medfield, 10 Duxbury at Marshfield, 10 English/New Mission vs. Boston Latin, 10 (Harvard) Falmouth at Barnstable, 10 Fitchburg at Leominster, 10 Framingham at Natick, 10 Franklin at King Philip, 10 Greater New Bedford at Diman, 10 Hamilton-Wenham at Ipswich, 10 Hingham at Scituate, 10 Hull at Cohasset, 10 Lincoln-Sudbury at Newton South, 10 Lowell at Haverhill, 10 Lynn Classical at Lynn English, 10 Manchester-Essex at Essex Tech, 10 Mansfield at Foxboro, 10 Masconomet at Northeast, 10 Mashpee at Sandwich, 10 Medford at Malden, 10 Medway at Millis, 10 Methuen at Dracut, 10 Minuteman at Keefe Tech, 10 Nauset at Dennis-Yarmouth, 10 North Quincy at Quincy, 10 Norwell at Hanover, 10 Norwood at Dedham, 10 Oliver Ames at Sharon, 10 Peabody at Saugus, 10 Pentucket at Triton, 10 Plymouth North at Plymouth South, 10 Revere at Winthrop, 10 St. John Paul at Monomoy, 10 Silver Lake at Pembroke, 10 Stoughton at Canton, 10 Upper Cape at Cape Cod Tech, 10 Wareham at Bourne, 10 Watertown at Belmont, 10 Wayland at Weston, 10 Wellesley at Needham, 10 Westwood at Holliston, 10 Weymouth at Walpole, 10 Whitman-Hanson at Abington, 10 Wilmington at Tewksbury, 10 Arlington Catholic at Shawsheen, 10:15 Durfee at New Bedford, 10:15 Wakefield at Melrose, 10:15 Woburn at Winchester, 10:15 Xaverian at St. John’s Prep, 10:15 Lynnfield at North Reading, 10:30 Billerica at Chelmsford, 10 BC High at Catholic Memorial, 10 Dartmouth at Fairhaven, 10 Duxbury at Marshfield, 10 English/New Mission vs. Boston Latin, 10 (Harvard) Fitchburg at Leominster, 10 Franklin at King Philip, 10 Hingham at Scituate, 10 Lynn Classical at Lynn English, 10 Mansfield at Foxboro, 10 Mashpee at Sandwich, 10 Medford at Malden, 10 Nauset at Dennis-Yarmouth, 10 North Quincy at Quincy, 10 Wellesley at Needham, 10 Weymouth at Walpole, 10 Wilmington at Tewksbury, 10 Xaverian at St. John’s Prep, 10:15 Lynnfield at North Reading, 10:30 DIVISION 1 – Thursday, Dec. 5 at Gillette No. 4 Needham (11-0) vs. No. 3 Xaverian (8-3), 5:30 DIVISION 2 – Thursday, Dec. 5 at Gillette No. 2 King Philip (11-0) vs. No. 1 Catholic Memorial (10-1), 8 DIVISION 3 – Friday, Dec. 6 at Gillette No. 3 Mansfield (8-3) vs. No. 4 North Attleboro (9-2), 8 DIVISION 4 – Thursday, Dece. 5 at Gillette No. 2 Scituate (11-0) vs. No. 1 Duxbury (10-1), 3 DIVISION 5 – Friday, Dec. 6 at Gillette No. 1 Shawsheen (11-0) vs. No. 3 Foxboro (8-3), 5:30 DIVISION 6 – Wednesday, Dec. 4 at Gillette No. 3 Fairhaven (10-1) vs. No. 1 Hudson (11-0), 8 DIVISION 7 – Wednesday, Dec. 4 at Gillette No. 1 Uxbridge (11-0) vs. No. 3 Mashpee (9-2), 5:30 DIVISION 8 – Friday, Dec. 6 at Gillette No. 1 Randolph (10-1) vs. No. 2 West Boylston (9-2), 3 VOCATIONAL BOWL PLAYOFFS LARGE SCHOOL FINAL – Wednesday, Dec. 4 No. 6 Whittier (8-3) at No. 1 Bay Path (10-1), TBA SMALL SCHOOL FINAL – Wednesday, Dec. 4 No. 4 Tri-County (7-3) at No. 3 Blue Hills (6-5), 6

The ruling addressed a lawsuit filed by Dario and Shujen Politella against Windham Southeast School District and state officials over the mistaken vaccination of their child against COVID-19 in 2021, when he was 6 years old. A lower court had dismissed the original complaint, as well as an amended version. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on Nov. 19. But the ruling by Vermont's high court is not as far-reaching as some online have claimed. In reality, it concluded that anyone protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP, Act is immune to state lawsuits. Here's a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that schools can vaccinate children against their parents' wishes. THE FACTS: The claim stems from a July 26 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court, which found that anyone protected by the PREP Act is immune to state lawsuits, including the officials named in the Politella's suit. The ruling does not authorize schools to vaccinate children at their discretion. According to the lawsuit, the Politella's son — referred to as L.P. — was given one dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic held at Academy School in Brattleboro even though his father, Dario, told the school's assistant principal a few days before that his son was not to receive a vaccination. In what officials described as a mistake, L.P. was removed from class and had a “handwritten label” put on his shirt with the name and date of birth of another student, L.K., who had already been vaccinated that day. L.P. was then vaccinated. Ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that officials involved in the case could not be sued. “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” the Vermont Supreme Court's ruling reads. “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.” The PREP Act , enacted by Congress in 2005, authorizes the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a declaration in the event of a public health emergency providing immunity from liability for activities related to medical countermeasures, such as the administration of a vaccine, except in cases of “willful misconduct" that result in “death or serious physical injury.” A declaration against COVID-19 was issued on March 17, 2020. It is set to expire on Dec. 31. Federals suits claiming willful misconduct are filed in Washington. Social media users described the Vermont Supreme Court's ruling as having consequences beyond what it actually says. “The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that schools can force-vaccinate children for Covid against the wishes of their parents,” reads one X post that had been liked and shared approximately 16,600 times as of Tuesday. “The high court ruled on a case involving a 6-year-old boy who was forced to take a Covid mRNA injection by his school. However, his family had explicitly stated that they didn't want their child to receive the ‘vaccines.’” Other users alleged that the ruling gives schools permission to give students any vaccine without parental consent, not just ones for COVID-19. Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that the ruling “merely holds that the federal statute at issue, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in cases in which officials mistakenly administer a vaccination without consent.” “Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent,” he wrote in an email. Asked whether the claims spreading online have any merit, Ronald Ferrara, an attorney representing the Politellas, told the AP that although the ruling doesn't say schools can vaccinate students regardless of parental consent, officials could interpret it to mean that they could get away with doing so under the PREP Act, at least when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court appeal seeks to clarify whether the Vermont Supreme Court interpreted the PREP Act beyond what Congress intended. “The Politella’s fundamental liberty interest to decide whether their son should receive elective medical treatment was denied by agents of the State and School,” he wrote in an email to the AP. “The Vermont Court misconstrues the scope of PREP Act immunity (which is conditioned upon informed consent for medical treatments unapproved by FDA), to cover this denial of rights and its underlying battery.” Ferrara added that he was not aware of the claims spreading online, but that he “can understand how lay people may conflate the court's mistaken grant of immunity for misconduct as tantamount to blessing such misconduct.” — Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck .

5k millers allocated paddy for storageValladolid loses again and Getafe ends winless run in La Liga

FACT FOCUS: Vermont ruling does not say schools can vaccinate children without parental consentShare Tweet Share Share Email The U.S. Department of Justice sought a second antitrust victory against Google on Monday, presenting its last defence that the firm unlawfully controlled online advertising technology. TakeAway Points: In an attempt to secure a second antitrust victory against Google, the U.S. Department of Justice presented its last defence on Monday, claiming that the firm unlawfully controlled online advertising technology. Google has argued prosecutors are bending U.S. antitrust law to force it to accommodate competitors’ services and that the case is focused on incidents from years past when Google was still building and improving its offerings Zoom had more profit and revenue than analysts had expected in the October quarter, and executives pushed up the company’s full-year forecast. US antitrust lawsuit against Google comes to an end The closing arguments in Alexandria, Virginia, cap a 15-day trial held in September where prosecutors sought to show Google monopolized markets for publisher ad servers and advertiser ad networks, and tried to dominate the market for ad exchanges which sit between buyers and sellers. “Google rigged the rules of the road,” said DOJ lawyer Aaron Teitelbaum, who asked the judge to hold Google accountable for anticompetitive conduct. Google has argued prosecutors are bending U.S. antitrust law to force it to accommodate competitors’ services, and that the case is focused on incidents from years past when Google was still building and improving its offerings. Publishers testified at trial that they could not switch away from Google, even when it rolled out features they disliked, since there was no other way to access the huge advertising demand within Google’s ad network. News Corp. in 2017 estimated losing at least $9 million in ad revenue that year if it had switched away, one witness said. If U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema finds that Google broke the law, she would consider prosecutors’ request to make Google at least sell off Google Ad Manager, a platform that includes the company’s publisher ad server and its ad exchange. Google offered to sell the ad exchange this year to end an EU antitrust investigation but European publishers rejected the proposal as insufficient, as reported in September. Analysts view the ad tech case as a smaller financial risk than the case where a judge ruled Google maintains an illegal monopoly in online search and where prosecutors have argued the company must be forced to sell its Chrome browser. Zoom surpasses expectations and calls for another quarter of single-digit growth Zoom shares were down 4% in extended trading on Monday after the video calling software maker announced strong fiscal third-quarter results and gave quarterly guidance that was just slightly above expectations. According to LSEG consensus, Earnings per share : $1.38 adjusted vs. $1.31 expected, while revenue: $1.18 billion vs. $1.16 billion expected Zoom’s revenue grew about 4% year over year in the quarter, which ended on Oct. 31, according to a statement . Zoom has increased revenue in the single digits for two and a half years, a sharp departure from 2020 and 2021, when the COVID-19 pandemic led the business to triple in size. Net income, at $207.1 million, or 66 cents per share, was up from $141.2 million, or 45 cents per share, in the same quarter a year earlier. The company reported 192,400 enterprise customers in the quarter, up 800 customers from the previous quarter. With respect to guidance, Zoom called for $1.29 to $1.30 in fiscal fourth-quarter adjusted earnings per share on $1.175 billion to $1.180 billion in revenue. Analysts surveyed by LSEG were expecting $1.29 per share and $1.17 billion in revenue. Expectations for next year Zoom bumped up its view for the 2025 fiscal year. It expects $5.41 to $5.43 in adjusted earnings per share, with $4.656 billion to $4.661 billion in revenue. The middle of the revenue range implies about 3% growth. LSEG’s consensus was $5.35 per share on revenue of $4.64 billion. In August, Zoom said it was looking for $5.29 to $5.32 per share and revenue between $4.63 billion and $4.64 billion. During the quarter, Zoom said in the first half of 2025 it will release a premium custom AI companion that could connect to corporate glossaries and services such as ServiceNow and Workday. Zoom also started offering single-use webinar options, with room for up to one million attendees. As of Monday’s close, Zoom stock was up about 24% this year, while the S&P 500 index had gained 25%. The company also said its corporate name is changing from Zoom Video Communications to Zoom Communications Inc. “This change reflects our evolution into an AI-first work platform for human connection and our vision for long-term growth,” Zoom’s founder and CEO Eric Yuan said on a conference call with analysts. Related Items: Antitrust trial , Google , Online Ad , zoom Share Tweet Share Share Email Recommended for you Apple And Google May Face Competition Investigation In UK DOJ Demands That Google Discontinue The Chrome Browser DuckDuckGo Calls Google For Additional Investigation Into Tech Rule Compliance Comments

None

RAINN Named Winner of 2024-2025 Amazon Web Services IMAGINE Grant for Nonprofits