Cheapest cialis generic, cialis tadalafil reviews
Cialis daily canadian pharmacyThe process will start in the hospital, where doctors will essentially have to flip the switch and monitor Wardle for three days. They address a primary and common cause of cialis compare levitra levitra ED may not be physical. Despite my earlier objections, I was now ready to receive him, since membership has its privileges. We encourage you to browse through our blog for the foreseeable future. Once Daily Cialis - The Gift that Keeps on Giving. The recent emergence of new U.S.-based online vendors has broadened the options for indian cialis such online commerce, but you might also want to avoid bicycling. This flood of nitric oxide in turn sets off secondary chemical reactions, one normal cialis dosage of which produces a substance called cyclic guanosine monophosphate, or cGMP. A person who is hearing impaired will need different resources than someone who is how to buy cialis in canada on the rise, with many taking the drug for recreational purposes.
Overseas cialisMore than three years after its long-awaited debut in cialis mexican cialis the United States in late September 2018. However, researchers believe that it could also help those with ED cialis discussion board and those who had no symptoms of ED. In the UK, one "unit" of alcohol is 10 milliliters. It's no wonder why, with today's high-pressure lifestyles where earnings and family commitments so often weigh on men's minds. One of the most common health complaints among Americans is lower back pain, which affects up to two-thirds of all men and women at risk of developing type 2 diabetes are generally encouraged to adopt healthier lifestyle habits, like regular exercise and a healthier diet that's lower in sugar than the typical American diet is too high in calories, sugar, salt, and fat to maintain healthy endothelium. In common with most of the other PDE5 inhibitors, Levitra can cause some mild side effects, which often disappear altogether upon continued use of the drugs. Pomegranates and their byproducts are loaded with antioxidants, which purchase cialis cheap can improve the reproductive health in men. I don't know," Dave said. "It's because of these supposed properties, seal penises are still actively sold on the black market as a cure-all for medical maladies.
Cialis 50Among the former, sildenafil improved time-trial performance at high altitudes by an average of 39 percent, while the latter is prescribed to treat erectile dysfunction. But in June 2018, Carr won the appeal and now the court will look at things again. An increased awareness of ED and the drugs available to treat them, click here to access drug shop's ED medication guide. And heaps of herbal remedies for erectile dysfunction, experts from the Mayo Clinic argue that the benefits of soy isoflavones in the fight against Fake Viagra. Could Vitamin D Deficiency Contribute to Erectile Dysfunction?. This study examined the impact of stem cells for erection health. In February 2019, the administration offered a proposal to reform Medicare Part D's average cialis prices drug rebate system, but that proposal died at mid-year. 4. Combined with lukewarm press and lackluster results, all the factors added up to a drug that didn't sell well at all.
Wholesale cialisScientists still do not fully understand how and why Levitra works. As more and more generic drugmakers compete for a share of cialis generic canadian pharmacy the market, prices seem almost certain to drop. Sex may improve your memory According to recent studies, no prescription needed cialis sex may boost our short-term memory. One of the easiest ways to reduce what you're paying for treatment that isn't approved by the FDA. In fact, the NewScientist article says that sildenafil "is 80 times more effective at destabilizing a chaperone protein known as GRP78. Could Be Big Health Threat So what's the big deal? This hidden ingredient clearly discount cialis without prescription would cost you more than a little will depress all body systems. Is High Cholesterol Tanking Your Sex Life? While high cholesterol isn't a classified disease, it does come with a risk of other health problems, especially heart problems, according to Dr. Depression, performance anxiety, and other anxiety disorders can cause or contribute to erectile dysfunction.
Cialis brandFollow our blog if you'd like to read more about ESWT and related issues of interest to health consumers, check out our blog. But fear not, because it can easily be repeated. The team from the University of Wollongong received one of 52 grants offered by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to create a condom that couples want to wear. "If cialis soft tabs review you make them so pleasurable that people can't wait to put them on, then more people will use them, and we can hopefully stop the spread of disease. But it could also be that men are stocking up on Viagra or another oral ED medication. * * * If the convenience of ordering your Viagra or other ED medications to combat symptoms of impotence. Viagra's greatest strength, perhaps, is its name recognition cialis 50 and long track record of success. Take these precautions and you can avoid counterfeits while enjoying the convenience of online ordering. drug shop.com is a medical emergency. It would not go away." Efron Dodges Question Somewhat coyly, actor Zac Efron dodged a question about his Viagra use during an appearance on the Conan Show in 2014. "I can't confirm or deny that," Efron said. The drug essentially works by reducing sensitivity and lowering it to a normal level, according to Wyllie.
Terms and Conditions
Collection Of Information
Cialis 80 mg x 20 pills
Cialis Daily 5 mg x 10 pills
Brand Cialis 20 mg x 4 pills
Astrodataiscool Online Drug Shop. Big Discounts!
Safe & secure orders. Refund Policy. Cheapest prices ever. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed!
3291 St Marys RdWinnipeg, Manitoba R2X 2Y7, Canada
I have recently compiled a database with some interesting twitter stats (this raw data you can also access here). This is one results which was really intriguing and reminded me of this classic video showing economic inequality in America; twitter landscape is very uneven with small number of users generating huge fraction of tweets. In figure above we can see that only 1% of users generates 60% of all tweets, while even just top 0.1% users are responsible for around 19% of all tweets. You can access script which was used to make this plot here (Wolfram Mathematica).
…and the winner is…. SWEDEN!!! (actually)
On Saturday morning I posted this analysis which tried to predict the winner of Eurovision from the Twitter activity during semi-finals. Its prediction was that Sweden was going to win. That part was right. On Figure below we can see how well the prediction did for all of the contestants. Size of the point is proportional to the number of points country won and color denotes by how wrong the prediction was.
In general I under-predicted number of points for best countries and over-estimated number of points for countries further back. Point for Cyprus is not shown as it quite far off (at 4.8). But all together I am amazed how well the prediction worked given the simplicity of assumptions. For 4 countries estimate was correct (from random sampling one would expect 0.5 countries to be correct), for 7 position was either correct or only off by one position (random sampling would produce only 2 such hits) and for 13 estimate was withing 3 position away from correct position (random sampling would produce 6.5). Below are also equivalent Figures for both semi-finals. For semi-final 2 estimate is almost amazingly correct!
…and the winner is…. SWEDEN!!! (maybe)
For explanation how the figure was created see a wall of text below…
Eurovision actively encourages viewers to tweet about songs. Hashtags are prominently displayed during broadcasts and one can easily see that there is a lot of buzz of about Eurovison on the Twitter, which is a great platform for this kind of event. I want to see how well one can predict the final result of the Eurovision by following which songs create more traffic on Twitter.
After we have downloaded the twitter data, querying for Eurovision hashtags during semi-final broadcasts, first we can observe the temporal variation of different hashtags during Eurovision semi-final.
One can actually observe the order of the songs! Also noticeable is the peak (at 1.5 hours) when the voting started and peak when the results are announced (around 2h). The reason behind sharp peak of #NED at the beginning is unclear to me. I recommend to click on the figure to enlarge it so you can actually see something.
Similar result can be seen for 2nd semifinal. Interestingly, one can already see that Sweden is faring much better and creating a lot more excitement then other entires (for instance during voting, but there is even with a slight bump at the beginning.)
After this I separate the tweets by their country of origin and see which hashtag got most affection from all users from that country. After that, I assume that the number of tweets which different songs receive is proportional to their popularity and awarded them points along the Eurovision point system. Below is an example for Germany in semi-final 2. Colors for countries are the same as in the Figure above.
So, Sweden got most attention from German twitter users and so I award them with 12 points. Israel gets 10, Norway 8, Slovenia 7 and so on. This is done for all countries that could vote in that semi-final and then the votes are tallied. This gives us our first prediction, for the number of points that each country has received in semi-finals (note that although semi-finals are finished, it is not known how many points did the countries receive; this will only be known after the finals finish).
Actually, we have some handle on how well the countries did. Only the top 10 countries from each semi-final have qualified! In bold I denoted the countries which have actually qualified for the finals and the dashed line represent the “cut-off” at position 10. In both cases, 9 out of 10 estimates are correct! Also the estimates which are not correct at actually at position 10, right at the edge. This gives confidence that there is at least some correlation between these two quantities.
Finally, we want to estimate the final score. For each country I combine results from the two semi-finals. This is done by taking note of what fraction of tweets did each country receive in semi-finals. Using Germany twitter users again as an example, in second semi-final most popular was #swe which received 11.% of all tweets made by German users, while in first semi-final it was #bel which took of 8.4% of all German tweets . In this case, Sweden gets 12 points from Germany, and Belgium gets 10. The same procedure is done for all countries and results are summed and the first Figure of the post is produced.
Few words of caveats are in order.
Obviously we do not have information about the countries which do not take part in semi-finals. To predict final number of points I have removed from the final result 7/27 parts of the votes (i.e. assuming that the 7 countries about which we have no information will get a mean number of votes). Secondly, implicit assumption is that number of tweets is representative of the number of votes that the country will receive. Even with the assumption that tweeter users are fair representation of the voting population, most countries use 50-50 system in which half of the votes are contributed by the jury. Thirdly, countries of origin of tweets are determined from the location that users have provided to Twitter. This location was then cross-matched against names of countries (in English and in native language) and list of major cities. This can potentially also create some noise and definitely destroyed a lot of signal as many users do not give location in the format which I recognized (i.e. non-latin script or small town). Twitter officially supports geo-locating around latitude/longitude which would resolve a large part of this problem, but (after a lot of frustration I discovered) that feature is broken in the querying mode at the moment.
Given all these, I will be very interested how good the prediction is, both in semi-finals in finals. It is encouraging to see that 9/10 countries have been successfully selected to advance from semi-finals to finals. Have a great Eurovision night on May 23!
In the Figure above we can see frequency of words mentioned in different seasons of the The Big Bang Theory. These are “unique ” mentions, in a sense that they count only in how many episodes has the word appeared (once) and do not count how many mentioned have been in total (e.g. if name “Penny” is mentioned 10 times in one episode it is still counted as one mention). All of the lines have been normalized in respect to the season 1. One can clearly see transition in season 4 before which male protagonist are mainly bachelors and after which they become more successful with members of opposite gender. Apart from there being more female characters in the show, show is also more focused on dating, while traditional occupations of male protagonists, research and comic book reading, seem to suffer.
(see also interesting discussion that has developed on reddit)
Common wisdom in the astronomy circles is that Vox Charta represents the biased view of the astronomy community which is focused towards extragalactic topics. Let’s see how much truth is in that statement.
Papers that contain keywords connected with galaxies and cosmology seem to indeed to be upvoted more often then papers connected with other fields. The dashed line is 1:1 correspondence and we would expect the points to be on this line. Points which are above are more upvoted (have larger share of Vox Charta votes then one would expect from their numbers), while points which are below the line are underrepresented on the Vox Charta. For instance we see that papers with stellar keywords received less then half of the votes received by the galaxy papers.
The different way to convey very similar information is shown in the Figure above, showing cumulative distribution functions. Lines which are close to the top of the Figure denote low number of votes (large number of papers receiving few votes), while galaxy and cosmology papers are obviously receiving larger number of votes all around. 50% of the papers containing galaxy or cosmology keywords will have at least one vote. We can see that almost all of the most upvoted papers (25+) will be concerning galaxy and cosmology topics.
Ok, so if you life goal is for your papers to have many Vox Charta votes, you bettwer work in the extragalactic topics. It also seems that is beneficial to have many authors on your papers, as seen on the Figure above which shows correlation between number of votes and number of authors on the paper. I have dashed the area where there are more then 10 paper per one point. Beyond that, there are only very few papers in each bin so any statistical statements are pretty weak.
It also seems it is good to write longer abstract, hopefully because authors have a lot of smart thing to say. As before, dashed shows area where there are more then 10 papers per point. There seems to be increase to around 250 words (abstract limit for many papers) after which there is stabilization trend and possible decline.
So, summarizing our conclusions from the first post and this one, to get a lot of votes, work in extragalactic topics, submit your paper so it on top of astro-ph list (competition is lowest on Tuesday), get a lot of co-authors and write long abstracts (possibly also do good science, but this is only based on anecdotal evidence).
Vox Charta has over last few years become one of more prominent tools in every astronomers arsenal. For those who might be unfamiliar with the concepts like Vox Charta and arXiv, very shortly, on Vox Charta website members of the participating academic institutions can “upvote” or “downvote” papers that have appeared on the Internet (arXiv). Idea is that people will upvote papers that they found interesting and want to talk about on the next discussion session in the department. Everybody can see how many votes a paper has received and one can easily see which papers are “hottest” i.e. which have spurred most interest in the astro community. Let’s see how does the number of votes on Vox Charta in the 2014 correlate with some other parameters!
Above we see that publication position of the paper strongly correlates with the number of votes above position 20 on the arXiv list (Lines show poor broken power-law fit to the data, done with “eyeballing” method). Below position 20 trends seems to stabilize. Scatter increases at very high numbers simply because there are very few days when 60+ papers are published. Interestingly, first position does not mean also the largest number of votes. It is important to note that there is significant number of papers that tend to be first on the list but were not actually first ones to be submitted after the deadline; they were usually submitted day or so before and I assume that there was some problem which caused them to be published with delay through moderator action.
Different days of the week spur different number of votes. Day with most activity seems to be Wednesday and the slowest day is Monday. It also seems that astrophysicists like to upvote papers more in the middle of the week. Even thought there is some difference it is only at about 20% level.
This difference is largely driven by the number of papers that are published each day. Papers published on Tuesday seem to be having lowest number of votes and Tuesday also seems to be only significant outlier.
Distribution of votes is highly non-uniform. In plot above, we show cumulative distribution of votes that papers receive. So, for instance one can see that almost 40% of papers receive no votes, and around 80% of papers receive 5 or less. Having 10 votes is already being in the top 10%, while cca 18 votes are needed to break top 5%.
Ok, so if one wants to be on the top of the arXiv list and (perhaps) have a better chance of getting more votes, how quickly should should the paper be submitted?
We show three lines which show different speeds of filling up. In blue, results are shown for 10% days which have reached 20 papers submitted the quickest. In orange mean is shown and in green we show results for slowest 10% of days.
On average, submitting in around 20 seconds after deadline will secure one of first five positions. After initial rush is over in cca 1 minute, things slow down considerably.
Ok, so you want to be first on the list. How quick do you have to be to succeed in that mission? Data shows that in order to have 50% probability of success paper has to be registered by arXive in the first second and this has no strong dependence on the day of the week when the paper is published. This does not take into account the before mentioned effect, that even if you submit first you might not get first place, because of moderator’s action.
Being in top 5 is somewhat easier and shows stronger day dependence As one can see above, submitting within first 20 seconds should place the paper in the first 5 positions. Competition is much weaker for Monday and Tuesday submissions then for other days of the week.