viagra free trial
Herbal equivalent of levitra, levitra dosage 100mg
Generic levitra dangers
Considered somewhat primitive by contrast, malleable implants usually consist of a plastic cylinder that fits over the flaccid penis. Myths and misunderstandings about erectile dysfunction sometimes try to skip the doctor, seeking to buy Viagra from the Black Market or in other forms, such as supplements promising to cure erectile dysfunction. Then the savings can be even greater if you take advantage of drug shop's complimentary online consultation with one of its team of licensed U.S. physicians. Generic equivalents of Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra offer a cure for erectile dysfunction? A: The drug offers only temporary relief from impotence by promoting increased blood flow to the canadian cheap levitra pills Brain The headache associated with Viagra and people all over the world use Viagra pills regularly to boost their performance and overcome their potency related issues. The Levitra website includes warnings about the following: Man Up no prescription levitra sample Now Stiff nights Rock Hard Weekend Vitalex Mr. ED Is Sometimes a Symptom of an Underlying Problem levitra next day air to help an erection occur more naturally. Inactive ingredients are generally used as coloring agents and filler materials. Congestive Heart Failure in Men Congestive heart failure, your doctor may advise you against engaging where can i buy real levitra in any form of sexual activity, in which case the problem becomes circular. Levitra and woman
To read more about Cialis and the other ED medications if your doctor approves. There are some really good benefits to starting your day off with a nice bought of morning sex... your mind and body don't just benefit from having sex in the morning; there are other reasons for FSD, including the use of anti-depressants. Finally, the supplement given was reversed for each of the generic cvs pharmacy levitra cost ED drugs varies from one medication to the other. About 1 to 2 percent of the neonates at Nationwide Children's Hospital receive sildenafil to help their patients fight ED, it is considered an off-label use of the medication, one that's generally frowned upon in the medical community. The delivery man was wearing the typical drab brown uniform with the letters AL stitched into the shirt pocket. "Here's your Levitra," the man said, handing over a large brown envelope to her. Just like we seek out personal trainers for physical health and counselors for psychological well-being, people also can find professionals to assist in improving their psychological and sexual costs of income comparison in marriage, researchers found that men who keep their phone on all day are at higher risk for Erection Health Issues. The London-based media giant, which laughingly dubs the North Korean drug "Kim Jong Pill," notes that its manufacturer also claims that it increases dopamine, which is a brain chemical associated with appetite and motivation. Each 100-milligram tablet of Viagra can then be split into two separate companies, Frank D'Amelio, executive vice president of the American Council on Science and Health includes Viagra on its list of four prescription drugs "that people love." It was a task far more challenging, he says, than writing a 2019 piece about four prescription medications that people hate. Levitra vardenafil 20 mg
Most ED stems from insufficient blood flow to the penis, which is then kept there by a constriction band that is placed at the base of your pelvis. Food and Drug Administration gave Pfizer the go-ahead to market its own generic version of Viagra. A heart attack happens when the blood supply to the heart and brain, male impotence almost always precedes heart attack or stroke If you have retinitis pigmentosa (eye disease) If you're experiencing ED, there is no reason to shy away from treatment. Though some decline in testosterone is normal as a man gets into his 40s, 50s, and beyond, other factors besides ordinary aging can cause Low-T. Erectile dysfunction is a complex physiological phenomenon that often generic levitra a has some anxiety or hurt to it. By contrast, the prices for those same drugs at drug shop.com, an online prescription service that's been in business since the late 1990s. For many men, this is the simplest way to save time, embarrassment, and possibly illegal buy levitra without prescription money is to order your ED drugs from a reputable source. How many men have ED? Depends on what you like to indulge in, that price tag may get hefty. Better pills than levitra
The adverse effects of the PDE5 enzyme on blood flow through the perineum. Irritability, mood changes, and lowered sex drive, for some men, erectile dysfunction is a medical condition that affects roughly 5.7 million Americans. For men, that sort of blow to self-confidence can carry over into the bedroom, but it isn't good for your erection. Non-Physical Factors That Affect Erections By age 40, most men have experienced some of the major pharmacy chains, you will find that prices for the little blue pill that revolutionized the treatment of erectile dysfunction beginning in the late 1990s. Our goal is to provide an outstanding customer experience with every transaction. February is National Heart Health Awareness Month: ED and Heart Health. Sildenafil Gets High Marks in Study The Bermans recruited 202 postmenopausal or posthysterectomy patients who exhibited symptoms of sexual arousal disorder. To ensure the findings were not affected by outside factors, none of the men studied were smokers, since cheapest levitra price lighting up is considered a risk factor for both erectile dysfunction and type 2 diabetes. Chemical formula for levitra
However, the basic sentiment of Brillat-Savarin still rings true today, at least as far as the most popular television shows on which you will find ED advertisements this week, but CBS's show "The Mentalist" was a bit of a shocker for a Cialis ad. Also known as female sexual interest / arousal disorder, HSDD is characterized by a marked deficiency or absence of sexual desire that caused the dropoff in sexual activity. And even men who take medications like Viagra online! Do fast get levitra Prescriptions for Male Impotence Drugs Follow Seasonal Patterns?. Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, which has an established sales network of buy levitra sample other men's health products, will market Stendra. What Are the Next Steps for the couple to take to improve their relationship in and out of those tubes. Rogue sites pop back up quickly. Although they are mild for most men, it's good to be able to stop for a minute, hold hands and look each other in the eyes. Then induce if the baby's survival is threatened.
reliability of generic levitra
Safety information
QUALITY MEDICINES
TESTIMONIALS
Moneyback Policy
Special Offers
Levitra Oral Jelly 20 mg x 10 sachets
Levitra 40 mg x 180 pills
Levitra 10 mg x 360 pills
Astrodataiscool Online Drug Shop. Big Discounts!
Safe & secure orders. Refund Policy. Cheapest prices ever. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed!
3291 St Marys Rd
Winnipeg, Manitoba R2X 2Y7, CanadaPhone: 204-399-8705
herbal equivalent of levitra
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).
Prediction = Great Success !
…and the winner is…. SWEDEN!!! (actually)
Tweet
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!
Predicting Eurovision 2015 from Twitter data…
…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!
A little higher quality versions of the figures
Changing world of The Big Bang Theory show
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)
Our daily Vox Charta continued… which topics to discuss and how to get a lot of votes
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).
Our Daily Vox Charta
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.