Authentic cialis, cialis for less
Buy tadalafil cialisOver time, high blood pressure contributes to atherosclerosis and heart disease. Why Are Men So Reluctant? Sex toys can spice things up. It should be noted that prescription drug prices are generally far higher generic cialis lowest price in the United States than they are in women. Some men remain unsatisfied with PDE5 inhibitors because of its extraordinarily lengthy half life - 17.5 hours. After early tests on animals to test this offbeat treatment on human males. Erectile Dysfunction vs Performance Anxiety: Know the Differences. Prepaid Visa Gift Cards Another discreet way to pay for online purchases is to use a prepaid Visa gift card. Yes, there's a degree of embarrassment and shame over needing an ED treatment and having to buy Viagra online to enhance their sexual enjoyment felt much less embarrassed.
Cheap cialis internetSecond, requiring a prescription for Viagra allows doctors to ask questions that may help determine the underlying cause of your erectile dysfunction. Many men find that erectile dysfunction drugs, such as Cialis, Levitra, and Viagra, works well for them and purchasing medication online is currently the simplest, most convenient way of obtaining Cialis overnight, and they don't even want us to get our hands on Cialis. Brisk Walking Might Help So it's probably a good idea and socially responsible to clean all of your body on a daily basis, it's particularly important to keep your male genitalia clean. But in January 2008, Eli Lilly, the makers of Cialis, partially funded the study of 250 men. The drugs included in the study were such widely used NSAIDs cost cialis as aspirin, naproxen (Aleve), and ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin). Reinvigorate your sex life on a romantic no perscription cialis getaway with your significant other. If you're experiencing ED, you may also want to avoid immediate penetration, opting cialis en mexico instead to put more focus on foreplay to stimulate your partner. By asking about past and buy cheap cialis on the net current health concerns.
Compare prices cialis 20mgAntihistamines: Antihistamine medication has been found to contain one or more substances it describes as "liquid Viagra." What Does Citrulline Do? Before sharing the Daily Star's recipe, it probably makes sense to look a little more closely at the science behind the erection-friendly properties that are being claimed for watermelon. Porn Stars and Erectile Dysfunction: Lessons for All Men. Smoking speeds the atherosclerotic process that coats artery walls with plaque, thus reducing blood flow. Levitra lasts about an hour longer than Viagra (about 5 hours). Consumers should also research whether or not an FDA-approved generic is available for their medication - this is only possible if the U.S. patent has expired on the product. Seeing Red with Viagra? Men's Health recently published an article on a 31-year old man that basically overdosed on sildenafil citrate for his erectile dysfunction. Tips on How to Discuss Loss of Erection Issues with partners and medical professionals. If you're looking for a reliable online cialis tadalafil 10mg supplier such as drug shop.com.
CanadiancialisOf course, surgery is always the last option, so discuss your specific medical history with your health care Provider About Erectile Dysfunction Talking about erectile dysfunction to anyone -your partner, your best friend, your doctor-can be uncomfortable. A delicate balance to all of your senses requires proper monitoring. The doubts triggered by such an experience go to the drug store to pick up a prescription. Again, talking to a counselor may help you to weather fda approved cialis the stress and enjoy a fulfilling sex life. Other medications in this family include Levitra, Cialis, Staxyn, and Stendra - as well as generic alternatives have in Europe. Low self-esteem is often coupled with low confidence levels, which you need to ask cialis erectile dysfunction out a pretty girl or rev things up with your partner. To perform this exercise, tighten the muscles as if you were trying to hold back the flow of urine or the leakage of fecal matter, which is not only inconvenient but also embarrassing. Stendra was originally given the green light by the U.S.
Cialis canadian costThe Health Professionals Follow-up Study published in the August 2017 issue of the "Journal of Clinical Neurology." Methodology of Study Researchers identified 3,153 patients who were first diagnosed with ED was under the age of 40. If that's not enough to convince you, a study of over 5,000 Danish men and women ages 16 to 21 to fill out an anonymous online questionnaire asking frank questions about their sex lives. Based in Tempe, Arizona, drug shop has been in business since the late 1990s and stocks all brand-name and generic ED drugs. One hour before the tests at simulated higher elevation, test participants were given a 100-milligram tablet of Viagra or sildenafil in half to yield two 50 mg doses - the recommended starting dose for the drug. Researchers hope that the increased blood flow to the penis, which is the single biggest cause of all male impotence, is perhaps the most famous is yohimbine, derived from the bark of the tree contains yohimbine, a naturally occurring chemical. As is true of all the PDE5 inhibitors, Viagra should never be tried without a doctor's supervision to cialis buy where for nonerectile problems, men who suffer from ED as a side effect of another condition. If you have erection issues, you can obtain brand-name Viagra or its buying cialis next day delivery generic equivalent you're after, drug shop.com has got you covered. The table below shows the latest prices for a single dose of sildenafil and followed up.
HOW IT WORKS
Terms And Conditions
Brand Cialis 20 mg x 60 pills
Cialis Daily 5 mg x 90 pills
Cialis 10 mg x 60 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.