Image

Cialis is a latest medicine for treatment of disturbances of erection at men. Cialis feature is its high-speed do its stuff (30 minutes) and a long-term effect (up to 36 hours). In this regard you can pick the moment which is most within acceptable limits for sexual intercourse, having well-liked a drug in advance. It is doable to bow to Cialis in the hours of daylight and to be ready even next-door day. supple ingredient - Tadalafil.

Your brain and creativity will be able buy cialis australia online work at maximum capacity, and your mood will improve greatly.

Why we should all be eating broccoli yogurt: New research claims the bizarre food could curb rocketing rates.

Categories: Erectile Dysfunction | buy cialis brand

Comments

  • londonium

    londonium

    March 10, 2015, 8:40 am

    You can avoid that kind of injury by striking with the first two knuckles with the fist aligned straight through to the forearm. If the hand and forearm bones are aligned you bring the support of your entire arm into the strike.

    Open hand strikes can be risky, too. You can avoid snapping your own fingers by maintaining dynamic tension, keeping your fingers bent a little concave, and flaring the fingers out. Dynamic tension maintains rigidity, bent fingers avoid snapping them back, and keeping the fingers separated means that they will find the path of least resistance when striking into nostrils, eye sockets, throats, etc.

    Reply

  • gwern

    gwern

    March 10, 2015, 6:16 pm

    Well, mostly it'd be for experimenting; there are quite a few to try out.

    Erowid lists 25 or so, probably a quarter of which are worth trying or using (eg. I have no idea why melatonin is in their nootropics category); and some of them are promising but hard to evaluate in any way but to try them (eg. oxiracetam/aniracetam/pramirecatam; there're plenty of reports or actual studies on *piracetam*, but the more expensive recent racetams? Just occasional rumors about being much more effecitve). Spending money on obscure long-shots is something I wouldn't do unless I had $500 to spare. :)

    That said, the next one I intend to try is huperzine A, but who knows when I'll get around to it.

    Reply

  • jrohila

    jrohila

    March 10, 2015, 11:15 am

    Americans didn't use tax money to save AIG, they used their printing machines. British used the same thing to get Barclays out of trouble. In case of the Dutch and other countries that got in trouble with their banks, for example Irish, it was the ECB that saved their collective asses.

    I would also add that governments have their sovereignty and Iceland could just make law to erase the debts or pay with their own currency. Actually this would be a good lesson for both the British and Dutch governments and persons and organizations that put their money to Icesave: make your due diligence and not cry for your losses.

    Oh well, when we can get Britain out of the EU, or they leave by their own initiative, there is no reason for Icelanders just to use sovereign default on debts to Britain.

    Reply

  • lordthadeus

    lordthadeus

    March 11, 2015, 1:16 am

    I think it is definitely "serious" but most of their claims of being this radical new way to do philosophy that is completely unprecedented and destined to change everything are overblown. I definitely don't think they are worthy of their own "turn" just yet. Also, I have a lot of problems with Harman's interpretation of tool-being and Meillassoux's notion of correlationism doesn't stick to Heidegger as well as he thinks it does.

    Furthermore, people from SR keep insisting that they want to study objects without a humanistic slant, but isn't that simply the function of science? SR people talk about objects as "actors" but this just seems metaphorical to me. Science is truly "object oriented", not philosophy.

    Reply

  • solaisenberg

    solaisenberg

    March 10, 2015, 2:28 pm

    The following may help to clear up the confusion among your many participants.

    After about 10 years of part-time studying the mysteries in the standard model of the universe, Sol Aisenberg is publishing a book on “The Misunderstood Universe” that is intended to explain and correct many of the mysteries and wrong beliefs in the model of the universe. It includes the corrections made for the wrong assumptions and speculations that resulted in the mysteries of Dark Matter and of Dark Energy. This analysis uses the published observations of others.

    The first existing wrong assumption is that Newton’s law of gravity is a universal law, and is also valid at cosmic distances. It is only based on observations of planet motions in our solar system. Newton was a true genius but he did not have access to information about the far galaxies. When used for cosmic observations of Zwicky and of Rubin, Newton’s law of gravity required massive amounts of dark matter to explain these observations.

    Aisenberg showed that his simple Theory of Additional Gravity (TAG) as an extension of Newton’s original law of gravity agrees with observations at cosmic distances and also in our solar system. It also explains the Pioneer Anomaly for the NASA space probes 10/11. For the elementary equation M*G=r*v*v describing the balance between centrifugal and gravitational forces in spiral galaxies and where the velocity v is observed as constant, the value of M*G is a linear function of distance, r. Rather than the usual assignment of invisible Dark Matter to the mass M, this TAG model adds a linear term to Newton’s gravitational constant G, and to gravity which itself is already invisible.

    The TAG theory is an extension of the gravitational theories of Newton and of Einstein. It depends upon distance and is different from the interesting MOND theory of M. Milgrom, related to acceleration.

    The second, and more serious wrong assumption is that Hubble’s law describes the red shifts as a linear function of distance, and that it is due to the Doppler effect. Aisenberg shows that the red shift includes the reduction of photon energy by three gravitational effects. The usual and accepted belief is that the red shift is due to velocity and that the stars and galaxies are receding. It resulted in the unproven belief that the galaxies are receding, that the universe is expanding, and that there was a big bang. Actually, the velocities were never directly observed and thus there is no evidence of the expansion.

    There was also a belief that the red shift can be used to measure distances for very remote galaxies. In fact, the Hubble red shift law believed to be due to distance must saturate, and cannot be used for large distances because extension of the linear dependence on distance to very large distances would require an unlikely zero and even negative photon energy. The result is the belief that the differences between the observed distances of very remote galaxies, and the distance determined from the red showed an apparent and incorrect acceleration of the supposed recession, and the need for vast Dark energy. Many other false beliefs are clarified in “The Misunderstood Universe”.

    The author, Sol Aisenberg, PhD, is a applied physicist who earned a PhD at MIT and was a staff member in the Physics department, in the Research Laboratory of Electronics, a part-time Lecture at Harvard Medical School, and a visiting Research Professor at Boston University.

    He also was a division president and principal investigator for technology divisions of two large conglomerates.

    Reply

  • StoneCypher

    StoneCypher

    March 11, 2015, 2:02 am

    Plastic bends towards gravity easily when it's hot. In large flat areas, particularly with the kind of cheap soft plastics one has in semi-disposable Ziploc boxes and so on, you'll get small lakes in the resulting divets. This both prevents sheeting from removing bulk water and radically decreases surface area to volume ratio, making evaporation far less effective. You'll see the same effect in the bottoms of cups which have inverse recessed bottoms, like large mugs.

    One effective solution is to tilt the plastic object diagonally, so that no matter what direction the divet forms, there's still a sheeting direction.

    Reply

  • theclansman22

    theclansman22

    March 10, 2015, 11:59 am

    I agree with everything except, in my opinion Pigs (three different ones) is Pink Floyd's greatest moment. It and Achilles last stand by Led Zeppelin are probably #1 and 2 on my favorite songs of all time. I like songs that are really long, its funny how you never see 10 minute + songs by bands like Nickleback and three days grace, probably because they realize all their fans are shallow and have short attention spans. So they release 3.5 minute songs that sound the same....Fuck I hate all modern music.

    Reply

  • spacedebris

    spacedebris

    March 10, 2015, 9:27 am

    We agree completely on the single-payer issue. That would make enforcement of insurers moot. I have little hope that we can do anything but reward corporate dishonesty. With single-payer, we would just be left with policing fraud. Not a simple task either but one that we actually seem to accomplish from time to time.

    Oh and Big Bird (just a bit of l'âne rouge), you are entirely right about my leaving out rent-seeking. In fact, it may be at the core of what we are discussing. It seems that profit without adding wealth has become some sort of goal particularly in the financial sector. Another round of modern-day trust busting would benefit the Nation greatly. I just don't see sufficient numbers of legislators with cojones muy grande for this to happen.

    Reply

  • Sunchy

    Sunchy

    March 10, 2015, 8:52 am

    No, she did have bloody diarrhea. All I'm trying to say is that the person writing the story could be a bit more objective, because honestly you could say "why me" "why this plane crash?" and its the same thing. Plus she got out alive, and a lot of people die from E. coli poisoning, or mudslides, or earthquakes. I feel bad for her, genuinely, but shit happens, and you don't have to overdramatize it because it scares people. Many people may have been able to eat the same thing and NOT get E. coli poisoning from it, its up to individual differences a lot of times too in immune system functioning.

    Reply

  • workerdaemon

    workerdaemon

    March 11, 2015, 6:09 am

    I haven't counted in awhile, but I think my last count of contributed Drupal modules was 5000 for D5 a year or so ago. If each one had a security hole that would be 5000 security bulletins.

    But, the average site uses between 5 to 20 contributed modules. No one individual site would be potentially vulnerable to 5000 security holes... no, in the above made up statistic example, the individual site would only be at risk of 5 to 20.

    Of course, there have not been anywhere near 5000 security bulletins, so Drupal is actually doing pretty well. Add up the lines of code for each contributed module, and compare that to the number of security bulletins and you'll see there is an extremely good ratio there.

    Then you have to dive in a lot closer and actually read the security bulletins. The Drupal security team is extremely cautious and will post a bulletin for even the most obscure edge cases, and coding errors with no known actual method of attack. Heck, there was a security bulletin for "Don't give someone X administrative permission unless you trust the user." (duh)

    I personally don't do every security upgrade immediately. I evaluate my sites' potential vulnerability and only upgrade if I'm actually vulnerable... and none of my sites have ever been vulnerable for the past 3 years. The security holes are for websites that have different levels of permission groups of registered users, e.g.: social networking sites.

    Next, just as you evaluate the security of Drupal core, you also need to evaluate the security of an individual module you choose to use. You can't just plop a CMS on a server and expect it to be perfect, just as much as you can't plop a contributed Drupal module into the site and expect it to be flawless. You have to do your due diligence.

    Part of your due diligence will be to check out the security history of the module. Check out the security history of the developer(s) (but keep in mind the code:flaw ratio, because a prolific long-term developer will by nature have more security flaws than someone who just uploaded their first module yesterday). I follow both the new modules feed, and security bulletins feed... and there have been many times when two days after a new module was contributed that a security bulletin was issued (that also speaks volumes to the speed of the security team finding vulnerabilities).

    Also check out usage statistics. The more eyes on the code will mean more secure code. Consider either skipping that obscure contributed module altogether, or reading the code line by line yourself to ensure its safe. I also see quite a number of obscure modules show up on the security bulletins.

    Reply

  • ThePurpleTentacle

    ThePurpleTentacle

    March 11, 2015, 4:56 am

    I have always voted Dems in the past. I shall be voting for the PPUK as I'm a member this time round. Who cares if they (the Dems) are ready or not to lead a country? That should not effect voting, thinking like that will end in a pure 2 party system. Ideally I'd wish to have a socialist democracy and thought the SLP would be the way to go but after speaking to the socialist labor party I realised they really had no clue what they were doing and were very rude and offensive. I would very much love for the Dems to get more influence and wish them all the luck in the elections.

    Reply

  • jgreen44

    jgreen44

    March 11, 2015, 1:47 am

    Jesus raises the dead, cures the sick, the leper, the blind, etc, expels demons from people, walks on water (or when he doesn’t walk on water, he turns it into wine) - he is unflinching. Wherever Jesus is, a crowd constantly surrounds him to touch him or his clothes, to be cured. Obviously a multitude of people may contain anyone from people with a contagious disease, to the person with an in-growing toenail. Yet the only occasion when, reportedly he remarks openly that his ‘powers’ or ‘virtue had gone out of him’ is a superficial contact of the edge of his cloak by a menstruating woman.

    But it wasn't the menstrual blood that caused him to lose power.

    Reply

  • shinratdr

    shinratdr

    March 10, 2015, 3:29 pm

    That whole comment thread is depressing and stupid, the assholes comment just tops it off as totally inane bullshit.

    Fuck reddit really sucks now. I've already cut out /r/reddit.com/, politics, and a bunch of other cesspools, but it just never ends.

    It was bad enough that to get a viewable frontpage I had to log in, now that doesn't even help. Its still not at digg level, which is hovering above youtube, but there is simply nothing interesting on here anymore, the best ofs are shitty & 50-60% of content is personal questions to the reddit community. I haven't learned something substantial from here in a month, and I used to learn something new every day.

    TIL doesn't count unless its the kind of "learning" that can be summarized in a 10 word headline.

    Its funny that relationship bullshit will be the downfall of reddit. It was actually a more stable society when mostly populated by people primarily concerned with other shit.

    Reply

  • MrThrowaway

    MrThrowaway

    March 10, 2015, 12:58 pm

    When I first started working in the field (not actually a lobbyist), I actually did not support special-interest lobbying. I was actually on staff for a legislator at the state level, and later worked for a Senator. During this time, I realized that legislators 1) Go through an enormous amount of complex legislation and 2) Do not have enough funding to hire experienced staff that can do it all.

    This is -slightly- better at the federal level, but honestly, there are few staff at the Hill that have the time to read the 800 page Kerry-Boxer bill front to back and also understand the complex economic effects of all of it. The nature of the beast nowadays is that you need to have special-interest lobbyists provide information about their particular issue on any given bill to the staffers, who then condense that information from ALL the lobbyists into an overall summary of the bill for their legislator.

    (As an aside, on the state level, where bills of more direct importance happen on a yearly basis, there is only typically one staffer per legislator who has to handle all the administrative stuff like constituent services while also expected to be a policy expert in every field. In my state at least, there is an average of 3000 bills for the General Assembly to get through every year, and there are some places like Virginia [used to live there] where they only convene for 45 to 60 days.)

    Now, a lot of people say that lobbyists probably just lie then about what parts of the bill do, to benefit their own interests. Exaggerations happen all the time, but they are always supported by studies, even if they come from the Sierra Club or the Heritage Foundation. If a legislator found out that a lobbyist had lied to them, that lobbyist would lose all credibility they had, and that is our true currency around here.

    So I now see a need for lobbyists, but that need should be limited to providing honest summaries about complex portions of bills, and how their grassroots would react to a yes or no vote. Nowadays, our power has grown to the point where the legislators are effectively dictated by our demands, which shouldn't be how it is. Part of this is the nature of our politicians, who are simply vote-maximizers these days. I guess the only other way to fix it would be to create a massive nonpartisan foundation that basically usurped our role, and then to ban us. However, I think that we can all see on the face of it that solution produces as many, if not more, problems than it tries to solve.

    Reply

  • stumo

    stumo

    March 11, 2015, 9:35 am

    > See the difference?

    Not really. One has to assume that a certain proportion of the population is not going to treat these things responsibly. Can we agree to that?

    > My ownership of a knife, shotgun, rifle, howitzer, etc. has no negative bearing on your safety whatsoever.

    Sure it does. I have no idea how responsible you are. If I'm you're neighbor and you possess the means to easily blow up my backyard BBQ, with me and my family in the process, why should I trust you not to do so?

    Reply

  • CBruceNL

    CBruceNL

    March 10, 2015, 8:37 pm

    I didn't find this story sad at all, actually. The loss of a child is hard to imagine, and I have no doubt the family and the community around this child was deeply shook. However, the death of this boy was only a single chapter in his life.

    The good nature of this child helped to reshape a very small part of the world. From his death, dozens of children who likely never would have planted a seed, did. And they will remember that seed, that life they helped to create, for a very long time. It was a direct lesson to many people that life is to be enjoyed, nurtured and made more beautiful.

    So I don't have any concern for this boy or his family. His spirit lives on in a tangible, real way, seen in the fields of yellow around their school and, indeed, every year at a festival where the very intent is to enjoy life. The strength of his family let his memory and his ideals live on.

    This is one of the happiest things I have ever read.

    Reply

  • Zoomerdog

    Zoomerdog

    March 11, 2015, 2:12 am

    Everything the federal government is doing -- no exceptions that I'm aware of -- is making the problem worse:

    * Continuing and even expanding our foreign wars and occupations

    * Expanding the size of domestic government, which already has grown so large it is crowding out the private, wealth-generating economy.

    * Printing (mostly electronically) TRILLIONS of dollars and giving many of them to corrupt and bankrupt banks and other businesses that NEED to go out of business (clearing deadwood is necessary for an efficient and healthy economy). This is corporatism on steroids: fail, wreck the entire economy in the process, and get paid hundreds of trillions of dollars for doing so.

    * The thousand-pages of lawyer-speak in the healthcare bill will cripple our healthcare system even more than it already is. Cheap, rapidly advancing healthcare and drugs plus lots of free clinics and hospitals for the poor: that's what getting government OUT of healthcare would give us; it's what we HAD 50 years ago (I was there; I remember. I also remember house calls by our doctor -- also cheap, and not uncommon). Healthcare in the US was widely hailed as the best in the world then; it SHOULD be even better now and with a huge variety of delivery methods. Market regulation (Underwriter Labs for electrical devices, for instance) produces safe, cheap products that consumers want and can afford; government regulation is captured by the regulated industry and then protects that industry's profits at the expense of consumer dollars and even consumer safety. Giving politicians even more control of all this will NOT solve our problems; it will add cost to an already-bankrupt federal government and eliminate even more choice, innovation, and access.

    * Citizens themselves are actually showing signs of responsibility; saving rates are up; consumption of useless junk is down. If only the government were doing the same. . .

    Reply

  • baggins

    baggins

    March 11, 2015, 9:28 am

    Did the Beatles have great producers? Maybe as we push towards the "musicians" publishing under open licenses people will become more open to the idea and do what I do; whenever I download some music from someone who offers it for free/under an open license I will donate a few dollars. Look at Jonathan Coulton who can make a few hundred dollars for every bunch of songs he releases. If that became the mainstream way that music was distributed I'm sure that it would be a very viable business model.

    Reply

  • mredd

    mredd

    March 11, 2015, 5:38 am

    1. People will vote this down since the Jerusalem Post is a rabid Israeli right-wing newspaper which only presents a very biased view of the situation. Like Fox "News".

    2. What's wrong with that. It helps when you put things in context and point out that the Jerusalem Post is extremely biased.

    3. Why? If the issue has validity there can and will be discussion about it. I suspect that you don't want any discussion though since you yourself are very biased and only interested in painting the Palestinians in a bad way while pretending that the Israeli are the good guys.

    Reply

  • danielsevelt007

    danielsevelt007

    March 11, 2015, 9:39 am

    Awesome! We agree on those points then! I've known guys with their personal priorities out of whack in that way and those are the guys I won't tolerate whining from either. What blows me away is when you do tell them that they are getting used and how and they just won't change even though they seem to be considering the truth of your words. I'll go out of my way to have one or maybe two honest in depth talks and if they don't change I just refer back to that as the key to proceeding with the discussion and guidance with diminishing returns;

    "Take my advice or don't, but, don't bother bringing up your girl problems if you won't try it."

    Reply

Leave a comment