Image

Cialis is a latest medicine for treatment of disturbances of erection at men. Cialis feature is its high-speed accomplish (30 minutes) and a long-term effect (up to 36 hours). In this regard you can choose the moment which is most normal for sexual intercourse, having in style a drug in advance. It is viable to give a positive response Cialis in the hours of daylight and to be ready even next-door day. nimble ingredient - Tadalafil.

The extensive cost required to produce a new pharmaceutical product has meant that cheap cialis india sector investment in pharmaceutical innovation has been disproportionately directed to products meeting the needs of patients in developed countries, particularly in the United States, which combines strong patent protection with a market free of price controls.

The largest study of its kind revealed the 4 CEO behaviors. Rezepte online reservieren Nutzen Sie unseren Reservierungsservice und reservieren Sie Medikamente oder andere Waren unseres Apothekensortiments. Il s'agit aussi d'une préparation culte qui a permis de traiter facilement l'impuissance.

Categories: ED | cialis professional buy

Comments

  • cryptovariable

    cryptovariable

    March 11, 2015, 9:27 am

    Hmm... *from the article*:

    Seoul - managed well, made cash, also got democracy as a bonus.

    Barcelona - managed well, made **tons** of cash, sparked a new golden age in the region.

    Atlanta - managed reasonably well, broke even, gained parks, facilities and $30 million in affordable housing.

    Sydney - not managed well: *"We didn't really have a policy for what would happen to the Olympic site after the Games," Holliday admits.* Made no money.

    Beijing - managed well, but Beijing didn't give a crap about money, they were spending for prestige. *Not particularly relevant.*

    Montreal - mismanaged: *"(the facilities) which might not be completed in time anyway, as in Montréal"*, lost money.

    London - has not yet happened, can't hold judgement.

    You also forgot to mention LA, which is covered in the article: *The wider economic impact of the Games on Southern California has been put at $3.3bn, while 40 per cent of the profits were channelled into youth sports organisations.* 3.3 billion dollars, with 0 public expenditure. Sounds like a winner!

    So good management == CASH MONEY.

    Shitty management == OMG DEBT.

    We'll see how London does, but based on the performance of Brazil's economy lately, and some of the political decisions the government's made over the last few years, I think they have the brains to pull it off.

    Reply

  • MikeLinPA

    MikeLinPA

    March 11, 2015, 7:33 am

    I can see both sides of this argument.

    The Constitution grants the right to bear arms and form militias. The guys in Waco Texas may have been within their right to hoard assault weapons and have a little army inside their compound. We all have that right. Unfortunately, its only the friggin' nut jobs that use that right. (I once again point to the Waco Texas compound.)

    I could form my own little army right now, but what would my agenda be? The right to BBQ? Hmmm, burgers on the grill, beer in the cooler, ...lets disband! (But Captain, we can't disband now. We just ordered uniforms and hats! We still gotta vote on the secret handshake. Oh, you're no fun!)

    Seriously, the British tried to take our hunting rifles away from us so we could not resist the King's rule. That is why we have that right, so we can defend ourselves from other governments, and even our own Government if need be. The second amendment is there to make sure no one takes away the first amendment, or our right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    A co-worker of mine punched his ex-wife in the face while she was holding their 1 year old child in her arms just a few weeks ago. He's an ass, but I never thought he was that big of an ass. If he had a gun on him, would he have been crazy enough to murder her? No one can actually answer that. Statistics show that when there is a hand gun in a home, that gun is 5 times as likely to shoot a family member than it is to shoot an intruder. That is a sobering statistic.

    I own a .22 rifle and a 20 gauge shotgun. I keep them in one part of the house. I have trigger locks on them both, keys kept in another place. The shotgun ammo is in a third place, and the 22 ammo in a forth. If someone breaks into my house, I will call 911. I am not going to be that putz with a gun and a dead family member because I watched Lethal Weapon and figured I could be that tough.

    I have a suggestion. All of the NRA guys and gun collectors and hunting enthusiasts, how about you support a national health plan with a public option, so all the angry and unstable people in the country can get the help they desperately need, so they won't go on a shooting spree! There is a compromise I can live with. I don't mind when a sensible law abiding citizen owns a gun, but we have to keep them out of the hands of the mentally unstable and chronically angry.

    edit: I said conically angry. LOL That is what I get for using spell check too much.

    another edit: I mentioned the mentally unstable and the chronically angry. I forgot to mention the hopelessly stupid. We all know too many of them...

    Reply

  • Freeky

    Freeky

    March 10, 2015, 7:43 am

    The damage model's still really fun, even if they seem to have toned it down a lot from their initial tech demo/interviews -- presumably for the reasons they mentioned, that they actually had trouble keeping buildings from collapsing, not being architects themselves.

    If anything I'd say the main problem is there are sometimes so many endlessly respawning enemies you just don't get much chance to fully enjoy the damage model. Smashing down a building works wonders for reducing such frustration, though :)

    The bundled "DLC" seems rather decent too; it's like an extra 1/5th of the game.

    Reply

  • paloduro

    paloduro

    March 10, 2015, 1:26 pm

    THREE TO FOUR DAYS?!

    After two days, you should have known something was wrong. If you do this often, you should be extremely alarmed. Later on in life your colon could expand to an unusual size, a condition called *megacolon*. Then, you're screwed. Waiting that long could end up killing you or seriously messing up your life. Don't just go with stool softeners, either. Eat something that has fiber with your meat.

    Another thing: chew your food better. Chew each bite of food, especially meat, at least 20 times so that your body can get more nutrients out of it and digest it better, and chewing 30 times is even better. This alone might add years to your life.

    Reply

  • agen_kolar

    agen_kolar

    March 10, 2015, 11:06 pm

    This is an issue I'm torn on, because yes we have the constitutional right to own and bear arms. However, despite what some of you may think, I don't believe anyone has any business owning assault rifles and the like. They have no practical use that you can't accomplish with less powerful guns.

    The best way to avoid being shot is to outlaw guns, and while that won't keep criminals from using guns, it will greatly inhibit them from obtaining them. Will guns ever be outlawed in the US? Not in a million years. Should they be regulated more strictly, in my opinion? "Fuck yes" isn't saying it strong enough.

    Reply

  • Huhwhassat

    Huhwhassat

    March 10, 2015, 8:40 am

    The problem is that you assume that everyone else is smarter/stronger/faster than you. Statistically, 68% of people are within one standard deviation of average, with respect to most things. That you realize that you are acting in an average way means that you have the potential to act above average. Get to it, study something that you like, and practice shaking it off. Wait til you get out in the workforce, where you'll see that most people, whom you'll assume are on top of things, are slackers, stupid, or just not willing to give a hoot. It'll make you I'll.

    Reply

  • Dark-Star

    Dark-Star

    March 10, 2015, 11:12 pm

    >I've been spending a lot of time camping in the out of the way places and the rural folks around the places I've camped have been awesome.

    Rural folk rock. Be nice to them and they are almost without exception VERY nice back to you.

    >I dunno if we would agree on everything but that shit doesn't really matter. Not unless you make it matter.

    In the end, that stuff doesn't *really* matter, at least not anywhere near as much when it all hits the fan. (and it will - likely in our lifetimes)

    Funny thing is I've got an online friend in NZ who's suggested much the same thing you are, except he wants to live a semi-rural existence with minimal ties to technology for literary and communication purposes.

    What's your 10-4? I live in Omaha NE.

    Reply

  • the_nuclear_lobby

    the_nuclear_lobby

    March 10, 2015, 9:34 am

    >this does not specify Iran's right to revert with impunity.

    Yes it does. Iran is trying to change a two-party legal document without the consent of the other party. That is illegal.

    >Says you. Iran doesn't agree.

    Everywhere _except_ Iran agrees - the IAEA, the permanent security council members. Which as I pointed out, is all that matters in the context of the NPT, since there is no explicit mechanism in the treaty itself which is used to determine whether a signatory is in breach.

    They undertook an exchange of letters with the IAEA in 2003 to approve the change to Code 3.1 which requires them to notify the agency about any decision to build a nuclear facility. Iran itself believed themselves to be bound to this agreement until 2007, which demonstrates they knew it was legally-binding. To agree to a change to a legal document, then adhere to said change for a time period, then to try to unilaterally change the document again is clearly not legally valid.

    That Iran knew they were at some point bound by Code 3.1 itself proves they know they can't simply change the rules.

    >I'm just quoting him. You are not.

    Here's the same guy, you're misunderstanding what he's saying:

    _the director of the IAEA Office of Legal Affairs, Johan Rautenbach, called __Iran’s reversion to implementation of the earlier version of the Code 3.1 "inconsistent with its obligations under the Subsidiary Arrangements__."_

    The sentence that you're quoting after the one above merely indicates that the IAEA is not willing to place Iran in breach of the Subsidiary Agreement as a whole yet despite them being aware it is a clear violation.

    >The Iranians seem to be using the same tactic, saying that they signed but did not ratify the amendment

    They signed and ratified the document back in the 1970s, and changes to the Subsidiary Agreement do not require anything beyond an exchange of letters to be legally-binding changes (as so specified in the document itself), which took place in 2003.

    That they made up some internal rules in their country that allows them to unilaterally revert changes has no bearing on international law.

    If Canada passes a law saying that we can revert any treaty change as long as it's Tuesday, attempting to do so would be invalid under international for the same reason.

    ----

    All of this doesn't really matter anyway, because if the IAEA believes Iran to be violating their agreement at any time they can decide to refer them to the UN Security Council to determine their treaty status by vote as they did back in 2003.

    Reply

  • kino101

    kino101

    March 10, 2015, 11:32 pm

    I totally agree, but...

    there are always at least two sides to a story, so it takes two to fix it. imo it takes understanding to gain the wisdom to carve out a lasting peace, if that's even possible any more(and that's maybe why the Zionists are acting the way they are, kinda fuck it, nothing will work so just drive 'em all out, kill 'em all)...

    both sides need to acknowledge the needs of the other and if they don't it's gonna be genocide.

    what if the guilty conscience european community never helped establish a Jewish state? do you understand that this was done by some very forward thinking people to counter the inevitable threat of Islamic fundamentalism and to protect access to oil for forever? The Jewish state is only a pawn in geopolitical realpolitik(this is only one way of looking at this mess, just as credible as any other?) Israel is suffering from PTSD

    it has to be something in the water, they're all nuts...

    Reply

  • NotKumar

    NotKumar

    March 10, 2015, 2:10 pm

    I just wanted to add that although every hospital is required by law to have an emergency room, the law actually only requires emergency rooms to stabilize you. The law does not require the hospital to see you through the entire course of treatment. Emergency rooms traditionally, pardon the expression, hemorrhage money. You'll notice that some richer, non-county hospitals have the entrances of their emergency rooms tucked away in a not so visible alley. Also, these hospitals often stabilize patients and then send them to the county hospital to get treated.

    As for your post, I agree that the existence of that law doesn't imply a right. You'll get into an entirely different debate by equating health care with our constitutional rights.

    Reply

  • dredd

    dredd

    March 11, 2015, 3:47 am

    You see that's where you're confused. I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was contributing to the discussion and showing there is clear evidence a meat based diet is unhealthy, and papers which show a clear causal mechanism for that problem. You wade in days later to try to pretend you know something about science?

    I referenced the Wikipedia entry because you clearly don't understand what the null hypothesis would be in this complex case (of the diet). It would be unethical to go right down to a water only diet and add from there. Or perhaps you simply didn't understand my comment. However, your patronising reply indicates your a troll with nothing to contribute.

    Reply

  • hairyforehead

    hairyforehead

    March 10, 2015, 3:07 pm

    I'll believe it when i see it. There are already tons of chemicals that are known to be unsafe and are banned in Canada and Europe that are used gratuitously in the US. You vastly underestimate the power of a simple media blackout. If it isn't in the 30 min of morning news or the 30 min of afternoon news it doesn't exist.

    If it does reach the news, it can and will be offhandedly dismissed as the worrying ninnies in quaint, backwards Europe who laughingly question the conclusions of the scientific and intellectual powerhouse that is the USA.

    TLDR; there might be a short blurb about this in the evening news. Nothing else changes for the US.

    Reply

  • jayd16

    jayd16

    March 10, 2015, 8:52 pm

    I think augmented reality is being researched in such an ass backwards way. It stems from military research of machine vision (missiles tracking a plane) and sifting through satellite images for troop movements. Basically, looking for things that don't want to be found. Things like salience and robust object matching need to be designed for what is shown in the video.

    In my opinion this is NOT what augmented reality should be bothered with. If anything, an object should have a clear, concise, machine readable label. The label can hold a number linked to a database with information on what that object is. All this object matching stuff is a total waste for augmented reality.

    Security, AI vision etc. can deal with that tech but augment reality can take the shortcut. Obviously this needs some sort of standardized label commission but that shouldn't be too hard.

    The tech already exists for this type of augmented reality and if you throw in adhoc wireless connections (easily implemented with current tech) its embarrassing what COULD be churned out in 6 months but won't be.

    Reply

  • rararasputin

    rararasputin

    March 11, 2015, 7:51 am

    Why is it any different than someone complaining about a headache or anything?

    And you really, deeply care if a friend asks you if you have a tampon they can use? Why, again, is that any different than if someone suddenly started sneezing and was wondering if you had tissues or something....

    I think you both need to lighten up a bit...

    That said, seeing period blood lipstick made me say "gross!" out loud to myself, and I think this crap is really, really stupid. And I would never talk about my flow, or .... anything. But I'm not going to go out of my way to never mention the fact that it exists if it comes up.

    Reply

  • T5k-dot-com

    T5k-dot-com

    March 11, 2015, 6:04 am

    Awesome projection. You ascribe your own motive of "Whatever fantasies help you sleep at night" to someone who has just owned you on every point, multiple times. love it.

    5 responses, 0 with any logic, fact, or coherent argument.

    1) a claim to desire discussion on issues, followed by a strict avoidance of discussing the issues. instead, just more whining and personal attacks to help you sleep at night.

    2) an astonishing claim that you dont have access to this comment thread (which contained the source I cited) to further your desperate delusion that your dumb claim on sources wasn't as false/foolish/amusingly ignorant as I proved it to be.

    3) Citation Needed. since its insanely ridiculous. Where did you go to school that you think the sentence "John Stewart called him [Carlson] a partisan who was such a hack that he was "hurting america", which was laughably false" makes a comment about "shows like 'Crossfire'"? Go ahead and explain yourself, professor. What rules of sentence structure am I ignorant of that magically transform people into television shows and shows like them? Give it up. you failed. I made a clear statement about a person, contained in surrounding context about that person, as part of a larger accurate point (that you were unable to rebut at all, let alone effectively) about the same person and you, because you don't read clearly or think clearly, inserted your own point into, falsely. Instead of owning up to it and forcing me to then either admit that human beings sometimes do that, you continue embarrassing yourself with claims that its so "fucking" obvious that a sentence about a human beings partisanship was in fact about a television shows style and format and that its *my* poor english skills that prevent me from understanding that.... you are fooling no one. get a grip already. Your claim that I said "it was false that shows like 'Crossfire' were hurting America" is not present anywhere in this thread.

    4) you ignore the correction on your false claim that a url is synonymous with a source (again: it isnt) and instead baslessly go back to the bogus claim that its not YOU who is the dumbass that is unable to read properly, but my own incoherent "structure". terrible try. just another fail to add to your list.

    Nothing you said was ignored, liar. stop projecting your own tactics on to me. I'll be happy to discuss a new point once you man-up to conclude with the ones you ignored first. in this case: your false claims on what a source is. you ignored the correction, twice. either admit you were wrong, or explain why you're not, THEN move on and THEN i will too. that's how it works.

    Its immature narcissism to expect me to ignore your false defense in response to the correction on your false attack and then chide me for not clicking random urls you presented with no context, intro or explanation whatsoever and find how each of them somehow has anything to do with anything i've previously said.

    5) Use of your stock strategy of "ignore what the other person says, then conclude that they must be wrong".

    Hope it gained you some sleep at night. :)

    Reply

  • SlimeyBooger

    SlimeyBooger

    March 10, 2015, 10:59 am

    I have a similar story. I delivered to a duplex, and after ringing the bell several times, I called their phone. The girl answered and said that they had to get dressed and they'd be down. When they answered the door, she said she would make out with me if I gave them their order for free. She was pretty hot, but her boyfriend was pretty big, the pizza was like $25, and who knows where her mouth was just at/on.

    I delivered for around 6 years total, and that is, unfortunately, as close to pizza delivery porn guy I had been. :(

    Reply

  • MarkByers

    MarkByers

    March 10, 2015, 5:47 pm

    OK... I overreacted when I got downvoted - I just find it annoying when the discussion goes completely one sided and opposing views get hidden, especially when they're valid points.

    Your comment is correct. If he is using this logic he really should have stated that clearly. This is what he actually wrote:

    > In the first "solution", you know that your envelope has $100.

    > In the second "solution", you know the values of both envelopes

    The problem *nowhere* states or even suggests that you are allowed to look inside the envelopes or that you are allowed to know the values. If he meant what you described then he did a very bad job of explaining it, IMHO.

    But I'm not so worried people upvoting misleading or confusing comments... I just think it's annoying that people were downvoting the perfectly reasonable replies. (Not just mine - a couple of others got hit too.)

    Reply

  • Farfalla

    Farfalla

    March 11, 2015, 4:58 am

    I've considered some career options relating to finance and something I've learned is that almost no matter what you do you need to pass some sort of exam (one, at least) to serve in that field professionally.

    Check out the wikipedia page on whatever specific field you're looking at and it will usually tell you what qualifications you need.

    I've managed my own stock portfolio for some years now, so that is what I know most about. Eventually I'd like to have that be my career, in some form.

    Some general advice I can give: diversify. For example, for me to fully utilize my skills in the stock market I can do more than just invest. I can manage other's portfolios (again, exams and certification required), charge for lessons teaching others how trade, etc. The point is that no matter what your skill set, there are always opportunities outside your main "job" that will bring in extra income and break up the monotony.

    This career path appeals to me because I can be my own boss, and unlike other jobs there are virtually no diminishing returns. The harder I work, the more I can make.

    Let me know if you have any questions you think I could answer.

    Reply

Leave a comment