TampaYankee

Many Happy Returns too.

lurkerspeaks, Thanks for sharing your adventure. Seems like a good start. I look forward to future installments. Also, glad your trip down was uneventful, my favorite way to travel.

Could a New 'Viagra Condom' Encourage Safer Sex? By MEREDITH MELNICK – Mon May 9, 9:55 am ET The problem with condoms is that they don't get used as often as they should. But an innovative new product by a British biotech firm may change men's minds: called CSD500, the condom helps men keep their erection longer. It's been dubbed the "Viagra condom," but that's not entirely accurate. The new product is lined with a vasodilating gel, which increases blood flow to the penis and helps maintain erection. But unlike the pill, it's not designed for men who have erectile dysfunction; rather, it's meant for men who have trouble keeping erections specifically while using a condom. CSD500 was developed by Futura Medical and licensed to the Durex brand, which is owned by consumer-products company Reckitt Benckiser. The product is close to regulatory approval in the U.K. and may be on the market within the year, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal. If the manufacturer seeks FDA approval to market the condom in the U.S., it will have to provide more clinical trial data. The CSD500 is certainly an innovative idea, not least because it targets male users. Most advances in birth control - like hormone patches or pills - are geared toward women. And many men would probably agree that the stalwart but lowly condom has been long overdue for an upgrade. So how does Futura's new invention work? The trick was getting the gel to stay put inside the condom, so that it would not affect the condom-wearer's partner. According to the Journal: Finding an active ingredient was straightforward - it's a generic compound for the treatment of angina, a severe chest pain caused by lack of blood flow to the heart. However, "immobilizing" the gel in the condom, so the vasodilator only touches the wearer during sexual intercourse, was the clever part. "The challenge is having a stable product in a condom - a gel that doesn't do anything detrimental to the condom," Futura Chief Executive James Barder said. "Some products can degrade the latex very quickly," said Mr. Barder, noting that adding the vasodilator to the lubricant is complicated. "It has to be immobilized in the condom." Most of the patents protecting CSD500 are associated with this immobilization, Mr. Barder said. Although CSD500 isn't meant to compete with Viagra, despite its nickname, a check of online sales of the drug would suggest there's no shortage of men who use it recreationally, which bodes well for future sales of an erection-encouraging condom. But regulators are more interested in what the condom promises to do for rates of sexually transmitted infections (STI). A product that improves firmness and duration will surely encourage condom use, but the CSD500 also combats another common cause of STI transmission: condoms that slip off because of erectile problems. Reckitt Benckiser plans to investigate the condom's commercial viability in Europe if it is approved, and then expand to the U.S. market. See original article at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110509/hl_time/httphealthlandtimecom20110509couldanewviagracondomencouragesafersexxidrssfullhealthsciyahoo;_ylt=AtBlEB4I0XDXLThTHf_u06r9xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTViZDBjbG1zBGFzc2V0A3RpbWUvMjAxMTA1MDkvaHR0cGhlYWx0aGxhbmR0aW1lY29tMjAxMTA1MDljb3VsZGFuZXd2aWFncmFjb25kb21lbmNvdXJhZ2VzYWZlcnNleHhpZHJzc2Z1bGxoZWFsdGhzY2l5YWhvbwRjY29kZQNnbXBlBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2NvdWxkYW5ldzM5dg--

There is a lot about that mission that will remain classified. You can bet on it.

Not offended. Just remarking on an oft observed phenomenon on my end that many viewers seldom see.

You obviously missed my stellar April 1st contribution. That blew the bloom off the rose.

I have no knowledge of any posts deleted. It is always helpful to include some details about issues inquired of. It helps the admin have an inkling of what the question concerns. You'd be surprised how many communications I get about inquiries or complaints without any information describing the issue beyond a vague subject line. It's like we are supposed to know automatically.

Will inform the support team about this. Thanks.

You try being several months pregnant and let's see how much you are smiling. Remember, it's like having a bug crawl up your ass and turn into a pumpkin.

That's the way I see it. Third parties have more to do with general unhappiness and the frustration that causes. The President is held more accountable than individual Congressmen or Senators for what is going on. (If people could vote for the entire Senate or Congress then that might be different, but they can't.) That unhappiness is expressed in two ways with a third party. Frustrated people either vote the other party or if they cannot abide that party then a third party. The vote against Obama will be split two ways. The GOP faithful will come home. That is why Bush I, the incumbent, lost to Clinton (who failed to come close to a majority), IMO. Then there is always the possibility that a disaffected progressive will jump in too. That would be death blow in a close election. Nader cost the election for Gore in FLA in 2000. Yeah, that election was stolen but if not for Nader the votes would not have been close enough to permit the election to be stolen. Remember that elections are always decided by people in the center and then only in a handful of states, sometimes even just one state. That's an artifact of the electoral college. That's my read anyway.

Whether they are morons or not is irrelevant. They have an agenda. That agenda will not be deterred. They move to the next idiotic issue the keep controversy stoked.

The only Bloomberg candidacy would be a third party candidacy. He would bleed off moderates and independents -- that 10% - 15% in the middle that decide elections. That would throw the election to the GOP candidate.

Like it or not, your choice will be Obama or the GOP candidate taking the White House. Bloomberg isn't in the picture and even if he were he'd not win but would probably take Obama down. That is one reason he won't enter but not the only one.

Can anyone really have such hideous taste or is it just an outrageous send up?

Well, the whole American culture assumes we are number 1. Whether it is necessary or right is another issue but we have called the tune pretty much since WWII. One thing is clear, we will no longer be doing that with China as the leading economy. In fact, we have lost that tune-calling already with this near depression brought on by our Wall St excesses abetted by poor government regs and oversight. We are not going to regain it with the paltry response our politicians have made to our recovery, 2016 or not. We are not going to fold but we are not going to call the tune as before, especially while unemployment remains high.

I doubt that. Tracking and monitoring software has come a long way since then.

Can't get into prison sex. Not my fantasy scene at all.

This is a return to the early days of the internet when AOL and Compuserve charged by hour-based plans. It was quite expensive. Can't say I'm surprised that providers would try to reinstitute this model. Any way to ring more money out of users. It will cripple the internet if it is allowed to succeed. Time will tell. BTW, I pay about $50 /mo for an intermediate speed tier service.

Nobody with a head in the game should be surprised, generally. Whether 2016 or 2020 makes little difference. The Republicans have guaranteed that we would be overtaken sooner. The Dems have contributed to their effort. This is not the forum to go into long diatribe about the state of affairs. It suffices to say that our politicans have focused on the debt and deficit issues in the near term over jobs, jobs, jobs, invigorating R&D and restoring a manufacturing base. So be it.

In the past members felt that we had too many inactive forums and wanted to see them removed. The Leisure Class Travel Forum was one of those seldom utilized and suggested for removal. If there is a significant demand it will be brought back.

Count me in too.

No, just a strong case of man-hunk.

He's the best looking Kennedy other than John-John and would give him a run in his prime. It seems the Schartzeneggar/Shriver genes mix well with the Kennedy/Fitzpatric genes.

Internet Freedom Threatened By New Restrictions The Huffington Post Amy Lee First Posted: 04/18/11 01:53 PM ET Updated: 04/18/11 01:53 PM ET Freedom on the worldwide Internet is in danger, according to a new report by Freedom House. In a survey of 37 countries, only 8 qualified as having completely "Free" Internets, while 11 were designated "Not Free" and the remainder were "Partly Free." The survey measured Internet freedom by studying obstacles to access, such as governmental efforts to block technologies or control over Internet access providers, limits on content, including the blocking of websites and other forms of censorship, as well as violations of user rights including privacy, online surveillance and real world repercussions for online activity. The U.S. scored second on the list as ranked by most to least free, with Estonia taking the lead as the nation where the Internet was most free. Germany, Australia and the UK were ranked just behind the U.S. Among the most alarming findings of the report was evidence that a growing number of countries are attempting to restrict the flow on information online by blocking political content and threatening website owners and bloggers with arrest. Even more democratic countries, like the UK, are chipping away at web freedom with other forms of censorship and surveillance, or with legal harassment. The report listed Russia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Thailand and Jordan as the countries where a relatively free Internet now threatens to become severely restricted: signs include the 2011 sentencing of a Thai web developer to 13 years of prison over certain web comments, Russian use of "sock puppets" to influence public opinion, and other forms of increased censorship, coercion and restriction. The report isolated three kinds of controls over Internet now beginning to see implementation: politically motivated control (blocking websites, or detaining users), accelerating institutional controls (as in Pakistan's new Committee for the Evaluation of Websites, responsible for flagging "offensive" websites against the state), and strengthening pre-existing internet control devices. Some examples of such strengthening include Iran's centralized filtering system can block a website across the country within hours and recent action by Vietnam to sentence 4 activists to 33 years of prison time for reporting human rights violations online. As the report notes, much of this governmental response has come as a result of the Internet's explosive rise as in social media applications such as Facebook and Twitter, which make it much easier than ever before to create and share content with large groups of people. Of course, Twitter and Facebook have also proven recently to be vitally important in mobilizing revolutionary action as in Egypt, and Tunisia, as well as in exposing conditions in countries traditionally closed off from all traditional media, such as Cuba. The numbers are startling. Twelve of the 37 companies in the survey have had, at least temporarily, total bans on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook or equivalent applications. In 22 of the countries, a blogger or other Internet user was arrested for something posted online--as with the Chinese woman sent to labor camp over a tweet, or the 18-year-old Iranian writing on women's rights (later released). Though undesirable content blocked online often includes material that many people might agree is objectionable, like child pornography, illegal gambling, and copyright infringement, governments are also moving to block access to information around political, social and human rights issues. Fifteen of the countries surveyed substantially blocked political contact as the result of official or unofficial national policy to keep users from getting to thousands of websites broadcasting news they deem inappropriate. Such blocking is usually carried out by Internet Service Providers as instructed by the government. Some countries, including China, can even scan for users searching for specific banned keywords. Further, at least 12 governments were found to be using cyberattacks to disrupt the online networks of activists, though attacks by nonstate actors were also found to pose an increasingly dangerous problem. China has been a major source of such attacks, including denial of service attacks on human rights groups, email messages sent to foreign journalists containing malicious spy software and hacking raids on financial, defense and technology companies. And as seen in the case of Egypt, governments often have the ability to shut off the country's connection to international Internet traffic. In some countries, Internet services are state-tun, whereas in others, competitive private ISPs hold control, but with ultimate control over the country's Internet access lies with the government. This "kill switch" over the web has already seen use, as in China from July 2009 to May 2010, when authorities cut off connections in Xinjiang while security forces carried on with mass arrests. Less dramatically, if not less harmfully, some governments can slow down connection speeds at will. Iran, scored as the least free country for web use, dropped a full 13 points on its freedom score from 2009. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/18/global-internet-freedom-_n_850520.html

Looks like my kind of movie. Taylor is just the cherry on top.