text:
Welcome To Our New Improved Platform For Health Delivery

Organics Lavender and Aloe Conditioner 350ml

Price: AU $14.84
Code: 909088
Not yet rated | Write a Review

infused with Certified Organic Lavender Floral Water, an intense elixir of plant essences. Certified Organic Botanicals of Aloe Vera, Licorice, Horsetaile and Juniper Berry moisturize adding body, bounce and luster to hair. Phytoproteins, Pro-vitamins and Certified Organic Jojoba Oil enhance manageability and volume.
Cruelty-free, pH balanced, and biodegradable.

Active Ingredients:

Certified Organic Lavender Floral Water, Botanical Infusion of Certified Organic Licorice, Horsetail, Juniper Berry, Sage, Echinacea, Marshmallow, Yucca, Burdock, Cetearyl Alcohol, Behentrimonium Chloride, Certified Organic Aloe Vera, Hydrolyzed Wheat Protein, Hydrolyzed Wheat Starch, Certified Organic Jojoba Oil, Vegetable Glycerin, Hydroxyethylcellulose, Cetyl Esters, Certified Organic Lavender Oil and Clary Sage Oil, Bisabolol, Grapefruit Seed Extract, Pure Essential Oil of Ylang Ylang.

After shampooing, massage into damp hair. Rinse.

Organics Lavender and Aloe Conditioner 350ml has not been rated yet.
Write an online review and share your thoughts with others.


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Michigan, Alabama apply to implement Medicaid work requirements

Two more states have applied for waivers from HHS to implement work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries.

Michigan, which has already approved a law to implement work requirements, has requested federal permission to get its program underway. The program would require certain Medicaid beneficiaries to work at least 80 hours per month and report their hours to maintain healthcare coverage.

Similarly, Alabama recently applied for a waiver on the same day as Michigan, Sept. 10. Alabama originally applied for the waiver July 31, but revised its proposal under the direction of CMS.

If approved, Michigan and Alabama would join 11 other states with a work requirement program. The new policy, which was only allowed by the Trump administration beginning earlier this year, has been met with controversy as opponents argue the rules will kick vulnerable people off essential healthcare coverage.

A pair of recent studies also concluded the savings to Medicare would be minimal, though millions would lose insurance.

In Arkansas, which began its work requirement program in June, thousands of beneficiaries already lost insurance coverage for failing to report hours worked. HHS is facing lawsuits from healthcare advocacy groups over approvals of the policy. Kentucky, which was granted approval for a work requirement program, saw its policy blocked by a federal judge earlier this summer.

Despite these legal hiccups, the Trump administration has pressed on with allowing the policies to move forward.

Michigan is aiming to start its program in 2020. Alabama, which did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, has proposed implementing the requirements for nearly 75,000 beneficiaries.

warcinfo:
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-47
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November 2018
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-232-159-122.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 0.11-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/


text:
You use hand sanitizer to keep dangerous germs out, but you’re really inviting toxic chemicals in. Research proves that the active ingredient in hand sanitizer is an endocrine disruptor, easily absorbed through your skin, and might be linked to cancer. Its name? Triclosan.

Hand sanitizer companies use triclosan as an antibacterial agent; it is, after all, effective in killing many types of bacteria. Triclosan is also used in other hygienic products such as toothpaste and soaps. On the label, it may also be called:

  • Aquasept
  • Irgasan DP 300
  • Microshield T
  • Sapoderm
  • Tersaseptic
  • Trisan
  • Manusept

Health Dangers of Triclosan

While triclosan has yet to be classified as a confirmed human carcinogen, scientists have suggested potential links to hormone-related cancers such as breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and prostate cancer. As an endocrine disruptor, triclosan interferes with the body’s normal hormone systems- sometimes with deadly effects.

We’d also like to notate that for the record, Purell does NOT contain triclosan for those who are curious.

HM Lee, head researcher of a 2016 scientific paper writes, “the majority of previous studies revealed that BPA, phthalates, TCDD, and triclosan have the potential to induce cancer metastasis…the exposure to these EDCs [endocrine disrupting chemicals] can increase the risk aggravating the disease for the patients suffering cancer and that more regulations about the use of these EDCs are needed.”

But can these risks really come from using hand sanitizer? The answer, unfortunately is yes. Research shows that triclosan can be easily stored up by your body over time. A 2016 study uncovered that triclosan was found in both water supplies and in humans- in blood, urine, breast milk, and even nails. Head researcher LWB Olaniyan states that this bioaccumulation of triclosan in the body is a cause for concern, especially since triclosan ” is a pro-oxidant and may be cytotoxic via a number of mechanisms.”

The dangers aren’t just for adults who make a habit of using hand sanitizers over the years. There is a “window” of time that makes young, developing children more susceptible to the effects of endocrine disrupting products. A 2016 study done on rats raised concerns about children’s and adolescents’ use of personal products containing triclosan (as well as other dangerous additives like phthalates). Head researcher  Sander Houten writes about the potential dangers for humans: “the prepubertal stage is the most sensitive window of opportunity for these personal care product ingredients.”

The Most Effective Homemade Hand Sanitizer

The truth is you don’t need an antibacterial soap or product to protect yourself from harmful germs! In a 2007 study, scientists proved that soaps containing triclosan were actually no more effective at reducing bacteria and preventing infections than regular soap. Not to mention, many strains of bacteria had evolved to be immune to triclosan’s antibacterial effects anyway.

The bottom line is you don’t need to waste money on toxic hand sanitizers to stay health- all you need is a bar of soap to keep your hands clean. However, if you’re looking for a natural antibacterial to carry around with you, you can easily make your own “sanitizer” out of essential oils and natural ingredients.

Eucalyptus and tea tree essential oils are proven antimicrobials (without being toxic or endocrine disrupting). They can easily be mixed with natural aloe vera gel, another antibacterial agent. Aloe also has the added benefit of being naturally soothing, able to reduce skin redness and even increase skin elasticity.

  • 1/4 cup Aloe Vera Gel
  • 10 Drops of Tea Tree Oil
  • 10 Drops Eucalyptus Oil

1. Mix all ingredients together.
2. Pour into a spray bottle or a pump type bottle.
3. Shake before applying

Always do a “spot test” using a small amount of the essential oil mixture to test for skin irritation. Cinnamon essential oil is an especially common irritant.

*Article originally appeared at Healthy Holistic Living.


text:
Ilya Grigorik
Google Dev Evangelist on HTTP 2.0

Ilya Grigorik is a web performance engineer at Google, where he spends his days and nights on optimizing the web stack, and driving adoption of performance best practices. He has extensive technology background including experience running his own internet hosting company.

All right, you guys, so today I'm going to talk about HTTP 2.0, and specifically why do we need it, and what's the problem that we're trying to solve more so than anything. Because as technologists we like to solve things. We like to write cool things. We like to make things fast. But what's the actual problem that we're solving?

So I work at Google as the slide says. I actually work quite closely with the Chrome team and the Make the Web Faster team at Google. It's kind of a cross- company initiative for both how do we make our services fast and how do we make Internet fast as a whole.

Part of HTTP 2.0 actually has some roots at Google, because we started our work on SPDY, which we will touch on in a second, and now of course it's something much bigger and something I'm very excited about. I think it will literally have a huge impact on web performance. It will help make our clients faster. It will help make service more efficient, and actually reduce latency for a lot of users. So it's a big deal.

Right off the bat, what are we trying to solve?

The point of HTTP 2.0 is basically all about latency. So there's latency and bandwidth. They are the two components of speed.

Specifically, HTTP 2.0, if nothing else, is focused on how do we minimize latency in the client. Today we do a lot of interesting tricks, hacks, if you want to call them that, in the browser to try and kind of game the system and figure out which requests do we send because we have a limited number of requests, etc., or connections rather. So HTTP 2.0 tries to address all of that. So these are the high level goals for the protocol.

"A protocol designed for low-latency transport of content over the World Wide Web"

I think almost the first half of this talk is me trying to convince you that this is in fact a big problem and something that we need to address. And then in the second part we will actually look at what does HTTP 2.0 do, how does it look, and how does it look on the wire, even.

So first of all, one of the big challenges that we have on the web today is making stuff faster. So a lot of user traffic is migrating to mobile phones, something that we see in spades at Google. A lot of our searches are migrating towards phones, and every single team at Google is trying to figure out, how do we make our product fast on mobile? This is a big, general problem across the web.

Specifically, what we're trying to figure out is, like, well, we know that based on all the user studies out there, despite the fact that everything seems to be getting faster in our day to day life, there are some pretty good psychological constants. Like, no matter when you do the study - - these UX studies were done in the early '90s, you can do them today - - you'll basically find out that the user reaction time is within a 100 milliseconds.

Now, if you're a hardcore gamer and you're sitting there like, "Hey, dude, I can tell the difference between a 30 millisecond ping time and a 50 millisecond ping time," it's, like, fine, but that's a slightly different use case. Right?

Here, basically, we're saying. If you click on a button we want to respond to you within 100 milliseconds. It feels instant. If it goes above that, significantly above that, above one second, you basically lose the context. All of a sudden you do a mental context switch of, like, "I pressed the button. It's not responding. I start thinking about something else. I've got to send an email," and you may have lost the user. So that's kind of the target, right? We want to have everything fast.

To keep the user engaged, the task must complete within 1000 milliseconds.

And this turns out to be a huge challenge on mobile, where just sending one request can take somewhere in the order of a second. And our pages are not one request. Our pages are much, much bigger than that. So that's the framework.

In parallel to that we have this challenge of ever increasing and ambitious web that we're building. Compared to what we were building five or even ten years ago, the web today looks completely different.

We're not just building documents. We're building entire applications.

So this is data from HTTP Archive, What it does is, twice a month we crawl about 300,000 sites or more for desktop and about 10,000 sites on mobile. We don't record what's on the page. We record how the page is constructed, like how many JavaScript files, CSS files, etc. So these are the stats. Basically, over the course of the last two years we not quite doubled the average size of a page, but we're getting there. You can see there's a very strong correlation. Basically, we're just increasing the size of our pages.

If you actually break it out you'll find that a lot of that is images. So we're building more media -heavy sites. The second biggest one is JavaScript, which I guess is no surprise, because we're relying so much on JavaScript to deliver smarter applications now. Then there is CSS and HTML. So the good news is it is a little bit smaller on mobile, so we are optimizing for mobile, but nonetheless.

  • It's growing.
  • It's not going to stop.
  • We're building more ambitious apps.

This is just something we have to deal with.

And the interesting number here is, of course, this: 86 and 57; so 86 requests. That's what it takes to compose a webpage.

So when you're thinking about mobile and I tell you that an average page takes 5 seconds to load on mobile, and you assume that an average request takes 500 milliseconds or more on mobile, 57 requests, to some degree it's a miracle that it even loads in 5 seconds. So that's kind of the problem that we're trying to fight.

So at Google we have been tracking this pretty closely, and there's some good news. Every year, we actually use Google Analytics. Google Analytics collects navigation timing data, which is basically the real user timing data from the clients when they access your page. We anonymize all that data. And once a year we basically run an analysis of what is the average or the median page load time on mobile versus desktop.

So the cool part about this, these graphs are actually comparing 2012 to 2013. You can see that in 2013, the latency, especially on mobile, has decreased significantly.

"It's great to see access from mobile is around 30% faster compared to last year."

It's kind of hard to draw conclusions from an aggregate as big as all of the Google data, but our theory, and I think we have good reasons to believe that this is why this is true, is that this is dominated by North America. And specifically the fact that we have a very strong rollout of 4G networks across North America. So most of the shift in this latency is not represented across the world. It's very heavy in North America, which is good news for us here. But nonetheless, it's still definitely a problem.

Before we were like 2x compared to desktop versus mobile. Now we're getting closer. So that's good, right? Stuff is getting faster. I'm just going to sit back, and just like back in the old days when the CPU speeds just got faster, I didn't have to do a thing, this is not a problem anymore. The network will save us, the 4G. There are banners plastered everywhere. The fastest, latest AT&T, most reliable, whatever, network. Done. Web performance, solved deal. That's partially true.

If you actually look at the data, for example, for bandwidth that is in fact what's happening. The speeds are increasing.

So, for example, Akamai has a nice site, Akamai IO, where you can basically go in and type any country and look at average bandwidth, at least as seen by Akamai. So this is data from 2007 to basically the beginning of 2013, and you can see that there is a strong trend towards basically increasing throughput, or bandwidth across the world.

Average connection speed in Q4 2012: 5000kbps+

We have Japan leading the pack. But basically most of the countries are near or well above the five megabit per second limit. Not limit, just five megabit per second threshold here. And we'll see why that's important in a second.

So another component that is often forgotten is latency. When was the last time that you saw your ISP, whether that's mobile or whatever ISP, advertise latency? Like, "Our last mile latency is x milliseconds." Right? Never, ever would they advertise such a thing. Mostly because it's actually terrible.

So FCC, for the past couple of years, has actually been doing a report or a yearly study, which has finally started to capture some of this data. Which is great. There are two parts of this. One, is now we actually have visibility to this data, and two, the reports over the last three years basically haven't changed. They're static.

This tells you a couple of different things, but before we get there, basically what they found out is that across all the different providers in North America you have 18 milliseconds -- that's your last mile latency. That's basically your router at home to the ISP, basically the POP box at the ISP. This is not even to your actual server. This is just your last mile latency.

  • 18 milliseconds for Fiber -- That's surprising surprising to some people, that it's that large.
  • Cable 26.
  • DSL 43 milliseconds.

So just for context,

43 milliseconds is like me going, "I can send a packet from here to New York and back in 43 milliseconds." And this is just your last mile latency with DSL.

So that's significant. There's definitely room for improvement, and this is also a metric that we track quite closely at Google.

So worldwide we see that the RTT to Google is about 100 milliseconds, and unfortunately this number hasn't budged over the last couple of years. It has just been stable, which is not good. We would like to see it improve. In the U.S. the average latency is 50 to 60 milliseconds. So that kind of makes sense, right? If you have 43 milliseconds of latency on your DSL, then there's another 10 or 15 milliseconds to actually get to the Google servers. And Google servers, we try to position them as close as we can to all the ISPs for this exact reason. So this is kind of an optimistic scenario.

So the good news is, at least, compared to 2011, in the U.S. the RTT has decreased by 10 milliseconds, which is significant. But the rest of the world is basically flat.

So all of this is to say we are going to continue to see improvements in bandwidth. And bandwidth matters for things like Youtube videos and HD videos, you like to watch Netflix, what have you. Bandwidth really matters there, and the good news is we can actually get more bandwidth. If we saturate all of our links, we can just dig another tunnel and put more fiber; we can just bond the different links and get more throughput. That's expensive, but it's doable.

With latency it's kind of hard because we have this thing called the speed of light, and we have not figured out how to go faster than that, yet.

So there are some interesting examples of people innovating in this space. It's like, well, you know what? Latency matters. We know that, and we know that latency matters for traders where nanoseconds count.

So a cool project that has actually been started, and I think right now it's paused. I'm not sure of the actual final outcome, but I know they have invested a lot of money to this, is Hibernia Express. Basically, this company has figured out that, hey, there are traders in New York, there are traders in London, that care about latency. So if we build a shorter cable, literally, there are a bunch of cables there, but if we take a slightly more direct route between these cities, specifically 300 miles shorter, then we can save about five milliseconds of latency. Which is significant if you're a trading algorithm, if you have a trading algorithm.

So this project costs about half a billion dollars. You do the math and you're like, well, I'm not sure if this is a proper unit, but $80 million per millisecond. That's what they're saving, and there are plenty of examples like this. We are terraforming earth between New York and Chicago to build faster links. There's crazy stuff going on. Basically, that's the only thing we can do. We can just do a shorter cable between two endpoints. But even with that we're fixed.

Basically, the theoretical limit is 35 milliseconds. That's it. We can't go any faster.

So that sucks, and that sucks because we are already within a small constant factor of the maximum speed. The current latencies are about 1.5, 1.4 of the maximum. So that tells you that even if we do everything to do a direct route and have a perfect link between these two, we're going to get an improvement of 30%, which would be great, but it's not going to transform the world of web performance.

This is the graph that is the key graph that got Google to start thinking about this seriously and actually start the work on SPDY back in, 2009, I guess, or 2008 even. So this is a very simple experiment that we set up. Basically, we picked a bunch of representative web pages on the web and we said,

"Look, there's two components. There's bandwidth and there's latency. So let us vary these two things independently. We will just keep one constant and we will just increase bandwidth and see how that affects the page load time."

So page load time here is in milliseconds. You start with one megabit of throughput, and the page loads in about three seconds. We increase that to two megabits per seconds, it's not quite 2x improvement, but it's close, which is what you'd like to see. You continue increasing that, and you find that after about five megabits per second, you're into single digit percent improvements.

If you go from five megabits to ten megabits per second, you're going to get your pages loading faster by 4%, which is bad news, right? Because we can increase bandwidth, and we continue to increase bandwidth, but it's not helping us build a faster web. It helps us stream video better because that's where this stuff matters, but it's not loading pages faster. So that sucks.

But then you look at latency. This is the exact graph that you would like to see, which is, the lower the latency, you have this linear function that just basically says, "You saved one millisecond, you're going to get this improvement in your page load time." So that's pretty awesome, except that, as we found out, it's very hard to change latency.

And as you saw previously in Akamai slides that I showed you earlier, most of the people, an average in the US, is over five megabits per second. So that tells you that

if you want to run out and upgrade your connection and buy into the advertising of newest, fastest whatever offered by your local provider, your page is not going to load faster.

Your video will be streaming better. You may get an upgrade in your quality, but your page is not going to load faster. Which I think is a surprise to many people, engineers included. This was definitely a surprise even to us when we ran these experiments.

So based on this we basically said, "Look, so why is this problem? How do we solve it at the protocol level?" Because it turns out we need to tweak our protocols to make them better to work around this problem.

So for web browsing, at least, bandwidth doesn't matter much. That's the first big ah -ha moment and big takeaway.

And of course, then there's mobile.

Mobile Latency

So everything I've said so far about latency is just two or three or four times worse for mobile. So this is an entire talk on its own. Like, how do the mobile networks work? I think everybody here would agree with the general statement of, like, "Oh, mobile networks are so unpredictable. Latency is so variable." It's just very hard to design fast apps that leverage the mobile network.

Let me walk you through this. This is literally a talk on its own, but just stay with me. Let's say we want to send a packet from the external network, like you have a push notification or what have you, and you want to notify the client on the phone that there is such a thing. So you send the packet from the external network. It comes in into the mobile carrier, and the mobile carrier basically has one global router, which is the packet gateway. It has a couple of these kind of big ones, so that's the PGW. It's the same thing as your router at home. It just terminates the connection. So it terminates your TCP connection right there at the PGW, and the PGW actually looks at a bunch of rules, like, should I be forwarding the site of traffic and etc.

So it's pseudo firewall, pseudo basic router. It doesn't do much more than that. It sends the packet to the serving gateway, and the role of the serving gateway is to figure out where you are on the mobile network. Because one of the nice properties of the mobile network is, I'm currently or I was in Mountain View earlier today. I hopped in a car. Now I'm driving and now I'm in San Francisco, and the local tower has no idea that I've changed. Basically there needs to be a mechanism to figure out where you currently are and which tower is currently servicing you. The serving gateway has no idea.

So what it does is it says, "Look, I'm going to talk to this MME instance which is basically like a user database." A user database stores basic things like, you have an account, you've paid your bills. I should actually forward you this packet, and it also stores where you are currently within the network. Except sometimes it doesn't actually know. It just knows that generally this person seems to be in the San Francisco area. So my phone is sleeping right now. It's not notifying. It's not talking to the tower. It just knows that I'm in this general area, and there may be multiple towers.

Okay, so we've gotten to the serving gate. We've talked to MME. MME says, "Look, I think he's in San Francisco. Let me flood all the towers in San Francisco and get them to send out a broadcast for all the towers that basically says, 'Hey user blah blah blah, please wake up, because I have a packet for you'." The towers broadcast the signal. my phone wakes up every once in awhile. They text that there's a message waiting for him, and then sends a message back to the local tower. It basically starts a negotiation with a local tower.

Once this negotiation is complete the local tower says, "Hey, I've registered this user." It gets updated in the user database, user database gets back to serving gateway, serving gateway can then forward the packet to the actual tower, the tower delivers it to your phone.

If you follow all of that, that has to happen within, well, ideally milliseconds. Clearly that's very hard.

So this table right here, these are actually numbers straight from the AT&T FAQ. If you actually dig deep they will show you these numbers in there. And for HSPA+, which is the current, like, when mobile providers today advertise 4G, they're actually advertising HSPA+. There's a standard called LT Advanced, which is the true 4G, if you will.

So for HSPA+, the latency, just within the core network, basically doing this kind of flow, and this is the most complicated flow. The flow outbound from your device is a little bit simpler. It's also part of this. But in any case, this is just to illustrate that if 43 milliseconds in DSL seems like it's high, if you look at the mobile numbers, it's hundreds of milliseconds. If you happen to get into the edge zone, which, every once in awhile it still pops up in my phone, and it's scary when it does, you're basically looking at a second of just getting a packet from your phone and out to the external network. Then you actually have to route it on the external network.

So this is a big problem on mobile. We're trying to figure out how to make it go faster. Thankfully, as I mentioned, 4G and LT deployment, for once, North America is leading deployment of this. We're at the leading edge of this stuff. We have the best performance. We're getting down into sub- hundred milliseconds, but nonetheless, big problem.

And all of this is just to send a single TCP packet. We didn't talk about sending a webpage. This is just one TCP packet to send a notification.

So hopefully by now I have convinced you that latency is, in fact, a problem. We can continue increasing bandwidth, but latency is a problem. So why does this affect HTTP in particular?

There are actually multiple problems at multiple layers. One, we need to talk about how TCP works. First of all, we have TCP congestion control and avoidance, and specifically we have this feature called TCP Slow Start.

How many people here are familiar with Slow Start? All right. Maybe half.

TCP Slow Start is a feature, not a bug.

So, the basic idea behind Slow Start is, we don't know what is the capacity of the link between your node and the destination node. There could be an intermediate node that is saturated, like the ISP is currently servicing a lot of traffic for whatever reason and it can't handle more load. So we don't want to overwhelm the network.

If everybody just woke up and started sending megabytes of data, we would saturate the network and we would just get into the state of congestion collapse, which is exactly what happened in the mid '80s.

Basically, the network just collapsed, and you couldn't get out of it. You had to reboot the whole thing. There were instances, reports at the time, when this congestion collapse was reached that some packets would literally take a day to get to the other person on the other end.

So Slow Start is that fix, if you will, and the idea of the Slow Start is when we start a new TCP connection, we're not going to use all of the available bandwidth. We're going to send you a little bit of data, you acknowledge that data if it's delivered successfully, and then, if that is successful, we will increase the window size of how much data we send.

So how do we pick this number? Very simple. The original specs actually said you sent one packet. So you sent roughly 1,400 bytes. You acknowledge that. I'll send you 2,800 bytes. So this is the CWND, and that's basically what I'm showing you here. So this is the exponential growth.

That number has been updated. Most recently it has actually been updated just in the last year to 10 packets. So we can send up to 15 kilobytes of data, which is significant improvement over the previous value, which was three or four packets.

So we can send you 15 kilobytes of data, then we have to pause. I don't care if you're on fiber or what have you. 15 kilobytes is all you get. We're going to wait a full RTT, and then we're going to increase that to 30 kilobytes and then to 60 and so forth. At some point, packet loss will happen, at which point we will restart this algorithm. It's a slightly different algorithm. It's congestion avoidance, but that's TCP Slow Start in a nutshell.

So this is surprising to a lot of people, because basically what this tells you is

no matter what is the speed, whether you're on 4G network or a 3G network, latency is actually the bigger problem of the two at the beginning of that connection.

A TCP is optimized for bulk and long transfers of data, whereas a lot of our actual traffic is short and bursty. So here's an example:

Let's say we want to transfer a 20- kilobyte file over a low latency link, or a relatively low latency link. So in this case I'm saying we're going to transfer from New York City to London. I'm going to assume that that's 56 milliseconds of round trip time. There's going to be 40 milliseconds of server processing time, which is very fast, and let's just say that we have five megabytes per second, which is actually irrelevant, but good to have.

So what happens? First we have to open to TCP connection, which is the SYN and SYN ACK. So that's one round trip. We haven't sent any data. We're just opening a connection. That's already 56 milliseconds. Then we send the request. We incur the server processing time. But we can't send the actual response. We only send 20 kilobytes. We can only send, in this case, four, which is the previous value for this congestion window. So we send four kilobytes. We wait. We get an acknowledgement. We send eight kilobytes, and then we send the rest.

So you do all the flow and you figure out that to send 20 kilobytes of data on a fairly low latency link, it's going to take us 264 milliseconds, which sucks, frankly. This does not take into account DNS, and the fact that if you had to do a TLS handshake, that's another two roundtrips, or more, even. So it kind of sucks.

With HTTP specifically, we have HTTP 1.0 and HTTP 1.1. One of the things in HTTP 1.1 was that we focused a lot on performance. At least, we clarified a lot of the caching. We actually added this feature called pipelining. And some of those things have worked out and have been great, and some of them have not. Unfortunately, one of the things that has not worked out is HTTP pipelining.

So the basic idea with HTTP pipelining is, by default, HTTP provides no multiplexing in the sense that you send a request and you must block and wait until you get the response.

So this is this graph right here. Let's say that I have one connection and I want to request three files, it's completely sequential. I send you one. I wait. Then I get it back. I send you the next request. Which kind of sucks, right?

Pipelining said, "Hey, this sucks." Especially in the case if you have server processing time and others. This just creates more and more latency."

So what if it could send you all three requests at once? You could do whatever you need to do to generate those three responses, and then you just send us the data for three responses back.

So there's a little bit of a gotcha here in the sense that, for example, let's say I send request one, two, three, and you generate the response for request three first. But the first one is not finished. You can't send the answer for request three before you finish response one. So that's head of line blocking. So basically, it's limited, but it helps you address some of the problems and limitations.

In practice, this is what ends up happening very frequently. You have that first request for whatever reason, like it's a dynamic file that takes awhile to generate, and then the following two requests are like static assets, which means, in theory, could serve very fast. That request will block for a long time, and the other two are blocked too. So in part because of this, HTTP pipelining hasn't seen much adoption.

There's also the problem with a lot of the intermediate proxies just completely messed up how they implemented it, or they didn't implement it at all, so they would break, which sucked. Then the browser vendors actually had a tough time with this, because put yourself in the person's shoes who is designing this algorithm:

Let's say you have a JavaScript file, which is critical, because we need it to render the page, and we have a couple of image assets, which are not critical. It would be nice if we could get them fast, but I should be able to display text first.

Am I willing to gamble that if I send the JavaScript request first it's not going to block the others, or vice versa? If I send the image request first, will I get them back quickly? Because you can have a pathological case, or you can have an image file that takes a long time to generate, like a minute, and then all of your requests are piled up behind it.

Basically, all of that is to say that pipelining just hasn't worked out.

Today the web is basically built on this model right here, which is sequential, and our only work around is to just open multiple connections. So this has been our hack of the decade. We just said, look, you can't do much with HTTP 1.1 pipelining.

So basically all of the browsers over the past decade kind of tried different variables, and we've all more or less converged on up to six parallel TCP connections. So when you connect to a server we will open up to six parallel connections, which means that we can transport, at most, six requests in parallel, or get six responses in parallel.

Now, that's only partially true because us web developers, we're an inventive bunch. We're like, "Hey, six requests in parallel. That's not enough. I have an image gallery of six images. Let me just shard that across ten different domains."

We invented this whole new thing and we're like whatever, TCP Slow Start? Forget it. Congestion control? Who cares? I'll just open more TCP connections."

So that's the whole premise of domain sharding. The only reason it exists is to work around this limitation, which is imposed intentionally by the browser vendors to say that too many connections actually hurts you, all right, because it causes congestion. So that's what we do today.

Going end to end, we have the DNS lookup. We have to do the socket connect. We have to do HTTP request. Then there is the actual content download. Even here I'm not showing the TLS time, which takes another couple of round trips.

So all of this takes a lot of time, and what typically ends up happening is, if you do the math for HTTP Archive, coming back to that original thing that we looked at. An average page, let's say, is about 1,200 kilobytes, 86 requests. Turns out that an average page ends up talking to about 15 distinct hosts on the web today, which is quite large. That tells you approximately the number of connections that we open.

And if you do the math here, you will figure out that an average request is about 14 kilobytes per request. There are definitely bigger requests for things like images, but most of the other assets that we download are very small, and we download them across many connections. So what ends up happening is we end up opening a lot of these TCP connections, and we never ever use the actual, or frequently, I should say, not never. Frequently we don't end up using the full throughput of the link. We just end up doing a couple of round trips, which are very expensive. We get up to a window of, like, 45 kilobytes, or 60 kilobytes, and we stop there. Then we abort the connection, which sucks.

So, we want to be here. We want to have one TCP connection, which has the pipe wide open and we can just push as much data as we can. Instead we're stuck in this bottom triangle right here.

To put this in context of mobile, because I think it's very relevant to a lot of companies and everybody, if you add up the latency just for a single HTTP request... Right?

I didn't talk about control plane. So control plane, the idea here is, first before you can send anything from your mobile phone, you actually have to talk to a tower to get permission to send data. That communication with the tower actually takes anywhere from hundreds of milliseconds up to seconds. On 3G networks, on the old generation 3G networks, it literally takes seconds to do that.

So this is just a one time startup cost when your phone has been idle. It turns out it actually, in large part, explains the variability that a lot of people experience with high latency variability. But it's definitely a big problem.

So, you do that. You have the DNS lookup, that's the roundtrip TCP connection. That's the round trip. We have the TLS handshake, which is optional, HTTP request times four for that 20- kilobyte file, and all of a sudden you're looking at, on a 3G network, you're already one second in. We wanted to render our page in one second. For 4G it starts to get a little bit better, but nonetheless it's a problem.

I've already mentioned this, but one good thing that has happened recently is that the latest Linux kernels have updated their CWNDs to start with 10 packets. So this is true as of 2.6.33+, but really you should, if you're not running 2.6.33+, you should upgrade hopefully immediately because that will literally just double the performance, in terms of the startup performance of HTTP connections to the client.

But for best performance, there's actually been a lot of other TCP performance optimizations done since then. So really, you want 3.2+. A lot of this research has been done on Google. This specific paper is the one that argues for the increase in the CWND. There's other things like a proportional rate reduction and other things that are now part of 3.2+.

So if you're not running 3.2+, you should definitely look into upgrading that.

So these are the current limitations. We have constraints at the TCP layer. We know that we have problems in the HTTP layer. What have we done over the last decade?

We've come up with a number of glorious hacks to address all of this. We said, look, HTTP requests are expensive, especially small ones. So what we're going to do is we're going to concatenate files, because that means that I can deliver multiple files without you making the request. Grab all the JavaScript, stuff it into app.js or all.js and here you go. This is good performance- wise. It reduces the number of downloads but, as we're finding now, this actually has a lot of negative implications too.

First of all, it's very expensive for caches because, for example, the Gmail team has this big problem where we concatenate all of our files and then every day we rev our code and there's like 15 bytes that have changed and now you have to download a megabyte of JavaScript, which kind of seems silly.

So there's a trade off there. If you're concatenating all of your JavaScript files today, even the static things, like jQuery, you're probably not revving jQuery in your app. Keep that as separate because that will help you.

But the other one that I think is also surprising to a lot of people is slower execution.

It turns out that for JavaScript and CSS, we can't incrementally parse those things. We have to wait until the entire file arrives and only then can we start executing that file.

Just by splitting a big 1 megabyte chunk of JavaScript into smaller, let's say, 100 kilobyte increments, we can actually get an improvement in the execution speed, in the initial startup speed of the app because we don't have to wait for the 1 megabyte file to download before we can process it. So it's just incremental execution, very basic stuff.

Another one that's very similar is spriting images, right? Same idea. Images are expensive, or requests are expensive, so let's sprite especially the small images.

Problem number one is it's gloriously painful. Thankfully now we have some automation for a lot of that, but I still know people who do this by hand, which is kind of sad.

Two, it actually has negative implications on the memory use. When you say you want to display the 16 by 16 icon on your page, we have to decode the entire bitmap of the sprite, which is width x height x 4 bytes and that's your memory use. So these sprites are actually occupying quite a bit of memory on mobile devices, which is a problem, actually, for a lot of mobile devices. Especially for image heavy apps, you'll actually find people talking about exceeding memory thresholds.

I already talked about this, but domain sharding. We are limited to 6 connections. What the hell? Let's just shard everything N ways and we're good to go! Turns out - - we've actually done studies on this as well - - in many cases you're actually hurting performance of mobile applications.

Sharding, in more ways, helps clients that have more bandwidth, which are your desktop clients, but it hurts people on slower connections, like mobile phones, because it causes congestion, it causes more retransmissions.

Basically you're making it even worse. It already sucks for those people because it's so slow. You're making it even worse.

And there's no perfect number for what's the right number of shards for your site. It's based on your app. It's based on your specific page even because different pages have different numbers of assets, like you have an image gallery or something. So that sucks.

Then the last is, of course, crowd favorite, resource inlining. It's like, what the hell, I'm just going to put this image right directly into the file or maybe a CSS or JavaScript file. That also has negative costs.

Once again, it eliminates the request, which is good, but that resource can't be cached, because now you have to inline it into every single page, which sucks. Two, of course, there's the overhead of base64 encoding. So you're inflating the file, like an image file, by 30%.

These are kind of the core, these are the best practices that we preach that every site should do. Concatenate your files, domain shard, inline your images, but then there's a sea of red.

When I look at any given site I'm like, okay, you've over sharded, y ou've embedded too many images into your HTML page, and you should really split your JavaScript bundles, right? Which is kind of sad.

That's what HTTP 2.0 is, in fact, all about. Once again, let's come back to this. We want to improve the end user perceived latency. So this is basically how do we make HTTP work better with TCP?

Two, is we want to address head of line blocking. So this is the problem with pipelining, where even if we could send multiple requests, we couldn't get multiple responses interleaved. So that's number two.

Not require multiple connections, so we want to eliminate the need to have domain sharding. We just want to use one TCP connection because that is, in fact, the best way to get the best throughput.

We're not here to change HTTP 1.1 in a fundamental way. We're not going to change, I don't know, squiggly brackets or angle brackets or something. We want to preserve what we have. We want to preserve the ecosystem and make it as seamless as possible, ideally, to migrate.

Here's where we are today. This effort actually predates January 2012. Basically what happened was in 2008, 2009, at Google, we looked at this latency and bandwidth study. We realized that there's a problem and we started working on SPDY, which basically became the precursor to HTTP 2.0.

By January 2012, we had Chrome, we had Firefox supporting it. We had a lot of big sites. Google, of course, has been using SPDY for years now. But then also Facebook, Twitter and others started picking it up. So basically at that point it was becoming a de facto standard and we said, look, there should be a more formal spec around this.

At the beginning, we basically picked the latest SPDY draft and used that as a base. But to clarify,

HTTP 2.0 is not SPDY. We've changed it in a number of different ways and we made it better. It's based on SPDY, but it's not SPDY.

So today, actually as of July 2013, we actually have the first implementation draft. Earlier this month, we actually had an interop testing session in Hamburg.

So we have a Chrome implementation of HTTP 2.0. We have a Firefox implementation of HTTP 2.0. There's a bunch of server implementations. Actually, Microsoft has build a server implementation, so Chrome and Firefox were testing against the Microsoft server.

There's a lot of work going on and it's pretty exciting to see that something of this significance is moving as fast as it is, because I think everybody feels like this is a big problem and it's something we need to address.

Generally speaking, when you see a working group put out a timeline that says, "In two years, we will solve a ginormous problem on the web," you have to take that with a grain of salt. But so far, we're on track and on schedule and I think we may actually hit it. And if we don't hit it, I think we'll be very close, which is impressive, given the size of the undertaking.

So, there's a growing list of clients and servers as well. There's node implementations, etc., so you can actually use this stuff today, especially if you control both the client and server. Obviously you can't rely on, like Chrome advertising it today, Chrome has a branch where we implement HTTP 2.0, but we don't have it in a stable branch today. For that we have SPDY. But if you control both the client and server, go for it. This is going to work.

First of all, one TCP connection. We want to get the best performance out of a single TCP connection. We shouldn't need more than that.

We're introducing a new term into the lexicon of HTTP, which is "stream". Whenever I say a "stream", just think of a request.

Multiple streams can flow over a single TCP connection, which is the same thing as saying multiple requests can flow over a TCP connection. So streams are multiplexed and streams can be prioritized, so we're going to talk about that.

All of the magic basically happens, and the most important thing about HTTP 2.0 is, previously, you could open a Telnet session and just type in a bunch of text to say, "Get this page." Now we're using binary framing, and binary framing allows us to split messages into different binary frames and multiplex them across the same connection, so I'll show you some examples of that.

The binary framing is the core change and that core change basically trickles out as a whole number of different features within HTTP 2.0. So as long as you understand that, that's kind of the core of it. It allows new prioritization, flow control and server push, which we'll talk about.

This is just a note from Mark, who's the chair of the working group. We're not replacing HTTP. We're just redefining how it's laid out on the wire, if you will.

One of the questions is, "Is 2.0 really warranted? Is this such a big change? Why not 1.2?"

The answer is, well, because we're changing the wire format, it is such a big difference, as far as we're concerned, that it is a 2.0.

Because you can't just talk to a 1.1 server anymore. So that's the reason for 2.0.

What you need to know about the actual implementation, every frame in HTTP 2.0 has a consistent header. There's 8 bytes of header. All of the frames are length prefixed. So if you're a parser guy, you'll be very happy. The first thing that you read is the length of the frame, and at that point, you know exactly what you need to do to parse this. So efficiency is actually a big optimization concern here.

Once you know the length, you can figure out the type. The type basically gives you what type of a frame is being communicated here. Is it a headers frame or a data frame or something else? I listed a couple of them here.

For example, priority. Each frame can have a number of custom flags that each frame defines. Then there is a stream identifier. Each stream, the client and server, whenever they create a stream they declare an ID on it, like 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc. Whenever we split data into these packets, we always embed that ID such that on the other end we can figure out, "Oh, this thing that I received belongs to that stream." That's how multiplexing works. Really, that's all there is to it. That's a consistent header.

If you can implement this - - this is very simple to write in any sort of parser - - you can basically process the basics of HTTP 2.0 You read the first 8 bytes and you're good to go. After that, we actually just extend it.

Here's an example of a headers frame. A headers frame is something that you send to open a new request. This is just like me sending a "get" string with a path of the request page. I will send a headers frame which identifies the stream ID. I can embed an optional priority.

So what this allows you to say is, "Hey, this is a JavaScript file. This is very important to me, so serve this with a higher priority than the image, which I sent you previously." We have 31 bits of priority space reserved for that, so you can be very sophisticated, if you want, in how you prioritize this kind of thing.

Q: Do routers listen to this or just the servers?

A: That's a good question. Do routers listen to this or just the servers? It can be both. The server definitely needs to listen to it because it's the one providing the bytes. But if you have an intermediary, then it can be smart about it too. Part of this is also flow control, which we'll get to in a second.

Let's see, so culminate by header. One of the cool things about HTTP 2.0, we're going to talk about server push in a little bit. But you can actually open streams from both ends. So, a client can send a request, like, "I want to get this page" or "I want to get this image," but the server can also open streams back at the client.

You make a request, for example, for a page and the server says, "Oh, you'll also need this fav icon, because you always ask for it." The server can do that and the question is how do you negotiate the stream IDs? It's very simple. One keeps an even number. One keeps an odd number. So we just increment those. So there's never a race between them. You don't have to coordinate it, rather.

Actually, let me go back. So that's a priority field. Then, finally, you embed the headers. The headers are like, here's the content length, here's my user agent, what have you, all these other things.

One of the things that we've learned with HTTP is originally we started with a very simple protocol. It was just literally one line. It was like, get this resource, version number. And that's all we needed.

Later, we've added a whole lot of stuff, like, here's the user agent, here's the accept types or content types that I support, h ere's some other meta data. And basically, when you run analysis, you'll find out that an average request and response add about 800 bytes of overhead. This is just in terms of HTTP headers, which is significant.

Because for a lot of payloads, like for example, a lot of apps that we're building today, we're sending a JavaScript response back, it's a couple hundred bytes very frequently. Then on top of that we're adding this 800 bytes of headers, which is very expensive, which is a common complaint and one of the reasons why people are so excited about WebSockets, because it's very low overhead in terms of the actual protocol.

With HTTP 2.0, we actually looked at that and said look, we need to address this problem. It is a problem. So, there's actually a new algorithm for doing header compression. Originally in SPDY, we actually started with just straight up gzip. We just said look, just gzip through the damn thing. We know that this thing works. But then there was a couple of attacks discovered against it, basically security problems.

So we had to throw that out and there's a new algorithm which the way to think about it is both sides of the connection keep header tables, which are basically key value pairs of things that have been sent before. On each request, you just toggle those bits. So you can say, "Hey, you don't have this value in your table, so please add it add it to your table." Then in the next request you can just say, "Toggle that bit. I'm sending that request again."

Here's an example. You send request one. This is just a fresh request. It's going to be, "Get request for example. com, a resource file. It's a JPEG file. Here's my user agent string." So you actually send all these key value pairs to the server.

On the second request, you're requesting just the resource. But you already know that the client, or the server in this case, already has all these values from a previous request. And the way the algorithm works is basically you toggle the things that you don't want out and you can send new values.

Because I'm sending a new request for a resource file... And you know what? That's actually a bug. It should say "resource 2". So this is the only value that has changed, so in this case, I would only send this one key value pair, which is great.

What this tells you is, for example, if I'm sitting in a loop and I'm just polling the server for an update, the overhead of that request in terms of headers is zero because it's the exact same set of headers. I don't have to do anything. And over the lifetime of the connection, you build up this header space and you can basically be very efficient in how you encode and decode this kind of thing.

This is another actually interesting opportunity for servers to do a smarter job, and intermediaries as well, in terms of what are the right algorithms for doing the eviction of these headers, so on and so forth. So this is a very important part about HTTP 2.0. It makes it very, very efficient to transfer this meta data.

So we sent the headers, so we've had that block, the consistent header, I should say, the header block, and then after that you actually send the data, or the payload. So the header's frame just carries the meta data about the request. Then in separate frames and data frames, you actually split them and put them into these data frames, which the whole thing consists of just the consistent header, that's the 8 bytes, followed by the actual payload. There's nothing more to it. It's as simple as that.

The one interesting gotcha that has been added recently to the spec is, if you look at the length field of this frame, it's 16 bits, so in theory you could send 64 kilobytes of data, but to reduce header line blocking, we're actually limiting that.

In the spec, we're saying no frame should be bigger than 16 kilobytes. Because otherwise, you just create more and more contention or more blocking. So if you have data that is larger than 16 kilobytes, you would just split it across multiple data frames. Then in the last data frame you just toggle a flag that says this is the last frame of that sequence, and that's how you communicate larger payloads.

So all of that kind of in a simple picture here. The client opens multiple requests. It has a single connection and it can split all of those requests and responses into individual frames.

The server can interleave the frames and it can use one TCP connection to deliver them in parallel. So if you sent three requests, one for JavaScript and a bunch of images, and the images are just right there and they're available, you can start streaming immediately. You can be then preempted by the server because the server can say, "Hey, previously I was servicing the JavaScript request but the JavaScript request has higher priority. And now that I have bytes, I'm going to give it higher priority to stream it down this pipe." So you can optimize, you can get the best bandwidth and you can also get the best throughput.

But of course, one of the gotchas here is the server needs to be smart about this. Previously we've had a lot of logic on the client for when do we schedule requests. One of the things that we're doing now, we just maybe a month or so ago committed this into Chrome, where when we're using SPDY, we remove all that logic.

We just say, "Hey, there's a request that needs to be made. Send it to the server." So we're implicitly relying that the server will do that right thing, or the smart thing. It won't saturate the link with JPEGs or large image files when we're asking for JavaScript and CSS and images. In some instances we've discovered that doesn't actually work out.

For example, the current nGenx implementation does not respect priorities. So we've actually seen a degradation of performance in those cases. So these are the kinds of things that need to be fixed at the server layer. Servers needs to get smarter.

Flow control is kind of interesting. One of the interesting properties of this, and you'll discover this, any time you layer a protocol within a protocol, you'll end up running into this exact same problem.

Now that we're interleaving multiple streams or flows within a single TCP connection, how do you rate limit or control the allocation of resources between those flows?

This is especially important for proxies and intermediaries where you may say, "Hey, I have a video stream and I have this stream. The video stream can easily saturate my link, but I want to limit it at this amount of throughput." So flow control allows you to do that.

If you've ever studied TCP flow control, one thing you'll know is that this is a problem that's been solved many times in the sense that there are new solutions coming out for TCP. There's new proposals. There's new congestion control mechanisms that are being proposed to this day.

We've been working on this for 20+ years. So we're not introducing a new flow control mechanism in HTTP 2.0. We're basically providing the building blocks to say every connection is going to start with a 64k window. Every time you send a data frame, we're going to decrement that window by the size of that frame. Then you have a special frame called the "window update frame", which will increment the size of that window. And how your server implements the logic of when to increment that window is completely up to you.

We're building you basically the shovels to build flow control. We're not providing an algorithm within HTTP 2.0. It's an interesting opportunity for, I think, innovation in the space. That's intentional. We know this is a complicated space, we can't solve it in HTTP 2.0, but we're going to provide the tools for you to do that.

The last thing that I'll mention is HTTP 2.0 push. I already talked about this briefly but the idea here is that, very frequently you request a page file like a static homepage, what have you, and we give you the HTML and then you come back to us with all the resources that we've told you that you're going to need in that HTML. So why shouldn't we be able to send you multiple responses to one request?

You say you want the page, we say, "Here's the HTML file. Here's a CSS file. Here's a JavaScript file and here's a bunch of other assets that you may need. " So how does push work, CDNs and intermediate cache? That's a good question. I don't think we have a good answer to that.

Part of the thinking, right now at least, is that CDNs can actually be providing this push. One of the things you can do, so let's take an actual scenario. I make a request to your server, your server says, "Here's the indexed HTML file and here's three other assets."

What if I have those three assets in a cache? Well, then you can actually cancel the stream. You can send a frame called "reset stream" and say, "No, no, I want to refuse this," or, "I don't want it." If you have an intermediary in there, it can actually drop those streams and just reset them back if it doesn't want to accept them.

So if your CDN doesn't accept it, it should respond with a reset stream and that should be the end of it. You may still end up transferring a little bit of data, but hopefully that's not such a big deal. So there's a bit of a risk condition there.

In a worst case, if you're intermediary refuses these push streams, we have the HTML parser, which are going to discover them and they'll send those things anyway, so this is an optimization.

The interesting thing about this is it's useful in the context of a browser. It may even be more useful in the context of just general RPC layer where, don't think of HTTP 2.0 just as a browser client. Now what you can do is, you can send a naked request. Like let's say you have your Java client, you send the request to the server, the server can push multiple responses back to your client and you can do smart things with it. So that's push.

One of the problems with deploying something like HTTP 2.0 is, well, we have a lot of existing infrastructure that can't be upgraded overnight. We have clients that we can rev. Something like Chrome, we can certainly release a new version and that'll be nice and smooth. But, lots of old IE clients, lots of old servers that won't be updated, etc...

So, how do we make the switch as seamless as possible?

There's two standards or two ways that are proposed in the spec today. There's the typical HTTP upgrade flows, if you guys are familiar with WebSocket. We send the request. We want to request the page and we also send a connection upgrade header and we say, "Hey, we would like you to upgrade to HTTP 2.0, if you support it." And if you do, the server can say, "Okay, fine. I will do a one and one switching protocols." It responds basically with those headers and right after that it's sending HTTP 2.0 data on that TCP connection. So there's no additional roundtrips, which is good. If it does not support HTTP 2.0, it can just respond with a 1.1 response. So there's no penalty in this case, which is nice.

T he more preferred way to actually do it, for a variety of reasons, is actually via TLS and ALPN.

ALPN adds a mechanism into TLS negotiation where you can actually negotiate the application protocol that you want to use during the time of the handshake.

Basically, the way it works is when you open the actual handshake for TLS you say, "Here's my private key," or "Here's my public key." Hopefully you're not sending your private key. "Here's my public key and, by the way, I support these protocols."

The server then says, "Okay, fine. I'll sign this request and I like the protocol that you're advertising, in this case HTTP 2.0, so I will run HTTP 2.0," and it responds back with a protocol field called "ProtocolName" and says, "Okay, fine. We'll talk HTTP 2.0."

So by the time the handshake is complete, we haven't added any more roundtrips to do this kind of thing, but we know right at the end of the TLS handshake that we can use HTTP 2.0.

The reason this is better, at least today, is that in practice, there's a lot of intermediary caches, proxies, what have you, on the web, even antivirus software running on clients that sniffs traffic on port 80 and breaks in spectacular ways. For example, there's actually antivirus software out there that we've discovered. For example, with SPDY, it would sniff port 80 if we do it on encrypted, and it would say, "Look, this doesn't look like HTTP traffic. This looks malicious. Oh, this user is under attack. Let me close the connection."

Or we have intermediate proxies which don't even parse HTTP properly. They just look for strings in the byte stream and just swap them out. That breaks the protocol in spectacular ways.

Basically, there's all this infrastructure where if you do this HTTP 2.0 or when we did SPDY in the wild, we found that in 20% of the cases our connections just would fail randomly and we could never figure out why because there's some software running on a client, some intermediary or something.

If you're running a site like Google. com, having 20% of your users not being able to reach your site is kind of a problem. The way to address that is basically to run it over SSL, because then we bypass all those intermediaries and then we're talking end to end. So encryption's not the point here. It's the fact that we have this clean tunnel between the two ends.

In practice, that's what you're probably going to end up using for HTTP 2.0. This is exactly the reason also why WebSockets work over a TLS for mobile and other cases and they break for a lot of clients, especially on mobile, when running over vanilla HTTP. So if you're having troubles with WebSockets, run it over TLS, you'll be fine. That's what it is today.

If you're interested in this kind of stuff, I did write a book about it. It's actually not in print yet. It will be hopefully by the end of next month, but it's all online and it's free. So if you're interested in HTTP 2.0 or TCP and TLS and all that kind of stuff, I go into all the stuff in depth, so check that out, and I'll have a link at the end.

With all the stuff going on with HTTP 2.0, the TCP performance part becomes even more important in many regards, so you should definitely upgrade your Linux kernels, make sure that you have the latest TCPU window or congestion control in place. All of the previous optimizations like positioning your data closer to the user still applies.

The fundamental problem or limitation today is still latency, so the closer you can get your data to the user, the better they're going to be, the better the performance is going to be. You want to compress the data, etc.

So TCP forms are very, very important. In fact, there's a little bit of a caveat with all the HTTP 2.0 work, which is TCP packet loss happens. That's how TCP works. TCP packet loss has to happen for TCP to work properly.

But the problem with packet loss is when that does happen, we reduce the size of the window, the congestion window, in many cases, fairly significantly. So when you had 6 connections or 10 connections open and you would have packet loss in one of those connections, the throughput of that one connection out of, let's say, 10, would get decreased.

If you're running all the data through one speed connection and packet loss happens, it affects you in a much more significant way. We know that's a limitation. It turns out that when we've run the studies - - that is a problem - - even despite that, HTTP 2.0 still delivers better performance.

It's something that we can address at the TCP layer, which is basically why I'm saying you should upgrade to Linux 3.2. Because one of the things in 3.2 is we have proportional rate reduction, which improves this kind of fairness problem with running HTTP 2.0 over a single connection.

Because you're going to be likely deploying TLS, TLS optimization is critical because a TLS handshake is actually very costly. It takes multiple roundtrips to do that, so you have to pay attention to your certificate size, you have to optimize your record sizes. This is an entire frontier of performance that I think not a lot of people are paying attention to today. We're going to have to get very, very good at optimizing TLS. So there are a lot of things that we can do can do in this space.

One of the nice things about migrating to HTTP 2.0 is we can undo a lot of the glorious hacks that we've been doing in our applications. And this is great because it'll make our application simpler. I don't have to tell you to concatenate your files, you don't have to sprite your images, you can just do the right things.

We can keep our code modular. We can keep it nice. We can just make these requests. The server should do the right thing and you shouldn't have to inline assets. All the stuff should be handled in HTTP, which is how it should have been to begin with.

So if you are looking at deploying HTTP 2.0, the number one thing for performance that you need to do is you need to unshard your assets.

This is step number one, regardless of anything else, because running over multiple TCP connections with HTTP 2.0 will hurt your performance.

Basically, you're not going to get the benefits of performance. You shouldn't be any worse off, but you're not going to get the benefits. That's just empirically what we've seen. Then after you've done that, you can start undoing other glorious hacks that you have in your code. Hopefully, now that we've convinced everybody to concatenate all their files, we can tell them to undo all of that.

The end result of all of this is actually, well, simpler applications. It should result in faster delivery. It will deliver better caching because we don't have to invalidate these giant BLOBs just because we changed five bytes of data, and it'll actually have a significant impact on fewer server resources.

Your servers will have to maintain fewer TCP connections, which is a big deal for people that are running servers that have to handle a lot of TCP connections. Each of those TCP connections has a memory buffer, which is quite costly in many cases. Even in simple simulations with a proxy server, we can show that there's significant improvements in the overall throughput of the system in terms of number of clients served, latency of the system, etc. So this is a big win for everybody, clients and servers, so it's something to be excited about.

Benefits, I think I've talked a lot about. Some of the opportunities and some of the stuff that still is ongoing and needs to be done, smarter servers. This is a big thing.

We can write the spec, but the servers needs to get smarter. Servers needs to respect priorities. What we've done is we're basically moving all of scheduling logic away from the browser and into the server. We're placing our faith into the server. The server needs to be smart. If it just saturates the pipe with images, it's going to deliver a poor performance. This is something that we need to do a lot to optimize.

Server push, there's a lot of opportunities there. What are the resources you should push? How do you determine that? One cool strategy that the Jetty guys have implemented with SPDY is they listen to inbound traffic, they look at the referrer headers and, after some amount of time, they basically build a map that says, "Hey, you've requested indexed HTML " and then the referrer header says that you've also requested, based on that, after you receive the HTML, you've also requested these three image files, the CSS file and other things. So they construct that map and then they start pushing these assets to future clients.

So this is completely automated, which is the nice part about it. I just let it run, it just listens to traffic and starts adapting to traffic, which is pretty cool. For sure you could implement the manual strategy, maybe you can really hand tune your application for a specific case and say, "Always send this file," or, "Always send it to this client ". There's a variety of different strategies for how to implement server push.

So once again, this is something that both web developers and server developers need to really carefully think about, like how do we leverage this new thing that we just never had in HTTP before?

Clients - same thing. One thing that I'm familiar with is, I've built a couple of HTTP clients in the past. Most clients in most languages, especially, actually, the default HTTP clients are terrible. They don't allow you to reuse the connection. They don't support connection reuse, so all that stuff needs to be replaced with something smarter.

If we just build HTTP 2.0 clients which do the same thing as before, which is make a request, throw away the TCP connection, this is all for nothing, this is completely useless. So all of that needs to be replaced.

One of the cool things about HTTP 2.0 is we've invented, over time, a lot of new RPC layers. At Google we use Stubby with protobufs, Facebook has their own, there's a whole number, like the MessagePack has its own RPC layer. There's a lot of different layers that other companies use internally because HTTP is not fast enough. We can't multiplex connections and all the rest.

Now that this is here with HTTP 2.0, you can rip out all of that code and replace it with this, because it's actually better in the sense that it's been battle tested and a lot of people have thought hard about this problem.

This infrastructure is going to be built. There is going to be commercial support for this kind of stuff. You're going to get router supporting it and all the rest, you don't have to roll your own RPC layer inside.

So if I was building a backend system today, for whatever company, I would start with HTTP 2.0, because that's just the right long term bet, as opposed to using Stubby or something else within a company. I think that's a big change that needs to happen.

Finally, there's actually a lot of questions about, "How do we migrate all the people from HTTP 1.0?" You've optimized your site, concatenated all your files, now I'm telling you to undo all of that. But the switch is not going to happen overnight. We're going to have a lot of old HTTP 1.0 clients, so how do we manage that transition?

One answer to that is if you use a dynamic optimization service, mostly every CDN today has something like this, where they'll rewrite your assets, they can actually be smart about it.

For example, a page speed product that we have at Google, we look at the incoming headers and we say, "Look, this client has HTTP 2.0. We won't do concatenation, and that concatenation happens dynamically. Whereas, this client has HTTP 1.0, so we'll serve you the bundled asset."

This kind of thing needs to happen at the routing layer and all the other layers within the system. That also requires quite a bit of plumbing and architecture in terms of how do you deliver that to client.

With that, I'll take some questions if you guys have any.

Want developer focused content in your inbox?

Join our mailing list to receive the latest Library updates. After subscribing, tell us your preferences to receive only the email you want.

Thanks for subscribing, check your inbox to confirm and choose preferences!

You've been here a while...

Are you learning something? Share it with your friends!


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

text:
Oops. This product is only available in a minimum quantity of or more units
Roll over image to zoom in

Anna Napoletana Extra Fine "00" Flour

Product Description

100% Italian. Anna adds authentic taste and lightness for all of your baking needs. Napoletana pizzaioli (pizza makers) are among the finest in the world. By using traditional techniques and quality ingredients, they have turned pizza making into an art form. Anna Type 00 is an old world, authentic Naples style flour that holds up to the high temperatures required for pizza making. It is finely milled with a soft texture, yielding a crispy crust every time. Anna Type 00 flour is an excellent choice for any of your baking needs. Pizza. Focaccia. Biscotti. Cookies. Bread. Fresh pasta. A proprietary blend of Cento. 00 contains non-GMO wheat ; no added enzymes - no additives.

Preparation Instructions

For best quality, store in a cool dry place.

Ingredients Soft Wheat Flour.

Name Value
Quantity 1
Size (oz.) 35.2
Type Specialty
Height 6.75
Width 3.55
Depth 4.30
Weight 2.23
Safety Warning
Actual product packaging and materials may contain more or different information than that shown on our website. You should not rely solely on the information presented here. Always read labels, warnings and directions before using or consuming a product. View full Product Information Disclaimer
Nutrition Facts
  • Napoletana Extra Fine "00" Flour

    Serving Size   0.25 cup
    Serving Per Container 16.0000

    Amount Per Serving
    Calories 100
    Calories from Fat 10
    Total Fat 0g 0%
    Saturated Fat 0g 0%
    Trans Fat 0g
    Cholesterol 0mg 0%
    Sodium 0mg 0%
    Total Carbohydrate 22g 7%
    Dietary Fiber 1g 2%
    Sugars <1g
    Protein 3g
    Vitamin A 0% Vitamin C 0%
    Calcium 0% Iron 0%

Tell us what you think!
Tell us what you think!
Be the first to write a review!
Wondering what to say?
  • Include usage tips, key benefits, and helpful suggestions.
  • Did you have a good or bad experience?
  • Would you recommend this to friends or family?
  • Be respectful to others.
{{review.commentTitle}} {{review.timestampFormatted}}
by {{review.sender.screenName}} {{review.sender.screenName ? review.sender.screenName : 'Anonymous'}}
Was this review helpful to you? Yes {{review.posVotes}} No {{review.negVotes}} Flag
Customer Relations


text:
Horse Chestnut seed (Hippocastani semen)

Published December 5, 1984; Replaced April 15, 1994.
List of German Commission E Monographs (Phytotherapy)

Name of Drug

Hippocastani semen, horse chestnut seed.

Composition of Drug

A dry extract manufactured from horse chestnut seeds, Aesculus hippocastanum L. [Fam. Hippocastanaceae], adjusted to a content of 16 - 20 percent triterpene glycosides (calculated as anhydrous aescin).

Pharmacological Properties, Pharmacokinetics, Toxicology

As found in different animal experiments, the principal ingredient in horse chestnut seed extract is the triterpene glycoside mixture, aescin (escin), which has an anti-exudative and vascular-tightening effect.

There are indications that horse chestnut seed extract reduces the activity of lysosomal enzymes that is increased in chronic pathological conditions of the veins, so that the breakdown of glycoacalyx (mucopolysaccharides) in the region of the capillary walls is inhibited. The filtration of low-molecular proteins, electrolytes and water into the interstitium is inhibited through a reduction of vascular permeability.

Using placebo as reference, a significant reduction of transcapillary filtration has been demonstrated in pharmacological studies involving human subjects, and a significant improvement shown in the symptoms of chronic venous insufficiency (sensation of tiredness, heaviness and tension, pruritus, pain and swelling in the legs) in various randomized double-blind studies and/or cross-over studies.

Pilot studies are available on the toxicology of horse chestnut seed extract. The oral LD50 of the extract is 990 mg per kg body weight in the mouse, 2150 mg per kg body weight in the rat, 1530 mg per kg body weight in the rabbit, and 130 mg per kg body weight in the dog. In the rat, the "no effect" dose is between 9 and 30 mg per kg body weight after intravenous administration of horse chestnut seed extract over a period of 8 weeks. Chronic administration above 80 mg per kg body weight over a period of 34 weeks produced gastric irritation in dogs. In rats, no toxic changes were observed throughout the same period up to an oral dose of 400 mg per kg body weight.

Clinical Data 1. Indications Treatment of complaints found in pathological conditions of the veins of the legs (chronic venous insufficiency), for example, pains and a sensation of heaviness in the legs, nocturnal systremma (cramps in the calves), pruritis and swelling of the legs.

Note: Other non-invasive treatment measures prescribed by a physician, such as leg compresses, wearing of supportive elastic stockings, or cold water applications, must be observed under all circumstances.

2. Contraindications

None known.

3. Side Effects

Pruritis, nausea, and gastric complaints may occur in isolated cases after oral intake.

4. Special Caution for Use

5. Use During Pregnancy and Lactation

No restriction known.

6. Interaction with Other Drugs

None known.

7. Dosage and Mode of Administration

Daily dose:

100 mg aescin (escin) corresponding to 250 - 312.5 mg extract 2 times per day in delayed release form. 8. Overdosage None known.

9. Special Warnings

10. Effect on Operators of Vehicles and Machinery


text:
Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)

Is an increasingly relevant feature for Emergency, Signal Warning, Marker and Signal lighting.

As electronic devices become more common, so does the risk of unintended interference that can have adverse effects on other sensitive devices such as radios or communication equipment.

HELLA lighting products are designed and tested to reduce the possible risk of electromagnetic interference, both emissions as well as susceptibility, to limits defined in international standards.

As prescribed by New Zealand legislation, under circumstances, electronic products sold in New Zealand must be labelled with an RCM  mark.

HELLA products are designed, tested and labelled to meet the requirements of this legislation.

Lamps marketed as RFCommSafe are designed to go well beyond the requirements of these standards.


text:
Bachelier Model for a Stock and Brownian motion Estimation

Consider the Bachelier model for the stock (St)t0:

St = S0 + a t + bWt;

where (Wt)t0 is a Brownian motion and a; b > 0:

(a) Download daily data for the S&P 500 index for the twenty year period beginning in January 1994 until the end of 2013 (e.g., from yahoo finance). Use the data to estimate a and b for this model.

(b) Use Excel or another spreadsheet software to simulate a (discretized) sample path of a the Bachelier model over the year 2014 using 250 equidistant time steps, and compare it to the realized path. Just hand in the resulting plot.

This question belongs to finance and discusses about Bachelier model for the stock and to determine Brownian motion a and b from the given equation.

Total word count: 85

Download Full Solution

  • HWA

    this is a very good website

  • HWA

    I have 50 questions for the same test your page is showing only 28

  • HWA

    hi can you please help or guide me to answer my assignments. thanks

  • HWA

    hi can anyone help or guide me to my assignments. thanks

  • HWA

  • HWA

    This solution is perfect ...thanks

  • HWA

    Hello Allison,I love the 2nd image that you did! I also, had never heard of SumoPaint, is something that I will have to exolpre a bit! I understand completely the 52 (or so) youtube videos that you probably watched. Sometimes they have what you want, sometimes they don't! However, it is always satisfying when you are able to produce something that you have taught yourself. Great job!Debra 0 likes

  • HWA

    Perfect bank of solution.

  • HWA

    great !

  • HWA
    Paul Brandon-Fritzius

    thanks for the quick response. the solution looks good. :)

  • HWA
    tina Johnson

    thnx for the answer. it was perfect. just the way i wanted it.

  • HWA

    works fine.


text:
Your Cart

Living the Dream

From concept to completion in Perth's Western Suburbs....

We created this beautiful moodboard for some wonderful clients who's brief was "we like Hampton Style but not in the "traditional" sense...! So for this project we decided on a "contemporary hamptons" feel with a nod to the colonial era while keeping the character of this beautiful home alive. Henry & Oliver Co. approach every meeting in a very consultative manner, therefore both husband and wife had a hugely important role to play. We look to our clients for inspiration and ask lots of questions as this helps us really get to know their personalities, making it easier to create bespoke furniture plans.

Starting with the master bedroom, they already had some grey bedding but the colour green was a favourite also. This room overlooked a leafy garden making it easy to draw on nature for our choice of soft furnishings while still keeping some grey accents. Together we choose a luxurious soft teal velvet bedhead as a statement piece. The bedhead was made extra tall to accomodate their high-profile mattress & ensemble. We used straight vertical lines to add a touch of contemporary elegance and also give the illusion of height to the bedhead since in this character home the ceilings are always very high.

Next we wanted to create a little drama and choose black for the bedside tables and tallboy, finished off with some stunning lamps with ivory shade. Add a large  silver dressing mirror, an over-sized custom wing chair in a soft grey Warwick fabric, and finish with some complimentary grey botanical artworks with champagne silver frames for over the bed...

At Henry & Oliver Co. we can offer you a bespoke furniture planning service. This unique service offering has been designed to help you select the correct size, style and colour for your personal taste and budget.
You'll meet with one of our Product Consultants in-store who based on your brief will make product recommendations from the Henry & Oliver Co. range of furniture and provide advice on fabrics, colour, furniture dimensions and suitable accessories i.e. artwork.
Henry & Oliver Co. charge $150 for this service and bookings can be taken in person, online or over the phone (08) 9444 8838.
*Please note this is not an Interior Design Service, our Product Consultants can only make Henry & Oliver Co. product recommendations.


text:
Luling woman sees light after battling rare illness

Believed to have cell syndrome that has led to lifetime of chronic illness

Elizabeth Oxford of Luling had hit rock bottom with her health issues, but after years of searching for answers, she and her family just might be on the verge of finding them.

The Oxfords are fresh off of a trip to Seattle where Elizabeth was able to find a doctor with some — rare, as it turns out — expertise in Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS), something Oxford has believed for awhile has been at the root of her longtime fight against a plethora of illnesses, which has gone on since she was very young. Furthermore, it’s believed her son, Aiden, may also have MCAS, a disease which Oxford notes was discovered just 10 years ago, meaning it’s a relative unknown when it comes to research within the medical community.

Elizabeth Oxford with her family.
Elizabeth Oxford with her family.

“I was a very sickly kid,” Oxford said. “Infections, allergy issues, earaches, migraines, joint pain, fatigue … there were so many things that weren’t the norm for an active 12 to 13 year old girl. I was always in and out of the doctor’s office.”

No matter how well she took care of herself , it was relentless. She had to miss approximately 25 to 30 days a year in high school, and accomplishing her goals in the face of so much fatigue left her completely drained.

At the age of 14, she was diagnosed by doctors, but said she’s since found it to be inaccurate.

“I think it’s clear they just needed to name something for my mom, who wasn’t going to give up until she got an answer,” Oxford said.

At the age of 22, her mother passed away, adding a heavy emotional toll to go with the physical price Oxford paid daily. But eventually, things seemingly began to improve physically. She didn’t have as many migraines and her fatigue had become manageable. She married her high school sweetheart and the two began a family, having two children.

But her health issues returned, worse than ever before.

“Suddenly, it wasn’t manageable at all,” she said. “I had to see a specialist for one thing or another all the time, like I’d won the darn chronic illness lottery.”

She soon recognized her young son Aiden as having many of the same issues she had growing up.

Oxford filed for disability five years ago after she had to leave her job due to her health decline. Essentially confined to her bed on her worst, her quality of life had deteriorated to the point where she admits she had thoughts of suicide.

But instead of allowing the pain to win, she used it to drive her.

“That was the point where I flat out decided we have up the ante on finding these answers,” Oxford said. “I had lost all hope and we needed something.”

She went to many doctors, none of whom could exactly pinpoint the root cause of the problem. But Oxford herself found perhaps something of a breakthrough when, while researching fibromyalgia, she read how it related to the mast cell — she recognized that from her experience with mast cell cytosis, which she had previously been diagnosed with as a child. That led her to learn about mast cell activation syndrome. Oxford was formally diagnosed with MCAS three months ago.

“It’s a big piece of the puzzle,” Oxford said.

Still, with very few practitioners having detailed knowledge of the newly discovered illness, her options to find a true solution were limited.

The family found their best option was to travel to Seattle to meet with MCAS specialists, though given the longtime financial drain of this health battle, it was something yielded from a desperate effort to find answers. It prompted the Oxfords to start a GoFundMe page to offset some of the costs of their attempts to find clarity.

Oxford believes there is — finally — a light at the end of the tunnel.

“We didn’t get the hard answers that were kind of the dream for us, but (the doctor) is doing it the right way,” Oxford said. “She can give us a direction, which is what we’ve needed for a long time.”

Oxford said the disease is incurable to this point, though she hopes that will change in the future for her son. For herself, she said the doctor was realistic, but provided the hope she’s badly needed that her life could yet get back on track.

“She told me, I’m not going to get you to being an Olympian or anything like that, but you can be functional again, and get back your quality of life. For the first time, I really believe it,” Oxford said.

Oxford also said she doesn’t believe she’s alone at all in this fight, and wants to spread awareness of MCAS and other diseases like it.

“It’s estimated that 17 percent of people have some kind of mast cell disease that cause these chronic illnesses, and the longer it goes untreated, the worse it becomes,” she said. “Those cases are harder to reverse, but I want to do anything I can to let people know.”

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


text:
CAMPAIGNERS are also pushing for stricter rules to keep the teaching of creationism out of schools.

Paul Braterman, an emeritus professor of chemistry at Glasgow University and a founder of the British Centre for Science Education, a campaign to keep religion out of science classes, said he wanted Scotland to follow the lead of England and introduce guidance that creationism should not be presented as scientific theory.

Dr Nagy Iskander, above, a surgeon and director of the JAM (Jesus and Me) Trust in East Kilbride, has been described as one of "Europe's most active creationists" by Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis, a US-based religious ministry which seeks to promote a creationist account of the history of the world. Iskander has helped organise a conference in Scotland this weekend involving speakers from Answers in Genesis and recently took part in a debate on religion at a local school.

He said: "Creation according to the Christian faith is a supernatural act of God, so it will not be repeated and we can't test creation in the lab. Evolution needs to take place over millions of years and we cannot test that either. My view on this is we should mention everything – we should examine all the evidence and all the facts and have an open and civilised discussion about all of this without excluding one or the other."


text:
Subscribe today and you'll get a $5 coupon code you can use on your next order of $40 or more.

Our subscribers get exclusive benefits, such as:

  • - First look at our new plant introductions.
  • - Great deals on our best selling plants.
  • - First to know about contest announcements and giveaways.
  • - Timely gardening tips, delivered right to your inbox.

You are using an out-of-date browser. You will still be able to shop HighCountryGardens.com, but some functionality may not work unless you update to a modern browser. Update My Browser

Please wait...

Item added to your cart

has been added to your cart.

Continue shopping or View cart & checkout


text:
Bobby Gene Burgess

Bobby Gene Burgess

January 8, 1932 — August 6, 2018

Bobby Gene Burgess, 86, passed away on Aug. 6, 2018, after a brief illness. He was born on January 8, 1932 in Quitman, Texas to Bonnie and Ida Burgess. His family moved to Houston when he was a young child. After a brief stint in the Navy, Bobby returned to the University of Houston where he graduated with degrees in Mathematics and Electrical Engineering. He spent the next 30 years working for Houston Lighting & Power Company (now Center Point Energy) in Houston, Texas. Upon retirement, he and Lynda moved to Meadowlakes, Texas where they have lived for the past 22 years.

Bobby is survived by his wife of 42 years, Lynda Christine Burgess; daughter, Kelly Kay and husband, John Hussey; brother, Bonnie Ray Burgess from Haynesville, Louisiana. He was preceded in death by his parents, Bonnie and Ida and a sister, Vaudeen Hebert.

In lieu of flowers, the family asks that you consider a donation in Bobby's memory to the Marble Falls Public Library, 101 Main Street, Marble Falls, TX 78654.

A private graveside service was held at Lakeland Hills Memorial Park in Burnet, Texas. Arrangements under the care of Jenkins Funeral Home, Burnet, Texas.

Rate this article:
No votes yet


text:
bridal party gifts

Guide to The Bridal Party

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2018 | Filed under: Bridal party, Bridesmaids, Groomsmen | author: By Keith Sly,

Bridal PartyIt is a great honor to be in the Wedding Party. Those closest to the couple are able to feel special and distinct, and are able to help with the big day. There are, of course, many big decisions that couples must make in regards to the wedding party. The wedding experts at The Manor have put together a few tips to help couples with wedding party decisions: from selecting the lucky few to asking them the big question, the wedding planners at The Manor share some tips.
Read more…

Popular Bridal Shower Trends

Thursday, July 5th, 2018 | Filed under: Bridal Shower, Bridal Shower Trends, gifts | author: By Keith Sly,

bridal showersBridal showers are a fun pre-wedding celebration to honor the bride-to-be, and “shower” her with gifts to help her set up her new home. Whether you are the Maid of Honor or mother of the bride, it’s no longer solely up to the bridal party to plan the bride’s shower. Nowadays, any close relative and friends can join in on the planning. And so, the wedding planners at The Manor share all you need to know when it comes to planning a memorable bridal shower the bride will cherish for years to come.
Read more…

The Best Bridal Party Gifts

Friday, January 13th, 2017 | Filed under: Bridal party, gifts | author: By Keith Sly,

Perfect Bridal GiftsBridesmaids are an important part of your wedding. From your engagement, dress shopping, and your bridal shower, all the way down the aisle to the moment you say, “I do,” your best gals are there through and through. The wedding planners at The Manor have gathered the best bridal party gifts for bridal parties of all sizes. Whether you choose one perfect gift or include a few smaller options, these gift ideas truly show sincere appreciation and thoughtfulness. Here are our top picks to ensure you will have the ideal gift for each bridesmaid the night of your rehearsal dinner.
Read more…

To make an appointment with a banquet manager, please contact us at 973-731-3100.


text:
Prohibited Vaporizer Kit

By Prohibited

Take your vaping session to the next dimension with the Prohibited Vaporizer Kit. Available in four colors, (Charcoal, Teal, Pearl, Purple) these vape kits offer an unmatched quality and build. These multi-use vapes work for concentrate or dry herbs and feature magnetic drop-in carts and chargers. Each vaporizer also ensures super fast heat up times equipped with three different heating modes/ temperatures.

Each Kit Includes:

  •  In the 5th Degree Vaporizer
  •  Dry Herb Cartridge
  •  Concentrates Cartridge
  •  Wall Adapter
  •  Magnetic USB Charging Cord
  •  Pick Tool and Brush Tool

Pick up some additional cartidges here.

There are no reviews yet.

Be the first to review “Prohibited Vaporizer Kit”