Remember how the healthcare.gov website crashed under the huge numbers of people who were visiting it? Remember how politicians were telling us that it was a sign of how popular the program is?
Well, we finally found out just how many people all logged on at once and caused it to crash.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won … -problems/
2,000 users brought it down.
To give you an idea of how bad that is, if you went to Hostgator and bought a website plan for $150/month, and installed a Wordpress default website, you should be able to handle at least 10 times that amount, if not more.
That is 2000 simultaneous (not total) users on the same step (not everyone on the site at the time) on the fed site only (states also have sites).
2000 people trying to do that first registration step simultaneously. As I mentioned, a basic server could handle 10 times that amount easily.
Free forum software can handle over 50,000 simultaneous users.
Myspace tested 1,000,000.
This means that they didn't stress test the server, and they didn't put any load balancing in place. It's just a pitifully low number, nothing like what they try to paint it as. They made it sound like it only crashed because there were hundreds of thousands of people all logging in at the same time.
It is a crappy piece of software. But it is not correct to suggest it crashed after the 2000th person used the site. There is a difference between crappy and completely useless.
Which is why I titled it "under stress". 200 visitors at once is more stress than 200 visitors over a week.
It's also why I said 2000 people logged in "at once".
I disagree, if a website is supposed to be able to serve a customer base of hundreds of millions, and it can't even handle 2000 simultaneously, then it is useless. It would take something like 6 years to get everyone who doesn't have insurance signed up at that rate.
edit: not signed up. Registered.
Yeah unfortunately the raw number is completely irrelevant what causes crashes is network overload which is not related to how many people are using the site but how information transfer is occurring.
As an example if I were to DDOS a small site I could crash it by myself. So one person can bring down a website, so saying 2000 did and this proves something is just false.
2000 people under normal browsing conditions causing an overload is definitely a problem.
Are you really trying to compare a DDOS attack to the load from a single normal connection? A DDOS from one person creates more than one simultaneous connection, so it's invalid comparison anyway.
Stop making excuses for extreme failure. Every citizen should be ashamed that our government created this atrocity. A $150 website with default settings would do better than this $500 million atrocity.
Sorry do you have any data that it was not DDOS'd? All data is coming from a single IP so its still only one user.
Anyway my only point is your metric (2000 people) is irrelevant. What we need to make an assessment is how data is being moved. Sorry but that is simple fact.
Do you have any data that it was?
They've been having a congressional hearing on the website, and nobody reported any attacks. There's no reason to assume there were any attacks, as the report was that 2000 users attempting to register caused it to crash. Not 2000 users were executing a DDOS.
It's not irrelevant. It's perfectly relevant. Websites are supposed to handle users. It doesn't matter how specifically they screwed up, what matters is they screwed up so royally that they couldn't even handle a tiny number of connections.
You're looking at a broken bleacher and saying "well, that doesn't really matter that 200 people broke it". The goal was to handle 10,000, and it didn't even support 2% of that. Failing to meet 2% of your goal is kind of a big deal.
I have no data it was, you have no data it wasn't, it not being mentioned proves nothing (particularly since it may well be part of a criminal investigation)
OK let's use your bleacher analogy.
The correct metric is how much weight was on the bleacher you keep wrongly using a metric of how many people.
As an example that could be 200 babies at maybe 2 kg each or 200 450 kg severely obese people.
All I am saying is you have the wrong metric and until you start using the right one we won't know what this means. Sorry but that is simple fact.
As for the seriousness, eh, new websites go down, happens all the time, no one died, no big deal.
Lol, I don't have any data either that a group of dinosaurs landed in a spaceship and physically took control of the servers and started screwing with them.
You can't say "Well you don't have any proof it didn't happen". A reasonable person waits for proof to start believing something.
Besides, if it were due to illegal activity, don't you think the politicians would prefer to say that Obamacare is under attack by right-wing hackers, instead of saying "We're complete imbecils and we can't make a website with obscene amounts of money"?
The metric of people is the correct metric, because it is designed to handle a specific amount of people. Weight is a consideration, and they use averages while allowing for variance.
Clearly you will make any excuse for any level of incompetence by the politicians you like. There is no excuse. Just like there is a proven method of making bleachers, there is a proven method of making a website. Failure is not excusable anymore.
Especially considering that Joe's Bleachers can make that bleacher for $50,000, and the government spent $40 million and still it broke after 2% of expected activity.
Keep making excuses, it's funny to watch.
Actually I don't believe I like any of the politicians involved at all.
You are still categorically, factually using the wrong metric, until you accept that this you have no point to make. Your insistence on using the wrong metric (because you don't actually know the values of the correct one) makes your observation invalid.
I also don't think you know the first thing about creating a website with legal consequence or how difficult and expensive that is.
I also already explained why a DDOS attack would not be revealed.
If a reasonable person waits for data before making a conclusion then you are not a reasonable person. You have not waited for the correct data and are assuming on the value of a no optimal metric.
As for the screw up (Assuming there even was one), again it could simply be one mis-written line of code or a even a simple syntax error in the load chart by a single developer. The consequences of this site going down for a while were basically zilch no matter how hard you try to blow it out of proportion.
Let's talk about inefficiency though, in a way that ACTUALLY matters ACTUALLY impacts human lives rather than this nonsense.
The US private system was the most expensive system in the first world, it was the least effective system in the first word, I am in Australia right now an Angiogram here (as an example) costs 33 American dollars. In the US the average costs under the private system? 914 Dollars Almost thirty times more expensive.
SO yes I am more than comfortable with governments running this since the Australian government is thirty times better at running a healthcare system cost wise than the American private sector AND provides better outcomes AND has better rating under the OECD and WHO AND has a higher doctor and patient satisfaction.
These figures are replicated for other socialized systems all around the world.
Of course that actually MATTERS that costs lives. Your example means nothing.
No your angiogram didn't cost $33. It may have been priced at that silly figure, but only a fool would think that was the actual cost.
Nope cost. Actual cost. It's an extreme example but go have a look at the Forbes list on costs or the Wikipedia rankings on spending. Averages are in the three to four times range.
Sorry, I know it's shocking. But unless you pull the "it's all a conspiracy card" it's true.
The only thing it doesn't account for is college education here is kind of free (complicated system but much freer) which makes paying doctors less much more feasible because they don't have huge debts to pay themselves.
But that is just another example of how much better governments are at running some things than the private sector.
As for how much it was priced at, for citizens it's completely free. (obviously the money comes from taxation).
There are lot's of reasons, no profit margin, cheaper doctors, more efficient systems.
A big one is hospital markups.
Some have been caught with 1000 times markups in the US, there was a case of 10 000 percent markup on Tylenol.
Capitalism can really suck sometimes.
Are you implying that the quality of a website is an indicator as to the social value of the ACA? Or are you simply stating the healthcare.gov website performs badly? If the former, then no, that's a non sequitur. If the latter, then yes I agree.
I'm trying to show the absurdity of the whole project. Remember, the same people in charge of the website are the people who are in charge of your healthcare plans, and safely handling the personal information you enter on their website.
It should be criminal what they have done. They spent $40 million on a bleacher that the market would have provided for $50k, and it collapsed under 2% of expected weight.
It's not just that they made a website with some glitches. It's that they are so far off the mark that a rational person shouldn't be able to trust them anymore. How could you trust someone who promised bleachers that could hold 10,000 people, and the whole thing collapsed when 200 got on? That's not even close.
How can you trust someone who promised you professional bleachers, but ended up making them out of balsa wood?(And I bet balsa could still hold more than 200 people)
People don't seem to be grasping the scale of the incompetence and waste. If a private company(private sector, public company) did this, the people in charge would be going to prison.
Let me be clearer. On the one hand you have a technology project. On the other you have the ACA. Are you suggesting that the poor performance of healthcare.gov indicates the social value of the ACA, or are you simply criticizing what seems to be a poorly managed technology project? Just trying to clarify what your overarching point is.
It's one of many indicators that government is wasteful and inefficient. IF it runs Obamacare the way it runs just about every program, we're in for trouble.
I asked another person here on HubPages to name one time the government did anything efficiently. I'm still waiting for a reply. I guess that is the reply.
The Australian government entirely runs it's healthcare system at an average one quarter of the cost per person with better results than the American private sector. Ditto for a whole ton of other governments scoring in the same range.
For an American example we already have healthcare research in vaccines/treatment, Polio, Tuberculosis etc. were all discovered in American public research bodies and pretty much all of the truly massive drug developments of the modern era were too. Penicillin (discovery and research), Chemotherapy etc.
Those four combined are probably the most important thing that has been accomplished in the modern era full stop.
No it doesn't. The numbers are easy to manipulate to make it seem that way, but they do not "operate the system" for 1/4 the cost. An example is the education of doctors, nurses, etc. That cost is included in the price of health care in the US, in the doctor's bill presented to the patient; in Australia it is conveniently swept under the rug in the form of taxes.
Because so much of the cost is paid by the tax system, it's easy to make the money disappear, but trust me on this; it's still there, and still being paid. The doctor's teacher, the grocery store he bought food at while in school, the apartment owner where he lived while learning; all are paid by someone, somewhere and it's all part of the cost of healthcare.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Aussies pay less for healthcare than Americans do, but it's not 1/4 of the cost.
Yes I know, I said exactly that in response to one such comment to both of you a day ago, I didn't feel the need to repeat, the cost of education is not included. In Australia the government pays half of the cost of university and allows the other half to be paid off at zero interest and set rate. Healthcare is 430% cheaper on average now what percentage of that do you really think is half the cost of university education per doctor and nurse?
Let's be ridiculously generous and say that cost is 80% of that 430 that still means that government does this 350% more efficiently than our private system can.
Let me make myself totally clear:
1. Our government has done many GREAT things. People love to give examples of these great things. I agree with most of the examples. Were any of these great accomplishments finished efficiently and with little waste, or were these great accomplishments finished with a flood of taxpayer dollars? Our government is the most wasteful government. Can anybody name another government that is more wasteful and still in power?
2. Liberals always give examples of government efficiency in other nations. That's my point. Our government is broken; America's government is anything but efficient. That's precisely why we need to reform and minimize the size of our government.
Name any non state agency on Earth that has ever accomplished anything as great as penicillin, the vaccine for Polio or putting a man on the moon in the modern era.
You can't because there aren't any.
Penicillin has saved literally billions of lives is any cost too expensive for that sort of development?
But yes the development of streptomycin was done on a $130 000 grant budget it has since saved tens of millions of lives... I would call that quite efficient and it was the American government.
You could be a politician. You avoided the question. We are in total agreement that our government has accomplished some amazing things. Have any of them been accomplished efficiently? Your lack of an answer or your avoidance answers the question emphatically.
At the end of your statement, you mention a single example. Great. Our government is the most wasteful government in history.
Can you name a single government that is as wasteful as ours? Can you name another government that is less efficient?
Yeah I gave a you a very significant example... This is not an easy stat to just find or evaluate since there is no solid definition of efficient in this context.
I am sure the tens of millions of people still alive because of it are quite pleased with the efficiency of that $130 000 though.
Honestly I don't know where to find stats on what government is most efficient or how you would measure that. But the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim i.e. you.
The burden of proof lies with the people who want to convince us that the government should expand, people who support President Obama. I don't need to convince you that government is efficient; you already seem to believe that the government is efficient.
This question is at the heart of both Republican and Democrat ideologies.
You are right, however, that it is a difficult thing to prove. Efficient is a term that would be difficult to truly define in this context. Don't you dare cut and paste a definition!
You don't seem to get it. Try it this way, if the website was the most efficient, well designed website you'd ever seen, and was praised by business and technology gurus throughout the land, do you believe that would demonstrate the ACA is an excellent piece of legislation?
That makes no sense. Websites aren't that tough. Properly building the website, which is central to the sign up process, after spending several years and hundreds of millions of dollars, simply means they took too long and spent too much doing the minimum required, nothing more. Failing at even that, on the other hand, is a huge red flag.
If I get an RSVP for an event, and that invitation is as expected, I will consider attending. If they misspell my name and state the event will take place Junuary 33rd, at 27:30, I'm not going to try to find out what it should have said...I'll pass. If they can't even get the invite right, why on earth would I expect it to be a well done event? Oh, and then to hear they paid the printer $725 per invitation? Indefensible.
If it was a great website, would that mean the ACA is an excellent piece of legislation? Simple question.
Yes it is a simple, (in context) silly, irrelevant, strawman question. The answer is "No," just because someone is capable of building a good website, that does not mean what they represent is good. Considering their success, I suspect any porn site probably works well. That does not mean porn is good. If a group, business or government is too incompetent to even arrange for a functional site, however, it still reflects poorly on the administrative skills and judgement of that group. I'd say someone who can't even match the abilities of a purveyor of porn ought not be trusted with a huge portion of the worlds biggest economy.
"The answer is "No," just because someone is capable of building a good website, that does not mean what they represent is good."
Absolutely. And from that we can infer the common sense principle that the way something is presented does not necessarily demonstrate the value (good or bad) of that which is presented. By that reasoning we can conclude that the way the ACA has been presented does not necessarily demonstrate the value (good or bad) of that piece of legislation. Simple logic.
Too simple of "logic," perhaps. I am someone frequently responsible for projects. I own every aspect and a failure at any level, be it by me, a team member I have assigned and support, or a contractor I have vetted, selected and commissioned, is my failure and speaks to my competency for the entire task. This is how it works in the real world and it is foolish to hold government to a lesser standard. Still simple. If you truly don't see it I can't imagine why not.
While the web failure indicates incompetency regarding administration of the obama/democare tax, there remains another issue. Regarding the viability of this monstrosity of a power grab, it is already beginning to fail under it's own weight, (as it was probably designed to do).
Of course, conservatives have been sounding the warnings for years, but now as obama/democare unfolds, these problems are gradually becoming undeniable. It is so obvious, only the the most staunch supporters of Obama refuse to set down the kool-aide. Even many of the liberal media and ultra liberal entertainers are jumping ship.
You cannot reasonably jump from a bad website to the conclusion that the ACA is not viable. That's a non sequitur (literally "it does not follow"). Why? Remember that common sense principle? Even the most simple logic can be a useful tool in the effort to root out nonsense.
how do you keep missing this? I never said the website failure had any bearing on the viability of the obama/democare tax. You keep persisting against a point I never made, or even eluded to. If you think I did, please show me where. What I did say is that the "web failure indicates incompetency regarding administration of the obama/democare tax," which it does. The inability to properly administer the program is a separate issue from how bad the program itself is, although it may accelerate it's undoing.
Either obama/democare fails because they can't run it, or it fails because they can, and it proves out to be unsustainable. Either way it fails with time. Again, I suspect that is by design, in order to force everyone out of their plans and create economic chaos so Obama can put on his white hat and ride in with a big government bail out to take over the fiasco. Obama's remedy will incorporate a single payer system, which is what he has wanted all along. Folks in desperate need of relief from the disaster Obama has inflicted on them will have no choice but to go along at that point. Total control at last.
Watch, if that scenario does indeed play out, the liberal press will probably praise Obama's actions, ignoring the fact he caused the train wreck he later "saved" us from.
So, it is when the website is fixed and people start getting signed up that the real nightmare begins.
I'm glad you agree that the stat of a website doesn't have any bearing on the nature of the legislation. As for the rest of your post, I would accuse you of wearing a tin hat, but you would probably see that as part of the big Obama-Democrat-communist-liberal press conspiracy, so I won't.
Not to worry Don. Although it seems increasingly clear there is a nefarious plot afoot to trap the American populace into a single payer system, you seem to be a peripheral, passive player at best. I sense sincerity in your support of Obamacare, genuinely enjoying the kool-aid. Considering the disillusionment which will eventually wash over those duped into supporting these policies, doomed for failure, it is well that you enjoy your vision while the facade supporting it still stands. Clearly, nothing anyone could say would sway you anyway. I expect there are many who will stand with you to continue compressions well after Obamacare's time should have been called. As I mentioned, that day will not be one of celebration however, for what crawls from the carcass of that albatross will be far worse.
lol "nefarious plot". I like it. The dastardly Obama strikes again. Who can foil his evil ways? Will our hero save the day? Or will he be too late to save the country as it is dashed on the rocks of a single payer system? Tune in next week for another thrilling episode . . .
Sorry, I'm being flippant, but I don't share the view that the ACA will cause the apocalypse. It's just change. A significant and necessary one. Rather than trying to sabotage it, the GOP should be doing all they can to make it work. It isn't perfect. No one is under any illusion it is, but the status quo could not be maintained. The law can be tweaked and no doubt it will be tweaked. But it is irrational to object to it purely on ideological grounds, and simply not possible to object to it on financial grounds with any degree of certainty. Once real data starts coming in, informed decisions can be made about what works, what doesn't. Until then everything should be done to try to make it a success, as that's surely the most desirable outcome for all concerned. Unless of course ensuring that as many people as possible have health coverage is not the priority of some people . . . Dun Dun Daaaaahn
Y O U don't seem to get it. I'm not saying that the website indicates that Obamacare is poor legislation; I do believe Obamacare is bad legislation, but I don't believe that is the case due to a bad website. I'm saying that the website is another example of how the government is inefficient. The same website could have been better and less expensive had some company, like Amazon, been in charge of it; businesses are more efficient than the government, because they have to turn a profit. IF Obamacare is as efficient as the making of the website, it will be a failure, IF.
Amazon efficient The only thing that they are efficient at is avoiding taxes.
They have a budget and a surplus. Can you say the same about America's government?
Amazon has failed to make a profit for most, if not all, of its history.
I'd also say that it is not governments place to make a profit.
Do we have to SHOUT. Italics is the traditional way of adding emphasis to a word, and is so much more elegant, don't you think?
I'm glad you're not saying the website indicates Obamacare is poor legislation, as that would be nonsensical. So thank you for the clarification. Those are very big "ifs" and I don't believe you and I know the answers to them with any certainty. The important point is that laws can, and do, change over time. There is no reason any problems with the ACA that become apparent can't be addressed. As you know, plan, do, check, act is a basic principle of business management. And yes, businesses have to be efficient to maintain a profit. But that's one of the problems of a completely "free market" health care system. When turning a profit conflicts with doing what is morally right, guess which one a corporation will choose? That's is why the government intervened in the first place.
Edit: and according to Forbes Amazon is a lousy business, so you may want to choose a different example: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/ … -business/
Amazon is still more efficient than our government even if it loses money each quarter; it would have done a better job making a high-traffic website too. That's how efficient our government is, but hey it's okay to put another 1/6 of the entire economy in the hands of an inept government. That's exactly what Obamacare stands to do. What could go wrong?
This legislation should never have passed the way it is. It's half-baked legislation, and more and more Democrats are becoming aware of that. Now we have to fix it, or it is destined to fail.
Nope. You are still conflating two separate things. The website is not the legislation, it is a website. The legislation is the legislation. Do you see? Does the website need fixing? Yes. Can we reasonably conclude that there is therefore something wrong with the legislation? No. That's a non sequitur . . . (see above reply to bBerean for the rest).
Let me clarify my view:
1. The website needs to be fixed, because it is a failure.
2. Obamacare needs to be fixed, because it will be a failure.
I'm not saying that a poor website means that Obamacare will fail or that the two are even the same. I am saying that the website helps illustrate how inept our government is. Obamacare will, in my view, also illustrate how inept our government is. The two can be separate and yet prove the same point.
Further, an inept government should never be expanded. That's my view. Let's face it, fixing a website will be easy compared to fixing Obamacare. Fixing Obamacare will be easy compared to fixing an inept government. None of these will be a success if the entity running them, our government, can't seem to balance a budget and act financially solvent.
Several people in more than one forum have told him the same thing, yet he has gone to great lengths to confuse the issue and try to make it look like we are the ones doing it. Soon, the dust will settle on the obamacare fiasco and there will be no sweetness in the "I told you so," since I am sure most of us wish we were wrong, while knowing we're not.
"Him" has a name. Please use it.
I have told you, and Education Answer (see how much nicer it is to refer to people in the third person by using their name) that you both appear to be suggesting a connection between a website and the legislation itself. You have clarified your positions (after some prompting) and I have thanked you both for doing so. Sorry if that request for clarification has inconvenienced you in some way, but the thought of you both suffering under the misapprehension that the performance of a website indicates the value of a piece of legislation, was bordering on intolerable for me (I'm caring like that). Now we have all accepted that a bad website does not in fact equate to a bad piece of legislation, I certainly feel much better, and I hope you do too. Please, absolutely no need to thank me.
You and I agree. I wish we were wrong about Obamacare. We have no desire to watch Obamacare fail just to prove a point.
Obamacare IS poor legislation. That will become glaringly apparent in 2014.
Painfully obvious. For many it has been obvious for years now. Sad that instead of being able to conceptualize the inevitable results of implementation and avoid that pain, we have to endure it for enough folks to understand. Very sad.
That's your opinion. What is glaringly obvious right now is that some people (especially within the GOP and the fundamentalist Tea Party) will actively try to sabotage the legislation, for political reasons, and because they believe Obama is a [insert your chosen Obama slur here].
The government contracts to have bleachers made. The bleachers need to be able to seat 10,000 at a time.
When the bleachers are finished, 200 people climb on, and the bleachers crumble to the ground.
Now, a DDOS analogy suggests that maybe 200 people bunched up on one spot and started jumping up and down, while carrying 100-lb backpacks and using saws on the structure, but that's not what happened. 200 people acted normally on it, and it failed miserably.
How anybody could look at that mess and make excuses for it is beyond me. Engineering is a science. We have very accurate mathematics to back up the kind of materials and structure needed to make a bleacher that holds that many people, and to do so safely. There is, literally, no excuse for failing to do so.
The same thing happens with web design. There are very accurate methods and best practices for handling server requests. They were followed as miserably as the bleacher analogy.
Again, don't make excuses for it. There is no excuse.
If you were going in for a surgery, would you be ok if the power company that would be keeping the machines running could only power 2% of the city at a time?
If you were sending your child to school, would you send them to a school that only managed to teach 2% of the curriculum?
If you ordered 100 computers from Dell, and they sent you 98 defective ones, would you reorder from them in the future?
If your financial advisor promised you $10,000 per year on your $100,000 investment, would you give him another chance after he gives you a $200 check for the first year?
If you contracted to have a custom house built, and you only ended up getting a foundation poured for $10 million, would you keep sending that contractor money?
I really don't know how else to put it, the bleacher example is the best. There is mathematical structure behind the process of building a safe bleacher, just as there is mathematical structure behind running a server. It would be like hiring someone to make a pizza and giving them a recipe, but having them use dirt, mustard, and tofu instead of flour, eggs, and salt. There's no reason not to follow the recipe, and there is no excuse for screwing it up.
I don't think I've ever seen someone bend so far backwards to try and justify something.
The metrics for web traffic have nothing to do with the number of visitors? Lol. It's all about the visitors. The whole system is designed for the visitors.
Of course, what do I know? I've never made a website, according to Josak.
No, Josak. If it was a line of code, they would have found that during testing. But they didn't test. There is no way they tested. If they tested, they would have very quickly seen that nothing worked. That's the whole point of testing.
And don't get started on healthcare costs, unless you want to actually talk about healthcare costs. Not to mention your complete non-sequitur of the Australian government doing a better job than the American private(lol) healthcare sector, which makes you trust the American government(what does that have to do with the Australian government again?) to handle it all, even though they can't make a simple website.
Lol, I'm done. Citizens should be calling for the heads of the people who wasted billions on this pathetic site.
Still not using the right metric.
Still going on about something that has no real consequence.
At worst they failed to do a proper huge load test, as in they didn't test what happened when 2000 people logged on at once.
Google Doodle a website run by the most successful internet company in the world had the same problem a year ago, stuff happens, it's no big deal, Google is obviously capable of running it's business and so there is no inference to be made that the US government is not.
As for the governments issue I was referring to the fact that thus far all first world governments have succeeded at this (I also gave a precise example) I highly doubt ours cannot by simple mass probability.
by fakeha 5 months ago
Hi Hubbers,I'd like some help with passing the Quality Assessment Process. Will you please give feedback on my article TOP 5 THINGS TO DO WHEN YOU ARE UNDER STRESS. (must be signed in to view). What can I do to improve? Thanks!
by maruthirp 8 years ago
I just want know how many of us are checking time by time if they are under stress and try to manage that stress. I dont think many are living with stress only putting no efforts to manage or reduce that.
by maruthirp 7 years ago
How many times did you check yourself if you are under stress?
by marinealways24 9 years ago
I believe all politicians should have a maximum salary amount of 60 thousand a year. Someone should want to be a politician for country, not for money. This set limit would disrupt greedy lying politicians from entering office. The politician will not work for "60,000" a year. The true...
by Josak 6 years ago
As a private citizen unless you earn more than 200 000 yearly you will not be taxed more on your income, unless you own a health insurance plan that costs more than 27 000$ yearly there will be no extra excise tax and as long as you don't use tanning bed your costs will not rise in anything.The...
by Rod Martin Jr 5 years ago
What's behind the thousands of tons of iron microspheres found in the 9/11 concrete dust?There were 780,000 metric tons of concrete in the 2 WTC towers. I did not include the third building which collapsed that day (7WTC), but that was only 47 stories tall.The USGS outdoor samples of concrete dust...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|