service cap

eggsy has a range of nicknames for daisy when she’s a toddler that are all flower-related. sprout, petal, little flower bud. little flower bud sticks and eventually gets shortened to just “bud” for most of her childhood, and since she can’t remember when she was a toddler she just assumes it comes from like “buddy”, that he means, like, “mate”. and then when she’s about ten someone says “flower bud” in a completely unrelated conversation and she’s suddenly like WAIT A MINUTE and she texts eggsy like DO YOU CALL ME BUD LIKE SHORT FOR FLOWER BUD and eggsy is like OH MY DAYS, DAIS, ARE YOU ONLY JUST REALISING THIS NOW???

10

oh, Legolas, your time will come

Thranduil Has a Type

Cosplay Public Service Announcement: AVOID THESE WIG CAPS

So, I got these wig caps at Sally Beauty Supply, and wore them for all four days of ECCC. They hurt my head somewhat while I was wearing them, and left my scalp rather sore afterward, but I thought it was just that they were a little small for me, and were causing some compression bruising. Since they were all the wig caps I had, I just kept using them. However, when I got home from the con, I noticed lines of what appeared to be chemical burns right where the edge of the wig cap rested on my forehead and scalp (swelling, redness, blisters, and patches of raw skin). Several days later, these burns are still healing, and I am full of regret.

Now, I’ve used many different wig caps before, but I have NEVER had anything like this happen. Also, I should add (to be fair) that my brother, who was using the neutral color of the same wig caps rather than the black, did not have problems, so it could just be that I have a bad batch somehow. Still, though, I would recommend being VERY cautious before using these wig caps. Have a backup with you, and maybe avoid them altogether if you have sensitive skin.

Tagging a few other cosplayers I know, so as to pass the word around: @aviva0017, @houkakyou, @flukeoffate, @jedi-goldberry-with-the-force

Happy Veterans Day to our real-life superheroes! Today we give thanks to all who put the freedoms and safety, we all take for granted, before their own. We give thanks to those who’s selfless nature and sacrifices too often go unnoticed. So reach out to those veterans in your life give them a big ol’ hug and thank them. To all the veterans out there, THANK YOU!! Today you will be noticed. 🇺🇸

8

There are lots of reasons why this film is a sheer delight. Gene Kelly in his underthings is just one of them. 

anonymous asked:

violet & fubar-on-a-break splashing in a cool lake somewhere far from civilization while bucky and steve try to convince sam that they totally know how to set up a tent they did this all the time in the war. they wind up folding up the back seat of the car and sleeping in there with their feet sticking out and cold doggy noses everywhere. bucky and steve just kind of bury sam in slow and gentle and soft and attentive kisses to apologize for the camping fail but its the best weekend anyway.

@unclesteeb THIS IS VERY GOOD AND PURE

princewarblersteenagedream  asked:

Does net neutrality have anything to do with streaming limits? For example if you want more than X Gb of streaming you must pay more?

The FCC’s 2015 net neutrality rules didn’t ban data caps (including for streaming services), but it allowed the Commission to review specific plans on a case-by-case basis if it looked like they were being used in a way that violated net neutrality principles. The rules focused principally on banning Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from engaging in throttling, blocking, and paid prioritization. These rules more colloquially forbid the creation of “fast and slow lanes,” which means packets of data from all websites are treated equally. ISPs can still charge users for the amount of data they use. Net neutrality is really about ensuring that Internet users get to decide how they use the bandwidth they’re paying for; ISPs shouldn’t be permitted to block access to certain websites just because those websites didn’t pay the ISP a toll.

One of the more controversial parts of the 2015 net neutrality rules is the treatment of so-called “zero-rating” plans. Zero-rating is the practice of not counting certain websites or applications toward a user’s overall data cap. These programs are controversial because zero-rating arguably violates the spirit of net neutrality by distorting competitive markets. Just as we don’t want rich companies to get a leg up simply because they can pay for faster access to end users, they shouldn’t get a competitive advantage over startups simply because they can pay to exempt their services from data caps.

anonymous asked:

hi !!! i saw ur nyo!russia (and russia) art and i was wondering if u had more to say about the uniforms n stuff !!! it seems really interesting n im sorry if this is dumb but skdjsjd thank u

It isn’t dumb!! And I’m sorry for taking so long asfdgsjf

Also,

@airu27​ *finger guns*

I don’t have that much to say, but I have more to show, so here’s the answer, which will NOT be under a read more, because apparently more people have technical troubles with them than just me [EDITED]

First of all, a disclaimer: I may not have managed to get the proper historical likeness down pat, since I often had only descriptions and b&w photos to go off of. Also, at all points in time, there had been variations in the garments that weren’t mass-produced, most notably the aprons.


Ok, now let’s get into it. First school uniforms appeared in Russia during the rule of Nikolai I, in 1834. For quite a long time only boys’ uniforms existed, because female education was lagging behind. They looked a lot like military uniforms, with service caps and everything. The height of fashion back then was to have a cap with a broken visor.

In 1896, at long last, the girls’ uniform got approved too. And immediately it was the iconic brown dress + apron look. The tradition to wear black apron day to day and white apron on special occasions started back then, too. Except the dresses also came in blue, green and grey in tsarist times, depending on the students’ age.

Then revolution happened, and as with many, many other things, school uniforms were deemed an obsolete, classist tradition and ditched in 1918. Which was kind of understandable, since before only the rich and powerful could afford proper education, and now it was supposed to be free and available to all. Also, that universal education? - demanded WAY more uniforms than government could produce at the moment. So hey, two birds with one stone!

In 1948, during Stalin’s reign, the uniforms made a triumphant return! …and they looked almost exactly like before, same military look for boys, same dress and apron for girls. The biggest new addition were the red pioneer ties, and Lenin badges. Also, hairdos were being strictly regulated.

After going through some changes in 1962 and then in 1973, the boys’ uniform finally started to look civilian. The regulations for hairstyles and accessories laxed a bit, too. Girls’ uniform stayed p. much the same, however, so I drew it with the festive white apron for a change.

Then USSR dissolved, and in 1992 school uniforms got abolished. Again. And then they came back in 2012. AGAIN. They are a requirement till this day, but nobody bothers to keep the look across the country, well, uniform anymore. Every school gets to either design its own uniform, or be lazy and just tell the students to “dress nicely”. Vests and plaid patterns seem to be particularly popular trends nowadays.

That’s it, hope you’ve enjoyed~! Materials used for this answer: [x], [x], [x] (check them out, the photos are quite interesting!)

anonymous asked:

Don't "net neutrality" laws create precident for government interference in the web? Don't we have more examples of government interference in the free exchange of ideas than companies? (Think China's "Great Firewall.")

Net neutrality rules actually set the exact opposite precedent: they promote the free exchange of information by preventing cable companies and ISPs from deciding which websites you can and cannot visit. The specific rules at issue in this debate don’t give the government any power whatsoever to limit access to content; they simply prevent ISPs from treating internet traffic unequally. Without net neutrality rules, your cable company could (and likely would) block you from accessing any website that refused to pay a toll, or it could slow down traffic from a company that offered a competing video service. Far from encouraging government interference in the web, net neutrality is at its heart an anti-censorship policy. You’re right that governments are often the worst culprits when it comes to censorship, but there are plenty of examples of private companies—particularly ISPs—limiting user speech. Because anyone you want to communicate with on the web must go through your ISP to reach you, IPSs have the power and incentive to try to profit from this gatekeeper position. Considering most people have at most one choice for broadband access, market forces won’t keep IPSs in line. Net neutrality helps keeps these activities in check, and ensures that cable companies don’t interfere with your ability to interact with whomever you want on the internet.  

Network Neutrality actually does quite the opposite of interference. It is one of the few government acts that has a 1st Amendment value underlying its premise in that it requires the Internet to remain an open platform. With the law requiring nondiscriminatory conduct by ISPs (and the ISP industry has regularly argued they act in a nondiscriminatory way), the Internet becomes the greatest of public forums in history where all ideas and expression by the individual is accessible by the world.

That being said, EFF is always very vigilant about the authorities and arguments made by government over the extent of their power to take action. We’ve had a long history of fighting the FCC in the past on things like the Broadcast Flag, and with that history under our belt we can say the 2015 Order from the FCC got most of it right. There is always some room for improvement, but it is a net positive for free expression.

It really depends on what you mean by “the web.” There’s the network, which is the pipe you get from your ISP, and there’s the applications, which is what comes through the pipe — services like YouTube and Netflix and Tumblr. Net neutrality is about making sure ISPs don’t monkey with the pipe, or the network. It doesn’t have anything specific to do with the applications, which generally rely on having equal access to that network.

More broadly, companies like Comcast and Verizon want to think they’re tech companies just like Apple and Google, but it’s pretty obvious that they’re really not — they provide a connection to the internet, but very few of the actual services you care about on the internet. They’re scared of being “dumb pipes,” which is why they’re all buying big media companies — Verizon bought AOL and Yahoo, so now it owns Tumblr, The Huffington Post, and Yahoo Fantasy Football, which is weird. AT&T is trying to buy Time Warner, which would give it HBO and CNN, among other high-end TV networks. And Comcast bought NBCUniversal, so now it owns NBC and… the Minions? You get the idea. And all of these big ISPs will happily favor their own services given the chance — Verizon already excuses its own go90 video service from its data caps, but watching YouTube will cost you. That just sucks.

But the thing about real tech companies is that people usually love them, because they’ve all been forced to be successful by serving customers well in a really competitive market where another choice is usually just right there. You hate YouTube? You can just watch Vimeo. You don’t like Amazon? You can order from Jet.com. You’re over iOS? You can buy an Android phone. And on and on.

Internet access isn’t like that — you’re pretty much stuck with what you’ve got, and it’s hard to switch. 89 percent of Americans only have two choices for broadband access; over half of Americans have just one choice. These are monopolies, and I think it’s fair to regulate them and make sure the level playing field of the internet is preserved so the real tech companies can continue competing for customers through innovation and service.

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs), that is, those companies that provide the “on-ramp” to the Internet, should not favor or discriminate against any applications, content and services that make up the Internet. Contrary to what companies like Comcast and AT&T say, net neutrality has nothing to do with government regulating the Internet or the web. In fact, repeal of the net neutrality rules will give the control you currently have over your Internet experience and will give it to Comcast, AT&T, Charter and Verizon.

The FCC has overseen access to US communications networks for over 80 years.  Whether it be the telephone network, cable or broadcasting, the FCC is tasked by law to protect consumers and competition when it comes access to communications networks. That legal authority gives the FCC the power to protect consumers from fraudulent billing, price gouging, privacy violations and anticompetitive behavior by ISPs. ISPs don’t want any government oversight, which is why they are seeking to repeal both the net neutrality rules and the legal authority in which the rules are grounded.

A false narrative.

Net neutrality protections are about making sure that your broadband provider does not interfere with your ability to access the internet and enjoy the content of your choosing. Net neutrality is the ‘First Amendment for the internet’: transparent rules aimed at enabling the free flow of information are what made the internet great in the first place.

In 2015, the FCC adopted several different net neutrality protections. The FCC said your broadband provider could not block or throttle content you were trying to reach, couldn’t accept payment to pick winners and losers online, and could not otherwise get in the way of the legal content you are trying to reach. It also said your broadband provider had to be transparent with you about the service it was offering.

In an ideal world, competition among ISPs would weed out the worst effects of unfair practices like site blocking and throttling. Unfortunately, we’re not in an ideal world. In most of the country, broadband ISPs have no incentive to improve their customers’ experience because there’s no competition. And these monopolies were effectively created by state and local governments: if only one ISP has permission to build and use infrastructure in your town, then competition isn’t a very useful lever for pushing that ISP to act fairly.

We can and should work on building meaningful competition among ISPs, for lots of reasons. But the clear, light-touch rules set out in the Open Internet Order set a basic floor for what all users should have the right to expect of ISPs.

The only people who think having laws that protect consumers equals government interference are those that stand to profit the most when no protections exist. But to be fair, no one wants either a government or a corporate take over of the Internet. Luckily, net neutrality prevents both. Net neutrality ensures that no single actor can prevent anyone else’s legal web traffic from flowing. Because of net neutrality, your digital content can’t be blocked, throttled, or slowed because of where you live, what you believe, or how much you pay. Net neutrality protects everyday people, small businesses and business born online that never could have existed without an open Internet. The words “government takeover” are being used to conceal the fact that the only group seeking to take over the Internet are the large incumbent Internet Service Providers who stand to make a killing if they defeat net neutrality. Hopefully, smart people like you won’t let that happen.