I hope you're still in school, so you can still have access to the 'non-commercial' internet you're so much better off with.

- Keys
- Car Key Fob
- Leather Fob engraved with Bear made for me by a developmentally-disabled friend of the family about 20 years ago
- Gerber Shard

I was replying to the guy who said it was her personal phone.

There's no version of this story where I install that app on my personal phone.

If they want to issue me a company phone to put that on, then so be it. And I'll leave that phone behind at work when I leave.

I'd hand it to my boss every day at the end of the day as I walked out the door, and pick it back up when I got in the next morning.

Which is why it keeps them disarmed. :-)

But the selective 'originalists' on the Court's right wing like to play dumb when it suits them.

The way the selective 'progressives' applaud every assertion of civil liberties, except when it's in the Amendment they find repugnant?

The most recent one that totally ignores the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment

Have you read the Heller decision? It doesn't ignore the militia clause. Quite the contrary, it goes into a long analysis of it, including historical context. It is an explanatory or prefatory clause, not a limiting clause. The 2nd Amendment exists, in part, to ensure that the cause of the first shots fired in the Revolution -- the Crown believing it had the right to go confiscate powder and shot from the colonists -- would never happen again. Powder and shot which was necessary for the colonists to be able to stand together against the lawful standing army of the colonies, the one commanded by British officers.

But I still await your citation of the 2nd Amendment ever being interpreted, in any SCOTUS decision since the formation of the Union, to support your reductionist view of the right. Let's assume you're right and I'm wrong, and this is all just a modern expansionist view. Show me where SCOTUS had previously established the view you think is appropriate. You're claiming it's an expansion, which means you must be able to show where SCOTUS had held in favor of a more limited view prior.

I suspect that there is a balance in physics somewhere... just that no one knows where or what that is yet.

This.

Just because we can't see the balance doesn't mean it isn't there.

Wait... ignore my comment below, because I mis-read your statement.

What on earth are you saying is a provably false assertion, and how do you think your knowing some non-owners of guns disproves it?

This is a provably false assertion. I know a large number of free citizens who do not own weapons.

I know women who've had abortions. That fact doesn't mean that the republicans aren't trying to take that right away. That fact doesn't mean that they've had some limited successes in some places making it more difficult to do so.

Sorry, logic fail on your part. Just because you know some folks with guns doesn't mean people aren't trying (and succeeding in some cases) to take people's guns away.

absurdly expansive reading of the 2nd amendment by the current, highly political, Supreme Court

Challenge for you - cite one -- just one Supreme Court decision that supports your absurdly reductionist reading of the 2nd Amendment.

We'll be here waiting for you.

No it's not "partial access" .. nobody has ever had, in any definition in the history of the internet, a guarantee of a congestion-free experience.

Unless they're advertising "a peering point with L3 that is rated at XXX Mbps", they are providing you with the advertised service - access to the Internet.

There will *always* be congestion points which are -- effectively -- oversubscribed from time to time. If one of those happens to be the Comcast/L3 peering point, that's how life goes.

Because until recently, no other service provider tried to so massively shift the burden of providing a massive amount of bandwidth onto other people's dime.

In order to supply this bandwidth, Comcast needs to create interconnects that are sufficient to supply it. Refusing to build the required interconnects with one specific provider is blatant spite.

They don't need to do anything other than what's spelled out in the contract or agreement you have with them. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. If you can't go somewhere else, blame your local utilities commission and franchise authority.

it also spends quite a bit of money making sure local governments maintain its local monopolies

Elect folks to your local government who have your interests at heart and not the corporations. Or better yet -- run yourself! Come on, it's not like they're dumping $10,000,000 into some city councilman's warchest.

Right. Voluntary because we didn't have any proper net neutrality rules in place.

Haven't had those rules in place in the history of the internet, and none of the "sky is falling" scenarios are even close to reality.

Or it would be, if Comcast didn't have a monopoly in many areas for high-speed Internet access.

If Comcast has a monopoly in your area, blame your local Franchise Authority for giving it to them and not insisting on unbundled access as a condition of that Franchise.