Common carriers are concerned only with the layer responsible for directing the connection from sender to receiver.
Well, sort of, but port addresess are typically considered part of the address, which is in the TCP/UDP header. I don't know many network analysts that consider that part of the "content". Today's "common carriers" do in fact concern themselves with more than just the layer responsible for directing the connection from sender to receiver. They also check the priority (Also in the headers for IP), and they ask for signatures, they can ask for payment, they can redirect, etc etc. Your simplistic view is simply unfounded in the other common carriers as well.
The packet header is quite easy to see, and your analogy is like saying the Post office can't be a common carrier because they read the envelope to get the address, so the are already inspecting the mail. There is a huge difference between reading an IP or TCP/UP header and trying to piece together a stream of packets in order to determine the content.
You may not be a "1%-er", but to the rest of the world, you are probably a "10%-er". Cry more about having to give up some of your stuff so they can raise their standard of living. It's only fair.
Do you have an example, ruling, or law that says that, because that does not follow my understanding of how the federal government SHOULD work.
I may be confused, but the older Haswell line had 40 PCI lines directly off the CPU and either 4 or 8 off the chipset. The newer architecture drops the CPU to having only 16 lanes directly off of it, and the chipset now has up to 24. 40+8 in the old, and 16+24 in the new is a downgrade, right?
With most motherboards having a SATA controller, USB 3.1 controller, network card (where are the 10GB network ports???), and sound. Then drop in a couple video cards (32 lanes), a M.2 SSD (4 lanes) and you are either out of lanes or real close. I also need 4 lanes for my RAID controller so I'll likely need to find a motherboard that has a PCI-E switch because the CPU/chipset have run out.
You forgot magic_quotes, lol.
Sorry, that should have read prepared statements incur an initial overhead, so for one-off queries they are slower, but actually executing them is faster.
It's not really an issue with prepared statements. Prepared statements are just a form of pre-compilation. You just want parameterized queries, which is sort of related (prepared statements are usually parameterized, but not always).
Prepared statements are usually slower than non-prepared statements (depends on environment, database, etc), so if it is a one-off query that won't be reused then typically you don't want to prepare it. For queries you are calling over and over, or are calling repeatedly, then you want to prepare it.
Facebook has never been a common carrier. Like all websites, they can (and do) remove content when it infringes copyright. Unlike your ISP or phone which they don't monitor the content (and don't have the capabilities to monitor it all in real time -- supposedly).
I don't mind "daily meetings" with people on my own team (2-4 people). We do them, but we don't call them meetings. It's just us sitting and talking.
If the group is larger than that, then there is likely a high noise to signal ratio on them saying anything I would ever need, and it would be more useful to not sit and listen to it because if I ever need the answer, I would likely go to them and ask directly. So overall stuff, like bi-weekly meetings may be useful but anything more common than that is use time wasting.
And when they convert to IPv6, the problem goes away.
Well except that only one machine on my network has to download it, and then every other machine on my local network grabs it from the one that has it, which not only helps lower my usage towards the data cap, it also helps ISPs for the same reason (and keeps the transfers on their network as well) which helps alleviate congestion from the ISP to the backbone(s).
I forget which exactly, but one (very large) hardware manufacturer distributes driver/manuals through it as well.
I can see the point, but... Comcast hasn't sold "unlimited" internet in years (I think it's been close to 5 years no). They've stated the caps in the fine print, along with the "up to x mbps download/x mbs upload" for a very, very long time. I can't speak for any other cable provider.
Chemist who falls in acid will be tripping for weeks.