I understand your point. I just do not agree with it.
of course TOS is subject to change and this is a free service.
It comes down to Google saying "We are no longer going to pay for you publish this"
I do mean pay since they run servers.
They are not deleting the blogs so you can get your material off and move to a different platform.

Correct tell her that you love her. That she matters. Tell her all about you and what she is not old enough write in letters for her birthdays.

And no.
Google is not preventing you from publishing anything. There are a great number of other platforms available.
Saying that we do not want x on a platform is the same as saying we only want x, y, and z on the platform except more inclusive.
So what you are saying is that a magazine which is being more exclusive is not censoring while google who is being more inclusive is.

I think this is what people don't get.... it may be true that that links to certain services were weak points, but what Comcast wanted to do was charge the content providers for those links, despite the fact it was already their own customers that wanted (and WERE PAYING FOR) the bandwidth. The larger problem is that I am a Comcast customer, and also a Netflix customer. I pay Comcast a lot of money every month for service - nearly $100 when you include everything (yes, including modem rental), and what I want to use that service for is (sometimes) to stream Netflix. Comcast should want me to be a happy customer with how much I'm paying. They obviously don't give a crap... but since there's no reasonable competition in my area, I (you know, the actual Comcast customer) am screwed. Netflix is not "pushing" their content, I, the customer, am pulling it over the bandwidth I've already paid for.

Every industry with competition is driven towards serving the customer. Period. The problem here is not throttling, it's ultimately a lack of competition and collusion between ISPs. I'm not a big fan of regulations - if you actually have a free, competitive market, you don't need regulations, but companies take advantage and participate in anti-competitive behavior otherwise. The regulations shouldn't restrict the services of the company, they should be to keep the free market free, even if that means that, in the short term, people get their netflix throttled.... long term goals are much more important.

I agree and disagree... I'm one of the people "stuck" with comcast, paying nearly $100/month when you include all the fees and stuff (because I'm not bundling TV or phone service). My only other choice is wireless (Clear, which is not fast enough) or AT&T... which is also many times slower than Comcast. There are other cable companies around, but they seem to have sliced and diced up the areas they serve... when I put my address in with the other cable company, they actually say "good news! you can get service with comcast!"

However, more competition - and not a "coordinated ISP system" would be better. Although it's quite obvious, it's probably also quite difficult to prove these companies are colluding to divde the market in an effort to artificially inflate prices. I don't know what the solution is, but I rarely accept "more government" as an answer.

So what if we're near the bottom when it comes to internet service... I can't think of anything people need or want to do and can't because of any limitations. We're also near the bottom due (in large part) to geography. Net neutrality isn't going to fix that.

"Reality is, democratically elected parliament isn't supposed to be a bunch of elites but a cross-section of electorate."
Yes and no.
No they are not supposed to be elites in fact the whole idea of anyone being elite is counter to a democracy society in my opinion. But the UK does seem to like there royals and giving people knighthoods.
But the people elected are supposed to be the best person to represent the population and that should include again IMHO a certain level of education and intelligence.

I certainly don't like most of your list, but all of them "kooks?" The choice of Sarah Pailin made my choice to vote third party pretty easy, but if you think they are all kooks then there is no one the republicans can pick that you will not call a "kook." You're simply being a blinded partisan.

Agreed... I was initially against net neutrality, but after some thought I went completely to the other side of the issue, agreeing 100% with the concept of net neutrality (which is besides the point in this discussion). From what I understand, however, these regulations go far beyond that into the realm of another power-grab by a U.S. government agency.

" A "farmer's market" is not an open forum to sell whatever you want - there is an expected type of product that will be sold there."
Blogger is not an open forum to publish whatever you want - there is an expected type of material that is published there.

Here is one that is closer.
You publish a newspaper that publishes freelance writers. You don't pay them they do it for exposure. Someone offers an article in praise of rape, or claiming that President Obama is the anti-christ, or that Hitler was right.
If you decide to not publish those is that censorship? Would you have an obligation to publish everything submitted?

And they are wrong.
BTW my Uncle did die of lung cancer and never smoked a day in his life. The served as a member of a tank crew during WWII and they used to line the tanks with asbestos.
Yes he was about 17 years older than my mother and I am a good bit older than the average Slashdoter these days.

"it's not the radiation most people are afraid of"
Ahh... No. Sure you are right about some people but their are a lot of people that are terrified of the term radiation...

Actual FTE jobs created are about 2 years at 1,950 jobs. Many of the jobs are for 4 or 8 months and seasonal.

Permanent jobs created will be under three dozen. Check politifact.

That's one more reason why the oil companies want a pipeline. Much cheaper to operate. Lots less jobs. Truckers and railroad unions will lose jobs when the pipeline is built.

Mainly, I just don't see the government taking the 20% of the property along the line from people who don't want to sell. I'm surprised conservatives are for that.

So it's not really going to create jobs... and it's probably going to increase the price of that oil when prices go back up ( not for several years to eight years tho and it may increase the oil glut holding prices down a while more until supply goes up).

I don't really care if they build it or not. But it is very "stinky".

Shale wells have much shorter life spans and lower investments than traditional wells.

By hedging, they can come online rapidly whenever the price rises- pump out the presold oil and then wait until the price drops again.

It would mean less job stability for sure tho and that would effect rampup time some.

But prices are unlikely to get over $100 again for 6-8 years. It was held artificially high for too long.

Now that the alternative technologies have been invented, they can be optimized. They wouldn't have been invented yet if oil prices had been allowed to fluctuate in the past.

I guess then your point is unclear to me.
I thought that you where trying to draw parallels between Haber and Nobel.
I would also question the idea of Haber developing artificial materials using the Haber process.
It made ammonia which is a naturally occurring compound and ammonia made by the Haber Bosch process is identical in all ways to that which is formed by nature.
Also the Birkeland-Eyde process predates the Haber process it was just more expensive. Too expensive for fertilizer but that is not an issue for explosives.
Also by the time the Haber process was discovered other explosives like TNT had replaced dynamite for warfare.
So what exactly is your point?