The BBC says you are wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_...
"And while the UK dutifully pays off its World War II debts, those from World War I remain resolutely unpaid. And are by no means trifling. In 1934, Britain owed the US $4.4bn of World War I debt (about £866m at 1934 exchange rates). Adjusted by the Retail Price Index, a typical measure of inflation, £866m would equate to £40bn now, and if adjusted by the growth of GDP, to about £225bn.
"We just sort of gave up around 1932 when the interwar economy was in turmoil, currencies were collapsing," says Prof Harrison."

Naw we have ISIS or ISIL, Russia, and the French.
We always have the French.

The military weapons not being effective was part of the political "agenda" of slant of the writer. I really hated the book because it showed just such a lack of effort. For example using C-130s instead of C-17s or C5s because they burned less fuel. Ahhh No. Per ton of cargo a C-17 or C-5 blows a C-130 away. You only use a C-130 if the runway is too short or the load is too small for a larger aircraft. BTW they talked about multiple flights oc C-130s to bring in supplies to cities. They even talked about inflight refueling C-130s which is a huge waste of fuel.

And did I mention that it was dumb that hitting zombie in the head with a crowbar killed them but they could cross the bottom of ocean.

It also shot down more German aircraft than the Spitfire.
Frankly the Spitfire is one of those aircraft that was built way too long. After about 1943 it was just not all that useful since it lacked range.

Actually France and the UK both had a better Army and Air Force than Germany in 1938. They were in even better position than in 1936 when the allowed Germany to re occupy the Rhineland. Of course WWII might have been avoided if the UK and France had listened to the US and tried to create a just peace. Instead they threatened to not pay back the loans they took out...
BTW France and the UK never did repay the loans for WWI. They thought that the US was being greedy. I guess 116,000 American lives plus the billions the US spent on a war that had nothing to do with the US was not enough.

USB serial port plus Zmodem and your good to go.
I don't see the big issue.

I never had an issue with Windows 7 on a core 2.
But then a core 2 is three generations back I am talking about Sandy-Bridge or higher but even a Core2 is probably going to be just fine.
If you are talking about one of the first gen Atoms yea they where terrible but modern ones are pretty good.

You mean you are not disappointed with Prince Charles? What about Prince Andrew?
The idea that someone is "better" than I am just because of who their mother and or father goes counter to the idea of a free society IMHO.
I of course would show the correct respect if I ever meet with any of them in real life out respect for the citizens of the UK because it would be wrong to do otherwise to just be a jerk.

It would be difficult to find any modern x86 CPU that is not good enough for those tasks. Heck even a pretty old CPU should work for most of those.
The amount of CPU power available today borders on the unbelievable.
Outside of power users like gamers, developers, CAD, Video editing, and other high end users a Pentium is more than good enough.
Frankly they would get better value out of an SSD than an I5.

1. Nobel did not make TNT and that is the difference.
2. No you did not have to haul saltpeter across the globe to make explosives before Haber since their was another way to make nitrates before Haber that was must more expensive. Take a look at the US civil war and you will see no shortage of explosives.

Nobel was a person that wanted to save lives by making a safer explosive. He was vilified as a merchant of death "wrongly BTW" because people thought that dynamite was going to be used as a weapon which it rarely was. He decided that he wanted to do good to make up for the potential bad so he created the Nobel prizes including one for peace.

Haber created something that save millions of lives but then because of his self-loathing decided that he wanted to stop being Jewish and become an ultra German. He then went on to make weapons of mass destruction.
The only parallels I see is they both dealt with Nitrogen compounds. Now the contrast between them is interesting and the fact that Haber really seemed to become an anti-semitic semitic I find really interesting.
Nobel was just an admirable person. Haber despite his best efforts saved far more lives than he took which is also interesting.

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.

"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.

" 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?