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?

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...

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?

Sorry but killer robots have been around for at least 60 years.
Here is one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Here is a killer drone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O....

Yep this is all hand waving.

Sounds like honey could be a prime candidate for irradiation.

Let me explain this with science.
You have two groups.
One that is exposed to peanuts as infants.
One that is not.
Fewer children in the exposed group developed peanut allergies.
In other words SOME peanut allergies can be prevented by early exposure.

Your argument is the same as. "My uncle never smoked a day in his life and died of lung cancer. Smoking does not cause lung cancer".