In the UK at least book stores do have an advantage over Amazon Kindle - for unknown reasons VAT (sales tax) at 20% is chargeable on ebooks, but not on dead tree books - so the ought to have an advantage there - Amazon also has it selling paper books over the internet, but that is not instant delivery

I think they have picked the wrong size again. The 7.9 inch does not fit in a jacket pocket, but the Nexus 7 does - the extra 1.3cm width stops it fitting. I also think that the ideal sizes are 7 inch for portability, and maybe as big as 12 inch for home or business - I would love to read an A4 (US letter roughly) document pretty much full size (trimming the margins). The 10 inch screen does shrink it a little too much. The 10 inch is too large to be portable, too small to represent documents full size.

Your second quote is from Pyramids, not Small Gods - Sorry to be pedantic!

UK has them - Three has mobile and several suppliers, notably Sky has unlimited landline

...but does this story constitute an EPIC fail?

That was ITV/Channel 4 - they still have them I think. As another poster mentioned, the BBC does not have ads

Respectively: Yes, Lots and No, but they make money of a captive content buying audience. I am not sure I understand the point here?

I understood that "Probable Cause" was a American legal term and English law used "prima facie", which, depending on circumstance, can either be a higher or lower burden of proof. The difference between them is I understand part of the problem with the US/UK extradition law - it is felt that probable cause is a lower standard in some cases.

I understand from other sources that he will get most of the money back (although by no means all me might still be out £20-£50k, no small sum for an individual). However he did have to front £200k himself upfront, with no guarantee of recovery and lost two years of his life, which for a self employed writer is 2 years income gone.

He did have the proof to back up what he said - that the treatments were bogus. I.e. there is plenty of evidence that they did not work (more accurately no evidence that they do better than a placebo). The original judge decided that "bogus" meant that the supplier was dishonestly lying about it too, and that was the libellous claim, and that is the appeal he won. In any case he probably could have won the argument as he could have shown that the Chiropracters ought to have known about the studies that showed the lack of effect, and if they did not they were negligent, and if they did they were dishonest. This however was a much tougher argument, with room for scope of argument on "dishonest". Notably the BCA had to issue warnings to members to remove claims from websites and literature as there were many making claims that could not be backed up.This suggests that he probably had a point anyway. The effect is now that many people will not speak out against treatments without any medical value and dodgy medical claims for fear of being sued - even if they win they lose a few years of their life and earnings.

Well it was, but then I measured my speed, and now my position is a little uncertain...