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...

I would have thought that extracts of books on Google would be the best possible advertising that you could have for a book - you do a search, and find a useful extract from a book, naturally you want to know more, but google won't give you any more, so you follow the handy advertising link at the side and buy it off Amazon - everyone wins.

I cannot believe that google extracts are in any way damaging book sales, and therefore causing harm to the authors or publishers.

So what are they complaining about?

That person had a manifestly unfair trial, someone else actually admitted to the crime in question (BBC link) and thus the pardon was not hypocrisy by any stretch, just proof that a fair trial abroad is hard to get (true of foreigners in the UK as much as Brits abroad).

First rule of MSE. You DO NOT talk about MSE. Second rule of MSE...

Sorry, I meant on fewer phone types, not fewer actual units. And in the market for phones as a whole OSX is still tiny. My point was to correct your statement about netbooks and redirect it to phones, and that still stands, albeit with your qualifications about the success of Android on phones. I realise that this is /., but I am sorry you felt it necessary to be sarcastic rather than constructive - I was trying to add to the debate, but I clearly failed.

In its target market of smart phones it has several major releases, and they appear to be making the news. One might say that OSX mobile is on fewer phones than Android, and has a tiny market share, both of which are true, but in its target market it is still making a splash. Anyway the point was that the OP was probably not talking about netbooks, but phones, which still stands.

I suspect GP means Android on phones, which is being offered to phone companies and is doing ok, after a slow start.