for the police officer to take his camera/phone away. the police officer presumably thought he had rights under section 44 of the UK terrorism Act but this has been declared illegal by the European court of human rights, the government is appealing this but its likely to lose. The most sensible thing is to make a direct complaint to the Police complaints authority.

Now having said that the space where the photograph was taken specifically forbade the man from using any form of camera, now if that place was considered public as in their was pubic right of way then it is illegal restrict photography but it is legal if it is on private property

this area of law is complex and one of the best place to get detailed information is http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2 which supplies a downloadable pdf with the relevant sections of law

in the UK the tax is either the same or if anything higher on diesel

I'm paying about $8 a gallon (£1.40 a litre)

Buying a car second hand obliviates the extra cost

I always buy diesel when i am abroad,

are you sure that the tax is the same on both as diesel is typically about 4p a litre more expensive?

Btw for those of you stateside I am currently paying £1.40 a litre which means I'm paying about $8 a gallon

first off i drive a 15 year old B4 IZ Passat in the UK, its a 1.9 common rail design and I love it being a diesel, it designed for German roads so does 80mph in 4th and bimbles along in 5th. But it does have smoke and particulate issues and thus is banned from many central area of German cities which will rapidly roll-out across Europe in the next few years.

You may already do this BUT
I thought I should point out an issue with your particle trap - RTFM - you must run it at high revs with a cleaning agent every so often to burn off the particles in your particle trap. If you fail to do so it WILL become blocked and it's an expensive and obviously unnecessary garage bill.

BTW the reason Diesel is expensive is because everybody uses it, gas/petrol is a side product from production. Although VW don't like people doing it, its perfectly possible to run your car on vegetable either fresh or recycled but you must remember to change the fuel filter after a while as the veg oil tends to dissolve the gunk in your fuel system and leading to it ending up in your fuel filter

the one thing i hope is that European and far east manufactures will start selling you in the states the sizes of engine we get over here. The latest 1.6litre blu-motion (urea additive) passat's have a higher list KW than my 1.9 passat and I have no problem doing 110Mph on German unrestricted autobahnen and that was with 4 people on board and a load of luggage in my station wagon.

Btw i get about 10 miles per litre on average in my 1.9 passat station wagon that based on mostly urban sometimes highway driving. So that's a bit less than 40 mpg (US) - not bad for a 15 year old car that has driven to the moon (~240,000 miles)

Apparently VW has worked out that hybrid diesel makes sense as diesel typically need bigger batteries anyway, so apparently hybrids will increasingly be seen as will the regenerative braking ideas derived from formula 1.

expect massive sale on roomba's and net connected kindles in the next few days

popper's analysis of science is weak. It's based in the idea that their are 'facts' and that these facts are truths. If we accept certain axioms such as that we are not living in 'the matrix' etc then we can all agree that yes the sun is 'above' the earth, that planes fly, that this conversation is happening on server somewhere. Anybody who understands anything about the philosophy of science will understand and accept these things. The issue with popper is that he fails to recognise that the creation of scientific truth is a human endeavour and thus subject to human flaws, a far better analysis of the production of science is produced by Bruno Latour in Science in action - see Google books http://is.gd/07KejQ Perhaps the OP should widen their circle of scholarship before making such muddle-headed comments PS Sokal may have got a paper published in social text, but various scientific journals have accepted papers from people that show they are equally as gullible to accepting papers devoid of logic or proof. The problem with peer review is that it is peer review: ideas that are only acceptable to ones peers will be published. Challenges to the current orthodoxy typically have to be publicised through journals outside the mainstream view

I'm sure if i looked around the numerous scientific fields I could find stupid comments made by scientists. I suspect that the author misunderstood the lesson or was so blinded by his faith in science that he misquotes Feyerabend "that there is no such thing as scientific method and that physicists have no better claim to knowledge than voodoo priests" but then again I have never been taught by Feyerabend and if Feyerabend had said something so stupid then he is deserving of ridicule

At the start of my masters programme in the history and philosophy of science and medicine we were reminded of one key thing. I will paraphrase my professors here "planes fly, humans don't" Science clearly works, we live in a world of technological innovation but that doesn't mean what scientists say they are doing is what they are actually doing.

The scientific method is all very well, the problem is that it is being performed by humans, who have a tendency to see correlation and to see that as confirmation. A better place to start with an analysis of science would be bruno latours science in action http://is.gd/myOXXC http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sC4bk4DZXTQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=bruno+latour+science+in+action&source=bl&ots=W8mIxp89UA&sig=EUuZoalIj9J7Nh_gGckWURJq8lM&hl=en&ei=YcswTcTvIJO6hAfx3aTCCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Another place to look might be at the apparent failures in the scientific method http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all - where an apparently strong signal overtime falls back into background noise. The issue here is not fraud but merely that what is published, what is funded has more to do with human failings and the need to provide clear evidence in fields where given an environment where all aspects of all conditions are controlled the organism will do as it damm well pleases

so when are they going to one for the women's loos? you don't have to be male to pee and hit targets you know! OK writing your name in the sand is easier for males but they said this was about pressure not multitouch

electrically height adjustable desks allowing a range of positions from sitting to standing. Worth every penny in my opinion and will save you massively in productivity gains. Also training people in how to sit for their backs not for how they are used to. we should move around much more than we do. In combination with good ergonomic chairs and height adjustable monitors you can produce exceptionally effective environments.