Snooze

Won't make a difference for your existing films and anything filmed in less than 1080p resolution, but newer films on Blu-Ray will be noticably better on the 1080p screen, especially at a 40" size. So for films, YES. For PS3 games, it's almost definitely not worth it - it's still pretty speculative about how many games are actually going to get written to use 1080p, and general consensus seems to be that "very few" is the answer. The console simply isn't powerful enough to run decent games at that resolution. From Sony themselves: "even with [final hardware] in mind, reaching good frame rates at 1080p with next-gen graphics is almost impossible. Instead many developers, ourselves included, are reworking so they run at 720p." Gran Tourismo is the only game currently planned to use 1080p. So for PS3 games, NO. Personally, I will probably get a PS3, and will probably get an HD-DVD player. However, the ONLY reason I am purchasing a 1080p TV is to run a PC on it.

Only new enthusiast cars. That's my point. Enthusiast cars like ours (and other pre-2006) will only suffer a small tax increase with these numbers. The big increases are for the post-2006 cars. Future 2nd-hand buyers (ie. the "next gen" enthusiasts) of these cars (in, say 5yrs time or something) will know about the additional costs before buying them. It's unfortunate for these people, but that reflects the increasing cost of being an enthusiast, I'm afraid. Some current owners of these cars (2006-2007 sports cars) will be rich b*ggers who have bought them as status symbols (especially the Boxsters!), and the extra tax won't affect them - they probably won't even worry too much about the increased depreciation this tax will cause for their cars, to be honest. The only problem is the enthusiasts who saved up for ages to spend all their savings on, say, a nice, new Exige only to get lumped with the extra tax with next-to-zero warning. These are unfortunate victims of the new tax, but I suspect is quite a small group of owners in the big scheme of things.

I use "Chelsea tractor" as a term for someone who buys a large-engined (G-Band) car for day-to-day use, not literally for inner-city 4x4 drivers. The Vectra (plus big-engined beemers and Mercs) and the big-engined A4s fall into this category too. I do feel sorry for the S2000 owners (and the Boxsters you mention, too, actually!), though - they fall into the unfortunate next-generation enthusiast bracket I mentioned before.

You may be right, of course, but I don't think that's true. These type of cars are already considered status symbols by the rich and uncaring. That will NEVER change. I believe the "fringe" purchasers you describe (who are the ones who need to be converted) are more likely to be swayed by this sort of "in your face" taxation for running costs rather than an "invisible" taxation such as petrol tax. Whilst these people would happily pay extra up-front money for the more expensive models of their cars, and would probably swallow the additional petrol tax cost without really noticing, the big, lump-sum running cost is a bigger barrier, IMO.

The 1.5L boundary is only for cars pre-2001. It's the same as it is at the moment. My point is that they're not really changing the way pre-2001 cars are being taxed, probably for the following reasons: - Owners of older cars are unlikely to just ditch them and buy newer ones if the tax goes up. Suddenly surprising an existing car owner with a massive tax hike is too dangerous - they'll just pay up the extra tax and vote for a different government next time! - You can't really measure emmissions accurately for pre-2001 cars (linking into the MOT system is probably too technically difficult, I expect) - A large number of pre-2001 car owners will be less financially well off than owners of newer cars, so will be less willing to accept tax hikes They've basically minimised the group of people who will have to immediately pay a big extra tax hike to new owners (post March-2006) of big cars. This group of owners are the most likely to be financially affluent and therefore the least politically swayed by what is (for them) a comparatively small extra cost (assuming they've just shelled out £50k for a new BMW X5 or something). What these people won't realise is how much of a hit they are taking in the re-sale value of their cars! Most of them won't realise until a few years' time when they're trying to sell them on, at which point Brown will have already been voted in!!!

Well - as you can see, the only vehicles really hit hard by this are the post-March 2006 G-Banders. It's quite clear that this is aimed NOT at simply punishing ecologically unsound cars (otherwise common sense says it WOULD go on petrol tax, or apply to older cars). Instead, I believe this is actually sending out a message to car manufacturers to stop them producing new large-engined cars. At the end of the day, the extra cash the government makes from this is going to be minimal (in fact, I'd be surprised with these numbers if it's any better than cash-neutral) - it's the slowing down of future production they are looking at instead. It's also key to changing public perception of large-engined cars and 4x4s. By the government making an implication that these kind of vehicles are "socially unacceptable", it will create more of a stigma associated with their ownership and maybe disuade people from wanting that kind of label. To me, this shows that the budget is targetted squarely at the Chelsea tractor-types. Unfortunately, the next generation of car enthusiasts ARE going to get impacted by this, but I don't think it can't be helped, and those people who are considering a post-2006 sports car will be going into it with their eyes open, aware of the extra cost. By the time the newer sports cars are really becoming affordable "entusiast" cars, we'll probably have a new way of taxing cars anyway!

I take it that's the 1UZ-FE version, Jurgen?

Inspiral Carpets just reformed last year to do a quick tour. They're playing all their old stuff! Tomorrow night is the last of this tour. They're in Shepherds Bush Empire, with their usual after-gig party at Jamm in Brixton (where ex Roses Mani will also be DJing). I love my live choons and normally manage to get to a gig every few weeks. Went to see The Fratellis at Brixton last weekend who were pretty good, and I think I've got an Idlewild gig and a Bis gig coming up in the next few weeks.....

Yay - just remembered I'm off to see the Inspiral Carpets tomorrow night. Should be an entertaining trip down memory lane! Mooooooooo! as f*ck!

It's going to be on iMAX too!

Singapore's low crime levels are a pretty good argument for capital punishment.

By the way, the Sharp TVs (if yours is full HD, I'm assuming it's probably the 37XD1E?) won't actually do full HD (1080p) through the VGA or component inputs. You can only actually get 1080p on them via HDMI inputs. Still it's moot anyway, as I believe the 360 only supports 1080i output at the moment (MS announced a firmware upgrade for 1080p support, but there's still no way of actually getting a 1080p signal OUT of the box!).

Yeah - it's just run backwards. When the kid walks away from the camera he walks backwards. When the girl with the folder walks past and pats his shoulder, she walks backwards too.

Yep - in line with tbourner here. Whilst a suspects previous history should be considered to assess their guilt (from mental predisposition or whatever), it shouldn't mean that their punishment is any worse than anyone elses. If you suggest that someone who has shoplifted 10 times should be locked away for say, 5 years, you may well be correct. What I propose is that the first time someone shoplifts they should get the same punishment (5 years). By waiting until their 10th offence to punish it properly, you're basically condoning people shoplifting 9 times! Kopite suggests that re-offenders should be punished more heavily because "they are not learning". This is, indeed, how things work in current society. What I am suggesting is that the law, and corresponding punishments are NOT a good mechanism of learning - at the moment, we teach people if they break the law that they'll get a slap on the wrist. And then we wonder why they are not learning! If people were taught to respect the law in the first place, they wouldn't even offend once! Unfortunately, this is all a bit utopian, because I'm not sure there's any way of teaching people to respect the law in this way any more

Yep. Shoplifting is a crime, isn't it? Why is it any different getting caught stealing once or caught stealing 10 times? It's still a crime, and everybody (regardless of whether they've done it 10 times, a thousand times or never) knows it's a crime! Of course, the person caught doing it 10 times will have been punished 10 times, but the tenth time they do it is no different to the first time someone else does it. IMO, part of the problem we have at the moment is that lots of teenagers "try" crimes, like shoplifting, mugging, assault, etc. to see what it's like. When they get caught and punished with a "telling off and slap on the wrist", they figure that doing the crime is worth taking the punishment and go on to commit the crime again. We need more serious penalties for first-time offenders in order to act as a real deterrent.

I think Nuttynutz 1675090 in Tetris is the longest standing just now - it was scored on 20th Dec 2005 and remains unbeaten.

No - my theory is not revenge-based at all. It really is zero tolerance. If it is deemed to be a crime, ANYONE who pisses on a wall gets punished. ANYONE who assaults another person gets punished. Everybody gets the same punishment for the same crime, regardless of their previous behaviour in life. The only problem is how do you punish people. At the moment, people get ASBOs, get fines, driving bans etc. all of which are meaningless punishments as they get ignored in the majority of cases. You can't put them in our prisons, because it costs the tax payers too much. You can't make the prisons cheaper because of human rights. You can't even ship all the crims off to Oz any more!

I like the idea, and it sounds slightly more tolerant than mine, allowing people to make a few minor "mistakes" in their lives. I guess I just prefer zero tolerance!

But that then implies that it's okay for me to go and mug someone as long as I wait until I'm 38 to do so!

Ooo - HR points! I like it. Although isn't it suggesting that we're allowed to do a certain number of "bad things" before we're punished? That's virtually encouraging people to do bad stuff, isn't it? I have a similar opinion with "totting up" speeding points: either speeding is okay or not, yes? Why are you allowed to get away with it 3 (or so) times before you're punished? Also ASBOs. Isn't an ASBO basically a way of saying "you've done something bad and that's okay, just don't do it again". Errrr - either it was wrong first time or not (people who really don't know right from wrong, like your

Actually - that was precisely the point I was leading up to! I agree with you entirely. Anyone who attacks someone like this deserves the same harsh penalty regardless of the outcome (although it would ideally be great to be able to differentiate based on intent, it's so speculative that it's impossible, and leaves too many loopholes for evil, overpayed lawyers to manipulate). To go one step further, I also don't believe it should be limited by the fact that the victim was a "frail pensioner". Anybody who attacks anyone like this, regardless of their target's age, vulnerability or ability to defend themself should suffer the same fate.

Out of interest, and to stir the pot a little..... Can I ask people what sentence they think Chapman should have recieved if he picked up Mr Kerr by the shoulders and threw him to the ground if he didn't get broken ribs or pneumonia and survived? *edit: And before anyone flames me, I agree with all of you that he should have got a much, much harsher sentence.

I'm excited at the news that HBO have just signed the rights to make "Fire" : a 7-series TV adaptation of my favourite books, George RR Martin's "A Song Of Fire And Ice".

Congratulations!

Whilst I see what you're saying, it all sounds horribly like revenge rather than rehabilitation. That said, maybe that's why it's called "Justice"? I don't think the fact he killed someone is relevant, no*. However, I think that having no insurance, no MOT, speeding and being on the phone whilst driving should all carry much more severe penalties than they currently do. Probably jail sentences. That way, everybody who commits these offences gets punished whether they happen to kill anyone or not. *edit: Although that's just given me an idea that maybe Dangerous Driving, or Driving W/O Due (and, of course, Speeding) should carry different penalties depending on the surrounding area (ie. worse in built-up areas) and traffic (ie. worse on a busy road).