Snooze

Also bear in mind that the 360 is not "true" HD. It only runs 1080i. As a big fan of the previous X-Box incarnation, I was disappointed to see Microsoft not delivering full HD - the PS3 might be worth waiting for in that respect - it should be full 1080p. That said, I still have to agree with the general lack of quality games. I certainly won't be shelling out £40-£50 for games, and will instead be looking to acquire whichever console allows me to get/download/purchase, errrrr..... "evaluation" software most easily!

Crikey. How much does insurance on a TT at 21 set you back?!?! I'm 31 and paying over £1,000.

The more I see, the more I'm thinking the PS3 is gonna top the 360 now. I'm a huge X-Box fan - the old X-Box was way better than the PS2, and was expecting MS to pull it out of the bag when they got a year's headstart on Sony for the next round, but the PS3 spec is looking really good, and I think MS dropped the ball completely when they didn't deliver decent HDTV support. In fact, the lack of proper hi-def on the 360 is what's making me prefer the idea of the PS3 at the moment. Time will tell, of course, and MS have pulled out all the stops to court the games developers this time round, so it's tough to say right now where the best games are going to end up, but PS3 is really looking good to me right now. Sony's online stuff sucks compared to XBox Live, and I'm still dubious about Blu-Ray, but I'm really looking forward to the PS3 launch now. That said, knowing me I'll probably end up with both anyhow.........!

More to the point, why did it bother having buttons at all when the whole thing was voice-activated? Huh? Huh?

Definitely! The straight 6 is the engine that BMW do well and built their business on - the 4's are underpowered AND less reliable.

Steering could be pointier. Gearshift is a bit clunky.

Vicki suggested we should get one of those rabbits. I was thinking of this one, but looks like it would need a LOT of batteries: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006050669,00.html

You're not wrong! I couldn't have described the situation better!

It's the one day that I give her the one thing that she really wants and I don't have time for the rest of the year...... ....FOREPLAY!!! :rlol:

Not sure you have the right to complain about over-inflated house prices when you're buying-to-let. The quantity of buy-to-let and 2nd home purchases over the last few years is precisely one of the main causes of the currently over-inflated prices!!!

All the best, mate - our 20-week is a week on Monday!

errrrrrrr......yeah. sorry!

Isn't a solution to all the scamming just having an auction site act as the clearing house for funds (and maybe also for the goods themselves)? There is clearly additional costs for running such an operation, but that could be covered by accruing interest on the money while it is sat in clearing? Just an idea. I'm a technical bod, not a business bod. Unfortunately it's going to take either a big brand like Google or a massive amount of marketing investment (or maybe even both) to take any worthwhile market share away from eBay......

Yeah - the alarm system on my soop has auto locking like this.

Oh crikey! Don't go all Glenn Hoddle on us!!!

I'll repeat it again. Not necessarily true. There are other religions besides yours, Chief!

I agree - I really enjoy hearing other peoples' viewpoints like this.

Errr - I said "A" God, not YOUR God. No reason you can't have a religion with a "God"-concept without being creationist. That's exactly what Pantheism pertains to - that a God didn't create the universe, but in fact everything in the universe is a constituent part of a "God". Exactly! Believing in evolution can be considered just a "religion", really. But I explicitly stated that I wasn't 100% convinced by evolution theories, whereas you are (I understand - sorry if I'm being presumptuous) 100% convinced of the existence of your "God".

Errrr - no. I could be an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution. Equally, I could believe in a God AND in evolution. Atheism and evolution are not necessarily synonymous (can we add "Pantheism" to the poll? ). You say it "does disprove atheism". Even if this were logically correct, which it's not (as above), I'm afraid you still have to say "would disprove atheism", as there's always still a possibility (the actual amount differs on a personal opinion basis - eg. you're 0% convinced by evolution theories - I'm 99% convinced by evolution theories) that evolution DID happen. Actually - this statement I'd have to potentially agree on. Although a lot of evil things have been done in the name of various religions, there is plenty of evidence that would suggest that without religion, the human race would end up wiping itself out (or would have done so already). The decline of "humanity" in Western civilisation for example. (do, however, note that I use "humanity" rather than your use of "morality", as I'm only attempting to place value on the survival of the human race, human life and human happiness, rather than the assuming that ALL MY "morals" are the ones by which everyone else should be living their life......)

Organised religion and belief in a specific religious aspect are two different things. Arguably, a lot of good things have come out of organised religion. Not because God exists or anything like that, but because humans have used the supposed existence of God/Gods/afterlife to intill rules on people that have lead to social advances, people sometimes being nice to eachother, etc..... On the flip side, lots of bad things have come out of organised religion - wars, killing, oppression, etc. Whether or not organised religion is a good thing can be argued either way. We have no evidence of what society would be like without it, as we are already laden with a history of society WITH organised religion. Individual beliefs are not worth arguing over. You can look at all the arguments for evolution and believe it if you like. You can look at all the arguments against it and believe them instead, but you still can't necessarily PROVE anything. Even if you can disprove something, it doesn't help: disproving evolution does NOT prove that God exists. As you can't prove anything either way, actually trying to debate this is pretty much like standing infront of eachother shouting "YES", "NO", "YES", "NO", etc..... ie. a big waste of time! QED

Erm - surely if there ARE infinite universes, then is it not also the case that there are also an infinite number of universes where a god-being DOES exist? Parked firmly in the agnostic camp here. You'll never be able to prove anything anyway - half our accepted laws of physics aren't necessarily correct in all circumstances. And as for religion, nobody has evenly vaguely proved the existence of a superbeing or a meaning for life or any of creation - in fact even if a supposed superbeing appeared in front of me and did something superbeingish, it could all just be an illusion based on some aspect of science that we don't understand either. Give up trying to prove stuff - it's not worth the effort! Instead I choose to focus on things that I DO know - for example doing things that I enjoy doing make me feel good!

You've just brought back the memory of my first drive in the Supra. My previous car was a 200bhp Beemer, but still didn't prepare me in any way for the TT. Again - previously hadn't driven one - my brother had sourced and checked it out for me - drove it nervously away for the first few miles. At the first straight stretch, I floored it. My first thought was "woh - that's a bit quicker than I'm used to". And THEN the 2nd turbo came on and damn, if I didn't near crap myself right there!!!! As for comparison to an Evo, I'm an RWD man, so I have to accept the shortcomings in the wet weather, but one other thing that no-one has mentioned yet is suspension - I'm set up only slightly stiffer than standard, but the Supra can also be a real handful on some of the local bouncy, rough backroads - I've had plenty scary moments where I thought I might seriously damage wheels or something, where my rally-hybrid-owning friends would be throwing their cars about happily. I wouldn't change the Supra for anything, but sometimes I think it's a shame, as these are often the type of roads where you can get away from the traffic and push it a bit.....

AJI - good points, and if you believe that anyone that loses traction at any point should be punished then you do make a very valid case. One question, though: This is my issue: What speed should that be? On ice, I have slid cars at

Unfortunately, people seem to judge the driver based on the result, not on what actually happened. If he is guilty of dangerous driving, then surely every driver who ever skids at all is also guilty of dangerous driving whether they hit something/someone or not? The report says someone else had earlier crashed at the same point in the road. Surely that 1st driver is guilty of the same crime as the 2nd driver? After all, they both did very similar things just at different times (just unfortunate timing for the cyclists and the 2nd driver). Also, instead consider: If the driver had been doing 20mph but still skidded into the cyclists, this time just causing a few bruises - is he still driving dangerously? Do we grade how dangerous someone is driving by the amount of damage done? If so......what if he drives at 20mph, but skids into a bunch of cyclists, pushing them over a cliff edge. Is it dangerous driving now? It's difficult, because in some cases, drivers can clearly be guilty of dangerous driving, but IMO it's another one of those big grey areas that is so hard to police and even harder to handle in the justice system.......

I bet that's what SHE said at the time!