Somethings not right, in my country there practically no limited plans (except on mobile), basically every provider gives as much as you can download, most often at speeds of 10Mbit to100Mbit. Well and people do download :D since my country isn't too wealthy "piracy" is quite rampant, and no wonder, when buying games locally ends up more expensive than buying in amazon.de/uk and sending them back all the way to Lithuania. So anyway my point is that providers in my country do give unlimited connection (or am i missing something and this is about unlimited speed, but i somehow doubt that :) ), and its been like this for like five years, and i bet at least some people do download >TB a month. The thing that amazes me most is, my puny country is done with caps for like 5 years, but such country like usa has plans with 20GB/month caps (or am i wrong? but iirc i read someone metion something like this here)...

I'd recommend XTA :) Although ba is most popular, but for me its a bit too fast and too spamy :)

Hm yeah quite an interesting problem. You stand by the side of tv and you side of scene (if your watching concert). Well maybe you could do something as nonlinear video angle change. Like when you are moving closer and closer to the edge angle change on video/picture gets smaller and smaller. So this way you could still see stuff from different angles adn get impressive viewing angle change while sidestepping at center of screen, but still not see sides of scenes/studios/whatever when sitting at the side of screen/tv.

And yeah multiview + head tracking is probably hardly possible, but sill some day id really like to try some game with some glasses (probably anaglyph because its way way cheaper) and some head tracking, should be very impressive :)

Yesterday i was checking anaglyph rendering capability of game i'm playing and then it hit me. Nether anaglyph nor interlaced glasses and probably not even VR glasses are full true 3d. Here is why:
glasses give you perception of depth that is very cool effect and all, but one thing is missing: you move your head you see different stuff. Now head tracking gives joust that and it is also very cool in itself. Now what i would really like to try is some glasses 3d (preferably non anaglyph, cause anaglyph is hard on eyes) + head tracking 3d (probably can be done much easier tracking glasses) to get real true 3d experience :) Well this rant is just to point out that there seems to be no real/true 3d yet unless you clobber something like this yourself using graphics card anaglyph render and some hacked up head tracking. Well one more point that such true 3d would be quite difficult to do for non interactive/non rendered graphics i.e. movies. But some day maybe :)

Yeah i admit that i haven't used used mac os x much, well it should add up to like 3-5hrs overall. I know thats not much, but enough to feel the distinctive feature of mac os x: one menu for all windows. It's not bad thing, saves vertical screen space. But i don't like it because there is totaly no way this could be used with focus follows mouse, witch i consider more useful feature. Now even more personal thing, after like 2 years of using focus follows mouse, i decided to disable "click rasess" (that means that window can only be rased by clicking on border/titlebar or in a task bar) at first it seemed a little "WTF" (i had the same perception with focus follows mouse for first couple days when i tried it) but then i have seen how useful this is, especially if you have to copy/paste a lot.

Of course i understand that such thing like focus follows mouse are for more advanced users only, computer newbies are confused even without this, and if they would have to always look where the mouse is i think it would be much harder for them (although skill gained by this should be useful later on i guess).

Id say we can split all users in 3 categories:
newbies or low users, who use one app at a time, for them there is totally no difference in usability be it Windows, Mac OS X, or one of *nix/Linux WM styles, they have one window and are happy with it; Second group would be someone who use few apps at a time, i'd say 2-5, then the best thing for them i thin should be multiple desktops, switching between desktops using hotkeys is WAY faster and more intuitive then hunting for windows on task-bar or dock; And then heawy users, like me sometimes, i always have 8 desktops, and sometimes several apps/windows per desktop. Then focus follows mouse and tabbed windows should be better than mac style menus.

One type of apps that would GREATLY benefit from tabbed windows are instant messengers/skype. Such app have main window, and then window per chat. If your talking with several people, then task-bar and alt-tab becomes very cumbersome to use, but using tabbed windows you can manage skype/im apps windows very nicely and neatly. Same goes for browser. if you have a lot of tabs you might one to have another window, and it you can tab windows it's very nice hierarchy, same for terminals, text editor when programming etc.

Ok let me say this, i have been using fluxbox for a long time, and it has this feature, some time ago i switched to kde for more "modern" feel, but i have always missed window tabbing.
People that say it shit, let me tell you this you have no clue how great this is.

Let me say this, there are people that are all gimp , blender UI sucks (hold on i know this seems out of the blue), and mac this mac that, or best *Windows* users who have not seen *Window* manager.
And all these people have no idea how life changing such thing as tabbed windows can be, and also focus follows mouse.

Now probably here pops a lot of people that goes something like this: "oh i tried this and it suck" or something like that. Well then i bet you haven't tried it enough. Cause if you get used to focus follows mouse, click to focus becomes super retarded. And id Say even more with window tabbing. Of course you should have multiple desktops to fully utilize this feature. And there is a lot of people who don even understand how good that is.

My point is there are a lot of people that bitch about fsf/oss software interfaces, while most of them are stuck with stone age interfaces, and don't know better.
Or people think hard to learn = hard to use (never mind that hard to learn most of the time means, i'm very lazy to learn something new, so I'll just say interface i don't know sucks).

I know the part about you haven't tried enough seems harsh or something like that, but its just that i know how easily/quickly people give up.

This probably is a bit redundant but still as poster above said, it seems you don't get atheism.

You think that atheist are clueless, live without goals?

To come to goal/role is very simple as i said. You basically have have to choices - push to space as hard as you can and make humans and life from earth survive as much as possible, or let all the earth die out, probably almost without a trace, when sun goes nova. Don't know about you, but former option seems much better to me.

People that say this really piss me off. This all may sound a bit inflammatory but hear me out.

Well I'm an atheist, and i consider humans to be animals. Yes severely more advanced than others regarding intelligence but still animals. Siting on this rock is doing what all animals are doing. For all we know life exists only on this planet (maybe somewhere else, or even probably, but we haven't seen it) and we are the only inhabitants of this planet with the ability to spread life beyond it. And i see it as our ultimate duty. That is the only thing that would make us truly different from all other animals. Thats is the main goal of humanity in my eyes, cause if we fail with space, all earth all its life has been for nothing, it disintegrates when sun burns out.(i know that if we die out there should be enough time for other intelligent species to evolve, but still no guaranty that would happen or that they would manage it)

So for all those that say space is unneeded, i want to ask you what is the purpose of your life? You want all your descendants live and die in the same place, and all you see disappear without trace?

And don't start with god.

Ok maybe I'm not very knowledgeable about asteroids, but i heard some of them have shitload of rare resources like gold ore even uranium and other neat stuff. So why no one talks about starting asteroid mining? i know it probably is insanely hard thing, but it would really give something. If you could bring down chunks of gold from some asteroid i think you could cover cost pretty easy, or uranium or other rare resource. Also such missions would/should lead to nice advances in science, maybe even in space construction from asteroids themselves.

Columns has no depth compared to lumines thats it.

And you acting so high about your english skill just shows your ignorance that not everyone here is native english speaker.

Lumines could be compared to tetris attack however, but thats only one action-puzzle game i know that compares to lumines.