Depending on the mood and movie, there are times I want to interact and other times not. So i choose the appropriate venue or viewing time.
Most first run movies - no interaction. Second or nth run movies interaction is fine most of the time... For that one can't beat local college/university movie nights.

While I was never a student at MIT I went to several screenings of movies there. Now that is(was?) an interactive experience, more so during movie marathons.
Where I am now, the nearby university doesn't seem to do much in terms of movies like that, so I miss that.

Here in Rhode Island I went to see Tin Tin with my little one, but there was only one showing for the day in the 2D version, at a very inopportune time. I started getting woozy after while, my little one took the glasses off 1/4th of the way into the movie because it made her feel sick.

I normally like this theater for all the features and events it promotes and shows ( Recently LOTR marathon of the extended versions), but I hope this situation with the 3D vs 2D is not of their own choosing. I wonder if the studios are pushing the 3D versions by forcing theaters to limit the 2D show times.

It sucked for other reasons than the use of rotoscoping.

I have a friend who also has your sentiment, but still refuses to see the LOTR movies, despite being a fan of JRRs books as well as being a fan of movies.
His reasoning for not seeing these LOTR movies is that because they are decent he is is afraid that they will over shadow his imagination and memories of how he envisioned the story.
He is cognizant of the divergence of the movies from the book, but as a movie buff they do not bother him. And yes, there other novels that have been published as movies that he also does not go see.
His reason for refusing tho see the LOTR movies is one I can respect, though we still occasional try to suck him into watching it with us, teasing about our age and fading memories needing to be refreshed...

As soon as I saw that in the article I quit reading. Seems to me they where comparing, hmm well, apples to oranges.
I don't see how on-line office suites should be comparable to on-line storage space, just as the post below points out, and I noticed while previewing this reply.

Yeah, I can vouch for Crash Plan as well.
We got the Crash Plan Pro with 10 seats ( I think it morphed into some kind of business version) 6 months ago so we could set up our own backup storage. Currently it backs up 2 file servers, several desktops and some laptops.
The primary file servers are in one building, the CrashPlan backup server is in a different building ( connected by fiber).

We've already seen the benefits over our old tape system - people accidentally deleting files get restored within a minute or 2 by us, instead of having to mess around with tape libraries and tape catalogs, often taking 15 minutes and physical trips to the server to swap tape cartridges.

I suppose with so much untapped disk space in most of our office computers, we could have set up a backup mesh as well, but having the backup server as single physical separate entity seems more recoverable. Plus it seems it would makes it easier ( in terms of management) to secure our connections from the laptops in the field to back up to this server.

Also, check this site out http://www.fuelly.com/driver/smithy
It needs a bit more online filtering ability to root out regional differences, but it is fun to peruse.
BTW that link is to my stats, only discovered it since I got the Honda CRZ. The Passat has just over 118,000 miles on it, but I have not been tracking it that long in terms of miles since I drive the Z more than anything else recently. The wife is negligent in reporting fuel ups on the V, and I haven't ridden the bike in a while, but tonight I should be updating the Passat.

Yes, in the US and petrol instead of the Diesel.
A friend of mine had the diesel Beetle from that time period - maybe 2 older than mine. Iirc that had an EPA estimate of 49 mpg highway, with him observing 47mpg highway.
The diesel that came out a bit later here in the US - probably similar to the one you have, had rating of only ~41 mpg, so your calculations are right on.
It was a shame that VW changed that diesel engine so much that they lost about 8mpg from one generation to the next. I never read into why that was the case - my friend's diesel issues had more to do with the cold ( lived at the Vermont/Canadian border) then any direct engine issues. He certainly put on a few miles while he had it (long frequent trips from up there to Boston).

I was more commenting on the fact that his numbers exceeded EPA estimates by that amount ( in retrospect his numbers don't quite exceed the EPA numbers by that). My numbers certainly do not exceed the EPA numbers. Though, as part of the EPA calculation/measurement re-calibration car numbers from that era where downgraded by 2-3mpg easily, which put the guys claimed numbers well above the EPA numbers.
As for the driving test comparison, the numbers from that site certainly seem suspect now. I still recall Car and Driver or Road and Track review stating that they got 25.6mpg overall, and those guys don't take it easy. Can't seem to find any links to that, but the EPA revised numbers seem to show the Passat as I would expect, with the exception of the combined:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/17762.shtml
My driving is really mostly rural roads with few lights, but not really highway either. So my combined mileage differs severely, but in my experience in my car the city and highway are pretty spot on.
Here is the same site for the LHS:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/15185.shtml
Still a significantly large difference between the guys driving experience and the standard ( 50-60% in city, 16-20% highway) to be questionable.

I had a nice reply all set to go, then the browser crashed on me when I had to preview.
Short version, I am really curious how you get this atypical mileage for that car. 30+% over the norm and EPA is impressive.
I had other links, but I will just use the last one since I still had it in a tab on reopen.
A test LHS averaged 17.7 mpg when new and 21.6 mpg in long-term testing, whereas a 300M averaged 18.6 mpg in mostly highway driving. From
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1999-to-2004-chrysler-300m-lhs-1.htm
EPA was something like 18/27 with testing observed of 20 on the other site.

Even so, an impressive sounding car, but with at least $8k more than my Passat, I would hope so.

I don't know, my 2002 1.8l Passat Wagon gets 28-29 mpg (US) on the highway at cruising 80mph. I don't know of any similar sized non diesel cars that where getting that kind of mileage. The sticker from then said 31mpg highway. Combined mileage with not so gentle driving I get 26 mpg. As I recall there weren't many sedans or wagons in that class then. Now there are some, but not many. And few if any of the American cars in that group are worth driving.

here:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/emergingtech/wave-disk-engines-to-make-hybrid-vehicles-cheaper-more-efficient/1887

and here
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/wave-disc-engine-generator-series-hybrids-10812.html

I'll add my anecdote. I wanted so to believe in Android and Google, that I ended up getting a MyTouch from T-Mobile as an upgrade to an existing T-Mobile Phone. Its an improvement over dumb phones, barely, but other than that it barely accomplishes what it is supposed to do, so I certainly still would classify it as garbage.
The one thing I am uncertain of if it is Android or the hardware specs that are the issue. Certainly the combo is to blame, because I have seen Android systems that are better in response, but usually those people don't do anything but the basics with the system.
But on the mytouch even trying to do the basics is painful.

I have.
And I can't wait to get off of this piece of crap Android phone I am stuck with.

My ipod touch runs circles around my Android - except that it does not make phone calls.
I see both Android, Blackberry and iPhones around me, and none of these people have any of this supposed blind superiority complex that is attributed to any one group. The iPhone guys/gals are the least arrogant of the bunch. The Android guys keep talking about how superior their phone is technically and supposedly open, and the blackberry guys just get the work done but wish they could run decent apps (or games). The lone Window mobile 6( or 6.5) guy just keeps showing off the hacks that circumvents any given Verizon lockout.

Of all the current phones I am exposed to everyday, only the iPhone gets things done the way I need them to get done: A tool that works quickly, efficiently, elegantly and I don't have to spend as much maintenance time on as I do productive time.

I am also on the MyTouch - got it about a year ago, and compared to my first gen ipod touch, the entire Android experience sucks on this platform.
I am very diligent in making sure I quit every application instead of backgrounding them. I uninstall any apps that will not let themselves be exited.
Still, I can launch apps faster, particularly browsing sessions on the ipod touch, even if I have to keep starting the browser on the touch when clicking on a link in another app.
When T-Mobile updated to Android 2.x, it was an unmitigated disaster. Didn't take long for an update (4 weeks?) to come out that resolved the issue for the most part and put it back to its normal slow self instead of extra extra slow.
Personally I can't wait till T-Mobile offers the iPhone, they provide the best coverage in my area of usage, and having a family plan makes it harder to switch.