Let me begin by saying "I'm a PC". Wouldn't buy a MAC, MAC Book, or iMAC on a bet. 15 months ago, my contract was up with ATT and I started looking for a new phone. I wanted to move to a competitor because of more reliable service. Heck, the company I work for even dropped ATT and moved to a competitor because of dropouts and deadspots. The other requirement I had was that I wanted a phone with a better internet browser than the scrap pile that ran on my RAZOR. But when I looked at the available phones, none had an interface that worked as well as the iPhone's. There wasn't even one remotely close. So I ponied up my $199, swallowed my reluctance to buy an Apple product, and bought an iPhone. Of course, that means I'm still stuck with lousy service, but I now have features like pinch and expand (priceless for an older person with somwhat aging sight). My employer bought HTCs for all of their supervisors and managers, thats several hundred people. They hate the interface (its not intuitive at all) and the need to use the stylus. Several have even turned in their HTC and gone out and purchased iPhones on their own. Well its 9 months from contract time again, and I've looked at all the smart phones on the market. The iPhone 4 is going to be my choice. There's 3 parts to the smart phone puzzle. Features, ease of use, and quality of phone service. The first two are the reasons most people choose a particular smartphone. I'm thinking that 4 years from now when I'm ready to replace my desktop PC (haven't bought a laptop because most of the things that I want to do on a computer when I'm away from home I can now do on my phone), I'll probably buy the iPhone6 because it'll have matured into the palmtop that does it all.

Not sure, but that's probably enough to pay for business cards, a pallet of letterhead, and the salaries for the G-20 and the three G-14s that are gonna run the operation. In government that's enough.

one name, Alastair Reynolds. Current and cutting edge.

We've argued that our space program needs a purpose which justifies the expense. I'm in the camp of getting a sufficient number of people off this planet to ensure the survival of the species. The thing I don't understand is why would we expend all this effort to get out of one gravity well only to crawl into another. The short and mid-term goal of our space program should be to establish a permanant colony in space that is prepared to ensure man's survival. The earth is still going to be the best place for humans to live. The purpose of any colony we build should be re-colonize earth in the event of major catastrophe. It would support seed and gene banks, an exportable technolgy base, and a sufficient population armed with a plan and the resources to jumpstart civilization once the dust settles. I'm not saying the moon can't play a vital role in the process, but any serious exploitation of the moon for resources is going to require heav lift capabilities on the moon that may be centuries away. That leaves us with exploration, and to the exteny possible, development of the asteroid belt as a resource base for building a "permanent" habitat in space and equiping it for its mission. As much as I'd like to see us go to Mars, resources will too valuable for a sight-seeing junket. Use the resources we have to grab the low hanging fruit if its our there. Half a dozen exploratory trips to the asteroids should be the short term objective.