nice work completely missing the point, then making up your own to support your own notions. You would make a good politition. The phone works just as well the phone on my old smartphone (maybe even easier as i can l link my hands behind my head to take a call) wearing it upside down is no issue because it just as easy to use, and its saphire screen dosn't scratch. It tells me the time much better than my smartphone did (and its better than a bunch of watches, because its readable in any light, even if i do have to press a button). Sure it might not suit you if you are writing 50 plus messages, want to play all the apps, and watch movies, but i have many devices that do all of that stuff, much better than a smart phone will. Its hard for me because i'm so far ahead of the curve; and by that i don't mean i bought the first iphone, i mean i bought a smartphone 8 years before the iphone came out (which is possibly why i'm bored with them now), the same time you lot were all saying "my nokia 5110 is the greatest because it lasts all week and can play snake". So i don't think i will convice you now, but in 5 years time when you look down at your standalone smart watch phone please think of me (and keep an open mind when i'm having my optic nerve hacked).

i've got a standalone smart watch phone (omate true smart). i get almost 2 days of use, but i'm not a heavy user (i would get 3-4 out of smart phone). Works fine as a phone, although i have it upside down so i can easily put it to me ear. typing can be a little tricky sometimes, but the flesky keyboard helps out a lot. i enjoy not having to remember my phone or have it jumping around in my pocket.

I thought south Korea had installed autonomous killing sentry robots in the demilitarized zone. http://singularityhub.com/2010... . Samsung made I believe.

"You probably have thousands of different individual memories of your phone number and address." that doesn't sound like an efficient way to remember few digits. Surely it just reassurers the original memory or a makes a stronger new replacement memory.

bastards, I knew they would weasel their way out of it some how.

This is why witness testimony is so unreliable because of all the 'filler' details added in. Its our own version of compression. Based on the fact that we can work out most of the unimportant details (within an acceptable error margin), instead of having to remember them all.

I used to know it so well, but now I can't remember for the life of me, what comes after L. if only I had my 4 year old brain back.

some of your first memories might be fairly complete, especially if you use parts of those memories, to remember memories further in the future. Like if you lived in the same house for quite a while when a child, you aren't going to make new memories of the same house repeatedly, just anything special that happened in it along the way. like how your vision uses past images to fill in the gaps of what your not actively looking at but is still in your field of view.

recollection strengthens the connections. How else would study work?

I think you mean 1. here is one mathematical model that doesn't allow memories to work.

They are using a completely different model of memory than what we use, its not a gap they have shown, its an entirely different and broken system (at that scale). It's like trying to simulate the universe with an earth central theory, then claiming its impossible when it doesn't work out. "elaborate version of the 19th century mechanical turk until we get more physical insights", like only remembering small details, that you can use to figure out the rest of the details, within a tolerated error margin (completely different to computer data compression, but requires problem solving).

Logical reconstruction. you don't remember everything, because you don't have to. The brain is powerful enough to figure out most of the details (most defiantly helped by a home movie) and fits in what little you do remember to the virtual memory.

It's like saying I can build a flat top bridge on top of support columns, but when I use the same system to simulate a suspension bridge, apparently there isn't enough support columns, thus suspension bridges are impossible, except of course in natural examples like spider webs.

if you have a model with all the variables (the nature and nurture side) you could guess which color he will choose. that said, it would be a gigantic task and would require more computing power than all of earth has at the moment.

The mathematicians may have not accounted for logical reconstruction, or even be running the algorithm right. The brain doesn't need to remember all the details about a memory just a few important ones, and those can be continually strengthened through more use; then the brain uses logical reconstruction to construct the rest (fitting it in with any remembered details). For example trying to remember your first date, you don't start listing all the details you actively work them out from a select few (what age you were, which city you would of been in, which girl you with, what she looked like, after that it falls into place with all the other information on the subject). If you want to see this at work just look at witness testimonies, they vary wildly because of all the logical reconstruction going on, and that cant be identified as different from the remembered facts. Similar to how vision works, you don't take in the whole scene all at once, your brain makes you a working model from lots of different pieces of information, from many different times. What the researchers should of said is consciousness isn't possible by using existing methods of data retention, and compression, without natural problem solving abilities.