Based on what evidence? Where is your data? Faster != More reliable. Spindle based hard drives are (usually) quite reliable and there is plenty of real world usage data documenting exactly how reliable they are. Companies with big data centers like Google have extremely detailed reliability performance figures. SSDs have a lot of advantages but they only recently have started receiving wide distribution and to date they have poor market penetration in data centers where it is easiest to measure their reliability in the real world. Manufacturers estimates of reliability don't mean much in the real world since they have an obvious conflict of interest.

I have little doubt that SSDs will over time replace spinning platters in most places but claims regarding their reliability in relation to spinning platters is somewhat premature, especially in a data center environment. I wouldn't be the least bit shocked to find out they were more reliable (having no moving parts helps a lot) but just because they should be doesn't mean they will be.

Suppose we'd have the chance to upload ourselves into an AI. Let's say, a reasonably powered computer capable of emulating a large and well structured human brain, including backups, spare hardware, etc. Would you do it? Replace your human body and brain for an AI construct?

I'm not quite sure I would. I think it's best asked the other way: If you were an AI in a mechanical body with an external computer for a brain, would you trade in all that for the experience of being human? Breathing, living, being excited, ultimate fear of death, ultimate joy of love, etc.

I imagine it could sound intriguing to an AI.
Maybe we aren't to bad of as humans as we are after all.

To me, this situation can be summed up the same way they sum up our situation. The government loves to tell you that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. I feel the same way about them.

It's worth pointing out though that most judges will side with the consumer if the item has not been obviously abused or mis-used. A recent example is a company selling leather sofas in the UK. They claimed that certain common hair care products could damage the leather, but since a reasonable person would expect their sofa to cope with those it became the vendor's problem and they had to fix it.

I got the email, not in a hurry, though. I'm still not quite satisfied with the book. Will answer the email soon.

The lady I've been seeing lately is sane and normal, which would make boring reading. She's a widow 3 years younger than me.

I guess the more anybody does anything the better they get at it. I have to keep telling myself that those who think I suck just don't finish reading and move on, I think you guys think I'm better than I really am. I guess if I win a Hugo I'll finally believe I'm good, it's impossible to judge one's own work.

I just try to write what I'd want to read myself.

I think the UK is very lucky to have the BBC. Although a lot of its content is dumbed down it still produces some excellent journalism and debate that is worth watching.

Interesting you should complain that news agencies have agendas but then get your news online instead, where it either comes from said agencies or from biased and unverifiable bloggers. I agree with your point about foreign news agencies though, they are worth checking just to avoid getting too narrow a focus on your own little corner of the world.

Maybe you were lucky, but most places that world never existed.

For example the London Blitz is often held up as a golden time when Londoners came together to support each other and put two fingers up to Mr. Hitler. Actually crime was rampant and they had to close bomb shelters during the day because kids vandalized them. Looting of bombed homes was common, and organized crime thrived.

To a similar extent that Apple does, yes. Allow me to explain.

If you install iOS 7 on an iPhone 4 you don't get all the features. A lot of stuff just doesn't work, it needs certain hardware or a faster CPU or something.

Similarly with a Galaxy S you don't get all the latest Android features, you get a subset via updates to Google's apps. When they update Maps or Gmail you get those updates. You also get updates to Samsung apps, including their desktop suite (equivalent of iTunes).

So yes, the Galaxy S is still updated and still a damn good smartphone.

I suffer from CFS that makes it hard to concentrate at times. During those times I can't watch TV shows because I can't follow the plot and quickly get fed up. It seems watching some TV does require focus.

Just reading his WW2 history at http://www.bairdtelevision.com/war.html
http://www.bairdtelevision.com/colour.html
first colour cathode ray tube
A form of 3-D television, "the Phantoscope"
High speed transmission of images (fast facsimile) "A whole newspaper could be transmitted about the world in a matter of seconds" later seen in the USA without making any mention of Baird.

Apple often is the retailer of their own products. They were selling people extended warranties that they didn't need because they were already covered.

Battery life depends on how you use the device. Some people will stay on the same battery for a few years, others can wear theirs out in one. For example li-po cells have a limited number of recharge cycles which is extended if you charge them slowly and rarely drop below 50%.

I replaced by GS3 battery last month. The old one was mostly fine but I found that if I pushed it hard during the day it would need a top-up by late evening, so I shelled out all of £8 for a genuine replacement. I wouldn't want to give that ability up.

Well, fine, but don't forget that many of the cool new features don't work on the iPhone 4. You are not much better off than someone who just gets new features via app updates for their older Android device.

My friend is still using his Galaxy S which is of about the same vintage as your iPhone, a bit older perhaps. Still gets feature updates, still happy with it.

Have you ever taken LSD? It's an experience that cannot be described to someone who has not; there is no frame of reference. Trying to describe an LSD trip is like trying to describe what the color red looks like to a man blind since birth. It's called a hallucinogen but you don't really hallucinate, rather you misinterpret your senses, which completely overload your brain. A normal brain filters the senses, LSD removes its ability to do that. When you come down you can't really remember exactly what it was like; your brain is not the same.

Yes. Many times. I even spent a year and a half incarcerated in my teens for my LSD adventures. You need to keep in mind that your description is your take on your experience. You didn't have my experience, or anyone else's for that matter. No consensuality. No repeatability. I might have seen flaming leaves; you might have smelled polka dots. I might have found the experience discomfiting; you might have found it revelatory. Or infinite variations of a similar disjoint nature.

Of course not, unless they believe that the experience is real.

I think you're selling the theater of the mind quite short. Again, your experience is not my experience. A well written book will can transport me (and let me admit here that I own a literary agency, and am the son of one of the golden age SF writers, a hugo, and other, award winner... I know at least a little bit about well written books.) For that matter, you're selling theater short. Take a horror movie. Why do people scream when watching them? It's just a movie, and underneath that, it's a complete fiction, and they absolutely know that going in. Yet they scream. What's that about, other than accepting the experience as what's actually happening? I mean, either that, or they're faking like a bunch of fools pretending to speak in tongues. Which -- quite frankly -- I don't buy. Screams and other reactions are too common and too well aligned with what's going on on-screen or on-stage to be that kind of fakery.

I can't agree with your diagram at all

That's fine. You're entitled to your own opinion; you just aren't entitled to mine. Looking at the rest of what you said there, particularly your idea of how many scientists are religious... I'm also compelled to remind you that the real world disagrees with your perception. You might want to look into that.