The summary doesn't specify any time-frame. But if you were to read the article, you'd find that it refers to an increased likelihood of dying in the period over the 14 years that they conducted the study. The "funny" comments to this article only serve to make it look like a tragic irony - that we all know the article is probably correct, but most of us are unwilling (unable?) to modify our behaviour to avoid the consequences it warns us of.

There's something wrong there then, if, you want the greatest exposure possible for those sites.

It sounds pointless to me, however the manufacturers obviously see padding out the transitional market as a potential reward generator. But really, I got an 80GB Intel X-25M (one of the highest performing SSD's) for £120 at the beginning of the year. That's really not expensive for the performance increase / noise reduction / energy saving boost it gives (which is fairly awesome), and 80GB is easily enough for me to use as a system drive, leaving an HDD as storage. It wouldn't surprised me to find out that a lot of users that shun an SSD for a larger capacity HDD as their system drive, never actually USE the extra space.

Sure it might not turn out to be *perfect* on closer inspection, but given that it looks so convincing at a preview size still means orders of magnitude less effort required to get it to that stage.