Let the hive mind of Engadget get that for you.
"I'm looking for a solid state drive, around 32 to 64GB, for use in my web server. The drive will contain my web sites and the operating system, either Windows Server 2008 R2 or Ubuntu. Large storage is handled by a separate RAID array, so capacity is not an issue. Rather, I am looking for the fastest, longest-lasting, and most reliable drive under $150 that is suitable to my application. Any thoughts? Thanks!"
How about they release a Blu-ray release that makes use of the available technology, rather than pandering to the "All I want is to watch the movie and I'm convinced that somehow I lose out if I'm given options on top of the ability to watch the movie" crowd.
You want The Dark Knight to be released early? Huh? And you're going to get around the numerous legal and promotional issues with that how exactly? Or do you think that the six-twelve month delay between cinematic and DVD releases has to do with the studios adding BD Live features to their plain 'ol DVDs?
I'm not a fan of Blu-ray for reasons I've given before. Nonetheless, the insistence by its supporters that Blu-ray shouldn't be any better than DVD, save for video quality, is something I'm finding hard to understand. There's nothing compelling about the format right now. It's Laserdisc to DVD's VHS, being better quality but suffering from being more expensive and with serious disadvantages over its lower resolution rival.
If you want BD to succeed, encourage the studios and manufacturers to actually show it at its best. Hold manufacturers to account for building obsolete players. Tell the studios to make use of the available features. Tell everyone to get rid of BD+ before that disaster causes untold damage.
Don't whine when studios actually try to make superior discs, even if the features they're adding are of no interest to you.