THE BEST GAME EVER! MASS EFFECT

After being with Halo 3 for weeks, which I give 9/10.. .along comes a game that totally blows me away.

I am NOT an RPG fan or much into STRAGETGIC games, but having played video games for the past 30 years, I must say this is the best game I have ever seen on any platform in all my time. I am only 8 hours into it, and so far the story line is totally engrossing, the artistic design is totally stunning, the people responsible for the uniforms, ship designs and architecture of your universe, deserve an award on their own, and lets not forget the voice acting, and music, all brilliant!

I have never been so engrossed in a game in my 40 years on this planet! Its like an immersive simulation! 10/10!!!! go get a xbox 360 and go get this game and get lost in your own SCI FI world! DO IT NOW!

HALO 3 REVIEW!

THIS GAME ROCKS!

HALO 3 launch day!

YES I AM OFF TO PLAY! so wont see me online for a while.....a looong while......

MANY FORUMS LOOK LIKE THIS

VIDEO GAME WARS

Office etiquette 'degenerating'

IMPERSONAL emails, bitching about workmates, poor phone manners and dressing inappropriately are some of the sins we commit every day in the office.

And Gen Y workers are the worst offenders.

That’s the opinion of two of Australia’s leading business etiquette experts, June Dally-Watkins, who runs the Business Finishing College in Sydney, and Tracey Hodgkins of the Australian Experiential Learning Centre in Perth.

“A lot of people have no idea about good manners and correct behaviour in the workplace because no one has taught them,” Ms Dally-Watkins, 80, told NEWS.com.au.

Newsletter: Latest Business Sense delivered to your inbox

“They’re brought up watching bad things on television every night, or on the internet and on music videos. I think this is why the behaviour of people is degenerating.”

Ms Hodgkins said most of the students in her office etiquette course were Gen-Yers just starting out in the workplace, and many were enrolled by their new employers.

"In universities they’re not taught about basic, everyday stuff. And it seems to be a big issue in a lot of workplaces."

Not knowing correct workplace etiquette has always been an issue with young workers, she said, but Gen-Y are more vocal about it.

"Gen-Y tend to speak their mind, whereas the baby boomers were happy to put up and shut up."

Send me an email

One of the worst office habits today was sending impersonal emails containing a cold request or comment, Ms Dally-Watkins said.

She believes pleasantries such as “hello” and “thank you” should not be forgotten in messages.

“On email be kind and considerate to the other person. Remember they’re a human being. That’s what we’re losing with technology these days. Everyone’s treated like a robot.”

Ms Hodgkins said Gen-Y tended to abbreviate words in emails, "which doesn’t really go down well with people from any other generation".

And email jokes are not appropriate in any shape or form, she said. "It sets you up as the person who is the joker rather than the person who is the expert. It’s not good for your career."

She also advised workers to be careful what they say in emails because they can be kept on record for a long time. "And avoid using office email for personal use, because your employer can access them."

Face to face

In today's workplace many people (particularly Gen-Y, according to Ms Hodgkins) are more likely to communicate with someone two desks away by email rather than get up from their desk and give the message in person.

It's a trend Ms Hodgkins doesn’t like. "There’s no replacement for face-to-face interaction," she said.

"Plus I think sitting at a desk all day is bad for you. Why not get up, have a stretch, walk a few metres to speak to someone rather than do it all by email."

And when chatting to someone in person, don't lean in too close. Ms Hodgkins said personal space was an issue of concern regularly raised in her workplace etiquette seminars.

"Some people are just not comfortable speaking too closely to someone," she said.

Meet and greet

One of Ms Dally-Watkins' pet hates around the office was the overuse of “how are you?” as a greeting.

“I don’t like the ‘how are you’. I think it’s false and a waste of time. People don't mean it, it’s so empty. I’m going to try to stop it if I can,” she said.

It’s much nicer to say, "so nice to see you" or "welcome", Ms Dally-Watkins said.

When shaking someone's hand look them in the eye and make sure your grip is firm. And when introducing people always mention the older person's name first, she said.

The walk-by

When workers walk around the office to go to the bathroom or kitchen, should they always greet the people they pass?

Ms Hodgkins says it's polite to do so, adding that office hallways are a great way to socialise and also have informal meetings. "They’re designing workplaces now so people have to bump into each other," she said.

Dress for the occassion

It’s vital to dress appropriately in the workplace, Ms Dally-Watkins said, and women should be careful not to be too revealing.

“I think plunging necklines for a woman is a terrible way to attract attention at work," she said.

"I believe it’s our face, our eyes, our expression and our personality that counts more. If we can only get attention by wearing tacky clothes, how sad”

She tells students to forget about just getting a diploma, because they have to look employable as well.

“Who wants to pay good money to someone who looks yucky and doesn’t present a good image for their company? You want them to be clever, have the appropriate education and look all that your company stands for," she said.

On the phone

The correct way to answer an office phone is, "Hello, (insert name here) speaking."

If you happen to work near a loud phone talker and find them disruptive, be direct and politely tell them it is preventing you from doing your work, Ms Hodgkins said.

Speaking on the mobile phone in the office was fine, so long as it doesn’t disturb your neighbours.
But never SMS anyone over a work-related matter, Ms Hodgkins said, as it's unprofessional.

Online @ work

Policies on personal internet use differ from office to office. The general rule, though, is to do it in moderation.

Bosses shouldn't be too worried about Gen-Y spending a lot of time online because they are very good at multi-tasking with the net, Ms Hodgkins said.

"They could have a chat-site open to talk to their friends while they’re doing their work – quite effectively, I might add. That’s the way they’ve been training their brain to work for the last 10 years," she said.

Be polite

When it comes to those annoying or rude co-workers who get on your nerves, be polite, Ms Dally-Watkins said.

“I don’t think anyone has the right to tell someone they’re behaving badly to their face. It would be bad manners to point out their bad manners," she said.

Ms Hodgkins agreed. "There’s an awful lot of bitching that takes place in the workplace and I don’t think there’s any excuse for it.

"I’d advise anyone who doesn’t like someone else to just be polite. You don’t have to like everyone you work with. You’re there to do a job and you’re obligated to work as effectively with them as you can."

Key to workplace etiquette

The key to office etiquette is to communicate to staff what the local etiquette is. If people don’t know the culture and the rules everyone will go about things differently, Ms Hodgkins said.


_____________________________________________________________________


And this story has allot to do with the below posts, about rudeness of generally Gen Y people, from Xbox live to internet forums, the art of communicating has been lost by many of these people!

What happens when Trolls get on xbox live

when Forum Trolls get real jobs...

Bird on water

Just a snap I took in Gladstone on the weekend :)

Melbourne in fog

A FUNNY SIGN!

I took this photo on a recent trip to Rockhampton!

PEACE MAN

WHY Does Australian TV suck?

It is better to be a pirate than to join the navy", said Steve Jobs, when rallying the troops who originally designed the first Macintosh. Twenty years later it seems odd that the same Mr. Jobs has done more to stem the flow of pirated material over the Internet than any single person. Apple and the iTunes Music Store dragged the record industry into the new market of the Internet. Before iTunes, music on the Internet was "shared" illegally through peer-to-peer networks such as Kazza and Limewire. Nobody believed that people would buy music on the net when the same files were available free of charge. One Billion songs later and iTunes is a word synonymous with success.

Now, a new network called BitTorrent has become the online pirates favourite weapon of choice. Its favourite download? Television shows.

Television networks see this as pure theft. They argue that shows downloaded illegally are hurting ratings in Australia and are responsible for lost revenue in advertising. They also claim that people will not download television at a price when free versions exist all over the web. Hmmm, doesn't that sound familiar?

First, some history. BitTorrent was created by Bram Cohen, as a way of distributing large files over the Internet, without burdening the original host with bandwidth costs. BitTorrent works by dividing the files into small chunks, where every user is simultaneously downloading a file while they upload to other users. This software was originally created to help distribute Linux builds, but quickly became overcome by "pirates" searching for TV shows, games, movies and all manner of digital wares.

BitTorrent was first considered to be a threat to the movie industry. In an excellent Wired interview in 2005 with the BitTorrent's creator, this threat was highlighted by the Motion Picture Association of America, who began suing individuals downloading movies, in order to, as the MPAA's anti-piracy chief John Malcolm put it, "avoid the fate of the music industry." But the reality is that most movies available on BitTorrent are usually bad quality, they are shot on low definition cameras at a cinema, and include people walking in front of the lens, talking and generally being annoying etc. Shows broadcast on television on the other hand are generally ripped from a Tivo like device, are easily comparable with broadcast images, are ad free, and available almost immediately.

When Wired Magazine asked Bram Cohen if he would use BitTorrent if he hadn't invented it, he replied "I don't know. There's upholding the principle. And there's being the only knuckle-head left who's upholding the principle." Asked later if he thought his invention will lead to the downfall of cinema and television, he replied: "Take this new platform and mine it for gold... Hollywood, which squawked about VHS, figured out how to make billions off video rentals." Traditional media shareholders are always scared of new forms of distribution which threaten their stranglehold on an established market. It's why the RIAA sued people who used file sharing networks to download songs. Its also why the MPAA started suing BitTorrent users. But creators of content need to realise that suing their customers is not the answer. For some reason, customers don't like being sued.

To take John Malcolm's analogy further, I would hope the television industry will "avoid the fate of the music industry", by not waiting till they have turned a generation into pirates before offering other options for free to air TV fans to watch the shows they love. Treat people like thieves and that's what they'll become.

A Nation of Pirates
BitTorrent usage in Australia is the worst kept secret on the Internet. Technology and television forums across Australia are filled with posts about “watching the latest episode of (insert show here) on a recent trip to America." My ISP says BitTorrent accounts for about 45% of its Internet traffic. Channel BT, as it is known, is the new reality.

Even The Bleeding Edge, Fairfax newspaper’s technology blog, has written many guides for setting up BitTorrent for the downloading of "Linux distributions". Fairfax, as a content producer and a major media player, can not be seen as supporting piracy. Yet they have even skirted the issue by suggesting "a friend of theirs" has used BitTorrent to catch up on missed episodes of Desperate Housewives. Missed episodes? Or new episodes that haven't aired in Australia?

According to piracy tracking site Envisional’s recent studies, Australians are the greatest BitTorrent users per capita in the world. Despite making up only 0.3 % of the world’s population, Australians account for 20% of BitTorrent traffic. This is only set to increase as more and more Australians begin to use broadband. In 2005 only 30% of Australians connected to the Internet had a broadband connection, by 2006, it was 51%. Critical mass of broadband has been achieved. This point is crucial in understanding "Channel BitTorrent's" sudden rise in Australia. An hour long television show is roughly 350MB, which would take around 14 hours to download on a dial up connection. A standard MP3 is about 3MB, or 12 minutes. It is for this simple reason, the size of the files in question, that music was the first battleground of Internet piracy. High speed Internet means television is the next major battleground.

While there is no other option available, could it be that illegal downloading of television will only increase? In 2006, with broadband adoption growing Australia, piracy was blamed for the drop in viewers of the early episodes of the two hit imports of 2005, Lost, and Desperate Housewives. Yet by the end of 2006, Desperate Housewives was actually rating better than it had in 2005. What can be gleaned from the implications of these ratings? Its hard to say, because comprehensive research has not been made in Australia that addresses BitTorrent's effect on ratings. My guess would be that the drop in ratings at the start of 2006 were from fans of the the show who had already downloaded the new episodes that Channel Seven were showing. The later peak in viewership could be due to the buzz the downloaders (and new fans) of the show had created. Is it possible that for every viewer the networks lose to BitTorrent, they gain three more from the 'water cooler" effect?

Channel BT
It sounds far fetched, but is it really? Battlestar Galactica is the show that defined BitTorrent. Battlestar debuted in the U.K. in October 2004, but was delayed in the U.S. by the Sci Fi Network until January 2005. That didn't stop the geeks in U.K hitting the Internet and proclaiming Battlestar as the best new show in a decade, and uploading Battlestar on the relatively new network. When it finally debuted in the US, the word of mouth created by those who had BitTorrented the show meant that Battlestar became the most watched show in The Sci Fi Channel’s history. This is a fascinating example because usually Americans, as the world largest producer of television, are normally the first audience in the world to watch new programs.

It seems that consumers downloading episodes of a series via BitTorrent create demand and are extremely loyal viewers. Downloading a torrent takes a bit of effort, first to discover new shows, then to locate the files and join a swarm. It is not something most people with small download limits and low Internet speeds can do on a whim. It also seems to me that BitTorrent increases sales of a series on DVD. How many people do you know with DVD box sets of Arrested Development, Firefly, The Sopranos, or Lost? Ok, now how many of those people discovered these shows via television or via the Internet?

Where BitTorrent is having major effects is on the serialised television shows, such as Prison Break, Lost, and Battlestar Galactica, that reward loyal viewers with in-jokes and gradual plot development. Show like Law and Order and CSI are safer, because it really doesn’t matter if you miss an episode. Miss an episode of Battlestar Galactica, Prison Break, or Lost, and you could quickly find yourself, well, lost.

We are entering a new phase in television where TV and the Internet converge. America, as one of the strongest producers of television content in the world, has been able to embrace the new albeit slowly, embrace this new reality. The major US networks offer downloads of their most popular shows the day after they have screened, at a small price through iTunes or Xbox Live, or free through streaming (ads included) on their websites. Neither service is available outside of the U.S.

The question is, would the average punter be prepared to pay a nominal fee for an episode that is guaranteed to be downloaded at the highest speed possible, or use a free BitTorrent service whose speed is subject to the activity of "the swarm", and could contain viruses. The US iTunes store suggests the answer is yes. Also, if a new method like iTunes becomes adopted by the majority, it will actually hurt Internet piracy by removing people from the "swarm", therefore slowing down torrent speeds. Sure, there will always be piracy on the Internet, because there was always piracy before the Internet. It is human nature. But iTunes has proven over a billion times around the world that when you give people the opportunity to do the right thing, more often than not they will.

Silly Season
So what can be done in Australia? Australian TV needs to adopt the current situation that is proving successful in the US, where episodes are available for streaming immediately after they have screened, or downloaded commercial free for a small price through iTunes. This would obviously require new contracts to be written between our local networks and the US studios to include the Australian rights to stream video on the Internet along with free to air broadcast rights. Tougher still would be working out who was entitled to any profits from sales made through iTunes, the Australia rights holders, or the US producers, or both. I don't pretend to know the deals that could be made, this is something for the lawyers to work out. Either way, this can only happen when Australian TV starts airing episodes as close to there original air dates as possible, and it is in the interest of our networks to make this happen as soon as possible.

Australian television networks need to embrace the new reality of the global market, to understand that consumers are no longer prepared to wait months on end for their favourite shows to be screened, when they don't have to. We are sick of finding out who killed Laura Palmer or who shot Mr. Burns months before we finally see the episode screened on free to air. Who in Australia would be prepared to wait for a new episode of Prison Break to appear on Yahoo7, if it was freely available 9 months earlier on channel BT? Fans of a show called Prison Break probably have a looser ethical compass than most!

Australian television networks could never "catch up" with the US schedule, because the US launches most shows in September, and traditionally Australia's Low Ratings period starts in November. So What? Most US shows reach a mid season climax for the November sweeps, then take a 'hiatus' over the Christmas season, only to return by mid February. That seems to coincide nicely with the Australian Summer, doesn't it? Another argument was that Australians benefit from the delay it takes imported shows to reach our shores, because it allows our commercial networks to screen a full series without these long interruptions. Anyone swayed by this argument needs to look at any Green Guide to read fans angry with our networks cutting up a series, playing episodes out of order, playing weeks of repeats of hit shows to 'stretch out' a season, playing 'fake' season cliff-hangers. The list goes on...

The truth, as these complaints show, is Australian Commercial television has little respect for its viewers. Seven, Nine And Ten have turned exploitation into an art form. They all rely heavily on expensive US hits that are cheaper to import than locally produced drama. Waiting months on end to debut a show allows them get a clear idea what imports will win or lose, so they can decide what to spend there marketing dollars on. Local content regulations (which ensures that 55% of prime time television is locally produced) are seen as a commercial burden, rather than important to the culture of Australia. The locally produced "hits" in this county are generally cheaper imitations of international reality formats, such as Big Brother, Australian Idol and The Biggest Loser. This cosy situation has made Australian television the most profitable in the world. But how much longer can this go on?

Hollywood had to deal with this global reality a few years earlier. Traditionally Hollywood films have had a ‘staggered’ release around the globe. For example, a blockbuster film released in the U.S. for the Thanksgiving weekend (America’s highest grossing box office weekend) would be delayed in Australia until Boxing Day (our biggest movie going day). Online piracy destroyed this model, as pirated copies of films were distributed to eager fans who chose instant gratification over image quality. By 2003, all major Hollywood films were released simultaneously across the globe. Hollywood realised that giving consumers what they want, when they want, was better than holding out for the traditional schedules that had worked so long in the pre-Internet era. Again, doesn't this sound familiar?

Lets look at BitTorrent's numbers again. The U.S, with a population of 300 million people, account for 7% of BitTorrent traffic. Australia, with only 20 million people, accounts for 20% of all traffic. Is this really a surprise, when U.S audiences are offered a legal option to watch their favourite TV shows via the Internet. CBS recently announced that the shows they offered as downloads or via streaming, had better ratings and more loyal fans. Surely the remarkable rise in ratings of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report can be attributed to their cult status on YouTube.

This doesn't just effect TV from the US. Tony Martin joked that the ABC delayed screening Ricky Gervias' Extras, because they wanted to wait until everyone who wanted to watch the show had either downloaded the series or bought the DVDs. Funnily enough, I heard this on the podcast of Get This. Why? Because I hate the music and advertisements Triple M plays, and I would rather download a Nickleback free version of the show than to listen to it live. In fact, I doubt I would have ever heard Get This had it not been released as a podcast. I think Tony Martin is Australia's greatest comedian, but I never listened to him while he was only available via Triple M. Even Roy and H.G., who are on a network whose music I enjoy, I still download as a podcast rather than listen to live. Why? Because I prefer to listen to them on Monday morning than Sunday afternoon. It is the simple fact that the Internet generation expects time shifting. Despite this, Get This is able to wrap their podcasts in sponsorship. And I am happy to hear their advertisements if it means I can listen to Tony Martin whenever I want.

Channel Ten seems to understand this new reality, screening new episodes of the O.C and Jericho soon after they have screened in the USA. They have also started selling episodes of locally produced “David Tench” and “Tripping Over” through Bigpond.com, for those who may have missed an episode. It is interesting to note that Channel Ten targets a younger audience, those who are Internet savvy, and may be willing to source their favourite shows through “non-traditional” channels. Ten have also released "best bits" podcasts of Thank God You're Here and The Ronnie Johns Half Hour, and rather than hurt the ratings, Thank God Your Here has actually been the highest rating show of 2006. Channel Seven can fill its schedule with "Encore Presentations" of Lost or Desperate Housewives, but that's really not the answer. What are the people that miss the encore presentation going to do? Or those who miss the first four episodes?

The key here is iTunes. Apple's juggernaut now owns 88% of the legal download market worldwide, thanks to the success of the iPod. If legal television downloads are to overtake BitTorrent usage in Australia, those shows need to be available through iTunes. It is, to date, the only successful business model that is cross platform.

The End of The World As We Know It
I really don't believe that BitTorrent will negatively effect Australian TV network ratings any time soon. In fact, for the time being I think us geeks will actually help network television by providing shows like Heroes a word of mouth buzz that no slick marketing campaign could ever hope to create. But television networks need to think closely about their long term future. Every angry fan that turns to channel BitTorrent for their latest fix of Lost will be much harder to coax back to free to air television down the track. The longer a viewer becomes used to BitTorrent - free to watch, on demand and without ads, they will be harder to convince that what they are doing is wrong. And every time a network representative defends this situation with word like "anyone using BitTorrent is simply impatient or a thief" offends a massive group of extremely loyal television fans. When BitTorrent finally starts to negatively effect network television ratings, it maybe too late. Treat people like thieves and that's what they become.


originally posted.....at....
http://forums.mactalk.com.au/showthread.php?t=32403

WHAT IS REAL HD TV

Follow the link, and listen. Finally puts to rest this whole silly debate about what is HD or REAL HD TV. Enjoy

BROADCAST TV IS DEAD!

BROADCAST TV IS DEAD!

Like many others I have been enjoying TV when I want it, what I want it. But its not on a shiney little plastic disc, and its not from my cable company and its hardly from my local free to air channels. I don't watch any ads, and if I want, a whole season of a TV show, I just subscribe to it. I am talking about itunes or Xbox TV and movies service. I will gladly pay the provider of content ($1.99) what to watch, from Heroes to Battle star, to House to The Office, with no ads, no station logo, and not cuts or editing so the broadcaster can fit in more ads.

Broadcast TV is going the way of the DODO, many advertisers are VERY concerned as 75% of the demographic between 18, and 35 no longer watches TV, listens to the radio or reads a newspaper. And why may well you ask, well, one reason , advertising, there are far too many ads on radio, or TV to handle, you cant even follow some TV shows.

An example recently was a friend of mine who said he keeps hearing about this HEROES show, but he couldn't get into it on broadcast TV. I told him go get an a subscription to it on Itunes, then you watch it when you want, un-edited, in order, and no ads, he now loves the show, and suddenly can follow Battlestar and a few others shows that have been on broadcast TV, but he couldn't follow them with all the ads, and being shown out of order.

Also people are used to the internet experience of getting just the right information relevant to them. What can linear radio or newspapers offer in that regard? Having to wade through pages of NON interesting information just to read to bits you might be interested about, its a technology that just is not suited to the information age. Thus when it comes to our leisure time, we want what we want, and we want it now, not when a TV station tells us. We want to watch it on a large screen TV with surround or we want to watch it on a train or at the office when we on a break. Portable video players a massive hit in Japan, where as much as 60% of TV is now consumed on an hand held device. I myself still like the cinema experience when watching TV or movies, but its all about choices, which is what broadcast TV stations DO NOT give us.

The relationship is quickly becoming between the viewer and the content creator, and the broadcaster is quickly becoming irrelevant. I suggest if you are sick of your TV broadcaster, then check out your itunes store or xbox live channel, or one of the other online delivery methods of getting your content downloaded to your home, and watch shows the way the producers indented it to be watched, uncut, no ads, and in order!

FUTURE OF FLIGHT

I had to do a video at work about future of flight, and dogfight sequences, so rather than edit some old top gun crap, I decided to use some SCI FI stuff instead, I had to hack some out of this, as the original went for 15 mins, and you tube only allows 10 mins, so a quick edit between the choppers and vipers was done (thus why the sound track is dogy in that part.. didnt sound edit it), but you get the idea... anyways rather than let the work sit on our internal servers, I decided to put up 8 mins of it on you tube for your enjoyment :)

Best TV series of 2006!

Well this series takes the cake. best TV series to come out of the USA in a LOOOOONG TIME... I have been lucky to see the 1st part of season 3, and this take TV series to a whole new level! Makes everything else on the old box looks dated and boaring! About time someone took TV into a new level of engaging and thought provoking stories!


BUY this DVD set when it comes out.. it is brilliant writing, acting, visuals the lot! Just do it!

FUNNIEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR

A total surprise to me , I never saw this at the movies.. but I have now seen this on DVD, and let me tell you...this movie rocks.... best movie since Shrek....so IF you havn't seen it... go see it!!! Buy it... give it as an xmas present! Good to see Adult/kids animation back in action, unlike some other crocks (like "the wild" or "open season", which are TOTAL CRAP!) 9/10! (minus 1 point for some sucky music), they should have used open season's music with talking heads wild wild life!

Why Mac's are more secure

This is a such a great post, I thought I would duplciate it here... the original post can be found here

http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisemac/archives/2006/08/is_windows_inhe.html

read on and enjoy :)




On August 13 at 3:04 AM, a Windows server that I've been running for all of two weeks--it just replaced an Xserve G5--was attacked by a new strain of malware. This worm/trojan/backdoor/proxy/IRCbot/DDOS agent shared some characteristics with a known exploit, but it went well beyond what was described. I believed at the time of the infection, and even more strongly now, that this exploit's latent damage potential has been underestimated. I view the terse and vague update on the CERT site regarding the less tenacious strain of this beast with a sense of foreboding.

The attack I encountered occasioned a re-examination of a common question: Is Windows more vulnerable to malware than OS X? I've encountered no clearer or more definitive proof point than this attack. To set the stage, I'll describe the malware's methods. The only victim requirement is that a Windows system--client or server from 2000 and XP on up, 32 and 64-bit--be on an Internet-accessible IP address and listening for socket requests to the Windows Server service. The attacker connects to the Windows Server service, overflows a fixed-length buffer and tricks the service into executing code contained in a portion of the buffer. The attack edits the Registry to turn off the Windows firewall and packet filter, disables notifications that you're running with reduced security, and opens your system to anonymous access. It then uses the Registry to insert plant a pair of Windows services that run with SYSTEM privileges. Processes owned by that pseudo-user can literally do anything, unchecked, to the local machine. The malware services launch and announce your exploited system's presence via IRC and IM. After that, an IRC bot or (sub)human driver can make your system do whatever it wants, including making it a nest for more malware. In my case, it was so eager to scan the Internet for other systems to infect that it locked my server's CPUs at 100 percent and gave itself away.

To nail itself in place, two services watch for and regenerate each other even if their files are deleted. The malware adds an entry to Administrator's login script, and it watches for a privileged invocation of Windows Explorer (like Finder) and attaches a malicious thread to that.

I've been giving it great deal of thought, and I came up with a reasons pointing to the likelihood that Windows is at greater risk of catastrophic attacks. It's not easy reading, but it was either this dense packing or a book-length blog post.

• All Windows background processes/daemons are spawned from a single hyper-privileged process and referred to as services.
• By default, Windows launches all services with SYSTEM-level privileges.
• SYSTEM is a pseudo-user (LocalSystem) that trumps Administrator (like UNIX's root) in privileges. SYSTEM cannot be used to log in, but it also has no password, no login script, no shell and no environment, therefore
• The activity of SYSTEM is next to impossible to control or log.
• Most of the code running on any Windows system at a given time is related to services, most or all of which run with SYSTEM privileges, therefore
• Successful infection of running Windows software carries a good chance of access to SYSTEM privileges.
• Windows buries most privileged software, service executables and configuration files in a single, unstructured massive directory (SYSTEM32) that is frequently used by third parties. Windows will notify you on an attempt to overwrite one of its own system files stored here, but does not try to protect privileged software.
• Microsoft does not sign or document the name and purpose of the files it places in SYSTEM32.
• Windows has no equivalent to OS X's bill of materials, so it cannot validate permissions, dates and checksums of system and third-party software.
• Windows requires that users log in with administrative privileges to install software, which causes many to use privileged accounts for day-to-day usage.
• Windows requires extraordinary effort to extract the path to, and the files and TCP/UDP ports opened by, running services, and to certify that they are valid.
• Microsoft made it easy for commercial applications to refuse a debugger's attempt to attach to a process or thread. Attackers use this same mechanism to cloak malware. A privileged user must never be denied access to a debugger on any system. My right to track down malware on my computers trumps vendors' interests in preventing piracy or reverse-engineering. Maintaining that right is one of the reasons that open source commercial OS kernels are so vital.
• Access to the massive, arcane, nearly unstructured, non-human-readable Windows Registry, which was to be obsolete by now, remains the only resource a Windows attacker needs to analyze and control a Windows system.
• Another trick that attackers learned from Microsoft is that Registry entries can be made read-only even to the Administrator, so you can find an exploit and be blocked from disarming it.
• Malicious code or data can be concealed in NTFS files' secondary streams. These are similar to HFS forks, but so few would think to look at these.
• One of the strongest tools that Microsoft has to protect users from malware is Access Control Lists (ACLs), but standard tools make ACLs difficult to employ, so most opt for NTFS's inadequate standard access rights.

Why this can't happen under OS X:

• OS X has no user account with privileges exceeding root.
• Maximum privilege is extended only to descendants of process ID 1 (init or Darwin's launchd), a role that is rarely used and closely scrutinized.
• Unlike services.exe, launchd executes daemons and scheduled commands in a shell that's subject to login scripts, environment variables, resource limits, auditing and all security features of Darwin/OS X.
• Apple's daemons have man pages, and third parties are duty-bound to provide the same. Admins also expect to be able to run daemons, with verbose reporting, in a shell for testing.
• OS X Man pages document daemons' file dependencies, so administrators can easily rework file permissions to match daemons' reduced privileges.
• Launchd can tripwire directories so that if they're altered unexpectedly, launchd triggers a response.
• If an attacker takes over a local or remote console, any effort to install software or alter significant system settings cannot proceed without entering the administrator's user name and password, even if the console is already logged in as a privileged user. In other words, even having privileges doesn't ensure that even an inside hacker can arrange to keep them.
• OS X has a single console and a single system log, both in plain text.
• OS X's nearest equivalent to the Registry is Netinfo, but this requires authentication for modification. In later releases of OS X, it is fairly sparse.
• Applications have their own per-user and system-wide properties files, private Registries if you like, stored in human-readable files in standard locations.
• Every installed file is traceable to a bill of materials that can verify that the file is meant to exist, and that it and all of its dependencies match their original checksums. Mac users, back up and protect your Receipts folder!
• The directories used to hold OS X's privileged system executables are sacred. Anything new that pops up there is immediately suspect.
• OS X does not require that a user be logged in as an administrator to install software. The user or someone aiding the install needs to know the name and password of a local administrative user to complete the install. On a network, most software is installed using Remote Desktop, an inexpensive Systems Management Server-like console.
• The UNIX/POSIX API, standard command-line tools and open source tools leave malware unable to hide from a competent OS X administrator. It takes a new UNIX programmer longer to choose an editor than it does to write a console app that walks the process tree listing privileged processes. Finding the owners of open TCP/UDP ports or open files is similarly trivial. The "system" is not opaque.
• Basic OS X features can be put to use to make life miserable for malware. For example, Windows' hackable restore points are done better by OS X's ability to create encrypted, read-only disk images. They're simpler than archives, and you can mount them as volumes anywhere in your file hierarchy.
• Likewise, OS X Server will image any Mac client or server's local drives and maintain safe copies that can be used not only for restoration, but which can be booted from to guarantee that there's no trace of infection.
• When erase-and-reinstall is the only way to be sure, OS X Server automates it. It can safely capture the affected Mac's active drives before having that Mac boot from the fresh install image.

So, after all this, do I have enough to judge Windows inherently more vulnerable to severe malware than OS X? I do.

I've been writing about these shortcomings for years, and it always traces back to Microsoft's untenable policy of maintaining gaps in Windows security to avoid competing with 3rd party vendors and certified partners. Apple's taking a different approach: What users need is in the box: Anti-virus, anti-spam, encryption, image backup and restore, offsite safe storage through .Mac, and launchd. Pretty soon any debate with Microsoft over security can be ended in one round when Apple stands up, says "launchd," and sits back down.

LCD VS PLASMA

LCD vs Plasma.

I am not going to debate the below with fan boys of either camp, this is just a review of the latest technology based on a 2 year review of all the current technology and brands available.

Remember this is not blanket statement like.. Plasma is better than LCD debate, its all what you want it for, what you want to plug into it etc... some technologies and brands are better suited than others...., where it is in your house, the lighting conditions etc.. and thus not one size fits all, and the answer isn't simple..it all depends on your functionality you want will dictate what to buy.... so to put it a little more in perspective here is a good unbiased review ...


LCD TV vs. Plasma the gap is too close to call.

Despite their similarities, the two technologies are very different in the way they deliver the image to the viewer.

PICTURE CONSIDERATIONS
CONTRAST / BLACK LEVELS

Plasma technology has certainly achieved quite high contrast ratios, a measure of the blackest black compared to the whitest white. Many plasma display manufacturers boast a contrast ratio of 3000:1 these days though our tests have not proven these numbers out. Panasonic has long been the leader in plasma black levels and we measure contrast of a 42" HD Panasonic plasma at about ANSI 1450:1 - still impressive. Plasma displays achieve such impressive black levels by using internal algorithms to block the power to particular pixels in order to render a pixel "dark" or black. While this can limit a plasma television's gray scaling, it does produce exceptionally black blacks - depending on the manufactured plasma display element (i.e. glass). A plasma TV uses the most power when it is producing full white. As a result, some 2nd tier manufactured brands of plasma TVs have an audible buzz or whining sound when displaying white or very light images.

LCD (liquid crystal diode) displays, by contrast, utilize electric charges to twist and untwist liquid crystals, which causes them to block light and, hence, emit blacks. The higher the voltage passing through the liquid crystals in a given pixel, the more fully those crystals untwist and effectively block light - all of which makes these pixels darker. As opposed to plasma, LCD TVs use the most power when displaying a very dark or black image. This is a difficult process, and despite recent improvements in LCD black levels, only the best LCD televisions (like those produced by Sharp and Sony) have managed to topple the 1500:1 contrast ratio barrier. Recent improvements have brought LCD displays up to the level of plasma.

ADVANTAGE: Closer than a year ago,too close to call. LCD TV manufacturers have made great improvements in black levels and in many cases have managed to match the contrast ratio of plasma displays. However, some Plasma displays still maintain a slight advantage in this category due to fading blacks when viewing LCDs from off axis. For scenes with a lot of dark and light images shown simultaneously - as with content originating from DVDs, video games, and NTSC TV signals - plasmas can outperform LCD TVs. But both Sony and Sharp have improved their black levels at 178 degree viewing off axis to the same as Plasma's.

COLOR ACCURACY

In plasma displays, each pixel contains red, green, and blue elements, which work in conjunction to create 16.77 million colors. Insofar as each pixel contains all the elements needed to produce every color in the spectrum, color information was more accurately reproduced with plasma technology than it was with other display technologies. The chromaticity coordinates were more accurate on most plasma displays. Though the color saturation resulting from the pixel design of plasma displays is remarkable, LCD technology has now caught plasma in gray scaling color accuracy.

LCD TVs reproduce colors by manipulating light waves and subtracting colors from white light. This is an inherently difficult template for maintaining color accuracy and vibrancy - though most LCD displays manage quite well. While color information benefits from the higher-than-average number of pixels per square inch found in LCD televisions (especially when compared to plasmas). LCDs produce a typically brighter picture. Greens sometimes look over-green and reds can run a bit warm, but in a room with bright outdoor lighting, an LCD TV would be my choice.

ADVANTAGE: Preference to plasma but depends upon room light, manufacturer and model. Plasma color richness and naturalness will prevail in rooms with lower to normal lighting. LCDs will be better in very brightly lit rooms due to their inherent anti glare technology and brightness.

VIEWING ANGLES

Plasma manufacturers have made much of their 160° viewing angles, which is about as good as horizontal and vertical viewing angles get. This owes to the fact that each pixel produces its own light, rather than light being spread across the screen from one central source. Hence, each pixel is more readily visible because its brightness is consistent with every other pixel on the screen. One consistent area of superiority of plasma viewing angles is demonstrated when viewing dark material content, especially DVDs. A Plasma display holds the black levels from off axis, while LCD TVs lose black level intensity more as the angle off axis increases. This usually occurs after around 90 degrees, ( on low end cheap models).

LCD TV manufacturers have done much to improve their displays' viewing angles. The substrate material on newer-generation LCD models by Sharp and Sony has helped to expand those units' viewing angles. Expect the best LCD HDTVs to have between 160 and 178 degree viewing angles.

ADVANTAGE: Plasma by a hairs breath.

FUNCTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
COMPUTER USE

LCD flat screens display static images from computer or VGA sources extremely well, with full color detail, no flicker, and no screen burn-in. Moreover, the number of pixels per square inch on an LCD display is typically higher than other display technologies, so LCD monitors are especially good at displaying large amounts of data - like you would find on an Excel spreadsheet for example - with exceptional clarity and precision. For the same reasons, LCD TVs will also be a slightly better template for video gaming.

Plasma technology has increased anti burn in tactics as well as computer and static signal handling. There are still issues with each depending very much on the model and manufacturer. For example, most EDTV plasma displays do not handle a computer input well and product a very jaggy image when viewing static images from same. Users may want to consider a commercial version plasma if their application calls for a lot of computer use.

ADVANTAGE: LCD

FAST-MOVING VIDEO PLAYBACK

Plasma gets the nod here because of their excellent performance with fast-moving images and high contrast levels. There are still some 2nd tier manufacturers whose plasma product displays some phosphor lag, a drag time in scenes changing from bright to dark.

While the "response time" of LCD TVs has markedly improved in the last couple of years, they still suffer from a slight "trailer" effect in low end models, where the individual pixels are just slightly out of step with the image on the screen. During fast moving sports scenes, the most discerning eyes can detect this slight motion response lag. However in the higher end of the spectrum of LCD TV's, typically the Sony's and the Samsung's, all our tests couldn't find any difference between the LCD's and the Plasma's in this regard

ADVANTAGE: Depends on model you choose. Plasma and LCD was no difference in higher end models.

HIGH ALTITUDE

There is a reason LCD flat panels are the preferred visual display units for use on airplanes: LCD TVs aren't affected by increases or decreases in air pressure. Their performance is consistent regardless of the altitude at which they're utilized.

This is not the case for a plasma. The display element in plasma TVs is actually a glass substrate envelope with rare natural gases compressed therein. So, at high altitudes (6,500 feet and above), an air-pressure differential emerges, which causes plasma displays to emit a buzzing sound due to the lower air pressure. This noise can sound rather like the humming of an old neon sign. NEC has been effective in producing several plasma models that are rated to 9,500 feet.

ADVANTAGE: LCD, at 6,500 feet and higher.

LONGEVITY

LCD television manufacturers claim that their displays last, on average, 50,000 to 65,000 hours. In fact, an LCD TV will last as long as its backlight does - and those bulbs can sometimes be replaced! Since this is nothing more than light passing through a prismatic substrate, there is essentially nothing to wear out in an LCD monitor. However, one nasty little known fact about LCD technology is that as the backlight ages it can change colors slightly (think of florescent office lighting). When this occurs the white balance of the entire LCD TV will be thrown for a loop and the user will need to re-calibrate, or worse, try to replace the backlighting or ditch the unit altogether. Some of the early purchasers of larger LCD screens will be learning this tidbit in a couple of years. One thing that I've found in this industry, it is not easy to find out whether the backlighting on LCDs can be replaced. Manufacturers are either hesitant to discuss the topic, or they just don't know.

Plasma, on the other hand, utilizes slight electric currents to excite a combination of noble gases (i.e., argon, neon, xenon), which glow red, blue, and/or green. This is an essentially active phenomenon, so the phosphoric elements in plasma displays fade over time. Many manufacturers state a new half life of 60,000 hours. While I am skeptical of this spec, I do believe strides have been made to nearly even the playing field with LCD. At half life, the phosphors in a plasma screen will glow half as brightly as they did when the set was new. There is no way to replace these gases; the display simply continues to grow dimmer with use.

ADVANTAGE: Even, depending upon manufacturer quality.

SCREEN BURN IN

LCD technology is not prone to screen "burn-in" or "ghosting" (premature aging of pixel cells) due to the nature of the technologies "twisting crystals."

With plasma, static images will begin to "burn-in," or permanently etch the color being displayed into the glass display element. The time it takes for this to occur depends greatly on the anti burn-in technology of the manufacturer. Recent improvements by plasma manufacturers have certainly extended the time it takes to burn in a plasma pixel cell. In the past I was concerned to place a DVD on pause 15 minutes. Now, many of the enhancements such as better green phosphor material, and motion adaptive anti burn-in technology are greatly reducing the risk of burn in. It's gotten so much better that I don't even worry about it anymore. In a new model plasma from any top tier manufacturer I would put "ghosting" estimates at an hour or more now (Ghosting can be "washed" out by displaying static gray material). Permanent burn-in I would put at more than 10 hours.

ADVANTAGE: LCD, though not as much a concern as it was a year ago.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
PRODUCTION SIZE AND COST

All television measurements are stated in inches and are for diagonal measurement of the screen from corner to corner - not including framing.

Both plasma and LCD TVs are becoming more readily available in larger sizes though plasma still leads the size battle by a great margin. Pioneer and LG produce 61" plasma sizes while Panasonic has a readily available 65" model. Though it is not being imported into the U.S. yet, Samsung has produced a gigantic plasma of 100 inches. Though such mammoth monitors are expensive, they exhibit none of the "kinks" one might expect with such large displays. In other words, even the largest plasma displays are reliable. Large plasma displays will consume power - try 675 watts for a 65 "display compared to around 330 watts for a 42" plasma.

The substrate material for LCD TVs has proved difficult to produce in large sizes without pixel defects owing to faulty transistors. Sharp produces one of the largest available LCD displays at 45 inches, while Samsung has a 46" LCD. Sony and NEC currently produce units measuring 40" diagonally. This will change very soon. These manufacturers will have very large LCD screens here this year if production goes as planned.

ADVANTAGE: Plasma, though the playing field is leveling. Even though production costs and retail prices have come down for both technologies, plasma still has the edge as far as production cost and capacity go.

POWER CONSUMPTION

Because LCDs use florescent backlighting to produce images, they require substantially less power to operate than plasmas do. LCD TVs consume about half the power that plasma displays consume. The reason: Plasmas use a lot of electricity to light each and every pixel you see on a screen - even the dark ones. Though plasma manufacturers have improved voltage consumption requirements a plasma TV will consume around a third more power for the same size display.

ADVANTAGE: LCD

PRICE AND RESOLUTION

LCD HDTV displays will have a higher resolution per same size comparison than plasma. The lowest resolution of a 40 inch LCD will be 1366 X 768 - easily full HD resolution in 1080i or 720p. A 42 inch HD plasma has a resolution of 1024 X 768. While this is not truly an HD resolution, it's close enough so that it's difficult to know the difference. A 50 inch plasma TV will have a resolution of 1366 X 768, while a 45 inch LCD displays 1920 X 1080 (1080P) resolution.

Those extra pixels and the production process of LCD HDTVs cost more money to produce. Expect to pay a third as much more for a similar size LCD TV than a plasma display.

ADVANTAGE: It's currently a toss-up.