No, actually the "600Hz Plasma" stuff is the marketing ploy... it is intended for consumers who don't understand the technology to make the comparisons "600 vs. 120" and think it's a no-brainer... although it is really like comparing apples to oranges.

The 120Hz LCD is actually significant in advertising of LCDs because the lower refresh rates of earlier 60hz LCDs cause high-speed action scenes to stutter... This is (was?) a significant drawback to the LCD screens in buyer's Plasma vs. LCD choice-making.

The refresh rate of LCDs should be compared with OTHER LCD displays... not plasmas. The way that plasma screens and LCD screens operate are quite different which makes it an inaccurate comparison. It's like comparing the torque of a sports car to that of a semi. Pure numbers would say that the semi truck is far superior with around 1,000 ft-lbs of torque. The semi's horsepower is comparable to a small four-cylinder sedan. How this actually translates into real-life and how they are implemented is why they are so radically different in reality. The defining factors are in the details, something not easily displayed by numbers on paper or in marketing ads, like the power curve (which graphs how much torque and horsepower is being produced at what RPM).

Essentially, in many ways Plasmas *are* superior to LCDs... however there are still big drawbacks to plasmas, such as the possibility for screen burn-in (which is a big concern for gamers, especially) as well as price. I have a 120Hz LCD myself (Panasonic) and really like it. I have tried using the built-in motion image processing, Digital Natural Motion it's called, and found it works okay... It makes camera panning seem really smooth--almost surreal--and it reminds me of watching a soap opera for some reason... It is quite noticeable whenever something happens suddenly which the pixel motion prediction didn't expect and I find it distracting so I normally leave it off... it really messes me up when I play Rock Band. But even without the DNM, I really haven't noticed very much stutter. qbjbaanb makes a good point below, and considering black levels and contrast ratios are good (and valid) for comparing LCD to Plasma...

However picture quality is not the only thing that you need to consider : so is the amount of lighting in the room, as the plasma screen's glossy finish makes it more susceptible to screen glare and not always the best choice for rooms with a lot of sunlight or windows. Plasmas also are vulnerable for screen burn-in which is important for people who watch channels which always run news tickers on the bottom of the screen (ESPN, news channels, etc) or video games with static UI/HUD elements. And again, price is going to be a determining factor, as plasmas are generally a bit more expensive than an LCD of equivalent size.

Now, don't get me wrong... there's a chance I would be able to watch broadcast television live (not DVR'd or torrented) if I would never have to see another commercial about douching (with it's great many suggestions for when to douche...), yeast-infection home test-kits and medicine, and different tampon/pads designed for different flow types, or women in their 50s talking about their overactive overactive bladders...

But while this may look good on paper... remember: they will have to find something to replace those ads... and being a male between the ages of 18 and dead, you can be sure that every commercial break will be like Spike TV at 3am... An endless loop of Girls Gone Wild commercials occasionally separated by advertisements for erectile dysfunction prescriptions and the latest, amazing super-duper nutritional supplement that will help you drop 50 lbs of fat in 2 days, without exercising or changing your diet*!

* These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or actually do anything at all besides separate you from your money, fatty!

I generally use the "underline" from spell-checks as a "please try again" instead of just right-clicking and choosing the correct suggested word... and I do this immediately following a mistake; mid-sentence, (control+back-space to delete the entire word) and then respelling the word until it no longer is underlined in red before continuing (vs. typing everything out and then retroactively going back and correcting any spelling mistakes). This way I am correcting my own mistake and then retyping the word **correctly** instead of being given the answer. I've found that this method has helped my spelling immensely. In the past, I had a horrible tendency of always spelling "schedule" as "schedual." After a long enough time you begin to catch that spelling error before pressing the space-bar and it is underlined.... and then you just begin spelling it correctly.

So my suggestion is to change the way you use the red/green spelling/grammar-check underlining... instead of using it to fix mistakes and errors, use it mainly as a way to identify that it is wrong and attempt to correct it without right-clicking for suggestions. (Again, "CTRL+Backspace" to backspace the entire word is a huge time-saver.) Of course if you get stuck and after a couple of tries you haven't gotten it, then you right-click. This will help to improve your retention of the correct spelling of the word after having spent time trying to correct it.

Now, this does, of course, sacrifice your typed WPM... especially in the beginning. However, as your spelling improves, so will your WPM. (I believe I currently average around 75 WPM @ 100% accuracy but am closer to 120 WPM if I do not correct as I type.)

I think a very serious subset of the question "How to we greet them?" is "How do we greet them without unknowingly making a cosmic etiquette faux-pas and either triggering a war or having them quickly heading back in the direction they came, appalled by our "uncivilized" or "rude" manners?"

We probably want want to avoid large crowds of civilians, even *if* hypothetically they were all benevolent, accepting, and welcoming towards the extraterrestrials and there were no psychos among them. Any intergalactic travelers would almost no doubt be apprehensive (assuming they have emotions like ours :P) as they land on an alien planet... so when they open their ship's door and step on to our planet for the first time, it would probably not put them at ease if it were anything resembling the red carpet outside a Hollywood award show as celebrities exit their limo and try to make it inside.

It would probably be best to avoid attempting any types of "universal" (by our standards) hand gestures, like an open palm-arm raised upward "hi" gesture or (unless they are humanoid and have pointed ears) the Vulcan salute.

In all probability they have a completely different physiology than ours and have no way of knowing whether or they see it as "welcoming" or are doing the equivalent of an alien "grab my crotch and spit on your shoes." We have this problem even with our close genetic relatives--*terrestrial* primates. Where regardless of the culture or upbringing, we express happiness or amusement facially by smiling, inadvertently showing our teeth... yet chimpanzees do not see a smile with exposed teeth as happiness and instead see it as an act of dominance and aggression, sometimes causing them to attack unsuspecting humans. Imagine how many ways we could screw that up with an alien physiology and culture? Think "Mars Attacks!" when someone in the crowd releases a white dove because "they come in peace!" and when the the Martians see it, they freak out, kill the dove and everyone there.

So the answer is:

• We greet them SLOWLY. Quietly. We *DO NOT* rush up to them to greet them.
• We walk very calmly and slowly--with great effort made to ensure they do not approach the aliens at a faster pace than they approach them.
• A conscious effort being made not to make any gestures, excess noise (because no, talking LOUDLY and SLOWLY at them is probably just as insulting as it is when you do it to humans speakers of foreign languages.)
• Probably hold off on "presenting" them with any "gifts" as it's just another opportunity to unknowingly send an unintended message.
• Preferably the people who are the ones that go to meet them are *not* politicians or anyone who cares more about being known in history as "the one who made first contact" than they do about actually *making* first contact.

The team would probably a small group of four or five... and for the composition of the group, I'd have to say that Michael Crichton actually addresses this very same question in "Sphere" (the movie was crap; the novel is amazing) and he actually devotes quite a bit of pages to the reasoning behind the why. (I'd highly recommend the novel, actually, for it's relation to this question to those very interested in the idea)

Basically, the "Alien First Contact Team" is made up of:

1. A biologist or possibly an anatomical doctor or scientist for any possible insight on the alien's physiology
2. Some type of psychologist who has done a great deal of research on recognizing and understanding body language... this person would likely be the first to notice the more subtle behaviors of the alien's as well as their reactions during interactions.
3. Maybe a sociologist or some other individual knowledgeable on social and cultural interactions (for the same reason as the psychologist)
4. A Mathematician because, well, they DO say that math is the universal language, and I would imagine it would most likely be the stepping stone--and be out first successful exchange understood by both sides to mean the same concept.

But also---it's probably worth at least considering---that if an alien race does travel to Earth and lands here that they have far advanced technology for such long-distance travel (You would walk from NYC to LA to "pop by" and see if an old friend was still lived there and was home. That would be a huge investment of a lot of resources and time spent that could end with meeting the new tenants of his old apartment, turning around, and walking back to NYC.

By assuming they would not be making that kind of gamble "just to see if anyone's home," that would mean they would be able to navigate the universe quite quickly and searching/exploring for other life forms. So most likely we would not be the first alien race they have contacted, so they probably have a little bit more experience in the "first contact" field, so I'd say it would be appropriate if we let the aliens "lead" take us through the "Me Tarzan, You Jane!" introductions.

And even if they haven't ran across any other species, I'm guessing if they came all the way here and decided to pop down and say hi (instead of making a note of our coordinates and coming back when they were prepared) they probably would have some sort of plan on how to do the "We come in peace" thing, already.

So, mainly, to sum up: No sudden movements, crazy mobs with flash photography, initially met by small team of specific diversified fields, approach in as nonthreatening or aggressive way possible by minimizing the extents of body and facial expressions and mimicking rate of approach and demeanor. Once the two groups have met and made initial contact without being shot with lasers that leave only the skeleton behind... well... from there we pretty much have to play it by ear.

Attempting to plan the interaction any further relies on far too many assumptions on the alien species---assumptions we have absolutely no basis on to make, likely resulting in it not being effective or event appropriate.

I don't think the unlock door analogy is fitting in this situation, either.

It's not like the guy went in and connected his computer directly to the guy's router. He didn't infringe this other person's personal space in order to make this connection, like going into his house and running a cable from his router over to his computer. Instead, this guy was transmitting this information in a large radius, into other people's spaces, making it available to everyone around him.

I think a more fitting analogy would be the RIAA filing a lawsuit against you because your neighbor was listening to a CD that he bought, at a high enough volume and with his windows open and you could hear the music. RIAA says you do not have the right for that music because you didn't buy it.

(The sad part is, with the RIAA today, that analogy isn't quite that unbelievable.)

If you ask me, the guy who had the unsecure wireless network should be the one who is charged with anything. IANAL, but I imagine there is some sort of negligence; his unsecure network could easily allow people to conduct illegal activity online (for short periods of time) with low risk of being caught.

It's almost like throwing money out your windows and then when people take the money, charging them with theft. I just don't see the logic behind punishing the man who was smart enough to use the open internet connection being broadcast into his house instead of the man who doesn't have the commen sense to secure his network.