Sounds like Joss only knows how to tell one story....make a cast of normal characters....throw in some bad guys....hmmm, what should I do?....create super chic! Is there any doubt that "Wonder Woman" will be Joss's next film?
...made on a webboard of opinionated people stating generalizations of inacurrate misquoted statements made by...wait, what were we talking about again?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
OT: It's funny, but as I read your sig, I'm trying to figure out if you're making a joke about Java functionality or stating the truth? I mean seriously. Anal sex does work on all genders. Some women like it just as some guys like it. Cast in that light, I suppose it is nice for those into that sort of thing. So if you really do want to develop code to run on all platforms, I suppose Java would be nice.
As for another off topic statement, I think it would be wrong if Indians thought the average US IT worker resented them because job out sourcing. I think we resent our superiors more. Superiors in the form of CEO's and upper management. We have a country that thrives on pushing goods on their own people, yet they take away the very fuel to drive the country by out sourcing jobs. It's all in self interest because at their level, all they care about is being rich. They make their decisions day by day and have no visions of the future. They don't care about the common man. In many cases, they don't even care about their own families.
Normally, I would agree with you. However, I relate better to just being honest.
I too have strong bitter feelings to the unethically rich. However, I do not believe in "steal from the rich give to the poor". If you don't like the CEO of Walmart, then don't buy from his store.
It's ironic really. BellSouth donates to the crooked law enforcement that pillages their own city. Then the city pisses on BellSouth by cutting into their profits. So BellSouth takes a logical course of action and the nation gets in an uproar. Give me a break.
Or to have the recipiant of a charitable offer turn around and spit in the face of their doners....not that I support BellSouth in any way....just pointing out that people are stupid on both sides of the fence.
Only to the extent that a country is limited to the field of computing. If wages fall drastically in one field, workers simply shift into another field. Who is going to work for 30K/yr as a computer scientist when they can make 100K as a ________ (fill in the blank with your own 2nd job preference: biologist, real estate agent, small business owner, beach bum, etc)?
Even before IT really took off in the 90's, I always thought it was an overpaid profession. To be honest, I do IT work because I like it. If I wasn't doing it for a job, I'd be doing it for a hobbie.
Let's face it, you get to sit in an office, drink coffee and bang on a keyboard. In most cases, the dress code is very lax. And if you're lucky, you can probably do 90% of your job from home. For such a job, 30k-40k/yr including benifits and a standard 3 weeks vacation is more than sufficient. However, the one stipulation is that the expecation is only 40 hours/week. None of this 50-60 hours/week expectation shit companies are preaching today. And the lack of on-call compensation has to end.
I'd gladly give up my pay for an IT job that gives me more time with the family. Maybe that should be the new industry trend. The lower pay is just going to happen because the maturing of a new job sector, but companies now need to start treating the IT workers like real people. The job expectations need to be a bit more realistic.
So say someone starts a product first but doesn't buy a trademark. Then someone else, seeing the success of the first person, makes their product and does license the trademark. So now the second person can sue the first person over the trademark name? So would the morale be Linux is free and do as you wish but if you want to be protected pay us money. If you don't want protection, that's fine. We'll only provide the tools for others to come after you.
Mind you, I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm just painting a real bastardized scenario. However, if just a scenario could exist....who's side would LMI really be on?
With that arguement, you might just as well say an average income family of 40k/yr should have no problem renting Windows for $100/yr? And all the arguements of why BUY Windows when Linux is FREE would be moot.
Don't get me wrong, this whole trademark thing may be good. I just don't agree with your rationale.
I don't know how trademarks work in general, but one thing I was curious about was the comment in the artical about how anyone could create their own Linux name/product, but then be a possible target of someone else coming with a cease and desist letter. So with the trademark thing, say someone created their own Linux name/product but didn't opt for buying the Linux trademark. Say that product/company becomes very successful. Could some prick then go buy the Linux trademark for that product then play games with them?
Or, one could redesign the concept of currency all together. Think about it. By today's standards, a physical object representing currency is pretty obsolete. Coins, bills, check, etc.... Do we really need them? Instead of producing a physical object to represent currency and then developing all these elaborate schemes to prevent manipulation of their value, we should just improve the means of tracking currency itself. Imagine that instead of using physical money, currency was passed around via a credit card like scheme (the cost of developing is actually cheaper than money!). A credit like device used to hold an unspecified value. Now, unlike today's credit cards, what needs to be developed is a way to track the actual funds that went into that credit card. So when one goes to redeem the value of that credit, an institution can verify the acutal value via a "money trail". Now some would say that infringes their rights because it would allow a trace on all their currency. However, as much as I believe in individual rights, I find people that are paranoid about such things generally tend to be the people who have something to hide and thus need to be watched anyway. Now I'm sure the crime of counterfeiting would just change into something like falsifing a money trail (hacking accounts and what not). It's not a perfect scheme, but compared the amount of efforts we put into paper money, it'd be an improvement. It would mean we stop using paper money all together and you can only purchase via credit cards (temporary anonymous cards taking the place of money). That would be a big change for some people, but think about how society changed when the concept of money was first introduced. No more trading chickens, only wooden nickels accepted for beer. The same change needs to be imployed today. No more swapping currency representations, only credit transactions allowed.
Didn't Yahoo come on the scene before Google? Back then it was kinda crude. I think it was more like a fancy repository of bookmarks. But I remember Yahoo as the first real mainstream web presence. Then a year or so later, Google emerged. I remember switching to Google because the searches were faster, but I still use Yahoo as my main portal. Google is just now trying to be like the Yahoo portal. So to say Yahoo is following Google....I think it's the other way around. Is gmail even out of beta yet?
I absolutely agree! Morse code is hardly in use today and I can completely understand the jokes that most/. jerks seem to have about it as a requirement.
I sorta have mixed feelings about it. I think of it as boot camp for radio operators. A license is not a privledge, it should be an accomplishment (like a college degree). To drop learning the "old" method of communication for attaining a license is like saying lets drop math from our schools. Just show kids how to use a computer to add numbers and forget all that theory crap (I bet alot of kids would like that anyway). And in a way, I completely agree!
Maybe a license should be a privledge. It's a free world right? The requirements for anything today should be based entirely on what the "current" standards or "real world" is like today. That should be the stuff that everyone should learn first. How to operate in today's world. (apply this statement to radio operators, boating, schools,..whatever).
However, I really like your suggestion in regards to radio operation. For a novice radio license, one should be required to know only the basics. And basics being based on the current world environment. Morse code is just not in use today for most real communication purposes. However, as one chooses to become a master in the field, then it should be a requirement to learn such stuff and more. It's a form of status.
By the way, I never got my novice license. Back when I took the exam, I passed the morse code tests but failed the written exam by one question. I was like 12 at the time. It was when CB raido was cool. Ahhh trends in technology.
Yes, and the report should show that the average American college student is just plain smart by investing their time and money into something that has a better chance of payout. You can thank the lack of interest in IT to the retarded trend of American companies. This report comes as no surprize.
Sadly, this may not be too far from the truth. On your next "new" job, carefully read all the disclaimers that you sign. The wording is very broad and general. Some of them essentially say you can't take a job with a competitor within a specified time frame. So if you work at say Kodak, you couldn't just leave and work for HP or Canon within a certain time frame. Of course, most people do anyway because it's not very easy to change a profession and once you're working for someone doing a specific task, everyone else is a competitor. So if the initial company really wanted to be a prick, they probably could sue you which sounds like what Microsoft is doing.
Unfortunately, all those disclaimers are very general and if you want to say, "Hey, I'm not going to sign that!" The company can just as easily say, "OK, we don't want to hire you." The working world is really a screw you environment. It's sad but true. I'd be willing to bet that many Open Source projects out there have employees contributing to a codebase that have signed a disclaimer that gives a company all rights to any intellectual proprety they produce no matter if it's on the job or not. Most people ignore that sort of stuff, but I'm sure it'll happen someday that some company (probably paid for by Microsoft) will sue an OpenSource project because of IP rights of a specific employee. Appearently in America, it's legal to sign your soul away.
I'm so sick of reading crap like this from Windows weenies. I even get it from my dad (of whom I do respect his opinion.) People constantly compair Windows functionality to Linux functionality and they like to say, "well Windows blah blah blah and Linux just isn't ready blah blah blah." And they're probably right except for one thing, Linux/NetBSD/OpenSource is free!
It's an argument I have time and again with my dad and the expenses of the church. I keep hearing how the church has no money. Then I hear how they need new computers. As part of the computer purchasing, I see that Dell currently has a sale for $300 get's a base system with a 15" flat panel screen. Aside from power, I tell him the price is right, then he talks about how it needs to run Office and how that'll cost another $300. For what the church does, I tell him to start using OpenOffice. Then I get this crap of, "ohh it's not Microsoft." "It doesn't have Access." "We only know how to use Microsoft." So I say that's fine. If it's worth it to you, then folk the $300 bucks to run Microsoft. Then it's back to, "Ohh the church doesn't have money...." And the crying continues.
That's generally how all these Microsoft vs OpenSource arguments go. It's easy to say Microsoft is better. For the average Joe it probably is. If money is not an issue, then do whatever suites you best. If money is a key factor, then there's no subsitute for running many of the great OpenSource products out there. If learning a new system is too much effort, then you need to pay.
For the OpenSource advocates, you'll never win these arguments. I know, I have them every day with my dad. He NEEDS to run Access for his buisness, because he's too damn lazy to convert his buisness over to a free database (that could potentially be more powerful and flexible). He'll forever complain about the cost of buisness, but he'll do nothing about it.
Personally, when it comes to churches or any non-profit organization, I think it's a disservice to run or use any commercial product when a legitimate free solution is availible. It's just an abuse of collected resources. I'll agree that a free solution may involve more work (maybe there's an initial learning curve or maybe you'll give up some features). But when money is involved, Windows is just a losing battle. Even if Microsoft gave their solutions away for free to these types of organizations, I'd still feel it was the wrong way to go. It's a commercial interest that can't be trusted.
The concept in great, but I think their vision of implimentation is off. As pointed out, I think it's prohibitively expensive.
I think the idea of have a custom keyboard with definible graphics for each key is great, but it's not new. I think a better solution would be a keyboard that's nothing but a 4"x16" touch screen. Then you could change the size of the keys as well as the graphics. You wouldn't have the tactical feel you'ld get from a regular keyboard, but the coolness factor alone would be worth it.
A much cheaper product could be made by just having a 4"x16" glide pad. Imagine that on a laptop instead of the keyboard/glide pad combo. Just a big glide pad in place of the keyboard with overlays for various keyboards.
Maybe not, but they certainly paved the way for on-line trading. I remember when the concept of shopping on-line was just that. Only a thought, "Hey! Imagine ordering a pizza or buying some jeans with your computer and having it delivered to your house." Shit, we take that for granted now, but in 1990 it was just a cool thought. I personally never thought ecommerce would take off that fast. So your obvious whitty comment about Netscape building wall street really isn't too far off. The concept of trading via a computer was just a fantasy. Once it because a reality, I got to see it first hand. In 1996 wall street just started to pioneer cutting out the broker by allowing traders to interact directly with each other via terminals. In a few very short years, the stock floor became nothing but a ghost town. All the brokers that would broker trades via the phone have since lost their jobs. That stuff you still see on TV about the ringing of the bell and people standing on the floor waving tickets...it's mostly just for show. Now it's everyone trying to beat each other out on the keyboard. Not only that, but because the computer interface was so easy to use, you have all these companies like eTrade offering online trading so the people that use to do it for a living are now competing against grandma. Again, Netscape didn't build Wall Street, but they certainly paved the way for a new environment. So yes, in a way, Netscape had a large part in building what Wall Street is today. They started it all (picking up where gopher and archie left off;)
Sorta makes me wish I was back in college again. I remember seeing on PBS some new solar panel technology that made of a flexible plastic like material. Unlike the rigid solar cells of the past, this flexible solar panel could withstand punchure wounds. I don't know much about the motor technology used, but there's also been great advances in battery technology. Battery technology has been advancing at a rapid pace over the past ten years. Just look at your laptop to convince yourself of that. I can't imaging that the same solar car would race every year. In fact, I'm surprized this race is only held every other year. I wish my college, Univerisy at Buffalo, was more active in participating in cool events like this.
Unfortunately, I don't think of it as a management problem. I think buzz words have become a cancer to language in general. It's not just mission statements, it's even in slang. Remember how things were "cool" then "groovy" or "totally awesome". Now you have that dumb ass Randy Jackson on American Idol who says every performance is "dog" or is it "dawg". Mission statements are nothing but corporate slang. It doesn't mean anything and to the non-management, they sound like idiots, but to themselves, they think that it all sounds good. Sorta like slang eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like Joss only knows how to tell one story....make a cast of normal characters....throw in some bad guys....hmmm, what should I do?....create super chic! Is there any doubt that "Wonder Woman" will be Joss's next film?
...made on a webboard of opinionated people stating generalizations of inacurrate misquoted statements made by...wait, what were we talking about again?
As for another off topic statement, I think it would be wrong if Indians thought the average US IT worker resented them because job out sourcing. I think we resent our superiors more. Superiors in the form of CEO's and upper management. We have a country that thrives on pushing goods on their own people, yet they take away the very fuel to drive the country by out sourcing jobs. It's all in self interest because at their level, all they care about is being rich. They make their decisions day by day and have no visions of the future. They don't care about the common man. In many cases, they don't even care about their own families.
Ever take a bus ride in Jamacia?
I too have strong bitter feelings to the unethically rich. However, I do not believe in "steal from the rich give to the poor". If you don't like the CEO of Walmart, then don't buy from his store.
It's ironic really. BellSouth donates to the crooked law enforcement that pillages their own city. Then the city pisses on BellSouth by cutting into their profits. So BellSouth takes a logical course of action and the nation gets in an uproar. Give me a break.
Or to have the recipiant of a charitable offer turn around and spit in the face of their doners....not that I support BellSouth in any way....just pointing out that people are stupid on both sides of the fence.
Even before IT really took off in the 90's, I always thought it was an overpaid profession. To be honest, I do IT work because I like it. If I wasn't doing it for a job, I'd be doing it for a hobbie.
Let's face it, you get to sit in an office, drink coffee and bang on a keyboard. In most cases, the dress code is very lax. And if you're lucky, you can probably do 90% of your job from home. For such a job, 30k-40k/yr including benifits and a standard 3 weeks vacation is more than sufficient. However, the one stipulation is that the expecation is only 40 hours/week. None of this 50-60 hours/week expectation shit companies are preaching today. And the lack of on-call compensation has to end.
I'd gladly give up my pay for an IT job that gives me more time with the family. Maybe that should be the new industry trend. The lower pay is just going to happen because the maturing of a new job sector, but companies now need to start treating the IT workers like real people. The job expectations need to be a bit more realistic.
Nah....I live in the north, so I still don't care....until winter comes :)
So say someone starts a product first but doesn't buy a trademark. Then someone else, seeing the success of the first person, makes their product and does license the trademark. So now the second person can sue the first person over the trademark name? So would the morale be Linux is free and do as you wish but if you want to be protected pay us money. If you don't want protection, that's fine. We'll only provide the tools for others to come after you.
Mind you, I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm just painting a real bastardized scenario. However, if just a scenario could exist....who's side would LMI really be on?
With that arguement, you might just as well say an average income family of 40k/yr should have no problem renting Windows for $100/yr? And all the arguements of why BUY Windows when Linux is FREE would be moot.
Don't get me wrong, this whole trademark thing may be good. I just don't agree with your rationale.
I don't know how trademarks work in general, but one thing I was curious about was the comment in the artical about how anyone could create their own Linux name/product, but then be a possible target of someone else coming with a cease and desist letter. So with the trademark thing, say someone created their own Linux name/product but didn't opt for buying the Linux trademark. Say that product/company becomes very successful. Could some prick then go buy the Linux trademark for that product then play games with them?
Or, one could redesign the concept of currency all together. Think about it. By today's standards, a physical object representing currency is pretty obsolete. Coins, bills, check, etc.... Do we really need them? Instead of producing a physical object to represent currency and then developing all these elaborate schemes to prevent manipulation of their value, we should just improve the means of tracking currency itself. Imagine that instead of using physical money, currency was passed around via a credit card like scheme (the cost of developing is actually cheaper than money!). A credit like device used to hold an unspecified value. Now, unlike today's credit cards, what needs to be developed is a way to track the actual funds that went into that credit card. So when one goes to redeem the value of that credit, an institution can verify the acutal value via a "money trail". Now some would say that infringes their rights because it would allow a trace on all their currency. However, as much as I believe in individual rights, I find people that are paranoid about such things generally tend to be the people who have something to hide and thus need to be watched anyway. Now I'm sure the crime of counterfeiting would just change into something like falsifing a money trail (hacking accounts and what not). It's not a perfect scheme, but compared the amount of efforts we put into paper money, it'd be an improvement. It would mean we stop using paper money all together and you can only purchase via credit cards (temporary anonymous cards taking the place of money). That would be a big change for some people, but think about how society changed when the concept of money was first introduced. No more trading chickens, only wooden nickels accepted for beer. The same change needs to be imployed today. No more swapping currency representations, only credit transactions allowed.
Didn't Yahoo come on the scene before Google? Back then it was kinda crude. I think it was more like a fancy repository of bookmarks. But I remember Yahoo as the first real mainstream web presence. Then a year or so later, Google emerged. I remember switching to Google because the searches were faster, but I still use Yahoo as my main portal. Google is just now trying to be like the Yahoo portal. So to say Yahoo is following Google....I think it's the other way around. Is gmail even out of beta yet?
I absolutely agree! Morse code is hardly in use today and I can completely understand the jokes that most /. jerks seem to have about it as a requirement.
I sorta have mixed feelings about it. I think of it as boot camp for radio operators. A license is not a privledge, it should be an accomplishment (like a college degree). To drop learning the "old" method of communication for attaining a license is like saying lets drop math from our schools. Just show kids how to use a computer to add numbers and forget all that theory crap (I bet alot of kids would like that anyway). And in a way, I completely agree!
Maybe a license should be a privledge. It's a free world right? The requirements for anything today should be based entirely on what the "current" standards or "real world" is like today. That should be the stuff that everyone should learn first. How to operate in today's world. (apply this statement to radio operators, boating, schools,..whatever).
However, I really like your suggestion in regards to radio operation. For a novice radio license, one should be required to know only the basics. And basics being based on the current world environment. Morse code is just not in use today for most real communication purposes. However, as one chooses to become a master in the field, then it should be a requirement to learn such stuff and more. It's a form of status.
By the way, I never got my novice license. Back when I took the exam, I passed the morse code tests but failed the written exam by one question. I was like 12 at the time. It was when CB raido was cool. Ahhh trends in technology.
Yes, and the report should show that the average American college student is just plain smart by investing their time and money into something that has a better chance of payout. You can thank the lack of interest in IT to the retarded trend of American companies. This report comes as no surprize.
Sadly, this may not be too far from the truth. On your next "new" job, carefully read all the disclaimers that you sign. The wording is very broad and general. Some of them essentially say you can't take a job with a competitor within a specified time frame. So if you work at say Kodak, you couldn't just leave and work for HP or Canon within a certain time frame. Of course, most people do anyway because it's not very easy to change a profession and once you're working for someone doing a specific task, everyone else is a competitor. So if the initial company really wanted to be a prick, they probably could sue you which sounds like what Microsoft is doing.
Unfortunately, all those disclaimers are very general and if you want to say, "Hey, I'm not going to sign that!" The company can just as easily say, "OK, we don't want to hire you." The working world is really a screw you environment. It's sad but true. I'd be willing to bet that many Open Source projects out there have employees contributing to a codebase that have signed a disclaimer that gives a company all rights to any intellectual proprety they produce no matter if it's on the job or not. Most people ignore that sort of stuff, but I'm sure it'll happen someday that some company (probably paid for by Microsoft) will sue an OpenSource project because of IP rights of a specific employee. Appearently in America, it's legal to sign your soul away.
yes stop electing oil tycoons and maybe we'll start seeing some changes.
I'm so sick of reading crap like this from Windows weenies. I even get it from my dad (of whom I do respect his opinion.) People constantly compair Windows functionality to Linux functionality and they like to say, "well Windows blah blah blah and Linux just isn't ready blah blah blah." And they're probably right except for one thing, Linux/NetBSD/OpenSource is free!
It's an argument I have time and again with my dad and the expenses of the church. I keep hearing how the church has no money. Then I hear how they need new computers. As part of the computer purchasing, I see that Dell currently has a sale for $300 get's a base system with a 15" flat panel screen. Aside from power, I tell him the price is right, then he talks about how it needs to run Office and how that'll cost another $300. For what the church does, I tell him to start using OpenOffice. Then I get this crap of, "ohh it's not Microsoft." "It doesn't have Access." "We only know how to use Microsoft." So I say that's fine. If it's worth it to you, then folk the $300 bucks to run Microsoft. Then it's back to, "Ohh the church doesn't have money...." And the crying continues.
That's generally how all these Microsoft vs OpenSource arguments go. It's easy to say Microsoft is better. For the average Joe it probably is. If money is not an issue, then do whatever suites you best. If money is a key factor, then there's no subsitute for running many of the great OpenSource products out there. If learning a new system is too much effort, then you need to pay.
For the OpenSource advocates, you'll never win these arguments. I know, I have them every day with my dad. He NEEDS to run Access for his buisness, because he's too damn lazy to convert his buisness over to a free database (that could potentially be more powerful and flexible). He'll forever complain about the cost of buisness, but he'll do nothing about it.
Personally, when it comes to churches or any non-profit organization, I think it's a disservice to run or use any commercial product when a legitimate free solution is availible. It's just an abuse of collected resources. I'll agree that a free solution may involve more work (maybe there's an initial learning curve or maybe you'll give up some features). But when money is involved, Windows is just a losing battle. Even if Microsoft gave their solutions away for free to these types of organizations, I'd still feel it was the wrong way to go. It's a commercial interest that can't be trusted.
The concept in great, but I think their vision of implimentation is off. As pointed out, I think it's prohibitively expensive.
I think the idea of have a custom keyboard with definible graphics for each key is great, but it's not new. I think a better solution would be a keyboard that's nothing but a 4"x16" touch screen. Then you could change the size of the keys as well as the graphics. You wouldn't have the tactical feel you'ld get from a regular keyboard, but the coolness factor alone would be worth it.
A much cheaper product could be made by just having a 4"x16" glide pad. Imagine that on a laptop instead of the keyboard/glide pad combo. Just a big glide pad in place of the keyboard with overlays for various keyboards.
Maybe not, but they certainly paved the way for on-line trading. I remember when the concept of shopping on-line was just that. Only a thought, "Hey! Imagine ordering a pizza or buying some jeans with your computer and having it delivered to your house." Shit, we take that for granted now, but in 1990 it was just a cool thought. I personally never thought ecommerce would take off that fast. So your obvious whitty comment about Netscape building wall street really isn't too far off. The concept of trading via a computer was just a fantasy. Once it because a reality, I got to see it first hand. In 1996 wall street just started to pioneer cutting out the broker by allowing traders to interact directly with each other via terminals. In a few very short years, the stock floor became nothing but a ghost town. All the brokers that would broker trades via the phone have since lost their jobs. That stuff you still see on TV about the ringing of the bell and people standing on the floor waving tickets...it's mostly just for show. Now it's everyone trying to beat each other out on the keyboard. Not only that, but because the computer interface was so easy to use, you have all these companies like eTrade offering online trading so the people that use to do it for a living are now competing against grandma. Again, Netscape didn't build Wall Street, but they certainly paved the way for a new environment. So yes, in a way, Netscape had a large part in building what Wall Street is today. They started it all (picking up where gopher and archie left off ;)
Sorta makes me wish I was back in college again. I remember seeing on PBS some new solar panel technology that made of a flexible plastic like material. Unlike the rigid solar cells of the past, this flexible solar panel could withstand punchure wounds. I don't know much about the motor technology used, but there's also been great advances in battery technology. Battery technology has been advancing at a rapid pace over the past ten years. Just look at your laptop to convince yourself of that. I can't imaging that the same solar car would race every year. In fact, I'm surprized this race is only held every other year. I wish my college, Univerisy at Buffalo, was more active in participating in cool events like this.
As I was reading this, I thought it would be modded up as funny. Communism the cause of problems? Must be a fellow American saying that kind of crap.
Unfortunately, I don't think of it as a management problem. I think buzz words have become a cancer to language in general. It's not just mission statements, it's even in slang. Remember how things were "cool" then "groovy" or "totally awesome". Now you have that dumb ass Randy Jackson on American Idol who says every performance is "dog" or is it "dawg". Mission statements are nothing but corporate slang. It doesn't mean anything and to the non-management, they sound like idiots, but to themselves, they think that it all sounds good. Sorta like slang eh?
The Spectrum hands down....too bad I had to suffer with a RS coco instead.