That's not entirely true, it seems.
http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/3869.page
"Please do not continue to post theses thread or you account may be at risk of banning which in some cases would mean you would need to buy a new copy to play Spore."
The text is in red, and it looks like the post has been edited. It's a shame that Spore's forums won't let you see who made the edit, however. It would be nice if we could see, without a doubt, that it was edited by a moderator.
When you're having a disagreement, it's always important to spend some time trying to understand the opponent's point of view - see things the way they're seeing it. Just make sure you're avoiding the antiprocess, where both sides of the argument keep thinking "he just doesn't get it!"
Your argument is retarded, sorry. There's lots of time in life to support "would-be-nice" causes. It's not the zero-sum game you make it out to be.
If it weren't a zero-sum game, then please explain to me how we made it to the present-day situation. Assuming you've read the articles, you know exactly what I mean. It's easy to reduce technology-related news to "would-be-nice" - but when it becomes an integral part of our lives, and where the end user lacks proper rights that are usually reserved for corporations, we find ourselves in a pretty big mess. And I'm sorry that you find my argument "retarded" - but I was hoping for a slightly more intellectual response than that.
Okay, but imagine a world in which we did not have access to news articles that are deemed upsetting or offensive, where controversial ideas are censored.
The tech lover's call to arms is a simple call to stop allowing companies to violate our constitutional rights in the name of copyright law, terms of service and other legal-speak reasoning. Is it right to have our civil liberties violated, all in the name of fighting copyright infringement? Should companies be allowed to charge us huge fees for early terminations, when they're not giving us the service we're paying for, anyways? Should ISPs be allowed to block user access to content they deem objectionable? We are getting a bad deal, and too many people are accepting it like business as usual.
Aha, I was wondering if someone was going to mention the environmental factors. Something to consider is that if you are in a workplace that has low light levels, you'll want to focus more on having a light-colored text contrasted against a darker background - the font color is a much smaller factor when compared to the blazingly-bright whitespace you'll see on a lot of websites. If it were up to me, I would go for a dark background, like forest green or navy blue, and then pick a gray font color.
But if you're dealing with a well-lit workplace, having the white backgrounds might not be so bad, as long as you pick a clear enough and large enough font. But I think that which font you use is more important than the color of the font - unless you're picking something like yellow font against white background.
It's funny that you mention that, especially considering that their new phone that appears on NokiaUSA's front page (the Nokia 6555) is offered exclusively to AT&T. Whatever their posters say, their website is clearly not sending the same message.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not entirely true, it seems. http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/3869.page
"Please do not continue to post theses thread or you account may be at risk of banning which in some cases would mean you would need to buy a new copy to play Spore."
The text is in red, and it looks like the post has been edited. It's a shame that Spore's forums won't let you see who made the edit, however. It would be nice if we could see, without a doubt, that it was edited by a moderator.
When you're having a disagreement, it's always important to spend some time trying to understand the opponent's point of view - see things the way they're seeing it. Just make sure you're avoiding the antiprocess, where both sides of the argument keep thinking "he just doesn't get it!"
See Tim Campbell's Introduction to Antiprocess for more details - I highly recommend this guide.
If it weren't a zero-sum game, then please explain to me how we made it to the present-day situation. Assuming you've read the articles, you know exactly what I mean. It's easy to reduce technology-related news to "would-be-nice" - but when it becomes an integral part of our lives, and where the end user lacks proper rights that are usually reserved for corporations, we find ourselves in a pretty big mess. And I'm sorry that you find my argument "retarded" - but I was hoping for a slightly more intellectual response than that.
Okay, but imagine a world in which we did not have access to news articles that are deemed upsetting or offensive, where controversial ideas are censored.
The tech lover's call to arms is a simple call to stop allowing companies to violate our constitutional rights in the name of copyright law, terms of service and other legal-speak reasoning. Is it right to have our civil liberties violated, all in the name of fighting copyright infringement? Should companies be allowed to charge us huge fees for early terminations, when they're not giving us the service we're paying for, anyways? Should ISPs be allowed to block user access to content they deem objectionable? We are getting a bad deal, and too many people are accepting it like business as usual.
Aha, I was wondering if someone was going to mention the environmental factors. Something to consider is that if you are in a workplace that has low light levels, you'll want to focus more on having a light-colored text contrasted against a darker background - the font color is a much smaller factor when compared to the blazingly-bright whitespace you'll see on a lot of websites. If it were up to me, I would go for a dark background, like forest green or navy blue, and then pick a gray font color.
But if you're dealing with a well-lit workplace, having the white backgrounds might not be so bad, as long as you pick a clear enough and large enough font. But I think that which font you use is more important than the color of the font - unless you're picking something like yellow font against white background.
It's funny that you mention that, especially considering that their new phone that appears on NokiaUSA's front page (the Nokia 6555) is offered exclusively to AT&T. Whatever their posters say, their website is clearly not sending the same message.