SVG is scalable, if you have a vector-graphic that is a clear advantage. For pixel-graphics PNG is better. A downside is, that the Internet Explorer supports SVG only with the coming version 9 (before with plugin). Mobile browsers may also have limited support for SVG.
I would say PNG simply for the fact it seems to be a more accepted format than SVG.
Nope, you're wrong. <b> is actually still being used to differentiate between <strong>. <strong> is used for accessibility reasons (making the words enunciate with emphasis, while <b> just makes the words bold by default). If you want to bold a part of the sentence without having emphasis, you'll need to use <b>.
I'd use <span style="font-weight: bold" /> for making something bold. Because that's a styling thing, so I use a style sheet.
I could even use <strong style="font-weight: normal" /> if I wanted to emphasize something without making it bold. Because that has a functional purpose with screen readers, and isn't strictly a styling thing.
<em> is for intonational emphasis, the way you'd give a little extra stress on a word when you are speaking. <strong> is an indicator of importance, and may not correspond to intonational emphasis in spoken language.
As for the older tags, they were deprecated in XHTML, but have been redeemed in HTML 5. <i> is used for elements that are traditionally set it italics but are neither emphasized nor citations. Often that will be foreign words (where one ought to use a lang attribute). Similarly <b> is used to indicate elements that are traditionally set in bold face, but which do not indicate importance (as headings or <strong> in running text would do). Both are better than the semantically-meaningless <span> tag, and vastly better than misusing the <em>, <cite> and <strong> tags for their presentation effects.
Actually, that is what they teach at university nowadays in race and gender studies departments, sociology, and other mushy social-sciences. My friends who went to places like Harvard all believe it.
It's not a "belief". It's just predicated on an alternate definition of the term.
(Unfortunately, many people on learning an exciting new definition of a word forget it has a more general meaning; confusion and stupid internet arguments ensue.)
Care to elaborate? I think that's a misrepresentation of critical gender and race studies, because I happen to be in one of those very programs. I won't deny that it's a "mushy social science", but I think you're radically simplifying the field.
I don't understand what's wrong with this. This is quite literally the definition of racism in a sociological context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Sociological. You're going to need to disprove a lot of social science before you tackle this definition.
That's all a bit silly. We have a common understanding or definition of what racism is and it connotes something immoral. _Some_ sociologists define racism as something else which also connotes something immoral. The common thread is that both definitions connote immorality, and so if something falls under either definition, it's still bad and so the whole arguing over which definition to use is moot.
For example, if an organized group of American Asians began touting their superiority over other races and advocated and lobbied for more Asians in positions of power because they're superior, wouldn't you still consider their actions to be immoral?
People can use whichever definition they like, but they need to be open about it, and they need to realize by using another definition they're not also redefining or constraining the connotation -- that's begging the question.
So, black people cannot be sociologically-racist-therefore-immoral against white people, but they can be common-usage-racist-therefore-immoral against white people.
(I should also note that labeling something with a word that connotes a negative or positive affect isn't much of an argument for the applicability of that connotation to that something. It's a heuristic more than it is an argument.)
No, you're missing that racism is a systematic oppression of a certain group or people. HN isn't the best place for speaking about social issues, so I won't write you an essay about what's wrong about what you're saying. I'll just say I believe you and others are conflating the terms prejudice and racism. I'm guessing that's what you're describing by "common-usage-racis[m]." Indeed, black people can be prejudiced against white people, and that prejudice can be because of race. Racism, however, needs a little bit more than that. Particularly, institutionalization.
You're lacking an understanding of linguistics and philosophy. Both usages are no more correct than the other, and the point of such usages is to ascribe a connotation to a cluster of things along a continuum. Arguing over definitions is pointless (I can create my own definition of racism and it will be equally valid), the point is what they connote.
We'll never agree because I'm arguing about what racism is (a semantic argument) and you're arguing about how racism is defined (a pedantic argument). Perhaps my original post was a red herring. I was merely justifying that what she said lines up with a known definition, not that it is the ONLY correct definition.
Also, your definition of what racism connotes is severely lacking as well. Simplifying racism to "something that connotes immorality" is a gross oversimplification.
You have it backwards. I don't care how racism is defined. I care about whatever the word "racism" points to in the real world. But you have to realize that a word can point to anything you want it to point to.
And not only that, but words have denotations and connotations. "Ugly", in common usage, denotes and points to a set of subjective physical characteristics. "Ugly" also connotes and points to a negative affect that isn't explicit in its denotation.
I'm not simply saying that racism is "something that connotes immorality", but that is what we're connotating when we use that word in its various denotations (although, it's not necessarily the case). Racism's denotation can be literally anything. I can say, for example, that it's racist to call Canadians effusive pushovers even though "Canadian" is a nationality rather than a race.
And people do exactly that. In the U.K., for example, it's common for people to call people that insult the French "racist."
Language is fluid.
So, I think you can see why people are affronted when someone says "black people cannot be racist" without putting it within a certain context. The implication is that it's not immoral for black people to act denotatively common-usage-racist.
"Blacks cannot be racist against whites" does not logically follow from "racism can only come from the oppressor who has the power".
The group in power can be black, as, for example, more or less is the case in the current South Africa, and may be the case in some subcultures (rappers? Basketball players? Some prisons?)
I don't know what this means. But please elaborate what's wrong with that statement. Please understand that a word's definition is not necessarily it's meaning.
He's talking about Invader Zim; Zim is racist to the other kids because he is literally from an alien race, even though they have the power (he is a very ineffective invader).
There goes the saying, "innocent until found guilty".
So if I were a popular tech individual who decided to tweet about something I may misheard in a bad way, I can actually get someone fired. The company who fired the guys should have done some investigation instead of basing it off tweets. This is ridiculous; this is the number one reason why I never went back to PyCon.
Stop being a necromancer and resurrecting a dead service. There's got to be a good reason why they killed Posterous, so let it die. Let it go; stop holding onto the past.
Please read the intro to the blog post and think again. I've seen these comments by the boatload when we took on saving geocities and you are simply wrong.
Is there a place I can find this Geocities archive? I apparently missed something I wanted to keep when I archived my own stuff, and I'm wondering if I can find it again.
This isn't resurrecting a dead service nor is it about that. This is archiving it and making the previously public data stay public.
Why would someone do that?
Well, a lot of people have poured their hearts out and made content that lives on Posterous. They might miss the "sunsetting" (asshole term) of the service and lose their content.
Think of all the dead links that'll be around after the service have died. Wouldn't you be able to read something great that was linked from HN a year ago? From the Wayback Machine or similar?
There's plenty of reasons to archive the web and the content that goes up (and down).
I've never visited posterous.com until today, but I fail to see why Twitter would buy it and kill it.. can't be that horrific. It's like buying a house and setting it on fire.
What am I missing? Are they just killing off competition?
They probably bought it for the people. So there would be no one left to work on the Posterous site if everyone is working on Twitter instead. I know they didn't buy it for the infrastructure since it's hosted on Rackspace and Twitter is an AWS shop.
