Let's see. What do we have here? First there's an ad hominem argument, and then a straw man (the costs under discussion are those of producing *the video*, not *the entire conference*), and finally another ad hominem argument, but this time laced with a small amount of what might actually be termed debating points. In response to which:
I did not declare that I *can* do better. I declared that I *did* do about as well, in one specific instance in the past. Room acoustics are rendered moot by the lapel mic suggestion. Don't forget that Youtube has MILLIONS of visitors per month. Imagine the impact if the videos were available when demand for them was actually at its peak, rather than after half the people that had been interested have forgotten all about them. And that, I think, wraps up the actually meaningful points offered by way of debate. If I missed any, let me know. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
