- @andreasnrb looks like he stopped approving comments altogether. in reply to andreasnrb #
- @carlhancock the current "net neutrality" bill has *absolutely nothing* to do with net neutrality. It's just more government control. in reply to carlhancock #
- @carlhancock @onefinejay the current "net neutrality" bill will not bring about the result that you want. in reply to carlhancock #
- @OneFineJay @carlhancock read.the.bill. What the tech world wants in the principle of "net neutrality" is not what is in the bill. in reply to OneFineJay #
- @carlhancock @onefinejay then why do you have a problem with the Tea Party protesting the Net Neutrality bill? in reply to carlhancock #
- @carlhancock @onefinejay the Tea Party people only know of the bill, generally speaking. They're not protesting the principle. in reply to carlhancock #
- @OneFineJay @carlhancock I don't want "premium content", personally. I just want bandwidth. But the market should decide supply/demand in reply to OneFineJay #
- @carlhancock @onefinejay what was the argument, and why was it off-base. I'm not exactly in the loop on this one. in reply to carlhancock #
- @OneFineJay @carlhancock I agree - thus my belief that the market (private sector) should decide in reply to OneFineJay #
- @carlhancock @onefinejay the market has decided. A cable company could offer a la carte, but it would be cost-prohibitive, so they don't in reply to carlhancock #
- @OneFineJay @carlhancock the NN and TP camps are talking about two different things entirely. In principle, they probably actually agree in reply to OneFineJay #
- @carlhancock @onefinejay cable companies are content providers, not creators. The content creators set the price, which they discount (cont) in reply to carlhancock #
- @carlhancock @onefinejay by bundling content. Cable companies could pay for a la carte content, and pass cost to consumers (cont) in reply to carlhancock #
- @carlhancock (cont) but consumers would not pay the cost for a la carte programming. Thus, the creator-provider-consumer market has decided in reply to carlhancock #
- @carlhancock providers can't provide a la carte, because creators make providers purchase bundles, through discounted pricing in reply to carlhancock #
- @OneFineJay @carlhancock indeed: the content that can bring in sufficient a la carte income (i.e. enough market demand) is provided thusly. in reply to OneFineJay #
- @OneFineJay @carlhancock the NFL Network dispute is the perfect example of the dynamics involved in this issue. in reply to OneFineJay #
- @carlhancock @onefinejay but are you willing to pay what it would cost to get just that handful of channels? in reply to carlhancock #
- @carlhancock @onefinejay that's because the other 94 channels *subsidize* the channels you do watch. They would cost *far* more a la carte in reply to carlhancock #
- @carlhancock @onefinejay the question is: do you support content creators' right to set the price for their content, based on the market? in reply to carlhancock #
- @carlhancock @onefinejay b/c your stance sounds like you want govt to force creators to sell you their content for the price *you* want in reply to carlhancock #
- @carlhancock @onefinejay and I know you're too much of a free-market believer to take such a stance in reply to carlhancock #
- @carlhancock but they did eventually adopt to market demands (despite their specious attempts to claim piracy was impacting their business) in reply to carlhancock #
- @carlhancock but there's no similar market demand in the TV market yet. Cable/sat customers are happier with $ than CD customers were in reply to carlhancock #
- @OneFineJay you're having a tough time @ replying me today, eh? :p in reply to OneFineJay #
- @carlhancock @onefinejay likewise! in reply to carlhancock #
- Remember Nina Gershon's asinine Bill of Attainder ruling re: Congress & ACORN funding? http://bit.ly/dllYH1 OVERTURNED: http://bit.ly/8WWI8G #
- @bradleypotter that's exactly what I do. In style.css I import master.css, comments.css, plugins.css, print.css, etc. in reply to bradleypotter #
- @bradleypotter I didn't want co clutter the <head>, and assume a (slight) performance hit for multiple <links> vs @import in style.css in reply to bradleypotter #
- @bradleypotter but I'm considering moving everything but master (and maybe even that) into style.css natively in reply to bradleypotter #
- @bradleypotter but it makes it harder to maintain modular CSS (e.g. icons.css for link icons) in reply to bradleypotter #
- @bradleypotter but the main reason I don't place all in <head> is to facilitate parent/child theme CSS overrides. in reply to bradleypotter #
- @bradleypotter I'm doing it this way right now for ease of understanding parent-theme CSS, for child-theming (cont) in reply to bradleypotter #
- @bradleypotter (cont) if a super-fast child theme is desired, it can leave out the parent-theme style.css @import & put all in own style.css in reply to bradleypotter #
- @bradleypotter and with that I'll stop tweet-spamming you 🙂 in reply to bradleypotter #
- @bradleypotter quite true. And bear in mind: I'm currently developing for specific use case (new Theme devs), not necessarily for efficiency in reply to bradleypotter #
