I think TAPR's policy is that the presentations be freely redistributable, but I don't know what they and Gary have discussed. I am one of the speakers and have always made sure that my own talk would be freely redistributable. I wouldn't really want it to be modifiable except for translation and quotes, since it's a work of opinion. Nobody should get the right to modify the video in such a way as to make my opinion seem like it's anything other than what it is.

If I remember correctly, it was 4 video channels last year: tracking on presenter, proscenium, audience, projector.

Yes. I put in $100, and I am asking other people to put in money to sponsor these programs so that everyone, including people who did not put in any money at all, can see them for free. If you look at the 150+ videos, you can see that Gary's pretty good at this (and he brought a really professional-seeming cameraman to Hamvention, too) and the programs are interesting. Even if at least four of them feature yours truly :-) He filmed every one of the talks at the TAPR DCC last year (and has filmed for the past 5 years) and it costs him about $8000 to drive there from North Carolina to Austin, Texas; to bring his equipment and to keep it maintained, to stay in a motel, to run a multi-camera shoot for every talk in the conference, and to get some fair compensation for his time in editing (and he does a really good job at that).

Those virgins every holy warrior gets in the end cost a lot of money and aren't really contributing much to the cause themselves.

Surely, we could automate virginity?

No, but the societal acceptance of these evils -- and the scale of the acceptance, moving on to promotion and calling vices virtues, and the downright fascist hostility to anyone who doesn't share this outlook, is downright breathtaking.

Can anyone imagine a mob getting a CEO fired because he donated $1K to a political cause they didn't like even just 5 years ago? I can't, and it's why I'm still stunned Mozilla fired Eich... for the "crime" of having religious beliefs. And it's not just CEO's -- Chase bank is asking it's employees if they are members of or allies of the "LGBT Community". No word on what happens if the employee says "I don't care what you do in your bedroom, but it's not a marriage." They'll probably get fired and liberals like the dipshits we have around here will cheer this saying something along the lines of "Good! We should not tolerate such intolerance!"

Can anyone imagine just 5 years ago the decay (and acceptance of sin) we're seeing in the American Protestant Church? The gay marriage agenda is nothing more than a play from Marx's book on how to destroy the Church -- by launching a full frontal assault on the nuclear Family.

As an aside, I'm seeing a trend start -- as Protestant denominations become more and more secular, a good number of those, shall we say, conservative members, are coming home to the Catholic Church.

The Episcopaleans, the Anglicans... these denominations are falling -- and many members who believe are becoming Catholic.

Most people, I think, sense it -- we've fallen off the final cliff. The landing is going to be brutal. As long as we're falling, though, there's still time to brace and prepare.

But when the shit hits the fan -- and it will -- there will be Hell to pay. God has a limit to how much offense He will take, and His Judgment will be unleashed.

Why is there a debate at all?

Because people want it. Suppose (just hypothetically) you were getting a subsidy from the public, and that the subsidy served no useful purpose. Then suppose someone said, "Hey, this is getting expensive and unless we change the rules for how we compute your subsidy, it's going to get more expensive in the future."

You would call for debate. Why wouldn't you? What've you got to lose?

Futhermore, if you lost that debate, and then people started saying, "Let's change the rules for your subsidy, either eliminating or reducing it," you would call for debate, because since your subsidy serves no useful purpose, the rational course of action is going to be to eliminate your subsidy.

I think we're pretty much now at the stage, where we should start seeing some some great arguments for how pollution reduces crime (and pollution solves some other social problems as well), and that if you want to be tough on crime (and address other social ills), then we need to increase pollution. (That'll be the liberal argument, put forth by Republicans.)

This will be countered by the argument that increasing pollution just makes industries become dependent upon pollution, cleaning up the pollution is needlessly expensive, and industries that pollute could be just as productive without the pollution. (That's the conservative argument, put forth by Democrats.)

Yeah, so thunder, lightning and storms are not the sole domain of men. Also, Storm has been Thor at some point in the past.

Donald Blake.

Marvel has substituted characters since time immemorial. Captain America has been at least two different people. Thor has been several different people, including another woman and a space alien. Maybe you don't consider this interesting, but Marvel apparently does. You don't have to buy their comics if you don't want to.

True, but the time to complain about that is when Marvel first appropriated Thor and other mythological characters. What happens here is already well-established in Marvel canon.

No it doesn't. You just think it does, because you don't know what the core characteristic of Marvel Thor is. Thor has been different people before, including another woman and an alien.

Thor's gender is such a significant feature of his established identity that not just a woman, but also an alien have been Thor in the past. Being Thor isn't about what's between your legs, it's about being worthy to wield Mjolnir.

This is about the Marvel character, not Norse mythology or Hollywood.

If your problem is with Marvel appropriating mythological characters, then that's a different complaint. A totally valid one, but also one that has nothing to do with the new female Thor.

Yes, but Thor is also a Marvel character. The Marvel character is not the same as the one from Norse mythology, even if a lot of the trappings are the same. The Marvel Thor is whoever happens to be worthy to wield Mjolnir. The old Marvel Thor wasn't born a god, he's a mortal who is worthy to become Thor.

If you object to that, then you object just as much to the old male Thor as to the new female Thor. If you don't object tot he old Thor and you still object to the new Thor, then you're sexist. There's no reason in Marvel canon why a woman can't become Thor, so the problem is entirely in your own preconceptions.