But it's still better than not voting.

Well from the very limited amount of screenshots and the 9 second video clip, it seems to look a lot like it does in Warcraft 3, so while it does look pretty awesome and fun, I'm not sure what they'll be able to do that wouldn't be possible using Warcraft 3.

I'd think the main things this game could have to offer is better graphics and more options (more heroes / the ability to build and repair structures / etc). Plus, it might be cool if they allowed mods, kindof how World of Warcraft does, so that players could customize the interface and whatnot (however I say that not knowing specifics about this game, so that might not be possible).

Then again, just the simple fact that it's "DOTA on Linux" does have appeal in-and-of itself.

While that's true, it still doesn't link the person to the document, so they're sill ok.

Actually, let me rephrase that: They _should_ be ok. There is no direct evidence that connects the two, just circumstantial evidence. However, even though I don't think that would be enough to prove anything, you never know with this government... (oh, and IANAL)

I'm really confused.... Yes.

Playing devil's advocate here for a second:

What do you mean by "simple little html table"? I just tried making a really simple table and it looked pretty much the same... the default font was slightly different but that's to be expected, and doesn't prove incompatibility by itself.

Note: Sorry for responding to a flame, but I didn't have any mod points :-(

This is true. But just because you look at a EULA doesn't mean you agree to it. So like you start the installer, and while you're waiting for it to do all the crap it does when it's starting, you get a drink. Then it automatically shows the EULA. Your cat then proceeds to walk over the keyboard and accepts it, getting you to the screen that asks you where you want to install the program. You then come back and continue the installation. Oh, and to make it a bit more believable, you _can_ do everything with a keyboard, and the space bar (which is the key that would check the checkbox) _is_ fairly big.

But yes, I agree we're dealing with obscurity that probably wouldn't work anyhow...

...the argument which is stated in above comments frequently, is that since the device was created to allow the cat to accept the EULA, that it's giving the cat permission to act in your behalf (or however you want to state "allowing it to be tracked back to you").

This may be true. However, what if the cat just randomly walks across your keyboard and hits the correct button without any direct help? It seems to me that the above situation would discount that argument (even though I'm sure lawyers could find something else, obviously).

Um... the TV stations should be able to do whatever the hell they want. If they screw up, they'll pay for it by people not watching them which could lead them going out of business, but that doesn't mean that people have a right to tell the company what to do directly.

I applaud those stations. The confusion coming from the government is _not_ being fair to the television stations.

I tend to agree. Granted, they're going to have to change something or they'll _eventually_ fall behind. It'll take a while though... They may even need to reduce the cost of the OS at some point. However, that being said, I don't think they'll ever _need_ to open source any of it to stay in business.

Disclaimer: I'm not a business expert and the above statement could just be coming out of my ass.

So it may not be the most intuitive thing, but I name my computers after Magic cards:

[rabid] wombat: workstation
sustainer of the realm: router ('sotr' for short)
thalid: old workstation
dreamcache: fileserver
glory: server
stormscape [familiar]: laptop

I like to attach the actual cards to the machines after I name them. It's fun.

My roommate uses names from The Silmarillion.

Isn't that a little vague? Now, I don't really know that much about laws, but I did hear once that there's some kind of law in effect that keeps a bill from being passed unless it is specific enough. If a law like that exists, I wouldn't think this bill would meet that requirement.

Either way though, this certainly seems to violate that first amendment thing...

But at least those warnings have scientific proof behind them, even if they did get there by some corrupt political agenda. There's no scientific basis behind this at all.

I like the idea. Locking them down during just school hours then "releasing" them would be a nice system. There are definitely some good methods (like the one you mentioned) that implement a system that has a good balance between the restrictions needed by the school and the freedom needed by the students, which is really the main challenge here.