Excuse me. You're correct. I should have phrased it slightly different, such as "Why should our tax money ever be used for something like this?"

Heh, I caught that right after I submitted it, and wondered if anyone would comment on it.

The government has to be very careful with opinions as a whole though, since they are really there to represent the people.

There's a difference between Joe the representative voicing an opinion and the government body applying resources (given to them by the tax payers) to voice an opinion.

I happen to be one who think that there is enough evidence to say at the very least that global warming is possibly non-existent. If the government starts spending my tax money to at best argue global warming or at worst silence people who don't think there's enough evidence to support it, I'd feel both ripped off / used and controlled. These are not good things.

Why is our tax money being used for this?

I mean, I don't care about people who think the moon landing is fake. Let them spend their time thinking that. It doesn't hurt me. What does hurt me is _my_ hard earned money being used for a useless cause.

It even states in TFA that "some conspiracy theories, under [their] definition, have turned out to be true." So why spend time and energy arguing potentially the wrong side?

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).