I've worked in the public sector a while and what I learned is - if the agency head(s) ask you to do something job related, even if it's against the policy that's printed out, you do it.
In my experience (private sector, financial industry) that results in immediate termination of your employment. And that isn't theoretical, I'm aware of two instances at my current company. In both cases they had security guards escort them off the premises.
Driving a car in a videogame and driving a car in real life are very different, but the actual *racing* part is pretty similar. Controlling the car is important, but it's not what wins races. Racing is all about knowing the lines and racing techniques, and a video game can definitely teach you that.
I think, at least to an extent, it helps with actual driving too. I've sunk at least a hundred hours into every GT game since GT1 (before I even had a learner's permit). On three occasions I've had to make emergency reactions while driving in real life where - I don't know quite how to put it into words - everything just felt smooth and practiced.
Two things especially, scaling reaction to speed of travel and turning into a fishtail, are things that I think feel natural from all the time in GT. I just fortunately haven't had many "practice" opportunities in real life, so I figure I must have learned from the games.
I use a wheel & pedals instead of a controller, too, which maybe helps the simulation value.
Except by every means, The Daily Show covers more news than the typical mouth-breathing news casters, and does so in a funny way. They don't lie, make shit up, or spend thirty minutes covering Madonna's booger incident via twitter: they show news footage, give a quick 60 second real news blurb, then make a joke.
Totally agree. The Daily Show makes news entertaining. Fox makes entertaining news.
That's my biggest problem with this... what's the false positive rate (hardware failure as well as unintentional triggers e.g. humidity vs. submersion) on the sensors?
Why is it the companies responsibility to keep your records for you?
A financial institution has the know-how and resources to maintain secure records in multiple copies at different geographical locations. A majority of that institution's customers do not. Although you clearly have it far more together than most, it sounds like if your house goes up in flames you still might be calling up banks for records.
actually you are wrong. If a game you bought is defective and you have the receipt (and it's within I think 30 days) the store must replace the game for the same game. It's the law.
Which of course is just boatloads of help when your CD drive isn't compatible with SecuROM, or the game doesn't start up at all due to some odd incompatibility or bug that the publisher may or may not deem worth fixing.
I'll stick with consoles until they fix that, or at least specifically state that returns will be accepted for defective software rather than just defective media (Stardock, and I believe Gas Powered Games, seem to be taking steps in that direction)
Mine seem to like them, and I like them just because i can move it so much faster than the toy mice... they seem to love running full speed through the halls after it. They get all excited every time I bring it out.
That said, I mostly use the little mice and that kind of thing, for the exact reason you mention. The laser pointer comes out *maybe* once a week, to give them a good workout (indoor cats).
There is also the problem of a ricochet if you miss. With a laser weapon, you don't worry about wind or many other factors. Ricochet is also not a real concern.
I know nothing about weapon-strength lasers, but what about reflective surfaces? I know there's enough around the house that when I'm playing around with one of those laser cat toys, there's plenty of stuff around that reflects enough of the beam that the reflection is clearly visible. And i'm not even just talking mirrors, but things like dishes, vases, even sufficiently shiny wood furniture reflects at least some of the beam.
So leaving the morality out of it, since we're talking factual information rather than your opinions, you bring up an interesting point... the only area where version 1 is superior to version 2 is the result of an artificial construct that is theoretically in place to provide benefit to the population as a whole. Are the restrictions, limitations, reduced functionality, reduced performance, and violation of one's (perceived if not inherent) right to privacy outweighed by the (theoretically) limited monopoly providing incentive for the artist to produce more works?
Or has copyright law gotten so out of control and distant from its intended purpose that it now primarily serves to provide a legal framework for business entities to screw over paying customers? I'm not sure how, especially looking at situations like this, you could say otherwise. Defective by design, indeed.
I don't commit copyright infringement. I also don't purchase anything in which I receive a substantially inferior experience than a non-paying user of the item. I recently purchased Sins of a Solar Empire after reading Stardock's "Gamers Bill of Rights", and although I think they've violated it since I now need to install some second piece of software to get the newest patch, it's at least not something that I would consider gives me a substantially inferior experience.
So, in my opinion:
Version 1. -Is legally acceptable and morally unacceptable.
Version 2. -Is legally unacceptable and morally acceptable.
That combination in Version 1 stopped me from purchasing Spore, and will stop me from purchasing RA3. There's plenty of entertainment out there where I don't need to feel like I'm being pissed on for being a legitimate customer.
Not a Stardock shill, just glad that there are companies out there that still give half a crap about their customers. It reminds me of a sign they post at a burger place near me.. and apparently I'm not the only one who has noticed and appreciated this kind of thing.
Anyways, d 1 says a "legislative authorization, or a statutory authorization;" which I think involves the AG's authorizations as prescribed by the FISA legislation.
An AG request AFAIK would be neither legislative (as the AG is executive) nor statutory (It seems FISA is the only applicable statute) - but seems to fit perfectly within title 18 2518.7, referenced in 2520.d.2. Where this becomes important is in 2518.7.a - assuming it's true that these requests were made for mass wiretapping, it would be difficult to argue mass "conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest". I'm sure the vast majority of international communications would most certainly not fit under 2518.7.a. If this is true, the requests were illegal, and the telecoms are not protected. We'd need to take it to trial to find out. Which brings up:
Do you hear what this is saying? I mean your basically saying that persecuting an innocent party in order to get back at the government is the way to go. That sounds like you think it is right for me to cost you millions in court fees just to find out if your parents were honest in some business arrangement that you weren't involved in. On many levels, this just doesn't seem right.
Yeah, I haven't been very clear there... My biggest problem is that the new FISA is assuming they're innocent. Qwest denied the wiretaps, and no action was taken against them by the AG. I know the Nacchio thing gets complicated, but if the requests were truly legit, he had nothing to lose and everything to gain by accepting them... yet he didn't. To me, this gives enough reason to doubt the requests - it at least gives the appearance that these requests were not protected under 2520.d. Something we'll never find out with automatic dimissal.
And it isn't like no one can testify. It is that if they do, they face prison time. That's what makes this so problematic and requires vehicles to verify outside of normal routines.... I agree but I don't think this puts the decision in the executives hands.
And the Nacchio trial is a perfect example of how this is a "fix" for the symptom, and avoids the problem entirely. And I'm not sure I understand how this doesn't put all the power in the executive... Under 202.a.1.A, the only part that's really in dispute is ii.II (this is getting nuts):
(ii) described in a written request or directive from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--
...
(II) determined to be lawful;
Keeping in mind the many other things that the office of the AG has "determined to be lawful", this sure looks to me like it's putting the power to determine whether or not the telecoms were breaking the law in the hands of the same ones (potentially) asking them to break the law.
Anyways, thanks for not jumping into a knee jerk defensive posture like many do here when presented with something that doesn't agree with their ideals. Maybe I'm focusing on what I see as the hypocrisy of demanding that the courts be the final arbitrator and not allowing the telecoms to have a fair day in the courts. To me is just seems a lot like throwing a suspected witch into the water, if the sink and die, they were innocent. If they float and live, they need to be killed because they are a witch. Can you understand why I have a problem with that?
Absolutely, I just think the FISA amendment is the wrong way to go about it. It seems that even if the intent is not to remove judicial review, there's at least enough room for the AG to wiggle out of it. I completely agree that the core of the issue is the whole state secrets thing... I just don't think section 202 is the right way to go about it. Perhaps use the FISA court or set up a new similar secret court to hear these cases (preferably the latter, with judges appointed by congress). There just has to be some solution better than 202's "because the AG says it's okay".
Minor nit.. I believe it's 2520.d.2 that is applicable, not.1.
And I do understand the catch-22 facing the telcos. But it seems that - at a high level - this is doing more than protecting them; that it's also legitimizing the AG's violation of 2518.7. I'm unaware of any other method than a civil suit (since the AG certainly won't be filing criminal charges) to find out what the hell happened for those 6 years - so this is effectively removing any judicial oversight, putting power solely in the hands of the executive (through a complicit legislative - hence the backlash). If the telcos were truly acting in good faith, they shouldn't have a problem convincing any judge or jury, even if they can't produce physical documents. If nobody can testify to seeing those documents, than I would certainly argue that they did not act in good faith.
In any case, that should be up to the courts to decide - not the executive.
Also - thanks for such a well thought-out discussion... this has unquestionably been one of my better experiences on slashdot.
But unless I'm missing something, none of those appear to be the case here... 2518.7 is specifically the law that has been broken, as the requirements set forth:
... may intercept such wire, oral, or electronic communication if an application for an order approving the interception is made in accordance with this section within forty-eight hours after the interception has occurred, or begins to occur.
So now you are going to spend the people's money by having a trial and spend the company's (read: shareholding mutual funds, pensions & individuals) money to defend itself at a trial. If the act is legal then everyone benefits by it being declared as so formally.
You know that saying... "Freedom isn't Free"? Neither is justice, and monetary expense should not justify abandoning either.
If you have been paying attention you would know that the documents the telecoms need to show their actions were legal have been classified by the Bush administration as national security secretes.
I'm well aware of the complexities involved... as you obviously are as well.
If you look at the so called immunity bill, it doesn't actually provide immunity. It provides a means for the administration to certify if it presented orders or not and if they were legal or not.
But there's the rub... it's not a power of the executive (or legislative) branch to determine whether or not an activity was within the law. Between everything being secret, and the provisions of this bill on top of it all, they have effectively usurped that power from the judicial. It sure seems like effective immunity, if not explicit.
If they were legal and there was a court order, the case automatically gets dismissed. If they weren't followed through on or if they relied on the AG's authorizations, then it goes to a special court of abuse to determine if the government actually presented a legal looking document. If that is true, then the case get's dismissed. Under FISA, provisions allowed the AG to present authorizations without a court order given that one would be sought. It really isn't the Telecoms' fault if that follow through was never implemented because the follow through is after the fact.
Not being a lawyer, it's difficult to come to a complete understanding of the big picture, but the way I parse the text, the court review only comes into effect when the AG gives unsworn testimony (per USC section 1746 of title 28 referenced in 202.b). 202.a doesn't explicitly require sworn testimony from the AG - only "certification to the court". Perhaps sworn testimony implied? Otherwise, a rubber stamp from the AG is all that's needed... again keeping all the power inside the executive.
It's unfortunate when any entity gets stuck in legal dilemmas like this, but it seems to me that the complex nature of the issue makes review even more important.
Which is where the state secrets privelege becomes such a problem... obviously, there are situations where secrets are vital to the security of a country, at least for a period of time. But how can abuse be prevented when investigations into abuse can be halted in their tracks because everything's a secret? I don't pretend to have an answer, but congress seems more intent to sweep everything under the rug rather than address the issue.
In this case with the telecoms, the current law and the law at the time of the incidents gave the telecoms a complete defense against any civil or criminal prosecution resulting under any law if the government presented them with legal looking authorization.
If everything they did was legal at the time, then why such an intense need to make it retroactively legal now? Let them defend themselves in court.
A saner course of action would be to vote for a small party, or express your disgust by not voting at all. Don't be part of the problem by keeping the duofascists in power.
actually, that's not the saner thing. That doesn't guarantee their defeat in the same way voting for their strongest opponent does.
Or, here's a crazy thought, instead of getting pissed enough over this to want the other guy to win out of spite, perhaps historical voting records regarding civil liberties for Obama and McCain would be useful. I'm very upset with Obama over this (Unity is all well and good, but not at the expense of the rule of law), but in no way is McCain a better choice where civil liberties are concerned.
Yes, that's the ACLU, and lots of people strongly disagree with them for various reasons. Just take their spin into account and make your own decision.
I would much rather that he applied himself to do well in school and set a good example of what good behavior, studying, and hard work can do when working with the grain, not against it. This country was created by the actions of those going against the grain.
So why in the world would they put the OS X ecosystem on a course to only support Intel? According to Jobs, PA Semi is for embedded devices... from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.A._Semi
Steve Jobs has said that the acquisition is meant to add the talent of P.A. Semi's engineers to Apple's workforce, and help them build custom chips for the iPod and iPhone.[6] Citation references WSJ interview of Jobs.
the fax is sufficient evidence to resolve most problems, either by providing proof of a signature or proof of a forgery. All the faxes I've ever seen have been so low quality that I can't imagine either of these being possible. Has there been any precedent set for this? I would imagine any ruling would be against the entity accepting a fax as proof of signature. If someone takes a loan out in my name using a lifted & faxed copy of my signature, it certainly isn't my responsibility that some business has decided that this was enough proof for them to hand over money.
Wouldn't be surprised either way... was fortunate enough to dump comcast a few years ago, but ah, the memories... I especially liked this (from the broadbandreports forum on the hack):
Just called Comcast and my phone number didn't register..had account for 7 years with same number and the CSR insisted that I wasn't a customer. After putting me on hold for 10 minutes she said that the "internet just went down" and that until it comes back up I cannot access email. I told her that the internet was fine, just the comcast.net site.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it would be wonderful to be able to create home-brew software and what-not for your device. But that is not a /right/.
It was when I bought my PS3.
I've worked in the public sector a while and what I learned is - if the agency head(s) ask you to do something job related, even if it's against the policy that's printed out, you do it.
In my experience (private sector, financial industry) that results in immediate termination of your employment. And that isn't theoretical, I'm aware of two instances at my current company. In both cases they had security guards escort them off the premises.
Driving a car in a videogame and driving a car in real life are very different, but the actual *racing* part is pretty similar. Controlling the car is important, but it's not what wins races. Racing is all about knowing the lines and racing techniques, and a video game can definitely teach you that.
I think, at least to an extent, it helps with actual driving too. I've sunk at least a hundred hours into every GT game since GT1 (before I even had a learner's permit). On three occasions I've had to make emergency reactions while driving in real life where - I don't know quite how to put it into words - everything just felt smooth and practiced.
Two things especially, scaling reaction to speed of travel and turning into a fishtail, are things that I think feel natural from all the time in GT. I just fortunately haven't had many "practice" opportunities in real life, so I figure I must have learned from the games.
I use a wheel & pedals instead of a controller, too, which maybe helps the simulation value.
Except by every means, The Daily Show covers more news than the typical mouth-breathing news casters, and does so in a funny way. They don't lie, make shit up, or spend thirty minutes covering Madonna's booger incident via twitter: they show news footage, give a quick 60 second real news blurb, then make a joke.
Totally agree. The Daily Show makes news entertaining. Fox makes entertaining news.
That's my biggest problem with this... what's the false positive rate (hardware failure as well as unintentional triggers e.g. humidity vs. submersion) on the sensors?
I don't know why this guy got modded Troll. Wanting to know what's different about a title is a perfectly valid question.
I'm gonna hazard a guess that the Troll mod was related more to the part after the ellipsis rather than the part before.
Why is it the companies responsibility to keep your records for you?
A financial institution has the know-how and resources to maintain secure records in multiple copies at different geographical locations. A majority of that institution's customers do not. Although you clearly have it far more together than most, it sounds like if your house goes up in flames you still might be calling up banks for records.
If nothing else, it's good customer service.
actually you are wrong. If a game you bought is defective and you have the receipt (and it's within I think 30 days) the store must replace the game for the same game. It's the law.
Which of course is just boatloads of help when your CD drive isn't compatible with SecuROM, or the game doesn't start up at all due to some odd incompatibility or bug that the publisher may or may not deem worth fixing.
I'll stick with consoles until they fix that, or at least specifically state that returns will be accepted for defective software rather than just defective media (Stardock, and I believe Gas Powered Games, seem to be taking steps in that direction)
Mine seem to like them, and I like them just because i can move it so much faster than the toy mice... they seem to love running full speed through the halls after it. They get all excited every time I bring it out.
That said, I mostly use the little mice and that kind of thing, for the exact reason you mention. The laser pointer comes out *maybe* once a week, to give them a good workout (indoor cats).
There is also the problem of a ricochet if you miss. With a laser weapon, you don't worry about wind or many other factors. Ricochet is also not a real concern.
I know nothing about weapon-strength lasers, but what about reflective surfaces? I know there's enough around the house that when I'm playing around with one of those laser cat toys, there's plenty of stuff around that reflects enough of the beam that the reflection is clearly visible. And i'm not even just talking mirrors, but things like dishes, vases, even sufficiently shiny wood furniture reflects at least some of the beam.
Version 1.
-Is legally and morally acceptable.
Version 2.
-Is legally and morally unacceptable.
So leaving the morality out of it, since we're talking factual information rather than your opinions, you bring up an interesting point... the only area where version 1 is superior to version 2 is the result of an artificial construct that is theoretically in place to provide benefit to the population as a whole. Are the restrictions, limitations, reduced functionality, reduced performance, and violation of one's (perceived if not inherent) right to privacy outweighed by the (theoretically) limited monopoly providing incentive for the artist to produce more works?
Or has copyright law gotten so out of control and distant from its intended purpose that it now primarily serves to provide a legal framework for business entities to screw over paying customers? I'm not sure how, especially looking at situations like this, you could say otherwise. Defective by design, indeed.
I don't commit copyright infringement. I also don't purchase anything in which I receive a substantially inferior experience than a non-paying user of the item. I recently purchased Sins of a Solar Empire after reading Stardock's "Gamers Bill of Rights", and although I think they've violated it since I now need to install some second piece of software to get the newest patch, it's at least not something that I would consider gives me a substantially inferior experience.
So, in my opinion:
Version 1.
-Is legally acceptable and morally unacceptable.
Version 2.
-Is legally unacceptable and morally acceptable.
That combination in Version 1 stopped me from purchasing Spore, and will stop me from purchasing RA3. There's plenty of entertainment out there where I don't need to feel like I'm being pissed on for being a legitimate customer.
Not a Stardock shill, just glad that there are companies out there that still give half a crap about their customers. It reminds me of a sign they post at a burger place near me.. and apparently I'm not the only one who has noticed and appreciated this kind of thing.
Who knew that pumping phosphorous and toxic waste into the rivers and ocean would have negative consequences.
It's not "negative consequences", it's Localised Phosphorus Content Change.
Anyways, d 1 says a "legislative authorization, or a statutory authorization;" which I think involves the AG's authorizations as prescribed by the FISA legislation.
An AG request AFAIK would be neither legislative (as the AG is executive) nor statutory (It seems FISA is the only applicable statute) - but seems to fit perfectly within title 18 2518.7, referenced in 2520.d.2. Where this becomes important is in 2518.7.a - assuming it's true that these requests were made for mass wiretapping, it would be difficult to argue mass "conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest". I'm sure the vast majority of international communications would most certainly not fit under 2518.7.a. If this is true, the requests were illegal, and the telecoms are not protected. We'd need to take it to trial to find out. Which brings up:
Do you hear what this is saying? I mean your basically saying that persecuting an innocent party in order to get back at the government is the way to go. That sounds like you think it is right for me to cost you millions in court fees just to find out if your parents were honest in some business arrangement that you weren't involved in. On many levels, this just doesn't seem right.
Yeah, I haven't been very clear there... My biggest problem is that the new FISA is assuming they're innocent. Qwest denied the wiretaps, and no action was taken against them by the AG. I know the Nacchio thing gets complicated, but if the requests were truly legit, he had nothing to lose and everything to gain by accepting them... yet he didn't. To me, this gives enough reason to doubt the requests - it at least gives the appearance that these requests were not protected under 2520.d. Something we'll never find out with automatic dimissal.
And it isn't like no one can testify. It is that if they do, they face prison time. That's what makes this so problematic and requires vehicles to verify outside of normal routines. ... I agree but I don't think this puts the decision in the executives hands.
And the Nacchio trial is a perfect example of how this is a "fix" for the symptom, and avoids the problem entirely. And I'm not sure I understand how this doesn't put all the power in the executive... Under 202.a.1.A, the only part that's really in dispute is ii.II (this is getting nuts):
(ii) described in a written request or directive from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--
...
(II) determined to be lawful;
Keeping in mind the many other things that the office of the AG has "determined to be lawful", this sure looks to me like it's putting the power to determine whether or not the telecoms were breaking the law in the hands of the same ones (potentially) asking them to break the law.
Anyways, thanks for not jumping into a knee jerk defensive posture like many do here when presented with something that doesn't agree with their ideals. Maybe I'm focusing on what I see as the hypocrisy of demanding that the courts be the final arbitrator and not allowing the telecoms to have a fair day in the courts. To me is just seems a lot like throwing a suspected witch into the water, if the sink and die, they were innocent. If they float and live, they need to be killed because they are a witch. Can you understand why I have a problem with that?
Absolutely, I just think the FISA amendment is the wrong way to go about it. It seems that even if the intent is not to remove judicial review, there's at least enough room for the AG to wiggle out of it. I completely agree that the core of the issue is the whole state secrets thing... I just don't think section 202 is the right way to go about it. Perhaps use the FISA court or set up a new similar secret court to hear these cases (preferably the latter, with judges appointed by congress). There just has to be some solution better than 202's "because the AG says it's okay".
Minor nit.. I believe it's 2520.d.2 that is applicable, not .1.
And I do understand the catch-22 facing the telcos. But it seems that - at a high level - this is doing more than protecting them; that it's also legitimizing the AG's violation of 2518.7. I'm unaware of any other method than a civil suit (since the AG certainly won't be filing criminal charges) to find out what the hell happened for those 6 years - so this is effectively removing any judicial oversight, putting power solely in the hands of the executive (through a complicit legislative - hence the backlash). If the telcos were truly acting in good faith, they shouldn't have a problem convincing any judge or jury, even if they can't produce physical documents. If nobody can testify to seeing those documents, than I would certainly argue that they did not act in good faith.
In any case, that should be up to the courts to decide - not the executive.
Also - thanks for such a well thought-out discussion... this has unquestionably been one of my better experiences on slashdot.
But unless I'm missing something, none of those appear to be the case here... 2518.7 is specifically the law that has been broken, as the requirements set forth:
... may intercept such wire, oral, or electronic communication if an application for an order approving the interception is made in accordance with this section within forty-eight hours after the interception has occurred, or begins to occur.
were never met.
So now you are going to spend the people's money by having a trial and spend the company's (read: shareholding mutual funds, pensions & individuals) money to defend itself at a trial. If the act is legal then everyone benefits by it being declared as so formally.
You know that saying... "Freedom isn't Free"? Neither is justice, and monetary expense should not justify abandoning either.
If you have been paying attention you would know that the documents the telecoms need to show their actions were legal have been classified by the Bush administration as national security secretes.
I'm well aware of the complexities involved... as you obviously are as well.
If you look at the so called immunity bill, it doesn't actually provide immunity. It provides a means for the administration to certify if it presented orders or not and if they were legal or not.
But there's the rub... it's not a power of the executive (or legislative) branch to determine whether or not an activity was within the law. Between everything being secret, and the provisions of this bill on top of it all, they have effectively usurped that power from the judicial. It sure seems like effective immunity, if not explicit.
If they were legal and there was a court order, the case automatically gets dismissed. If they weren't followed through on or if they relied on the AG's authorizations, then it goes to a special court of abuse to determine if the government actually presented a legal looking document. If that is true, then the case get's dismissed. Under FISA, provisions allowed the AG to present authorizations without a court order given that one would be sought. It really isn't the Telecoms' fault if that follow through was never implemented because the follow through is after the fact.
Not being a lawyer, it's difficult to come to a complete understanding of the big picture, but the way I parse the text, the court review only comes into effect when the AG gives unsworn testimony (per USC section 1746 of title 28 referenced in 202.b). 202.a doesn't explicitly require sworn testimony from the AG - only "certification to the court". Perhaps sworn testimony implied? Otherwise, a rubber stamp from the AG is all that's needed... again keeping all the power inside the executive.
It's unfortunate when any entity gets stuck in legal dilemmas like this, but it seems to me that the complex nature of the issue makes review even more important.
Which is where the state secrets privelege becomes such a problem... obviously, there are situations where secrets are vital to the security of a country, at least for a period of time. But how can abuse be prevented when investigations into abuse can be halted in their tracks because everything's a secret? I don't pretend to have an answer, but congress seems more intent to sweep everything under the rug rather than address the issue.
Business as usual, i suppose.
In this case with the telecoms, the current law and the law at the time of the incidents gave the telecoms a complete defense against any civil or criminal prosecution resulting under any law if the government presented them with legal looking authorization.
If everything they did was legal at the time, then why such an intense need to make it retroactively legal now? Let them defend themselves in court.
I think this amnesty bill has done more to show Barack Obama's TRUE colors than any other vote in his career.
... but looking at the other votes in his career compared to the alternative would still be wise.
Yes, its the ACLU and everyone seems to hate them... just #include <spinfilter.h> when reading the links.
A saner course of action would be to vote for a small party, or express your disgust by not voting at all. Don't be part of the problem by keeping the duofascists in power.
actually, that's not the saner thing. That doesn't guarantee their defeat in the same way voting for their strongest opponent does.
Or, here's a crazy thought, instead of getting pissed enough over this to want the other guy to win out of spite, perhaps historical voting records regarding civil liberties for Obama and McCain would be useful. I'm very upset with Obama over this (Unity is all well and good, but not at the expense of the rule of law), but in no way is McCain a better choice where civil liberties are concerned.
Yes, that's the ACLU, and lots of people strongly disagree with them for various reasons. Just take their spin into account and make your own decision.
Obama's voting record, from the ACLU's viewpoint:
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=110&repId=25424&session_num=0&page=legScore
And for fun, McCain's:
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=110&repId=122&session_num=2&page=legScore