Slashdot Mirror
Obama DoJ Goes Against Film Companies
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot, I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism. Well here's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism. Chalk one up for those who like to point out that, occasionally, the system does work. You may recall that the US Supreme Court has been mulling over whether to grant the film industry's petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the important Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. This was the case which held that Cablevision's allowing its customers to make copies of shows and store them on Cablevision's servers for later viewing did not constitute a direct copyright infringement by Cablevision, there being no 'copy' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory' duration. The Supreme Court asked the Obama DoJ to submit an amicus curiae brief, giving its opinion on whether or not the film companies' petition for review should be granted. The government did indeed file such a brief, but the content of the brief (PDF) is probably not what the film companies were expecting. They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ. Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced."
furst poast!
spammity spam pam spam oh yeam oh yeah spammitiiiy spam paaam spaam oh yeeeeeah yyadda yadda yadda
In probability theory, the law of total variance or variance decomposition formula states that if X and Y are random variables on the same probability space, and the variance of X is finite, then
\operatorname{var}(X)=\operatorname{E}(\operatorname{var}(X\mid Y))+\operatorname{var}(\operatorname{E}(X\mid Y)).\,
In language perhaps better known to statisticians than to probabilists, the two terms are the "unexplained" and the "explained component of the variance" (cf. explained variation).
The nomenclature in this article's title parallels the phrase law of total probability. Some writers on probability call this the "conditional variance formula" or use other names.
(The conditional expected value E( X | Y ) is a random variable in its own right, whose value depends on the value of Y. Notice that the conditional expected value of X given the event Y = y is a function of y (this is where adherence to the conventional rigidly case-sensitive notation of probability theory becomes important!). If we write E( X | Y = y) = g(y) then the random variable E( X | Y ) is just g(Y). Similar comments apply to the conditional variance.)
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against non-Blacks. Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is a non-Black minority. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate. Only about 65% of them supported Obama.
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.
You lost a goatse? Bend over that chair and I'll find it for you.
Death to all 4chans
People vote based on feelings of solidarity far more often than on reason. Plenty of people voted for McCain because his competitor was a nigger. Many millions voted for Bush because he was in or below their own IQ bracket. What's your point?
Of course, it's also possible that blacks are just that much more intelligent than mainstream Americans.
What you say is interesting, but it's off-topic. Why am I even responding?
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
So your answer to combating racism is to become racist? Barack Obama (I'm not going to use his middle name, which you continually do to try to make people think there's some relation there that there is not) would not have won if many people that were not minorities had not also voted for him.
Someone sounds like a very bitter conservative. What happened to the cries of "Support our President" you guys were screaming when Bush was starting wars on false pretenses?
Dude, are you serious?
The government does something bad, and it's out to get you.
The government does something good, and it's a "tactical deception", designed to lull you into a false sense of security, and it's out to get you.
Dude, this is Slashdot. Very little thought goes into the average post. The only reason the posters here aren't sitting on a barstool, spouting off with these conspiracy theories, is they're underage. When they get old enough, they'll be slurring these same sorts of words in some bar somewhere - but no one will be listening then. So lighten up, and let them feel important for now.
#DeleteChrome
Ah I love the smell of panicking conservative dickhead in the morning. It smells like Victory.
I enjoy the rampant paranoia of posts like this.
Of course they really voted for Obama because they learned the lesson that Republicans are usueless in govt.
But keep trying to put your racial spin on it, i for one enjoy your paranoid delusions.
Who modded this informative? Really? You didn't know that we don't have hyper-intelligent, omniscient, perfectly altruistic robot overlords? Really?
Well, exactly half DO fall under the mean IQ, by definition. Whether that is also representative of mean intelligence is another issue.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You just failed statistics 101. The mean is neither the median nor the mode. And I'll even give you an example: Consider the numbers 88,88,90,92,157. The mean is 103. The median is 90. The mode is 88.
Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
It's astounding to me that someone would make the argument that a black man was elected *because of*, rather than in spite of, racism.
It is the neolibs that post those stupid posts and you just eat it up because it fits so perfectly with what the media have told you a conservative is.
Those posts are solely designed to taint the character of the people that do not support their ideology.
It is so blatant that I cannot believe so many slashdotters fall for it.
These posts do not contain any kind of conservative message, just racial hatred. (And to anticipate the response - racial hatred is not conservatism.)
Honestly, if these "redneck conservatives" are passionate enough to sit by their computers all day and post this garbage, why would they post anonymously? Do you really think someone filled with this much hatred would be afraid of someone seeing their made up username?
But "redneck," when used in an equally hateful way, is okay--and that's not really right.
Redneck isn't so bad. It means your neck is red from working out in the sun all day, like you should be doing. Honky? That's a stupid name. I'm not really felling anything here. If you want to piss off a white dude, don't use it. Cracker? That's a favorite of black comedians and so it's a bit trite. It's probably the closest that comes to being offensive. It comes from "whip crackin'" on the slaves. But there are about as many whip crackers alive today as there are former slaves--so it's anachronistic at best.
But I'll tell you what really can irritate a white dude more than names. It's that anger at white people. Until I moved to LA, I've never seen anything like it. I think it's anger at "the man." I feel it worst from bus drivers. But they really shouldn't exude that anger because if they were to stop and think about it for a minute, they'd realize that *THE MAN* DOESN'T RIDE THE BUS!
Just callin' it like I see it.