mkwt

joined 2 years ago
[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 11 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The proof is not that ancient. Pi was proven to be irrational in 1761, and proven to be transcendental in 1882.

For a long time the problem was known as "squaring the circle": Given a circle in a plane, construct a square with the same area using a compass and straightedge. This was a famous unsolved problem in mathematics from antiquity all the way through the renaissance.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

IMAX film is twice as wide as standard film. 70 mm instead of 35 mm. The IMAX film platters are physically ginormous. All that extra film gives you a bunch of extra resolution compared to regular film.

The first catch is that "IMAX standard" may not be real IMAX. I don't know exactly what that means. Perhaps it could even be digital projection that aims to be comparable to IMAX in some ways?

Second catch is that a lot of films that are shown in IMAX theaters were not actually shot on IMAX originally. If a film was shot on 35mm, say, and then printed onto IMAX, you don't get all of the resolution benefits, and you may also get letter boxes or pan-and-scan because the aspect ratio isn't the same. IMAX cameras are massively more expensive and logistically difficult than regular film cameras.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 116 points 3 days ago (13 children)

Just to be clear: with a marginal tax rate, if your income is $10,000,001, you pay $0.70 tax for the $1, and the rest of the $10,000,000 is taxed according to the lower tax brackets.

The first $50,000 of that $10 million is taxed just like the guy that only made $50,000.

The US tax system is slightly more complicated than this, but there's no situation where you can get stuck with a huge additional bill because you edged slightly into the next higher tax bracket.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I don't think the Tolkien estate is willing to option Silmarillion or any other content. Far as I know, all of the film and TV content is based on a single, very old license agreement from before they soured on film and video. As a result it only covers The Hobbit and LOTR. The Amazon show was therefore restricted to the LOTR appendices only.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (4 children)

(It's going to be a lot more than $20B to actually construct a moon base.)

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Switzerland distributes a lot of firearms, particularly through their mandatory military service. But Switzerland also very tightly controls the supply of ammunition for all of those firearms they issue.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I didn't know the circumstances, but it seems like her military service may have ended if she was 27.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago

Whatever it is now doesn't matter, because they will completely rewrite the laws if they ever actually do a draft

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 67 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Keith Higgins, the district attorney, did not object to the bond in court and told the judge police did not consult his office before filing the charges.

Yep. This is headed to nolle prosequi town.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

I think the 0.25c claim is mostly Technical Manual content and not on-screen canon. The manual also claims that the stardate calendar is designed to cope with time dilation and relativity of simultaneity issues.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Usually in these stories, Batman or whoever leaves behind enough evidence to support a successful prosecution, along with the tied-up bad guy.

The vigilante broke the law to gain evidence, so all the evidence the vigilante obtained would be thrown out,

That's actually an interesting situation. The fourth and fifth amendments put restrictions on the government, not private vigilantes. So if the cops just happen to find evidence in plain view, there won't be a direct constitutional reason to suppress it.

Now if the local prosecutor has a pattern or practice of deliberately turning a blind eye to the unlicensed private investigators that routinely supply them with illegally obtained information, there's probably a claim there. But it's a lot more complicated to make that case than a straight-up 4th amendment case.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Yep. All of the unmanned stuff is a real bargain.

I think Hubble was even cheaper too, but Hubble was a hand me down spy sat from NRO.

 

A lawyer working with the Minnesota attorney’s office said she just wants some sleep, after working so hard to try to get ICE to follow court orders.

“I wish you would just hold me in contempt of court so I can get 24 hours of sleep,” Le said. “The system sucks, this job sucks, I am trying with every breath I have to get you what I need.”

Edit clarification: This attorney works for the federal government, not the State of Minnesota.

 

Over the weekend, Judge Nachmanoff made it clear that a large amount of discovery material is to be delivered to James Comey today. The prosecution team from North Carolina seem to be engaging in a series of stall tactics to delay this.

The eastern district of Virginia is known informally as the "rocket docket" because of its fast resolution times for cases.

 

While sitting for a deposition in a defamation lawsuit that she filed, Laura Loomer was asked to explain under oath what she meant by the phrase "Arby's in her pants" (which she earlier penned in a tweet).

Transcript:

Q  Can you explain to me what it means to say to her that "the Arby's in her pants"?
A  Well, Arby's --
    MR. KLAYMAN:  Objection.  Relevancy.
BY MS. BOLGER:
Q Answer the question.
A  Arby's sells roast beef.
Q  Right.  Can you tell me what -- why you were talking about "the Arby's in her pants"?
A  Well, it's just a -- an expression.
Q  What is the expression trying to convey?
A  It conveys the reason why she got a divorce by her own admission.
Q  Because she had roast beef in her pants?
A  Yeah.
Q  She'd put roast beef in her pants; that's what you're trying to say there?  You're literally saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A  I'm saying she literally -- it's so ridiculous.  I'm saying she literally put Arby's in her pants.  Yes.
    MR. KLAYMAN:  Objection.  Relevancy.
BY MS. BOLGER:
Q  You're not making a slur about her?
A  No.
Q  You're literally saying she put an Arby's sandwich in her pants; is that right?
A  Yes.  That's correct.  That's correct.
Q  Why are you laughing?
A  Because I just think it's so funny.
Q  What is your basis for saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A  I just think it's so funny.  I just think it's so funny.
Q  What is your basis for saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A  She carries roast beef in her pockets.
Q  What is your basis for saying she puts roast beef in her pockets and in her pants?
    MR. KLAYMAN:  Objection. Relevancy. Harassment.
view more: next ›