Iconic WWII photo canceled, then uncanceled

One time I was running a programming practical class. One of the students came up to me and said 'my computer isn't working'. I asked him to show me what was happening. Each time he ran his program it exited with an error message. I asked him to show me the program. It was something of a revelation to him that the problem might be his program. Anyway, I found the offending line quite quickly, he was dividing by zero.
I said 'there's your problem'.
He looked at it and said 'There's nothing wrong'.
I said look harder, he looked blankly, so I asked him what would be the value of the two variables. He correctly worked out that the divisor would be zero, but still couldn't see the problem.
'What do you get when you divide a number by zero?' I asked. Again, that blank look.
I asked him what you got when you divided 1 by 1. He knew that. Divided by 0.5. He got that. He followed it down to 0.01 gives 100. I hoped he was seeing the pattern, but I took no chances.
"See, the smaller that you divide the number by, the bigger the result", I said, "so what happens when you divide a number by zero?"
He looked completely blank, the suddenly a look of revelation came over his face. I thought he had got it.
He took his calculator out of his bag and entered "1÷0=", looked at the result, and said to me with a look of triumph on his face "e".

Irrelevant. Both valuers were valuing market value. They were given different information which materially affected the valuation. The tax man valued it on the basis of deed restrictions preventing its use for anything but a private club, the bank valuers that it was free of such restrictions and could be used for anything.

It is explained in the ruling starting page 81.

So, if you see a disclaimer in the fine print you assume that you're being defrauded? Anyhow, thankfully the court found that the 'worthless clause' is worthless as a defence, and this ruling was upheld on appeal - as it should have been. Adding 'I might be telling you lies' doesn't make one immune from being charged with fraud. Imagine how that would work if generalised. If you told someone you might shoot him it would be his responsibility to get out of the way and when you actually did shoot him you couldn't be charged with murder. If you told someone you might burgle his house it would be his responsibility to prevent you doing so and if he did burgle him you'd get off scot free. It's a nonsense. And my analogy is spot on. Sorry about that. It just exposes the double standard.

Trump's running on prosecuting immigrants (among other things). Does that mean that were he elected any prosecutions of immigrants would be invalid? I'm not sure that I agree with election of partisan attorneys general, but that's what happens in the US. No point complaining about it. Plus, she's only doing the job she's required to do in NT Executive Law § 63(12) (fully explained starting pp2 of the ruling).

Clearly not, because this was a civil case and did not allow for either of those penalties. I quite like the idea of the law as it stands being applied as it stands. It would definitely be a bad idea if execution was added to the list of remedies in a civil case.

I don't think so. The poll I could find gave 50% think he's guilty, 24% think he's not and 25% don't know. That accords pretty well with the results for the other cases researched by YouGov, which is one of the more neutral and reliable polling organisations. The problem is that as you might expect, Democrats overwhelmingly think he's guilty, Republicans overall think he's innocent, but independents tend to guilty - enough to give 'guilty' the plurality.

Your opinion, but the case has followed the law, so far as I can see.

You said earlier that politicians who commit crimes should only be prosecuted depending on political affiliation. Given this opinion, I would guess that means that you think they shouldn't be prosecuted if they are Republican. Doesn't seem to be a sustainable position to me. To my mind the question is has Trump committed crimes or not - and the purpose of the justice system is to determine whether someone has committed crimes of which they are accused. In the American justice system it's not possible just to undertake a political prosecution - a grand jury has to be convince that there is a case to answer first. The main mistake that the Justice Department has made is foot dragging. They were scared enough of the narrative that you're giving that they delayed the best part of two years before properly investigated. Let's be clear. Fraud should be and is a crime and fraudsters should be prosecuted. Trying to change the results of an election (apart from due process) should be and is a crime in a democracy, and people that do it should be prosecuted. In the other NY case, Trump is accused of the same crime for which his accomplice has already been tried, found guilty and sent to gaol.The concept behid law is quite simple:
1. There is a set of laws.
2. To convict a person of breaking a law the prosecution has to present evidence that they broke the law.
3. If the evidence presented does not prove that they broke the law they are found innocent.
Of course, nothing is perfect and miscarriages of justice do happen - but since in these cases we have not got to stage 3 we cannot say whether or not that might have happened.

LOL.
The thing about it, it was a scientific calculator, so he had e right there on the keyboard, beside π

How do you know if they are illegal if you don't prosecute them?

You keep on saying, you don't show why.