... in my previous post where I said that the Canadian courts found that her actions met the standard for double criminality, that is, that they were illegal in Canada as well. You may not like it, but your dislikes donâ(TM)t change reality ...

But that judgement does not imply truth.

In Canada, faulty rulings at any level are not unheard of. One does not have to be a lawyer to be able to spot some of them.

Itâ(TM)s great to hear that youâ(TM)re more qualified to discuss the merits of the evidence than the judge who already saw it and ruled that it was sufficient.

For some cases in Canada, many ordinary people are more qualified than some judges

After all, itâ(TM)d be rather silly for a random Slashdotter who had no involvement with the case to claim that the evidence that has already been deemed sufficient by the court was, in fact, insufficient.

Nope! That wouldn't be silly at all

For my part ... I simply reported on the facts of the ruling itself, which was that her actions constituted double criminality and that the extradition process should proceed based on the evidence that was presented.

Except that you left out other facts -- that faulty rulings in Canada are not unheard of.

... the facts are the facts, whether we like them or not.

The facts of a ruling do not imply the truth -- in Canada.

You canâ(TM)t just wave them away because you donâ(TM)t like them.

One can counter-argue the validity of a ruling.

And the facts here are that the evidence was found to be sufficient ...

Which, again, does not imply the truth

Wow, great catch!
That should have been modded up

The question now is whether there are any truly asymptomatic infected persons. If so, then that category could be still called asymptomatic.

But everyone else detected by the AI, previously considered asymptomatic, would now have to be called something else -- like *almost asymptomatic*

Lockdowns aren't a solution.

Lockdowns are part of the solution

Indeed.

When Musk makes declarations about Mars it seems to be to keep some of the public just talking about Mars -- and most readers here keep falling for it.

There's nothing rational about his declarations about the laws on Mars. If Musk takes any part of missions to Mars, it would be as a subcontractor to NASA and to provide chartered transportation. He couldn't afford to pay for any such mission, so he couldn't make the rules for Mars

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Musk could not ever afford a mission to Mars of any kind.

As a result, he could not make the rules.

Such missions would be paid for by NASA (the U.S. government) and they would make the rules

Not only they "won't", they couldn't

For any such mission, or colony, SpaceX would be mere subcontractors to NASA. The rules would be those decided by the U.S. government

... let's imagine what the US government will have to say about the operations of the company and its associates on US soil should they behave as if they're their own nation on Mars...

You misunderstand the picture. SpaceX is incapable of going anywhere near Mars except as a mere subcontractor to NASA. As a result, it would be the U.S. government that would make the rules

Sorry Elan, you and USA passengers will answer to and obey the U.S. government ...

Because it would not be SpaceX who would fund such a mission (it would be NASA and SpaceX would only be a subcontractor), the rules would automatically be those decided by the U.S. government

Should SpaceX ever reach Mars and establish a colony there while ignoring the interests of United States ...

Impossible.

SpaceX would be a mere subcontractor to NASA, if it ever has a part in going to Mars

They wouldn't "get there" as captain.

They would "get there" as mere subcontractors to NASA, that's all.

NASA would make all the calls (meaning the U.S. government)

How can anyone not realise that SpaceX would be but a mere subcontractor to NASA for all missions but the simplest satellite launches?

SpaceX would not be paying for any kind of mission to Mars, obviously.

For any kind of mission to Mars whatsoever, for the foreseeable future, SpaceX would be a mere subcontractor to NASA and would do as NASA says.

It would not be SpaceX's call what laws would apply on Mars -- which, by the way, would be the same laws as applies on the Moon

> For a long time now, NASA rockets have been designed for space exploration purposes, not military purposes.

Doesn't matter. Those space exploration rockets aren't helping us to address a single pressing or practical problem here on Earth, and they won't in the foreseeable future either.

> Once we had relatively efficient ways to put objects into the orbit of our choice, we found more and more applications.

Putting Earth-serving and Earth-observing objects in orbit is great. But that's not space exploration. Sending probes beyond Earth, if it's not for detection of Earth-threatening objects, is of no use to us now nor will it be in the foreseeable future.

> We developed capabilities for scientific purposes, and these capabilities proved to be very useful in everyday life.

In fact none have, with respect to space exploration.

> If we hadn't indulged in space exploration, we wouldn't have had the ready-made ability to put up GPS satellites once we could build them.

Nonsense. All we needed for GPS were military rockets -- the same kind used to launch spy satellites.

> We've also learned a whole lot scientifically ...

Nothing that we really needed to know now. None of it has helped us to address a single pressing or practical problem here on Earth, and none will do so in the foreseeable future either.

> What you are saying is that past space exploration efforts were good because you can see good results from them, and the current ones are wasteful since you lack imagination.

Incorrect. NO space exploration has been good. Again, space exploration means the exploration of space objects. The only exploration that mattered was the detection of Earth-threatening objects.

> There's no difference between gravitational waves and lasers as you explain them. Both were theorized and apparatus constructed.

That's correct. But the second was inherently useful due to its confirmation of properties of matter which we could exploit. The first is not such a device.

> The big difference is that lasers were created long enough ago that we've found very large numbers of useful purposes.

Incorrect. Lasers were known by scientists immediately to be useful and to provide promising capabilities. That's not the case with gravity wave detectors.

> There's no difference between gravitational wave detectors and Leyden jars as you describe. Neither was useful for any practical purpose.

Again incorrect. You don't seem to be reading my comments completely, so you're making me repeat them. Gravitational waves detectors detect things we cannot manipulate nor exploit for our benefit. Leyden jars did the opposite -- immediately.

> Both demonstrated properties of matter here on Earth.

Inaccurate. Gravity wave detectors demonstrate properties of matter here on Earth that we cannot exploit. Gravity is the weakest force in the universe.

> Scientists working on electricity early on didn't know that they could manipulate and exploit it for anything useful.

Incorrect. It was clear by making sparks that they could easily control something new. They could see that *immediately*. Sparks could start fires. They could make a frog's legs jump -- helping to understand physiology -- even pertaining to the human body. Gravity wave detectors cannot do any such thing.

> The big difference is that the Leyden jar era of electricity was a long time ago, and we've had lots of time to develop uses.

Incorrect. The uses for Leyden jars were immediate. Learn your history.

> So we shouldn't bother trying to understand anything about it then ...

That's a straw man. No one is suggesting that "we shouldn't bother".

What I'm saying is we should postpone further study for the time being -- since knowing more than we already know now about gravity won't change what we can do here on Earth in the foreseeable future.

> Many breakthroughs in technology and medicine were discovered due to space research.

Inaccurate. None of those breakthroughs were discovered in space. All resulted from research to solve practical problems and we can keep doing that -- researching to solve practical problems -- without building, launching, and monitoring space exploring spacecraft and telescopes.

> For example, that microprocessor you are using in your computer and that is also used to accelerate cancer research? Developed for space exploration.

Incorrect. It was developed for many purposes, primarily military.

> You have just described all forms of basic research, not just gravity waves and space exploration.

Incorrect. Research using gravity waves and the exploration of space are exceptional. Neither can help us to address a single pressing or practical problem here on Earth in the foreseeable future -- due to certain realities of physics, technology, and common sense. That's not the case for most other fields of scientific research.

> There was no particular use for lasers when they were discovered ...

Lasers were not "discovered". They were *theorized* and then later *realized* (built). Their development confirmed properties of matter here on Earth which scientists knew we could manipulate and exploit.

> There was no particular use for electricity when the Leyden jar was invented.

Incorrect. Both demonstrated properties of matter here on Earth which scientists knew we could manipulate and exploit.

> Now, as far as space exploration goes, we have solved some practical problems already, most obviously with communications and GPS satellites.

Those are not part of "space exploration" as the term is most often used and as I use it. Space exploration means exploring space objects and space phenomena -- not the setting up of Earth-observing and Earth-serving satellites, which address pressing and practical problems here on Earth.

> ... it was space exploration that pushed development of rockets that could put something in geosynchronous orbit.

Incorrect. It was the addressing of practical problems (i.e. military applications) which pushed the development of rockets.

> GPS satellites are a combination of space exploration and development in other areas.

Incorrect. GPS satellites are the result of addressing practical problems -- mainly military.

> The problem with "for the foreseeable future" is that in many ways that's a pretty darn short time.

Inaccurate. The time involved depends on the subject. The foreseeable future for *fashion* is incredibly short, but for subjects like faster than light travel, we can see centuries ahead, if not millenia.

> I'm nearing retirement age, but "the foreseeable future" is still considerably shorter than my expected remaining lifespan.

Incorrect. The foreseeable future for many capabilities we can imagine (e.g. FTL travel, reaching the nearest star, teleportation) is many many times the lifespan of humans.