the 0.0001% of Nerd Customers ought not to stand for inability to run servers.
FTFY. For those 0.0001%, there is AWS.
Wah wah, for some reason it needs to run on under powered hardware in an uncontrolled environment over an asymmetrical residential connection, because, for reasons!
Water ain't free, and Cali farmers think it should be.
There's your problem.
There is something that we agree upon vigorously. Not letting all users of water bid on available water is a subsidy.
I was reading interesting stuff about using forward osmosis to recover energy from desalination effluent, or even as a pre-treatment step before final desalination.
Yes, but there are different types of desalination plants. Modern tech has hybrid micropore with solar/wind assist for pumping, and uses the old technique of glass windows to collect clean water. Do a search for solar desalination in any reputable energy journal.
Note that I said energy, to which you responded with several sources of alternative energy that might be employed. At the end of the day, the hypothetical pipeline might be driven by wind or solar energy as well. The wind or solar energy generated at the desalination plant could alternatively be sold, and so has monetary value that must be used to desalinate water.
There, I fixed that for you.
Let's stick with an analysis of the text in question, the post to which mine replied.
The text begins with, "There are two types of civil forfeiture", indicating an intention to describe two and only two types of scenario. Following this are two paragraphs clearly defining two types of persons from whom property is seized. First the text describes guilty people who totally deserve it, "There's the kind where they arrest you, take your stuff because it's evidence, or involved in a crime, and then, because it's involved in a crime, after you're convicted, they keep it." After this, the other situation where civil forfeiture occurs, "There's the kind where they arrest you, take your stuff because it's evidence, or involved in a crime, and then, because it's involved in a crime, after you're convicted, they keep it."
Characterizing the debate in this way makes it easy to dismiss the actual problems. In the latter case, the cops are implied to be corrupt, and in the former case the criminals deserve it. Sadly the issue is much more complex than this. Questions like, "who should benefit from the sales of seized property?", and, "since almost any physical object can be used in the furtherance of a crime, should a guilty person have all of their property seized?"
It is perplexing when you say, "Ignoring the outrageous cases that do occasionally happen is no less erroneous than what you accused us of", because this usage of us implies that I intended to say anything to you, Jane Q Public... a terrible mistake, which I already know well to avoid.
Really it is mostly something between the first and second case, where a person is found innocent of a crime, but their stuff has a second forfeiture trial where the burden of proof is on the accused to show that it could not have been used in a crime. The stuff has a lower standard of justice, and the people that take it have an incentive to lie.... The math is simple.
Whining about an absurdly uncommon occurrence, while ignoring the people who are being robbed every day, does a disservice to the debate. Framing the debate as the guilty and the never charged, is terrible to the point of being a straw man, which makes your anti-civil-forfeiture position confusing.
There are two types of civil forfeiture:
There's the kind where they arrest you, take your stuff because it's evidence, or involved in a crime, and then, because it's involved in a crime, after you're convicted, they keep it. This is entirely reasonable in most cases and is not the kind that most people who talk about Civil Forfeiture are actually talking about. For one thing, you're actually convicted before they get it for keeps.
Then there's the kind where a cop pulls you over, finds ten grand in an envelope under your seat, takes it because you -might- be using it to buy drugs (or you just sold a bunch), not that there's any evidence indicating that, files suit -against the money-, and keeps it. Or the kind where your kid sold pot from your house and they take your house the same way. This is the kind of civil forfeiture that people complain about when they talk about it. This is utter bullshit.
You are dangerously misinformed on this issue. The latter case mostly does not exist. The former, mostly nobody disagrees with. One of the major problems with the system is not so much that the stuff is sold, but that it usually goes directly to the budget or even pension of the police department that does the seizure. Giving police officers fiscal incentive to subvert justice is bad, period, even in the hand holding nice case. Really it is mostly something between the first and second case, where a person is found innocent of a crime, but their stuff has a second forfeiture trial where the burden of proof is on the accused to show that it could not have been used in a crime. The stuff has a lower standard of justice, and the people that take it have an incentive to lie.... The math is simple.
although, if you are a socially feeble individual, the topic might appear deep and complex. but it appears this way to some only because they possess immature social faculties. teenage boys. adults with social disorders
Switching from the straw man fallacy to the ad hominem fallacy, classy.
nobody wants to hear dick jokes except socially immature douchebags
Odds are, somebody thinks you are a douche bag too. Do we need a campaign to rid Slashdot message boards of punctuation disrespecting, fallacy flinging, intellectually immature douche bag, bibliophobes?
do you not understand this common internet convention or are you not familiar with the concept of sarcasm?
Sarcasm is a frequent veil on the straw man fallacy, but in reality you are portraying the original argument in a reduced way which appears so stupid that it is obviously incorrect, which is the textbook definition of said fallacy.