Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Irrelevant... (Score 1) 164

by khallow (#46801193) Attached to: Obama Delays Decision On Keystone Pipeline Yet Again

If thats the only 'fact' supporting why it should be approved, then it should not be.

This is why US law permits what it doesn't explicitly ban. So people like you can't just block things without a reason. Making money is not something that just magically happens. It occurs for two reasons, either someone is providing a service of value and receiving adequate compensation for it. Or someone is forcing someone to buy their shit. Making money in the absence of coercion implies that a good or service of value is being traded voluntarily.

Comment: Re:Who watches the watchers (Score 2) 186

by khallow (#46801167) Attached to: Google and Facebook: Unelected Superpowers?
There are several problems with this point of view. First, those who are greedy may throw their support to a harmful ideology (such as happened with German business and the Nazis prior to the Second World War). They can cause great harm in their own right, such as the Congo Free State or the British East India company.

Third, they can hold ideologies and attempt to pursue their greed in a way steered by their ideological blinders. For example, the Russian sell off of oil assets was expected to be a massive generator of economic value by a lot of generic business people, and it was - for a clique of well-connected oligarches. Everyone else who wasn't so well connected didn't do as well as they thought they would.

And so I don't get worried about corporations influencing governments. As long as they're kept at one anothers' throats (capitalism) things are working more or less the way they should.

This is the third great division of power in US politics.

Comment: Re:shareholder interests? (Score 1) 186

by khallow (#46801129) Attached to: Google and Facebook: Unelected Superpowers?

How does an oil pipeline have anything to do with anything Google shareholders care about?

It makes Google's power generation holdings more valuable, if there is a net shift from oil to electric powered vehicles.

Similarly, how does immigration reform benefit Facebook shareholders, who I assume, would be more interested in reducing immigration

Your assumption would be incorrect.

Comment: Re:Who watches the watchers (Score 1) 186

by khallow (#46801113) Attached to: Google and Facebook: Unelected Superpowers?

"Republic" is not defined as "not a monarchy" in the US

Let's look at the actual definition. This is the first one listed:

a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

There are other definitions which do fit your opinion more or less, but they aren't the only definitions of "republic" - in the US.

Comment: Re:Government is a tool (Score 2) 186

by khallow (#46801075) Attached to: Google and Facebook: Unelected Superpowers?

Government is only a corporate tool.

You can say that, but that doesn't make it so. Governments have far more power than corporations since one can readily acquire money with power, but not the other way around. Why would you even think that a company like Google would have more power than a government?

Comment: Re:Just another facet of post 'Citizens United' US (Score 1) 186

by khallow (#46801057) Attached to: Google and Facebook: Unelected Superpowers?

Even a regular bill needs to go through the senate, and end with a presidential signature... etc.

The Senate is part of the US Congress. And they can pass veto-proof legislation with supermajorities in both branches of Congress. So legislation is not at all the same as a constitutional amendment.

Comment: Re:Just another facet of post 'Citizens United' US (Score 1) 186

by khallow (#46800195) Attached to: Google and Facebook: Unelected Superpowers?

You can craft a new law that won't run afoul of the court guidelines.

And that can be done with the Citizens United ruling since the problem was that corporations were explicitly banned from doing activities that individuals could do. Of course, preventing individuals from donating to campaigns might run afoul of other constitutional restrictions such as the First Amendment.

Comment: Re:Renewables (Score 1) 432

by khallow (#46799483) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

. You obviously have no idea what it would mean to move most of the world cities inland.

About as much as it costs to leave cities in place. We already replace our cities every 50 years.

The pure bullshit is that you think moving to a low carbon economy will actually harm anyone's style of life in the west

Nonsense. The fantasy here is that what you want will magically have positive economic consequence. We need to keep in mind also that most of the world is not in the west. They will suffer as well.

I'll change my beliefs based on evidence, and actually care if they are right or wrong.

Sure, you will. I'll believe that when there's evidence.

Comment: Re:A rising tide (Score 1) 212

by khallow (#46799463) Attached to: California Utility May Replace IT Workers with H-1B Workers

Positive Sum Gaming would work if the rich didn't gain when you lose. But they do.

This is wrong. You are operating from incorrect premise, probably because you live in a developed world country.

You're also assuming we have to have 80% of humanity living in abject poverty.

You just made this assumption for the first time in this thread.

We already produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet, we just need people willing to say it's OK for people to have food, even if they didn't work themselves to death to get it.

A truly stupid statement, since those people have been saying that for some time. Saying "it's OK for people to have food" doesn't magically give people food. You need to have the infrastructure in place, including social and legal, in order for it to happen.

Comment: Re:Well considering that.. (Score 1) 349

by khallow (#46799417) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Hungry Students, How Common?

Wealth is the goods and services that you can enjoy.

Nonsense. I can enjoy great, highly valued ski trips to Vail, Colorado but they don't add to my wealth. Instead, if I invest that money, I not only can use a portion of it in the future to buy such ski trips or anything else of similar value that I happen to desire. Wealth is whatever enables me to buy present or future goods and services of value.

Your fault -- core dumped