oceans significantly warmed in the past 16 years. big water bodies are the bumpers that smoothen out the temperature changes - in micro and macro climate - and the agents that spread the heat around.
to do that, he has to be rich. to be rich, he has to play along. noone can put on a lifelong masquerade to hide his/her true intentions of eventually fighting against the rich, whereas playing along with them. you have to be one of them in heart and soul to play along.
'marketing campaign' is not a 'business model'. its marketing of that business model.
mp3s were harder to come by ? it was the most widely accepted and engaged social activity that related to computers - people even warmed up to acquaintances through exchanging mp3s. across all ages and both genders.
Because there is no connection between patent litigation and media distribution.
you mean, control freakdom in one certain field, may not seep to the other ? and:
Apple corralled the music industry to start selling music online and later forced the music industry to sell music without DRM. You can now put your iTunes music purchases on any device you want and copy them as much as you like.
yes. now. but apple was as controlling as it is everywhere in itunes too.
youre too trusting of a company that builds walled gardens.
They are not arguing it cannot have an effect, they are arguing their are holes in the climate change theory and from the data provided it is not yet conclusive that man kind is causing it.
they are not 'arguing' that there are holes in the theory at all - first, they told it cannot exist. then, they blamed it on the sun. 4-5 years ago internet was flooded with articles from think thanks paid to spread that propaganda. then, when it came out that sun was in its most silent period since a decade, they resorted to 'these are climate cycles - they happen' without any evidence.
If that was all there was to it, the Romans would still be in charge.
they would. if they havent gone all 'corporate american' on the society, and loaded ALL kinds of civic responsibilities ranging from firefighting to police to military on the shoulders of the public, and exempted themselves from taxation - just like what the "less than 1%" in usa is wanting.
they did otherwise. and therefore roman army continually declined in size and quality/training, more auxiliaries from tribes were incorporated into it as allegiance service. and circa late 300 ad, when things started to become really bad and tribal nations with intact hierarchies and command structures started to settle in roman lands legally or forcibly, they were too late to set up their own feudal arms. to the extent that britain - THE province in late roman empire which supplied the bulk of not only economy and the revenues but also the military - started to be raided, roman emperor told them they were on their own, and romans only returned once to teach romano-brits how to make roman helmets, shields, swords and armor. so, when empire had withdrawn from britain, there was nothing to protect even the largest latifundia owner from raiders. thats why they turned to saxons, and shit hit the fan.
meanwhile, while roman army increasingly became 'barbarized' by not only incorporating ever increasing number of non romans but also increasing number of 'barbarian' commanding officers. leading to a situation in which most of what was left of roman army was already commanded by 'barbarians' of questionable roman descent (more barbarian than roman compared to earlier ones) under major titles like dux, and a bureaucracy and religious hierarchy which was much more roman, but subservient to these.
in short, the subservience of romans had started near end of octavian's reign, even before 100 ad. but it was a slow process.
You confuse cause and effect. Wealth didn't exist in feudal times without force to protect it. Wealth didn't keep serfs on the land or coerce them to pay taxes. Power preceded wealth and enabled it.
that is wrong. and it is because you dont know history of roman republic, and roman empire. as i explained above, roman republic, and later roman empire was so efficient in keeping the peace (at least for around 100 years) that, there was no need for any kind of 'power' beyond frontier borders. it was so safe. that's also why romans had had faced much difficulties when barbarians first started invading en masse - because an army just march down from germania border to hispania without being confronted by ANYthing. this was why roman army reform was made around 200 AD, and legion system was replaced with a more mobile, more cavalry based, smaller army system to go here and there and meet interlopers. neither this succeeded - because there were so many - so, therefore increasing fortification of frontier provinces and later cities inland were necessary.
Ships? Army? Wealth? How will it get those? In real history, the East India Company got those from England.
they didnt 'get them', 'from britain'. in fact, british crown itself got those from private sources itself. at any given point, even its at mid 17th century peak, crown was not maintaining more than 4-5 ships of the line - they were so expensive. instead, the merchant navy and privateers and whatever floating could be found at large were being called into service during a case of war. from there comes the concept of 'ensign'. granted, the navy increased in size starting mid 17th century, and britain was sporting a considerable number of ships by mid 18th century in royal navy employ. however the example still stands - east india company was privately run, privately built, privately supplied, everything was done privately in britain. britain didnt even have the power to supply ships to east india company to do anything in india, due to the immense threat of dutch republic in most
Isnt denying that the huge-scale human intervention/activity on the planet - which goes from releasing boundless amount of heat to atmosphere to releasing radioactive substances to sea - can NOT have an effect that is considerable, as stupid as denying that the earth is older than 6000 years ?
one has the motive to control the masses by some private interests behind, the other has the motive to control the masses to protect profits.
I am tired of people who can hardly articulate a coherent thought or sentence and are now regurgitating random pieces of others' thinking as if their own
what you complain of, are the signs of some idea spreading around and being accepted. you should note that few of the people who were yelling slogans in meetings in 1774 actually knew what all of what they were yelling exactly meant. some may eventually really learn, some may never learn, but it is a sign of acceptance at least.
we read it. and now explain us what the fuck 'well packed' mp3 player means. endless number of brands had endless mp3 players which looked similar to the pods apple layed down as eggs.
It's all Apple has left: patents and lawsuits. Without Steve Jobs at the helm, what else did you expect them to do?
it was steve jobs who had started these patent/copyright wars. he was berserk at android and had called them thieves and whatnot. we discussed it here in slashdot when it was disclosed. you werent around it seems.
you are seeing the fruition of the policy jobs created and overseen.
When some idiot from ubisoft execs or something told that 'Game demos are a thing of the past' a year or so ago - when ubisoft was again throwing around drm stuff and accusing demos for piracy or this or that :
"As long as razor1911 has anything to say about it, we will have game demos..."
No. That was just the merchant republics, and they were few and small. In the old kingdoms the kings was assigned by the people to protect the realm. In the nordic countries we even elected our kings, the were elected for life, and people usually voted for the apparent heir to avoid civil war, but they were elected.
'no' to yourself. merchant republics did not come into being until around later. during the time roman empire was breaking up in 300 AD, and chaos and political/economic void ensued at the wake of invasions and settlements, whomever had more wealth commanded lordship. this was especially true for big roman landowners, latifundia owners. the very feudal domain itself as we know it, evolved from latifundia EVEN before roman empire started to crumble in 300 AD. by late 200s, latifundias were already spans of huge land, maintaining their own economy at the sole command of a single property holder - and even defending themselves. many small farmers sold their farms to these owners and either started to work under their pledge, or flat out indentured themselves to them for survival.
yes, you are right in that in old nord kingdoms you elected your kings, and this continued even in tribes that resettled in roman lands until after a long time - however, even they have transformed. especially starting with the concept of 'ownership' by persons came into the culture of these post-roman settled nordic tribes - in early days of the break of rome and resettlement, nordic tribes did not have a habit of 'owning' land. land was anyone's - anyone could enclosure a parcel of land for that season and grow food on it and get it only for that season. but it started to change by adopting the culture of the locale they settled, and no little thanks to the already established roman remnants trying to keep the roman way 'persuading' the settlers into these.
inevitably this changed even the nordic culture in resettlements - kingship became hereditary, and had become tied to land. whereas this happened in ex-roman locales, what you spoke of still continued as it is in ancestral nordic lands until 600-600 years after the fall of roman empire. EVEN after that date, the 'property ownership' and its concentration at the hands of minority did not happen to the scale it happened in europe, leaving the scandinavian population the only population in europe which was never truly enserfed. therein lies the roots of your modern, contemporary democracy - pluralism in wealth and ownership reflected into pluralism in politics.
You mean where "wealth" was having more, stronger, better armed guys? That history? So yes, you do.
wealth, was owning more land than others at that point in time in history. owning land meant food. which was de facto basis of wealth at that point in time, because in the breakup of roman empire, trade totally vanished, and was not conducted further than a few feudal domains. hence, the entire basis of economy had become dependent totally on land and farming, and whomever owned more land, was more wealthy. this continued until mid 13th century.
in consequence, wealthy landowners were able to retain more armed men than others. actually, they were able to retain armed men, since arms also became very expensive. wealth has directly translated into power.
not even the late roman counts, who were exercising power over cities on behalf of roman emperors were more powerful than the dux who ran realms in countryside at the breakup of roman empire - dux was a military rank, to command a part of roman imperial army at the dusk of roman empire, count was a political and bureaucratic rank to command a city and everything in it. and guess what happened - duke has become a rank higher than count. this directly translates from the power difference created by wealth difference and command of the economy.
Concentrating of power? Simple solution: prevent government from creating wealth-concentrating rent-seeking.
yes. then east india company will come with its own ships and its own army and get the wealth it wants itself. like it did in india
Please, do so. I welcome future opportunities to attempt to fix your ignorance. But let's start with an obvious rebuttal. I can employ everyone in the world by having them dig a ditch with their hands. The pay won't be so hot, what's $20 split seven billion ways? But I just created seven billion jobs with Andrew Jackson (the fellow on the $20 dollar bill).
Merely being employed doesn't mean that you are doing something valuable, doing it effectively, or getting paid well for that effort. That's why "creating jobs" is a bullshit metric. The last reason it's a bullshit metric is that a lot of "job creation" is actually job destruction, that is, removing jobs that are valuable, effective, and paid well, and replacing them with fewer jobs that aren't
its not certain what you are even trying to argue here. are you arguing that valuation of 'jobs' is made better in capitalist economy ? are you arguing that 7 billion being employed is a bad thing ? are you arguing that $20 being given to that 7 billion each, is a bad thing ? or are you trying to make a point by creating a fantastic example of paying a single $20 to 7 billion people you gave shovels to. or, by saying as such are you trying to claim that corporations employ less people but give them, * gasp * more ? the corporations which have the only aim of maximizing profit, minimizing costs ? the corporations which are continually automatizing processes, downsizing, outsourcing and making people overwork ?
It's not magic, it's people with too much power converting that power into wealth. You have cause and effect all mixed up
no. you have it mixed up. where there were no governments, wealth first created power, THEN governments. this is what was behind the onset of feudalism after breakdown of roman empire. this is too long a subject. however, simply, those who held wealth, evolved into feudal lords, THEN they created hierarchical power relations in between each other, leading to kingdoms.
If some people want to be serfs in your view because of conveniences such as you mention, then I don't mind. It'll mean cheaper stuff
and therein lies the stupidity. concentrating power never ever results in 'cheaper stuff' or 'more convenience' it is always the opposite. the more wealth is concentrated, the scarcer and more expensive everything becomes. just like in feudalism until it started to be challenged. serfs work more, for less, and do more of the tasks the lord supposed to be doing. while lord does nothing.
Also, it's worth noting here that the largest employers in the world tend to be government agencies or government-owned businesses not privately-owned businesses.
are you aware that what you have expressed here will contradict and loom over any kind of 'corporations create jobs' argument you may want to make in future, in support of ayn rand idiocies ? if governments are the biggest employers in the world despite more than half of the biggest economic entities of the world being corporations, then it means corporations provide less jobs, but take more.
east india company was de facto a GOVERNMENT, until crown took over its operations in late 18th century. it ran its own fleet, it had its own military, its own bureaucracy.
its not 'as long as there is ample government power to monetize'. its 'as long as you allow minorities to organize for their own self profit'. then that 'profiting' operation becomes its government. if, there is government and there are still minorities commanding great wealth, minorities just use that wealth to command over that government instead. problem is not in the government - its in letting minorities amass huge wealth - which is basically power.
east india company prior to late 18th century was basically a feudal domain, owned by whomever the biggest shareholders were, run in their stead by their appointed chancellor. in short, a minority owned more than half of india and its population in effect.
today's corporations are no different. minority owns entirety of a megacorporation and makes 100-200,000 other people work for them. plain feudalism. only change is that, you can change who will be your lord and which domain you will live in - and even that goes out of the window when you consider the practicalities like family, hometown, availability. in the end medieval serf had similar horizontal mobility across feudal lord's domains.
in short, a corporation is an antidemocratic control scheme of resources which is totally identical to a feudal domain.
actually div/css designs have a lot of floatiness when put against different browser/os/device platforms. a lot. you have to be extra extra careful with these so nothing will fly about. even big companies are not immune from that, as evidenced by the person who complained about yahoo video windows flying about in a particular browser.
tables have one major advantage - they are OLD, and all browsers implement them the same way they were implemented since more than a decade. and, tables DO stay where you put them, how you put them, as you put them. including what is inside them. there is no way that they will display any unaccounted for characteristic if you define their full parameters. coupled, these two advantages make tables a major lifesaver in stuff that needs to look same across platforms. in fact, leave aside new areas like smartphones, tablets etc, i have used tables numerous times to fix even issues that ie was generating. (you should know how intricate, shitty and dogged they were until recently).
that is what i like about tables : they will stay put where they are, as they put, and will do the same in all browsers/platforms, REGARDLESS of what else does what. you can do the same thing with divs, but, when you implement such a format, you div ends up as a table, and all the difference you have made ends up using div instead of table tags. and divs can even get interpreted differently across browsers even in that state, with hardcoded, fixed parameters. (mostly microsoft)
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, you have seen, IN FACT, bullshit. nothing. dont use the word 'fact' as fox news uses it.
http://www.livescience.com/6472-study-ocean-warmed-significantly-16-years.html
oceans significantly warmed in the past 16 years. big water bodies are the bumpers that smoothen out the temperature changes - in micro and macro climate - and the agents that spread the heat around.
to do that, he has to be rich. to be rich, he has to play along. noone can put on a lifelong masquerade to hide his/her true intentions of eventually fighting against the rich, whereas playing along with them. you have to be one of them in heart and soul to play along.
'marketing campaign' is not a 'business model'. its marketing of that business model.
mp3s were harder to come by ? it was the most widely accepted and engaged social activity that related to computers - people even warmed up to acquaintances through exchanging mp3s. across all ages and both genders.
maybe those times slipped past by you.
you.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
and you need bacteria not only to evolve in dna, but also develop into a multicellular organism. in your lifetime.
please.
Because there is no connection between patent litigation and media distribution.
you mean, control freakdom in one certain field, may not seep to the other ? and :
Apple corralled the music industry to start selling music online and later forced the music industry to sell music without DRM. You can now put your iTunes music purchases on any device you want and copy them as much as you like.
yes. now. but apple was as controlling as it is everywhere in itunes too.
youre too trusting of a company that builds walled gardens.
They are not arguing it cannot have an effect, they are arguing their are holes in the climate change theory and from the data provided it is not yet conclusive that man kind is causing it.
they are not 'arguing' that there are holes in the theory at all - first, they told it cannot exist. then, they blamed it on the sun. 4-5 years ago internet was flooded with articles from think thanks paid to spread that propaganda. then, when it came out that sun was in its most silent period since a decade, they resorted to 'these are climate cycles - they happen' without any evidence.
If that was all there was to it, the Romans would still be in charge.
they would. if they havent gone all 'corporate american' on the society, and loaded ALL kinds of civic responsibilities ranging from firefighting to police to military on the shoulders of the public, and exempted themselves from taxation - just like what the "less than 1%" in usa is wanting.
they did otherwise. and therefore roman army continually declined in size and quality/training, more auxiliaries from tribes were incorporated into it as allegiance service. and circa late 300 ad, when things started to become really bad and tribal nations with intact hierarchies and command structures started to settle in roman lands legally or forcibly, they were too late to set up their own feudal arms. to the extent that britain - THE province in late roman empire which supplied the bulk of not only economy and the revenues but also the military - started to be raided, roman emperor told them they were on their own, and romans only returned once to teach romano-brits how to make roman helmets, shields, swords and armor. so, when empire had withdrawn from britain, there was nothing to protect even the largest latifundia owner from raiders. thats why they turned to saxons, and shit hit the fan.
meanwhile, while roman army increasingly became 'barbarized' by not only incorporating ever increasing number of non romans but also increasing number of 'barbarian' commanding officers. leading to a situation in which most of what was left of roman army was already commanded by 'barbarians' of questionable roman descent (more barbarian than roman compared to earlier ones) under major titles like dux, and a bureaucracy and religious hierarchy which was much more roman, but subservient to these.
in short, the subservience of romans had started near end of octavian's reign, even before 100 ad. but it was a slow process.
You confuse cause and effect. Wealth didn't exist in feudal times without force to protect it. Wealth didn't keep serfs on the land or coerce them to pay taxes. Power preceded wealth and enabled it.
that is wrong. and it is because you dont know history of roman republic, and roman empire. as i explained above, roman republic, and later roman empire was so efficient in keeping the peace (at least for around 100 years) that, there was no need for any kind of 'power' beyond frontier borders. it was so safe. that's also why romans had had faced much difficulties when barbarians first started invading en masse - because an army just march down from germania border to hispania without being confronted by ANYthing. this was why roman army reform was made around 200 AD, and legion system was replaced with a more mobile, more cavalry based, smaller army system to go here and there and meet interlopers. neither this succeeded - because there were so many - so, therefore increasing fortification of frontier provinces and later cities inland were necessary.
Ships? Army? Wealth? How will it get those? In real history, the East India Company got those from England.
they didnt 'get them', 'from britain'. in fact, british crown itself got those from private sources itself. at any given point, even its at mid 17th century peak, crown was not maintaining more than 4-5 ships of the line - they were so expensive. instead, the merchant navy and privateers and whatever floating could be found at large were being called into service during a case of war. from there comes the concept of 'ensign'. granted, the navy increased in size starting mid 17th century, and britain was sporting a considerable number of ships by mid 18th century in royal navy employ. however the example still stands - east india company was privately run, privately built, privately supplied, everything was done privately in britain. britain didnt even have the power to supply ships to east india company to do anything in india, due to the immense threat of dutch republic in most
Isnt denying that the huge-scale human intervention/activity on the planet - which goes from releasing boundless amount of heat to atmosphere to releasing radioactive substances to sea - can NOT have an effect that is considerable, as stupid as denying that the earth is older than 6000 years ?
one has the motive to control the masses by some private interests behind, the other has the motive to control the masses to protect profits.
The very company which is going on suing spree in madness to prevent competitors ? and also famous for walled gardens and overcharging for anything ?
and why havent any of you brought this up until this comment ?
to attract attention to something which has/may remained/remain unnoticed.
1 million years is also a 'limited' time.
i sense a business opportunity here ...
I am tired of people who can hardly articulate a coherent thought or sentence and are now regurgitating random pieces of others' thinking as if their own
what you complain of, are the signs of some idea spreading around and being accepted. you should note that few of the people who were yelling slogans in meetings in 1774 actually knew what all of what they were yelling exactly meant. some may eventually really learn, some may never learn, but it is a sign of acceptance at least.
".......... in which, after my death my family do not prey on my legacy like bloodthirsty maniacs to make money ........"
apparently, that one just remained a dream ...
test post test test
test
test
I'm fed up. Enough of this nonsense. I think I'll just have to skip reading any post that contains the words "the 1%", "the 99%" or "the rich"
reality weighed too much ?
or did you think we had all these problems, sopa, pipa, schmibba et al, just because they 'just' happened ?
stuff do not happen without there being dynamics and causes for them.
we read it. and now explain us what the fuck 'well packed' mp3 player means. endless number of brands had endless mp3 players which looked similar to the pods apple layed down as eggs.
It's all Apple has left: patents and lawsuits. Without Steve Jobs at the helm, what else did you expect them to do?
it was steve jobs who had started these patent/copyright wars. he was berserk at android and had called them thieves and whatnot. we discussed it here in slashdot when it was disclosed. you werent around it seems.
you are seeing the fruition of the policy jobs created and overseen.
When some idiot from ubisoft execs or something told that 'Game demos are a thing of the past' a year or so ago - when ubisoft was again throwing around drm stuff and accusing demos for piracy or this or that :
"As long as razor1911 has anything to say about it, we will have game demos..."
i think that applies to this situation as well.
No. That was just the merchant republics, and they were few and small. In the old kingdoms the kings was assigned by the people to protect the realm. In the nordic countries we even elected our kings, the were elected for life, and people usually voted for the apparent heir to avoid civil war, but they were elected.
'no' to yourself. merchant republics did not come into being until around later. during the time roman empire was breaking up in 300 AD, and chaos and political/economic void ensued at the wake of invasions and settlements, whomever had more wealth commanded lordship. this was especially true for big roman landowners, latifundia owners. the very feudal domain itself as we know it, evolved from latifundia EVEN before roman empire started to crumble in 300 AD. by late 200s, latifundias were already spans of huge land, maintaining their own economy at the sole command of a single property holder - and even defending themselves. many small farmers sold their farms to these owners and either started to work under their pledge, or flat out indentured themselves to them for survival.
yes, you are right in that in old nord kingdoms you elected your kings, and this continued even in tribes that resettled in roman lands until after a long time - however, even they have transformed. especially starting with the concept of 'ownership' by persons came into the culture of these post-roman settled nordic tribes - in early days of the break of rome and resettlement, nordic tribes did not have a habit of 'owning' land. land was anyone's - anyone could enclosure a parcel of land for that season and grow food on it and get it only for that season. but it started to change by adopting the culture of the locale they settled, and no little thanks to the already established roman remnants trying to keep the roman way 'persuading' the settlers into these.
inevitably this changed even the nordic culture in resettlements - kingship became hereditary, and had become tied to land. whereas this happened in ex-roman locales, what you spoke of still continued as it is in ancestral nordic lands until 600-600 years after the fall of roman empire. EVEN after that date, the 'property ownership' and its concentration at the hands of minority did not happen to the scale it happened in europe, leaving the scandinavian population the only population in europe which was never truly enserfed. therein lies the roots of your modern, contemporary democracy - pluralism in wealth and ownership reflected into pluralism in politics.
You mean where "wealth" was having more, stronger, better armed guys? That history? So yes, you do.
wealth, was owning more land than others at that point in time in history. owning land meant food. which was de facto basis of wealth at that point in time, because in the breakup of roman empire, trade totally vanished, and was not conducted further than a few feudal domains. hence, the entire basis of economy had become dependent totally on land and farming, and whomever owned more land, was more wealthy. this continued until mid 13th century.
in consequence, wealthy landowners were able to retain more armed men than others. actually, they were able to retain armed men, since arms also became very expensive. wealth has directly translated into power.
not even the late roman counts, who were exercising power over cities on behalf of roman emperors were more powerful than the dux who ran realms in countryside at the breakup of roman empire - dux was a military rank, to command a part of roman imperial army at the dusk of roman empire, count was a political and bureaucratic rank to command a city and everything in it. and guess what happened - duke has become a rank higher than count. this directly translates from the power difference created by wealth difference and command of the economy.
Concentrating of power? Simple solution: prevent government from creating wealth-concentrating rent-seeking.
yes. then east india company will come with its own ships and its own army and get the wealth it wants itself. like it did in india
Please, do so. I welcome future opportunities to attempt to fix your ignorance. But let's start with an obvious rebuttal. I can employ everyone in the world by having them dig a ditch with their hands. The pay won't be so hot, what's $20 split seven billion ways? But I just created seven billion jobs with Andrew Jackson (the fellow on the $20 dollar bill). Merely being employed doesn't mean that you are doing something valuable, doing it effectively, or getting paid well for that effort. That's why "creating jobs" is a bullshit metric. The last reason it's a bullshit metric is that a lot of "job creation" is actually job destruction, that is, removing jobs that are valuable, effective, and paid well, and replacing them with fewer jobs that aren't
its not certain what you are even trying to argue here. are you arguing that valuation of 'jobs' is made better in capitalist economy ? are you arguing that 7 billion being employed is a bad thing ? are you arguing that $20 being given to that 7 billion each, is a bad thing ? or are you trying to make a point by creating a fantastic example of paying a single $20 to 7 billion people you gave shovels to. or, by saying as such are you trying to claim that corporations employ less people but give them, * gasp * more ? the corporations which have the only aim of maximizing profit, minimizing costs ? the corporations which are continually automatizing processes, downsizing, outsourcing and making people overwork ?
It's not magic, it's people with too much power converting that power into wealth. You have cause and effect all mixed up
no. you have it mixed up. where there were no governments, wealth first created power, THEN governments. this is what was behind the onset of feudalism after breakdown of roman empire. this is too long a subject. however, simply, those who held wealth, evolved into feudal lords, THEN they created hierarchical power relations in between each other, leading to kingdoms.
If some people want to be serfs in your view because of conveniences such as you mention, then I don't mind. It'll mean cheaper stuff
and therein lies the stupidity. concentrating power never ever results in 'cheaper stuff' or 'more convenience' it is always the opposite. the more wealth is concentrated, the scarcer and more expensive everything becomes. just like in feudalism until it started to be challenged. serfs work more, for less, and do more of the tasks the lord supposed to be doing. while lord does nothing.
Also, it's worth noting here that the largest employers in the world tend to be government agencies or government-owned businesses not privately-owned businesses.
are you aware that what you have expressed here will contradict and loom over any kind of 'corporations create jobs' argument you may want to make in future, in support of ayn rand idiocies ? if governments are the biggest employers in the world despite more than half of the biggest economic entities of the world being corporations, then it means corporations provide less jobs, but take more.
enjoy your contradiction.
just use wine. it runs very well.
east india company was de facto a GOVERNMENT, until crown took over its operations in late 18th century. it ran its own fleet, it had its own military, its own bureaucracy.
its not 'as long as there is ample government power to monetize'. its 'as long as you allow minorities to organize for their own self profit'. then that 'profiting' operation becomes its government. if, there is government and there are still minorities commanding great wealth, minorities just use that wealth to command over that government instead. problem is not in the government - its in letting minorities amass huge wealth - which is basically power.
east india company prior to late 18th century was basically a feudal domain, owned by whomever the biggest shareholders were, run in their stead by their appointed chancellor. in short, a minority owned more than half of india and its population in effect.
today's corporations are no different. minority owns entirety of a megacorporation and makes 100-200,000 other people work for them. plain feudalism. only change is that, you can change who will be your lord and which domain you will live in - and even that goes out of the window when you consider the practicalities like family, hometown, availability. in the end medieval serf had similar horizontal mobility across feudal lord's domains.
in short, a corporation is an antidemocratic control scheme of resources which is totally identical to a feudal domain.
actually div/css designs have a lot of floatiness when put against different browser/os/device platforms. a lot. you have to be extra extra careful with these so nothing will fly about. even big companies are not immune from that, as evidenced by the person who complained about yahoo video windows flying about in a particular browser.
tables have one major advantage - they are OLD, and all browsers implement them the same way they were implemented since more than a decade. and, tables DO stay where you put them, how you put them, as you put them. including what is inside them. there is no way that they will display any unaccounted for characteristic if you define their full parameters. coupled, these two advantages make tables a major lifesaver in stuff that needs to look same across platforms. in fact, leave aside new areas like smartphones, tablets etc, i have used tables numerous times to fix even issues that ie was generating. (you should know how intricate, shitty and dogged they were until recently).
that is what i like about tables : they will stay put where they are, as they put, and will do the same in all browsers/platforms, REGARDLESS of what else does what. you can do the same thing with divs, but, when you implement such a format, you div ends up as a table, and all the difference you have made ends up using div instead of table tags. and divs can even get interpreted differently across browsers even in that state, with hardcoded, fixed parameters. (mostly microsoft)