This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
FatalHeaven
Maybe I don't understand things, which could entirely be the case BUT since Wal-Mart, Walgreens and other stores of the like that have a pharmacy are publicly traded on the stock market, wouldn't that make them publicly owned?
It makes them "Publicly Traded". Publicly Owned would be something like the VA Hospital, or I believe some larger cities still have "Public Hospitals". These are owned by, and funded by, tax dollars and the government.
When something is publicly traded it means the public can buy shares of the company, i.e. publicly owned. When a buisness is privately owned, it is not traded on the NYSE to my understanding. I base my understanding off having worked for Pre-Paid Legal Services Inc. When I started they were publicly owned/traded on the NYSE. During my time there, Mid-Ocean bought out PPLSI, paid off all shareholders, and was then privately owned/not traded on the NYSE.
Also for Wal-Mart and Walgreens the research I did states they are publicly owned; however in the case of Wal-Mart the 5 biggest shareholders are the late Sam Walton's wife and four children.
Post by
Adamsm
#40: Are books becoming antiquated?
As they've been around for thousands of years, I'm going to go with no.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
160546
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
I'm torn on this issue. Hard copies are really inefficient to manipulate and work from instantly. I did work experience with the CPS and most of my work involved creating digital copies of information they had hard copies from. If everyone worked from the digital copies, they could cut half or more of the admin staff I think (you know my position on this stuff, the admin staff were hard working and intelligent, but 1. I don't see the point in preserving economic inefficiency and 2. I think unemployed people should have their basic amenities covered, plus receive training for other jobs). Basically, the more documents were worked with, the more hard copies were needed to record which documents were had.
The other aspect is that in the event of a blackout, EMP attack, or anything else which could interfere with data storage, a tremendous amount of information could be lost whereas it's easier to preserve hard copies. It's also somewhat more difficult to limit the user rights to digitally stored stuff: information wants to be free.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#41: Should nuclear power be banned globally?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
What DoctorLore said. The only issues with nuclear power is that it's a pain to get rid of the
waste
(opportunity costs to disposal) and has significant startup costs. Oh and there are security costs, which ought to be factored in.
Post by
Adamsm
As the others have said; this one is a big no heh.
Post by
gamerunknown
Oh, forgot:
When something is publicly traded it means the public can buy shares of the company, i.e. publicly owned.
This is a non-standard definition. Public ownership is a synonym for
state ownership
. The reasoning is, private ownership in the means of production indicates the ownership is in the interest of the owners, whether it is closely held or held among numerous shareholders. A publicly owned enterprise benefits all members of society, at least in theory.
What you're referring to is a publicly traded or
public company
.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I'm not so sure that the problems with the waste is something that should just be handwaved. We're walking about something that once used, needs 10-20 years of constant refrigerated flowing water to keep it from igniting and sending out radioactivity. In an event where a major natural disaster or war knocked out enough of the infrastructure to stop the storage facilities from functioning, you'd have a very dangerous situation on your hands. In the case where there is government instability, or a revolution, you might have facilities forgotten or shut down by people who don't know what they're doing, which could also have disastrous effects. I don't know that I'd call a system where the byproduct has to be kept in a functioning containment unit for 10-20 years afterwards to avoid causing a radioactive disaster 100% safe.
If something requires human supervision and interference, along with the electricity and funding to keep it contained, for 20 years to be safe, I'm not sure it's something I'd want to expand to every corner and country of the world.
Post by
MyTie
#41: Should nuclear power be banned globally?
By whom? Why?
Imagine if electricity had been banned, because of how dangerous it was. Or cars. Or fire.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
But MyTie- once a car crashes, the damage is done. You can shut off electricity, and fire can be extinguished with certainty.
Spent nuclear fuel has to be in a controlled environment for 10-20 years to keep it from giving off radioactivity and enormous heat. Don't you think that seems like a significantly more dangerous material or process than any of these others? It would be like if a car, after it was decomissioned, had to be kept in a deep freeze for 10-20 years to keep it from exploding and leaking poison into the atmosphere and nearby water supplies. A deep freeze that requires manpower and government funding, or that a private company be financially viable indefinitely or for 20 years after their last reactor is shut down, to maintain.
Post by
Adamsm
Well really, that's about the only downside to nuclear power; as long as the waste can be managed, it's going to be better then fossil fueled based power plants, which have been spewing pollution up into the air for decades(alright not as bad as when they first showed up but still), and doesn't require massive rezoning for alternative power systems to be installed(after all, can't really put a water based power plant down when there is only a tiny stream heh); we have several wind and solar panel farms in my area, and the amount of land used up for them is a little nuts; you also can't have residential areas near the Wind turbines here, since during the winter when we get the horrible storms, those giant turning blades are going to get covered with ice....and suddenly you have projectiles flying everywhere(I have a friend who works at the Bruce Power Plant up north from me, and they close the roads the wind turbines are on during particularly bad days in the winter to keep people safe).
Post by
MyTie
Which invention has killed more people:
Nuclear power
Cars
You can walk down Nagasaki today, and not run the risk of being hurt by the nuclear bomb that was dropped there, but I bet you that there will probably be at least one car accident there today.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
There are only 435 nuclear power plants in the world. There are over 1 Billion cars. When a car is operated poorly, it might kill 8-10 people if it was a truly horrific accident. A problem with a reactor, dependent on placement, could kill hundreds or thousands. For every country where we can be assured that there is a stable government entity that is making sure that the nuclear waste is correctly managed, how many are we unsure about? The first nuclear power plant was opened in 1954, but the vast majority of those in existence have only been around for 25 years. In that time, here is the list of nuclear accidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
Considering the number in existence, that's a lot higher percentage than cars, and the scope of each individual accident is much more significant. Now magnify that by the number of power plants there would need to be to convert all power grids, and take into consideration how unstable the current economic climate has been, which would have an effect on how many resources we'd have guaranteed to keep the spent nuclear fuel contained.
Post by
MyTie
About 115 people die in car accidents every day in the US alone. That is about 42 THOUSAND deaths every year, just counting the United States, which has an advanced infrastructure, safety regulations, and a first world hospital system, emergency services, etc.
I understand that nuclear power has the potential to hurt a lot of people, but it isn't something that is cheap and easy enough to put in the hands of common people. The desire to outlaw nuclear power, due to the instability of current governments doesn't take into account that if nuclear power were absent when a government collapsed, then whatever organization rose to power at that point could simply obtain or develop nuclear weapons and power at that point.
The cat is out of the bag. There is no putting it back. To think we should put it back is a hope and dream for safety that will never be realized, at the cost of progress that is to great.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I just find it ominous to think that there is an ever increasing stack of hazardous materials that could go nuclear at a moment's notice if the power turns off, or a water pipe gets knocked out, and that we're only now seeing the first of the current stockpile become safe from the reactors that started 20 years ago. I don't think it needs to be banned outright, but I don't the the technology is advanced to the point where it should be widely used yet. We need to figure out a more permanent and less lengthy solution for spent fuel before we go full conversion.
In the car example, we don't put new models out until they've been tested to be reasonably safe. I think that until we find a more reasonable way to deal with the fuel, we shouldn't just keep racking up stockpiles of it at an exponential rate.
Post by
Monday
I think not. Research is constantly being done on how to control nuclear waste. In the meantime, it provides safe (beyond a couple of isolated incidents), clean power.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.