"Renewable" means literally "able to be renewed". Nothing more, and nothing less. Solar energy is not able to be renewed, and so by definition cannot be considered renewable.
I'm not going to dispute your assessment of Slackware's creator... not because I agree with you, but because I am simply not in any kind of position to make such an evaluation. However, this objection to Slackware is founded on personal philosophical differences between yourself and its creator, and has nothing to do with any lack of merits in Slackware itself except to the extent that you are projecting your own disliking of the values of the creator directly upon the distribution. You are allowed to do this, of course, but be aware that this only means that *YOU* are unwilling to use it, not that the distribution is necessarily of no value to anyone else.
Actually, savvy people suffer indirectly when their friends and family get mad at them for saying the only viable long term solutions to this problem are to either stop using computers, get a Mac, or install Linux.
... is that it is basically the same thing as Intelligent Design, since it does not even attempt to address the nature of whoever designed the simulation we are living in, does not offer any predictive power, and is absolutely no more scientifically testable, since absolutely anything that we could try to do to test it would be part of the same system that it is trying to test, and that system cannot be isolated in scientifically reproducible contexts.
Renwing an energy source requires another available energy source. In the case of the hydrological cycle, which does renew, the available energy source that replenishes it is the sun. The sun's energy is no more renewable than that of a (non-rechargeable) battery that coincidentally happens to have a very long life span.
Not true.... First of all, 14.1 was initially released in 2013. Secondly, 14.1 was maintained in -current for about a year and a half after release. -current then migrated to being a repository for the upcoming 14.2 release, but all major issues, particularly those regarding security, are still backported to the 14.1 repository. The -current repo was in beta for 14.2 at the beginning of the year and has been in release candidate status since about April. Because one of the foremost focus points for Slackware is stability, Slackware does not tend to promote -current as suitable for end users, but it is still definitely there, and available for users that seek it out.
"Slackware is archaic". Old does not mean bad or even obsolete. Slackware is still quite alive and well and entirely usable on modern systems as a modern OS
My point is that solar power could be thought of "continual", or even "endless", it is not by any stretch "renewable", since it does not ever get renewed, nor can it be.
But again, it doesn't matter, the sun keeps running if we use it or not, so we might as well use it.
I would think that the more correct term would be something like "endless" more than "renewable", since for all practical purposes it is not going to stop, but in absolutely no sense of the word that I can think of could you say that the sun's energy is ever getting renewed.
I would have thought that it would be correct to say only that for all intents and purposes, the energy is "inexhaustable", more than it is "renewable"
On a cosmic scale, certainly... but the phrase "renewable energy" applies to human timescales only, and some energy supplies certainly *can* be easily refreshed on a human time scale, even though the energies that might create such refreshment are finiite in supply.
First of all, when the sun explodes, the hydrogen that was consumed is not reset.... it remains in the form that it was fused into (or further fuses into even heavier elements by the energies released by the explosion).
And of course, even if it did, it does not happen on human timescales. Or else fossil fuels could be considered renewable, which have an even shorter cycle period.
I would consider an energy source "renewable" if the supply of energy from that particular source either can be or is continually being "renewed", and this renewal can or does occur on human time scales, typically through the application of energy from outside. Energy sources that depend on the hydrological cycle are continually renewed by the energy input from the sun, and are inherently renewable, even though sunlight itself is not (the sun will eventually burn out). The combustion of hydrogen is renewable because it produces water vapour, where the same hydrogen that formed it can eventually be extracted again... again, on human time scales, and like energy sources dependant on the hydrological cycle, it requires the addition of outside energy to replenish the supply.
Renewable energy is really a code word for energy sources that are converted into commercially viable form from large energy sources on human timescales.
I thought it referred to energy sources that are literally renewable... they don't run out on human timescales because they actually "rewew" themselves in a short time frame, leaving just as much energy (in that particular system) as there was before any of it was used. I see this as being entirely orthogonal to the matter of whether the energy is cheap, practical, or even necessarily widely available. Hydrogen is not renewable because I am alleging that it is practical (I know it is not), it is renewable because the process of burning it does not make it impossible to extract it from the water again on human timescales. The limiting factor in this regard is the availability of energy to accomplish the task, not a limitation caused by the source itself.
Methane could too be considered renewable for the same reasons as Hydrogen, but because a byproduct of burning methane is a greenhouse gas, it is not clean. (the nitrogen oxide compounds produced by burning hydrogen in the earth's atmosphere are also produced by burning methane, so they are equivalent in that respect, but CO2 is still a greenhouse gas and H2O is not).
Because the hydrological cycle continually replenishes the supply of water that is used. The sun will continue to burn for another two billion years or so, but it's energy supply, the hydrogen being fused into helium, is not replenished at any time during that period. Once that's gone, it will have to start burning the helium... and then the lithium, etc... eventually having no elements left to burn that can sustain a fusion reaction. Nothing ever can or does reset the sun back to a state where it is mostly hydrogen again, so it is not really "renewed".
It's my understanding that "renewable" applies to energy sources that are continually replenished (over human timescales) and are *literally* renewable. The sun's energy is not being replenished as it burns, and so is not really "renewable".
The combustion of hydrogen could be considered renewable in this sense, because burning it creates water vapor, and you can extract hydrogen from water. Energy sources that depend on the hydrological cycle would be considered renewable because that process ensures that the supply remains steady, even while it may be continually being used.
speaking for myself, since I cannot control what other people may or may not do, I do not allow whatever unethical responses I might expect from them to prevent me from acting ethically, because the choice to act ethically or not *is* something I can control. While it's not my desire to invite bad consequences into my own life, I'm ultimately still not responsible for how unethically other people might act, even if such responses can be theoretically anticipated in advance. I can only assume responsibility for my own choices and actions. If I let what other people might do to me for doing the right thing because I am afraid of some unfair reprisal that may or may not happen (and the choice to do so is theirs, not mine), then I am abdicating personal responsibility for my actions, and blaming other people for *MY* choices. Whether ithat is, as you say, not how the rest of the world works, it's not any kind of life worth living in
Slashdot Mirror
What passes as AI so far is still just all smoke and mirrors.
Splitting hairs? Really?
"Renewable" means literally "able to be renewed". Nothing more, and nothing less. Solar energy is not able to be renewed, and so by definition cannot be considered renewable.
I'm not going to dispute your assessment of Slackware's creator... not because I agree with you, but because I am simply not in any kind of position to make such an evaluation. However, this objection to Slackware is founded on personal philosophical differences between yourself and its creator, and has nothing to do with any lack of merits in Slackware itself except to the extent that you are projecting your own disliking of the values of the creator directly upon the distribution. You are allowed to do this, of course, but be aware that this only means that *YOU* are unwilling to use it, not that the distribution is necessarily of no value to anyone else.
Actually, savvy people suffer indirectly when their friends and family get mad at them for saying the only viable long term solutions to this problem are to either stop using computers, get a Mac, or install Linux.
With OS X, the decision to upgrade to a newer version is always the end users.
Or, we can conclude that you can prove absolutely anything you want in a study.
... is that it is basically the same thing as Intelligent Design, since it does not even attempt to address the nature of whoever designed the simulation we are living in, does not offer any predictive power, and is absolutely no more scientifically testable, since absolutely anything that we could try to do to test it would be part of the same system that it is trying to test, and that system cannot be isolated in scientifically reproducible contexts.
Uh... okay.
You're kidding, right?
Renwing an energy source requires another available energy source. In the case of the hydrological cycle, which does renew, the available energy source that replenishes it is the sun. The sun's energy is no more renewable than that of a (non-rechargeable) battery that coincidentally happens to have a very long life span.
Not true.... First of all, 14.1 was initially released in 2013. Secondly, 14.1 was maintained in -current for about a year and a half after release. -current then migrated to being a repository for the upcoming 14.2 release, but all major issues, particularly those regarding security, are still backported to the 14.1 repository. The -current repo was in beta for 14.2 at the beginning of the year and has been in release candidate status since about April. Because one of the foremost focus points for Slackware is stability, Slackware does not tend to promote -current as suitable for end users, but it is still definitely there, and available for users that seek it out.
"Slackware is archaic". Old does not mean bad or even obsolete. Slackware is still quite alive and well and entirely usable on modern systems as a modern OS
Not with Slackware
My point is that solar power could be thought of "continual", or even "endless", it is not by any stretch "renewable", since it does not ever get renewed, nor can it be.
I would think that the more correct term would be something like "endless" more than "renewable", since for all practical purposes it is not going to stop, but in absolutely no sense of the word that I can think of could you say that the sun's energy is ever getting renewed.
I would have thought that it would be correct to say only that for all intents and purposes, the energy is "inexhaustable", more than it is "renewable"
On a cosmic scale, certainly... but the phrase "renewable energy" applies to human timescales only, and some energy supplies certainly *can* be easily refreshed on a human time scale, even though the energies that might create such refreshment are finiite in supply.
First of all, when the sun explodes, the hydrogen that was consumed is not reset.... it remains in the form that it was fused into (or further fuses into even heavier elements by the energies released by the explosion).
And of course, even if it did, it does not happen on human timescales. Or else fossil fuels could be considered renewable, which have an even shorter cycle period.
It's continuous for all of our purposes, certainly... but how can anyone suggest that it is actually being renewed or replenished?
I would consider an energy source "renewable" if the supply of energy from that particular source either can be or is continually being "renewed", and this renewal can or does occur on human time scales, typically through the application of energy from outside. Energy sources that depend on the hydrological cycle are continually renewed by the energy input from the sun, and are inherently renewable, even though sunlight itself is not (the sun will eventually burn out). The combustion of hydrogen is renewable because it produces water vapour, where the same hydrogen that formed it can eventually be extracted again... again, on human time scales, and like energy sources dependant on the hydrological cycle, it requires the addition of outside energy to replenish the supply.
I thought it referred to energy sources that are literally renewable... they don't run out on human timescales because they actually "rewew" themselves in a short time frame, leaving just as much energy (in that particular system) as there was before any of it was used. I see this as being entirely orthogonal to the matter of whether the energy is cheap, practical, or even necessarily widely available. Hydrogen is not renewable because I am alleging that it is practical (I know it is not), it is renewable because the process of burning it does not make it impossible to extract it from the water again on human timescales. The limiting factor in this regard is the availability of energy to accomplish the task, not a limitation caused by the source itself.
Methane could too be considered renewable for the same reasons as Hydrogen, but because a byproduct of burning methane is a greenhouse gas, it is not clean. (the nitrogen oxide compounds produced by burning hydrogen in the earth's atmosphere are also produced by burning methane, so they are equivalent in that respect, but CO2 is still a greenhouse gas and H2O is not).
Because the hydrological cycle continually replenishes the supply of water that is used. The sun will continue to burn for another two billion years or so, but it's energy supply, the hydrogen being fused into helium, is not replenished at any time during that period. Once that's gone, it will have to start burning the helium... and then the lithium, etc... eventually having no elements left to burn that can sustain a fusion reaction. Nothing ever can or does reset the sun back to a state where it is mostly hydrogen again, so it is not really "renewed".
It's my understanding that "renewable" applies to energy sources that are continually replenished (over human timescales) and are *literally* renewable. The sun's energy is not being replenished as it burns, and so is not really "renewable".
The combustion of hydrogen could be considered renewable in this sense, because burning it creates water vapor, and you can extract hydrogen from water. Energy sources that depend on the hydrological cycle would be considered renewable because that process ensures that the supply remains steady, even while it may be continually being used.
Clean, sure. Renewable? Not so much. It just happens to be an energy supply that won't end on time scales that aren't measured in billions of years.
Then why is it cheaper to take a greyhound bus than it is to take a train?
Simply put, freight capacity.
speaking for myself, since I cannot control what other people may or may not do, I do not allow whatever unethical responses I might expect from them to prevent me from acting ethically, because the choice to act ethically or not *is* something I can control. While it's not my desire to invite bad consequences into my own life, I'm ultimately still not responsible for how unethically other people might act, even if such responses can be theoretically anticipated in advance. I can only assume responsibility for my own choices and actions. If I let what other people might do to me for doing the right thing because I am afraid of some unfair reprisal that may or may not happen (and the choice to do so is theirs, not mine), then I am abdicating personal responsibility for my actions, and blaming other people for *MY* choices. Whether ithat is, as you say, not how the rest of the world works, it's not any kind of life worth living in