quorum::part deux

What do renewable and nonrenewable have in common?

both renewable and nonrenewable, consume from a perspective, and justly that perspective organizes the renewability. take oxygen, say from a plant, and while the plant is by its definition eco-friendly, and provides to the means in which its material wealth permits it to live, and just for the inhabitants for and in liken in such corollary need, as in the atmospheric balances which participants of its available transport utilize during rest and travel, if you just take that oxygen and feed it into a gas machine to compress it perhaps and ship it to a hospital, then you’ve offset that generosity and placed a keyed tumbler set of obstacles between the renew portion and the usability portion, and thus the even and redistributable parts of the equations which occur as natural.

when this occurs in a non-cycle, that is something which neither collected, nor returned into a system of ongoing process, as in our precipitation, which while a long heady process, is spread across the planet and provides additional wealth such as transport and cleansing of an essential life ingredient. (as well being part of a communication, of itself and thus life, and etc)

a non-renewable is when no care is given towards the thinking of: what happens to the provider of this energy, and thus to us, and all the tumbles we’ve taken it from and towards. and while this ending is known immediately, it can be ignored when an apt belief exists that is is part of this larger system.

of course we know that burning things is not renewable, in that the material is in a poof which is gone and the planet takes care of the cleanup, at a loss, yet in the case of wood, which is natural, at least nutrients can be redistributed, should nutrients be required as naturally to quickly restore a forests’ equilibrium.

in the cases, and cases of oil, there is no need on this planet to restore a balance of oil taken from deep underground, and while even if and perhaps the oil is enjoyed by the planet as underground, once burned into a muck and spread across further muck, and poisoning each part of nature which comes in contact with it, its readily available literal trucks of information, should be enough to have abandoned the idea of oil as fuel at onset, and utilized it simply for lubrication or viscous traveling, for as those requirements of renewability would be in a looped system - you can’t lubricate or travel on a substance which bleeds away at its very use.

. . .

to back to commonality, this perception is where we, as humans, are the offset, in our belief alone, and actions taken either by shrouding, or dissemination of concepts and information which inflate one aspect of an energy, over its utilization for an immediate return, quite literally to and of itself and whose dependents mimic a non-system of non-return. I call it a non-system, because it cannot be looped, where i.e. a multinational corporation buys in excess, then sells at a profit, and spends the proceeds influencing further its own complexity and weildment in cash dollars, which btw are not renewable if they are collected and split amongst entities with this unnatural ability.

briefly, this impact as observed, wastes time, but as to commonality, it is observed as in nature, and so that is our second commonality: observance, and perhaps an inkling, no pun intended, as to an idea of how and what must we throw into the sets of equations to balance the equation; however often at a favoring of those in charge of the collection of pens, as they themselves are in control and a controlling factor.

to say that’s a good idea, is to ignore the precept that the design and equations are completely ludicrous and the immediacy of knowledge is so plain as to not warrant the pens production and transport in any first place.

. . .

commonality as common, is perhaps our third, as air and water and the sun, one can look around and see, ‘hey that’s some bits of that there!’ and as time progresses and digresses, one may see a non-renewable as common, and common also in the sense that it is pedestrian in that way imagined.

. . .

so that consumption, observable towards and for our abilities to do so, and relatable as common, seem to be our triad today, of, again, common, and that is our loop for this discussion. peace plus all the etceteras from /ˌsæn fɹənˈsɪskoʊ/,

Why should we go for use of renewable sources?

renewable as natural and evident. take travel. well you’d need to travel to obtain a fuel which is not renewable, and to use that very fuel to travel to obtain it, is the sorts and systemic failure which is downright and immediate, as in karma. the belief that somebody else will do it, is only valid for as long as you can provide a means for them to do so, and so you may believe your dollar at the tank does thus justice, and it does not at all, because the station also uses fuel, and pays dollars to get fuel to you, and everybody is spending at every crinkle-cut aspect, with the furthering of belief and, as dollars spread they no longer participate in the return designed by your idea of this equitable solvent to your problem of obtaining, and is utilized by other peoples ongoing beliefs, for whatever immediacy they require.

the breakdown here should be evident.

renewable sources are when nature cares enough, as nature does. . . naturally. . . to participate, with us into an always workable system, as in how light and in extremes, these systems of chemistry and physics work themselves towards and with and about transference, with a locale and a sort of membrane of memory to satisfy itself to continue on with the work, and in fact to provide such a system where the work is inescapable, that is, in a vacuum system or in lengthier over-time processes in which depend on their natural abilities to be survivable.

. . .

How do energy companies charge you?

on average, as they are charged by providers to them, and their material costs are measured and their measurements across their own meters indicate which portions demand more attention, and they meter and tally remote locations, and then proceed to prebill for utilization, and over time, and whatever they are allowed to do by law and market participation.

I believe there are a lot of spreadsheets, and old fortran code, and systems with large plastic keys that are sticky, in a room which is kept clean and cool.

there are also smart meters now, which while introducing their own hazards and accompanying loss of money in lawsuits and etc., provide for a fluidity of market control over buys and sells, which likely increases the profitability of the company, but also provides for end users to further control their consumption, and so this tug of rope is a bit like that, where one can buy less for a higher per-capped price model, and those models are in turn generated by utilization estimation and availability, which in turn provides for the provides for, in our case what efforts go into a specific form of production.

in the states, energy is considered utility and thus is regulated by the PUC, for price in this case, which also likely defines goals and incentives to and about the company, its providers, and its end-users.

in the end, its debited from your banking institution, or trucked to you by a local mail carrier, in an envelope, which is printed just and about you and is very colorful, yet printed with soy materials, and very legible and may include coupons at certain times of the year, and you also may only open it to glance and forget about all those things you have turned on in your house at this very moment, wherein slews of light bugs enjoy their entire lives on a trillionth of the light energy that you perhaps left on in the next room over night because the switch is too far away and now you’ve become accustomed to the dim LED, which you bought to save energy.

<grin>

Is a machine technically alive if it can respond and adapt to its environment and maintains self-preservation?

I believe reproduction is a requirement of livability, as to be reciprocal in its environment to provide for it to continue carrying itself and others on.

a machine, by, that is next to, nature, is not alive, as even if it were made to replicate, it would do so at a continuing loss per generation, that is to say it cannot generate, the power or the inclination to do so. and so. it break down, when it is not maintained by something else which is alive, and while being-alive things may enjoy ensuring it doesn’t break down, it will break, and they only fix it towards their continued enjoyment or dependence on the machine, and as the machine cannot return any life’s essence towards its benefactor, is also is thus not adaptable and cannot preserve its self, if indeed it has a self, as its not aware, and hence its initial design, to be tasked as a set of cogs in the imagination of a tinkerer in his concept of finite design.

. . .

in the end, there is no ‘technical’ for alive. you are alive. it., is not, hence again and now the recursion of finite immortality

. . .

peace + all the etceteras from Aqua Q Labs; a subtext

How can developing countries reduce greenhouse gases?

specifically to note what is returnable to their processes of utilization towards creation and maintenance of their systems of generate generosity and utilization; taking care not to be immediate in the adoption of foreign concepts of wealth before it is needed - i.e. a society filled with televisions may notice they neither enjoy the tether of information into their brains, nor the plastics and behaviors of countries who produce for their profits at the offsetting of another planetary land.

they may also participate in larger countries carbon offsetting initiatives, wherein likely they could get new usable infrastructure which adheres in naturality and provides some local ecosystemic benefit, such as cleaning the water as energy is utilized.

careful non-use of chemicals, as they leech into the water table, and skies, are cost plus. locally grown vegetation, and a non-meat sustaining population is also a benefit.

efforts to be effortless in involvement with participation in natures own processes, and to do so in an enjoyment, which contagion is the power of thinking, or in our cases here, the non-obligatory thoughts which are clogging the airwaves as problems, or literally the trillions of the same problem, which was not solved and continues to be abused. by problem i mean plural, but taken one at a time, these compound, and are instigators in further unliken activities.

. . .

A. Why do common materials all have quite similar densities?

I’m supposing an elemental range, such as a visible spectrum range, where we utilize what we can see and what we can touch, pick up, and perhaps utilize.

so we have a rock, as side of a mountain, and wood on the forest floor, and go slightly above and slightly below the surface, and you find your visibility, i.e. things which reflect light we can see, and even water, though not material, transmits light so that we can still further see materials.

. . .

there is also included, a temperature range, which is also variance on visible spectrum, as well as material absorption of heat, and so things on the surface when the sun applies itself, are temperate to life’s perception of survivability, sans of course our friend, water, which loses its transmittance of light, and as well stops providing a temperate climate to be observed.

. . .

so to answer your question, is it precisely because we are here, and around and built as natural amongst this very habitat, which produces the similarities, as indicative to the processes ability to slight offset things to adjust them back to equilibrium goods and services of the planet - this is our ecosystem, and heavy lifting is not required, but a continuum range of motion towards and about a return towards another which can provide for the system in any adaptive way which is required during even a transference of available materials from one to the next, as in the seasons.

. . .

this has been Aqua Q Labs; a subtext