That does depend on how you define "overthrow". But I'm sure you feel all warm and fuzzy now because you think its less than I do and yet fail to realize that everything you were taught America stands for, everything you think makes you special was revealed as a complete farce the day it was more than 0.
And now you're reading my mind and also incorrectly. You don't know me and should not attempt to guess what I know, what I was taught, or what I believe. I don't really care about feeling warm and fuzzy. I care about numbers.
If you had said "numerous" or even "lots", I would have passed on by. However, "Dozens" is a number and although it is kind of vague, it sets a floor that is too large. No one would think "two dozen" when told "dozens" - the floor would be three dozen - that's over 36 countries having an elected leader overthrown by the USA and replaced by a military dictator. There are only about 200 countries in the world. Do you really want to defend stating that nearly a fifth of the countries in the world have been overthrown by the USA?
Just of the top of my head: Nicaraqua, Panama, Brazil.
There really are dozens, but you can google the rest.
I already went to google, and no, I didn't get to even a whole dozen of elected governments overthrown by the USA and replaced by a puppet government. Your assertion of "dozens" is false.
I got news for you - what you say no other country has done America has not done either. You have conquered the world and taken all the perks, you just pretend you havent to deny the responsibility. Nobody dares elect a leader unfriendly to American corporations lest you abandon all the principals you just claimed to hold and fund a coup to replace that leader with a puppet military dictator like youve done dozens of times since world war 2
Dozens? Give us a list, please, where the USA funded a coup to replace an elected leader with a puppet military dictator.
What is the best way to use a deep fryer on my lap in a car during rush hour?
Sometimes the best answer is "no".
If you don't know how to drive with your knees, then you shouldn't be driving during rush hour. And besides, the deep fryer isn't the problem. The problem is catching and butchering the chickens while driving.
Totally agree. The article didn't embiggen my vocabulary, and it was annoying to read. Plus, I would not have used "epistemic" like that.
Also, give me your lunch cookie. If you don't, I'm going to tell you mom you left out the comma after "I think its good to have as big of a vocabulary as possible". There's more, but I'm saving those for later
Oh yeah, I've seen that website. Lol, they think the lifetime of a solar panel is 5 years!
No, 5 years is the average payback time - when the amount generated pays back the cost of manufacturing the panel. They averaged some 17 studies to get the 72 g/kWh and those used a lifetime of 25-30 years.
According to EDF, the carbon footprint of a nuclear power station – the average level of greenhouse gas emissions it is responsible for over its lifetime, from construction to decommissioning – is about 16 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent for each kilowatt-hour of electricity it generates (gCO2e/kWh).
Now that is interesting. From the same web site, we see the carbon footprint for solar cells is 4.5 times greater than that of a nuke. https://www.edfenergy.com/ener...
The carbon footprint of a solar photovoltaic (PV) panel – the average level of greenhouse gas emissions it is responsible for over its lifetime – is about 72 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated (gCO2e/kWh) .
Re-read what you quoted. They didn't say the laws of thermodynamics don't apply, only that the specific laws that limit the efficiency of ICEs don't apply to fuel cells. This is true, as the fuel cells are not limited by the the maximum efficiency of the Carnot cycle that uses only temperature differences.
No. Just no. All thermodynamic laws always apply. If the author had said that fuel cells have a higher efficiency than internal combustion engines, I would have bought that simplification. The author made no mention of any heat engine cycle, he just said that such thermodynamic laws don't apply. The laws do apply, the cycles are different. All thermodynamic laws always apply.
Petrol and diesel generators are limited by thermodynamic laws (they do not allow an efficiency coefficient of more than 80% for example), but such laws do not apply to fuel cells.
OK, I know what the author was trying to say, but dang, if I had put that on paper in my thermo class, Dr Biritz would have run me through with a sword.
I remember when we were first discussing about using skyrocket as a verb. I told everyone it was a mistake. Did anyone listen? Did they? And do you see what happened? Now do you see?
If terrorist activity is detected, should the AI drive the car to the incident so the driver can assist in fighting the terrorists, or should it flee the area?
I'm voting for everyone piling on, and the AI could allow access to a locked weapon compartment.
Agreed. Stop in your lane. I call it the squirrel problem.
Anyone who has tried to avoid running over a squirrel knows that squirrels' panic mode is to dart back and forth, so no matter where you point your car or swerve, you wind up squishing the squirrel anyway. You're better off continuing in a predictable path so the squirrel has a chance of solving the problem with its superior speed and reflexes.
Are pedestrians significantly smarter than squirrels? Perhaps in Manhattan, where everyone is a pedestrian and not by choice, but in Atlanta they're probably not because, well, if they were smarter than a squirrel they own a car in this sidewalk-less death-trap of a city. Please don't ask me if I think the drivers in Atlanta are smarter than squirrels either. People can be like squirrels when they panic. You can swerve, but they'll just panic and swerve to where you swerved, only now lawyers will get involved and accuse you of pursuing the victim or something like that.
Bored, huh? I've been reading this guy off and on over the last few months. It's from around AD 120, who knows for sure. https://archive.org/stream/mor... Elizabeth Carter did the translation in 1758; they had a fondness for long sentences with many commas back then. The Rufus he often refers to was Epictetus's teacher.
In this one, I like #25 - it gave me a different (more tolerable) view of butt-kissers, and this is from Hadrian's time. http://classics.mit.edu/Epicte...
LOL Mine was kind of luck. I didn't work any harder than anyone else really. Or, more accurately, people who are far less fortunate worked harder than I ever have.
Also, I knew what you meant which is why I added the caveat. Though I must emphasize, it was largely due to dumb luck. I was in the right place, at the right time, and able to take the risk.
Heh, you have the kind of luck that comes from having your eyes open.
I imagine some ancient greeks talking about it. student: He is so lucky. He never gets tripped up by life. Why do the gods favor him so and not us? teacher: Instead of complaining to the gods about KG, ask yourself why you walk around looking at the sky instead of the road.
I dunno... I started out with a $5000 grant, my last check for living costs from the GI Bill, a buddy's apartment, and a loaned computer.
Well, and a contract with most of the work already done but I'm gonna pretend that part didn't exist.
I am 58 and have been retired for just about 8 years now, slightly less.
Sigh. I knew that someone would say something along the lines of "look at meeeee, I did it without the lottery".
Yes, most people who have done well did it without lottery winnings, but their wealth didn't come from an single investment such as college education or $5,000, it came from a few decades of hard work and being born with a very good brain. I suspect yours came the same way. I do not accept the implied assertion that your wealth came from the $5,000 investment. Being born with a good brain isn't an option. It not something you can ask for or change later though hard work. It's luck just as much as winning the lottery. And if you were born on the wrong side of the slope, you don't have that option. Those people may be dumb, but they do know what their limitations are.
Your odds of winning with no ticket are exactly zero. Your odds with 1 ticket are greater than zero.
No tickets cost $0. One ticket costs more than $0, and it usually costs more than (prize_money)*(probability of winning the jackpot).
There's more to it than just (prize_money)*(probability of winning the jackpot) is less than the cost of a ticket.
The costs of a weekly lottery ticket over your entire life is still a low number. $52 * 100 years = $5,200. That's peanuts. It may even be less than I have actually spent on peanuts so far in my life counting the wife and kids.
It is a game and there are TWO payouts. The first is, you're playing a game and you have fun. That is a payout. The second is the money you get if you win. The payoff is much much larger than you can get any other way - you cannot make that much money by investing $5200. Even Madoff didn't promise that large a return. So the usual rules of ROI don't apply here.
This research is required because it substantiates...
That's a good point. It is better that the people who write laws have some actual research done to support their decisions rather than going with "what is obvious". And I'm sure you're right in that it gives them a way to oppose the PR-B$ machine's representatives.
I once had to work with a state legislator, and that was a point he made. He said, people are going to come after me if I support this, and I really need something to show them that's more than "I want to". He went on to say that you would be surprised how reasonable these people can be, if you have something concrete to show them to support your position.
Who gives candy to children at school? What are they training these kids for? I hate to do the "when I was a kid", but no one gave us candy in school, and we only got it at home rarely, such as for Halloween and major holidays. When I wanted candy, I had to earn money and go buy it. Maybe these kids should go get a job instead of sitting around, playing games and eating candy.
When I was a kid, all we had to play with was fire. And we were glad to have it.
I wonder whether they could have used modified Newtonian dynamics to have made the same prediction. That is to say, I don't see how this prediction leans to either side in the dark matter vs MOND question.
There was a study a few years ago about traffic in cities. They found that if all the drivers kept to rules that most cities would halt into complete grid lock. People need to break rules to clear junctions, to pass cars that are stuck, and even force priority to not starve lanes going into a junction.
I travel by bus to and from work in Amsterdam, it is quite a long trip which includes traffic jams in the inner city. The bus driver needs to often break the rules to be able to pass cars, and force priority on junction because they are often stuck. Cars are backing up, cars are trying to make room.
Here is the actual study. http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3513 Basically they designed a automata simulation that would have gridlock, and made a rule that would avoid jams forming, but called that rule "rule-breaking"; probably because if you did that in a car you would die in a head-on collision.
Abstract:
A system of agents moving along a road in both directions is studied numerically within a cellular-automata formulation. An agent steps to the right with probability q or to the left with 1q when encountering other agents. Our model is restricted to two agent types, traffic-rule abiders (q=1) and traffic-rule ignorers (q=1/2). The traffic flow, resulting from the interaction between these two types of agents, is obtained as a function of density and relative fraction. The risk for jamming at a fixed density, when starting from a disordered situation, is smaller when every agent abides by a traffic rule than when all agents ignore the rule. Nevertheless, the absolute minimum occurs when a small fraction of ignorers are present within a majority of abiders. The characteristic features for the spatial structure of the flow pattern are obtained and discussed.
What the bill was about was to put a stop to the various localities making up their own numbers and them demanding state funding to support their speculations. What was happening was the various towns had gotten into a race for how much money they wanted from the state based on individual projections made by, well just anybody.
Note that the bill REQUIRES peer-reviewed science for projections. That is exactly requiring "climate change science" for projections. Note that section (e) of the bill also specifically encourages academic research into sea-level change.
No rule, ordinance, policy, or planning guideline that defines sea level or a rate of sea-level rise within a coastal-area county shall be adopted except as provided by this section. (b) The General Assembly does not intend to mandate the development of sea-level rise policy or rates of sea-level rise. The Coastal Resources Commission, in conjunction with the Division of Coastal Management, shall have the authority to define sea-level rise and develop rates of sea-level rise for the State. (c) The Coastal Resources Commission shall be the only State agency authorized to define rates of sea-level rise for regulatory purposes and, if developed, shall do so in conjunction with the Division of Coastal Management. The Commission and the Division of Coastal Management may collaborate with other State agencies, boards, commissions, other public entities, or institutions when defining sea-level rise or developing rates of sea-level rise. These rates shall be determined using statistically significant, peer-reviewed historical data generated using generally accepted scientific and statistical techniques. Historic rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise unless such rates are from statistically significant, peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends. Rates of sea-level rise shall not be one rate for the entire coast, but rather the Commission shall consider separately oceanfront and estuarine shorelines. For oceanfront shorelines, the Commission shall use no fewer than the four regions defined in the April 2011 report entitled "North Carolina Beach and Inlet Management Plan" published by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The oceanfront regions are: Region 1 (Brunswick County), Region 2 (New Hanover, Pender, and Onslow Counties and a portion of Carteret County), Region 3 (a portion of Carteret County and Hyde County), and Region 4 (Dare and Currituck Counties). For estuarine shorelines, the Commission shall consider no fewer than two separate regions defined as those north of Cape Lookout and those south of Cape Lookout. In regions that may lack statistically significant, peer-reviewed historical data, rates from adjacent regions may be considered and modified using generally accepted scientific and statistical techniques to account for relevant historical geologic and hydrologic processes. (d) Any State agency, board, commission, or institution that develops a policy addressing sea-level rise that includes a definition or rate of sea-level rise for the coastal-area counties shall use only the definitions and rates of sea-level rise developed by the Division of Coastal Management as approved by the Coastal Resources Commission. (e) The provisions in this
I'd say the American people were never interested in space. They got all interested in it during Mercury/Gemini/Apollo not because they were actually interested in space, but because they wanted to beat the Soviets.
Old guy here.
I'm certain that you are mistaken. Almost everyone during that time was excited about going to space in itself for the sense of exploration. That was the heyday of science fiction - it was very popular among adults and the general sense most people had was of new world excitement.
I would say that the beat the soviets thing was key to getting the support of politicians and the ultra rich because it answered the only question those people ever have: "What's in it for me?"
Slashdot Mirror
That does depend on how you define "overthrow". But I'm sure you feel all warm and fuzzy now because you think its less than I do and yet fail to realize that everything you were taught America stands for, everything you think makes you special was revealed as a complete farce the day it was more than 0.
And now you're reading my mind and also incorrectly. You don't know me and should not attempt to guess what I know, what I was taught, or what I believe.
I don't really care about feeling warm and fuzzy.
I care about numbers.
If you had said "numerous" or even "lots", I would have passed on by.
However, "Dozens" is a number and although it is kind of vague, it sets a floor that is too large.
No one would think "two dozen" when told "dozens" - the floor would be three dozen - that's over 36 countries having an elected leader overthrown by the USA and replaced by a military dictator. There are only about 200 countries in the world. Do you really want to defend stating that nearly a fifth of the countries in the world have been overthrown by the USA?
Numbers matter.
And the Philippines.
Just of the top of my head:
Nicaraqua, Panama, Brazil.
There really are dozens, but you can google the rest.
I already went to google, and no, I didn't get to even a whole dozen of elected governments overthrown by the USA and replaced by a puppet government.
Your assertion of "dozens" is false.
I got news for you - what you say no other country has done America has not done either. You have conquered the world and taken all the perks, you just pretend you havent to deny the responsibility. Nobody dares elect a leader unfriendly to American corporations lest you abandon all the principals you just claimed to hold and fund a coup to replace that leader with a puppet military dictator like youve done dozens of times since world war 2
Dozens?
Give us a list, please, where the USA funded a coup to replace an elected leader with a puppet military dictator.
What is the best way to use a deep fryer on my lap in a car during rush hour?
Sometimes the best answer is "no".
If you don't know how to drive with your knees, then you shouldn't be driving during rush hour.
And besides, the deep fryer isn't the problem. The problem is catching and butchering the chickens while driving.
Totally agree.
The article didn't embiggen my vocabulary, and it was annoying to read. Plus, I would not have used "epistemic" like that.
Also, give me your lunch cookie. If you don't, I'm going to tell you mom you left out the comma after "I think its good to have as big of a vocabulary as possible".
There's more, but I'm saving those for later
Oh yeah, I've seen that website. Lol, they think the lifetime of a solar panel is 5 years!
No,
5 years is the average payback time - when the amount generated pays back the cost of manufacturing the panel.
They averaged some 17 studies to get the 72 g/kWh and those used a lifetime of 25-30 years.
According to EDF, the carbon footprint of a nuclear power station – the average level of greenhouse gas emissions it is responsible for over its lifetime, from construction to decommissioning – is about 16 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent for each kilowatt-hour of electricity it generates (gCO2e/kWh).
Now that is interesting.
From the same web site, we see the carbon footprint for solar cells is 4.5 times greater than that of a nuke.
https://www.edfenergy.com/ener...
The carbon footprint of a solar photovoltaic (PV) panel – the average level of greenhouse gas emissions it is responsible for over its lifetime – is about 72 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated (gCO2e/kWh) .
Re-read what you quoted. They didn't say the laws of thermodynamics don't apply, only that the specific laws that limit the efficiency of ICEs don't apply to fuel cells. This is true, as the fuel cells are not limited by the the maximum efficiency of the Carnot cycle that uses only temperature differences.
No. Just no.
All thermodynamic laws always apply.
If the author had said that fuel cells have a higher efficiency than internal combustion engines, I would have bought that simplification.
The author made no mention of any heat engine cycle, he just said that such thermodynamic laws don't apply. The laws do apply, the cycles are different.
All thermodynamic laws always apply.
Petrol and diesel generators are limited by thermodynamic laws (they do not allow an efficiency coefficient of more than 80% for example), but such laws do not apply to fuel cells.
OK, I know what the author was trying to say, but dang, if I had put that on paper in my thermo class, Dr Biritz would have run me through with a sword.
I remember when we were first discussing about using skyrocket as a verb. I told everyone it was a mistake.
Did anyone listen? Did they?
And do you see what happened? Now do you see?
110,000 pounds is equivalent to the weight of 460 Homer Simpsons.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5koC...
So you are correct: "it's a lot".
A bus full of nuns?
I once rescued a bus full of cheerleaders. I rescued them three times, if you know what I mean.
Batmanuel
If terrorist activity is detected, should the AI drive the car to the incident so the driver can assist in fighting the terrorists, or should it flee the area?
I'm voting for everyone piling on, and the AI could allow access to a locked weapon compartment.
Agreed. Stop in your lane.
I call it the squirrel problem.
Anyone who has tried to avoid running over a squirrel knows that squirrels' panic mode is to dart back and forth, so no matter where you point your car or swerve, you wind up squishing the squirrel anyway. You're better off continuing in a predictable path so the squirrel has a chance of solving the problem with its superior speed and reflexes.
Are pedestrians significantly smarter than squirrels? Perhaps in Manhattan, where everyone is a pedestrian and not by choice, but in Atlanta they're probably not because, well, if they were smarter than a squirrel they own a car in this sidewalk-less death-trap of a city. Please don't ask me if I think the drivers in Atlanta are smarter than squirrels either.
People can be like squirrels when they panic. You can swerve, but they'll just panic and swerve to where you swerved, only now lawyers will get involved and accuse you of pursuing the victim or something like that.
Bored, huh?
I've been reading this guy off and on over the last few months. It's from around AD 120, who knows for sure.
https://archive.org/stream/mor...
Elizabeth Carter did the translation in 1758; they had a fondness for long sentences with many commas back then.
The Rufus he often refers to was Epictetus's teacher.
In this one, I like #25 - it gave me a different (more tolerable) view of butt-kissers, and this is from Hadrian's time.
http://classics.mit.edu/Epicte...
LOL Mine was kind of luck. I didn't work any harder than anyone else really. Or, more accurately, people who are far less fortunate worked harder than I ever have.
Also, I knew what you meant which is why I added the caveat. Though I must emphasize, it was largely due to dumb luck. I was in the right place, at the right time, and able to take the risk.
Heh, you have the kind of luck that comes from having your eyes open.
I imagine some ancient greeks talking about it.
student: He is so lucky. He never gets tripped up by life. Why do the gods favor him so and not us?
teacher: Instead of complaining to the gods about KG, ask yourself why you walk around looking at the sky instead of the road.
I dunno... I started out with a $5000 grant, my last check for living costs from the GI Bill, a buddy's apartment, and a loaned computer.
Well, and a contract with most of the work already done but I'm gonna pretend that part didn't exist.
I am 58 and have been retired for just about 8 years now, slightly less.
Sigh.
I knew that someone would say something along the lines of "look at meeeee, I did it without the lottery".
Yes, most people who have done well did it without lottery winnings, but their wealth didn't come from an single investment such as college education or $5,000, it came from a few decades of hard work and being born with a very good brain. I suspect yours came the same way. I do not accept the implied assertion that your wealth came from the $5,000 investment.
Being born with a good brain isn't an option. It not something you can ask for or change later though hard work. It's luck just as much as winning the lottery.
And if you were born on the wrong side of the slope, you don't have that option. Those people may be dumb, but they do know what their limitations are.
Your odds of winning with no ticket are exactly zero. Your odds with 1 ticket are greater than zero.
No tickets cost $0. One ticket costs more than $0, and it usually costs more than (prize_money)*(probability of winning the jackpot).
There's more to it than just (prize_money)*(probability of winning the jackpot) is less than the cost of a ticket.
The costs of a weekly lottery ticket over your entire life is still a low number. $52 * 100 years = $5,200. That's peanuts. It may even be less than I have actually spent on peanuts so far in my life counting the wife and kids.
It is a game and there are TWO payouts.
The first is, you're playing a game and you have fun. That is a payout.
The second is the money you get if you win. The payoff is much much larger than you can get any other way - you cannot make that much money by investing $5200. Even Madoff didn't promise that large a return. So the usual rules of ROI don't apply here.
This research is required because it substantiates ...
That's a good point. It is better that the people who write laws have some actual research done to support their decisions rather than going with "what is obvious".
And I'm sure you're right in that it gives them a way to oppose the PR-B$ machine's representatives.
I once had to work with a state legislator, and that was a point he made. He said, people are going to come after me if I support this, and I really need something to show them that's more than "I want to".
He went on to say that you would be surprised how reasonable these people can be, if you have something concrete to show them to support your position.
Who gives candy to children at school? What are they training these kids for?
I hate to do the "when I was a kid", but no one gave us candy in school, and we only got it at home rarely, such as for Halloween and major holidays.
When I wanted candy, I had to earn money and go buy it.
Maybe these kids should go get a job instead of sitting around, playing games and eating candy.
When I was a kid, all we had to play with was fire. And we were glad to have it.
I wonder whether they could have used modified Newtonian dynamics to have made the same prediction.
That is to say, I don't see how this prediction leans to either side in the dark matter vs MOND question.
There was a study a few years ago about traffic in cities. They found that if all the drivers kept to rules that most cities would halt into complete grid lock.
People need to break rules to clear junctions, to pass cars that are stuck, and even force priority to not starve lanes going into a junction.
I travel by bus to and from work in Amsterdam, it is quite a long trip which includes traffic jams in the inner city. The bus driver needs to often break the rules to be able to pass cars, and force priority on junction because they are often stuck. Cars are backing up, cars are trying to make room.
That is kinda BS.
This is the popular press articles about the study:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...
http://physicsbuzz.physicscent...
Here is the actual study. http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3513
Basically they designed a automata simulation that would have gridlock, and made a rule that would avoid jams forming, but called that rule "rule-breaking"; probably because if you did that in a car you would die in a head-on collision.
Abstract:
A system of agents moving along a road in both directions is studied numerically within a cellular-automata formulation. An agent steps to the right with probability q or to the left with 1q when encountering other agents. Our model is restricted to two agent types, traffic-rule abiders (q=1) and traffic-rule ignorers (q=1/2). The traffic flow, resulting from the interaction between these two types of agents, is obtained as a function of density and relative fraction. The risk for jamming at a fixed density, when starting from a disordered situation, is smaller when every agent abides by a traffic rule than when all agents ignore the rule. Nevertheless, the absolute minimum occurs when a small fraction of ignorers are present within a majority of abiders. The characteristic features for the spatial structure of the flow pattern are obtained and discussed.
Don't forget that just 3 years ago North Carolina effectively banned climate change science in order to appease coastal real estate developers.
(Do a search on "North Carolina climate change law" if you don't like ABC News. Plenty of other outlets reported the story as well.)
Here is the actual law:
http://ncga.state.nc.us/sessio...
Here is the relevant section.
What the bill was about was to put a stop to the various localities making up their own numbers and them demanding state funding to support their speculations.
What was happening was the various towns had gotten into a race for how much money they wanted from the state based on individual projections made by, well just anybody.
Note that the bill REQUIRES peer-reviewed science for projections. That is exactly requiring "climate change science" for projections.
Note that section (e) of the bill also specifically encourages academic research into sea-level change.
No rule, ordinance, policy, or planning guideline that defines sea level or a rate of sea-level rise within a coastal-area county shall be adopted except as provided by this section.
(b) The General Assembly does not intend to mandate the development of sea-level rise policy or rates of sea-level rise. The Coastal Resources Commission, in conjunction with the Division of Coastal Management, shall have the authority to define sea-level rise and develop rates of sea-level rise for the State.
(c) The Coastal Resources Commission shall be the only State agency authorized to define rates of sea-level rise for regulatory purposes and, if developed, shall do so in conjunction with the Division of Coastal Management. The Commission and the Division of Coastal Management may collaborate with other State agencies, boards, commissions, other public entities, or institutions when defining sea-level rise or developing rates of sea-level rise. These rates shall be determined using statistically significant, peer-reviewed historical data generated using generally accepted scientific and statistical techniques. Historic rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise unless such rates are from statistically significant, peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends. Rates of sea-level rise shall not be one rate for the entire coast, but rather the Commission shall consider separately oceanfront and estuarine shorelines. For oceanfront shorelines, the Commission shall use no fewer than the four regions defined in the April 2011 report entitled "North Carolina Beach and Inlet Management Plan" published by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The oceanfront regions are: Region 1 (Brunswick County), Region 2 (New Hanover, Pender, and Onslow Counties and a portion of Carteret County), Region 3 (a portion of Carteret County and Hyde County), and Region 4 (Dare and Currituck Counties). For estuarine shorelines, the Commission shall consider no fewer than two separate regions defined as those north of Cape Lookout and those south of Cape Lookout. In regions that may lack statistically significant, peer-reviewed historical data, rates from adjacent regions may be considered and modified using generally accepted scientific and statistical techniques to account for relevant historical geologic and hydrologic processes.
(d) Any State agency, board, commission, or institution that develops a policy addressing sea-level rise that includes a definition or rate of sea-level rise for the coastal-area counties shall use only the definitions and rates of sea-level rise developed by the Division of Coastal Management as approved by the Coastal Resources Commission.
(e) The provisions in this
I'd say the American people were never interested in space. They got all interested in it during Mercury/Gemini/Apollo not because they were actually interested in space, but because they wanted to beat the Soviets.
Old guy here.
I'm certain that you are mistaken. Almost everyone during that time was excited about going to space in itself for the sense of exploration. That was the heyday of science fiction - it was very popular among adults and the general sense most people had was of new world excitement.
I would say that the beat the soviets thing was key to getting the support of politicians and the ultra rich because it answered the only question those people ever have: "What's in it for me?"