Not really. That may have been true at one point many millions of years ago, but now Europe is part of the Eurasian tectonic plate along with most of Asia. Using plate tectonic criteria to define continents is problematic in any case, since it would put eastern Siberia on the same continent as North America. Central America and the Arabian Peninsula would be separate continents, and India and Australia would be part of the same continent.
Central America is not a continent. It’s a string of mostly extinct volcanoes that arose where the Cocos and Caribbean plates collide. It’s integral to neither North nor South America.
Whatever the configurations are today, India, Australia, and Madagascar broke off of Antarctica during the late Jurassic and early Cretaceous periods and went their separate ways. Europe collided with Asia between 20 and 35 million years ago. The Arabian Peninsula is being absorbed by the land masses around it as Africa continues to drift north.
appearing to and as doesn’t equal doing and being
Because it’s actually skin cells, dust mites, and tiny particles of dirt and crap that settles out slowly over time. I used to work directly under an air vent at work and I couldn’t figure out why I always started sneezing about a half hour into my shift. Turns out that’s when the air conditioning came on, and it would blow all the dust that had settled out overnight in the ventilating shaft directly into my face.
If Mickey Mouse normally wears pants and no shirt, and Donald Duck normally wears a jacket and no pants, why does Donald wrap a towel around his waist when he steps out of the shower?
Because he’s a duck, cold effects him the opposite as it effects human men. He’s hiding his big bird boner.
I bet it’s shockingly low; try it with a Merry-Go-'Round.
I was going to say “it keeps water from dripping on the floor,” but I like your suggestion better.
If the criterion is being on a separate tectonic plate, it’s better qualified to be a separate continent than Europe is. Northern Central America (Honduras and Nicaragua) is comprised of the Chortis block and is made up of continental crust. There are volcanoes along the Pacific coast that originated by this region overriding the Cocos Plate, but most of the rocks in this region are of continental origin.
This is only true of Southern Central America, including Costa Rica and Panama. This volcanic arc originated about 75 million years ago and became hooked to Northern Central America between 40 and 20 million years ago. Quite a few of the volcanoes are still active.
Exactly, which would be the grounds for considering it as a separate continent (although admittedly a small one). Central America lies mostly on the Caribbean Plate, separate from both the North American and South American Plates. (Panama and Costa Rica, however, technically lie on the separate Panama microplate.)
My point, of course, is that you can’t use plate tectonics as a justification for Europe being a continent, because by that criterion a lot of other areas would be much better qualified. Europe and Asia have collided repeatedly; the Urals themselves were formed about 250-300 million years ago. Today Europe is on the same tectonic plate as most of Asia. Unlike Europe, Arabia and India are on separate plates from the rest of Asia, and have better tectonic credentials for continenthood than Europe does.
Is there any science behind “molecular clusters” in liquids? I know alternative science is running out of widely unknown phenomena to base their logic on, so I’ve seen this as an explanation for homeopathy and those fuel-saving devices. In short, they create/break down molecular clusters, changing the properties without changing the composition. Is this: has no evidence either way, or has it been debunked?
It’s not even plausible enough to reach the “no evidence/debunking” level. It’s complete fantasy, made up by nutters desperate for something that sounds good. It’s like asking someone to debunk the theory that rain is actually tears of invisible flying monkeys who are allergic to fairy dust.
And if tuna can be called “chicken of the sea,” why can’t we call chicken “tuna of the land”?
And another thing: why does Superman, after letting all the bullets bounce off his chest, DUCK when they throw the empty gun at him?
Because he’s aware that some smart criminal some day is going to make a green kryptonite Glock…
… neither of which are fish …
Of course they’re fish. They’re shellfish.
I’ve known some that are very generous.
[fanwank]
Kyptonians, in their native environment, have no more superpowers than normal humans, and over the millions of years it took them to evolve, they developed a flinch instinct the same way humans have. Even though it can’t hurt him, Superman’s natural reaction to something heading at his face at high speed is to get out of the way. He’d normally have the same reaction to bullets, but being Superman, he represses his instinct to get out of the way, because he knows that stray bullets are dangerous in a way stray handguns are not.
[/fanwank]
My dumb question:
MN spends about two and a half-billion a year on the expenses caused by smokers of cigarettes. Its expenditures for irresponsible drinking and drug use are two times that and have increased by a billion in the last year tallied. The cost of obesity is greater yet.
But our efforts at reduction are firmly aimed at smokers.
Why?
Of course, the real reason for the Superman ducking question is because the prop gun was a real object and it would hurt (at least a little) if it hit the actor.
I like the fake answers better.
Here’s another: If the majority of people are for decriminalizing drug use and believe that prohibition doesn’t work why the war on cigarettes?
According to Historical Hussies, that’s completely right. Glasses were invented around 1727, but they were considered to be unattractive. Quizzing glasses and monocles blocked less of the face and could be used for gesturing, just as fans and cigarette holders could.
Actually, they could be fitted to stay on easily, if you had the money to get a custom fit wire insert. Monocles were a little more complex than I thought. So I agree that this was a very good stupid question.
You left out corkscrew-shaped.
Chicken didn’t need a PR campaign. The implication of “chicken of the sea” is “here’s a fish that doesn’t taste like fish.”