>Evolution is a fact-based Theory (big T) and the proofs are quite “convincing” to all but the willfully dumb.
That doesn't help the discussion at all. First, proofs are for Math, not Science. Second calling people who disagree with you "willfully dumb" is anti-rational. Third, in this particular case there was certainly no proof, nor, more importantly, is there any evidence. There was just a made up story to fit the few facts we have. Realistically, we can't know how the Venus Flytrap evolved, all the evidence we would need to know that is gone. Plants don't leave nice fossil records. All we have are educated guesses. It's better than saying "God did it," but it's really not science, it's speculation, and should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
There are a lot of places where we can clearly illustrate evolution happening thanks mostly to the evidence of fossil records. This is not one of them.
I'm a liberal. I voted for Obama (but supported Kucinich in the primaries), am pro-choice, pro-market regulation, pro-universal healthcare, pro heavy cuts in "defense" spending, anti-capital punishment, etc. This stunt doesn't make me angry in the least.
Also, hearsetrax, I own a couple guns (a .22 rifle and a 12 gauge shotgun, and a BB gun) but I'd like to imagine I'm not a nutjob.
I think there would be a lot of problems with a unified currency, as it would give capital that much more liquidity between countries - I expect that would be destabilizing, especially to poorer countries. It also would mean that fiscal policy would be much more difficult to control. Also the relative differences in the cost/values of things would make it hard to have a currency that scaled between the poorest and the richest countries. In a very poor nation I can get basic necessities like a meal for far far less than in a richer developed nation, the currency would need to scale way down to be usable to the poorer nations, which would make it clumsier for richer nations.
Kalel said: >Besides, if Euros are any indication, we’ll wind up trading with some really boring, or flat-out ugly, coins and bills.
The fact that different members of the EU have their own designs keeps things pretty interesting. I've found it interesting to see the different nations' coins in change when I was in Europe. If the practice was global, it'd be much more interesting - I think it'd be fun to occasionally see a Botswana, or New Zealand coin show up in change. Also the Euro banknotes are differentiated by color which makes them much easier to work with (it's too bad they didn't vary the size between denominations so they'd be easier for the blind to use as well). Personally, I find that the designs of some nation's banknotes are very interesting and attractive, and again it was interesting to see different nations' designs.
To really judge this, you need to be familiar with music from the whole of the 20th century.
I'd say that the biggest musical icon of the 20th century was Louis Armstrong, by far. His popularity and influence were far greater than any of those others mentioned when considered over the whole of the 20th c.
Second probably Gershwin, you might not know that you know his tunes, but you do. For a guy with such a short career, he had a huge impact. After him, the next forty years of music were all heavily influenced by him, and his songs are still Jazz standards today.
For a third I'd go with Duke Ellington. He was a giant in his day, and I agree with K*T that he's a strong contender for the title of the greatest songwriter of the 20th C. He started in the 20s and was still releasing major records in the 50s and 60s.
Fourth, I'd go with either Frankie or Bing Crosby. Both were huge for more decades of the 20th C. than Elvis, the Beatles, or MJ.
Between Elvis and the Beatles it's hard to say who was bigger, but I think both were bigger than MJ.
Err, when I said not *exactly", I mean not at all. And When I say they used the heat to generate energy, I meant they used it to generate electricity. It's early for me.
They're not exactly nuclear reactors. They're radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs). They use the heat from nuclear decay to generate energy. They're still seriously radioactive, and it's a serious concern that they are being left unguarded since the Soviet ones are full of strontium-90 that could be weaponized into a dirty bomb.
That doesn't help the discussion at all. First, proofs are for Math, not Science. Second calling people who disagree with you "willfully dumb" is anti-rational. Third, in this particular case there was certainly no proof, nor, more importantly, is there any evidence. There was just a made up story to fit the few facts we have. Realistically, we can't know how the Venus Flytrap evolved, all the evidence we would need to know that is gone. Plants don't leave nice fossil records. All we have are educated guesses. It's better than saying "God did it," but it's really not science, it's speculation, and should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
There are a lot of places where we can clearly illustrate evolution happening thanks mostly to the evidence of fossil records. This is not one of them.
Also, hearsetrax, I own a couple guns (a .22 rifle and a 12 gauge shotgun, and a BB gun) but I'd like to imagine I'm not a nutjob.
Kalel said:
>Besides, if Euros are any indication, we’ll wind up trading with some really boring, or flat-out ugly, coins and bills.
The fact that different members of the EU have their own designs keeps things pretty interesting. I've found it interesting to see the different nations' coins in change when I was in Europe. If the practice was global, it'd be much more interesting - I think it'd be fun to occasionally see a Botswana, or New Zealand coin show up in change. Also the Euro banknotes are differentiated by color which makes them much easier to work with (it's too bad they didn't vary the size between denominations so they'd be easier for the blind to use as well). Personally, I find that the designs of some nation's banknotes are very interesting and attractive, and again it was interesting to see different nations' designs.
I'd say that the biggest musical icon of the 20th century was Louis Armstrong, by far. His popularity and influence were far greater than any of those others mentioned when considered over the whole of the 20th c.
Second probably Gershwin, you might not know that you know his tunes, but you do. For a guy with such a short career, he had a huge impact. After him, the next forty years of music were all heavily influenced by him, and his songs are still Jazz standards today.
For a third I'd go with Duke Ellington. He was a giant in his day, and I agree with K*T that he's a strong contender for the title of the greatest songwriter of the 20th C. He started in the 20s and was still releasing major records in the 50s and 60s.
Fourth, I'd go with either Frankie or Bing Crosby. Both were huge for more decades of the 20th C. than Elvis, the Beatles, or MJ.
Between Elvis and the Beatles it's hard to say who was bigger, but I think both were bigger than MJ.
http://images.google.com/images?&q=Rokuoh-Sha%20Type%2089
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator