<span>A sociologist who is studying how populations of certain countries influences and affects the population and environment of other neighboring countries is likely a functionalist, who focuses on social/cultural development, international social change and or culture sociology. The focus area described allows for may courses of sub-study. The dynamic of entire populations especially those separated by boarders and boundaries can have vastly different cultural norms, the result of which when mixed can have a catastrophic difference on the perceived efficiency of that population as a whole. One example of this explanation is cultural social conflict, evident in most if not all large cities with discontinuous ethnic groups.</span>
I believe television is more effective than radio because, television provide a visual image of certain things, and people find visuals more appealing and favorite more than listening to someone speaking. The images tend to capture the mind of the viewer causing them to be more attracted to a certain thing, causing it to have a greater influence on public opinion. For example, If Pepsi chose to create an advertisement in a radio by just simply stating that it's refreshing and saying that you should buy it. But Coca Cola chose to make an ad on TV by showing people enjoying the drink by the pool in a summer day, you are more likely to chose Coke because it appealed to you more than Pepsi. So I think that's why Television is more effective in influencing public opinion than a radio.
Hope this helps you
I believe it was, "<span>Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." But I'm not quite sure. </span>
Myanmar, formerly known as Burma until 1989, had been squeezed by international economic sanctions since the late 1990s, with only China as a major political backer and investor.
