Italy - Let's see, that's the country where geoscientists were convicted of manslaughter for failing to predict an earthquake.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/...
I'm not sure how anyone can maintain a rigorous scientific practice, under a system such as that.
It was scheduled camel service; a re-positioning caravan back to the regional hub.
You can easily search Camelaware for deadhead trips starting with 9xxx.
To paraphrase Arianna Huffington on her private-jet travel (all while she was loudly decrying fossil fuel use):
"The camel was going there anyways".
Consider this essay when judging IPCC's credibility:
IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted Certainties Presented to Media, Public and Politicians, But Remained Silent
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Nichibutsu got the flowerpots just right, back in 1980.
There has been no need for innovation since then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
That strains credulity -- it's a holey bowl.
Just print two lowers. Heck, print a dozen. If one is bad, smash it.
Keep the good pieces, and try to analyze what makes them good. Adjust the design.
This is one of the major advantages of fabbing your own -- disposal is no longer a costly, regulatory issue.
If you could only study a small handful of people, they would be an awful choice.
Why would a researcher only be able to study one nation, out of hundreds? It's not a real problem -- just do more and better research; or, narrow the scope of your conclusions.
I'm kinda getting the vibe that you're a radical isolationist. You may wanna work on that.
Let's see, I recommended researching a hundred nations, especially if one's goal is to "draw broad generalizations" about the "human condition". Pick samples at random from that set, if you like. I'm not sure how that makes me any kind of isolationist.
The isolationist is one who justifies either the inclusion or exclusion of a single nation when claiming to speak for the "human condition". That's a lofty goal -- and one will have to work very hard to live up to it. Picking and choosing based upon arbitrary political borders may not be effective in reaching any sort of species-wide conclusion.
If one was trying to scientifically "draw broad generalizations" about humans, why would you ever select samples from just one nation (regardless of which one)?
Use a dozen nations, some more developed than others. Heck, use one hundred nations. How else would you be abled to defend statistically valid results?
Leaving out any arbitrary set of 330 million humans would seem to lead you further away from meaningful conclusions. Are Americans not also human?
Singling out one country for inclusion or exclusion sounds like something other than impartial, apolitical science for drawing "broad generalizations".
If you don't like America (or wherever), that's fine and dandy... but please don't call your hand-picked findings the "human condition". Especially if you're going to choose the humans based upon any one individual's peculiar set of ideals.
This was done (and almost certainly better) fifty years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_(The_Twilight_Zone)
Nien Nunb runs a wacky Space Pilot Summer Camp
Bossk's Bad Day (Should Have Quit Death Sticks Tomorrow)
Three squads of Stormtroopers live in the woods, don't know the war is over
Wedge gets screen time, but as he prepares to speak, 101 Jar-Jar clones prance in.
The Senate of the restored Republic endlessly debates the merits of the Dingell-Norwood Bill
Something with B-wings, lots of B-wings flying around.
We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.
Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?
Leave all minors alone. Let them decide when they turn 18.
The old stereos sound best because they had the TK421 option. You did pay for TK421, yes?
It's name was Poulson.
It's name was Poulson.
It's name was --- oh hello again sir.
That is all.
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman
