-Demosthenes-

That was my original plan, but it doesn't tell you the zip codes in areas outside of cities/towns. Now that I think about it... Are there really zipcodes outside of cities and towns? Are there people, does mail go there?

I'm mapping all the zip codes in the US graphically on a map. I've been looking for one, I've found: http://maps.huge.info/zip.htm -- Looks good, but some areas are blank (no zip code) and need to zoom in really far to get to zip codes, hard to keep place (not a big deal really, as long as the info is there). http://maps.huge.info/zipv0.htm -- The old version of above. http://www.melissadata.com/lookups/mapzip.asp -- Can look up zip codes and see a map, but can't see other zip code areas, good for checking I suppose. Sorry, it's kind of random, and I should be able to do it by myself. Mostly I just want confirmation that what I have can work My last plan didn't work out so well. And I was thinking... Could I call the Post Office and somehow get some kind of map? Mostly I just need to be able to look at an area on the map and know the zip code.

How many were atheists?

The reconciliation between Libertarianism and universal healthcare is not so difficult to understand. Libertarians believe that the government should do some things. The government has a military, police/fire departments, road maintenance, etc., (Ignoring the federal/state/municipal distinction for now). So we all think (almost all of us) that the government has some responsibilities. So a libertarian is merely different in terms of degree, not kind. How much should the government do? And believing that the government should be responsible for the wellbeing of the citizens, universal healthcare makes sense. Not to mention the money and bureaucracy involved in our current health care system. Subsidiaries, government aid, all of it costing two or three times it costs per capita in Canada (see table near bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada), and the thousands of individuals making decisions about who gets government money and who doesn't. That is the libertarian’s fear.

We only have 40 posts a day? I remember back I single handedly averaged 28 posts a day (actually got in trouble for that one).

I think I got it, I'll alphabetize them and compare them visually, seems like a good idea. Now, if I have a list of numbers is there a way which numbers are repeats (a number occurs more than once)?

One list is a complete list of all the cities, the reference. The other is a list of cities (listed by zip code) that should contain all the cities. I'm trying to make sure it does. I'll look up pivot tables.

Okay, in my test I have two collums of city names and I used the third collum to find out if they had the same city names. In C1 I put "=VLOOKUP(B1, A1:A253,TRUE)" and it displayed the city name when B1 had a city contained between A1 and A253, and when it didn't it displayed "#N/A" (deleted the last letter so it was different. But when when I misspelled "Cedar City" as "Ceder City" it gave the value "Cedar Hills". And When I tried just "Cedar" it gave me "Castle Valley." So I'm not sure I'm doing it right, I have very little experience in excel. I'm not sure what the second part of your post is saying, again, I'm an excel noob.

I have a collum that is a list of cities, and I need to make sure every city in Utah is in it. I can create a list of all the cities, but then how can I cross check it with the list I already have (to make sure I have them all)?

I thought it was after Chauser wrote (the Cantiberry tales?) that modern English was first really used by most of the people, as an importan piece of literature, being available widely, it kept the language relatively the same in different areas despite their distance from each other.

We ignored Germany after WWI (except when asking for more reporations) and it led to WWII. Partisanship isn't important to democrasy, it only hurts it. It's unhealthy. It creates groups of people who believe something merely because someone else says it's a good idea. Havens for those who want to feel politically important, but do not have opinions themselves. Extremists and radicals might at least have their own opinion, but this is not so for those addicted to partisanship. Disagreement, sure, is important. And so are groups of poeple who fight for something. Without them there would be no way for me, a single person, could affect government. But partisan groups are a corrupted form, where the members don't know why something is important, only that their partisan group thinks it's important. This is dangerous, as anything is that takes "thinking" out of the proccess of government.

No personal responsibility toward the other members of the group that they cannot see or physically talk to. Of course, I'm sure it's possible, just doesn't seem to happen.

Have you been to America?

Then why not just give it to those who need it? If there was a group of people elected to decide who needed it in a small community they could actually meet with the families and decide on an intimate basis. There would be more personal responsibility for the recipient (they actually see the people deciding if they get welfare or not, and how long). There will always be people who need help. The reality is, we need to find a system that works, let them die (or live miserable lives), or use a broken system (like the one we have now). Mostly. The main point is that ideologies overlap. This can mean a Liberatarian can agree with a liberal or conservative while remaining a liberatarian. Even more than that, no one completely agrees with one ideology (except radicals/partisan fools, people we ignore anyway). Mine doesn't fit anywhere, and it changes daily. There are things that I've said in this forum in the past that I now see as down right asinine. And I concede that good rights for our society are easily recognized by our society, but not by other societies. And so we invented war, which didn't turn out too well (multiple times). I think it was "Bush and Republicans angered God who caused hurricane Katrina."

Because I unconsciencely associate learning with print media (schools always use textbooks ). So I'll be looking at "strict" XHTML then, thanks for explaning that, I think I'll be okay now .

I'd prefer an organized municipal system. One that is intimately controlled by a government body whose members reside in the community. What could be wrong with that? I've gotten in a lot of debates over this (many internal); how do we differentiate ideologies? As an example' date=' when talking about capitalism and socialism, I would try to differentiate the ideas as two separate and exclusive entities. Eventually in the discussion we define capitalism as anarchy and socialism into any form of government control. But those definitions aren't terribly useful, as the main point of capitalism is the right to own property, which would be a government restriction (government must enforce property rights) and therefore socialist (at least in this respect). Rather, both ideologies overlap. Not only do they overlap, but they overlap a lot, especially in practice. Now in a discussion including multiple ideologies this becomes even more of a problem. The tendency to define every ideology as a separate and exclusive one from all others is too great. Ideologies overlap everywhere. We can't define Libertarianism as anarchy merely to make politics seem somehow organized. In reality it's one big mess. One big sticky mess. But Libertarianism (at least as used here) would merely be defined by degree, not by any grand ideology. When you think about it, everything passed anarchy is only differentiated by degrees. Or Churchill As these rights seems only to apply to certain people under certain conditions, it would seem that that they are rather abstract after all. (I do say "rather" a lot don't I?)

Yeah, I'm very knew at this. I just barely changed my major, I've been studying history

That would make some freedoms impossible. If south-east Asia can produce something cheaper because their populations have little freedom, then we would have to either mimic their government or get out of the game. I think most people who identify with the libertarian ideas concerning welfare are on the right track, but fundamentally wrong (). The current problem doesn't come with the welfare itself but with the way it is given out. From a far away government to anyone who says they want it. Municipal controlled welfare, and a strong city government (and proportionally weaker federal government) would all but solve these problems.

Sweet, how current should it be? The one I'm looking at is from 2002, too old?

When you say "strictly xhtml" does that mean without learning html? Most books I can find pair xhtml with html (or javascript). Should I be avoiding html? What do you think of this: http://www.amazon.com/HTML-XHTML-Definitive/dp/059600382X/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_3/102-2741230-1826532?ie=UTF8 or: http://www.amazon.com/New-Perspectives-HTML/dp/061926747X/sr=1-4/qid=1156992559/ref=sr_1_4/102-2741230-1826532?ie=UTF8&s=books

The problem is, you could chose any moment in development and call it the "earliest point of human [re]production." You very might well call the sperm the earliest development, or the egg. Rather, we are thinking that conception is when the mass of cells has the potential to be a person without any outside manipulation besides the supplement of nutrients. -- The point at which the lump of cells has no concrete separation from being a human being except, or course, birth, which is arbitrary. Most children could have been earlier and been completely fine, or later for that matter. There is no difference between a child an hour before birth and that same child an hour after. Birth is an arbitrary event, even more so than conception. We should delude ourselves into think that that either side ever defined a "human being" using anything other than arbitrary events, be it conception or birth. Some will call conception the "beginning of human development" and some will not. On a completely scientific basis it's rather inappropriate to kill anything where the actual development (in relation to being "human" and therefore having protective interest) is in question. Of course I'm ignoring the right of a person (potential mother) to destroy something/someone that is using their bodily resources, and if they have any responsibility for voluntary sexual encounters and the potential consequences thereof.