Depends on how many households and businesses there are in the area. In a rural setting a zip code may cover an entire city or county. In a heavily urbanized area it may only cover a single building or city block.
The five digit zip code doesn't tell the whole story though. There's actually the nine digit zip code plus a two digit delivery point code. Every single address in the United States will have a unique nine digit zip code + delivery code. It doesn't mean much to the layman but the USPS can actually represent every single address in the United States with an 11 digit number.
I don't recall handing over my birthdate when I signed up for my account. I just went through all of the account screens and couldn't find it either. What part of their service expects you to tell them your birthday?
That's because they have good food, good wine (better than France I would say), hot women and a great culture. I've been all over Europe and Italy is the only country that I would seriously consider leaving the US to live in. Yeah, their Government has all the stability of Windows ME and your typical 12 year old boy has a 52% of serving as Prime Minister at some point in his life, but still.......;)
There's no law *requiring* that you present ID when asked by the law, BUT if you refuse you can expect to spend the night (at least) in jail
If your answer is "fuck you pig, I don't have to show you ID", then yes, you are going to jail.
My answer is "I don't have any ID on me, but my name is X". It has the virtue of being the truth. I don't feel compelled to carry my drivers license with me everywhere I go. It lives in my car unless I need it for something specific. It's for driving after all....
My computer experience tells me you've got two kinds of users. Idiots and non-idiots. The former category is a lost cause and will just use IE anyway because that's what they know. The latter category is already smart enough to procure an alternate browser without the help of a splash screen.
Ya know, if you are going to go for the cheap one line first post you might as well make the joke yourself. At least that way you'll get a few funny mods on your way to the/dev/null of -1
Let me try one: In Soviet Russia, EU anti-trusts YOU.
I am proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free, as long as I follow the party line and carry my ID.
It's a misconception that you need to carry your ID in the United States. There is no law requiring it. And before you pull up the "papers please" guy, the law in question in that case required him to identify himself when asked. It didn't require him to produce ID. "Officer, my name is Mr. X" would have been sufficient.
The XO in that movie may have been justified in refusing to confirm the launch order. He was not justified in seizing command from his CO. I believe they call that mutiny. I'm not actually sure what the UCMJ says on the subject but under war conditions it's not unknown for people to get shot for that -- even in this day and age.
(b.) glad that somebody with some clout was going to do something about the increased crime in the area.
Hey, is that my stolen car? *keystrokes* It is! You son of a bitch. *more keystrokes*.... *hellfire missile streaks away towards the SOB that stole your car*
Only if you look at them in a vacuum. When you consider the size of the Red Army and Soviet violations of their wartime agreements with the Western Allies the picture becomes more balanced. The Soviet Union had more men under arms than all of the Western Allies combined. Until relatively late in the Cold War it was believed that any Soviet attack on Western Europe would quickly overwhelm Allied defenses and the only two options available would be surrender or the nuclear option.
The disparity in conventional forces was the key factor in many decisions made by the Allies. It was the main reason they allowed the West Germans to rearm -- they needed German manpower to help offset the Soviet advantage. It was the main reason the Western Allies poured so many resources into advanced weapons systems and technology. It was the main reason that the Western Allies invested in nuclear weapons the way they did.
Ever heard of Operation Unthinkable? It was a British General Staff study made at Churchill's detailing the odds facing the Western Allies in a war against the Soviet Union and the ability to conduct an offensive against them. It shows the odds facing the Allies quite clearly. Consider that context along with the Soviet actions in Eastern Europe and it becomes much easier to understand the choices made by the Western Allies after WW2.
Khrushchev, the Soviet leader, read U.S. weakness in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and blustered publicly that he might retaliate by driving the U.S. out of West Berlin. U.S. President John Kennedy, in return, openly boasted that the U.S. possessed many more (and more accurate and deliverable) nuclear missiles and warheads than the U.S.S.R., and would consider striking first with them if it ever found itself at a military disadvantage. Kennedy's claim was true; in 1962, the U.S.S.R. had at most 20 or 30—perhaps as few as four — functional, deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs); the U.S. had several hundred. Nevertheless, Kennedy had claimed, during his presidential campaign, that the incumbent Eisenhower's administration had allowed the Soviets to get ahead of the U.S. in missiles, causing a "missile gap." A missile gap did exist, as Kennedy knew, but in reverse; it had always been the U.S. that was far ahead of the U.S.S.R. in such weapons. Once in office, Kennedy dropped the old story about the "missile gap" and brandished the United States's nuclear superiority openly against Khrushchev.
Even if the Cuban Missile Crisis had gone hot it wouldn't have been the "end" of the human race nor even the United States. At that point in time the Soviet Union only had a handful of nuclear weapons that could reach the United States. That was one of the reasons they sought to station missiles in Cuban -- to even out the odds. We had hundreds of warheads that could reach the Soviet Union. They had a few dozen that could reach the United States. They could hurt us really badly -- but we could utterly obliterate them.
There's a good alternate history scenario that I once upon a time that posits a Soviet first strike on Washington that takes out Kennedy, Johnson and most of the civilian leadership. In so doing the Soviet Union seals it's own doom -- Kennedy might have ordered a measured strike in response but without him around the military implements the SIOP and proceeds to completely destroy the Soviet Union.
Khrushchev knew about this disadvantage and it no doubt played a part in his decision to back down. The fact that we offered him a behind the scenes deal to dismantle our similar missile installation in Turkey also helped.
Anyway, who knows what the next war will look like, if there even is one. It's entirely possible that we could fight another major war without anybody using them. I don't regard it as likely but there is a precedent for it. Most of the major combatants in WW2 had poison gas programs but none of them dared to use them against each other. The only time gas was used was against countries (China) that lacked the means to retaliate. Right up until the bitter end neither the Germans nor Japanese decided to use their chemical weapons.
At one point both were stockpiling nuke upon nuke and then it all went away to what it is today.
For better or worse they've kept the peace. We haven't had to contend with anything larger than a brush fire war since WW2. WW2 claimed 60,000,000+ lives. WW1 took another 37,000,000. Nuclear weapons are the primary reason that there hasn't been a WW3.
That's one of the reasons why I think those that talk of a future without nuclear weapons must have slept through history class. Get rid of nuclear weapons (not that you really could but for the sake of the argument...) and it's only a matter of time before mankind fights another industrialized global conflict. It's only a matter of time before an arms race breaks out that would make the Cold War look like a peace conference by comparison.
,quote>i bet they had weapons and live ammo with them so if you tried to break into the safe by yourself your buddy might have to shoot you
I don't know if they had small arms with them in the silo but I would imagine they did. If so then it's not a real stretch to imagine that a launch officer who went off his rocker would have to contend with lead. Preemptively killing his partner wouldn't help him either. Gaining access to the keys doesn't permit you to launch the missile(s). All of the controls are far enough apart to make it physically impossible for a single person to operate them
A somewhat different situation but remember the movie Crimson Tide? A buddy of mine in the service said if something like that happened in the real world the captain would have just shot the XO for insubordination and carried out his orders without him.
Or just do what a government is supposed to do - build things like infrastructure, which are too big and expensive to be undertaken efficiently by multiple competing private interests.
Because if there's anything government is known for it's efficiency.
but the country will be ruined if the financial system collapses
It already has collapsed. We just haven't realized it yet. Take a look at the deficits we are running and the amount of money the Fed is creating. Citi and Bank of America won't really matter much when the greenback winds up being shoved into wood stoves to heat our homes.
Slashdot Mirror
How large an area is a zip code in the states?
Depends on how many households and businesses there are in the area. In a rural setting a zip code may cover an entire city or county. In a heavily urbanized area it may only cover a single building or city block.
The five digit zip code doesn't tell the whole story though. There's actually the nine digit zip code plus a two digit delivery point code. Every single address in the United States will have a unique nine digit zip code + delivery code. It doesn't mean much to the layman but the USPS can actually represent every single address in the United States with an 11 digit number.
I don't recall handing over my birthdate when I signed up for my account. I just went through all of the account screens and couldn't find it either. What part of their service expects you to tell them your birthday?
Heh. No one ever says Italy.
That's because they have good food, good wine (better than France I would say), hot women and a great culture. I've been all over Europe and Italy is the only country that I would seriously consider leaving the US to live in. Yeah, their Government has all the stability of Windows ME and your typical 12 year old boy has a 52% of serving as Prime Minister at some point in his life, but still....... ;)
There's no law *requiring* that you present ID when asked by the law, BUT if you refuse you can expect to spend the night (at least) in jail
If your answer is "fuck you pig, I don't have to show you ID", then yes, you are going to jail.
My answer is "I don't have any ID on me, but my name is X". It has the virtue of being the truth. I don't feel compelled to carry my drivers license with me everywhere I go. It lives in my car unless I need it for something specific. It's for driving after all....
My computer experience tells me you've got two kinds of users. Idiots and non-idiots. The former category is a lost cause and will just use IE anyway because that's what they know. The latter category is already smart enough to procure an alternate browser without the help of a splash screen.
Ya know, if you are going to go for the cheap one line first post you might as well make the joke yourself. At least that way you'll get a few funny mods on your way to the /dev/null of -1
Let me try one: In Soviet Russia, EU anti-trusts YOU.
It may happen sooner than you think. I found their wedding album on Facebook and if I'm not mistaken the bride's father was wielding a 12 gauge.... ;)
I am proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free, as long as I follow the party line and carry my ID.
It's a misconception that you need to carry your ID in the United States. There is no law requiring it. And before you pull up the "papers please" guy, the law in question in that case required him to identify himself when asked. It didn't require him to produce ID. "Officer, my name is Mr. X" would have been sufficient.
Spit the seed
What if the wife wants to swallow it instead?
I hope they aren't /. users.
Wait, they can't be, they are having sex ;) n/m.....
Where did those extra 2.2 pounds come from?
I highlighted the word that might shed some light on the situation ;)
Yes, I'm going to hell......
The XO in that movie may have been justified in refusing to confirm the launch order. He was not justified in seizing command from his CO. I believe they call that mutiny. I'm not actually sure what the UCMJ says on the subject but under war conditions it's not unknown for people to get shot for that -- even in this day and age.
Why the hell does the parent deserve a troll mod?
(b.) glad that somebody with some clout was going to do something about the increased crime in the area.
Hey, is that my stolen car? *keystrokes* It is! You son of a bitch. *more keystrokes*.... *hellfire missile streaks away towards the SOB that stole your car*
Only if you look at them in a vacuum. When you consider the size of the Red Army and Soviet violations of their wartime agreements with the Western Allies the picture becomes more balanced. The Soviet Union had more men under arms than all of the Western Allies combined. Until relatively late in the Cold War it was believed that any Soviet attack on Western Europe would quickly overwhelm Allied defenses and the only two options available would be surrender or the nuclear option.
The disparity in conventional forces was the key factor in many decisions made by the Allies. It was the main reason they allowed the West Germans to rearm -- they needed German manpower to help offset the Soviet advantage. It was the main reason the Western Allies poured so many resources into advanced weapons systems and technology. It was the main reason that the Western Allies invested in nuclear weapons the way they did.
Ever heard of Operation Unthinkable? It was a British General Staff study made at Churchill's detailing the odds facing the Western Allies in a war against the Soviet Union and the ability to conduct an offensive against them. It shows the odds facing the Allies quite clearly. Consider that context along with the Soviet actions in Eastern Europe and it becomes much easier to understand the choices made by the Western Allies after WW2.
No, actually they didn't:
Khrushchev, the Soviet leader, read U.S. weakness in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and blustered publicly that he might retaliate by driving the U.S. out of West Berlin. U.S. President John Kennedy, in return, openly boasted that the U.S. possessed many more (and more accurate and deliverable) nuclear missiles and warheads than the U.S.S.R., and would consider striking first with them if it ever found itself at a military disadvantage. Kennedy's claim was true; in 1962, the U.S.S.R. had at most 20 or 30—perhaps as few as four — functional, deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs); the U.S. had several hundred. Nevertheless, Kennedy had claimed, during his presidential campaign, that the incumbent Eisenhower's administration had allowed the Soviets to get ahead of the U.S. in missiles, causing a "missile gap." A missile gap did exist, as Kennedy knew, but in reverse; it had always been the U.S. that was far ahead of the U.S.S.R. in such weapons. Once in office, Kennedy dropped the old story about the "missile gap" and brandished the United States's nuclear superiority openly against Khrushchev.
Even if the Cuban Missile Crisis had gone hot it wouldn't have been the "end" of the human race nor even the United States. At that point in time the Soviet Union only had a handful of nuclear weapons that could reach the United States. That was one of the reasons they sought to station missiles in Cuban -- to even out the odds. We had hundreds of warheads that could reach the Soviet Union. They had a few dozen that could reach the United States. They could hurt us really badly -- but we could utterly obliterate them.
There's a good alternate history scenario that I once upon a time that posits a Soviet first strike on Washington that takes out Kennedy, Johnson and most of the civilian leadership. In so doing the Soviet Union seals it's own doom -- Kennedy might have ordered a measured strike in response but without him around the military implements the SIOP and proceeds to completely destroy the Soviet Union.
Khrushchev knew about this disadvantage and it no doubt played a part in his decision to back down. The fact that we offered him a behind the scenes deal to dismantle our similar missile installation in Turkey also helped.
Anyway, who knows what the next war will look like, if there even is one. It's entirely possible that we could fight another major war without anybody using them. I don't regard it as likely but there is a precedent for it. Most of the major combatants in WW2 had poison gas programs but none of them dared to use them against each other. The only time gas was used was against countries (China) that lacked the means to retaliate. Right up until the bitter end neither the Germans nor Japanese decided to use their chemical weapons.
So what if the Limeys decided to get some revenge for 1776?
They already did. It didn't involve nuclear weapons though. They used something far more deadly and destructive.
At one point both were stockpiling nuke upon nuke and then it all went away to what it is today.
For better or worse they've kept the peace. We haven't had to contend with anything larger than a brush fire war since WW2. WW2 claimed 60,000,000+ lives. WW1 took another 37,000,000. Nuclear weapons are the primary reason that there hasn't been a WW3.
That's one of the reasons why I think those that talk of a future without nuclear weapons must have slept through history class. Get rid of nuclear weapons (not that you really could but for the sake of the argument...) and it's only a matter of time before mankind fights another industrialized global conflict. It's only a matter of time before an arms race breaks out that would make the Cold War look like a peace conference by comparison.
,quote>i bet they had weapons and live ammo with them so if you tried to break into the safe by yourself your buddy might have to shoot you
I don't know if they had small arms with them in the silo but I would imagine they did. If so then it's not a real stretch to imagine that a launch officer who went off his rocker would have to contend with lead. Preemptively killing his partner wouldn't help him either. Gaining access to the keys doesn't permit you to launch the missile(s). All of the controls are far enough apart to make it physically impossible for a single person to operate them
A somewhat different situation but remember the movie Crimson Tide? A buddy of mine in the service said if something like that happened in the real world the captain would have just shot the XO for insubordination and carried out his orders without him.
I don't seem to recall deregulation of the telecoms as a huge Democratic cause in the last decade.
That's funny because it was a Democratic President that signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 into law as I recall.......
Or just do what a government is supposed to do - build things like infrastructure, which are too big and expensive to be undertaken efficiently by multiple competing private interests.
Because if there's anything government is known for it's efficiency.
Wow. Give money to the companies that perform worst.
Replace 'companies' with 'schools' and you've just described our public education system.
but the country will be ruined if the financial system collapses
It already has collapsed. We just haven't realized it yet. Take a look at the deficits we are running and the amount of money the Fed is creating. Citi and Bank of America won't really matter much when the greenback winds up being shoved into wood stoves to heat our homes.
We still have to decide what to do past that point.
Well, if you listen to the American political system we've got two options:
1) Drill baby drill!
2) Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.