Shipping to APO/FPO is not the same as shipping to any other state. Legally, yes, it is, APO/FPO are considered stateside addresses. Process-wise, it's not the same. Businesses have to fill out customs forms, which require an employee visiting the post office to complete the paperwork.
Now, this is what I want to know. I order from Amazon on almost a weekly basis, and not once has there been a customs form on the outside of it for my APO address. Every other company I've ordered from has had to fill out a customs form.
Here's a little trick if they won't ship to APO/FPO. Use NY as your state. If they aren't checking zipcodes, NY is the same as APO/FPO. Test it out with something not important, but it's worked for me.
Federal law prevents anyone but the resident or assigned USPS route employee from touching any part of the mailbox. This includes the flag, the post, the door, etc.
This isn't some government scheme to create a monopoly.
It's to stop asshats from dropping 9,000 flyers on your mailbox. If they want to mail me, buy a stamp. In my old neighborhood people would drive through the neighborhood and stuff flyers under the flag on the mailboxes. Then 10 minutes later, there would be flyers all over everyone's yards.
I worked from home and could see my mailbox from my office desk. Anytime I would see someone doing this, I would take a photo of them, print the photo, get the flyer, and stick both in an envelop marked "Deliver to Postmaster".
The postmaster then estimates the number of flyers illegally delivered and bills the person. This is a courteous. The other option is that person being tried for breaking a federal law.
I'm all about small government, but I support this law 100%.
What I don't understand is where you quoted that from. You quoted something that hadn't been mentioned in this discussion before, so I was simply saying I don't understand where the quote came from.
I'm fairly sure you're not the brightest crayon in the box. I'm not the one arguing that a monopoly equals no competition. The author of the article claims that copyright equals government granted monopolies. I said if this were the case, then any market with a copyright involved, would only have one supplier, or a variation of supplies that had licensed the copyrighted material. Since that is the definition of a monopoly, then I have proved that copyright law does not constitute government granted monopolies.
I'm done playing round robin with you. Thanks for playing.
Quick, abandon the straw man accusations for something else.
You might want to read up on United States v. Microsoft. The case had everything to do with Microsoft using it's power in the OS market to attempt to win the browser market war. Previously Microsoft was charged by the FTC of abusing it's "OS monopoly". However, this case deadlocked and was dropped.
I have no clue what "Copyright exclude others from using what you made without paying you. You are the only one that can use that work freely. You have the monopoly over that work. And it's government issued. What's the doubt here?" is and why I need to answer it.
I think you misunderstand what a straw man is. I haven't misrepresented any part of the author's argument. I haven't tied the author's argument to another idea, or to an indisputable idea.
Throwing out the straw man card is a cop out if you ask me.
I'm not new here, but I also don't buy the idea that IP laws stop companies from developing software. If this were the case, there would be one OS, one antivirus software, one email client, etc.
Blind hatred of the copyright and patent system does less to help reform those laws than doing nothing.
Ha, I was referencing McChrystal as an example of how the military hasn't perfected mind control. Otherwise, he wouldn't be in the news. It was a poor joke.
Brainwashing and mind control are two different things in my book.
Brainwashing is making someone thing something is one way when it isn't. Mind control is a dude at a computer turning a knob to get patient x to jump rope.
I'll agree the military brainwashes recruits. I think it's the only way they are going to get the results they need/want. But they are far from mind control (see General McChrystal for a reference).
What's silly is that you are saying I said "Having said all of that, to suggest that the DOD and US military hasn't spent billions of dollars on mind control and behavior modification experimentation is silly" when I never said that.
When constructing an argument, try to use statements that are true.
Ah, so your one friend is a mirror image of what the Marine Corps is? Makes perfect sense to me.
There is a clear reason for the practices used at USMC basic training. DI's are trained to strip down civilians mentally and physically to the point that they have a fresh starting point and then build them back up to a cookie cutter of a person. The reason? So when the lead is coming down range, the response given by these Marines is generally uniform and can be relied on. These USMC DI's are considered to be the best in the world, by the way.
I'm willing to bet your buddy gainer more than he lost from his time with the Marines.
Re:
Forward observers work with artillery and have nothing to do with reconnaissance (scouting as you call it).
Why exactly was it mentioned that he is a Vietnam veteran?
Re: FPO/APO
Shipping to APO/FPO is not the same as shipping to any other state. Legally, yes, it is, APO/FPO are considered stateside addresses. Process-wise, it's not the same. Businesses have to fill out customs forms, which require an employee visiting the post office to complete the paperwork.
Now, this is what I want to know. I order from Amazon on almost a weekly basis, and not once has there been a customs form on the outside of it for my APO address. Every other company I've ordered from has had to fill out a customs form.
Here's a little trick if they won't ship to APO/FPO. Use NY as your state. If they aren't checking zipcodes, NY is the same as APO/FPO. Test it out with something not important, but it's worked for me.
Re: Response to: Ima Fish on Oct 14th, 2011 @ 5:16am
Take down your mailbox if you don't like USPS property in your yard. Problem solved.
Federal law
Federal law prevents anyone but the resident or assigned USPS route employee from touching any part of the mailbox. This includes the flag, the post, the door, etc.
This isn't some government scheme to create a monopoly.
It's to stop asshats from dropping 9,000 flyers on your mailbox. If they want to mail me, buy a stamp. In my old neighborhood people would drive through the neighborhood and stuff flyers under the flag on the mailboxes. Then 10 minutes later, there would be flyers all over everyone's yards.
I worked from home and could see my mailbox from my office desk. Anytime I would see someone doing this, I would take a photo of them, print the photo, get the flyer, and stick both in an envelop marked "Deliver to Postmaster".
The postmaster then estimates the number of flyers illegally delivered and bills the person. This is a courteous. The other option is that person being tried for breaking a federal law.
I'm all about small government, but I support this law 100%.
Re: Who owns mailboxes?
They do NOT own mailboxes. They have laws preventing anyone but the resident and the assigned USPS employee from touching any part of the mailbox.
This isn't some government scheme to keep a monopoly. The laws are designed to stop people from opening your mailbox and/or dumping shit in it.
Re: Their name encourages piracy.
There be software pirate on that ship.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?
What I don't understand is where you quoted that from. You quoted something that hadn't been mentioned in this discussion before, so I was simply saying I don't understand where the quote came from.
I'm fairly sure you're not the brightest crayon in the box. I'm not the one arguing that a monopoly equals no competition. The author of the article claims that copyright equals government granted monopolies. I said if this were the case, then any market with a copyright involved, would only have one supplier, or a variation of supplies that had licensed the copyrighted material. Since that is the definition of a monopoly, then I have proved that copyright law does not constitute government granted monopolies.
I'm done playing round robin with you. Thanks for playing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?
Quick, abandon the straw man accusations for something else.
You might want to read up on United States v. Microsoft. The case had everything to do with Microsoft using it's power in the OS market to attempt to win the browser market war. Previously Microsoft was charged by the FTC of abusing it's "OS monopoly". However, this case deadlocked and was dropped.
I have no clue what "Copyright exclude others from using what you made without paying you. You are the only one that can use that work freely. You have the monopoly over that work. And it's government issued. What's the doubt here?" is and why I need to answer it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?
No. It is my opinion that if IP law were creating "gov't granted monopolies" there would only be one piece of software for each type of application.
A straw man would have been me saying this was truch and then using it to dispute the "gov't granted monopolies" statement.
By the definition of monopoly, there couldn't be competition in each market of the software world, if the author's statement were true.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?
I think you misunderstand what a straw man is. I haven't misrepresented any part of the author's argument. I haven't tied the author's argument to another idea, or to an indisputable idea.
Throwing out the straw man card is a cop out if you ask me.
Re: Re: Re: Huh?
Unfortunately it's not a straw man. The government issuing copyrights does not equal "gov't issued monopoly".
Re: Re: Re: Huh?
What if pigs could fly?
I agree the IP system needs to be modified, but I think it's extreme to say IP laws/lawsuits equal government issued monopoly.
Re: Huh?
I'm not new here, but I also don't buy the idea that IP laws stop companies from developing software. If this were the case, there would be one OS, one antivirus software, one email client, etc.
Blind hatred of the copyright and patent system does less to help reform those laws than doing nothing.
Huh?
Which software companies have "gov't granted monopolies"? I'm not aware of any government issuing monopoly licenses to any software developer.
Re: Re:
Txtopida - copyrighted as of......now.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: freedom fighter
Ha, I was referencing McChrystal as an example of how the military hasn't perfected mind control. Otherwise, he wouldn't be in the news. It was a poor joke.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: freedom fighter
Brainwashing and mind control are two different things in my book.
Brainwashing is making someone thing something is one way when it isn't. Mind control is a dude at a computer turning a knob to get patient x to jump rope.
I'll agree the military brainwashes recruits. I think it's the only way they are going to get the results they need/want. But they are far from mind control (see General McChrystal for a reference).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: freedom fighter
What's silly is that you are saying I said "Having said all of that, to suggest that the DOD and US military hasn't spent billions of dollars on mind control and behavior modification experimentation is silly" when I never said that.
When constructing an argument, try to use statements that are true.
Re: Re: Re: Re: freedom fighter
Ah, so your one friend is a mirror image of what the Marine Corps is? Makes perfect sense to me.
There is a clear reason for the practices used at USMC basic training. DI's are trained to strip down civilians mentally and physically to the point that they have a fresh starting point and then build them back up to a cookie cutter of a person. The reason? So when the lead is coming down range, the response given by these Marines is generally uniform and can be relied on. These USMC DI's are considered to be the best in the world, by the way.
I'm willing to bet your buddy gainer more than he lost from his time with the Marines.