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.
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.