It's called an address label, they go on the boxes.
The boxes going international go through customs on site at the UPS hubs.

The NSA could achieve this by accessing the packages at customs without alerting UPS directly.
The would only have to break out an NSL because we can. to make it less of a hassle, or just to flex muscle.
Really an NSL would be detrimental to secrecy, the NSA is clearly aware that secrets keep better when you
*don't tell anyone*
Rather than when you ask them to keep it on the down low.

Cabbies don't have enough money to have a voice that's heard, The people with the money will just watch until these are cheaper than cabbies and then implement.

It's called planning ahead.
someone has to figure out how to keep the funding up and get the patriot act made permanent.

Everyone was all about the tin foil hats before Snowden as well when you talked about NSA spying. on everyone.
Now the same people are all "err well, everyone already /knew/ that..."

Linux is easier to say, and everyone already knows what I mean when when I say it,
even you,
even RMS,
or else you would not be telling everyone what we really mean is GNU/Linux.
It's here it works get used to it.

At the same time I also understand your frustration with the fast and loose nature of our language usage
Like so many things it's just human nature, you want to fix something help fix humans, after all someone is going to be releasing the first patches for the human genome soon,

I for one hope it's open source....

I am sorry you entirely missed my point AC.

I responded specifically and directly to the only point raised about which I cared; the one I quoted.
You reply with more political nonsense.
Congratulations, you broke the rust of the old cogitator and fired it up to let 'logic' happen with regards to one very tiny piece of your life and then you rushed to shut it off again just as fast as you could... Congratulations again! Seriously you are now more rational then the majority of people on the planet.

You still look ridiculous when you deride others for being 1% more irrational than you.

I know, right? hell define intelligence... Perhaps he means that until engineered intelligence becomes adept at self delusion it's not 'real'

Please; You have no room to talk. If you had actually dared to face reality rationally you would not be so worked up about such meaningless things. You are participating in inherently irrational behavior and crying foul because others are a teensy bit more irrational than you.

Absolutely, Just because someone asks for the "least inaccurate oversimplification" does not make it incumbent upon the person asked to join the asker in abandoning accuracy for convenience.

It looks like someone slipped in the "Tell the people what they think" dept. I doubt their replacement will take very long to remind the people what they really think.

This is the eternal cry of the politician and economist. They should all be sent back to kindergarten. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Wow kudos for the effort. You are the most prolific whiny bitch I have seen all week.

Words are slippery... Atheism could only require faith if it was being used to mean "I believe it's utterly impossible for anything outside the observable to exist" While back here in reality atheism is used for convenience to express the knowledge that one, or a group of religions are clearly impossible.
If you ever wish to progress past simply hurling words at one another you must first define terms.

The US is so strongly monotheistic that here, when someone says "I am an atheist" it's very clear that what they mean is "I am an atheist in regards to the god described in that book you keep trying to enshrine in law."
The religious then tend to point out that it's just as impossible to disprove the existence of "any god" as it is to prove the existence of "any god." With their own words admitting that it's impossible to do either, conveniently ignoring the fact that it's a higher bar to prove "this specific god" over "any god."

What the initial statement indicated was not the denial of the possible existence of any sort of entity outside the universe, It was just the easiest way to say "The internally inconsistent and self contradictory religion you keep spouting is so self-evidently impossible that anyone advocating the idea... is not capable of understanding a rational and complete explanation. Since they will (find someone who can) create a straw man out of my words regardless, they just get .. 'I'm an atheist' "

While it's clearly impossible to make make valid claims about the unobservable by definition.
It is trivial to prove such claims invalid once you get the squirmy little buggers to actually define what they believe.

Precisely Ignore all the yammering and simply observer the flow of events. It's not encouraging... Not that the words are either I suppose.

because clearly, life is difficult for you... I will esplain.... the Secret Service is a name, while the secret service is descriptive.