Slashdot Mirror

To be fair, the US labor market of Carnegie's day was on par with that of most other countries, his railroad empire was largely built on the back of indentured labor (a substantial portion of which had consisted of Chinese immigrants). He maintained a private army to hedge against an armed workforce uprising, which eventually happened -- and during which he retreated to the safety of his personal Scottish castle. Afterward said labor force was promptly replaced with a force entirely composed of desperate immigrants.

It is widely believed his later philanthropic activities were entirely motivated by his damaged reputation and desire to right a fortune built on questionable ethics and ruthless business practices. What do you buy someone who already has everything? Posterity.

Been checking out your webpage and felt you might enjoy this website: http://www.cprr.org/Museum/index.html IMHO it is simply awsome (and the owner likes to be told so!) A true work of the love of trains!

(How to email without giving addresses away to the /. community??)

... perhaps more fairly labelled as "True, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons." Marvelling that the width of modern roadways is similar to the width of ancient roadways is sort of like getting excited over a notion such as "modern clothes sizes are based upon standards developed by medieval tailors.

IMHO, this is an excellent example of a de facto standard. Nobody seems to know if the Romans (or Babylonians or Egyptians?) officially adopted a standard, however one can argue that the width of wagons, chariots, gates, roads, streets and even the size of horses must have influenced each other, generating at the systems level a commonality of compatible "standards" - de facto.

I haven't found a citation with regard to what Lincoln wanted to do, so I leave that for another time.

This page at the US Army Transportation Museum is an interesting short history of the impact of railroads on the Civil War. It cites the same de facto history toward the end of the article. It is possible that the Army is wrong about this - this story was very popular amongst the DoD staffers, according to Puffert (see below.)

It is certain that this was a major national issue regarding the construction of the "Pacific Railroad". The first Pacific Railroad Act was passed in 1862. Section 12 specifies that "The track, upon the entire line of railroad and branches shall be of uniform width, to be determined by the President of the United States, ...". So indeed, Lincoln had the authority to establish the gauge.

The FAQ notes that Central Pacific asked Lincoln to establish the gauge at five feet. This was because, "The railroads already existing in California with which the CPRR might likely connect were laid with a 5' 0" track gauge." This transcription of a telegram to Lincoln requesting the 5'0" gauge cites a separate communication from "eminent engineers" in favor of the 5'0" gauge, while this image is of a similar telegram objecting to the 5'0" gauge.

The 1863 Amendment establishes the gauge at 4' 8.5". However the history is not cited in the act. (My own speculation - a factor not specifically mentioned is that the Confederacy used a 5'0" gauge. If the Union began using a 5'0" gauge, then the Confederacy could conceivably use Union track to their benefit. This could have tipped some military minds in the decision. But I don't know the military's position on this topic.)

On the other hand, according to this 1996 analysis by researcher Douglas Puffert, the groove ruts that supposedly drove the whole thing don't seem to always be the same width, but nobody's done the research. Puffert notes that the early US railroad engineers copied the gauge of the Liverpool & Manchester railroad, which was based on the 4'8" track width commonly used in the mines - but 1/2" wider to allow for more wheel play. (There's more here, read if you're interested.)

From my own limited - but not trivial - experience around horses and buggies etc., I am comfortable with the idea that

... perhaps more fairly labelled as "True, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons." Marvelling that the width of modern roadways is similar to the width of ancient roadways is sort of like getting excited over a notion such as "modern clothes sizes are based upon standards developed by medieval tailors.

IMHO, this is an excellent example of a de facto standard. Nobody seems to know if the Romans (or Babylonians or Egyptians?) officially adopted a standard, however one can argue that the width of wagons, chariots, gates, roads, streets and even the size of horses must have influenced each other, generating at the systems level a commonality of compatible "standards" - de facto.

I haven't found a citation with regard to what Lincoln wanted to do, so I leave that for another time.

This page at the US Army Transportation Museum is an interesting short history of the impact of railroads on the Civil War. It cites the same de facto history toward the end of the article. It is possible that the Army is wrong about this - this story was very popular amongst the DoD staffers, according to Puffert (see below.)

It is certain that this was a major national issue regarding the construction of the "Pacific Railroad". The first Pacific Railroad Act was passed in 1862. Section 12 specifies that "The track, upon the entire line of railroad and branches shall be of uniform width, to be determined by the President of the United States, ...". So indeed, Lincoln had the authority to establish the gauge.

The FAQ notes that Central Pacific asked Lincoln to establish the gauge at five feet. This was because, "The railroads already existing in California with which the CPRR might likely connect were laid with a 5' 0" track gauge." This transcription of a telegram to Lincoln requesting the 5'0" gauge cites a separate communication from "eminent engineers" in favor of the 5'0" gauge, while this image is of a similar telegram objecting to the 5'0" gauge.

The 1863 Amendment establishes the gauge at 4' 8.5". However the history is not cited in the act. (My own speculation - a factor not specifically mentioned is that the Confederacy used a 5'0" gauge. If the Union began using a 5'0" gauge, then the Confederacy could conceivably use Union track to their benefit. This could have tipped some military minds in the decision. But I don't know the military's position on this topic.)

On the other hand, according to this 1996 analysis by researcher Douglas Puffert, the groove ruts that supposedly drove the whole thing don't seem to always be the same width, but nobody's done the research. Puffert notes that the early US railroad engineers copied the gauge of the Liverpool & Manchester railroad, which was based on the 4'8" track width commonly used in the mines - but 1/2" wider to allow for more wheel play. (There's more here, read if you're interested.)

From my own limited - but not trivial - experience around horses and buggies etc., I am comfortable with the idea that

... perhaps more fairly labelled as "True, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons." Marvelling that the width of modern roadways is similar to the width of ancient roadways is sort of like getting excited over a notion such as "modern clothes sizes are based upon standards developed by medieval tailors.

IMHO, this is an excellent example of a de facto standard. Nobody seems to know if the Romans (or Babylonians or Egyptians?) officially adopted a standard, however one can argue that the width of wagons, chariots, gates, roads, streets and even the size of horses must have influenced each other, generating at the systems level a commonality of compatible "standards" - de facto.

I haven't found a citation with regard to what Lincoln wanted to do, so I leave that for another time.

This page at the US Army Transportation Museum is an interesting short history of the impact of railroads on the Civil War. It cites the same de facto history toward the end of the article. It is possible that the Army is wrong about this - this story was very popular amongst the DoD staffers, according to Puffert (see below.)

It is certain that this was a major national issue regarding the construction of the "Pacific Railroad". The first Pacific Railroad Act was passed in 1862. Section 12 specifies that "The track, upon the entire line of railroad and branches shall be of uniform width, to be determined by the President of the United States, ...". So indeed, Lincoln had the authority to establish the gauge.

The FAQ notes that Central Pacific asked Lincoln to establish the gauge at five feet. This was because, "The railroads already existing in California with which the CPRR might likely connect were laid with a 5' 0" track gauge." This transcription of a telegram to Lincoln requesting the 5'0" gauge cites a separate communication from "eminent engineers" in favor of the 5'0" gauge, while this image is of a similar telegram objecting to the 5'0" gauge.

The 1863 Amendment establishes the gauge at 4' 8.5". However the history is not cited in the act. (My own speculation - a factor not specifically mentioned is that the Confederacy used a 5'0" gauge. If the Union began using a 5'0" gauge, then the Confederacy could conceivably use Union track to their benefit. This could have tipped some military minds in the decision. But I don't know the military's position on this topic.)

On the other hand, according to this 1996 analysis by researcher Douglas Puffert, the groove ruts that supposedly drove the whole thing don't seem to always be the same width, but nobody's done the research. Puffert notes that the early US railroad engineers copied the gauge of the Liverpool & Manchester railroad, which was based on the 4'8" track width commonly used in the mines - but 1/2" wider to allow for more wheel play. (There's more here, read if you're interested.)

From my own limited - but not trivial - experience around horses and buggies etc., I am comfortable with the idea that

"Other people stole our work and sold it on a CD" makes a fine excuse, but rather than sue that person for copyright infringement (assuming, in the light of Bridgeman vs Corel, that they even have a case), they chose to try to lock up the content so no one can touch it.

I've seen this type of "look but don't touch" paranoia before, where one person attempts to maintain total control over the object of his obsession (despite that it consists of publicly-available material) through legal threats and aggressive behaviour. I think that is exactly what we're seeing with this site.

There's nothing in the TOS about slashdotting the site. If they really cared, it'd be in there.
Suprisingly enough there is, and it contains a link to this very post. The text of the disclaimer is:
FORCE MAJEURE: ADDITIONALLY, IN NOT IN LIMITATION OF THE FORGOING, WE SHALL NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY FAILURE OR DELAY RESULTING FROM ANY CONDITION BEYOND OUR REASONABLE CONTROL (snip) SLASHDOTTING (more snip).

As ridiculous as the TOS is, I have a better impression after reading the following from their "rants" page:

The Klez and Mydoom worms, for example, do send infected e-mails, but fake ("spoof") the return address. So the virus infected e-mail with our return address didn't come from us! Our e-mail is sent from a Macintosh that can't be infected by Windows only worms, and we use anti-virus software.

Okay, maybe they are nuts. But at least they don't spread Microsoft Viruses. (not that I did not say COMPUTER viruses)

Worst Terms of Service Ever ...

Also, worst website design ever. Really, did these guys use GeoCities as their style guide? I don't know whether to be more offended by the TOS or the front page layout. ;-)

(For the humor-impaired, this criticism is a "functional parody". Yeah, that's the ticket.)

Well, they refer to it as a "functional parody", so I'm thinking that at least to some extent this isn't supposed to be taken seriously.

Their reply: http://cprr.org/Museum/Rants.html#Yale

A damn good joke too, I might add.

..is here: cprr Would you and your colleagues be willing to provide some assistance to make the language more to your liking? We hoped that you would notice our longstanding plea for help, acknowledging in the agreement that it is "completely ridiculous," quoting Shaw "I'm sorry this letter is so long, I didn't have time to write a short one" and imploring the legal community: "if you know of a better, simpler 'legally correct' way, do tell us how!"

I was going to suggest hammering them with requests, but gee, they've got that covered in the agreement, too!