Slashdot Mirror

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/line_item_veto.html has the background on the ruling. George Bush, the younger, hasn't issued one veto yet. Seems he likes all the debt that the Congress is running up.

Thanks for that reminder .. here's the link if you want to look at that court ruling

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/line_item_veto.html

• First, any site with a Matrix fetish loses all credibility.
• Second, clearly the site is designed to spread FUD. The fake image of the "Real ID" card indicates that the card will contain information such as Religion and Occupation. It will not. Read the bill. FUD.
• The site says cops will die. Right. Because when cops are working under-cover they will be carrying their real ID cards. Just like today, when under-cover cops are required to carry their badge and drivers license. Oh, wait, no they aren't. FUD.
• "every convenience store learns to grab that data and sell it to Big Data for a nickel" Right. Because every time I got to the convenience store I have to present my license. Oh, wait, no I don't. FUD.

Read the bill yourself. Don't trust this unreal.com guy.

After you decide if you want to support the bill or not, contact your senator through www.senate.gov.

If I'm looking a the right Senate bill, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, it appears that the offending Real ID Act portion has been removed.

If I'm looking a the right Senate bill, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, it appears that the offending Real ID Act portion has been removed.

... he hates you because you're free.

The SB 1028 theory is that "California hunting licenses are valid only within the state of
California, and may not be used to take animals located in other
states." However, I suspect that that it doesn't pass an interstate commerce test.

On the other hand, there is US HR 1558, "Computer-Assisted Remote Hunting Act" waiting in the wings...

This technique should be replaced with (or combined with) LIDAR techniques. LIDAR (Light Detecting And Ranging) is like a laser version of radar, and it can be used to generate 3D maps of objects or topography fairly quickly. A LIDAR-enabled plane can do a fly-over of a city and quickly generate 3D maps. For instance, check out these LIDAR images of New York pre and post 9/11.

I've always thought that these 3D maps of cities should be combined with satellite imagery so that you could 'paint' the rooftops onto the buildings and streets. In fact, most satellite images are at a slight angle, allowing you to paint the facades of buildings. The techniques from TFA show how you could paint even more facades in the 3D model/map fairly easily. I think the LIDAR data would greatly simplify the painting algorithm, since the correct 3D shape of every object is known.

I can't wait for the day when we can browse 3D maps online of any city. It would be useful for surveyors and architects of course, but also useful for planning trips, learning geography, and so on.

Annapolis Convention. Nine states agreed to send delegates to Annapolis to discuss commerce, but only five state delegations arrived on time. Because of the poor attendance, the delegates decided to invite the states to another convention. Alexander Hamilton drafted an address to the states, inviting them to a convention to be held in Philadelphia in 1787, to discuss not only commerce, but all matters necessary to improve the federal government. After debate, on February 21, 1787, Congress endorsed the plan to revise the Articles of Confederation.

After carefully reviewing the draft, the Convention approved the Constitution on September 17. After signing it and sending it to Congress, the Convention adjourned.

Congress Receives the Constitution. Although some congressmen were displeased at the Convention for doing far more than revising the Articles of Confederation, on September 28 Congress agreed to pass the Constitution on to the states, so each could debate it in separate ratifying conventions. Nine states had to agree to the new Constitution for it to go into effect.

Nope, it was struck out of the law.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:5:./tem p/~c109tF1cnZ:e111688:

The real tragedy here is not the use of a national ID. There are legitimate merits to both sides of that discussion, and I will not address them here. The real tragedy is that this is an "Emergency military spending bill" which a HUGE rider on it.

This is why the line item veto was popular, despite being blatently unconstitutional. A few congress persons sitting on a committee can completely disrupt the validity of a bill. Nobody is going to veto a bill that gives money to the military and be responsible for leaving them high and dry. And the bill also gives tsunami aid. Nobody will veto that either.

It should be unconstitutional to place this type of stuff on a bill. It is also highly irresponsible of our congress people to not flame anyone who tries to do this stuff. I don't know how to word the ammendment, but it would probably do a LOT to clean up some of the obnoxious laws that sneak into place.

Read it. I'll do your research it looks like a revision of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration program requiring offenders when repeatedly fail to register as such to submit to electronic monitoring.

The original article suggests that there are more stipulation, namely the 11 years or younger and other more vaguely suggested (for people convicted of certain sex crimes).

If you'd like to debate further your going to have to do your own research. I'm mainly shocked that the majority of people responding didn't take the time to read a 485 word article and instead chose to make heated arguments directly responding to timothy's poorly worked synopsis.

why have I heard absolutely nothing to that effect in the past two years since that particular issue has even been talked about?

I would guess that it's because those issues aren't your particular field of interest. There's so much going on that it's impossible to keep up with everything; this happens to be one of my particular interests. The bill numbers are H.R. 800 and S. 397, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act, and you can find them on http://thomas.loc.gov. Your accusation of zealotry is misguided, BTW; you might be surprised to learn that I actually argued against the act, because I believe that it represents an improper intrusion of the Federal government into state matters, specifically the states' right to sue whom they choose. As usual, Dr. Ron Paul expresses my objections more eloquently than I can. You can read his explanation--and the NRA's disapproval--at http://www.inlibertyandfreedom.com/rp1036.htm. That said, I do think such suits are without merit (as has every single court that has heard one, I might add).

I care not because of single-issue zealotry; while his actions actually could affect me (by driving up costs), that's not the primary reason for my concern. I care because I'm opposed to government using the courts to achieve those ends which it cannot achieve legislatively. I am particularly concerned where such ends are achieved by lawsuit and driving companies out of business (or making continued operations economically unviable); typically, when such measures are taken, it is because there is no justification in legislation, or because such legislation would be either unconstitutional, or rejected by constituents. His job being the enforcement of existing law, it is inappropriate for him to be engaging in lawsuits against lawful manufacturers of lawful products because of the unlawful actions of end users. As a parallel, would it be appropriate if he filed suit against Ford for the actions of drunk drivers?

As for your crusade comment: I'm going to let that one stand, because it's pretty close. I do take exception to the "one true righteous" part, though. My crusade, my passion, is not concealed carry, or even gun rights in general; rather, it's my right to live without unnecessary meddling or interference from my government. I speak out not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of anybody who has been abused at the hands of government. I am a frequent critic of President Bush, AG Gonzales (I swear, I never though I'd actually miss Ashcroft, but Gonzales is actually worse), the DEA, ONDCP, FBI, and pretty much every other government agency. Mr. Spitzer's lawsuits represent an intrusion into lawful commerce that serves as an unwelcome precedent: that the government can hold producers accountable for the actions of end-users, actions over which they have no control. See also: filesharing software. I have consistently opposed RIAA/MPAA efforts, along with the DMCA (and similar), to hold the software authors and service providers accountable for the actions of their users. Why? Because the authors have no control over who uses their software to do what; without control, neither can there be responsibility. Mr. Spitzer is a particularly apropos target for criticism in this matter, though, because these lawsuits were his brainchild--he is, effectively, the leader of that effort, and just as President Bush is the leader of many of our truly offensive policy decisions ("enemy combatants" and the USA PATRIOT Act being perhaps two of the most egregious), and therefore deserving of extra criticism, so does Mr. Spitzer deserve the criticism on this issue.

Single-issue zealotry? The issue is freedom, and I don't think it's irrational at all. My comment was not to paint Mr. Spitzer as a villain, but rather to respond to your (apparent) characterization of him as a hero. I appreciate what he's done for us--for all of us, even those of

Google is wonderful for these types of things. Here's a top rated result:

Highlights Generally: [...] In general, limits Internet service providers from copyright infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the Internet.

Section 202 of the DMCA describes this.

From S.167RH, Title I, Sec 103. which can be found under the Text of Legislation:

a. Criminal Infringement

1. IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed:

C. by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

So much for distribution of television shows online. Almost all of them will eventually release a DVD of the series (commercial distribution) therefore anyone posting last nights tv show as a torrent will be a criminal.

You never know around these parts, but I assume you are being funny. If so, I did find it funny, although I would have found it funnier if I wasn't a little worried you weren't being serious! (On the off chance that you are being serious, read here - from the library of congress, although you can find similar material in many other well respected websites - about how the Coriolis effect does not determine the direction the water swirls in the drain.)

To amend title 38, United States Code, to make a stillborn child an insurable dependent for purposes of the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program. (Full text, though it's not much, can be found here)

I had trouble finding the bill with just the above information (ie, a search for 786 on http://senate.gov found nothing). I found it currently identified as S.786.IS with the title "National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005". Here's a link to the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./tem p/~c1094gbzVv:: Maybe this is old news to most of you, but I thought I'd try to help the people that are new at it (like me, obviously.)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./tem p/~c109N2CQBe::/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./tem p/~c109lAuHez::

Here's the bill and TFA is right. Also, it's very short, which tells me the senator from PA has no idea why this is a bad idea. DO fill out a web form for your senator. Make this bill die on thefloor of the senate.

This Link has links to everything about the bill.
Thanks, Google.

The Bill's number is S.786
Title: A bill to clarify the duties and responsibilities of the National Weather Service, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Santorum, Rick [PA] (introduced 4/14/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/14/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Here's the text of S. 786. Thankfully, no co-sponsors yet. Here's hoping that most Congresspeople see this bill for what it is - lunacy.

Are you confusing Clean Flicks of Colorado with ClearPlay, a Utah-based company?

Clean Flicks was making copies that were edited and renting the copies. ClearPlay provides you an edit list to assist you in how you watch the movie. They do not mark the movie. They don't copy or alter the DVD in any way.

That depends on how you define "copy or alter the DVD". ClearPlay doesn't actually sell edited DVDs but they sell filters for hundreds of DVDs. These basically amount to a list of cut points, with a duration, category, and rating for each, intended to be used in a DVD player capable of recognizing the DVD and enforcing the cut policy you determine. Whether this counts as "marking" the movie or not is open to interpretation, since the movie itself is really just a series of bits. At no point does ClearPlay's system actually produce a censored binary, except as a signal leaving the DVD player. One might argue that this counts as copying, since it has to copy or alter the information on the DVD to apply the filter. But any player has to copy the bits off the disc into memory to play it in the first place. This gets into the sort of legal sophistry that was at the heart of the deCSS case.

If you look at the actual text of the bill you'll see it contains language that says the exemption only applies if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology. Clean Flicks was selling physical DVDs with censored movies on them, so they obviously won't benefit from this provision. That's a no brainer.

The Bill is still in the Senate ( S.167 ) So we should all write to our Senators and let them know that we support this bill and would like to see wording added so that previews are listed as being explicitly skippable. Also if you donated money to their campaign be sure to mention that.

SEC. 202. EXEMPTION FROM INFRINGEMENT FOR SKIPPING AUDIO AND VIDEO CONTENT IN MOTION PICTURES.
(a) In General- Section 110 of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9), by striking `and' after the semicolon at the end;
(2) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and';
(3) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following:
`(11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology.'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`For purposes of paragraph (11), the term `making imperceptible' does not include the addition of audio or video content that is performed or displayed over or in place of existing content in a motion picture.
`Nothing in paragraph (11) shall be construed to imply further rights under section 106 of this title, or to have any effect on defenses or limitations on rights granted under any other section of this title or under any other paragraph of this section.'.
(b) Exemption From Trademark Infringement- Section 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1114) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(3)(A) Any person who engages in the conduct described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of title 17, United States Code, and who complies with the requirements set forth in that paragraph is not liable on account of such conduct for a violation of any right under this Act. This subparagraph does not preclude liability, nor shall it be construed to restrict the defenses or limitations on rights granted under this Act, of a person for conduct not described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of title 17, United States Code, even if that person also engages in conduct described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of such title.
`(B) A manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible as described in subparagraph (A) is not liable on account of such manufacture or license for a violation of any right under this Act, if such manufacturer, licensee, or licensor ensures that the technology provides a clear and conspicuous notice at the beginning of each performance that the performance of the motion picture is altered from the performance intended by the director or copyright holder of the motion picture. The limitations on liability in subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall not apply to a manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that fails to comply with this paragraph.
`(C) The requirement under subparagraph (B) to provide notice shall apply only with respect to technology manufactured after the end of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Family Movie Ac

link from the article.

Actually, following the House bill's description on thomas.loc.gov leads to a page, showing that Sen. Hatch is the main sponsor of the Senate versions of this legislation.

I would guess that as Sen. Hatch is the one who originally introduced the bill to the Senate, he would vote in its favor when the time comes... assuming of course that he's not too offended by any changes made in the House.

-Frank

This is the same "Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005" that was just-as-in-still-on-the-front-page posted in the story about jail time for sharing pre-publication copyrighted works.

The jail time was tacked onto the bill, and of course nobody's going to vote against parental control over DVDs, right?

Won't somebody think of the children!?!

The same tactic that got the bill through Congress got the story posted under a completely different subject on the front page.

(2) EVIDENCE- For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright. S.167 HR

*****NOTICE*****
This message was written under the influence of irony.
******************

CleanFlicks/ClearPlay has defended its position based on traditional notions of fair use.

And because a defendant in a lawsuit makes a claim you automatically assume that it has validity?

I am not sure whether your original whine or this somewhat confused reponse is sadder, but let's get a few things straight. Both ClearPlay and CleanFlicks had been sued by the DGA (Director's Guild of America) for copyright violations. Oirignally it was just CleanFlicks, but ClearPlay was added as a co-defendant once they started to get traction in the marketplace. ClearPlay downloads an edit list to the DVD player that jumps over objectionable frames, while CleanFlicks created a new derivative DVD that they then rented out (and kept copies of the originals around so that the were not engaging in outright piracy.)

CleanFlicks made the fair use argument in an attempt to make as many claims as possible in the hope that one offered them protection, and by having ClearPlay as a co-defendant they might have stood a chance. CleanFlicks had created a derivative work, which is not covered by fair use exceptions (a tranformative work actually...) This was also not the only argument they made, it was one of several that were part of a fairly broad scramble to find any legal protection for the service they were offering.

BTW, if you are going to cut and paste from a web site that is better informed than you are (M.E.L.O.N in this case) it is probably good karma to give them the props for knowing what they are talking about when you clearly didn't. You should also have followed all of the links on that page, specifically the one leading to the "Q & A: What is Fair Use?" page where you would have learned that the fair use claim that CleanFlicks was trying to make had a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.

It is also worth noting that the text of the bill only applies to ClearPlay, not CleanFlicks. Specifically, S.167/H.R.357 provides an exception to 17 USC 107 whereby paragraph 11 now protects software and hardware that modifies a work in play, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology." Therefore the fair use argument is moot since ClearPlay is now explicitly covered by an exemption (expect to see them dropped from the CleanFlicks suit soon, eliminating the only fair use claims the defendants had...)

S.167
Title: A bill to provide for the protection of intellectual property rights, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 1/25/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Related Bills: H.R.357
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
House Reports: 109-33 Part 1

Text of Bill

A literal reading of this would say that some music files that I and a few friends made and put online are going to become illegal.

You might want to try literally reading the actual bill, rather than the writeup in either news.com or the story submission.

Why would you or your friends' distribution of your own works be illegal? Even under the writeup's language, that doesn't make sense. The bill appears to amend the criminal infringement provisions to provide for up to 3 years of jail for distributing even one copy of a pre-release work that the person knew or should have known is intended for release. But that has to do with the penalty for a specific method of infringement, not the definition of infringement. Obviously in your situation there's no infringement to begin with.

I suppose this wouldn't be surprising, coming from the Bush administration.

Cheap shot that makes no sense. Congress writes and then agrees to legislation. The president signs the agreed-to legislation into law. This legislation (1) doesn't "come" from the Bush administration, and (2) in any case it was passed unanimously by the Senate and overwhelmingly by the House. Note that you can't tell what the vote was in the House because they approved it by voice vote -- that's when the presiding officer listens to the representatives yell "yea" or "nay" and judges who wins by which is louder. I am not making that up. The fact that the voice vote was enough (I believe roll call vote is automatic if even one person objects to using voice vote)tells you how easily this passed the House. Like it or not, this was a fully bipartisan bill.

> A literal reading of this would say that some music files that I and a few
> friends made and put online are going to become illegal. Consider:
(snip)
> Are they really making it illegal for people to put their own files online
> without first releasing them commercially?
(snip)

No.

The problem was taking a literal reading from news.com.com instead of the actual law :}

See the law here for a copy of the quote below...


(Sec. 103) Establishes criminal penalties for willful copyright infringement by the distribution of a computer program, musical work, motion picture or other audiovisual work, or sound recording being prepared for commercial distribution by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if the person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

(bold added by me)

It's only going to be illegal to give something away for free if both:
a) it was a copyright infringement, and
b) it was being created Only for the purpose of selling

In your case, as you are the copyright holder of your own works, you can distribute them anyway you see fit, thus are not infringing copyright in the first place.
Second, for someone else whom you did not grant license to, whom does infringe on your copyright and distributes your work aginst your will, this law only applies if you 1) intended to sell it, and 2) that should have been known.

As you said, you have given scripts and files away in the past on your site for free, so even if I broke in to your system and grabbed some files and put them out there on the net, I can claim I had no idea you planned to sell those works since your track record so far is to release them for free. This law would not apply then.

It definatly only applies to people who only* make things in life to make a buck off them.
*(It almost has to be only and not usually/sometimes/occasionally, as that does not satisfy the 'should have known' clause of the law)
Now, if it was taken from a company/corporation instead of a person, i'm sure the court will rule 'should have known' to be in the 'always true' logic state, as its rare to have an answer for 'what else do companys exist for?'

Made it illegal for medical doctors and researchers to discuss the use of medications for "off label" use. Many medical doctors will prescribe non over the counter antihistamines to their patients as a sleep aid. If MAPA had passed these MDs could've been jailed for this. Researchers often look at approved prescription medications to see if they can help people in other ways. A few years ago there was talk about some NSAIDs (Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) might be useful in the treatment of Alzheimer's Disease. Researchers would have faced prison sentences for the act of discussing this in an email sent over the Internet.

The discussion of any device that could be used as drug paraphernalia would be illegal. Many US citizens that have their roots from the Middle East still use a hookah for smoking tobacco. Uttering the statement "please don't use a hookah for smoking marijuana" could land them in prison.

Hatch and Feinstein are both evil control freaks. To me to proves the system is broken with both the Democrats and Republicans. They both suck.

Also see: Wired News: Reefer Madness Hits Congress

Honestly, I'd rather just continue to download the free content while giving them the finger, grinning as they can't do SHIT to me ;)

While we're on the topic, this is called the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act. Would it therefore be proper to call it the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act Legislation, aka FECAL?

Quote from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./tem p/~c109WwlD4f:e1284::

Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, from a performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility, shall--

`(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both; or

`(2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both.

Is it just me, or this bill is not only about file leaking?

`(3) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `work being prepared for commercial distribution' means--<BR>
`(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture--<BR>
`(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and<BR>
`(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.'.

That means that if a movie is distributed before it is released in the theaters, it doesn't fall under this statute.

IOW, you can put Episode 3 online any time between now and the movie is released and not fall under the statute. Only after the movie is released AND before it is released on DVD, does the law apply.

There are 4 versions of this bill; the link above is to the version "Reported In House". I'm not sure if this is the one that was passed by the house.

For links to all 4 versions, see http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.167:

I love this quote from the article:

"This bill plugs a hole in existing law by allowing for easier and more expeditious enforcement of prerelease piracy by both the government and property owners," said Mitch Bainwol, chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America. "We applaud Congress for taking this step."

There are 4 versions of this bill; the link above is to the version "Reported In House". I'm not sure if this is the one that was passed by the house.

For links to all 4 versions, see http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.167:

I love this quote from the article:

"This bill plugs a hole in existing law by allowing for easier and more expeditious enforcement of prerelease piracy by both the government and property owners," said Mitch Bainwol, chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America. "We applaud Congress for taking this step."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN001 67:@@@P

[S.167.RH]

...please note that Dianne Feinstein, a prominent Democrat, is a co-sponsor.

Enjoyed my fun little christmas hoax - help me do it for real! ;-)

... 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

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.

(22) Public communication. The term 'public communication' means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising.

(22) Public communication. The term 'public communication' means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising. Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.

Equals 151 printed pages.

Found here.

look at this.

There's no mention of physical checkpoints for rail and bus stations. There is a mention of checking names against a database for international flights, which the pretty much are doing now. There's also a call for increased screening of baggage on such flights for explosives and the like. Maybe you should try getting involved in your governmental process for yourself and not just relying on "journalists" like McCullagh. Read a bill sometime, dig a little deeper and don't just accept the story given to you by anyone. Everyone adds some spin, one direction or the other.

Reads to me like you have the right to join a well regulated militia.

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.