Koothrappali

I typically try to move indoors in the colder months, but this isn't your typical year.

I'm looking to buy some gear for running/biking in the colder weather. Anybody got in recommendations?

quote:

---

in other words, what i stated. limits are based on engineering limits.

---

You didn't state anything. You asked a question (Aren't those limits set by engineers based on physics?). I was answering it.

quote:

---

why cant they use GPS in the meantime? WAZE tells me the speed limit on every street i'm on and alerts me if i'm going over the posted limit.

---

I can't tell if this is a serious question. Surely not...

I work in the rail industry so I'm familiar with this kind of stuff.

The speed limits (time table speed) on rail lines aren't like speed limits on highways. They're what the track was designed for and what it can handle. Going over is a serious violation and increases the chances of derailments significantly.

On Positive Train Control, the deadline for implementation was pushed back because none of the railroads were going to be able to have it implemented and operational by the deadline. If the deadline had stood, rail traffic would've come to a halt.

Some railroads have gotten segments up and running but I have no idea what the status of this particular line is regarding PTC though. Obviously it wasn't turned on, but I don't know if that's because it isn't up and running yet or if they just opted not to use it.

I've seen it noted that a mistrial could've possibly resulted in a double jeopardy scenario with OJ walking free. Can anyone explain why that is? I would've thought it simply meant a new trial.

quote:

---

Ron Goldman put up a helluva fight, he didn't just get stabbed in the back...

---

The article addresses this, check it out.

The reason I ask is because a lot of the arguments that you make are the same ones that Dear makes.

I was unfamiliar with his work, so I looked it up. I thought he made pretty solid points. But I also came across an article that I thought was pretty telling and it addresses a lot of your points directly.

You have mentioned several times that there wasn't any of OJ's blood at the crime scene (actually, on page 32 you say there is "VERY little" and then a few posts later you say there is "none"). Do you have any links to that? Everything I've found has said that there was blood at the scene that matched OJ through DNA analysis.

LINK

quote:

---

One of the five blood drops leading from the bodies was large enough that the most sophisticated kind of DNA analysis — restriction fragment length polymorphism, or RFLP testing — could be performed on it, narrowing its genetic type to one that would be found only in 1 in 170 million people. And it matched the type in the blood taken from O.J. Another blood sample, taken from Brown's back gate, yielded an even more exacting result, a genetic type that would be found only in 1 in 57 billion people, nearly 10 times more than actually exist on the planet. It, too, matched O.J.'s DNA. (And notwithstanding the defense team's unsubstantiated complaints of contamination of blood samples, it's not possible for one person's blood, no matter how deteriorated, to turn into someone else's.) Only one other person could share that DNA with O.J., and that would be a twin, if one existed. But not a son.

There's simply no question that O.J. Simpson was at the scene of the crime and had bled there.

Later, Dear admits there's really no question that O.J.'s blood was at the scene, but he says he can explain what it was doing there.

---

You say that there was a "dab or two" of blood in the Bronco and that does not appear to be the case. From detective Lange:

quote:

---

"There was a lot of blood in the Bronco. It wasn't pools of blood. But there was tremendous amounts there. And only three people's blood was found — the two victims' and O.J. Simpson's," he says.

---

OJ having, or not having, bruises is also addresses, as is Jason having, or not having bruises. The killer being covered in blood, or not, is mentioned. Basically, Dear makes pretty much the same argument that you do, in lock step. That article absolutely dismantles the argument. It's worth the read and I'd like to get your opinion on it.

I was about 10 when all of this was going on so I knew about it but wasn't really following it. I just always assumed the jury returned a not guilty verdict mostly as payback for the Rodney King stuff. This series has generated a lot of new discussion on the topic, obviously. I've been doing a lot of reading up on the case and I've changed my mind.

I totally understand why the jury returned a not guilty verdict. I also have a lot of sympathy for the prosecutors. I think they were setup to fail, first by poor police work and then by a dumbass judge. There were plenty of reasons for reasonable doubt in my opinion. But I still think he did it.

I've changed my mind once on the case recently, let's see if you can change it again!

quote:

---

video for civil war

---

Slight correction; the video was Estranged. But your point remains.

I don't drink coffee because I see people that drink it everyday and some of those people "can't live without their coffee" each morning. I don't want to be like that.

That said, I figure once I have kids, I'm probably going to be a coffee drinker. But at the very least, I'm holding out as long as I can. When I do cave, I'm going to strive for drinking it black.

I do drink green tea each morning, but I don't feel any different after I do and have no problems when I'm on the road and have to drink water with my breakfast.

I'm a P.E. I took it recently as a Civil. My employer requires it, but I would've taken it anyway. It's a great feeling finding out you passed and I thought it was totally worth the time and effort I put into passing.

On the general topic, I'd say calling yourself an "engineer" during informal conversation with an engineering degree and no P.E. is fine. Some places simply don't require it. If they don't, I can't say I blame that person for not getting it.

Calling yourself an "engineer" with no formal engineering training/schooling is misleading in my opinion. If I'm having a convo with someone and they make that declaration, I'll completely disregard their opinion on engineering issues. There's a chance I may point out that they're not really an engineer. If I'm drunk, there's a more than reasonable chance I'll talk shite. I'm probably going to give them a hard time about something, it might as well be that!

Not sure if this has been addressed thus far in the thread but be careful doing this if you ever plan to work in a state other than LA.

I just took the PE Exam last year and this came up. One thing that was brought to my attention, if you move to a state that still enforces the 4 year rule, they may not recognize your license and they may require you to take it again in order to practice in their state.

Best of luck when you do take it though. It's pretty awesome to have that behind you.

Here's my point; There are numerous, legitimate reasons to think that Amtrak sucks. I don't disagree with the fact that Amtrak is a drain. At no point have I argued otherwise. However, you're trying to make this about crossing safety. That's a terrible argument to make. Let's take a look at the arguments you've made in this thread:

quote:

---

It is just a fact--a private railroad could not have stood the liabilities Amtrak absorbs with our subsidies. They would much better crossings--idiot proof crossings.

---

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing ever posted on this board. Think about that. I'm still waiting on you to give me an example of an idiot proof crossing by the way.

quote:

---

They do but they travel probably 50% faster and have a record much worse than freight trains

---

Probably the least inaccurate thing you've posted, but still not accurate. Plenty of freight travels at speeds comparable to Amtrak. I'm yet to see the records for each, passenger and freight.

quote:

---

I did it a couple of years ago after in a 12 month span 13 people were killed in Tangipahoa Parish

---

By your own admission, this "may not have been 12 months". I count 34 over 20 years for the whole state (9 of which we've accounted for in 2 crashes in '95 and '10), so forgive me for not buying this.

I'm not saying people don't get hit by Amtrak trains (the article you pasted from 2010 is the one I referenced in my previous post). What I am saying is that is most certainly does matter who is at fault. If someone goes around lowered gates and gets hit, or if someone hits the side of the train that is already occupying the crossing, you can't hold that against the train.

Instead of making it about crossing safety, why don't you stick to arguments like:

quote:

---

Amtrak received $1.7 billion in 2013 in taxpayer subsidies

---

quote:

---

Their ridership is terrible.

---

quote:

---

Amtrak is a money loser here and everywhere else outside the population dense Northeast.]

---

Those are legit reasons to re-evaluate Amtrak.

I didn't look at other common carriers but I don't believe that to be an apples to apples comparison. Airplanes don't have vehicular traffic crossing their ROW. Stopping a bus is significantly easier than stopping a train.

All railroad companies are always pushing to close crossings. Some of them will throw as much as $30K at a local municipality simply to close a single crossing. More per crossing if they can get more than 1. Additionally, the state can offer incentive funds to the city/county, although there are strings attached to how that money can be used. The general public usually raises hell when a crossing closure is on the table though, so they're very difficult to get, politically speaking.

I don't know if 13 people were killed in a 12 month span. (For clarification, is that 13 people or 13 collisions? 1 collision could result in 2 or more fatalities.) Just scanning the FRA website, it looks like there were 12 total collisions in that county for '10, '11, and '12.

And were all of the collisions with Amtrak trains? There were a total of 15 Amtrak collisions in those three years so almost all would have to be within that one parish. Possible, but not likely.

And that's counting both public and private crossings. There were only 9 collisions at public crossings in the same three years in that parish, 12 total Amtrak.

I'll look it up tomorrow though.

I'm curious how well this will work. I'd like to see it be successful and become a model other states could use.

To me, the single biggest issue is obtaining the necessary right-of-way. You can't have 99% of the ROW and it be successful. You have to have it all.

It looks like they've got a lot of it (195 miles of 235). We'll see what happens with the last 40.

ETA: Just found this part:

195 of the 235 miles of Right of Way (ROW) already exists as a rail corridor, and the 40-mile route into Orlando will utilize an existing transportation corridor.

quote:

---

It is just a fact--a private railroad could not have stood the liabilities Amtrak absorbs with our subsidies. They would much better crossings--idiot proof crossings.

---

That makes absolutely no sense. First, Amtrak already uses the very same crossings that the private freight companies use. How are private RR companies' liabilities any different now?

Second, can you give me an example of an "idiot proof crossing"? Hell, can you give me an example of a "much better crossing"?

I think John's part is better as well. I hesitate to say the song would be better though without Paul's, based on nothing really. I just like some aspects of contrast in music, and life.

Nonetheless, I'm mostly new to the board (lurk some) so I haven't gotten the regular's tendencies yet so I just wanted to see.

Although, from another thread, Third Eye Blind is awesome and I was at the concert where dude "Almost got killed" in Starkville. It was sick. They had a nice cover of Stairway.

I call them "guilty pleasures" but I'm not really ashamed of them.

Examples: REO Speedwagon, Poison

I like some of their stuff, but can't really tell you why and won't argue with you if you think they suck. But I don't think ashame is the right word.