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! :lol:

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.