The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread

[RebeccainGA]

So, here's a question.  I'm watching a BBC series called "Infamous Assassinations" and I'm wondering, because it hasn't yet been explained.

What is the difference between a murder and an assassination?  I thought maybe it might be to do with premeditation but that's characteristic of murder in the first degree, at least under the legal definitions where I'm from.  When does 'murder' become 'assassination'?  Is it when the victim is someone of importance, like a political figure (Abraham Lincoln, for example) or someone famous (like John Lennon)?

I think assassination is more when you want them to stop doing/being what/who they are. Like, if you want to stop the head of the "People for Killing Puppies and Kittens", you assassinate their leader. If you want Joe Schmo to die, you murder him.

[Jones]

I understood that an "assassination" involves a prominent person as the victim, and generally has something to do with making a statement. Not sure how correct that is, to be honest I hadn't thought about it before.

[Softly Spoken]

Wiki says:
"Assassination is the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons.

An assassination may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives; it may be carried out for the prospect of financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from the desire to acquire fame or notoriety (that is, a psychological need to garner personal public recognition), from the wish to form some kind of "relationship" with a public figure, or from the desire (or at least the willingness) to be killed or commit suicide in the act."

So I guess it depends on who and why (victim and motive). The person has to be a public or political figure. Basically I guess all assassinations are technically murders, but not all murders are assassinations. Premeditated murder of someone important = assassination.

[Tea Drinker]

So, here's a question.  I'm watching a BBC series called "Infamous Assassinations" and I'm wondering, because it hasn't yet been explained.

What is the difference between a murder and an assassination?  I thought maybe it might be to do with premeditation but that's characteristic of murder in the first degree, at least under the legal definitions where I'm from.  When does 'murder' become 'assassination'?  Is it when the victim is someone of importance, like a political figure (Abraham Lincoln, for example) or someone famous (like John Lennon)?

I think part of the difference is whether there's a personal motive. If, hypothetically, a politician was cheating on his wife, and she killed him, that wouldn't be an assassination, because the killing was basically unconnected with his being a politician.

As with many things, there are edge cases. For example, Dipendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev was officially king of Nepal for three days, after allegedly murdering most of the royal family and then shooting himself. ("Allegedly" because some Nepalis believe that he did not shoot anyone, but was one victim of a conspiracy against his family.) That killing his father made him king might cause that to be classed as an assassination; however, Dipendra was in a coma for his entire reign, and may have been dead before being declared king. (Here's a Wikipedia article about the killings.

Now I'm wondering what level of fame is needed for a killing to count as assassination, and I suspect that in most cases it's not a legal term so there are no sharp lines.

[White Dragon]

A few weeks ago, my young coworker was involved in a minor auto accident. (I mention her youth only because I was wondering if the driving technique I'm asking about is something new.)

Co-worker was driving a car with an automatic transmission. (Very relevant!)

As coworker approached an intersection with a stop sign, she slowed to stop.
Unfortunately, the road was more slippery than she had anticipated and she slid (at a low rate of speed) into the car in front of her.
Fairly straightforward and happens all the time.

What has me wondering is something coworker mentioned about the sequence of events.

She said that as she slowed to stop, she shifted into neutral. (She was in neutral when she started to slide.)

I was very surprised and asked her to repeat this.
She says that this is how she was taught - to shift into neutral at stop signs.

I've been driving for some time and have taken - and supervised - many driving courses, but I've never heard of doing this.

I can see that if you are driving a standard/manual vehicle, depressing the clutch has the effect of putting the engine into neutral and you use the brakes to slow yourself.
But I've never heard of doing it with an automatic transmission.

It actually seems to me that if the car were in gear, she might have been able to ease off the brake and "steer into the skid" and perhaps avoid the collision.

Is this something new in terms of driving technique or was my coworker the victim of questionable instruction?

(I'm not going to try to correct her driving habits, I was just confused when I heard about this.)

[Elfmama]

I think she misunderstood something in her driver's training.  That the instructor said "For standard transmissions shift into neutral" and she thought "standard" mean "automatic" rather than "manual."  Because now that most cars have automatic transmission, it IS the standard form of transmission!

[White Dragon]

I think she misunderstood something in her driver's training.  That the instructor said "For standard transmissions shift into neutral" and she thought "standard" mean "automatic" rather than "manual."  Because now that most cars have automatic transmission, it IS the standard form of transmission!

I'm not sure, but I think coworker learned from her parents and driver's ed at school.
Also, not quite sure but her previous vehicle was a pick-up truck and I think it may have been a manual transmission.

Maybe she thought that *all* vehicles should be in neutral when stopped?

[Mental Magpie]

I think she misunderstood something in her driver's training.  That the instructor said "For standard transmissions shift into neutral" and she thought "standard" mean "automatic" rather than "manual."  Because now that most cars have automatic transmission, it IS the standard form of transmission!

This is the only explanation with which I can come up.  I have never known anyone to shift an automatic transmission into neutral (other than when they're running out of gas!) whilst actually driving.

[lilfox]

DH shifts his automatic transmission car into neutral at stop lights or other places where he expects a long-ish wait.  But, he only does it when the car is already stopped, not during the process of stopping, and he wouldn't bother at a stop sign (not sitting long enough) and doesn't do it in any other car.  just a habit, I guess.

I doubt he would shift into neutral during a skid on ice though!  On the off chance you get traction back, you'll want to be able to control it.

[Iris]

DH shifts his automatic transmission car into neutral at stop lights or other places where he expects a long-ish wait.  But, he only does it when the car is already stopped, not during the process of stopping, and he wouldn't bother at a stop sign (not sitting long enough) and doesn't do it in any other car.  just a habit, I guess.

I doubt he would shift into neutral during a skid on ice though!  On the off chance you get traction back, you'll want to be able to control it.

Many automatic transmissions put the car automatically (hehe) into neutral when you are fully stopped anyway, to save engine wear (I believe).

[marcel]

I've always wanted to know this - how do container ships keep the shipping containers from sliding off the deck during rough seas? I know the containers themselves are really heavy and big (they only look small compared to the rest of the ship!) but I would think one rogue wave and all those containers would be at the bottom of the ocean.

It is an old question, but since I inerned a year on containerships I should answer it.

The shor answer is twistlocks and lashings.

Twistlocks have an oblong part that fits in the blong holes in the corners of containers, and that can be turned 90 degrees to fix them into place. There are twistlocks connected to the ships deck, and the lowest container is put on these, after which they are locked.

Since the containers also have connection fo twistlocks on their roof, you can put a second container on the the bottom container, with twistlocks between them, and so secure them together.

For extra security lashings are also being used. These are metal chains that have a method to really tighten them so far that there is no stretch in them at all. These chains are used for diagonal connections between containers or between containers and the deck. Lashing are used in combination with twistlocks, not as a replacement.

Containerships that need these method are often general cargo ships that are being used as container ships, but can be used for other cargo as well. Ships that are build only for the transport of containers are ususaly cellular containerships.

Cellulars containerships have open holds, with a frame that goes from the bottom of the ship to higher then the deck, in which containers fit exactly. On a cellular ship, you do not need twistlocks for the containers that are placed in the frame (you can not even use twistlocks, because the fram is in the way) but they are often being loaded up to 6 containers over the edge of the frame (depending on ship size) and the higher containers do need twistlock.

[marcel]

I think she misunderstood something in her driver's training.  That the instructor said "For standard transmissions shift into neutral" and she thought "standard" mean "automatic" rather than "manual."  Because now that most cars have automatic transmission, it IS the standard form of transmission!

Except that you do not shift a manual transmision in neutral when stopping, only when you are almost at a stop, do you press the clucth (but this is not neutal) for most of the stopping process you keep the car in the gears, to help with stopping.

[mmswm]

I think she misunderstood something in her driver's training.  That the instructor said "For standard transmissions shift into neutral" and she thought "standard" mean "automatic" rather than "manual."  Because now that most cars have automatic transmission, it IS the standard form of transmission!

Except that you do not shift a manual transmision in neutral when stopping, only when you are almost at a stop, do you press the clucth (but this is not neutal) for most of the stopping process you keep the car in the gears, to help with stopping.

I tend to depress the clutch fairly early in the stopping process, but I don't take it out of gear until I'm at a complete stop.  Well, I do downshift to the appropriate gear for the speed as I'm slowing down, particularly in bad conditions.

[WillyNilly]

Many years ago I had a really crappy car.  It was automatic transmission but it had no 'choke'.  So until it was well warmed up, if I came to a complete stop, it would stall.  Since I hated waiting very long for it to warm up, I would just go, and if I hit a red light, I'd shift it into neutral and gas the engine to keep from stalling. But other then some situation like that (and honestly that was a car made in the 70's or 80's I don't even know if modern cars have carburators anymore (aren't they fuel injected now?)) I have never heard of it being standard to shift into neutral on a well working vehicle though.

[Virg]

WillyNilly wrote:

"Many years ago I had a really crappy car.  It was automatic transmission but it had no 'choke'.  So until it was well warmed up, if I came to a complete stop, it would stall.  Since I hated waiting very long for it to warm up, I would just go, and if I hit a red light, I'd shift it into neutral and gas the engine to keep from stalling."

Of course, then the question becomes, why didn't you just gas the car at the stop light without bothering the shifter?  An automatic transmission will let the engine spin under power and the brakes will keep the car still.  It's not delightful for the transmission, but since it was "a really crappy car" I can't say I'd brook too much concern for it in your shoes.

As a general rule, shifting an automatic transmission isn't necessary and it's not a good idea to put it out of gear in an emergency situation because it's just something else you'd be devoting attention to when you really need to devote attention elsewhere.

Virg