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

[BabylonSister]

In message boards, I've seen people conveying silence by just posting a period.

[Diane AKA Traska]

I take my cues from Manga:

"..."

[Carotte]

I take my cues from Manga:

"..."

Oh, good one, thanks!
conveys exactly the right message.

[Virg]

<crickets, crickets>

Virg

[GreenEyedHawk]

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)?

[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).