Your points are well-taken, but they ignore the civility with which most of society has conducted itself in this country for centuries. The only other times we've reached this level of lack of civility was during the decade preceding both the Revolutionary and Civil wars. Yes, there have always been disagreements, and yes, there has always been fractious people, especially in political campaigns, but when push came to shove we have always united in a common cause and put our disagreements aside for the good of the country. Right now our country is facing a major crisis, and there seems to be no common ground. It's up to "we the people" to find that common ground for the good of our country for we are the ultimate political power in this country.
The way things are now there is little civility and very little attempt to reach some kind of common ground in which each side can view the other in a positive, or even a non-negative, light. The rhetoric has become so bad it's stopping all attempts to even begin to understand the other side's thinking, or even discover their basic premises. Slander has replaced dialogue and honest give-and-take.
If you think this is just an internet phenomenon you're incorrect. You should have watched MSNBC's election coverage. They abandoned all semblance of objectivity and openly mocked the conservative politicians they interviewed, while those not doing the interviewing laughed and tittered in the background at the mocking. They weren't even close to being civil.
Being civil during a discussion of issues isn't being "accepting" in the way you mean it. It means that each side accord the other the same respect they themselves desire. That's the only way honest and fruitful discussion can take place. Being so arrogant that one assumes they have nothing to learn and thus can be completely dismissive of the other side is completely unproductive.
Now, I have no idea who the poster is that you're replying to, but the moderation here is often unthinking groupthink. A majority of people here start from a common basic premise for their thinking/logic on many issues. Anyone who begins with an opposing basic premise, even though they are a logical person, will end up at a much different conclusion than the majority. Groupthink then kicks in and that person is derided as illogical and stupid because because they ended up at a conclusion that seems illogical to those who started from an opposing basic premise, and the moderation around here reflects that attitude.
Around here Christians and conservatives are stupid, irrational, etc... and ad hominen attacks against them are commonplace. Those posts are modded down sometimes, but more often than not are modded up on nothing stronger than prejudice as the common basic premise between the poster and the moderator. Logical fallacies, such as ad hominen attacks, are not good examples of rational thinking and should never be promoted as such. Yet, here they are on a regular basis if you devote the attack toward what is a minority opinion on this site..
I've also been on sites where just the opposite is true for who is seen as irrational and illogical. The secularist is modded as troll and illogical, and ad hominen attacks against them are modded up on those sites. Neither group of mods is doing a good job, and neither group of posters show tolerance for logic that has its origins in a basic premise that opposes their own.
What does it say about our society when we, as a society, are eating our own because of our differences in basic premises? How is this sustainable? How is this good for society? If this keeps on in the same direction it will end in some type of civil war as civility between opposing points of view is rapidly deteriorating. Both sides will have their own thought police. Is that really a society any of us want to live in? If you don't like that society you're the only one who can change our current direction as the only way the current direction our society is taking can change is for individuals to change. Government can't do anything about it, other than try to legislate what point of view is allowed, and I don't really think anyone wants to go there.
You're comparing apples and oranges though with regard to intent and remorse which always have a lot to do with sentencing.
The jerk in the article spent many months building his botnet and committing other crimes in the process. The guy in your story did a stupid thing on the spur of the moment while drunk, killed his own friend, and shows remorse. A huge difference in intent and remorse.
You know the NZ guy isn't going to go around doing the same thing over and over again. For him the fact that his friend died is deterrence enough, and is probably punishment enough as living with the consequences of his actions is going to be very tough. The jerk in the article? There is no evidence he wouldn't do the same thing all over again, and he showed malicious intent in committing his crimes as they occurred over an extended period of time.
I have no problem with the seeming disparity in sentences in the two cases.
An attack like this by a political campaign done by a partisan ideologue without well-known connections to the campaign isn't going to be traced back to the campaign very easily. Any communication between the two parties will be done in ways that don't leave an electronic or paper trail. And, without sentencing guidelines that include real fear of consequences, time in prison, nobody is able to put enough pressure on the perp to make him reveal the connection. And the campaign can give him the cash to pay his fines through intermediaries that are several steps away from the campaign itself. The campaign connection goes undiscovered and perp has no real consequences for his actions.
Your guidelines are a recipe for major attacks by campaigns on their opponents. .
It would be interesting to find any references to other similar cases (preferably not political so that the comparison doesn't devolve into fighting alongside the party lines).
Still, 30 months for any DDoS - no matter the motive - sounds harsh to me, unless it's something that resulted in significant damages (e.g. taking down a high-volume payment processing site, or a hospital record system, or something like that).
So, this jerk spent many months building and organizing his zombie network, distributing malware, stealing credit card information from the victims in his botnet, etc.... Oh, and then he attacked the sites of people he disagrees with politically and in your eyes that makes the rest of his crimes non-starters, and he should only be sentenced for executing the politically motivated DDoS attack even though his trial, conviction, and sentencing, took place in the context of all his crimes.
In what universe do you live? If the jerk hadn't committed the previous crimes he wouldn't have been able mount a DDoS. The fact that you're willing to give him a pass on many months of criminal behavior that hurt innocent people says a lot about you: far more than any sentence says about the judge.
I'm not talking about a "night in jail" here. I'm talking about fines on the order of tens of thousand dollars (for individuals), and several months of community service.
And you really think that a sentence like that would be any deterrence in a race for a national political race? LOL. The perp would do a few hours of community service and the campaign would pay his fines under the table as they would be a drop in the bucket for a major political campaign. Your sentencing guidelines would actually encourage this kind of behavior.
Well, then you should realize that there are more elements in parallel than what you listed. Add also all the anti-religion and anti-God rhetoric and the "reason is all we need" kind of logic that is also prevalent today. Then look at the outcome. After the mob slaughtered all their bosses they turned on each other and slaughtered each other because each of the factions in the mob thought the other factions weren't politically correct.
History shows us that if we fail to learn from it we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes today that others in the same political/emotional environment made in the past. Take a look around you and see how often those who claim reason is everything and that religion is stupidity degenerate into nothing more than emotional rantings against those who disagree with them and those in charge of the government. The climate today is the same as it was back then, and it was the "smart" people in the French revolution that were the cruelest and most inhumane to their fellow man. They were the people who slaughtered anyone who disagreed with them....
Someone in charge of ECU software design must have been asleep at the desk. Any engine over-rev on a manual gearbox should be immediately mitigated by applying compression braking. With this in effect, I can't really understand what's the problem. Sure, someone who chose a wrong gear and over-revved the engine will have to deal with effects of braking, possibly doing skid recovery and whatnot. In any case selecting too low of a gear with too little throttle applied will always cause the drivetrain to drag like crazy.
There isn't enough compression braking in a gas engine to stop over revving an engine in this scenario. For proof of this try driving down a steep hill in a heavily loaded gas engine powered vehicle. What you will find is that even in lower gears you will have to use the brakes to keep the engine from over revving. Then do the same test in a diesel powered vehicle equipped with a compression/exhaust brake installed. The difference will be immediately apparent as a diesel engine with a Jake brake can create more braking horsepower when using the Jake brake than the horsepower it can create when using the throttle.
This test is the equivalent of shifting down several gears at high speed with respect to testing the compression braking characteristics of a gas engine as you are applying the same levels of force to the engine in both scenarios.
What do you think happens to engine rpm when you shift from 5th to 2nd gear? Engine rpm climbs dramatically. If you're going fast enough it over revs the engine almost instantaneously. In a front wheel drive car the situation is even worse than in a rear wheel drive vehicle as the weight is thrown onto the front wheels increasing the tire traction and making sure engine rpm stays higher for a longer period of time.
Only an idiot thinks that the only way to over rev an engine is with the throttle.
Since the invention of the fuel injector, gasoline has been metered appropriately. Prior to that, cars used a carburetors which tended to run the fuel mixture too rich. This causes excessive washing of oil from the cylinder walls thus causing exponential wear and tear on the engine depending on RPM.
Now days with tight clearances, improved metallurgy, oils, and computer controlled injection; running high RPMs will not have that much of an effect on its life. If anything, you suffer fuel economy.
I used to drive my 99 Miata like I stole it. I actually tried to destroy the engine. I would float the valves often for the hell of it. This lasted for about 160K miles before I got rid of it (bought it used with 34K on it). Spark plugs indicate a clean burn (nice tan color), valve train and cam lobes in primo condition, and excellent compression on all four. Yup, engine tech has come a long way.
You're missing the point.
The reason an Formula 1 engine can withstand the rpms they do is because of type and quality control of materials, closeness of tolerances in parts manufacturing, how closely the rotating assembly is balanced, and the quality control exerted over the parts used in the engine(each individual part is examined externally and internally for any flaws), etc....
The care taken in building a racing engine cannot be used in a factory situation. It would add 10's of thousands of dollars to the cost of your car.
This means that a factory stock engine is built to far lower specifications than a racing engine. They will self-destruct if you accidentally turn the kind of rpms at which a racing engine routinely runs. The redline on the tach in your car tells you what the factory thinks is the upper limit of rpms the engine can safely turn without causing damage. Thus, if you take a stock engine with a redline of 6500 rpm and turn it 9750 rpm by downshifting from 5th to 2nd gear you're most likely cause a fair amount of damage, if not cause it to self-destruct immediately. Why? Because you've gone far past the forces the stock parts were designed to withstand. You've exceeded the specs for the engine parts by 50%.
Now, with a rev-limiter, or the built-in rev limiting created by causing hydraulic lifters to float, you've never going to reach that 9750 rpm that will cause parts to fail using the throttle. However, lifter float won't save you, and neither will a rev limiter if you downshift too many gears as you're mechanically forcing the engine to run that fast through the transmission gearing and the speed of the car.
As far as trying to destroy engines through abusing them, the toughest engine I've ever encountered was the old 235 cu. in. inline 6 that Chevy built during the 50's and 60's. I had a 1962 2 door hardtop Chevy BelAir with that engine it when I was in high school. I wanted to take out that 235 and replace it with a 327 so I could do some hotrodding. But, my old man, who was a mechanic, told me he wouldn't allow it unless that 235 failed. So, I used to take that car out into the country and run it in 1st gear with the valves floating for 10-15 miles at a time. When that didn't do the trick I quit changing the oil and kept on abusing that engine.
I never was able to hurt that engine although I tried to blow it up for 2 years. Back then with the square cut gears and type of synchros used in the manual transmissions you couldn't downshift directly from 3rd to 1st as the gears would just grind if you couldn't get the rpms high enough with the throttle to mesh the gears so I couldn't blow it up that way.
I did do some hotrodding after I got out of high school, and I built some carbureted small block Chevy V8s that would turn 8000 rpm without hurting them, but the quality of parts, internal tolerances, care of assembly, balancing of the rotating assembly, etc... were all much different than a stock motor.
One over rev isn't going to destroy any modern engine. It's the long term effect that they are curbing. Many very tine bits of damage acquired over time can be hard to differentiate from a 'bad' engine.
That depends on how far the engine goes above the redline. Sure over revving an engine 500 or 1000 rpm once or twice in its life time won't kill it, but what about 3000 rpm a time or two by doing something like going from 5th to 2nd gear at high speed? Chances are winding it up that tight is going to cause some damage and cause a measurable shortening of its lifespan. It may even destroy it right then and there by throwing a rod through the block or hitting a valve with a piston..
Yes, he could have, but why? Making them yourself is much more enjoyable....
My wife had gotten her tubes tied before we got married, but we still tried to get her pregnant at least a couple of times a day for the first decade of our marriage. After that we slowed down a little.... Now, those attempts may have been fruitless endeavors and done against all logic, but they sure were enjoyable.
You make a good argument, but I still say that in Awlaki's case he guilty of treason. He not only advocates the overthrow of the US, but is involved in organizing and financing terrorist operations that have that end in mind. His videos are a part of his organizing activities. How that doesn't fall under the description of treason is beyond me.
actually the constitution doesn't allow us any rights, it prevents the government from impeding on those rights. huge difference there. also treasonous speech is also protected by the first amendment because according to the constitution treason has nothing to do with speech
Say what?
How can anyone commit treason without speaking about it with how treason is defined in the constitution? Giving aid and comfort, and adhering to their enemies, are done through speech as much as in any other way. Even declaring war directly involves speech.
Awlaki is directly encouraging the killing of US civilians wherever and whenever possible in his messages. That's the same as declaring war against us. And, since he is a US citizen that's treason. And, he doesn't say, kill only the conservatives and leave the liberals alone, so he's advocating your murder as well as mine. He doesn't care what you believe, he just wants to kill you because of where you were born. He's a psychopath.
Even if it wasn't treason it isn't speech that is protected. Let's say there is someone you work with you really dislike. You can't go around encouraging people to kill that person without getting yourself in major trouble. If you post your desire for someone to kill that person online it will be taken down and you will be prosecuted for that speech.
This idea that we must protect the right of someone to advocate murder online is absolutely ridiculous. It's so far out of bounds that it's beyond the pale. You can't go around advocating murder in any other medium, or just in talking person to person, so why should it be allowed just because it's posted on the internet? That's ridiculous.
Where did I mention any prosecution? All I said was that it is well within the constitution to remove/deny treasonous speech, as it is defined by the constitution.
Now, I would like to see treasonous speech prosecuted, but I realize it isn't done very often.
Who said I was afraid? Where was that even implied? All I said was that treasonous speech is not protected speech, and that those who claim shutting down treasonous speech is a violation of the constitution are pro treason and thus united with Awlaki against their own country. They flat out ignore our own constitution in their outrage over a nonexistent right, just as you're doing mocking me with your ad hominen attack.
You are all ignoring the constitution that allows you to have the rights and liberty that you have. I find that a self-defeating course of action if you truly love liberty. Liberty is not, and never has been, carte blanche to do anything you want to do. That, in fact, will destroy liberty for it doesn't recognize the rights of others.
There's this little thing called treason and it is defined in the constitution as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Alwaki's videos most definitely fit this description and are thus treasonous speech. Treasonous speech is not protected by the constitution. I find it pathetic that any American would support treason against their own country. No wonder the terrorists think they can win.
American people aren't going to put up with the dishonesty and politicians working against them anymore.
I sincerely hope you are right, but I fear the system is too broken to self-correct at this point.
Take campaign finance for instance. Will we see meaningful reform under the Republicans? I seriously doubt it. At least the Democrats tried, which is more credit I can give the Republicans.
Yes, the system is partially broken right now, but it isn't going to be self-corrected. It's going to be corrected by a power outside of it: the people themselves. You seem to forget that "we the people" hold the ultimate power in this country. That's why our freedom and integrity is so important. We tell the politicians whether they stay in office or they lose their power. We have the power to tell them that they either represent us, or they're out of power. "We the people" hold the strings of power, not the politicians, as we can kick them out.
This is why our constitution is so very important. It is the basis for "we the people" holding the ultimate power in the US. If it is compromised, rejected, "we the people" will no longer be the power behind the country. We will degenerate into a totalitarian government in a very short time.
Don't give up, that's exactly what the politicians want you to do. Exercise your power. Hold politicians accountable. If they lie, if they don't live up their promises, if they violate our constitution, if they ignore it, kick them out. Reduce their power as much as is practically possible. In doing so "we the people" will hold more power and have a bigger say in our government.
That depends on your point of view, and many smart people disagree with your assertion. What we do know is a President known for his honesty, love of his country, and lack of prejudice, suspended habeus corpus, and when the emergency was over the suspension was lifted.
The only President more unlikely to have violated the constitution than Lincoln was Washington. Both men were known for their aversion to act in a manner contrary to what was right. To me that means Lincoln had information that caused him to believe he had the right to do what he did. I trust his both his judgment and his character.
Just what mandate are referring to? The individual mandate with reference to health care?
You're saying the Republicans just decided to oppose it on their own? Ummmm.... Didn't you see any of the anger at the town hall meetings in 2009? Do you really think those were all astroturfers? Those people were the average US citizens and they were flat out pissed off about what was going on. This election is the proof.
None of the Democrats listened to the voters. None of the so-called mainstream media listened either. Both groups called them all kinds of names and smeared them at every opportunity. The Republicans started to listen a little bit, and didn't mock them at every opportunity. Thus the majority of voters didn't reject them completely as they did the Democrats.
FYI, women voters supported Obama and Democrats by 13 points in 2008. This election it was even. No gender gap in voting. Independent voters favored Obama and the Democrats by 13 points in 2008. This election they favored the Republicans by 15 points. That's a 28 point move in 2 years. Are you beginning to understand how many people dislike what has been going on with our government in the last 2 years?
This election wasn't about electing Republicans, and even the Republicans seem to realize it. It was about changing the direction of our government. It was about policy, not politics.
He also pledged to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. He hasn't done that. In fact, he's gutted the basic rights granted us under the constitution.
Also, to claim that representatives that break from the "party" on votes (in either party) and actually think / act for themselves on their own are somehow caving in... Yeah you're part of the problem with our government right now.
LOL. How did you draw that conclusion from what I said? I said nothing of the kind. I, in fact, spoke against those politicians who didn't refuse to follow the "party line" and voted against their own constituents in following the "party line".
Do you understand the difference between a constituent and a party leader? It doesn't appear to be the case by your argument.
If you're going to follow the leaders of your party, who were Obama/Reid/Pelosi, and not follow the wishes of the voters who put you into office who are deeply opposed to, and angry about, what your party leaders are pushing, then you're a "party man", not someone who is independent of the party.
This election just proved that. Voting for Obamacare, the stimulus package, and ignoring the constitution were big factors in the death knell for many politician's careers, as the same people who had voted them into office 2 years ago just voted them out of office.
The voters said, very loudly, we don't like where you're going and what you're doing. You ignored us and now we are firing you.
You have failed to grasp the message sent by the voters yesterday.
Slashdot Mirror
And upon what evidence do you make this claim? Let's see this proof....
Your points are well-taken, but they ignore the civility with which most of society has conducted itself in this country for centuries. The only other times we've reached this level of lack of civility was during the decade preceding both the Revolutionary and Civil wars. Yes, there have always been disagreements, and yes, there has always been fractious people, especially in political campaigns, but when push came to shove we have always united in a common cause and put our disagreements aside for the good of the country. Right now our country is facing a major crisis, and there seems to be no common ground. It's up to "we the people" to find that common ground for the good of our country for we are the ultimate political power in this country.
The way things are now there is little civility and very little attempt to reach some kind of common ground in which each side can view the other in a positive, or even a non-negative, light. The rhetoric has become so bad it's stopping all attempts to even begin to understand the other side's thinking, or even discover their basic premises. Slander has replaced dialogue and honest give-and-take.
If you think this is just an internet phenomenon you're incorrect. You should have watched MSNBC's election coverage. They abandoned all semblance of objectivity and openly mocked the conservative politicians they interviewed, while those not doing the interviewing laughed and tittered in the background at the mocking. They weren't even close to being civil.
Being civil during a discussion of issues isn't being "accepting" in the way you mean it. It means that each side accord the other the same respect they themselves desire. That's the only way honest and fruitful discussion can take place. Being so arrogant that one assumes they have nothing to learn and thus can be completely dismissive of the other side is completely unproductive.
Now, I have no idea who the poster is that you're replying to, but the moderation here is often unthinking groupthink. A majority of people here start from a common basic premise for their thinking/logic on many issues. Anyone who begins with an opposing basic premise, even though they are a logical person, will end up at a much different conclusion than the majority. Groupthink then kicks in and that person is derided as illogical and stupid because because they ended up at a conclusion that seems illogical to those who started from an opposing basic premise, and the moderation around here reflects that attitude.
Around here Christians and conservatives are stupid, irrational, etc... and ad hominen attacks against them are commonplace. Those posts are modded down sometimes, but more often than not are modded up on nothing stronger than prejudice as the common basic premise between the poster and the moderator. Logical fallacies, such as ad hominen attacks, are not good examples of rational thinking and should never be promoted as such. Yet, here they are on a regular basis if you devote the attack toward what is a minority opinion on this site..
I've also been on sites where just the opposite is true for who is seen as irrational and illogical. The secularist is modded as troll and illogical, and ad hominen attacks against them are modded up on those sites. Neither group of mods is doing a good job, and neither group of posters show tolerance for logic that has its origins in a basic premise that opposes their own.
What does it say about our society when we, as a society, are eating our own because of our differences in basic premises? How is this sustainable? How is this good for society? If this keeps on in the same direction it will end in some type of civil war as civility between opposing points of view is rapidly deteriorating. Both sides will have their own thought police. Is that really a society any of us want to live in? If you don't like that society you're the only one who can change our current direction as the only way the current direction our society is taking can change is for individuals to change. Government can't do anything about it, other than try to legislate what point of view is allowed, and I don't really think anyone wants to go there.
You're comparing apples and oranges though with regard to intent and remorse which always have a lot to do with sentencing.
The jerk in the article spent many months building his botnet and committing other crimes in the process. The guy in your story did a stupid thing on the spur of the moment while drunk, killed his own friend, and shows remorse. A huge difference in intent and remorse.
You know the NZ guy isn't going to go around doing the same thing over and over again. For him the fact that his friend died is deterrence enough, and is probably punishment enough as living with the consequences of his actions is going to be very tough. The jerk in the article? There is no evidence he wouldn't do the same thing all over again, and he showed malicious intent in committing his crimes as they occurred over an extended period of time.
I have no problem with the seeming disparity in sentences in the two cases.
You're not thinking this through.
An attack like this by a political campaign done by a partisan ideologue without well-known connections to the campaign isn't going to be traced back to the campaign very easily. Any communication between the two parties will be done in ways that don't leave an electronic or paper trail. And, without sentencing guidelines that include real fear of consequences, time in prison, nobody is able to put enough pressure on the perp to make him reveal the connection. And the campaign can give him the cash to pay his fines through intermediaries that are several steps away from the campaign itself. The campaign connection goes undiscovered and perp has no real consequences for his actions.
Your guidelines are a recipe for major attacks by campaigns on their opponents. .
It would be interesting to find any references to other similar cases (preferably not political so that the comparison doesn't devolve into fighting alongside the party lines).
Still, 30 months for any DDoS - no matter the motive - sounds harsh to me, unless it's something that resulted in significant damages (e.g. taking down a high-volume payment processing site, or a hospital record system, or something like that).
So, this jerk spent many months building and organizing his zombie network, distributing malware, stealing credit card information from the victims in his botnet, etc.... Oh, and then he attacked the sites of people he disagrees with politically and in your eyes that makes the rest of his crimes non-starters, and he should only be sentenced for executing the politically motivated DDoS attack even though his trial, conviction, and sentencing, took place in the context of all his crimes.
In what universe do you live? If the jerk hadn't committed the previous crimes he wouldn't have been able mount a DDoS. The fact that you're willing to give him a pass on many months of criminal behavior that hurt innocent people says a lot about you: far more than any sentence says about the judge.
That should be: deterrence in a race for a national political office
I'm not talking about a "night in jail" here. I'm talking about fines on the order of tens of thousand dollars (for individuals), and several months of community service.
And you really think that a sentence like that would be any deterrence in a race for a national political race? LOL. The perp would do a few hours of community service and the campaign would pay his fines under the table as they would be a drop in the bucket for a major political campaign. Your sentencing guidelines would actually encourage this kind of behavior.
Well, then you should realize that there are more elements in parallel than what you listed. Add also all the anti-religion and anti-God rhetoric and the "reason is all we need" kind of logic that is also prevalent today. Then look at the outcome. After the mob slaughtered all their bosses they turned on each other and slaughtered each other because each of the factions in the mob thought the other factions weren't politically correct.
History shows us that if we fail to learn from it we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes today that others in the same political/emotional environment made in the past. Take a look around you and see how often those who claim reason is everything and that religion is stupidity degenerate into nothing more than emotional rantings against those who disagree with them and those in charge of the government. The climate today is the same as it was back then, and it was the "smart" people in the French revolution that were the cruelest and most inhumane to their fellow man. They were the people who slaughtered anyone who disagreed with them....
Someone in charge of ECU software design must have been asleep at the desk. Any engine over-rev on a manual gearbox should be immediately mitigated by applying compression braking. With this in effect, I can't really understand what's the problem. Sure, someone who chose a wrong gear and over-revved the engine will have to deal with effects of braking, possibly doing skid recovery and whatnot. In any case selecting too low of a gear with too little throttle applied will always cause the drivetrain to drag like crazy.
There isn't enough compression braking in a gas engine to stop over revving an engine in this scenario. For proof of this try driving down a steep hill in a heavily loaded gas engine powered vehicle. What you will find is that even in lower gears you will have to use the brakes to keep the engine from over revving. Then do the same test in a diesel powered vehicle equipped with a compression/exhaust brake installed. The difference will be immediately apparent as a diesel engine with a Jake brake can create more braking horsepower when using the Jake brake than the horsepower it can create when using the throttle.
This test is the equivalent of shifting down several gears at high speed with respect to testing the compression braking characteristics of a gas engine as you are applying the same levels of force to the engine in both scenarios.
Here, let me be as snarky as you are....
What do you think happens to engine rpm when you shift from 5th to 2nd gear? Engine rpm climbs dramatically. If you're going fast enough it over revs the engine almost instantaneously. In a front wheel drive car the situation is even worse than in a rear wheel drive vehicle as the weight is thrown onto the front wheels increasing the tire traction and making sure engine rpm stays higher for a longer period of time.
Only an idiot thinks that the only way to over rev an engine is with the throttle.
Since the invention of the fuel injector, gasoline has been metered appropriately. Prior to that, cars used a carburetors which tended to run the fuel mixture too rich. This causes excessive washing of oil from the cylinder walls thus causing exponential wear and tear on the engine depending on RPM.
Now days with tight clearances, improved metallurgy, oils, and computer controlled injection; running high RPMs will not have that much of an effect on its life. If anything, you suffer fuel economy.
I used to drive my 99 Miata like I stole it. I actually tried to destroy the engine. I would float the valves often for the hell of it. This lasted for about 160K miles before I got rid of it (bought it used with 34K on it). Spark plugs indicate a clean burn (nice tan color), valve train and cam lobes in primo condition, and excellent compression on all four. Yup, engine tech has come a long way.
You're missing the point.
The reason an Formula 1 engine can withstand the rpms they do is because of type and quality control of materials, closeness of tolerances in parts manufacturing, how closely the rotating assembly is balanced, and the quality control exerted over the parts used in the engine(each individual part is examined externally and internally for any flaws), etc....
The care taken in building a racing engine cannot be used in a factory situation. It would add 10's of thousands of dollars to the cost of your car.
This means that a factory stock engine is built to far lower specifications than a racing engine. They will self-destruct if you accidentally turn the kind of rpms at which a racing engine routinely runs. The redline on the tach in your car tells you what the factory thinks is the upper limit of rpms the engine can safely turn without causing damage. Thus, if you take a stock engine with a redline of 6500 rpm and turn it 9750 rpm by downshifting from 5th to 2nd gear you're most likely cause a fair amount of damage, if not cause it to self-destruct immediately. Why? Because you've gone far past the forces the stock parts were designed to withstand. You've exceeded the specs for the engine parts by 50%.
Now, with a rev-limiter, or the built-in rev limiting created by causing hydraulic lifters to float, you've never going to reach that 9750 rpm that will cause parts to fail using the throttle. However, lifter float won't save you, and neither will a rev limiter if you downshift too many gears as you're mechanically forcing the engine to run that fast through the transmission gearing and the speed of the car.
As far as trying to destroy engines through abusing them, the toughest engine I've ever encountered was the old 235 cu. in. inline 6 that Chevy built during the 50's and 60's. I had a 1962 2 door hardtop Chevy BelAir with that engine it when I was in high school. I wanted to take out that 235 and replace it with a 327 so I could do some hotrodding. But, my old man, who was a mechanic, told me he wouldn't allow it unless that 235 failed. So, I used to take that car out into the country and run it in 1st gear with the valves floating for 10-15 miles at a time. When that didn't do the trick I quit changing the oil and kept on abusing that engine.
I never was able to hurt that engine although I tried to blow it up for 2 years. Back then with the square cut gears and type of synchros used in the manual transmissions you couldn't downshift directly from 3rd to 1st as the gears would just grind if you couldn't get the rpms high enough with the throttle to mesh the gears so I couldn't blow it up that way.
I did do some hotrodding after I got out of high school, and I built some carbureted small block Chevy V8s that would turn 8000 rpm without hurting them, but the quality of parts, internal tolerances, care of assembly, balancing of the rotating assembly, etc... were all much different than a stock motor.
One over rev isn't going to destroy any modern engine. It's the long term effect that they are curbing. Many very tine bits of damage acquired over time can be hard to differentiate from a 'bad' engine.
That depends on how far the engine goes above the redline. Sure over revving an engine 500 or 1000 rpm once or twice in its life time won't kill it, but what about 3000 rpm a time or two by doing something like going from 5th to 2nd gear at high speed? Chances are winding it up that tight is going to cause some damage and cause a measurable shortening of its lifespan. It may even destroy it right then and there by throwing a rod through the block or hitting a valve with a piston..
Hey, you could have adopted!
Yes, he could have, but why? Making them yourself is much more enjoyable....
My wife had gotten her tubes tied before we got married, but we still tried to get her pregnant at least a couple of times a day for the first decade of our marriage. After that we slowed down a little.... Now, those attempts may have been fruitless endeavors and done against all logic, but they sure were enjoyable.
You make a good argument, but I still say that in Awlaki's case he guilty of treason. He not only advocates the overthrow of the US, but is involved in organizing and financing terrorist operations that have that end in mind. His videos are a part of his organizing activities. How that doesn't fall under the description of treason is beyond me.
Oh, wow, what an expression of genius in that bit of logic....
actually the constitution doesn't allow us any rights, it prevents the government from impeding on those rights. huge difference there. also treasonous speech is also protected by the first amendment because according to the constitution treason has nothing to do with speech
Say what?
How can anyone commit treason without speaking about it with how treason is defined in the constitution? Giving aid and comfort, and adhering to their enemies, are done through speech as much as in any other way. Even declaring war directly involves speech.
Awlaki is directly encouraging the killing of US civilians wherever and whenever possible in his messages. That's the same as declaring war against us. And, since he is a US citizen that's treason. And, he doesn't say, kill only the conservatives and leave the liberals alone, so he's advocating your murder as well as mine. He doesn't care what you believe, he just wants to kill you because of where you were born. He's a psychopath.
Even if it wasn't treason it isn't speech that is protected. Let's say there is someone you work with you really dislike. You can't go around encouraging people to kill that person without getting yourself in major trouble. If you post your desire for someone to kill that person online it will be taken down and you will be prosecuted for that speech.
This idea that we must protect the right of someone to advocate murder online is absolutely ridiculous. It's so far out of bounds that it's beyond the pale. You can't go around advocating murder in any other medium, or just in talking person to person, so why should it be allowed just because it's posted on the internet? That's ridiculous.
Where did I mention any prosecution? All I said was that it is well within the constitution to remove/deny treasonous speech, as it is defined by the constitution.
Now, I would like to see treasonous speech prosecuted, but I realize it isn't done very often.
Very nice straw man, AC.
Who said I was afraid? Where was that even implied? All I said was that treasonous speech is not protected speech, and that those who claim shutting down treasonous speech is a violation of the constitution are pro treason and thus united with Awlaki against their own country. They flat out ignore our own constitution in their outrage over a nonexistent right, just as you're doing mocking me with your ad hominen attack.
You are all ignoring the constitution that allows you to have the rights and liberty that you have. I find that a self-defeating course of action if you truly love liberty. Liberty is not, and never has been, carte blanche to do anything you want to do. That, in fact, will destroy liberty for it doesn't recognize the rights of others.
There's this little thing called treason and it is defined in the constitution as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Alwaki's videos most definitely fit this description and are thus treasonous speech. Treasonous speech is not protected by the constitution. I find it pathetic that any American would support treason against their own country. No wonder the terrorists think they can win.
American people aren't going to put up with the dishonesty and politicians working against them anymore.
I sincerely hope you are right, but I fear the system is too broken to self-correct at this point.
Take campaign finance for instance. Will we see meaningful reform under the Republicans? I seriously doubt it. At least the Democrats tried, which is more credit I can give the Republicans.
Yes, the system is partially broken right now, but it isn't going to be self-corrected. It's going to be corrected by a power outside of it: the people themselves. You seem to forget that "we the people" hold the ultimate power in this country. That's why our freedom and integrity is so important. We tell the politicians whether they stay in office or they lose their power. We have the power to tell them that they either represent us, or they're out of power. "We the people" hold the strings of power, not the politicians, as we can kick them out.
This is why our constitution is so very important. It is the basis for "we the people" holding the ultimate power in the US. If it is compromised, rejected, "we the people" will no longer be the power behind the country. We will degenerate into a totalitarian government in a very short time.
Don't give up, that's exactly what the politicians want you to do. Exercise your power. Hold politicians accountable. If they lie, if they don't live up their promises, if they violate our constitution, if they ignore it, kick them out. Reduce their power as much as is practically possible. In doing so "we the people" will hold more power and have a bigger say in our government.
That depends on your point of view, and many smart people disagree with your assertion. What we do know is a President known for his honesty, love of his country, and lack of prejudice, suspended habeus corpus, and when the emergency was over the suspension was lifted.
The only President more unlikely to have violated the constitution than Lincoln was Washington. Both men were known for their aversion to act in a manner contrary to what was right. To me that means Lincoln had information that caused him to believe he had the right to do what he did. I trust his both his judgment and his character.
Just what mandate are referring to? The individual mandate with reference to health care?
You're saying the Republicans just decided to oppose it on their own? Ummmm.... Didn't you see any of the anger at the town hall meetings in 2009? Do you really think those were all astroturfers? Those people were the average US citizens and they were flat out pissed off about what was going on. This election is the proof.
None of the Democrats listened to the voters. None of the so-called mainstream media listened either. Both groups called them all kinds of names and smeared them at every opportunity. The Republicans started to listen a little bit, and didn't mock them at every opportunity. Thus the majority of voters didn't reject them completely as they did the Democrats.
FYI, women voters supported Obama and Democrats by 13 points in 2008. This election it was even. No gender gap in voting. Independent voters favored Obama and the Democrats by 13 points in 2008. This election they favored the Republicans by 15 points. That's a 28 point move in 2 years. Are you beginning to understand how many people dislike what has been going on with our government in the last 2 years?
This election wasn't about electing Republicans, and even the Republicans seem to realize it. It was about changing the direction of our government. It was about policy, not politics.
He also pledged to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. He hasn't done that. In fact, he's gutted the basic rights granted us under the constitution.
LOL. How did you draw that conclusion from what I said? I said nothing of the kind. I, in fact, spoke against those politicians who didn't refuse to follow the "party line" and voted against their own constituents in following the "party line".
Do you understand the difference between a constituent and a party leader? It doesn't appear to be the case by your argument.
If you're going to follow the leaders of your party, who were Obama/Reid/Pelosi, and not follow the wishes of the voters who put you into office who are deeply opposed to, and angry about, what your party leaders are pushing, then you're a "party man", not someone who is independent of the party.
This election just proved that. Voting for Obamacare, the stimulus package, and ignoring the constitution were big factors in the death knell for many politician's careers, as the same people who had voted them into office 2 years ago just voted them out of office.
The voters said, very loudly, we don't like where you're going and what you're doing. You ignored us and now we are firing you.
You have failed to grasp the message sent by the voters yesterday.