So your argument is that you and people like you feel bad if we respond to threats proportionally to the actual damage they cause, so people like us should just shut up complaining about all of the money wasted that could have saved 10x as many lives?
Now, I would say that I believe that it would be better for handguns never to have been legal than it is to allow legal handguns, but that's not a choice we have in the US, and I have no good numbers to back that up. Even if we could magically eliminate all handguns in the US, though, I still think your options are far better, and they're clearly supported by the numbers.
Unless my crappy college german is much mistaken, "There is" is "Es gibt" in german, not "Da ist".
Of course, often the very charm of "Tengo gato loco in mis pantalones" style sayings is the wrongness of them, but I still can't resist pointing it out...
I know I'm repeating what others have said, but it's worth another try.
Anything you use in your life was only built because someone copied an idea from someone else, millions of times over. As Newton said, "if I have seen farther than others, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants". You want to make it illegal to stand on their shoulders. I (and you) should be paying to lease a patent to the inventors of language, the wheel, writing, textiles, as well as the inventors of the millions or billions of improvements to those fundamental ideas to bring them to where they are today. Your point of view is very clearly crazy.
In fact, though, from a libertarian point of view, I can copy a song in my house and give it to my friend, who can take it to their house and listen to it, and give a copy to their friend, ad infinitum. There is no effect on the outside world. The only way to prevent that would be to have publicly accessible cameras in everyone's house. That seems to conflict pretty strongly with the libertarian "freedom from central authority/outside force" philosophy.
Yes, it _can_ accelerate faster, but that's irrelevant to the pollution topic. Well, not quite: accelerate faster == use more power.
Yes, it can even get some of its energy back when braking, but that's losing sight of the fact that the electric car has to carry half a ton of batteries too. So it will actually expend extra power into moving all those batteries (doubly so if you want to move them faster), which means extra pollution at some power plant down the line. Unless, of course, you use nuclear power.
You had me going there for a while, but this is just totally wrong. And it's blatantly wrong in favor of your viewpoint, which makes me re-read everything else you've written, filtering for strong bias.
Higher acceleration doesn't mean more energy consumed. The amount of energy to get from one speed to another is exactly the same (ignoring friction) regardless of acceleration. Different motors have optimal efficiency at different accelerations, so it might actually be more efficient to accelerate faster.
If you have regenerative braking, it may not matter to have more mass (no pun intended). You invest more energy into speeding up, but you get it all back (subject to inefficiencies in the regeneration). And, of course, you conveniently ignore the fact that a regular car has even more weight to accelerate (with no regenerative braking) than the electric car. So what if the batteries weigh something? A gasoline car lugs that big ol' combustion engine around, and it weighs something, too.
>> Regarding the internal structure of the Earth, it will have zero effect on the orbit. Unless mass enters or leaves the system, >> the center of gravity of the earth will orbit around the Sun in the same way, regardless of the relatively very minor variations >> in density within the Earth. > > We were talking about precession.
We were talking about precession, and I was talking about orbital precession. Internal structure of Earth will have zero effect on the orbital precession.
A flow that involves 100 billion tons moving in a circle from the core of Earth to near the surface won't affect rotational precession either - it has to involve redistribution of mass, not just redistribution of matter. By which I mean to say that it doesn't matter that the atoms move from one place to another if an equal mass is moving in to replace them.
Internal structure certainly could impact rotational precession, though - good point.
What a load! So, it's not censorship if the librarian decides not to include books because he finds them objectionable - after all, you can always go to a different library! It's not censorship if your country bans printing certain books - you can always pick them up in another country!
When anyone responsible for providing media omits some media because they find the content objectionable, that's censorship.
Um, everything I've ever read by anyone who studies climate for a living says that global warming is a real concern, and one that could impact billions of people. I agree that there's a lot of bad science reporting, and that some people use it to promote an agenda. That means you ignore that bad reporting - you don't assume that other, legitimate information supporting the same conclusion is wrong.
Fleece a nation, my ass. The ones fleecing us are the people telling us that destructive behavior is OK as long as it's someone else who feels the repercussions, or the repercussions are delayed.
A google for "scientific studies global warming" (which is the most agenda agnostic way I could think of to search for it) turns up a bunch of articles like this: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
Yeah, I was aware of the 26 kyear rotational axis precession (and the switch between Polaris and some other star, was it Altair? I'm no astronomer.) I think I had also thought about the possibility of orbital precession before, I think.
What threw me off was them calling it a 'wobble' and acting like it's news. I had also never thought about the climate impacts, although they seem obvious now.
I don't think the other planets are likely to have very much effect, but I agree they will have some. It would be pretty easy to figure the relative forces due to gravity from, say, Jupiter versus the Sun, but I'm at work...
Regarding the internal structure of the Earth, it will have zero effect on the orbit. Unless mass enters or leaves the system, the center of gravity of the earth will orbit around the Sun in the same way, regardless of the relatively very minor variations in density within the Earth.
The Earth's internal structure could affect the rotation, but only if you had massive amounts of material moving from the surface to the core, or vice versa, or massive amounts of material rotating relative to the rest of the Earth. The first two are possible, I suppose, although they seem unlikely. The last option seems basically impossible since there would be huge friction forces encouraging all of the material to rotate at the same rate.
The whole tone of this/. post freaked me out. There's no way for there to be 'irregularities' in the Earth's orbit without something with both really high mass and really high velocity interacting with the earth or the sun.
So I read up on Milankovich cycles, and it turns out it's just precession. It's perfectly regular, it's just that in the case of something the size & slow angular velocity of the earth, it takes a really long time to change.
When you spin a top, you can see the axis of spin describe a circle. This is precession.
Likewise as the Earth rotates, there is precession. Also, as the earth orbits the sun, there is precession. These have cycles on the order of tens of thousands of years. Both can affect the climate by changing the angle of sunlight. There are cycles on the order of millions of years long in which the two effects both affect the climate the same way, and so produce a bigger net effect.
I guess wobble is an accurate term, except that to me it implies something irregular. In a system as big and isolated as the Earth's orbit around the Sun, or the Earth's rotation, momentum is king, and very little could cause an irregular change. These changes are just precession, and they're perfectly regular.
I am not a physicist, but I do have a Bachelor of Science in Physics.
In fact, the scene they aired did not have an actual kiss between Uhura and Kirk. It just looked like it. I heard Shatner talking about it on some talk show - he was disappointed that they didn't actually get the first interracial kiss on TV.
I won't comment on your other points - I never use Yahoo, so I can't evaluate their services versus Google's. However, regarding point 5...
Is it worse to be a hypocrite than to do evil? Yahoo has done all the evil that you accuse Google of. Their lack of a claim to "not do evil" is no defense whatsoever in my book.
I think everyone should hold themselves to the highest standard. Sometimes you will fail to meet that standard. You should recognize your failures and try to do better. To hold yourself to no ethical standard certainly doesn't excuse ethical lapses - it just makes them more frequent.
A magnetic field doesn't get "used up" by applying force to charged particles. I mean, it is possible for a magnetized object to become demagnetized by either the small magnetized bits ceasing to be aligned (in permanent magnets) or by the cessation of current (in electromagnets). But a particle moving through a magnetic field experiences a force at right angles to the motion and the field, and that force doesn't use up any energy from the magnetic field. (Work is done by a force acting over a distance, and when the force is at right angles to the movement it causes. This is the same reason no energy is taken from the earth's gravitational field (if that even means anything) by an object in orbit.)
My problem is not that you're claiming that a magnetic field can go away, and yield energy when it does - that's true. But that has nothing to do with the inability to extract infinite energy from moving something around in a magnetic field.
Another note - charged subatomic particles (and some uncharged) have a magnetic field that is utterly constant. This wouldn't be possible if "magnetic energy" was used up somehow by a magnetic field applying force to a charged particle.
When you "pull energy from a magnetic field", it generally comes from energy of motion of the objects involved, not from some kind of energy in the magnetic field. E.g. the energy of motion of electrons is confered to move some axle in a motor, or energy of motion of permanent magnets is confered to move electrons in a generator.
Yeah, I liked the car fine. My wife, however, didn't much care for it. It was underpowered and as you said, prone to need massaging just to keep it running at all.
So, anyway, another "feature" of this car was that the pneumatic arm for the hatchback was out, so we kept a sawn off broomhandle in the hatch to prop up the hatchback. One day, about 95 degrees out and 95% humidity, the car just stalled while my wife was driving down the road. She was 6 months pregnant and I was in Virginia, as we were in the process of moving and I started my job early. So, she got out of the car and opened the hatch to get the broomstick. Her intention was to beat the car with the stick until she felt better!
Just then, someone pulled off the road to help her, so she just politely accepted their offer and put the stick back. They got her going again. She didn't mention her intentions to them, although she and I got a good laugh out of it later.
Speaking of hard drives
on
Computer Voodoo?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
My dad works for the Arkansas Washington County Road Service, and he is something of a computer nut, so he would 'recover' the computers they were throwing out. I was pretty profoundly poor and also a computer nut, so I would take some of the stuff off his hands.
Anyway, I used to have three or four MFM hard drives in various states of disrepair. (I think they were 40 *meg* hard drives, but I only had a controller to control up to 20 meg, to give an idea how old this hardware was.) One by one they died, until finally only one was left. When it gave up the ghost, it would spin up, then immediately spin back down. I dug into it and found some connections I could short across while it was spinning up and then break the connection, and it would keep running. I was too poor to want to go spend $1 on a pushbutton, so I just had two wires hanging out of the front of the computer that I held together while booting the PC. I ran it that way for over a year...
A non-computer story, but more interesting one, is of an old Ford Escort I used to have. The starter went out on it, and, again, I was poor, so I dug into it. I finally figured out that the relay was kicking out too far and shorting out against the housing, so I duct taped a kitchen sponge to the inside of the relay housing and put it back together. I never had a problem with the starter again for the 2 years I had the car.
That same car later had the fuel pump go out. When it went out, I asked my stepdad if I should check to make sure the pump was out instead of a wiring or power problem, and he said nah, it's the pump. So I bought a replacement - it didn't help. So, I hunted around under the hood until I found some leads that were hot when the key was on, but not when it was off, and I used ties to secure an extension cord from the leads to the fuel pump. The car ran fine.
That was in the summer. When winter came along, one day I needed to defrost the front window as I was driving down the road. I flipped the vent from dash to defrost, and the engine stopped running. (I was doing 50 mph down the road at the time.) I flipped it back to vent, and the engine started right back up again.
Somehow I had found a wire that only gave power when the vent was not on defrost. I never fixed it, just kept the inside warm enough that it didn't frost over.
Now I'm a software developer and not poor. I virtually never fix (or jerry rig) anything myself, other than software and the occasional computer hardware issue.
Do you mind sending me an email at bobbymartin at hotmail dot com? My wife and I are preparing to home school our children and I would love to get a list of resources from a techie who has apparently been successful at home schooling.
Just a ping email is all I'm looking for. Then I can give you more detail, and ask for a list of resources.
Since when does "stop doing the wrong thing" imply appeasement? Just because your enemy tells you "stop doing the wrong thing" doesn't mean you shouldn't stop doing the wrong thing!
I am always astounded to hear people show a willingness to even use the word "moral" while defending their group's right to kill (or fund the killing of) whoever they please, for whatever reason.
The point was that the US (and, in fact, everyone) should stop doing the wrong thing. Even if your enemy is telling you to stop doing that thing. It's not appeasement, it's demonstrating that you're civilized.
I happen to agree with you that we should also take reasonable measures to secure our safety, including attacking those who attack us, when it does in fact secure our safety. I also happen to believe that much of the US is caught up in a blind panic over an exceedingly minor threat (terrorism) and we're not responding in an intelligent, civilized, or often even a sane way.
Frankly, I don't think attacking Iraq or supporting Israel militarily helps the US in any substantial way - certainly not enough to warrant the cost in lives, money, and worldwide ill-will.
Your point appears to be that fixing the errors in yourself is fundamentally wrong. You are fundamentally wrong.
I agree with your general point, but the main reason an SUV is safer in a collision with a mini is that the SUV had a lot smaller total change in velocity. Both cars are presumably good at crunching to stretch out the delta v over a longer t. I don't think SUVs are built with more crash protection - just bigger engines & heavier frames.
That last sentence is speculation, though; I'm not speaking from any real knowledge. Other than the knowledge that SUVs aren't really built for safety. Read the death statistics (as compared with % of vehicles on the road that are SUVs) to confirm that.
Slashdot Mirror
So your argument is that you and people like you feel bad if we respond to threats proportionally to the actual damage they cause, so people like us should just shut up complaining about all of the money wasted that could have saved 10x as many lives?
Brilliant post. Thanks!
Now, I would say that I believe that it would be better for handguns never to have been legal than it is to allow legal handguns, but that's not a choice we have in the US, and I have no good numbers to back that up. Even if we could magically eliminate all handguns in the US, though, I still think your options are far better, and they're clearly supported by the numbers.
Unless my crappy college german is much mistaken, "There is" is "Es gibt" in german, not "Da ist".
Of course, often the very charm of "Tengo gato loco in mis pantalones" style sayings is the wrongness of them, but I still can't resist pointing it out...
I know I'm repeating what others have said, but it's worth another try.
Anything you use in your life was only built because someone copied an idea from someone else, millions of times over. As Newton said, "if I have seen farther than others, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants". You want to make it illegal to stand on their shoulders. I (and you) should be paying to lease a patent to the inventors of language, the wheel, writing, textiles, as well as the inventors of the millions or billions of improvements to those fundamental ideas to bring them to where they are today. Your point of view is very clearly crazy.
In fact, though, from a libertarian point of view, I can copy a song in my house and give it to my friend, who can take it to their house and listen to it, and give a copy to their friend, ad infinitum. There is no effect on the outside world. The only way to prevent that would be to have publicly accessible cameras in everyone's house. That seems to conflict pretty strongly with the libertarian "freedom from central authority/outside force" philosophy.
You had me going there for a while, but this is just totally wrong. And it's blatantly wrong in favor of your viewpoint, which makes me re-read everything else you've written, filtering for strong bias.
Higher acceleration doesn't mean more energy consumed. The amount of energy to get from one speed to another is exactly the same (ignoring friction) regardless of acceleration. Different motors have optimal efficiency at different accelerations, so it might actually be more efficient to accelerate faster.
If you have regenerative braking, it may not matter to have more mass (no pun intended). You invest more energy into speeding up, but you get it all back (subject to inefficiencies in the regeneration). And, of course, you conveniently ignore the fact that a regular car has even more weight to accelerate (with no regenerative braking) than the electric car. So what if the batteries weigh something? A gasoline car lugs that big ol' combustion engine around, and it weighs something, too.
>> Regarding the internal structure of the Earth, it will have zero effect on the orbit. Unless mass enters or leaves the system,
>> the center of gravity of the earth will orbit around the Sun in the same way, regardless of the relatively very minor variations
>> in density within the Earth.
>
> We were talking about precession.
We were talking about precession, and I was talking about orbital precession. Internal structure of Earth will have zero effect on the orbital precession.
A flow that involves 100 billion tons moving in a circle from the core of Earth to near the surface won't affect rotational precession either - it has to involve redistribution of mass, not just redistribution of matter. By which I mean to say that it doesn't matter that the atoms move from one place to another if an equal mass is moving in to replace them.
Internal structure certainly could impact rotational precession, though - good point.
What a load! So, it's not censorship if the librarian decides not to include books because he finds them objectionable - after all, you can always go to a different library! It's not censorship if your country bans printing certain books - you can always pick them up in another country!
When anyone responsible for providing media omits some media because they find the content objectionable, that's censorship.
Definition of censor
I knew essentially nothing about nutation before your post. Thanks a lot!
Um, everything I've ever read by anyone who studies climate for a living says that global warming is a real concern, and one that could impact billions of people. I agree that there's a lot of bad science reporting, and that some people use it to promote an agenda. That means you ignore that bad reporting - you don't assume that other, legitimate information supporting the same conclusion is wrong.
Fleece a nation, my ass. The ones fleecing us are the people telling us that destructive behavior is OK as long as it's someone else who feels the repercussions, or the repercussions are delayed.
A google for "scientific studies global warming" (which is the most agenda agnostic way I could think of to search for it) turns up a bunch of articles like this: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
Yeah, I was aware of the 26 kyear rotational axis precession (and the switch between Polaris and some other star, was it Altair? I'm no astronomer.) I think I had also thought about the possibility of orbital precession before, I think.
What threw me off was them calling it a 'wobble' and acting like it's news. I had also never thought about the climate impacts, although they seem obvious now.
I don't think the other planets are likely to have very much effect, but I agree they will have some. It would be pretty easy to figure the relative forces due to gravity from, say, Jupiter versus the Sun, but I'm at work...
Regarding the internal structure of the Earth, it will have zero effect on the orbit. Unless mass enters or leaves the system, the center of gravity of the earth will orbit around the Sun in the same way, regardless of the relatively very minor variations in density within the Earth.
The Earth's internal structure could affect the rotation, but only if you had massive amounts of material moving from the surface to the core, or vice versa, or massive amounts of material rotating relative to the rest of the Earth. The first two are possible, I suppose, although they seem unlikely. The last option seems basically impossible since there would be huge friction forces encouraging all of the material to rotate at the same rate.
The whole tone of this /. post freaked me out. There's no way for there to be 'irregularities' in the Earth's orbit without something with both really high mass and really high velocity interacting with the earth or the sun.
So I read up on Milankovich cycles, and it turns out it's just precession. It's perfectly regular, it's just that in the case of something the size & slow angular velocity of the earth, it takes a really long time to change.
When you spin a top, you can see the axis of spin describe a circle. This is precession.
Likewise as the Earth rotates, there is precession. Also, as the earth orbits the sun, there is precession. These have cycles on the order of tens of thousands of years. Both can affect the climate by changing the angle of sunlight. There are cycles on the order of millions of years long in which the two effects both affect the climate the same way, and so produce a bigger net effect.
I guess wobble is an accurate term, except that to me it implies something irregular. In a system as big and isolated as the Earth's orbit around the Sun, or the Earth's rotation, momentum is king, and very little could cause an irregular change. These changes are just precession, and they're perfectly regular.
I am not a physicist, but I do have a Bachelor of Science in Physics.
Another issue that dies out routinely in the press, although it recurs every year:
The *million people* who die of malaria each year in Africa.
Just curious... mid six figures is ~$500,000 per year. Do you really make that? If so, teach me your trick!
Per the Wikipedia, the kiss wasn't real.
I have seen other sites that claim it was. I dunno.
In fact, the scene they aired did not have an actual kiss between Uhura and Kirk. It just looked like it. I heard Shatner talking about it on some talk show - he was disappointed that they didn't actually get the first interracial kiss on TV.
I won't comment on your other points - I never use Yahoo, so I can't evaluate their services versus Google's. However, regarding point 5...
Is it worse to be a hypocrite than to do evil? Yahoo has done all the evil that you accuse Google of. Their lack of a claim to "not do evil" is no defense whatsoever in my book.
I think everyone should hold themselves to the highest standard. Sometimes you will fail to meet that standard. You should recognize your failures and try to do better. To hold yourself to no ethical standard certainly doesn't excuse ethical lapses - it just makes them more frequent.
A magnetic field doesn't get "used up" by applying force to charged particles. I mean, it is possible for a magnetized object to become demagnetized by either the small magnetized bits ceasing to be aligned (in permanent magnets) or by the cessation of current (in electromagnets). But a particle moving through a magnetic field experiences a force at right angles to the motion and the field, and that force doesn't use up any energy from the magnetic field. (Work is done by a force acting over a distance, and when the force is at right angles to the movement it causes. This is the same reason no energy is taken from the earth's gravitational field (if that even means anything) by an object in orbit.)
My problem is not that you're claiming that a magnetic field can go away, and yield energy when it does - that's true. But that has nothing to do with the inability to extract infinite energy from moving something around in a magnetic field.
Another note - charged subatomic particles (and some uncharged) have a magnetic field that is utterly constant. This wouldn't be possible if "magnetic energy" was used up somehow by a magnetic field applying force to a charged particle.
When you "pull energy from a magnetic field", it generally comes from energy of motion of the objects involved, not from some kind of energy in the magnetic field. E.g. the energy of motion of electrons is confered to move some axle in a motor, or energy of motion of permanent magnets is confered to move electrons in a generator.
Yeah, I liked the car fine. My wife, however, didn't much care for it. It was underpowered and as you said, prone to need massaging just to keep it running at all.
So, anyway, another "feature" of this car was that the pneumatic arm for the hatchback was out, so we kept a sawn off broomhandle in the hatch to prop up the hatchback. One day, about 95 degrees out and 95% humidity, the car just stalled while my wife was driving down the road. She was 6 months pregnant and I was in Virginia, as we were in the process of moving and I started my job early. So, she got out of the car and opened the hatch to get the broomstick. Her intention was to beat the car with the stick until she felt better!
Just then, someone pulled off the road to help her, so she just politely accepted their offer and put the stick back. They got her going again. She didn't mention her intentions to them, although she and I got a good laugh out of it later.
My dad works for the Arkansas Washington County Road Service, and he is something of a computer nut, so he would 'recover' the computers they were throwing out. I was pretty profoundly poor and also a computer nut, so I would take some of the stuff off his hands.
Anyway, I used to have three or four MFM hard drives in various states of disrepair. (I think they were 40 *meg* hard drives, but I only had a controller to control up to 20 meg, to give an idea how old this hardware was.) One by one they died, until finally only one was left. When it gave up the ghost, it would spin up, then immediately spin back down. I dug into it and found some connections I could short across while it was spinning up and then break the connection, and it would keep running. I was too poor to want to go spend $1 on a pushbutton, so I just had two wires hanging out of the front of the computer that I held together while booting the PC. I ran it that way for over a year...
A non-computer story, but more interesting one, is of an old Ford Escort I used to have. The starter went out on it, and, again, I was poor, so I dug into it. I finally figured out that the relay was kicking out too far and shorting out against the housing, so I duct taped a kitchen sponge to the inside of the relay housing and put it back together. I never had a problem with the starter again for the 2 years I had the car.
That same car later had the fuel pump go out. When it went out, I asked my stepdad if I should check to make sure the pump was out instead of a wiring or power problem, and he said nah, it's the pump. So I bought a replacement - it didn't help. So, I hunted around under the hood until I found some leads that were hot when the key was on, but not when it was off, and I used ties to secure an extension cord from the leads to the fuel pump. The car ran fine.
That was in the summer. When winter came along, one day I needed to defrost the front window as I was driving down the road. I flipped the vent from dash to defrost, and the engine stopped running. (I was doing 50 mph down the road at the time.) I flipped it back to vent, and the engine started right back up again.
Somehow I had found a wire that only gave power when the vent was not on defrost. I never fixed it, just kept the inside warm enough that it didn't frost over.
Now I'm a software developer and not poor. I virtually never fix (or jerry rig) anything myself, other than software and the occasional computer hardware issue.
Grandparent hasn't thought things through thoroughly enough - anti-drew gives a clear way to do what the GP says can't be done.
Do you mind sending me an email at bobbymartin at hotmail dot com? My wife and I are preparing to home school our children and I would love to get a list of resources from a techie who has apparently been successful at home schooling.
Just a ping email is all I'm looking for. Then I can give you more detail, and ask for a list of resources.
Thanks a million!
Bobby
Since when does "stop doing the wrong thing" imply appeasement? Just because your enemy tells you "stop doing the wrong thing" doesn't mean you shouldn't stop doing the wrong thing!
I am always astounded to hear people show a willingness to even use the word "moral" while defending their group's right to kill (or fund the killing of) whoever they please, for whatever reason.
The point was that the US (and, in fact, everyone) should stop doing the wrong thing. Even if your enemy is telling you to stop doing that thing. It's not appeasement, it's demonstrating that you're civilized.
I happen to agree with you that we should also take reasonable measures to secure our safety, including attacking those who attack us, when it does in fact secure our safety. I also happen to believe that much of the US is caught up in a blind panic over an exceedingly minor threat (terrorism) and we're not responding in an intelligent, civilized, or often even a sane way.
Frankly, I don't think attacking Iraq or supporting Israel militarily helps the US in any substantial way - certainly not enough to warrant the cost in lives, money, and worldwide ill-will.
Your point appears to be that fixing the errors in yourself is fundamentally wrong. You are fundamentally wrong.
That is only legal if you use digital home audio recording equipment, not if you use a general PC.
It's also legal if you do it with cassette tapes.
And I think it's only legal if you borrow legal media from someone, not if you get it from a random download on the net.
I agree with your general point, but the main reason an SUV is safer in a collision with a mini is that the SUV had a lot smaller total change in velocity. Both cars are presumably good at crunching to stretch out the delta v over a longer t. I don't think SUVs are built with more crash protection - just bigger engines & heavier frames.
That last sentence is speculation, though; I'm not speaking from any real knowledge. Other than the knowledge that SUVs aren't really built for safety. Read the death statistics (as compared with % of vehicles on the road that are SUVs) to confirm that.