monopolies don't care about customers and charge whatever the hell they want, and companies that have to compete at some level will exhibit concern about what their customers want. The only variation on this theme would be a heavily-regulated monopoly (ala the old Bell System) that has enforced service standards. This is hardly news.
Too bad that the FCC doesn't understand something so basic to any economy. Somebody in law enforcement really should take a look at the Commissioners' bank records for the past few years.
No, it's because that CFO is a sociopath who is incapable of empathy, or feeling remorse or guilt. Most organizational hierarchies (whether they be corporate, military, governmental, academic, you name it) tend to select for the most unscrupulous, because those are the people that focus on moving up the pay scale rather than doing their jobs. They are also very hard to spot, because an experienced sociopath learns the behaviors that will get it what it wants (they're exceptional actors for the most part.) The only reason that such organizations function well is if there are efficient mechanisms in place to discourage bad behavior: sociopaths can do a good job if they know that they'll get bitch-slapped for screwing up. What's been happening to corporate America over the past few decades is the removal of penalties for failure. Except in extreme cases like Worldcom and Enron, there is simply no real punishment for a CEO/CFO, C-anything that raids the company coffers for personal profit or simply runs the company into the ground.
Another part of the problem is that the laws and systems that provide corporate governance were put in place a long time ago. The country and its people had a very different view of ethics and morality in those times. I mean, where do CEO's and the like come from? Who are the people that invest money in their companies? Well, they come from us, and our own moral fiber (or lack of it) is being reflected in the nature and behavior of the corporations we invest in.
It's like the old joke about corporations being like septic tanks... the really big chunks rise to the top.
Perhaps it's time to have a technical court, where people like this kid really can be tried by a jury of their peers. For the most part, I've not been happy with the way the judiciary in the U.S. has been handling technical issues. The truth is, the fear of technology (which equates to fear of the unknown for most people) combined with resentment towards those who can use technology effectively, often results in punishments that far outweigh the crime. In this case, it sounds like the kid got off lightly. I'm rather surprised by that, since he was caught attacking DoD systems. First offense and all that, I guess. Good thing it didn't happen in Texas. The judge would probably have just shot him.
Well, I do live in the U.S. and while life here is hardly as black as it's portrayed here on Slashdot (although, if you actually open your eyes and peer through the shiny film of complacency we all seem to have, an encroaching police state is evident) I'm very glad that I don't have a valid passport at the moment and my company can't send me anywhere overseas. Really, my desire to travel has been pretty much eliminated by all this post 9/11 homeland insecurity stuff. I know some people that regularly travel on business and, depending upon where you go (and where you happen to come back) it can get pretty darned unpleasant. No thanks.
Actually, my girlfriend is from Nigeria and I hear that all the time about different foodstuffs. I've never had an African banana so I guess I don't know what I'm missing.
But I disagree with you about flavor having no value to corporations. Anything that makes their customers like their products more has value: the only question to them is how to extract the most money from said consumers in exchange for that value. Believe me, when they figure out how to gengineer flavor (perhaps by splicing in a few genes from those African bananas you were referring to) they absolutely will sell better tasting fruits and vegetables to us and charge us handsomely for the privilege. Tiered pricing, as it were. Welcome to corporate America.
Interesting. The United States and the Soviet Union pursued a course of Mutual Assured Destruction for decades, and were roundly critized by, well... pretty much the rest of the world for it. Nice to know that other peoples, when faced with the EXACT SAME DILEMMA have reached the same conclusion: if I have to glow in the dark for ten thousand years you're gonna glow brighter. There really is no other short term solution that makes any sense at all when thermonuclear weapons are involved. If an ideologically murderous nation is threatening you with a (to quote Lewis Black) nuclear-fuck-holocaust you can a. depend upon their better nature and hope they don't nuke your ass (stupid and probably fatal) or b. build enough weapons yourself to hold them at bay (expensive but survivable.)
Here's one important point, however. M.A.D. only works if the enemy's leadership actually grasps what a nuclear-fuck-holocaust is all about. Nobody has seen a megaton-equivalent blast in a long time, maybe too long. Perhaps if we were still doing nuclear tests we could invite a few of Iran's top officials to witness one, simultaneously pointing out that the U.S. has thousands of the things. I mean, we've spent trillions on our weapons programs, weapons whose primary function is to sit in their silos and deter foreign governments from doing anything really stupid. Might as well use them for that purpose. It's better than having to actually drop them on somebody.
The Soviets, totalitarian empire-builders that they were, were rational enough to care that we could kill them all if we really wanted to do so. Consequently, they never dropped anything big on us, and we never dropped anything big on them. Hideously expensive as it was, as a foreign policy M.A.D. worked just fine, for that matter is still working. This is the problem as I see it: can we trust that the fear of swift and total radioactive retribution is sufficient to sway Iran's "government" from attempting thermonuclear genocide? Other posters have asked what right does the world have to prevent Iran (or any other nation with imperial ambitions and/or dangerous ideological imperatives) from building atomic bombs. That's your answer... you can build them but God help you if we think you're crazy enough to use them.
{sigh} So far as I'm concerned America may be fucked in its collective head but the rest of the planet is just as screwed up if not more so.
Doesn't make much difference... nations will do what it takes to defend their sovereignty, if they have the power to do so. Israel certainly has the power, and if pushed a little too hard (say, by an Iranian nuke going off in their territory) the results to the whole region will be catastrophic. Some of the other Arab states should be pointing that fact out to their Iranian brethren.
Too bad that that has been the primary consequence of modern industrialized agriculture: we have lost huge numbers of varieties of fruits, vegetables, grains, etc.
True enough, I suppose, but feeding billions of people is a non-trivial task.
And we can't engineer flavor back in; genetic engineering only gives you resistance and other simple properties.
Um... why would you say that? Is flavor a magical property of fruits and vegetables that is somehow unrelated to the genome? Right now this is a relatively new field and the manufacturers are focusing on valuable traits such as disease/pest resistance. That makes sense because there's a lot of money in it, and they want their R&D dollars back. But to say that we can't supply a little genetic diversity, give that tomato back that robust flavor... well, I think that's just too sweeping a statement. All we are talking about here is the expression of genetic attributes: I don't know whether or not the geneticists involved in this work currently know how to modify the flavor of a food plant, but odds are that they will soon. And that will probably tip the balance of public opinion in favor of genetically modified crops. Right now, it's hard to convince the public of the benefits of this work because all they see is food that they claim doesn't taste as good, but that saves the farmer's money. As soon as they start to see some real benefits ("Damn, honey, where did you get this cantalope? It tastes great!" "Down at the corner store in the 'genie foods' section, dear.") people will stop bitching and start eating. You can argue 'til you're blue in the face about whether that is, or is not, a good idea... but it'll happen. Let's face it: American consumers aren't particularly bright and rarely exercise good judgment. Not that our media or our lawmakers are at all helpful in that regard. "Genetically Modified Frankenfoods On Sale at Safeway! Run for your lives!" Phoeey.
Your comment applies equally well to any field which becomes dominated by a few large players. The music industry is one, the movie industry another, and operating systems... well. All of them have suffered from a lack of diversity.
Question: How much genetic modification do you think occurs naturally and continuously "in the wild"?
Answer: a hell of a lot more than we're doing.
Mother Nature is modifying the genomes of millions of species as we sit here typing these silly messages back and forth. Whether it be natural selection, spontaneous gene uptake, DNA replication error, viruses, radiation and/or chemical assault, indeed any of the innumerable mutagenic factors that exist in our environment... well. Life changes over time, it just does. Sometimes those changes are subtle and go unnoticed, at others they are simply ineffective and die out, other times they cause substantial damage. But to presume that the biosphere is somehow stable and safe unless we muck with it is just disingenuous, but that's what a lot of anti-GM activists would like you to believe.
The real concern with genetically modified crops is that when the beneficial traits in the GM crops do get into the wild and start affecting non-GM crops, matters start to get complex. Less because of any supposed environmental impact than of the need to bring in lawyers to prevent illicit use of the manufacturer's "intellectual genetic property" (which is a whole 'nother can of worms.) Ultimately, I suspect that companies such as Monsanto will have to come up with effective methods to limit the spread of their products just to keep the gravy train flowing. I mean, once their "improved" plants are everywhere nobody will bother buying any. Besides, these guys are absolute hardasses when it comes to allowing anyone to profit by growing their crops, unless they pay the appropriate tithes.
The problems we see with genetically-modified crops are, at this point, really more political and economic than environmental. That's not to say that will always be the case, it's certainly (remotely) possible that some gengineering firm might release a Frankenplant that will eat us all to the bone. That would serve us right, I suppose. But the reality isn't quite so frightening. Besides, there are far greater threats to our food supply right now... I'm more concerned about Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease than I am a genetically-tweaked ear of corn.
I am no terrorist, but I pray for the day Islam brings your fith to its knees.
Maybe you're not... but I get the feeling it wouldn't take much to tip you over the edge. Besides, the Middle East doesn't need "the atomic bomb, or chemical weapons, or weapons of mass destruction" either, but you have them. Hypocrites like you are just pissed off because we got them first and have more of them. I guess that would irritate me too, but at least I'm not calling for my Money God to turn you into a molten radioactive lake. He'd like that too, because you annoy Him... but not enough Americans can stomach the idea of genocide to let Him do it. Lucky for you, Bucko.
Frankly I enjoy reading the opinions of people from other countries: they have a lot to contribute to these discussions. But I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your barbaric, bigoted remarks to yourself. So I have a better idea: you fuck off.
I can't (and don't want to) imagine what the average Slashdotter looks like in the shower. But another poster linked to an outfit that sells just the sort of thing you're talking about.
... which would need to be covered in a mesh in order to make the whole building a farady cage.
Not necessarily. I would imagine that some kind of transparent conductive coating could be sprayed onto the glass, and reapplied periodically. For example, my car's windshield has a conductive layer that is used as the radio antenna (it also inconveniently blocks my tollway transponder, something I did not foresee when I ordered the thing.) I'm sure that there would be plenty of window manufacturers that would be happy to sandwich a clear conductive layer in their products were there a demand for this.
Yeah, you're right it's not that hard to provide a decently secure wireless setup... but a whole heck of a lot of businesses don't seem to have a clue how to do it. And even if they have an efficient IT department, there's always the idiot that jacks a WRT54G into his office Ethernet port and sticks it under his desk. A giant Faraday cage would provide at least some protection against external snooping and user stupidity. There was an article posted here on Slashdot a while ago about a couple of guys that built a shotgun antenna and went couch-fishing for bluetooth signals in office buildings. They picked up a whole lot of things that they shouldn't have been able to.
Classic. I complain about a particular class of four-wheeled headcases and one of them comes back and demonstrates precisely what I was talking about.
Personally, I drive a full-length mini-van, which I've found is far more pragmatic (certainly I get better mileage than many SUVs and have a ton of cargo space.) The reason I drive a mini-van rather than an SUV is that I do have a need to haul equipment and people around now and then, but have no need to prove anything to anyone about anything.
And don't try to justify your desire to be the biggest goddamn passenger vehicle around in order to feed your obviously massive ego by telling me how "practical" your SUV is. There's no "utility" in SUV. It's strictly a luxury vehicle for men with tiny packages and women who wish they had even that. Truth is, Affliction, that you picked the perfect nick for an SUV driver, because those machines and the criminally-negligent sociopaths that drive them are a blight on the highways. They're a danger to themselves and others... I kept track for about six months of the type of vehicles I would see involved in traffic accidents to and from work (at the time I commuted about 75 miles daily on the expressway.) Fully 80% of the accidents I saw involved SUVs, often multiple SUVs. That's because, as a class, SUV owners don't fucking know how to drive and worse, use the relative difference in the size of their cars to intimidate drivers of smaller vehicles. I don't particular care what your particular mode of transportation is, whether it's called a "car", a "truck", a "van" or an "SUV", but the unfortunate reality is that SUVs are driven by a class of people who are, by and large, discourteous, threatening, and generally unpleasant to be around. Did I mention sociopath?
I'm sorry (actually, I'm not, because you sure sound like a typical SUV owner) but if you don't want to be put in the category of "rolling four-wheeled dick" your best bet is simply not to drive one. A friend of mine came up with a solution for the problem of Excursions and Yukons and all the rest of those overpowered, underbrained examples of conspicuous consumption: require CV (Commercial Vehicle) licenses in order to drive them. Maybe the extra training required will teach you little pricks something about safety and the fact that you don't own the goddamn road.
Slashdot Mirror
or did Youtube just get Slashdotted?
monopolies don't care about customers and charge whatever the hell they want, and companies that have to compete at some level will exhibit concern about what their customers want. The only variation on this theme would be a heavily-regulated monopoly (ala the old Bell System) that has enforced service standards. This is hardly news.
Too bad that the FCC doesn't understand something so basic to any economy. Somebody in law enforcement really should take a look at the Commissioners' bank records for the past few years.
No, it's because that CFO is a sociopath who is incapable of empathy, or feeling remorse or guilt. Most organizational hierarchies (whether they be corporate, military, governmental, academic, you name it) tend to select for the most unscrupulous, because those are the people that focus on moving up the pay scale rather than doing their jobs. They are also very hard to spot, because an experienced sociopath learns the behaviors that will get it what it wants (they're exceptional actors for the most part.) The only reason that such organizations function well is if there are efficient mechanisms in place to discourage bad behavior: sociopaths can do a good job if they know that they'll get bitch-slapped for screwing up. What's been happening to corporate America over the past few decades is the removal of penalties for failure. Except in extreme cases like Worldcom and Enron, there is simply no real punishment for a CEO/CFO, C-anything that raids the company coffers for personal profit or simply runs the company into the ground.
... the really big chunks rise to the top.
Another part of the problem is that the laws and systems that provide corporate governance were put in place a long time ago. The country and its people had a very different view of ethics and morality in those times. I mean, where do CEO's and the like come from? Who are the people that invest money in their companies? Well, they come from us, and our own moral fiber (or lack of it) is being reflected in the nature and behavior of the corporations we invest in.
It's like the old joke about corporations being like septic tanks
No problem ... I have knees but I try not to be a jerk.
Perhaps it's time to have a technical court, where people like this kid really can be tried by a jury of their peers. For the most part, I've not been happy with the way the judiciary in the U.S. has been handling technical issues. The truth is, the fear of technology (which equates to fear of the unknown for most people) combined with resentment towards those who can use technology effectively, often results in punishments that far outweigh the crime. In this case, it sounds like the kid got off lightly. I'm rather surprised by that, since he was caught attacking DoD systems. First offense and all that, I guess. Good thing it didn't happen in Texas. The judge would probably have just shot him.
Well, I do live in the U.S. and while life here is hardly as black as it's portrayed here on Slashdot (although, if you actually open your eyes and peer through the shiny film of complacency we all seem to have, an encroaching police state is evident) I'm very glad that I don't have a valid passport at the moment and my company can't send me anywhere overseas. Really, my desire to travel has been pretty much eliminated by all this post 9/11 homeland insecurity stuff. I know some people that regularly travel on business and, depending upon where you go (and where you happen to come back) it can get pretty darned unpleasant. No thanks.
I know, I was simplifying ... perhaps I should have just said "neighboring Middle-Eastern nations". Is that better?
Or badges. We most definitely don't need badges.
The African one doesn't taste like card-board.
Actually, my girlfriend is from Nigeria and I hear that all the time about different foodstuffs. I've never had an African banana so I guess I don't know what I'm missing.
But I disagree with you about flavor having no value to corporations. Anything that makes their customers like their products more has value: the only question to them is how to extract the most money from said consumers in exchange for that value. Believe me, when they figure out how to gengineer flavor (perhaps by splicing in a few genes from those African bananas you were referring to) they absolutely will sell better tasting fruits and vegetables to us and charge us handsomely for the privilege. Tiered pricing, as it were. Welcome to corporate America.
Interesting. The United States and the Soviet Union pursued a course of Mutual Assured Destruction for decades, and were roundly critized by, well ... pretty much the rest of the world for it. Nice to know that other peoples, when faced with the EXACT SAME DILEMMA have reached the same conclusion: if I have to glow in the dark for ten thousand years you're gonna glow brighter. There really is no other short term solution that makes any sense at all when thermonuclear weapons are involved. If an ideologically murderous nation is threatening you with a (to quote Lewis Black) nuclear-fuck-holocaust you can a. depend upon their better nature and hope they don't nuke your ass (stupid and probably fatal) or b. build enough weapons yourself to hold them at bay (expensive but survivable.)
... you can build them but God help you if we think you're crazy enough to use them.
Here's one important point, however. M.A.D. only works if the enemy's leadership actually grasps what a nuclear-fuck-holocaust is all about. Nobody has seen a megaton-equivalent blast in a long time, maybe too long. Perhaps if we were still doing nuclear tests we could invite a few of Iran's top officials to witness one, simultaneously pointing out that the U.S. has thousands of the things. I mean, we've spent trillions on our weapons programs, weapons whose primary function is to sit in their silos and deter foreign governments from doing anything really stupid. Might as well use them for that purpose. It's better than having to actually drop them on somebody.
The Soviets, totalitarian empire-builders that they were, were rational enough to care that we could kill them all if we really wanted to do so. Consequently, they never dropped anything big on us, and we never dropped anything big on them. Hideously expensive as it was, as a foreign policy M.A.D. worked just fine, for that matter is still working. This is the problem as I see it: can we trust that the fear of swift and total radioactive retribution is sufficient to sway Iran's "government" from attempting thermonuclear genocide? Other posters have asked what right does the world have to prevent Iran (or any other nation with imperial ambitions and/or dangerous ideological imperatives) from building atomic bombs. That's your answer
{sigh} So far as I'm concerned America may be fucked in its collective head but the rest of the planet is just as screwed up if not more so.
I rest my case.
Doesn't make much difference ... nations will do what it takes to defend their sovereignty, if they have the power to do so. Israel certainly has the power, and if pushed a little too hard (say, by an Iranian nuke going off in their territory) the results to the whole region will be catastrophic. Some of the other Arab states should be pointing that fact out to their Iranian brethren.
Too bad that that has been the primary consequence of modern industrialized agriculture: we have lost huge numbers of varieties of fruits, vegetables, grains, etc.
... why would you say that? Is flavor a magical property of fruits and vegetables that is somehow unrelated to the genome? Right now this is a relatively new field and the manufacturers are focusing on valuable traits such as disease/pest resistance. That makes sense because there's a lot of money in it, and they want their R&D dollars back. But to say that we can't supply a little genetic diversity, give that tomato back that robust flavor ... well, I think that's just too sweeping a statement. All we are talking about here is the expression of genetic attributes: I don't know whether or not the geneticists involved in this work currently know how to modify the flavor of a food plant, but odds are that they will soon. And that will probably tip the balance of public opinion in favor of genetically modified crops. Right now, it's hard to convince the public of the benefits of this work because all they see is food that they claim doesn't taste as good, but that saves the farmer's money. As soon as they start to see some real benefits ("Damn, honey, where did you get this cantalope? It tastes great!" "Down at the corner store in the 'genie foods' section, dear.") people will stop bitching and start eating. You can argue 'til you're blue in the face about whether that is, or is not, a good idea ... but it'll happen. Let's face it: American consumers aren't particularly bright and rarely exercise good judgment. Not that our media or our lawmakers are at all helpful in that regard. "Genetically Modified Frankenfoods On Sale at Safeway! Run for your lives!" Phoeey.
True enough, I suppose, but feeding billions of people is a non-trivial task.
And we can't engineer flavor back in; genetic engineering only gives you resistance and other simple properties.
Um
Hey buddy, I never pay for it. What's that? A computer game? Oh ... sorry.
You know, we really need a (Score: -10000000, Delete This Shit) mod.
Your comment applies equally well to any field which becomes dominated by a few large players. The music industry is one, the movie industry another, and operating systems ... well. All of them have suffered from a lack of diversity.
Question: How much genetic modification do you think occurs naturally and continuously "in the wild"?
... well. Life changes over time, it just does. Sometimes those changes are subtle and go unnoticed, at others they are simply ineffective and die out, other times they cause substantial damage. But to presume that the biosphere is somehow stable and safe unless we muck with it is just disingenuous, but that's what a lot of anti-GM activists would like you to believe.
... I'm more concerned about Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease than I am a genetically-tweaked ear of corn.
Answer: a hell of a lot more than we're doing.
Mother Nature is modifying the genomes of millions of species as we sit here typing these silly messages back and forth. Whether it be natural selection, spontaneous gene uptake, DNA replication error, viruses, radiation and/or chemical assault, indeed any of the innumerable mutagenic factors that exist in our environment
The real concern with genetically modified crops is that when the beneficial traits in the GM crops do get into the wild and start affecting non-GM crops, matters start to get complex. Less because of any supposed environmental impact than of the need to bring in lawyers to prevent illicit use of the manufacturer's "intellectual genetic property" (which is a whole 'nother can of worms.) Ultimately, I suspect that companies such as Monsanto will have to come up with effective methods to limit the spread of their products just to keep the gravy train flowing. I mean, once their "improved" plants are everywhere nobody will bother buying any. Besides, these guys are absolute hardasses when it comes to allowing anyone to profit by growing their crops, unless they pay the appropriate tithes.
The problems we see with genetically-modified crops are, at this point, really more political and economic than environmental. That's not to say that will always be the case, it's certainly (remotely) possible that some gengineering firm might release a Frankenplant that will eat us all to the bone. That would serve us right, I suppose. But the reality isn't quite so frightening. Besides, there are far greater threats to our food supply right now
I wonder if this will work as a defence when the RIAA come knocking?
Only if you try to sue them.
I am no terrorist, but I pray for the day Islam brings your fith to its knees.
... but I get the feeling it wouldn't take much to tip you over the edge. Besides, the Middle East doesn't need "the atomic bomb, or chemical weapons, or weapons of mass destruction" either, but you have them. Hypocrites like you are just pissed off because we got them first and have more of them. I guess that would irritate me too, but at least I'm not calling for my Money God to turn you into a molten radioactive lake. He'd like that too, because you annoy Him ... but not enough Americans can stomach the idea of genocide to let Him do it. Lucky for you, Bucko.
Maybe you're not
Frankly I enjoy reading the opinions of people from other countries: they have a lot to contribute to these discussions. But I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your barbaric, bigoted remarks to yourself. So I have a better idea: you fuck off.
A true Greenphone would be completely biodegradable.
I can't (and don't want to) imagine what the average Slashdotter looks like in the shower. But another poster linked to an outfit that sells just the sort of thing you're talking about.
... which would need to be covered in a mesh in order to make the whole building a farady cage.
... but a whole heck of a lot of businesses don't seem to have a clue how to do it. And even if they have an efficient IT department, there's always the idiot that jacks a WRT54G into his office Ethernet port and sticks it under his desk. A giant Faraday cage would provide at least some protection against external snooping and user stupidity. There was an article posted here on Slashdot a while ago about a couple of guys that built a shotgun antenna and went couch-fishing for bluetooth signals in office buildings. They picked up a whole lot of things that they shouldn't have been able to.
Not necessarily. I would imagine that some kind of transparent conductive coating could be sprayed onto the glass, and reapplied periodically. For example, my car's windshield has a conductive layer that is used as the radio antenna (it also inconveniently blocks my tollway transponder, something I did not foresee when I ordered the thing.) I'm sure that there would be plenty of window manufacturers that would be happy to sandwich a clear conductive layer in their products were there a demand for this.
Yeah, you're right it's not that hard to provide a decently secure wireless setup
For a second there I thought the headline read "Indiana State Logs Microsoft Out".
These people thrive in uninteresting public positions where they can do damage.
Like cockroaches and rats. They also have a lot of other things in common with cockroaches and rats.
whether or not the accompanying sex life survives is something else again.
Classic. I complain about a particular class of four-wheeled headcases and one of them comes back and demonstrates precisely what I was talking about.
... I kept track for about six months of the type of vehicles I would see involved in traffic accidents to and from work (at the time I commuted about 75 miles daily on the expressway.) Fully 80% of the accidents I saw involved SUVs, often multiple SUVs. That's because, as a class, SUV owners don't fucking know how to drive and worse, use the relative difference in the size of their cars to intimidate drivers of smaller vehicles. I don't particular care what your particular mode of transportation is, whether it's called a "car", a "truck", a "van" or an "SUV", but the unfortunate reality is that SUVs are driven by a class of people who are, by and large, discourteous, threatening, and generally unpleasant to be around. Did I mention sociopath?
Personally, I drive a full-length mini-van, which I've found is far more pragmatic (certainly I get better mileage than many SUVs and have a ton of cargo space.) The reason I drive a mini-van rather than an SUV is that I do have a need to haul equipment and people around now and then, but have no need to prove anything to anyone about anything.
And don't try to justify your desire to be the biggest goddamn passenger vehicle around in order to feed your obviously massive ego by telling me how "practical" your SUV is. There's no "utility" in SUV. It's strictly a luxury vehicle for men with tiny packages and women who wish they had even that. Truth is, Affliction, that you picked the perfect nick for an SUV driver, because those machines and the criminally-negligent sociopaths that drive them are a blight on the highways. They're a danger to themselves and others
I'm sorry (actually, I'm not, because you sure sound like a typical SUV owner) but if you don't want to be put in the category of "rolling four-wheeled dick" your best bet is simply not to drive one. A friend of mine came up with a solution for the problem of Excursions and Yukons and all the rest of those overpowered, underbrained examples of conspicuous consumption: require CV (Commercial Vehicle) licenses in order to drive them. Maybe the extra training required will teach you little pricks something about safety and the fact that you don't own the goddamn road.
Have a nice day.