There is *nothing* you can cite which isn't an evolutionary descendant of another idea.
Sure there is. How about 'nothing' itself? By which I mean using 0 as a placeholder. That had NO root in previous thought. It was a wholly original idea. You state that every idea is based off another, but what about ideas which are created by one person and which fly in the face of conventional wisdom? Newton, for example. Of course, you wouldn't like to believe that intuitive leaps are possible, because that undermines your entire belief system. Yes, yes, there is nothing new under the sun; except there is, but once it exists, it is no longer new, and thus becomes familiar and contemptable. It is people like you that persecuted Galileo.
They have the same right as anyone else, not moreso. No one deserves a free living just because they're a musician, in other words.
How about movies. If noone ever paid for another movie and just downloaded them what would happen to the movie industry?
Well, product placement would become the next big business model, at least in my opinion. That way, everyone is still paid (actors, directors, etc) and you download the movie for free. Adapt or die applies to more than nature.
Ever seen British tv? That's what it looks like to have no budget.
It still exists, doesn't it?
Travelling minstrels? No thanks I'ld rather have real music produced in a studio and all that.
That's fine, you're under no obligation to download anything. You're perfectly free to continue paying 13-20 dollars for a 30 cent piece of plastic for which the artist makes maybe 1 dollar. Go nuts! I'd rather buy from independant labels where the artists get on the order of 8-10 bucks. If I'm going to grossly overpay for something, at least the musician gets more. See, I'm not against record labels/studios as a whole, just the giant ones.
You guys are nuking futs. What you basically are advocating is anarchy.
What color is the sky in your world? New business model for mega labels != absence of formalized government. I'm sposed to be nuts?
I don't like the RIAA but I do believe that artists have a right to be paid for their work. Programmers too for that matter. If they agree to sell their work to the RIAA that is their business and their right to do so or not to do so is thiers.
If you really think the artists should be paid, you should support small labels. Many smaller labels put out mp3s that you can check out for free. Buying from the mega major labels only makes an already super-wealthy group of people even more super wealthy. If you care about the artists, stop supporting the bloated leech executives.
All this is just you trying to feel right about stealing from the artist who created the thing you want.
Not at all. I don't download music from mega labels. I listen to groups that put out free music, or I buy music from independant labels. I don't 'steal' anything, but I don't have a problem with those who download whatever they want off the 'net.
And hey if you think like this why don't you create your own music to listen to. Who needs artists at all? Anyone can write a song, right?
Actually, I have been making music with my roommate. He's quite a bit more talented than I am, and he puts out his music for *gasp* free because he wants exposure. He's angling for indie labels and will be selling music for a living when he can. However, he makes music because he can't NOT make music, and he will do it for free if he can't make money at it. That's the kind of artist I respect, not the whiny "I have millions of dollars already but I have to sue a 12-year old for 2k more because I'm a greedy bastard" types.
It is not from not *understanding* what you wrote, but I consider it false.
Damn me for hubris, but if you consider what I said false, it is exactly because you did not understand it.
Rights are, rather, any power we have not ceded to the government.
No they aren't. Words don't mean what you wish them to. We have ceded less power to the government than it has. The rest was wrested from us.
As an aside, you learned arithmetic because somebody taught it to you.
Yes, *I* did, but if arithmetic *must* be taught in order to exist, where did it come from? Why do you assume that no thought exists unless it is given to you? Perhaps that is why your views lack originality and why your arguments make no sense. Where do you think calculus and trig came from? Were they simply always taught? Did they always exist, passed on from one mind to another in their entirety? Of course not. Your strange theory that independant thought does not exist is silly and extremely easy to disprove. Perhaps if you concentrated more on thinking for yourself and less on remembering and reflecting only what others have taught you your life would be more fulfilled.
If you are kidnapped or murdered, you might not be free or alive, but you still have the right to be free and alive. A right is not a description of how things are; it is a description of how things ought to be. And no one should be kidnapped or murdered.
If a right is a description of how things ought to be, then it couldn't be taken away, as no matter what state you were actually in, the ideal state would remain constant.
We have the right to pursue happiness. But having your every move under observation not only makes it difficult to be happy, it makes it difficult even to try.
The right to pursue happiness isn't the right to find it.
Many of the things we do for fun would cease to be enjoyable if we knew someone was watching.
What, like grocery shopping? Running errands? Walking the dog? Why do you care if someone else is watching your mundanity? No one's going to put cameras in your house, just in *gasp* public places where *gasp* people are watching you anyway. When you walk by a giant apartment building, do you think NO ONE is looking at you? Can you really walk down a busy street and think you're free from observation? What are you people smoking?
Being under constant observation also tramples on your right to liberty, by the way.
Um, how? How does observation stop me from doing anything? I mean, it might stop me from committing crimes, but do I have some sort of right to commit crimes? No. If *you* change your behaviour, and become all reclusive or something, just because there are cameras at the gas station pumps, you've got more serious problems than 'privacy' will ever cure. Get a grip, people. You can still pick your nose in public. I doubt the moron getting minimum wage to watch for people breaking the law is really going to care.
Sure, but none of them are on the international list of human rights. As I said before, they aren't really rights, we just call them that because we've decided as a world that they *should* be. It's a fiction that makes many people the world over feel better. Ohhh, look at all the pretty rights I have, unless no one's watching.
What happens if our eyes are plucked out, hands cut off, and tongue cut out? Where is the freedom of speech then?
Well, you can still pursue happiness. Not that you're likely to find it in that state, but you could pursue it. You also would have as much freedom to comminucate as you would be physically able to do.
Your assertion that "what can be taken away...is a priviledge" is nonsense, because there could be no human rights violations; such violations are by definition taking away people's rights.
Privilege: (not priviledge) a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor
When certain priveleges which we have decided to call 'human rights' are *taken away*, that's what we choose to call a 'human rights violation.' They're privileges. Deal with it.
That said, speech is dependent on privacy.
On what do you base that ridiculous assumption? Speech is dependant on privacy? How so? I can't speak around other people? No speeches are ever made in public? What the hell are you talking about?
How can I possibly make an informed decision if I am monitored about what I buy and read?
Firstly: Who is monitoring everything you buy and read? Secondly: why does someone else knowing what you buy and read change what conclusions you draw from it? Again, your point is logically unsound.
Likewise, there can be no real freedom of thought without free speech, because the information I can take in, and therefore possible conclusions, is limited.
You should stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking. No freedom of thought without free speech? That's patently untrue. Throughout much of history, speech was not free, and every time someone rose up in rebellion against a tyrannical reign, they have disproved your ill-conceived notion.
(I do not believe that if it can be taken away, then I do not have it, as there is no right that really cannot be taken away due to removing its dependencies)
You are obviously intent on not understanding anything. I did not say 'if it can be taken away you don't have it', I said 'if it can be taken away it's a privilege.' Here, let me help you to understand: If I have a crisp new 1 dollar bill, do I have that bill? Yes. Can it be taken away from me? Yes, it can. Therefore, I *have* it, but it can be taken away. See how that works? I can have the right to peacable assembly, but if I get put into jail, I lose that right. See, I *had* it, before it got taken away. That's what makes it a privilege. Now, even in jail, I can pursue happiness, I can pray, I can daydream, I can think, I can do arithmetic. These things cannot be taken away from me. (without killing me or putting me in a coma.) Do you see the difference? As far as not having rights after one is deceased, well, do I really need to go into that?
It's an overworked and very flawed system, but the concern is the kids who still fall through the cracks and suffer ongoing abuse, not some parent who's wrongly accused.
Why is that? Why shouldn't wrongly accused parents be a concern? Why are kids more important than parents? Why should parents WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG suffer abuse at the hands of a system that isn't even effective? Even after all the years of social services and social workers we still have unwated, neglected, and abused children. Of course, there doesn't seem to be a better solution. Am I the only person who thinks that 'parental tests' would be a good idea? I mean, it's nontrivial to adopt, but it's extremely trivial to simply make a kid the old fashioned way. Then we have to deal with unwanted and neglected kids, as well as the much larger (and in my opinion more dangerous in the long run) population of kids who are simply unsupervised, undisciplined, and raised to believe that life owes them something. Why do you have to prove responsibility to get a driver's license, but none to create a child? How can we reconcile this with 'children are our most precious resource?' Wouldn't you think that if children really were that important, we should take some sort of steps to restrict their creation to those who will actually care for them? I do realize that this concept is fairly fascist, but so is the concept of a 'driver's license' and we have those. If you are not at LEAST financially responsible and minimally knowledgeable about the care of infants, why should you be allowed to squeeze out babies aplenty? I mean, you have to fill out paperwork to that effect at the Humane Society, to get a freaking cat, but not to make a human? Of course, people are quick to defend their 'right' to have kids and their 'right' to have sex without bothering to defend, promote, or even acknowledge the responsibilities that come along with them.
I don't know about you, but if every book I buy, every movie I watch, every phone call I make, every e-mail I send is being watched, catalogued, and analyzed, it infringes on my liberties, and doesn't make me very damned happy.
Yes, but from where do you infer the right to *be* happy? What can be taken away from you, while it may be called a 'right', is a privilege. We choose to call things 'rights' even though they can be taken away. For example, what right to life does a murder victim have? What right to liberty does a kidnapped person have? The only one of the 'rights' you quoted that is incapable of being infringed is the 'pursuit of happiness'. Though you are always free to *pursue* happiness, you are not guaranteed its attainment. You can pursue happiness from birth until death without ever finding it. Just because an entity promises you 'rights' does not mean you actually have them, nor does it mean that they cannot be taken away (no matter how 'inaliable' they are).
I post AC to avoid having my karma affected. Its all about the karma.
Yup, and that's why 'coward' is an appropriate label. I personally don't feel the need to post 'anonymously' as my/. user id is anonymous enough for me, and if it stops being so, I can create another one in seconds.
Furthermore, if you take a literal view of the Constitution (as opposed to a horizontal-effects view), this would mean that while Congress cannot abridge freedom of speech, the States can (that's the tenth Amendment).
Sure. The poster I was replying to was basically trying to insinuate that the federal government should legislate against spam. I was letting him know why they would not. I don't believe that spam is wonderful, but it is also by no means inciting a riot (such as the 'fire' in a theater thing). It is federally (note the qualification) protected speech and as such there can be no federal law abridging it.
There is a large body of law on the difference between acts (of speech) and speech itself. The situation is quite a bit less black&white as you seem to think it is.
I am not attempting to make the entire issue of spam clearly delineated, just as it relates to the first ammendment and congress. Not only was my reply not the sum total of my views on spam, it was clearly structured in such a way as to make that apparent to most.
'But if you try to tattoo on my skull even things that I do agree with, I shall kick your ass mightily' - me.
Agreed. When spammers start giving out involuntary tattoos, Congress will be free (and encouraged) to legislate against them.
Yeah right and the Nazi's were okay too? I don't care about downloaded music, I think the RIAA are morons. But it isn't really "right" to download the music now is it? Downloading music for free is stealing. The artists who created the music will have no incentive to keep creating music if they know everyone is just going to steal from them.
Your argument is invalid. Not all artists make music for money, and not all incentive to make music is monetary. This is (I feel) one of the most fundamentally incorrect assumptions made by the **AA and various others who support it. Things to remember: 1. Copying is not theft. (Note: whether you think it is 'right' or not, it is simply NOT theft. Theft is the removal of physical property, such that person A no longer has it and person B now has it. If both people have exact copies, no theft has occured.) 2. Musicians do not have some sort of divine right to make a living from making music. 3. Not all music is made for profit. 4. Music would exist without recording studios, not vice versa. 5. Musicians were able to make a living playing music long before the RIAA existed, and long before any digital medium existed. 6. Times change, and laws/societies/business models all have to change with them.
What about speeding then? I am going to go out on a limb and say that based on my 15 years of driving experience that a majority of drivers speed. Now I think that speed limits are too low and that some small towns use speed traps as a significant source of income but I'm not crying unfair law when I get pulled over.
You should be. Speeding is an unenforceable law that doesn't add anything to actual safety. (Obviously it can be selectively enforced. However, it is 'unenforceable' in that most infractions are not punished, and most violators have no reasonable expectation of being punished.) There is already a law stating that you must (as a driver) control your speed, and failure to do so (based on if you cause an accident, not an arbitrary 'speed limit') results in tickets, fines, and possibly civil suits against you. Speeding laws are unfair laws. As you yourself pointed out, it seems that a majority of drivers do not follow the 'speed limit', so what good does it do? Also, no driver has a reasonable expectation of being caught on any given infraction. Laws which are not uniformly enforced are unfair. Laws which CANNOT be uniformly enforced are unfair and stupid.
there appears to be recognition of the problem, but no one seems to have the legal power to do anything.
What part of 'Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...' do you not understand? Spam should be solved technically, because it can't be done legally.
here's another way to look at it.
'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' - Beatrice Hall
The latter does not necessarily disprove the former; there's the probability of having the acccident in the first place to consider. Since SUV's tend to be high, heavy, have shit handling, and stopping distances that would embarass a battleship, that's not a trivial consideration.
The probability of having an accident (unless it's the very small percentage of mechanical failures that cause accidents) lies with the DRIVER, not the VEHICLE. If someone is on cruise control, talking on the phone, and not paying attention to the road, they are a hazard whatever they're driving. Anti-SUV people make all sorts of baseless assumptions: 1. SUVs cause their drivers to drive poorly. Prove it. Show me people with exemplary driving record in cars who suddenly become hazards when driving an SUV. 2. SUVs are unchanging. Sorry, they get better gas mileage, better stopping distances, and better collision protection (airbags, and crumple zones and such) every year, just like cars. Or do you people believe that all products are perfect when introduced and no changes are ever made to them? 3. SUVs are unsuited to normal driving. Perhaps SUV DRIVERS are unsuited to driving SUVs, but that is IN NO WAY the fault of the SUVs, which are, after all, merely vehicles.
If your problem is with irresponsible driving, as it really should be, what vehicle the person is in should not matter. Claiming that there exists a need to ban a product simply because a small percentage of users of that product will not use it responsibly has long been a tactic of fascists like yourself. Were we to broadly apply that logic, almost NOTHING would be legal. Some people use chainsaws irresponsibly, so they have to go. Some people use computers irresponsibly, so bye bye. Some people abuse cough syrup, so no more cough syrup. A hammer can be used irresponsibly, so make them illegal. What you are proposing is NO DIFFERENT. Fascism is fascism is fascism, no matter what facade you attempt to hide it behind. *You* don't like SUVs, therefore they must obviously be banned. *You* are so much smarter and so much more capable of making other people's decisions for them that *of course* we must all agree. Well, I cry bullshit upon that, sir. I am perfectly capable of driving an SUV safely, and while I don't own one, I am going this weekend to attempt to purchase one, because they annoy people like you. I'm getting one that has a better stopping distance than a regular ford f150 (which no one's talking about banning), gets about 20mpg city and about 25mpg highway, and handles extremely well. Of course, you'll never know any of that, because you formed your opinion a while back, most likely from something you heard from someone else, and you haven't ever bothered to update it. I'll be cruising in perfect comfort, knowing that any idiot who hits me is more likely to die than I am. I've been in several accidents, none of which I caused, one of which put me in the hospital, and not one of the offending drivers was driving an SUV. I was once forced off the road by an apparently drunk driver in a Crown Vic. I was almost run over once by a guy in a Fiero that ran a red light. However, I'm not calling for a ban on all cars, because I understand that not every driver is going to be a perfectly safe driver, not every driver is going to make good decisions, but that doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to drive. Also, if you don't like my reason for wanting an SUV, too bad. Nope, I'm not going to be hauling soccer teams around. Nope, I'm not planning on taking off road every day. Nope, I don't need to haul lots of stuff around. I'm just excersizing my freedoms, and while I intended to get a sedan, I think I can have more fun in an SUV. Don't worry, though, I've driven cargo vans for years, and am familiar with driving high-center-of-gravity vehicles. Of course, people like you probably don't think there are any besides your beloved and hated SUVs.
The USSR didn't bomb Afghanistan until the US send the dark ages (Mujahedin) there.
Wait now...wait...I thought NO ONE ELSE but the US bombed people "back into the dark ages", but when I bring up the extremely visible bombing by the Russians, you say they didn't "until the US send the dark ages" there, which doesn't even make sense, as 'dark ages' are not people. Still, you have contradicted yourself, proven your own point wrong and mine right, and made my day. Thanks for being an idiot!
He said "It's the US that bombs countries back to the dark age - no one else."
Yes, and much of the population of Afghanistan lived in towns and cities before the RUSSIANS bombed their country into rubble and forced them to live in caves and such. Sure, there are towns and cities there that have rebuilt by now, but you can still see the remnants of the RUSSIAN bombing if you look around. Get your facts straight before correcting other people.
Source? Certainly in my experience, if there's something two feet off my tailgate at 70 mph and I'm going the same speed as the car it front (just leaving a reasonable gap), 8 out of 10 times it's a fat jerk in an SUV.
What's your source for that? I doubt you actually count the number of vehicles riding your ass and classify them. You just don't like SUVs, so when the Lumina or BMW is riding your ass, you just don't care as much. 65% of the vehicles on the road are passenger cars. Only 8% are SUVs. If you truly believe that 8% of the vehicles are causing 80% of the traffic problems, you're stupid. But then, we've covered that.
Listen up, troll, I'm not so stupid as to not understand the difference between a car and its driver,
Apparently you are, if you call SUVs 'agressive'.
but if you think that 1) certain types of vehicles don't attract a certain type of driver and that 2) drivers don't change their behaviour according to the type of vehicle they're in, then you know nothing about human nature. But then this is/.
Sure. Gramma buys an SUV, now she's running over the cops directing traffic. Whatever. I wonder who caused all the traffic accidents before SUVs were popular. Apparently it takes getting behind the wheel of an SUV to make people mindless jerks. Idiot. Calling for bans on products instead of bans on bad users is retarded. It'd be like banning computers with NICs because some people are jerks on the 'net. (yes, I'm one of them. No, I don't care.) Of course, since you are one of the 'SUVs are inherently evil' crowd, you might think that's a good idea.
Good one. Ho ho ho, what a wit you are. What next, a "yo mama" joke?
Nah. I try not to go for the easiest ones. Besides, for all I know you were cloned. Your opinions certainly were. Ah, what the hell. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
All of it. "Agressive" isn't a word. You're stupid. If you meant 'aggressive', you're still stupid. SUVs do not possess that characteristic. People who drive aggressively in SUVs drive aggressively in any other vehicle as well. Try blaming human drivers for their human errors rather than blaming those errors on inanimate objects. You suck.
The majority of consumers, however, do enjoy professionally produced music.
True. However, the days of the 'professional sound' coming ONLY from record stuidos is almost over. You can make extremely professional sounding recordings with a small (5-10k) initial investment. Sure, that's still a lot of cash, but it's less than a new car. Big labels have served a purpose in the past, but it's time for a new paradigm (to actually use that word *not* in an interdepartmental memo).
Much of the effort to creating those songs was contributed by people with no interest in it beyond their salary. Even those performers with a love for the creative process would've been able to devote less time if they'd also held down a day job.
Most of the bands I listen to have day jobs. That doesn't mean that they don't make good music. Also, many artists on smaller labels still have day jobs. My roommate does, and he makes music. With the advent of cheap computers and the internet, anyone can make quality music and distribute it themselves. Major labels charge us too much money to push us their ideas of music. I'm not saying they shouldn't exist, but I *am* saying that they're becoming less and less neccessary to producing decent quality recordings, which was their original reason for existing.
The question of how to give "artists" compensation is a rational concern for people who wish to continue the availability of music in the style they've become accustomed to.
It is. And speaking for myself, I'd rather give the artist the money, and not the already super-rich executives of MegaLabel Records. I'm not saying everyone else has to feel that way too.:)
Obviously they matter to you. You bothered to post, and hid behind AC. It makes my heart warm knowing that you really DO care what I think, and you're just not smart enough to articulate any real response. *smoochies*
did you read your link past the first paragraph? the article says nothing about being safer for the SUV driver, it says they are much deadlier to those in cars that are hit by them. if it makes you feel safer to know that you have a better chance of killing the occupants of the car you t-bone, please stay off the road.
Sure I did. It never said anything at all about all the crashes being CAUSED by the SUV, only that the people in the SUV were more likely to survive. If you really cared about saving people, you'd have MORE of them driving SUVs because then they'd be more likely to survive accidents. If you think that only SUVs cause accidents, you're a fucking moron. You're assuming (and insinuating) that the accidents listed on that site were caused by the SUV driver, when in fact nothing like that is ever asserted. The vast majority of the vehicles on the road are regular passenger cars, and the likelihood of being struck by a regular passenger car is MUCH greater than the likelihood of being struck by an SUV. Most of the problems people have with SUVs are actually with their drivers. If you cause an accident, you are not a responsible driver, unless it is *pure* equipment failure, which it usually isn't. It doesn't matter what you drive if you don't drive well. Also, the "logic" of 'well the SUV driver is more likely to survive a collision with a car, so ban SUVs' is the same as saying that since car drivers are far more likely to survive car-bicycle collisions, the car should be banned. There are far more bicycles in use in the world than cars, and it's a fact that in car-bicycle collisions, the driver of the car survives (and escapes injury) FAR more often than the bicycle driver. By your logic, no one should drive cars at all. I, on the other hand, feel that a good driver will be a good driver in any vehicle, and that we should place more importance on making sure that DRIVERS are safe drivers, and less on making sure that everyone has an equal chance of dying in a collision.
The reason the original poster called them a con is because they are. They're a way of cheating the government into making you pay less taxes. You pay lower taxes on light trucks (why I have no idea), so the SUV was invented as a way of selling cars cheaper.
There are plenty of SUVs based off of cars. The mazda tribute/ford escape, the rav4 and others I'm not too inclined to look up right now. Many others are built rigid body on frame, and those are the ones more likely to actually perform off-road. As for being 'cool', the suburban, the international harvester scout and scout 2 and such have been around for ages and ages. I doubt all the ranchers/farmers that own them care about looking cool. Besides, just because some people may think something's cool is a stupid reason to argue against its existence. A lot of the 'geek community' buys various tech toys because they think they're cool, or they want to look cool for other people. By your argument, they shouldn't be allowed to, or they should be forced to buy only what you think they should.
That's nice, but those aren't the corners he was talking about. The corners he mentioned were the oh-my-gawd-there's-a-guy-in-the-middle-of-the-road kind of emergency manouvers.
Sure, the kind that don't happen when drivers are being responsible. If there's a man in the middle of the road, and you didn't see him in time to avoid him, you're a bad driver NO MATTER WHAT YOU'RE DRIVING. Sure, sure, a small (very small) percentage of acidents are due to mechanical failures, but the VAST majority are driver error. Of course, no one talks about making sure DRIVERS act more safely, let's blame it on what kind of car they drive. If you think that a ford escape couldn't perform better than a passenger van, you're fooling yourself.
See, the thing is, the idea of the soccer mom is badly exagerated. I highly doubt if more than 10 percent of SUV owners need the space.
So what you're saying is that people should only have 1 room houses? Offices should be just barely big enough to fit your desk in? Every space we use should be cramped and uncomfortable? Because that's where the 'only use space you *need*' goes, if you extrapolate it. Maybe some people don't like driving tiny cars. Trucks have been around forever, and SUVs are similar in size/handling ability to trucks. Should no one buy a pickup unless they're going to use it daily? I mean, they have beds for hauling, but if you only need to haul stuff occasionally, it's a waste to buy a pickup, right? I mean, who cares about people's preferences when spending their own money to buy things for their own use.
I repeat, people don't buy SUV's because they need them, they buy them because they want them.
Keep repeating your unsubstantiated conclusions. Maybe you even believe them. Even if what you're saying was factually correct, so what? Are you saying that people should only ever buy exactly what they *need*? You probably have a computer at home...because you *need* it? Do you have any art in your home? Do you have more than 1 tv/telephone/computer/car/set of clothes? Should those who do be punished? Your argument is silly.
Should people always get what they want? I'd say that if what they want hurts other people, then no.
So if you want people to buy less safe cars, wouldn't that hurt people? I mean, if it's all about not hurting people, we shouldn't have cars at all. Then there wouldn't be *any* car crash deaths. Who cares if people want to drive? Cars hurt people. By your argument, then, no one should have them. Neither should anyone be allowed to do *anything* that could in any way, shape, or form possibly hurt anyone else. What a world you'd like to live in.
And there is definite proof (as you pointed out yourself) that in a collision with a SUV you are more likely to die than in a collision with a car.
Only if you're not in an SUV as well. It seems to me that if you REALLY cared about
Why leave the house when I have 2 weeks of television available at a moments notice!
Morbid obesity, here I come!
Why does everyone act like PVRs are just used for sitting around watching MORE tv than you usually would? I am building a linux box to do PVR because I'm *not* sitting around at home when the shows I like come on. I'd like to be able to watch 'em when I have some free time, because I'm not home very much. Not everyone who enjoys watching *some* tv is a couch potato.
If all you really want to do is haul around your family/friends/groceries then why not get a nice station wagon?
Because a station wagon seats maybe 5, uncomfortably. It also has less cargo area. A proper SUV can seat 5 in comfort, while still having around 35-40 cubic feet for cargo. Similar isn't the same. Station wagons also don't get better gas mileage, at least not the one I used to own nor the one my ex-wife owned. They got around 12mpg city. A good SUV gets 18-20 city.
Or isn't it cool enough? It was for me. I've owned a station wagon, but never owned an SUV.
Or do you not fancy your odds of surviving a crash when you're in something that's size is on the same order of magnitude with the rest of the vehicles on the road?
Do you know what an order of magnitude is? An SUV is the same size (or smaller) than a regular passenger van. Are you saying no one should get vans, either? How about pickup trucks? No? No one can have those either? Because they are the same 'order of magnitude' as an SUV.
I think I'll enjoy my '82 Honda Accord a couple years longer: Seats 3 in reasonable comfort + a sub woofer behind the driver's seat, 35 mpg highway, 30 city. Tons of room for luggage if I put the cargo carrier on the roof and the bike rack on the trunk. That's right! I can add more storage space if I need it. Crazy that, huh?
Try carrying 5 people + luggage in your accord on a 4 hour road trip. Yeah, MUUUUCH better than taking an SUV. You're right. Everyone should just cram into tiny plastic cars so that other tiny plastic cars don't get as mangled when they fuck up.
SUVs are for the most part an unnecesary waste of road space and a threat to drivers of smaller cars.
Part one of that is your opinion, and part 2 is patently false. An SUV is no more dangerous than any other car on the road. They don't drive themselves, guy. You can't count how many times someone has tried to merge into you in an SUV? Welcome to Earth. I couldn't count on 20 hands the number of idiots in cars that have done that to me. Asshole drivers are asshole drivers whether they're in an SUV or a Miata or an 18-wheeler.
If you really take 6 people with you every place you go, along with 2 bikes and a propane grill, crossing snow/gravel/dirt/mud on your way on a daily basis then yes an SUV might fit the bill but I highly doubt thats what you're doing.
I highly doubt it as well. That's why I don't have an SUV. However, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to buy one. It's a free country, and people in MANY areas of life buy products for other than their IDEAL usage. Grow up. If you don't like SUVs, don't buy one. If other people do, let them buy one. Freedom includes the freedom to let people do things you yourself would not.
If you got an SUV so you could look cool and screw over other drivers in the event of a crash than at least be honest about it, that's all I ask.
I don't have an SUV. If I did, I'd get one because I live in a fairly small town and there's a lot of good 'frodin territory around here. However, I certainly wouldn't APOLOGIZE for wanting to survive a crash. I'm sorry if *my* being safer means someone else isn't, but that's life. I've never caused an accident, and I damn sure want to survive any that others cause. I don't see how surviving a crash is 'screwing' the other driver. If they wanted to have a better chance of surviving, they should have chosen a vehicle that gave it to them.
Slashdot Mirror
There is *nothing* you can cite which isn't an evolutionary descendant of another idea.
Sure there is. How about 'nothing' itself? By which I mean using 0 as a placeholder. That had NO root in previous thought. It was a wholly original idea. You state that every idea is based off another, but what about ideas which are created by one person and which fly in the face of conventional wisdom? Newton, for example. Of course, you wouldn't like to believe that intuitive leaps are possible, because that undermines your entire belief system. Yes, yes, there is nothing new under the sun; except there is, but once it exists, it is no longer new, and thus becomes familiar and contemptable. It is people like you that persecuted Galileo.
Muscians don't have a right to make a living?
They have the same right as anyone else, not moreso. No one deserves a free living just because they're a musician, in other words.
How about movies. If noone ever paid for another movie and just downloaded them what would happen to the movie industry?
Well, product placement would become the next big business model, at least in my opinion. That way, everyone is still paid (actors, directors, etc) and you download the movie for free. Adapt or die applies to more than nature.
Ever seen British tv? That's what it looks like to have no budget.
It still exists, doesn't it?
Travelling minstrels? No thanks I'ld rather have real music produced in a studio and all that.
That's fine, you're under no obligation to download anything. You're perfectly free to continue paying 13-20 dollars for a 30 cent piece of plastic for which the artist makes maybe 1 dollar. Go nuts! I'd rather buy from independant labels where the artists get on the order of 8-10 bucks. If I'm going to grossly overpay for something, at least the musician gets more. See, I'm not against record labels/studios as a whole, just the giant ones.
You guys are nuking futs. What you basically are advocating is anarchy.
What color is the sky in your world? New business model for mega labels != absence of formalized government. I'm sposed to be nuts?
I don't like the RIAA but I do believe that artists have a right to be paid for their work. Programmers too for that matter. If they agree to sell their work to the RIAA that is their business and their right to do so or not to do so is thiers.
If you really think the artists should be paid, you should support small labels. Many smaller labels put out mp3s that you can check out for free. Buying from the mega major labels only makes an already super-wealthy group of people even more super wealthy. If you care about the artists, stop supporting the bloated leech executives.
All this is just you trying to feel right about stealing from the artist who created the thing you want.
Not at all. I don't download music from mega labels. I listen to groups that put out free music, or I buy music from independant labels. I don't 'steal' anything, but I don't have a problem with those who download whatever they want off the 'net.
And hey if you think like this why don't you create your own music to listen to. Who needs artists at all? Anyone can write a song, right?
Actually, I have been making music with my roommate. He's quite a bit more talented than I am, and he puts out his music for *gasp* free because he wants exposure. He's angling for indie labels and will be selling music for a living when he can. However, he makes music because he can't NOT make music, and he will do it for free if he can't make money at it. That's the kind of artist I respect, not the whiny "I have millions of dollars already but I have to sue a 12-year old for 2k more because I'm a greedy bastard" types.
It is not from not *understanding* what you wrote, but I consider it false.
Damn me for hubris, but if you consider what I said false, it is exactly because you did not understand it.
Rights are, rather, any power we have not ceded to the government.
No they aren't. Words don't mean what you wish them to. We have ceded less power to the government than it has. The rest was wrested from us.
As an aside, you learned arithmetic because somebody taught it to you.
Yes, *I* did, but if arithmetic *must* be taught in order to exist, where did it come from? Why do you assume that no thought exists unless it is given to you? Perhaps that is why your views lack originality and why your arguments make no sense. Where do you think calculus and trig came from? Were they simply always taught? Did they always exist, passed on from one mind to another in their entirety? Of course not. Your strange theory that independant thought does not exist is silly and extremely easy to disprove. Perhaps if you concentrated more on thinking for yourself and less on remembering and reflecting only what others have taught you your life would be more fulfilled.
If you are kidnapped or murdered, you might not be free or alive, but you still have the right to be free and alive. A right is not a description of how things are; it is a description of how things ought to be. And no one should be kidnapped or murdered.
If a right is a description of how things ought to be, then it couldn't be taken away, as no matter what state you were actually in, the ideal state would remain constant.
We have the right to pursue happiness. But having your every move under observation not only makes it difficult to be happy, it makes it difficult even to try.
The right to pursue happiness isn't the right to find it.
Many of the things we do for fun would cease to be enjoyable if we knew someone was watching.
What, like grocery shopping? Running errands? Walking the dog? Why do you care if someone else is watching your mundanity? No one's going to put cameras in your house, just in *gasp* public places where *gasp* people are watching you anyway. When you walk by a giant apartment building, do you think NO ONE is looking at you? Can you really walk down a busy street and think you're free from observation? What are you people smoking?
Being under constant observation also tramples on your right to liberty, by the way.
Um, how? How does observation stop me from doing anything? I mean, it might stop me from committing crimes, but do I have some sort of right to commit crimes? No. If *you* change your behaviour, and become all reclusive or something, just because there are cameras at the gas station pumps, you've got more serious problems than 'privacy' will ever cure. Get a grip, people. You can still pick your nose in public. I doubt the moron getting minimum wage to watch for people breaking the law is really going to care.
Can you name a right that can't be taken away?
Sure, but none of them are on the international list of human rights. As I said before, they aren't really rights, we just call them that because we've decided as a world that they *should* be. It's a fiction that makes many people the world over feel better. Ohhh, look at all the pretty rights I have, unless no one's watching.
What happens if our eyes are plucked out, hands cut off, and tongue cut out? Where is the freedom of speech then?
Well, you can still pursue happiness. Not that you're likely to find it in that state, but you could pursue it. You also would have as much freedom to comminucate as you would be physically able to do.
Your assertion that "what can be taken away...is a priviledge" is nonsense, because there could be no human rights violations; such violations are by definition taking away people's rights.
Privilege: (not priviledge) a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor
When certain priveleges which we have decided to call 'human rights' are *taken away*, that's what we choose to call a 'human rights violation.'
They're privileges. Deal with it.
That said, speech is dependent on privacy.
On what do you base that ridiculous assumption? Speech is dependant on privacy? How so? I can't speak around other people? No speeches are ever made in public? What the hell are you talking about?
How can I possibly make an informed decision if I am monitored about what I buy and read?
Firstly: Who is monitoring everything you buy and read? Secondly: why does someone else knowing what you buy and read change what conclusions you draw from it? Again, your point is logically unsound.
Likewise, there can be no real freedom of thought without free speech, because the information I can take in, and therefore possible conclusions, is limited.
You should stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking. No freedom of thought without free speech? That's patently untrue. Throughout much of history, speech was not free, and every time someone rose up in rebellion against a tyrannical reign, they have disproved your ill-conceived notion.
(I do not believe that if it can be taken away, then I do not have it, as there is no right that really cannot be taken away due to removing its dependencies)
You are obviously intent on not understanding anything. I did not say 'if it can be taken away you don't have it', I said 'if it can be taken away it's a privilege.'
Here, let me help you to understand:
If I have a crisp new 1 dollar bill, do I have that bill? Yes. Can it be taken away from me? Yes, it can. Therefore, I *have* it, but it can be taken away. See how that works? I can have the right to peacable assembly, but if I get put into jail, I lose that right. See, I *had* it, before it got taken away. That's what makes it a privilege. Now, even in jail, I can pursue happiness, I can pray, I can daydream, I can think, I can do arithmetic. These things cannot be taken away from me. (without killing me or putting me in a coma.) Do you see the difference? As far as not having rights after one is deceased, well, do I really need to go into that?
It's an overworked and very flawed system, but the concern is the kids who still fall through the cracks and suffer ongoing abuse, not some parent who's wrongly accused.
Why is that? Why shouldn't wrongly accused parents be a concern? Why are kids more important than parents? Why should parents WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG suffer abuse at the hands of a system that isn't even effective? Even after all the years of social services and social workers we still have unwated, neglected, and abused children. Of course, there doesn't seem to be a better solution. Am I the only person who thinks that 'parental tests' would be a good idea? I mean, it's nontrivial to adopt, but it's extremely trivial to simply make a kid the old fashioned way. Then we have to deal with unwanted and neglected kids, as well as the much larger (and in my opinion more dangerous in the long run) population of kids who are simply unsupervised, undisciplined, and raised to believe that life owes them something. Why do you have to prove responsibility to get a driver's license, but none to create a child? How can we reconcile this with 'children are our most precious resource?' Wouldn't you think that if children really were that important, we should take some sort of steps to restrict their creation to those who will actually care for them? I do realize that this concept is fairly fascist, but so is the concept of a 'driver's license' and we have those. If you are not at LEAST financially responsible and minimally knowledgeable about the care of infants, why should you be allowed to squeeze out babies aplenty? I mean, you have to fill out paperwork to that effect at the Humane Society, to get a freaking cat, but not to make a human? Of course, people are quick to defend their 'right' to have kids and their 'right' to have sex without bothering to defend, promote, or even acknowledge the responsibilities that come along with them.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
I don't know about you, but if every book I buy, every movie I watch, every phone call I make, every e-mail I send is being watched, catalogued, and analyzed, it infringes on my liberties, and doesn't make me very damned happy.
Yes, but from where do you infer the right to *be* happy? What can be taken away from you, while it may be called a 'right', is a privilege. We choose to call things 'rights' even though they can be taken away. For example, what right to life does a murder victim have? What right to liberty does a kidnapped person have? The only one of the 'rights' you quoted that is incapable of being infringed is the 'pursuit of happiness'. Though you are always free to *pursue* happiness, you are not guaranteed its attainment. You can pursue happiness from birth until death without ever finding it. Just because an entity promises you 'rights' does not mean you actually have them, nor does it mean that they cannot be taken away (no matter how 'inaliable' they are).
I post AC to avoid having my karma affected. Its all about the karma.
/. user id is anonymous enough for me, and if it stops being so, I can create another one in seconds.
Yup, and that's why 'coward' is an appropriate label. I personally don't feel the need to post 'anonymously' as my
Furthermore, if you take a literal view of the Constitution (as opposed to a horizontal-effects view), this would mean that while Congress cannot abridge freedom of speech, the States can (that's the tenth Amendment).
Sure. The poster I was replying to was basically trying to insinuate that the federal government should legislate against spam. I was letting him know why they would not. I don't believe that spam is wonderful, but it is also by no means inciting a riot (such as the 'fire' in a theater thing). It is federally (note the qualification) protected speech and as such there can be no federal law abridging it.
There is a large body of law on the difference between acts (of speech) and speech itself. The situation is quite a bit less black&white as you seem to think it is.
I am not attempting to make the entire issue of spam clearly delineated, just as it relates to the first ammendment and congress. Not only was my reply not the sum total of my views on spam, it was clearly structured in such a way as to make that apparent to most.
'But if you try to tattoo on my skull even things that I do agree with, I shall kick your ass mightily' - me.
Agreed. When spammers start giving out involuntary tattoos, Congress will be free (and encouraged) to legislate against them.
Yeah right and the Nazi's were okay too? I don't care about downloaded music, I think the RIAA are morons. But it isn't really "right" to download the music now is it? Downloading music for free is stealing. The artists who created the music will have no incentive to keep creating music if they know everyone is just going to steal from them.
Your argument is invalid. Not all artists make music for money, and not all incentive to make music is monetary. This is (I feel) one of the most fundamentally incorrect assumptions made by the **AA and various others who support it.
Things to remember:
1. Copying is not theft. (Note: whether you think it is 'right' or not, it is simply NOT theft. Theft is the removal of physical property, such that person A no longer has it and person B now has it. If both people have exact copies, no theft has occured.)
2. Musicians do not have some sort of divine right to make a living from making music.
3. Not all music is made for profit.
4. Music would exist without recording studios, not vice versa.
5. Musicians were able to make a living playing music long before the RIAA existed, and long before any digital medium existed.
6. Times change, and laws/societies/business models all have to change with them.
What about speeding then? I am going to go out on a limb and say that based on my 15 years of driving experience that a majority of drivers speed. Now I think that speed limits are too low and that some small towns use speed traps as a significant source of income but I'm not crying unfair law when I get pulled over.
You should be. Speeding is an unenforceable law that doesn't add anything to actual safety. (Obviously it can be selectively enforced. However, it is 'unenforceable' in that most infractions are not punished, and most violators have no reasonable expectation of being punished.) There is already a law stating that you must (as a driver) control your speed, and failure to do so (based on if you cause an accident, not an arbitrary 'speed limit') results in tickets, fines, and possibly civil suits against you. Speeding laws are unfair laws. As you yourself pointed out, it seems that a majority of drivers do not follow the 'speed limit', so what good does it do? Also, no driver has a reasonable expectation of being caught on any given infraction. Laws which are not uniformly enforced are unfair. Laws which CANNOT be uniformly enforced are unfair and stupid.
there appears to be recognition of the problem, but no one seems to have the legal power to do anything.
...abridging the freedom of speech...' do you not understand? Spam should be solved technically, because it can't be done legally.
What part of 'Congress shall make no law
here's another way to look at it.
'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' - Beatrice Hall
The latter does not necessarily disprove the former; there's the probability of having the acccident in the first place to consider. Since SUV's tend to be high, heavy, have shit handling, and stopping distances that would embarass a battleship, that's not a trivial consideration.
The probability of having an accident (unless it's the very small percentage of mechanical failures that cause accidents) lies with the DRIVER, not the VEHICLE. If someone is on cruise control, talking on the phone, and not paying attention to the road, they are a hazard whatever they're driving. Anti-SUV people make all sorts of baseless assumptions: 1. SUVs cause their drivers to drive poorly. Prove it. Show me people with exemplary driving record in cars who suddenly become hazards when driving an SUV.
2. SUVs are unchanging. Sorry, they get better gas mileage, better stopping distances, and better collision protection (airbags, and crumple zones and such) every year, just like cars. Or do you people believe that all products are perfect when introduced and no changes are ever made to them? 3. SUVs are unsuited to normal driving. Perhaps SUV DRIVERS are unsuited to driving SUVs, but that is IN NO WAY the fault of the SUVs, which are, after all, merely vehicles.
If your problem is with irresponsible driving, as it really should be, what vehicle the person is in should not matter. Claiming that there exists a need to ban a product simply because a small percentage of users of that product will not use it responsibly has long been a tactic of fascists like yourself. Were we to broadly apply that logic, almost NOTHING would be legal. Some people use chainsaws irresponsibly, so they have to go. Some people use computers irresponsibly, so bye bye. Some people abuse cough syrup, so no more cough syrup. A hammer can be used irresponsibly, so make them illegal. What you are proposing is NO DIFFERENT. Fascism is fascism is fascism, no matter what facade you attempt to hide it behind. *You* don't like SUVs, therefore they must obviously be banned. *You* are so much smarter and so much more capable of making other people's decisions for them that *of course* we must all agree. Well, I cry bullshit upon that, sir. I am perfectly capable of driving an SUV safely, and while I don't own one, I am going this weekend to attempt to purchase one, because they annoy people like you. I'm getting one that has a better stopping distance than a regular ford f150 (which no one's talking about banning), gets about 20mpg city and about 25mpg highway, and handles extremely well. Of course, you'll never know any of that, because you formed your opinion a while back, most likely from something you heard from someone else, and you haven't ever bothered to update it. I'll be cruising in perfect comfort, knowing that any idiot who hits me is more likely to die than I am. I've been in several accidents, none of which I caused, one of which put me in the hospital, and not one of the offending drivers was driving an SUV. I was once forced off the road by an apparently drunk driver in a Crown Vic. I was almost run over once by a guy in a Fiero that ran a red light. However, I'm not calling for a ban on all cars, because I understand that not every driver is going to be a perfectly safe driver, not every driver is going to make good decisions, but that doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to drive. Also, if you don't like my reason for wanting an SUV, too bad. Nope, I'm not going to be hauling soccer teams around. Nope, I'm not planning on taking off road every day. Nope, I don't need to haul lots of stuff around. I'm just excersizing my freedoms, and while I intended to get a sedan, I think I can have more fun in an SUV. Don't worry, though, I've driven cargo vans for years, and am familiar with driving high-center-of-gravity vehicles. Of course, people like you probably don't think there are any besides your beloved and hated SUVs.
The USSR didn't bomb Afghanistan until the US send the dark ages (Mujahedin) there.
Wait now...wait...I thought NO ONE ELSE but the US bombed people "back into the dark ages", but when I bring up the extremely visible bombing by the Russians, you say they didn't "until the US send the dark ages" there, which doesn't even make sense, as 'dark ages' are not people. Still, you have contradicted yourself, proven your own point wrong and mine right, and made my day. Thanks for being an idiot!
He said "It's the US that bombs countries back to the dark age - no one else."
Yes, and much of the population of Afghanistan lived in towns and cities before the RUSSIANS bombed their country into rubble and forced them to live in caves and such. Sure, there are towns and cities there that have rebuilt by now, but you can still see the remnants of the RUSSIAN bombing if you look around. Get your facts straight before correcting other people.
No, I just can't type.
/.
They aren't mutually exclusive, dumbass.
Source? Certainly in my experience, if there's something two feet off my tailgate at 70 mph and I'm going the same speed as the car it front (just leaving a reasonable gap), 8 out of 10 times it's a fat jerk in an SUV.
What's your source for that? I doubt you actually count the number of vehicles riding your ass and classify them. You just don't like SUVs, so when the Lumina or BMW is riding your ass, you just don't care as much. 65% of the vehicles on the road are passenger cars. Only 8% are SUVs. If you truly believe that 8% of the vehicles are causing 80% of the traffic problems, you're stupid. But then, we've covered that.
Listen up, troll, I'm not so stupid as to not understand the difference between a car and its driver,
Apparently you are, if you call SUVs 'agressive'.
but if you think that 1) certain types of vehicles don't attract a certain type of driver and that 2) drivers don't change their behaviour according to the type of vehicle they're in, then you know nothing about human nature. But then this is
Sure. Gramma buys an SUV, now she's running over the cops directing traffic. Whatever. I wonder who caused all the traffic accidents before SUVs were popular. Apparently it takes getting behind the wheel of an SUV to make people mindless jerks. Idiot. Calling for bans on products instead of bans on bad users is retarded. It'd be like banning computers with NICs because some people are jerks on the 'net. (yes, I'm one of them. No, I don't care.) Of course, since you are one of the 'SUVs are inherently evil' crowd, you might think that's a good idea.
Good one. Ho ho ho, what a wit you are. What next, a "yo mama" joke?
Nah. I try not to go for the easiest ones. Besides, for all I know you were cloned. Your opinions certainly were.
Ah, what the hell. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
Just as soon as I finish removing my email address from these spam lists with their handy 'remove your email' links.
which part of "agressive" don't you understand?
All of it. "Agressive" isn't a word. You're stupid.
If you meant 'aggressive', you're still stupid. SUVs do not possess that characteristic. People who drive aggressively in SUVs drive aggressively in any other vehicle as well. Try blaming human drivers for their human errors rather than blaming those errors on inanimate objects. You suck.
The majority of consumers, however, do enjoy professionally produced music.
:)
True. However, the days of the 'professional sound' coming ONLY from record stuidos is almost over. You can make extremely professional sounding recordings with a small (5-10k) initial investment. Sure, that's still a lot of cash, but it's less than a new car. Big labels have served a purpose in the past, but it's time for a new paradigm (to actually use that word *not* in an interdepartmental memo).
Much of the effort to creating those songs was contributed by people with no interest in it beyond their salary. Even those performers with a love for the creative process would've been able to devote less time if they'd also held down a day job.
Most of the bands I listen to have day jobs. That doesn't mean that they don't make good music. Also, many artists on smaller labels still have day jobs. My roommate does, and he makes music. With the advent of cheap computers and the internet, anyone can make quality music and distribute it themselves. Major labels charge us too much money to push us their ideas of music. I'm not saying they shouldn't exist, but I *am* saying that they're becoming less and less neccessary to producing decent quality recordings, which was their original reason for existing.
The question of how to give "artists" compensation is a rational concern for people who wish to continue the availability of music in the style they've become accustomed to.
It is. And speaking for myself, I'd rather give the artist the money, and not the already super-rich executives of MegaLabel Records. I'm not saying everyone else has to feel that way too.
You're a moron whose opinions don't matter.
Obviously they matter to you. You bothered to post, and hid behind AC. It makes my heart warm knowing that you really DO care what I think, and you're just not smart enough to articulate any real response. *smoochies*
did you read your link past the first paragraph?
the article says nothing about being safer for the SUV driver, it says they are much deadlier to those in cars that are hit by them. if it makes you feel safer to know that you have a better chance of killing the occupants of the car you t-bone, please stay off the road.
Sure I did. It never said anything at all about all the crashes being CAUSED by the SUV, only that the people in the SUV were more likely to survive. If you really cared about saving people, you'd have MORE of them driving SUVs because then they'd be more likely to survive accidents. If you think that only SUVs cause accidents, you're a fucking moron. You're assuming (and insinuating) that the accidents listed on that site were caused by the SUV driver, when in fact nothing like that is ever asserted. The vast majority of the vehicles on the road are regular passenger cars, and the likelihood of being struck by a regular passenger car is MUCH greater than the likelihood of being struck by an SUV. Most of the problems people have with SUVs are actually with their drivers. If you cause an accident, you are not a responsible driver, unless it is *pure* equipment failure, which it usually isn't. It doesn't matter what you drive if you don't drive well. Also, the "logic" of 'well the SUV driver is more likely to survive a collision with a car, so ban SUVs' is the same as saying that since car drivers are far more likely to survive car-bicycle collisions, the car should be banned. There are far more bicycles in use in the world than cars, and it's a fact that in car-bicycle collisions, the driver of the car survives (and escapes injury) FAR more often than the bicycle driver. By your logic, no one should drive cars at all. I, on the other hand, feel that a good driver will be a good driver in any vehicle, and that we should place more importance on making sure that DRIVERS are safe drivers, and less on making sure that everyone has an equal chance of dying in a collision.
The reason the original poster called them a con is because they are. They're a way of cheating the government into making you pay less taxes. You pay lower taxes on light trucks (why I have no idea), so the SUV was invented as a way of selling cars cheaper.
There are plenty of SUVs based off of cars. The mazda tribute/ford escape, the rav4 and others I'm not too inclined to look up right now. Many others are built rigid body on frame, and those are the ones more likely to actually perform off-road. As for being 'cool', the suburban, the international harvester scout and scout 2 and such have been around for ages and ages. I doubt all the ranchers/farmers that own them care about looking cool. Besides, just because some people may think something's cool is a stupid reason to argue against its existence. A lot of the 'geek community' buys various tech toys because they think they're cool, or they want to look cool for other people. By your argument, they shouldn't be allowed to, or they should be forced to buy only what you think they should.
That's nice, but those aren't the corners he was talking about. The corners he mentioned were the oh-my-gawd-there's-a-guy-in-the-middle-of-the-road kind of emergency manouvers.
Sure, the kind that don't happen when drivers are being responsible. If there's a man in the middle of the road, and you didn't see him in time to avoid him, you're a bad driver NO MATTER WHAT YOU'RE DRIVING. Sure, sure, a small (very small) percentage of acidents are due to mechanical failures, but the VAST majority are driver error. Of course, no one talks about making sure DRIVERS act more safely, let's blame it on what kind of car they drive. If you think that a ford escape couldn't perform better than a passenger van, you're fooling yourself.
See, the thing is, the idea of the soccer mom is badly exagerated. I highly doubt if more than 10 percent of SUV owners need the space.
So what you're saying is that people should only have 1 room houses? Offices should be just barely big enough to fit your desk in? Every space we use should be cramped and uncomfortable? Because that's where the 'only use space you *need*' goes, if you extrapolate it. Maybe some people don't like driving tiny cars. Trucks have been around forever, and SUVs are similar in size/handling ability to trucks. Should no one buy a pickup unless they're going to use it daily? I mean, they have beds for hauling, but if you only need to haul stuff occasionally, it's a waste to buy a pickup, right? I mean, who cares about people's preferences when spending their own money to buy things for their own use.
I repeat, people don't buy SUV's because they need them, they buy them because they want them.
Keep repeating your unsubstantiated conclusions. Maybe you even believe them. Even if what you're saying was factually correct, so what? Are you saying that people should only ever buy exactly what they *need*? You probably have a computer at home...because you *need* it? Do you have any art in your home? Do you have more than 1 tv/telephone/computer/car/set of clothes? Should those who do be punished? Your argument is silly.
Should people always get what they want? I'd say that if what they want hurts other people, then no.
So if you want people to buy less safe cars, wouldn't that hurt people? I mean, if it's all about not hurting people, we shouldn't have cars at all. Then there wouldn't be *any* car crash deaths. Who cares if people want to drive? Cars hurt people. By your argument, then, no one should have them. Neither should anyone be allowed to do *anything* that could in any way, shape, or form possibly hurt anyone else. What a world you'd like to live in.
And there is definite proof (as you pointed out yourself) that in a collision with a SUV you are more likely to die than in a collision with a car.
Only if you're not in an SUV as well. It seems to me that if you REALLY cared about
Why leave the house when I have 2 weeks of television available at a moments notice!
Morbid obesity, here I come!
Why does everyone act like PVRs are just used for sitting around watching MORE tv than you usually would? I am building a linux box to do PVR because I'm *not* sitting around at home when the shows I like come on. I'd like to be able to watch 'em when I have some free time, because I'm not home very much. Not everyone who enjoys watching *some* tv is a couch potato.
If all you really want to do is haul around your family/friends/groceries then why not get a nice station wagon?
Because a station wagon seats maybe 5, uncomfortably. It also has less cargo area. A proper SUV can seat 5 in comfort, while still having around 35-40 cubic feet for cargo. Similar isn't the same. Station wagons also don't get better gas mileage, at least not the one I used to own nor the one my ex-wife owned. They got around 12mpg city. A good SUV gets 18-20 city.
Or isn't it cool enough?
It was for me. I've owned a station wagon, but never owned an SUV.
Or do you not fancy your odds of surviving a crash when you're in something that's size is on the same order of magnitude with the rest of the vehicles on the road?
Do you know what an order of magnitude is? An SUV is the same size (or smaller) than a regular passenger van. Are you saying no one should get vans, either? How about pickup trucks? No? No one can have those either? Because they are the same 'order of magnitude' as an SUV.
I think I'll enjoy my '82 Honda Accord a couple years longer: Seats 3 in reasonable comfort + a sub woofer behind the driver's seat, 35 mpg highway, 30 city. Tons of room for luggage if I put the cargo carrier on the roof and the bike rack on the trunk. That's right! I can add more storage space if I need it. Crazy that, huh?
Try carrying 5 people + luggage in your accord on a 4 hour road trip. Yeah, MUUUUCH better than taking an SUV. You're right. Everyone should just cram into tiny plastic cars so that other tiny plastic cars don't get as mangled when they fuck up.
SUVs are for the most part an unnecesary waste of road space and a threat to drivers of smaller cars.
Part one of that is your opinion, and part 2 is patently false. An SUV is no more dangerous than any other car on the road. They don't drive themselves, guy. You can't count how many times someone has tried to merge into you in an SUV? Welcome to Earth. I couldn't count on 20 hands the number of idiots in cars that have done that to me. Asshole drivers are asshole drivers whether they're in an SUV or a Miata or an 18-wheeler.
If you really take 6 people with you every place you go, along with 2 bikes and a propane grill, crossing snow/gravel/dirt/mud on your way on a daily basis then yes an SUV might fit the bill but I highly doubt thats what you're doing.
I highly doubt it as well. That's why I don't have an SUV. However, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to buy one. It's a free country, and people in MANY areas of life buy products for other than their IDEAL usage. Grow up. If you don't like SUVs, don't buy one. If other people do, let them buy one. Freedom includes the freedom to let people do things you yourself would not.
If you got an SUV so you could look cool and screw over other drivers in the event of a crash than at least be honest about it, that's all I ask.
I don't have an SUV. If I did, I'd get one because I live in a fairly small town and there's a lot of good 'frodin territory around here. However, I certainly wouldn't APOLOGIZE for wanting to survive a crash. I'm sorry if *my* being safer means someone else isn't, but that's life. I've never caused an accident, and I damn sure want to survive any that others cause. I don't see how surviving a crash is 'screwing' the other driver. If they wanted to have a better chance of surviving, they should have chosen a vehicle that gave it to them.
Thanks for the bite.............
Nice cover-up attempt.