From reading the article, it appears that this will be an artificial heart, not a temporary bypass system. The value is that the mean time to failure should be greatly increased. That is a serious issue for something you have to cut a person open to repair or replace, much less so for an external system used (by any given individual) for very short periods of time.
You cannot compare travel to another galaxy to travelling across the Pacific.
And you don't need to, unless you contend that there is nothing left to be discovered in our galaxy (or even our solar system) that will benefit mankind. There could something on Mars or another planet or moon -- even an asteroid -- that could revolutionize medicine, energy, or another field. While we know a good deal about our neighbors in the solar system, we have barely begun to scratch the surface of most of it, both literally and figuratively.
If i'm sudently reminded of some game i played on my old 486, like castle of the winds, and i wanna play it, i would gladly pay $5 for it. But i cant.
Seems like whoever is providing out of print games (e.g. The Underdogs) could come to an agreement with the copyright holder. Buy the rights, pay small royalty, or just plain ask for the rights to distribute the game at no charge. The provider would not need to absorb the added cost on their own, since users could contribute to the provider on a voluntary or subscription basis or some other setup. And/Or if the copyright owner of some old games is still producing new games, how about a little advertising for their current releases in exchange for the right to distribute the abandoned titles? There are lots of ways this could be done without infringing copyrights.
3.5" floppys? In my day we had nothin' but 5.25" and no hard disk!
Okay, enough of that I guess. The difference today is the number of dollars at stake and the scale of the illegal market.
Making games cheaper may help to an extent, but there is an element that will never pay for games. Product placement might be a good way to offset some development costs, but it could backfire if it hurts the enjoyability of the game (e.g. some games overdo cutscenes already, so adding more for product placement could unreasonably degrade the gaming experience).
It that 46% of titles, 46% of retail units, wholesale orders? How much of that 46% is newly released vs. older stuff they've bought the rights to? And I'm sure there are other variables I haven't thought of yet.
I>But the fact is that the UK high court is not 'ruining your rights'...
Of course it is. Anyone who buys copyrighted material has a right to duplicate it consistent with the doctrine of fair use (most notably in this case, making backup copies).
...the people who copy and sell games illegally....
Are already committing a crime. But since it is labour intensive and challenging to arrest and prosecute all the individuals buying or selling illegal copies, governments have bowed to the corporations and opted to deny long-established rights of the majority to make it a bit harder for the minority criminal element to commit crimes by outlawing a tool with legitimate, legal uses.
The UK is merely taking steps to stop [piracy].
But not by actually enforcing the laws against piracy, because that would be hard. The powers that be are too (lazy, underfuned, understaffed, busy with more important things --take your pick) to bother with the actual criminal use, so they take the easy way and just ban the tool.
Based on what I remember of the Northwoods article....
Well, they're available online. I looked at them. Nothing to indicate anthing other than "...a preliminary submission suitable for planning purposes."
I quote you CNN here
Fair enough. As far as Hopsicker goes, I don't know if he has an agenda or just wants to sell books, but everything I've seen from him seems to be from the conspiracy nut cookbook (take hearsay, vague references, etc... mix well then say it means anything you want it to). If you consider him a reliable source, great. It doesn't work for me.
The article on Willie Brown doesn't mention Rice at all, nor any particular threat. He even says it wasn't anything unusual. The Pacifica Radio story seems to be widely cited, but if you search their archives there is no mention of Rice on that date.
Oh, that's a nice idea: a Cuban refugee would be a "willing participant" in being shot by a sniper!
I did not claim it was likely, or even considered, but if you think there are no Cuban refugees who would take a bullet (from a trained marksman trying to make it a superficial flesh wound, even) for a free Cuba, you're the one with no fucking clue.
And citing the fact that President Kennedy shot down the Pentagon's plans....
You haven't presented any evidence that any particular part of those "plans" was ever under serious consideration of implementation. You have a lot more proof to show before you can claim Kennedy was the last line of defense.
As for 9/11, please explain how with a couple hundred flight schools in Florida that Mohammed Atta ended up at one with connections to the CIA and the DEA?
First, there are only 65 FAA certified flight schools in Florida, not counting helicopter schools (six, I believe). Several of those schools are associated with military bases. Now how about some evidence that there are connections between the flight school and CIA and/or DEA?
Not to mention the total standdown of US air defenses (including those in the New York area who have been conducting emergency response exercises for exactly that scenario for the past twenty years - except on 9/11) and not to mention the fact that Condoleeza Rice called San Francisco mayor Willie Brown the day before and told him not to fly on that day.
Evidence? Perhaps you're familiar with the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Let's have some, or I'll have to write you off as just another whackjob and consider my end of this discussion closed.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Don't forget intimidation, torture, murder and intolerance. The Church has used those pretty effectively too!!!!!
While those means have been used, I would not say that they've been terribly effective. Perhaps the most effective way Christianity spread, particularly in the early years, is by co-opting traditions, customs, symbols and feasts of other religions.
It has nothing to do with the character. The issue is that her likeness is being used in the game. Given that the game is tied in with the movie, one might have trouble trying to separate the character from the actress playing her, at least as far as likeness rights go, but IANAL.
Ah yes, conspiracy nuts love stuff like the "Northwoods documents". A couple things to note about those documents: First and foremost, There is no evidence that anything described went beyond "preliminary planning", i.e. it is apparently just the result brainstorming possible scenarios. Hopefully, I don't need to point out that none of those scenarios were ever enacted. No harm to American citizens is suggested in any scenario (one does suggest possbile wounding of Cuban refugees, though it is not stated whether these would be willing participants as suggested in other scenarios). Much is made of the reference to "casualty lists" but without including the previous line mentioning the "non-existent crew" that would be involved in that particular scenario.
See how far the US will go to lie about "terrorist incidents".
You mean "see how far the US did not go 40 years ago, right?
Are you suggesting that the U.S. government was involved in 9/11, the Cole bombing, the prior attack on the WTC, the Achille Lauro or other hijackings, or any other terrorist incident? Would that be a 'yes' to the "shadow government" portion of the question as well?
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
Being rude doesn't really do anything for your argument. In my observation, it tends to put people off, and the shrug you off as another strident nutcase. If you want to enlighten people, try offering information without acting superior.
The government didn't have to invent the threat, but they are blowing out of proportion the threat, and their ability to stop it.
Most likely. But it is hard to quantify how out of proportion either may be.
I think that's what he was trying to say.
That's not the way I read it. The statement is pretty clear that terrorists are an invention of the government.
...why don't we see more activity against Amercians on US soil? It would be easy as hell in the US to get a gun and slaughter people if you didn't care about getting caught.
First, I don't agree with the notion that nothing at all can be done to stop or curb terrorist acts. That isn't precisely what you said, but it is implied in "Given that you can't stop these fanatics...." I think the answer to why we don't see more attacks is (at least in part) that, though they may be willing die, terrorists don't want to waste their own lives to take out whoever happens to be at Denny's on any given day. Naturally, it is more complex than that, but it's probably a major factor.
Yeah, that whole family is bad news. Didn't he have a sister named Amy that just got out of jail or something?
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Now the government has invented a better enemy. One without borders. One without a clear identity. Gasp, Terrorists.
Yeah, next thing you know, the government will be telling us those fake terrorists want to bomb U.S. bases, ships and buildings, hijack planes (or maybe a ship), maybe even fly a plane into a building. Those nutty government propagandists!
Seriously, are you one of those conspiracy nuts who think everything is part of the government (or some ultra-powerful "shadow government") master plan to keep us all in line or whatever?
Exactly! Sooner or later it will become socially repugnant to own an SUV.
Possible, but not likely. Especially "sooner". More likely, gas prices and other factors will cause enthusiasm for larger SUVs to wane.
8000 pounds of SUV in the hands of a soccer mom who couldn't even drive a minivan straight....
Certainly that would be cause for concern. Fortunately, only a few models of SUV are that large, and the most popular ones are significantly lighter (similar to most minivans and large sedans or wagons). And I haven't seen anything beyond a few anecdotes indicating that SUV drivers are worse drivers than any other vehicle class. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing more stringent licensing for larger vehicles (or all vehicles, for that matter).
No, you don't have any "right" to drive a big ass vehicle when it has the potential to kill.
Of course I do. In fact, anyone who is licensed to drive has the right to drive any type of vehicle they want (covered by their licensure). And of course, a vehicle need not be especially large to have "the potential to kill".
Surely these delays are a death knell for Apple. It is only a matter of time before they go under. 2005 will be the year that Apple dies. If not then, definitely by 2027 (or very soon after that!).
The first and second positions are the country and manufacturer, respectively. The U.S. has three digits for the country code, and 31 possibilities for the manufacturer (ten numeric digits, plus 26 letters minus I, O, Q, U, and Z since they could be mistaken for numbers or another letter). So do we have over 90 manufacturers? I'm thinking it is around 3 (separate divisions such a Chevrolet and Pontiac are represented by the next position). And speaking of that, each company can have 30 or so divisions or vehicle types or classes. Positions 4-8 are for vehicle features like body style or engine type. Plenty of room there. Ninth position is a check digit. Not clear if this could be a sticking point. Probably not. Next digit represents the year. This rolls over every 30 years, but that should not be much of an issue. The next position is for the manufacturing plant of origin. Again, 31 possibilities for each division of each company. The remaining six digits are the serial number, which could allow up to a million cars per plant per year, unless a company/division assigns more than one code to a given plant. Now, how many millions identical (remember, different engine, transmission, etc... differentiates the VIN) units does even a flagship brand like Ford produce in a year? I think it is safe to say that it is less than 30 million. Especially given that "Automakers build 60 million cars and trucks every year...."
I also found this amusing: "Of 1,056 WMI [first three positions of the VIN] codes available to U.S. manufacturers, 594 remain, according to SAE. " Oh, no! That's less than half! Wait, no it isn't.
Anyway, just because you haven't seen the bitching doesn't mean some of us aren't concerned about wasting energy in general.
I have no doubt about that. But the fact that we see it (and similar complaints) very rarely while SUV bashing is so common implies at least laziness by many SUV bashers (SUVs are a popular, easy target) if not hypocrisy.
People should drive whatever they want. Or use their AC however much they want-- but they should pay the real cost.... No exemptions from fuel economy or emissions laws for SUVs.
I agree. I will have to look further into the issue of tax breaks/deductions for business uses before I decide on that.
Small minority? In 2002, 68% of people in the US were licensed to drive.
People or adults? About 22% of the population is 14 or younger. I don't know of any state that issues licenses at that age. However, a great many of those children depend on cars daily. Obviously, "using" a car is not limited to driving.
I don't see how you come to your conclusions.
About 78% of the U.S. population lives in rural or suburban areas. It is possible to get by in these areas never using a car, but most people can't.
Sure, my "needs analysis" applies to all the things the wasteful americans do.
Well, if you're serious, that is at least less hypocritcal than just jumping on the SUV bashing bandwagon while ignoring other examples of "conspicuous consumption".
Odd that the world hates us so.
Odder still that millions immigrate each year, and millions more try to, despite the universal revilement.
You win. Feel better?
I feel great, but it has nothing to do with out little discussion today nor who or how many are driving SUVs.
Actually, nobody "needs" a car, the human race got along without cars for millions of years.
To survive in the most of the U.S. today, most people do. The world is different today than it was for our ancestors. A small minority can do fine without a car, but to imply that we could all suddenly go car-less without major changes in the way we live is simply nonsense.
Well, actually I do write my government officials, but they do nothing about fuel economy requirements or safety requirements.
If you really do, good for you.
I will "analyze needs" as long as I perceive there to be a problem.
What's the point? So you can bitch and complain? Who does that benefit? Are you hoping someday when you tell someone what a jerk he/she is for driving such a wasteful vehicle that person will say, "Wow, you're right! I'll go right out and trade this in for a Prius!" instead of "Mind your own f___ing business!" Don't hold your breath on that one. And does this needs analysis only apply to SUVs or are you equally concerned with people whose homes are "too big", who run their A/C "too much", leave their lights and TV on all the time, etc...? Why stop at just what people drive?
I do fail to see how wasting a precious resource unnecessarily benefits anyone.
I agree completely. But what constitutes "wasting" and "unnecessary", and even whether oil is a precious resource are all debateable.
That is a right I have as an American.
So is driving a big gas guzzler for any reason or none at all. What a country, eh?
...if all the money being put into finding new sources of oil was instead put into new sources of energy, would we all be driving cars that get 80mpg and make almost no emissions?
It is possible, but not necessarily the case. Along with money, it takes time to adopt new technology. Also, we can build cars that get 80 or more miles to the gallon, zero emission vehicles, vehicles that use non-petroleum power sources, and various combinations of those and other "green" features. There are a number of reasons that "everyone" doesn't have these. First of all, cost is an issue. But there are many other factors -- both rational and emotional -- involved in purchasing a vehicle. Does it do what I need? Does it do what I want? Does it look how I want? Is it better in one of those areas than an alternative?
The short answer to why we aren't all driving super-high mileage vehicles is that we as consumers haven't demanded. We want fast, pretty, luxurious, big, cool, cheap, convenient, etc... cars more than we want highly efficient, enviro-friendly cars.
Why do many people seem so intent on doing a needs analysis on what people drive? Why not apply that reasoning to other energy wasters? Air conditioning, for example. Clearly a luxury item and huge user of energy, but I never hear anyone complaining about their neighbor running the A/C too much.
Hey, maybe instead of whining about the choices people make based on your guesses about what they need, you should complain to your state and federal legislators about their failure to apply fuel economy standards to this class of vehicle (or otherwise deal with the problem you perceive of too many SUVs).
Or you could thank those SUV drivers for helping to drive up the cost of oil, which will make alternative fuels and/or more efficient options such as hybrids more attractive and cost effective sooner.
Slashdot Mirror
From reading the article, it appears that this will be an artificial heart, not a temporary bypass system. The value is that the mean time to failure should be greatly increased. That is a serious issue for something you have to cut a person open to repair or replace, much less so for an external system used (by any given individual) for very short periods of time.
And you don't need to, unless you contend that there is nothing left to be discovered in our galaxy (or even our solar system) that will benefit mankind. There could something on Mars or another planet or moon -- even an asteroid -- that could revolutionize medicine, energy, or another field. While we know a good deal about our neighbors in the solar system, we have barely begun to scratch the surface of most of it, both literally and figuratively.
Seems like whoever is providing out of print games (e.g. The Underdogs) could come to an agreement with the copyright holder. Buy the rights, pay small royalty, or just plain ask for the rights to distribute the game at no charge. The provider would not need to absorb the added cost on their own, since users could contribute to the provider on a voluntary or subscription basis or some other setup. And/Or if the copyright owner of some old games is still producing new games, how about a little advertising for their current releases in exchange for the right to distribute the abandoned titles? There are lots of ways this could be done without infringing copyrights.
Okay, enough of that I guess. The difference today is the number of dollars at stake and the scale of the illegal market.
Making games cheaper may help to an extent, but there is an element that will never pay for games. Product placement might be a good way to offset some development costs, but it could backfire if it hurts the enjoyability of the game (e.g. some games overdo cutscenes already, so adding more for product placement could unreasonably degrade the gaming experience).
It that 46% of titles, 46% of retail units, wholesale orders? How much of that 46% is newly released vs. older stuff they've bought the rights to? And I'm sure there are other variables I haven't thought of yet.
Norton Anti-prion.
Of course it is. Anyone who buys copyrighted material has a right to duplicate it consistent with the doctrine of fair use (most notably in this case, making backup copies).
Are already committing a crime. But since it is labour intensive and challenging to arrest and prosecute all the individuals buying or selling illegal copies, governments have bowed to the corporations and opted to deny long-established rights of the majority to make it a bit harder for the minority criminal element to commit crimes by outlawing a tool with legitimate, legal uses.
The UK is merely taking steps to stop [piracy].
But not by actually enforcing the laws against piracy, because that would be hard. The powers that be are too (lazy, underfuned, understaffed, busy with more important things --take your pick) to bother with the actual criminal use, so they take the easy way and just ban the tool.
Well, they're available online. I looked at them. Nothing to indicate anthing other than "...a preliminary submission suitable for planning purposes."
I quote you CNN here
Fair enough. As far as Hopsicker goes, I don't know if he has an agenda or just wants to sell books, but everything I've seen from him seems to be from the conspiracy nut cookbook (take hearsay, vague references, etc... mix well then say it means anything you want it to). If you consider him a reliable source, great. It doesn't work for me.
The article on Willie Brown doesn't mention Rice at all, nor any particular threat. He even says it wasn't anything unusual. The Pacifica Radio story seems to be widely cited, but if you search their archives there is no mention of Rice on that date.
I did not claim it was likely, or even considered, but if you think there are no Cuban refugees who would take a bullet (from a trained marksman trying to make it a superficial flesh wound, even) for a free Cuba, you're the one with no fucking clue.
And citing the fact that President Kennedy shot down the Pentagon's plans ....
You haven't presented any evidence that any particular part of those "plans" was ever under serious consideration of implementation. You have a lot more proof to show before you can claim Kennedy was the last line of defense.
As for 9/11, please explain how with a couple hundred flight schools in Florida that Mohammed Atta ended up at one with connections to the CIA and the DEA?
First, there are only 65 FAA certified flight schools in Florida, not counting helicopter schools (six, I believe). Several of those schools are associated with military bases. Now how about some evidence that there are connections between the flight school and CIA and/or DEA?
Not to mention the total standdown of US air defenses (including those in the New York area who have been conducting emergency response exercises for exactly that scenario for the past twenty years - except on 9/11) and not to mention the fact that Condoleeza Rice called San Francisco mayor Willie Brown the day before and told him not to fly on that day.
Evidence? Perhaps you're familiar with the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Let's have some, or I'll have to write you off as just another whackjob and consider my end of this discussion closed.
While those means have been used, I would not say that they've been terribly effective. Perhaps the most effective way Christianity spread, particularly in the early years, is by co-opting traditions, customs, symbols and feasts of other religions.
It has nothing to do with the character. The issue is that her likeness is being used in the game. Given that the game is tied in with the movie, one might have trouble trying to separate the character from the actress playing her, at least as far as likeness rights go, but IANAL.
See how far the US will go to lie about "terrorist incidents".
You mean "see how far the US did not go 40 years ago, right?
Are you suggesting that the U.S. government was involved in 9/11, the Cole bombing, the prior attack on the WTC, the Achille Lauro or other hijackings, or any other terrorist incident? Would that be a 'yes' to the "shadow government" portion of the question as well?
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
Being rude doesn't really do anything for your argument. In my observation, it tends to put people off, and the shrug you off as another strident nutcase. If you want to enlighten people, try offering information without acting superior.
Most likely. But it is hard to quantify how out of proportion either may be.
I think that's what he was trying to say.
That's not the way I read it. The statement is pretty clear that terrorists are an invention of the government.
First, I don't agree with the notion that nothing at all can be done to stop or curb terrorist acts. That isn't precisely what you said, but it is implied in "Given that you can't stop these fanatics...." I think the answer to why we don't see more attacks is (at least in part) that, though they may be willing die, terrorists don't want to waste their own lives to take out whoever happens to be at Denny's on any given day. Naturally, it is more complex than that, but it's probably a major factor.
Yeah, that whole family is bad news. Didn't he have a sister named Amy that just got out of jail or something?
Yeah, next thing you know, the government will be telling us those fake terrorists want to bomb U.S. bases, ships and buildings, hijack planes (or maybe a ship), maybe even fly a plane into a building. Those nutty government propagandists!
Seriously, are you one of those conspiracy nuts who think everything is part of the government (or some ultra-powerful "shadow government") master plan to keep us all in line or whatever?
Possible, but not likely. Especially "sooner". More likely, gas prices and other factors will cause enthusiasm for larger SUVs to wane.
8000 pounds of SUV in the hands of a soccer mom who couldn't even drive a minivan straight....
Certainly that would be cause for concern. Fortunately, only a few models of SUV are that large, and the most popular ones are significantly lighter (similar to most minivans and large sedans or wagons). And I haven't seen anything beyond a few anecdotes indicating that SUV drivers are worse drivers than any other vehicle class. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing more stringent licensing for larger vehicles (or all vehicles, for that matter).
No, you don't have any "right" to drive a big ass vehicle when it has the potential to kill.
Of course I do. In fact, anyone who is licensed to drive has the right to drive any type of vehicle they want (covered by their licensure). And of course, a vehicle need not be especially large to have "the potential to kill".
Surely these delays are a death knell for Apple. It is only a matter of time before they go under. 2005 will be the year that Apple dies. If not then, definitely by 2027 (or very soon after that!).
The first and second positions are the country and manufacturer, respectively. The U.S. has three digits for the country code, and 31 possibilities for the manufacturer (ten numeric digits, plus 26 letters minus I, O, Q, U, and Z since they could be mistaken for numbers or another letter). So do we have over 90 manufacturers? I'm thinking it is around 3 (separate divisions such a Chevrolet and Pontiac are represented by the next position). And speaking of that, each company can have 30 or so divisions or vehicle types or classes. Positions 4-8 are for vehicle features like body style or engine type. Plenty of room there. Ninth position is a check digit. Not clear if this could be a sticking point. Probably not. Next digit represents the year. This rolls over every 30 years, but that should not be much of an issue. The next position is for the manufacturing plant of origin. Again, 31 possibilities for each division of each company. The remaining six digits are the serial number, which could allow up to a million cars per plant per year, unless a company/division assigns more than one code to a given plant. Now, how many millions identical (remember, different engine, transmission, etc... differentiates the VIN) units does even a flagship brand like Ford produce in a year? I think it is safe to say that it is less than 30 million. Especially given that "Automakers build 60 million cars and trucks every year...."
I also found this amusing: "Of 1,056 WMI [first three positions of the VIN] codes available to U.S. manufacturers, 594 remain, according to SAE. " Oh, no! That's less than half! Wait, no it isn't.
I have no doubt about that. But the fact that we see it (and similar complaints) very rarely while SUV bashing is so common implies at least laziness by many SUV bashers (SUVs are a popular, easy target) if not hypocrisy.
People should drive whatever they want. Or use their AC however much they want-- but they should pay the real cost. ... No exemptions from fuel economy or emissions laws for SUVs.
I agree. I will have to look further into the issue of tax breaks/deductions for business uses before I decide on that.
People or adults? About 22% of the population is 14 or younger. I don't know of any state that issues licenses at that age. However, a great many of those children depend on cars daily. Obviously, "using" a car is not limited to driving.
I don't see how you come to your conclusions.
About 78% of the U.S. population lives in rural or suburban areas. It is possible to get by in these areas never using a car, but most people can't.
Well, if you're serious, that is at least less hypocritcal than just jumping on the SUV bashing bandwagon while ignoring other examples of "conspicuous consumption".
Odd that the world hates us so.
Odder still that millions immigrate each year, and millions more try to, despite the universal revilement.
You win. Feel better?
I feel great, but it has nothing to do with out little discussion today nor who or how many are driving SUVs.
To survive in the most of the U.S. today, most people do. The world is different today than it was for our ancestors. A small minority can do fine without a car, but to imply that we could all suddenly go car-less without major changes in the way we live is simply nonsense.
So let's go back and live in the trees.
Have at it.
If you really do, good for you.
I will "analyze needs" as long as I perceive there to be a problem.
What's the point? So you can bitch and complain? Who does that benefit? Are you hoping someday when you tell someone what a jerk he/she is for driving such a wasteful vehicle that person will say, "Wow, you're right! I'll go right out and trade this in for a Prius!" instead of "Mind your own f___ing business!" Don't hold your breath on that one. And does this needs analysis only apply to SUVs or are you equally concerned with people whose homes are "too big", who run their A/C "too much", leave their lights and TV on all the time, etc...? Why stop at just what people drive?
I do fail to see how wasting a precious resource unnecessarily benefits anyone.
I agree completely. But what constitutes "wasting" and "unnecessary", and even whether oil is a precious resource are all debateable.
That is a right I have as an American.
So is driving a big gas guzzler for any reason or none at all. What a country, eh?
It is possible, but not necessarily the case. Along with money, it takes time to adopt new technology. Also, we can build cars that get 80 or more miles to the gallon, zero emission vehicles, vehicles that use non-petroleum power sources, and various combinations of those and other "green" features. There are a number of reasons that "everyone" doesn't have these. First of all, cost is an issue. But there are many other factors -- both rational and emotional -- involved in purchasing a vehicle. Does it do what I need? Does it do what I want? Does it look how I want? Is it better in one of those areas than an alternative?
The short answer to why we aren't all driving super-high mileage vehicles is that we as consumers haven't demanded. We want fast, pretty, luxurious, big, cool, cheap, convenient, etc... cars more than we want highly efficient, enviro-friendly cars.
Hey, maybe instead of whining about the choices people make based on your guesses about what they need, you should complain to your state and federal legislators about their failure to apply fuel economy standards to this class of vehicle (or otherwise deal with the problem you perceive of too many SUVs).
Or you could thank those SUV drivers for helping to drive up the cost of oil, which will make alternative fuels and/or more efficient options such as hybrids more attractive and cost effective sooner.