So what you're saying is that you can take contributed changes into your proprietary product and not have to reimburse the people who have helped make your program better. You make millions (*taptaptap* no Flower that's billions) and when the guy who contributed the code needs function X which you only offer in your proprietary product you can jack him for a licensing fee.
Tell me this: If you fly Bunghole Air and they happen to be running Linux with PostgreSQL and Apache for all their servers (theoretically, so the FSF tells us, contributing to the bottom line if you pretend that silly things like TCO don't exist) do you expect to fly for free? Why do so many GPL fantatics have such a simplistic view that the world is software and only software: Lots of people profit because of software (either in their operations, efficiency, etc.), and if you released your software for free you have NO RIGHT to demand payment later on. The GPL philosophy is a sad, pathetic "If I can't make something worthwhile out of this, then damnit neither can you!".
And to counter the standard BSD rant you can sell a GPL'd product. The FSF has been doing it for years.
___BULLSHIT!___ Man that sort of nonsense is so unbelievably illogical it absolutely boggles the mind. Arghhh...forget it. This is absolutely ridiculous. How long until you people are calling Stallman Jesus? I'm 100% serious. There is some seriously skewed perspectives.
As long as I remember, vaporware refers to products announced and feature lists trumpeted, when the product itself is nothing more than marketing and imaginations. No software product is ever completed, however Visual Studio has been available in betas for over a year now. I would hardly call it vapourware.
How, pray tell, is it based on "older open source standards"?.NET does rip off the work of Sun quite a bit, but that is hardly an "open source standard".
Did Mr. Stallman re-define vapourware and we should all be changing our usage? Funny because when I develop in Visual Studio.Net, using C# to the CLR using the.NET Framework, it sure seems real to me.
100% true! The problem is that the GPL is a virus, and its defenders try to spread the gospel wherever they can (like in this article talking about why they used the GPL. I'd call the justification pure GPL-FUD fear-mongering bullshit [so common on Slashdot], which is why the parrots and clowns of Slashdot moderated my post to -1). When faced with propaganda, especially when it's the converted preaching to the converted, of course people should call them on it.
While I suspect it's a power-that-be at Slashdot with a serious personality defect, in a moment my post went to Moderation Totals:Troll=2, Overrated=1, Total=3. Get a life you losers. One of the questions was why he chose the GPL with the standard rhetoric and bullshit to back it up, and when I call it on it I get moderated like that? How sad.
It is open source and the question was specifically relating to the difference between "free software" and "open source" (anyone ever get the feeling that the FSF and friends are playing a little 1984? I've noticed they keep "defining" terms and then redefining terms...common terms that they have zero right to state with such certainty that they're right. "Henceforth `free' means anything that is covered under the GPL and has been personally approved by Richard Stallman."). The statement "will remain free forever" is specifically and obviously in comparison to the "faults" of the *BSD license that Stallman and friends like to perpetually attack, which is that it doesn't impose viral conditions like the GPL does...the gift that keeps on taking.
The EU is really about protectionism, and I'm sure you'll see more and more of these sorts of attacks on non-EU companies (see the recent Honeywell-GE merger squashing). At least with the US attacking Microsoft it appears impartial and unbiased (well ignoring all the $ going to politicians), but when the EU attacks MSFT it looks a little bit like they're trying to stop the flow of money leaving the EU en route to Redmond.
BTW: Have you ever heard of a little something called TPC? (Apparently not by your absurd notions) SQL Server dominates the price/performance ratio and has for some time (though DB2 is making inroads, humorously running on Windows 2000). "UNIX running on Sun, HP, or IBM Hardware" is an expensive solution that doesn't even scale to the level of SQL Server, however apparently someone forgot you back in the 1980s so you haven't realized this. Oh wait: You're probably one of those "UNIX with Oracle just because!" weenies that frequents the boards talking about how you get excited thinking about the awe inspiring Oracle.
There are plenty of little shops running just fine on a single Dell PowerEdge 2400 @ ~$3000, with developers doing testing on workstations (because SQL Server runs on low hardware [well not a 486SX...] to the highest hardware), dipshit.
In a message where I'm replying to someone trying to run SQL Server on a 486SX, you have the audacity to criticize because I mentioned the current cost of SDRAM? Guess what: I highly doubt he's too concerned about ECC RAM or RAMBUS memory if he's trying to run it on a 486.
No shit that they would want some serious hardware for something that big, and the point I made in a previous post was that obviously they're not going to be running it on underpowered hardware. Take off those Linux-loving glasses Linux-luser, because it makes your posts laughable.
SQL Server was made to run on reasonably well equipped hardware (the listed requirements for Windows 2000 are a 133Mhz Pentium processor, and 128MB of RAM, with 256MB recommended. For SQL Server 2000 they up the CPU recommendation to a 166Mhz or better), and on anything less it is starved for memory or I/O and it will not scale with CPU time because there are much more perilous external circumstances. There is ZERO reason to run Windows 2000 or SQL Server on under-powered hardware (256MB PC133MB CAS2 DIMMs are like $35 US), but on proper hardware it will take on any competitor when comparing apples to apples.
I'm shooting in the dark here, but I'd wager that it's not incredibly likely that Casinos (or anyone who actually needs a RDBMS) are running it on 486SX', so as a metric that is rather worthless (sort of like saying a Acura NSX is slow when you hook a truck trailer to it). On a real machine SQL Server will rock any system's world, including the big big boys.
Wouldn't sorting a 6TB SQL database on a win2k server take a million years?
Given that the fastest database systems in the world are running SQL Server (yes I realize that those who used to hold the TPC as sacred now defile it because of SQL Server's successes) I really don't understand how you could say this. Versus what? A magical Linux mySQL cluster? A hypothetical super computer (despite none matching the clustered performance of SQL Server 2000). I'm sure they are very careful about the queries they do run as 6TB will stress any configuration, but if anything can do it obviously SQL Server can.
Where do they store 6TB of data?
SQL Server let's you partition a database, or even just a single table, across many machines. If they have 6TB of data obviously they have a pretty impressive cluster set up, so the scalability is pretty much limitless.
Then his patents will fall under via prior art if he ever tries to enforce them. While it is fun on Slashdot to talk about people patenting the wheel, etc., there are quite a lot of checks (though perhaps not enough...) to ensure that even though you might get a patent, it might not be worth the bits that compose the digits that define it if you tried to do anything about it.
Quite humorous given that the GPL philosophy epitomizes communism (pure communism rather than some of the distorted types that have occurred on this planet. It is always interesting seeing GPL advocates frothing at the mouth when they see the term communism associated with the GPL when that is exactly the sort of ideology that it promotes, and Mr. Stallman is a modern-day Marx-wannabe). So here apparently you have the people who supposedly live under the ideology ignoring it when it serves their purpose. How surprizing.
What he's talking about isn't freedom of speech whatsoever: It's abuse of a format. If we were sitting in St. Mark's Square discussing politics and someone disagreed with us, would it be okay if they made their point by pulled out a 107dB bullhorn and blaring it in your ear? People who abuse Usenet (blatant cross-posts, dupes, floods) do so at the expense of all who use Usenet, and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
When I first read this story (and the related article) I was absolutely on the side of cotse.com, and truly believed that there should be Internet Awards of Merit (or something like that...what happen to awards? I used to anticipate the issue of PC Mag with technical awards, shareware awards, etc. Now it seems there's nothing of that sort around) handed to them for fighting the good fight. However then I read several posts on here about cascades, copy paste drowning, etc., all originating from cotse.com with no responsible administration (I'm not concurring with this: Simply saying I've read that), and having come to ignore Usenet for exactly that reason, I can see why a lot of people would be pissed: It's one thing for someone in a political newsgroup to discuss their beliefs about the Taliban or whatever, but when they post their spam to every god damn newsgroup (common. Everyone thinks their issues should be the top issues for everyone) it ruins the entire medium for everyone. If cotse.com doesn't actively seek out and eliminate dirtballs like that then I do have a problem with them.
So my question is this: Is cotse.com an overwhelming source for assholes on Usenet? [I don't know myself: For all I know the claims as such could be from people who hate that they can't harrass someone whose opinion they disagree with, so they attack the deliveryman] I don't want to defend the organization if they are irresponsibly responsible for the decline of Usenet.
Are you intentionally trying to miss the point? For all intents and purposes the posters are anonymous to other readers on Usenet (hence their opinions can't be quelched through physical threats, harrassment, etc.) : anonymous, however the service keeps track of who you are itself in case you use the service for illegal purposes, in which case you will be turned over to the authorities : accountable. Seems pretty damn clear to me. Someone with a "real" account might post under "anonymous coward" and others might not know it's CmdrTaco, but that doesn't mean that Slashdot couldn't put two and two together and figure out that he's agreeing with his own posts.
Re:Radical actions ...
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
I think you are missing the point entirely. Increases in engine efficiency, which everyone agrees are good, are not the issue here. The issue is that some Americans, to flaunt their wealth, decide to buy huge cars which they really don't need at all.
Oh really? So these SUV torchers are doing it to spite the flaunting of wealth?
If the ten or fifteen people who rode the bus to school every morning with me had to drive cars separately, that would be at least ten times the pollution. Moving things in bulk uses less resources, even if they are people. But I forgot: you probably live in a suburb a half hour or more away from any real urban area, where your car is a status symbol which you would not think of giving up.
At least 10x the pollution for 10 cars (many new ones of which are LEV or ULEV) versus a single monstrous diesel bus? Give me a break. I seriously doubt that 10 cars would produce even 1/2 the pollution of a single diesel bus (again this is based upon observation of nice black clouds coming from most diesel buses, coupled with some numbers I've read, such as that the average diesel city bus gets about 3 MPG. A Saturn SL gets about 50 MPG). Hey I'm all for good bulk carriers and mass transit systems, but the simplistic solution "ride the bus!" is hardly the environmentally correct decision in many cases. If, on the other hand, you live in a fairly smart town they might have natural gas, or hybrid buses, then that changes things considerably. Buses have never and will never be a solution because for most people don't have a bus stop in front of their house with a bus that happens to go directly to their work, so as such cars will remain a part of society. It's fantastic seeing the revolution of ultra low emission cars, and hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles. Hopefully we can get the average vehicle weight down signficantly.
Re:Radical actions ...
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
I don't like SUVs in general, but there is ZERO rationale behind torching a dealership. Whoever would do this isn't an "environmentalist" by any measure of the imagination: Instead it's some whackos looking for something to make their life worth something (sort of like a lot of GPL zealots...). These people probably tossed up between suicide or doing something "extreme", and here we have the results.
This SUV is an ULEV (ultra-low emissions vehicle): It uses a large amount of gas (something like 10-14 mpg) compared to a modern sedan which would get from 24-50 mpg, however it's extremely clean in burning it. As such from a truly environmental perspective you'd be doing far more harm (presuming that consumption of a black liquid far below the Earth's surface isn't harmful : I personally don't believe it is) driving an older car with less comprehensive environmental systems. Hell I have debates with people because I think that most city bus systems are far more damaging to the environment than cars are: Often a large percentage of the buses are poorly maintained, black cloud spewing diesel monstrosities (I know this because as a recreational cyclist I avoid these things like the plague: Instant throat irritation) which are, apart from prime time, empty except for one or two individuals. So you have a giant beast spewing astronomically more pollution into the air, sucking huge quantities of fuel (these things are HEAVY), to carry one or two people around the majority of the day.
As I said in another post, I respect people who are truly trying to do good, and I think it's pathetic when people try to shoot them down just out of spite, however it is everyone's responsibility, whether animal rights crusader or environmentalist, to act reasonably and responsibly and to keep themselves informed. Knee-jerk reactions or extremism serve no one but the opposition.
Re:2001 Excursion, 1997 Accord, which pollutes mor
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
Of course torching a dealership is RIDICULOUS, and the fact that this is portrayed as the approach that regular environmentalists (rather than whacko extremists) is taking is absurd. Every belief/movement has psychos that take things a little too far.
BTW: For your heart wrenching story about the SUV saving your life, there are thousands who are killed when their reasonable sized sedan is crushed by mammoth SUVs (which is usually coupled by grossly inflated egos and sense of immortality of the driver. How many of us have had SUVs riding our bumper despite the SUV having twice the braking distance). The idea that we should all get SUVs because there ARE SUVs out there is ridiculous. Personally I think there should be weight restrictions on vehicles allowed on most public roads unless it is for commercial (and thereby more necessary than soccer mom commuting for groceries) reasons.
BTW: This vehicle meets ULEV, and not the bogus super-monstrous vehicle category.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is that you can take contributed changes into your proprietary product and not have to reimburse the people who have helped make your program better. You make millions (*taptaptap* no Flower that's billions) and when the guy who contributed the code needs function X which you only offer in your proprietary product you can jack him for a licensing fee.
Tell me this: If you fly Bunghole Air and they happen to be running Linux with PostgreSQL and Apache for all their servers (theoretically, so the FSF tells us, contributing to the bottom line if you pretend that silly things like TCO don't exist) do you expect to fly for free? Why do so many GPL fantatics have such a simplistic view that the world is software and only software: Lots of people profit because of software (either in their operations, efficiency, etc.), and if you released your software for free you have NO RIGHT to demand payment later on. The GPL philosophy is a sad, pathetic "If I can't make something worthwhile out of this, then damnit neither can you!".
And to counter the standard BSD rant you can sell a GPL'd product. The FSF has been doing it for years.
___BULLSHIT!___ Man that sort of nonsense is so unbelievably illogical it absolutely boggles the mind. Arghhh...forget it. This is absolutely ridiculous. How long until you people are calling Stallman Jesus? I'm 100% serious. There is some seriously skewed perspectives.
As long as I remember, vaporware refers to products announced and feature lists trumpeted, when the product itself is nothing more than marketing and imaginations. No software product is ever completed, however Visual Studio has been available in betas for over a year now. I would hardly call it vapourware.
How, pray tell, is it based on "older open source standards"? .NET does rip off the work of Sun quite a bit, but that is hardly an "open source standard".
Did Mr. Stallman re-define vapourware and we should all be changing our usage? Funny because when I develop in Visual Studio.Net, using C# to the CLR using the .NET Framework, it sure seems real to me.
100% true! The problem is that the GPL is a virus, and its defenders try to spread the gospel wherever they can (like in this article talking about why they used the GPL. I'd call the justification pure GPL-FUD fear-mongering bullshit [so common on Slashdot], which is why the parrots and clowns of Slashdot moderated my post to -1). When faced with propaganda, especially when it's the converted preaching to the converted, of course people should call them on it.
While I suspect it's a power-that-be at Slashdot with a serious personality defect, in a moment my post went to Moderation Totals:Troll=2, Overrated=1, Total=3. Get a life you losers. One of the questions was why he chose the GPL with the standard rhetoric and bullshit to back it up, and when I call it on it I get moderated like that? How sad.
Does the author of the BSD TCP stack have the freedom to modify and redistribute the fork of their code that's in Windows?
Your code is what you have created and released (which is no less free after they incorporate it), and obviously any changes are their changes.
It is open source and the question was specifically relating to the difference between "free software" and "open source" (anyone ever get the feeling that the FSF and friends are playing a little 1984? I've noticed they keep "defining" terms and then redefining terms...common terms that they have zero right to state with such certainty that they're right. "Henceforth `free' means anything that is covered under the GPL and has been personally approved by Richard Stallman."). The statement "will remain free forever" is specifically and obviously in comparison to the "faults" of the *BSD license that Stallman and friends like to perpetually attack, which is that it doesn't impose viral conditions like the GPL does...the gift that keeps on taking.
The EU is really about protectionism, and I'm sure you'll see more and more of these sorts of attacks on non-EU companies (see the recent Honeywell-GE merger squashing). At least with the US attacking Microsoft it appears impartial and unbiased (well ignoring all the $ going to politicians), but when the EU attacks MSFT it looks a little bit like they're trying to stop the flow of money leaving the EU en route to Redmond.
BTW: Have you ever heard of a little something called TPC? (Apparently not by your absurd notions) SQL Server dominates the price/performance ratio and has for some time (though DB2 is making inroads, humorously running on Windows 2000). "UNIX running on Sun, HP, or IBM Hardware" is an expensive solution that doesn't even scale to the level of SQL Server, however apparently someone forgot you back in the 1980s so you haven't realized this. Oh wait: You're probably one of those "UNIX with Oracle just because!" weenies that frequents the boards talking about how you get excited thinking about the awe inspiring Oracle.
There are plenty of little shops running just fine on a single Dell PowerEdge 2400 @ ~$3000, with developers doing testing on workstations (because SQL Server runs on low hardware [well not a 486SX...] to the highest hardware), dipshit.
In a message where I'm replying to someone trying to run SQL Server on a 486SX, you have the audacity to criticize because I mentioned the current cost of SDRAM? Guess what: I highly doubt he's too concerned about ECC RAM or RAMBUS memory if he's trying to run it on a 486.
No shit that they would want some serious hardware for something that big, and the point I made in a previous post was that obviously they're not going to be running it on underpowered hardware. Take off those Linux-loving glasses Linux-luser, because it makes your posts laughable.
SQL Server was made to run on reasonably well equipped hardware (the listed requirements for Windows 2000 are a 133Mhz Pentium processor, and 128MB of RAM, with 256MB recommended. For SQL Server 2000 they up the CPU recommendation to a 166Mhz or better), and on anything less it is starved for memory or I/O and it will not scale with CPU time because there are much more perilous external circumstances. There is ZERO reason to run Windows 2000 or SQL Server on under-powered hardware (256MB PC133MB CAS2 DIMMs are like $35 US), but on proper hardware it will take on any competitor when comparing apples to apples.
I'm shooting in the dark here, but I'd wager that it's not incredibly likely that Casinos (or anyone who actually needs a RDBMS) are running it on 486SX', so as a metric that is rather worthless (sort of like saying a Acura NSX is slow when you hook a truck trailer to it). On a real machine SQL Server will rock any system's world, including the big big boys.
Wouldn't sorting a 6TB SQL database on a win2k server take a million years?
Given that the fastest database systems in the world are running SQL Server (yes I realize that those who used to hold the TPC as sacred now defile it because of SQL Server's successes) I really don't understand how you could say this. Versus what? A magical Linux mySQL cluster? A hypothetical super computer (despite none matching the clustered performance of SQL Server 2000). I'm sure they are very careful about the queries they do run as 6TB will stress any configuration, but if anything can do it obviously SQL Server can.
Where do they store 6TB of data?
SQL Server let's you partition a database, or even just a single table, across many machines. If they have 6TB of data obviously they have a pretty impressive cluster set up, so the scalability is pretty much limitless.
A SQL Server database can be partitioned obviously across multiple machines (which is how it dominates the TPC), but also across several disk volumes.
In any case I thought the theoretical maximum file size is 16 exabytes (18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes).
Then his patents will fall under via prior art if he ever tries to enforce them. While it is fun on Slashdot to talk about people patenting the wheel, etc., there are quite a lot of checks (though perhaps not enough...) to ensure that even though you might get a patent, it might not be worth the bits that compose the digits that define it if you tried to do anything about it.
Uh...how did Canada come into this beyotchi?
Quite humorous given that the GPL philosophy epitomizes communism (pure communism rather than some of the distorted types that have occurred on this planet. It is always interesting seeing GPL advocates frothing at the mouth when they see the term communism associated with the GPL when that is exactly the sort of ideology that it promotes, and Mr. Stallman is a modern-day Marx-wannabe). So here apparently you have the people who supposedly live under the ideology ignoring it when it serves their purpose. How surprizing.
Out of curiosity, what's a "hipcrime" flood?
What he's talking about isn't freedom of speech whatsoever: It's abuse of a format. If we were sitting in St. Mark's Square discussing politics and someone disagreed with us, would it be okay if they made their point by pulled out a 107dB bullhorn and blaring it in your ear? People who abuse Usenet (blatant cross-posts, dupes, floods) do so at the expense of all who use Usenet, and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
When I first read this story (and the related article) I was absolutely on the side of cotse.com, and truly believed that there should be Internet Awards of Merit (or something like that...what happen to awards? I used to anticipate the issue of PC Mag with technical awards, shareware awards, etc. Now it seems there's nothing of that sort around) handed to them for fighting the good fight. However then I read several posts on here about cascades, copy paste drowning, etc., all originating from cotse.com with no responsible administration (I'm not concurring with this: Simply saying I've read that), and having come to ignore Usenet for exactly that reason, I can see why a lot of people would be pissed: It's one thing for someone in a political newsgroup to discuss their beliefs about the Taliban or whatever, but when they post their spam to every god damn newsgroup (common. Everyone thinks their issues should be the top issues for everyone) it ruins the entire medium for everyone. If cotse.com doesn't actively seek out and eliminate dirtballs like that then I do have a problem with them.
So my question is this: Is cotse.com an overwhelming source for assholes on Usenet? [I don't know myself: For all I know the claims as such could be from people who hate that they can't harrass someone whose opinion they disagree with, so they attack the deliveryman] I don't want to defend the organization if they are irresponsibly responsible for the decline of Usenet.
Are you intentionally trying to miss the point? For all intents and purposes the posters are anonymous to other readers on Usenet (hence their opinions can't be quelched through physical threats, harrassment, etc.) : anonymous, however the service keeps track of who you are itself in case you use the service for illegal purposes, in which case you will be turned over to the authorities : accountable. Seems pretty damn clear to me. Someone with a "real" account might post under "anonymous coward" and others might not know it's CmdrTaco, but that doesn't mean that Slashdot couldn't put two and two together and figure out that he's agreeing with his own posts.
I think you are missing the point entirely. Increases in engine efficiency, which everyone agrees are good, are not the issue here. The issue is that some Americans, to flaunt their wealth, decide to buy huge cars which they really don't need at all.
Oh really? So these SUV torchers are doing it to spite the flaunting of wealth?
If the ten or fifteen people who rode the bus to school every morning with me had to drive cars separately, that would be at least ten times the pollution. Moving things in bulk uses less resources, even if they are people. But I forgot: you probably live in a suburb a half hour or more away from any real urban area, where your car is a status symbol which you would not think of giving up.
At least 10x the pollution for 10 cars (many new ones of which are LEV or ULEV) versus a single monstrous diesel bus? Give me a break. I seriously doubt that 10 cars would produce even 1/2 the pollution of a single diesel bus (again this is based upon observation of nice black clouds coming from most diesel buses, coupled with some numbers I've read, such as that the average diesel city bus gets about 3 MPG. A Saturn SL gets about 50 MPG). Hey I'm all for good bulk carriers and mass transit systems, but the simplistic solution "ride the bus!" is hardly the environmentally correct decision in many cases. If, on the other hand, you live in a fairly smart town they might have natural gas, or hybrid buses, then that changes things considerably. Buses have never and will never be a solution because for most people don't have a bus stop in front of their house with a bus that happens to go directly to their work, so as such cars will remain a part of society. It's fantastic seeing the revolution of ultra low emission cars, and hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles. Hopefully we can get the average vehicle weight down signficantly.
I don't like SUVs in general, but there is ZERO rationale behind torching a dealership. Whoever would do this isn't an "environmentalist" by any measure of the imagination: Instead it's some whackos looking for something to make their life worth something (sort of like a lot of GPL zealots...). These people probably tossed up between suicide or doing something "extreme", and here we have the results.
This SUV is an ULEV (ultra-low emissions vehicle): It uses a large amount of gas (something like 10-14 mpg) compared to a modern sedan which would get from 24-50 mpg, however it's extremely clean in burning it. As such from a truly environmental perspective you'd be doing far more harm (presuming that consumption of a black liquid far below the Earth's surface isn't harmful : I personally don't believe it is) driving an older car with less comprehensive environmental systems. Hell I have debates with people because I think that most city bus systems are far more damaging to the environment than cars are: Often a large percentage of the buses are poorly maintained, black cloud spewing diesel monstrosities (I know this because as a recreational cyclist I avoid these things like the plague: Instant throat irritation) which are, apart from prime time, empty except for one or two individuals. So you have a giant beast spewing astronomically more pollution into the air, sucking huge quantities of fuel (these things are HEAVY), to carry one or two people around the majority of the day.
As I said in another post, I respect people who are truly trying to do good, and I think it's pathetic when people try to shoot them down just out of spite, however it is everyone's responsibility, whether animal rights crusader or environmentalist, to act reasonably and responsibly and to keep themselves informed. Knee-jerk reactions or extremism serve no one but the opposition.
Doubtful.
Of course torching a dealership is RIDICULOUS, and the fact that this is portrayed as the approach that regular environmentalists (rather than whacko extremists) is taking is absurd. Every belief/movement has psychos that take things a little too far.
BTW: For your heart wrenching story about the SUV saving your life, there are thousands who are killed when their reasonable sized sedan is crushed by mammoth SUVs (which is usually coupled by grossly inflated egos and sense of immortality of the driver. How many of us have had SUVs riding our bumper despite the SUV having twice the braking distance). The idea that we should all get SUVs because there ARE SUVs out there is ridiculous. Personally I think there should be weight restrictions on vehicles allowed on most public roads unless it is for commercial (and thereby more necessary than soccer mom commuting for groceries) reasons.
BTW: This vehicle meets ULEV, and not the bogus super-monstrous vehicle category.