For some reason I thought the Highlander was a body on frame. I stand corrected. Thanks!

It's like there's unbridled chaos and anarchy over there... Almost sounds like a warzone.

I very well could be a victim of Poe's Law and didn't realize it. Re-reading your post with the knowledge that you were being sarcastic...yeah. It's subtle. Very subtle if you're not paying attention (like I wasn't). Good play.

New MacBook??

Is... is that what you're talking about? $1300 for at best a 1.3 GHZ dual-core Intel M (I don't care about "turbo" freq)? Dell has a comparable one for $200 and that gets you a 2.5 GHz dual-core Celeron at worst. The Dell is what fills options 1,2, and 3 above. The Mac breaks 1 & 3. 4 & 5 can most likely be fixed for another $100-400 to pay someone to either rip out 8.1 or skin it to look like XP. You're right in that Apple is Targeting the basic need user. But they're not targeting the basic need user with a limited budget ( the kind of Customer jbolden is talking about above), they're targeting people with more money than sense and a distinct need for "New Shiny"...as they've always done.

And to your last point... Do you really honestly believe that OSX is even CLOSE to XP's interface? The Closest Windows UI that anyone says OSX replicates best is Windows 7, and even then...there's no Start Menu. I've worked with computer illiterate people that had to migrate from XP for one reason or another. The Start Menu has always been critical to the flow they've been comfortable with for 20 years and you wouldn't believe how much teeth pulling was involved to get them to understand the concept of the Aero Taskbar. I mean seriously, have you ever worked with a Windows 9x+ box? Ever? The only MS created interface that even remotely looked or behaved like Mac OS and later OSX was Progman of 3.x fame.

The Tahoe/Yukon hybrid... now there's a definition for useless. Thing didn't get any better mileage than the models that just had AFM and it was unjustifiably more expensive for what you got out of it.

I dunno about this. My little S-10 Blazer was able to transport a queen futon without much trouble fitting, aside from having to have the window Hatch Open and bungies to secure/flag it so it was legal for transport. My crossover (Chevy Traverse) has just as much volume.....but (un)surprisingly they engineered the freakin thing into an egg-shape that wouldn't let the futon fit in at any angle. Also, having the hatch instead of a gate / window, I wouldn't have been able to let the thing hang out the back either. Piece of crap, I wish I never got the fucker.

Please tell me there's at least someone on this site that didn't take me overly serious? I know there's a lot of people here that have trouble with humor..but, I thought I was being rather blatant myself.

Honda CRV = CUV.

Toyota Rav4 = CUV

Still haven't proven me wrong. I'm talking about an honest SUV, where they sit with enough ground clearance that I can take a dolley, lie down under the thing and more or less move from front to rear without hitting my head on anything. A Highlander is an SUV. A Nissan Pathfinder is an SUV. An SUV requires a better than delicate drivetrain and suspension to be able to handle moderate off-roading.

CUV's all of 'em. You want an SUV from Ford, nothing smaller than an Explorer, and some of the new ones are getting on the edge of small. Anything smaller than that but bigger than a car is a Crossover. They don't have the drivetrain to survive major offroading like the true SUV's do.

Ok...I see why. Roughly the same curb weight, but your engine is designed to rev a lot higher than the engine in my blazers were. The Blazers were putting out 110 to 140 hp (the '86 had a power chip installed) at 4000 RPM with redline being 4300 RPM. Your Sorento Pushes 180 hp at 6K. Redline is probably in the area of 6200 - 6800. Your engine is more designed and geared for and speed and passenger comfort (max achievable torque is 178 lb-ft @ 4K Revs) . The Blazers could tow heavier loads by having 198('84) - 215('86) lb-ft at about 2k Revs...which also caused a bit harder shifting than modern vehicles. The Blazers could have also used a sixth gear to reduce the ratio change between 3rd and 4th. There were many times where 3rd had to rev too high but 4th lugged. Unfortunately, I blew out the trans on the '84 from pushing it through the mountains too much, and the motor quit on the '86 (problem was traced back to the power chip reducing engine life by having hotter detonations. Caused the water jacket to crack under stress letting the coolant wash the bearings as it mixed with the oil)

Could always fling the stuff out into the depths of space. What's the worst that could happen? Progressive Alien Space Hippies come down to Earth and start embargoing/picketing us with "Save Our Void" signs?

What SUV has a 4-banger in it? I had 2 Chevy S-10 Blazers with a 2.8 liter V6 each, and they fit perfect definition of Vehicular Anemia. The Inline 5 of the Trailblazer was the same kind of joke, too. "Accelerate up the hill" I'll just do the best I can and hope I make it, thank you. I can't imagine the kind of puttering a 4-banger in one of those would do... Unless you're talking about the mostly plastic CUV's they have now, like an Equinox or Trax.

For an AC on /. ...fuck no I'm not that stupid.

For your second (and third) questions...I'm in a slump at work and bored as hell. This article struck a chord at the wrong time.

See...the pace is so Ludicrous I get the same joke posted twice within minutes of each other! (dafuq happened? I posted the "Pace of" version...not "Paced".)

I knew Plaid would come back into fashion! Advertise it as "Urban Camouflage for the Ludicrous Paced Life!"