"*overpaid empty suit* is leaving to spend more time with his family."

"Change it or you're fired."

He got his non-compliant password.

Executives are immune from inconvenient policy.

Don't know about that, and don't care. I left that shithole a year and a half ago.

It's certainly your problem when they fire you for not doing it.

If the policy in place is dumb, make it obviously so. This way it can be solved, if you don't do it, you are part of the problem.

In my experience, the dumbness of the policy is directly proportional to the difficulty in making anyone understand how dumb it is. It's also directly proportional to the likelihood that someone whose job title starts with "Chief" wrote the policy and will not change it, no matter what.

It's also dumb to allow the CEO to have a non-expiring password that is the name of the company. But good luck telling the CEO he can't have it. I'll see you at the unemployment office.

And sometimes not even then. I was at a company when they had a breach involving financial info. It cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase credit protection for thousands of our customers. However, they just kept on operating the same way, storing credit card information in the clear because that's the way they've always done it, and upgrading the back-office accounting system to allow tokenization of transactions would have cost money. Nobody in upper management had the balls to go to the CFO and say "You will fix this, and you will fix it now. I don't want any excuses. Get it done."

So, as far as I know, they're still doing it. At least they're not storing CVV numbers anymore...

You want a big company to actually do what it promised it will do? Why do you hate America?

On the contrary, I could easily afford a "nicer" car. I have chosen to drive something that takes into account that I'm not the only person in the world. You should explore the concept.

No I didn't.

The CTS is a step in the right direction, but the mileage could be better. The base model does a claimed 20city/30highway. So, you can probably expect 23, 24. I expect you could find a less expensive, more fuel-efficient vehicle that had all those toys. The memory seat stuff is cool though.

but a lot of people just do it because they're selfish assholes.

FTFY.

The first is, "I want to enjoy the nicer vehicle all year long".

That's a "want" not a "need". Get over it.

There are many times having more space comes in handy, not just on road trips. Bringing home bikes for the kids, taking stuff to school for parties (my wife is a room mother and often has to take stuff to school), taking an extra kid or two places.

There isn't anything there you can't do with a Civic, or a Golf, or etc.

Most of the major companies do have a handful of Suburbans for rent, I just checked Alamo and Thrifty, both have a Suburban LS for rent for about $1,000 for a week. Both have cloth seats, no technology, 2WD, etc.

Oh poor me! I can't have leather seats! I can't have a 4WD system that does nothing but add weight and give me the false sense of security that it will help me slow down faster!

You'll live.

Yea, thanks but no thanks. I pay about that price per month for my Yukon XL Denali and it is loaded with everything and I enjoy driving it every day. You can keep your little econobox, it doesn't work for me.

You don't get it. You don't see that you're being massive spoiled self-centered selfish asshole. You have put your own wants over the needs of others, for no other reason than that you can.

Heck, they can't fathom the possibility that some SUV owners might actually utilize their vehicle as it is designed for.

Citation needed. When was the last time you saw an Escalade off-road?

lol typical teabagger refusing to admit he word-associates "Obama" with "Nigger"

Dude sounds like a crank. For example: this article raises a number of red flags for me. One, he references his own work as the sole basis for a conclusion, and two, he whines like a 5 year old:

Since, as usual, none of the above authors reference the voluminous evidence that quasars are intrinsically redshifted objects ejected from lower redshifted galaxies, there is very little chance of conventional astronomy correcting a huge error in their fundamental assumptions.

Waah! The mean nasty mainstream astronomers won't completely change the field because I said so! Waaah!