That's kind of a short-sighted economic summary.

For instance, the extra gasoline cost of a 30 MPG car over an electric car is around $9000 after 100,000. I'd say this is about the limit to the reliability of a gasoline car.

With that being said there are many more factors which would make electric cars more or less advantageous. For instance:
How much more does a battery conversion or battery-powered car currently cost? The Volt's Hybrid-grade batteries are already (currently) $16,000 and a pure-electric car would need at least that equivalent. How much more or less maintenance will an all electric car need? They may not need oil changes (depending on design) but if the battery or electric motor has far more or less life than an average car engine, that can vastly tilt the equation. What is the longest trip that you plan to take and do you have 2-10 hours to take a break every couple hundred miles? Refueling a gasoline car takes much less time than charging an electric car so if you intend to go 200+ miles in a single trip, you will either need to rent a gas car, buy a hybrid, or buy another full gasoline car. The all-electric solution only remains ideal for short and mid commuters.

I'm not saying all-electric could never be a good solution, but just because it's electric does not mean you'll save money.

Step 1) Sell the car at a loss.
Step 2) ...
Step 3) Profit!!!

Wow...

I'll assume you meant this to be analogous to the case at hand as a contrarian viewpoint.

In those cases, damages can be shown although I do agree they have and are probably vastly overestimated. You won't ever hear me say there are no know abuses of the court system, nor is every judgment fair, I'll simply say that is the intent of the court system and it should be treated as such. For that reason, the judge in this case got the ruling very much right as there was no proof of any damages.

Actually, I think the intent of the article is to show that while Verizon has a 4th gen awesome network, they still have a pricing framework that's about 5 years obsolete.

Actually, a few quick corrections - While Google intended to take photographs, there is no proof they intended to trespass which is the aim of this particular lawsuit. There is also no proof that Google intended to extort or otherwise maliciously use the photographs they've gained.

Judging by the tone of your final statement, your envisioned use of the Google pics may not be so innocent. While I agree you have just as much right to be on the Boring's private property as you do Google's, both entities have just as much right to sue you for trespassing and damages caused by your actions.

While I agree that both of those factors should be considered, IMHO (and I believe in the court's opinion too) the intent of the photographs is the determining factor.

In many cases where courts have ruled against invasion of privacy in public places, the intent of the photographs was generally deformation of character to extortion and blackmail. When looking at the Google case, the pictures taken were not aimed to directly or even indirectly attack the Plaintiff, but instead was part of an automatic car system which either took a wrong turn or was mapped improperly.

While it's an interesting contrast, it makes sense in light of all factors.

Even though the details are pretty brief, it sounds like a good ruling.

I think far too many people think that just because somebody wrongs you, you should be entitled to millions of dollars when you sue them even though what they did isn't all that damaging. Considering they could prove no ill effect to the Google car coming on to their property, they had no right to the $25,000 they claimed.

I could see this as being an issue if one of the members of the house was in the witness protection program and had to be relocated because of the image or something similar to that, but there was no real damage here. Highly publicized rulings like this really help in the fight against frivolous lawsuits by putting those types of people back in check. Courts aren't designed to make someone unfairly rich, they're designed to recoup actual damages and that's it.

Don't be such a boob.

Glad we could keep you abreast of the situation.

Actually, your "no" is technically incorrect because both the GP and the rest of your post are correct. Ads require retrieval and submission through a CDN as well as delivery through your ISP so resources on both end are being wasted.