Here's what makes this case different than the other StreetView suits... the Google van wasn't supposed to be on this road in the first place. So sue them for damages arising from unlawful trespassing. But I don't see how this makes the invasion of privacy case any different from others.
"a $250 wirelessly networked personal computer intended for the four billion people around the world who live on less than $2,000 a year".
Then, later on in the article:
"The answer, he decided, was a simple device that would offer entertainment, making it something that even the world's poorest citizens might be willing to pay a sizable share -
perhaps more than 5 percent - of their annual income to own".
Maybe it's just me, but $250 sounds like a lot more than 5% of $2000. I might be willing to pay 5 percent of my annual income to own something cool -- but 12.5%? I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
13' RGB monitor (with contrast/brightness knobs)
13 feet? Wow. I know computers were big in the stoneage...errrr....eighties, but monitors too?
Umm...there's something seriously wrong here...
We start with:
Then, later on in the article:
Maybe it's just me, but $250 sounds like a lot more than 5% of $2000. I might be willing to pay 5 percent of my annual income to own something cool -- but 12.5%? I don't think so.
Doesn't something like this already exist on some cellphones?