@sub150: +1.

@Bobby T.: No actually, the family should be liable because they chose to leave their pets behind.

@dantheman12: The family should not have the option to pay after the fact (i.e. when their house is already on fire) or else nobody would pay the $75 in advance, and only pay when their IS on fire. UNLESS, they charged them $75,000 or something awesome like that. That would teach them a lesson.

Gizmodo should stick to reporting facts whether than putting their own opinions in misleading article headlines.

'brain-controlled', unless the rat's called Brian

Nicely done. Sad part is that if this was truly for sale, I would not be surprised if I started seeing them on the road.

wow, no comparison in image quality? this is not relevant to my interest.

No test track: F. for fail.

@bradledy: What? If you SERIOUSLY think that the shape of the lambo is limiting its top speed, your stupidity is beyond reasoning.

@bradledy: Uh no. The role that shape plays on aerodynamics is bigger at higher speeds. So if it's not a problem for the F-117, it sure shouldn't be for the Lambo at 'only' 200mph.

ugh, looks like it has been Jaguar-fied.

Makes you think Aston doesn't it.

@Mazda787b: Mini CooperS GTO perhaps?

Love the rear wing.

@Canuck Chinaman: PLEASE, it's a mini for god's sake.

@seanmcr6: which 911 did you get?

that's an Evo+LFA

it's a mini LFA

@gtaz19: no one fucking cares.

no americans allowed.