drew_kime writes: "GOOGLE’S SELF-DRIVING CAR caused its first crash on February 14, when it changed lanes and put itself in the path of an oncoming bus.
"In an accident report filed with the California DMV on February 23 (and made public today), Google wrote that its autonomous car, a Lexus SUV, was driving itself down El Camino Real in Mountain View. It moved to the far right lane to make a right turn onto Castro Street, but stopped when it detected sand bags sitting around a storm drain and blocking its path. It was the move to get around the sand bags that caused the trouble." Link to Original Source
Drew Kime writes: "For at least the past hour I haven't been able to connect to my Blogger-hosted blog. If my stats on Google Analytics are up to date, no one has hit the site for at least two hours. (And I average over a hundred per hour this time of day.)
I tried to check the official Blogger status. Ironic error message: "Your request for [spam URL stripped] could not be fulfilled, because the connection to status.blogger.com (18.104.22.168) could not be established." Well, I guess that tells me the status. It seems they host their official status blog on the same server or cluster that hosts *my* blog.
drew_kime writes: In all the analysis of the recently-announced Novell / Microsoft deal, I haven't seen any mention of the applicability clause in the Novell FAQ:
Q. Does this covenant apply to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that buy SUSE Linux Enterprise and preload or resell it?
The covenant applies to end customers of Novell products.
While the rest of the answers on that page are extensive, even long-winded, that simple statement really stands out. And if you consider Microsoft's position with regard to refunds — ie: claiming that the OEMs are their (Microsoft's) customers — it seems they haven't really answered the question at all.
So without a clear definition of "end customers of Novell products" we don't really know who Microsoft is promising not to sue.
If it's OEMs, as their (no-)refund policy suggests, then this indemnification is worthless to end users.
If it applies to end users, then their position on refunds loses its legal foundation.
Does anyone with a real legal background agree they might have backed themselves into a corner?