Make that: I wonder if we'll see anti-SLAPP actions by Trump, Giuliani, or Fox News if they win an anti-defamation suit or appeal of one?

On Thursday, in a unanimous decision, a four-judge New York Supreme Court appellate panel ordered the case to continue, keeping the Dendrite issue alive and also allowing us to proceed in seeking damages based on New York's anti-SLAPP law, which prohibits "strategic lawsuits against public participation."

Hmmm...

I wonder if we'll see SLAPP actions by Trump, Giuliani, or Fox News if they win an anti-defamation suit or appeal of one?

Most states and towns in the USA do not have building codes for residential off-grid battery storage.

I thought that was in the National Electrical Code (NEC) section on solar, at least if they're on the 2017 version (or some earlier versions). Most jurisdictions adopt some version of the NEC (and occasionally move to a later version - my county is on 2017 as of a year or so ago) and then maybe add a few changes, rather than write their own electrical code.

Main remaining downsides, if you want to keep your fire insurance, are finding listed (by an NRTL such as UL) systems (there are a few, even some that are rated for elevations over 1,500 meters - about 79 feet short of 5,000) and that the code now requires a cert for solar systems installers, so if you want to install it all yourself you have to drop a couple hunderd bux on a short online course or hire a pro to make the major connections and maybe do some of the design for your install.

Problem is that gas is often byproduct of oil extraction, and very difficult to transport since it's a gas and disperses, unlike oil that is a liquid and can be stored in a simple container.

So use a thermoacoustic liquefier. Bunch of plumbing and a burner regulator on a par with a water heater, which contains the only moving part. Burn off 30% of it and use the heat energy to turn the rest as liquefied propane (LP) Gas, ready to haul away. One model, about the right size to haul in on a flatbed semi, can output 500 gal per day at that efficiency.

Buybacks signal there is nothing better you can think of doing with all your cash.

Or that you have a lot of cash and other assets and a market mob madness has depressed your stock price to where it's a really good deal to spend some of the cash to take some of the stock out of circulation and concentrate the company's value in the rest of it.

Possibly it's even such a good deal that some rich outsiders could buy up controlling interest, sell off the non-money assets, take that and the cash pile, and come out ahead. That leaves the current employees out of a job and with their unvested options worthless. Better to spend the hostile-takeover bait making the rest of your stock more valueable now, and keep the company running, than wait until the hostiles are buying and screw up the company and its stockholders with poison pills and the like.

We know that the boards were compliant because Intel won't sell chipsets to anyone who doesn't follow their rules. Hardware Unboxed was exercising extreme diligence to confirm that Intel hasn't specified which power limits they're ok with. The whole market stack is captured, which unfortunately for intel leaves them with nobody to blame but themselves.

The only way intel could escape liability for this problem would be if some of the board makers were falsifying data to pass the conditions (like VW with their DEF emissions fraud scheme), which hasn't been alleged.

That's a great car analogy because it involves a car. Here's a better one.

Ford: Buy our 500hp engines, it will allow you to drive 200mph!

Dodge: We plan to hit 210mph by using Ford's engine. We are going to run it at 50,000rpm and will be saving costs by using no radiator.

Ford: Sounds great, we will tell everyone to buy a Dodge!

Probably because of the 20 minutes of script reading. If I wanted to waste my life listening to a drone read I'd call customer service.

MSI was one of the makers pushing infinite power on all their boards and this advice is not current. I'd expect their aberrant results to be an indicator of some other configurations that are quite unreasonable.

The Chinese don't want to spend their annual salary on a phone known to fall apart just so they can look cooler than their neighbor?

As an early beta-tester (read: customer) of Ford's attempt at making a CVT transmission, please stop giving them ideas.

Article is about intel's approved rules and bios's bricking CPUs, not boards failing due to inadequate VRM's. If you had the same problem, then even after replacing the board your problem would persist, except that board likely is ewaste-by-design everything soldered on-board so you accidentally replaced the whole system.

It's the fault of the motherboard makers for using the chipsets exclusively allowed by Intel with a bios explicitly approved by Intel while following the rules drafted by Intel.

The common failure when all your decisions must be approved by some outsider is to stop doing your own oversight. Of course the board makers should have done better, but it's 1000% intel's fault for failing to use their position to actually protect their products and customers.

The case revolves around subscribers who received repeated notices but they allegedly never stopped their infringements and cox never disconnected them. This was a problem because the DMCA has language about repeat infringement, strikes, and removal/disconnection but doesn't specify what qualifies as infringement or how many strikes is too many.

The jury seemed to decide that accusations qualify as infringement, and whatever number of strikes was considered "reasonable" was largely ignored since cox allegedly didn't ever disconnect anyone and maybe wasn't even tallying how many "strikes" individual subscribers received.

To my understanding cox was following the law regarding passing on strikes/warnings to subscribers, but as the alleged infringement was temporal in nature there's nothing to takedown. It does seem that the courts just passed interpreting the extremely poorly written law onto a jury which might be the only group of people less qualified than the congresscritters who wrote it.

They're using more or less PC hardware, but the APIs are more aggressive in targeting the exact features of said hardware. That creates a problem when the same game is released on a newer platform which doesn't have those specific GPU features.