I'm really glad I have an antenna system on my roof.
A very simple setup would receive lots of local channels. But to pull in a few extra channels from up to 130 miles away, I tricked it out with a rotor, mast-mounted amplifier, and a diplexer (instead of a combiner, for 3 dB less signal loss). Total cost: less than two cable bills.
Thanks for the reply. I wish Slashdot had member-to-member messaging so I wouldn't have to post off-topic questions.
Wow, I see what you mean:
https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-t...
But based on the towering spike that is the meteoric rise and fall of the immensely contagious Omicron (e.g., see https://www.nytimes.com/intera... ), I think every country will have eventually achieved herd immunity to Omicron. It is unavoidable, regardless of whether a health minister seeks that outcome or not. Do you agree?
The media seems to never speak in terms of herd immunity to Omicron. But I don't know what else could have caused the rapid collapse in infection rates (in most countries; Iceland isn't there yet) other than Omicron burning through the entire population of people who are susceptible to it.
For whatever reason, some U.S. states (like Maine and Kentucky) came to the Omicron-herd-immunity party later than others. Brunei and Iceland, I think, are the world's Maine and Kentucky.
Rei, what do you make of the fact that Iceland now has the second-highest infection rate in the world?
Brunei 939 per 100,000
Iceland 775 per 100,000
Hong Kong 511 per 100,000
Latvia 434 per 100,000
And why did Iceland stop reporting sequences in September 2021? (see https://outbreak.info/location... )
Absolutely not trolling you. I've said before, you're one of the most brilliant individuals I've encountered.
They say the fraction of pixels that are lost is "not large."
They could much more accurately say it is "negligible."
I thought lunar orbit would be a safe place to hide my bumblebee.
Really? The abstract says "Our approach suggests that CO2 levels expected by 2100 can potentially enhance plant biomass by 12 +/- 3% above current values, equivalent to 59 +/- 13 PgC."
It does not go on to say, "but only if we sprinkle extra nitrogen and phosphorus on global vegetation."
Is the radiation in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone really so unsafe? If so, why is the UN reporting that wildlife is flourishing there?
Maximizing profit is not always about "charging more and giving less." Sometimes the opposite is true. Later in your post, you seemed to realize that, but you sure like putting those incorrect words in my mouth.
Here's an example where maximizing profit is about giving more to your customers. Two years ago I changed ISPs, because my ISP hadn't offered me a bandwidth increase in years. After I switched to a different provider, my former ISP decided it would be in the interest of its own profitability to do a better job of retaining customers by giving them a bandwidth increase. It came too late to retain me, but at least they're still in business.
modding you troll was insufficient to express what a dbag you are
This dbag gives 27% of his income to highly efficient charities that lift people out of absolute poverty. How does that compare to your charitable giving, non-dbag?
(Absolute poverty is what we should care about, not relative poverty a.k.a. "income inequality." I live in relative poverty compared to Jeff Bezos, and that's not a problem. It would be a problem if Bezos had a "giant Smaug pile doing nothing," as you laughably claim, but he does not. He invests his profits, which has indirectly created even more jobs than he has created directly.)
I strive to charge my clients as much as the market will bear -- not more, and not less. I.e., I strive to maximize profitability. If I charged less than the market will bear, effectively I'd be redirecting my charity toward my well-off clients, and away from desperately poor people.
The figure used to be a lot less than 27%, but it has gone up as my income has increased over the years.
I want to earn even more profits. Not because I'm fond of luxury goods, but for two great reasons:
1. I'd like to do some really large-scale philanthropy. (If anything could dissuade me from doing philanthropy, it's the ingratitude shown by people like you.)
2. Each time somebody earns a profit via a transaction that both parties enter into voluntarily, and both parties perceive as beneficial, they create social good. Yes, really. That is a shocking claim to people who've been conditioned to think of "profit" as a dirty word. But think about your local supermarket. In order to make a profit, it makes a wide variety of foods available to you at far less cost than a restaurant. And it takes care of all the logistics of having food from around the world shipped to your neighborhood! Instead of thinking of that as a social good, you probably take it for granted... but if an evil tyrant ordered all supermarkets to close, you would perceive a great loss of social good, and oh how you'd howl.
The fuck are you smoking? Minimizing payroll costs is the 'maximize profitability' strategy they're employing.
You seriously think employee earnings are not tied in any way to how profitable their employer is? If a company is not profitable, eventually it closes its doors and all employee earnings go to zero. (That is only true in the absence of subsidies, such as the billions Amtrak receives each year.) Some companies hand out generous Christmas bonuses -- but only in years that they are profitable.
our tax needs should be addressed by increasing the ridiculously irresponsible corporate tax cuts from the "party of fiscal responsibility" that blows up the deficit every time they're in power far more than the 'tax and spend' party.
You seriously think the $29 trillion national debt and the $162 trillion in unfunded liabilities ( U.S. Debt Clock ) are caused by a revenue problem, not a spending problem?
Nope. Tax revenues have grown exponentially. The problem is, federal spending has grown by an even bigger exponent. With the current mindset, no amount of revenue growth is ever enough to feed the beast. There was a proposal to change that mindset some years ago, and everyone was surprised when Clinton associate and self-described liberal Democrat Lanny Davis said it made sense.
First of all, more total profit is more total profit, even if it's a lower profit/subscriber.
Of course that is true. What is your point? Are you trying to imply that I favor making a bigger profit per subscriber, at the expense of total profit? No, that would be stupid.
On a smaller scale, think about a self-employed landscaper who is trying to give his family a decent life. There are three mutually exclusive courses of action he could take:
(1) charge lower rates than the market will bear -- which amounts to giving charitable contributions to his customers, and would reduce his family's standard of living
(2) charge higher rates than the market will bear, which would be a lose/lose/lose situation for his customers, himself and his family
(3) attempt to maximize his profit
Obviously, he should choose (3). And on the scale of a large company, it's much more important to get profitability right, because the standard of living of thousands of families is at stake.
Are you proposing that every company should charge less (or more) than the market will bear, or that only 5G providers should do so? If every company did so, the economic distortion and misallocation of resources would be so severe, the number of little old ladies with low incomes would skyrocket.
Fuck people whose thinking like you...
I wish you a Merry Christmas, fafalone. My Christmas present to you is not being verbally abusive to you, as you were to me.
Heard about the guy with his head in the oven, and his feet in a block of ice?
On average, he was comfortable.
Ironically, for the Greens, more CO2 in the air makes the planet greener. See https://www.nature.com/article...
The German movement to shut down reactors wasn't having much influence until Fukushima happened.
If the Green party thought about the issue a little less superficially, they would realize that none of Germany's reactors are vulnerable to tsunamis.
Also note that solar has a much higher energy deathprint than nuclear:
Number of deaths per trillion kilowatt hours:
Solar (rooftop) -- 440
Nuclear (global average including Chernobyl and Fukushima) -- 90
Nuclear (U.S.) -- 0.1
Maybe there's a good reason behind this finding:
U.S. 5G providers are better at optimizing profitability; while in other countries, management is more likely to just leave the bandwidth gates wide open, so anyone can effectively get more than they pay for, by consuming large chunks of a finite resource for frivolous reasons. (E.g., streaming the SpongeBob Movie in 4K.)
Those who don't understand the importance of maximizing profitability will mod me as a troll. Instead, they would do well to keep reading.
It's not just the fatcats who benefit when companies maximize profitability.
1. There are little old ladies receiving modest pensions, whose pension funds have invested in 5G providers. To the extent that companies maximize profitability, those ladies will have a less uncomfortable retirement.
2. To the extent that companies maximize profitability, they'll be less resistant to giving rank-and-file employees a much-needed raise.
3. Companies pay taxes on profits, not sales, so they pay more taxes when they maximize profitability.
etc.
So I have to agree with by guruevi, that putting such a big economic burden on our fellow citizens, in order to reduce global average temperatures by seven-thousandths of a degree, is bad policy.
Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?
