Just try to explain this for example: https://www.gov.uk/vessel-clas...
Or this: http://www.pancanal.com/common...
World is changing...

FTFY

World is changing. Solutions that was acceptable before are not acceptable anymore. It's a fact of life and it's not hard to find massive amount of example following this observation. It come to my mind to evolution of aircraft, but it's really not the only subject.

Be certain that the next major nuclear accident will be very different and this exactly why it is unpredictable and impossible to avoid. To just look to a small part of the problem, you can see this video for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?... that explain how unknown was that the emergency features was never designed to possibly work in the expected condition. Sound completely unbelievable but this is still the raw real facts that happened. The few last years I remember at least 2 events that was close to be a majors nuclear accident. One was a nuclear reactor that was close to loos any way to cool the fuel after a unexpected raising of water flooding the terrain. The second was also a close to loos any way to cool the fuel after all but a single external generator worked after an emergency stop. The two incidents occurred in countries with strong regulation, working economy, and stable society. It's not hard to understand that majors accidents will happening, no matter how deeply you try to deny it. You can beat that I can be wrong in your lifetime, but almost certainly not in the lifetime of your children and definitively not is the lifetime of the isotope toxicity.

It's completely ridicule to discuss about highly complex technology with huge implication in the thousand years scale by only looking at the dead peoples now. It's a complete non sense. Try for example to compare the number of vehicle deaths in U.S. to the terrorism deaths in the U.S. (even in 2001) if you don't understand how wrong is your focused point of view.

There is many video explaining in detail the massive problem of contamination in Fukushima and no a single one point to a political problem, but to the technical difficulties, to 40 years scale required to maybe clean up the site, to the incredible cost of the operation. This video for example explain why the contamination actually measured into underground is only the beginning of the real big problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It is irresponsible in the extreme to avoid renewable energy. Especially now that it have proven that the cost and the reliability are in scale with other production. Nuclear energy can only be a risky temporary workaround. One last thing: why did you think some countries with incredible solar energy potential are so demanding of nuclear reactors ?

I let you make the exercise of how much wind and solar production sites could have been build with the single massive cost of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. In July 2012 TEPCO received ¥1 trillion from the Japanese government TEPCO's management subsequently made a proposal to its shareholders for the company to be part-nationalized.The total cost of the disaster was estimated at $100bn in May 2012.

No, nuclear is not safe and no cheap, at least in Japan witch was one of the leading country promoting nuclear energy. You could say that this will never happen again, but this was what have been advertised after each single accident... until the next unexpected one. Most people have now understand that even with all possibles efforts limited by the cost, it's impossible to reach risk zero. There will be a next major nuclear accident, even is nobody know when and where it will happen. Just think how to maintain safety in case of major economic crisis, war, or society losing his actual structure. With the nuclear energy, we are dealing with problems that last longer than the duration of any civilization that have ever existed on Earth.

It's actually not a lie to say that the total cost of nuclear production in unknown, as the number will only be known in about 1 million years scale in the future when the last isotope will finally be in range with the natural toxicity level. Most of the dangerous nuclear mass wast on the planet is not even close to be stocked in a final facility and most of the plans to do it are still uncertain in time, reliability, and total cost. Add to this that the deconstruction in good condition of a nuclear reactor has never be in range of what was planned. Finally add to this the over scale cost of a few major catastrophic nuclear events per century...

I don't know how people think about nuclear production in the USA, but in EU it's clear that more and more people are aware that nuclear production is a very complex subject that deal with very high amount of money up to the point that something more simpler to manage in might be preferable.

I used all releases of Ubuntu that existed on a test machine, and all releases of Debian starting from 1.3 Bo on my main machine.

Each distribution make there own choice based on a different team of peoples. Sometimes one of them experiment something new and the others observes the result (pure AMD64, Multiarch, Unity, Upstart, to name a few). Sometime, some distributions fell the needs to make a common choice and start talking each others about there own experiment. The whole process is a good one: open to innovate and open to consolidate the advancement. So many companies fail to archives this, especially on the long term.

You maybe have to consider that most distributions change there default for good reasons. I am certain that if the choice proved to be a failure, there will revert the default on the next release, or forks will be created to revert the default.

Don't forget that AMD has created the X86_64 instruction set, forcing Intel to cross-license the X86 and X86_64 instruction set forever with AMD. This is a extremely important step as 32 bits only X85 chips is close to be irrelevant, even if Windows OS market is so retarded that many of it users still don't use 64 bits OS. On the other hand, ARM64 will possibly be the next big problem for Intel in the server market, after it has basically completely lost the embedded market to 32 bits ARM. AMD has choose to play with each instruction set, and this could be a winning strategy in the future.

Two points:

1) Why this tool is not integrated by default ? It's completely against the usability to require to install a separate application to let user configure ultra basic features of his desktop. On XFCE or MATE for example, configuring almost anything on the desktop just require a right click on the widget you want to change. What wrong with a such simple a easy way ? What the benefit to make configuration more difficult ?

2) Static workspace in Gnome 3 is also a complete failure because all workspace are in a single column. Totally unusable.

I have already analysed the Gnome Tweak Tool in this post: http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and, sorry, it'a largely not enough for my needs.

Gnome 3 have 2 big failures:
1) His "innovative" usability schema is broken from the view of a so large user base that XFCE and MATE have gain attention that there will never get if Gnome 2 was not discontinued;
2) Gnome 3 team, even after years of evidence, still completely ignore the reality of the situation.

The most bad decision was to discontinue Gnome 2. All the infrastructure under the Gnome 3 have evolved only for the need of Gnome 3 despite the fact that this evolution of the infrastructure would be also a benefit for Gnome 2. Now MATE is heavy working on bringing a good desktop on a modern infrastructure, something Gnome project should have do from the start. Not only Gnome don't recognize that MATE project is making work that there should have done, but Gnome project still ignore the MATE project when there make infrastructure decision. At some point in time this evolution will inevitably clash if more coordination are not put in place.

A user has moderated your comment "Flamebait" (-1).
        Re: MATE is still far more advanced in usability
        http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Ouch! I am curious to known: what is so "flambait" in my post ? The only reply to it after 4 days look positive.

I tested many different LED since about 10 years ago. My observation is that the lifetime have mostly increased over time, but almost every failure was related to the power supply components.

I observed a single LED component failure on a recent lamp where investigation with a microscope showed a defective wire bonding in the chip where it go trough a semi rigid diffusing material (that chip still work up to a certain temperature and then the the bounding fail until it cool down). For all others failures, the AC to DC converter was in cause. I was not able to investigate all details of them, but I suspect that chemical stability of some components like capacitor might increase stress up to a failure of the capacitor itself or of the power transistor (most of the time integrated into the switching regulator chip). To fit the site of a standard light bulb, those components are very small and are exposed to high temperature for long time. This is almost the worst possible situation for a high power electronic component. I am not so surprised that there are the cause of many failure.

In my test it's clear that the LED that use a separate power supply basically never fail (is used correctly). External power supply can use more big components and it's most of the time possible to avoid exposing them to high temperature. So my hint is to use distribute a low voltage DC current instead of high voltage AC current to power LED. In this category, LED strips are very valuable, as long as the quality of the soldering is good. I have see some LED strips with soldering failure out of the box or after a few month of use.

Good quality LED strip with external power supply is actually the best value in my test. I gradually replace everything with that.

If it's a joke, this is a very bad one. Hell, this is not even a joke but the crude reality of Gnome 3... Users complain got directly into /dev/null !

So I need to install a magic application to configure ultra basic features of the desktop. I wonder how it was decided to not integrate this application... Why someone will have something to configure ? So why gnome-tweak-tool even exists ?

I changed the dynamic workspace to static workspace. There is only 36 workspace available (I used to have 64 in a 8X8 array some years ago) and Ahhrggg !!! There are all in an single column: completely useless.

Why will I ever use a mouse on a desktop computer ? Are you serious ? Having a good shortcut will never be a usable workaround for a completely broken UI. And how a newbie will ever learn this shortcut ? Why bringing an UI with animation if at the end the only efficient way to use it is by using keyboard shortcut ?

MATE or XFCE allow far more applications to be dropped anywhere on the panels or desktop. But most important there directly have a very clear and usable application menu with categories: something all newbies understand immediately and take no time to learn.

Again why an UI ? Why a mouse ? How newbie learn that ? It's strange how Gnome 3 is unable to be usable with a mouse compared to all others desktop out there... What for a progress ! Ouch !

Did you know that distribution already do categories for there packages ? Why Gnome don't use that ? Why should I manually do that work while others desktops have it automatically since so many years ? Where is the feature of removing that ?

I have checked and no. gnome-tweak-tool solve only a few problem I listed here. It allow to add a application menu with categories. Whoow ! I wonder why there have to keep this so advanced feature (sarcasm) in a secret tweak tool if nobody ask for it... Arg! Impossible to drop an application in the panel from this application menu entries. Must be a even more secret feature... A lot of extensions descriptions are so short that there left me wondering what there intended to do. More ridiculous even that short description are sometime cropped by the default width of the gnome-tweak-tool window. I tried the system monitor, and see no visible effect. I tried some others extensions that display something on the top panel and found no way to move them around.

Granted, there is exactly zero feature in the current Gnome 3 that I would like to see in MATE. Gnome lack a lot of features that others desktop have since many many years. And it's not like is Gnome 3 is just born and still need major work. No. Gnome 3 is there since many years too and his team think that he so fine that one of the leading feature of the today release is new animations on open/close windows and button toggle...

I am not a child expecting a new animation in a toy desktop. I need a desktop to do my real work and I don't need animation for that, but a real state of the art desktop like MATE.

I also use XFCE4 on my main Debian wheezy machine with a 6x7 workspace array because MATE was not available on that release. I have an other test machine with MATE and Gnome on Debian jessie. I did not talked about XFCE4 because I think that MATE is a more promising project, despite XFCE4 having some good original ideas that I would like to see on MATE.

Thanks for the qubes-os link. It certainly a good idea, not only to bound desktop applications, but also services. I hope that this kind of technology will be the default someday. This could enable everyone to securely run there own services and global could contribution without relying on commercial big farms. The future of project like Debian could be in that direction because there will probably never get enough finance to maintain a big farm, but demand for better files spreading, more computer power, and faster community communication with the users will rise in the coming years.

Lack of systemd integration was the point Debian use to decide witch back from XFCE to Gnome instead of MATE:

https://anonscm.debian.org/cgi...

"Systemd/etc integration: Xfce, Mate, etc are stuck paying catch-up to
ongoing changes in this area. There will be time to hopefully iron these
issues out during the freeze once the tech stack stops changing out from
under them, so this is not a complete blocker for those desktops, but
going by the current status, Gnome is ahead."

I was very surprised by that point that I was not aware of before. I still think that MATE bring a better usable desktop as of the today state of jessie.