Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Security analysis: Manga vs Gun (Score 1) 446

by jcdr (#48192011) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

First, you seem to fully agree that murder using gun is a bigger problem than manga, so why the word 'lots' cause you a so big problem ? Just compare to the numbers of deaths caused by manga... Now compare the legal risk of owning a gun vs owning a manga. Oups! It's not a statistic, it's a very simple basic comparison.

Second, while your claims are probably correct (I haven't checked) and I never disputed them, you seem to assume that I am against them. It's not the case, but my point of view is from an other perspective: in the manga affair, the judge base his sentence on the perception that seeing image of a fantasy in a manga is dangerous because it's an illustration of something criminal in the real life and that this might confuse the reader. What's insane it that in comparison, all real guns and all illustration of murders by guns in a massive amount of media don't seem to be a problem *COMPARED* to the manga fantasy. Don't get me wrong: I doubt there is even a massacre that have been caused by a manga fantasy, so why owning a manga fantasy could be more criminal than owing a gun ?

I propose that you read me with clam and only get the real part I have wrote, not what you don't know about me and that you like to think that you know. Acting only based on real fact is best solution for everyone.

Comment: Security analysis: Manga vs Gun (Score 1) 446

by jcdr (#48190191) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

We are close to see situation where having a charged gun in the street full of peoples including children, all seeing massive amount of murder involving gun while watching movies, TV, games, cartoon, anime, streaming, since there are young is considered as nothing wrong despite a lot of documented massacres, but seeing a manga along on his personal computer for self consuming fantasy is a crime.

My point of view is that regardless of the subject there will be a tiny amount of peoples developing problems discerning differences between fantasy and reality, including inability to control there actions. For sure any society have advantage to identify this few peoples and to do something to protect the vast amount of normal peoples. The bad new is that historically societies are close to there end when there make rules disconnected from the reality...

Comment: Re:Too bad... (Score 1) 608

by jcdr (#48143653) Attached to: Wind Power Is Cheaper Than Coal, Leaked Report Shows

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 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.

Comment: Re:Too bad... (Score 1) 608

by jcdr (#48143357) Attached to: Wind Power Is Cheaper Than Coal, Leaked Report Shows

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:

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 ?

Comment: Re:Too bad... (Score 0) 608

by jcdr (#48139931) Attached to: Wind Power Is Cheaper Than Coal, Leaked Report Shows


Nuclear is safe and cheap

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.

Comment: Re:Too bad... (Score 3, Interesting) 608

by jcdr (#48138905) Attached to: Wind Power Is Cheaper Than Coal, Leaked Report Shows

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.

Comment: Re: Systemd (Score 1) 993

by jcdr (#48081061) Attached to: Lennart Poettering: Open Source Community "Quite a Sick Place To Be In"

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.

Comment: Re:And? (Score 4, Informative) 93

by jcdr (#48063469) Attached to: Samsung Paid Microsoft $1 Billion Last Year In Android Royalties

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.

Comment: Re:Just turn off dynamic workspaces (Score 1) 250

by jcdr (#48014973) Attached to: GNOME 3.14 Released

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: 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.

Comment: Power supply fail before the LED (Score 1) 602

by jcdr (#48004449) Attached to: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy

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.

Natural laws have no pity.