Me too. Then again, I've found 7 quite pleasing to use in all of its aspects ever since I first got it. Sure, the theme could be better-looking, but overall the UI is very useable.
I also like gnome better than KDE in general, but I preferred KDE 3x or 4x.
I personally liked GNOME 2.x very much. I've always been partial to clean, uncluttered looks and feel, and that's why I've never felt at home on KDE. KDE has always tended to look 'prettier' but there's much more to being a good UI than just looks, and I suppose KDE's feel just doesn't suit me.
I do think there are some things that don't make sense though - such as touch-screen-GUIs used on non-touch-screens, or the other way around.
Again, I agree with you entirely. People tend to hate stuff without any logical reason behind it other than "it's different", but I personally don't like Unity/GNOME3/etc. simply because it feels it simply exists to offer eye-candy. I certainly haven't felt any more productive than with more traditional WMs and solutions. Sure, I do think I could get used to using those, but it's not that that I've ever claimed to have a problem with; it's that I don't get some sort of enjoyment from useless clutter or roundabout way of doing things that used to work with a single click before.
That said, I don't "hate" any of these UIs. I simply do not bother to waste my time on hating something like that. I'll just simply choose what fits me if I can, and make do with what I have when I can't.
On the other hand, if you have spare CPU cycles, you could take that output video and compress it to MP4, which VNC doesn't yet support. Still, far less efficient than sending the 3D commands over the wire for the device on the other end to render.
(Assuming you mean MP4 == H.264)
Real-time encoding of the stream to H.264 would be... total waste of cycles that could be used for running actually useful stuff on the server. If we assume the average VNC session is 800x600 pixels in size, high-profile in order for the picture to retain clarity (ie. small text must be readable, for example. Otherwise it'd just be absolutely useless for anything even remotely productive.), and say, 25 fps, it'd simply be impossible for old single-core systems to handle at all, and dual-core systems would still be pegging at 60%-70% CPU time used. On something like an 8-core box it would obviously not be as bad, but even then would you really want to sacrifice one core just for video compression when you're likely serving many, many other users, too?
Now, we could also drop fps to something around 10 which would likely be possible even for a single-core system to do, though it'd still likely use something around 90% CPU. But now, 10 fps stream is even less responsive than what VNC is now.
The problem is that high-profile H.264 simply does require quite a lot of CPU to do in real-time. One could in theory relegate the compression to GPU, but that would require the server to have a rather powerful GPU. And most servers don't have that. Implementing the actual code for doing the compression on GPU isn't that difficult, plenty of software do that already. Though I've only seen them doing baseline- and normal-profile, I haven't been able to find a single one that is able to do high-profile on GPU. And the quality is always a lot lower than when using software solution.
Long story short: H.264 would be a poor choice. There are better ones for this type of stuff.
Does anyone know if this would this provide a performance boost over something like VNC for similar things?
The slowest part of VNC and similar is the actual transmit of image data over network, and this is obviously not a new, fancy image compression algorithm or anything like. So no, it might require a teeny tiny amount less CPU time on the VNC server, but on the client end it'll have absolutely no effect.
It would be more like switching from a fully-working, pretty BMW with air-conditioning and all to a Lada with two-missing wheels: even though you can open the hood, you're still not going to get anywhere.
Actually using lzma wouldn't be much of a performance hit anyways as it's fast to read/decompress, comparable to gzip and well faster than bzip2. It's only the compression-phase that requires more CPU-time than even bzip2.
That said I do agree with you, it would make sense. Why they don't use lzma no one seems to know.
Until, you know, a geek explains how to do it to their less technical friends, who then pass it on, and then the entire thing turns into a massive joke.
What do you mean, I thought it was already a massive joke. Atleast I am already laughing;)
Aye, that is an IP-address based filtering system combined with URL blacklist. Oh well, it's not like it's difficult to bypass anyways, but it will surely hinder the less-technical audience quite a lot. And that is the industry's whole point: they want the teenagers to stop downloading music and videos from PB, they don't really care about us geeks. Teenagers to something around 20 years old people are often impatient enough and feel strongly enough about things they like that they'll be much more likely to just run out and buy their fix if they can't get it online with minimal work, they won't bother researching for alternative methods.
And I'm not interested in the whole 'but p2p isn't stealing, it's copyright infringement'. WE KNOW. It's still pilfering someone's hard work for free. If you don't intend on paying for it, don't use it. It's quite simple.
But we've got a generation who expect something for nothing nowadays....
Bring on the DRM I say.
It's not about "freebees", tbh. It's about freedom to express oneself and liability. First of all, should an ISP be liable for stuff that people put on the Internet if the content is not hosted on the ISP's equipment simply because they are providing the means for people to access the Internet? To me it seems like saying that the city should be held accountable for e.g. bank robberies, simply because they are the ones providing the roads to the bank. Secondly, should large corporations be given the right to demand the blocking of one or another website? If it was a small company or an individual this wouldn't even be considered, the only reason this is considered is because the corporations in question have deep pockets. A 10-man sweatshop would in no way or form be able to do the same even if they actually did lose 95% of their income due to piracy, but a large corporation that is still raking on money like crazy and are likely losing something around 5 percent of possible income gets to tell ISPs what to block. Do we really want a future where large corporations are given ever more privileges compared to small ones?
I atleast don't feel comfortable with such disparity in privileges and I am still unsure of what I think about holding an ISP liable for things like this. It seems to me like a huge can of worms that will sooner or later majorly screw people over.
Bible actually teaches that God and Jesus are two totally separate entities and that it is blasphemy to call Jesus a God.
Citation on this?
I don't own a Bible so I cannot provide you with any direct quote, sorry. I had one that I had gotten from elementary school years and years ago, but I lost it in a fire. Not that I miss it anyways.
Anyways, if Jesus and God were one and the same, then why would Jesus on many occasions call out to himself, including when he is in horrible pain due to just having been crucifixed? You know, the "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?" - part ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sayings_of_Jesus_on_the_cross ) He even teaches about his "father in Heaven" and so on, ie. in a third person.
And we all know that the ten commandments tell you to only have the one and only God and no other Gods. So, if you're calling Jesus a God you are indeed having multiple ones and breaking the commandment.
What happens to people who don't know about Jesus? For example, anyone born before Jesus or raised without knowledge of him? Do they still get into Heaven when they die? Or do they go elsewhere?
I've also wondered about this and I've even asked some priests and theologists about it, and the most common answer is that they still don't get to Heaven. Now, when I then follow with the question "So basically God doesn't even give them people a chance to get into Heaven, they're doomed to go to Hell already way before they're even born into this world?" their answers usually just fall flat on their faces. Then the people who say those people will get to Heaven as they are innocent of the condition of not knowing about God don't know what to answer when I ask them the question: "Why do you people then even tell others about God? If you never went out to teach about God we'd all get to Heaven, whereas by telling them about God you're deliberately exposing them to Hell."
I am uncertain if this is just a terrific trolling attempt or if you're really serious.
I can tell you for a fact that God loves you:) God wants us all to live together in love and peace.
I've never understood why is it so important for so many Christians that they feel there is 24/7 someone loving them. Is it insecurity? Would you be depressed if there wasn't? I am genuinely curious about this.
There are a lot of people who spaz out at the mention of Christianity being good for society, but what is wrong with love and peace?
Christianity is far from "love and peace", take for example the crusades: Christians killed MILLIONS of people just because they didn't share the same religion. And not only killed, but tortured, raped, pillaged, took all belongings of even those they let live and enslaved them. Now, where is "love and peace" about that? Or in modern times, how many times have you heard about Christians spewing hatred and bile about all the "non-conforming" people, like us non-heterosexuals for example? There are plenty of examples where homosexuals have been tortured and killed by the religious, even in modern-day society. Hell, _I_ have had people literally come up to my door and start chastising me about how my ways are horrible, vile and I only corrupt everyone and everything around me with them and how I will go to hell and whatnot; I sure as heck do not go to strangers' doors and start judging their views and tastes, so what the hell gives Christians the right to do that?!
"Love and peace" my ass; it's all about CONTROL.
People also get bent out of shape that they can't use science to prove God exists. Why should you be able to create a scientific experiment that could repetitively force the hand of God? That simply doesn't make sense. If God always did the same thing in the same situation, how is God any different than one of the cosmic laws he's made? You cannot reduce God into god-in-the-box, and you shouldn't be able to. Scripture even says you will not find God through worldly wisdom, but only through preaching.
That is exactly the logic fallacy of it all: you can just claim absolutely ANYTHING as "God's will", and that's that.
God is the only being in reality that can bring people to Heaven where there is peace, love, joy, and no suffering forever.
That is another example of a fallacy: human beings evaluate their environment and themselves through conflict. We NEED negative things to happen to us so we can appreciate the positive things. Without negative things we would not be able to appreciate the positive ones. If you never experience anything even mildly displeasing in your life you will simply become inherently bored as whatever you have will feel like nothing. So, in Heaven if there are only positive things and never EVER any kind of conflict then it cannot be a Heaven, atleast not for human beings. It is an oxymoron.
No other being can prevent infinite suffering besides God himself, so why would you want to judge his methods? He himself did not shy away from suffering himself, but died on the cross, proving how much he loves you.
Bible actually teaches that God and Jesus are two totally separate entities and that it is blasphemy to call Jesus a God. Perhaps you need some soul searching to be done.
Nuclear is safer, by far, than any other power source
Yet tens of thousands of people from Fukushima are unable to return to their homes. The problem with nuclear power is that when it goes wrong it tends to go very wrong. The economic and human cost of nuclear power failures can be huge. 80,000 people have been displaced as a result of the Fukushima meltdowns: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3343819.htm
Not really. The difference is that in the case of nuclear disaster the effects happen in a very small timeframe, whereas with e.g. coal plants the effects accumulate over time. That's why it SEEMS like nuclear is the worse choice of the two. People just forget to take into account that e.g. coal plants constantly pollute environment and create all kinds of secondary negative effects all the way from the pollution and environmental destruction caused by coal mining, and all this happens even when the plants are operating normally!
So yes, nuclear IS indeed safer and cheaper, it's just human tendency to look at things in very small timeframes that makes it look like it's not and then we exaggerate things when they happen unexpectedly.
Not entirely correct: you can indeed prove negative in many cases. But proving the nonexistence of something that isn't quantifiable? Well, that is impossible. Even proving the nonexistence of something that in theory could be quantifiable is more-or-less impossible, unless you specify a certain space and time within which to prove the nonexistence and the current technology and human understanding can handle that space and time-span.
Not to mention all the negative effects that come from mining coal, both to the environment AND to the miners inside. Whereas a nuclear plant consumes a lot less fuel and thus the secondary effects from mining for nuclear fuel are much less significant. Long- and short-term primary and secondary effects that are the result of coal plants are way worse than from nuclear plants, it just so happens that no media seems to mention that in a way that the general public would understand.
Not that I want to present a false dichotomy, but if you were "preference voting", i.e., listing your preferences in order, aside from the rest of the options, how would you order these two relative to one another?
If the choices are only those two, then definitely nuclear.
Maybe you should just grow some balls and learn to ignore articles that you don't care about? I know, it's almost as if the articles never existed, AMAZING.
Cartels don't forget stuff easily. If they hold a grudge against someone it can last for centuries. So, even if they did play along and released the Anonymous member Los Zetas would likely bide their time and you'd sooner or later read about Anonymous members dying or disappearing in various ways over time. And Los Zetas could just replace the people who they expect to have been compromised before they start taking Anonymous members down, so if Anonymous did retaliate by exposing those people the losses would be minimal on Los Zetas' side.
And how would they find out who the Anonymous members are? Well, the same way Anonymous finds out about people: hacking into various services, collecting data, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if Los Zetas also got a few hackers in their members list.
"In a potentially damning report, the japanese government panel probing the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown has learned that the nuclear power plant Tokai No.2 avoided station blackout thanks to a 6.1 m high seawall, constructed in September 2010. TEPCO, however, failed to do build a wall of similar height in Fukushima."
Somebody feel free to do the rest, but that's as much of it as I'm willing to translate.
"failed to do build" is likely not entirely correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Me? I like Windows 7.
Me too. Then again, I've found 7 quite pleasing to use in all of its aspects ever since I first got it. Sure, the theme could be better-looking, but overall the UI is very useable.
I also like gnome better than KDE in general, but I preferred KDE 3x or 4x.
I personally liked GNOME 2.x very much. I've always been partial to clean, uncluttered looks and feel, and that's why I've never felt at home on KDE. KDE has always tended to look 'prettier' but there's much more to being a good UI than just looks, and I suppose KDE's feel just doesn't suit me.
I do think there are some things that don't make sense though - such as touch-screen-GUIs used on non-touch-screens, or the other way around.
Again, I agree with you entirely. People tend to hate stuff without any logical reason behind it other than "it's different", but I personally don't like Unity/GNOME3/etc. simply because it feels it simply exists to offer eye-candy. I certainly haven't felt any more productive than with more traditional WMs and solutions. Sure, I do think I could get used to using those, but it's not that that I've ever claimed to have a problem with; it's that I don't get some sort of enjoyment from useless clutter or roundabout way of doing things that used to work with a single click before.
That said, I don't "hate" any of these UIs. I simply do not bother to waste my time on hating something like that. I'll just simply choose what fits me if I can, and make do with what I have when I can't.
On the other hand, if you have spare CPU cycles, you could take that output video and compress it to MP4, which VNC doesn't yet support. Still, far less efficient than sending the 3D commands over the wire for the device on the other end to render.
(Assuming you mean MP4 == H.264)
Real-time encoding of the stream to H.264 would be... total waste of cycles that could be used for running actually useful stuff on the server. If we assume the average VNC session is 800x600 pixels in size, high-profile in order for the picture to retain clarity (ie. small text must be readable, for example. Otherwise it'd just be absolutely useless for anything even remotely productive.), and say, 25 fps, it'd simply be impossible for old single-core systems to handle at all, and dual-core systems would still be pegging at 60%-70% CPU time used. On something like an 8-core box it would obviously not be as bad, but even then would you really want to sacrifice one core just for video compression when you're likely serving many, many other users, too?
Now, we could also drop fps to something around 10 which would likely be possible even for a single-core system to do, though it'd still likely use something around 90% CPU. But now, 10 fps stream is even less responsive than what VNC is now.
The problem is that high-profile H.264 simply does require quite a lot of CPU to do in real-time. One could in theory relegate the compression to GPU, but that would require the server to have a rather powerful GPU. And most servers don't have that. Implementing the actual code for doing the compression on GPU isn't that difficult, plenty of software do that already. Though I've only seen them doing baseline- and normal-profile, I haven't been able to find a single one that is able to do high-profile on GPU. And the quality is always a lot lower than when using software solution.
Long story short: H.264 would be a poor choice. There are better ones for this type of stuff.
Does anyone know if this would this provide a performance boost over something like VNC for similar things?
The slowest part of VNC and similar is the actual transmit of image data over network, and this is obviously not a new, fancy image compression algorithm or anything like. So no, it might require a teeny tiny amount less CPU time on the VNC server, but on the client end it'll have absolutely no effect.
Why wait? Isn't this interview like the post death album of a non-artist?
Well... in a way he is sort of an artist: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=steve+jobs+remix&aq=f :D
At least we won't have to suffer post death album.
Oh, you just wait.
It would be more like switching from a fully-working, pretty BMW with air-conditioning and all to a Lada with two-missing wheels: even though you can open the hood, you're still not going to get anywhere.
Actually using lzma wouldn't be much of a performance hit anyways as it's fast to read/decompress, comparable to gzip and well faster than bzip2. It's only the compression-phase that requires more CPU-time than even bzip2.
That said I do agree with you, it would make sense. Why they don't use lzma no one seems to know.
Until, you know, a geek explains how to do it to their less technical friends, who then pass it on, and then the entire thing turns into a massive joke.
What do you mean, I thought it was already a massive joke. Atleast I am already laughing ;)
Apparently they'll be using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system) so alternative DNS won't work.
Aye, that is an IP-address based filtering system combined with URL blacklist. Oh well, it's not like it's difficult to bypass anyways, but it will surely hinder the less-technical audience quite a lot. And that is the industry's whole point: they want the teenagers to stop downloading music and videos from PB, they don't really care about us geeks. Teenagers to something around 20 years old people are often impatient enough and feel strongly enough about things they like that they'll be much more likely to just run out and buy their fix if they can't get it online with minimal work, they won't bother researching for alternative methods.
Yep, freetards gotta have their freebees.
And I'm not interested in the whole 'but p2p isn't stealing, it's copyright infringement'. WE KNOW. It's still pilfering someone's hard work for free. If you don't intend on paying for it, don't use it. It's quite simple.
But we've got a generation who expect something for nothing nowadays....
Bring on the DRM I say.
It's not about "freebees", tbh. It's about freedom to express oneself and liability. First of all, should an ISP be liable for stuff that people put on the Internet if the content is not hosted on the ISP's equipment simply because they are providing the means for people to access the Internet? To me it seems like saying that the city should be held accountable for e.g. bank robberies, simply because they are the ones providing the roads to the bank. Secondly, should large corporations be given the right to demand the blocking of one or another website? If it was a small company or an individual this wouldn't even be considered, the only reason this is considered is because the corporations in question have deep pockets. A 10-man sweatshop would in no way or form be able to do the same even if they actually did lose 95% of their income due to piracy, but a large corporation that is still raking on money like crazy and are likely losing something around 5 percent of possible income gets to tell ISPs what to block. Do we really want a future where large corporations are given ever more privileges compared to small ones?
I atleast don't feel comfortable with such disparity in privileges and I am still unsure of what I think about holding an ISP liable for things like this. It seems to me like a huge can of worms that will sooner or later majorly screw people over.
Bible actually teaches that God and Jesus are two totally separate entities and that it is blasphemy to call Jesus a God.
Citation on this?
I don't own a Bible so I cannot provide you with any direct quote, sorry. I had one that I had gotten from elementary school years and years ago, but I lost it in a fire. Not that I miss it anyways.
Anyways, if Jesus and God were one and the same, then why would Jesus on many occasions call out to himself, including when he is in horrible pain due to just having been crucifixed? You know, the "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?" - part ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sayings_of_Jesus_on_the_cross ) He even teaches about his "father in Heaven" and so on, ie. in a third person.
And we all know that the ten commandments tell you to only have the one and only God and no other Gods. So, if you're calling Jesus a God you are indeed having multiple ones and breaking the commandment.
What happens to people who don't know about Jesus? For example, anyone born before Jesus or raised without knowledge of him? Do they still get into Heaven when they die? Or do they go elsewhere?
I've also wondered about this and I've even asked some priests and theologists about it, and the most common answer is that they still don't get to Heaven. Now, when I then follow with the question "So basically God doesn't even give them people a chance to get into Heaven, they're doomed to go to Hell already way before they're even born into this world?" their answers usually just fall flat on their faces. Then the people who say those people will get to Heaven as they are innocent of the condition of not knowing about God don't know what to answer when I ask them the question: "Why do you people then even tell others about God? If you never went out to teach about God we'd all get to Heaven, whereas by telling them about God you're deliberately exposing them to Hell."
I am uncertain if this is just a terrific trolling attempt or if you're really serious.
I can tell you for a fact that God loves you :) God wants us all to live together in love and peace.
I've never understood why is it so important for so many Christians that they feel there is 24/7 someone loving them. Is it insecurity? Would you be depressed if there wasn't? I am genuinely curious about this.
There are a lot of people who spaz out at the mention of Christianity being good for society, but what is wrong with love and peace?
Christianity is far from "love and peace", take for example the crusades: Christians killed MILLIONS of people just because they didn't share the same religion. And not only killed, but tortured, raped, pillaged, took all belongings of even those they let live and enslaved them. Now, where is "love and peace" about that? Or in modern times, how many times have you heard about Christians spewing hatred and bile about all the "non-conforming" people, like us non-heterosexuals for example? There are plenty of examples where homosexuals have been tortured and killed by the religious, even in modern-day society. Hell, _I_ have had people literally come up to my door and start chastising me about how my ways are horrible, vile and I only corrupt everyone and everything around me with them and how I will go to hell and whatnot; I sure as heck do not go to strangers' doors and start judging their views and tastes, so what the hell gives Christians the right to do that?!
"Love and peace" my ass; it's all about CONTROL.
People also get bent out of shape that they can't use science to prove God exists. Why should you be able to create a scientific experiment that could repetitively force the hand of God? That simply doesn't make sense. If God always did the same thing in the same situation, how is God any different than one of the cosmic laws he's made? You cannot reduce God into god-in-the-box, and you shouldn't be able to. Scripture even says you will not find God through worldly wisdom, but only through preaching.
That is exactly the logic fallacy of it all: you can just claim absolutely ANYTHING as "God's will", and that's that.
God is the only being in reality that can bring people to Heaven where there is peace, love, joy, and no suffering forever.
That is another example of a fallacy: human beings evaluate their environment and themselves through conflict. We NEED negative things to happen to us so we can appreciate the positive things. Without negative things we would not be able to appreciate the positive ones. If you never experience anything even mildly displeasing in your life you will simply become inherently bored as whatever you have will feel like nothing. So, in Heaven if there are only positive things and never EVER any kind of conflict then it cannot be a Heaven, atleast not for human beings. It is an oxymoron.
No other being can prevent infinite suffering besides God himself, so why would you want to judge his methods? He himself did not shy away from suffering himself, but died on the cross, proving how much he loves you.
Bible actually teaches that God and Jesus are two totally separate entities and that it is blasphemy to call Jesus a God. Perhaps you need some soul searching to be done.
Nuclear is safer, by far, than any other power source
Yet tens of thousands of people from Fukushima are unable to return to their homes. The problem with nuclear power is that when it goes wrong it tends to go very wrong. The economic and human cost of nuclear power failures can be huge. 80,000 people have been displaced as a result of the Fukushima meltdowns: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3343819.htm
Not really. The difference is that in the case of nuclear disaster the effects happen in a very small timeframe, whereas with e.g. coal plants the effects accumulate over time. That's why it SEEMS like nuclear is the worse choice of the two. People just forget to take into account that e.g. coal plants constantly pollute environment and create all kinds of secondary negative effects all the way from the pollution and environmental destruction caused by coal mining, and all this happens even when the plants are operating normally!
So yes, nuclear IS indeed safer and cheaper, it's just human tendency to look at things in very small timeframes that makes it look like it's not and then we exaggerate things when they happen unexpectedly.
I'd certainly be upset if somebody decided to make every conversation I've ever had in public places available to anybody who types in my name.
dom
Then you shoud learn to not have such conversations in _PUBLIC_ places. If you want something to stay private then don't write it publicly!
Is it really that hard to comprehend?
Um, proving a negative is impossible...
Not entirely correct: you can indeed prove negative in many cases. But proving the nonexistence of something that isn't quantifiable? Well, that is impossible. Even proving the nonexistence of something that in theory could be quantifiable is more-or-less impossible, unless you specify a certain space and time within which to prove the nonexistence and the current technology and human understanding can handle that space and time-span.
I happen to have come across this beautiful unicorn horn, would you perhaps be interested in it?
Not to mention all the negative effects that come from mining coal, both to the environment AND to the miners inside. Whereas a nuclear plant consumes a lot less fuel and thus the secondary effects from mining for nuclear fuel are much less significant. Long- and short-term primary and secondary effects that are the result of coal plants are way worse than from nuclear plants, it just so happens that no media seems to mention that in a way that the general public would understand.
Coal or nuclear?
Not that I want to present a false dichotomy, but if you were "preference voting", i.e., listing your preferences in order, aside from the rest of the options, how would you order these two relative to one another?
If the choices are only those two, then definitely nuclear.
Atleast the government officials don't; all they hear is the gentle rustle of money spent by lobbiers.
Maybe you should just grow some balls and learn to ignore articles that you don't care about? I know, it's almost as if the articles never existed, AMAZING.
Cartels don't forget stuff easily. If they hold a grudge against someone it can last for centuries. So, even if they did play along and released the Anonymous member Los Zetas would likely bide their time and you'd sooner or later read about Anonymous members dying or disappearing in various ways over time. And Los Zetas could just replace the people who they expect to have been compromised before they start taking Anonymous members down, so if Anonymous did retaliate by exposing those people the losses would be minimal on Los Zetas' side.
And how would they find out who the Anonymous members are? Well, the same way Anonymous finds out about people: hacking into various services, collecting data, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if Los Zetas also got a few hackers in their members list.
Yes, it did.
Yeah, toilet paper is always good to keep around in plenty!
"In a potentially damning report, the japanese government panel probing the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown has learned that the nuclear power plant Tokai No.2 avoided station blackout thanks to a 6.1 m high seawall, constructed in September 2010. TEPCO, however, failed to do build a wall of similar height in Fukushima."
Somebody feel free to do the rest, but that's as much of it as I'm willing to translate.
"failed to do build" is likely not entirely correct.