I used it in its first versions, and it handled my 5.1 setup perfectly, switched to headphones when I plugged them. And it had per-application volume working out of the box.

AKA the "I like PulseAudio because I coincidentally owned the hardware it actually supported well" comment.

There are cognitive differences between any two men you might select too. To what grouping will you attribute those?

This is intellectually dishonest. A gender-based deviation in cognition exists, regardless of individual deviations that also do exist. You're not rebutting his argument, you're confusing the issue with an irrelevancy that attempts to pass as a rebuttal.

There are also many cognitive tasks where the range of difference within a gender is greater than the range of difference between genders.

Your use of "many" here betrays an understanding that you wish to deny: that some other cognitive tasks display the opposite results, which consitutes evidence in support of the claim you wish to rebut.

Binary logfiles: You're not supposed to keep important log files on the local machine.

Seriously? What? This is the most dishonest response to a legitimate gripe ever. You're not "supposed to" "KEEP" important log files on the local machine - because they're important data and should be backed up and secured. NOT because text log files are a bad idea or useless! Name one operating system that doesn't keep local human-readable logs! They are *that* useful!

Send them to your central logging facility

Why is a fucking init daemon dictating my business processes to me? Is that the UNIX philosophy... "one size fits all"? Fuck no it's not!

If the machine is still running, you can use the appropriate tools to look at the binary log files for debug.

Assuming that those tools work, and that corruption hasn't fucked up parsing, and...

Doesn't feel unixy: Get with the times. It's scriptable and tweakable more than ever.

I don't think you understand what the UNIX philosophy is about, so you're not evaluating this complaint in a legitimate way.

Dependency in services
long startup times
Location/circumstances specific profiles

All of these are feature gaps. None of these require a solution that completely departs from the UNIX philosophy and application structure. None require binary logging. None require one daemon to rule them all. There are simple, elegant, UNIX-y solutions to all of these problems. Lennart & company just haven't bothered to find them.

But journald is part of systemd, so it's perfect and will never break!

Career admin who is guilty of not wading into the debate at all until now, here. That is my view of systemd. It uses, and forces the user into, a "one service to rule them all" model that is exactly contrary to the UNIX philosophy of small, interoperable programs that do one thing and do it well. If 'ls' was designed with the systemd philosophy, 'chmod' and 'rm' would be arguments to 'ls' and everything would quickly become stupid and un-UNIXy.

8 edgy me

That's all great. Now stop telling everyone else how to live as an excuse to tout your superiority, fitness boy.

I want to see you bike to work in Las Vegas summers.

So, when you said, "you asked in what way subsidiarity is an American tradition", what you meant was, "you asked a question that I could derail with a non sequitur".

You asked in what way subsidiarity is an American tradition.

No, I didn't. If you insist that I did, please quote me.

How about making your own arguments? Reading de Tocqueville doesn't tell me what you took away from it or how you think it relates to our discussion.

I'm not concluding anything

OK, then.

You and people like you obviously favor other such policies as well, and even though they seem individually harmless, collectively they bring down democracies.

Baseless calumny is no substitute for an argument. If you have nothing to add but wild ad hominem attacks, lets conclude our discussion.

If your idea of a "political dictator and strongman" is someone increasing oversight of the nation's police forces, you've completely removed all meaning from those terms and are simply using them for rhetorical impact.

While body cameras clearly have benefits, they also have costs and effects that we don't know yet.

Then it is you who are jumping to conclusions. You've concluded that there are serious costs and negative effects, despite a total lack of evidence. I'm *refusing* to jump to conclusions by not assuming negative effects until they can be shown to exist.

No, what I stated is the American tradition.

Really? How do you figure, when I just gave you several historical examples of Congress doing the same thing you're objecting to?

The smoky backroom full of fat cats like Obama, Bush, congressmen, and the lobbyists and cronies that supply them with money and want power.

So, the most powerful policymakers in our country are conspiring to implement an agenda of increasing public supervision of the police? That's your conspiratorial agenda? That sounds like *doing their jobs properly* to me!

Cities are fully in charge of their police departments

Of course they aren't. Some cities, towns, and villages are very poorly managed. Your distrust for government is pretty inexplicable if you believe that every government is fully competent and in control of their duties, isn't it?

And if the "move slowly", that's their right.

No it isn't. The people have the right to decide how their government operates, and if they're unhappy with the speed, to accelerate the process or escalate up the "chain of command".

It's only an "important issue" because some people are making it such for political and financial gain.

I'm pretty sure you would have a different outlook on the importance of the issue if someone who looked like your child was on the front pages practically each and every day over questionable police-violence incidents.

People are trying to fabricate a crisis in order to push through political agendas.

How is putting cameras on police even remotely a "political agenda"? What political interest group does it serve? What smoky back room is full of fat cats whose schemes for world domination will be advanced by subjecting police officers to something approaching the same level of workplace supervision that we demand of daycare operators?