How much credence to you give to the theory recently put forward in a recent NPR Planet Money piece, ascribing the absence of women specifically in the computing industry to 1980s media representation of geeks and computer worker lifestyles?
If it was nuclear powered, then it would have been much heavier
The Curiosity RTG weighed 3 times as much as the power source on Philae, but generated four times as much energy. IANANP, but absent some scaling factor that I'm missing, it would seem like a scaled-down RTG would have *saved* weight, not costed more.
Nice try, Lennart.
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
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.