Russia may be rife with corruption and crime, but it did enjoy a period of relatively free politics in 90s and early 00s, and serious crackdown on freedom of speech and assembly didn't begin until late 00s. So there are plenty of people who are not "normalized" to the way things are becoming now.
The real problem is that many people don't like when things are "too free".
With Xrdp, you're using the usual Xorg X server, so any issues with incompatibilities of apps with Xming because the latter doesn't support some feature or the other go away. It also means that you can set up fonts etc in your Linux install as usual, FreeType settings are respected etc. Basically the output you get is a pixel-perfect match of what it would be for the same Linux setup running natively.
Implementation-wise, IIRC it uses VNC as a backend, and then translates that to RDP, so you can use the usual Windows RDP client to connect (the only trick is that you need to specify a non-default RDP port to avoid clashing with Windows' own RDP server). So it doesn't really buy you that much compared to VNC, but I find most VNC clients for Windows to be less convenient than just using the standard RDP one.
They debunk the obvious implications of the claims, not just the verbatim meaning of words. This is as it should be, because those implications are what people actually pay attention to when they read headlines like that.
What about Obamacare? They still can't throw it out, and all plans that they have made to do so have dismal popular support - far less than Obamacare ever did, even at its lowest point (and, ironically, it has become more popular now that there's a threat that it'll actually go away).
"Acceptance of government force" is a misnomer - governments are about force, fundamentally. If a government can't use force, it stops being a government, since its laws and regulations become recommendations at most. That ability to use force and coercion in a legitimate way is exactly what makes them useful and irreplaceable.
The problem with your argument is that humans can be productive and thereby find a purpose to be happy, without being paid for that purpose.
While we're at it, how many people who are working for a living are actually happy with what they do at work? Especially once you look at those earning less than median?
One could easily argue that UBI is exactly what would enable more people to find a purpose and be productive at it, instead of doing shitty work that they hate for shitty pay.
This presents UBI and welfare as either/or, which is not necessarily the case. We can still replace many means-tested welfare programs with UBI, without touching others. And this still presents a net reduction in bureaucracy.
I notice that you didn't mention anything about capital-derived income, though. Which we don't "tax the hell out of". In fact, we tax it less than sweat-of-the-brow income.
if you keep luring away the smart, educated, independent-minded people from a country
Why can't the smart, educated, independent-minded people decide for themselves in which country they'd prefer to live? Why do they have to sacrifice their well-being, and quite possibly their lives, to improve the Afghan society, just because they had the bad luck of getting born there?
Money is not used to convince voters, so much so as it is used to convinced their elected representatives. That's a flaw inherent in pure representative democracy - because your votes on actual issues are by proxy only, said proxy can be attacked.
Choices are a rich man's luxury when it comes to healthcare.
Most people want care. If it comes with choices, that's great. But if having choices means that they're all priced out of reach of people who need care, then fuck choices.
It's hard to come up with something more horribly designed than automake and autoconf. Most other alternatives are better. The only problem is that there are too many of those alternatives, and there isn't a single one that became a de facto replacement standard because of that.
Visual Studio, and Eclipse (at least) all use tabs by default.
For Visual Studio, at least, this doesn't make sense, because it doesn't have a single global default - it varies per language. It does use tabs by default for C and C++, but it uses spaces by default for C#, VB, Python, and most everything else.
No, but then I (or anyone I know directly) am not using gcc for things where it would matter.
And from what I've seen, the people who do care are mostly already using Fortran for those scenarios, and they don't really see any particular reason to switch.
It is, because real world C compilers never learned to fully utilize the power that restrict gives them, and the popular libraries generally haven't picked up its use (I don't know if one of these is the cause and another is the effect, or if it's concurrent and unrelated).
Have you tried using a modern Python IDE? They normally do some form of type inference to do exactly the kinds of things that you're asking for, and they're pretty good at it.
Later BASICs added full structured programming. The problem is that the core of the language was still designed before then, and it showed. For example, because drawing primitives like LINE and CIRCLE were there long before user-defined procedures and functions, they remained statements with special syntax that was different from function invocation.
Except that the trend is the other way around - Python is growing faster in the data science niche than R.
As for Python 2 vs 3, regardless of how the transition was handled, it is over now. Everything that matters is on Python 3. At best you could argue that it was a temporary setback, which delayed Python domination.
Slashdot Mirror
Russia may be rife with corruption and crime, but it did enjoy a period of relatively free politics in 90s and early 00s, and serious crackdown on freedom of speech and assembly didn't begin until late 00s. So there are plenty of people who are not "normalized" to the way things are becoming now.
The real problem is that many people don't like when things are "too free".
With Xrdp, you're using the usual Xorg X server, so any issues with incompatibilities of apps with Xming because the latter doesn't support some feature or the other go away. It also means that you can set up fonts etc in your Linux install as usual, FreeType settings are respected etc. Basically the output you get is a pixel-perfect match of what it would be for the same Linux setup running natively.
Implementation-wise, IIRC it uses VNC as a backend, and then translates that to RDP, so you can use the usual Windows RDP client to connect (the only trick is that you need to specify a non-default RDP port to avoid clashing with Windows' own RDP server). So it doesn't really buy you that much compared to VNC, but I find most VNC clients for Windows to be less convenient than just using the standard RDP one.
You can also use XRDP.
Wine is not a syscall translator. Wine emulates Win32 userspace ABI. WSL emulates Linux kernel ABI, and runs native userspace on top of that.
Cygwin is like Wine. WSL is like FreeBSD Linux emulation.
They debunk the obvious implications of the claims, not just the verbatim meaning of words. This is as it should be, because those implications are what people actually pay attention to when they read headlines like that.
Mixing tabs and spaces in a single source file has been a syntax error since Python 3.0. That has been released 9 years ago.
And no, it's not an option.
What about Obamacare? They still can't throw it out, and all plans that they have made to do so have dismal popular support - far less than Obamacare ever did, even at its lowest point (and, ironically, it has become more popular now that there's a threat that it'll actually go away).
"Acceptance of government force" is a misnomer - governments are about force, fundamentally. If a government can't use force, it stops being a government, since its laws and regulations become recommendations at most. That ability to use force and coercion in a legitimate way is exactly what makes them useful and irreplaceable.
The problem with your argument is that humans can be productive and thereby find a purpose to be happy, without being paid for that purpose.
While we're at it, how many people who are working for a living are actually happy with what they do at work? Especially once you look at those earning less than median?
One could easily argue that UBI is exactly what would enable more people to find a purpose and be productive at it, instead of doing shitty work that they hate for shitty pay.
This presents UBI and welfare as either/or, which is not necessarily the case. We can still replace many means-tested welfare programs with UBI, without touching others. And this still presents a net reduction in bureaucracy.
I notice that you didn't mention anything about capital-derived income, though. Which we don't "tax the hell out of". In fact, we tax it less than sweat-of-the-brow income.
Which boundary is being established by denying these particular people visas?
Are you seriously claiming that a bunch of schoolgirls building robots is a danger to US because they can make a bomb?
You know who else can make a bomb?
Anyone. Literally anyone.
Heck, if you're in US, you can just go and buy enough tannerite and stuff it in a fridge or something.
if you keep luring away the smart, educated, independent-minded people from a country
Why can't the smart, educated, independent-minded people decide for themselves in which country they'd prefer to live? Why do they have to sacrifice their well-being, and quite possibly their lives, to improve the Afghan society, just because they had the bad luck of getting born there?
Money is not used to convince voters, so much so as it is used to convinced their elected representatives. That's a flaw inherent in pure representative democracy - because your votes on actual issues are by proxy only, said proxy can be attacked.
Choices are a rich man's luxury when it comes to healthcare.
Most people want care. If it comes with choices, that's great. But if having choices means that they're all priced out of reach of people who need care, then fuck choices.
Have you tried going out?
It's hard to come up with something more horribly designed than automake and autoconf. Most other alternatives are better. The only problem is that there are too many of those alternatives, and there isn't a single one that became a de facto replacement standard because of that.
Visual Studio, and Eclipse (at least) all use tabs by default.
For Visual Studio, at least, this doesn't make sense, because it doesn't have a single global default - it varies per language. It does use tabs by default for C and C++, but it uses spaces by default for C#, VB, Python, and most everything else.
No, but then I (or anyone I know directly) am not using gcc for things where it would matter.
And from what I've seen, the people who do care are mostly already using Fortran for those scenarios, and they don't really see any particular reason to switch.
It is, because real world C compilers never learned to fully utilize the power that restrict gives them, and the popular libraries generally haven't picked up its use (I don't know if one of these is the cause and another is the effect, or if it's concurrent and unrelated).
Have you tried using a modern Python IDE? They normally do some form of type inference to do exactly the kinds of things that you're asking for, and they're pretty good at it.
Traditional BASIC (of the era when it was dominant) was not dynamically typed.
Later BASICs added full structured programming. The problem is that the core of the language was still designed before then, and it showed. For example, because drawing primitives like LINE and CIRCLE were there long before user-defined procedures and functions, they remained statements with special syntax that was different from function invocation.
Except that the trend is the other way around - Python is growing faster in the data science niche than R.
As for Python 2 vs 3, regardless of how the transition was handled, it is over now. Everything that matters is on Python 3. At best you could argue that it was a temporary setback, which delayed Python domination.