The author forgot to mention mouse gestures. The reason I still use Opera over Chrome is because of its excellent support for mouse gestures (the various mouse gesture extensions just aren't that responsive and smooth as Opera's native ones are).
To switch tabs I just hold the right mouse button and turn the scroll wheel. To open up a new tab I hold the right mouse button and move the mouse a few pixels down, it doesn't even have to be that precise. For moving back and forward in browser history, I do right button + left mouse button and left mouse button + right mouse button respectively.
I wish OS's had native support for mouse gestures system-wide, I think they're widely under-utilized.
I'm using magic mouse with magicprefs - and the best hot gesture for me that seems to work everytime is three finger swipe down, which I use for taking screenshots.
Does anyone else thing that the documentation for ember.js is really lacking? Some of the classes it has aren't even documented (ContollerMixin comes to mind) and others are lacking in the documentation depratment. Also, I don't seem to be able to find a full listing of instance methods for a class, I have to climb up the inheritance tree in the docs class by class.
Yeah, military drones using Linux, what a big win. The fact that the military uses Linux is a big negative for Linux in my eyes. If you support Linux, you're indirectly supporting the U.S. military and by extension murder, aggression and terrorism.
I wish more software licenses had a clause forbidding military use of the code.
Exactly! And let's not stop there. The fact that the military uses steel is a big negative for steel in my eyes. If you work in steel production, you're indirectly supporting the U.S. military and by extension murder, aggression, and terrorism.
That's why I use flint knives and ride a bicycle made of bamboo.
If we were in the steel industry, the right thing to do would be to see that the military doesn't get steel. But we're not, we're mostly programmers here, so I'm saying we should exercise caution and be aware of how the stuff that we make gets used.
Sort of, but the main difference is to what extent are you supporting killing and suffering and whether you have a choice.
The question of social responsibility of programmers (and other professionals) is not an easy one, and I think every programmer should think hard and often about the politics of their work.
Many programmers often dismiss such questions by saying that code in itself isn't moral or amoral, but what is done with it. But when you think more about it, it's just an easy excuse so that they can get on with their lives with a clear conscience.
How do you participate in civilization without being indirectly responsible for its negatives? The only paths I see are to either opt out or accept the downsides while working to improve things.
The second is the most sensible option. I'm not saying people should stop using Linux, I'm just saying that programmers should be more aware of the politics of their work (professional work is almost never apolitical) and strive to actually use their skills and talent to make the world a better place.
There's also a big difference between buying some gum and having the tax you paid on it go to the military vs. actively developing military drones. I'd say that contributing to Linux would fall somewhere in between these two.
So let's purposely write bugs in FLOSS because all of it can be used for evil. For well written comments of the sort you write they can't be any more insulting. This deserves an explanation so let me put it this way: I appreciate that you're voicing your concern but these kind of ideas are detrimental to progress and the prose by which you convey them is orthogonal to my comfort zone. For instance: the guy whose job is to design a military-grade drone is arguably making the world a safer place then the guy whose job is to implement new features in Linux, depending on how they're used. Yet somehow you're biased to assume the worst, which strikes me as a bit naive. Programmers shouldn't be more aware of anything, especially not politics. That's just distracting and unproductive. You choose not to contribute, fine. But it doesn't make you morally superior either way. The constraints you've set for yourself are entirely arbitrary, much like theists construe their own set of restrictions for religious reasons.
It's hard to follow to the natural conclusion. Should we stop using SELinux because the NSA is part of the same government? Should we stop buying servers and other hardware because the fuel bought to deliver it supports violent oil-supplying regimes?
We have to function to have any hope of improving the situation. That does mean supporting at some level the thing we hope to fix.
None of them. The killing machines should not exist.
I used to design guidance systems for which I'm totally fucking ashamed of myself for but at the end of the day unless you observe the process you can't change it.
Yes, let's set the clock for technology back to prehistoric levels. That'll fix all our problems. If you can't find the flaw in this kind of reasoning, go see a doctor to get your head straightened.
I wish someone would make a reference like this for remote branches and repos, I always keep forgetting commands for setting upstream branches, checking out remote branches and having them tracked, etc.
The article is built on the distinction between unimporant and important problems and yet it goes out of its way to avoid stating his opinion on what makes a problem important. He keeps putting the words important and unimportant in quotes.
Something may be important to someone but completely unimportant to someone else. Importance is subjective, so there's no such thing as important and unimportant problems. This may seem like a run-of-the-mill "everything is relative" statement (which are usually not very constructive) but I think that this is pertinent here, because nothing is important on its own, but it may be important to a person or a group of people, so talking about the importance of things without taking into account who they're important to doesn't make much sense.
He means important in the cultural sense. Someone defending, say anything in the bill of rights is likely doing something culturally important. Killing prostitutes was important to Jack the Ripper, but it's detrimental to civilization.
Is there anything in the article that leads you to believe he meant important in that sense? Cause I don't see it. He constantly puts important in quotation marks and really doesn't specify what he means by important. Take this paragraph:
For instance, GPU hardware was developed to run first-person shooters with increasingly fancier graphics. Today, it powers some of the largest high-performance computing clusters where “important” science is done.
Would you say that science aided by high-performance computing is automatically important in a cultural sense? What if that science is actually military research? Because I see developing weapons and other means of violence to be detrimental to civilization.
