st0neage

Even if this holds up to scrutiny H1N1 will still be A LOT more dangerous than the vaccination.

Google's app store is NOT comparable to "just any other store" because it is a quasi monopoly, which was my point in the first place. Therefore different rules (should) apply. How are you not getting this?

Well... if walmart was by vast majority the only store present in any town and the vast majority of people are only able to shop there, it would of course be a problem too and would need regulation just the same.

"[...] is why you end up with legislation written by lobbyists" no, it is not. Stating "uh the details of this are complicated, lets not do this" gets us nowhere. Following that logic you cannot have any laws at all. " Say that one of the rules is [...]" Strawman.

Nitpicking about details is not an argument.

Extra app stores are the answer to everything? Wow ;) I never said that gov. regulation is the answer to everything. But in this case it is. That the US gov might act wrong in this case is a completely different issue.

>>No, it's not irrelevant. Yes it is. >> It's only illegal [...] It is illegal to abuse the monopoly position. Which IS what google is doing. Googles app store is NOT just another store. Monoplies need special regulation and special oversight.

>>far from having a monopoly on App Stores Google has a (quasi-) monopoly on android app stores. Overall marketshare of android is irrelevant.

>> "google play is preinstalled" on the majority of devices. my point still stands.

>> They aren't and they don't. They are a store like any other and the store owner can decide not to sell your products without a good reason if they want to. On Android there are several alternative stores (most notably Amazon) not to mention apps can be installed directly by downloading the APK without any device modification.

It's the same as with internet explorer on windows back in the day. google play is preinstalled so that is what the majority of users use. it IS a quasi-monopoly. and with this, googles freedom to choose not to sell a particular app is gone.

Official app stores are quasi-monopolies and need government control. Think about all the time and work the developer has invested. And can't be possible for google to effectively keep him from selling the app just because they feel like it. If they have an app distribution monopoly, developers have a right to publish their app there. It is not a favor google grants. This is something laws have to enforce as companies like google demonstrably harm this right on their own. It's either this or opening up the app store concept.

Don't. The (programming) world isn't perfect and trying to protect him from anything "confusing" or bad will not help him in the long run. Instead, explain. If you don't have a good answer, research the reasons. Getting to know and working around (or with) the quirks of the system is important. Don't take that away from your son.

And you are citing this as an example of how to do it right? Why?

I fail to see the legitimate reason software assisted weapons or mass surveillance tech have to exist. Enlighten me? See my other reply below for your relativation fallacy.

>where you draw the line I don't see this as a problem. The goal is to discuss and voice a common moral standard for CS. The idea worked well for doctors.

Define assault. Is nudging someone to get their attention ok? How about hitting them in the face full force? Both are touching...

See, the thing is, common sense helps with this. Trying to relativise everything does not take a way the need to make moral decisions.

Maybe it was done deliberately?

I like the idea of an oath like this and also thought about creating something a bit similar. Maybe you could call it a "Hippocratic Oath of Computer Science".

I think it should be extended to all computer scientists not just programmers (or maybe even all of science). Some things in the oath should be a lot more explicit and more strict in my opinion. For example creating or helping create weapons or surveillance technology should be strictly forbidden.

You could just add protein powder?

Ah there's what i was missing. Thanks!

Not bashing, I actually want to know: How did a terminal emulator get blown up to 250MB?

Actually that was meant to be a joke. Is that really a reason to downvote?

Hell? This could be heaven! For everyone.

Thank you for the link! :)

> "What her research shows is that these institutions may be self-defeating and may carry very significant social costs," Western says. "And so the whole effort to improve public safety through criminal-justice supervision and through incarceration may have significantly backfired, and may in many ways have contributed to the ongoing poverty and shortage of opportunities that we see there. That's a fairly new story."

Everybody with half a brain has known this forever.

Thank you. In the video they make it sound like he invented it.

For the high stakes kind youtube or twitter are good examples. For the business kind every old little business around the corner is an example. Why do I need to spell this out to you? For in between - can't really be bothered to research this, so I'll just give you that.

How does that have anything to do with what I said?

I don't think examples are needed here, since this is just common sense. Also if you could reply to the actual content of my post, that would be great.

I think what you're missing is that there are very different kinds of startup. There is the high stakes "next facebook or bust" kind, where it makes a lot of sense to first grow a userbase, get a lot of investors to pay you and take it from there. And then there's the "we are starting a business" kind of startup you seem to be talking about. And a lot in between.