GeekNights 090713 - Full Disclosure

Apreche

Tonight on GeekNights we ramble about full disclosure and related topics because of this story. In the news, GDGT is live and you can theoretically spy on people via their electrical outlets.

Axel

This was one of the few tech shows that I felt I understood to a relatively high degree. That makes me feel special, even though I know I'm still technologically illiterate compared to most on this forum.
Full Disclosure is an interesting topic, and I understand why Rym would support it. But it screws over the consumer, or at least can screw over the consumer, on many levels. It sucks that there are either none or few viable alternatives that would not screw over both sides.
What you said about people not reading things on computers is so true that it makes me sad. Most of my family refuses to just look through all the things on the computer to try and find out what's wrong. I know nothing about programming, but I know how to look around a computer, read, and change settings in order to fix minor problems and figure stuff out. Most people I meet, young or old, are unwilling to even try and understand. And I'm sick and tired of my parents claiming that there's a generational gap in understanding it, because that's a load of crap. My mom loves her iPod, and she likes browsing the internet, and she liked playing this one old computer game that we had called Snood (of which I was the only one not addicted), but she claims she'll never understand how the computer works. But I suppose even she is better than most adults I meet.

solarplexus7

Rym and/or Scott: Please do explain your anti-Chick Fil A -ness. While I do not agree with their religious ideology (and neither do you, I imagine), it is my experience that it has the most delicious fast food out there, and it remains the only fast food I will go to on purpose. Not to mention it is much healthier than most other chains, and their ice cream and milkshakes are quite delicious also.

George Patches

I'm wrapping my keyboard wire in aluminum foil.

Rym

Please do explain your anti-Chick Fil A -ness.

Bland chicken, bland bread, fakey-tasting milkshakes, and scary people. That aside, regardless of if the food had somehow been good, I cannot in clear conscience support this sort of organization in any capacity.

George Patches

Please do explain your anti-Chick Fil A -ness.

Bland chicken, bland bread, fakey-tasting milkshakes, and scary people. That aside, regardless of if the food had somehow been good, I cannot in clear conscience support this sort of organization in any capacity.

I'm with you on the sucky food, I don't know why everyone thinks it's so good. However, what exactly do you mean you cannot support that organization? Are you referring to their religious affiliations?

Rym

Are you referring to their religious affiliations?

Quite. They support a number of abhorrent groups, are discriminatory in their hiring, and generally rub me the wrong way.

George Patches

Quite. They support a number of abhorrent groups, are discriminatory in their hiring, and generally rub me the wrong way.

Can you give an example of these abhorrent groups and discrimination you speak of? I was under the impression they were just hard working Christians that observed the day of rest.

Rym

Can you give an example of these abhorrent groups and discrimination you speak of?

Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy is a devout Southern Baptist who has taught Sunday School for over 51 years and whose religious beliefs permeate the company to this day. The company's official statement of corporate purpose says that the business exists "to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A." The chain invests heavily in community services (especially for children and teenagers) and scholarships. Cathy's beliefs are also responsible for one of the chain's distinctive features: All Chick-fil-A locations (company-owned and franchised, whether in a mall or freestanding) are closed on Sundays.

Our decision to close on Sunday was our way of honoring God and directing our attention to things more important than our business. If it took seven days to make a living with a restaurant, then we needed to be in some other line of work. Through the years, I have never wavered from that position.

The religious organizations to which Truett Cathy and Chick-fil-A have lent support include such groups as Focus on the Family. Groups researching financial support of religious groups have noted that Truett Cathy is one of the largest corporate sponsors of politically active religious groups in the US, largely through grants from the Truett Cathy Foundation but occasionally through direct sponsorship as well or through partnership with other foundations that are major corporate sponsors of politically active religious groups.[citation needed]

Chick-fil-A has promoted religious groups via toys and CDs included in children's meals, much as movie studios promote new movies via McDonald's Happy Meal toys. These have ranged from including toys from the Christian television series VeggieTales in children's meals to including Financial Peace for Kids children's books by Christian financial guru Dave Ramsey and CDs from the Christian radio program Adventures in Odyssey,[7] as children's meal incentives. The last show mentioned is produced by the radio division of Focus on the Family, and typically heard on Christian radio stations.

Chick-fil-A and Focus on the Family also have a history of cross-promotion. Chick-fil-A has also sponsored meetings by the group All Pro Dad; All Pro Dad is a group with affiliations with Focus on the Family via a group called Family First; Family First promotes a large number of conservative religious causes, including covenant marriage.

Chick-fil-A has also directly sponsored other religious campaigns. One of the groups sponsored by Chick-fil-A is Athletes In Action which is a sports missionary arm of the Campus Crusade for Christ.

Another link between Chick-fil-A and religious groups includes promotion of National Bible Week. S. Truett Cathy is the chair of the National Bible Week Committee.

Truett Cathy is also heavily involved in the WinShape Foundation, a non-profit organization which was started in 1984 with its goal to "shape winners" by offering summer camps, retreats, foster care, and other services.

In New Jersey, they give support to Choices of the Heart.

Chick-fil-A's connection to Christianity has even been brought up in court when Aziz Latif, a Houston-based Muslim employee for 6 years, sued the company in 2002 for firing him, alleging that he was fired for his religious beliefs when he had refused to take part in an employee prayer.[8] The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.[9]

George Patches

It seems our definitions of abhorrent groups differ.

gomidog

It seems our definitions of abhorrent groups differ.

Focus on the Family? Seriously. They are basically all "Get back in the Kitchen, woman!"
They are also seriously anti-gay. I want my lesbian friends to be able to get hitched and be happy! Any group that says they shouldn't be able to for arbitrary reasons is crap.
I wouldn't support something that supported "focus on the family." or "promise keepers" or any of that other patriarchal homophobic bullshit.

George Patches

Focus on the Family? Seriously. They are basically all "Get back in the Kitchen, woman!"
They are also seriously anti-gay. I want my lesbian friends to be able to get hitched and be happy! Any group that says they shouldn't be able to for arbitrary reasons is crap.
I wouldn't support something that supported "focus on the family." or "promise keepers" or any of that other patriarchal homophobic bullshit.

Fair enough, but what about the community services and scholarships. It's not all bad.

Jason

It seems our definitions of abhorrent groups differ.

Let's take a look at Focus on the Family's political stances, which it has actively sought to promote through legislation:

- School-sponsored prayer
- Anti-abortion
- Anti-homosexuality
- Anti-pornography
- Supports intelligent design
- Prohibition on gambling
- Against the right to die (physician assisted suicide)
- Against embryonic stem cell research
- They are strict constructionists
- Against the separation of church and state

The organization is exclusively Democrat, has been called out by the Anti Defamation League, has been accused of tampering with research to further its anti-gay agenda, and its founder directly advised GWB.

I wonder what Rym (and I) could find abhorrent about that?

EDIT: Wow, their website is a house of horrors.

gomidog

They are also really against:

- radical feminism
- pre-marital sexual activity.

I'm not a good person, according to them. They dislike young women like me who like working at jobs and getting happy smexings.

George Patches

They are also really against:

- radical feminism
- pre-marital sexual activity.

I'm not a good person, according to them. They dislike young women like me who like working at jobs, and getting happy smexings.

It's all about perspective. Do you think of yourself as a bad person because they do? Of course not. I just don't think that a Christian food chain supporting Christian causes is a great evil on the world. So I don't find it abhorrent.

Make no mistake, I don't agree with it. If I frequented these eating establishments I would be reconsidering my patronage. I'd rather not support these things, but I'm not outraged by it.

Omnutia

@Gomidog: Radical feminism, as in: crazy men haters or radical feminism, as in: equality by any means?

I find it odd that "Family Values" encompasses only a single kind of family.

gomidog

@Gomidog: Radical feminism, as in: crazy men haters or radical feminism, as in: equality by any means?

I find it odd that "Family Values" encompasses only a single kind of family.

It's all about equality! People who espouse hating anyone are misguided and counter-productive. (although when you talk about man hating, separate yourself from the class you inhabit. You are a good person, but your class, male, has done many bad things. One can speak out against the generalized actions of a group, but one should never assume that someone is party to these faults just because they were born as a member of that class. I really like most male people; I like people in general.) A matriarchy is just as problematic and hierarchical as the patriarchy - I'm all for a more horizontal social structure. My feminism is about there not being any social difference between men and women, and about being truly gender blind. Ideally, I would like to see a future in which the sex and race of a person figures into someone's evaluation of them only the same way that we view brunettes or people with green eyes - It's merely part of your physical make up, your genes. It does not define your social identity and learned behavior. You straight guys are welcome to be attracted to the physical nature of biological females, just as someone is perfectly fine for being drawn to (in my case) people with long, dark hair. First and foremost, though, people would be socially (not physically) androgynous, and not buy into these predefined roles, this "femininity" and "masculinity" that we are taught.

Also, I agree with you about family values.

Nine Boomer

@Gomidog: Radical feminism, as in: crazy men haters or radical feminism, as in: equality by any means?

I find it odd that "Family Values" encompasses only a single kind of family.

It's all about equality! People who espouse hating anyone are misguided and counter-productive. (although when you talk about man hating, separate yourself from the class you inhabit. You are a good person, but your class, male, has done many bad things. One can speak out against the generalized actions of a group, but one should never assume that someone is party to these faults just because they were born as a member of that class. I really like most male people; I like people in general.) A matriarchy is just as problematic and hierarchical as the patriarchy - I'm all for a more horizontal social structure. My feminism is about there not being any social difference between men and women, and about being truly gender blind. Ideally, I would like to see a future in which the sex and race of a person figures into someone's evaluation of them only the same way that we view brunettes or people with green eyes - It's merely part of your physical make up, your genes. It does not define your social identity and learned behavior. You straight guys are welcome to be attracted to the physical nature of biological females, just as someone is perfectly fine for being drawn to (in my case) people with long, dark hair. First and foremost, though, people would be socially (not physically) androgynous, and not buy into these predefined roles, this "femininity" and "masculinity" that we are taught.

Also, I agree with you about family values.

But what about inequalities that exist through the genes? I've read that men have better spacial awareness than women, so parking a car is easier for men than women (According to my hazy memories). Meanwhile, women are much better at understanding facial and body expressions, so they have an upper hand with face-to-face discussion. There are differences between men and women, differences which are not just with physical appearance.

Would it be okay to discriminate because you need a specific skillset which is more common within a specific gender? Would you prefer to hire a female babysitter because you know that a female would be better able to understand an infant? Of course, It would be unreasonable to discriminate because of stereotypes, but would it be OK if it's because of the differences between men and women which are genetic, with no bias from societal ideas?

trogdor9

But what about inequalities that exist through the genes? I've read that men have better spacial awareness than women, so parking a car is easier for men than women (According to my hazy memories). Meanwhile, women are much better at understanding facial and body expressions, so they have an upper hand with face-to-face discussion. There are differences between men and women, differences which are not just with physical appearance.

Would it be okay to discriminate because you need a specific skillset which is more common within a specific gender? Would you prefer to hire a female babysitter because you know that a female would be better able to understand an infant? Of course, It would be unreasonable to discriminate because of stereotypes, but would it be OK if it's because of the differences between men and women which are genetic, with no bias from societal ideas?

Always choose the best person for the job. Always. You're taking the idea that women, on average, tend to be better with infants to an extreme. Just because women have a tendency to be better with infants doesn't mean you should throw out all the male resumes. You might just find that your best applicant is male!

Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the science behind it. If a mentally disabled person applied for a job, I wouldn't throw out his application because he was mentally disabled, I would throw it out because he's not qualified for the job - assuming he is; there is a chance that despite his disability he could do the job as well as anybody.

Omnutia

I would argue that the majority of maternal skill is taught/encouraged by society and not genetic. I would also put forward that there are few genetic attributes, particularly concerning the brain, that would place the entire selection, based on gender, ahead of the other.

i.e.
M:---------|=========|----
F:------|=========|-------

not:
M:--------------|====|------
F:------|====|--------------

Only at the upper extremes do genetic traits come into play, for instance, male Olympic sprinters will see a measurable increase over female sprinters but amateur athletes can overcome their genetic traits by just trying harder.

George Patches

But what about inequalities that exist through the genes? I've read that men have better spacial awareness than women, so parking a car is easier for men than women (According to my hazy memories). Meanwhile, women are much better at understanding facial and body expressions, so they have an upper hand with face-to-face discussion. There are differences between men and women, differences which are not just with physical appearance.

Would it be okay to discriminate because you need a specific skillset which is more common within a specific gender? Would you prefer to hire a female babysitter because you know that a female would be better able to understand an infant? Of course, It would be unreasonable to discriminate because of stereotypes, but would it be OK if it's because of the differences between men and women which are genetic, with no bias from societal ideas?

I remember that study too. Interesting as it was, it has little effect on the individual. These statistics effect the probability that a randomly selected individual would have certain traits. I've met plenty of men who were horrible drivers and plenty of women who were bad communicators.

Statistics class FTW!!!

Nuri

I'm not a good person, according to them. They dislike young women like me who like working at jobs and getting happy smexings.

Just imagine what they'd think of me.

Would it be okay to discriminate because you need a specific skillset which is more common within a specific gender? Would you prefer to hire a female babysitter because you know that a female would be better able to understand an infant? Of course, It would be unreasonable to discriminate because of stereotypes, but would it be OK if it's because of the differences between men and women which are genetic, with no bias from societal ideas?

No, it's not ok. Sure, there are definitely differences on average. However, when it comes to individuals, those traits vary. That's why discrimination based on gender, race, etc is illegal, but discrimination based on actual ability is not. The idea is that you need to assess the individuals based on their individual merit, and not the average merit of their class. You can still hire a man over a woman for manual labor if the man is better suited to it physically, but if friggin' GI Jane applied for that job and her competition was I-cannot-do-a-single-pushup Scott, then the chick should get the job because she is more physically able to do it. Sure, there will be more men in these types of jobs than women, but that shouldn't prevent women from being considered for the jobs at all.

gomidog

But what about inequalities that exist through the genes? I've read that men have better spacial awareness than women, so parking a car is easier for men than women (According to my hazy memories). Meanwhile, women are much better at understanding facial and body expressions, so they have an upper hand with face-to-face discussion. There are differences between men and women, differences which are not just with physical appearance.

Would it be okay to discriminate because you need a specific skillset which is more common within a specific gender? Would you prefer to hire a female babysitter because you know that a female would be better able to understand an infant? Of course, It would be unreasonable to discriminate because of stereotypes, but would it be OK if it's because of the differences between men and women which are genetic, with no bias from societal ideas?

Not It would not be okay! It's the exact opposite of the idea that I just put forth. I never said there are no chemical or developmental differences between male and female brains, but I would say that there's much more diversity of skills between individuals in the same race and gender than between the greater groups of "male" and "female." These evolutionary psychologists are using the exact kind of rhetoric that people in the Victorian times used to justify racism against black people. They would say "oh, it's scientifically proven that they are not as good at a,b,or c, therefore they are more suited to hard labor than intellectual jobs." Rotten Baloney! There are very few differences that are not affected by "bias from societal ideas."

You can still hire a man over a woman for manual labor if the man is better suited to it physically, but if friggin' GI Jane applied for that job and her competition was I-cannot-do-a-single-pushup Scott, then the chick should get the job because she is more physically able to do it.

*snort!*

Seriously, though, I am not trying to argue that men and women are the exact same on the soccer field or anything. While Rym is stronger than me, it shouldn't been seen as any different between a boy who is born and grows up small and a boy who inherited a lot of muscle mass. You do what you can with what you got.

George Patches

Not It would not be okay! It's the exact opposite of the idea that I just put forth. I never said there are no chemical or developmental differences between male and female brains, but I would say that there's much more diversity of skills between individuals in the same race and gender than between the greater groups of "male" and "female." These evolutionary psychologists are using the exact kind of rhetoric that people in the Victorian times used to justify racism against black people. They would say "oh, it's scientifically proven that they are not as good at a,b,or c, therefore they are more suited to hard labor than intellectual jobs." Rotten Baloney! There are very few differences that are not affected by "bias from societal ideas."

Exactly, eugenics movement for the fail.

gomidog

Exactly, eugenics movement for the fail.

It's not based on any real research, though! The eugenics movement was totally affected by societal bigotry and racism prizing one arbitrary quality over another!

George Patches

It's not based on any real research, though! The eugenics movement was totally affected by societal bigotry and racism prizing one arbitrary quality over another!

Don't forgot poorly written and executed "statistics."

MrRoboto

The difference between males and females was not in gender but in the hormones and how they stimulate the brain, I remember watching a documentary that had a wide range of females and males with different levels of testosterone and estrogen, they found out that yes, males did better in some spatial and precise tests but on the other hand, females did better with the tests that required concentration on several different things at the same time. At the end of the whole thing they placed them in a mixed line depending on how they did in the tests, in the end it was accurately scaled depending on their hormone levels, most males were on one side, most females on the other side, but a particular female was 2nd place in the male dominated side and had in fact high levels of testosterone (she didn't look butch at all) and two males were like 4th and 5th on the female dominated side and also had high estrogen levels (and did not look effeminate either).

Railith

Burger King is not worse than McDonald's. They are both low tier fast food, but at least Burger King's food sorta taste like what it is supposed to be.

Li_Akahi

Burger King is not worse than McDonald's. They are both low tier fast food, but at least Burger King's food sorta taste like what it is supposed to be.

They also have onion rings.

George Patches

low tier fast food

Isn't that a bit redundant?