First Job -- IT Dept. says IE 6 Only

[tlarkin]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian I would replace "Government" with "North American Society". Kids knock over gravestones and get a slap on the wrist if anyone bothers to try to catch them and succeeds; they're just little kids, after all. A minister or priest diddles little kids and is simply moved to another venue; mustn't bring shame on the church. A bank teller is suspected of diddling the books and is simply fired; don't want the negative PR, after all. Teachers who are hopelessly incompetent have tenure; what can a school board do, they'll say. Parole boards and the justice system bring screams of rage from victims, but nothing changes. These are all symptoms of a society gone as soft as baby poop, and so self-centered that they won't bother with anything that doesn't directly effect them.

You are describing what happens to rich white kids. I hate to say it, but we do live in segregation still, and our police are racially biased. I can say that from witnessing what happens and what goes on in a place of class diversity where I live. In a small 5 mile stretch right where I live you have upper class on one end, to poor homeless people on the other end.

If it is a black (or other non white ethnicity) kid from the city, he gets prosecuted. I have been caught drinking in public numerous times in the city and never got anything more than a warning. My old roommate who was black would have his car get searched if he was caught drinking at a public park.

People should be held accountable for all their actions. Especially those in power.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin People should be held accountable for all their actions. Especially those in power.

But how do you come down on small infractions when the really big criminals continue to prosper?

[MBHockey]

Ah, 5 pages?! I didn't get any thread updates in my email.

I'll have to read through this tonight..

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by schneb So the answer is to make every American taxpayer pay for it? I'm not being harsh here, but there are built-in problems with this since I am presently dealing with it right now with my kids. The problem with government "anything" is that it becomes a tic nightmare. We end up paying more money just to keep the great experiment going ad-nauseum. Currently they are looking for ways of teaching sex education to as low as kindergarten--including introduction of homosexuality. Now, to me, as a parent, this drives me to put my children in to private school. Guess what? Now I am paying $6k a year PLUS my taxes so that everyone else can send their kids to K-12. There was once a bill to have vouchers where you could spend them where you wanted to augment the price of education. This meant the death nell for the inefficient Public School System. The bill was immediately killed, of course, and the inefficiency continues.

Yes, American taxpayers should pay for it. Who else is going to pay for America's education? Should we penalize children born into poverty that can't afford a private education? How would that benefit America? You don't pay taxes to benefit you. You pay taxes to benefit America (or your state or local government). Even the poor folks.

If parents don't like the public school curriculum, they should, and have a civic responsibility to, get involved. They should talk to teachers often and attend school board meetings. Furthermore, they should encourage other parents to do the same. They need to put the public back into public schools.

Bureaucracy is not exclusive to government. It's nearly everywhere you look in the private sector, as well. In the past week I have spent about two and a half hours dealing with the private management of the apartment complex in which I live, for routine paperwork and rent payment. It shouldn't have taken three minutes, total. It would have been faster to let the local DMV handle things.

I don't see anything wrong with beginning to teach kids about sex in an age appropriate manner beginning at a very early age. It helps fight predation by pedophiliacs if kids are equipped with the ability to understand that the actions of the adult are inappropriate. It also helps ensure kids have access to good information about sexual health when they need it, without having to wait for well meaning, but misguided, parents to conclude that they are finally old enough for The Talk. It's sex. It's not vulgar; it's a natural occurrence in most every sexual species.

I also don't see anything wrong with countering the sexual orientation based bigotry so prevalent in our society. Human homosexuality dates back thousands of years. It is also not at all uncommon in a great many other animal species. Yet our society has an irrational fear of homosexuality as though it is contagious. Teaching kids that a particular sexual orientation in no way makes someone inferior to someone of a different orientation is simply responsible. Ignoring the bigotry of society will not make it go away.

Now, I'm the first to admit that US schools generally need overhauling. There's a lot of stuff students should know prior to graduation that they are just not learning. But, I don't believe withholding resources from the schools is the best way to improve things. The problem with vouchers is simple. Let's say it costs $10,000 per pupil to operate the public school system in (the fictitious city of) Anytown, Illinois. Let's say Sally attends Anytown Elementary. Sally's parents, upon finding out that Anytown Elementary doesn't teach ID as an alternative to the established foundations of Biology, decides to enroll Sally in a private school. Sally's parents feel that they should be able to apply that $10,000 towards private tuition.

The problem is that Anytown Elementary does not save $10,000 in expenses due to Sally's absence. They only save marginal expenses. They don't get to dock Sally's teacher's salary by 5%. They don't save money on electricity. They don't save money on classroom technology. The school bus isn't likely to alter its route much in Sally's absence. In fact, most of the cost of educating Sally for the year must be redistributed among the other students, effectively raising the cost of education per pupil at Anytown Elementary. Why should Sally's parents be entitled to more money than the school is saving from Sally's absence? The money doesn't belong to Sally's parents; the money belongs to society, the people of Anytown. It's certainly not in the Anytown community's best interest to subsidize one student's private education at the expense of several students' public education.

[tlarkin]

J Chris-

Well said bro, well said...

Finally someone else that views it like I do. Living in America is not about your personal rights, it is about everyone's right as a citizen. Instead people want everyone to believe and think like they do, or at least conform to their ideal of what society should be. Instead if everyone had the outlook of what would benefit everyone instead of themselves perhaps we wouldn't have some of the problems that we do have. Who knows for sure though, it is purely a theory.

I know when I come upon things I do not morally agree with, but at the same time think that if people do feel that way or want to do whatever, I think they should have the right to do so.

I mean our nation's view on sex for one thing is so christianly biased, and so construed. I mean look at our movie rating system. A director can release a film with the most utterly graphic violent content in it and receive an R rating. The second they add any kind of sexual content it gets bumped to NC-17. I know countless movies that are extremely violent (like Hostel for example) and got an R rating only after they dropped some of the sexual content.

Which doesn't make any sense because when the DVD is released it is still rated R, and it has all the sexual scenes that were cut from the theatrical release. I don't understand it

Why are rich people allowed to get richer? Did you know money you make from investments is not taxed as much, and it definitely is not taxed for social security. So, basically the whole social security system is the lower classes taking care of themselves in a downward spiral of spending which will be gone soon. The rich don't care because they are rich.

This thread has swayed from how IT departments can micro manage too much, to politics hahahaha.

Oh, well I am always up for a good discussion.

[NovaScotian]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin Living in America is not about your personal rights, it is about everyone's right as a citizen. Instead people want everyone to believe and think like they do, or at least conform to their ideal of what society should be.

But it *is* about personal rights TL. The bill of rights focuses on individuals, not on the community. When I was a kid, Canada's motto was "Peace, Order, and Good Government" and we didn't have a bill of rights. The rights of the community trumped the rights of an individual. In 1982, the Canadian Parliament enacted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ever since, Canadian society has converged on the US version -- communities no longer have rights; it's all down (as far as the law is concerned) to individuals (which is why abortion is legal here and so is same-sex marriage, even though a large chunk of our population oppose those on moral grounds).

Quote: Instead if everyone had the outlook of what would benefit everyone instead of themselves perhaps we wouldn't have some of the problems that we do have. Who knows for sure though, it is purely a theory.

It's a theory that has been tested and failed many times because it is contrary to human nature.

[tlarkin]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian But it *is* about personal rights TL. The bill of rights focuses on individuals, not on the community. When I was a kid, Canada's motto was "Peace, Order, and Good Government" and we didn't have a bill of rights. The rights of the community trumped the rights of an individual. In 1982, the Canadian Parliament enacted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ever since, Canadian society has converged on the US version -- communities no longer have rights; it's all down (as far as the law is concerned) to individuals (which is why abortion is legal here and so is same-sex marriage, even though a large chunk of our population oppose those on moral grounds).

I could argue that we don't have many individual rights and those we at one time had have been swept away. No one pays attention to the constitution, and laws are definitely not made from it. I would say we live more like in a minimum security prison these days.

What I was trying to describe was the fact that people need to let everyone pursue their happiness, and not try to base everything off a dogmatic hypocrisy on which we base our laws on. Read about the new anti-abortion law that is looking like it may be passed in Ohio? that really screws with people's rights on an individual level, and they are doing it. When I walk down the street I don't want to have to deal with the saturation of someone else's ideals being pumped into my brain. I feel that I am hammered by these very things all day every day, and that people never listen to anyone else and thus they concentrate on only themselves.

Why don't we have any muslims, buddhist, or Hindus in our Government? I mean if we do, it is news to me. You would think that in a Nation that prides itself on our freedoms we would have such a thing, since everyone would be allowed and not judged by their choice of religion.

So, my view is, not to focus on what you think is right if it takes away from someone else's rights. So, really I was trying to say it is all about the individual, I just didn't convey my message properly enough through what I posted. Communication error is also a big problem with humans. It is not about your own personal rights, it about the rights that every person has regardless of race, religion, social status, or personal opinions. That is what I am trying to say.

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian But it *is* about personal rights TL. The bill of rights focuses on individuals, not on the community.

You're both right.

The Bill Of Rights was added to the Constitution in order to ensure the rights and authority of the whole did not come at the expense of individual rights. There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers intended for the Federal to have authority over the several states and their citizens. That was the whole problem with the Articles of Confederation; the central government was powerless.

Of course, the Founding Fathers came from all across the political spectrum. Also, not all those who contributed to the document were satisfied enough with the final draft to sign it. Some even actively opposed its ratification. The document was a giant compromise. They were hot, tired and irritable and wanted to be finished. We have to keep that in mind before we try to understand what "they" meant.

Today much of the debate revolves around positive liberty (freedom of opportunity) or negative liberty (property rights). All too often, the two are diametrically opposed. The sixteenth amendment seems to indicate positive liberty is of higher priority than negative liberty.

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian Quote: Instead if everyone had the outlook of what would benefit everyone instead of themselves perhaps we wouldn't have some of the problems that we do have. Who knows for sure though, it is purely a theory. It's a theory that has been tested and failed many times because it is contrary to human nature.

Actually a very similar strategy has proven to be quite effective in controlled settings.

Cooperation is almost always a better group strategy than competition.

[tlarkin]

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher Actually a very similar strategy has proven to be quite effective in controlled settings. Cooperation is almost always a better group strategy than competition.

Well I think if we all made it an issue that we all had better free education and free health care and we educated ourselves more to a point where we don't fear each other, or the government.

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin Well I think if we all made it an issue that we all had better free education and free health care and we educated ourselves more to a point where we don't fear each other, or the government.

That's definitely a nice goal, but we have to find a path that can get us there. It isn't free to setup such systems, and nobody seems to like voting to foot the bill to improve the nation for the sake of posterity. It's not enough for it to be a good idea and the right thing to do. It has to get voted for, and you'd better believe that there will be a lobbyist or two trying to win votes in the other direction.

[ArcticStones]

.
As far as I recall my history lessons, the Bill of Rights almost didn’t make it. In fact we can thank George Mason for raising such a stink, by refusing to sign the Constitution, for those rights being made explicit.

Mason was the one who wrote a comparable bill of rights for Virginia.

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher You're both right. The Bill Of Rights was added to the Constitution in order to ensure the rights and authority of the whole did not come at the expense of individual rights. There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers intended for the Federal to have authority over the several states and their citizens.

[NovaScotian]

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher Cooperation is almost always a better group strategy than competition.

I agree entirely, in principle. Unfortunately, in my jaded old age, I'm too cynical to believe that the average person is capable of that. Works in game theory, sure; but not, I think, in real life. If industries do it, it's illegal.

Winston Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." On another occasion, he said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"

Unfortunately a weak system of public education (examples abound) doesn't do much for the average voter's knowledge of public affairs.

[capitalj]

J Cristopher, you are better at articulating my point of view better than I am.

Quote: Quote: Instead if everyone had the outlook of what would benefit everyone instead of themselves perhaps we wouldn't have some of the problems that we do have. Who knows for sure though, it is purely a theory. It's a theory that has been tested and failed many times because it is contrary to human nature.

It's a shame that The Golden Rule, despite being a tenet, in some form, of virtually every religion, is contrary to human nature.

Regarding the Bill of Rights, I was always taught that, while it does garauntee individual rights, it's greater purpose is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It is a reminder that with rights come responsibilities; it's the responsibility of every citizen to protect the rights of others as vigorously as they would protect their own. But then, I'm a product of public education and a public university.

Opposition to homosexuality is a personal, moral stance that is not supported by medicine or science. Everybody has a right to their religious beliefs, and if those beliefs lead you to pull your children out of public school, so be it.

But nobody has the right to impose their beliefs on others. And to support ending public education - to seek to erode the right to public education - because a storybook mentions that a child has two mommies is an extreme overreaction.

Let's be accurate. Nobody is teaching sexuality to kindergardeners. Children are not given sodomy textbooks. There are efforts to improve the quality of sex and diversity education in age appropriate ways. Nothing more.

When my 4 year old daughter asks what it means to be married, I don't explain sex to her - I just tell her that Mommy and Daddy fell in love and are best friends who want to be together all the time and have a family. The same approach works for describing gay couples, and that is what has been introduced to public schools.

[J Christopher]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian I agree entirely, in principle. Unfortunately, in my jaded old age, I'm too cynical to believe that the average person is capable of that. Works in game theory, sure; but not, I think, in real life. If industries do it, it's illegal. Winston Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." On another occasion, he said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" Unfortunately a weak system of public education (examples abound) doesn't do much for the average voter's knowledge of public affairs.

Humans cooperate and humans compete. I'm not sure either one is inherent in human nature. Maybe one or both is learned. Maybe both are inherent and just reinforced by society.

If a problem is properly modeled, what works on paper will work in real life. Game Theory helps us understand when competition is a better tactic (as opposed to strategy) than cooperation, and vice versa. More importantly, it helps us understand why one is better in a given situation. I do not have to look very far outside my door to see many shortcomings of a competitive society. Competition based economy simply does not work well (by itself) in the real world. We have been offered real world lessons demonstrating this time and time again. The Great Depression is but one example.

That certainly doesn't mean competition has no place in society. It offers society's strongest opportunity and motivation to excel. But without tempering the economy with cooperation based policy, the strong quickly leave the average and weaker members of society behind, increasing the disparity of wealth. A better strategy would be to implement policy that enables and encourages the average and weaker members to improve their living standards as well, so the entire group benefits.

The paradox of democracy is that for a citizen to be a truly well informed voter requires such an investment in time that that citizen must sacrifice commitments to work or to family. In order for democracy to succeed in the modern world, we have to be able to trust those who are better informed than ourselves to make the best choices based on what is best for the whole group.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by J Christopher In order for democracy to succeed in the modern world, we have to be able to trust those who are better informed than ourselves to make the best choices based on what is best for the whole group.

And to bring this back to the topic of the thread, I think it's obvious that when those in charge choose to require the use of the world's least compatible browser (intentionally) over all others, their judgement is not to be trusted.

[ThreeDee]

This is somewhat related:

In my school, the network used to be pretty 'open' with minimal filters, people installing various programs nonstop, which led to the worst spyware and adware problems the school probably ever seen. Each student and teacher had their own account on the network. Nobody could get work done in the shared computer labs, because the kids who used to download games and other crap behind the teacher's back, which slowed the computers down to a crawl.

The IT guys got tired of it I guess, got enough money from somewhere (the small school budget?), and installed some new computer attendance system (instead of some old paper check-off system), locked down the computers well (web filter, some network policy settings, some corporate anti-virus program, and a load of other stuff).

The filter was good, blocked 99.9% of useless downloads and bad sites, and actually fixed the spyware problems (because you couldn't download programs), although some students complained about it for various reasons. The attendance system was also good, faster than the manual way of doing roll call, but some teachers also complained about it.

After everyone adjusted to the new system, the only problems I really ever hear of are broken printers and minor networking issues.

I actually talked with the IT guys. They don't have a problem with Firefox (one of them said they use it all the time), but don't like students installing programs that could potentially mess up the computers.

I perfectly understand what they are trying to do.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by ThreeDee I perfectly understand what they are trying to do.

I understand, but I think it's like driving a nail with a sledge hammer. The fact is that the spyware only ran on Windows PCs and the antivirus software is just a drain on resources if you're using a Mac and it's just a band aid if you're using a PC. The web browser used by an individual shouldn't make a difference to the overall performance of the network.

The fact that they needed to do all of what they did tells me that they installed a bad network with bad components. Blaming the user or their setup is just a cop out.

[schneb]

What can I say. I highly disagree with both J Christopher and tlarkin. But to prevent the thread being locked, I will not respond.

[cwtnospam]

I believe in the free market when it comes to products and services, so I am 100% against locking users into one platform, and if possible, I'm even more against it if the platform comes from Microsoft, because they do things like make IE incompatible in order to lock users into their platform.

I see Government's job as maintaining the free market, which would rapidly collapse into some form of feudalism without government. Unfortunately, Government is controlled by business interests, which is what allows IE to be locked into many government agencies.

I'd hate to see the same thing happen with education and religion, which is what vouchers would do. Funny how it's all the same problem at the core: who decides what platform gets used or what beliefs are taught, and what are their motives? Either way I think it should be done on a local level or even individually when possible (as it is/should be with browsers), not because it results in better decisions, but because it keeps the professional lobbyists from seizing control.