News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found securit... by mdp2021 on Thursday October 21, 2021 @12:36PM (#28947057)
You have forgotten to propose to test for morals, dignity and mental health. Because the matter and issue, in the specific case, is not with "notions".

Edit: I don't even know why for some reason I forgot (probably because it comes without saying): basic wits.

And, seeing that somebody really calls is an "odd idea": no, there absolutely should be requirements. Getting the appropriate measurements, reliably and feasibly, that is difficult. Yet, still duly. Duty, in the same intensity that suggests that thing holding office should be flung into space.

Re:Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found securit... by elliekelly on Thursday October 21, 2021 @12:51PM (#28947316)
There are a handful of states whose constitutions (ostensibly) “test” a for morals by requiring candidates for public office to believe in god. This, despite the federal constitution clearly stating:

> No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Re:Gov Parson pushes to prosecute reporter who found securit... by mdp2021 on Thursday October 21, 2021 @01:03PM (#28947535)
This is (really) interesting and telling, but what it really shows is that extremely low sophistication and its somehow complementary, a massive (and, look: unjustifiable) amount of ignorance, are diffuse in the world and made part of the legislation (that "no belief does guarantee developed morals", and that "no belief is required to develop morals", and that "morals come from a realm different than belief"¹ is just an example).

The information you provided is a further alarm bell about the dire needs we have about vetting people in the current, desperate, worn out world. Normal social interaction as a way to fine tune the individual, the traditional selection way, shows to be ineffective today.

--

¹Oddly, in a world in which the concept of "identification" is increasingly spread, "curiously and consistently" I have not yet heard the expression "X identifies as a moral (and/or dignified, intelligent, sophisticated, compassionate, judicious, reliable...) agent". The concept of "identification" seems to be restricted to tribal matters (and, still notably, "earthly" criteria). These two interlinked factors are very telling about the issues in today's society.