The fingerprints are likely stored for verification purposes and might be sent out to requesting authorities across the world to combat passport forgery.
That doesn't improve the situation in the least. Violating people's privacy for security purposes is not acceptable.
That's because they're complete hypocrites and don't actually care about the constitution, or freedom in general. Still, I think they do some good work, so they're not totally useless.
For a single sentence, the 2nd amendment spawns a lot of differing interpretations.
Interpreting something is not quite the same as adding something to the text you're trying to interpret.
Rather they're conditional.
Because the government doesn't care about the constitution.
Convicts and children, for example, aren't given full rights to free speech or to free association, or to vote.
And innocent people are spied on by the NSA and molested by the TSA. The government doesn't care about the constitution. They know full well that the constitution gives them no such power.
So, the question is, does the absolute right to bear arms extend to incarcerated convicts? Newborn infants? The mentally incompetant?
Until the constitution is amended (which is the proper process), I think so.
I'm going to say that denying rights, including rights to bear arms, due to status (age, mental competance, criminal status, gender, race, etc.) is not a new phenomenon and by no means applied exclusively to gun ownership.
No, violating people's rights is not a new phenomenon, but that doesn't mean we should put up with it.
So the NRA gets criticized for not wanting "reasonable" restrictions on the purchase of firearms.
I don't want "reasonable" restrictions on guns, either. If you don't like the second amendment, you have to amend the constitution.
Now you criticize them for conceding that mentally ill should not have guns.
There are plenty of people who have things that are considered mental illnesses who are perfectly good people and would never hurt anyone. I know quite a few like that.
And I criticize them because their proposals are hypocritical and unconstitutional at the same time. If they truly cared about the second amendment or the constitution, they wouldn't be proposing such garbage.
and intellectual works are treated like a turkey thrown into a pit filled with hyenas.
What? I don't see why anyone should have the ability to control what other people do with publicly released information. That's anti-intellectual, if anything. In fact, this sort of government imposed monopoly is more socialistic/communistic than capitalistic.
In short, I don't see any real problem with the last one.
The (campaigning part of the) NRA has specifically demanded crackdowns on the mentally ill [nydailynews.com] in response to the latest shootings.
Which is funny, considering their interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that "mentally ill" people can't have guns, or anything close to that? Their proposals would violate the constitution.
Says the guy who knows absolutely not a god damn thing about software development.
Oh, you're that raving lunatic who, instead of having that "silly political agenda" that RMS supposedly has, has a seething hatred for said agenda and spams every thread about it. Ignored.
My hypothesis is merely that they are dumber for it.
Which you provided no evidence of. I also see absolutely zero reason that this would be the case. Even if they leave their 'comfort zones,' that doesn't mean they'll somehow become more intelligent or something. I don't see merely gaining knowledge, forming opinions about subjective matters, or trying to figure out the point of some piece of trash painting as activities that will make people more intelligent or better critical thinkers. I think their time would be better spent trying to understand complex mathematical equations, or something else that requires deep logical thought.
But you're adding the first condition that any mental improvement is "important". Now either you're carelessly or deliberately equivocating.
Nope. I just prefer practical things.
If the first case, you're overlooking that the first "important" is based on the opinion of the subject
Irrelevant to me.
while the second is based on the opinion of the tester
Also irrelevant to me.
Your third condition is "innovation"
Right. Such as solving unsolved math problems. I don't see where these students did anything innovative or anything that showed that they gained any amount of critical thinking skills. They literally might as well have done nothing, from my point of view.
And your point is what, exactly? I suppose you're trying to spew forth ad hominems at people you don't even know to... somehow debunk their arguments? Or what?
our complete lack of understanding about education
Doesn't seem defensive to me. But really, if you're going to take that route, the same could be said of you.
I haven't given a plausible explanation for how taking your mind out of its comfort zone will improve it?
You haven't shown that it will improve it in any important, measurable way; certainly not in a way that leads to innovative critical thinking. And no, the garbage you refer to in the next sentence demonstrates no such thing.
Public schools teach *most*people to read, hand-write, write formally (e.g. essays, letters), handle basic mathematic equations, and other things Ican't recall offhand.
Which they do through memorization. Do you think math is a mere rote memorization game? What these schools do is have kids memorize material; that's all. They do not understand the material. They have no deep understanding of any of it. Schools merely teach people to recognize certain patterns, memorize facts, and follow procedures; this is true in the US, and in every country in the world.
If the only thing you have going for your schools is that they show people how to use language and basic math, then there is something very, very wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
The fingerprints are likely stored for verification purposes and might be sent out to requesting authorities across the world to combat passport forgery.
That doesn't improve the situation in the least. Violating people's privacy for security purposes is not acceptable.
I'm kind of shocked that people are so shocked.
Who's shocked? People in places such as this, or 'normal' people? If the latter, you shouldn't be shocked; they've always been unintelligent.
The point is that a lot of people weren't aware of the extent or scale of it
Most people didn't know about this at all. Unsurprisingly, most people are also highly unintelligent.
That's because they're complete hypocrites and don't actually care about the constitution, or freedom in general. Still, I think they do some good work, so they're not totally useless.
The problem with an overly literalist interpretation
There is no problem. Don't like it? Amend the constitution.
1A guarantees absolute freedom of speech
Yes. But anyway, the constitution is a whitelist of things the government can do, not a blacklist of things it can't.
yet the same people who wrote the Bill of Rights have passed those laws, so clearly they did not interpret it that way.
A huge mistake on their part, I think.
So we'd have to go and literally rewrite the entire Bill of Rights to make this work.
So be it.
For a single sentence, the 2nd amendment spawns a lot of differing interpretations.
Interpreting something is not quite the same as adding something to the text you're trying to interpret.
Rather they're conditional.
Because the government doesn't care about the constitution.
Convicts and children, for example, aren't given full rights to free speech or to free association, or to vote.
And innocent people are spied on by the NSA and molested by the TSA. The government doesn't care about the constitution. They know full well that the constitution gives them no such power.
So, the question is, does the absolute right to bear arms extend to incarcerated convicts? Newborn infants? The mentally incompetant?
Until the constitution is amended (which is the proper process), I think so.
I'm going to say that denying rights, including rights to bear arms, due to status (age, mental competance, criminal status, gender, race, etc.) is not a new phenomenon and by no means applied exclusively to gun ownership.
No, violating people's rights is not a new phenomenon, but that doesn't mean we should put up with it.
Readability.
What's readable to you is not necessarily readable to me, and vice versa. It's subjective.
Didn't your professors/instructors at school have similar requirements?
Yes, and they were absurd. "Follow my directions exactly or suffer" is not something I'd expect from an educational environment.
So the NRA gets criticized for not wanting "reasonable" restrictions on the purchase of firearms.
I don't want "reasonable" restrictions on guns, either. If you don't like the second amendment, you have to amend the constitution.
Now you criticize them for conceding that mentally ill should not have guns.
There are plenty of people who have things that are considered mental illnesses who are perfectly good people and would never hurt anyone. I know quite a few like that.
And I criticize them because their proposals are hypocritical and unconstitutional at the same time. If they truly cared about the second amendment or the constitution, they wouldn't be proposing such garbage.
and intellectual works are treated like a turkey thrown into a pit filled with hyenas.
What? I don't see why anyone should have the ability to control what other people do with publicly released information. That's anti-intellectual, if anything. In fact, this sort of government imposed monopoly is more socialistic/communistic than capitalistic.
In short, I don't see any real problem with the last one.
The (campaigning part of the) NRA has specifically demanded crackdowns on the mentally ill [nydailynews.com] in response to the latest shootings.
Which is funny, considering their interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that "mentally ill" people can't have guns, or anything close to that? Their proposals would violate the constitution.
Says the guy who knows absolutely not a god damn thing about software development.
Oh, you're that raving lunatic who, instead of having that "silly political agenda" that RMS supposedly has, has a seething hatred for said agenda and spams every thread about it. Ignored.
Bullshit. Argue your point or shut the fuck up. Heh.
My equipment, my rules. To hell with copyright.
Frankly, the government (and schools) has no business using proprietary garbage to begin with.
If it doesn't exist, then they could have developed it; probably would have cost much less than this did.
My hypothesis is merely that they are dumber for it.
Which you provided no evidence of. I also see absolutely zero reason that this would be the case. Even if they leave their 'comfort zones,' that doesn't mean they'll somehow become more intelligent or something. I don't see merely gaining knowledge, forming opinions about subjective matters, or trying to figure out the point of some piece of trash painting as activities that will make people more intelligent or better critical thinkers. I think their time would be better spent trying to understand complex mathematical equations, or something else that requires deep logical thought.
But you're adding the first condition that any mental improvement is "important". Now either you're carelessly or deliberately equivocating.
Nope. I just prefer practical things.
If the first case, you're overlooking that the first "important" is based on the opinion of the subject
Irrelevant to me.
while the second is based on the opinion of the tester
Also irrelevant to me.
Your third condition is "innovation"
Right. Such as solving unsolved math problems. I don't see where these students did anything innovative or anything that showed that they gained any amount of critical thinking skills. They literally might as well have done nothing, from my point of view.
And your point is what, exactly? I suppose you're trying to spew forth ad hominems at people you don't even know to... somehow debunk their arguments? Or what?
our complete lack of understanding about education
I think that was their main problem.
Says the guy who uses the username "narcc." Therefore, all of your arguments are completely incorrect.
Well, someone's defensive about their ignorance!
Doesn't seem defensive to me. But really, if you're going to take that route, the same could be said of you.
I haven't given a plausible explanation for how taking your mind out of its comfort zone will improve it?
You haven't shown that it will improve it in any important, measurable way; certainly not in a way that leads to innovative critical thinking. And no, the garbage you refer to in the next sentence demonstrates no such thing.
Public schools teach *most*people to read, hand-write, write formally (e.g. essays, letters), handle basic mathematic equations, and other things Ican't recall offhand.
Which they do through memorization. Do you think math is a mere rote memorization game? What these schools do is have kids memorize material; that's all. They do not understand the material. They have no deep understanding of any of it. Schools merely teach people to recognize certain patterns, memorize facts, and follow procedures; this is true in the US, and in every country in the world.
If the only thing you have going for your schools is that they show people how to use language and basic math, then there is something very, very wrong.