Now you're going to founder intent, despite having earlier dismissed founder intent. But sure, I'll give you one: Thomas Jefferson. He even made his own version of the Bible which removed any references to Jesus as a divine being, as opposed to a mortal philosopher with some good ideas.

Several of the founders were what we'd call agnostic, in this day and age.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

The term 'separation of church and state' is from a letter, from Jefferson, explaining the First Amendment to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association.

Madison also wrote:

Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.

in a similar vein.

I can also quote other official American law, such as the 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary,' 1797. Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Anyone who believes that the founders intended an atheistic system of government simply has no idea what they are talking about.

Article VI disagrees with you there, bucko.

With the Prequels, Lucas did everything

This cannot be overstated enough. Go watch the 'making of' featurettes for Phantom Menace. You'll see Lucas saying things like "I liked Liam's forth take, but I liked Ewan's thirteenth take." Seeing as how they're greenscreened, he'd simply take the left half of take four, the right half of take thirteen, paste them together, and put in the background.

Which means you have both actors looking at, responding to, and acting against a person who wasn't there.

And that's when there's actually two humans interacting! Now have them acting against a character who is represented by a stick with masking tape at that character's eye level.

You won't find those exact words; however, you will find this:

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

If there was a state religion, or if religion were not required to be separate from the state, there would, indeed, be religious tests applicable.

Of course, the Constitution also still contains provisions on how to count slaves for purposes of allocating Congress.

Rather than locking the co-pilot out, just shoot/stab them, and keep the door locked.

If the pilot has control of the airplane, the pilot can crash the airplane. It's really that simple.

Tom Clancy published 'The Sum of All Fears' in 1991. In the afterword, he mentions how it was frighteningly easy to piece together, from public domain data, how to build a multistage thermonuclear bomb. How he was couriered design specs for fabrication devices for the asking. How he felt the need to obfuscate some details, even though he knew there was no point, just to assuage his conscience.

As he points out, it's physics, and it's engineering.

Just get RenderDog instead, it's RenderMan's best friend.

Until the first time you start the program after not using it for too long, and you discover it's chewed up all your meshes, and shit all over your textures.

Today, the computer utility concept has returned [13], but todayâ(TM)s operating systems are not even up to the level of security that Multics offered in the early 1970s, let alone the level needed for a modern computer utility. There has been work on security for Computational Grids

Because the Multics security enhancements, including mandatory access controls, were shipped to ALL customers, this meant that the designers of applications had to make sure that their applications worked properly with those controls. By contrast, many application developers for other systems with optional security enhancements donâ(TM)t even know that the security enhancement options exist,

Of course vulnerabilities remain. But when you're deliberately aiming for a secure *system*, they're a lot less impactful. Kinda like how turning ASLR on simply nullifies entire classes of vulnerabilities. MULTICS, according to your paper, didn't have problems with buffer overflows. Thirty years ago, this was a solved problem. Why is it an ongoing problem now?

One of the most common types of security penetrations today is the buffer overflow [6]. However, when you look at the published history of Multics security problems [20, 28-30], you find essentially no buffer overflows. Multics generally did not suffer from buffer overflows, both because of the choice of implementation language and because of the use of several hardware features. These hardware and software features did not make buffer overflows impossible,

And so on and so forth.

Why is it so hard to write secure software?

Really, it isn't. The problem is that 'secure software' is exactly one piece of the puzzle that is 'a secure system.'

Securing your software, but not your OS, your hardware, your physicals, and your users, is kinda like having a highquality steel security door, unpickable deadlock, and so on, on your house, right beside a bog-standard window.

Remember, UNIX started out as 'MULTICS with all of the annoying security stuff stripped out.' Literally a castrated version of MULTICS.