I'm an atheist. I think gay marriage is an awful idea. Really, you can be an atheist without being OK with homo stuff. We don't celebrate any other birth defect, either physical or mental. Decent people try to avoid abusing those born with problems, but we don't let them remake our world in their image. Homo issues are no different than self-mutilation issues, gambling issues, or any other in-born mental defect.
A little piece of me died inside reading that.
Congratulations. Where countless fundies have failed, you have succeeded. My atheist-superiority complex has been taken down several notches.
Looking back over the list he posted, those items are generally supported in the 30% to 60% range here in the US. At what point are we allowed to stop saying "Extremists are crazy" and start saying "the mainstream is crazy"? Sigh.
I didn't ask for names of secular charities, I asked for names of athiest charities.
Atheists rarely organize on the basis of atheism, and even when they do they generally see it as idiotic and counterproductive for any effort to help people to be organized or identified on any sort of exclusionary basis. If I want to feed hungry children or help cure cancer, I'm equally happy to accept assistance or money from anyone of any race, religion, gender, or anything else. The only priority is the charitable goal.
The question isn't "what's wrong with atheists for not organizing specifically atheist charities", the question is what the hell is wrong with theists for organizing so many exclusionary charities. Such people really need to get their priorities straightened out, and put the actual charitable work ahead of their personal religious affiliation.
While I agree that cultural norms can be delusional and pathological, the cultural norm exception cannot and should not be removed from the psychiatric definition.
Psychiatrists themselves exist within cultures. They will inevitably be influenced by those norms. A psychiatrist either has to measure patients on the basis of his subjective and personal beliefs of what people should believe and how they should behave, or he can make a best effort to objectively measure them against the cultural norms within which the patient lives.
A psychiatrist's job is to assist dysfunctional individuals better function within in his environment. That means helping the patient better function within the cultural norms of his environment.
Identifying delusional cultural norms, and working to "cure" a society which suffers under a pathological delusion, is indeed an extremely important and valuable. However it would be Utter Fail to attempt to do so in the context of a psychiatrist treating an individual patient who is already suffering from difficulties functioning. It is not a patient who is ill, it is the society at large which is ill.
You will probably suggest the theoretical case of a non-delusional person being "treated" by a psychiatrist in a culture with a delusional norm. I have two answers to that. One, there simply doesn't exist any magic solution which can perfectly avoid it. However my second point somewhat mitigates that appalling first answer. A reasonable rational well functioning individual who finds himself in a society with a delusional cultural norm should be able to recognize that fact. The only sane and well-functioning response to such a situation is to acknowledge that fact, and to deal with that fact in a reasonably productive manner. The "worst case scenario" is such a person who stubbornly and unsuccessfully battles against the delusional society of his environment. At which point I will note with the utmost irony, the very definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
A person who is unwilling or incapable of adapting to such a situation winds up falling under the most wildly cliche definition of insanity. Someone who is "right" and "sane" yet persists in futilely martyring themselves against the cultural-norm is (debatably) not reasonable, (debatably) not rational, and (indisputably) not functional.
This focus the definition of "delusion" is largely hair-splitting, but perhaps there are some interesting hairs to split here.
"culturally normal" isn't excluded for any scientific reason
Of course it is excluded for scientific reasons, and pretty simple ones at that: delusion is, by definition, pathological
Your answer is loaded with a rather significant assumption. It assumes that a cultural norm itself cannot be pathological.
Let's consider a hypothetical example. Lets take a society with a cultural-norm religion which states that babies are born without souls, and that with each birth a ritual human sacrifice *must* be preformed to transfer an existing soul into that infant. To be fair lets add that they reasonably and rationally select the oldest or sickest members of society for their sacrifices. Ideally that practice would maintain a fixed population size, but of course occasional individuals/souls will inevitably be lost to accidental deaths or whatnot.
A person born into that society may be physically healthy, and according to the definitions of psychiatry a person in that cultural norm may be mentally sane, however I think the cultural norm itself is indisputably pathological. The human-sacrifice issue may be set aside as a matter of "subjective morality", but from an absolutely objective point of view the cultural norm inevitably results in extinction. I suspect we can all agree that extinction is a pathological result, and that any belief directly causing self-extinction inherently qualifies as pathological.
I think this points out that context matters. In the context of psychiatry is is reasonable to define people as "sane" when they accept cultural norms. This naturally requires defining "delusion" within-a-psychiatric-context to exclude belief of cultural norms. But clearly the word "delusion" is reasonable and useful beyond the field of psychiatry. Clearly some cultural norms can be pathological.... can be delusional. The individuals within that society may be physically healthy and "sane" within-their-culture, but the culture itself "pathological" and "delusional". In this context the members of this society clearly are suffering under a delusion. Members of this society are being *KILLED* by their delusion, by their willing participation in their own ritual sacrifice. Because of their delusion that newborns need to be infused with souls.
Your nit-picking wasn't unreasonable, but I think Dawkins really hit the nail on the head there. Even if Dawkins were wrong about the existence of god, in the context of explaining his case his use of "delusion" was appropriate.
Are you arguing that people who believe that Christopher Columbus was trying to prove the Earth was round are mentally ill?
An essential element of "delusion" is that it is a persistent belief, one which is stubbornly resistant to evidence and reason.to the contrary. Casual cases of misinformation or misunderstanding do not qualify when people are well able to update their mental belief-set.
Setting aside that problem with your Columbus example, based on what I said earlier a person may both have a "delusion" in the broad sense while also being "sane" in a psychiatric context of functioning adequately within within his culture.
Are you some kind of clueless guy? North Korea is one of the most atheistic countries in the world.
No, it's not. The official state religion says, among other things, that their leader was born according to some ancient prophecy, on a sacred mountain, with their spirit descending from heavens. The national leader is claimed to have an aspect akin to the Pope/Jesus/Muhammed/Divine-right-leader/Divine-spirit. That is religion.
Some people have the comically narrow view that religion equals Christianity/Islam/Judaism. Newsflash: Christianity accounts just about about 30% of all world religion. Islam accounts for slightly less. Judaism is a whooping 2%. There are in fact far more religions than that, and they make up about 40% of all religion (which as you may note is substantially more than Christianity's 30%).
Richard Dawkings is an expert at sounding smart, but he really isn't that smart.
There are a great many people I absolutely loath, and whom I am quite certain are completely wrong about many things, whom I admit are undeniably very intelligent. Regardless of whether Dawkins is right or wrong, his intelligence level is unimpeachable. It is well established broadly and impartially by any reasonable standard. When you try to dismiss Dawkins as "not smart" merely because you disagree with him and dislike him, it only reflects negatively on your intelligence, reasonableness, or rationality.
If he was in it for the science, he would be doing something to help advance science
Did you bother watching the video? One of his central motivating points was exactly the advancement of science.
There are tons of other scientists who believe in evolution yet don't shove it in people's face on all televisions every time they get a chance.
And his point is that science is suffering for it. If nearly half of Americans believed that atoms weren't real and that chemistry was a lie, that would be enormously harmful to the progress of science as a whole. Every scientist should damn well stand up every chance they get and declare how wrong and destructive that is. It's shocking how few scientists stand up on the issue, and it's shocking how much deference this veritable flat-earthism is given by scientists and journalists and society in general.
There were protests about the film in Libya. How does his "theocracy" argument even apply to a country that was a secular state
His point was absolutely dead-on correct regarding Libya. Here's a translation of the relevant Libyan law:
Article 291 (Insult of the State Religion): Whoever publicly attacks the Islamic religion â" that being the official religion of the State under the Libyan constitution â" with verbal terms not befitting for the Divine Being, the Messenger, or the Prophets, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Libyans were raised under the implicit expectation that a movie such as Innocence-of-Muslims could not be published and allowed without the U.S. government's approval. They are unfamiliar with our concept of Freedom of Speech. They are unfamiliar with the notion of a government so divorced from the views and speech of the citizens under it. They are unfamiliar with the concept of a government which is unwilling or incapable of imprisoning people for speech which government finds abhorrent.
In their experience a government can and does control the speech of it's citizens. Such speech is only allowed with the explicit or implicit consent of the government, and the government is therefore in agreement with and responsible for any such speech.
You called Libya a secular state - as if theocracy were a binary thing. Theocracy is a matter of degree. While Libya was more secular than most mid-east countries, the law quoted above clearly demonstrates that Libyan law contained significant theocratic elements.
Dawkins is a bigot.
It seems either you have been misinformed about what Dawkins has been saying, or you are using a grossly erroneous definition for "bigotry".
Studying a subject is the exact opposite of prejudice. Disagreement is not the same as intolerance. Studying a subject and providing reasoned rational arguments why he believes certain ideas are false is not bigotry.
Just because you may disagree with him is not a valid basis to label him a bigot. Just because you might feel upset, angry, or offended by his conclusions is not a valid basis to label him a bigot. Even if he were wrong, that would not remotely be sufficient basis to label him a bigot. People obviously can make errors in reasonable rational arguments without being bigots.
It's actually due to the expansion of the universe. It's because your house is getting bigger. You just don't notice it because you are expanding at the same rate. Try going on a diet.
That's the problem right there. God has been indoctrinated in radical liberal ideology by college professors. That's why we need strong conservative Christian leaders in power, to combat God's liberal bias.
I was making a joke, but pretty much yeah, things like SOPA/PIPA. Congress *would* have passed it, just like it has passed a pile of other unbelievable crap. It's not only a notable exception but a famous exception because of the massive internet uprising managing to stop it for once.
Think of Saudi as that annoying representative in your government that cries think of the children, and comes up with ideas that frankly scare the shit out of you, but are thankfully so insane, that they don't actually ever get passed.
I was with you up until that "don't actually ever get passed" part. They generally do pass.
How about just one dinosaur was trapped in the geode, and for the last 65 million years evolution has been turning it into an even more ferocious and deadly killing machine.
P.S. Before anyone corrects me on evolution, I am mocking the general level of scientific accuracy of the movie.
The bible has been found to be full of verified archeological, biological, and historical facts, and has served as a guide in furthering archeological research.
So have all of the other sources I cited. All of them have abundant verified archeological, biological, and historical facts. Just to take the Greek one for example, there are countless verified people and cities and wars and wars, including the cave on Mount Ida cave on the island of Crete where Zeus was born.
It has a track record of reliability that the other writings do not have.
No it doesn't. The existence of the cave where Jesus rose from the dead is no more and no less verifiable than the existence of the cave where Zeus was born. (Completely verifiable.) The event of Jesus rising from the dead in that cave is no more and no less verifiable than the event of Zeus being born in the other cave. (Not at all verifiable.)
So again, can you confirm that we are in full agreement that the Bible warrants no more and no less belief in truthfulness than the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Native American animal Spirit Guides, Hindu's thousands of Gods, Zeus sitting on Mount Olympus tossing thunderbolts and Apollo driving his flaming sun-chariot across the sky each day? Or are you going to base some contrary position on nothing but personal bias and pseudo-science?
"The moment you start categorizing claims into ordinary and extraordinary, and requiring different rigors of evidence for categories, you've introduced a personal bias into things, and have crossed the line from science into heretical pseudo-science"
The entire concept of whether or not species can interbreed completely falls apart. There are quite a few known cases where group A can interbreed with group B, which can interbreed with group C, which can interbreed with D, which can interbreed with E, but the increasing genetic differences along the chain prevent A from interbreeding with E. If you simply kill off B, C, and D, you're left with a perfect illustration of exactly how a single original population smoothly diverges into two separate species A and E which can no longer interbreed. Genetic differences can steadily pile up to the point that an A-E hybrid cannot to develop to birth.
The moment you start categorizing claims into ordinary and extraordinary, and requiring different rigors of evidence for categories, you've introduced a personal bias into things, and have crossed the line from science into heretical pseudo-science
So I take it we are in full agreement that the Bible warrants no more and no less belief in truthfulness than the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Native American animal Spirit Guides, Hindu's thousands of Gods, Zeus sitting on Mount Olympus tossing thunderbolts and Apollo driving his flaming sun-chariot across the sky each day?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an atheist. I think gay marriage is an awful idea. Really, you can be an atheist without being OK with homo stuff.
We don't celebrate any other birth defect, either physical or mental. Decent people try to avoid abusing those born with problems, but we don't let them remake our world in their image. Homo issues are no different than self-mutilation issues, gambling issues, or any other in-born mental defect.
A little piece of me died inside reading that.
Congratulations. Where countless fundies have failed, you have succeeded. My atheist-superiority complex has been taken down several notches.
-
"Extremists are crazy"
Looking back over the list he posted, those items are generally supported in the 30% to 60% range here in the US. At what point are we allowed to stop saying "Extremists are crazy" and start saying "the mainstream is crazy"? Sigh.
-
Note to future religious text writers: stick to unfalsifiable metaphysics and moral advice.
Thanks for the tip. Now I have to go back and re-write chapter 2.
-
I didn't ask for names of secular charities, I asked for names of athiest charities.
Atheists rarely organize on the basis of atheism, and even when they do they generally see it as idiotic and counterproductive for any effort to help people to be organized or identified on any sort of exclusionary basis. If I want to feed hungry children or help cure cancer, I'm equally happy to accept assistance or money from anyone of any race, religion, gender, or anything else. The only priority is the charitable goal.
The question isn't "what's wrong with atheists for not organizing specifically atheist charities", the question is what the hell is wrong with theists for organizing so many exclusionary charities. Such people really need to get their priorities straightened out, and put the actual charitable work ahead of their personal religious affiliation.
-
While I agree that cultural norms can be delusional and pathological, the cultural norm exception cannot and should not be removed from the psychiatric definition.
Psychiatrists themselves exist within cultures. They will inevitably be influenced by those norms. A psychiatrist either has to measure patients on the basis of his subjective and personal beliefs of what people should believe and how they should behave, or he can make a best effort to objectively measure them against the cultural norms within which the patient lives.
A psychiatrist's job is to assist dysfunctional individuals better function within in his environment. That means helping the patient better function within the cultural norms of his environment.
Identifying delusional cultural norms, and working to "cure" a society which suffers under a pathological delusion, is indeed an extremely important and valuable. However it would be Utter Fail to attempt to do so in the context of a psychiatrist treating an individual patient who is already suffering from difficulties functioning. It is not a patient who is ill, it is the society at large which is ill.
You will probably suggest the theoretical case of a non-delusional person being "treated" by a psychiatrist in a culture with a delusional norm. I have two answers to that. One, there simply doesn't exist any magic solution which can perfectly avoid it. However my second point somewhat mitigates that appalling first answer. A reasonable rational well functioning individual who finds himself in a society with a delusional cultural norm should be able to recognize that fact. The only sane and well-functioning response to such a situation is to acknowledge that fact, and to deal with that fact in a reasonably productive manner. The "worst case scenario" is such a person who stubbornly and unsuccessfully battles against the delusional society of his environment. At which point I will note with the utmost irony, the very definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
A person who is unwilling or incapable of adapting to such a situation winds up falling under the most wildly cliche definition of insanity. Someone who is "right" and "sane" yet persists in futilely martyring themselves against the cultural-norm is (debatably) not reasonable, (debatably) not rational, and (indisputably) not functional.
-
This focus the definition of "delusion" is largely hair-splitting, but perhaps there are some interesting hairs to split here.
"culturally normal" isn't excluded for any scientific reason
Of course it is excluded for scientific reasons, and pretty simple ones at that: delusion is, by definition, pathological
Your answer is loaded with a rather significant assumption. It assumes that a cultural norm itself cannot be pathological.
Let's consider a hypothetical example. Lets take a society with a cultural-norm religion which states that babies are born without souls, and that with each birth a ritual human sacrifice *must* be preformed to transfer an existing soul into that infant. To be fair lets add that they reasonably and rationally select the oldest or sickest members of society for their sacrifices. Ideally that practice would maintain a fixed population size, but of course occasional individuals/souls will inevitably be lost to accidental deaths or whatnot.
A person born into that society may be physically healthy, and according to the definitions of psychiatry a person in that cultural norm may be mentally sane, however I think the cultural norm itself is indisputably pathological. The human-sacrifice issue may be set aside as a matter of "subjective morality", but from an absolutely objective point of view the cultural norm inevitably results in extinction. I suspect we can all agree that extinction is a pathological result, and that any belief directly causing self-extinction inherently qualifies as pathological.
I think this points out that context matters. In the context of psychiatry is is reasonable to define people as "sane" when they accept cultural norms. This naturally requires defining "delusion" within-a-psychiatric-context to exclude belief of cultural norms. But clearly the word "delusion" is reasonable and useful beyond the field of psychiatry. Clearly some cultural norms can be pathological.... can be delusional. The individuals within that society may be physically healthy and "sane" within-their-culture, but the culture itself "pathological" and "delusional". In this context the members of this society clearly are suffering under a delusion. Members of this society are being *KILLED* by their delusion, by their willing participation in their own ritual sacrifice. Because of their delusion that newborns need to be infused with souls.
Your nit-picking wasn't unreasonable, but I think Dawkins really hit the nail on the head there. Even if Dawkins were wrong about the existence of god, in the context of explaining his case his use of "delusion" was appropriate.
Are you arguing that people who believe that Christopher Columbus was trying to prove the Earth was round are mentally ill?
An essential element of "delusion" is that it is a persistent belief, one which is stubbornly resistant to evidence and reason.to the contrary. Casual cases of misinformation or misunderstanding do not qualify when people are well able to update their mental belief-set.
Setting aside that problem with your Columbus example, based on what I said earlier a person may both have a "delusion" in the broad sense while also being "sane" in a psychiatric context of functioning adequately within within his culture.
-
Are you some kind of clueless guy?
North Korea is one of the most atheistic countries in the world.
No, it's not. The official state religion says, among other things, that their leader was born according to some ancient prophecy, on a sacred mountain, with their spirit descending from heavens. The national leader is claimed to have an aspect akin to the Pope/Jesus/Muhammed/Divine-right-leader/Divine-spirit. That is religion.
Some people have the comically narrow view that religion equals Christianity/Islam/Judaism. Newsflash: Christianity accounts just about about 30% of all world religion. Islam accounts for slightly less. Judaism is a whooping 2%. There are in fact far more religions than that, and they make up about 40% of all religion (which as you may note is substantially more than Christianity's 30%).
Richard Dawkings is an expert at sounding smart, but he really isn't that smart.
There are a great many people I absolutely loath, and whom I am quite certain are completely wrong about many things, whom I admit are undeniably very intelligent. Regardless of whether Dawkins is right or wrong, his intelligence level is unimpeachable. It is well established broadly and impartially by any reasonable standard. When you try to dismiss Dawkins as "not smart" merely because you disagree with him and dislike him, it only reflects negatively on your intelligence, reasonableness, or rationality.
If he was in it for the science, he would be doing something to help advance science
Did you bother watching the video? One of his central motivating points was exactly the advancement of science.
There are tons of other scientists who believe in evolution yet don't shove it in people's face on all televisions every time they get a chance.
And his point is that science is suffering for it. If nearly half of Americans believed that atoms weren't real and that chemistry was a lie, that would be enormously harmful to the progress of science as a whole. Every scientist should damn well stand up every chance they get and declare how wrong and destructive that is. It's shocking how few scientists stand up on the issue, and it's shocking how much deference this veritable flat-earthism is given by scientists and journalists and society in general.
-
There were protests about the film in Libya. How does his "theocracy" argument even apply to a country that was a secular state
His point was absolutely dead-on correct regarding Libya. Here's a translation of the relevant Libyan law:
Article 291 (Insult of the State Religion): Whoever publicly attacks the Islamic religion â" that being the official religion of the State under the Libyan constitution â" with verbal terms not befitting for the Divine Being, the Messenger, or the Prophets, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Libyans were raised under the implicit expectation that a movie such as Innocence-of-Muslims could not be published and allowed without the U.S. government's approval. They are unfamiliar with our concept of Freedom of Speech. They are unfamiliar with the notion of a government so divorced from the views and speech of the citizens under it. They are unfamiliar with the concept of a government which is unwilling or incapable of imprisoning people for speech which government finds abhorrent.
In their experience a government can and does control the speech of it's citizens. Such speech is only allowed with the explicit or implicit consent of the government, and the government is therefore in agreement with and responsible for any such speech.
You called Libya a secular state - as if theocracy were a binary thing. Theocracy is a matter of degree. While Libya was more secular than most mid-east countries, the law quoted above clearly demonstrates that Libyan law contained significant theocratic elements.
Dawkins is a bigot.
It seems either you have been misinformed about what Dawkins has been saying, or you are using a grossly erroneous definition for "bigotry".
Studying a subject is the exact opposite of prejudice. Disagreement is not the same as intolerance. Studying a subject and providing reasoned rational arguments why he believes certain ideas are false is not bigotry.
Just because you may disagree with him is not a valid basis to label him a bigot.
Just because you might feel upset, angry, or offended by his conclusions is not a valid basis to label him a bigot.
Even if he were wrong, that would not remotely be sufficient basis to label him a bigot. People obviously can make errors in reasonable rational arguments without being bigots.
-
Will they be able to obscure any backdoors written into their equipment?"
Yes.
-
The transmitter range isn't decreasing.
It's actually due to the expansion of the universe. It's because your house is getting bigger. You just don't notice it because you are expanding at the same rate. Try going on a diet.
-
God is a grad student
That's the problem right there. God has been indoctrinated in radical liberal ideology by college professors.
That's why we need strong conservative Christian leaders in power, to combat God's liberal bias.
-
I was making a joke, but pretty much yeah, things like SOPA/PIPA. Congress *would* have passed it, just like it has passed a pile of other unbelievable crap. It's not only a notable exception but a famous exception because of the massive internet uprising managing to stop it for once.
-
Think of Saudi as that annoying representative in your government that cries think of the children, and comes up with ideas that frankly scare the shit out of you, but are thankfully so insane, that they don't actually ever get passed.
I was with you up until that "don't actually ever get passed" part. They generally do pass.
-
Flying Spaghetti Monster is composed of a particularly fine capellini, so those 'weight of the pasta' arguments are nothing but sacrilegious bunk.
-
Monday morning quarterbacks can never be wrong?
Have you seen the Republican Party lately?
-
He did build that.
-
And clearly Slashdot is his CIA contact point while he sells U.S. heavy arms to the terrorists for the Obama Administration.
-
We have to stop this project!
They'll let the MORLOCKS out!
-
How about just one dinosaur was trapped in the geode, and for the last 65 million years evolution has been turning it into an even more ferocious and deadly killing machine.
P.S. Before anyone corrects me on evolution, I am mocking the general level of scientific accuracy of the movie.
-
The bible has been found to be full of verified archeological, biological, and historical facts, and has served as a guide in furthering archeological research.
So have all of the other sources I cited. All of them have abundant verified archeological, biological, and historical facts. Just to take the Greek one for example, there are countless verified people and cities and wars and wars, including the cave on Mount Ida cave on the island of Crete where Zeus was born.
It has a track record of reliability that the other writings do not have.
No it doesn't. The existence of the cave where Jesus rose from the dead is no more and no less verifiable than the existence of the cave where Zeus was born. (Completely verifiable.)
The event of Jesus rising from the dead in that cave is no more and no less verifiable than the event of Zeus being born in the other cave. (Not at all verifiable.)
So again, can you confirm that we are in full agreement that the Bible warrants no more and no less belief in truthfulness than the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Native American animal Spirit Guides, Hindu's thousands of Gods, Zeus sitting on Mount Olympus tossing thunderbolts and Apollo driving his flaming sun-chariot across the sky each day? Or are you going to base some contrary position on nothing but personal bias and pseudo-science?
"The moment you start categorizing claims into ordinary and extraordinary, and requiring different rigors of evidence for categories, you've introduced a personal bias into things, and have crossed the line from science into heretical pseudo-science"
-
You should check out Ring Species.
The entire concept of whether or not species can interbreed completely falls apart. There are quite a few known cases where group A can interbreed with group B, which can interbreed with group C, which can interbreed with D, which can interbreed with E, but the increasing genetic differences along the chain prevent A from interbreeding with E. If you simply kill off B, C, and D, you're left with a perfect illustration of exactly how a single original population smoothly diverges into two separate species A and E which can no longer interbreed. Genetic differences can steadily pile up to the point that an A-E hybrid cannot to develop to birth.
-
The moment you start categorizing claims into ordinary and extraordinary, and requiring different rigors of evidence for categories, you've introduced a personal bias into things, and have crossed the line from science into heretical pseudo-science
So I take it we are in full agreement that the Bible warrants no more and no less belief in truthfulness than the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Native American animal Spirit Guides, Hindu's thousands of Gods, Zeus sitting on Mount Olympus tossing thunderbolts and Apollo driving his flaming sun-chariot across the sky each day?
-
identified several problem areas
Have someone from the army contact me.
For $2.55 million, plus cost overruns, I can identify two problem areas.
-
BDSM programmers do it with hexadecimal gags.
-
It was supposed to be hidden in the basement.
Which explains how a Linux programmer found it.
-