> Catholic church trying to find heretics among their own priests
That is not surprising when you realize the word "heretic" and "heresy" comes from the Greek "choice", and Latin "school of thought".
Along with the fact that the Catholic church banned bibles at one time so people couldn't read or study them for _themselves_
COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D. Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.
> Most people fighting against issue X, Y, Z have no morals at all. Emphasize most.../sarcasm Right, How _dare_ people stand up for an issue that they believe in!
Oh wait, this is a person who thinks life has no value and thus justifies it is moral to kill a human simply because it is inconvenient.
After you die you will realize the fallacy of your ignorance and see how ALL life has a divine purpose.
I actually used to think like you - I thought most of the space program was wasted taxpayers money on ego until someone on/. pointed that (paraphrasing)...
One nice benefit to the space program was essentially a big R&D. A lot of interesting tech was developed as we tried to solve new problems.
You'll want to read these links as they fully answer your question:
> The idea of downloading and printing a car is absolutely retarded.
Yes, we all already know today that is true. But 100 years from now when we have free energy this will entirely be possible.
i.e. Not everyone shares your myopic view. What is today's science fiction, is tomorrow's science.
Today in a standard smart phone we have computing 1,000,000 times more powerful then the first computer that took up an entire room. You need to project the rate of advancement of technology and extrapolate at what will eventually be possible.
What is retarded is "effectively" banning technology simple because it has the potential to be abused. Science WILL progress regardless of idiotic laws and politics.
> the ability for one corporation to rip off and steal some other design and the print them in some large multi-million dollar printing system is feasible in the near future You do realize the fashion industry has NO copyright, right? And yet they still survive.
> then why go through all the trouble of ripping off another design Let me introduce you to this little word called: branding
Brand X is popular because that's what the majority see as "cool"
> You are NEVER going to have some system that print a car from the ground up into some completed and fully functional piece of machinery. Thankfully, you are in for a wonderful surprise...;-)
> Um... It is the opposition's job to oppose the government, whether they agree with the particular proposition or not There is a time and place for opposition -- but any ideology taken to an extreme, such as oppositional defiant, is never a good idea in the long run. i.e. So the ruling party decides that it needs it needs to limit its spending (ha!), and the opposition is _automatically_ against that? That's asinine. But then again, this is politics.
> If a party gets elected, it is not hypocritical for them to try to pass the same legislation that they tried to stifle when they were the opposition Yes it is and retarded. Instead of doing what's best for everyone politicians are selfish bastards who only do what's best for them.
You're part of the problem by thinking such stupid "politics" is OK in the first place.
> However, as has just been relived recently, when enough companies fail at once to form a critical mass (which is inevitable in real-world chaotic economic systems), it becomes necessary for the government to step in and bail them out with your money in order to stop our entire society from spiraling into an utter meltdown.
With retarded and idiotic financing ideas like this no wonder the economy is in the toilet.
"Hey, let's make EVERYONE pay for somebody else's failure!"
-- Greed is a cancer to politics and economics. It needs to be removed from both before it consumes and destroys them.
If what you say is true, that is indeed an interesting question.
I haven't looked at the code for clag, but taking a wild guess -- it could be using better algorithms.
i.e. A bubblesort in C is almost never going to be faster then a quicksort in C++.
Compilers due heavy symbol lookup -- it the clang is using a better hashing function that could account for one possibility. You really would need to compare the design of the algorithms before one could fully answer that question.
Have you also compared bulk / unity builds in gcc and clang? That at least would completely remove I/O bottlenecks and force a purely CPU bound test.
> In C you are locked into someone else's bad design.
Correction to typo: In C++ you are locked into someone else's bad design; the language libraries. You don't know what design trade-offs they made, or why.
i.e. It almost appears that Dinkumware _intentionally_ obfuscates their version of the STL.
> Wow are you behind the times. int64_t is where it's at. I am quite aware of int#_t.
Let me know when ALL Canonical C, C++, GNU GCC and MS have _standardized_ formatting names. Instead we stupid shit like this:
uint64_t a = 123; printf( "%u", a );// doesn't work printf( "%llu", a );// only works with gnu gcc printf( "%I64d", a );// only works with MS
> Hell, that's part of C99, iirc. ONLY if you #include which is retarded. Those types should be _native_.
I want to tell the compiler that "long long int" is _deprecated_ so that any _legacy_ code I'm compiling with will give me an warning AND/OR error.
> C++ does have type-safe macros. Lol, uhm, no. Templates are STILL half baked. Let me know when you can do efficient double-dispatch with them. (No cheating by providing Alexandrescu's over-engineered solution from "Modern C++ Design")
The C preprocessor is like wise retarded.
#if _DEBUG // allow all calls to Log::print #else #define Log::print(...)// doesn't work because the preprocessor is stuck in 1970s... #define Log$(x) Log::print(x)// stupid preprocessor #endif
> #pragma is, be definition, vendor specific. I can only assume you're trying to troll. Calling someone a troll because you don't understand Real-World problems doesn't make it one.
I want _standardized_ pragmas for output, and alignment.
That letter *completely* misses the point Linus was making.
* C _forces_ a programmer to _always_ be thinking about efficiency.
* C++ _allows_ programmers to be _sloppy_ and not even bother to _think_ about efficiency.
When you have idiots calling a virtual function inside an inner loop because they don't know how a virtual function is _implemented_ that is PRECISELY the type of programmer Linus says is a crap programmer because they have never learnt the 0th rule of programming: TINSTAAFL
There Is No Such Things As A Free Lunch
Yes, C can be tedious, but it encourages a certain mindset. The GREAT programmer is always thinking about the high level theory AND the low level implementation. That is a more _balanced_ programmer then one who doesn't understand how to write atoi() and itoa() (aka printf) which is the typical C++ programmer.
The STL is a great example of the "rebuttal" completely ignorant of real-world needs.
The API _design_ of the STL is great because it is orthogonal and consistent. However STL is total crap when you need to :
- debug a container - serialize and unserialize it in a FAST and PORTABLE manner
Part of the problem is that C++ compilers are crap and put out verbose messages because they can't output a simple, short type alias. When you have tools like "An STL Error Message Decryptor for C++" you know your language _design_ AND _implementation_ is FUCKED. Sadly the C++ community doesn't have the balls to be honest and admit their ego is out of control. "OK, We screwed up in certain areas of the language. How could we simply the grammar and language for people _using_ the language AND people _implementing_ the language?" http://www.bdsoft.com/tools/stlfilt.html
_That_ is why Linus says STL is crap. Programmers start using C++ features without thinking about the _consequences_. A hard-core C programmer will go "OK, this looks like a great design -- where are the areas where it excels in, and where are the areas where it sucks in?" In C you are locked into someone else's bad design.
To prove my point: WHY do you think EA (Electronic Arts) invented their OWN version of STL for game programming? Because the standard C++ STL has several KEY DESIGN FLAWS. Ignoring them doesn't make it go away! http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2271.html
C++11 _finally_ got Move Semantics. Gee, we've only had to deal with _that_ problem for the past 20 years. Typical over-engineer design-by-committee C++ ignoring real-world (performance) problems.
In closing, there are 2 points I'd like to make:
The *best* programmer is one who balances the simplicity of C with the features of C++; on that I agree that Linus is incorrect. Sadly you can't disable all the crap in C++. Linus' only _pragmatic_ solution was to ban the language outright. His project, his call.
and
The author(s) of the rebuttal need to put up or shut up -- when they have shipped their own kernel THEN they will have earned the right to disagree with Linus.
Hope this provides a little more insight into why C and C++ both suck.;-/
The technical term is over-engineered. Instead of fixing the grammar to allow _one_ extra character in order make programmer's lives easier, they would rather fuck around adding every esoteric feature in the kitchen sink that most people never use bloating the language making C++ even _more_ obscure!
i.e.
void Foo();// prototype
// non-brain-dead C++ allows programmers to copy and paste prototypes, the semi-colon is IGNORED ! Don't hold your breath for this one simple change to C++ though... void Foo();// semi-colon is IGNORED! woot { }
I give C++ another 20 years before the language designers stop being retarded and provide an exponent operator, get rid of the long long int shit, _standardize_ on pragmas, and have a _proper_ type-safe macro system.
Ranting aside, bringing this back on topic I believe you are referring to the chart of History, Tragedy, and Farce!:-)
Languages . . . . History Tragedy Farce OOP . . . . . . . Simula Smalltalk Java Systems languages BCPL C C Wirth languages . Pascal Modula Oberon Lisp languages. . LISP Scheme CommonLisp ML languages. . . ML O'CAML F sharp Starting with C . C ANSI C C++ C++ languages . . C++ C++11 C# C# languages . ..v1 v2 v3 BASIC . . . . . . BASIC VB VB.net Haskell . . . . . Haskell Haskell Haskell
> Math IS patterns. Not strictly. The patterns exist whether or not we have the language to describe the patterns. Math is but one language to describe *how* to *operate* OR to *describe* on the patterns.
i.e. Every prime > 3, has this pattern: 6n+/-1. The pattern has always existed, but we didn't discover it until "recently". That is, we didn't create the pattern, we simply observed it.
> Math is relation. Agreed.
Actually that is why I say *everything* is Math. i.e. Your relationship with others. Your relationship with yourself. Your relationship with your higher self. etc.
Relationships (to learn Awareness) are the reason why *everything* in the universe exists in the first. Without a (useful) relationship, there is no purpose for X to exist.
Internet or Google? No never heard of http://bit.ly/viyioS Now, instead of being a smart-ass or dumb-ass why don't you add something _constructive_ to the thread like answering the question.
99.99% of people claiming WebGL is a security risk are blowing smoke out of their ass. i.e. http://www.khronos.org/news/permalink/webgl-security "There are no known WebGL exploits and Khronos will continue to place close attention to technical and ecosystem opportunities to ensure WebGL is a secure technology that can be used with confidence. "
Can WebGL read user's cookies? NO. Can WebGL read user's private data? NO.
There was only *one* OVER-rated exploit I have ever seen: cross-origin images and that was fixed (internet years) ago. http://www.khronos.org/webgl/security/
Until I see an actual *working* WebGL exploit, to say "WebGL was is insecure by design" to spouting ignorance. Do you even understand what vertex and fragment shaders are limited to?
Now, I agree that *WEB* Browsers (in general) are *insecure*, but one sub-system of them remains to be *proven* that *it* is insecure. I have not seen any other exploits since May 2011, almost 1.5 years ago.
> No it is not. Math itself is universal, but Mathematical Notation is a human contrivance which has no meaning without a frame of reference
That is not entirely correct.
*Symbols* are universal -- which is why you dream in them and not a language or math.
Math IS symbol *manipulation* using certain rules that are based on assumptions. Fortunately ALL of math is based on *assumptions*; regarding how to define integers and how to manipulate them can be easily expressed and almost universally understood; you don't *need* to express "higher" math such the arbitrary rules such as negative exponent rules. The abstract assumptions are "context" free.
First pick a generic set of symbols that represent *sequence* and *addition*. This also demonstrates the fact that you understand primes. (Ignore the underscores, they are for spacing...)
0 1 2_ 3 _ 4 __ 5 _ _ 6 _ __ 7 _ _ _ 8 _ _ __ 9 _ _ _ _ showing the corresponding Arabic numeral system _ x xx xxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx showing any generic counting system
Slashdot Mirror
> Catholic church trying to find heretics among their own priests
That is not surprising when you realize the word "heretic" and "heresy" comes from the Greek "choice", and Latin "school of thought".
Along with the fact that the Catholic church banned bibles at one time so people couldn't read or study them for _themselves_
COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.
Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heretic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heresy
> Yelling FIRE! in a crowed room is against the law.
For the LAST time, IF the theater is _on_ _fire_ it is NOT against the law.
Stop ignoring the context of _property_ laws; it is NOT, and NEVER has been about "Free Speech"
> Most people fighting against issue X, Y, Z have no morals at all. Emphasize most... /sarcasm Right, How _dare_ people stand up for an issue that they believe in!
Oh wait, this is a person who thinks life has no value and thus justifies it is moral to kill a human simply because it is inconvenient.
After you die you will realize the fallacy of your ignorance and see how ALL life has a divine purpose.
I actually used to think like you - I thought most of the space program was wasted taxpayers money on ego until someone on /. pointed that (paraphrasing) ...
One nice benefit to the space program was essentially a big R&D. A lot of interesting tech was developed as we tried to solve new problems.
You'll want to read these links as they fully answer your question:
http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/benefits.html
http://www.spaceexplorationday.us/benefits/technology.html
> The idea of downloading and printing a car is absolutely retarded.
Yes, we all already know today that is true. But 100 years from now when we have free energy this will entirely be possible.
i.e. Not everyone shares your myopic view. What is today's science fiction, is tomorrow's science.
Today in a standard smart phone we have computing 1,000,000 times more powerful then the first computer that took up an entire room. You need to project the rate of advancement of technology and extrapolate at what will eventually be possible.
What is retarded is "effectively" banning technology simple because it has the potential to be abused. Science WILL progress regardless of idiotic laws and politics.
> the ability for one corporation to rip off and steal some other design and the print them in some large multi-million dollar printing system is feasible in the near future
You do realize the fashion industry has NO copyright, right? And yet they still survive.
> then why go through all the trouble of ripping off another design
Let me introduce you to this little word called: branding
Brand X is popular because that's what the majority see as "cool"
> You are NEVER going to have some system that print a car from the ground up into some completed and fully functional piece of machinery. ... ;-)
Thankfully, you are in for a wonderful surprise
> Um... It is the opposition's job to oppose the government, whether they agree with the particular proposition or not
There is a time and place for opposition -- but any ideology taken to an extreme, such as oppositional defiant, is never a good idea in the long run.
i.e.
So the ruling party decides that it needs it needs to limit its spending (ha!), and the opposition is _automatically_ against that? That's asinine. But then again, this is politics.
> If a party gets elected, it is not hypocritical for them to try to pass the same legislation that they tried to stifle when they were the opposition
Yes it is and retarded. Instead of doing what's best for everyone politicians are selfish bastards who only do what's best for them.
You're part of the problem by thinking such stupid "politics" is OK in the first place.
For a while they were losing money hand over fist ... until around 2009Q4
http://www.forbes.com/global/2005/1003/036A_4.html
The Xbox game console is hot, but its division has lost $4 billion in four years and isn't yet in the black.
Although it looks like they are back to losing money again ...
http://www.destructoid.com/microsoft-s-xbox-division-loses-229-million-226215.phtml
Their Annual Report is not the place to look ... ... instead you will want the Quarterly Reports. You can find the XBox losses in "Microsoft Entertainment Division" and/or "Entertainment & Devices Division"
http://www.microsoft.com/investor/AnnualReports/default.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/investor/SEC/default.aspx
> However, as has just been relived recently, when enough companies fail at once to form a critical mass (which is inevitable in real-world chaotic economic systems), it becomes necessary for the government to step in and bail them out with your money in order to stop our entire society from spiraling into an utter meltdown.
With retarded and idiotic financing ideas like this no wonder the economy is in the toilet.
"Hey, let's make EVERYONE pay for somebody else's failure!"
--
Greed is a cancer to politics and economics. It needs to be removed from both before it consumes and destroys them.
And your qualifications are where?
And your raised how many children?
And your results were independently certified by whom?
And you have worked on which professional C++ compiler(s) again?
If what you say is true, that is indeed an interesting question.
I haven't looked at the code for clag, but taking a wild guess -- it could be using better algorithms.
i.e.
A bubblesort in C is almost never going to be faster then a quicksort in C++.
Compilers due heavy symbol lookup -- it the clang is using a better hashing function that could account for one possibility. You really would need to compare the design of the algorithms before one could fully answer that question.
Have you also compared bulk / unity builds in gcc and clang? That at least would completely remove I/O bottlenecks and force a purely CPU bound test.
Sadly I concur with you 100% ;-(
You are referring to the Geek Hierarchy ...
http://brunching.com/images/geekchartbig.gif
> In C you are locked into someone else's bad design.
Correction to typo: In C++ you are locked into someone else's bad design; the language libraries. You don't know what design trade-offs they made, or why.
i.e.
It almost appears that Dinkumware _intentionally_ obfuscates their version of the STL.
Right, because Anders Hejlsberg, the creator of C#, was never inspired by C, C++, Java or J++. Oh wait, he was.
* References:
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/03/an-interview-with-anders-hejls.html
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/yyaad03b(v=vs.71).aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Hejlsberg
> Wow are you behind the times. int64_t is where it's at.
I am quite aware of int#_t.
Let me know when ALL Canonical C, C++, GNU GCC and MS have _standardized_ formatting names. Instead we stupid shit like this:
uint64_t a = 123; // doesn't work // only works with gnu gcc // only works with MS
printf( "%u", a );
printf( "%llu", a );
printf( "%I64d", a );
> Hell, that's part of C99, iirc.
ONLY if you #include which is retarded. Those types should be _native_.
I want to tell the compiler that "long long int" is _deprecated_ so that any _legacy_ code I'm compiling with will give me an warning AND/OR error.
> C++ does have type-safe macros.
Lol, uhm, no. Templates are STILL half baked. Let me know when you can do efficient double-dispatch with them. (No cheating by providing Alexandrescu's over-engineered solution from "Modern C++ Design")
The C preprocessor is like wise retarded.
> #pragma is, be definition, vendor specific. I can only assume you're trying to troll.
Calling someone a troll because you don't understand Real-World problems doesn't make it one.
I want _standardized_ pragmas for output, and alignment.
#error "Message"
#warning "Message"
#info "Message"
#align(16)
GCC gave us this crap fest:
struct foo __attribute__ ((aligned (8)));
Fortunately C++11 has the cleaner 'alignas' ... again, C++ solving real-world problems 20 years later!
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/alignas
That letter *completely* misses the point Linus was making.
* C _forces_ a programmer to _always_ be thinking about efficiency.
* C++ _allows_ programmers to be _sloppy_ and not even bother to _think_ about efficiency.
When you have idiots calling a virtual function inside an inner loop because they don't know how a virtual function is _implemented_ that is PRECISELY the type of programmer Linus says is a crap programmer because they have never learnt the 0th rule of programming: TINSTAAFL
There Is No Such Things As A Free Lunch
Yes, C can be tedious, but it encourages a certain mindset. The GREAT programmer is always thinking about the high level theory AND the low level implementation. That is a more _balanced_ programmer then one who doesn't understand how to write atoi() and itoa() (aka printf) which is the typical C++ programmer.
The STL is a great example of the "rebuttal" completely ignorant of real-world needs.
The API _design_ of the STL is great because it is orthogonal and consistent. However STL is total crap when you need to :
- debug a container
- serialize and unserialize it in a FAST and PORTABLE manner
Part of the problem is that C++ compilers are crap and put out verbose messages because they can't output a simple, short type alias.
When you have tools like "An STL Error Message Decryptor for C++" you know your language _design_ AND _implementation_ is FUCKED. Sadly the C++ community doesn't have the balls to be honest and admit their ego is out of control. "OK, We screwed up in certain areas of the language. How could we simply the grammar and language for people _using_ the language AND people _implementing_ the language?"
http://www.bdsoft.com/tools/stlfilt.html
_That_ is why Linus says STL is crap. Programmers start using C++ features without thinking about the _consequences_. A hard-core C programmer will go "OK, this looks like a great design -- where are the areas where it excels in, and where are the areas where it sucks in?" In C you are locked into someone else's bad design.
To prove my point: WHY do you think EA (Electronic Arts) invented their OWN version of STL for game programming? Because the standard C++ STL has several KEY DESIGN FLAWS. Ignoring them doesn't make it go away!
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2271.html
C++11 _finally_ got Move Semantics. Gee, we've only had to deal with _that_ problem for the past 20 years. Typical over-engineer design-by-committee C++ ignoring real-world (performance) problems.
In closing, there are 2 points I'd like to make:
The *best* programmer is one who balances the simplicity of C with the features of C++; on that I agree that Linus is incorrect. Sadly you can't disable all the crap in C++. Linus' only _pragmatic_ solution was to ban the language outright. His project, his call.
and
The author(s) of the rebuttal need to put up or shut up -- when they have shipped their own kernel THEN they will have earned the right to disagree with Linus.
Hope this provides a little more insight into why C and C++ both suck. ;-/
> C++ is the spawn of Satan.
The technical term is over-engineered. Instead of fixing the grammar to allow _one_ extra character in order make programmer's lives easier, they would rather fuck around adding every esoteric feature in the kitchen sink that most people never use bloating the language making C++ even _more_ obscure!
i.e.
I give C++ another 20 years before the language designers stop being retarded and provide an exponent operator, get rid of the long long int shit, _standardize_ on pragmas, and have a _proper_ type-safe macro system.
Ranting aside, bringing this back on topic I believe you are referring to the chart of History, Tragedy, and Farce! :-)
Reference:
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4112#comment-62497
--
Slashdot's Lameness filter SUCKS ass for listing code, alignment (detects spaces as junk characters!?), and programming language names
> Math IS patterns.
Not strictly. The patterns exist whether or not we have the language to describe the patterns. Math is but one language to describe *how* to *operate* OR to *describe* on the patterns.
i.e.
Every prime > 3, has this pattern: 6n+/-1. The pattern has always existed, but we didn't discover it until "recently". That is, we didn't create the pattern, we simply observed it.
> Math is relation.
Agreed.
Actually that is why I say *everything* is Math.
i.e.
Your relationship with others.
Your relationship with yourself.
Your relationship with your higher self.
etc.
Relationships (to learn Awareness) are the reason why *everything* in the universe exists in the first. Without a (useful) relationship, there is no purpose for X to exist.
Internet or Google? No never heard of http://bit.ly/viyioS
Now, instead of being a smart-ass or dumb-ass why don't you add something _constructive_ to the thread like answering the question.
99.99% of people claiming WebGL is a security risk are blowing smoke out of their ass.
i.e.
http://www.khronos.org/news/permalink/webgl-security
"There are no known WebGL exploits and Khronos will continue to place close attention to technical and ecosystem opportunities to ensure WebGL is a secure technology that can be used with confidence. "
Can WebGL read user's cookies? NO.
Can WebGL read user's private data? NO.
There was only *one* OVER-rated exploit I have ever seen: cross-origin images and that was fixed (internet years) ago.
http://www.khronos.org/webgl/security/
Until I see an actual *working* WebGL exploit, to say "WebGL was is insecure by design" to spouting ignorance. Do you even understand what vertex and fragment shaders are limited to?
Now, I agree that *WEB* Browsers (in general) are *insecure*, but one sub-system of them remains to be *proven* that *it* is insecure. I have not seen any other exploits since May 2011, almost 1.5 years ago.
So again, (0-day-exploit) [citation]
> WebGL is a security nightmare. By design.
I need to see a citation, reference, or proof please before I believe that
Nothingness. There is no space & time outside the physical universe. If that doesn't bake your noodle, I don't know what will.
The nice thing about Religion^H^H^^H^H^ science is that it advances one funeral at a time. (With apologies to Max Planck :)
Forgot to add: One should also provide a "Computer Science Rosetta Stone" by listing Binary, Decimal, and Hexidecimal.
> No it is not. Math itself is universal, but Mathematical Notation is a human contrivance which has no meaning without a frame of reference
That is not entirely correct.
*Symbols* are universal -- which is why you dream in them and not a language or math.
Math IS symbol *manipulation* using certain rules that are based on assumptions. Fortunately ALL of math is based on *assumptions*; regarding how to define integers and how to manipulate them can be easily expressed and almost universally understood; you don't *need* to express "higher" math such the arbitrary rules such as negative exponent rules. The abstract assumptions are "context" free.
First pick a generic set of symbols that represent *sequence* and *addition*. This also demonstrates the fact that you understand primes. (Ignore the underscores, they are for spacing...)
Demonstrating the Goldbach's conjecture
Of couse one could demonstrate sub, mul, div, etc. but the above is sufficient.
Slashdot's lame-ass filtering is retarded for posting math, code, and alignment.
Please show me where I mentioned mythology?