You couldn't be more wrong (and name calling is a tactic often employed by those with a weak argument and/or weak mind). You seem to be confusing capitalism with corporatism (what we have in the US). I consider myself a capitalist (having run my own company for 20 years). I believe in the right to a fair day's wage for a day's labor. That's how I get my paycheck and that's how my employees get their paychecks.
What I don't agree with is that a corporation has the same (or more) rights than an individual. Corporations own no loyalty to their employees or any nation. Their only motive is profit - pretty much the definition of greed.
Despite your "Glen Beckian" view of the world (if you don't agree with me you are a socialist), when it comes to ideology, I tend to lean libertarian. I think the government sticks it's nose into far too many areas of our lives. Corporations have the financial capacity to protect their assets (especially digital assets) without getting government to do their dirty work for them.
In any case, I'm sure nothing I can post here will change your obvious "corporations are gods" viewpoint so I won't waste any more of my time.
I love how free-marketers want the government to stay out of their business when it comes to regulation, but demand the government protect their income.
I say the government should stay out of it altogether.
Let the content producers use their best technological means to protect their content and let the pirates do their best to crack it.
If the content providers can't come up with a way to protect it that the pirates can't crack then they don't deserve the revenue lost. If the content providers DO come up with a way to protect it and it's so burdensome to the consumer that they choose not to purchase it, they don't deserve the revenue lost.
If I leave a stack of cash sitting out beside the road in front of my house, should I expect the police to guard it against theft? Shouldn't I bear some responsibility for keeping it safe instead of burdening the taxpayers with the cost of protecting it?
I just don't think it's right to sacrifice freedom for the sake of greedy corporate regimes that don't give a damn about the artist, developers or writers that produce the content and are only concerned with boosting their bottom line.
I'd say the chances of this are pretty likely. Barring a major upset, Obama will get the Dem nomination and the GOP will likely pick someone that makes GWB look like Einstien. I wouldn't be suprised to see "we must stand by our North Korean allies" Palin get the nod from the GOP.
Right. And old GWB was a true defender of the "little people" as well.
This is not a left-right issue. This is a issue of freedom and democracy - something that slipped away from the US quite a few years ago when the "little people" weren't looking - probably because they were too busy trying to feed their families with the crumbs of the corporate criminals that run everything.
I get pissed just thinking about this - better go...
Because the ranking is by machine, not by OS. Since this particular machine achieved it's highest ranking with Linux, the ranking lists Linux as it's OS, not Windows.
I'm not too sure about your calculations relating the human brain to processing speed. I reminds me of the Drake equation for calculating the number of ET civilizations (a guess multiplied by a guess multiplied by a guess, etc).
However, I do find the following interesting.
In 2009 the top spot was a machine capable of 1.1 petaflops. This year the top spot is 2.57 petaflops. IBM is predicting a 10 petaflops machine by next year. At this rate of acceleration, it would not seem unreasonable to expect that by 2012 we could reach the 50 petaflops level.
Intelligence of a species is sometimes roughly correlated to the ratio of cortex mass (not just brain mass). A mouse has approximately the same brain/body mass ratio as a human, but they are obviously much less intelligent. This is because the cortex of a mouse makes up much less of a percentage of brain mass than a human. However, relating this to a hardware/software simulated brain, body mass is irrelevant, so for simplicity sake, we can ignore this and look strictly at brain mass as an indicator of intelligence.
In 2009 IBM announced a machine&software that exceeded the scale of a cat's cortex. An average cat's brain mass is in the 30g range. Given the acceleration of computing speeds and brain mass as a guide, we could expect to simulate a 75g brain this year, and a 300g brain next year. If the trend continues, a brain somewhere in the 1500g range would seem feasible by 2012.
The human brain is somewhere around the 1400g range.
Kind of chilling given all the 2012 prophecies going around, eh?
I agree that this "could" be done, just as Java could be compiled directly to native code (in fact has been - http://gcc.gnu.org/java ). However, there are solid reason why neither of these is done on a "normal" basis. There are many benefits that C++ would lose if it were run on a JVM, just as there are benefits that Java would lose if it were compiled to native code. I won't go into these here, other than to say that each language exists within it's own realm and has been tweaked to take advantage of it's own realm. I believe the point that BigJeff5 was making was that natively compiled code is inherently faster than JVM executed code and while "all things being equal" that might be "theoretically" true, in reality that is "typically" just not the case. Just as an example of what I'm referring to, the executable code from the C++ program I wrote and compiled 15 years ago for my 486 processor may still run fine on my Core 2 Duo, but it certainly won't take advantage of all the processor improvements and new instructions that have been implemented since then because it's machine code is frozen in time. However, the Java program I wrote at the same time will also run on my new machine, but it will now take advantage of all the new JVM features as well as fully exploit the new instructions and architectural improvements of my more modern CPU.
My name's not Charlie, Jeff, and I think it's time you took a look at "recent" benchmarks.
While anyone can find benchmarks that favor their particular view, in real-world applications there tends to be very little, if any difference between Java and C++ performance. This is due to several reasons, a few of which I'll list here.
1) Java IS COMPILED. I really get tired of repeating this, but it is absolutely compiled and as such, it gains all the benefits of a compiled language such as optimizations (loop, peep-hole, data-flow,etc). It is no different than a C++ compiler in this respect. The only difference is that, rather than generate native machine code as output, the Java compiler generates byte-code. Bytecode IS machine code, it's just that it's machine code for which no hardware CPU exists (actually that's not 100% true - there are or have been hardware CPUs created to execute bytecode natively, but they have yet to catch on). Rather than directly executing the bytecode in hardware, most implementations use a JVM to execute the bytecode.
2) Because the JVM is aware of the runtime environment it is currently executing in, it has the capability to perform additional optimizations at runtime. The JVM has the capability to decide how best to convert the bytecode into inline native instructions based on available resources such as memory and CPU. C++ does not have this luxury. Once the C++ compiler generates it's executable code, that code is static and unchangeable.
3) Because Java has such a large and highly optimized class library, not to mention loads of additional third party highly optimized libraries, a fairly novice developer can easily develop rather sophisticated high performance applications. A C++ developer on the other hand, will tend to implement algorithms by hand that are not available in the STL or similar class library, either because there are no commercial or open source libraries available for what is needed, or management won't allow them, or they are not compatible, they are too expensive, they are not high-quality, or any number of other reasons. Invariably, only sections of code that are causing a problem will receive the attention needed to develop a highly optimized algorithm. These issues tend to cause real-world applications to perform somewhat less than their potential. The availability of highly-optimized libraries issue is not so much a language issue as a culture issue. There are just a lot more of these libraries available (generally open-source) for Java than for C++.
4) Most (at least most "corporate") C++ developers are not expert developers so they tend to produce mediocre code and even more mediocre algorithms. Most don't even understand the STL or the Collections it provides, so they wind up using arrays and performing sequential searches (for loops) rather than learning all the idiosyncrasies of templates and how they work.
5) I can attest as a long time C++ developer that a great deal of the time I spend coding in C++ is spent carefully making sure to avoid memory leaks and pointer problems. Since I don't have to worry about this (at least not nearly as much) when developing in Java, I'm able to concentrate more time on tweaking the algorithms. Over and over again, I've rewritten C++ applications in Java and the result has been a major increase in performance.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Given that this post was modded "Funny" I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you are being facetious.
Just on the off chance that you were being serious (at least in your response to my comments about Java), and for those that didn't read this as humor, let me respond. First, the "user" doesn't have to compile anything. They just run the bytecode in a JVM and (assuming the JVM supports JIT), the JVM takes care of analyzing the bytecode and compiling it to native instructions on-the-fly (hence the term JIT - Just In Time). There is nothing annoying about it since it is all happening under the covers. This technique actually offers the potential for better performance since the JVM can optimize the generated code based on the current runtime conditions and is not limited to just the optimizations that the compiler performs at compile time.
I'm sorry, but I use both Perl and Java daily and Perl is not even in the same ballpark. Sure, for building a website Perl is fine because a web application is generally not a compute-bound application. The difference between Java and Perl in throwing up HTML is probably measured in milliseconds (with Java winning). You might get the impression that java is slower than perl for websites, but this is due to the fact that java based websites many times use some heavy framework (JSF, J2EE, etc) which tend to bog it down. However, this is not due to the language, but rather to the overhead of using an enterprise level framework (which does have significant value despite your premise that it's somehow inferior) vs a perl script that simply spits HTML back to the browser. A java program executing the same logic as a perl script will beat it hands down, everytime.
Your statement "The ONLY reason Java is as popular is because Corporate America loves a corporate solution and Java was being sold as a solution by major vendors(think IBM, Sun and for a while Microsoft)" is pure rubbish.
When Java was introduced it provided features that were previously unavailable and has grown into an extremely powerful platform in it own right. This had nothing to do with being a corporate solution and in fact, it took YEARS for Java to catch on in the corporate world. Many large corporations would not allow it until it finally became such a force it could no longer be ignored.
In case you are not aware, Perl has been in use as corporate solution, especially among sysadmins, long before Java became so popular. And one more thing, Perl (as produced by ActiveState - pretty much the market leader by my reckoning) does sell their product to corporations. While you can get the community edition for free, corporations usually want some level of support for the tools they use so the commercial editions are a good way for them to go. It's a win-win situation as the license fees help fund the OSS effort and the corporations feel comfortable in adopting it as a strategic tool.
I agree with MOST of your post, but your statement that "Java is interpreted" is misleading. Java (at least modern Java) is a compiled language, it's just that it's compiled in two stages; once when the java compiler converts the source code to byte code and then when the JVM converts the bytecode to native code during runtime (JIT). To state that Java is interpreted leaves the impression that it results in inferior performance as compared to a traditional source-to-native code compilation process. This is a persistent that myth has been shot down time and time again in real-world benchmarks.
I'm just sayin'
As far as something replacing Java - who knows, but I don't see it in anyone's interest (including Oracle's) to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Oracle was already heavily dependent on Java long before they acquired Sun.
There are already alternatives to the Sun/Oracle Java distribution (the Delvek VM itself might be a good candidate to replace the JVM) and it really boils down to software patents and how far the courts and the broken patent system allows corporations to claim IP over generally accepted concepts. It may just be a matter of forking OpenJDK and calling it "Coffee" to remove it from Oracle's greedy hands (just like OpenOffice being forked as Libre Office). I have a feeling Oracle won't let this happen with Java however because it has too much interest in it. IMHO the best outcome of this would be for Google to prevail, and take down Oracle's patents along with it. Not only would this teach Oracle a (much needed) lesson in how to deal with the OSS world, but it would also remove current obstacles to the acceptance of Java out of fear of Oracle's legal team.
Federal inmates? Drugs? You don't become a federal inmate by a cop pulling you over and finding a joint. That makes you an inmate of the State of whatever if you're extremely unlucky. You become a federal inmate by having a serious amount of drugs, usually confiscated in some sort of raid. Drugs is also a nebulous term and could refer to other less harmless substances.
Wrong! In Florida, possession of 20grams or more (about 0.7 ounces) of marijuana is a FELONY offense and can get you 5 years in a state or federal prison, depending on which court prosecutes the case. If you are unlucky enough to get caught within within 1,000 feet of a school, park, college campus or "other designated area" you can sit in prison for up to 15 years.
I wouldn't consider 0.7 ounces a "serious" amount of marijuana.
Could it be that aspiring terrorists decide to get their education in engineering since the skills acquired may be of use in their pursuits? If you wanted to build bombs to blow up people (assuming your school did not offer a degree program in "terrorism"), what other program would come in as handy?
This nut claims to be standing up for our freedoms. I say he's full of bullsh*t.
If he wants to make this kind of a statement, he needs to fly over to Afganistan, or Pakistan (or Iraq) and hold his book burning THERE, not from the comfort of his safe little nest in Gainsville. He's putting other people's lives in jeopardy, not his own.
And for what purpose? To prove that Christian extremist nut-bags can be as idiotic as Islamic extremist nut-bags?
What he should do is dowse himself with jet-fuel before he goes in to light the fire. That'd really show them how extremist he can be!
Slashdot Mirror
You couldn't be more wrong (and name calling is a tactic often employed by those with a weak argument and/or weak mind). You seem to be confusing capitalism with corporatism (what we have in the US). I consider myself a capitalist (having run my own company for 20 years). I believe in the right to a fair day's wage for a day's labor. That's how I get my paycheck and that's how my employees get their paychecks.
What I don't agree with is that a corporation has the same (or more) rights than an individual. Corporations own no loyalty to their employees or any nation. Their only motive is profit - pretty much the definition of greed.
Despite your "Glen Beckian" view of the world (if you don't agree with me you are a socialist), when it comes to ideology, I tend to lean libertarian. I think the government sticks it's nose into far too many areas of our lives. Corporations have the financial capacity to protect their assets (especially digital assets) without getting government to do their dirty work for them.
In any case, I'm sure nothing I can post here will change your obvious "corporations are gods" viewpoint so I won't waste any more of my time.
I love how free-marketers want the government to stay out of their business when it comes to regulation, but demand the government protect their income.
I say the government should stay out of it altogether.
Let the content producers use their best technological means to protect their content and let the pirates do their best to crack it.
If the content providers can't come up with a way to protect it that the pirates can't crack then they don't deserve the revenue lost. If the content providers DO come up with a way to protect it and it's so burdensome to the consumer that they choose not to purchase it, they don't deserve the revenue lost.
If I leave a stack of cash sitting out beside the road in front of my house, should I expect the police to guard it against theft? Shouldn't I bear some responsibility for keeping it safe instead of burdening the taxpayers with the cost of protecting it?
I just don't think it's right to sacrifice freedom for the sake of greedy corporate regimes that don't give a damn about the artist, developers or writers that produce the content and are only concerned with boosting their bottom line.
another G. W. Bush or Obama
I'd say the chances of this are pretty likely. Barring a major upset, Obama will get the Dem nomination and the GOP will likely pick someone that makes GWB look like Einstien. I wouldn't be suprised to see "we must stand by our North Korean allies" Palin get the nod from the GOP.
Right. And old GWB was a true defender of the "little people" as well.
This is not a left-right issue. This is a issue of freedom and democracy - something that slipped away from the US quite a few years ago when the "little people" weren't looking - probably because they were too busy trying to feed their families with the crumbs of the corporate criminals that run everything. I get pissed just thinking about this - better go...
Oh, I should have RTFA! Indeed the article is referring to CA's ancient rDBMS Datacom/DB.
Heard of it but I didn't think it was even still around.
Not widely used, but it's been around for a while.
RE # 8
Twisted pair was called 10BaseT, while coax was 10Base2.
Because the ranking is by machine, not by OS.
Since this particular machine achieved it's highest ranking with Linux, the ranking lists Linux as it's OS, not Windows.
I'm not too sure about your calculations relating the human brain to processing speed. I reminds me of the Drake equation for calculating the number of ET civilizations (a guess multiplied by a guess multiplied by a guess, etc).
However, I do find the following interesting.
In 2009 the top spot was a machine capable of 1.1 petaflops. This year the top spot is 2.57 petaflops. IBM is predicting a 10 petaflops machine by next year. At this rate of acceleration, it would not seem unreasonable to expect that by 2012 we could reach the 50 petaflops level.
Intelligence of a species is sometimes roughly correlated to the ratio of cortex mass (not just brain mass). A mouse has approximately the same brain/body mass ratio as a human, but they are obviously much less intelligent. This is because the cortex of a mouse makes up much less of a percentage of brain mass than a human. However, relating this to a hardware/software simulated brain, body mass is irrelevant, so for simplicity sake, we can ignore this and look strictly at brain mass as an indicator of intelligence.
In 2009 IBM announced a machine&software that exceeded the scale of a cat's cortex.
An average cat's brain mass is in the 30g range.
Given the acceleration of computing speeds and brain mass as a guide, we could expect to simulate a 75g brain this year, and a 300g brain next year. If the trend continues, a brain somewhere in the 1500g range would seem feasible by 2012.
The human brain is somewhere around the 1400g range.
Kind of chilling given all the 2012 prophecies going around, eh?
I agree that this "could" be done, just as Java could be compiled directly to native code (in fact has been - http://gcc.gnu.org/java ).
However, there are solid reason why neither of these is done on a "normal" basis. There are many benefits that C++ would lose if it were run on a JVM, just as there are benefits that Java would lose if it were compiled to native code. I won't go into these here, other than to say that each language exists within it's own realm and has been tweaked to take advantage of it's own realm.
I believe the point that BigJeff5 was making was that natively compiled code is inherently faster than JVM executed code and while "all things being equal" that might be "theoretically" true, in reality that is "typically" just not the case.
Just as an example of what I'm referring to, the executable code from the C++ program I wrote and compiled 15 years ago for my 486 processor may still run fine on my Core 2 Duo, but it certainly won't take advantage of all the processor improvements and new instructions that have been implemented since then because it's machine code is frozen in time. However, the Java program I wrote at the same time will also run on my new machine, but it will now take advantage of all the new JVM features as well as fully exploit the new instructions and architectural improvements of my more modern CPU.
My name's not Charlie, Jeff, and I think it's time you took a look at "recent" benchmarks.
While anyone can find benchmarks that favor their particular view, in real-world applications there tends to be very little, if any difference between Java and C++ performance. This is due to several reasons, a few of which I'll list here.
1) Java IS COMPILED. I really get tired of repeating this, but it is absolutely compiled and as such, it gains all the benefits of a compiled language such as optimizations (loop, peep-hole, data-flow,etc). It is no different than a C++ compiler in this respect. The only difference is that, rather than generate native machine code as output, the Java compiler generates byte-code. Bytecode IS machine code, it's just that it's machine code for which no hardware CPU exists (actually that's not 100% true - there are or have been hardware CPUs created to execute bytecode natively, but they have yet to catch on). Rather than directly executing the bytecode in hardware, most implementations use a JVM to execute the bytecode.
2) Because the JVM is aware of the runtime environment it is currently executing in, it has the capability to perform additional optimizations at runtime. The JVM has the capability to decide how best to convert the bytecode into inline native instructions based on available resources such as memory and CPU. C++ does not have this luxury. Once the C++ compiler generates it's executable code, that code is static and unchangeable.
3) Because Java has such a large and highly optimized class library, not to mention loads of additional third party highly optimized libraries, a fairly novice developer can easily develop rather sophisticated high performance applications. A C++ developer on the other hand, will tend to implement algorithms by hand that are not available in the STL or similar class library, either because there are no commercial or open source libraries available for what is needed, or management won't allow them, or they are not compatible, they are too expensive, they are not high-quality, or any number of other reasons. Invariably, only sections of code that are causing a problem will receive the attention needed to develop a highly optimized algorithm. These issues tend to cause real-world applications to perform somewhat less than their potential. The availability of highly-optimized libraries issue is not so much a language issue as a culture issue. There are just a lot more of these libraries available (generally open-source) for Java than for C++.
4) Most (at least most "corporate") C++ developers are not expert developers so they tend to produce mediocre code and even more mediocre algorithms. Most don't even understand the STL or the Collections it provides, so they wind up using arrays and performing sequential searches (for loops) rather than learning all the idiosyncrasies of templates and how they work.
5) I can attest as a long time C++ developer that a great deal of the time I spend coding in C++ is spent carefully making sure to avoid memory leaks and pointer problems. Since I don't have to worry about this (at least not nearly as much) when developing in Java, I'm able to concentrate more time on tweaking the algorithms. Over and over again, I've rewritten C++ applications in Java and the result has been a major increase in performance.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Given that this post was modded "Funny" I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you are being facetious.
Just on the off chance that you were being serious (at least in your response to my comments about Java), and for those that didn't read this as humor, let me respond. First, the "user" doesn't have to compile anything. They just run the bytecode in a JVM and (assuming the JVM supports JIT), the JVM takes care of analyzing the bytecode and compiling it to native instructions on-the-fly (hence the term JIT - Just In Time). There is nothing annoying about it since it is all happening under the covers. This technique actually offers the potential for better performance since the JVM can optimize the generated code based on the current runtime conditions and is not limited to just the optimizations that the compiler performs at compile time.
I'm sorry, but I use both Perl and Java daily and Perl is not even in the same ballpark. Sure, for building a website Perl is fine because a web application is generally not a compute-bound application. The difference between Java and Perl in throwing up HTML is probably measured in milliseconds (with Java winning). You might get the impression that java is slower than perl for websites, but this is due to the fact that java based websites many times use some heavy framework (JSF, J2EE, etc) which tend to bog it down. However, this is not due to the language, but rather to the overhead of using an enterprise level framework (which does have significant value despite your premise that it's somehow inferior) vs a perl script that simply spits HTML back to the browser. A java program executing the same logic as a perl script will beat it hands down, everytime.
Your statement "The ONLY reason Java is as popular is because Corporate America loves a corporate solution and Java was being sold as a solution by major vendors(think IBM, Sun and for a while Microsoft)" is pure rubbish.
When Java was introduced it provided features that were previously unavailable and has grown into an extremely powerful platform in it own right. This had nothing to do with being a corporate solution and in fact, it took YEARS for Java to catch on in the corporate world. Many large corporations would not allow it until it finally became such a force it could no longer be ignored.
In case you are not aware, Perl has been in use as corporate solution, especially among sysadmins, long before Java became so popular. And one more thing, Perl (as produced by ActiveState - pretty much the market leader by my reckoning) does sell their product to corporations. While you can get the community edition for free, corporations usually want some level of support for the tools they use so the commercial editions are a good way for them to go. It's a win-win situation as the license fees help fund the OSS effort and the corporations feel comfortable in adopting it as a strategic tool.
I agree with MOST of your post, but your statement that "Java is interpreted" is misleading. Java (at least modern Java) is a compiled language, it's just that it's compiled in two stages; once when the java compiler converts the source code to byte code and then when the JVM converts the bytecode to native code during runtime (JIT). To state that Java is interpreted leaves the impression that it results in inferior performance as compared to a traditional source-to-native code compilation process. This is a persistent that myth has been shot down time and time again in real-world benchmarks.
I'm just sayin'
As far as something replacing Java - who knows, but I don't see it in anyone's interest (including Oracle's) to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Oracle was already heavily dependent on Java long before they acquired Sun.
There are already alternatives to the Sun/Oracle Java distribution (the Delvek VM itself might be a good candidate to replace the JVM) and it really boils down to software patents and how far the courts and the broken patent system allows corporations to claim IP over generally accepted concepts. It may just be a matter of forking OpenJDK and calling it "Coffee" to remove it from Oracle's greedy hands (just like OpenOffice being forked as Libre Office). I have a feeling Oracle won't let this happen with Java however because it has too much interest in it. IMHO the best outcome of this would be for Google to prevail, and take down Oracle's patents along with it. Not only would this teach Oracle a (much needed) lesson in how to deal with the OSS world, but it would also remove current obstacles to the acceptance of Java out of fear of Oracle's legal team.
Seems everyone is trying to explain this away as not possibly being time travel.
Haven't any of you seen Forest Gump?
Explain to me how Tom Hanks managed to make THAT movie if not via time travel!
I rest my case!
they'll have to take the femto-hay out to make room for all that data.
on my vintage Intel Pentium P5...?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug (for those too young to get the reference)...
Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young will need to revise their lyrics?
How will they keep the keyboards from burning your fingertips?
Federal inmates? Drugs? You don't become a federal inmate by a cop pulling you over and finding a joint. That makes you an inmate of the State of whatever if you're extremely unlucky. You become a federal inmate by having a serious amount of drugs, usually confiscated in some sort of raid. Drugs is also a nebulous term and could refer to other less harmless substances.
Wrong! In Florida, possession of 20grams or more (about 0.7 ounces) of marijuana is a FELONY offense and can get you 5 years in a state or federal prison, depending on which court prosecutes the case. If you are unlucky enough to get caught within within 1,000 feet of a school, park, college campus or "other designated area" you can sit in prison for up to 15 years.
I wouldn't consider 0.7 ounces a "serious" amount of marijuana.
Warn the user with an email that must be replied to before they get any further service.
Might be difficult to reply if your service is cut off -especially if your phone is VOIP.
I wonder if it washes its hands after wiping?
I, for one, welcome our new (alien) robot overlords.
Could it be that aspiring terrorists decide to get their education in engineering since the skills acquired may be of use in their pursuits? If you wanted to build bombs to blow up people (assuming your school did not offer a degree program in "terrorism"), what other program would come in as handy?
This nut claims to be standing up for our freedoms. I say he's full of bullsh*t.
If he wants to make this kind of a statement, he needs to fly over to Afganistan, or Pakistan (or Iraq) and hold his book burning THERE, not from the comfort of his safe little nest in Gainsville. He's putting other people's lives in jeopardy, not his own.
And for what purpose? To prove that Christian extremist nut-bags can be as idiotic as Islamic extremist nut-bags?
What he should do is dowse himself with jet-fuel before he goes in to light the fire. That'd really show them how extremist he can be!